Subject: HM and Permaculture Design

From: Victor Guest <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 1998 10:03:19 WST

Subject: Re: Synergistic enterprises and the testing guidelines
To: Recipients of CHRM-GENERAL <[email-masked]>

Christopher Peck's description of "elegantly stacking functions," "building
in redundancy," and "optimizing beneficial relationships" came closer to
describing how I used to practice landscaping than anything I have ever read
or heard.  I printed it out for my partner, who is a "get it done" sort of
fellow, and who often gets very frustrated at my multi-variate approach as
we restore an abused and neglected double lot in town.

Looking back, I can see why I overwhelmed and confused landowners at times,
with my complex considerations of so many relationships and possibilities.
In fact, I sometimes tied my own head up in knots, had to relax, and sort of
"feel out" the way from the site, its area, and its people.  A holistic goal
and the regular testing questions would also have gone a long way toward
being able to just chose the "best" approach for them.

These three ponderings, or questions, seem like natural intelligence to
someone of limited resources.  My greatest frustration was, and still is,
that I often have to be on site, even physically engaged in the task, before
some of these come to mind.  Which can lead to sub-optimal results or
efficiencies.  I think the questions asked consciously may help me prevent
some of the trial and error.  I hate feeling like a lady moving furniture
around when it's live plants I'm working with!

~Lynn
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] <[email-masked]>
To: Recipients of CHRM-GENERAL <[email-masked]>
Date: Friday, March 06, 1998 7:35 PM
Subject: Re: Synergistic enterprises and the testing guidelines

>Stan-
>The issue you raise is near and dear to my heart. For the five years prior
to
>and concurrent with my current incarnation as a certified educator I have
been
>studying and teaching permaculture design, which places primary importance
on
>functional or synergistic design. In my efforts to integrate the two
>disciplines (permaculture and holistic management) for best results and
more
>effective progress toward a holistic goal, I tacked a testing guideline
onto
>the process. I have titled this testing guideline "Functional Design," and
it
>includes several questions. The most important one from a design and
decision-
>making perspective is "does the proposed action accomplish several
objectives,
>or, does it optimize the possible multiple benefits, elegantly?" In
>permaculture parlance we call this "stacking functions." That is, we
actively
>pursue design solutions or make decisions that not only solve the problem
>before us, but solve several other problems simultaneously, in an elegant
>fashion. By "elegantly" I mean that the ancillary benefits flow naturally
from
>the primary solution or decision, complement it, and don't seem tacked on
as
>an afterthought. The classic example we use is when we're considering trees
>for a windbreak. If as a part of our comprehensive land planning we've
>identified the need for windbreaks, a "stacked" design would indicate the
use
>of species that are effective in slowing the wind but that also have
important
>other functions. In this example, other functions may be to act as a
>firebreak, or as host trees for beneficial insects, or fix nitrogen, or be
a
>useful mulch, or be planted in such a way that as the windbreak matures the
>thinnings are useful on-site, etc., you get the idea. If you can change the
>"or"s in the last sentence to "and"s, all the more benefit. This principle
is
>applicable to non-landscape decisions as well. It often takes more careful
>thought and more effort to implement "stacked" decsions, but the synergy
that
>results can often be worth it, it would have to pass the other testing too,
>obviously.
>The second question I fit into this is "does the proposed action serve to
>support critical functions in multiple and mutually supportive ways?" In
>permaculture jargon we call this "building in redundancy." This is the
space
>shuttle engineer's guiding principle. If you're addressing a critical
>function, such as oxygen in space or providing food for your family, you
don't
>leave the support of it up to a single, and potentially fragile, strategy.
>"Don't put all your eggs in one basket." This question may not apply in all
>situations and has obvious import for the land planning.
>The third question I use in this category is "does the proposed action
>optimize beneficial connections?" This is essentially the question you
asked.
>These three questions, forming a single testing guideline, are strategic
and
>seek to accelerate progress toward the holistic goal by means of creative
>design. For me at this point, the questions are really a part of my psyche,
>they are fundamental perspectives in my thinking. I find it helpful however
to
>be reminded of the need to seek out proactive, optimizing decisions. I find
>them useful in my thinking and planning for my business and life, and have
>found them useful in a consulting situation as well.
>Important Disclaimer
>I have yet to teach this as a part of an advertized holistic management
>course, or to formally introduce it in any way, until now. I can see Allan
>turning in his mocassins, and hear his dry and piercing "K.I.S.S.."
Honestly,
>there is no way for me not to use them, I have just formalized it into my
>process in a clear fashion. I thought this was a good opportunity to "open
the
>door" into this topic. Please let me know what you think about this
material.
>Thanks,
>Christopher Peck
>Santa Fe, NM USA