Thanky you, Russ!
that is exactly the problem I am
facing.
I am convinced that pc has something to offer, but
if I want to approach a donor to give me money for a development project, they
want evidence that the money spent will have a positive effect and that the
approach I am suggesting is better than the approaches of other people who have
also applied for money with them.
I want to convince some donors that it is a good
idea to finance a permaculture design course in Cameroon. What can I tell them
to support the idea? I need very good arguments. I need projects in other parts
of the world where pc has made a difference (a measurable difference, not
necessarily "yields", but something that can be established
objectively).
Then they will want to see evidence of success. I
would have to write reports about the reports. If nothing came out, I will not
get money again, and that agency will not support any pc project in the future.
They want verification. I must be successfull, and I must be able to prove
somehow the success.
If pc develops a reputation among donor agencies of
unverified claims, should I better ommit the lable
of permaculture and try to sell agroforestry and aquaculture instead to them and
better not mention that I am sympathizing with pc (even if I use some methods
borrowed from pc?). In the end it is the content that counts for me, not the
label.
Question 1: does pc actually work.
Question 2: if the answere is yes, where is the evidence?
Question 3: does a permaculture design course enable people to do work that
makes a difference? (I don't expect a 72 hour course to teach everything, it is
enough if it can provide a basis from which these people start working
_successfully_).
Question 4: What is the added value pc has to offer compared with other
approaches. What makes it better?
Andreas
|