Well, I gave my elevator pitch today to my donors. I'm not sure anyone grasped it very well - hopefully the few pages of background I also gave them will help - but there seemed to be an appreciation that I was thinking bigger than just a few window boxes and raised beds in the
city. I also saw a few big smiles at various points (particularly when I mentioned
Geoff Lawton's
project in Jordan) so there may be some space to work. Now, since I was giving a pretty rushed pitch and no-one could possibly understand every potential facet of a large-scale project like this, I want to slim the concept down to absolute bare bones, almost like giving a "talking points" sheet to everyone who might want to talk about it. Any suggestions? I'm thinking it could look something like this:
1.
Permaculture is a system of food production (and ultimately a way of life) that seeks to work with nature to constantly increase productivity and wellbeing of all life rather than conquer nature and deplete our precious natural resources.
2. As a fundamentally self-sustaining and permanent system,
permaculture is particularly suited to addressing problems of food insecurity and poor diet, income insecurity, meteorological and climate crises while also providing a beautiful landscape that is available to the community.
3. Ancillary benefits could include community development through shared control of the
land, work
experience and training, development of support businesses within the community, building solidarity and links with other other communities wishing to pursue the same goals, carbon sequestration,
water,
energy and biodiversity conservation, flood prevention/defence (and more...?)
4. Our site could also be used as a training facility for development agencies (e.g. Christian Aid, Oxfam etc.) to learn
permaculture principles for use in international projects. (This, I think, will be where I show them the Greening The Desert video.) Other parties which might pay for training could include
local schools and colleges, farmers, researchers (and more...?)
5. Initial start-up costs may be high. Land purchase, initial consultation and training, recruitment of staff and volunteers, equipment,
earthworks, seeds etc. can all cost quite a lot of money. Even establishing the legal structures to manage the land could be very difficult. Of these, land is the most expensive, but if financial support could be structured as offering security on a
mortgage rather than as a large lump sum, a large plot of land might become much more viable financially. Additionally, even if the project is a complete failure, the land can always be re-sold to recover some or all of the financial losses.
6. Ongoing costs
should continually fall until eventually the site becomes more or less completely self-sustaining, provided sufficient people are able to offer labour. Over at least the earliest years of the project, that labour will be provided by community volunteers and trainees from partner organisations. Payment for training could be the major part of how some partner organisations support the project.
7. The principles of
permaculture state that surpluses all kinds should be reinvested. This should apply to any financial surplus from the project. Cash could be distributed in the community as a dividend or held in trust for the community to spend on the common good, however they wish to define that. Some could be designated for investment in more land and ideally some would be dedicated to helping spawn similar projects in other communities.
8. Support of various kinds from all kinds of public bodies, charities and others may be obtainable for the project, although marshalling a wide range of supporters may become a major additional effort.
9. The approach is inherently experimental as it may take a long time to properly understand and rehabilitate the land and longer still to adapt fully to whatever changes are made, but great success can be achieved relatively quickly. It is also demonstrably successful over the longer term, as demonstrated by people like Masanobu
Fukuoka and
Sepp Holzer. (I think I'll insert links to a couple of short videos about these two here as well.)
10. A project like this can meet the goals of any number of organisations with a wide range of interests. It can be a major community development tool due to the governance model I have suggested. It can help deal with poor diet and poor physical and mental health. It can provide a level of affordable food security for the community. It can help generate income for the community and create new business opportunities for individuals. It can help stabilise and improve soils and water tables while protecting against major flood, drought and wind events. It can provide training to large numbers of people wishing to use the same principles in other communities at home and abroad. It can be a major means of not only reducing the community's
carbon footprint through its produce but of sequestering carbon in the accumulated biomass in the soil and plants. Above all, it can do all this at a lower long-term cost and in a more permanently self-sustaining (or even self-enriching) way than many other projects.
Can anyone think of any other important info a sceptic might want to hear or any other obvious objections that might come up that I should prepare for?