Bill Mollison is often quoted as saying “permaculture is a revolution disguised as gardening”. Is this statement some classic Mollisonian evangelising hyperbole, or is there some revolutionary substance in the permaculture movement, as Mollison says? I’d like to be provocative here: based on the evidence, it might be more accurate to say that much of the time, permaculture is gardening marketing itself as a revolution.

If systemic change is the end goal of permaculture, then permaculture thinking needs to start engaging with economies, politics and society as complex systems, with the same level of sophistication to which it approaches ecosystems.

The emphasis of permaculture design and practice, with its emphasis on localism, grassroots activism, and decentralised action, is both its strength and its challenge. Permaculture offers a model for building sustainable, self-sufficient communities from the ground up, but its scepticism of centralised political structures and faith in the transformative power of local economies is a handbrake on its broader impact. To truly influence systemic change, permaculture needs to navigate the tension between grassroots action and political engagement at scale, with actors who operate and exercise power at those higher levels.

Permaculture’s political strategy is deeply rooted in grassroots activism. Rather than waiting for top-down reforms from governments or corporations, permaculture encourages individuals and communities to take control of their own environments.

“So, I probably would not be able to easily articulate a neat sort of encapsulation of the whole movement but that it is something that is quietly spreading as a way of putting tools into people’s hands to take control of their local situations in a way that sort of directly benefits them and is meaningful.  It’s an empowerment tool essentially.  And especially when you got situations now where people might be in a refugee camp for ten, 20, 30 years, like we don’t know how long these situations are gonna go for, they might go indefinitely.  If people have tools to make their immediate environment more workable and more productive, then that’s gonna be better for that entire community as a whole ‘cause you’re basically dealing with people that have been disenfranchised and disempowered very quickly and trying to give them some tools just to take control of their immediate surroundings in very down to earth and practical ways that don’t necessarily cost a lot of money” (Interviewee #48).

By creating local food systems, restoring ecosystems, and fostering community resilience, permaculture practitioners demonstrate that sustainable living is not only possible but practical.

“Permaculture is basically a sensible way of living.  It’s about basically growing food.  I mean the most basic thing is growing food and as the way that nature grows it and working the natural way to grow your food, so that way it’s minimal effort for you and maximum benefit for you and for nature as well.  But it’s more than growing food but also it’s about the way of existence, a way of being at peace with yourself, with nature, and expressing your connection with nature through us” (Interviewee #15).

“Yeah, I see it as political in many ways.  At the smallest, I see the personal as political.  So, our choices, where we live, how we live, what we buy, whether we create waste or not is political and is definitely confronting to others.  So I think if you’re making other people uncomfortable in a way, you’re being political.  And for some people, permaculture is also political in the sense that some people involved in permaculture like to change policy.  So obviously, policy and politics is pretty much the same thing, linguistically anyway” (Interviewee #13). 

This focus on localism is one of permaculture’s greatest strengths. It allows for flexibility and adaptability, enabling communities to design solutions that are tailored to their specific needs and resources. In contrast to one-size-fits-all policies that often fail to account for local conditions, permaculture promotes a decentralised approach that can thrive in diverse environments.

Permaculture has clearly been successful in spreading around the world through a process of rhizomic horizontal diffusion (Habib and Fadaee 2019). As interviewees observed, permaculture has cultivated a distinctive system of communication and knowledge sharing. This system spreads not through hierarchical structures but through a ‘rhizome-like’ (Deleuze and Guattari 1987) process of horizontal diffusion. It thrives on collaboration among individuals and groups, who learn and share knowledge through both formal and informal events, networks, and organisations.

Rhizomic organisation prioritises decentralisation, allowing autonomous nodes (e.g., local permaculture groups or projects) to operate independently. Each node retains agency while remaining loosely connected to the broader network. This approach embodies a libertarian ethic of self-determination and aligns with anarchist political traditions, as noted by James Scott (2020), who highlights how decentralisation can challenge the impositions of state-centric systems.

“The international permaculture movement.  Well, I see it as a – it’s like a node in network that’s being spread naturally, biologically across the planet through people sharing what’s real to them locally, and then spreading that out, or people from other bio regions internationally coming to where there’s hot spots that have been inspired often in Australia, or sometimes it’s in America.   But often the Americans don’t know this but permaculture started in Australia and I think it’s an American thing I’ve noticed.  But it’s just that kind of cross pollination where it’s begun, replicated successfully, and then transported itself to place and then adjusted for the needs of the people as well as the landscape.  I see it internationally as being like a global web, almost like this fine layer of protection of resiliency or security that’s slowly strengthening itself over time and is giving community options of developing strategies, techniques and meaning, often, reigniting the old cultural ways of the language, of relationship to place, of technique of dance, of ways of culturally interpreting the landscape, or ways of culturally interpreting the seasonal cycles, or bringing back food and ways of storing food over time and thinking about the summertime and the coolness of the winter and then what to do during those phases” (Interviewee #18).

In permaculture, decentralisation enables local adaptation to ecological, cultural, and economic contexts. This adaptability is a political act, resisting homogenisation and embracing pluralism, as observed in Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing’s Friction: An Ethnography of Global Connection (2005), where diverse, localised practices disrupt global monocultures.

My interviewees also highlighted the critical role of hub organisations and demonstration sites in anchoring this global movement. The academic literature supports this view, with Centemeri (2019) describing these spaces as ‘political ecotones’—physical environments that bring diverse groups together. These spaces serve as transition zones, bridging varied forms of engagement and political cultures. They nurture diversity, value practices of socio-ecological repair and regeneration, and foster a shared vision grounded in place (Lockyer & Veteto 2013).

“And as a movement, I would say this is happening in somewhat disparate groups, land-based projects around the world, and there are some organisations, some regional, national organisations that are creating educational materials, magazines, different forms of publication.  There are some great blogs and resources online.  There’s a huge mushroom of online information about permaculture” (Interviewee #25).

Together, these safe spaces and their interconnected networks form the ‘social glue’ that binds permaculture practitioners across the world, creating environments where practitioners can collaborate, innovate, and build resilience.

Rhizomic organisation rejects hierarchical authority, opting instead for horizontal collaboration. In permaculture, this is evident in the peer-to-peer exchange of knowledge, such as the proliferation of Permaculture Design Courses (PDCs).

“I did the permaculture design course about nine months ago and since then I’ve been involved in community garden and then also I helped with Forest Garden, so this is in Devon, which is in South West England town called Totnes which is there’s a lot of projects going on there which is part of the reason I go there ‘cause I want to get  a lot of skills and – I felt like they had – my perception had a lot of knowledge around food sovereignty and was getting more interesting but I just felt that – I like life skills, so the practical project skills which is part of the reason to go there.  So, probably before the design course I was involved in things as well, but I was still – so, the key-relating knowledge and that so I just kind of meet a lot of interesting people and then I said, it’d be nice to way to merge all these different ideas and have something a bit more concrete, that was part of the reason that I attended the design course.  The PDC has proven to be an incredibly effective vehicle for introducing permaculture to new audiences. Its success lies in its iterative model: students learn directly from experienced practitioners during the course, then often go on to establish their own courses, thereby perpetuating the cycle” (Interviewee #21c).

This horizontal approach fosters a grassroots dynamism that has enabled permaculture to flourish globally. The political logic embodied in the PDC aligns with the principles of participatory democracy, as theorised by Graeber (2004), who argues that horizontal structures enable direct action and mutual aid, reducing dependency on external authorities.

“I feel like, as a permaculturalist, you can go anywhere in the world and connect with people who are doing similar work or similar projects very quickly and possibly you might have something to contribute and you certainly have something to learn.  So, I guess, it is something around knowing that people are doing it all over the world and that you can hook into that if you have the opportunity to do that. Yeah, I don’t necessarily feel like I’m day-to-day connected to other people, but I think it feels there’s something – that there’s a solidarity or there’s a strength that comes from feeling like you’re part of something bigger and global” (Interviewee #47).

Rhizomic organisation embodies the principle of prefigurative politics, where the structure and practices of the movement reflect the values it seeks to promote and mirrors its organisational logic.

“It is something that is quietly spreading as a way of putting tools into people’s hands to take control of their local situations in a way that sort of directly benefits them and is meaningful.  It’s an empowerment tool essentially.  And especially when you got situations now where people might be in a refugee camp for ten, 20, 30 years, like we don’t know how long these situations are gonna go for, they might go indefinitely.  If people have tools to make their immediate environment more workable and more productive, then that’s gonna be better for that entire community as a whole ‘cause you’re basically dealing with people that have been disenfranchised and disempowered very quickly and trying to give them some tools just to take control of their immediate surroundings in very down to earth and practical ways that don’t necessarily cost a lot of money” (Interviewee #48).

By “being the change,” permaculture practitioners enact political alternatives in their daily lives, creating tangible examples of post-capitalist, regenerative systems (Lockyer & Veteto 2013). But does this equate to a “revolution”?

The idealisation of local community also glosses over some of the very real challenges that arise when groups of people attempt to collaborate on something. Permaculture promotes the idea of tight-knit, self-sufficient communities that work collaboratively to create sustainable systems.

While this vision is admirable, it may overlook the complexities and challenges inherent in real-world social dynamics (Tsing 2005). Communities are often marked by diverse interests, power imbalances, and conflicts that can hinder collective action, and permies with strong ideas about individualism and doing their own thing don’t always play well together.

“I would say like it’s quite a young movement skill, that it is like pioneers where everybody follow them and there’re lots of people we had using small things but there are big names where that everybody knows.  Well, that’s what I thought.  Coming here, I saw that there are more people connected than what I really thought staying in Spain, so that means that network really connects but I suppose it depends on the country you are.  Like in Spain, we are not really connected I think yet, but there’re just big names and then randomly people working apart. I think the movement is quite young.  Lots of people doing almost the same thing, so there’re lot of demonstrations sites where they eat.  There’s still a little bit this thinking of, I don’t wanna be your friend because we’re working on the same and maybe you can take my students out me.  So there’s this, “I don’t wanna give you my seeds because you will have the same plants as me and then how will I differentiate from the other ones.”  But we are working on it.  I mean three years ago, we began to do meetings with everyone and we are engaging that and we are closing it but I think it’s just because we are really young movement and there’s still like political situations in Spain that <inaudible>, the division with real Spanish and things like that, that really are not helping to create a network an easy way” (Interviewee #24b).

The permaculture movement often assumes that consensus is achievable within communities, promoting the idea that common goals can easily unite diverse individuals. However, communities are typically characterised by differing values, priorities, and perspectives.

“Too much discussing and not so much doing” (Interviewee #32).

Achieving consensus can be a complex and challenging process, requiring negotiation, compromise, and sometimes conflict. This oversimplification of consensus-building may lead to unrealistic expectations about community engagement and the challenges of political efficacy.

Successful revolutions require discipline. By idealising community cooperation without acknowledging these realities, the movement may foster an unrealistic expectation of how easily people can work together toward common goals.

Permaculture’s political strategies are deeply rooted in its ethical principles and commitment to grassroots activism (Holmgren 2002). While this focus on local solutions is one of the movement’s greatest strengths, it also presents challenges when it comes to scaling its influence and engaging with broader political structures.

Permaculture emphasises grassroots initiatives and local solutions as primary means of enacting change. Sometimes the urge to move beyond the destructive mainstream is so strong and so urgent for permies that it becomes escapism:

“That is a big problem but our students are almost very younger generation, and they want to change the Korea, after then its mind also changed.  They not followed the materialism.  So they want to live on community and farming and making different ways.  So it’s quite changed now because, maybe something changed.  There is labourer happening or by the car or something.  It will be not happening for younger generation because the old generation already have, so not share with the younger people.  So now, it’s younger generation thinks about different way that is better to go different alternative way, so I think this matter is solution.  So it’s fair enough, I think so” (Interviewee #5).

While local action is essential for fostering community engagement and addressing specific ecological challenges, this focus may overlook the complexities and importance of larger political structures and processes. Political efficacy often requires understanding and navigating local, national, and international systems, including legislation, policy-making, and advocacy efforts that extend beyond community-level initiatives (Auld & Gulbrandsen 2010).

To create lasting change, permaculture must find ways to bridge the gap between local action and systemic reform, building coalitions and engaging with the political process without losing sight of its core values.

“I usually describe it as a slightly anarchic collection of individuals, institutes, and national associations that all coexist in constellations of influence around each other.  In some places, it’s more structured, and in other places, there’s greater space between the orbiting bodies, if you like” (Interviewee #16).

“We’re building something better from the ground up, but we can’t do it alone. We need to be part of the larger conversation” (Interviewee #61).

By embracing collaboration and finding ways to influence policy, permaculture can expand its impact and contribute to the systemic changes needed to address the global challenges of climate change, social inequality, and ecological degradation (Pretty et al 2006). The future of permaculture lies not just in its ability to build resilient communities, but in building a capacity to influence the systems that govern our world. To my reading, that’s the revolution that is implied in the three permaculture ethics.

Does permaculture need to be up to the task of changing capitalism? It might be OK for the permaculture movement to be one element of a broader effort to create just and sustainable societies.

The movement’s focus on practical solutions—such as local food systems, renewable energy, and ecosystem restoration—gives it a unique ability to demonstrate what a sustainable future could look like (Holmgren 2002). These tangible examples of sustainable living can help to shift the narrative around climate change and environmental policy, showing that there are viable alternatives to the status quo.

“Maybe a shoal of fish is good because it’s just moving somewhere in the stream, it’s going somewhere.  So, it’s a movement of people with similar aims and objectives, but not exactly the same strategies and processes.  And that takes it – of course, we discuss what permaculture is, but the movement itself has got a tail end, and it’s got a front end, it’s got a vanguard, it’s got some, it’s got some <inaudible>, but in a sense, it is a shoal of fish on the way to somewhere, which is a fairly nice eventual destination and whose goal I think is to set up an alternative to the present capitalist system which is destroying the Earth” (Interviewee #1).

To do this, permaculture needs to engage in coalition-building with other environmental and social justice movements. By aligning with groups that share similar goals—whether it’s climate activism, food sovereignty, racial equity, or queer rights—permaculture can amplify its voice and push for broader systemic reforms (Altieri 1995).

“Rehabilitation—empowering good health and good skills—is impossible without reinhabitation: understanding ourselves as living within actual places on the Earth and developing the skills to live there well. Restorative justice and permaculture are some of these skills, helpfully serving as particular expressions of general themes like peacebuilding, conflict transformation, land care, and sustainability. They need to unite because their cause is common. Our problems are too overlapping for fragmented and specialized interests to compete against one another. Instead of cookie-cutter solutions, a liberation ecology of social justice and Earth stewardship grows from polycultures of diversity and collaboration” (McRay 2015).

This collaborative approach is already happening in some areas. Permaculture practitioners have joined forces with food justice advocates, land care groups, and climate activists to push for policies that promote sustainable agriculture, community resilience, and ecological restoration. These partnerships allow permaculture to have a greater impact, influencing policy at local, national, and even international levels (Pretty et al 2006). Without these partnerships, the permaculture movement would have almost no policy impact.

In working with other movements, permaculture practitioners may need to find common ground with organisations or institutions that do not fully align with permaculture’s values. This can be a difficult balancing act, but it is essential for scaling the movement’s impact.

“Economic inequity and political oppression are inseparable from the ruin of soil, forests, and water. All arise from structures and daily practices of exploitation, waste, supremacy, and violence. Sustainability will sustain nothing without challenging and transforming power and privilege. Peacebuilding cannot build peace unless it includes redistributing land use and renewing energy sources. We need much more than superficial mediation and fossil fuel efficiency” (McRay 2015).

However, coalition-building also requires permaculture to navigate the complexities of political compromise. Permaculture’s commitment to its ethical framework—Earth Care, People Care, and Fair Share—can sometimes lead to a focus on ideological purity that limits the movement’s ability to engage with the messy realities of politics (Auld & Gulbrandsen 2010).

In some cases, permaculture practitioners may reject collaboration with organisations or institutions that are seen as compromising on these values. While this commitment to ethics is admirable, it can also hinder permaculture’s ability to build the broad coalitions needed for systemic change.

“It’s important to stay true to our principles, but we also have to be willing to engage with the wider world, even when it’s imperfect … Permaculture has the potential to influence policy and create real change, but we need to be more strategic in how we engage with the political system” (Interviewee #61).

Engaging with politics often means navigating compromise and working with allies in imperfect and messy collaborations to achieve larger shared goals. This can be uncomfortable for a movement that is deeply rooted in its ethical principles, but it is necessary for achieving the broader political and economic goals to which permaculture practitioners are at least rhetorically committed.

Revolutions succeed when their challenge to power is taken up by broad and diverse coalitions. Permaculture’s challenge is to maintain its integrity while finding ways to influence the larger political and socio-economic landscape (Hardt & Negri 2005).

I’ve often heard it said that the Fair Share ethic has been the most difficult of the three core permaculture ethics to put into practice. While there are communal and philanthropic practices of Fair Share that are viable at the local level, the root causes of inequality are systemic. At a superficial level, almost all permaculture practitioners understand this:

“Neoliberal capitalism steals peoples imagination; permaculture can help people to envision new ways of living with the Earth and one another. I think permaculture has radical potential in presenting a new vision of humans as part of the solution to the devastating destruction of the Earth (many environmentalists continue to view most humans as a problem or even ‘blight’). Permaculture because it radially envisions new ways of living can help us to imagine worlds beyond capitalism and also can help to erase the borders of colonialism” (Interviewee #30).

But when talking about capitalism as the problem and a ecologically sustainable post-capitalism as the end goal of permaculture’s Fair Share ethic, what do they really mean? What is capitalism as an economic system and what would it actually take to transform this system into something else?

Let’s be real: community-based permaculture lifeways based on localism, as advocated for in the traditional permaculture canon, are not up to the task. To seriously believe otherwise betrays a naivety about the scale of global and regional economies, and a limited understanding of economic systems as systems (Beinhocker 2007). This is ironic, given the sophistication of complex systems understandings of ecosystems underpinning permaculture design, however, to properly operationalise all three permaculture ethics, that complex systems approach needs to be applied to economic, social and political systems as well in permaculture’s ecological thinking (Cudworth and Hobden 2013).

The forces of global capitalism, colonialism and imperialism have created systemic inequalities that can profoundly impact communities’ abilities to engage in permaculture practices. The permaculture design system theoretically should be able to be applied anywhere (Holmgren 2002), but in practice many practitioners overlook how these larger structures affect local autonomy and the ability of marginalised communities to access resources and participate in sustainable practices.

“I think the amount of focus here on scaling up and on getting to broader audiences shows that we’ve reached certain levels in certain societies, but that we need to make the next steps.  In others, we’re only just starting in other countries, so it’s creating that strong base.  And obviously permaculture is attracting to the activist movement first and to people passionate about environmental and food change first and that now much more social change as well, which is really important. But there needs to be a lot more effective mechanisms for getting into marginalised groups.  It’s interesting that permaculture can improve the lives of marginalised people the most.  And yet that’s an area in Western society where we’ve had least impact” (Interviewee #23).

To exercise greater influence as a global political entity, the permaculture movement needs to integrate strategies that address larger power structures and bridge international ethnic and class divisions to create a strong, durable political platform on which to advance its objectives of Earth care, People care and Fair Share, as well as form tactical alliances with other social justice movements with converging interests (Holt Giménez & Shattuck 2011).

“Absolutely, because here, suicides, it’s a huge policy-driven thing.  And actually there is data to show that farmers who practice alternate farming don’t get pushed, as we say.  There’s much farmers who are into commercial farming and it’s predominantly different.  It’s predominantly detected.  So if you go for BT cotton, you have a whole package of inputs and you have to take a garment on for that, and if your crop is destroyed for whatever reason, or pest-related reasons, or market pricing, then you’ll still have the bottom of the debt, so that’s where politics comes in.  In a cold war, I don’t see politics, but if you have to fight a system where there is pressure from the other side of the seed and you want to have your choice of seed, and then politics comes.  So we pushed into politics rather than – so I really hope permaculture <inaudible> itself rather than take active interest in politics” (Interviewee #9b).

In a well-publicised article, (Roberts 2016) shared a discussion he had with a peasant farmer in Central America who scorned permaculture as nothing “but a movement of gringo hippies who are pretending to be farmers.”  While a touch polemical, this quote is illustrative of a broader critique that permaculture has not always been self-aware of its internal power relations and its power relations with other groups of people. 

Permaculture tends to exhibit affluent white middle-class demographics, perpetuated by the relatively high financial cost of permaculture design courses and published materials, which present a barrier to entry to lower-income groups (Ferguson & Lovell 2014). Permaculture practitioners have been accused of gentrifying and undermining the social fabric of small farming communities as a result of their desire to acquire land. Ironically that gentrification is more politically consequential than the textbook permaculture gardens of the gentrifiers.

The permaculture toolbox of design strategies includes knowledge that has been around for thousands of years in Indigenous traditions across the world, which is sometimes appropriated without attribution, consent and remuneration for the people and cultures from which that knowledge was acquired.  The movement may overlook the political struggles these communities face, harvesting their experiences as mere sources of inspiration for permaculture practices rather than engaging as equals in a shared act of co-creation and allyship.

“It is said that permaculture embraces all. Yet when its body is examined, there is a lack of cultural representation, and the question persists, how do we diversify permaculture? What I see today is a strong following of land stewards of color who practice ways of working in harmony with the natural environment, be that trees, rivers, plants, or people, in the city or in the country, on the farm or the reservation, or in the ‘hood or a brownstone. All have found their way to an understanding of natural ways of living. The path that led them there may have come through an elder, a practice (such as permaculture, Ifa, or Wicca), or a divined personal journey. Will permaculture be the movement to embrace this body of land stewards? I don’t know. What I do know is whether or not people of color choose en masse to embrace permaculture, will depend on the movement’s ability to acknowledge and honor those cultures, living and ancestral, whose existence paved the way for this knowledge to be synthesized, shared, and practiced. As well, there must be an establishment of culture-specific spaces at convergences and meetings when we come together, with the understanding that this is for strength and not division” (Baxter 2015).

Indigenous communities often face significant challenges related to land rights, sovereignty, and cultural preservation in the face of global capitalism and state policies. The permaculture design course also privileges a specific epistemology and pedagogy that is inappropriate as an education vehicle in many contexts (such as for illiterate peasant farmers, for example).  These are examples of the manner in which ethnic and class privilege limit the diversity of the permaculture movement (Roberts 2017).

“We request that as we reconnect with the land through the practice of permaculture, the permaculture community actively seeks out and publicly acknowledges both the history and current reality of the land as it relates to struggles against colonization, conquest, and oppression” (POC Caucus 2015).

Moving beyond the logic of colonialism is revolutionary praxis. (Watson, 2016) calls on permaculture practitioners in settler countries to actively practice decolonising methodologies and be mindful of the past crimes of land dispossession of Indigenous peoples.  It is important for permaculture practitioners to pay homage to existing ways of doing things in peasant farming contexts and respect tried-and-tested village wisdom (Aistara 2013; Jain 2002).

The evident naivety about the economy as a system in permaculture thought is also reflected in a provincial understanding of politics as a system (or more accurately, an inter-connected web of systems across different levels of scale). This critique aligns with observations in political ecology, which emphasise the interconnectedness of political, economic, and ecological systems (Robbins 2012).

Indeed, both the libertarian and anarchist elements of the permaculture movement, as a consequence of their commitments to those political ideologies, almost reflexively run away from systems of power. Even if governments and corporations are repressive and unresponsive to the ecological crisis, they are still the systems of power most consequential to the outcomes we experience. Grassroots movements must contend with entrenched political and economic interests that resist transformation (Hardt & Negri 2005).

“I think that in North America there is a strong strand of individualism within the movement that reifies “self-reliance”, business ownership, and land ownership. I think this gets in the way of building a truly international movement. Decolonizing permaculture FOR REAL (not as a catch phrase) means questioning land ownership, geopolitical borders, and dealing with issues of economic disparity on a global scale” (Interviewee #30).

Change agents in these movements need to develop strategies for influence, engagement, and constructive conflict with these actors because that’s where the action is. Refusing to do so is not choosing voluntary simplicity, it is settling for voluntary powerlessness.

 “And so we are not so dependent upon systems that we don’t believe or they’re not going in the direction you want.  And that if, as many of us as possible, or even like anyone sharing it, a percentage of us is doing that, we can change politics at that level as well.  So, the thing of coming from the grassroots, I feel it’s very empowering because there’s such this distance between a normal citizen and politics or politicians.  But at the same time, permaculture just shows you that – what’s that quote that they say?  Disguised permaculture is a revolution disguised as gardening, right?  So I believe that we can, by leaving the permaculture lifestyle in everything we do from our professions to our homes, that we can have an impact on politics” (Interviewee #8).

While local action is indeed powerful, the movement may oversimplify the complexities involved in driving broader social transformation. Revolutionary social change in larger political and economic systems requires not only grassroots efforts but also broad-based movements agitating for structural reforms, policy advocacy, engagement with power holders, and direct action measures of omission and/or commission to leverage change (McBay 2011).

David Holmgren has talked about participating in the S-11 anti-globalisation protests in 2000. Since that time, global inequality and environmental degradation have gotten much worse. Despite its successful diffusion around the globe, the permaculture movement on its own has not even made a small dent into these global problems. Not much of a revolution.

While local focus is crucial for sustainable living, it overlooks the complexities of political dynamics in the international system. Global issues such as trade agreements, geopolitical conflicts, and international climate negotiations significantly shape local contexts. We can’t pretend that these don’t exist, or that local communities are a match for the power of actors and international scale. These challenges require coordinated international responses and systemic changes that go beyond individual or community-level practices.

Fortunately, there are examples from across the permaculture movement of projects that do think global / act global:

The Permaculture for Climate Change Statement, negotiated by an international working group of practitioners for release prior to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change COP21 in Paris in 2015.

Permatil (Permaculture Timor-Leste) was established in 2000 during Timor-Leste’s independence, has grown into an Permatil Global, an NGO in permaculture development running community-based projects, education, and policy influence in several countries.

Permaculture for Refugees, co-founded by the amazing Rowe Morrow, provide permaculture design training in refugee camps in some of the most challenging operating environments you can imagine.

International development projects spearheaded by Geoff Lawton’s Permaculture Research Institute (PRI). I’ve seen directly the criticism that Geoff has received from some quarters of the permaculture movement who are uncomfortable with his engagement with UN agencies and philanthropic donor organisations. Geoff himself also has a reputation for being a prickly character. However, the PRI has brought a level of professionalism in impacting at scale that other permaculture practitioners might be wise to emulate.

What distinguishes these projects is the following:

• They address systemic problems directly and engage systems of power.
• They combine the rhizomic power of international networks of permaculture practitioners to impact at international scale.
• They take permaculture beyond local scale while preserving the local co-creative ethos of the permaculture movement.
• Their co-creative process involves, and benefits, marginalised communities and people outside of the permaculture movement, truly living the edge philosophy of permaculture.

This is the permaculture movement at its best, demonstrating approaches might help the broader permaculture movement actualise its transformative vision at scale.

(2015). People of Color Statement from the NAPC – POC Caucus, NAPC 2014. Permaculture Design, 98, 3-4.

Aistara, G. A. (2013). Weeds or Wisdom? Permaculture in the Eye of the Beholder on Latvian Eco-Health Farms. In J. Lockyer & J. R. Veteto (Eds.), Environmental Anthropology Engaging Ecotopia: Bioregionalism, Permaculture, and Ecovillages (pp. 113-129). New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books.

Alexander, S. (2012). “The voluntary simplicity movement: A multi-national survey analysis in theoretical context.” Journal of Consumer Culture. 12(1), 66-86.

Auld, G., & Gulbrandsen, L. H. (2010). Transparency in nonstate certification: Consequences for accountability and legitimacy. Global Environmental Politics. 10(3), 97-119.

Baxter, K. (2015). A Black Woman Practicing Permaculture. Permaculture Design, 98, 5-7.

Beinhocker, E. D. (2007). The Origin of Wealth: The Radical Remaking of Economics and what it Means for Business and Society. Harvard Business School Press.

Cudworth, E., & Hobden, S. (2013). Posthuman International Relations: Complexity, Ecologism and Global Politics. London and New York: Zed Books.

Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. University of Minnesota Press.

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.

Graeber, D. (2004). Fragments of an anarchist anthropology. Prickly Paradigm Press.

Habib, B. and Fadaee, S. (2021) Permaculture: A global community of practice. Environmental Values. 31(4), pp. 441-462.

Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2005). Multitude: War and democracy in the age of empire. Penguin Press.

Holmgren, D. (2002). Permaculture: Principles and pathways beyond sustainability. Holmgren Design Services.

Holt Giménez, E., & Shattuck, A. (2011). Food crises, food regimes and food movements: rumblings of reform or tides of transformation? The Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(1), 109-144. Retrieved from

Jain, M. (2002). Re-discovering the co-creators within. Vimukt Shiksha. June 2002, 1-15.

Lockyer, J., & Veteto, J. R. (2013). Environmental anthropology engaging ecotopia: Bioregionalism, permaculture, and ecovillages. Berghahn Books.

McBay, A. (2011). A Taxonomy of Action. In A. McBay, K. Lierre, and D. Jensen (eds.), Deep Green Resistance: Strategy to Save the Planet. Seven Stories Press, 239-276.

McRay, J. (2015). Restorative Justice and Permaculture: Peas in a Pod. Permaculture Design, 98, 9-12.

Pretty, J., Toulmin, C., & Williams, S. (2011). Sustainable intensification in African agriculture. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability. 9(1), 5–24.

Robbins, P. (2019). Political ecology: A critical introduction. Wiley-Blackwell.

Roberts, T. (2016). Permaculture as a gringo movement. The Huffington Post.

Roberts, T. (2017). How To Decolonize The Permaculture Movement. The Huffington Post.

Scott, J. C. (2020). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. Yale University Press.

Shiva, V. (2016). Who really feeds the world? The failures of agribusiness and the promise of agroecology. Zed Books.

Tsing, A. L. (2005). Friction: An ethnography of global connection. Princeton University Press.

Watson, J. (2016). Decolonizing Permaculture: Exploring the Intersection of Permaculture and Decolonization. Permaculture Design. 98, 33-37.