Skip to main content

What’s wrong with permaculture design courses? Brazilian lessons for agroecological movement-building in Canada

Abstract

This paper focuses on the centrality of permaculture design courses (PDCs) as the principal sociopolitical strategy of the permaculture community in Canada to transform local food production practices. Building on the work of Antonio Gramsci and political agroecology as a framework of analysis, we argue that permaculture instruction remains deeply embedded within market and colonial relations, which orients the pedagogy of permaculture trainings in such a way as to reproduce the basic elements of the colonial capitalist economy among its practitioners. In the specific case of eastern Ontario, this embeddedness had the effect of diluting the transformative capacity of permaculture practitioners who were unable to create its own social movement organization. The paper then highlights key elements of the agroecological pedagogy used by the Brazilian Landless Rural Workers Movement (MST) and the Escola Latinoamericana de Agroecología (Latin American School of Agroecology, or ELAA) in Paraná, Brazil. The objective is to draw lessons from these inspiring experiences, in a rather unique context of struggles that can help to critically assess the pedagogical practices and principles presently informing permaculture communities in Canada and in advanced industrialized countries more generally. We then conclude by reiterating the key arguments and lessons drawn from the Brazilian pedagogical experiences, pointing out the importance of engagement and coalition-building with established rural and urban movements, as well as progressive farmer, Indigenous, and rural associations to foster a just and sustainable transformation of agri-food systems, starting at the local and regional levels. It also emphasizes the need for the most marginalized sectors to lead the way towards an agroecological transition.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Gender and racial issues are particularly relevant to analyze both in the Canadian and Brazilian contexts, but for the purpose of this paper we mostly focus on the effects of a permaculture pedagogy that is embedded in a neoliberal capitalist and colonial context, from a Gramscian perspective. Nonetheless, we recognize that an intersectional approach would be extremely useful to make visible gender and racial inequalities that persist among agroecology and permaculture communities.

  2. 2.

    Eastern Ontario is not a formal political designation. For our purpose, and as it is used in this particular region, it covers the area in Ontario east of Toronto and south of Deep River.

  3. 3.

    In Gramsci’s work, hegemony involves both consent and coercion; to maintain their power, the rulers, or dominant forces, need to build alliances with other classes and convince a majority that the prevailing order is also beneficial for them, thus obtaining their consent. However, hegemony is never complete. The constant presence of resistance forces requires the availability of coercive means to dissuade lower classes, the “ruled”, to rebel and form a counter-hegemonic movement.

  4. 4.

    PRI’s Global Permaculture site allows local permaculture institutions, teachers, and students to create their own profile, which the PRI then verifies to ensure that teachers and students did in fact complete a recognized PDC.

  5. 5.

    MST website, accessed December 10, 2017: http://www.mstbrazil.org/content/history-mst.

  6. 6.

    Paulo Freire and his well-known book the Pedagogy of the oppressed, was a popular educator who greatly inspired the MST pedagogy and liberation theology. Considering our main focus here on Gramscian insights, we decided not to include a discussion of Freire’s important influence on the MST, but see for example Barbosa (2017).

Abbreviations

CPT:

Comissão Pastoral da Terra (Pastoral Land Commission)

CUFF:

Community Urban Food Forest

ELAA:

Escola Latinoamericana de Agroecología (Latin American School of Agroecology)

MST:

Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (Landless Rural Workers Movement)

NCC:

National Capital Commission

OPIRG:

Ontario Public Interest Research Group

PDC:

Permaculture Design Course

PIEO:

Permaculture Institute of Eastern Ontario

PO:

Permaculture Ottawa

PRI:

Permaculture Research Institute

References

  1. Aiken, G. T. 2017. Permaculture and the social design of nature. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 99 (2): 172–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/04353684.2017.1315906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Akram-Lodhi, H. 2013. Hungry for change: Farmers, food justice and the agrarian question. Winnipeg: Fernwood.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Altieri, M. A. 1995. Agroecology: The science of sustainable agriculture. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Altieri, M. A., and I. C. Nicholls. 2017. Agroecology: A brief account of its origins and currents of thought in Latin America. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 41 (3–4): 231–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2017.1287147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Altieri, M., and V. Toledo. 2011. The agroecological revolution in Latin America: Rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants. The Journal of Peasant Studies 38: 587–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2011.582947.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bang, J. M. 2005. Ecovillages: A practical guide to sustainable communities. New Society Publishers.

  7. Barbosa, L. P. 2017. Educação do campo [education for and by the countryside] as a political project in the context of the struggle for land in Brazil. The Journal of Peasant Studies 44 (1): 118–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2015.1119120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bernardes, J. 2016. Culture is the best way to build working class unity. Friends of the MST website, 21 June, access online, April 20th, 2017: http://www.mstbrazil.org/news/culture-best-way-build-working-class-unity.

  9. Bookchin, M. 1962. Our synthetic environment. New York: Knopf. (Published using pseudonym Lewis Herber).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Branford, S., and J. Rocha. 2002. Cutting the wire: The story of the landless movement in Brazil. London: Latin America Bureau.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Brawner, J. 2015. Permaculture in the margins: Realizing Central European regeneration. Journal of Political Ecology 22: 429–444. https://doi.org/10.2458/v22i1.21117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Carson, R. 1962. Silent spring. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Conford, P. 2011. The organic alternative: Farming. In The development of the organic network: linking people and themes, 1945-95, 71–135. Edinburgh: Floris Books.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Dawson, J. 2006. Ecovillages: New frontiers for sustainability, Schumacher Briefing. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ferguson, R. S., and S. T. Lovell. 2014. Permaculture for agroecology: Design, movement, practice, and worldview. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 34 (2): 251–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0181-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ferguson, R. S., and S. T. Lovell. 2015. Grassroots engagement with transition to sustainability: Diversity and modes of participation in the international permaculture movement. Ecology and Society. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08048-200439.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ferguson, R. S., and S. T. Lovell. 2017a. Diversification and labor productivity on US permaculture farms. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170517000497.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ferguson, R. S., and S. T. Lovell. 2017b. Livelihoods and production diversity on US permaculture farms. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 41 (6): 588–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2017.1320349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fukuoka, M. 1990. The one-straw revolution: An introduction to natural farming. (Trans. L. Korn) New York: NYRB Classics.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gliessman, S. 2013. Agroecology: Growing the roots of resistance. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 37 (1): 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2012.736927.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gordon, U. 2008. Luddites, hackers and gardeners: Anarchism and the politics of technology. In Anarchy Alive! Anti-authoritarian politics from practice to theory, 109–138. London: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gramsci, A., and Q. Hoare. 1971. Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York: International Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hadich, C., and J. M. Tardín. 2009. Escola Latino Americana de Agroecología: Experiências camponesas de agroecología. Paraná.

  24. Holmgren, D. 2002. Permaculture: Principles and pathways beyond sustainability. Hepburn: Holmgren Design Services.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Holmgren, D. 2011. The long view. In Permaculture pioneers: Stories from the new frontier, eds. K. Dawborn, and C. Smith, 18–29. Australia: Melliodora Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hopkins, R. 2008. The transition handbook: From oil dependency to local resilience. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Jacob, J. 1997. New pioneers: The back-to-the-land movement and the search for a sustainable future. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Jungck, J. R. 1985. Perennial polyculture, permaculture and preservation: The principle of diversity. The American Biology Teacher 47 (2): 72–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Karriem, A. 2013. Space, ecology, and politics in the praxis of the Brazilian landless movement. In Gramsci: Space, nature, politics, ed. Michael Ekers, Gillian Hart, Stephen Kipfer and Alex Loftus, 142–160. Oxford: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kelly-Bisson, C. 2013. Forests for the people: Resisting neoliberalism through permaculture design. Department of Geography & Environmental Studies, Carleton University.

  31. Kennedy, D. 1991. Permaculture and the sustainable city. Ekistics 58 (348/349): 210–215.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kepkiewicz, L., and B. Dale. 2018. Keeping ‘our’ land: Property, agriculture and tensions between Indigenous and settler visions of food sovereignty in Canada. The Journal of Peasant Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2018.1439929.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Lawton, G. 2011. Thinking big. In Permaculture pioneers: Stories from the new frontier, ed. K. Dawborn, and C. Smith, 87–109.

  34. Levidow, L., M. Pimbert, and G. Vanloqueren. 2014. Agroecological research: Conforming—or transforming the dominant agro-food regime? Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 38: 1127–1155. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2014.951459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Mann, S. 2012. September 27. Episode 1223: The cost of a permaculture design course (Permabyte). The Permaculture Podcast. Retrieved from http://www.thepermaculturepodcast.com/2012/pdc-cost/.

  36. Massicotte, M. J. 2014. Beyond political economy: Political ecology and La Vía Campesina’s struggle for food sovereignty through the experience of the Escola Latinoamericana de Agroecologia (ELAA), Brazil. In Globalization and food sovereignty, eds. P. Andrée, J. Ayres, M. Bosia, and M.-J. Massicotte, 255–287. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  37. McMichael, P. 2009. A food regime genealogy. The Journal of Peasant Studies 36 (1): 139–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150902820354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. McWilliams, C. 1939. Factories in the field: The story of migratory labor in the United States. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Meek, D. 2015. Learning as territoriality: The political ecology of education in the Brazilian landless workers’ movement. The Journal of Peasant Studies 42: 1179–1200. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2014.978299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Meek, D., and R. Tarlau. 2016. Critical food systems education (CFSE): Educating for food sovereignty. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 40: 237–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2015.1130764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Méndez, V. E., C. M. Bacon, and R. Cohen. 2013. Agroecology as a transdisciplinary, participatory, and action-oriented approach. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 37 (1): 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10440046.2012.736926.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Mollison, B. 1988. Permaculture: A designers manual. 2nd ed. Tyalgum: Tagari.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Mollison, B., and D. Holmgren. 1978. Permaculture one: A perennial agriculture for human settlements. Tyalgum: Tagari.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Morel K., C. Guégan, and F. Léger. 2016. Can an organic market garden based on holistic thinking be viable without motorization? The case of a permaculture farm. Acta Horticulturae. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2016.1137.47.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Morton, A. D. 2007. Global capitalism and the peasantry in Mexico: The recomposition of class struggle. The Journal of Peasant Studies 34 (3–4): 441–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150701806257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Motta, S. C. 2017. Emancipation in Latin America: On the pedagogical turn. Bulletin of Latin American Research 36: 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/blar.12526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Movement Generation. 2013. Mission. http://www.movementgeneration.org/about-us/mission-and-history. Accessed 13 April 2013

  48. Odum, H. T. 1971. Environment, power, and society. 1st ed. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Ontario Public Interest Research Group (OPIRG). 2012. Working Groups. Retrieved from http://www.opirgcarleton.org/.

  50. Pahnke, A. 2015. Education of the countryside at a crossroads: Rural social movements and national policy reform in Brazil. The Journal of Peasant Studies 42 (6): 1087–1107. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2014.990444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Permaculture Global. 2017. Worldwide permaculture projects. https://permacultureglobal.org/. Accessed 23 Mar 2017.

  52. Permaculture Institute of Eastern Ontario. 2012. Home Page. http://eonpermaculture.ca. Accessed 13 Dec 2012

  53. Permaculture Ottawa. 2012. Permaculture Ottawa Facebook Group. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/groups/PermacultureInOttawa/.

  54. Pimbert, M. 2008. Towards food sovereignty: reclaiming autonomous food systems. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Puig de la Bellacasa, M. 2010. Ethical doings in nature cultures. Ethics, Place & Environment 13 (2): 151–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668791003778834.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Smith, J. S. 1950. Tree crops: A permanent agriculture. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Smith, C. 2011. Introduction, ix-xx. In Permaculture pioneers: Stories from the new frontier, ed. K. Dawborn, and C. Smith, Tylagum: Melliodora Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Stedile, J. P., and B. F. Mançano. 1999. Brava gente: A trajetória do MST e a luta pela terra no Brasil. São Paulo: Editora Fundação Perseu Abramo.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Taylor, M. 2015. The political ecology of climate change adaptation: Livelihoods, agrarian change and the conflicts of development. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Toledo, V. M., and N. Barrera-Bassols. 2017. Political agroecology in Mexico: A path toward sustainability. Sustainability 9 (2): 268. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9020268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Van der Ploeg, J. D. 2009. The new peasantries: Struggles for autonomy and sustainability in an era of empire and globalization. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Vergara-Camus, L. 2014. Land and freedom: The MST, the Zapatistas and peasant alternatives to neoliberalism. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Veteto, J. R., and L. Joshua. 2008. Environmental anthropology engaging permaculture: Moving theory and practice toward sustainability. Culture & Agriculture 30 (1–2): 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-486X.2008.00007.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Wright, S. 2014. Food sovereignty in practice: A study of farmer-led agriculture in the Philippines. In Globalization and food sovereignty: Global and local change in the new politics of food, ed. Peter Andrée et al., 199–227. Toronto, University of Toronto Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Our gratitude goes out to all interviewees and activists, especially those from the Ottawa permaculture community, the ELAA and the Brazilian MST for sharing their knowledge and expertise informing this research. Your love for your community and dream for a sustainable world is inspiring. Thanks to Patricia Ballamingie and Jill Wigle for supervising the eastern Ontario fieldwork that went into the writing of this paper, and to reviewers for providing insightful feedback to improve this article. A special thanks to Tiaraju P. D’Andrea for research assistantship, as well as Stephen Brown, Peter Andrée, Alicia Martin, and Michael J. Wigginton for offering their feedback and editing. This paper was produced with the support of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Ontario Graduate Scholarship, and The Douglas Fullerton Award in Urban Studies.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marie-Josée Massicotte.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Massicotte, MJ., Kelly-Bisson, C. What’s wrong with permaculture design courses? Brazilian lessons for agroecological movement-building in Canada. Agric Hum Values 36, 581–594 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-018-9870-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Permaculture
  • MST
  • Agroecology
  • Emancipatory pedagogy
  • Peasant movements
  • Gramsci