Suomen Permakulttuuri Yhdistys

This email exchange shows how valid concerns about process, conflict of interest, and accountability were dismissed or reframed as personal attacks.

I publish this to document what happens when a culture resists clarity — and how ethics like transparency and fair share are easily overridden in the name of “sociocratic process.”

This is not about attacking individuals. It’s about showing patterns that hinder progress and erode trust.

In 2022, I raised concerns about permaculture certification processes being shaped by people without the relevant qualifications — specifically, the Diploma paths being discussed by non-diploma holders at Suomen Permakulttuuri Yhdistys.

The thread below is from the assosication's Slack workspace. I’m sharing it to document the origins of a conflict that eventually led to my resignation from the Finnish Permaculture Association.

In the Finnish Permaculture Association (FPA), we implemented aspects of Sociocracy from the beginning, primarily consent decision-making. Later, we added the Sociocratic Circle Method (SCM) as our operational foundation. The primary assumption was that the board could only change once a year, while within circles, members could come and go during the year. Although the chair of the board and the board members are the legal representatives of the association, the board trusts people who want to get things done. This means that power lies with those doing the work.