permaculture

["keller" <ak.and.ak@on-line.de>]

Title: Re: Pc slammed in Whole Earth Review

Thanky you, Russ!

 

that is exactly the problem I am facing.

 

I am convinced that pc has something to offer, but if I want to approach a donor to give me money for a development project, they want evidence that the money spent will have a positive effect and that the approach I am suggesting is better than the approaches of other people who have also applied for money with them.

 

I want to convince some donors that it is a good idea to finance a permaculture design course in Cameroon. What can I tell them to support the idea? I need very good arguments. I need projects in other parts of the world where pc has made a difference (a measurable difference, not necessarily "yields", but something that can be established objectively).

 

Then they will want to see evidence of success. I would have to write reports about the reports. If nothing came out, I will not get money again, and that agency will not support any pc project in the future. They want verification. I must be successfull, and I must be able to prove somehow the success.

 

If pc develops a reputation among donor agencies of unverified claims, should I better ommit the lable of permaculture and try to sell agroforestry and aquaculture instead to them and better not mention that I am sympathizing with pc (even if I use some methods borrowed from pc?). In the end it is the content that counts for me, not the label.

 

Question 1: does pc actually work.

Question 2: if the answere is yes, where is the evidence?

Question 3: does a permaculture design course enable people to do work that makes a difference? (I don't expect a 72 hour course to teach everything, it is enough if it can provide a basis from which these people start working _successfully_).

Question 4: What is the added value pc has to offer compared with other approaches. What makes it better?

 

Andreas

----- Original Message -----

From: Pacific Edge Permaculture + Media

To: permaculture

Sent: Monday, January 07, 2002 7:52 AM

Subject: Re: Pc slammed in Whole Earth Review

When I worked in overseas aid  with its continued monitoring and evaluation of projects, production of regular reports and accountability to donors, government and other stakeholders, it occurred to me that, in comparison, permaculture was largely unmonitored and was seldom evaluated to identify results such as what worked and why and what could be done better.

Then, midway through last  year, a permaculture aid consultant - Rick Coleman from Southern Cross Permaculture Institute in Victoria, Australia - visited the same territory when he called for evidence proving permaculture was a workable technology so he could present it to decision makers in the aid industry who wanted evidence of its usefullness. Why, they asked, should they support an approach which could provide no evidence of its effectiveness?

And that's  a fair question and one I've heard from others in that industry (a consultant to the Australian government's AusAID - from the CGIAR - once described permaculture to a meeting as 'a technology with no role in development assistance').

At issue here is hard evidence - and by 'hard' I mean verifiable facts and figures - not undocumented observations and personal experience  - of how well permaculture is at doing its job.

That would call for studies and the problem here is that such studies call for funding, and that is something in short supply when it comes to monitoring, measuring and evaluating permaculture projects and claims. Unless it is done, however, permaculture is likely to be increasingly disregarded by  decision makers and, as the writer suggests, is likely to become discredited.

...Russ Grayson