When we brought the EuPN back to life, we hoped we could leave some of the old problems behind and focus on building something useful for the wider permaculture community in Europe.
Unfortunately, it seems we are running into similar patterns again.
In recent calls and conversations outside the EuPN, a narrative has started to circulate that is both misleading and damaging. It appears in sentences like:
- “The EuPN is just one person’s project.”
- “The EuPN partners listed on the page are just connected to the same person.”
Let me be clear: This is spreading of FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt - where there should be curiosity. It turns practical work into something suspicious. It also ignores the reality of how many grassroots projects actually happen: someone sees a need, starts building, takes responsibility, and often carries the work long before there is a larger structure around it.
This is something that should't be used against them - but be supported!
The EuPN is not pretending to be something it is not. The digital infrastructure is maintained and sponsored. The legal responsibility is held by a non-profit organisation. The network itself exists to support teachers, projects, learners, organisers, and local initiatives across Europe.
Of course, the EuPN is not perfect. It is still evolving. But it is real work, done by real people, with real costs, real responsibilities, and real benefits for the wider network.
What is frustrating is not criticism. Criticism is fine. Questions are fine. Accountability is fine.
What is not fine is spreading suspicion from the outside without first speaking to the people actually doing the work.
We have already seen how quickly this kind of wording travels. Once a simple dismissive phrase is repeated often enough, people start treating it as truth. And then trust is damaged, not because something was properly questioned, but because doubt was planted.
This is especially painful in a movement that talks so much about People Care and Fair Share.
If someone does work, carries responsibility, pays for infrastructure, maintains systems, and keeps things running, then that work should not be dismissed simply because it does not fit an old institutional model.
Not every valuable collective or network starts with a committee, a chairperson, and a perfect governance chart.
Sometimes it starts because someone finally does the work.
So if you hear claims about the EuPN from people who are not involved in the EuPN, please do not just repeat them.
- Ask what they actually know.
- Ask whether they have spoken with the people involved.
- Ask who is maintaining the infrastructure.
- Ask who carries the legal responsibility.
- Ask what is being built, and for whom.
The EuPN deserves fair criticism, not rumour.
It deserves transparency, not suspicion.
And it deserves to be judged by the work it does, not by stories told about it from the outside.