permaculture

[Russ Grayson <pacedge@magna.com.au>]

On Thursday, July 17, 2003, at 05:57  AM, John Schinnerer wrote:
> Aloha,
> > Regarding TAFE, it will be interesting to see if it assumes the bulk of
> > teaching work in permaculture and if the present community-based
> > providers remain competitive.

> Hmmm, so is that funtionally equivalent to tossing out the "cooperation
> instead of competition" philosophy?

TAFE (Technical And Further Education) is not a permaculture organisation and is thus not bound by the philosophy. As a training provider it is primarily a government-funded competitive organisation with deep reach into the public and is the prime tertiary training provider in this state. When we take our course structures to TAFE, we enter this world whether we like it or not. 
> > It is too early to tell so it will be
> > interesting to watch. In this respect it is interesting to note that in
> > Sydney, where PDCs were offered by a couple community-based training
> > providers, after TAFE started to offer the course nobody from the
> > community sector has found it realistic to offer the PDC.
>
> Sounds like you've answered the question for Sydney.  Is TAFE planning to
> "share the surplus?" 

I don't know details as I am not involved in the course production process but my understanding derived from an earlier meeting of PIL is that PIL derives a percentage from training providers using the accredited course. It's not a royalty as such in the legal sense, as I understand it, but in a functional sense might be similarly regarded.

Since TAFE started offering the PDC there have been no new providers with similar offerings in Sydney.

> What happens for those former PDC providers?  "Sorry
> mate, that's how 'the system' (e.g. 'the mainstream') works, you're not
> competitive any more?"

They fade from the scene. From what I recall, the now-defunct development education organisation, Action for World Development (AWD), was one such provider which offered the PDC on an irregular basis as did Rosemary Morrow in the Blue Mountains near Sydney (AWD also offered frequent introductory permaculture courses). Thus TAFE course content becomes the de-facto permaculture content, putting a non-permaculture organisation into a position of great influence over the future of the system and how it is perceived by the public. Given that it is offered by a horticulture school, that is the focus as I understand it.

Your above comments regarding competition are right on. When the teaching of a course becomes viable you are likely to encounter competition from other training providers. Permaculture introductory courses, for instance, have been offered by the Padstow campus of TAFE for years and were offered at the same time by community-based organisations and community (adult education) colleges. Then, there were plenty of students for all. By the late 1990s, AWD was the only organisation offering introductory courses in addition to Padstow TAFE, signaling a significant shrinkage of the market.

I know that TAFE Ryde campus (the Sydney horticulture and landscape design school) had been interested in teaching a PDC for some years. When Fiona and I taught the permaculture elective for the TAFE horticulture certificate at Ryde in the 1990s, the head of the horticulture school spoke with us a number of times about the college running a PDC. That has since happened. Before that happened, my partner was hired to write a course curriculum for a 'permaculture gardening course' for TAFE in competency-based format.

As an aside, we offered a part-time PDC successfully for some years in Sydney, starting after Rosemary Morrow withdrew from teaching in the city (we taught on her courses). It attracted a mixed bag of students with a high portion of community workers, architects, IT industry people, community activists and others wanting to work in development aid overseas, plus those wanting to implement permaculture in their home. We ceased when family demands intervened. The focus of the course was permaculture in an urban environment as a community development strategy, including a couple days of training in participatory planning by a professional Sydney-based business which offered a substantially cut rate when they were included in the teaching programme. Had we continued I would have liked to have developed the urban/ community development focus more.

> I'd rather permaculture 'the mainstream' (which IMO is a dangerously mythical over-generalization anyhow) than mainstream permaculture.

Well, In think the accredited course will mainstream permaculture in some modest way if it attracts students. 

I'm interested in your comment about "permaculture the mainstream" (a long-held desire in permaculture) as a "dangerously mythical over-generalization". I think that any objective assessment of the capacity of permaculture to substantially influence the mainstream will disclose that its influence is very limited. The system's main area of influence, from what I see about me, is the individual in their home. This is good and adds to permaculture's grass-roots credentials, if my observation is valid, but has only minimum effect on society at large. The accredited course may generate influence among horticulturists and others, if they enroll in sufficient numbers once again, but as recent discussions on this list have disclosed, horticulturists seldom occupy decision-making positions in centres of influence such as local government. 

The key positions are those formulating policy and these are often political in nature for which, a recent respondent wrote, you need political savvy to operate in. But not all. Landscape architects in local government bodies, for instance, have influence as do town and social planners. I am aware of one case where a local government planting document regarding recommended types of plantings for residents, drawn up by council's landscape architect, was strongly influenced by a person on staff active in permaculture. The influence was on plants for interior climate control and food (environmental sustainability was a key point in the document and this person raised the issue of food security as an element in sustainability. Otherwise the document would have focused mainly on native plants - the native plant lobby is politically savvy and strong in local government). 

This, it seems to me, offers a point of incursion for graduates of the accredited course who add permaculture to their professional skills. But to achieve substantial change, a critical mass of people doing this must be built and the likelihood of that, I think, is questionable.

I am on record as supporting the development of an accredited course as I believe it will increase the options offered by the design system. But I don't want to see the PDC and introductory courses taught by community-based providers become extinct. This shouldn't happen, but I am aware that systems dynamics postulates that when you make changes to any part of a system, changes are likely to occur elsewhere in that system. Those consequent changes may take time to show and it is impossible to tell whether they will be positive or negative, but show they will if the original changes are substantive enough. I believe the accredited course will be substantive. While wishing PIL well in its new endeavour (the course represents a positive thing after the negativity of recent changes within permaculture), it will be interesting to watch the unrolling of the course over coming years.

If present PDC providers are forced out by unexpected changes, which, as I have said I doubt will happen, then those providers with their experience and expertise are likely to be lost to the system. 

Generally, I believe that what is needed is a boost to permaculture such as the national broadcast of the Global Gardener series brought in the 1990s. Sustained coverage in mainstream media is critical to permaculture and has propelled its wider acceptance in this country. But when I asked a person who I see as in the know regarding such productions, she replied that the 'world had moved on since the days of Global Gardener' and that other things now occupy the public imagination. Permaculture is still valid of course, as we all know (otherwise we wouldn't have these online discussions) but perhaps what it needs is a new 'hook' on which to snag the public imagination. I don't know what that hook is, but suggest we follow the work of social researchers such as Hugh Mackay and the ANU school of social research in our search for clues in this country.


..........................................................................................................
Russ Grayson
Media services:  journalism-print/ online/ photo
pacedge@magna.com.au  Phone/ fax: 02 9588 6931
PO Box 446 Kogarah NSW 2217 Australia
..........................................................................................................