Ecovillages as Models for Sustainable Development: A Case Study Approach

Master’s Thesis

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

Master of Arts (M.A.)

awarded by the Philosophical Faculty of

Albert-Ludwigs-Universitat Freiburg i. Br. (Germany)

and the

University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban (South Africa)

Submitted by

BHAWNA GESOTA

from

Pune, India

Winter Semester 2007/2008

Social Sciences

Table of contents

Abstract................................................................................................................................ i

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. ii

I. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1

Mapping the Context ............................................................................................................... 1 Mapping the Motivation ......................................................................................................... 5

Methodology............................................................................................................................. 7

II. Conceptualizing Sustainability ............................................................................ 11

Ecological Modernization ..................................................................................................... 15 Complexity Theory as a Way of Thinking about Sustainability ..................................... 17

III. Towards Developing the Concept of Ecovillage.................................................... 20

IV. Case Studies .......................................................................................................... 26

The Findhorn Ecovillage ...................................................................................................... 26 Ökodorf Sieben Linden ......................................................................................................... 32

V. A Sustainability Assessment .................................................................................... 38

Ecological Sustainability ....................................................................................................... 40 Economic Viability ................................................................................................................. 42 Social Sustainability ............................................................................................................... 43

The Challenge of Governance: Centralization, Control and Hierarchy ......................... 48

VI. Urban Ecovillages and Vauban District of Freiburg ........................................... 50

VII. Negotiating Between the Social-Economic-Environment Nexus......................... 55

VIII. Role of the Ecovillage Movement in Emerging Global Complexities ............... 60

Orienting Itself........................................................................................................................ 63 …as Demonstration and Education Centers ...................................................................... 65

…as Models for Sustainable Development......................................................................... 68

IX. Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 71

Appendix........................................................................................................................... 73

1. List of Tables .................................................................................................................. 73 1.1 Number of Ecovillages by region .................................................................................... 73 1.2 A possible map of the sustainable transition ................................................................. 73 1.3 Comparison of practices at ecovillages........................................................................... 74

2. List of Figures................................................................................................................. 75 2.1 Self Audit for Ecovillages/Communities ....................................................................... 75

3. A Brief profile sketch of interview participants ........................................................ 76 3.1 Okodorf Sieben Linden ..................................................................................................... 76 3.2 The Findhorn Ecovillage................................................................................................... 78

4. Semi-Structured Interview Guideline......................................................................... 81 4.1 Questionnaire 1 .................................................................................................................. 81 4.2 Questionnaire 2 .................................................................................................................. 82

References.......................................................................................................................... 84

Abstract

That the current socio-economic system in its form of global capitalism is not sustainable

in the long term has been a subject occupying space in many discourses. Two basic

factors attribute to this unsustainabiliy. First factor related to the destruction of the

environment and the ecological base under the assumption that natural resources are

infinite and at man’s disposal to be used and commodified. Second factor relates to the

fragmentation in modern society and breakdown of traditional community structures

precisely due to the free market arrangement of the economic system and global

capitalism. While ecovillages can’t be said to be a new phenomena as their ancestors

existed in the form of the counterculture of the 60’s and the 70’s, the contemporary

ecovillage movement departs from its legacy in various ways. These ecovillages are

becoming centers of education and demonstration for sustainable lifestyles.

Keywords: Sustainable Development, Ecovillages, Counterculture, Movement, Global

Capitalism, Complexity, Complex Adaptive Systems, Education, Society, Economy,

Environment, Ecology

- i -

Acknowledgements

To begin with I would like to thank Prof. Anand Kumar from JNU, New Delhi for

encouraging me early on in April 2007 to write on ecovillages. For a thesis that got

seriously side-tracked due to a personal loss, I am wonderfully surprised that it actually

got written and concluded. For this, of course I take credit for my perseverance and

diligence. However, it would not have been possible to complete it without the support,

help and solidarity of some people. On this note, I would like to thank Prof. Boike

Rehbein for providing me with great flexibility and full support during the moments of

my personal crisis and allowing me to extend my thesis deadline. Prof. Schwengel, my

Freiburg supervisor, not only agreed to the extended deadline but also worked with me

closely by giving me a step by step feedback. Prof. Harald Witt for being accommodating

with extended deadline. And last but not the least, my classmates, Pragya Taneja and

Silviya Koshinska and my friend Deepa Friebel who opened the doors to their homes and

hearts to help me wade through the sad times.

The thesis would not have been written without the valuable contribution of the

ecovillagers that I met during the course of my empirical study. For this, I thank the

residents of the Sieben Linden and Findhorn ecovillages who volunteered (or got

volunteered!) to endure long interview conversations with me and for their willingness to

share. Specifically, I would like to thank Jonathan Dawson from the Findhorn Ecovillage,

for facilitating my entry into Findhorn and continued support during my ‘illegitimate’

stay at Findhorn. I am also thankful to the Club99 group at Sieben Linden for giving me

the ‘mitarbeiter’ opportunity to work with them on their strawbale building construction

site. Not to forget the people I met fleetingly at crossroads, during meal times, in the hot

tub, at the construction site and at other social events for giving me small insights into the

ecovillage life. And finally my flat mate in Vauban, Nicola Weiss, for giving me key

insights into Vauban and the Genova genossenschaft project in Vauban.

I dedicate this thesis to my father who passed away on December 28, 2007.

Freiburg, Germany

April 2008

- ii -

Gesota - 1 -

I. Introduction

Mapping the Context “The general will which should dominate all public life and determine all public

decisions was not the sum of all individual wills. It was something qualitatively different:

an expression of man’s social, universal nature, of his status as a human being, living

with others and concerned for them, an expression of his membership of a collective and

not of his egoistic pursuit of personal advantage. Man, this meant, expressed himself

most fully, was most properly human, precisely in a community.”

- Rousseau cited by Kamenka1 cited by Pepper 1991:63

The realities of life on our planet dictate that continued economic development as

we know it in the form of global capitalism, cannot be sustained. This is so because

present-day forms of economic activity have rapidly under-mined two other processes

that are essential for survival of human life and civilization: the availability of the

ecological base on which economic development is precinct and community on which

human health is precinct. The ecological base maintains the biological wealth and

climatic conditions necessary for life on our planet. Community produces healthy

families, educated and responsible citizens, and civilization itself. The compromising of

these processes by current economic activities has destroyed both the vitality of human

communities in a growing number of areas of the planet and the quality of human life in

many other communities and neighborhoods throughout the world (ICLEI & IDRC

1996).

The post-development discourse recognizes that economic development has had

an impeding effect on the environment and an ecological disaster is imminent, if all

countries in the world were to follow the North-Atlantic model of predatory use of

natural resources (Lieten 2004). Capitalist economy has not taken into consideration the

externalized cost of renewing the ecological base required for the ever expanding global

production (Wallerstein 1995). In the absence of any world tax on the consumption of the

ecological base, the ecological base of the world economy has steadily decreased (ibid).

1 See Kamenka Eugene (1972) Community as a Social Ideal. p.8, London: E. Arnold

Gesota - 2 -

The Risk Society Theory proposed by Ulrich Beck suggests that the current phase of

second modernity (versus post-modernism) is characterized by five interlinked processes

of globalization, individualization, gender revolution, underemployment and global

ecological crisis (1992). Now we have an “earth politics” or “politics of nature” (Sutton

2004), which did not exist before. Questions such as what is the environment? What is

nature? What is the human? (Beck 1992) How are nature, society and environment

interconnected and interdependent? What role does technology play? (Giovanna 1997)

are being increasingly posed in different spaces.

According to the World Development Studies 5 Report, the processes of

globalization include globalization of markets, globalization of culture and globalization

of security (Buenda 1995). Usually security implies security of a country from foreign

invasion or security in reference to crime but the human development theory includes

environmental degradation as a “global enemy” which threatens the very survival of the

Homo sapiens and “the continued destruction of environment is a direct menace to the

physical survival of humankind as a whole.” (Buenda 1995:16). It is well known that the

fall of previous human societies and civilizations from the Easter Island to ancient Greece

has been due to their failure to regulate their ecological and resource conditions in a

sustainable manner (Diamond 1997). Conversely speaking, this links to James

Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis that if humans continue to deplete the ecological base then

the Earth will no longer function as our species’ life-support system i.e. the planet does

not need saving, we do (Lovelock 1988).

The most conclusive example of the recognition of this threat by governments and

societies today is the recent Nobel Prize awarded to Al Gore and IPCC2 2007 for their

work on global warming and climate change. As a result, the impact on natural

environment by the modern industrial complex and the negative effects on both social

and ecological environments resulting from human productive activities are beginning to

be recognized by society at large. For Giddens this rise in environmental consciousness is

due to increasing urbanization leading to separation from the natural environment. This

2 Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change is a UN advisory body comprising of 3000 scientists and was established in 1988. It was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. (Source: http://www.ipcc.ch, last viewed April 8, 2008)

Gesota - 3 -

‘manufactured space’ as he says or urbanization, removes the natural environment from

the everyday lives of people thus, creating an illusion that natural limits and constraints

have been transcended (Giddens 1991). Therefore, the increase in concern with

environmental issues in essence is raising questions about the modern social order, its

institutions and principles i.e. environmental politics “…is also fuelled by an increasing

demand for the remoralization of abstract systems of social organization that have ceased

to be accountable in any meaningful way to those they effect” (Giddens 1996:71). The

central institution of social control in such a system is the self-regulating dominant

market (Foster 2002c) where organic community relations dissolve into market

relationships (Bookchin 1974) every aspect of nature is commodified. The competitive

nature of free market pits humans against each other and against the whole world (ibid).

The solution lies in not looking at environmental problems as disconnected from

the way the socio-economic system is organized, but as Giddens has said, questioning the

existing social-economic organization itself. Foster reflects on the question of reviving

the communal in “…we need to create through our struggles a global society that elevates

the status of nature and community above that of the accumulation of capital…” (Foster

2002c:82). Capra sees this as one of our biggest challenges: to build and nurture

sustainable communities (Capra 2002).

Ecovillages have risen around the world as a response to this social fragmentation

of modern life, alienation and increasing consumerism (Bang 2005). The contemporary

ecovillage movement is part of a longer term development of countercultural movements

of the 60’s and the 70’s such as the hippies communes and green movements and the

intentional community movement; where it is drawing on and reacting to the earlier

forms (Fotopoulos 2000, Sutton 2004) and starting off from a position left to it by its

predecessors (Sutton 2004). The question that arises here is similar to the question Miller

faced in undertaking his study of the counterculture (Miller 1981). Does the historical

link with the 60’s and 70’s communes render sufficient reason to cast a cold and skeptical

eye on the contemporary ecovillage movement, as is typically done with any

counterculture or alternative movement i.e. alternate spaces or spaces of resistance which

are outside or on the margins of the mainstream? In fact, in Foucault’s thinking, their

Gesota - 4 -

very existence is an indicator of the ruptures of society and could give us a clue of the

dominant socio-economic mechanisms that control it (Johnson 2006).

What started as small communities forming together at local levels as a direct

response to global capitalism has transformed into a Global Ecovillage Network with the

mission of identifying, assisting and coordinating the efforts of communities to acquire,

social, spiritual, economic and ecological harmony (GEN). The GEN was officially

launched at the UN HABITAT conference in Istanbul in 1996. The aim of the GEN is to

encourage building of sustainable communities across the world, facilitate exchange of

information and to foster global cooperation and partnerships, especially with the UN

(GEN). Even though the ecovillage movement has been growing in recent years

simultaneously with the spread of global capitalism, especially in the global North (see

Table 1.1), yet, ecovillages continue to stay on the periphery of the mainstream society,

with interactions and sometimes struggle with wider society and local government’s

regulations and policies (Dawson 2006). Therefore, central research question to

investigate will be is how does this modern day global ecovillage movement prove to be

a countervailing force to the negative social and environmental consequences of global

capitalism?

My hypothesis is that ecovillages are a fertile ground of experimentation which

investigate the society-environment dialectic and the economy-environment dialectic,

where an attempt to arrive at an answer for a more socially and ecologically sustainable

forms of living is being made. That is to say that the ecovillage movement does not

represent some attempt to return to an idealized past and does not represent the ideal

solution to combat the excesses of a globalized capitalistic system or provide a way to

globally re-structure society. But rather that it aims to create solutions which are a

synthesis between treading lightly on earth, community level governance and application

of modern, energy efficient technologies such that they can be incorporated in the

paradigms of sustainable development at a very practical and local level, in both urban

and rural settings. Thus, also giving effect to the famous slogan coined by Rene Dubos

“thinking globally, acting locally” which warns that global programs cannot be easily

translated everywhere into local actions (Gerlach 1991).

Gesota - 5 -

Mapping the Motivation The recently released IPCC 2007 report confirms that “Global GHG3 emissions

due to human activities have grown since pre-industrial times, with an increase of 70%

between 1970 and 2004” (IPCC 2007:4) and that “There is high agreement and much

evidence that with current climate change mitigation policies and related sustainable

development practices, global GHG emissions will continue to grow over the next few

decades.” (IPCC 2007:6). The expected impacts and uncertainties are further outlined in

the report along with areas where mitigation technologies offer opportunities and

constraints towards adaptation. The areas of importance outlined by the IPCC report are:-

(i) Reduction in usage of fossil fuel and increase in usage of renewable energy (E.g.

hydropower, solar, wind, tidal and wave energy)

(ii) Shifting to public transport systems (rail, buses) and non-motorize transport

(cycling, walking), usage of bio-fuels, advanced hybrid or electric vehicles

(iii) Usage of energy efficient appliances, improved insulation, active and passive solar

designs, usage of natural building materials

(iv) Cultivation of degraded lands, efficient use of fertilizers and irrigation

(v) Composting of organic waste and waste minimization

(vi) Expanded rain water harvesting, water storage and conservation techniques, water

re-use and re-cycling techniques

Furthermore, the IPCC Report recognizes that “Adaptive capacity is intimately connected

to social and economic development….” (IPCC 2007:13) and no single technology can

provide the mitigation in any sector. Mitigation highly depends on local availability of

resources (IPCC 2007).

The above mentioned areas are precisely the key areas where ecovillages have

created meaningful, alternate and sustainable models (Bang 2005, Dawson 2006,

Swilling & Annecke 2006, Walker 2005). Additionally, the issues that are reflected upon

by the members of the ecovillage are problems confronting society at large (Pepper

1991). And attempts to create meaningful, alternate and sustainable models in these key

areas relate to promoting sustainable local economies, organic and locally based food

3 The six greenhouse main gases contributing to climate change are Carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide (N2O), Hydroflourocarbons (HFCs), Perflourocarbons (PFCs), Sulphur hexaflouride (SF6)

Gesota - 6 -

production, participatory, community-scale governance, decision making processes and

conflict resolution processes, community building, peace activism, international

solidarity and global networking, holistic, whole person education

What is obvious is that ecovillages have developed and applied knowledge in core

areas of sustainability and can prove to be valuable learning sites. An impetus to

undertake this study is that numerous communities in the world are working towards

reducing their impact on the local and the global environment. The growing ecovillage

movement is one of the more developed examples of this trend, according to the recent

report published by the Worldwatch Institute4 titled Vital Signs (2007-2008) The Trends

that are Shaping our Future has concluded (Assoudarian 2007-2008). In spite of their

achievements, as noted by Bang, there is relatively little literature available on this topic

(2005).

Precisely due to its legacy mentioned earlier, the ecovillage movement is starting

from a position left to it by its predecessors and therefore is in a position to be able to

address some of the problems and/or challenges faced by these previous movements

(Pepper 1991, Dawson 2006). A key difference is that the earlier movements took an

isolationist and “cutting off” stance towards wider society since some of their lifestyle

realities were too radical or revolutionary for the wider society (Pepper 1991). Therefore

they had little audience as well as understanding for their ideals. This has been overcome

by the modern day ecovillage movement by various ways. The Global Ecovillage

Network is an active participant in the UN decade for sustainability, offering a variety of

training and education programs to other ecovillages, schools and corporations on

ecologically sustainable practices and community building (GEN), the curriculum for

which has been derived based on their successful experiments and lessons learnt. Thus

opening their doors to welcome and encourage contact within the local region as well as

at the global level. This point will form a point of study in this thesis.

Another reason for failure could have been a lack of clarity towards their vision

(Pepper 1991). This point could still prove to be a challenging one for the ecovillage

4 The Worldwatch Institute is an independent research organization. Worldwatch research is the gold-standard for sustainability analysis for decision makers in government, civil society, business, and academia. Founded in 1974, Worldwatch disseminates its work in more than 100 countries via the Internet and global news media. (Source: http://www.worldwatch.org, last viewed on April 3, 2008)

Gesota - 7 -

movement. It appears from the current study that there is a higher level guiding vision for

ecovillages which once again comes from the GEN in the form of trainings and assistance

in building and sustaining ecovillages (GEN). However, up to what extent is the original

vision adhered to and revised according to the needs of the ecovillage remains to be

investigated.

Thirdly, do ecovillages walk their talk? While claiming to have developed a new

model for living sustainably, ecovillages become the objects of scrutiny by the wider

world to evaluate how far this is true and replicable. Therefore, methodologically

speaking, it is important to investigate this factor through direct observation.

Even so, the ecovillage movement remains on the margins of the mainstream

society with no real entry point to engage in the crucial debates of the day. Therefore,

ecovillages are primarily self-reliant and drawing upon the resources of its members

(Dawson 2006). This study could possibly provide information to help decide whether

government/official bodies should put effort in assisting and establishing ecovillages or

engage with ecovillages to understand how sustainability can be incorporated into urban

development plans. This has been achieved up to a reasonable extent in the Vauban

district of Freiburg, which forms one of the case studies in this thesis.

Methodology What I have intended in this thesis is two-fold. First, I have aimed to do a partial

ethnographic study of three ecovillages - specifically a description of the beliefs and the

practices that reveal them. Secondly, I have aimed to do an analysis of them using an

interdisciplinary approach with complexity as the underbelly. As with ethnographies, I

have described the case studies with details of directly observed empirical material, such

as descriptions of the ecovillage, functioning and organization of the ecovillage and

quotations from people which were being studied to evoke the sense of their authentically

lived lives.

Based on the information provided by the Global Ecovillage Network, there are

403 ecovillages5 in the world in various stages of formation, with many more which are

not integrated in the GEN framework. Given the time, financial and language limitations

5 See http://gen.ecovillage.org/iservices/index.html, last viewed on April 7, 2008

Gesota - 8 -

as well as the scope of the thesis, it was impractical to undertake a detailed study of many

of these ecovillages. The choice of the “field of action” (Bauer & Gaskell 2000)

therefore is certainly not representatives of the ecovillage movement as a whole. But the

three case studies selected for this thesis aim to provide a good overview of the important

themes and trends that exist within the movement and reflect the core essence of other

ecovillages in these portraits. An additional selection criterion was been applied. While

the ecovillage phenomenon has a global reach, the selection of case studies is limited to

the North. As is seen from table 1.1, most of the ecovillages lie in the Global North and it

is known that the ecovillage movement first started in the North in societies that are

relatively homogeneous in their transition from the crisis of modernity to a sustainable

society. The Okodorf Sieben Linden (in former East Germany) is a rural ecovillage where

an attempt to create a very low-impact, low-tech settlement, making as few concessions

as possible has been made and is tightly woven into the fabric of its own bioregion. The

Findhorn Ecovillage in Scotland apart from being one of the oldest and largest

ecovillages represents an attempt to use low impact, eco-efficient technologies, and an

established UN certified education center. Whereas the Vauban district of Freiburg, an

integrated part of the city of Freiburg with higher amount of linkages and integration with

mainstream society serves as an example of an urban ecovillage. It demonstrates how the

uses of alternative eco-friendly technologies and ecovillage ideas have been applied to a

new development in an existing city.

Given the heterogeneity of ecovillages and the diversity within and among

ecovillages, no one model can cover all cases as well as generalisations are difficult to

make but only broad themes can be identified (Dawson 2006). Thus I posit that a case

study approach with a discourse analysis is more suitable for this thesis. Consequently, at

the heart of this thesis is ecovillagers’ perceptions, motivations and interactions through

informal conversations using a semi-structured interview guideline (see appendix 4.1and

4.2). This allowed for room to include new questions as they came up during the

conversations. However, there are disparities between what people say and what they do

(Atkins et al 2003). In some cases this could be because the respondents tend to say what

they think the researcher would like to hear (Bauer & Gaskell 2000). Direct observation

thus functioned as a supplement to interviewing at Sieben Linden and Findhorn. In the

Gesota - 9 -

case of Vauban, I relied primarily upon direct observation, internet sources and Vauban

foot tour since possibilities of conducting interviews did not seem to be a useful

approach. As visual anthropology is getting more and more popular (Banks 2001), taking

pictures proved to a useful tool not only as supporting characters to direct observation,

but also as visual representations of the relationship of residents to their environment and

of the way the ecovillages are constructed and function.

Since I am using an ethnography approach, this leads to the limitations

encountered. In classic ethnographic field research, real participant observation can only

be conducted after staying in the field for quite some time, usually about one year or

more and the researcher becomes an ‘insider’ for the limited period (Bernard 2002). This

method is well-suited to gain an intimate understanding of a community’s self-

perception. Participation should ideally be real (Bruyn 1966), however, I definitely

remained an outsider, due to lack of time, to form deeper connections. This leads to the

limitation of conducting real participant observation. However, a limited amount of

participant observation was done by volunteering in active projects (Strawbale

construction at Sieben Linden and kitchen staff as a short term guest at Findhorn),

participating in events (viz. social connect, forest clearing etc) at the ecovillages and

living in the Genova genossenschaft in Vauban. This gave me an opportunity to form

interactions outside of interview times as well as gaining understanding of the ecovillage.

Since I was interested in individual experiences of the people who are/were residing

in ecovillages or as Buroway says (1991:276) “[we seek] explanation in the way in which

participants define, interpret, and meet the situations at their respective points”, I looked

for participants who were willing to share their motivation and experience of living in an

ecovillage. Working in the Club99 Strawbale construction project at Sieben Linden and

as a guest in the communal kitchen at Findhorn provided an opening for locating

participants by primarily relying on the ‘convenience sampling method’, which is defined

as ‘grabbing whoever is available’ (Bernard 2002). Since the experience of residents of

the ecovillage could differ from those who play a bigger role in the organisational

structure, I also interviewed residents who are key co-ordinators within the ecovillage

and who are actively involved with the global ecovillage network, in order to get a

picture of the movement in the wider sense. An initial contact with such key participants

Gesota - 10 -

was already made prior to reaching the field and led to further contacts with potential

participants according to what Bernard (2002) calls the ‘snowball sampling’ method.

While sustainability is a term that is increasingly being used in public spaces, the

concept of sustainability remains ambiguous and far ranging interpretations are possible.

Therefore Chapter II sets out to conceptualize sustainability from fragmented sources into

a unified framework and proposes that complexity theory can provide an integrated

understanding of sustainability as a living, dynamic system versus the linear and

reductionist view of science so far. While ecovillages profess to model sustainable living

concepts, what is the concept of an ecovillage and what factors were involved in the

emergence of the ecovillage movement while differing from its predecessors is dealt with

in Chapter III. It goes to say than that Chapter IV describes how sustainability principles

have been applied at two ecovillages, that of Sieben Linden and Findhorn. If

sustainability is the goal of a dynamic living system, can it be assessed to evaluate how

far are ecovillages, cities, and regions from their proclaimed ideals? A few simplistic

models are described in Chapter V along with an assessment of Findhorn and Sieben

Linden with the basis that Ecovillages are not ideal models and there are gaps. The case

of Vauban as to what has been achieved in an integrated part of Freiburg serves as an

interesting approach and inspiration for other sustainable city projects. This theme forms

Chapter VI. When a system evolves within the structure of another, either they both

interact with each other which might lead to compromises in one or develop an

isolationist stance with each the other. Ecovillages are engaged with society at large. But

this could lead to conflicts in ideals which gives way to pragmatism. This conflict is

described in Chapter VII. Finally, as ecovillages evolve along with changes in wider

socio-economic, what role can they play in the emerging world system in terms of

sustainability? This question is evaluated in Chapter VIII.

Gesota - 11 -

II. Conceptualizing Sustainability

The concept of sustainability appears in various forms and contexts such as

sustainable development (WCED 1987), its half sister ecological modernization (Carter

2003), sustainable communities (Capra 2002), sustainable living (Dawson 2006, Carter

2002) in different discourses. Albeit the notion of “sustainability” has been widely

debated and is an elusive one with no general agreement on how the concept should be

translated into practice (Carter 2003, Jaboreen 2006). On the positive side, this ambiguity

and lack of a concrete structure is itself seen as an advantage where there could only be a

guiding framework or philosophy which thereby opens space for more local initiatives

driven by local conditions and needs and also uniting a milieu of people and

organizations worldwide (Carter 2003). The most widely accepted definition of

sustainable development is Brundtland Report6 published in Our Common Future by the

World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987:

“Sustainable development is development that satisfies the needs of the present without

compromising the needs of the future.” - (WCED 1987:43)

The subsequent Agenda 217 (UNCED 1993) adopted at the United Nations Conference

on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 describes sustainable

development to include three dimensions: the social, economic and the environmental

and a process of bringing these in balance with each other. Another definition of

sustainability is offered as “….development that will conserve our resources and not

destroy and damage them….(development) for all and not for a few in society…renewing

6 The United Nations Assembly established the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1983 in response to the growing concerns about environmental degradation and the economic crisis. The commission chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland, the Norwegian Prime Minister, consulted widely for four years, soliciting reports from expert bodies and holding public meetings in several countries. The report, Our Common Future, was produced in 1987, which popularized the concept of sustainable development worldwide. The Commission deliberately designed the term sustainable development as a bridging concept that could unite diverse and conflicting interests and policy concerns. In particular it sought to bring together the environmental agenda of the North with the development agenda of the South; hence the title of the final report, Our Common Future (Carter 2003: 196). 7 Agenda 21 provides the blueprint for implementing sustainable development agreed at the 1992 Earth Summit covering an enormous number of environmental and development issues such as ‘Changing Consumption Patterns’ and ‘Combating Deforestation’ to ‘Strengthening the Role of Farmers’ and ‘Children and Youth in Sustainable Development’. Agenda 21 does not confine itself to the traditional agenda of environmental degradation but devotes considerable attention to the political and economic aspects of sustainable development.

Gesota - 12 -

resources which have to be consumed…” as against the historically linear concept of

development which equates development to economic growth, economic growth to the

dominance of the market and modernity to consumerism such that non-market people

equate to being backward and non-market economies equate to being backward

economies (Adiseshiah 1986-87).

Regardless, the discourse on what constitutes sustainability; is increasingly

occupying space in public discourses at global and local levels8. The United Nations has

declared the period 2005-2014 as the ‘Decade for the Education of Sustainable

Development’9. As said in the opening address of the AAAS10 organized Conference on

Science and Technology in Sustainable Well-being “Sustainability is not about growth

and development but its about constraints...it [sustainability] is also about the context...it

[sustainability] is not about the parts of the system, its about the whole system…it

[sustainability] requires rethinking free market relationship…contemporary science is not

organized for sustainable well-being”. Going from here, the first part of this chapter

attempts to present various concepts of sustainability drawn from a multidisciplinary

approach. The second part tries to conceptialize sustainability as an emerging property of

global complexity.

Using the different fragmented multidisciplinary literature and different bodies of

knowledge focusing on sustainable development, Jabareen (2008) has identified seven

key interwoven concepts (see Fig.1) he has synthesized and assembled together to form a

theoretical framework of sustainable development. As seen from the figure, the concept

of ‘ethical paradox’ which Jabareen (2008) defines as the paradox between

‘sustainability’ and ‘development’ lies at the heart of this framework. According to the

field of ecology, the term ‘sustainability’ refers to an ecosystem’s ability to subsist over

an indefinite period of time, with no alteration. However, ‘development’ necessarily

8 Such as (i) The recently convened Conference on Science and Technology in Sustainable Well-being organized by AAAS held in San Francisco in February 2007 (ii) The formation of organizations such as ICLEI (iii) Delhi Sustainable Development Forum held in Delhi, India in January 2007. 9http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=38467&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html, last viewed on March 10, 2008 10 American Association for Advancement of Science (AAAS) is an international non-profit organization dedicated to advancing science around the world by serving as an educator, leader, spokesperson and professional association. Founded in 1848, AAAS serves some 262 affiliated societies and academies of science, serving 10 million individuals. (Source: http://www.aaas.org, last viewed on March 20, 2008)

Gesota - 13 -

means drawing from natural resources which lead to environmental modification. This

paradox is also reflected in the definition of sustainable development by the Brundtland

Commission.

Equity

Natural Capital Global Agenda Stock

Ethical Paradox

Integrative Eco-Form Management

Utopia

Fig 1. A Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Development (Jabareen 2006)

According to this definition, sustainable development seems to hold the promise

of a way out of the economic growth versus environmental protection impasse (Carter

2003:198) and capitalism and ecology are no longer seen as contradictory under the

banner of sustainable development (Jabareen 2008). However, radical greens argue that

economic growth cannot be ecologically sustainable thus making it impossible to achieve

sustainable development without replacing capitalism with a more decentralized, self-

sustaining social and economic system (Carter 2003). This fluid, paradoxical and

dialectical relation between sustainability and development has given rise to a spectrum

of ideologies and approaches ranging from ‘light ecology’ to ‘deep ecology’11 (Jabareen

2008) or ‘very weak sustainability’ to ‘very strong sustainability’ (see table 1.2) (Carter

2003).

The second concept identified by Jabareen (2008) is that of natural capital stock,

similar to Jacobs (1996). It represents the natural resource assets which can be modified

11 Deep Ecology is a branch of ecological philosophy that lays greater value on non-human species, ecosystems and processes in nature as compared to green and environmental movements. Deep ecology describes itself as "deep" because it persists in asking deeper questions concerning "why" and "how" and thus is concerned with the fundamental philosophical questions about the impacts of human life as one part of the ecosphere. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology, last viewed on March 25, 2008)

Gesota - 14 -

by humans but cannot be created by humans. Natural capital stock is divided into three

categories: non-renewable resources, such as mineral resources; the finite capacity of the

natural system to produce ‘renewable resources’ such as food crops and water supplies;

and the capacity of natural systems to absorb the emissions and pollutants which arise

from human actions without suffering from side effects which imply heavy costs to be

passed onto future generations. By applying standard economic thoughts of man-made

capital to natural capital, ecological economy suggests that the stock of natural capital

should not decrease in order not to endanger the opportunities of future generations to

generate wealth and well-being. Jaboreen recognizes that the notion of measuring the

natural capital however is extremely difficult in an environment of constant change.

Therefore he suggests that this factor should not be the prime concern since

‘sustainability’ is a principle of life about both sustaining a particular state as well as

adjusting to changing internal and external conditions.

The third concept analyzed by Jabareen is that of equity where sustainability is

seen as a matter of distributional equity such that it provides for intragenerational and

intergenerational fairness in allocation of resources. This notion of intragenerational

equity (“…needs of the present…”) and intergenerational equity (“…needs of the future”)

as Carter (2003) points out, is also evident in the Brundtland Report. The notion of equity

requires that poor and disadvantaged groups can define their needs through democratic

measures such as community participation, citizen’s initiatives and through strengthening

institutions of local democracy (ibid) and encompasses different concepts such as

environmental, social and economic justice, social equity, quality of life, freedom,

democracy, participation and empowerment (Jabareen 2008).

The fourth concept in Jabareen’s conceptual framework for sustainability is the

concept of eco-form which represents the ecologically desired form of human habitats

such as villages, cities and communities. Sustainable designs aim to create these human

habitats which are energy efficient and designed for as long life.

The fifth concept is the concept of integrative management which represents the

interconnectedness of social development, economic growth and environmental

protection while planning and management for sustainable development (Jaboreen 2008).

The Brundtland Report recognizes that the integrated nature of sustainable development

Gesota - 15 -

poses challenges for institutions “…that were established on the basis of narrow

preoccupations and compartmentalized concerns” (WCED 1987:9 cited by Carter

2003:208). That is to say that environmental considerations need to be integrated in

policy formation in every sector. This would require as Carter says “an administrative

revolution” (Carter 2003:209).

The sixth concept, political global agenda, represents a worldwide political

environmental discourse to go beyond purely ecological concepts to include various

international issues such as security, peace, trade, heritage, hunger and shelter (Jabareen

2008). This aspect though has provoked fierce political struggles between the North and

the South (Carter 2003).

Carter (2003) views sustainable development as an anti-dote to the romantic

visions of green utopia, however, from a wider and multidisciplinary view, Jabareen

(2008) suggests utopianism as the seventh concept of his conceptual framework where

utopianism represents a vision for human habitats based on sustainable development.

These are visions of a perfect human society in which justice prevails, the people are

perfectly content and live and flourish in harmony with nature and life moves along

smoothly without any abuses or shortages. This utopia transcends the primary ecological

concerns of sustainability to incorporate political and social concepts such as solidarity,

spirituality, and the equal allocation of resources.

Ecological Modernization Ecological Modernization can be considered as a variation of sustainable

development which accepts that environmental problems are a structural outcome of

capitalist economy but rejects the radical green demand for a fundamental restructuring

of the market economy. The core thesis of the ecological modernization theory is that the

design, performance and valuation of processes of production are based on ecological

criteria in addition to economic criteria (Pellow et al 1999). Thus ecological

modernization promotes the goal of an environmentally friendly capitalism or greener

industrialization where consumerism is replaced by ‘green consumerism’ (Carter

2003:212) and ‘green products’ (Carter 2003:215) such as biodegradable soaps, chlorine

free toilet cleaners, cosmetics that advertise beauty without cruelty etc. The premise is

that science and technology, even though regarded to have contributed to the

Gesota - 16 -

environmental problem, are also regarded as central to their solution. Market continues to

play a central role but now for transmission of ecological ideas and practices.

Governments change to a de-centralized, flexible state but to steer production towards

environmentally benign products and to increase co-operation between governments,

industry, science and willing environmental groups. In its concept, ecological

modernization recognizes that support of the business sector is vital for any transition to a

more sustainable society (Carter 2003). Thus ecological modernization suggests a sort of

a middle way that resolves the environment and development dichotomy produced by the

concept of sustainable development without radically dismantling the existing underlying

capitalist structures. This facilitates a co-operative reform of the goals, visions, values

and decision making processes affecting environmental policy between business and

politics. Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Norway and Denmark offer a practical

lesson in best practices of environmental policy making (ibid).

Not without criticisms, ecological modernization in its weak sustainability has

been referred to as “little more then a rhetorical rescue operation for a capitalist economy

confounded by ecological crisis” (Dryzek12 cited by Carter 2003:214), whereas the strong

sustainability version does not seem to differ much from sustainable development (Hajer

1995) but simply becomes a variant of sustainable development that brings focus to the

role of business (Carter 2003:214). Further, even though ecological modernization makes

use of techniques such as life cycle assessment13 (ibid.), it does not seem to address the

distributional questions of equity and social justice (ibid, Pellow et al 1999). Ecological

modernization assumes that consumption patterns need not change, especially in the

North, because of the greening of the production process. This might actually encourage

an increased consumption which is guilt-free (Carter 2003:216) and disregard the limits

of growth (Carter 2003:215).

12 Dryzek 1997:148 13 Life Cycle Assessment is an objective process to evaluate the environmental burdens associated with a product, process, or activity by identifying energy and materials used as inputs and wastes (air, water and solid) released to the environment, to analyze the environmental impact of a product from cradle-to-grave and to evaluate and implement opportunities to affect environmental improvements. (Source: LCAL Life Cycle Assessment Links. http://www.life-cycle.org/, last viewed on March 17, 2008).

Gesota - 17 -

Complexity Theory as a Way of Thinking about Sustainability This account of sustainability as taken by the Brundtland Report is a linear

account (Hajer 1997) which looks at the natural world with the machine metaphor rather

the living systems metaphor as applied by the emerging thinking of complexity theorists

to the idea of sustainability. There is an agreement amongst most scientists that the

natural world is fundamentally complex, nonlinear, evolutionary and not fully predictable

i.e. probabilistic (Innes & Booher 1996, Williams 2000:123). This is a clear departure

from the earlier Laplacian science of linear and deterministic thinking (Williams

2000:123). Urry suggests that complexity science may provide the concepts and methods

that illuminate the global as a system and a series of systems (Urry 2003:7) and that the

global comprises of a set of emergent systems possessing properties and patterns that are

quite often far from equilibrium. It examines how components of a system can through

their dynamic interaction ‘spontaneously’ develop collective properties or patterns.

Complexity suggests that these emergent properties somehow transcend the ingredients

that make them up and argues against reductionism that is against reducing the whole to

its parts (Urry 2003:12-13) because breaking a system into its discrete parts for analysis

of the parts can produce misleading descriptions and fundamentally wrong predictions

(Williams 2000). The idea proposed by complexity theory is that the whole is made up of

parts, but the sum total of the parts is not equal to the whole. Therefore, ignoring

complexity and the so-called “noise” within the system misses the essence of the system.

Because it is this “noise” that produces the changing world (Williams 2000). These

emerging properties are irreducible, interdependent, mobile and non-linear (Urry

2003:77-78) and can be conceptualized as a self-organizing network.

This analysis of network is something akin to what Capra suggests as the ‘web of

life’ (Capra 1996) and to the idea of the network society (Castells 1996). According to

Capra “whenever we look at life we look at networks” (Capra 1996:82). Networks are the

key to the late-twentieth century advances in science and are a dominant metaphor for

global times (Urry 2003:51). A network is a set of interconnected nodes. The networks

and relationships among nodes matter and are essential to the understanding of these

systems (Williams 2000). What are important are not structures which imply a centre, a

concentration of power, vertical hierarchy and a formal or informal constitution (Castells

Gesota - 18 -

1996). Networks de-center performance, share decision making and generate complex

and enduring connections stretching across space and time between people and things and

possess different abilities to bring home to certain nodes distant events, places or people

(Urry 2003). Such networks comprise of enormous amounts of messages that move in all

directions simultaneously (Urry 2003).

A globalization analysis thus brings out the global emerging properties such as

global environmental change, cultural homogenization or global sustainability as

emerging features of a globalized capitalist system as a whole (Urry 2003). Thus

implications of complex adaptive systems14 can be used to theorize about sustainability

and sustainable systems as an emergent feature of capitalistic globalization (ibid). The

analysis of globalization emphasizes that events happening in one place have an impact

upon many other places, often remote in time and space, precisely due to time-space

compression in globalized systems. According to Giddens, globalization is the

“intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way

that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa”

(Giddens 1990:64). It brings out the obvious interdependencies between people, places,

organizations and systems stretching across the world such that no place ‘is an island’

(Urry 2003:38) and brings to surface the notion of thinking globally but acting locally.

Complexity theory views sustainable development as characterized by a complex

system of interacting agents in the social, economic and environmental dimensions which

from a systems theory point of view can be characterized as being independent, but

coupled non-linear self-organizing systems, each with its own geographical scope, logic,

rhythms, time scales and dynamics regulated by different mechanisms and responsive to

different influences (Spangenberg 2001). From this view, sustainable development in

essence is an optimization process of these dimensions each with its own target and it

does not have a single, clear-cut solution, but includes a range of options to choose from

in the optimization process. The choice taken would be dependent on the relative weight

14 Complex adaptive systems are special cases of complex systems. They are complex in that they are diverse and made up of multiple interconnected elements and adaptive in that they have the capacity to change and learn from experience. The term complex adaptive system (CAS) was coined at the interdisciplinary Santa Fe Institute (SFI), by John H. Holland, Murray Gell-Mann and others. (Source: Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_adaptive_system, last viewed on March 17, 2008)

Gesota - 19 -

attributed to each of the dimensions and their respective targets, that is, it requires a

balancing of different criteria based on individual preferences (Spangenberg 2001).

Complexity theory suggests that everything is interrelated and is continuously

changing that is to say that a complex system is in a sense a system out of control and

cannot be predictably managed by any single mind or even by a complicated set of rules.

There is too much going on at once, too many linked components, and too much

feedback and adaptation. Complex systems can adapt and self-organize in response to

cues from the environment particularly when that environment is at the edge of chaos

(Williams 2000). Due to the non-linear character of environmental, economic, social and

human dynamics any long-term predictions regarding the results of specific policy

measures are of only limited reliability (Spangenberg 2001). Research has shown that

distributed intelligence works well to deal with such complex situations and to encourage

creative, coordinated action. Many individual participants, based on feedback, can adjust

or adapt their actions without seeing or understanding the dynamics of the larger system,

can deal with complex reality (Williams 2000). Since sustainable development requires

many factors to be taken into consideration, Spangenberg (2001) suggests that this type

of horizontal multi-criteria and a self-organizing approach based on feedback and

adaptation is required instead of a top-down regulation and control strategy, which is far

less effective when systems are complex and operating in a changing and unpredictable

environment. The view that a top-down management of a set of interlinked complex non-

linear systems, according to an integrated, multi-purpose set of targets is not entirely

feasible is also echoed by Innes & Booher (1996). This leads to shifting to an

understanding of sustainable development as an iterative process with broad based

participatory governance to keep it on track (Spangenberg 2001) rather then being viewed

as a static state or an end goal to reach. Rather, the focus should be shifted towards

setting the right framework conditions using criteria to activate the inherent dynamics and

self organization capabilities of the complex system and give it direction towards

sustainability (Spangenberg 2001). Further chapters in this thesis will bring out precisely

the above mentioned features of sustainability as a complex system while discussing the

case studies and the results.

Gesota - 20 -

III. Towards Developing the Concept of Ecovillage

The term ‘ecovillage’ itself was coined in preparation for a Gaia Trust seminar in

Thy, Denmark in September 1991, which was organized by Robert and Diane Gilman,

founders of the In Context Institute in Seattle (Jackson 1998). It is a relatively new term

which distinguishes itself through its definition from the others such as the 60’s

communes, co-housing communities and intentional communities. Nevertheless,

ecovillages and the global ecovillage movement can be said to have emerged from a

fabric woven out of diverse threads of self-organizing and often time overlapping

counterculture movements such as the Danish co-housing model initiated by Hildur

Jackson, the intentional communities movement in the North, the Kibbutz movement in

Israel, the hippie and commune movement of the 60’s and 70’s, the German peaceniks,

the feminist and eco-feminist movements, Schumacher’s practical action group, green

movements and efforts of the Gaia Trust (Dawson 2006, Pepper 1991, Trainer 2000).

Most of these counterculture movements of the 60’s and 70’s were opposed to the

ideologies of unrestrained industrial development and dissatisfaction with purely material

rewards and some of these counterculture movements were primarily psychosocial and

anarchist in nature and adopted an isolationist stance to the wider society (Kirby 2004).

Looking at what has given birth to these movements and influenced their

continuation in the ecovillage concept as well, the starting point is the ‘Silent Revolution’

thesis proposed by Ronald Inglehart. This thesis attributes the evolution of the

counterculture to post-scarcity socialization emerging in the relatively rich nations after

World War II (Hajer 1997, Sutton 2004) i.e. in the classical Marxist sense, a state of

‘material abundance’ (Barry 2007:73). Once the basic needs for food and shelter are met,

the focus shifted to quality of life issues bringing the urban and natural environment to

the forefront (Sutton 2004). The post-war generation held a set of ‘post-material’ values,

which were different then those of their parents who were more concerned with economic

security (Hajer 1997). Hajer adds access to higher education in the post-war era as

another contributing factor leading to higher awareness of the detrimental aspects of the

existing system (1997). This can be seen as a quest for new types of social identity which

is also a quest for a new type of society that is characterized by the absence of formal

Gesota - 21 -

authority structures and loosely structured organization (Sutton 2004). The counterculture

represented a collective escape from conventional society and a collective search for a

self-identity (Shenker 1986). Fred Hirsch, an economist in his 1976 book Social Limits to

Growth proposed the theory of ‘social scarcity’, which contributes another factor towards

the reasoning for the emergence of the counterculture (Hajer 1997). Certain goods are

desired more when there are less people consuming it. Conversely speaking, the

satisfaction of consumption of such ‘positional goods’ is dependent on their non-

possession by others which therefore increases their desirability. Giddens views the

evolution of such movements as a direct consequence of the process of modernization

where the dominant social processes of capital accumulation, militarization and

industrialization have provided the framework for the creation of these resistance

movements which collectively try to shape and direct the process of modernization itself

(Giddens 1990).

Apart from these, a few other events of the 70’s have contributed to the dynamics

of the evolving counterculture. The publication of the Limits to Growth15 thesis by the

Club of Rome (Meadows et al 1973) on one hand and the Blueprint of Survival16

published in ‘The Ecologist’ in 1972 and Small is Beautiful by Fritz E. Schumacher17

(1973) on the other hand entered the field of concerned environmentalism in the 70’s.

Both, Limits to Growth and the Blueprint of Survival, argued for minimizing usage of

non-renewable energy, introducing recycling schemes, energy conservation, an eco-tax,

public transportation, environmentally sound agricultural practices. But the Blueprint

made a clear departure from the Limits to Growth thesis by also problematizing the mode

of production, existing capital-labor relations and lack of morality in urbanized and

industrialized society. While Limits to Growth proposed a hierarchical and technocratic

15 Limits to Growth thesis, published in 1972, was the first attempt to simulate the consequences of a rapidly growing world population and finite natural resources using a computer. This publication echoes the Malthusian theory of the impact of population growth on Earth systems. The five key areas examined in this publication are world population, industrialization, pollution, food production and resource depletion. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits_to_growth, last viewed on April 8, 2008) 16 A Blueprint for Survival was published in January 1972, occupying all of The Ecologist Vol. 2 No.1, in advance of the world's first ever Environment Summit: the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment, in Stockholm. (Source: http://www.theecologist.info/key27.html, last viewed April 8, 2008) 17 Fritz Schumacher is a well known economic thinker and his book Small is Beautiful is rated as one of 100 most influential books published since the World War II. He is well known for his critique of Western economies and his proposals for human-scale, decentralized and appropriate technologies. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._F._Schumacher, last viewed April 8, 2008)

Gesota - 22 -

top-down approach (Hajer 1997, see also Barry 2007), the Blueprint of Survival distinctly

proposed a bottom-up participatory approach, de-centralization into smaller highly self-

sufficient communal units, self-government, neighborhood councils and workers’ co-

operatives. Schumacher’s Small is Beautiful critiqued western scientific rationality and

large-scale thinking, argued against growth and linked the ecological critique to a much

broader social critique. While the Limits to Growth thesis found its appeal in the business

world and the government, the Blueprint of Survival and Schumacher’s Small is Beautiful

became the key reference point for radical environmentalists (Hajer 1997). Similar with

the Blueprint of Survival and Small is Beautiful and perhaps also been influenced by the

ideas presented therein, the eco-anarchist theory of Libertarian Municipalism by Murray

Bookchin finds a place in the nature and design of the ecovillages. Bookchin proposes a

“confederal society based on the co-ordination of municipalities in a bottom-up system of

administration as distinguished from the top-down rule of the nation state” (Bookchin

1992:95-95). What is seen is that the ecovillage movement draws large influences in its

design and practice which all together evolved into the concept of an ecovillage.

The modern ecovillage movement has emerged out of these myriad counterculture

movements, green movements, communes and intentional community movements of the

60’s and 70’s, and influences of other events as discussed above. However, it has retained

few similarities with its legacy (Kirby 2004). The movements of the 60’s and 70’s saw

radically alternative lifestyles and organizations, maintaining sharp divisions with the

mainstream society such as yes-no, them-us, mass demonstrations, use of alternative

media for propaganda and a general distancing from mainstream society (Hajer 1997). In

contrast, the 80’s saw less radicalism and shift from suggesting alternate global re-

structuring to presenting practical alternatives within society and political lobbying,

taking up the role of counter expert illuminating counter-solutions and shifting their

modus operandi from being problem makers to problem solvers (ibid). What has been

inherited through its lineage though is the anti-capitalistic and communal expressions

(Sutton 2004) and as Dawson has observed, the Gandhian principles of self-reliance and

de-centralization remain common (2006).

In trying to come up with a way to define the term ‘ecovillage’ leads to the same

problem that is faced with the term ‘sustainable development’ described in the previous

Gesota - 23 -

section. That is to say that the concept of ‘ecovillage’ is an expression of actualizing the

concept of sustainable development in practice. Therefore, an ecovillage encompasses a

vast body of ideas, values, beliefs and structures within the social, economic, ecological

and spiritual dimensions. Any given ecovillage can be a combination of these elements at

different relative degrees from each other. However, it is necessary to explore the concept

of ecovillage in order to develop a basic framework of what is an ecovillage?

In attempting to do so, I rely on the most widely accepted definition of an

ecovillage, the one that has been co-authored by Robert Gilman and his wife Diane

Gilman in their report titled Ecovillages and Sustainable Communities: A Report for Gaia

Trust in 1991 which is a study of 26 sustainable community initiatives worldwide (viz.

co-housing communities, alternative communities, permaculture support projects,

intentional communities etc.). Robert Gilman, an astrophysicist by training and a thinker

on sustainability along with his wife are the founders of the In Context Institute in Seattle

and have shaped the direction of the Global Ecovillage Network significantly. While their

worldwide study could not identify any single fully sustainable community, the design

features that emerged from amongst all of these contributed to the concept of an

ecovillage as defined by Gilman (1991). Gilman defines an ecovillage as “a human-scale

full-featured settlement in which human activities are harmlessly integrated into the

natural world in a way that is supportive of healthy human development and can be

successfully continued into the indefinite future” (Gilman 1991:10).

This definition lays down the framework for the concept of an ecovillage and therefore it

is important to elaborate the five distinct components of this framework which together

encompass the ecological, social and economic dimensions of sustainability.

By “human-scale”, Gilman means the optimal size of the community. What is the

size of a community in which people are able to know and be known by other members

of the community i.e. maintain intimacy in the group (Bates 1991)? The suggested upper

limit is roughly 500 people beyond which communities split into smaller sub-

communities in order to maintain the intimacy of the group.

The “…full-featured settlement…” aspect indicates that all major functions –

residence, food provision, manufacture, leisure, social life, commerce – are available

within the settlement unlike in the industrialized world which is divided by function –

Gesota - 24 -

residential areas, shopping areas, work areas, industrial areas spreading over a large

geographical area. Ecovillages are in this sense more compressed in space, smaller in

their geographic spread and integrate all essential functions within this compressed space.

Thereby they can be said to “represent a microcosmic, physical manifestation” (Dawson

2006:14) of the whole society, giving meaning to its ‘village’ component. Gilman

however cautions that this does not indicate full self-sufficiency or isolation from the

surrounding community but rather interdependencies can be interwoven through clusters

of co-operation such as jobs, public services such as health care, transportation systems.

“...in which human activities are harmlessly integrated into the natural world...”

brings out the ‘eco’ aspect of the ecovillage, where humans do not dominate over nature,

where a cyclic use of material resources is built in rather than the linear consumerist ‘use

and throw’ approach, usage of renewable energy, composting of organic wastes,

recycling of waste and avoidance toxic substances give meaning to its ‘eco’ component.

"...in a way that is supportive of healthy human development..." recognizes

concern for genuine human health at the core. This involves a balanced and integrated

development of all aspects of human life - physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual. This

aspect distinguishes ecovillages from traditional villages and settlements where a holistic

individual development is not necessarily a focus (Gilman 1991).

"...and that can be successfully continued into the indefinite future", brings in the

sustainability principles of fairness and non-exploitation - toward other parts of today's

world, human and non-human, and toward all future life akin to the Brundtland report.

Ecovillages display great heterogeneity in their design and principles due to a

variety of circumstances; vision and strategy, thus giving effect to the slogan ‘think

globally and act locally’. However, the core essence of ecovillages can be said to lie in

five fundamental attributes (Dawson 2006):

(i) primacy of community i.e. ecovillages are a form of response to the alienation and

solitude of the modern condition

(ii) citizen’s initiative i.e. ecovillages are more or less reliant on the resources,

imagination and vision of community members and less dependent on government

and official bodies

Gesota - 25 -

(iii) wresting back control over their own resources i.e. a tug of war for control over

local resources between communities and corporations

(iv) strong body of shared values that is sometimes referred to as spirituality or indicates

their socialist, humanist and ecological aims and beliefs

(v) centers for research, demonstration and training in their own specific field of

expertise i.e. a core function of ecovillages is to develop new ideas, technologies

and models that can be shared with the wider world.

In essence, an ecovillage is a “…a human-scale integration of functions, so that

the ecovillages become a comprehensive microcosm of the whole society…they

[ecovillages] draw lessons from all of human experience, they are not a return to any

previous period or way of life” (Gilman 1991, emphasis added).

This ‘human-scale integration of functions’ emphasizes the connections and relationships

between activities, processes and structure leading to a broader understanding of what

constitutes a sustainable community with ecovillages representing a microcosmic

manifestation of this holistic worldview. In this way, ecovillages can be said to mirror a

transformation in how we view the world (Dawson 2006). The impossibility of the fact

that ecovillages are a not a return to a prior state of being can also be explained by

looking at ecovillages as complex adaptive systems. In complexity, systems are non-

linear and small changes in the initial states or small divergences in a sequence can lead

to exponential numbers of very different outcomes. To trace back a system in nature to its

initial state or a prior state, after having evolved through a series of outcomes, is

problematic because each of those states would itself have an exponential number of

earlier antecedent states and conditions (Williams 2000:126). Therefore this theory very

simply disproves the idea that ecovillages could represent a return to a prior period or

way of life simply because they have emerged from antecedent states and conditions

which simply cannot be reproduced. Therefore returning to an ‘idealized’ past is simply

not possible.

Gesota - 26 -

IV. Case Studies

The Findhorn Ecovillage 18

The Findhorn Foundation Community’s beginnings go back to 1962 when Peter

and Eileen Caddy with their three young sons and Dorothy Maclean came to live in the

Findhorn Bay Caravan Park near the village of Findhorn at Moray Bay in North-East

Scotland. To meet their living needs while on unemployment, they planted a garden in

the sandy dune soil of Findhorn, with the help of Eileen’s inner guidance (‘the still small

inner voice’), Dorothy’s contact with the intelligence of nature (‘devas’) and Peter’s hard

work. The garden flourished and produced spectacular results in terms of producing

vegetables, herbs and flowers including the legendary 40lbs cabbages. This growing and

flourishing vegetable garden attracted many people to come to their caravan to see and

18 Source: Information collected during a field visit to Findhorn through observation, interviews and conversations with the residents, participation in community activities, the Findhorn website, various brochures such as Findhorn Visitor’s Guide and The Findhorn Ecovillage: New Frontiers for Sustainability

Gesota - 27 -

learn about the principles behind communicating with nature’s intelligence and over time,

an intentional community of like minded people was formed.

In 1970, David Spangler19 arrived in the community and helped to formally

establish a curriculum for the ‘University of Light’ where life itself is the school and

work, daily practice and relationships are the teachers. In the 1970s, the community grew

from 20 to approximately 150 members and the Findhorn Foundation was formally

formed as an educational and environmental charitable trust. The Cluny Hill Hotel in

Forres was purchased by the Foundation in 1975 becoming Cluny Hill College and now

the home of about 45 resident members of the community with capacity to host up to 90

educational guests at a time. The land on which the caravan park stands in Findhorn was

purchased in 1983 and is called The Park, which is home for about 400 to 450 residents

of the community at present. Since its founding as a ‘University of Light’, the desire to

create a positive model of cooperation for humanity and for nature continued to inspire

the founders and residents. As a result the Ecovillage project at Findhorn was formed in

the 1980s, as an experiment to combine everything learned so far about sustainable

living.

Organizationally speaking, as the community has grown, smaller work groups with

specialized interests/tasks have formed smaller communities within the larger Findhorn

Foundation Community (FFC). Each of these smaller groups is autonomous in organizing

itself and making decisions. In 1999, the New Findhorn Association (NFA), based at

Findhorn and Forres, was formed to provide a structure for all the organizations20 in the

community and their members. A Council is elected from the membership of the NFA 19 David Spangler is an American spiritual philosopher and a self-described "practical mystic". He was instrumental in helping establish the Findhorn Foundation in northern Scotland and is considered one of the founding figures of the modern New Age movement. Spangler has often been miscast as a new-age channeler due in part to the "transmissions" received while living at the intentional community at Findhorn, Scotland in the 1970s, which became the core of his first book Revelation: The Birth of a New Age. Spangler's ideas were at that time transitional between the earlier theosophical esotericism represented by Alice Bailey and an emerging worldview that is more postmodern, less obscure, and less metaphysical than theosophy. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Spangler, last viewed March 18, 2008). 20 Currently, there are 32 organizations under the NFA which are listed as follows: Alanna Trust, Aromantics, Build One, Complementary Health Practitioners, Duneland Ltd, EarthShare, Ecologia, Ekopia, Ecovillage Institute, Findhorn Consultancy Services, Findhorn Flower Essences, Findhorn Foundation, Findhorn Foundation College, Findhorn & Kinloss LETS, Findhorn Press, Findhorn Pottery, Findhorn WindPark Ltd., Game of Transformation, Holistic Healthcare, Living Technologies Ltd., Moray Art Center, Newbold House, Newcomers, New Findhorn Crafts Group, New Findhorn Directions Ltd., Phoenix Community Stores, Posthouse Printing & Publishing, The Quest, Shambala Trust, Trees for Life, Youth project, Woodhead Community (Source: Findhorn Foundation Visitor’s Guide)

Gesota - 28 -

each year to decide upon community-wide issues concerning sustainable living in the

areas of ecology, economy, culture and spirituality. Initially, the Findhorn community

had a lot of trouble with the neighboring village of Findhorn. However, over time, it has

changed and resulted in a good level of co-operation between the neighboring villages.

The Findhorn Community now extends not only into the Findhorn village, but also

includes the neighboring Buddhist Shambala retreat Center and the neighboring towns of

Kinloss bay and Forres.

The FFC is also a founder member of the Global Ecovillage Network21 (GEN), an

organization which links ecovillage projects worldwide and disseminates information

between and about ecovillages. The FFC is also an NGO associated with the Department

of Public Information of the UN, and through their representation in New York, works

with the UN community and with intergovernmental agencies in educating and

developing policy guidance for sustainable development and for delivery of village-scale

sustainability programs. In 1998, the Findhorn Ecovillage Project was awarded Best

Practice designation by the UN and in 2001 received the Gold Award for Green Tourism

from the Scottish Tourist Board.

Findhorn has built fifty seven ecological buildings so far using innovative

building materials such as stone, straw bales and old whisky barrels, use of natural and

non-toxic building materials, ‘breathing wall’22 structure and the Earthship system using

recycled car tires. Most new community buildings incorporate design features that invite

passive solar radiation to reduce building heating needs, such as south facing windows,

conservatories and minimal wall openings on the north walls. Solar panels on numerous

buildings for hot water and heating, sustainable harvesting of wood for heating and four

wind turbines all together provide the renewable energy needs of the community. Excess

electricity generated from the wind turbines goes into the national grid where it is sold by

Scottish and Southern Energy to local customers. The guidelines for new buildings

encourage energy efficiency by high levels of insulation, double-triple glazed windows

with low-emissive window coatings and energy efficient compact fluorescent light bulbs.

21 More information about the Global Ecovillage Network can be found at its website - http://gen.ecovillage.org/ 22 A breathing wall structure allows the fabric of the building to beneficially interact with people to moderate humidity and air quality.

Gesota - 29 -

The ecovillage is a test case for a research project on the feasibility of using load

management technology which is equipment that helps match the electricity output of the

wind turbines with the electricity requirements of community homes and villages.

Strawbale House; First whisky barrel house built by Roger Doudna; One of the wind turbines (Source: Photos by researcher) The Living Machine23 is a natural sewage treatment plant which uses natural a non-

chemical biological system to clean the sewage (black water24 and grey water25) coming

from houses and other premises at The Park. Currently, the cleaned water at the end of

the process is cycled back into the dunes and not re-used for any purpose as the system

has to be repetitively tested for a few years before the cleaned water can be legally re-

used for potable or non-potable purposes. This facility is meant to collect data in order to

satisfy local and national government bodies before it can be fully adopted in the UK.

The ecovillage has implemented a recycling program (metal, glass, paper, batteries and a

clothing bank) and has been instrumental in encouraging local authorities to expand the

range of recycling services to the local area. Local organic food production is available

through a Community Supported Agriculture 26(CSA) scheme called EarthShare,

23 The research behind the Living Technologies was done by Dr. John Todd, a Canadian biologist, through the non-profit organization Ocean Arks International of Falmouth, Massachusetts, USA. For this work, Dr. Todd has received the Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Award from the White House in 1990 and the Chrysler Award for Industrial Design in 1994. More information about the Living Machine can be found at htt://www.ltluk.com. 24 Black water is a term used to describe water containing fecal matter and urine. It is also known as brown water, foul water, or sewage (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_%28waste%29, last viewed on March 19, 2008). 25 Grey water is non-industrial wastewater generated from domestic processes such as washing dishes, laundry and bathing (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greywater, last viewed on March 19, 2008). 26 Community-supported agriculture (CSA) is a relatively new socio-economic model of organic and bio-dynamic food production, sales and distribution aimed at both increasing the quality of food and the quality of care given the land, plants and animals – while substantially reducing potential food losses and financial risks for the producers. It is also a method for small-scale commercial farmers and gardeners to have a successful, small-scale closed market. CSA’s focus is usually on a system of weekly delivery or pick-up of

Gesota - 30 -

established in 1994 based on organic and biodynamic farming methods. The scheme has

expanded from 5 to 15 acres, spread over sites and currently provides more than 70% of

The Living machine sewage treatment; Nature Sanctuary for quiet meditation; Organic farm in winter (Source: Photos taken by researcher) the community’s fresh food requirements. Organic milk, cheese, eggs and meat are

produced by Wester Lawrenceton Farm which covers 95 acres overlooking the Findhorn

Bay and the Moray Firth. The farm is helping to reduce food miles while combining

traditional methods with the 21st century technology. In the area of transportation, many

people seem to own private cars and the concept of an official car-sharing program is not

evident at Findhorn. However, within the community, people bike or walk.

The primary source of income for the Findhorn Foundation are the educational courses

and several conferences (viz. the month long ecovillage training, the recently organized

peak oil conference, experience weeks, communication skills workshops, and trainings in

partnership with the UN etc.). Apart from these, the community has diversified into more

then forty ecologically and socially conscious businesses and initiatives27, providing a

model for a vibrant, local economy. A key feature of this economy is that income coming

vegetables, sometimes also flowers, fruits, herbs and even milk or meat products in some cases (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community-supported_agriculture, last viewed March 19, 2008). 27 The various businesses and initiatives started at Findhorn comprise of the following:- Findhorn Foundation (international center for education), Phoenix Community Stores (promoting trade with ethical suppliers and initiating buying policies to support local products), Ekopia Project (a development trust providing the community members with ethical investment), Build One (building ecological houses), Living Technologies Ltd. (designing and building natural waste water treatment systems), WindPark Ltd. (generate and provide electricity using wind turbine), Findhorn Bay Housing Company (providing infrastructure management), Dunelands Ltd. (landholding company working with conservation, regeneration and ecological human settlements), Ecovillage Institute (designing and delivering village scale sustainability programmes), Phoneix Organic Bakers, Findhorn Flower Essences (producing floral remedies), Findhorn Press Publishers, Posthouse printing, graphic design and printing company, Moray Steiner School (providing Waldorf education for children from age 3 to 16), Newbold House (a retreat and workshop center), Ecologia Trust (promoting exchange programmes with Russia), Trees for Life (Scottish ecological restoration program).

Gesota - 31 -

from the outside is recycled within the community through these businesses. The EKo28

is a local monetary system introduced in May 2002 which encourages trading with and

between community businesses, reduces capital thus generating community wealth and

supporting localization of economy. The currency was launched by Ekopia Resource

Exchange which is an Industrial and Provident Society in the form of a community

cooperative to invest in rural regeneration and sustainable economies.

Outside the community center; Cutting grass on the guest lodge roof; Social connect event at the barrel cluster. (Source: http://www.findhorn.org)

The social sustainability values at Findhorn are expressed through shared

participation in the rhythms of the festivals, celebrations and community events. A

weekly publication named ‘Rainbow Bridge’ publishes all the activities, planning

meetings, meeting minutes and decisions, community building events, art-cultural-

spiritual-fun events and workshops happening in the Community as well as short articles

by residents, advertisements for services and products. Spaces such as the children’s

playground, the Youth building, the Moray Art centre, the Volleyball court, the Universal

Hall for concerts and events, the Nature Sanctuary for quiet meditation offer

opportunities for a rich social life. Care for the children, the elderly and the sick are vital

parts of community life and groups have formed to focus on these important tasks. The

Community Center is a kitchen, dining room, lounge, meeting space and social occasions

for residents and guests where breakfast, lunch and dinner can be communally shared.

Various methods for a decentralized decision making and conflict resolution are followed

by the various co-operatives, businesses, groups and initiatives. For example, a

combination of consensus and attunement29 for decision making is used. The Forum

28 The EKo exchange is where one can buy EKos (1pound = 1 EKo). People can buy EKos for their pounds and can spend it locally within the community and the community businesses. In return the community uses the pounds as loans to support other community business ventures at low interest rates. 29 The attunement process is a key feature for making decisions at Findhorn. It involves first listening to the issue at hand and then meditating silently for 30 minutes to reflect on the various aspects of the issue before expressing an opinion.

Gesota - 32 -

process evolved at the ZEGG ecovillage, Findhorn Common Ground, Mediation and

once a month supervision processes facilitate conflict resolution and effective

communication within working groups.

Ökodorf Sieben Linden30

The Ökodorf Sieben Linden was established in 1997 in the Altmark region of

former Eastern Germany, one kilometer from the village of Poppau, over a property of 77

hectares. Since then, the ecovillage has grown and there were 80 adults and 30 children

living in the community as of 2006. The project of the Ökodorf was initiated in 1989 by a

psychologist and a professor named Jörg Sommers who was very influenced by ideas of

communes and communitarian projects. His initial idealistic vision was to develop a

radically self-sufficient village for about 300 people. As more interested people joined

the group, the extreme idealism shifted into a more pragmatic approach (which

30 Source: Interview and conversations with the community residents, direct observation, volunteering in the Club99 Strawbale building project and various documents, presentations and literature forwarded by the community members.

Gesota - 33 -

eventually led to Jörg Sommers himself leaving the project). A core group of people

spread across Germany worked for the next 10 years before the plan for this project could

be realized. While in their planning stages, a prize from two conventional and nationwide

organizations – The German Institute of Urban Affairs31 and the German Federal

Environmental Foundation32 for excellent local ecological initiative, gave them

recognition in the region and the country as a legitimate group.

An interesting initial difficulty deserves to be mentioned as it shows one of the

challenges that ecovillages face with local authorities and planning regulations while

setting up an ecovillage. The idea of Sieben Linden was to build a full featured settlement

on the outskirts of the village of Poppau. The then mayor and the local council gave a go

ahead to Sieben Linden so long as the village of Poppau did not have to spend any money

in developing the ecovillage. However, according to German urban planning laws, it is

not allowed to build a village outside a village as the German Law does not want to

encourage split settlements without its own centre and inner space. Therefore, the

question that came up for Sieben Linden and the local village administration was - If a

new village is built, is it outside the main village or is it considered part of the main

village and would it be legitimate? However, since the ecovillage group did not want to

build a split settlement but build a real full featured settlement with a proper inner space,

this question was partly resolved. But it was only fully resolved through the help of the

green environmental minister of the time who wanted the ecovillage project to be

realized. However, this question has re-surfaced in recent times with the new head of the

village council who does not accept Sieben Linden as a legal and valid settlement. This

has raised some uncertainty with respect to how things will shape in the future for Sieben

Linden.

Organizationally speaking, Sieben Linden has three main legal bodies. The

Settlement Co-operative’s main responsibility is to acquire land for Sieben Linden and to

incur other expenses for the community not to exceed its total capital base. Every person

who is accepted into the ecovillage contributes between 11,000 and 15,000 euros

(refunded upon leaving) to the settlement co-operative. The settlement co-operative is run

31 Deutsches Institut für Urbanistik, see http://www.difu.de 32 Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt, see http://www.dbu.de

Gesota - 34 -

by a Board of Directors which is an elected body. The Housing Co-operative which was

founded in 2001 is also run by an elected body of a Board of Directors. Its main

responsibility is to construct and finance housing for the residents. The homes are

constructed by the housing co-operative through various means (viz. federal funding,

very low interest rate bank loans, capital accumulated by the settlement co-operative,

private loans from private individuals). The loans are paid off with the rent paid by

residents. The Freundeskreis Oekodorf e.V. is non-profit body of Sieben Linden residents

and friends/supporters of Sieben Linden who are responsible for public relations,

organizing seminars, conferences and education program. They might also make financial

contributions to Sieben Linden from time to time. A member of Freundeskreis is entitled

to some special concessions at Sieben Linden such as discounts on staying at the

ecovillage or on seminars/workshops/conferences etc.

Beyond these legal bodies, the community is organized in a co-operative form.

The Food Co-operative is responsible for acquiring food for the residents over and above

what is grown at Sieben Linden, as locally as possible and in accordance with the season.

The Visionary Circle is a group of people who meet once a month to discuss current

issues at Sieben Linden from a high level and assess its shared vision and beliefs and

discuss its higher aims and general strategy. Apart from these, the ecovillage is organized

into several working groups comprised of volunteers who are responsible for day to day

operation (viz. the kitchen group or the forestry group).

The ecovillage expresses its ecological values in several ways. Renewable energy

is produced using photovoltaic panels. Any extra electricity generated is fed back into the

main grid earning income for the ecovillage. Heating is provided by wood from the local

forest where replanting of native growth trees is an active project undertaken by a group

at Sieben Linden. Organic and local food production of vegetables and fruits needed

(70% of the requirements) to feed the community are gown in the community garden in

the summer and some of it is stored in underground cellars for use in the winter. Sieben

Linden in the process of buying some of their produce from outside traders has also

initiated a local network of organic growers and suppliers. Grey water33 is recycled using

33Grey water is non-industrial wastewater generated from domestic processes such as washing dishes, laundry and bathing (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greywater, last viewed on March 19, 2008).

Gesota - 35 -

a reed bed system. All the toilets at Sieben Linden are composting toilets and there is no

water borne sewage. The fecal matter is collected periodically and composted in a clear

area of the forest, which takes about four years to decompose sufficiently enough to be

re-used as fertilizer. At present, while more tests for proving non-toxicity are pending, it

is not being used as a fertilizer for the vegetable garden. However; it is being used as a

fertilizer for the native forest growth work. A pioneering work at Sieben Linden has been

in the area of using strawbale and clay (both locally available) for constructing ecological

buildings. The group Club99 built their first strawbale house (Villa Strohbund) for an

amazingly low cost of 25,000 euros. The house is a community area designed for twenty

people34. The German strawbale building association FASBA35 was founded in 2002 in

Sieben Linden and in February 2006 obtained the first general approval for strawbales as

a legal building material in Europe from the German government. In the area of

transportation, a car sharing scheme allows members to use cars when they need to travel

long distance without having to individually buy cars. The ecovillage is not structured for

cars to be driven inside the community premises and mainly people use bicycles or walk.

Villa StrohPolis: the largest strawbale building in Europe; Villa Strohbund: the first communal strawbale house in Sieben Linden. (Source: Photograph by researcher)

Economically speaking, one of the goals for self-sufficiency was to be as

independent of bank loans as possible, especially for purchase of land. Apart from the 34 At the time that this thesis is being written, there are already three strawbale houses built and occupied at Sieben Linden, a fourth one is being built where I had the opportunity to work part-time and the foundations for a fifth one was being laid. 35 FASBA is a non-profit organization and its main activities are dealing with strawbale building research, gathering and diffusion of expert knowledge, networking, co-operation as well as public relations, promotion of strawbale building in Germany and Europe through strawbale building conferences and workshops. Since 2003, FASBA is involved with three research and development projects supported by the German government and the Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt (DBU).

Gesota - 36 -

initial contribution to the settlement co-operative, the residents make a monthly

contribution to the housing co-operative for rent for their housing and the settlement co-

operative for using communal resources. This is used to pay for any utilities, the chefs,

manager, janitor, gardeners and the people who make the spreads at Sieben Linden. A

small rent is paid for the usage of communal rooms. The Freundeskreis e.V. organizes

seminars and conferences which results in income to the community as well. There is a

combination of individual income and shared income. Certain neighborhoods such as

Club99 follow a shared economy. Individually, residents follow different professions.

Some residents run small businesses from the community and some work as free lance

consultants or have jobs outside. There are twelve retired people in the community at this

time. The general strategy is to recycle the income from the residents within the

community as much as possible. An example is the case of building of homes. Some

people employed for the construction are people from the community. Therefore the

capital that goes towards building the houses returns back into the community. Instead of

buying wood from a wood dealer, they use wood from their forest and employ people

from the community to cut the wood. This recycling is an important part of the economic

sustainability of the community. The community continues to look for ways to get state

funding; however, they are not dependent on any state funding. They get a lot of state

funding for their seminars, however, which enables them to offer their seminars at a very

low cost.

The ecovillage community is made up of smaller communities, each of about 15-

20 people, called ‘neighborhoods’, which express different life styles or shared values

and beliefs and form different sub-groups. At present the neighborhoods that have formed

are the Club99, 81.5, BrunnenWeise and WindRose. Some other residents are not part of

any neighborhood but might form a group at some point in time. The design and planning

Gesota - 37 -

of the ecovillage offers many opportunities for a communal experience. The community

kitchen, the library and the meeting spaces in the Regio House, a café cum bar, a sauna

and small lakes offer spaces within the ecovillage for a social life. Several activities are

offered by residents on a daily basis such as meditations, group connects events, music ,

dance, spiritual quests, community building events apart from the annual summer camp.

A special area has been designed for the children of the community.

The contribution to the settlement co-operative entitles each person to a single

vote (regardless of the amount of contribution) for community wide decisions. Initially

when the community started, a consensus decision making model was followed and there

were no hierarchies. However, as the community grew, it was found that following a

consensus model was extremely time consuming and ineffective. In the process of

experimenting to find the best way to make decisions, they accepted and recognized the

value of hierarchy. But it is important at Sieben Linden that hierarchy is based on

capacity and the trust and that the person who has the power looks for the good of the

community, not just his or her own interests. This power can also be revoked. Now

several approaches to decision making are followed. The working groups have their own

leader and authority to make decisions concerning the group. On issues related to the

community, a 2/3rd ‘yes’ majority and no veto model is followed. Various methods for

conflict resolution and group communication facilitation are followed at Sieben Linden.

This includes a process called Forum, which was initially developed by the ZEGG

ecovillage, the AB method, the talking stick circles, Process Work of Arnold Mindell,

World Café by Huanita Brown to tap into the collective intelligence, Systemic work and

Non Violent Communication work of Marshall Rosenberg.

Gesota - 38 -

V. A Sustainability Assessment

Can sustainability be measured? As more ecovillages were being created in the

80’s and 90’s, a need for the communities to be able to audit where they stand in relation

to the ideal of a fully featured ideal ecovillage was felt (Jackson 1998). A valid argument

raised in this regards is that having one audit for every region and every ecovillage is

meaningless as the circumstances and needs are different in each case (Innes & Booher

1996, Jackson 1998). But on the other hand, having some way of monitoring and/or

measuring where the ecovillage stands in terms of its sustainability assessment is

important. The merits of doing so would be that it would make it easier for mainstream

society to legitimately accept ecovillages and gain necessary funding (Jackson 1998). It

could also help ecovillages become an important source for policy initiatives relating to

sustainability (Innes & Booher 1996). As well as for communities themselves to become

better at self-management and self conscious about the direction they are going (ibid). In

addition, these tools could be learning instruments - pointing out actions that aspiring

individuals and communities can take to become more sustainable (GEN).

Keeping these pictures in mind, Jackson proposed a very simplistic model for

communities to self-assess its sustainability (see Fig 2.1 in Appendix) (1998). The four

circles with four quadrants for each aspect of an ecovillage (social, ecological, economic

and spiritual) can simply be shaded to mark the level of perceived achievement and

sustainability. Based on this simplistic model, the Global Ecovillage Network has created

a more elaborate Community Sustainability Assessment tool to provide measuring rods

for individuals and for existing villages and communities to compare their current status

with ideal goals for ecological, social, economical and spiritual sustainability. This tool

expands each of the four dimensions in Jackson’s model into a question-answer-score

format which eventually add to a final score giving an indication of weak to strong

sustainability (CSA).

On a similar note, a three-tier system of sustainability indicators has been devised

by Innes & Booher (1996) which is based on viewing cities and communities as self-

organizing complex adaptive systems. This three-tier system of indicators was developed

to help a city or a community be a self-organized learning system which can adapt and

Gesota - 39 -

respond to change and opportunity and can effectively address problems or potential

system break-down based on feedback that flows among the participants of the system.

The top tier, the System Performance Indicator, measures the key indicators which reflect

the central values of concern to the city or the community and which can serve as

bellweathers for the health of the overall system.

System Performance Indicators (e.g. overall quality of life , total waste generated, number of people moving in and out of the city/community) Policy & Program Indicators (e.g. quality of parks, quality of transit systems, crime reports, length of waiting list for public housing) Rapid Feedback Indicators (e.g. ontime detailed traffic and accident report, immediate access to cost of water usage at home, tool to monitor daily usage of electricity or gas)

Fig. 2 Three tier sustainability indicator model. (Source: Adapted from Innes & Booher 1996)

The second tier, the Policy and Program Indicators reflect the activities and outcomes of

various elements of the system or subsystems and allow policy makers, businesses or

others to assess whether they should adjust their programs or policies and help with

troubleshooting when results are not moving in a desirable direction. The third tier, the

rapid feedback indicators, helps individuals, agencies, businesses and other participants

in making the best choices for their own daily actions (ibid).

While these models attempt to assess sustainability in its social and economic

aspects along with the ecological aspect, in general though, as pointed out by Jackson

(1998), it is much easier to quantify and assess the ecological dimension. The most

popular model to assess ecological sustainability is the Ecological Footprint (EF)36 theory

which was developed by Dr. Mathis Wackernagel and Prof. William Rees (Wackernagel 36 The Ecological Footprint determines the amount of land that the population requires to provide their resources and absorb their wastes within the context of the Earth’s biological capability to regenerate them. The footprint deals only with demands placed on the environment; it does not attempt to include the social or economic dimensions of sustainability. It is now being used in many countries at national and local levels and its application includes analysis of policy, benchmarking performance, education, and raising awareness, scenario development and decision making. See http://www.footprintnetwork.org/index.php for more information.

Gesota - 40 -

& Rees 1996) in the early 1990’s. This theory provides a comprehensive tool to measure

the ecological sustainability of an ecovillage, community, region, city or a country in

terms of global hectares (gha). The tool quantifies how much energy and raw materials

are used, and how much solid, liquid and gaseous waste is generated. Ecological

footprinting then converts this into a measure of land area measured in gha (global

hectares), required to produce all the resources used and absorb all the waste that is

produced. It has been calculated that a sustainable area of land for each person to exist on

is around 1.8 global hectares (gha) (Tinsley & George 2006).

While these different models for assessing sustainability exist and perhaps others,

it was found that the Findhorn Community and the Sieben Linden community do not use

any specific formal assessment tool. However, footprint studies by independent external

organizations have been conducted at Findhorn and Sieben Linden which are described in

a later section of this chapter.

Returning back to Gilman’s report (1991) from the previous chapter, the report

outlined some of the challenges that the communities he studied, had faced. He outlined

the following challenges in six areas: (a) bio-system challenge (b) built environment

challenge (c) economic system challenge (d) governance challenge (e) ‘glue’ challenge

(f) whole-system challenge. These six areas essentially encompass the social, ecological

and economic dimensions of sustainability and they connect back to the definition of an

ecovillage as defined by Gilman by bringing out the interconnections between them.

They also map to Jackson’s model in terms of its constituents. As noted by Dawson and

what can be inferred from the Global Ecovillage Network website, since Gilman’s report

was published, considerable amount of work has happened in these areas in ecovillages

(Dawson 2006, GEN). Therefore, these six areas can be taken as a baseline towards

evaluating a sustainable community and hence be used to benchmark against what has

been achieved in an ecovillage, which will be looked at in the next section.

Ecological Sustainability Gilman’s bio-systems challenge and the built environment challenge together

form the ecological dimensions which require human activities to be harmlessly

integrated into the natural world. This includes ways to produce food, process organic

waste, recycle waste, ecological buildings, reduce generation of toxic waste, using

Gesota - 41 -

renewable energy sources, requiring minimal motorized transport and having minimal

impact on the local ecology. The case studies (see chapter IV, see also table 1.3 in

Appendix) elucidate the implementation of ecologically sustainable practices at Findhorn

and Sieben Linden in detail and therefore will not be re-discussed in this section. What

needs to be mentioned is that the exact technique used to implement these practices is

different based on the availability of natural resources in the local area. For example, at

Sieben Linden, photovoltaic panels are used for renewable energy generation whereas in

Findhorn, windmills are used due to high wind energy available on the coast and lack of

sufficient sunlight in the year. Sieben Linden has focused very strongly on strawbale

building construction whereas Findhorn has used a variety of techniques such as whisky

barrels, strawbale etc. Therefore, local resources form a determining factor in the

technology adopted towards ecological practices to mitigate global problems.

A recent study undertaken by the Sustainable Development Research Centre

(SDRC)37 based in Moray, Scotland based on the footprint theory (Tinsley & George

2006) concluded that the ecological footprint of the Findhorn Foundation Community

residents is 2.71 gha38 per person, lower then the ecological footprint of United Kingdom

(5.4 gha), Scotland (5.37gha) and the Beddington Zero Energy Development (Bed Zed)39

(3.2 gha). Another study carried out by the SDRC calculated the ecological footprint of

the nearby city of Inverness to be 6.30 gha40. Based on these figures, it is clear that the

Findhorn Foundation Community’s sustainable practices have had a lower impact on the

environment which is a significant achievement.

37 SDRC explores the concepts of sustainable development and seeks to advise and support individuals, communities, businesses and other organizations to create a more sustainable culture that encourages the evolution and widespread adoption of thinking and practices that are economically competitive, environmentally sound and that are socially responsible. SDRC is an Associate Institute for sustainable research with UHI Millennium Institute. See http://www.sustainableresearch.com/ for more information. 38 The study included the residents and the guests of the Findhorn Foundation Community and together calculated the weighted ecological footprint to be 2.10 gha. For the sake of this thesis, I am only considering the ecological footprint that was calculated for the Findhorn Foundation Community residents. 39 BedZed or the Beddington Zero Energy Department is an environmentally friendly housing development near Wallington, England. The key ideas at BeDZed are zero energy, energy and water efficiency, waste recycling and use of eco-friendly transport. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BedZED, last viewed on April 8, 2008) 40 A similar ecological footprint study was conducted by Cornel University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) at the Ithaca Ecovillage in upstate New York. It was concluded that the community’s footprint was more then 40% lower then the national average (Dawson 2007).

Gesota - 42 -

A Carbon Footprint41 study undertaken by the University of Kassel, Germany in

2003, compared two ecovillages – Ökodorf Sieben Linden and the Kommune

Niederkraufungen - with two ‘ecofriendly’ households and the German average

household. Per capita Co2 emissions in the Ökodorf Sieben Linden and the Kommune

Niederkaufungen were 72 per cent respectively, 58 per cent lower than those of a German

average household. Sieben Linden scored especially well in the fields of heating and

housing; where the community recorded reductions of Co2 emission by 90 respectively,

94 per cent of the German national average (Dawson 2007).

Dawson attributes this lower footprint to a few factors (ibid):-

(i) Communality; that is sharing of resources and possessions, having more

communal residential arrangements, low ownership of consumables (e.g.

washing machines, TVs), car-pools or car sharing schemes, a vibrant art and

cultural scene which reduces the demand for toys, TVs and other tools for

entertainment.

(ii) Growing own food (this reduces the food miles to transport and deliver food

from other locations) and a vegetarian or a vegan diet42

(iii) More employment within the community due to community businesses and

enterprises reducing the need to travel to work.

(iv) Awareness for ecological standards and connecting knowledge to action

Economic Viability The economic system challenge raises questions such as what economic activities

can sustain the members of the community and are ecologically sustainable, private

versus public ownership of assets, reducing expenses and reducing the environmental

impact, alternatives to money economy to facilitate economic exchange within the

ecovillage. Several of these are also described in the case studies (see chapter IV) and

therefore will not be elucidated here again.

41 Carbon footprint is a measure of the impact human activities have on the environment in terms of the amount of green house gases produced, measured in units of carbon dioxide. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint, last viewed April 8, 2008) 42 How does a vegetarian diet lead to lower CO2 emissions? Reference is needed.

Gesota - 43 -

Social Sustainability While the ecological and economical dimensions of sustainability are much more

tangible and hence quantifiable, the intangible and ‘soft’ aspect of social sustainability is

far more challenging and difficult to assess due to its subjective nature and hence requires

more discussion. How can one measure whether a community is socially sustainable? In

simple terms, what sustains the community of an ecovillage over a long term? Gilman’s

glue challenge and the governance challenge both point to the social sustainability aspect.

Questions such as how will decisions be made, how will conflicts be resolved, role and

form of leadership, relating to surrounding region and government relate to the

governance challenge. And questions such as what motivates/influences people to live

together, what holds people together, the interplay between public and private space, the

tension between individual needs versus community needs, what is the group vision and

what are the shared values and beliefs of the community relate to the glue challenge

(Gilman 1991). Other studies which have researched countercultural communes have

identified similar factors on the question of the long term versus short term survival of

these countercultural communes (Kanter 1972, Abrams & McCulloch 1976, Miller 1981,

Zicklin 1983, Pepper 1991).

Ferdinand Tonnies, in his 1887 work Gemeinschaft and Geselleschaft has argued

that ‘community’ (Gemeinschaft) is a tighter and cohesive social entity within the context

of a larger ‘society’ (Geselleschaft) due to organically uniting factor(s) (Deflem 2001).

Traditionally, expressions of community are found in the family and kinship relationship;

however shared beliefs, visions, needs, preferences, and resources could also result in

forming a community (ibid). Ecovillages are expressions of this second type of a

community which are not based on family and kinship relationships (though this could

also be a subset in the community) but on shared values, beliefs, needs, preferences and

resources. Interview conversations revealed several reasons for wanting to live in an

ecovillage such as ‘better quality of life (for raising a family or otherwise)’, ‘concern for

ecology’, ‘wanting to move away from urban cities’, ‘escape the rat race’, ‘community

and different ways of relating to people’, ‘being closer to nature’, ‘love’, ‘transparency’.

Similar to what Abrams & McCullogh found in their study of early communes, most

individual members, quite simply but in a profound way came to the ecovillages for

Gesota - 44 -

themselves that is to say that people initially came to an ecovillage for their own self-

discovery and benefits (Abrams & McCullogh 1983). This casts a dubious eye on the

long-term survival of a community. Pepper has also noted Young’s comments on this “it

is difficult for bonds of power such as this to develop in the context of a voluntary

democratic community held together by intellectual ties alone, especially when the

motivation for communal life is not so much welfare of society, but, as it often is, the

rediscovery of self” (Young43 cited by Pepper 1991:55). However, empirical study

showed that once their individual quest was satisfied and being exposed to global issues

in a collective, changed the motivation to transcend the individual and encompass welfare

of the wider society, developing reasons beyond the individual self-discovery.

The term ‘glue’ has been mentioned in several studies and research on ecovillages

and intentional communities (Gilman 1991, Bates 1991, Atkisson 1991, Peck 1991) as

the reason that ‘keeps’ a diverse group of people together in a community. This is

different than the reason(s) that motivate, influence or inspire people to live in a

community. The ‘glue’ challenge essentially poses the question: what holds the people in

the ecovillage together? Atkisson’s study of the Crystal Waters ecovillage in Australia

showed that the turnaround at Crystal Waters was as high as in any suburban

neighborhood in 1991. The reason being that even though Crystal Waters was designed

and built successfully on permaculture principles, the diversity of people who came there

all had very different expectations of what permaculture really is, what is an ecovillage,

who will live there and how is life organized there (Atkisson 1991). Scott Peck, a

psychiatrist, author and co-founder of Foundation for Community Encouragement has

suggested that the community glue first develops in the form of a mission statement of

the ecovillage along with a philosophy and a vision statement which essentially defines

“this is our purpose for being together”. Gilman’s study of ecovillages and intentional

communities has shown that simply developing this glue is not enough but also later

maintaining it gives rise to a new set of questions and challenges such as (a) interplay

between unity and diversity, (b) shared values, practices expected in the group, (c)

group’s shared vision, (d) developing and evolving the vision, (e) interpersonal closeness

of the group, (e) relating to groups outside the group (Gilman 1991). These can be

43 See Young, John (1990) Post Environmentalism. p.36, London: Belhaven

Gesota - 45 -

addressed, according to Peck, by ritualistically re-examining the statement of purpose

every couple of years (1991). Albert Bates, one of the original founders of The Ranch

ecovillage in Tennessee USA, builds upon this by adding the element of interpersonal

skills as the most important element for a community to succeed (1991). “The glue that

holds any group together is the ability to put aside your own personal ego at times and to

recognize that you have to look out for other people” (Bates 1991).

These aspects which indicate the ‘glue’ were reflected in conversations at the

studied ecovillages in the form of ‘openness’, ‘not-dogmatic’, ‘sense of working in co-

operation’, ‘willingness to talk through the differences arising due to diversity of the

community’, ‘transparency’, ‘a general awareness that we are a part of the whole’,

‘spiritual discovery’, ‘extended family feeling’, ‘weaving of ecology into every aspect of

life’, ‘good communication’, ‘being part of the solution and not part of the problem in

theory and practice’. At Sieben Linden, the number of people leaving the community is

less then 10% per year (SL-3) which indicates a high cohesiveness in the group. Since

1997 when the community was formally established, Sieben Linden has grown to be a

community of 80 adults and 30 children in 2006. Turnover data for Findhorn is not

available. However, Findhorn has grown from a family of 6 to a full fledged community

of approximately 450 members. These could be taken as indicators of desirability to live

in these places. The visionary circle at Sieben Linden meets regularly to discuss how they

sense the ‘pulse’ of the community as well as re-examine the community’s vision and

beliefs. The yearly internal conference in Findhorn where the foundation members meet,

serves a similar purpose.

Another important element of the ‘glue’ is a perceived sense of improvement in

the quality of life at the ecovillage as compared to in mainstream society. The notion of

quality of life is a subjective notion and could be defined differently by different people.

In the context of Findhorn and Sieben Linden, interview conversations led to concluding

that the residents perceived their quality of life to have improved in the ecovillage.

Findhorn and Sieben Linden are both located in rural areas such that access to bigger

cities or towns for jobs is not convenient. Therefore, it is difficult for people to find local

jobs. Further, they would be paid more in a bigger town for the same skills then in the

neighboring villages. In spite of this limitation, people have chosen to live in these

Gesota - 46 -

ecovillages because their perceived sense of an improved quality of life offsets the lower

income they earn. Others have left the ecovillages for periods of time for various reasons

(such as raising a family, a desire to do more work in the ‘world’) but have returned back

to the ecovillage (e.g. SL-6, FF-4, FF-6), or frequently visit the ecovillage (EX-FF-1).

Findhorn particularly is attractive to upper middle class in the UK since it offers a

concept of private land and eco-home ownership in the heart of the community with a

greater quality of life. This is evident in the ‘Field of Dreams’ project at Findhorn which

is an eco-housing project privately owned by individuals within the community.

Gilman’s study of several intentional communities led to the conclusion that in

order to sustain the community, ecovillages need to find a good balance between the

public and private space, encourage community interaction and support a diversity of

activities (1991). A similar theme is echoed by others who provided a sociological

perspective on earlier countercultural communes (Kanter 1972, Abrams & McCulloch

1976, Miller 1981, Zicklin 1983, Pepper 1991). The diversity of community activities and

opportunities for community interaction are better described in the case studies (see

chapter IV). As FF-4 mentioned, “There are so many communal activities such as

dancing, swimming, going to the beach, social gatherings, concerts, that people have to

learn to say ‘No’. Opportunities here are every rich. Even the simplicity of sitting quietly

in the sanctuary serves everyone”.

The discussion on private versus public also relates to a discussion on

individuality versus community because a desire for privacy is a direct response to the

need for individual expression whereas the desire for the public sphere is in direct

response to the human need for community or it could be said to be vice-versa as well.

Thus another determinant of a community’s long term survival is how well the balance

between individual autonomy/freedom and subordinating oneself for the needs of the

community is achieved.

According to the concept of possessive individualism, the individual takes

precedence over the community or society and owes nothing to it, where the skills of an

individual are treated as a commodity which can be traded in the open market leading to a

competitive economy. Such a society exhibits a selfish and unending thirst for

consumption (MacPherson 1962). The concept of ‘social ecology’ developed by the

Gesota - 47 -

American thinker, political activist and an eco-anarchist, Murray Bookchin suggests that

the present ecological problems basically are deeply rooted social problems in precisely

this type of a competitive economy. It would require a collective opposition set in the

framework of communalism and can’t be resisted by individual action (Bookchin 1974).

The two positions of individuality and community have remained at opposition to each

other no matter at what point in the history of human evolution one looks at. David

Pepper, in his excellent study of intentional communities and communes has concluded

that it is the very tensions between these two that could lead to conflicts to the extent of

breaking up the community (Pepper 1991). Shenker describes this as “to sustain

collective efforts towards the attainment of the supra-individual goals, the individual

needs to be treated and needs to see himself, as a means to an end. For the community to

persist over a lengthy period the individual must, up to a point, subordinate himself to the

satisfaction of collective, functional needs” (Shenker 1986:247). Dawson has recognized

this to be a challenge for the long term survival of communities (2006). An increased

individualism in practice plays out in the form of people wanting more private space

(ibid). This desire for more private space could be a result of a weakening of the

community glue (FF-8) or lead to the weakening of the glue (Dawson 2006). The first co-

housing community started in Denmark in 1968 followed by other (bofoellesskaber), was

based on the premise that people need privacy as well as a strong sense of belonging in

order to thrive (Walker 2005). What was observed at Findhorn is all of the residences are

private homes, albeit much more communally organized than in wider society. However,

there are no communal homes per se in Findhorn. The Community Centre acts as a

communal kitchen and a meeting point. In contrast, Sieben Linden offers a mix of both.

While the leaning is heavily towards communal homes, there are apartment style

residences which provide independent housing to some. However, there are no private

individual residences at Sieben Linden. What is seen in the design of ecovillages

(physical or structural) is that the polarized ideas of individuality and community are

constantly examined and negotiated to reach a healthy balance which is perceived as a

desirable social goal.

Gesota - 48 -

The Challenge of Governance: Centralization, Control and Hierarchy Most countercultural communes and intentional communities have been

associated with anarchist ideology. As Barry has pointed out, traditional anarchism posits

that solidarity and co-operation are more important then competition and hierarchy and

rejects centralization of political and economic power (Barry 2007), a theme which has

found expression in many communes and intentional communities. The more recent

Bookchin’s eco-anarchism in its ‘Libertarian Municipalism’ theory makes a clear break

from this traditional anarchist thought by limiting the scope of communities to go their

own way by taking the communal right to self-governance as its principal and highest

political norm. Conversely speaking, eco-anarchism is a demand for decentralization,

democratization and devolved decision-making rather then a critique of the state (ibid).

The critique of state “…is often raised by men whose real objection is not to state

interference but to centralization, to the constant aggression of the central executive upon

local authorities” (T. H. Green44 cited by Barry 2007:173). This finds similarities with

the concept of Direct Democracy proposed by Starhawk (2002) which does not reject

organization but calls for a different pattern of organizing like the pattern of a spider’s

web, which is a horizontal form of organization found in nature instead of the top down

organization found in human societies where decisions from top are imposed downward

creating vertical hierarchies of “power-over” (ibid). The web, like a classic spider web,

implies a pattern of spokes radiating out from a central point, linked by a spiral of sticky

thread. A web can also concentrate information; any point in the web can communicate

with the center and also communicate with other points in the periphery which creates a

“power among” structure instead of “power over” structure (ibid).

Peck’s theory supports the need for structure and organization by arguing that

contrary to the common belief, structure and community are not incompatible. In fact, the

greater the structure and the clearer that structure is, the easier it is to build a community

(Peck 1991). That is to say that the purpose of community is not to get rid of hierarchy

but the challenge lies in how to learn to function in a hierarchy as well as function in a

community (ibid). Kanter in her study of the commune culture has concluded that the

most enduring communes were also the most centralized and most tightly controlled 44 See Green, Thomas H. (1974) Lecture on Liberal Legislation and Freedom of Contract. Reprinted in J.B. Diggs (ed.) , ‘The State, Justice and the Common Good’, Glenview, p.217, IL: Scott, Foresman

Gesota - 49 -

(Kanter 1972). Examples of such communes that come to mind are religious groups and

monasteries where the concept of a strong leader is at the center of its organization.

Findhorn started with Eileen’s inner guidance. On the basis of this inner guidance, she

continued for many years to be the guiding or the directing force in the evolution of

Findhorn, however Findhorn was never tightly controlled. After Eileen and re-

organization of Findhorn, the absence of this central figure was felt in the words of

ecovillage residents such as “there is no charismatic leader directing” (FF-4), “not having

a guru” (FF-8) or SL-8 who expressed liking the idea of having a community with one

leader, though accepting the disadvantages of such an organization as well. But Findhorn

has also evolved from Eileen’s inner guidance to an organizational structure with elected

members, a council, the foundation, the New Findhorn Foundation and several other

working groups. Sieben Linden is an example which never had a central leader but is

organizationally structured with elected members and different bodies responsible for

different areas. The community has evolved from discussing everything through

consensus and no hierarchy to having a hierarchy which is based on capacity and trust, as

the size of the community grew, rendering consensual forms ineffective and time

consuming (SL-3). In both the cases, there is autonomy given to voluntary working

groups and elected bodies to make devolved decisions rather then a community wide

consensus form. Different ways of making decisions and resolving conflicts are practiced

within their respective organizational structures (see chapter IV). In the light of the above

discussion, what is interesting therefore is the paradox that Kanter refers to in the works

of Georg Simmel45 on secret societies; that people seek a balance between freedom and

control (Simmel cited by Kanter 1972:130). To balance the autonomy and separateness

sensed by communes from wider society, groups end up creating internal controls to find

this balance. What differentiates these norms, programs and authorities of communal

groups from those of wider society is that they are self imposed and voluntarily chosen

(ibid). This basically reflects the human need to create order out of chaos that occurs in

groups without societal imposed limits (Philip Slater cited by Kanter 1972:130).

45 Georg Simmel, a sociologist, pioneered the concept of social structure and was the key precursor of the social network analysis. (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Simmel, last viewed April 8, 2008)

Gesota - 50 -

VI. Urban Ecovillages and Vauban District of Freiburg

Gilman’s vision of ecovillages included not just rural areas but also urban

/suburban neighborhoods. While visioning an urban ecovillage, Gilman proposed that a

city itself could not be an ecovillage, but a city made up of ecovillages could be a

sustainable community (Gilman 1991). Several initiatives have sprung up around the

world since then to actualize the concept of urban ecovillage, where the challenges and

dynamics are somewhat different then in the case of rural ecovillages. In the context of

urban ecovillage development Trainer has pointed out that the most important area for the

development of ecovillages is not the intentional rural communes, where most action is

currently taking place (Trainer 2000). But rather that the focus must shift to the dying

country towns and especially the suburbs and neighbourhoods of the cities. The latter are

where most people live. However, the biggest problem that is faced is how to transform

these existing settlements into highly self-sufficient urban ecovillages (ibid). Using the

example of Cape Town, Swilling’s paper on Sustainability and Infrastructure Planning in

South Africa highlights the importance of considering ecological sustainability issues in

any city’s infrastructure plans and investments (Swilling 2006a). This has been

demonstrated by the integrated sustainable development efforts in the Lynedoch

ecovillage in Stellenbosch (near Cape Town) (Swilling & Annecke 2006). Taking the

example of Freiburg; the newer developments of Reiselfeld and Vauban exhibit greater

possibilities of applying sustainable practices and this thesis will concentrate on

examining what has been achieved in Vauban.

The area of Vauban, which was previously an army base, became available to the

city of Freiburg for civilian usage only in 1991. The decision was made to develop this

into a residential area for 5,000 inhabitants over 42 hectares due to serious shortage of

housing in Freiburg. Freiburg is located in the south-west corner of Germany where

Switzerland and France meet. In response, an active citizen’s group named Forum

Vauban was formed as an NGO as the legal body representing extended citizen’s

participation in terms of the wishes and needs of future inhabitants and thus co-

responsible for the district design. Forum Vauban created the project "Sustainable Model

District Vauban", which defined an outline to implement, in a co-operative and

Gesota - 51 -

participatory way, a concept of development for a community, meeting ecological, social,

economical and cultural requirements.

A dense urban design concept, low energy standard for all houses, green spaces,

good public access (including a new light rail) and further infrastructure (kinder gardens

and a primary school) were parts of the plan from the beginning. Further objectives were

developed during the participation process organized by Forum Vauban:

(i) The transformation of the former Officer’s Mess into Haus 037 into a community

center and a central market place.

(ii) Promotion and support of private building self appointed groups and dwelling

projects (e.g. co-building groups, co-operatives)

(iii) Emphasis on traffic concept and car-free project with ideas for alternative mobility

(iv) Emphasis on low energy usage, renewable energy usage and design of special areas

for passive houses

(v) Advancement and support of the citizens participation through community work

Freiburg-Vauban was presented as "German Best Practice" at the UN Habitat II

Conference 1996 in Istanbul because of the cooperative planning process.

In terms of energy efficiency, all houses are built with improved low energy

standard (at least 65 kWh/m2a, calculated similarly to the Swiss SIA 380/1 standard),

about 150 units are ‘passive houses’46 (15 kWh/m2a) or ‘plus energy’ houses (i.e. houses

that produce more energy then what they need). A highly efficient co-generation plant

(CHP)47 operating with wood-chips (80%) and natural gas (20%) is connected to the

district's heating grid. The estimated CO2-savings through good insulation and efficient

heat supply are about 60%. The number of solar installations (solar collectors and

photovoltaics modules) has increased. A recent example is that of the housing and 46 The term Passive House refers to the rigorous, voluntary, Passivhaus standard for energy use in buildings. It results in ultra-low energy buildings that require little energy for space heating or cooling. The first Passivhaus buildings were built in Darmstadt, Germany in 1990. Since then, more than 6,000 Passivhaus buildings have been constructed in Europe, most of them in Germany and Austria. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house for more information) 47 CHP (Combined Heat and Power) or cogeneration is the use of a heat engine or a power station to simultaneously generate both electricity and heat. Conventional power plants emit the heat created as a byproduct of electricity generation into the environment through cooling towers as flue gas, or by other means. CHP or a bottoming cycle captures the byproduct heat for domestic or industrial heating purposes, for distribution through pipes to heat local housing. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Heat_and_Power for more information)

Gesota - 52 -

commercial complex situated on Merzhauser Str. which is supplied energy through solar

panels. The excess energy generated is feed back into the city’s common grid. Sixty-five

percent of the electricity needed in Vauban is produced on-site through CHP and

photovoltaics. Vauban thus features Europe's largest settlement consisting of passive and

plus energy houses. With respect to transportation Vauban is well connected to public

transportation (S-Bahn and VAG services) and public bicycle trails. Schools, shopping

facilities and recreation are all accessible on foot within the compressed space of the

Vauban area. Large parts of the residential area are defined as parking-free and car-free

zones. The traffic concept promotes “living without an owned car”. A car sharing

organization, Freiburger Auto-Gemeinschaft (FAG), has been implemented where

members of the scheme can rent a car at low rental rates when needed. Some residents

who do own cars are allowed to travel to and from the residences, at a very slow speed

and must be parked in multi-storey car parks at the periphery of the residential areas.

Rainwater is collected separately to be used in houses or infiltrated into the ground and

covers 80% of the residential area. For sewage treatment, a new sanitary concept using

vacuum toilets and a biogas plant was introduced by the co-building project – Wohnen

und Arbeiten. Through vacuum pipes fecal matter is transported into a biogas plant.

There they ferment anaerobically together with organic household waste, thus generating

biogas, which is used for cooking. Remaining waste water (grey-water) is cleaned in bio-

film plants and returned to the water cycle. The new residential area was built around

conserved old trees and public green spaces were developed together with ideas from the

residents. Streets blend into other open areas, such as playgrounds, public gardens and

widened sidewalks along the main boulevard surrounded by preserved old trees, thus

becoming areas for social interaction.

Due to the low traffic concept, streets and other public areas have become

playgrounds for kids and places of social interaction. Haus 037 has been developed into a

community center and hosts various events such as the flea market or children’s camp,

community festivals, a kindergarden, parties, workshops. It also has art studios and other

spaces available for workshops such as Yoga, Tai Chi. The magazine “Vauban Actuel”

publishes the various events and activities happening in the district. The emphasis on co-

building and co-housing has resulted in more the 40 groups of building owners such as

Gesota - 53 -

the Genova co-operative (Wohn-Genossenschaft Genova) and the self-organized S.U.S.I.

(Selbstorganisierte Unabhängige Siedlungs Initiative) settlement initiative. Due to the co-

operative nature of these projects, people with moderate and low income level can also

participate in building groups as opposed to being individual builders and thus receive

discounts so that homes become cheaper.

The building co-operative Genova eG, founded by members of Forum Vauban in

1997, is responsible for a very special building project featuring 36 housing units for rent

and a socio-ecological conception. The barrier free access includes lifts and access

galleries. Other main features include flexible basic plans and shared use of guest rooms,

wash and drying room, a communal house and garden and most importantly extensive

participation from the members of this project. One of the two houses is the "model

house" of the LIFE project. The model house combines ecological and social measures:

improved low energy standard by using triple-glass windows and improved insulation, a

large solar energy installation for hot water, use of rainwater cisterns, greening of roofs,

floors made out of domestic wood and PVC- and FCH-free construction. Furthermore, 35

of the 36 households are car-free. The project with its ambitious ecological goals was

realized with 3,200 DM/m2 dwelling space including buying the property and is the most

inexpensive new building in Vauban.

What is evident in the Northern countries is that new development projects are not

numerous as most of the development has already happened. Unlike in the South, where

many parts still need basic infrastructure, the Northern countries need to adapt to

sustainability due to the detrimental side-effects of the existing development paradigm.

Therefore, an example such as Vauban is not common for most European or North

American countries. A recent study done in the UK suggests that in the next 5 years,

150,000 new homes will be required, 80% of which are already built. Deconstructing the

existing infrastructure to rebuild a sustainable one is destabilizing in all three respects –

ecological, social and economic. Therefore the biggest challenge to urban centres is how

to incorporate sustainability? Assuming that the world is not coming to catastrophic

collapse but looking at scenarios which imply a gradual shift to a more sustainable living

requires a shift to viewing existing cities as complex adaptive systems which can respond

to feedback and are self organizing. The sustainability assessment parameters developed

Gesota - 54 -

by Innes& Booher (1996) could be particulalry helpful in their design approach itself.

The concept of Transition Town48, which is gaining significance in the UK, is an

interesting approach in this respect which looks at ways of converting existing areas

towards sustainability. What the example of Vauban offers in this respect, are the lessons

learnt. The main important success factors are identified as active citizen’s participation,

offering citizens possibilities to plan and build their homes with support from official

authorities and consultants, recycling old inner city areas and political lobbying.

48 The Transition Town concept was initiated by Rob Hopkins, a PhD candidate at the Plymouth College, in Totnes, England. The transition town concept is an initiative through networks to transition existing towns, cities and villages into sustainable forms in preparation for energy descent. See http://transitiontowns.org/TransitionNetwork/TransitionNetwork for more information.

Gesota - 55 -

VII. Negotiating Between the Social-Economic-Environment Nexus

Referring to the table below, the Findhorn Foundation Community is still using more

then its fair share of earth’s resources. One of the contributors to the total footprint that

Category Ecological Footprint per person (gha) Food 0.42 Home and Energy 0.29 Travel 0.37 Services 0.35 Consumables 0.30 Government and Other 0.47 Capital Investment 0.51 Total 2.71

Breakdown of the Findhorn Foundation Community resident ecological footprint per person (Source: Tinsley & George 2006).

has been pointed out by the study conducted by Tinsley & George (2006) is that of air

travel. According to the study, a Findhorn resident’s air travel is over 8000 km per

person. Furthermore, the study indicates that just over 10% of the international air travel

by the residents was undertaken for Findhorn Foundation business purposes and the rest

of the journeys were for leisure purposes. This fact found further support during the

empirical study at the community in various conversations. It was found that many

community members take leisure trips to destinations such as in Asia which require air

travel. However, more importantly, Findhorn’s economic sustenance depends largely

depends on guests - national and international - arriving there for educational programs

(FF-7) using, many times, air travel (Tinsley & George 2006). The visiting guests’

ecological footprint was also calculated by the same study49. Their air travel footprint was

calculated to be 0.95 gha per person i.e. 24,788 km per person, however for the sake of

this thesis; we will not consider the footprint of guests.

Additionally, what was found is that other community based enterprises require

products to be shipped from large distances. An example at Findhorn is the Phoenix

49 The ecological footprint of the visiting guests has not been included in this analysis since the footprint would reflect the guest’s overall consumption outside Findhorn as well. Since the guests are short term visitors to the Findhorn Community, their footprint would therefore be part of the national footprint calculations.

Gesota - 56 -

Community Store co-operative, a retail outlet which sells a range of products from

vegetables to books to yoga mats. The co-operative stocks only organic or fair trade or

naturally produced goods and many of these are local. But it also stocks Assam tea from

India, coffee from Latin America, bananas from Ecuador and other products which are

required to be transported from various parts of the world. Restricting purchase of food

item to local produce was also revealed as a hot topic for the Findhorn communal kitchen

(FF-4). Findhorn does not produce enough food for the guests coming in for the

educational programs. Therefore, food also needs to be purchased however; there is no

control over where the food they buy comes from. As was seen, they buy and stock food

products which are not local to Findhorn or Scotland or even to the UK. The rationale

provided is that since the guests coming to Findhorn are used to a certain lifestyle and

since the Findhorn educational programs are expensive, the kitchen cannot possibly

provide a simplistic diet based on relatively local food production to them! Furthermore,

ethical and green businesses based in or around the community have sprouted up which

market green products and ship the products ordered online to anywhere in the world and

consumers of these green products.. What I am alluding to here is three distinct types of

consumptions - (a) air travel for leisure and business (b) air travel by incoming guests (c)

product transport - of the fossil fuel based transportation commodity.

The contradiction that I would like to present here is as follows. Air transportation

requires large oil expenditures and it is well known that air travel is ozone depleting and

the largest contributor to CO2 atmospheric emissions, having direct consequences

towards global warming and climate change. The “…addiction to oil must be broken…”

(Dawson 2006:76) since “the age of cheap fossil fuels is coming to an end. And with it,

all those time-saving devices are going to become more expensive and less available”

(FF-1), that leads to “the immediate need to find ways of living with less if we are to

avert the worst scenarios associated with climate change” (Dawson 2007). In the event

that the age of cheap fossil fuels does come to an end as a worst case scenario and in the

absence of alternate transportation technology or fossil fuel based transportation

commodity becomes increasingly expensive as Dawson has said (2006:76), it will

directly reduce the number of guests going to Findhorn for education program. This

immediately puts at the stake the economic sustainability of the Findhorn Foundation

Gesota - 57 -

Community. This conflict was also echoed as a concern towards sustainability by FF-6

and FF-8 during an interview conversation.

A similar contradiction applies to Sieben Linden albeit to a lesser extent. In the

absence of more detailed data, the impact of a fossil fuel crisis on the community’s

economic sustenance is difficult to analyze. However, empirical research suggests that

Sieben Linden economic sustenance is not heavily dependent on income coming from

guests coming for educational program. It does add to their economic sustenance. In fact,

what was revealed by SL-3 is that Sieben Linden does not want visitors to use air travel

or even cars to come to Sieben Linden. This is at the moment in threat since the only bus

line which connects the closest train stations of Oebesfelde and Salzwedel to the village

of Poppau might be closed or reduced by the local authorities. The local train station was

already shut down a few years ago. Some residents of Sieben Linden who are active in

the political arena (such as SL-3) are lobbying for not shutting down the bus service. Of

course, the question of international air travel is not avoided completely.

Both Beck in The Risk Society and Giddens in The Consequences of Modernity

have emphasized that self-reflexivity of individuals has increased with the breakdown of

traditional structures (Beck 1992, Giddens 1990). Reflexivity therefore transfers from the

social to the self such that now individuals become self-reflexive and thereby are

increasingly aware of the impact or significance of their actions on the global scenario.

Both Giddens and Beck refer to this as reflexive modernization. If the increased self-

reflexivity and an increased awareness suggest an altruistic motive for people to want to

limit their consumption, to live with less, live in ecovillages, visit ecovillages or consume

green products then it automatically leads into that it would be self-defeating if the

consumption of the transportation commodity (directly as in the case of travel or

indirectly as in the case of green product consumption) is not limited. While for some

ecovillagers this is true, yet the argument that people will limit or deny their consumption

patterns due to increased cognitive self-reflexivity is proven wrong by the numbers and

trends presented in the previous section. A similar question as the one posed by Timothy

Miller while studying The Ranch commune in rural California in his The Survival of the

Counterculture arises here (1981). When groups are caught in contradictions between the

Gesota - 58 -

ideas they profess to believe in and their day-to-day behavior, is that reason enough to

cast an ironic, contemptuous or cynical look towards them?

Another round of probing of this seeming contradiction reveals certain arguments

in defense. First and foremost, in order to eliminate the carbon footprint related to

transportation, policy measures at national and international levels are required. As stated

by FF-7 and re-iterated by FF-5, there is a lack of political will in this direction despite

knowing the long term ramifications of a fossil fuel based transportation system. “When

vast institutions like governments and the likes of Toyotas find a solution, then Findhorn

will be the first one to use it” (FF-7), but in the meantime, there is little that ecovillages

like Findhorn can do to address this problem, while not limiting the consumption of the

transportation commodity itself. In the event of an apocalyptic disaster to the fossil fuel

based economy, FF-1 and FF-7 are both of the opinion that there will be ‘bigger fish to

fry’ such as massive chaos and looting for survival. The question of economic

sustainability and consumption of the transportation commodity therefore “will be the

last thing to worry about” (FF-1, FF-7) and therefore even “a wrong question to ponder

on” (FF-7).

SL-1 offered a value-based argument towards limiting the consumption of the

transportation commodity. He suggested differentiating between necessary/relevant or

important consumption at one end of the value spectrum and frivolous consumption at the

other end of the value spectrum. For example, environmentalists, educators, politicians

and others who are working towards the target of a more sustainable planet (e.g. the

IPCC panel of scientists, academicians and others attending conferences on key issues

such as peak oil and global warming, policy makers, other stakeholders) have a higher

justification for consumption of this commodity since they serve a purpose and therefore

this consumption provides a higher value. In this scale of thought, vacationing in

Thailand for two weeks does not serve any purpose and is therefore of no value and

should be reduced. This sort of differentiating puts potential ‘value’ resulting from

consumption as the most important criteria. However, the difficulty of this approach is

that ‘value’ is a subjective notion. What is of value to one maybe of no value to another?

Therefore a debate on whether vacationing in Thailand for two weeks serves any value at

Gesota - 59 -

all if not towards the ecological dimension (such as contributing to the psychological or

spiritual well-being of the person) could be quite inconclusive.

A similar value-based reasoning was also proposed by some ecovillagers. When

guests arrive at Findhorn or Sieben Linden for an educational program, regardless of the

travel footprint they incur in the short-term, in the long-term it is still valuable because

there is a high possibility that what they learn, they will take it back with them to their

countries or local regions and apply some if not all concepts thereby initiating or

augmenting the process of change in their respective localities towards sustainability.

According to FF-1, most people who come for the month long ecovillage training are not

people who are living in ecovillages but rather “people interested in creating ideas of

sustainability in their life-styles” such as EVT-FF-1. At this point, I argue that in fact, this

very value-based proposition combined with Beck and Giddens’ increased cognitive self-

reflexivity and awareness together could be an accelerator for the increasing consumption

of the transportation commodity instead of being a decelerator

The overwhelming argument in favor of the ecovillages is that the ecovillage

family is fairly miniscule compared to the mainstream. Therefore, their consumption of

the transportation commodity is far less in percentage as compared to others. What is of

significance to note in this conflict discourse is what Pepper has pointed out; that it is

pragmatism that causes deviations from principles in daily practices. Few people can live

by what they believe in especially when in opposition to the dominant societal structures

in which people are embedded (Pepper 1991) and thus idealism can give in to

pragmatism or dissolution of principles when faced with such oppositions. Aptly stated

by FF-8 that “it is about finding a balance”. But even more aptly analyzed by Wahl in his

salutogenic design paper that “what will affect the transition towards a sustainable human

civilization even more profoundly than the necessary changes in our energy and resource

use, settlement patterns, production and transport systems, and the local and global

economies, are the underlying changes in worldview, value systems, life styles, and

intentionality” (Wahl 2006:286 emphasis added).

Gesota - 60 -

VIII. Role of the Ecovillage Movement in Emerging Global Complexities

“In my view, ecovillages and the larger social movements of which they are an integral

part of, are the most promising and important movement in all of history.”

—Robert Rosenthal, Prof. of Philosophy, Hanover College, USA50

As early as in 1848, Marx in his The Communist Manifesto suggested that the

structural contradictions within capitalism will necessitate its end to be replaced by

communism, a classless society which will emerge after a transitional period in which the

state will be nothing but a revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat (Urry 2003, Barry

2007). Classical interpretations of Marx’s theory of the inherent structural contradictions

in capitalism leading to its collapse over time is related to the increasing investment in

newer technologies leading to decreasing labor leading to decreasing profits and

increasing economy leading to recessions or depression leading to reduced labor prices

leading to more investment in technology and increasing inequalities in income and

wealth. In this cycle, over time, the severity of the recessions increases, eventually

leading to the downfall of capitalism (Burkett 1999). This has been termed as the first

contradiction of capitalism (James O’Connor cited by Foster 2002a:1). That is to say that

the primary concern of Marxism was to do with liberating human society from socio-

economic conflict of capitalist exploitation, inequality and oppression. But the

exploitation of the non-human world i.e. the environment was not a significant issue for

Marx (Barry 2007). More recently, a related theory has been proposed by Schnaiberg’s

‘Treadmill of Production’ theory (Schnaiberg 1980) which describes the society-

environment as well as the economy-environment interaction to be in a conflict. This

conflict is caused because corporations must continue to grow for the sake of higher

profits and surviving in a competitive market. This leads to growth in production which

requires a corresponding growth in consumption. However, the paradox that is presented

here is that even though economic growth is socially desired, the resulting environmental

degradation will lead to disruption of economic expansion in the long run. Both,

50 Source: http://ecovillages.eventbrite.com, last viewed on March 25, 2008

Gesota - 61 -

Schnaiberg and classical Marxism are pointing at the collapse of the capitalistic system

due to inherent contradictions but where they depart is in the reasoning. While

Schnaiberg connects this contradiction to natural resources scarcity i.e. the economy-

environment conflict, classical Marxism connects this contradiction to the society-

economy conflict. Eco-Marxists such as John Bellamy Foster have pointed out that in fact

the idea of economy-environment conflict, similar to as proposed by Schnaiberg, was

already implicit in Marx’s theory in the form of the metabolic rift theory where

exploitation of natural resources for capitalist production (Foster 1999) is explained as

the ‘second contradiction of capitalism’ (Foster 2002a:1 citing James O’Connor) such

that capitalism cannot sustain itself in the long run. Additionally, Foster has also pointed

out that the ideas of sustainability of Earth akin to the Brundtland report, of the extent to

which it is to be passed on to future generations, were already present in Marx’s thought

(Foster 2002b). As Marx wrote “From the standpoint of a higher socio-economic

formation, the private property of particular individuals in the earth will appear just as

absurd as private property of one man in other men. Even an entire society, a nation, or

all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not owners of the Earth. They are

simply its possessors, its beneficiaries, and have to bequeath it in an improved state to

succeeding generations as boni patres familias [good heads of the households]” (Marx51

cited by Foster 2002b:4). However, as Foster admits, Marx did not expect the ecological

aspect of his theory to develop to an extent that it would become a significant reason for a

transition to a different socio-economic system (Foster 2000).

The common conclusion that is drawn from amongst all these debates is the

critique of a global capitalist economy that is unsustainable and therefore a change is

imminent. Two views have been observed in debates concerning this change. The worst

case scenario is played out as an apocalyptic collapse of the current system in light of

global risks and vulnerabilities leading to a time of chaos and destruction (Trainer 2000,

Wallerstein 1995). Wallerstein’s detailed analysis of what lies after the current global

capitalist order (what he has called liberalism), in his book After Liberalism, states that

51 See Marx, Karl (1976) Capital. vol.3, p.911, New York

Gesota - 62 -

the period from 1990 to 2025/2050 is the phase of the most “…dramatic dip down…”52

(1995:19) and is “…the entry into a period of chaos” (1995:44) where “everything must

change in order that nothing changes” (1995:3). This time will be characterized by

systemic disorder, disintegration and an acute political struggle around what kind of new

world system(s) should be constructed (Wallerstein 1995). Therefore the best case

scenario hoped is a gradual transition within the current state and civil society structures,

not without its problems, to new world system(s) which more just and sustainable. These

views of capitalism indicate elements of complexity suggesting the emergence of a new

world system(s). Since, “when systems disintegrate, something eventually replaces them”

(Wallerstein 1995:248), this gives rise to another speculative debate of what will the new

world system(s) look like and what will be the agency for the transformation?

Wallerstein rejects the state structures and civil society53 to be the agency of

transformation which can also be found in Gramscian thinking. Civil society can only

achieve limited reforms but are incapable of overthrowing capitalistic society, due to

their incorporation within the machinery of the bourgeois state and hence their

vulnerability to it; therefore alternative social institutions outside the state structures are

needed (Gramsci 1997). Wallerstein also rejects the individual, “the hero of the liberalist

era” (1995:246), as a significant player as no individual can survive very long amidst a

collapsing structure, a notion that is also echoed by Dawson (2006). Simply put, the

famous quote by Albert Einstein serves well here: “We can't solve problems by using the

same kind of thinking we used when we created them". Instead, Wallerstein emphasizes

that “…groups, large enough to carve out corners of strength and refuge” (1995:246),

which are “…multiple in number and overlapping…” could be the key players (ibid).

Similar to eco-anarchist view of Libertarian Muncipalism (Bookchin 1992), Paterson54

also posits that from the Green point of view, a state is undesirable. This may be referred

52 Wallerstein identifies this phase as analogous to the 1893-96 dip in the Kondratieff B-phase that ran from 1873 to 1896 (Wallerstein 1995:19) and a period of major political struggle more consequential than any of the past 500 years (ibid). 53 Here, Wallerstein is arguing against the utility of civil society effecting a transformation as he views civil society as nothing more than an organization of citizens within the framework of the state to pursue activities legitimized by the state, and therefore too linked to the state to bring about a change (Wallerstein 1995). This idea of civil society is also echoed in Gramscian thinking. 54 See Paterson, Matthew (2001) Understanding Global Environmental Politics: Accumulation, Domination, Resistance. Basingstoke:Palgrave

Gesota - 63 -

to as anarchism but he maintains that the state is to be replaced by a great deal of

decentralization of power to communities much smaller in scale than the nation states

(cited by Barry 2007:171). Rudolf Bahro55, a red-green German philosopher, also rejects

the state in favour of anarchist self-sufficient communes (Pepper 1991:64).

What is obvious is that the emergent world system is not that of communalism as

Marx had predicted. What is not obvious is what the emerging world system is? Using

systemic thinking and from what is known of complex adaptive systems, emergent

systems can go radically in divergent directions because small changes in the inputs can

result in vastly different consequences, therefore rendering the outcome unpredictable,

and only probabilistic, not deterministic (Williams 2000, Urry 2003). From the analysis

presented by Urry (2003), the current emergent system seems to be structured through

multiple interdependent organizations and self-organizing networks (viz. the UN, World

Bank, Microsoft, IPCC, WHO, and so on) and it is through this interdependence that

these organizations are organizing the rules, structures and regulations of the emergent

global order. What is of significance to note here is that according to this theory there

may not be one emerging world system, but several world systems which are self-

organized and interdependent. Some examples of activities which are organized through

self-organizing networks are criminal economy, networked states such as the European

Union and networks within civil society such as NGOs (ibid). With this analysis, it can

be said that the global ecovillage movement, which physically manifests in the form of

the formal Global Ecovillage Network (GEN), is also an example of such a self-

organizing, de-centered network which stands outside the state structures and civil

society but created through active citizen’s participation.

Orienting Itself “Would it be an exaggeration to claim that the emergence of the ecovillage movement is

the most significant event of the 20th century? I don't think so.”

—Ted Trainer, Sociologist, University of New South Wales, Australia56

55 See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Bahro for more information 56Source: http://ecovillages.eventbrite.com, last viewed on March 25, 2008

Gesota - 64 -

Robert Gilman, who first coined the definition of an ecovillage, had the vision of

total societal transformation: “…a key principle in our definition of ecovillages and

sustainable communities is that they be designed so that a fully-functioning society could

be mostly comprised of such units” (Gilman 1991). The charter of the ecovillage

movement to “…model a new way of society organization” (Dawson 2006) and the

slogan “Don’t sell our future, create ecovillages against profit and violence” at the G8

protest indicate that at least newer development should take the form of ecovillages. Eco-

anarchist theories (Bookchin 1992) are particularly supportive of this community vision

projected by Gilman.

However, the empirical study showed a different leaning amongst the

ecovillagers. Organizing the world in the form of ecovillages in a post-capitalist world is

unrealistic and that is not the goal (FF-1). “Findhorn is not on a messianic drive to create

more Findhorns in the world” (FF-3). Under the assumption that the world is not in an

apocalyptic collapse state where monies and other structures would matter little but

taking the best case scenario that efforts for a relatively smoother transition for a just and

sustainable world must be made, there were four reasons given by FF-1, which sound

plausible. First, not everyone can live in ecovillages and a group of people cannot be put

together artificially. This view was echoed by several ecovillagers from Findhorn and

Sieben Linden. Ecovillages are analogous to monasteries i.e. most people don’t want to

live there but can get a lot of inspiration and learning from them (FF-1). The history of

Findhorn and Sieben Linden demonstrate that they organically evolved when a group of

people who had a similar vision to organize their life came together and worked towards

this ideal. More people who shared some or part of the ideal joined in later on. Second,

land prices are increasing. This renders difficulties in raising investment capital required

to buy large pieces of land needed to create a full-featured settlement. Third, local rules

and regulatory frameworks can restrict the building of ecovillages (ibid). As has been

mentioned in the case studies (see chapter IV), due to their alternative nature and

newness, ecovillages are not always a welcome phenomena and staying in compliance

with local rules and regulations can give rise to strange irresolvable questions, as in the

case of Sieben Linden. Increasing materialism and individualism is rendering the notion

Gesota - 65 -

of communalism increasingly difficult (Dawson 2008). These arguments render the

original ambitions of a total societal re-organization impractical.

What then is the role that ecovillages have to play in the transitioning world

system? FF-1 sees ecovillages as “yoghurt culture in the milk pot of society” i.e.

developing emphasis on mainstreaming the initiatives and innovations developed within

organically evolved ecovillages into their wider bioregions (Dawson 2008). The role to

play then would come by mobilizing the wisdom, the models and technologies developed

and practiced at the ecovillages for wider usage in the world through building alliances

with local authorities, other community organizations/networks, specialist agencies and

universities (ibid). As Wallerstein has noted that it is effective to work both at the local

and the world level in this present phase of transition (Wallerstein 1995). FF-3 sees

ecovillages as a “midwife for a new way”. According to the permaculture design

principles, if you want to increase diversity, then you maximize the edges. Here by edges,

FF-3 is referring to the edges between the mainstream and the alternative. That is to say

that more solutions and practices can actually evolve through maximizing the edges

between the alternative and the mainstream. These edges were perceived to be carved in

stone all in the 60’s and the 70’s. With increasing awareness and the agenda of

sustainability entering mainstream politics, “mainstream is getting closer to the

alternative” (FF-4) and “the edges have changed from stone to a permeable membrane

where there is crossover from one to another” (FF-3).

That is to say that these ecovillages, which fall under the umbrella of the Global

Ecovillage Network, see their role in the emerging world system(s) as that of an agency

of transformation by leaving “…the safe niche of being alternative and to enthusiastically

embrace the challenge of helping mainstream society...” (Dawson 2006:87). They do see

their role as a new emerging world system itself.

…as Demonstration and Education Centers Ecovillages are laboratories where hypothesis of different models of living which

are relevant to the world are being tested. These, attempt to demonstrate a way of

lifestyles leading to energy descent, which are about quality not quantity and where

mistakes are made. Therefore ecovillages serve as demonstration and education centers of

showing what has been achieved in practice and what can be learnt from their mistakes.

Gesota - 66 -

They do serve to be models without any gaps. This sentiment was echoed in almost all

conversations with ecovillagers in Sieben Linden and Findhorn.

According to Wahl, education for socio-ecological literacy is the single-most

important catalyst for participation in the transition to sustainability (Wahl 2008). The

importance of education for sustainable living and a holistic approach towards science

has also been pointed out by Capra (2004), co-founder of the Center for Eco-Literacy57

based in Berkeley, California. Ecovillages reject Habemas’s call for globally planned

technical and economic solutions to be implemented by administrative means

(Outhwaite58 cited by Barry 2007:100) within the anthropocentric framework. The

ecovillages also reject Wallerstein’s rejection of the state, civil society and the individual

as valid agencies of transformation. Instead, ecovillages suggest a middle way where all

of the above are participants in the transformation game (Wahl 2008). As Giddens has

noted, ecological politics is about individual lifestyle choices (to drive or to take public

transport, to buy locally produced goods) as well as that of the collective (Giddens 1991).

Individuals are looked at as a part of the wider society and not as ‘individual-self’

(Pepper 1991:51) such that change in individual lifestyle and values would then produce

a new aggregate society. “Even people in governments are individuals” (FF-4).

Therefore, even the attitudes and values of those who run the institutions which shape

people’s ideas and values such as traditional educational institutions, governments,

media, families etc. have to change. But as Pepper has pointed out that material or

economic conditions of a society sets limits on how many of these ideas can actually be

implemented. Thus in order for change to really happen, the world system itself must be

changed to one where people do not have vested economic interests in being competitive

and exploitative (Pepper 1991). That might create a space for humans to be their own

selves, which is being naturally co-operative, as Rousseau has argued (cited by Barry

2007:55).

Ecovillages have already demonstrated significant success in implementing

sustainability practices, precisely because they connect knowledge to practical action

(Dawson 2007). Gilman’s bio-system challenge and the built environment challenge have

57 See http://www.ecoliteracy.org/ for information about The Center for Eco-Literacy 58 See Outhwaite, W. (1996) The Habermas Reader. Ocford: Polity Press

Gesota - 67 -

found expression in ecological practices which are described in the case studies (see

chapter IV, also see table 1.3 in Appendix) These directly co-relate to the areas

mentioned in the IPCC 2007 report as requiring immediate attention to mitigate the

problem of climate change (IPCC 2007). Whilst no such direct co-relation exists for the

social and economic aspects, the unsustainability of the current global capitalist system

has already been discussed. The educational programs that have been developed at these

ecovillages take an integrated approach towards sustainability. In this light several

initiatives and alliances are worthy of being mentioned.

- An alliance with the US American educational NGO, Living Routes59, which

facilitates university accredited three month long semester abroad program at

Findhorn called the Findhorn Community Semester (FCS) under the title “The

Human Challenge of Sustainability”60.

- Gaia Education61, the educational arm of GEN was formed by ecovillagers from

several ecovillages to develop courses on sustainable community design and

development which draws on the experience and expertise developed in a network

of successful ecovillages. The result, the Ecovillage Design Curriculum (EDE

2005) has the endorsement of the United Nations Institute for Training and

Research - UNITAR62 and is an official contribution to the UN Decade of

Education for Sustainable Development63 (Gaia Education 2006). It is delivered at

many ecovillages in the world.

- Sieben Linden while also being part of Gaia Education and GEN, hosts conferences

and workshops in Strawbale Construction, which is the pioneering work done in the

community.

- CIFAL Findhorn64 is UNITAR’s affiliated training centre for Northern Europe

offering training sessions, at Findhorn or in Scotland, and operates as a hub for

59 Living Routes was founded by Daniel Greenberg, an activist of ecovillage based education for sustainability. Living Routes partners with several US Universities and facilitates the semester abroad program at one its partner ecovillages in the world. See http://www.livingroutes.org for more information. 60 See http://www.findhorn.org/workshops/workshops.php?catid=52 for more information, last viewed April 6, 2008. 61 See http://www.gaiaeductaion.org for more information about Gaia Eductaion 62 United Nations Institute for Training and Research, see http://www.unitar.org 63 See http://portal.unesco.org64 See http://www.cifalfindhorn.org for more information of engagement of CIFAL Findhorn in UNITAR’s education programs.

Gesota - 68 -

training, capacity-building and knowledge sharing between local and regional

authorities, international organizations, the private sector and civil society on all

aspects of integrated sustainable development.

- The month long ecovillage training program and the Findhorn Foundation College

are other educational initiatives in Findhorn on similar lines.

- Education alliances with traditional University Departments and educational

charities (viz. Middlesex University, Schumacher College, University of East

London) (Wahl 2008).

What differentiates the education programs developed by GEN or its member ecovillages

from the traditional programs in sustainability education is their participatory and

practice-based approach combined with classroom theory. Most of these programs are

residential, that is participants live and study in an ecovillage. Secondly, these programs

address the fourth element i.e. the psychological (inner) dimension along with the three

outer (social, ecological and economic) dimensions. As argued by Wahl, increased

awareness and transformations in consciousness is a prerequisite to bring about the

necessary changes in worldview and value systems for a change towards sustainable

lifestyles (Wahl 2008).

…as Models for Sustainable Development The question then remains: Can ecovillages truly serve as models for sustainable

development? Yes and No. Returning to complexity theory can help in answering this

question. In complexity, the principle tool of investigation is computer simulation.

However, future states of a system are dependent on feedbacks and systems are sensitive

to initial conditions. “…if the world is chaotic and complex how can we ever set up the

initial parameters of any simulation exercise with sufficient precision so that we can

actually drive forward a simulation through time which has any correspondence to what

might actually happen?” (Byrne65 cited by Willaims 2000:129-130). What Williams is

pointing out is that simulation models do not adequately explain the complexity of the

real social world because small changes in the initial values can produce vastly divergent

outputs and because of all the antecedent conditions that cannot be built into the model

65 See Byrne, David (1997) Chaotic Places or Complex Places. In S.Westwood and J.Williams [eds], ‘Imagining Cities’, p.1, London: Routledge

Gesota - 69 -

(Urry 2003:134). This rationale can be applied to a real world modelling of the social

world. It goes to say that an ecovillage cannot be a model that can be duplicated or

simulated elsewhere in its entirety and expect to produce the same results. This is so

because the local conditions in each place are vastly different in terms of availability of

natural resources, culture, diversity of people, economic status of the region, needs of the

people and the triggers that initiate the evolution of an ecovillage. The problem is the

same as that in the case of the computer simulation of the social world. The initial

conditions and the antecedent conditions are different in every place and therefore the

same model in one place can produce the same result in another, but only

probabilistically and not deterministically. This brings a strong focus on localized

solutions set within the global framework or ‘glocalization’; a strange attractor that

“…involves parallel processes through which globalization-deepens-localization-

deepens-globalization…both the global and the local are bound together through a

dynamic, irreversible relationship…neither the global nor the local can exist without each

other” (Urry 2003:15). However, this does not imply that models or simulations are

useless (Urry 2003:130). Certain situations can be tested deterministically and a model

can serve to be a tool “…which helps us not know what will happen, but what can be

made to happen” (Byrne 1997:6 cited by Urry 2003:130).

There are two nuances to the concept of ‘model’ here that necessitate further

explanation. ‘Model’ can indicate a possibility to duplicate, that is if something is a

‘model’ and therefore considered the ideal, then there is an imperative to be able to

duplicate it. This form of modeling is rendered not possible by the complexity theory

explanation. Whilst ‘model’ can also be looked at as an example from which lessons can

be learnt and adapted to a local situation. Best practices from a few such ‘models’ can be

put together to form a template which can provide a basic framework that can be

replicated by adapting to the local conditions. The necessity of creating such templates to

ease the creation of other ecovillages or even for sustainability adaptation practices

outside of an ecovillage model and the lack of them has been recognized by some in the

ecovillage movement (Dawson 2006). An important advantage of creating such templates

is a more widely accepted recognition by authorities, inclusion of the GEN in shaping

sustainable practice policies (ibid) and having a replication strategy that can be adopted

Gesota - 70 -

by not only groups wanting to create ecovillages but also by mainstream communities

(Dawson 2008).

Gesota - 71 -

IX. Conclusion

In the ongoing debates of what constitutes sustainability and how to implement it,

complexity theory provides a way of looking at sustainability as an emerging complex

system and ecovillages as the physical expression of this system. While ecovillages have

evolved from the diverse counterculture movements of the 60’s and the 70’s, they depart

from their predecessors in many respects. As has been described with the cases of

Findhorn, Sieben Linden and Vauban, it is evident that these ecovillages have created

forms of living that can be demonstration and education centers for people, organisations

and governments for a gradual transition towards sustainability. Increasing education and

awareness perhaps plays to be important influencing factors towards a change.

I remain far from confident that the ecovillage movement strategy can replace a

capitalistic approach. However, what is clear is that the global ecovillage movement

represents the best potential towards helping chalking out and implementing alternative

and sustainable solutions to present day crisis of modernity. The proposed intention of

organising the entire world into interconnected and interdependent ecovillages is not a

practical solution to replace the existing social-economic organisation. But it provides

some answers towards formulating sustainable solutions in development efforts

particularly in the 3rd world such as not to repeat the North’s resource intensive

production systems as in learning from our mistakes. At the same time, it provides an

imperative for the North to re-examine its resource intensive and consumption intensive

life-style. Replacing existing structures of this form in the North is not only an expensive

affair but transitioning to sustainable production methods cannot be accomplished

overnight in societies already mired steep in capitalistic production forms without intense

conflict and a period of chaos and uncertainty. A more gradual dismantling of structures

can come about through first shifting in values and attitudes. But without positive

examples to replace the dismantled structures, there would be a vacuum of – what now?

This would be the opportune moment for the global ecovillage movement to demonstrate

– possibly this? - and thus aid and facilitate new sustainable practices and living to come

into place. An important role for ecovillages is to become education and demonstration

centers of their trials, triumphs and experiments. While not everyone wants to live in

Gesota - 72 -

ecovillages, the ecovillagers are special cases – who albeit chose this initially for their

personal benefits rather than altruistic motives – nevertheless are part of the experiment

of a sustainable alternate space.

Within the complexity paradigm, the environment and health hazards also travel

both geographically and temporally in non-linear, unpredictable and irreversible fashion.

For example, no one knows what the environmental consequences will be of the

widespread planting of GM crops; hormone-disrupting chemicals appear to affect species

living across all parts of the globe. Fluid, moving hazards which start locally roam over

the globe. Colborn at al (cited by Urry 2003:69-70) summarize the nature of these global

hazards: “We design new technologies at a dizzying pace and deploy them on an

unprecedented scale around the world long before we can begin to fathom their impact on

the global system or ourselves”. What is indicated here is that the physical world is

dynamic, cosmopolitan as is the social world and produces emergent effects (Urry

2003:70) which are completely unpredictable. Thus sustainability cannot be looked as a

finite distant target but as a dynamic system which we will need to adapt to continuously

as new inputs and feedbacks continue to shape newer emergent properties.

Gesota - 73 -

Appendix

1. List of Tables

1.1 Number of Ecovillages by region Region Number of ecovillages

Europe 94 USA and Canada 119 Rest of the Americas 67 Africa and Middle East 68 Oceania and Asia 55

Source: Adapted from http://gen.ecovillage.org/regions/index.html (Note: These figures excludes, for example, cohousing communities and several broader networks of sustainable villages)

1.2 A possible map of the sustainable transition Policy Economy Society Discourse

Stage 1 Very Weak Sustainability

Lip service to policy integration

Minor tinkering with economic instruments

Dim awareness and little media coverage

Corporatist discussion groups; consultation exercises

Stage 2 Weak Sustainability

Formal policy integration and deliverable targets

Substantial restructuring of microeconomic incentives

Wider public education for future visions

Round-tables; stakeholder groups; parliamentary surveillance

Stage 3 Strong sustainability

Binding policy integration and string international agreements

Full valuations of the cost of living; ‘green’ accounts alongside national accounts

Curriculum integration; local initiatives as part of community growth

Community involvement; twinning of initiatives in the developed and developing world

Stage 4 Very strong sustainability

String international conventions; national duties of care; statutory and cultural support

Formal shift to sustainable economic accounting both nationally and internationally

Comprehensive cultural shift coupled to technological innovation and new community structures

Community-led initiatives become the norm

(Source: Carter 1996:203)

Gesota - 74 -

1.3 Comparison of practices at ecovillages Sieben Linden Findhorn Vauban

Year Started 1997 1962 Mid-1990’s Situation Rural Rural Urban Income Sharing Partially No No Ideological focus Toggles between

Idealism and Pragmatism

Spiritual None

Views itself as an education center

Yes Yes No

Organic farming Yes Yes No Renewable energy used

Yes (solar, wood) Yes (wind, solar, wood)

Yes (wind, solar)

Grey Water recycling Yes Yes In some units Black Water recycling Yes Yes In some units Organic waste composting

Yes Yes Linked to the city of Freiburg

Rainwater harvesting No No Yes, partially De-emphasize cars Yes Partially Yes Sharing Resources Yes Partially No Food consciousness Vegetarian and vegan Vegetarian and

vegan Anything

Food co-operative Yes No No Emphasis on alternate medicine

Yes Yes No

(Source: Adapted from researcher’s empirical study)

Gesota - 75 -

2. List of Figures

2.1 Self Audit for Ecovillages/Communities (Source: Jackson 1998)

Gesota - 76 -

3. A Brief profile sketch of interview participants

3.1 Okodorf Sieben Linden MARTIN STENGEL (SL-1), a qualified energetic engineer, was always interested in

communal ideas of sharing and living co-operatively since he was living in Berlin. At

Sieben Linden, Martin has co-started the Club99 neighbourhood, is a member of the

visionary circle and the food co-operative. He is also one of the pioneers for the strawbale

construction at Sieben Linden and teaches related workshops.

ANONYMOUS (SL-2) is a member of the Club99 neighbourhood and primarily works on

the strawbale construction site. He has lived in Sieben Linden since 2001. He doesn’t

believe in political activism. Since his early years he had a dream of living on a farm with

ten other friends. He sees the main problem in mainstream society as lack of transparency

and de-linking from the real processes.

EVA STUTZEL (SL-3) was one of the core founding members of Sieben Linden and

associated with the group since its early planning stages. She always wanted to live in a

community, raise a family and at the same time continue working in the political arena.

In this sense, an ecovillage offers a good combination where one does not have to travel

between work, home and social spaces. All are compressed within the ecovillage space.

Eva sits in the local council of the village of Poppau.

KOSHA ANJA JOUBERT (SL-4) is originally from South Africa, has lived at Sieben Linden

since 2000. She is connected with the GEESE group of Gaia Education and has co-

created the EDE curriculum. She is also one of the trainers of the EDE courses, the main

focalizer for the Sieben Linden community building, focalizer of EDE and editor of a

book. She would like to set-up an ecovillage network in South Africa.

MARKUS FLEGEL (SL-5), a goldsmith by heart and a stone cutter by profession, has lived

at Sieben Linden since 2000. He is a member of the newsletter team. His approach is

towards deep ecology which includes the self, the spiritual, material connectedness and a

Gesota - 77 -

consciousness towards the whole in every moment. He does not agree with the concept of

’eco’. He feels that it once again defines what is right and what is wrong becoming yet

another ideology.

JULIA KOMERRELL (SL-6) holds a diploma in Geology from Berlin. She first came to

Sieben Linden 7.5 years ago to do a research project on ‘Communities on the internet’,

fell in love and moved to Sieben Linden. Her childhood years of traveling and being

close to nature contradicted with the lifestyle in cities and eventually formed a reason for

her to move to Sieben Linden. Julia now does PR work for Sieben Linden, works as an

illustrator and graphics artist. She has initiated the climate change project which includes

organizing conferences and going to local schools to teach children about climate change.

MATTHIAS (SL-7), is a carpenter and a musician and has lived at Sieben Linden for four

years. At Sieben Linden, he mainly works in the cultural team and the forest team for

cutting wood for heating and warm water as well as in the team looking at converting the

forest from a monoculture to a poly-culture. He views the community as an extended

family; as an organism which is growing like a tree and matures, where everyone can

participate in the process at many levels viz. practical ways of building houses, political

ways to demonstrate a different way of living, being more conscious about ecology;

which outside people can come have a look and replicate.

DIRK (SL-8) was one of the founding members if the community from even before it was

realized in 1997. However, he felt disillusioned in the way the community was moving

forward and left. He feels that there is a wide spectrum of people in the community and

ecology means different things to different people therefore it is very hard to get things

done.

CHRISTOPH MEYER (EX-SL-9) was first invited by the Sieben Linden group in the early

90’s to help them design and plan the settlement. He sees himself as an activist who

wants to do something for the society. He comes from a refugee background and

therefore is interested in living in a community to raise his family. He lived at Sieben

Gesota - 78 -

Linden for about 1.5 years but left since he did not agree with some of the concepts at

Sieben Linden and now lives in Vauban, Freiburg. He is a member of a group housing

project in Vauban.

3.2 The Findhorn Ecovillage JONATHAN DAWSON (FF-1) is the current president of the Global Ecovillage Network and

has been living at Findhorn for 8 years. He has spent much of the last 20 years involved

in development work in Africa and South Asia, as a researcher, author, project manager

and consultant, working primarily in the field of small enterprise and community

economic development. Jonathan has also authored books on Sustainability and

Ecovillages and as the President of GEN he is heavily involved in writing,

representational and networking activities.

DANIEL WAHL (FF-2), a German who left Germany a few years ago, studied Biology at

the University of Edinburgh and later wrote a PhD on Ecovillage and Sustainability

Education at the University of Dundee in Scotland. Daniel had visited Findhorn for short

durations until 1.5 years ago when he decided to move to Findhorn. He now lives in

Findhorn, is a staff member of New Findhorn Association and works with Scottish

Universities to create a curriculum for Master’s level programs in sustainability

education. He is also working on the concept of Transition Towns for the neighboring

town of Forres.

MAY EAST (FF-3) is a Brazilian social change activist who has spent the last 30 years

working internationally with music, indigenous people, women, antinuclear,

environmental and sustainable human settlements movements. Since 1992 she has lived

at Findhorn where she is the Ecovillage Project Education Coordinator, the Director of

International Relations between the Foundation, the Global Ecovillage Network and the

United Nations, as well as a Trustee. She currently is coordinating the actions of the

Global Ecovillage Network and Gaia Education vis-a-vis the United Nations Decade of

Education for Sustainable Development 2005-2014.

Gesota - 79 -

JOHN W. (FF-4) arrived at Findhorn 40 years ago and was taken into the family by Eileen

Caddy. He lived in the community then for 8 years before moving away to start a family.

He has returned back since 2002, is a Foundation member and his main role is to work in

the Conference office to help in events organization. He also sits on the local council of

Findhorn and Forres.

ROGER DOUDNA (FF-5) first arrived at Findhorn in 1974 to study at the Mystery School.

He felt a sense of “coming home” and subsequently moved to Findhorn in the early 80’s.

Roger built the first whisky barrel house at Findhorn in 1985 i.e. a house built out of a

whisky barrel and shaped like a whisky barrel! This innovative idea inspired others as

well resulting in a cluster of whisky barrel houses in Findhorn. Roger is a member of the

Findhorn Foundation.

BARBARA LISCORD AND PAUL LISCORD (EVT-FF-1), participants in the month long

Ecovillage Training program at Findhorn, come from Milford, New Hampshire, USA, a

small town of about 15,000 to 20,000 inhabitants. Barbara is a minister at the Universalist

Congregational Church and used to previously work in real estate investment. Paul, since

1979, has been in the business of building energy efficient buildings with a company in

Maine, USA. Currently, they do not live in an ecovillage, but would like to bring more

ecovillage principles into their lives and then spread it into their community in Milford.

They are particularly interested in the concept of Transition Towns as that’s what they

see as a possibility for transforming Milford towards a more sustainable town.

HUMBERTO MAFRA (FF-6) is a Brazilain environmentalist who has lived between Brazil,

San Francisco and London in the last 20 years. Humberto has been visiting Findhorn

since 1978 for workshops and other educational programs and is drawn to the quality of

life at Findhorn compared to the mainstream world. He moved to Findhorn in December

2007.

Gesota - 80 -

ALEX WALKER (FF-7), founder of the Ekopia project, arrived at Findhorn 25 years ago as

an experiment. He felt drawn to the social ambience of living in a community versus

living in a city and to the ecological principles of Findhorn. He primarily works at

Findhorn towards investment possibilities to create more wealth within the community.

ANDREW TREE (FF-8) had been coming to Findhorn for 10 years and moved to Findhorn

1.5 years ago. He is a Foundation member and a part of the staff in the Community

Center kitchen team. He sees himself as a rebel as well as an academic and believes in

political action as way of helping people live better lives. He is interested in alternative

models of living and different society structures that are more fulfilling.

ANONYMOUS (EX-FF-9), moved to Findhorn in 1997 from London after attending the

experience week and finding a profound sense of connection to the place and the people.

In 2001, he left the community and since then has been living in Freiburg. His primary

reasons for leaving Findhorn had to do with conflicts between the public and private

space as well as a fundamental conflict with how the concept of ecovillage was being

implemented at Findhorn. Other contributing factors include a sense of “living on a train”

where new people were constantly coming and old people were leaving and the constant

influx of guests resulting in a feeling of instability.

Gesota - 81 -

4. Semi-Structured Interview Guideline

4.1 Questionnaire 1 (Meant for key representative(s) for specific information about the Ecovillage along with

Questionnaire 2)

1. Year founded:

2. Location (rural/urban):

3. Total number of residents at present:

4. Current ideological focus:

5. Current calculated Ecological Footprint:

6. Member of GEN (Yes/No): Yes

6.1 If yes, since when?

7. Elaborate on the brief history of the ecovillage. (Who started it, When, How, What

was the vision/aim at that time)

8. What are the current shared vision/values of the ecovillage? How has the vision

changed since the time the ecovillage started and why?

9. What is the organizational structure of the ecovillage? Explain briefly.

10. How are decisions made in the ecovillage?

11. How are conflicts resolved in the ecovillage?

12. How is the ecovillage sustained financially?

13. How is land ownership, housing, food acquisition and distribution and community

activities/responsibilities managed in the ecovillage?

14. In what way does this ecovillage collaborate with GEN? (If the answer to Question

6 is Yes)

15. Does this ecovillage function as a research, training and demonstration site? Give

some examples.

16. Please explain the ecological practices implemented and practiced at the ecovillage.

(Such as: Usage of alternate technology, renewable energy, energy saving methods,

waste water and waste recycling, rain water harvesting, organic food production,

transportation system, resource sharing, etc.) Do you think that these are replicable

“as it is” or up to a relative degree in the mainstream world?

Gesota - 82 -

Other Comments:

4.2 Questionnaire 2 Section 1: Personal Information

Name: Age:

Gender: Place of Interview:

Date of Interview: Ecovillage Name:

Family Details: Number of lived years in the EV:

Education:

Job:

Role within the EV:

Any specific group within the EV:

Personal Ideology: (viz. anarchist, socialist, green, communist, eclectic, new age,

political, religious etc)

Section 2: About the Ecovillage

2.1 What is an ecovillage to you? What are the main defining features of an

ecovillage or what minimally defines an ecovillage?

2.2 This question will be asked based on the background of the participant. How do

you think that an ecovillage is different from the earlier communes and intentional

communities?

Section 3: Individual Motivation

3.1 What were your reasons and motives to join the ecovillage?

3.2 Could you share what was it that you were dissatisfied/discontent with in your life

before joining the ecovillage?

Gesota - 83 -

3.3 Was your main reason for joining the ecovillage mostly to do with yourself as an

individual or it was to do with concern for society?

Section 4: Views towards mainstream society

4.1 Do you think that there are some things wrong with mainstream society and if so,

elaborate?

4.2 What do you think about:- modern society, modern technology, modern economy,

modern education?

4.3 What are your views on capitalistic globalization, consumerism and materialism?

Section 5: Life at the ecovillage

5.1 What beliefs do you hold very strongly and which and how are they practiced in

the ecovillage by you and others in the ecovillage?

5.2 What are some of the internal and external challenges faced by the ecovillage?

5.3 Has the unity in the ecovillage been fragmented since the time you joined it? If so,

why?

5.4. What do you think is the role of ecovillages and the Global Ecovillage Network

have in bringing about sustainable forms of living to the world? Where do you locate

yourself in this process?

5.5 Do you think that within the EV there is an adequate expression for individual

autonomy alongside being in a community?

5.6 What is the nature of engagement between the ecovillage and specifically you,

with the mainstream society/government bodies/immediate neighborhood?

5.7 How are some of the issues you mentioned with the mainstream society in section

3 and 4 being addressed at the ecovillage, if they are?

5.8 Do you think that some of these solutions or experiments can be replicated in

mainstream society? If so, how?

Other Comments:

Gesota - 84 -

References

Abrams, Philip & McCulloch, Andrew (1983) Communes, Sociology and Society.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Adiseshiah, Malcolm (1986-87) Mid Year Review of the Indian Economy. India

International Centre, New Delhi.

Assadourian, Erik (2007-2008) Sustainable Communities Become More Popular. The

Worldwatch Institute, ‘Vital Signs (2007-2008): The Trends that are Shaping our

Future’, pp.104

Atkins, Paul et al (2003) Key Themes in Qualitative Research. Continuities and Changes.

Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press

Atkisson, Alan (1991) A Cluster of Eco-Villages. In Context Institute, Issue #29 ‘Living

Together: Sustainable Community Development’, pp.15, Summer 1991, See

http://www.incontext.org

Bang, Jan Martin (2005) Ecovillages: A Practical Guide to Sustainable Communities.

Canada: New Society Publishers

Banks, Marcus (2001) Visual Methods in Social Research. New Delhi: Sage Publications

Barry, John (2007) Environment and Social Theory. 2nd ed., New York: Routledge

Bates, Albert (1991) The Farm: Twenty Years Later. In Context Institute, Issue #29,

‘Living Together: Sustainable Community Development’, pp.36, summer 1991,

See http://www.incontext.org

Bauer, Martin & Gaskell, George (2000) Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and

Sound. New Delhi: Sage Publications

Beck, Ulrich (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage Publications

Bernard, Russel H. (2002) Research Methods in Anthropology:Qualitative and

Quantitative Methods. 3rd ed. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press

Bookchin, Murray (1992) Libertarian Muncipalism. Society and Nature vol.1, no.1,

pp.93-104

Bookchin, Murray (1974) Post Scarcity Anarchism. London: Wildwood House

Bruyn, Severyn (1966) The Human Perspective in Sociology: The Methodology of

Participant Observation. Eaglewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall

Gesota - 85 -

Buenda, Hernando Gomez (1995) The Limits of the Global Village: Globalization,

Nations and the State. World Institute for Development Economics Research

(UNU/WIDER)

Burawoy, Michael (1991) The Extended Case Method. In: Burawoy, Michael et al. (eds.):

‘Ethnography Unbound’, pp.271-290, Berkeley: University of California Press

Burkett, Paul (1999) Nature, Labour and Capitalist Production. ‘Marx and Nature: A

Red and Green Perspective’, London: Macmillan

Byrne, David (1997) Complexity Theory and the Social Sciences: An Introduction.

London: Routledge

Capra, Fritjof (1996) The Web of Life. London: HarperCollins

Capra, Fritjof (2002) The Hidden Connections: A Science for Sustainable Living.

London: HarperCollins

Capra, Fritjof (2004) Landscapes of Learning: Experiencing Ecological Relationships

and Community is the Key to Ecological Literacy. Resurgence, no. 226, pp.8-9

Carter, Neil (2003) Sustainable Development and Ecological Modernization. ‘The

Politics of the Environment: Ideas, Activism, Policy.’ Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press

Castells, Manuel (1996) The Information Age, i. The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford:

Blackwell

CSA Community Sustainability Assessment: How Sustainable is your Community?

Global Ecovillage Network, available for download at

http://gen.ecovillage.org/activities/csa/English/

Dawson, Jonathan (2006) Ecovillages: New Frontiers for Sustainability. Devton: Green

Books Ltd.

Dawson, Jonathan (2007) Ecovillages Achieve Lowest-Ever Ecological Footprint Results.

Global Ecovillage Network – Europe Newsletter, Winter 2006/2007

Dawson, Jonathan (2008) GEN: Strategy Concept Paper. Internal paper presented within

the GEN, available with the author and researcher

Deflem, Mathieu (2001) Ferdinand Tönnies (1855-1936). In the Routledge Encyclopedia

of Philosophy, edited by Edward Craig, London: Routledge

Gesota - 86 -

Diamond, Jared (1997) Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. London:

Jonathan Cape

EDE (2005) Ecovillage Design Education Curriculum. Gaia Education, see

http://www.gaiaeducation.org

Foster, John Bellamy (1999) Marx’s Theory of Metabolic Rift: Classical Foundations for

Environmental Sociology. American Journal of Sociology, vol.105, no.2

Foster, John Bellamy (2000) Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature. Monthly Review

Press

Foster, John Bellamy (2002a) Marx’s Ecology in Historical Perspective. International

Socialism Journal, Issue 96, Winter 2002

Foster, James Bellamy (2002b) Capitalism and Ecology: The Nature of Contradiction.

New York: Monthly Review, September 2002

Foster, James Bellamy (2002c) Ecology Against Capitalism. New York: Monthly Review

Press

Fotopoulos, Takis (2000) The Limitations of Life-style Strategies: The Ecovillage

“Movement” is NOT the Way Towards a New Democratic Society. Democracy &

Nature: The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy, vol.6, no.1, pp.287,

March 2000

Gaia Education (2006) At the Cutting-Edge of Sustainability Education: Report

2006/2007. Available for download from http://www.gaiaeducation.org

Gerlach, Luther P. (1991) Global Thinking, Local Acting: Movements to Save the Planet.

Evaluation Review 1991, vol.15, pp.120, Sage Publications Online

Giddens, Anthony (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press

Giddens, Anthony (1991) Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late

Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity Press

Giddens, Anthony (1996) Affluence, Poverty and the Idea of a Post-scarcity Society.

Development and Change, vol.27, no.2, pp.365-377, Sage Publications

Gilman, Robert (1991) The Eco-Village Challenge. In Context Institute, Issue #29,

‘Living Together: Sustainable Community Development’, pp.10, Summer 1991,

See http://www.incontext.org

Gesota - 87 -

Giovanna Di Chiro (1997) Local Actions, Global Visions: Remaking Environmental

Expertise. Frontiers: A journal of women studies, vol.18, no.2, pp. 203-231

Gramsci, Antonio (1977) Selections from Political Writings. 1910-1920 [ed.], Quintan

Hoare, Lawrence and Wishart

Hajer, Maarten A. (1995) The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological

Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Hajer, Maarten A. (1997) The Historical Roots of Ecological Modernization. ‘The

Politics of Environmental Discourses: Ecological Modernization and Policy

Process’, Oxford: Clarendon Press

Innes, Judith & Booher, David (1996) Indicators for Sustainable Communities: A

Strategy Building on Complexity Theory and Distributed Intelligence. University

of Newcastle, Department of Town and Country Planning, 50th Anniversary

Conference, October 25-27, 1996

ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) & IDRC (The

International Development Research Centre) (1996) The Local Agenda 21

Planning Guide, an Introduction to Sustainable Development Planning.

IPCC (2007) Summary for Policy Makers of the Synthesis Report of the IPCC Fourth

Assessment Report. See http://www.ipcc.ch/press/index.htm, Draft copy,

November 16, 2007

Jabareen, Yosef (2008) A New Conceptual Framework for Sustainable Development.

Environment, Development and Sustainability, vol.10, no.2, pp.179-192, April

2008, Springer Netherlands

Jackson, Hildur (1998) What is an Ecovillage?. Paper presented at the Gaia Trust

Education Seminar, September 1998, available for download at

http://www.gaia.org/gaia/ecovillage/whatis/

Jacobs, Michael (1996) The Politics of the Real World. London:Earthscan

Johnson, Peter (2006) Unravelling Foucault’s ‘different spaces’. History of the Human

Sciences, vol.19, no.4, pp.75-90, Sage Publications

Kanter, Rosabeth Moss (1972) Commitment and Community: Communes and Utopias in

Sociological Perspective. Cambridge: Harvard University Press

Gesota - 88 -

Kirby, Andy (2004) Domestic Protest: The Ecovillage Movement as a Space of

Resistance. Bad Subjects Issue #65, January 2004

Lieten, Christopher (2004) Views on Development: Faltering Development and Post

Modernist Discourse. New Delhi: Three Essays Collective

Lovelock, James (1988) The Ages of Gaia: A Biography of our Living Earth. New York:

W.W. Norton & Company

MacPherson, Crawford B. (1964) The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism:

From Hobbes to Locke. New York: Oxford University Press

Meadows, Donella et al (1973) The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s

Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New York: Universe

Miller, Timothy (1981) The Survival of a Counterculture. California: University of

California Press

OECD Proceedings (1997) Globalization and Environment: Preliminary Perspectives.

Peck, Scott .M. (1991) The Joy of Community. InContext Issue #29, ‘Living Together:

Sustainable Community Development’, pp.26, summer 1991, see

http://www.incontext.org

Pellow David N., Schnaiberg Allan, Weinberg Adam .S. (1999) Putting the Ecological

Modernization thesis to test: The Promises and Performance of Urban Recycling.

Ecological Modernization around the world: Perspectives and Debates, pp.109-

137, March 1999, OR: Frank Cass& Co.

Pepper, David (1991) Communes and the Green Vision: Counterculture, Lifestyle and the

New Age. London: The Merlin Press

Shenker, Barry (1986) Intentional Communes. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul

Spangenberg, J. H. (2001) Investing in Sustainable Development: The Reproduction of

Man Made, Human, Natural and Social Capital. International Journal of

Sustainable Development, vol.4, no.2, pp.184-201

Schnaiberg, Allan (1980) The Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity. New York:

Oxford University Press

Schumacher, Fritz E. (1973) Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered.

London: Blond & Briggs

Gesota - 89 -

Starhawk (2002) Webs of Power: Notes from Global Uprising. Canada: New Society

Publishers

Sutton, Philip W. (2004) Nature, Environment and Society. New York: Palgrave

Macmilan

Swilling, Mark & Annecke Eve (2006a) Building Sustainable Neighbourhoods in South

Africa: Learning from the Lynedoch Case. Environment and Urbanization 2006,

vol.18, pp.315, Sage Publications Online

Swilling, Mark (2006b) Sustainability and Infrastructure Planning in South Africa: A

Cape Town Case Study. Environment and Urbanization. vol.18, pp.23

Tinsley, Stephen & George, Heather (2006) Ecological Footprint of the Findhorn

Foundation and Community. Sustainable Development Research Centre, Morray

Trainer, Ted (2000) Where We Are, Where Do We Want To Be, How Do We Get There?

Democracy & Nature: The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy, vol.6,

no.1, pp.267, March 2000

Urry, John (2003) Global Complexity. Cambridge: Polity Press

UNCED (1993) Agenda 21: Program of action for sustainable development. New York:

United Nations Department of Public Information.

Wackernagel M & Rees W E (1996) Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact

on the Earth. Gabriola Island (BC), Canada

Wahl, Daniel C. (2006) Design for Human and Planetary Health: A Transdisciplinary

Approach to Sustainability. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment,

WIT Press, vol.99, pp.285-296

Wahl, Daniel C. (2007) Integrated Sustainable Community & Ecovillage Design

Education: Educational Alliances for a Sustainable Future. Centre for the Study

of Natural Design, University of Dundee, Scotland, Paper presented at the SDRC

Conference 2007

Walker, Liz (2005) Ecovillage at Ithaca: Pioneering a Sustainable Culture. Canada: New

Society Publishers

Wallerstein, Immanuel (1995) After Liberalism. New York: The New Press

WCED (1987) Our Common Future: The Brundtland Report. World Commission for

Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Gesota - 90 -

Williams, Malcolm (2000) Science and Social Science: An Introduction. London:

Routledge, pp.122-149

Zicklin, Gilbert (1983) Countercultural Communes: A Sociological Perspective.

Connecticut: Greenwood Press

Related Websites: GEN, Global Ecovillage Network http://gen.ecovillage.org

Okodorf Sieben Linden Ecovillage, Germany http://www.siebenlinden.de

The Findhorn Ecovillage, Scotland http://www.ecovillagefindhorn.org

Vauban District of Freiburg, Germany http://www.forum-vauban.de

Gaia Education, http://www.gaiaeducation.org

CIFAL Findhorn, UNITAR’s International Training Centre for Local Authorities/Actors

in collaboration with Findhorn, http://www.cifalfindhorn.org