permaculture

[Claude Genest <genest@together.net>]

Title: Yield-shmield

In response to the fact that Intn'l relief agencies want proof that PC works before commiting to it, (though I'd do the same in their shoes) here's a parable from Daniel Quinn ( paraphrased)

Imagine a local shoemaker who is talked into selling exclusively to the international market, to "get in on the cash economy". He sells to a local purchaser for 5$, who sells to a distributor for 10$ who sells to retailer for 15 $ who sells to the public for 20 $. As a result, he has to make four pairs of shoes to buy one
 Yes, he now has cash, yes the process has created jobs and stimulated trade, but bottom line the shoemaker has to work four times harder to shod his kids.

International agencies, like everyone else, assume that more yield equals more money and that's a groovy, desireable thing.

Question is, is it true ? Our first lessons in economics taught us about supply and demand. So, if there's ALREADY a glut of the staple crops, how can it possibly make sense to reccommend producing even more ?! More yield from more farmers producing the same crops means lower prices - What do the experts reccomend poor farmers do : "PRODUCE MORE !" 
Madness.

Permaculture is not merely an alternative farming system. Zone 3 crop farming is but a component of an overall landscape organism. PC is about local self-reliance so that pressure can be taken off the land elsewhere, so that all land needn't be placed to the insane pursuit of more yield and some of it can go back to providing  the economically "externalized" benefits of supporting life.

To borrow Paul Hawken's idea, what we grow on the land is mere interest, the soil and environment are the real capital. What kind of rational businessman would hope to stay in business by liquidating his capital to get better short term yields ? and yet this is exactly what's being proposed in our headlong rush to increase yields. Kill the golden goose to get at all her eggs at once.... 

So instead of us proving that pc works, why don't the disbelievers prove that their system works ? As I said in an earlier post, it clearly doesn't - and this is so even by their own fudged accounting -  an accounting that factors neither inputs, nor true costs, nor taxpayer subsidies. And even with all that, Farmer's literally can't make a go of it ! 
I ask again: If enough is never enough, how can more be better ?!

In order to prove scientifically, one must reduce and simplify the components sufficiently so that the experiment can be reproduced elsewhere, and at whim.  Neither a coral reef, a forest, nor a Gaia's garden lend themselves to this process - it's trying to fit a square peg into  a round hole.

The greatest proof we can provide are on the ground examples of working PC sites. With Tagari now  closed, the responsibility  falls right on our shoulders to build it....and they will come.

Claude

P.S. I 'm actually grateful to be confronted with the bashers' arguments of late -it's really forcing me out of complacency and  to marshall my thoughts. 
Bring it on !! :-) 
> From: Pacific Edge Permaculture + Media <pacedge@magna.com.au>
> Reply-To: "permaculture" <permaculture@franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 17:52:48 +1100
> To: "permaculture" <permaculture@franklin.oit.unc.edu>
> Subject: Re: Pc slammed in Whole Earth Review

> > > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > > From: Toby Hemenway <mailto:hemenway@jeffnet.org>  
> > > To: permaculture <mailto:permaculture@franklin.oit.unc.edu>  
> > > Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2002 9:06 PM
> > > Subject: Pc slammed in Whole Earth Review
> > >
> > > Those of you who can get Whole Earth Review may want to look at the new Winter 2001 issue. WER sent a copy of Gaia's Garden for review to Greg Williams, a one-time agroforestry guy who publishes the HortIdeas newsletter. Turns out Williams absolutely hates permaculture, thinks its mostly bull...
> > >
> > > But his most damning points were about the absence of data... Permaculturists, he writes, "have neglected the scientific approach to determining the worth of their ideas . . . and instead have argued for and against particular gardening techniques on the basis of (at best) incomplete theoretical notions and (at worst) pure intuition. This is worse than glossing over the details; it is misconstruing the details. . . . It is completely unacceptable when their claims are made to the general public...
> > >
> > > The problem is, it's hard to find data to refute his claims... We just don't collect data. 
> > This came up at last year's permaculture gathering in Nimbin, Australia, which was attended by many who had been in permaculture for quite some time, indicating that the lack of data might be acknowledged as a problem that has been troubling people but has not been voiced much.
> >
> > In fact, a book ('Organic Gardening') by the avid Australian seed saving promoter and biologist, David Murray, has questioned permaculture practice in another aspect. Murray, a respected biologist, asked how can a 72 hour Permaculture Design Course possible train anybody adequately in all the areas covered? 
> >
> > It seems that professionals are starting to question the principles and practice of permaculture in a number of areas, and, unfortunatey, I find no evidence to deflect their claims... not because their claims are untrue (just the opposite in some cases) but because nobody has compiled the data.
> > > If anyone's got any hard numbers, or other reputable data, please share them. If not, it points to a huge lack in permaculture, and we should get busy setting up trials and getting reliable data instead of just banking on Bill's wild claims. 
> > With all respect to Bill, some of his figures and facts have been described as... well...  a bit rubbery. Bill tends to generalise, to approximate, to round-off, and that not all that useful to people who ask   'where's the evidence?'.
> > > Without data, more folks like Williams will erode permaculture's credibility.
> > 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
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to permaculture as: genest@together.net
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-permaculture@franklin.oit.unc.edu
> Get the list FAQ at: http://www.ibiblio.org/ecolandtech/documents/permaculture.faq