Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - [permaculture] Permaculture, Credibility, Relevance: Lessons from Agroecology

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: rafter sass <rafter@liberationecology.org>
  • To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [permaculture] Permaculture, Credibility, Relevance: Lessons from Agroecology
  • Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 21:51:25 -0400




It's been on my mind to respond to this for months now - since I received Toby's thoughtful response to my brief comparison of permaculture with agroecoogy. Just now I have the time and energy to finally reply.

Not coincidentally, I've just finished taking a 2-week intensive agroecology course here in Vermont. The class was crazy inspiring. We had instructors and participants from 9 countries (predominantly but not only from the Western Hemisphere). We had students, researchers, farmers, activists, extension agents, and a university president!

This fairly immersive, albeit brief, exposure to the agroecology scene has provided some valuable perspective for thinking about the Pc movement. My earlier comment, pasted in below, that Toby responded to in some depth, still stands:
> If permaculture had focused more closely on crop ecology and community
> development, and embraced academic research rather than (mostly)
> spurned it, it would look something like the agroecology movement.
> Fortunately, it didn't - more functional diversity in the system!

To expand a bit on that observation - not only have agroecologists embraced research, they have embraced a particular approach called Community Participatory Action Research (CPAR). In short, it means creating long-term, mutually beneficial relationships with community partners (generally but not always farmers), who provide sites and often subjects of the research, and in turn influence its direction, practice, and eventual use.

My impression is that this grounding in long-term community relationships, and in rigorous food system research, has lent the agroecology community some of that cardinal virtue - humility - that has so often been the exception, rather than the norm, in the Pc scene. The humility that says: "We don't know all the answers. Here is the limited picture of what we know for sure. Here is what we only suspect, based on principle alone. Here are the questions that it might take years to find answers to, and here's how we'll work with you to figure it out."

These connections, and the attitude they inspire, are a big part of what the Pc movement has to learn from the agroecology world. (The Pc world has much to teach in return, as well- and I'll leave that for another discussion. Briefly: pedagogy, design process, design principles, and whole landscapes.)

Here is heart of it: agroecologists are able to partner with communities - with farmers, women's groups, and junior high schools - because they have stayed in the academic system. They've been fighting the good fight, for ecology-based food production, within research institutions, since the early 1980s. And because of this, agroecological researchers are able to support themselves, while doing sound scientific research on sustainable food systems, AND channel considerable resources to support the self-determination of their partner communities.

This picture provides a pretty stark contrast with the Pc scene - at least in the US, where I am most familiar with it. We don't need to emulate agroecology, but we DO need to learn the lessons that their experience and example offers us. Particularly here in what *seems* to be the most stratified and least diverse region of the global Pc scene, the USA.

Permaculturists, the time has come to invade academia!

There may have been a time when it was important for Pc to spurn scientific rigor, research, and documentation, in order to achieve the astounding growth that it has. That time has passed. For one thing, the climate in academia has changed. While it's no walk in the park, it's very possible to find sympathetic faculty, and funding opportunities, to pursue a permaculture-driven research agenda. I speak from experience: research faculty are *excited* about the ideas and research questions that emerge from the fertile ground of the Pc perspective. Particularly so, when those questions come free of the car-salesman-like cheerleading that characterizes so much Pc 'outreach.'

The sympathetic faculty are there - but virtually none of them mention permaculture in their work currently, due to the heavy shelling that Pc has taken over the years, for lack of rigor and for a too-cool-for- school attitude. We can change that. The world needs us too much for us to shy away from the humbling lessons and crucial resources offered by scientific research, and the community partnerships that it makes possible.

Academic institutions and scientific research are OF COURSE not for everybody - and I would never, ever want to suggest that Pc become only for academics and scientists. Please God, no. The core strength of Pc is it's ability to act as a bridge between scientific and popular understanding and practice.

What I am saying is this:
There are 1000s of new people cycling through PDCs every year. Probably there are 100s of those that are in a position where they COULD consider entering, or returning to, scientific study. Why don't we encourage them to do so? There are probably 1000s of folks already in the scene who are searching - often desperately - for some way to pursue an education in Pc design, who are searching for opportunities for professional development, and who are looking for ways to push the movement forward. Why don't we at least frame Pc as something that CAN be studied rigorously, in an institutional setting? Permaculture IS robust enough to handle a critically-minded research environment, if permaculture partisans are critical-minded enough to advocate for it.

So, instead of dismissing research out of hand, let's create a vibrant discussion of where and when and how you can take your passion for permaculture into universities. Let's talk about the programs and institutions that are most friendly to this approach - where we can do Pc, where we can do CPAR, and where we can do both. Let's talk about the inherent challenges and limitations to the institutional route, and how to deal with them - rather than assuming these two worlds can never meet.

As for Toby's argument that (1) We don't have to research Pc, because it's already been done, and (2) We can't research Pc, because it's too hard...

(and please forgive this over-simplification of a thoughtful argument)

...I respectfully submit that Toby's statements constitute a very accurate reading of where the Pc movement has come from, and the challenges and opportunities that have shaped its emergence. They don't reflect the kind and scope of research that is more and more possible today. And they don't tell us where the Pc movement needs to develop, in order to grow not only in membership, but in credibility and relevance too.

Industrial ag and middle-of-the-road organic are holding court, for now, in the labs, classrooms, and experimental fields of the research universities. We are needed too badly to just give up, and stay out of our society's centers of research, learning, and teaching. Let's go and get those resources for our movement. Think of how 60s radicals colonized the universities in the 70s and 80s - think both of their victories and failures - and think, also, of the good work of our fellow travelers in the agroecology scene.

And let's spread like mycelia through the halls of academia!

Looking forward to your thoughts and questions...


Best,
Rafter







------------------------------Toby wrote:

rafter t. sass wrote:
>
> If permaculture had focused more closely on crop ecology and community
> development, and embraced academic research rather than (mostly)
> spurned it, it would look something like the agroecology movement.
> Fortunately, it didn't - more functional diversity in the system!

Good observation, Rafter. I've cogitated a bit on the fact that
permaculturists have ignored, for the most part, the idea of collecting
data and documenting research. Being a former scientist, it used to bug
me a great deal, and it seemed like it reduced permaculture's
credibility. But I've realized that there is a pretty good explanation
for it. First, there's been a ton of research done in the various fields
that permaculture helps link together, such as organic farming, tree
crops, renewable energy, water harvesting, and all the rest. And
whole-systems theory has a mass of both mathematical and empirical
research behind it, as does ecology, and those form the underpinnings of
permaculture. So the data are there, just not under the heading of
"permaculture."

But more to the point, if you were trying to measure the effectiveness
of permaculture, what would you measure? Does my yard yield more food
than my chemical or straight organic gardener neighbor's? Probably not,
and although I suspect their inputs are higher, they might not be since
I pour on about 10 yards of free tree trimmings or mulch every year or
two. But how do you measure that as an input, since it's waste, not
manufactured, and not much of the mulch goes to growing food? I'm sure
my yard is better habitat, but my neighbors are not trying to create
habitat, while there are some yards where the owner is trying purely for
habitat that may host more biodiversity than mine, but that don't
produce food. Too many variables for any but the most sophisticated
statistician, and even then, those numbers would be open to argument.

What I'm saying is, I'm not sure what you would measure to assess
whether permaculture outperforms anything else, and I don't know what
you would compare it to. Is the comparison to a site using chemical
methods? Not really, since permaculture is not a method, it's a design
approach. So do you compare it to a site designed using, say, holistic
management? But a site using permaculture for its design might have very
different goals than one using HM, so how would you compare the two? By
designing two side-by side sites with the same goals but using
permaculture versus some other design approach? Good luck with getting
that one off the ground!

So I think we're back at saying Pc uses a variety of tools, and each of
those tools has data to support it.

For me, the proof is less tangible. I walk into a place that's designed
using permaculture, and it feels more alive than one done any other way.
Can't measure that, but you sure can feel it.

Toby

rafter t. sass
The Liberation Ecology Project
liberationecology.org
518-567-7407
skype: raughter





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page