permaculture

[Paul Osmond <P.Osmond@unsw.edu.au>]

At 12:35 23/07/01 -0000, you wrote:
>>Permaculture is different things to different people.  This is one of
>>the reasons why it is so successful and has spread so quickly. This is
>>also why we are asked in our PDC to define the term.
>This is an important point.
>I have been a little disturbed at some of the mailings on this list 
>putting Pc into the organic gardening box-hole as if pc were no more than 
>an organic garden with mulch and companion plants. This has always been a 
>concern and was the main reason for the Institute's policy that only PDC 
>holders can teach Pc. 
>There still seems to be confusion amongst some subscribers as to what Pc 
>actually is. It is primarily a design process based on a philosophy which 
>in turn is largely based on principles of ecology and sustainability and 
>as such should not be confused with some of the specific strategies and 
>techniques employed (which are selected from a wide range of practices 
>plus some unique to Pc itself). When we start defining pc by a few of 
>these practices in isolation we are doing pc a disservice.
>I constantly encounter folk who think they're 'doing pc' because they 
>have mulch on their garden beds and maybe a few chickens. The absence or 
>presence of integrated design is what differentiates a standard organic 
>garden from a pc system. While gardening & food production is central to 
>practicing pc it is not by a long shot what pc is about. Anyone who 
>teaches pc as being simply herb spirals, mandala gardens and companion 
>planting is missing the point and misleading their students. If the 
>strategic thinking behind the keyhole and banana circle or herb spiral is 
>taught then, yes, it is pc.


Totally agree with you on this Robyn.

Permaculture 1, the Design Manual and the best of the PC teaching material
in general, clearly demonstrates that permaculture is not something that's
rigid and static, but a living, changing, dynamic design SYSTEM. I suggest
the two-week PDC was never intended to be more than an introduction to this
system, and also suggest the original motivation behind the PDC was to get
the ideas "out there" as quickly as possible (particularly in the 3rd world
and other areas of need), hence the shortness/intensity of the course.
Others would be in a better position to confirm this. The diploma, not the
PDC, is in my opinion the true measure of PC competence. 

However, for various reasons (and there is no point getting into
personalities) these points seems to have been lost. 

I believe we are at a critical 3-way crossroad. Permaculture "as we know
it" can either 
1) Succumb to rigor mortis for want of input of new ideas; 
2) Head off on whacky tangents which, while perhaps emotionally satisfying
for those involved, have nowt to do with permaculture; or alternatively
3) Do what Bill Mollison and David Holmgren did in the first place,
identify and incorporate new ideas and fresh perspectives within an
existing philosophical, ethical and design framework.

The strength of PC has always been its ability to take on board good ideas
and tools from everywhere and anytime. At its core is the notion of
designing human-sustaining systems with the robustness, stability and
resilience of "natural" ecosystems - in other words a unique synthesis of
design, ethics and applied science. Concepts such as stacking and guilds
derive from ecology; the Keyline system comes from "applied geomorphology"
(for want of a better term); sector analysis is adapted from standard
techniques in landscape architecture. Other aspects - for example dryland
water harvesting techniques as discussed in the Manual - are borrowed from
traditional (agri)cultural practice. Yet other elements are original
contributions from Bill or David.

The current debate about trademarking simply highlights the reality that to
thrive rather than fossilise, PC needs a continual infusion of new ideas,
tools and techniques. There are lots of folk out there actually "doing" it
on the ground. However, this needs to be incorporated into *theory*, which
then supports new *practice*, which informs *theory* once again, in a
never-ending "sustainability spiral".

The PC community can wait (hope?) for these new ideas to diffuse slowly and
gradually (reactive), or we can do it consciously and systematically
(proactive).  As a starting point, PC as a design system should take on
board some of the sustainability tools and techniques which I have no doubt
Bill Mollison would have included HAD THESE TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES BEEN
AROUND when he was compiling the body of material which became codified in
the Manual. Mollison and Holmgren drew on what was available - indeed state
of the art - in the 1980s. It's now 2001.

This will mean a rethink of some of the most basic elements of PC teaching,
not least the PDC itself. The standard 14 day PDC course is simply not
adequate to address the full range of skills required by someone who
aspires to "sustainability by design". The list of eco-logical design tools
below is not meant to be complete, but gives an indication of the scope of
contemporary sustainability practice...  

*Material accounting tools (lifecycle assessment - LCA, material flux
analysis - MFA, ecological footprinting, sustainable process index - SPI...)
*Industrial ecology
*Cleaner production and Design for environment - DfE
*Environmental management systems - EMS
*Ecological accounting
*Space syntax analysis
*Dynamic systems modelling
Etc....  

Other than ecological accounting - in a much more rudimentary form than
exists today - none of these strategies and techniques were around when the
Designer's Manual (let alone PC1 and PC2) were written.  

Bill had a lot to say about the process of fermentation.... let's tap into
the current ferment over future directions for PC to focus our thoughts on
how we can introduce some of these new insights into the PC curriculum.

Cheers, Paul Osmond
(University of New South Wales)