Dissertation

of 30
Evaluating permaculture as an approach for
sustainable rural livelihoods and development
Anna Sellars, MSc, BA.
26th
August 2015

of 30
Abstract
This dissertation explores and evaluates the potential for permaculture to contribute to
understandings and strategies of sustainable rural livelihoods in developing countries. It
reviews a broad range of literature, focusing specifically on the interactions between
Chamber’s and Conway’s Sustainable Livelihoods Approach and permaculture principles, and
what valuable contributions permaculture can make for the rural poor in developing countries.
It concludes that while permaculture can be useful for issues of environmental resilience,
livelihood vulnerability, capacity building and utilisation of assets, it is limited in the scale of its
approach to sufficiently address problems outside of the immediate farm or community.

of 30
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Professors Tim Forsyth and James Putzel, and Dr Sandra Sequiera for their
help in developing my topic and challenging my ideas in the research for this dissertation. I
would also like to thank the Department of International Development staff for arranging the
dissertation workshops which were really helpful for progress in the initial stages, and my
fellow students for their constructive criticism.
I am particularly grateful for Kevin Mascarenhas’ teaching and encouragement when I took his
Introduction to Permaculture course, which was invaluable for my understanding of the topic
and has inspired me to want to know much more about permaculture. Special thanks should
also go to the East End Women’s Institute who funded my attendance of the course.
Lastly I would like to thank many people for their morale support during the researching and
writing – friends, colleagues, my parents (who have supported me incredibly throughout the
degree), and Caroline Haywood at the Overseas Development Institute for allowing me use of
the office on days when I was not interning.

of 30
Contents
Page
Abstract………………………………………………………………………….……………………………………………… 2
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………….……………………………. 3
1 - Introduction………………………………………………………………………….………………………………… 5
1.1 Overview and rationale.……………………………..…………………….……………………………….. 5
1.2 Research aim, questions and methods…………………….…………………….…………………… 6
1.3 Dissertation structure…………………….…………………….…………………….……………………… 6
2 - Key debates and academic context…………………………….………………………………………….. 7
2.1 Current global sustainable livelihoods………………………………………………………………… 7
2.2 What is permaculture? …………………….…………………….…………………….…………………… 8
2.3 Comparison to other approaches…………………….…………………….………………………….. 10
2.4 How is permaculture relevant to sustainable livelihoods? ………………………………... 11
2.5 Why has permaculture been marginalised in development? …………………………….. 12
2.6 Contribution to understandings of sustainable livelihoods……………………………….… 13
3 - Theoretical linkages between permaculture and sustainable livelihoods………………. 14
3.1 Environmental and livelihood sustainability……………………………………………………….. 14
3.1.1 Agricultural intensification and ecological sustainability………………………………. 14
3.1.2 Resilience, risk and vulnerability…………………………………………………………………… 15
3.2 Development of capabilities………………………………………………………………………………. 16
3.2.1 Permaculture for agency and empowerment……………………………………………….. 17
3.2.2 Permaculture for capacity building……………………………………………………………….. 17
3.3 Provision of assets……………………………………………………………………………………………… 19
3.3.1 Permaculture design and resource management…………………………………………. 19
3.3.2 Maximisation of assets…………………………………………………………………………………. 20
3.3.3 Utilisation of marginal land………………….……………………………………………………….. 21
3.3.4 Land tenure and the non-farm economy………………………………………………………. 21
4 - Mainstreaming permaculture and policy challenges..………….…………………………………. 23
5 - Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….…………………………….. 25
Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 27
Figures
Figure 2.1: Map of global permaculture projects 9
Figure 3.1: Permaculture zoning, with zone definitions 20

of 30
1. Introduction
1.1 Overview and rationale
The term ‘sustainable’ is, it seems, the buzzword of the 21st
century. The release of the post-
2015 development agenda, the Sustainable Development Goals, later this year is evidence of
the fact that integrating sustainability into any significant set of policies is going to be
necessary for success over the coming decades. The IPCC’s 5th
Assessment Report stated that
the world’s poorest and most vulnerable are likely to be worst hit with the impacts of climate
change, and in the absence of a serious and immediate revolution for mitigation strategies,
the role of adaptation becomes crucial for the provision of livelihoods and wellbeing of the
world’s poorest, right down to the household level (Field et al, 2014; Milder et al, 2014).
Agriculture is a fundamental part of the economy across many across developing countries,
providing 2.5 billion people with livelihoods, 1.5 billion of which are smallholders (FAO, 2012).
With agriculture producing “over 80 per cent of the food consumed in a large part of the
developing world” (IFAD, 2013, pg. 6), it is clear that integrating sustainability into agricultural
practice will be important for the environment, economy and well-being of the rural poor. The
sustainable livelihoods approach, therefore, has as much if not more relevance now than it did
when it was first proposed in 1992, which Chambers and Conway define as:
“…the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and
activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can
cope with and recover from stresses and shocks, maintain or enhance its
capabilities and assets, while not undermining the natural resource base.”
(Chambers & Conway, pg. 7).
The pressing need for increases in global agricultural output alongside of measures to improve
the environmental costs of doing so pose difficult challenges for farmers, which will require
Innovation and experimentation in order to overcome. Permaculture, for example, offers a
way of integrating both environment and development objectives from its core principles in a
way that proposes to be mutually enforcing, in “the application of ecologically informed
holistic planning and design [so that] humans can meet their needs while increasing ecosystem
health.” (Ferguson & Lovell, pg. 266; Mollison & Holmgren, 1978). Some of its key methods
include the recycling (in the broadest understanding) of energy and resources, integration and
complexity of agricultural system design, utilisation and management of species diversity, and
being responsive to changes to and within the farm, all of which draw parallels with similar
approaches within the development field (Holmgren, 2002). Despite this, little scholarship yet
has been done to examine the scope for permaculture to interact with and benefit sustainable
rural livelihoods and development, particularly in relation to livelihoods; this is what this
dissertation hopes to address (Ferguson & Lovell, 2014).

of 30
1.2 Research aim, questions and methods
The dissertation aims to explore and evaluate the scope for permaculture to contribute to
understandings and approaches of sustainable rural livelihoods and development. In
particular, it attempts to answer the following questions:
- What can it offer that is new or unique for an approach to sustainable rural
development?
- How can permaculture offer a ‘more sustainable’ model for rural development,
environmentally, economically and socially
- In what ways can permaculture offer a way to strengthen livelihood opportunities?
- What are its conceptual and practical limitations, as an approach?
- What use does might it have if mainstreamed into development theory, and how
possible would this be?
It is a conceptual and theoretical discussion of the strengths and limitations of permaculture
with regards to the sustainable livelihoods approach in rural developing country areas;
because this discussion straddles two so far discrete areas of literature - permaculture and
sustainable livelihoods - it draws on a wide range of themes including resilience, agroecology,
participatory development and resource management (Holmgren, 2002). While attempting to
answer important questions about connecting permaculture principles to development
theory, it also raises many others, particularly with regards to agricultural science, which is
beyond the abilities of this dissertation to address. Although the dissertation aims to discuss
permaculture in relation to sustainable livelihoods and potential for developmental impact in
rural areas, because of permaculture’s (general but not exclusive) focus on horticulture and
agriculture much of the dissertation will address these areas too; this is not in ignorance of the
links to non-farm aspects of permaculture or development (see Section 3.3.4), but such work
would require more empirical evidence to adequately discuss the indirect links between the
areas. Therefore where the phrase ‘farm’ or ‘farmer’ is used, it broadly encompasses
smallholder farmers, households with gardens which grow food, and anything between
smallholder size (approximately 2 hectares (Wiggins, 2009)) and medium-sized farms that can
still be reasonably considered part of rural communities.
1.3 Dissertation structure
Section 2 will begin by looking at current challenges for sustainable rural livelihoods and
development, then define permaculture and its relevance to these debates. It will then
compare permaculture to similar approaches in development and identify how it can ‘add
value’ to contemporary development theory and practice, particularly in relation to
sustainable livelihoods, before briefly looking at limitations to its scholarship to date. Section 3
will look at how permaculture principles theoretically interact with sustainable livelihoods
goals for sustainability, assets and capabilities in turn; this explores issues of environmental
sustainability and resource management, agricultural intensification, vulnerability,
empowerment and agency, and local and indigenous knowledge. Section 4 draws together
these ideas in discussing steps that permaculture will need to take if it is to be incorporated
into development practice, and some of the policy requirement necessary for this.

of 30
2. Key debates and academic context
2.1 What is the current global situation with sustainable rural livelihoods?
“A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and
shocks, maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets, while not undermining
the natural resource base.” (Chambers & Conway 1992, pg. 7)
“Best practice in agricultural and rural development is increasingly recognising
the centrality of climate change adaptation and natural resource management in
ensuring resilient rural livelihoods, as embodies in contemporary concepts such
as ‘climate-smart agriculture.” (Milder et al, pg 68)
The increasing prevalence and urgency of environmental problems across the world are
forcing us to consider new strategies for ensuring global sustainability of livelihoods without
compromising potential for development. Chambers and Conway’s ‘sustainable livelihoods’
framework may have been established nearly 25 years ago, but study, analysis and re-
interpretation of the approach continues to be relevant today for two main reasons
(Chambers & Conway, 1992). Firstly is that the effects of historic unsustainable use of
resources are beginning to catch up with us, if they haven’t done so already. With projections
of global population reaching around 9 billion by 2050 and led by growth in developing
counties, the acknowledgement that developing countries cannot afford to follow a ‘Western-
style’ resource-intensive development path demands a radical rethink of development
strategies (United Nations, 2004). Secondly, and in response to the first reason, development
futures will require ‘green growth’ solutions, so that we do not create an ultimatum of
environment versus growth, but instead integrate sustainable, low- or zero-carbon processes
into development strategies. It will no longer be sufficient to mobilise the ‘right to
development’ argument for intensive resource use – instead we need to offer economically
and environmentally ‘viable’ solutions, and avoid a ‘kicking away the ladder’. It is therefore
essential, on all scales of development planning, to explore alternatives and exploit synergies
of environment and development strategies for the creation of sustainable livelihoods for the
future.
Sustainable livelihood futures are especially important for the 72% of the global poor who live
in rural areas, whose livelihoods are often dependent on the productivity of the land (World
Bank, 2000a; IFAD, 1992; Mullen, 2002), be this through agriculture or non-farm activities. As
several studies have linked economic growth and increases in productivity in agriculture to a
disproportionately greater reduction of poverty relative to other sectors (Practical Action,
2005; Bright & Seville, 2010; Irz et al, 2001), agriculture is likely to prove crucial for future
achievement of sustainable development. However, with up to 50% of agricultural land
degraded to some extent (MA, 2005; Bossio et al, 2004; Scherr & McNeely, 2008), and a need
for increases of land intensity and output (Heinemann, 2014; Practical Action, 2005; Conrad,
2013), farmers across the globe face huge challenge in negotiating both these demands.

of 30
Smallholders in particular will be central to this, not only because they represent 45% of the
world’s rural population, where the poor are typically overrepresented, but because of the
scale of their work and the skills involved they are especially sensitive to the complexity and
vulnerability of environment-development relationships (World Bank, 2008). Although there is
much research into the productivity of large-scale and commercial farming, and
acknowledgement of the merits for agribusiness and the attraction for investment within
developing countries, it should also be recognised that “agriculture dominated by small farms
is no obstacle to growth” (Wiggins, 2009, pg. 1). Furthermore, in relation to increasing
livelihood opportunities across the rural poor in developing countries, focusing on improving
small-scale farming and its connection with markets can exploit its characteristics which make
it favourable to the integration of sustainability into farming. While rural livelihoods must be
considered to be diverse and context-specific (Chambers & Conway, 1992; Scoones, 1998;
Murray, 2002), the assumption that the rural poor exploit natural resources out of necessity
and ignorance has been critiqued (Fisher, 2005), and rather farmers can be understood
stewards for sustainable resource management (DFID, 2002; Scherr & McNeely, 2008). Their
physical closeness to and understanding (arguably experiential, rather than scientific) of the
land on which they work is an underestimated advantage for rural development, and the fact
that “poor producers will have to find solutions largely based on existing resources… [as they]
cannot afford expensive technologies” (Pretty, 2002, pg. 170) offers scope for integrated and
in-situ management practices (FAO, 2010; Wiggins, 2009). Also, rural development must not
just be about providing services and infrastructure for the rural poor, but if it is to be truly
sustainable, should be about strengthening the rural poor’s productive capacities, not just in
terms of physical infrastructure and access to markets and inputs (Mullen, 2002), but through
learning, experimentation and agency (Whiteside, 1998; Heinemann, 2014).
These factors overlap to a great extent with suggested focuses for ‘pro-poor’ rural
development, in offering potential to strengthen (individual and collective) capabilities and
capacities, recognise diversity of livelihood strategies, risk management strategies and local
contexts, and in aiming to improve the rural environment (Heinemann, 2014; FAO, 2011). The
emphasis, therefore, of the relevance of smallholder-based approaches for the future of
agriculture creates much scope for the experimentation with new ideas for grassroots
systems, in which, this dissertation will argue, permaculture should be included.
2.2 So, what is permaculture?
Permaculture is an approach, or more accurately a design system, which stems from the idea
of ‘permanent culture’; although largely applied within agriculture and horticulture, its
principles are widely used as a holistic lifestyle approach or ‘culture’ (Mollison & Holmgren,
1978). The concept was developed and pioneered by Australians Bill Mollison and David
Holmgren in the late 1970s and outlined in the book Permaculture One: A Perennial
Agricultural System for Human Settlements, the first of a handful of other guides aimed at
gardeners and farmers. The movement became particularly popular in Australia and gradually

of 30
spread first to North America and Western Europe, and has since established a network of
over 2,000 registered permaculture projects in 6 continents across the world (See Figure 2.1).
Figure 2.1: Map of global permaculture projects, (Worldwide Permaculture Network, 2015)
Fundamentally, permaculture aims to micromanage a given ecosystem, recognising all of its
components, their purposes and interactions with other components, in order to design an
integrated and interdependent system of resource management (Mollison & Holmgren, 1978;
Peeters, 2012). These components can be physical (water, plants, soil, etc.), social (people,
income, land rights, etc.), or related to energy use and conservation (‘technology, structures,
connections’ etc.) (Mollison, 1990). In doing so permaculture learns and works from natural
patterns and processes within the ecosystem, minimising outside inputs, and maximising the
energy and productivity of the land for human use (Peeters, 2012; Mollison, 1990; Holmgren,
2002). Furthermore, projects across the world have shown that “one of the factors that
differentiates permaculture from many other ‘sustainability sciences’ is that permaculture aims
not only for sustainability, but also for rapid regeneration and significant improvements in the
natural resource base and yields.” (Pyhälä, 2013, pg. 202). Practice of permaculture therefore
requires holistic thinking, intimate knowledge and experience of the land, and analytical skills,
in that “each element serves several functions within the systems, and each function is
common to many elements… [and] symbiotic interactions can occur in permacultures… [which]
are characteristic of complex ecosystems” (Mollison & Holmgren, 1978, pg. 7).
Though there are several variations of the important aspects of the permaculture approach,
the following twelve design principles outlined by David Holmgren in Permaculture Principles
and Pathways Beyond Sustainability are the most thorough and commonly used (Holmgren,
2002):
1. Observe and interact
2. Catch and store energy
3. Obtain a yield

of 30
4. Apply self-regulation and accept feedback
5. Use and value renewable resources and services
6. Produce no waste
7. Design from patterns and details
8. Integrate rather than segregate
9. Use small and slow solutions
10. Use and value diversity
11. Use edges and value marginal
12. Creatively use and respond to change
Of these, which act more like “a conceptual framework…, rather than a bundle of techniques”
(Ferguson & Lovell, 2014, pg. 264) for practicing permaculture, those highlighted are especially
useful in understanding the interactions between permaculture, livelihoods and sustainable
rural development, and will be expanded on later. Peeters’ permaculture ‘characteristics’ –
diversity, yield, complexity, stability and energy – also summarise permaculture’s ethos with
more simplicity, but perhaps less guidance as to practical implementation (Peeters, 2012).
2.3 Comparison and relevance to other approaches
Just as Chambers & Conway argue that ‘sustainability’ can be considered a fundamental good,
in order to understand what value permaculture can add to sustainable rural livelihoods and
development, it is important to look at how it attempts to go beyond existing similar
approaches to natural resource management and sustainable agriculture.
Permaculture is broadly considered, especially in academic literature, as a form of
agroecology; unlike agroecology though, which has seen increasing interest by researchers and
integration into global institutions such as the Consultative Group for International Agricultural
Research, “permaculture has remained relatively isolated from scientific research…. despite a
high public profile” (Ferguson & Lovell, 2014; Conrad, 2013). They have a similar approach in
their mutual site-specific approach of analysis, and the recognition of multi-scalar and spatial
interactions of landscape components. However, whereas agroecology is regarded as a science
and ‘set of practices’, permaculture’s more responsive and adaptive application of general
principles makes it more ‘accessible’ to on-the-ground users as a resource management
approach (Holmgren, 2002). This has, on the contrary, so far limited its ability to transition
from its perception as a ‘social movement’ to a formal science (Ferguson & Lovell, 2014, pg.
255).
Permaculture also draws parallels with ideas around the landscapes approach, in particular in
its holistic analysis of the “multiple uses and purposes [of components]” within a spatially-
defined area, and its emphasis on engagement and capacity building with stakeholders on the
ground in making decisions about resource use and management (Sayer et al, 2013, pg. 8351;
Landscapes.org, 2015). Reed et al define the landscapes approach as “a framework to
integrate policy and practice for multiple land uses, with a given area, to balance competing
demands on land through the implementation of adaptative (sic) and integrated management

of 30
systems” (Reed et al, 2014 pg 1-2). Both frameworks are also similarly multidisciplinary, which
has contributed to their complexity in implementation, and reservations as to their adoption
by any particular academic discipline (Sunderland, 2014; Reed et al, 2014; Holmgren, 2002;
Mollison, 1990). However, the landscapes approach specifically aims to tackle site-specific
issues related to climate change and resilience, as well as being inherently political, in
attempting to balance conflicting demands of various stakeholders. Permaculture sidesteps
these issues around community politics, focusing more on individual or household capacity for
environmental and agricultural management; as further discussion will suggest, there is much
that permaculture can learn from the landscape approach in analysing the influences of wider
processes contributing to environmental issues on a farm scale, and much scope to integrate
these concepts, even if it does not explicitly address them.
2.4 How is permaculture relevant to sustainable livelihoods?
Ultimately permaculture aims to empower the farmer to have maximum productivity from
their land in a way that allows them to continue reaping the same benefits permanently, so
the idea of the ‘sustainability’ of a livelihood, both in environmental and social terms
(Chambers & Conway 1992), fits well with the basis of permaculture. Ferguson and Lovell
recognise the relevance of terms and interests most used in permaculture literature to those
used within sustainable livelihoods, such as ‘sustainable’, ‘community’ and ‘agriculture’
(Ferguson & Lovell, 2014). Chambers and Conway’s definition also allows us to begin dissecting
the components required for a ‘sustainable livelihood’:
“A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social
resources) and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable
when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks, maintain or enhance
its capabilities and assets, while not undermining the natural resource base.”
(Chambers & Conway 1992, pg. 7)
Theoretically, permaculture enables the farmer to have both the knowledge and capabilities
(social sustainability) and the maintenance of the ecological assets (environmental
sustainability) to maintain their livelihood into the future. Firstly, the principle of working with
natural systems and the management of energy on a farm scale for maximum sustainability
and output indicates a potential for a permaculture approach to begin to answer one of the
key challenges for the future of agriculture in developing countries, that of sustainable
intensification (Pretty, 2002; Conway & Barbier, 1990). The extent to which this theory
practically applies, however, needs cautious examining before claiming to be a ‘silver bullet’
for sustainable development – some key issues relating to this will be explored later.
Secondly, permaculture’s emphasis on using and developing the knowledge and skills of the
farmer integrates as aspect of social sustainability into agricultural development, in that it can
“empower people at the grass-roots level to take responsibility for the care of resources that
our society has relegated to the professional elite” (Mollison, 1990, pg. xi; Conrad, 2013). The
idea of grassroots and participatory development cannot be claimed as unique to

of 30
permaculture, but it does differ in that agricultural knowledge and practice are led by farmers
themselves, rather than merely encouraged by an outside organisation working on the
ground. Placing the expertise in the hands of farmers themselves creates a new questions
about the dynamics and politics of issues relating to capacity-building and capabilities in
development; these too will be expanded on in section 3.2.
Ferguson and Lovell specifically identify the need for “livelihood-based research… investigating
the diversity of benefits and motivations for permaculture producers” in order to begin
engaging permaculture with more mainstream development scholarship and practice
(Ferguson & Lovell, 2014, pg. 270). From what has been outlined so far it is clear to see that
permaculture has much to offer towards sustainable livelihoods aims to be “people-centred,
responsive and participatory, dynamic and sustainable” (Serrat, 2008, pg. 1).
2.5 Why has permaculture been marginalised in development?
So if there are clear overlaps in the issues that permaculture, sustainable livelihoods and rural
development attempt to address, why is it that permaculture has so far been largely
marginalised from mainstream development?
One reason is that the way in which permaculture is taught and interpreted – as a design
system, and experimentation through experience – makes more difficult to disseminate and
recreate than a straightforward model; it does not have one simple, concise definition, and it
might take many hours of study to fully understand how to effectively implement it (Ferguson
& Lovell, 2014). It faces a similar paradox to that of the landscapes approach, in that its
strength is in the management of the system’s complexity, but this complexity also limits the
movements’ ability to spread. While permaculture is essentially a community-based and
grassroots movement, in not engaging with scales beyond this it is constrained in its scope for
influence and ‘visibility’ (Conrad, 2013).
There is certainly, as Holmgren suggests, “a perception of lack of intellectual rigour, and the
populist image of permaculture, [which] has continued to inhibit the concept being taken
seriously in academia” (Holmgren, 2002, pg. xxiii; Ferguson & Lovell, 2014). This may partly be
because of connotations of spiritualism and communalism associated with the ethical
principles of ‘earth care’ and ‘people care’, which has tended to make permaculture more
appealing to alternative social networks, and considered as a ‘pseudo-‘ or ‘folk’ science
(Ferguson & Lovell, 2014; Holmgren, 2002). Indeed, “many who are involved in large-scale
agriculture and land-use policy [have seen] it as theoretical, utopian and impractical because it
was difficult to apply within the prevailing social, market and policy environment.” (Holmgren,
2002, pg. xxii). This aspect however is more a derived interpretation than rooted in
permaculture theory, and so should not compromise the conceptual strength of its original
theory in its application outside of an ‘alternative’ context (Suh, 2014). Other reasons for lack
of scientific interest have been attributed to its lack of funding, lack of rigorous and
comparative empirical study, and in the context of development literature, a lack of attention
to developing country contexts, despite the spread of permaculture centres across the Global

of 30
South (Pyhälä, 2013; Ferguson & Lovell, 2014; Conrad, 2013; Worldwide Permaculture
Network, 2015).
2.6 Contribution to understandings of sustainable livelihoods
Development strategies for smallholder development face the challenge that “the economic
realities confronting rural people are shaped by a range of factors which, while typically having
global origins, play out in very different ways in different local contexts” (Heinemann, 2014, pg.
393). Permaculture offers a way to begin to address these dynamic and locally-specific
impacts, something which is essential for sustainable livelihoods, economically and
environmentally (Heinemann, 2014; Chambers & Conway, 1992).
Its use of locally-specific knowledge and systems thinking for being ‘enlightening’ and
‘empowering’ for the farmer fits within contemporary debates about capacity-building and the
ethics of development (Holmgren, 2002; Mollison & Holmgren, 1978). A complex and
responsive design system also indicates its relevance to livelihood strategies in the context of
vulnerability and adaptation to external pressures and shocks (Scoones, 1998; Heinemann,
2014). Furthermore, these two interdependent issues are linked through permaculture’s
unique approach, in its potential for long-term sustainable resource management and
developmental change.
The following section will explore the extent to which permaculture can provide useful
contributions to sustainable rural livelihoods and development in relation to specific
challenges, and go beyond existing literature to fully engage permaculture theory with themes
in development.

of 30
3. Theoretical linkages between permaculture and sustainable livelihoods
3.1 Environmental and livelihood sustainability
Chambers and Conway argue that two types of sustainability are necessary to ensure
sustainable livelihoods: environmental sustainability and social sustainability (Chambers &
Conway, 1992). The importance of both of these aspects within agriculture and development
has arguably never been more apparent that in the limitations and failings of the Green
Revolution, when ecologically unsustainable intensification and dependence on external
(technical and physical) inputs essentially undermined the movement’s ability to be sustained
into the future (Whiteside, 1998; Conway & Barbier, 1990). Permaculture’s principles to
maximise, recycle and store a farm or garden’s energy and resources indicates that it might
hold some clues as to ensure its ‘permanent’ sustainability, while the emphasis on integrated
management of biodiversity claims to produce yields which at least equal that of monoculture
(Mollison & Holmgren, 1978). However, a more in-depth analysis of the scope and limitations
are needed to determine how applicable these principles are within the context of rural
development, before claiming permaculture as a ‘win-win’ solution for sustainable livelihoods.
3.1.1 Agricultural intensification and ecological sustainability
Although much of the literature around permaculture principles and frameworks for practice
argues that effective, efficient and environment-appropriate management of resources
promises greater overall yields from land, it is difficult to fully trust this in absence of solid
scientific data and studies. Mollison and Holmgren’s theorise that “a complex permaculture
can maximise use of all available resources and so increase total yield” (Mollison & Holmgren,
1978, pg. 7), such as through companion planting, and argue that using ‘strategies of least
change’ between ecosystem component interactions reduces the energy needed for the
component to exist and more energy is put into its productivity (Mollison, 1990, pg. 42;
Peeters, 2012; Odum, 1994). Without empirical, scientific studies to verify this it is difficult to
have a definite opinion, but if this is the case it would suggest that careful planning of a
permaculture system would both minimise the energy input needed by the producer, and
create an intensive but sustainable yield.
It is also important to note that:
“Yields/unit area from any particular species are likely to be lower in a
permaculture ecosystem than in a monoculture. However, the sum of yields from a
permaculture will be greater, simply because a single-species system can never use
all available energy and nutrients.” (Mollison & Holmgren, 1978, pg. 7)
This would also have implications for sustainable livelihoods, in terms of the ability of farmers
to engage with markets to sell produce; a shift away from an emphasis on monoculture might
undermine a household’s means of an income, immediately and in the long-term. On the
contrary, for subsistence farmers the availability of more diverse produce could offer potential

of 30
for more nutritious diets, a problem identified in many developing countries to impact a
person’s physical capacity to work and their long-term cognitive ability (See Banerjee & Duflo,
2011 on nutrition-based poverty trap; Mollison & Holmgren, 1978). In households largely
dependent on staple crops for food, “garden diversity can mean the difference between bare
survival and well-being” (Holmgren, 2002, pg. 213), so having access to a more diverse quality
of food determines both the assets of the farmer or household and, potentially, their
capabilities.
However, it is much easier to debate about improvements to yields from a particular
agricultural practice than to enable them on the ground, as lessons from the Green Revolution
have shown us. Permaculture’s aims for the improvement of biodiversity quality and density,
through an interdependent management of components and their functions, could contribute
to carbon- as well as soil- fixing, with benefits for the environment and agricultural output
(Peeters, 2012; Pretty, 2002). On the other hand, while projects such as Greening the Desert
(Permaculturenews.org, 2009), and the Loess Plateau Watershed Rehabilitation Project
(Permaculturenews.org, 2012) suggest that integrated management of resources has great
potential to reverse soil erosion and exhaustion, it is also important to recognise that “in drier
areas… it seems unlikely that rainfed crop agriculture along can provide a viable route out of
poverty” (Whiteside, 1998, pg. 14), and “[the] soil, climate, hydrology… means that the
possibilities for irrigation are less” (Wiggins, 2009, pg. 2).
There is also the question of whether the provision of sustainable rural livelihoods through the
practice of permaculture can afford to wait as long as is necessary to see real results.
Generating a complex and self-sustaining permaculture system is understandably described as
‘slow’ and ‘evolutionary’, and as Mollison and Holmgren warn, it can take 30 years to achieve
a maximum yield (Mollison & Holmgren, 1978; Holmgren, 2002; Whiteside, 1998). Projects
have been known to function well in much shorter-time frames, and this is not to say that
there would be no useful output in the more short-term. However, where livelihoods of the
most poor and vulnerable depend on the sale of produce, a transition to a different system
may be perceived as too risky for farmers with few assets to fall back on (Pretty, 2002).
Therefore, determining whether permaculture is able to overcome difficulties of immediate
output and long-term regeneration when applied, like with improved yields, requires more
practical scientific study.
3.1.2 Resilience, risk and vulnerability
In addition to creating output which can be sustained, a crucial aspect of the creation of
sustainable livelihoods is the ability to “cope with and recover from stresses and shocks”
(Chambers & Conway, 1992, pg. 7), a factor which is especially relevant considering the
impacts of climate change, predicted to hit the world’s poorest and more vulnerable hardest
(Field et al, 2014). It is becoming increasingly clear that agriculture in developing countries
must diversify, intensify and become climate-resilient in order to preserve and improve the
livelihoods of these people, both in terms of environmental and livelihood sustainability
(Scherr & McNeely, 2008; Chambers & Conway, 1992; Heinemann, 2014). The last of David

of 30
Holmgren’s permaculture principles is to ‘creatively use and respond to change’, and
promotes practice of both environmental and livelihood reflexivity and resilience for
successful implementation (Holmgren, 2002).
Firstly, the diversity of components within a permaculture project would provide a ‘buffer’ in
the case of external environmental impacts in that the loss of one crop might not be
detrimental to the total farm output, so the ecosystem is more likely to adapt to new
conditions (even if not all species survive), and the farmer will still have some produce to sell
or live off (Mollison & Holmgren, 1978; Holmgren, 2002; Heinemann, 2014). Therefore “any
change will affect some species and the system will be deflected, but the basis for a productive
permaculture will remain.” (Mollison & Holmgren, 1978, pg 7), supporting Chambers and
Conway’s suggestion for ‘intensified highly diverse gardening’ (Chambers & Conway, 1992, pg.
16).
Secondly, permaculture’s emphasis for the farmer to ‘observe and interact’ with the
environment places more capacity for responsive change in their hands, and become more
self-reliant (Conrad, 2013; Holmgren, 2002). Just as Scoones suggests that “people’s initiative
and local knowledge enhances resilience to shock and stresses” (Scoones, 2009, pg. 189), using
the experiential knowledge of farmers to make the most effective, context-specific decisions in
the event of crisis, rather than creating a dependence on external agricultural advice from
experts, such as approaches like the Green Revolution, and, to an extent, the Landscapes
Approach) (Heinemann, 2014; Milder et al, 2014). While the idea of the farmer having ‘more
power and knowledge’ to adapt to external pressures may seem limited in itself in response to
severe climatic events, if coupled with other strategies such as species diversity and the
management of the microenvironment, it could provide synergistic benefits for livelihood
resilience.
3.2 Development of capabilities
The sustainable livelihoods approach has clear influences from Amartya Sen’s capabilities
approach, drawing from several of the ‘Human Development’ themes including assets,
vulnerability and ‘development as freedom’ (Chambers & Conway, 1992; Scoones, 1998; Sen,
1989). Central to this is the idea that poverty and vulnerability stem from a lack of
‘capabilities’, which can be defined as the ability to use resources (in a physical, economic,
social sense) for the achievement of some form of utility e.g. as a means for livelihood (Clark,
2005; Sen, 1999).
Following on from ideas around local farmer knowledge to enhance livelihood resilience and
sustainability (Section 3.1.2), development practice over the last couple of decades has begun
to focus more on the need to “assist poor rural people to develop the skills, the knowledge and
the organisation that they need to take advantage of [opportunities]” (Heinemann, 2014, pg.
394). The use of observation, experience and interaction of the successful permaculturalist
therefore offers an alternative to many approaches for rural development in using local

of 30
farmers’ knowledge and skills as a starting point for ‘doing development’, as opposed to an
objective integrated later on (Holmgren, 2002; Mollison, 1990).
3.2.1 Permaculture for agency and empowerment
Aili Pyhälä argues that “the [permaculture] approach is one that allows people and
communities to define and design a path of sustainable living appropriate to their own
environments, contexts, and worldviews” (Pyhälä, 2008, pg. 207); with increasing
acknowledgement over the last couple of decades within development that “farmers are
experimenters and innovators in their own right” (Conway & Barbier, 1990, pg. 130), shown in
the rise in popularity of participatory development, the crucial role of the farmer’s context-
specific knowledge fits well with future directions in the field. The fact that experimentation
and adaptation of agricultural methods has been done by farmers as a natural response for
survival makes them well-placed to continue doing so in the face of predicted environmental
change (Conway & Barbier, 1990; DFID, 2002). As Heinemann suggests that “while many
organisations have problems of governance, management, or representation, they usually
represent the interest of poor rural people better than any outside party can,” (Heinemann,
2014, pg. 397), being able to define themselves what is good for their well-being and
livelihood strategies within their particular context is likely to be effective for poverty
reduction (Conway & Barbier, 1990; Sen, 1999, Chambers, 1983; Mullen, 2002).
Furthermore, in that permaculture aims to recognise and include all people as components
and stakeholders of the agricultural system, it offers a way to recognise the role of all actors
within the system, even if it does not challenge existing social structures and hierarchies of the
community. For example, from personal experiences on permaculture farms the value as a
worker isn’t defined so much in terms of their social status or through economic valuation, but
through the hours, effort or skill put into a particular task. In this sense permaculture can be
seen as a form of revolutionary justice, equality or ‘reform’, where control over land
management can really be driven by the people working on it, and in recognition of the role
and efforts of each person, be that man, woman or child (Peeters, 2012).
3.2.2 Permaculture for capacity building
Skills and knowledge are important factors for the future of the farmer, in the sense that they
determine both the (environmental and economic) sustainability of their livelihood, and their
ability to improve the ‘upgrade’ it (through increased earnings or quality of livelihood).
Heinemann highlights the need for the development of individuals’ capacities to ensure a
promising future for rural development, through education in ‘technical and vocational skills’
and the empowerment of people to be able to effectively enable these (Heinemann, 2014).
Much literature on capabilities has argued for capabilities to be dynamic in response to the
dynamism of livelihood opportunities (Bunch, 1985; Chambers & Conway, 1992, Murray,
2002); permaculture holds particular advantage in this respect in being ‘responsive to the
environment’ through observation and interaction with the landscape, through its framing of
the landscape as a ‘textbook’ which can be examined with various approaches (Mollison,

of 30
1990; Holmgren, 2002). An example of this could be Holmgren’s description of weeds – rather
than them being a problem, the weed can indicate to the farmer the environmental condition
of their land, and therefore possibilities for management changes, or the weed can be valued
as a resource in itself, for various reasons of utility (Holmgren, 2002).
Permaculture encourages learning from and imitating nature in order to create managed
ecosystems which are as close as possible to natural processes of sustainability, which is
dependent on the direct and prolonged engagement of the farmer with the observation and
experimentation (Mollison, 1990; Holmgren, 2002; Peeters, 2012). In a “generation of
‘landscape illiteracy’… [when] fewer and fewer people can read the landscape about them for
indications of its health and… wealth” (Mollison, 1990, pg. xi, quoting Orr, 1992), the return of
management strategies to more rudimentary types of observation (which many farmers in
developing countries often already employ out of necessity) actively contradicts Harvey’s
argument that a ‘de-skilling of the worker’ occurs with the advancement of means of
production (Harvey, 2006). Such practice has been argued to be an important part of building
capacities for rural communities to have more control, power and knowledge over their own
livelihood strategies (Whiteside, 1998).
More recently these arguments have been applied to issues of environmental sustainability,
with the suggestion that local people can act as “key stewards of biodiversity conservation”
(Scherr & McNeely, 2008, pg. 490), both because they are well-placed to manage resources in-
situ, and that for many farmers effective and sustainable resource management is necessary
for their future livelihoods (DFID, 2002; Conway & Barbier). While development scholars and
practitioners call for “a place-specific understanding of potential benefits, trade-offs and limits,
anchored in both human and ecological dimensions” (Beddington et al, 2012, pg. 46),
permaculture can respond in that farmers’ or communities’ design and management of their
own resources requires people to be more “responsible and accountable for the impact[s] of
their action[s]” (Peeters, 2012, pg. 433), and recognises the value of indigenous in these
processes (Beddington et al, 2012).
This offers an interesting view on the role of professional development practitioners ‘in the
field’, and has similarities to Bill Easterly’s critique of the perceived ‘need’ for expert
knowledge in development, and the politics of who speaks for who with regards to poverty
(Easterly, 2014). Both Beddington et al and Holmgren identify the weaknesses of scientific
landscape assessments, such as Geographical Information Systems, satellites and remote
sensing, which leave room for misinterpretation of what is considered ‘viable’ land by
authorities, with impacts on land policy directly affecting the rural poor; such methods risks
underestimating “simple skills of reading the landscape”, and farmers’ abilities to make use of
degraded or marginal land (Holmgren, 2002, pg. 14; Beddington et al, 2012). On the other
hand, this should not discredit the place of experts in developing countries, as “a rosy picture
of local, adaptive coping to immediate pressures, based on local capacities and knowledge,
may miss out on long-term shifts which will, in time, undermine livelihoods in more
fundamental ways” (Scoones, 2009, pg. 189). For example, Agri Market Informational Systems
(or AMIS) have proven effective in providing farmers with market commodity prices, weather
forecasts and stock levels, allowing for appropriate adaptation by the farmer and reducing the
effects on livelihoods (Beddington et al, 2012).

of 30
3.3 Provision of assets
Perhaps the most important aspect of the sustainable livelihoods approach, particularly with
regards to environmental sustainability, is the assets of the individual or household. They meet
people’s daily needs and well-being in the form of ‘endowments’, and provide buffers in the
event of stress or shocks, either in their ‘endowment’ form, or as a means to acquiring
‘endowments’ through ‘entitlements’ (Sen, 1976). Although assets consist of ‘stores,
resources, claims and access’ (Swift, 1989), it is mainly stores and resources which are most
relevant to the strategies that permaculture employs, and so these are what the following
section focuses on.
3.3.1 Permaculture design and resource management
A central part of what makes permaculture distinctive, and what takes the most time in
learning before adopting the approach, is its project-specific design through thorough analysis
and planning of all components (physical, social and energy-related (See Section 3.1)) of the
ecosystem with all of their ‘products’, ‘needs’ and ‘characteristics’ in mind (Holmgren, 2002;
Mollison, 1990); as Peeters says, “permaculture is focused not on the individual elements
themselves, but rather on the relationships created among them by the way designers place
them in the environment” (Peeters, 2012, pg. 423). Specifically, zone and sector analysis, and
the creation of a ‘zoning’ plan for the site, offers an analytical framework through which the
farmer integrates their needs into the productivity of the land, while ensuring that, with
‘observation and regulation’, these processes can be (large self-) sustained (Mollison, 1990, p.
39). Such careful design and management can be useful for getting the most from all
components of the landscape, and therefore for an analysis of effects on livelihood
opportunities (Scoones, 1998; Pretty, 2002). It follows then that valuing and utilising natural
biodiversity is important for ecosystem resilience, not just for environmental and livelihood
sustainability in and of itself, but in the provision more immediately of more diverse assets for
the farmer (Pretty, 2002).
On the other hand, focusing on just the ecosystem of the farm can at best limit the benefits of
a permaculture approach to a restricted area, or at worst neglect to take into account the
needs and functions of wider environments, and doing so undermining the principles of
permaculture itself. Milder et al explain this well, in acknowledging that:
“While more holistic farm-level solutions are important [for agroecosystem and
livelihood resilience], they are rarely sufficient, given that key ecosystem services
underpinning human wellbeing and economic activity often function at larger
scales.” (Milder et al, 2014, pg 68)
For example, evidence from the Loess Plateau Watershed Rehabilitation Project shows that
“agricultural landscapes provide critical watershed functions” and can have serious impacts for
other resource users, regardless of whether environmental management upstream is
beneficial or not to the local catchment (Scherr & McNeely, 2008, pg. 480). Such an example is
just an illustration of the many ways in which localised ecosystem management might fail to
address or consider wider institutional, economic, environmental, infrastructural and market

of 30
issues, regardless of how well designed it is (Mullen, 2002). In this sense, there is much that
permaculture could learn from more holistic, meso-level approaches such as the landscapes
approach, in taking into account the assets and sustainability on a wider scale (See Section 4
for further discussion).
3.3.2 Maximisation of assets
One of the main strengths in permaculture’s design approach of integration and analysis of
components is its aim to maximise the utility of the assets that the land provides for the
farmer. This is not to say that effective resource management does not happen in most of
agriculture in the developing world – indeed, there are strong arguments for the case that it
does happen out of necessity (Scherr & McNeely, 2008; DFID, 2002) – but the level of attention
to energy and resource cycling in permaculture theoretically exceeds what is possible within
monocultures. (Mollison ^ Holmgren, 1978). For example, the permaculture principles
specifically aim to use renewable resources, ‘catch and store energy’ and minimise or
eliminate waste (Holmgren, 2002), in a way that “tries to reduce entropy in any given design”,
drawing from closed-circuit energy models in physics (Peeters, 2012, pg 425; Odum, 1994;
Ferguson & Lovell, 2014). This is done through the rigorous design process, in “plac[ing] the
elements of your design in ways that create useful relationships and time-saving connections
among all parts” (Hemenway, 2009, pg 6), such as zoning. Zoning places the most commonly
used components are placed nearest the home, with further away areas containing less-
frequently-used components, and gradually integrating with the natural ‘wilderness’ (See
Figure 3.1) (Ferguson & Lovell, 2014; Peeters, 2012). Designs like these offer potential to best
use valuable time, energy and resources, even if only marginally, so that the farmer can better
use these for other productive activities, such as diversification into other non-farm work
(Chambers & Conway, 1992).
Figure 3.1.: Permaculture zoning with zone definitions (Eaadamic.wordpress.com, 2013 –
adapted from Holmgren, 2002, pg xxvii, pg. 139).
NB. Examples of activities within each zone are not universal recommendations

of 30
3.3.3 Utilisation of marginal land
Interestingly, one of Holmgren’s permaculture principles is to ‘use edges and value marginal’,
something which has been identified as necessary for agriculture in many parts of the world as
both population and demand for food increases (Scherr & Mcneely, 2008). Where “lower-
productivity lands (drylands, hill-sides and rainforests) now account for more than two-thirds
of total agricultural land in developing countries” (Nelson et al, 1997, pg 479) a diversity of
landscapes as well as agricultural outputs will be needed to ensure livelihoods for the future of
rural developing country areas (Scherr & Mcneely, 2008). In addition to this, those most
dependent on the productivity of marginal lands are, more often than not, some of the most
vulnerable smallholder producers (Practical Action, 2005; Scherr & McNeely, 2008).
Permaculture challenges the assumption that marginal land is of less value, in using the unique
characteristics of marginal areas and adapting farming techniques to areas that might not
usually be considered ‘viable’, such as marshland, forests, steep or rocky land (Mollison &
Holmgren, 1978; Holmgren, 2002). In embracing and working with the natural ecosystems
rather than attempting to change them, permaculture draws from the idea that “wilderness is
a key to how nature on earth has sustained itself over time” (Peeters, 2012, pg. 424), but it can
also be managed in a way to integrate human needs and resource requirements, just as wild
foods continue to be important for many rural communities’ food supply (Holmgren, 2002;
Scherr & McNeely, 2008). Furthermore, Mollison & Holmgren discuss the benefits of greater
biodiversity in marginal areas – the ‘edge effect’ – which can be used for the advantage of
even more complex permaculture systems (Mollison & Holmgren, 1978); the extent to which
this is practicable, however, remains unclear without specific scientific research. Similarly,
Chambers and Conway argue that “degraded resource quite often present immense livelihood
potential” (Chambers & Conway, 1992, pg 16), and with permaculture’s potential to
regenerate, not just sustain, productivity of land, suggests that such approaches could provide
opportunity for rural farmers, particularly those with insecure access to land (See section
3.3.4).
3.3.4 Land tenure and the non-farm economy
One fundamental constraint of permaculture in the context of rural livelihoods in developing
countries is that its approaches centre on the farm, and therefore assumes a certain level of
control or ownership over the land it talks about. This is not unexpected, especially
considering that it originates from western countries where land right are clearer and issues
less common, but it is important to factor this into attempting to apply theory to a diversity of
developing country contexts. While ideas around agency of the farmer, capacity building,
provision of variety and quantity of food, and making use of otherwise marginal land provide
scope for the improvement of livelihood strategies for the rural poor, a focus on these issues
which exclude those without (much or any) land may only serve to exaggerate existing
inequalities within rural communities (Wiggins, 2009). Like Mosse’s study of the culture and
practice of access to communal water tanks in Tamil Nadu, India, development strategies
should be aware of how local power structures impact opportunities for livelihood
improvement (Mosse, 1997).

of 30
The next step for applying permaculture, then, is to address how it interacts with the non-farm
economy, both in terms of provision of work for the landless poor by land owners, and
provision of non-farm livelihoods, to prevent a widening of inequalities within rural
communities and encourage the spread of effects from potentially successful permaculture
projects (Wiggins, 2009). It should also take care, particularly given its origins in a western,
middle-class interest (rather than as a necessary response to poverty or crisis), that it does not
assume that all rural poor wish to be, or remain, farmers, but rather for many it is a necessary
economic reality that they have been born into.

of 30
4. Mainstreaming permaculture and policy challenges
So, what potential does permaculture have to become ‘mainstreamed’ within development,
and what issues need to be addressed for it to do so?
Firstly, while some of permaculture’s strength is in its hands-on and experiential approach to
agriculture, which are driven by the needs of those planning and managing their resources, if
permaculture is to be taken seriously as a discipline it requires more scientific evidence, rather
than theory, that it can offer more efficient and effective agricultural methods (Ferguson &
Lovell, 2014; Beddington et al, 2012). It does not yet incorporate more formal types of
monitoring and evaluation which are important for it to be compatible with processes in
mainstream development practice, and its reservations towards valuing such an approach
above the expertise of the permaculturalist poses problems in doing so. On the other hand,
collaboration between academic institutions and permaculture centres are not unheard of,
such as the Fambidzanai Permaculture Centre in Zimbabwe (Matarirano, 1999); furthermore,
if this issue were to be solved, permaculture’s extensive global networks, supported by
‘decades of experimentation [and expertise]’, and the sense of community which encourages
much sharing of knowledge, indicate that there is already a solid base for future work (Veteto
& Lockyer, 2008; Pyhälä, 2008; Scherr & McNeely, 2008).
Secondly, permaculture’s complexity, need for attention to detail, and time required to see
progress demand a degree of commitment which may be easier to find when adopted out of
choice than when suggested (Mollison & Holmgren, 1978). As benefits from a shift to
permaculture might not be immediate small-scale farmers are may need support and/or
incentive in initial years, to both encourage and maintain their commitment (Milder et al,
2014). However, the Soil Association’s report on Organic Agriculture and Sustainable Rural
Livelihoods in Developing Countries suggests that farmers are more likely to adopt a particular
farming technique (in their context organic farming) when “the concept is developed with or by
them”, so permaculture’s emphasis on being participatory and grass-roots may prove to its
advantage (Soil Association, 1998, pg. v).
Thirdly, Scherr and McNeely argue that “technical and local organisational opportunities and
initiatives for ecoagriculture are unlikely to be successful unless major policy barriers are
removed, and supportive policies developed”, which applies to permaculture as a branch of
ecoagriculture (Scherr and McNeely, 2008, pg. 490). The influence of outside factors from a
variety of scales on local livelihood opportunities has been acknowledged as a crucial
limitation to the sustainable livelihoods approach itself, and, more recently, community-based
natural resource management (Scoones, 2009; Heinemann, 2014; Wiggins, 2009; Dodman &
Mitlin, 2013). Without engaging with issues such as institutions, politics, markets and broader
environmental problems (such as those looked at in section 3.3.1), permaculture faces being
undermined by its own inward-looking approach, and reproducing vulnerabilities that it has
potential to mitigate (Scoones, 2009).
In particular, an examination of links between households or communities and markets is
important for sustainable rural livelihoods, in that any monetary income will depend on this,

of 30
and therefore, indirectly, other assets and opportunities (Chambers & Conway, 1992; Scoones,
1998; Bright & Seville, 2010). Beyond subsistence farming and consumption this is essential for
the economic sustainability of livelihoods, and the quality of connection with markets
becomes as important as the quantity and quality of produce from the farm; even for
subsistence farmers this connection is important in determining future possibilities for
livelihood diversification (Dorward, 2009; Heinemann, 2014; Wiggins, 2009). As recent growth
in demand for organic produce has enabled some developing country farmers to move up the
value chain, increasing awareness of the environmental sustainability in food production may
offer a way for permaculture, with its ethic of ‘permanent sustainability’, to do the same
(Mollison & Holmgren, 1978).
Also, although the inclusion of local and indigenous knowledge should arguably be considered
in any place-specific development project, “it may also run the risk of depoliticizing aspects of
agroecological transition that are fundamentally political, and trivializing the complexity of
socioecological processes and struggles.” (Ferguson & Lovell, 2014, pg. 269). This is especially
apparent in the context of the impacts of climate change on the rural poor, as a locally-
focused approach cannot claim to be a ‘silver bullet’ for the complexity of environmental
problems arising in these areas (Dodman & Mitlin, 2013; Burton, 2008). Rather than giving up
hope, however, that such local projects can make a difference for poverty and the
environment, Allen suggests that if done alongside “wider processes of disaster prevention,
sustainable development planning and institution-building, rather than as stand-alone local
projects concentrating on short-term disaster preparedness goals” there is much potential for
holistic and meaningful change (Allen, 2006, pg. 82).
Lastly, if permaculture is really to be considered as having useful contributions towards an
approach for sustainable rural development, it must begin to challenge what it means by rural
development itself. As much of its scholarship and practice remains among western
enthusiasts, it must be careful not to make assumptions about the reasons for agriculture as a
livelihood in rural areas of developing countries; the reality is that not all poor farmers may
wish to be farmers, and that much of ‘development’ may come, necessarily, out of some
degree of industrialisation or urbanisation. Farmers may not wish to continue in a low-paid,
under-mechanised form of agriculture, as much as it might appeal to environmentalists in
western countries, and evidence indicates that a rise in productivity and development does
have links to more technical and infrastructurally-connected areas (Wiggins, 2009; Mullen,
2002). As Heinemann argues:
“While many of the poorest households are by necessity ‘subsistence-oriented’
farmers, there are also many less poor households that choose to remain so –
producing enough for their needs, but preferring to invest their surplus capital and
labour in non-agricultural activities” (Heinemann, 2014, pg. 393)
This reflects Scoones’ critique of the sustainable livelihoods approach, saying that it had
“failed to grapple with debates about long-term shift in rural economies and wider questions
about agrarian change” (Scoones, 2009, pg. 182), a trap that permaculture, if it is to be at all
‘mainstreamed’, should try to avoid falling in.

of 30
5. Conclusion
This dissertation aimed to respond to the need for “livelihood-based research…to investigate
the diversity of benefits and motivations for permaculture producers” with regards to
sustainable rural development (Ferguson & Lovell, 2014, pg. 270).
It has shown that permaculture offers much potential for understanding and addressing issues
of environmental resilience, livelihood vulnerability, capacity building, agency, and efficient
utilisation and management of assets, which together promise many benefits for the
sustainability of both environmental and developmental futures. Heinemann suggests that
growth for the rural poor needs to “reduce the risk that poor rural people face in allocating
resources to any single activity rather than a diversified range of activities, and assist them to
manage the diverse risks they face more effectively, so as to avoid falling deeper into poverty”,
and permaculture has useful tools, to support this kind of growth (Heinemann, 2014, pg. 394).
This is especially the case for poor rural smallholders, for whom the diversity of outputs and
ability to maximise assets through a permaculture system could have multiple gains for health,
livelihood opportunity and resilience to environmental stresses or shocks, and reduce their
insecurity through dependence on external markets. Similarly, the adoption of organic
agriculture in developing countries was observed to be much more likely by those with lower
inputs, productivity and mechanised capacity, and permaculture promises much greater
change to these types of farms than established, high-input, high-output or large-scale
agricultural systems (Soil Association, 1998).
However, it is limited, like other similar approaches such as community-based natural resource
management and to some extent the sustainable livelihoods approach, in the scale of its
physical and conceptual approach to sufficiently engage with problems outside of the
immediate farm or community (Dodman & Mitlin 2013; Scoones, 2009). As livelihood
“opportunities – and barriers to achieving them – are shaped by global, national, and local
factors”, permaculture’s focus on context-specific resource management, without supporting
policies and strategies, fail to address the root cause of many of the vulnerabilities felt by the
rural poor in the first place. This is not to say that there is no value or hope in pursuing its
integration into development thinking, but just that it cannot be expected to eradicate all
barriers for sustainable livelihoods and development single-handedly, just as other approaches
cannot and have not either.
Another critique is that one could argue that, in many ways, the aspects that permaculture
uses for agricultural development may offer nothing new to the way that farmers in rural
areas of developing countries have been ‘doing’ farming for generations. Its emphasis on
effective resource management, energy cycling, observation, and responsive adaptation to the
local environment may be processes that farmers naturally employ in order to make the most
of their land. However, as permaculture is distinctive as a holistic approach, and in recognising
these basic but important activities for land management it recognises the capabilities of
farmers which sometimes risk being undervalued or ignored in other development
approaches.

of 30
In placing local or indigenous knowledge and participatory development at the centre of what
drives permaculture, it opens up the possibility to transform its meaning and purpose for
those involved in it, and to “assist poor rural people to develop the skills, the knowledge and
the organisation that they need to take advantage of [livelihood opportunities]” (Heinemann,
2014, pg. 394). Despite originating in Australia, and still having a largely ‘western, middle-class’
demographic, the establishment of an increasing number of permaculture centres in many
developing countries provides the area with new challenges of identity and direction. Work is
therefore needed to get outside of this western permaculture bubble if it is to seriously
interact with the everyday lives of real people in developing countries, and not just the lives of
people living in ‘permaculture islands’ surrounding centres; from there it would be possible to
observe and experiment with the real interactions of a permaculture farm or community with
wider markets and society. Therefore the next step for research should focus on the impact
and lessons from permaculture on rural livelihoods through conducting grass-roots surveys
and ethnographies with the people which this research risks speaking for, rather than on
behalf of.
Finally, permaculture’s lack of rigorous and extended scientific study with regards to its
relative outputs and environmental sustainability is a crucial barrier to its being taken more
seriously within academia and practice (Ferguson & Lovell, 2014; Conrad, 2013). It suffers from
a cyclical relationship between its regard in academic, scientific and policy-making arenas, in
that lack of scientific study limits its scope for influence, while its lack of influence reduces the
incentive for permaculture to be examined in greater scientific depth. Although it can be
argued that its “distinctive approaches to perennial polyculture, water management, and the
importance of agroecosystem configuration exceed what is documented in the scientific
literature” (Ferguson & Lovell, 2014), and this dissertation has shown its conceptual scope
within development and sustainable livelihoods at the grassroots, it requires more convincing
evidence to further its theory.

of 30
Bibliography
Allen, K. M. (2006). ‘Community‐based disaster preparedness and climate adaptation: local
capacity‐building in the Philippines’. Disasters, 30(1), 81-101.
Banerjee, A. V., and Duflo, E. (2011) ‘A billion hungry people?’, in Poor Economics, Penguin,
London, pp. 19 – 41.
Beddington, J., Asaduzzaman, M., Fernandez, A., Clark, M., Guillou, M., Jahn, M., Erda, L.,
Mamo, T., Van Bo, N., Nobre, C.A., Scholes, R., Sharma, R. & Wakhungu, J. (2012). Achieving
food security in the face of climate change: Final report from the Commission on
Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change, Research Program on Climate Change,
Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), CGIAR.
Bossio, D., Noble, A., Pretty, J. & Penning de Vries, F. (2004), ‘Reversing land and water
degradation: trends and ‘bright spot’ opportunities.’ Paper presented at the SIWI/CA
Seminar, Stockholm, Sweden, 21 August 2004. Battaramulla, Sri Lanka: International Water
Management Institute.
Bright, D., & Seville, D. (2010). ‘Think Big Go Small: Adapting business models to incorporate
smallholders into supply chains.’ Oxfam Policy and Practice: Private Sector, 7(1), 21-40.
Bunch, R. (1985), ‘Two ears of com: a guide to people-centred agricultural improvement’,
World Neighbours, 5116 North Portland, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73112
Burton I. (2008). Beyond borders: the need for strategic global adaptation. International
Institute for Environment and Development – Sustainable Development Opinion. Available
at: http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdfs/17046IIED.pdf.
Chambers, R. (1983). Rural development: putting the last first. London: Longman.
Chambers, R. & Conway, G. (1992). Sustainable rural livelihoods: practical concepts for the 21st
century. UK: Institute of Development Studies.
Clark, D. A. (2005). The Capability Approach: Its Development, Critiques and Recent Advances.
Conrad, A. (2013), ‘The benefits of alternative farming methods’, The Guardian, Available at:
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-
network/2013/apr/23/farming-methods-agroecology-permaculture Accessed 20/08/2015
Conway, G. & Barbier, E. (1990). ‘Farms & Livelihoods’ in After the green revolution:
sustainable agriculture for development. London: Earthscan.
DFID, (2002). Eliminating Hunger: DFID Food Security Strategy and Priorities for Action.
Department for International Development. HMSO, London
Dodman, D., & Mitlin, D. (2013). ‘Challenges for community‐based adaptation: discovering the
potential for transformation’. Journal of International Development, 25(5), 640-659.
Dorward, A, (2009), ‘Integrating contested aspirations, processes and policy: development as
hanging in, stepping up and stepping out’, Development Policy Review, 27(2), 131–146
Eaadamic.wordpress.com, (2013), Permaculture zoning diagram, Available at:
https://eaadamic.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/permaculture.jpg Accessed on 20/08/2015
Easterly, W. (2014). The tyranny of experts: Economists, dictators, and the forgotten rights of
the poor. New York: Basic Books.
FAO, (2010), ‘Chapter 2. The state of in-situ management’, The Second Report on the State of
the World’s PGRFA (The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture), Food and Agriculture Organisation.

of 30
FAO, (2012), Smallholders and Family Farmers: Factsheet, Available at:
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/nr/sustainability_pathways/docs/Factsheet_SMA
LLHOLDERS.pdf Accessed on: 24/08/2015
Ferguson, R. S., & Lovell, S. T. (2014). ‘Permaculture for agroecology: design, movement,
practice, and worldview. A review.’ Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 34(2), 251-274
Field, C. B., Barros, V. R., Mastrandrea, M. D., Mach, K. J., Abdrabo, M. A. K., Adger, N.,
Anokhin, Y. A., Anisimov, O. A., Arent, D. J., Barnett, J., Burkett, V., Cai, R., Chatterjee, M.,
Cohen, S., Cramer, W., Dasgupta, P., Davidson, D. J., Denton, F., Döll, P., Dow, K., Hijioka, Y.,
Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Jones, R. G., Joner, R. N., Kitching, R. L., Kovats, R. S., Larsen, J. N., Lin,
E., Lobell, D. B., Losada, I. J., Magrin, G. O., Marengo, J. A., Markandya, A., McCarl, B. A.,
McLean, R. F., Mearns, L. O., Midgley, G. F., Mimura, N., Morton, J. F., Niang, I., Noble, I. R.,
Nurse, L. A., O'Brien, K., Oki, T., Olsson, L., Oppenheimer, M., Overpeck, J. T., Pereira, J. J.,
Poloczanska, E. S., Porter, J. R., Pörtner, H. O., Prather, M. J., Pulwarty, R., Reisinger, A.,
Revi, A., Romero-Lankao, P., Ruppel, O. C., Satterthwaite, D. E., Schmidt, D. N., Settele, J.,
Smith, K. R., Stone, D. A., Suarez, A. G., Tschakert, P., Valentini, R., Villamizar, A., Warren,
R., Wilbanks, T. J., Wong, P. P., Woodward, A. and Yohe, G. W. (2014), Summary for
Policymakers, Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution
of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, Cambridge University
Press.
Fisher, R. (2005). Poverty and conservation: landscapes people and power (No. 2). IUCN.
Harvey, D. (2006), The limits to capital, London: Verso.
Heinemann, E. (2014), ‘The changing rural world and livelihood options for resource-poor rural
people’, in Hazell, P. B., & Rahman, A. (eds.) New directions for smallholder agriculture.
Oxford University Press.
Hemenway T (2009) Gaia's garden: a guide to home-scale permaculture, 2nd edn. Chelsea
Green, White River Junction
Holmgren, D. (2002). Principles & pathways beyond sustainability. Holmgren Design Services,
Hepburn.
IFAD, (1992) The State of World Rural Poverty, London: IT.
IFAD, (2011). Rural poverty report 2011. International Fund for Agricultural Development.
IFAD, (2013). Smallholders, food security and the environment. Rome: International Fund for
Agricultural Development.
Irz, X., Lin L., Thirtle, C & Wiggins, S., (2001), ‘Agricultural Growth and Poverty Alleviation’,
Development Policy Review, 19 (4), 449–466MA, 2005
Landscapes.org, (2015), http://www.landscapes.org/drawing-role-playing-and-3d-maps-how-
a-landscape-approach-can-work-on-the-
ground/#.UiGEyBbJAlI?&utm_source=CIFOR+Blog&utm_medium=Further+reading&utm_ca
mpaign=Blog+feature
Landscapes.org, (2015), http://www.landscapes.org/learning-landscapes-work-better-
livelihoods-ecosystems/
Matarirano, L. C. (1999), ‘Fambidzanai Permaculture Centre: Training for Ecologically Sound
Agriculture in Zimbabwe’, in J F Devlin, J. F. & Zettel, T. (eds), Ecoagriculture: Initiatives in
Eastern and Southern Africa. Weaver Press: Harare. pp. 297-302

of 30
Milder, J. C., Hart, A. K., Dobie, P., Minai, J., & Zaleski, C. (2014). ‘Integrated landscape
initiatives for African agriculture, development, and conservation: a region-wide
assessment’. World Development, 54, 68-80.
Mollison, B. (1990). Permaculture: a practical guide for a sustainable future.
Mollison, B. & Holmgren, D. (1978). Permaculture one: A perennial agriculture system for
human settlements. Morebank, NSW Australia: Transworld Publications.
Mosse, D. (1997). ‘The symbolic making of a common property resource: history, ecology and
locality in a tank‐irrigated landscape in south India’. Development and change, 28(3), 467-
504.
Mullen, J. (2002), ‘Rural poverty’ in Desai, V., & Potter, R. B. (eds.) The companion to
development studies. Routledge. pp. 147--150
Murray, C. (2002), ’Rural livelihoods’ Desai, V., & Potter, R. B. (eds.) The companion to
development studies. Routledge. pp. 151-154
Nelson, M., Dudal, R., Gregersen, H., Jodha,N., Nyamia,D., Groenwald, J.-P., Torres, F. &
Kassam, A. (1997) Report of the studies of CGIAR research priorities for marginal lands.
Rome, Italy: Technical Advisory Committee, Consultative Group on International Research
& FAO.
Odum, H. T. (1994). Ecological and general systems: an introduction to systems ecology.
University Press of Colorado.
Orr, D. (1992). Ecological literacy. Thinking about the environment: Readings on politics,
property and the physical world, 227-234.
Peeters, B. (2012). ‘Permaculture as Alternative Agriculture.’ Kasarinlan: Philippine Journal of
Third World Studies, 26(1-2), pp 422-434
Permaculturenews.org, (2009), Greening the desert project outcomes profiled. Available at:
http://permaculturenews.org/2009/01/29/greening-the-desert-project-outcomes-profiled/
Accessed 20/08/2015
Permaculturenews.org, (2012), Finding sustainability in ecosystem restoration. Available at:
http://permaculturenews.org/2012/11/17/finding-sustainability-in-ecosystem-restoration/
Accessed 20/08/2015
Practical Action, (2005), The crisis in African agriculture: A more effective role for EC aid?, UK:
Practical Action.
Pretty, J. (2002), ‘Regenerating agriculture’ in Desai, V., & Potter, R. B. (eds.) The companion to
development studies. Routledge. pp. 170-174
Pyhälä, A. (2013) ‘In search of global sustainability and justice: how permaculture can
contribute to development policy’ in Lockyer, J. and Veteto, J. (eds.). Environmental
Anthropology Engaging Ecotopia: Bioregionalism, Permaculture, and Ecovillages. Oxford:
Berghahn Books.
Reed, J., Deakin, L., & Sunderland, T. (2014). ‘What are ‘Integrated Landscape Approaches’ and
how effectively have they been implemented in the tropics: a systematic map protocol.’
Environmental Evidence, 4(2).
Sayer, J., Sunderland, T., Ghazoul, J., Pfund, J. L., Sheil, D., Meijaard, E., Venter, M.,
Boedhihartono, A. K., Day, M., Garda, C., van Oosten, C. & Buck, L. E. (2013). ‘Ten principles
for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing
land uses.’ Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 110(21), 8349-8356.

of 30
Scherr, S. J., & McNeely, J. A. (2008). ‘Biodiversity conservation and agricultural sustainability:
towards a new paradigm of ‘ecoagriculture’ landscapes.’ Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 363(1491), 477-494.
Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis. UK: Institute of
Development Studies.
Scoones, I. (2009). ‘Livelihoods perspectives and rural development.’ The Journal of Peasant
Studies, 36(1), 171-196.
Sen, A. (1976). ‘Poverty: an ordinal approach to measurement’. Econometrica: Journal of the
Econometric Society, 219-231.
Sen, A. (1989). "Development as capability expansion". Journal of Development Planning, 19
(1): 41–58.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.
Serrat, O. (2012). The Sustainable Livelihood Approach. Asian Development Bank, Knowledge
Solutions. Asian Development Bank: Manila.
Suh, J. (2014). ‘Towards sustainable agricultural stewardship: Evolution and future directions
of the permaculture concept.’ Environmental Values, 23(1), 75-98.
Sunderland, T. (2014), ‘Landscape approach’ defies simple definition – and that’s good’,
CIFOR.org, Available at: http://blog.cifor.org/23834/landscape-approach-defies-simple-
definition-and-thats-good#.VdsnSvlViko Accessed 20/08/2015
Swift, J. (1989). Why are rural people vulnerable to famine?. IDS bulletin, 20(2), 8-15.
United Nations, (2004). World population to 2300, UN Department of Economic and Social
Affairs (DESA), United Nations Publications.
Whiteside, M. (1998) Encouraging sustainable smallholder agriculture in Southern Africa in the
context of agricultural services reform, London: Overseas Development Institute.
Wiggins, S. (2009). Can the smallholder model deliver poverty reduction and food security? UK:
Institute of Development Studies.
World Bank, (2000) World Development Report 2000/2001: Attacking Poverty, New York:
World Bank, (2008) World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development, New York,
Worldwide Permaculture Network, (2015), Map of current global permaculture projects,
Available at: http://permacultureglobal.org/projects Accessed on 25/08/2015

Dissertation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Dissertation

Similar to Dissertation (20)

Dissertation