I’ve just come back to Saudi Arabia after a 3 week trip to California, which involved speaking at PV3 and attending a 10 day course taught by Daren Doherty on the Regrarians Platform. The course was held at a ranch in Santa Barbara, and involved a day for each of the elements of a modified Keyline Scale of Permanence.
Let me start off by saying that I was blown away by this course. The Regrarians platform fills the major gap in professional sustainable land management & design. Permaculture teaches principles, a new way of thinking & ethics, and it was the lingua franca of the students at this course. Holistic Management is the best management system for regenerative land use that I am aware of. What both permaculture and HM lack is the process for design. This is what the REX course does; it gives a process for integrating permaculture design & HM into a cohesive whole. Together, the 3 of them form a framework and foundation to create professional designs & plans that are effective, efficient, and appropriate to the context you’re in. As such, I consider this course essential for anybody serious about becoming a professional in the field of designing regenerative land and water use.
Here’s an example:
It is a permacultural moré to have as many species of interplanted everything as possible. Many folks when developing a food forest boast about having 50 or 80 species spread between 7 integrated layers. We’ve all seen Geoff Lawton’s videos walking through a food forest saying, “here’s an X, and here’s a Y, and here’s a Z, and look over here, it’s a J!” There is abundance everywhere in those videos, and I admit that on a gut level those are very sexy forest systems. There’s so much diversity! There’s so much stuff growing! So much life and abundance! It’s true.
On the other hand, I suspect this norm in the permaculture world is one of the reasons why permaculture implementation is largely limited to homesteads and small farms. Getting 80 species into one area is a ridiculous way to plant if you want to efficiently harvest and sell a crop, especially tree crops. On large scale agriculture, you have to harvest efficiently, which is impossible when you have ecological hodgepodges. Those hodgepodges require serious labor, which requires serious money, which almost no farmers have.
On the site I’ve been working on in Al Baydha, harvesting was not much of a consideration when we did our initial design. The questions were: Can we actually get things to grow here? Our objective was a closed canopy system alleyed with grazing strips, modeled somewhat after a food forest in Morocco. But never did we consider, “If these grow here, how are we going to harvest them and get them to market? How will we integrate drip irrigation lines with fencing, grazing systems, tree crops, and a way to harvest efficiently?” The lack of that question is going to affect the potential profitability of our demo site in Saudi Arabia forever.
I knew 5 years ago that on that site we would need to integrate fencing with access with water with grazing with forestry: Those are the basic components for a sustainable silvopasture system. That’s a complex system with many moving parts. Integrating all of those pieces into a cohesive whole was something I had no process for doing. I could figure out which zones things would go in & figure out how the outputs for one had to get to the inputs of another. But I did not know how to organize them in a cost-effective way that would allow for the end goal of harvesting, processing, and selling.
Now I do.
On a more personal note, I was fortunate to connect with some stellar people who take land management, water management, agriculture, and sustainability very seriously and very passionately. It was a blessing to rub shoulders with 30 folks working on a very high level and learn together. I think everyone who attended came away with a lot of energy, a rekindled desire to learn, and a lot less complacency.
Thanks to Darren Doherty & Lisa Heenan & Family for the work they are doing. I appreciate them sharing their mistakes so openly, because it means I don’t have to commit the same ones in my own work. This REX course is next-level stuff and essential to people who want to get into large-scale regenerative agriculture.
Leave a comment.
Yesterday and today I couldn’t make it out to Al Baydha because we had 22 mm of rain in Jeddah. That’s less than 1 inch. However, 1 inch of rain in this city wreaks a certain kind of havoc, as you can see in the photos below:
Part of the issue with flooding is that mountain valleys due east of Jeddah direct water to the city, so it’s not like an inch of rain on the city is the only source of the water.
But a major part of this flooding is that Jeddah has no buffer zones where water can drain to; the whole city is concrete and pavement, with 100% runoff rates. This is a massive failure of design; there are numerous spaces that if they had been done differently, could have greatly ameliorated the floods in Jeddah, and those spaces are duplicated in patterns throughout the city.
Here’s example #1:
There are 3 borders to the water on this street–to the left of the barrier is another 2 lane street, with another elevated sidewalk next to it. Total width of the streetscape is probably 17 meters, with 12 dedicated to the four lanes, and 5 dedicated to elevated walkways and trees.
The solution is obvious: lower the sidewalks and the planted medians enough to absorb the water on the street. 22 mm of rain over 12 square meters of road is 264 liters of water for every meter of road. For the medians and the sidewalks to absorb that much water, they would only have to be sunken 53 mm, a little more than two inches. With trees that perform hydraulic redistribution they could absorb more than that. But you could also sink them down a full foot–5 times deeper than you need for that particular road, so that it can absorb runoff from other roadways. This median dynamic is repeated throughout the city, on most major roadways. The other aspect of this poor design is that within 2 days, a water tanker with desalinated water in it will drive by to water these trees.
This may seem like a tremendously minor issue, but roads are currently the lowest spaces in the cityscape, and without a sink for the water, it multiplies over kilometers. Let’s take one of the main thoroughfares of Jeddah, Malik Road. Malik road runs north-south along the coastal side of Jeddah, and after driving most of it today, i couldn’t really see anywhere for water to leave the road until it reaches an underpass.
A look at the roads shows the total width to be about 80 meters, the main dividing median to be 15, and two other dividers splitting up the main road from service roads that are about 3 meters each. This doesn’t include the sidewalks that exist, as they’re not everywhere. Here is what that median looks like up close:
Notice that the median is raised about 50 cm, with grass, palm trees, and shrubbery planted thereon. The other medians are also raised, which means this road is essentially a sloped container when it rains. There are a few places for water to flow off onto side roads, but those are just other roads that are also flooding. The total width of this street is 80 meters, 59 of which is hardtop, and let’s take a 5 KM length. With 22 mm of rain, that is 6500 cubic meters of water finding the low point of that road. Multiply that by all the streets in Jeddah, and it’s no wonder that less than an inch of rain causes such problems: the whole streetscape is upside down.
Here’s where that road’s lowest point occurs: an underpass with water at least 3 meters deep at the bottom, after 22 mm of rain.
Yet the solution is simple: sink the medians and the dividers enough to absorb all the runoff.
The other major source of runoff is from rooftops, but this also has a simple solution. Almost all buildings already have a water storage tank, that are accessible to trucks that bring in desalinated water. Drain the roofs into these tanks, and a huge amount of runoff will be eliminated. Simple filters can handle the first flush eliminating dust and debris, after which the water is clean.
In a city where a gallon of water is more expensive than a gallon of oil, and where desalination takes up 20% of national energy consumption, it makes no sense to create a cityscape that makes no use whatsoever of free water falling from the sky. Yet that is exactly how Jeddah functions now, and the solution put forward by multinationals has been to drain that water into the sea as quickly as possible.
The principle for handling water in cityscapes in dryland situations is to take advantage of run-off from all surfaces, by elevating roads and buildings, and lowering green spaces to act as sinks and catchment for that runoff. By that standard, Jeddah’s streets are upside down. By putting them right side up, it could dramatically reduce road-scape flooding, seasonally decrease street-scape watering from tankers carrying desalinated water, and reduce damage, delays, and inconveniences caused by rain.
Leave a comment.
In Part II I wrote about the tricky relationship between water, energy, food, and economy and how current trends indicate there is little time to make some very big changes. In this post I am going to explore the goals put forth for 2025 by the National Water Strategy.
Saudi Arabia’s 2025 National Water Strategy (NWS) puts forth policies targeting three strategies areas:
1: Water resources management
2: Water Governance & Institutions
3: Water Supply Services
The underlying goals of the strategy are to introduce technological and institutional innovations to improve management, enhance services and reduce costs, and protect and conserve the environment in all sector activities. The targets are the following, sourced from the NWS:
The most important point on this is the total water withdrawals: Saudi Arabia intends to reduce its entire water consumption by more than 50% from 21.1 bcm per year to 9.5 bcm per year. The difference is nearly 12 bcm per year, or slightly less than the country’s total in current agricultural irrigation. In fact almost all of that drop is anticipated to be from reduced irrigation:
Nearly all of that drop in consumption is in agricultural use. Here the 2025 plan shows where that drop will happen; date production will be preserved, and some emphasis on fruits and vegetables. However, fodder and cereals will be entirely phased out. Total agricultural water use in this plan will drop by 11.5 bcm per year, accounting for 95% of the drop in water consumption.
In other words, Saudi Arabia hopes to limit growth of urban and industrial water to only .5 bcm till 2025, and to cut total water use almost entirely through irrigation. Despite the population growing at 2% per year and water consumption per capita growing at 8% per year, it is hoped that more efficient production and distribution, as well as increased water recycling will account for that growth.
Leave a comment.
Lots of people in permaculture want land, and there is a lot of discussion about how to obtain it. For most this stems from a desire either to be a farmer, or just to produce their own food but have a different kind of career than farming. Agriculture is going through some major transitions at the moment–demographically, environmentally, and politically.
THE BIG PICTURE
Farming is approaching a generational shift; the average farmer is 60 years old and is going to be looking to turn the farm over to someone else sooner or later. This is the subject of Joel Salatin’s book “Fields of Farmers.” Who will take over that land is a big question, and the answer will determine how all that land is managed.
Environmentally, agriculture as a whole needs a revolution. Current agricultural practices are not just unsustainable, but destructive. Monocultural cropping systems result in topsoil loss, biodiversity loss (including bees!), and use up more water than nature allows for. Dead zones in major waterways like the Gulf of Mexico , the Chesapeake Bay, and many others are largely the result of agricultural fertilizer runoff. An agriculture that destroys soil is an agriculture that will inevitably collapse; something that can’t go on forever won’t.
Politically more and more people are becoming aware of the perverse incentives that are part of the US food system–subsidies, water rights and allocations, and commitments to monocultured annuals result in a food system that makes healthy food expensive, and cheap food health-threatening. It’s also a food system that is fragile to shocks like drought; a system that is breeding superbugs through the overuse of antibiotics; a system that puts many farmers in poverty or de facto indentured servitude.
CHANGING THE SYSTEM: DISRUPTING INNOVATIVELY & CHANGING LAWS
In the United States, there are only two ways to change the ag system. The first is by changing the laws. The general impression I get is that to change the laws in the United States, you either need a popular uprising, or you need to be a big business that can afford to fund political campaigns, lobbyists, lawyers, and propaganda. If the US is indeed an oligarchy, then oligarchy is the path to follow to change the laws.
The other way to change the system is to make the current one obsolete; make Monsanto and Bayer and Tyson Foods, and all the other companies that make up the current agricultural oligarchy as relevant as the typewriter. This requires creating entirely new agricultures that replace the current ones in a way that is more profitable, and establishing patterns for transitioning typical farms from the current system to the disruptively innovative one.
The truth is, both have to happen and they’re interconnected; the laws have to be changed, and a new system needs to disrupt the current one, and it should be simultaneous. Permaculture and some organization–a super coop or something along those lines–that abides by its precepts have to become the next big agriculture. If you don’t do that, you’re not going to change the incentives driving the current system, and you will not change the way farmers farm.
PUT THE HORSE IN FRONT OF THE CART
Never in the history of agriculture have farmers been those who were in power and made the laws. Those that create raw materials historically and currently are those that are also poor and unempowered. It’s not the diamond miners who own DeBeers; It’s not the chicken farmers who own Purdue; Pharaoh was never a cotton or wheat farmer, though cotton and wheat were the foundation for much of Egypt’s riches. No it is those who control those raw materials or traffic in them that can gain power, and this brings us to the crux of the matter: If money is what’s holding back the permaculture community from obtaining land, then we need a different system. Saving up money to buy land, and then figuring out regenerative farming and what you’re going to sell is, in my opinion, a failed model. It’s too slow, and only the most pioneering folks are able to make it work. That’s not to say the model i’m proposing is easier. But I think it can be much better.
The next 20 years presents a huge opportunity to gain access to massive amounts of farms as older farmers look to retire, and also presents a huge need to change tack as drought, topsoil loss, drained fossil-water aquifers, and growing dead zones expose the dangers of current agriculture. How will permaculture as a movement seize these opportunities?
My answer to that is what I am calling Product Driven Land Acquisition (PDLA), which flips our current design order on its head to account for financial and economic issues. The model for PDLA is as following:
1: Design and sell a physical product to replace something in everyone’s house that can be perennial based.
2: Create and sell the product and grow that business.
3: Once the business is succesful, use the funds to buy land that will grow the perennial ingredients for that product. (ie go vertically integrated on your supply chain)
4: Design a guild based on the climate and land that grows the foundational product of your business. This allows you to expand into less profitable areas while relying on the foundational product you’re already selling at volume. The ecology you plant is based on that product and the climate it will grow in, and then you diversify into other products based on that guild. Not all of the products have to be value added or niche, but it is the profit of your foundational products driving the financial side of the ecological guild.
5: In addition to designing an ecological agriculture, you will also have to design an ecology of businesses that account for the different kinds of economic activity you’re involved in.
I’m going to give one example: cotton. Monocultured cotton is a huge ecological problem. It was a desire to enter the cotton business that caused Uzbekistan to drain the entire Aral sea. Now that the sea is gone, the residues of pesticides that ran into the sea from industry & agriculture are being blown across Uzbekistan, causing serious health problems and increasing the rate of salinization of the land. In other words, growing cotton in Uzbekistan is now causing cotton to fail in Uzbekistan, and just happened to destroy one of the world’s largest sources of fresh water, as well as the fish and tourist industries intricately linked to it. So here we have a clear ecological problem caused by industrial agriculture.
How to disruptively innovate cotton? Many people say the answer is hemp. Hemp requires 1/2 the water cotton does, grows in much colder and more temperate climates, and can be grown without the use of pesticides. Hemp textiles are objectively stronger and last longer than cotton ones, and hemp is also valuable as a paper crop and a seed crop.
The problem is, I can’t find a single hemp clothing company that makes clothes that actually look like real clothes. You can’t wear hemp clothes without looking like a hippie. So how would I disrupt cotton? I’d start a jeans company that makes hemp jeans that actually look good. Start in the higher end jeans markets until you’re moving volume and have decent revenue, and start out by sourcing my hemp from China where it’s not illegal to grow it.
Once I could afford a lobbyist, i’d hire one to go to Montana and start showing the state government how much profit it’s losing by now allowing hemp to be grown, and that that my company would love to source its hemp from Montana rather than China because we want to put a “grown in America/Made in America” tag on it. I’d show how many jobs this would create and how much economic activity would result. I’d partner up with other groups that want to legalize pot and hemp and get the state law changed. Once the law is changed, I’d have proven revenues and cash flow that would allow me to vertically integrate and buy a few thousand acres in Montana. Then I’d design my permaculture guild around hemp and start diversifying my products based on that guild, creating other companies to account for them. I’d end up with a perennial ecology in Montana that competes with cotton on the global supply chain, eliminates demand for pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides, and have an ecology of businesses developing market power and providing value to lots of people.
This is my idea of product driven land acquisition. Rather than trying to buy land and then figuring out how to farm it, I think it would be better to create a product that reliably supplies revenue & creates demand for a particular type of farm, and then vertically integrate my supply chain by buying farms to supply that product.
This may seem very idealistic, and some steps in this process are relatively untested. Ecological agriculture leading to an ecology of businesses is a big idea with little practice behind it, and as far as I know very little conversation around it up to this point. I think it’s the direction we have to go in if permaculture is ever going to move from being predominantly in peoples’ backyards to being predominantly how people farm.
Leave a comment.
In Part 1 we just looked at some current data about supply and consumption of water in Saudi Arabia on a broad scale. In part II we are going to get a little more granular on the data and tie it into the broader picture.
THE COST OF DESALINATION
Desalinated water provides just 7% of the national supply currently, but when it comes to urban water, desalination is supplying 61%, and at massive cost. In 2013, desalination in Saudi Arabia required 1.5 million barrels of oil per day, or approximately 547 million barrels of oil per year. At the current rate of 56$ per barrel, this presents an opportunity cost of 30.6 billion USD.
The projections from the water ministry are that domestic consumption of water & electricity could consume 50% of the country’s oil & gas production by 2030 if there are no changes made in national water policy.
The cost of desalination, however, is not just financial. In the UAE, salinity of the persian gulf has increased from 35,000 ppm to as high as 56,000 ppm. As salinity increases in the gulf, it may balance the pH of the acidifying sea, but the sea’s corals and fisheries will be “highly stressed,” which is a sanitized way of saying decimated (link is to pdf). Furthermore, the technical difficulty of removing so much salt will make desalination either technically impossible, (a possibility) or simply much more expensive (guaranteed). That situation is exacerbated by the fact that both the persian gulf and the red sea have very small inlets; both are largely self contained, with water that changes over from the ocean once every 8-9 years. In other words, even with advances in desalination technology, it’s still going to become more expensive to desalinate a liter of water as time goes on.
CONSUMPTION & POPULATION TRENDS
Saudi Arabia’s population is growing at around 2%, but its consumption of water and electricity have been tracking around double that amount.
Meanwhile, water consumption per household is increasing at a rate of 7.5% per year, and demand for electricity is increasing at 8% per year. If both trends continue, demand for water and power per capita will double in a decade, and the number of capitas will increase from 35 million to 45 million.
Over that same decade, conventional agricultures in Saudi Arabia may face a major collapse. With some 100,000 million cubic meters (mcm) of water left in the fossil aquifers (based on National Geographic’s estimate), and an annual withdrawal from those aquifers of 14,500 mcm per year for irrigation (taken from the Water Ministry’s 2025 National Water Strategy), time is short on this front.
The pain associated with these collapses will be real, as farming communities abandon their land to the desert. The removal of water subsidies already had some farming communities in Hail turning to other employment in 2012. As subsidies for wheat end, and eventually alfalfa, whole agricultural communities will have to look elsewhere. So while it may seem to someone from outside that growing wheat or alfalfa in the desert is neither environmentally nor financially sound, there are now 40+ years of history in some of these places with wheat as the economic base.
Putting It All Together
Saudi Arabia faces a gordian knot entangling its economy, energy, water, food, & population growth. Its rentier economy continues to depend almost singlehandedly on oil and oil derivatives, which provide 90% of the country’s revenues. But in the coming decades, it faces enormous decisions dealing with water, agriculture, energy, economy, and increasing costs:
- The fossil water will run out eventually, which will lead to a collapse of all KSA’s conventional agricultures, leading to greater food imports (which are currently 80%) and a fragile dependence on global food prices.
- Demand for electricity and urban water are set to double over the next 10 years.
- In that time the population will probably increase by some 10 million people.
These are some of the reasons why Citigroup estimated that Saudi Arabia could become a net oil importer by 2030. Whether or not Saudi Arabia can weather these changes quickly enough and untangle its gordian knot will depend entirely on what actions it takes until then. But it will require nothing less than massive changes in pricing structures, subsidies, gains in efficiency, and the creation of new economies to replace one based almost entirely on oil.
On an ending note, I want to emphasize that I do not have an apocalyptic viewpoint of KSA’s future. It is rarely the case that when trends point to disaster that people in charge don’t take action to avert those disasters, and so trends that seem alarming now rarely play out the way they might appear to. Thus, the purpose of this post is not to spread fear; it is to lay the groundwork for understanding the current situation, so that the critical nature of the solutions’ designs are apparent.
Leave a comment.
In a previous post I wrote about food security in Saudi Arabia and its relation to global food production patterns. I have hesitated to write about the specifics of water here, because i didn’t have many up to date sources, and the data I had was quite suspect. However recently I got access to the 2025 National Water Strategy, written in 2014 by Dr. Mohammad Al-Saud, who is the Deputy Minister for Water Affairs for the Ministry of Water & Electricity (MOWE). It has very recent numbers, and should paint the most accurate picture available.
CURRENT WATER CONSUMPTION
In terms of consumption, in 2012 nearly 81% of the country’s water went to irrigation. 12% went to urban use, and the other 7% was split between industrial, mining, thermodynamic electric, and aquaculture.
Total water in 2012 use was 21,100 million cubic meters (mcm)
CURRENT WATER SUPPLY
Of that 21.1 billion cm, 72%, or 14,550 mcm was sourced from non-renewable fossil aquifers. 8% was desalinated, and 19% came from surface water flows & renewable shallow aquifers. 1% of the water supply came from recycled, treated wastewater.
It is important to note that water withdrawal from renewable sources is 400% the rate of replenishment, and that reliance on the fossil aquifers is what makes up the difference. Those aquifers initially had 500 cubic kilometers of water in the 1960s, and according to National Geographic, 400 of those had been used up by 2008. (for reference, 1 cubic kilometer = 1,000 mcm) Since consumption rates have been increasing year over year, it is now likely that 0ver 90% of the water in the fossil aquifers has been depleted, almost all of which went to massive agricultural projects aimed at achieving food self-sufficiency.
Extraction of fossil water began in 1974, peaked in the early 2000s, and is expected to fall at least in the short term due to a removal of subsidies on wheat , which occurred this year despite some serious issues with wheat farmers.
I personally doubt those expectations because many farmers are turning to alfalfa (source in Arabic) instead of wheat, which uses 4 to 5 times more water than wheat production. I have heard that there are plans to end alfalfa subsidies as well, but I can’t find a good source for that so it’s in the rumor pile for now.
THE BOTTOM LINE
Saudi Arabia is currently sourcing 72% of its water from fossil water aquifers, 90% of which have been used up in agricultural projects in the last generation. 80% of all water goes to agriculture, which is largely sourced from those aquifers. What will happen when the fossil water is gone, which could happen in the next 20 years? That depends on what happens between now and then.
In Part II we’ll tie the agricultural issue into other current trends in KSA, revolving around the economy, population growth, and consumption trends in water, food, and energy.
Leave a comment.
Here are the top 3 ways I answer the question, “What can I grow here?”
1: Existing Local Practices
In more developed areas there are lots of ways to know what people are already growing. Garden clubs, nurseries, seed-saver clubs, permaculture meet-up groups, etc, are all great ways to find out what’s growing in your area, and even to get some local seed that could be better adapted to your place. Especially in more developed areas of the world, where you can find organizations with a click o’ the internet, this is an easy and probably the most common way to find out what you can grow.
But what if you are somewhere you don’t have those associations, and where the internet gives you very little information? One method is to drive around neighborhoods or public buildings and look at the gardens they are growing. Especially at public buildings, these will often be maintained by immigrant workers, who tend to import practices and crops from back home if they are from a similar climate.
For me working in Saudi Arabia, I’ve visited some gardens run and maintained by Philipinos, who have brought moringa and sweet potato here. Initially I wouldn’t have thought to plant Moringa Oleifera here, because its native climate is more tropical and much more humid. However, i’ve observed some succesfully grown here, so I integrated them with my guild at work, in addition to the local Moringa Peregrina. Immigrants are a cultural edge and their introduction of exotic food plants can lead to innovative tries in your guild.
2: Local Historic Practices
Before industrialization, everybody except for a very few ate local. Traditional peoples and their food practices, whether currently existing or not, can point you in the direction of some plants that will be useful, and perhaps largely forgotten. Acorns, for example, were a staple of the pre-colonial peoples of New England, though I would venture to say that very few New Englanders consume them now. There are thousands of plants that can provide food, fiber, and medicine, that are almost entirely unknown to modern people, though in the past that was only sometimes the case.
3: A Climate Analogue
A climate analogue is a catalogue of other areas on the planet that share key characteristics that are similar or identical to the characteristics of the land you want to design for. Through a climate analogue, you can find nearly-identical climates across the globe, and then by researching plants in those areas, find all kinds of cool things you didn’t know you could grow. Here’s an example:
Take a look at the middle of the west coast of Saudi Arabia in the map above. It’s just inside the sub-tropics; now follow that latitude across the globe and note where it hits a western coast. Then do the same for the same latitude south of the equator (so if you’re looking at 20 North, you’ll want to look at 20 South as well because it’s the same solar pattern, just with the seasons flipped).
For my area in Saudi Arabia, following those latitudes, you hit the following areas: Coastal Namibia, Western Australia, A part of the Atacama in Chile, Mexicali, Mexico and the southern regions of the sonoran desert, Mauritania, A chunk of India, and Bangladesh. Those are the areas in my climate analogue. By researching traditional food plants from these areas, i can construct a guild of useful plants that are already growing somewhere with identical solar & in many instances climatic circumstances. In my own situation, every location on my climate analogue except for 2 are coastal deserts, just like the region I work in.
So that’s a very simplistic example. Here are the 6 characteristics you ought to look at when constructing a climate analogue:
C: Distance and direction from the nearest ocean, sea, or large body of water.
Those are the 3 most important. If you get a match on those 3, likelihood is that the next 3 will be comparable. These are:
D: Precipitation–if your analogue matches are the same on precipitation, then you know you can meet water sustainability by planting those imported plants.
E: dominant winds
F: major geographical features that would affect climate–mountains, rivers, seasonal storms, etc.
Bear in mind, none of the 6 characteristics above need to be identical, and you could eliminate the latter 3 altogether depending on the geography of your land. The more similar the matches you find in your climate analogue, the more succesful you will be implanting members of your guild from those areas.
If you are fortunate, after you build a climate analogue you will find 3 or 4 areas whose climates are very similar to yours. Then it is time for research. The same techniques you used in finding out already existing practices where you live, are the same you will use for these other areas that you have identified through your climate analogue.
Here are some plants i’ve adopted into my guild that I wouldn’t have thought to plant otherwise, or didn’t even know about when I started:
1: Moringa Oleifera can be found in Gujarat and Rajasthan, India, both of which match the climate analogue. This, combined with seeing it nearby in Jeddah led me to planting it out in our desert.
2: Pithecellobium dulce and honey mesquite (prosopis glandulosa). Both of these trees are native to Mexico, including the range on my climate analogue. The pith is pictured above.
3: Mongongo –this is the staple crop of the Bushmen in the Namib desert. I haven’t been able to plant it yet, but it should grow in Saudi Arabia because Namibia matches on all 6 of the above characteristics, and even has matching soil types.
4: Watermelon. Watermelon grows wonderfully in Saudi Arabia, and many people grow it here by flooding fields off of flash floods and sowing with watermelon seeds. Watermelon also happens to be native to Namibia.
5: Agaves (native to Mexico and the Sonoran Desert)
A Final Note on Natives vs. Non-natives
Just because you can grow something doesn’t mean you should. Know your goals for what you want to grow, consider the surrounding context and community, and bear in mind that people have moved plants all over the globe for a long, long time. It’s true that if we only ever grew natives, Italy would have no tomatoes, Ireland no potatoes, India no curry, Thailand no chiles, and the USA no wheat. However, that doesn’t mean you should throw caution to the wind, either.
A climate analogue can open up your eyes to lots of possibilities about what you can grow. If you combine that with a knowledge of local historical plant usage, you can come up with some wonderfully diverse guilding.
Leave a comment.
We’re two days off from when I left the Permaculture Voices Conference in San Diego, and perhaps the greatest thing for me was the immense, pervasive, encircling mass of positive energy I felt from a huge number of people there. Everybody there is working on solutions, and the optimism and hope and community-affirming feelings of the whole conference was a tremendous pick-me-up.
I found this to be true not just on the conference level, but also on an individual level. I do not often meet a person who makes me feel so comfortable that I can be completely open even though I don’t know him/her, and that happened to me multiple times in a 4 day span.
With that being said, here’s a quick breakdown of some things I wanted to get out there:
Learning to Read Cultural Landscapes
A lot of folks in permaculture are great designers for things on the ground. We have a huge comparative advantage that comes solely from our ability to read landscapes, integrate those landscapes with climatic information, and to let the land reveal to us what kind of design will facilitate the greatest efficiency and gain in fertility. This advantage is big enough that folks are starting to notice–hence Ben Falk’s post a while back about his presentation to people at USAID and their desire to acquire people with this climate literacy.
What we have not done as well in the permaculture community is to gain the same literacy on a social level. Just as landscapes have keypoints and keylines, human society also has leverage points, geographies, and patterns that we ought to use to tailor our strategies. Inevitably as we design for bigger and bigger problems, we bump into human organizations–boardrooms, congresses, clubs, institutions–that we need to approach and work with, and by and large we don’t know how to do it. This is what I addressed in my presentation, which was called “Culture as Climate: A model for reading social landscapes and increasing the adoption of permaculture.” The other title I was considering was, “How to use culture to instigate cultural change.”
I’m not an expert designer at this point–my experience has been deep, but narrow. What I do know is culture, and I see this as a gap in our collective expertise, so I hope that the folks who attended and who listen in the future can find utility in my approach.
My Takeaways from PV2
1. More Appreciation for the Purples
I came away from PV2 with a greater appreciation for purples. Some of you folks might know Paul Wheaton’s purple-brown scale of permaculturalists. I’ve always considered myself more of a brown. But I got to rub shoulders and meet with some people that I think of as way more of a purple, and I found them to be impressive, and I learned a lot from their experiences.
It is true that permaculture needs more peer-reviewed studies, more science to back it up and to confirm what is largely anecdotes, and more experimentation on a bunch of land-based models, from the urban up to the broadacre scale, and I’m not sure it’s going to come from the purples.
That being said, it is crystal clear to me that people systems are much more difficult than natural systems–and this is where the purples excel. The ones who know what they are doing know how to help people get along with other people, how to facilitate decision making, and how to keep community cohesive. That is a desperately needed skill in a society where we would rather text than make a phone call because peoples’ voices are too personal for us. So one of my takeaways from PV2 is a greater appreciation for the purples. I’m not into your woo but I am into your social skills.
2: Capitalism (the system now) vs. Anarchy
Toby Hemenway’s Keynote talk was on anarchy–not on building a society without laws, but a society without rulers. I can appreciate aspects of the vision he put forward; there are examples of functioning anarchistic villages where the people were quite happy and had a good community going–particularly in Italy post WWII (Thanks to Erik Ohlsen for pointing out those historic examples to me).
However, hanging onto that anarchistic vision directly contradicts my point from above–which is that just as climate and geography determine how we approach the land, the social and invisible structures (that are a direct result of our culture) should dictate how we approach making change happen on social and political levels.
I’ve got a much more extensive post to write on this, but my concern from Toby’s talk is it will encourage people to disengage from the society we have, which in my opinion is the exact opposite of what we need to do to build a sustainable civilization. After some mulling in a couple conversations with Chad Stamps, Grant Schultz, and a few others, I think there may be some useful tension in this conversation.
3: Admiration for Many and Moving Ahead
I’m blown away by the caliber of people who showed up to this conference. There was very little fanboyism or hero worship that I could tell, and a lot more of problem-solving, model-comparing, networking and business development, and a lot of potential for collaboration. I’m determined to try to keep the new relationships I made with a lot of people substantive. It would be really easy to turn a conference like this into a good time where we met cool people, but without following up and taking action it’ll just turn into happy memories.
Finally I want to thank Diego for putting on a fantastic conference. I’m excited to see what he does next year, and hope to be a part of it.
Leave a comment.
Today i’m headed to the Permaculture Voices Conference in San Diego. I’ve been looking forward to this for a year. Last year I couldn’t make it–in part because i didn’t want to pay the money it would have cost to attend and stay at a hotel, and in part because i couldn’t get away from work.
About 8 months ago I wrote Diego, who runs PV, and said, “take a look at what i’m doing–maybe you’ll think it’s interesting.” I was hoping that he’d invite me to speak at this year’s conference so that I could afford to come. It lead to a podcast and a speaking invitation. I’m tremendously excited to be going.
While at PV2 I plan to do some liveblogging of the talks I attend, so stay tuned.
Here is a preview for my own talk:
A practiced permaculturalist can look at a landscape, and integrate the climatic, geographic, and hydrologic factors, as the basis and context of a fantastic design. These conditions are the starting point of how we approach earth care.
In my experience, people systems are much trickier than earth systems, and I think the permaculture world needs to develop models for how to approach them in a systematic and intelligent way. There are corollaries to climate, geography, hydrology, and keylines in the social realm, and those need to play a major part in how we should approach people care. My take is that just as climate is the starting point of design for earthcare, culture is the starting point for people care, and should be the main determining factor in our strategy for creating and approaching invisible structures.
As part of the model, here is a preview for what you need when approaching a foreign culture, whether that culture is in another country, or in the boardroom of a company or organization you want to approach. You need:
1: A Guide
2: A Sheikh
3: To Sing the right song
5: To Solve a Pain
If you come see my talk, you will learn how to use culture to expand your circle of influence, to develop the right approach to people care for your context, and to increase the adoption of permaculture wherever you may be practicing.
Leave a comment.
Saudi Arabia has few policy options to confront its food and water security, and when we talk about sustainable systems, those options get reduced even further. However, it’s apparent that change is necessary, as current consumption patterns and pricing patterns are a one way ticket off a fiscal cliff. Again, the problem is not that Saudi Arabia is going to run out of oil (of which it has at least 100 years worth according to some petroleum engineering friends of mine). Rather the danger is that all the oil produced will be consumed domestically, leaving the country looking around for alternative exports while at the same time desalinating more of its water for more people, and importing more food for a higher population.
In a typical food security analysis, Very Smart People look at the economy and ask, “will Country K be able to import the food it cannot produce domestically?” In other words, is the economy such that KSA can pay for its food needs? Currently the answer is a resounding yes, because that’s what is happening; 60% of all food is imported.
So in the typical analysis, Saudi Arabia’s food security is fine. But there have been previous incidents that caused worry. In 2007 India imposed an export ban on non-basmati rice due to a domestic shortage, which led to a shortage in KSA. Despite Saudi Arabia’s wealth, it could not obtain all the rice it wanted, and imports fell by thousands of tons. Consequently, domestic prices were inflated, and millions of poor Saudis–of whom there are an estimated 2-4 million— experienced significant hunger.
For its food security, KSA has embarked on a program encouraging the private sector to invest in lands abroad where food can be produced and sold back to the country. The idea is that countries with land but no capital will cooperate with Saudi businessmen to develop previously undeveloped agricultural areas. Among the countries under consideration are Ethiopia, Sudan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Mozambique and Ukraine.
Whether you call this a land grab, neo-colonialism, or investment in developing a better food supply, it still holds that if there is a famine in Ethiopia, it’s not going to export food to Saudi Arabia. There is nothing to stop a foreign country from nationalizing its domestic product when circumstances dictate, which would leave countries like Saudi Arabia in the same pickle as before. Thus this approach comes with significant risk, especially since it was already attempted in the late 1970s with Sudan. At that time it failed, as is detailed in Eckart Woertz’s Oil For Food (which also describes the challenges of the current situation).
Fawaz al Alamy, who negotiated Saudi Arabia’s entry into the World Trade Organization and is now a director of a major food and food-processing company, told Thomas Lippman of the Middle East Policy Council, “In these foreign investments, in Sudan or Ethiopia or Ukraine, who is going to secure the investment against political risk or flood or whatever? I would love to see these projects succeed, but I don’t believe it. Profit margins are already small in the food business. I’d rather have agreements with credible countries like New Zealand and Canada — they produce without help from us; we buy, we have stable arrangements with no investment risk.”
While that may seem a more secure policy, it ignores a basic fact about modern agriculture: it is inherently unsustainable. Saudi Arabia’s domestic agriculture is at the point of ceasing because it is out of water, and has almost no soil to start with. However, all modern agricultures deplete soil and are draining aquifers. There is not a single agriculture on the planet growing the staples people eat–rice, wheat, corn, soy, oats, barley–that is sustainable in terms of soil or water. In the United States most agriculture in the plains region depend on water from the huge Ogalalla aquifer, the greatest source of fresh water on the planet. Due to management issues, the Ogalalla is being drawn down at a rate of at least 40 million acre feet per year, and is reportedly already inaccesible in areas of northern Texas. The more western states have drained the Colorado River dry. It is the same story the world over.
This is the double whammy of Saudi Arabia’s food security–as it looks outside for imports, agricultures that are now considered reliable will begin to fail, and will increasingly do so unless the way we grow food changes dramatically. The modus operandi of human societies to this point has been to turn forests into fields, monocrop those fields, and over decades or centuries, turn those fields into desert. The deforestation causes loss of water and precipitation, and the monocropped agricultures mine topsoil until it erodes away and nothing is left but dead dirt and sand. This is being observed in real time in Brazil, where clearing forest to grow soy & sugarcane has resulted in the worst drought in decades.
The speed of that process from forest to desert for the sake of unsustainable agricultures is increasing as populations grow and as technology advances. On a pragmatic level that means agricultures will become more and more volatile, and food production will be unreliable. Thus Saudi Arabia’s current plight is actually everyone’s predicament in the long run, when it comes to food security: Desertification, loss of productivity, and the irretrievable loss of our water sources is our future unless we revolutionize how we produce food.
There is a sustainable solution for Saudi Arabia, as well as for the rest of us: To develop agricultures based on perennial systems that supply their own water. In Saudi Arabia, that would mean reforesting the hijaz, using the forest as the basis for the production of nuts, fruits, forage, medicines, oils, dairy, poultry, and red meats. The forest would initiate a cascade of rainfall that would eventually push east beyond the mountain range and allow for the afforestation of the entire Arabian Peninsula. As the forest expanded east it would bring the rain with it.
Not only would this allow for the entire Arabian Peninsula to be converted to productive landscape, & dramatically increase rainfall, but it would permanently solve the Gulf’s water and food security issues, eliminate the urbanization of the rural poor (which brings its own associated social ills of poverty, prostitution, drug abuse, and crime), and create an entirely new sector of the economy that currently does not exist. This is the only environmentally, socially, and economically sustainable solution to Saudi Arabia’s water and food security. The patterns used in that design, the ideas and philosophies and methods behind its implementation are also the only sustainable solution for human society in general.
Leave a comment.