permaculture

["Scott Pittman" <scott@permaculture.org>]

Musings III

This final chapter has been postponed over and over as I have made my way to
Costa Rica, taught a teacher training course, and now headed to Finca Amrta
to teach my 7th annual PDC.  Cuba has faded somewhat from my mind over the
past weeks but the subject of my discussion remains clear and the urgency I
felt in Cuba is still with me.

This discussion was titled "Standards and Practices of Permaculture" and it
drew a large audience of participants. 

My stimulus for this subject was an event that just prior to the IPC I saw
two courses advertised on the net that were 7 day PDC's.  I was really
shocked since within the Permaculture Institute we have been discussing
increasing the PDC to 21 days just so we could adequately cover all the
material.  I find it very difficult to present all the materials in the
curriculum and do the design exercises, some hands on, some pattern and
principal exercises and etc in the two week time frame of a standard PDC.  I
talked to the teachers of this course and they insisted that they were going
to go ahead with the 7 day schedule.
]
I met one of the teachers in Cuba who is a Portuguese student named Helder
Valente and he has started a web site called New School Permaculture.
Helder insisted that their was a new wave of permaculturalists who were
changing the rules and one of those rule changes regarded the PDC.

The PDC is everyone's initiation into permaculture and I have always felt
particularly protective of  that portal to permaculture.  It is also the
course that many newcomers to permaculture seem to want to amend.  I have
seen the course length shrink from three weeks to two weeks to 9 days to 7
days over the past 30 years.  Content of the PDC is contained in the course
outline that I received from Bill Mollison when I took the course in 1985.
According to David Holmgrin the curriculum was "officially" established in
1984 at the IPC and at the same Mollison announced the establishment of a
Diploma program.

During the Cuba Workshop I was amazed to hear from a gentlemen in the
audience that he had received his PDC without any of the standard curriculum
but a course just on the "Invisible Structures" (social, financial, and
legal structures).  No agriculture, forests, water, and etc.  He was shocked
when I commented that he didn't receive a PDC but rather a very truncated
specialty course.  Others in the audience were as shocked as I was.
We provide a copy of the Course Outline on our website www.permaculture.org
which most teachers that I respect adhere to in their PDC courses.  The PDC
that we offer also includes a design exercise, hands on work, class
exercises, and a talent show.  All of the elements were offered by Bill
Mollison in the courses he taught in the 90's when I was travelling and
co-teaching with him.  I continue to teach in this format which I think
contains the radical pedagogy that Bill developed over years of teaching
experience.

I think that the idea that one can use "Permaculture - A Designer's Manual"
as the complete curriculum of a PDC is a definite downgrading of the
material originally contained in a PDC.  I know that many of the newer
teachers follow "the book" chapter by chapter as the course outline but in
my mind it is an incomplete curriculum and doesn't do justice to the PDC
course material.  Of course there has been additional material added to the
curriculum of 1984 ie global warming, energy decline, keyline, food forests,
and other critical subjects that have appeared in the intervening years.
 
I also still offer the course at cost for any certificate holder from
previous PDC's.  This was a tradition followed by Bill Mollison in his
courses and it makes total sense to me that additional training under
different instructors creates better teachers and designers.
There have been challenges to this tradition which I think is a big mistake.
If one has room in the class and if the expenses of meals, and accommodation
are covered by those wanting to audit the course then I see no good reason
to not offer the course to previous graduates without tuition.
  
The Permaculture Institute has developed a Diploma program also available on
our website to further the education and development of permaculture
designers and teachers.  Our criteria for teachers is that they first obtain
their diploma before becoming lead teachers in a PDC.  We also ask that PC
designers obtain a diploma before advertising their design services.  Many
teachers follow Bill's admonition  to immediately go out and teach or design
once completing the PDC; time after time I have seen shoddy courses and
designs from woefully inexperienced teachers and designers.  This may have
been a growth strategy when permaculture was just starting but it only
serves to degrade people's opinion of permaculture when they experience
amateur work.  In spite of this there are still teachers who encourage their
students to fake professionalism after a two week experience.  Bill
Mollison, Geoff Lawton,  Vladislav Davidzon, and Helder Valente are
advocates of encouraging students to go out and teach immediately after
receiving a certificate and with this promise of an "instant" career have
successfully filled their classes.

Vladislav has recently initiated a "free" PDC online which he claims to have
over 70,000 students enrolled.  If you want a certificate from this "free"
course you have to pony up an additional $300+ dollars.  Soon we will be
awash in PDC graduates who are minimally qualified encouraging their
students to go out and teach.  To me this is a serious degradation of
permaculture education and akin to a pyramid sales scheme.

There are several organizations internationally who are trying to develop
and establish permaculture standards and practices and my hope that that
through collaboration we can all develop a unified system that will allow us
to recognize each others programs and certifications.  There is certainly a
lot to do and, in my mind, little time to do it!

"To change something build a new model that makes the existing model
obsolete"  Buckminster Fuller

/* Written 11:18 PM  Dec 22, 1994 by peg:hepburn in igc:susag.permacul */
THE PERMACULTURE MOVEMENT AND EDUCATION:
SEARCHING FOR WAYS FORWARD

BY DAVID HOLMGREN

DECEMBER 1993

The   following  article  is  being  sent  to  a   selection   of 
permaculture    teachers,    activitists    and    organizations. 
Reproduction and circulation within the permaculture movement  of 
this article in full is invited.

Summer solstice 1993


Copying and circulation of this article (in full) is  encouraged. 
Feedback  is  invited, but since I am not running a  campaign  or 
making  specific proposals, detailed follow on from this  article 
may not happen due to other commitments.  



David Holmgren.



THE  PERMACULTURE  MOVEMENT  AND EDUCATION:  SEARCHING  FOR  WAYS FORWARD

I  would  like  to  address  a  number  of   issues  concerning  permaculture 
education,  design and practice and how these relate to  formal  acceditation 
systems  in  the  wider society. Both Lea Harrison  and  Robin  Francis  have 
addressed  some  of  the  problems and  challenges  facing  the  permaculture 
movement  in  dealing  with aspects of these  issues.  Rather  than  directly 
responding  to their proposals,  I would like to expand on some of the  ideas 
relevant to the future organizational structure  of the movement which I only 
briefly touched on in "Development of the Permaculture Concept" (PIJ no. 44). 
Hopefully  these  ideas  will  also be of more  general  interest  to  people 
involved in permaculture at all levels.

In the process, as the co-originator of the permaculture concept, 
I  will  cover  some  of the story of  my  involvement  with  the 
permaculture  movement, a subject  which I am inclined to  avoid, 
but  that  may  help others clarify  their  own  involvement  and 
position on the issues which confront the movement. 

There  has been a lot of talk about permaculture as a  discipline 
(as  in academic), a profession, trade, business and even  as  an 
industry.  I  have great difficulty with these  constructions  of 
permaculture for many reasons.

Radical origins

Permaculture  arose  from  interaction between  myself  and  Bill 
Mollison  in the mid 1970's. We were two (very different)  social 
radicals on the fringes of (different) education institutions  at 
the global fringes of western industrial society in Tasmania.

Bill  Mollison as bushman turned senior tutor, in the  Psychology 
Dept.  of  the  Tasmanian  University,  attracted  large  student 
audiences  to  hear his radical and  original  (pre-permaculture) 
ideas while outraging the academic establishment. 

I   was  a  student  in  the  Environmental  Design   School,   a 
revolutionary "experiment" in tertiary education at the Tasmanian 
College  of  Advanced Education. This design school ran  for  ten 
years  under  the inspired leadership of Barry McNeil,  a  Hobart 
architect   and   education   theorist.    Visiting   and   local 
professionals  accounted  for  a substantial part  of  the  staff 
budget.  There was no fixed curriculum but a strong  emphasis  on 
decision  making processes and problem solving. Self  assessment, 
democratic  organization and many other elements  which  radicals 
within tertiary institution only dream about were reality  within 
the school. 

Even   within  the  intellectual  freedom  and  stimulation    of 
Environmental Design I was on the fringes, with my all  consuming 
permaculture  work and my student-mentor relationship  with  Bill 
Mollison. My work was largely ignored within E.D. although  Barry 
McNeil has since acknowledged it was probably the most  important 
concept  to emerge from the school.  I never went on do the  post 
graduate   degree  which  would  have  led  to   a   professional 
qualification  (in Landscape Architecture) because of my  disgust 
with  the  design  professions,  my strong  desire  to  build  my 
practical skills and practice what I preached. 

For  me, growing up in a family of radical political activists  I 
found ecological principles reinforced the political notion  that 
radical change is always a bottom up process. Marx suggested that 
happened  by an uprising of the oppressed masses. But  in  modern 
industrial  society,  the environmental dilemma  highlighted  the 
material  addictions  of the comfortable masses as  the  seed  of 
their  (our)  own  destruction. The problem  lay  with  ourselves 
rather than simply with exploiting multi-nationals etc. 

The  old  spiritual  notion of changing  the  world  by  changing 
oneself was a powerful idea for this atheist. This means starting 
with  the individual and the family or household within which  we 
live.  In  the  outward extending ripples of  change  it  becomes 
easier  for  succeeding people to see the need  for  change  from 
consuming  resources  to conserving  and  creating  permacultural 
abundance. 

In  addition, I do not believe it is necessary for a majority  to 
undergo a radical change  for a flip to occur in society.   Chaos 
theory  and  especially the concept  of  punctuated  equilibrium, 
confirmed  by  observation in all the  natural  sciences  suggest 
gradual  evolution  is  the exception rather than  the  rule.  In 
society,  long periods of stability dominated by  tradition,  law 
and  institutional forms are punctuated by rapid  and  apparently 
chaotic change where individuals and and small groups create  new 
cultural forms1. These cycles occur on large time scales  through 
history. However they also repeat themselves  within the lives of 
individuals, communities and organizations not as as a series  of 
closed loops but as open ended and intertwined spirals.

We  can  see  many  examples of the  fragility  and  collapse  of 
established  systems  and whole societies with the  Soviet  Union 
being  the most dramatic. Perhaps an even more pertinent  example 
might  be  the faith that binds the financial  value  systems  of 
global industrial society. 

The whole global economic edifice which is rapidly consuming  the 
planet  and  its  people  is in  fact  a  very  fragile  monster, 
dependant  of  the  faith  and  complicity  of  relatively  small 
populations of middle class people in affluent countries and most 
particularly  the  continued  faith of  that  parochial  clan  of 
McClewn's global village, the money and commodity market  people. 
Ronald  Reagan (as the most powerful man on earth) after the  '87 
stock market crash, said with unconscious truth, that the  system 
would not collapse so long as people continued to have faith. Has 
there  even  been an emperor, king or president to admit  to  his 
people that they had the power to bring the whole system down? My 
point here is not to dwell too much on apocalyptic scenarios  but 
to refute the concept that is necessary to get "every man and his 
dog" to change before society will change.

One  of the problems of personal and societal change is that  the 
old  patterns die hard and as we reach for the solution  we  keep 
re-inventing the problem in a new form. This is quite natural and 
can  be observed in  nature where deeply embedded proven  systems 
keep reasserting themselves (Nature is conservative). 

In  the early promotion of permaculture the tools of  mass  media 
were  effectively used to spread the word quickly and widely  but 
the  efficiency of these tools at producing effective  change  is 
very  low.  So often, fertile social ground was  (and  still  is) 
plowed, seeds sowed, but only a few germinated; some producing  a 
bitter harvest.  Frequently, as enthusiasm wanes in one locality, 
city,  region  or  country, new ground is plowed  in  a  shifting 
cultivation.  This may be a particularly dismal image  (which  is 
hardly the whole picture) but my point is that modern mass  media 
can  be  very  effectively used to stimulate  people  beyond  the 
capacity  of a movement to follow up with the painstaking  local, 
personal  efforts  needed  to assist  and  facilitate  productive 
action. We are in fact dealing with very dangerous tools in  mass 
media  which  carry with them many of  the  inherent  destructive 
characteristics  of  the  defunct paridigms.  Jerry  Mander2  has 
outlined  the  problems inherent in television.  To  some  extent 
these problems even apply to books.

The use of mass media including books has been a major factor  in 
the  spread of the permaculture concept and although I  would  be 
the last to say these approaches should be totally rejected, they 
must  be acknowledged as classic top down methods of change,  the 
same tools used by governments and corporations to mould society.  
To  believe these are value free tools which can be  easily  used 
for good or ill is very naive.

The Biodynamic movement began from very small beginnings in  this 
country, largely under the leadership of Alex Podolinsky. It  has 
been remarkably effective in changing land use on large areas  of 
farm  land  and  building  the numbers  of  competent  home  food 
gardeners  in this country. This was done initially  by  avoiding 
all mass media and working directly in small self-help groups. It 
was only with an established network of solid practitioners  that 
Podolinsky  finally agreed to let ABC Countrywide do the  program 
on  BD which produced more inquiries from farmers than any  other 
issue.

The  permaculture movement has a lot to learn in this regard.  On 
the  other  hand  the  BD movement  has  some  similarities  with 
Permaculture,  perhaps  the most striking being the role  of  the 
charismatic  genius of its leader. Elsewhere3 I have referred  to 
Yeomans, Podolinsky  and Mollison as men with much in  common  in 
leading  the  fight against the agricultural  establishment.  The 
role  of  these men in bringing about change is a complex  and  a 
very  pertinent  subject   to  the  future  of  the  permaculture 
movement but is not something I wish to enlarge on here.

Personal credibility

Much  of the focus for promotion of permaculture has been  around 
the idea that we can grow much of our own food where we live  and 
that this is one of the the most powerful actions we can take  in 
bringing about societial change. There is nothing wrong with this 
simple idea and large numbers of people have been influenced  and 
assisted   by  permaculture  in  doing  this.  Although  in   any 
sustainable  society  we can "design", it is  not  necessary  for 
everyone  to  grow  their own fresh food, it  is  undisputed  (in 
permaculture)  that  we  need  an  explosion  of  competent  food 
gardeners  in this country. Why is it then that the  majority  of 
people   who   have  recaste  their  work  and   careers   around 
permaculture  do  not grow food either as a living  or  even  for 
themselves and their families to any significant degree?  Largely 
because they are too busy organizing, designing and teaching  and 
selling. 

The  way  we  earn  our  living is  obviously  a  major  part  of 
practising  permaculture and in the current economic climate  few 
of  us have the resources and skills necessary to make  a  living 
producing  food in a sustainable manner. The realization of  this 
fact should engender sympathy and respect for farmers. Instead we 
are  just  as  likely to hear arrogant  prejudice  about  farmers 
destroying  the  land from permaculturalists as from  other  food 
consumers.  I believe many permaculturalists don't produce  their 
own  food  because they have tried, found it  difficult  and  not 
particularly   exciting.   This  is  especially  true   for   the 
generations raised on the instant gratification of television and 
modern education. 

When  'Mrs  Jones'  buys Thai tuna or  Californian  oranges  just 
because  they are cheap, I find it hard to be outraged if she  is 
only claiming to be following short term financial self interest. 
However  I am disappointed, to say the least, when those  in  the 
forefront of permaculture promotion privately suggest its cheaper 
or easier to buy good quality food, ignoring the huge compromises 
which even organic growers make with sustainablity principles  to 
survive  commercially.  Proverbs about throwing stones and  glass 
houses  come  to  mind.  My natural inclination  is  to  turn  my 
disappointment   back   on  myself  and  consider   the   ethical 
contradictions in my own behaviour. Despite its bad reputation by 
association with the Chinese cultural revolution, I believe  self 
criticism is  essential  so long as it is balanced by affirmation 
and recognition of self worth.

Permaculture is not a profession

We  can take a permaculture approach in any (reasonable)  job  or 
profession  but to jump to the conclusion that permaculture IS  a 
job,  career or profession is false. There is nothing wrong  with 
people  using permaculture design as a short hand way  of  saying 
they are garden or farm designers who use permaculture principles 
in  their  work.  But  when  people  suggest  we  need  to   make 
permaculture  a design profession which can sit  alongside  other 
design  professions  and  so achieve  credibility  in  the  wider 
society they are making several mistakes:

     1.  the search for credibility by belonging to some group is      
illusory  in  today's  society  where  we  see  the   progressive 
breakdown  of  all forms of established credibility.  New  secure 
structures  of credibility cannot be established in  this  social 
environment.

     2.   to  effectively operate the  organizational  structures 
necessary  to  make a profession able to function at  a  national 
level  requires finan- cial and other resources which drains  off 
limited  activist and pract- itioner resources. This has  been  a 
recurring  mistake in the permaculture movement where  structures 
appropriate  to  large organizations are used in  the  hope  that 
growth  of the movement will generate the resources necessary  to 
support these systems. Permaculture principles suggest we  should 
network  and organize at the smallest most local level  for  each 
particular function and only move to larger levels when the local 
ones  are effective and generating surplus resources adequate  to 
support  these  inherently  more  expensive  but  less  essential 
systems.

     3.   permaculture  is only one of thousands of  groups  from 
nurses through to sellers of travel packages seeking the hallowed 
status  of  being a profession. When the mob is  running  in  one 
direction, quietly walk off in the opposite is my motto, which  I 
learnt  from  my  parents,  but was  clarified  for  me  by  Bill 
Mollison.

     4.  there is a problem of logic when we define  permaculture 
as  a  separate design profession because it implies there  is  a 
particular  set  of skills or competencies  distinct  from  other 
professionals.  In fact as Bill Mollison said in Grave Danger  of 
Falling   Food,   "permaculture  always  did  lie   between   the 
disciplines."  It is a wholistic system which can  integrate  and 
recaste the work of the existing design professions. If it is  to 
become its own profession then it foregoes the valid concern with 
what   all  design  professionals  do.  And  as  more  and   more 
sustainable approaches are taken up by trades and professions any 
separate permaculture profession would be left with a baggage  of 
idiosyncratic ideas which didn't quite work.

A generalist permaculture designer may be a good person to advise 
on general aspects of house siting and design but an architect or 
a  builder with a permaculture perspective is the person to  help 
with the details. If someone is setting up a commercial  orchard, 
a generalist permaculture  designer such as myself may be able to 
help a little but what is really needed is a competent tree  crop 
horticulturalist  with a permaculture perspective.  These  people 
will  continue  to  call  themselves  architects,  builders   and 
horticulturalists.  They  have the  training,  accreditation  and 
industry  networks  which  provide  most  of  the  benefits  (and 
problems)  which some people hope to set up for permaculture.  We 
should  use  these systems, parasitically if  necessary,  working 
around the restrictions they may involve.

However,  there is clearly an important role for the  independent 
permaculture  generalist  to  fill in  the  gaps  in  established 
systems,  self  taught and   informally  apprenticed,  constantly 
innovating  and experimenting with their own systems and  passing 
on  the hard won lessons, gaining credibility by the  results  of 
their work. 

This is a tough role, and a professional structure will not  help 
those who are not up to it do anything more than paper over their 
inadequacies.  This  brings  me  to  the  issue  of  permaculture 
education.

Permaculture Education

The  "72hr"  permaculture  design course has been  the  basis  of 
permaculture  education  since  the first  courses  run  by  Bill 
Mollison at Stanley in the early 1980's. From the very  beginning 
I  was  critical  of  many of the  assumptions  behind  the  PDC. 
Despite,  and maybe partly because of, those criticisms  the  PDC 
has  evolved  into an effective method for  extending  the  ideas 
which I believe the movement should focus on consolidating rather 
than   venturing  into  the  minefield  of  TAFE  or  any   other 
accrediation.  But  while acknowledging the positives it  may  be 
useful to outline my original criticisms.

For  me,  coming  from the radical,  process-based  education  of 
Environmental Design the concept of a fixed curriculum of subject 
material  which  was  based on the  particular  (admittedly  very 
broad)  knowledge of Bill Mollison was a mistake. It has  led  to 
permaculture  teachers  with little knowledge of key-  line,  for 
example,  teaching  a  group of mostly  ex-urban  small  property 
holders in the wrong climate zone about broadacre irrigation  for 
pastoral farming. 

The  early  courses  by Bill Mollison appeared  to  rely  on  his 
encyclopedic  knowledge,  incredible  story  telling  skills  and 
challenging charismatic ability to hold the attention of a  group 
of  students  through a series of lectures with  few  educational 
aids or relief. Other teachers attempted to do the same with less 
than   satisfactory  results.  Some  consider  that  I  have   an 
encyclopedic grasp of technical issues and  "gift of the gab" but 
I  still  will  not teach more than 50% of a course  and  I  make 
extensive  use  of  slides,  charts,  provided  notes  and  other 
materials.  I  also  tend  to work with  teachers  who  use  more 
interactive and participatory teaching methods than I do.

The  third and greatest problem with the original PDC's  was  the 
explicit  notion that the two week intensive  residential  course 
was  a training program for design consultants who would  operate 
as  anarchistic generalists in the way I mentioned before. I  and 
many  others  found  this a ridiculous proposition  and  said  so 
(diplomatically)  at  the first convergence in 1984. To  my  (and 
other's) amazement Bill Mollison immediately outlined a structure 
of  two years practical work following the certificate which  was 
necessary  to  complete,  with  documentation  submitted  to  the 
Institute  for  approval  to  obtain the  diploma  and  become  a 
graduate member of the Institute. Further he suggested that  work 
could  be  in  one or more  areas  including  architecture,  site 
development, media etc. This passed into history as a decision of 
the  convergence 4 and represented a substantial  improvement  in 
the  situation.   I was issued with an honorary diploma  which  I 
graciously   accepted  but  continued  to  pursue  my  own   path 
consulting  and  doing some teaching via lectures,  seminars  and 
workshops, many of them without the label permaculture.

In  fact, the laissez faire system initiated by Mollison has  not 
resulted  in huge numbers of charlatans doing incompetent  design 
for  unsuspecting clients.  Although many enthusiasts rushed  off 
from  PDC's  to consult, most ethically selected  themselves  out 
because they recognised they didn't have the skills, or proceeded 
with an on-going self training process where they were notionally 
in  business but really they were subsidizing their own  training 
with very low charges, the dole or other income. 

This  accounts for the limited number of people earning any  sort 
of  a  living as consultants who do not also  have  other  design 
training and accrediation. When I set up Holmgren Design Services 
in  1983,  I had already been going through this  process  myself 
(unconsciously) virtually since 1976. I have never had an  income 
(since College) which was not permaculture related but 92/93  was 
the  first  year  that  I  have  paid  tax.  The  constraints  of 
practicing  what you preach, on-going self training and  research 
and the limits of the market place didn't allow the generation of 
incomes  much  above  the poverty line which  I  find  more  than 
adequate to live on. 

Existing Institute accreditation of graduates

The  system  for issuing of diplomas has never really  worked  in 
Australia for a number of reasons:

     1.   Failure  of  teachers to give  to  students  consistent 
information  about  the  requirement for  "professional"  use  of 
permaculture, and a lack of commitment to the system.

     2.  Few apprenticeship opportunities for trainees.

     3.    Poor  bioregional  networking  between  teachers   and 
virtually  no opportunities for peer review or working  together. 
Vries   Gravestein's  organization  of  a  design  exercise   for 
participants  at the 1990 convergence was the best effort I  know 
of in this regard.
     
     4.   Perceived  low value of the diploma in  obtaining  work 
compared with institutional qualifications.
     
Rapid Growth of Permaculture Teaching

There was a rapid expansion of the movement and PDC's in the late 
1980's   on  the  back  of  the  a  new  wave  of   environmental 
consciousness, the tv. release of In Grave Danger of Falling Food 
and  publication  of The Designers Manual.  (The  publication  of 
Permaculture One and Two coincided with a previous wave.)

In   Victoria   numbers  of  PDC's  remained  low   until   1992. 
Increasingly  I was approached by teachers and others  soliciting 
more  active  involvement. In 1991 I co-taught  my  first  design 
course with Hugh Gravestein and Andrew Sheridan on the Far  South 
Coast  of  NSW,  and in the following year a  second  with  Colin 
Endean and Ric Allen in Adelaide and a third with Lea Harrison at 
Kangaroo Valley in NSW. After this I felt in a position to design 
my  own courses which built on the substantial experience  gained 
in  ten years of PDC's but incorporated some of my  own  material 
which I saw as central to permaculture as well as addressing  the 
problems outlined above.  

Elsewhere,  especially  overseas,  experienced  and  knowledgable 
teachers were also developing the course content and methods into 
quite  divergent directions but perhaps without the  intellectual 
confidence and freedom which I feel in dealing with the subject. 

Over  those ten years it was clear that two things had  happened. 
Some of the inspired brilliance of Mollison's original  teachings 
has   become  lost  in  translation  and  reduced  to   sets   of 
prescriptions and fixed examples. On the other hand teachers  had 
become  more  experienced in teaching methods and  accessed  more 
materials while people with established design, horticulture  and 
other  skills  were becoming teachers. The  laissez-faire  system 
challenged  serious permaculture teachers to work out  their  own 
explanations  of permaculture rather than simply relying on  Bill 
Mollison for all the answers.

The  trouble with the improvements in PDC's is the knowledge  and 
experience  of course participants is improving even faster.  One 
of  the  great  strengths  of the PDC has  been  the  open  entry 
requirements  and  the  mix of persons  from  school  leavers  to 
practicing  professionals, from farmers to grandmothers who  come 
together for two weeks to learn from the teachers and each other. 

However the lack of follow-on structured learning situations  for 
permaculture has led to some teachers developing advanced  design 
courses  which mostly appear to be either teacher  or  consultant 
training   focused,  or  specialist  courses  (eg   architecture, 
horticulture, village design etc) with very little advance in the 
depth of treatment of general principles, issues and methods.

It  was  suggested  to  me (by Ric Allen  and  others)  that  the 
material  I  was  teaching was more appropriate  to  an  advanced 
design  course  but I have decided against that move  because  it 
automatically  restricts courses to people who have  completed  a 
PDC.   Instead I have worked at improving my teaching methods  to 
make  the material more digestible. I have also aimed at  getting 
more experienced practitioners in a range of fields into  courses 
so  they are in a position to immediately apply the  permaculture 
framework  to their own work, a far faster way getting  effective 
and competent action than advanced courses. 

At the same time I don't want to set up courses for professionals 
which  can so easily bypass the personal and domestic  change  at 
the  heart  of permaculture. A mix of people,  including  younger 
ones  with  little experience but the  energy and  enthusiasm  of 
youth,  and  older  sometimes not  highly  educated  people  with 
experience,  act  as  a  foil and balance  to  the  high  powered 
professionals  wrapped up in their work. In this way the PDC  has 
the  potential to span the spectrum of education from  school  to 
post  graduate and experience from the kitchen sink to  the  back 
paddock.

Much of the value in the PDC comes from the generally residential 
format which gives the opportunity to design a course environment 
which  will challenge and influence people's personal living  and 
(most  importantly)  eating habits so  central  to  permaculture. 
Cynics  would describe it as "brain-washing" and  certainly  many 
course   participants   find  the  experience   very   personally 
challenging.   If you put 20 fairly environmentally and  socially 
aware, but very different, adults together in a new and  isolated 
environment  they  will generate  some  interesting  interactions 
themselves.  Consequently  I  have a  strong  commitment  to  the 
residential  format,  although I recognise the  difficulties  for 
many people in allocating two weeks to the course.

Teaching institution adoption of permaculture

In  recent years permaculture has been increasingly  incorporated 
in  vocational  training and other institutional education  in  a 
number   of  ways.  Some  institutions  have   provided   venues, 
organization  and  sometimes funding for  PDC's  (generally  non-
residential).  Permaculture teachers have developed units  within 
existing  (generally horticulture) courses and many  teachers  in 
institutions  have incorporated elements of permaculture. At  the 
post  graduate  tertiary  level I have written  material  for  an 
external  studies  Graduate Diploma  in  Sustainable  Agriculture 
through Orange Agricultural College NSW.

These developments are substantial opportunities of the  movement 
while  at  the same time threaten to emasculate the  radical  and 
independent nature of permaculture teaching. To some extent these 
developments are inevitable but they can be managed for better or 
worse.

Some  explanation  of the approach I took with  Orange  may  help 
other  permaculture teachers deal with these situations and  even 
contribute to the movement making a co-ordinated approach to  the 
prospect/problem.

In the Orange course I did not have to deal with "who would teach 
the  material"  because it was an external  studies  course.  The 
college did agree that liaison with students and marking would be 
by a graduate of the Permaculture Institute, in this case myself. 
The  course included a strong process and human change  focus  as 
well  as  contract learning assessment which allows  students  to 
design their own course to a fair degree. 

The biggest conflict was having to accept permaculture being  one 
of  three modules within the Alternative Agriculture  unit  along 
with Organics and Biodynamics. In reluctantly accepting this, the 
introduction  to the material included a critique of  the  course 
structure and underlying politics pointing out that  permaculture 
was  in  fact  a  wholistic  conceptual  framework  within  which 
sustainable agriculture could be constructed. I went on to  point 
out this module was complementary to and more specialised than  a 
PDC  not  a  post  graduate substitute for  the  PDC.  I  suggest 
organics   and  biodynamics  could  be  thought  of   sustainable 
production  systems  within  a permaculture  framework  and  made 
linkages to other units but also invited the students to use  the 
permaculture perspective in analysing and critiqing the course as 
a  whole. In this way I hoped to provide the more perceptive  and 
radical  students  with the tools to  challenge  the  assumptions 
behind the course (including p/culture).

I believe this approach of a radical unit within a course can  be 
used  as  a test for whether the institutions are  serious  about 
wanting  to  include permaculture in their courses. It  also  can 
alert  people that permaculture is much more than the  particular 
field  which  they are studying. We need to  remember  that  most 
people approach permaculture via a particular field of  interest. 
For  students  of  horticulture  it is  natural  that  they  will 
initially  see  permaculture as a radical  form  of  horticulture 
which  over time can change into a conceptual  framework  through 
which they can organize and develop their horticultural  vocation 
and their personal life.

Recently,  Troy,  a  student on a six  month  TAFE  horticultural 
training program, stayed at Hepburn Permaculture Gardens for work 
experience. He was a keen worker, diligent student and  obviously 
an uncomfortable radical within a fairly conservative course with 
conservative students.  At the end of the course the whole  group 
did a tour of Hepburn Permaculture Gardens as an extra-curricular 
activity. I believe the work experience and tour opened the  eyes 
of the students (and teacher) to what "mad" Troy was on about and 
allowed  Troy  a way to express his values  and  knowledge  while 
battling it out in the system.

PDC and Movement Accreditation

I  want to return to consideration of our own structures  because 
following permaculture principles I think we need to get our  own 
house in order before we can in any way deal with control of  how 
permaculture is incorporated into mainstream education. 

I have indicated that much has been achieved through the laissez-
faire  approach to permaculture education but there is a need  to 
make  some  of the systems and structures we  already  have  work 
better.

We  need  to improve the quality of course to do justice  to  the 
quality and experience of course participants. On going  training 
workshops in teaching methods are one way but these should be for 
people with demonstrable skill and knowledge with natural systems 
who  need help in communicating their knowledge. As we draw  more 
people  into  teaching  permaculture who  already  have  teaching 
skills,  what  is  more important is  more  informal  residential 
programs,  work experience and apprenticeships under  experienced 
practitioners  so that teachers are talking about things they  do 
understand.  In  this regard I believe the WWOOFing  network  has 
been  one  of the most successful ways at providing  people  with 
more  day-to-day  experience  of  living  and  working  in   more 
sustainable  ways. We need to look at how we might build  on  and 
support that network rather than replicating it.

We need better documentation of good working systems, a job which 
innovative  practitioners  frequently neither have the  time  nor 
skills  to  do. Trainee teachers could  use  their  documentation 
skills  (plans, photographs, notes etc) to record these  projects 
during WWOOFing or other work experience visits to develop  their 
own portfolios of teaching materials. Practitioners should always 
have the opportunity to vet materials and be provided with copies 
for  their own use and retain copyright control over the  use  of 
their work.

Copying of notes, slides and other materials from teachers should 
only  occur through an apprenticeship process where  the  trainee 
has a very good grasp of the subject.

Teachers  should  avoid taking offers to  teach  courses  outside 
their   bioregional  experience  unless  there  are   very   good 
complementary  local resources and expertise involved.  This  may 
slow  the expansion of the movement but ensure that more  of  the 
sown seeds germinate. Teaching permaculture to a higher  standard 
requires  a  rooted  connection to local  venues,  resources  and 
practitioners  which makes globally mobile teaching an  extremely 
difficult  job  which will never produce the quality  of  courses 
possible  once  a  network of local expertise  and  resources  is 
established. 

Recently,  my  own  criteria for agreeing to teach  a  course  in 
Israel  included that it would be in similar bioregion (not  arid 
where I have limited expertise), that I would be co-teaching with 
permaculture  activists with some teaching experience,  knowledge 
of  my approach and long term commitment to the region  and  time 
(weeks)  to  familiarize  with the local  situation,  people  and 
resources. I don't want to criticise the valuable pioneering work 
which many Australian teachers have done overseas and do not wish 
to  address  the  complex  issue  of  permaculture  education  as 
overseas  aid. I am simply pointing out the criteria I have  used 
as I venture into a new area of practice.

We  do need a national body  as a central register  of  graduates 
and  some general guidelines like those set up following the  '84 
convergence. I would like to see the implication that the PDC  as 
being  a  training system for consultant  designers  or  teachers 
completely  removed.  (I do not use  the  Institute  certificates 
because they refer to "Permaculture Design Consultants  Course"). 
I  would also like to see the categories revised  and  preferably 
reduced in number. 

I  think it is essential that the details of any peer review  and 
regulation  of  persons  admitted  as  graduates  (and  therefore 
independent teachers) be done at the bioregional level. If  there 
is  not  the  networking and resources at  this  level  then  any 
attempt to do so at a national level is likely to fail. We should 
accept  that different bioregional networks may apply  the  rules 
differently  but that can reflect real differences in  needs  and 
capacities   to   regulate.    (This  already   happens   at   an 
international level).

There has been much angst about the proliferation of courses, cut 
throat  competition and poor standards. A severe  analysis  could 
liken  permaculture education to a form of pyramid selling  where 
the  main  economic  outcome of courses is  more  courses.  These 
issues  have  certainly troubled me but we need to  keep  several 
things in mind:

     1.   Natural  systems  undergoing  rapid  growth  based   on 
available   energy  tend  to  be  characterised  by  a   lot   of 
competition,  crude systems and poor development of symbiotic  or 
networked  structures.  As available resources  restrict  growth, 
selection  pressures  result in a culling of poorer  systems  and 
models  while development of co-operation and networks  increase. 
With permaculture courses at the moment it is very much a case of 
buyer beware and to a fair degree you get what you pay for.

     2.   On the issue of cost, I think we need to get away  from 
the  idea  that courses should be run at rock  bottom  prices  so 
everyone  can have access to courses.  My considerations on  cost 
include:

          Firstly, in our society, for better or worse, the  vast 
majority  of           people do not value what they do  not  pay 
for.   Improving   the  quality  of  courses  is   pointless   if 
participants  come along because someone else paid for it or  the 
course   represented   a  cheap  holiday.   Commercially   driven 
residential  courses  in other fields comparable  with  our  $800 
Hepburn Design course (limited to 20 people) would cost $2000.

          Cross  subsidisation is a better way to provide  access 
for  lower  income persons (we provide 4 places  at  $600)  while 
government or business funded participation is a two edged  sword 
which should be handled carefully. For subsidised participants we 
vet  people  and  require up front payment  of  deposits  by  the 
individual and would restrict numbers of funded participants.

          I   think  that  the  private  enterprise  context   of 
permaculture  education  has  been one of its  strengths  and  we 
should avoid the traps of the social welfare mentality that it is 
everybody's  right  to be able to do a  PDC  without  sacrifices. 
Learning by doing, WWOOFing, subsidised introductory courses  and 
institutional   courses   which   will   progressively    include 
permaculture  material  are open to  everyone,  and  increasingly 
training  programs specifically set up for  disadvantaged  groups 
can include permaculture material. 

     3.  I think it is important that experienced teachers do get 
some  remuneration  comensurate  with  the  enormous  effort   in 
presenting  a well organized and taught course. However, I  think 
there  are  also  substantial dangers in  establishing  a  career 
structure for teachers which rewards teachers for just  teaching. 
Having  to  do other things to stay sane, earn  income,  maintain 
humility,  connection  to  the earth and  continually  learn  are 
essential. "Professional teachers" who do not garden or in  other 
ways  face the enlightening and frustrating realities  of  living 
and  working with nature are in grave danger of re-inventing  all 
the problems we seek to overturn.

Barry  McNeill  said  that  no one  should  teach  design  in  an 
institution  for  more  that  7  years  without  going  back   to 
professional  practice.  In  permaculture  we  need  to  be  much 
stricter  in  our guidelines if we are to retain  the  integrated 
perspective which the wider society is constantly subverting with 
its  rewards  for specialisation and chopping our lives  up  into 
separate compartments.

Permaculture Academy

The  announcement  of the creation of a Permaculture  Academy  by 
Bill  Mollison5  earlier  this year has  further  complicated  an 
already   unclear  situation  regarding   permaculture   movement 
accreditation. Although many of the intentions behind the academy 
are  commendable  and in fact reflect some  of  the  perspectives 
discussed  above, I see grave problems with a new structure  when 
the  foundation  on  which it is based  (the  PDC  and  Institute 
accrediation of graduates) is so much in need of consolidation.

Unless  students  are  already  in  close  working  contact  with 
supervisors,  it is very hard to assess the real practical  value 
of any work and there will be the tendency to fall back into  the 
academic  mould  totally  dependent  on  documentation  within  a 
particular  discipline.  Surely we should be  trying  to  achieve 
effective   interdisciplinary  assessment  of  the   permaculture 
trainees  for becoming graduates of the Institute before  setting 
up higher level assessment processes requiring greater skill  and 
commitment.

Clearly,  the  academy will not provide any resources  to  assist 
struggling  practitioners and researchers. The main  value  which 
will  accrue is an academic qualification which may provide  some 
credibility  within mainstream systems for  worthy  permacultural 
practitioners.  However we need to consider the status,  or  lack 
of,  confered  by  being a graduate of the  Institute  before  we 
escalate  the stakes with investing effort into  higher  academic 
structures.

A  mature sustainable community or society can easily  deal  with 
its  most capable members having the responsiblity and  privilege 
to specialize but for us in the vortex of the paridigm shifts  we 
need to work a lot harder at developing the wholistic, generalist 
base  from  which specialization is possible. After  all  we  are 
talking about overcoming a four hundred year cultural heritage of 
increasing   specialisation  to  the  point  of  collective   and 
individual  schizophrenia.  Study of natural  and  human  systems 
teach  us that the types of changes needed come about  through  a 
radical  reintegration  at  the bottom within the  life  of  each 
individual, not through some moderation of excesses back to  some 
supposed balance. 

Relativism and dogma

Through my constant reference to the need for a radical approach, 
it is essential that this not be interpreted as an adherence to a 
set  of rigid principles which very quickly become dogma. To  the 
degree  to which permaculture might be seen as a "faith" it is  a 
highly  relativistic  one,  there being  few  if  any  absolutes. 
Everything is context dependent. 

For   example,  some  might  say  that  use  of   herbicides   is 
unacceptable in any situation and regard such rules as reflecting 
a  radical  approach.  I  see the one  off  use  of  a  herbicide 
(depending  on which one) for the establishment of direct  seeded 
or   planted   trees  in  their  thousands   essential   to   the 
stabilisation  of broad acre cropping and pastoral lands  and  is 
very  different from annual spraying of roadsides by councils  or 
annual  spraying under orchard trees. Energy analysis  and  other 
forms of accounting suggest a great difference between these two.

Where  we  are uncertain about when and how to  compromise  on  a 
particular rule or principle we should test the rule ourselves to 
see  if we can achieve the ideal and carefully  suggest  criteria 
others might consider in making their own decisions.

There  is  a  paradox behind many of  the  ideas  and  challenges 
presented   in  this  article.  I  have  been   suggesting   that 
permaculturalists  need  to go further in  applying  permaculture 
principles and be more aware of how we fall back on  conventional 
more  deeply  embedded  learning.  This  old  learning  makes  us 
suceptible  to  the subtle reward systems within society.  It  is 
these rewards which result in the  solutions being recast as  new 
forms of old problems. 
.pa
On  the other hand we should never forget that in  nature  things 
are  relative  and  context dependent so we have  to  forego  the 
certainty  of  a neat set of absolute rules.  My  greatest  fears 
about the movement are the development of dogma and sacred  cows.  
Some might say I am obsessed by attacking sacred cows (no offence 
to my Hare friends) especially those born of my own work. 

We  walk  on  a knife edge between the  seduction  of  a  defunct 
cultural  heritage  and  the stifling bonds  of  dogma  and  even 
fascism.  Constant self critical appraisal and the  grounding  of 
working  with  nature are the only ways I know  to  maintain  the 
internal balance.


David Holmgren
Hepburn, Victoria,  December 1993.


References

1.  Thompson, W.I. In Jnl. of the New Alchemy  Institute  Stephen 
Green Press (can anyone supply date - it's an early one?)

2.  Mander, J. Four Arguments For The Elimination  of  Television 
Quill 1977.

3. Holmgren, D. Creating A History Of The Search For  Sustainable 
Landuse In Australia,  unpublished paper 1993

4.  Permaculture Institute News in Permaculture Journal  no.  19, 
Feb. '85.  

5.  The  Creation  of  a  Permaculture  Academy  in  Permaculture 
International Journal no. 47, June '93. 

-- Transfer complete, hit <RETURN> or <ENTER> to continue --