The LAND (Learning Action Network Demonstration) model originates from the UK Permaculture Association. It was designed as a framework to help newcomers experience permaculture through demonstration sites. Despite its usefulness as a concept, LAND is not in itself a permaculture design. Andy Goldring has referred to it as an emergent design – something that developed organically rather than being built on a documented process from the start.
In practice, becoming a LAND centre is demanding. The evaluation checklist is long, audits can take hours, and applicants must meet numerous criteria before obtaining recognition. A good system, one could argue, if it leads to quality. But a system is only as functional as the way it is implemented. The key figure here is the LAND coordinator – the person responsible for outreach, assessments, communication and expansion.
This is where Finland’s situation becomes interesting.
Despite interest in permaculture steadily growing, Finland still has only two LAND centres: Iso-Orvokkinytty and Koroinen in Turku. The position of national LAND coordinator has remained with Marja Nuora for years without rotation or elections, despite the Finnish Permaculture Association publicly embracing sociocracy. In a sociocratic model, roles should be re-evaluated regularly and filled based on competence, consent and community trust. Yet the LAND coordination role has remained fixed, without open selection processes.
During the Nordic Permaculture Festival in 2022, visions for LAND diverged sharply. While I argued that Finland should aim for dozens – ideally hundreds – of demonstration sites distributed across the country, the current coordinator described instead a vision of only a handful of hand-selected sites.
Years later, we are still at just two.
This raises questions many in the Finnish permaculture community have whispered for a long time:
• Why has outreach to potential new LAND centres been minimal?
• Why is the role of coordinator not open for rotation or shared responsibility?
• Why are active permaculture sites across Finland not being approached or supported?
• How does a system meant to empower many end up concentrating recognition to only a few?
The LAND programme could be a powerful tool to spread permaculture in Finland – something that inspires, connects and supports learning. But at present, it seems stalled. Whether due to structural inertia, gatekeeping, lack of capacity, or the comfort of maintaining a small circle, the result is the same: a system meant for growth has not grown.
This is not a personal attack, but a call for reflection.
If Finland wants a thriving network of demonstration sites, then LAND needs revitalisation. A transparent governance process, rotating roles, open invitations to potential sites and proactive outreach could transform LAND from a closed door to a doorway for hundreds of new practitioners.
Permaculture deserves better than stagnation.
It’s time to ask openly:
What kind of LAND network do we want for Finland – and who gets to decide?