Community Supported Agriculture Feasibility Study
For Highlands and Islands Enterprise
Summary report
June 2004
Report prepared by: Jo Hunt Blaeberry
1
Part II – Delivery proposals
2
1
Background
Unhealthy diet and a future for small agricultural producers have both risen to the top of the Scottish policy agenda. The CAP reforms will come into effect in 2005 creating further challenges for 12000 small producers in H&I. AT the same time, the Highland “Joint Health Improvement Plan” is committed to developing ‘Food Futures’: “a joint and co-ordinated community development approach to issues of production, distribution, marketing, sales, consumption and preparation of nutritious food involving local Well Being Alliance partners, the community and other key stakeholders.” This, and similar actions in the Western Isles “Action 35” agenda, highlight the need to bring action on local health improvement and small scale agricultural business development together. Community agriculture activity in H&I is at present very limited and fragmented. Current activity includes: • 4 Community Supported Agriculture farms • 5 community health and diet projects including local food supply • 2 other community based food initiatives. Activity is slowly increasing but most projects are small scale and isolated in their operation. Most of the CSAs are market based, independent and selfsupporting without public sector assistance. Most of the community food projects are delivered by local charities on behalf of the public sector, and entirely dependent on continuing public sector revenue support. Existing activity to develop community agriculture elsewhere in the US indicates that a regional cluster of CSA activity can be intentionally created through the targeted intervention of public agencies and local community organisations working together. A similar approach is being tried in Powys and is seeing high take within its first 18 months of operation. CSA and other community food activities are in their infancy in the UK and proven models do not exist. The experience of UK area projects points to the need for intervention that can trial new approaches to extend both the range of services available and the structure of their delivery. The key elements of such an approach being: • Pioneering – as there are no UK models to follow • Local and direct – to offer a real service where it is needed • Long term and medium scale – in order to build a critical mass • Comprehensive – to cope with inexperience and the complex mix of skills needed • Broad base of involvement – to bring in resources, cross sectoral boundaries and release added value
2
Aims and objectives
The aims of seeking to expand the scale and range of community agriculture activity in H&I would be to:
33
• • • • •
Help H&I small farmers/ crofters adapt to CAP changes and survive in new markets Increase the availability of locally produced fresh food in H&I Improve access to local fresh food for H&I communities including economically disadvantaged and health risk target groups Increase the contribution of H&I agriculture to local economies, health and the environment Develop new delivery options for local food that reflect the Scottish policy agendas on healthy diet access and small farm/croft survival, and demonstrate their implementation and impacts in rural areas.
The objectives for developing a new program of public sector intervention to expand community agriculture activity in H&I will be to: • Establish a critical mass of community agriculture activity in H&I • Strengthen existing CSAs and stimulate new CSAs on farms, crofts and community owned land • Link existing health and diet projects to CSAs and create access for health and economic target families to join CSAs • Try out a range of CSA structures and a range of produce in different parts of H&I • Increase awareness of H&I food, diet and farming issues • Increase skills and the infrastructure to deliver local food in H&I • Support CSAs for long enough to become fully established • Create a self-supporting network for community agriculture in H&I Recommendation 1: Establish a cluster of community agriculture activity in H&I to offer access to a better diet coupled with opportunities for new small farm and crofting activity.
3
Scope
Community Supported Agriculture is a particular market model for supplying local fresh food in which the producer grows for local ‘member’ families, who commit to take a ‘share’ in the farm and to meet the real costs of producing the food. CSAs are market-based community food units that take 3-5 years to become fully established and are proven to be viable and self-sustaining. The supply of local food includes a wide range of market-based activity of which CSA is just one part. Box schemes, farmers markets farm shops and local sales all enable producers to sell to a range of produce directly to consumers. CSA is the most local and participative of these food routes, requiring greater commitment from consumers who pay the full costs for their food and share the risk of a good or bad harvest. Community food initiatives are another way to deliver local food to local people, and include a range of publicly funded food services and charitybased initiatives, such as: healthy school meals; health and diet action projects; food co-ops and community gardens. Many of these projects are experiencing difficulties in finding sources of local produce; and their wider take-up is limited by dependency on public sector revenue funding.
34
What is needed is a selection of routes for accessing and trading locally produced food that bring together the strengths of the CSA business model with the ability of community groups to mobilise consumers and reach target groups. The development of a community agriculture cluster could bring together local grower diversification and healthy diet action and provide a cross-over : US-style CSAs which offer targeted access; food and diet projects that have produce grown for them locally; schools linked to a local farm, and community groups growing food for local consumption. Recommendation 2: focus the program of H&I community agriculture on increasing the number of CSAs and linking them to healthy diet action. Link with existing CSAs and other food routes to strengthen the cluster.
4
Intervention
A significant increase in CSA and community food activity could be stimulated in H&I – demand from consumers and community groups and interest from producers and agencies exists. However, there are barriers preventing the automatic take up of wider CSA. Joint action and intervention by public agencies working with farmers/crofters and communities could be deployed to overcome many of these barriers and enable CSA to expand. There are 12 types of assistance that potential H&I CSAs say they need to get established. They include ‘hard’ resources, such as: • Capital grants for start-up investment • Processing facilities – especially local butchery, Community Kitchens and local storage and distribution • ‘Enterprise allowance’ for producers in early years • Admin support – “whilst the growers get on with the growing” • local co-ordinators for CSA • subsidised share cost to assist access for target social group Only 2 of these are currently available in H&I at present, and access to both is restricted in ways that excludes most community agriculture projects. And ‘soft‘ resources, such as: • marketing, promotion and brand development for local food in the Highlands • Intermediary ‘broker’ linking consumers and producers, and providing advice on set-up, constitution and a fair share price • Training – short term intensive training followed by long term development for existing growers, and ‘apprenticeships’ for new growers • education for members and potential members about food, food issues, cookery and farming • Umbrella organisation providing assistance to CSAs in H&I and linking CSA growers and groups • Long term access to business guidance and mentoring Almost none of this assistance is available within H&I. Access to basic information, UK contacts and a website is available from the Cultivating Communities project based in Bristol and Edinburgh, but they have no specific resources within H&I.
35
In other areas of the UK, community agriculture and food support activity is delivered through various forms of ‘local food links’ organisations. These bring together a wide range of local activity on food production, education, public procurement, marketing and processing. There is not, at present, a ‘local food links’ type organisation for H&I to provide these services. Recommendation 3: establish a new mechanism to deliver a program of community agriculture action to stimulate and support new and existing CSAs and diet projects in H&I.
5
Selection criteria
If a new mechanism is to be developed to prompt healthy CSA development in H&I it will need to have the ability to deliver new services and link the various public bodies, private businesses and community members involved. The mechanism must have the ability to: • • • • • • • • win the co-operation and involvement of small producers and local communities deliver the services producers and community groups require help service users in a practical and direct way deliver at a local level across a very large area access necessary specialist skills – on technical, business and diet stimulate new activity where none exists draw in funds and resources from a variety of sources offer service groups an input to the agenda and control of delivery
To be effective the mechanism will also have to: • gain the full support of public agency partners • be cost effective • make use of existing staff and resources, where available • deliver better local food access, availability, producer incomes and other local benefits • Focuses directly on CSA and target audience • Uses local resources • Deliver for services for 4-5 years • Build future capacity to become self-supporting and avoid dependency The risks associated with establishing a new mechanism are: • Risk of not delivering results • Flexibility to changing needs and project progress • Complexity of management control by funders These are the selection criteria by which several options for promoting CSA activity in H&I can be assessed.
6
Delivery options
There are a range of ways in which a mechanism to deliver increased community agriculture activity in H&I could be delivered. Eight options are:
36
• Option a link and signpost existing activity (do nothing option) Link new and existing CSA groups and existing services providers together, and signpost what resources are on offer. No new support services offered and no specific project staff. • Option b agency core staff deliver Provide information and services to CSAs utilising the core staff of project partner organisations (HIE, LECS, HC, HHB and others). Link staff together to offer range of advice to different areas/ interest groups. • Option c project officers engaged by agencies One or more partner organisations employ one or more full or part-time project officers to provide the range of information and services to CSAs. Possibly one officer for mainland Highland and one for the Islands. • Option d specialist service providers engaged by agencies Partner organisations contract a provider to deliver services to CSAs. • Option e existing community groups given resources to deliver in their area Existing community groups and projects given resources to provide or purchase their own information and services to develop CSA in their area • .Option f set up new local delivery network to deliver CSA Establish a new H&I network to develop and support CSA by using a combination of existing and new part-time community contacts; backed up by a team of specialist service providers. Could be set up by agencies with long term handover to control by communities, or come under wing of local food link group if one is established. • .Option g new local NGO established to deliver CSA Establish a new charitable company or similar specifically to develop CSA in H&I. Agencies route their funds through new organisation to deliver information and services to CSAs. Could be set up and directed by either agencies or communities, or a mix of both. • Option h new local food links organisation established for H&I Establish a new organisation with a wider remit to develop the local food sector in H&I, through local food links and services across a wide range of produce, markets and routes - of which CSA is one. Could be set up and directed by either agencies or communities, or a mix of both.
7
Appraisal
An assessment of each of the 8 options by the selection criteria for a CSA support mechanism shows: option
Option a
link and signpost existing activity (do nothing option) -
strengths
• • • Low cost Makes use of existing resources and staff Targets CSA
weaknesses
• • • • • • • Does not deliver project aims and objectives Unable to provide practical support Does not provide H&I cover Does not build H&I capacity Unable to access specialist skills Unlikely to stimulate significant new activity Relies on external resources
risk
• • • Low risk Low flexibility Simpl e and direct manage ment
suitability
Not suitable
37
Option b agency core staff deliver
• • •
Low cost Makes use of existing resources and staff Able to deliver across a wide area
• • • • •
Option c project officers engaged by agencies
• • • •
focuses on CSA uses local resources ability to stimulate new activity could make use of existing project officers and their resources
• • • • • • • •
Option d specialist service providers engaged by agencies
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
can deliver wide range of services wins co-operation of producers ability to build local capacity ability to deliver in all areas good access to specialist skills responsive to local needs able to deliver across large area can draw in other funds for community groups delivers directly to local users local control builds local capacity coverage over wide area makes use of existing project staff and resources provides both local contact point and expert advice involves local organisations and in program delivery specific to needs of CSA highly flexible network of staff Able to deliver a wide range of services Wins co-operation from consumers and producers Builds local capacity Ability to continue long term Focussed on CSA activity Able to deliver a wide range of services Wins co-operation from consumers and producers Builds local capacity Ability to continue long term
• • •
Agency staff time not available Unable to access specialist skills May not win co-operation of producers and communities Unable to draw in some fund sources Does not build self-support capacity higher cost difficult to cover all areas of H&I difficult to find good staff unable to provide specialist skills may not win producer cooperation little user input to project officer work agendas may not build local capacity CSAs may become dependent higher cost no one service provider available in H&I – would require several sources less able to draw in new funds
• • •
Low risk Low flexibility Simpl e and direct manage ment Low risk Low flexibility Simpl e and direct manage ment
Not suitable
• • •
Partially suitable
• • •
Medi um risk High flexibility direct manage ment
Partially suitable
Option e existing community groups given resources to deliver in their area
• • • •
unable to stimulate new activity in areas with no active groups less producer co-operation may not be able to deliver all the services required access to specialist skills
• • •
Option f –
local delivery network, using staff, specialists and community groups
• • •
will take time to set up and get team into place reliant on co-operation and input of other agencies complex management structure requires clear leadership
• • •
High risk Medi um flexibility Com plex and indirect manage ment medi um risk high flexibility comp lex but direct manage ment structure High risk High flexibility Com plex and indirect manage ment High risk High flexibility Com plex and indirect manage ment
Partially suitable
Fully suitable
Option g new local NGO established to deliver CSA
• • •
Time to set up and manage Lack of control for agencies Makes less use of existing resources
• • •
Not suitable
Option h new local food links organisation established for H&I
• • • • •
Not focussed on CSA Time to set up and manage Lack of control for agencies Makes less use of existing resources Higher cost
• • •
Suitable, but only in longer term
No action (option A) will not deliver, and using agency staff (option B) is not possible. Setting up a new local organisation specifically to develop CSA 38
(option G) is not suitable as it would take up too much development time and resources to establish, and is a high risk approach when starting to develop such a new concept as CSA from such a low base of activity. The use of one or two project officers (option C) is possible but it could be very difficult to attract the right person; they would spend a large portion of their time travelling; the CSAs may become too dependent on one person to sort out all their problems, and project officers too often find it easier to focus on working with other agency staff rather than focussing on the customer and their needs. This option is not on its own suitable, although making use of existing project officers from other projects (diet projects, IATE, Action 35, etc) and filling in the gaps to provide H&I coverage would provide a good ‘front door’ for a CA program. The use of specialist contractors (option D) and working through local community groups (option E) are not suitable on their own but both partially suitable options, if used in combination. Engaging specialists to provide technical (especially horticulture and meat processing), business (planning and financial) and marketing (especially to link to target groups and promote healthy eating) support long term is going to be essential. What is needed is access to experienced people based in H&I. Making use of existing consultancy based staff involved in growing, health promotion and management to provide these services may be possible: it would help transfer their skills whilst also strengthening their business, and provide flexibility and geographic spread. Working through local community groups (option E), such as community companies, community land owners and local Horticultural Associations is not sufficient on its own, as many will themselves be looking for support to set up a CSA. However, where such groups already exist they could play a very useful role as the local contact and co-ordiantor for starting CSA in their area, either within their own group or with others (such an approach was used successfully with Leader 2 programme in Ross and Cromarty). If a network of local contacts could be set up, drawn from community groups and contacts in public sector community services keen to make use of local food (schools, large offices, care homes, etc), this would provide a partial solution. They would need close support and co-ordination, with ready access to specialists. Such an approach would extend the reach of the CA program and its local acceptability. A local delivery network (option F) is the most suitable option for delivering the CA program. This brings together elements of options C, D and E to create a H&I network to deliver support to community agriculture. Such a network could use existing project staff and community group contacts, supplemented by new part time project staff where none exist, to be the local front line contact for CSA in their area. This network of local contacts would be supported and co-ordinated by H&I based specialists to both manage the program and provide expert advice to CSAs. Such as combination of core team and local contacts is more complex than several of the other options, but is the only combination able to provide both the range of skills needed and the geographic coverage to reach communities across H&I. There are some risks attached to using a dispersed project team approach over simply employing 39
staff, but these are offset by greater flexibility and the ability to change the team as the project develops. Recommendation 4: a H&I community agriculture program be established to deliver through a dispersed network of local program contacts, backed up by technical specialists, and managed by a program leader and information administrator. The local delivery network (option F) can deliver most of the services needed and meet the effectiveness criteria. However, there remain four additional types of infrastructure that will need in order to develop community agriculture in H&I . These will all need to be developed in the medium term in order for a larger cluster of CSAs to be created. The four types of new infrastructure needed are: • access to the services of a national provider of information on CSA and links to other local food activity, beyond the end of the ‘Cultivating Communities’ project in March 2005. A share in Scottish or UK-wide information resources is preferred to developing one just for H&I • an apprenticeship/ intern programme to provide vocational training for potential CSA grower/organisers, providing access for both new entrants and for re-skilling existing producers. This will form a source of new CSA growers and long term skills changeover to enable the spread of CSA beyond those who already have many of the skills needed. New training provision is needed (in addition to the short course and technical support in the hybrid option) to be delivered within H&I. • provision of butchery and community kitchen and storage facilities for use by CSAs (and probably others). This will enable expansion into meat CSAs and the broadening of produce ranges and longer supply seasons. New facilities and services are needed to enable the range of CSA to develop. This could potentially be delivered by a larger CSA, a group of H&I CSAs, or by joining forces with other processor groups with similar needs • subsidised access to healthy food for health and low income target groups. This will enable those who have most to gain from healthy food getting access to their local CSA. A healthy food ‘prescription’ scheme is needed in which individuals at health risk or families on low income could have their membership significantly subsidised for a period of time. Recommendation 5: preparation is made to provide new infrastructure for use by CSA growers and members, to ensure continuity of information links; access to meat and other food processing facilities; the introduction of an apprenticeship/intern training scheme, and the availability of preferential access for target health and low income groups. Creating a wider local food links group (option H) for H&I is an alternative potentially suitable route as it could act as an umbrella to provide many of the services needed and share resources across action on other aspects of the
40
local food system in H&I. However, it goes well beyond what is needed solely for CSA and would take considerable time and complex joint working to get up and running. The creation of a ‘local food links’ group for H&I is a suitable future option that could be built after the CA program becomes operational. The focus, steering and funding of such a group would need to be carefully considered. It could potentially absorb and continue the CSA program in the long term. Recommendation 6: a review is carried out of the need to establish a local food links organisation in H&I. The review to look at bringing the full range of local food activities and stakeholders together to work more closely, including the long term co-ordination of community agriculture activity.
8 Management
8.1 Steering
A new H&I community agriculture program will need to be well managed: to ensure that it meets its targets; that it serves the needs of producers and communities; that the public resources are used to best effect, and that delivery is effective and accessible to all areas of H&I. It is important that the community agriculture programme will be both driven by those involved in diet and farming in H&I, whilst also gaining public agency commitment and resources. The project should be steered through: • direction from within the Community Planning Partnership • steering from within the Join Health Improvement committee • management through group led and serviced by HIE, with HHB and local authorities, with reps from network participants • delivery by program leader/ manager managing network of local project contacts and regional specialists • participation through a network of active CSAs, their customers and interested local groups and organisations. Those involved will be dispersed, both through different organisations and across different parts of H&I. The management challenge will be to both enable meaningful input from this network in a way that will lead to selfmanagement in the long term, whilst at the same time having a clear structure that enables everyone to be focussed on delivering tangible outputs in the medium term. In the short term, the set up of the program could be led by a steering group of the main partner agencies and delivered by the program leader. In the medium term a steering group made up of both funding agencies and CSA representatives could be established, to which the program leader reports on behalf of the delivery team. The resourcing and control of the main program will remain with the public sector partners.
41
In the long term, the cluster steering group should become controlled by CSA representatives. CA development in H&I will need strong leadership as well as accurate management. To be successful the program will have to persuade a lot of people to do things they would not think or choose to do on their own. The project will need to go out and recruit producers. The funding partners will need publicly support, use and boost the profile of community agriculture. Introducing such a new and very different concept as CSA will rely on engaging many existing groups and organisations to help tell the story.
8.2
Delivery
Once established, the community agriculture program will be delivered by a team of: • A network of local CSA program contacts, made up of 10-15 part time project officers who act as the point of contact and service delivery co-ordinators for community agriculture activity in their area. These would mostly be existing project officers where available, and new project contacts based in local community organisations, in areas with no cover. • Specialist service providers based in H&I, 2 specialists will provide tailored technical training and advice, through the local project contacts, on crop growing and processing, and small business skills and healthy food marketing. H&I based providers with direct experience in community and growing business activity should be used on a part time consultancy basis. • Program management and co-ordination, 2 part time specialists: a project leader/ program manager to lead the network and the development of CSA in H&I; and an administrator/information coordinator to provide shared resources and ensure good communication between the different elements and members of the program. Both should be delivered on a part time consultancy basis. Duties could be combined – one person could be both the local program contact for their area and one of the technical service or program managers. The program will need to have a clear identity, and the project team members will need clear roles and regular opportunities to work together. The program leader/ manager will play a key role in shaping the program team and leading and managing its activities and style of operation. This is the key management person within the project, who will act as the link between the steering group and the project team, and have responsibility for translating the plans into action and for feeding back on progress and resources. Recommendation 7: a management structure be set up to take the project forward based on direction within the Community Planning Partnership framework and delivery through a dispersed H&I project team.
42
8.3 Targets In order to reach the ‘critical mass’ necessary to permanently establish community farming in H&I, a cluster of around 50 CSAs and CFGs is needed. This is a large number of units to achieve when starting from a low base with an almost unknown concept, and represent a major challenge and need for a sizeable support program. As each CSA takes 3-4 years to become firmly established, it will take at least 5 or 6 years to create a regional cluster of CSA in H&I. This size of cluster of activity is chosen as it has been found to be the ‘critical mass’ needed for community agriculture to become a permanent part of an area’s food landscape. Individual or just a few groups can survive on their own, but they are unlikely to become accepted, widespread and selfsupporting. If 50 CSAs can be established in the area, this enables them to generate a profile with consumers; have the resources needed to work together, and draw in new producers who take up the CSA marketing model. The key targets for a community agriculture cluster in H&I are: • 30 self-supporting CSAs based on H&I farms and crofts – 10 of these CSAs to be in HIE fragile areas • 20 self-managing community food groups (CFGs) in H&I communities – 10 of these to be in HIE fragile areas • 3000 members of CSAs and CFGs eating healthy local food - 500 of these members to be in health and income target groups It is important in delivering a program of action that it targets a broad range of interested groups and CSA types - both business-oriented CSAs and voluntary-oriented CFGs need to be included; as do a balance of individual producer CSAs and group CSAs made up of several small producers. existing Startups Existing growers 2 10 Existing groups 1 10 of growers New grower 1 10 Health and diet 5 5 projects Community 2 15 growing group 11 50 Who leads? CSAs Drop out 4 in total critical mass 10 10 10 5 15 interested so far 6 5 2 3 2 18
CFGs
7 in total
total
11
50
In order to attract and retain the number of people who take on the key role of a CSA grower, there needs to be a combination of existing growers, new growers, and a method set up to train them. In H&I at present, most interest is coming from existing producers - this is positive, as the primary aim is to help existing small farmers and crofters find new secure markets. But in order to create a cluster of 50 groups, new entrant producers will need to be attracted and trained alongside existing producers. Demand is mainly for fresh vegetables, fruit, eggs and meat. Fruit and vegetable production requires learning new skills for most producers and 43
meat requires use of local meat processing facilities. The program must meet both of these needs if it is to be successful, although both are major undertakings and will take several years to set-up fully. The cluster will include ‘small farm’ CSAs; multi-producer ‘network’ CSAs, and ‘new grower’ CSAs. In addition, a range of ‘pilot’ CSAs should be set up to show how CSA can meet the needs of different consumer groups, with at least one for: • Housing scheme CSA • Food co-op CSA • Large office CSA • School CSA • Community farm CSA • Community owned land CSA The range of voluntary groups interested in running a CFG is likely to be very varied – some will be new small groups, others may be large existing groups offering something new to members. Many consumer groups will link directly to a CSA, and this has been proven in other CSA clusters to give the best results for both consumers and producers, whilst others will buy prefer to grow or buy their own. The range of produce, size of operation, length of season, group structure and so on has to be left upto each CSA, with expert advice to help them get it right. The program must remain flexible and let the groups decide what they want to work on. The common focus should be on fresh food growing, access for target groups and the need to become self-managing. Recommendation 8: the community agriculture program should aim to establish a cluster of 50 community agriculture projects within 5 years, including both commercial and voluntary set-ups using a range of models and structures. The program should be open to both existing and new producers
9 Resources
9.1 Resource package
Resource package by priority 2004 - 2010
Six types of resource will be needed to support the development of CA activity: • Start-up grants: providing new investment to match that made by each group, and new processing facilities for many groups to use • Skills and training: providing short specialist courses; a mentoring scheme and an intern program • Advice and technical: providing long term, one-to-one growing, business and marketing advice • Co-ordination and support: providing a local contact for each group linked to core program staff • Network resources: providing a website, manual, promotion, conference, and other resources • Health access: providing subsidised
£1,200,000
£1,000,000 £240,000
start-up grant skills and training
£800,000 £151,500 £600,000 £142,000 advice and technical co-ordination and support £310,000 £313,000 £87,000 £102,000 £75,000 £priority 1 priority 2 £48,000 £9,000 £49,000 £50,000 health access netw ork resources
£400,000
£200,000
44
An assessment has been made of the resources required to deliver the program of support needed to establish a viable community agriculture cluster in H&I, and outline costs calculated for each element. The costs have been broken down into the resources needed for a year-long project lead-in period; the five year costs of setting up 30 CSAs and 20 CFGs; and the costs of the new infrastructure needed. For each element, the resources needed have been further divided into two priorities: Priority 1: ‘need to do’, and Priority 2: ‘nice to do’.
9.2
Key resources – project lead-in
There are at least 12 months of lead-in activity required to the H&I community agriculture program up and running. The key inputs required are: • Program partners – the active involvement of the three core project partner organisations – HIE, Highland Health Board and Highland Council. The engagement of other agencies, including the Action 35 group, SE Health Department, and the Community Planning Partnerships in all 5 LA areas of H&I. And link to organisations also engaged in related project to keep them informed, including Soil Association and Scottish Community Diet Project. • Program backers – the commitment of approach potential strategic funders with backing of CPPs and SE Health Department. Key potential backers being SE Health Improvement Fund; New Opportunities Fund and Community Fund. Also meet with existing projects to bring them into the network and seek their agreement to using project staff as local contacts (Action 35, Food for Thought, Fas Fallain, SHLA, and others) • Program leader – appointment of an interim program leader/ manager to develop the program and deliver the lead-in actions agreed by partners. This key person will identify all the potential members of the team needed to deliver the program, and work with partners and backers to confirm funds and make practical preparations for the start of the main program. • Practical preparations – there will be much to do to prepare to deliver the main program, especially to keep all groups and the potential project team informed of progress; arrange an inspirational visit by a small delegation of producers and partner staff to attend the US CSA conference, and actions start work with the first potential start-up CSAs and CFGs. The resources required to deliver the lead-in phase of the project are primarily staff time in organisations; a consultancy based contract with the program leader, and costs of visits, communication and business planning with groups.
45
community agriculture project lead-in
cost of providing 12 month lead-in to develop and establish CA network and main program 'need to do' priority 1 'nice to do' priority 2 whole package both total cost of lead-in £ £ £ £ £ £ 16,000 10,000 32,000 16,000 74,000
key elements start-up grant skills and training advice and technical co-ordination and support network resources total
training assessment CSA business plans
cost £ £ £ £ £ -
key elements
cost £
4,000 pilot course
pilot intern
£ 12,000 £ £ £ 3,000 9,000 9,000
7,000 contract set up 23,000 information/
administrator
program leader
newsletter develop website
7,000 US inspirational visit
£ 41,000
£ 33,000
9.3
Key resources – main program
The local network delivery (option F) will enable the community agriculture program to provide 4 key resources to participants: • Shared program resources – H&I based and relevant resources including resource library, newsletter, website, CSA manual, farm research, short training courses, mentoring scheme, joint promotion and annual conference • Local co-ordinators – 10 to 12 local contacts who will provide the ‘front face’ of the program in each area, guiding new groups and bringing in the shared resources and specialist advice each group needs. Most will be existing staff in linked projects, with 2 or 3 new part time contacts to fill gaps in coverage • Specialist advisors –to provide site visits, planning assistance, help over the phone and keep the CSAs developing. Three advisors on: technical growing; business management and healthy food marketing/ promotion. H&I based experts, on consultancy basis. • Program leadership and management – to direct and manage the program team and resources; link the CSAs and program team together, and report to funding partners. A program leader/ manager and an information/ administrator. Both H&I based experts, on consultancy basis. Based on the delivery of the resources outlined above, the costs for supporting the start-up of 30 CSA are:
46
community agriculture main project
cost of providing 4 year start-up package to establish 30 CSAs over a 5 year period
'need to do' priority 1 key elements average cost to cost per start 30 new CSA CSAs £ - £ short courses
'nice to do' priority 2 key elements average cost per new CSA £ 7,000 £ £
whole package both priorities cost to total cost start 30 per CSA CSAs £ 210,000 £ 7,000 30,000 £ 45,000 £ £ total cost to start 30 CSAs £ 210,000 90,000
start-up grant skills and training advice and technical
start-up grant to each new CSA
£ £ £ £
2,000 £ 2,500 £
60,000 mentoring 75,000 business advice
1,000 £ 1,500 £ £
3,000 £
grower advice
4,000 £ 120,000 8,000 £ 240,000 3,500 £ 105,000 25,500 £ 765,000
co-ordination local co-ordinator and support program leader network resources total
website, manual, promotion, conference
8,000 £ 240,000 2,500 £ 75,000 newsletter,
research projects, resource library
£ £
1,000 £
30,000 £
£ 15,000 £ 450,000
10,500 £ 315,000 £
Providing these resources will also trigger private sector investment by each CSA:
leverage private sector investment by 30 CSA start-ups over 5 years 'need to do' priority 1 ' nice to do' priority 2 whole package investment total total key elements average investment key elements average by all CSAs invetsed investment invested by by all CSAs invested by each by all CSAs each CSA by each CSA CSA farm equipment £ 3,000 £ 102,000 farm facilities £ 7,000 £ 238,000 £ 10,000 £ 340,000 short courses £ 2,000 £ 68,000 mentoring £ 1,000 £ 34,000 £ 3,000 £ 102,000 grower advice £ 2,500 £ 85,000 business advice £ 1,500 £ 51,000 £ 4,000 £ 136,000 office £ 1,000 £ 34,000 £ £ 1,000 £ 34,000 £ 8,500 £ 289,000 £ 9,500 £ 323,000 £ 18,000 £ 612,000
capital training advice other total
These are average costs and will vary between CSAs depending on their size, support needs and other sources of assistance accessible to them. Each CSA will be expected to sign-up to a 5 year contract outlining their development plan and agreeing their support package from the program. The costs include start-up resources for 30 CSAs which, allowing for existing CSAs and a business failure rate if 1 in 7, will lead to 30 fully established CSAs after 5 years. The resources needed to support the start-up of 20 CFG are slightly different with an emphasis more on advice than capital investment, and supporting new groups will cost:
47
community agriculture main project
cost of providing 2 year start-up package to establish 20 CFGs over a 5 year period
'need to do' priority 1 key elements average cost per new CFG £ short courses
'nice to do' priority 2 cost to start 20 CFGs £ key elements average cost per new CFG start up grant to £ 1,000
each new CFG
whole package both priorities cost to total cost start 20 per CFG CFGs £ 20,000 £ 1,000 £ £ £ £ £ £ total cost to start 20 CFGs £ 20,000
start-up grant skills and training advice and technical co-ordination and support network resources total
£ £ £ £ £
1,000 £ 20,000 1,000 £ 20,000 2,500 £ 50,000 1,000 £ 20,000 newsletter,
research projects, resource library
£ £ £ £ £
-
1,000 £ 20,000 1,000 £ 20,000 2,500 £ 50,000 1,500 £ 30,000 7,000 £ 140,000
guidance local events local sourcing local co-ordinator program leader website, manual, promotion, conference
500 £ 10,000 £ 1,500 £ 30,000 £
5,500 £ 110,000
Providing these resources will also trigger other new investment by each CFG:
leverage private sector investment by 20 CFG start-ups over 5 years 'need to do' priority 1 ' nice to do' priority 2 whole package key elements average investment key elements average investment total total invested by all CFGs invested by all CFGs invested investment by each by each by each by all CSAs CFG CFG CSA £ - £ - equipment £ 3,000 £ 75,000 £ 3,000 £ 75,000 short courses £ 1,000 £ 25,000 mentoring £ - £ 1,000 £ 25,000 grower advice £ 1,000 £ 25,000 business advice £ - £ 1,000 £ 25,000 office £ 1,000 £ 25,000 £ - £ 1,000 £ 25,000 £ 3,000 £ 75,000 £ 3,000 £ 75,000 £ 6,000 £ 150,000
capital training advice other total
These are average costs and will vary between CFGs depending on their size, support needs and other sources of assistance accessible to them. Each CFG will be expected to sign-up to a 5 year contract outlining their development plan and agreeing their support package from the program. The costs include start-up resources for 20 CFGs which, allowing for existing groups and a failure rate if 1 in 6, will lead to 20 fully established CFGs after 5 years.
9.4
Key resources – new infrastructure
In addition to the main program, the four additional needs for developing the community agriculture cluster in H&I are: • national information – paying a portion of the costs of a national information provider to provide links to UK CSA activity. This could be Soil Association if it continues its ‘Cultivating Communities’ services; or a Scottish provider if a Scottish local food links umbrella group emerges during the lifetime of the program
48
•
•
•
processing facilities – butchery, packing, storage and distribution are essential to run CSAs supplying meat; and professional kitchen facilities will assist many CSAs extend their product range and supply season. This could be a single unit close to main H&I abattoir in Dingwall, or several small on-farm units in different areas. Facilities should be shared with other producers and new ones built only if local alternatives are not available apprenticeships/ interns – a vocational training course combining work on one or more CSA farms with short periods of training is a proven route to create new growers who go on to set up their own CSA. Seasonal ‘interns’ or longer term ‘apprenticeships’ are needed. This could be based on existing H&I CSAs, utilising their experience and helping them expand, and backed up with regular training and assessment; visits and exchanges to CSAs in other areas. subsidised food access – reducing the price of food in a CSA by subsidising consumers referred by health and social work professional. Average of £250 subsidy (half the price of a veg and soft fruit share) for a one year period.
Based on the delivery of the resources outlined above, the outline costs for adding these components to the CSA cluster are:
community costs of providing additonal services for infomration, processign, apprentice/ interns agriculture new and subsidised access over a 5 year period infrastructure 'need to do' 'nice to do' whole priority 1 priority 2 package cost per both unit key elements number total cost number total cost total cost of units of units start-up grant skills and training advice and technical co-ordination and support network resources
annual cost to subsidise access meat processing facilities community kitchens training for aprrentice/ interns national information provision
£ 80,000 £ £ 4,500 8,000
3 £ 240,000 15 £ 67,500 5 £ 40,000 £ £ -
1 £ 10 £ £ £ £ 200 £
80,000 £ 320,000 45,000 £ 112,500 £ £ £ 40,000 -
£
250
300 £ 75,000 £ 422,500
50,000 £ 125,000
health access total
£ 175,000 £ 597,500
These figures are outline costs only – the information, apprentice/ intern and food access costs are revenue figures for service provision; the processing figures are capital figures for converting and fitting out a minimal unit.
49
Costs for the processing facilities could be shared with other (non-CSA) producer groups wanting use. Current proposals for the establishment of a mobile slaughter facility visiting satellite ‘docking facilities’ at small cutting plants in areas of Argyll, Lochaber, Skye and NW Highlands could, if they go ahead, provide exactly this facility for CSAs. It is unlikely that CSAs would have sufficient throughput to lead on establishing and running facilities, and access to this service in local areas run by others is preferable. If this becomes available, the need to invest via the CSA support program is removed. There will remain, however, the need for new units in areas without such a service, and processing/ storage facilities for non-meat produce.
9.5
Access to resources for program participants
The types and levels of practical support that will be available to each group joining the H&I CSA network will be: Producers: each CSA will sign up to a 5 year contract (stipulating conditions of grant) based on a business plan committing to deliver a CSA. In return, they will receive a 4 year package of support to help it start up and become fully operational and self-supporting. This will comprise: • • • • • • £7,000 start-up grant paid over first two years of operation 20 days of organisational support (from local CSA contact, program leader and information administrator) over 4 year 15 days of technical support (from agricultural/food adviser, business adviser and marketing/ health promotion advisor) over 4 years Access to places on 3 training events Access to participate in mentoring scheme linked to experienced producer Access for producers and staff and members to use program resources and attend network events
Community groups: each CFG will sign up to a 3 year contract (stipulating conditions of grant) base on an agreed plan committing to run the group. In return, they will receive a 2 year package of support to help it start-up and become operational and self-managing. This will comprise: • • • • • £1,000 start-up grant paid during first year of operation 7 days of organisational support (from local CSA contact, program leader and information administrator) over 2 years 4 days of technical support (from agricultural/food adviser, business adviser and marketing/ health promotion advisor) over 2 years Access to places on 3 training events Access for producers and staff and members to use program resources and attend events
Each consumer member of the CSAs and CFGs will sign up for a year’s membership to their group and have access to: • Membership of local CSA, in return for one year’s commitment
50
•
Membership of H&I community agriculture program and access to shared resources, newsletter and events, in return for annual levy.
Target group consumers will be referred to the program by health/ social work professionals and gain access to: • Average of £250 subsidy off the annual membership cost of CSA for one year.
9.6
Resource profile
The total costs of providing the resources needed to stimulate the establishment of the cluster of 50 community agriculture groups over 6 years is estimated at:
community total costs of establishing community agriculture cluster agriculture cluster over a 6 year period 'need to do' 'nice to do' whole package priority 1 priority 2 both priorities costs start-up grant skills and training advice and technical co-ordination and support network resources health access total £ £ £ £ £ £ 240,000 151,500 142,000 313,000 102,000 75,000 costs £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 310,000 87,000 48,000 9,000 49,000 50,000 553,000 total costs £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 550,000 238,500 190,000 322,000 151,000 125,000 1,576,500
£ 1,023,500
total leverage
total private sector investment establishing community agriculture cluster over a 6 year period 'need to do' 'nice to do' total priority 1 priority 2 investment
start-up grant training advice other total
£ £ £ £ £
102,000 93,000 110,000 59,000 364,000
£ £ £ £ £
313,000 34,000 51,000 398,000
£ £ £ £ £
415,000 127,000 161,000 59,000 762,000
51
Overall, the combined public and private sector investment in the community agriculture will be valued at £2,338,500, including both public and private sources of investment. These resources are allocated: • • • • • • 35% on start-up capital support for CSAs and processing facilities 15% on developing existing and new grower skills 12% on providing expert horticultural, business and marketing advice 20% on project co-ordination and providing local contacts across H&I 10% on resources such as websites, promotion and research 8% on subsiding access to healthier food
Overall, 50% is long term capital and skills investment in SMEs; 42% is providing support to new SME and community/social enterprises; and 8% is to target benefits to groups that are socially excluded from participation and a healthy diet.
Community agriculture resource profile: 2004 to 2010
start-up grant £450,000 annual value of resources £400,000 £350,000 £300,000 £250,000 £200,000 £150,000 £100,000 £50,000 £year 1 year 2 year 3 year 4 year 5 year 6 health access advice and technical co-ordination and support network resources skills and training
The projected profile of resource use appears rather lumpy, with a cost spike in year 3. The variation in resources used in different years of the program is due mainly to capital spending on new infrastructure, especially to make processing facilities available to CSAs. The levels other resources are pretty constant over years 2 to 5, with a smaller amount in the lead-in year 1, and a scaling down as the program prepares to close and hand over to selfmanagement in year 6. The profile could be flattened if one of the processing units could be built in year 2 rather than year 3, but this would require applying for funds and detailed planning consent in year 1.
52
Annual profile of resources costs for community agriculture. Years 1 to 3.
community agriculture cluster
annual total
year 1 2004/5
'need to do' priority 1 'nice to do' priority 2
year 2
annual total 'need to do' priority 1
2005/6
'nice to do' priority 2
year 3
annual total 'need to do' priority 1
2006/7
'nice to do' priority 2
years 1 to 3
total costs total costs priority 1
2004 to 2007
total costs priority 2
start-up grant skills and training advice and technical co-ordination and support network resources health access total
£ £ £ £ £ £ £
16,000 10,000 32,000 16,000 74,000
£ £ £ £ £
4,000 7,000 23,000 7,000
£ £ £ £ £
12,000 3,000 9,000 9,000
£ £ £ £ £ £
58,000 48,500 42,000 69,000 31,000 12,500 261,000
£ £ £ £ £ £ £
40,500 30,000 69,000 22,000 12,500 174,000
£ £ £ £ £ £ £
58,000 8,000 12,000 9,000 87,000
£ £ £ £ £ £ £
220,000 50,500 44,000 74,000 34,000 12,500 435,000
£ £ £ £ £ £ £
160,000 42,500 32,000 74,000 24,000 12,500 345,000
£ £ £ £ £ £ £
60,000 8,000 12,000 10,000 90,000
£ £ £ £ £ £ £
278,000 115,000 96,000 175,000 81,000 25,000 770,000
£ £ £ £ £ £ £
160,000 87,000 69,000 166,000 53,000 25,000 560,000
£ £ £ £ £ £ £
118,000 28,000 27,000 9,000 28,000 210,000
£
41,000
£
33,000
£
Annual profile of resources costs for community agriculture. Years 4 to 6.
community agriculture cluster year 4
annual total 'need to do' priority 1
2007/8
'nice to do' priority 2
year 5
annual total 'need to do' priority 1
2008/9
'nice to do' priority 2
year 6
annual total 'need to do' priority 1
2009/10
'nice to do' priority 2
years 4 to 6
total costs total costs priority 1
2007 to 2010
total costs priority 2
start-up grant skills and training advice and technical coordination network resources health access total
£ £ £ £ £ £ £
128,000 46,500 38,000 63,000 30,000 37,500 343,000
£ £ £ £ £ £ £
80,000 40,500 29,000 63,000 21,000 25,000 258,500
£ £ £ £ £ £ £
48,000 6,000 9,000 9,000 12,500 84,500
£ £ £ £ £ £ £
126,000 44,500 36,000 58,000 27,000 37,500 329,000
£ £ £ £ £ £ £
16,000 27,000 58,000 19,000 25,000 145,000
£ £ £ £ £ £ £
126,000 28,500 9,000 8,000 12,500 184,000
£ £ £ £ £ £ £
18,000 32,500 20,000 26,000 13,000 25,000 134,500
£ £ £ £ £ £ £
8,000 17,000 26,000 9,000 60,000
£ £ £ £ £ £ £
18,000 24,500 3,000 4,000 25,000 74,500
£ £ £ £ £ £ £
272,000 123,500 94,000 147,000 70,000 100,000 806,500
£ £ £ £ £ £ £
80,000 64,500 73,000 147,000 49,000 50,000 463,500
£ £ £ £ £ £ £
192,000 59,000 21,000 21,000 50,000 343,000
53
10 Funds
10.1 Public sector partners
There are six main potential sources of funding to pay for the public sector investment package needed to develop community agriculture in H&I: • HIE – lead partner and ‘banker’ for the program, providing funds primarily for CSA business start-up, local food marketing and investment in processing facilities and vocational training • LECs – introducing local food businesses to CSA and offering support for business advice, training and new enterprise investment support • SEERAD - providing funds via their PMGS and ABDS (and successor schemes post 2007). Grants to existing agricultural producers for CSA diversification and for investment in processing facilities. •
F u n d in g p a c k a g e b y p rio rity to ta l 2 0 0 4 -2 0 1 0
£1,200,000 HIE £1,000,000 £378 ,500 £800,000 S EERA D £600,000 £130 ,000 £ 38,500 £130 ,000 £400,000 £140 ,000 £200,000 £245 ,000 £pr ior ity 1 priority 2 £100,000 £135,000 £ 55,000 £120,500 £104,000 £CS A s HI a nd NO F/CC HHB LECs
•
•
Health Boards – second partner for the program, providing funds mainly for CFGs, healthy eating information and promotion and subsidised access for social and health target groups. Health Improvement Fund and New Opportunities Fund/ Communities Fund – potential major program funder from outside H&I. Both would be looking for a partnership bid under Community Planning Partnership for healthy eating action in rural area. Would require full backing of Well Being Alliance and Scottish Executive Health Department, health and diet group. Community Agriculture program could be a good early project for funding following the merger of NOF and CF in 2005. CSA businesses and their members – essential to have buy-in from all the CSAs, and make sure the project team deliver what they want. Also involve members of CSAs as a longer term source of membership revenue, which will need to be built in as part of the ‘deal’ with each CSA.
It is not necessary or proposed to create a single funding ‘pot’ into which all these organisations contribute, which is then dispersed to CSAs. Rather, an umbrella package of support can be put together that includes access to new and additional resources specifically for CSAs (such as the network team and resources), and access to the existing generic sources of funding (such as capital funding and business advice) for farm, business and community development in H&I. In this way, different resources can be focussed on CSAs and individual funders can retain control over decisions of where and how their funds are used. It will be important from the CSA or CFG as an applicant, that this approach is well co-ordinated and that they do not have to apply numerous times for support for the same enterprise, from different sources. The role of the local contact would be to help the CSA or CFG develop a business plan to a format that has been agreed in advance to meet the needs of the different funders, so that one plan can open-up 54
access to several areas of support. There is merit also in having several alternative sources for support so that the needs of different groups can be met – for instance, capital, training and marketing investment may be eligible for support from SEERAD if it an existing agricultural holding with 2 years farm accounts applying; or from the LEC and local authority if it is a new-grower business start-up; or from these sources and charitable sources if it is a community business or co-operative group. Other public sector organisations that have a role to play in making community agriculture happen in H&I, include: • Local authorities – both through linking to Health Improvement activity and funding sources; facilitating access for community consumer access to join CSAs through local schools, social housing and their own staff; and possibly releasing land for CSA growing and pilots; local authority economic development resources may also be accessible to support new local and socially beneficial business start-up, such as grants from Highland Opportunity • Community Land Unit/ Fund – introduce community land owners to CSA and help establish community owned models of CSA • Crofters Commission – introducing crofting groups to CSA; offering in-kind advice and additional grants and linking to their Organic Crofting project • Health and social work professional in various organisations – making clients groups aware of healthy local food availability and referring potential members to the program The program will also need to use the resources of some existing projects. Seven or eight existing Project officers will be needed as local contacts (cost not included in resource estimates as already covered by existing projects). Six possibles already identified - 2 from Action 35 to cover Western Isles; 3 from Food for Thought to cover Lochaber, Caithness and Badenoch and Strathspey; 1 from Skye and Lochalsh Horticultural Association to cover Skye and Lochalsh. 3 new part-time local coordinators (cost included in resource estimates) will be added to fill gaps in area coverage.
10.2 Private and charity sector partners
There are four main sources of private sector funds and charity sector backing that could be directed to developing community agriculture: • Producer capital: the public sector investment in start-up grants will release an additional £3/4million of private sector investment. This will be made up of £612,000 of new capital investment by rural SMEs running CSAs - based on the experience of existing CSAs in the UK, each new CSA will be investing on average around £10,000 of private capital in the start-up of their CSA business during the first 2 years of operation. Commitment to this investment will form part of the contract between the support program and each CSA. A further £150,000 invested by community groups running CFGs. This is all new investment that would not otherwise be made. • Consumer revenue: each CSA places a £20 additional membership levy on their customers (included in their agreement with the program) and that this is paid to the CA program. This will provide an income to the program of £8,000 in year 2, rising to £30,000 by year 6. This provides both an income stream and a direct membership link between the program and consumers. Most importantly, it establishes a long term revenue stream from within the CSA groups, which enables then to become self-supporting and continue providing services for themselves beyond the life of the start-up project.
55
•
•
In-kind support: community agriculture releases significant amounts of inkind contributions, particularly the giving of voluntary time to communities by organisers and members. There has been no studies to evaluate the scale and value of in-kind support released by CSAs, so no firm estimate can be given. However, a very significant release valuable community activity is expected and will be measured. Based on the experience of other CFGs in Scotland, it is anticipated that each new CFG will release at least 20 days a year of new volunteer action and draw in small grants and staff time from other organisations with a value of £3,000 per CFG. Charitable trusts: there are several potential charitable sources of assistance for CSA businesses and groups, including; the Princes Trust (for young entrepreneurs under 26, starting a CSA); Esme Fairbairn Foundation (who have a current funding priority specifically for ‘local food’); WWF Scotland (who support innovative models of post-CAP farming working with the environment and local communities); the Plunkett Foundation and the Co-op (who support co-operative models of community business development), and others. These sources could either be accessed directly by individual CSAs or support the whole program – they may wish only to support charitable/independent groups and not public sector delivery or private business activity, and if these partners are to be engaged, this may influence the structure of delivery for the program.
10.3 Funding profile
The breakdown of where the funds will come from to pay for the 6 years of the community agriculture program is has yet to be agreed with partners. A potential division of funding based on areas of interest and eligible types of activity is:
community all six year agriculture cluster
total costs total costs prioroty 1
2004 - 2010
total costs priority 2
HIE LECs SEERAD HHB HI funds and NOF/CC CSA member subsciptions total
£ 417,000 £ £ 230,000 £ £ 265,000 £ £ 195,000 £ £ 365,500 £ £ 104,000 £
378,500 £ 130,000 £ 130,000 £ 140,000 £ 245,000 £ £
38,500 100,000 135,000 55,000 120,500 104,000
The main program funds could come from: • HIE: 26% • LECs: 15% • SEERAD: 17% • Health Boards: 12% • Health improvement and New Opportunities/ Community Fund: 23% • CSAs and members: 7% • This is matched by a further £762,000 of investment by SMEs and community groups – adding 48% to the program. This funding package would see 47% of the total investment in community agriculture coming from the public sector, including 28% from the HIE network; and 53% coming come from the private sector (including lottery), of which 37% from CSA producers and consumers.
£ 1,576,500 £ 1,023,500 £ 553,000
private sector investment
£
762,000
£
364,000
£
398,000
56
Annual profile of funds for community agriculture. Years 1 to 3.
annual costs community agriculture cluster
annual total
year 1 2004/5
'need to do' priority 1 'nice to do' priority 2
year 2
annual total 'need to do' priority 1
2005/6
'nice to do' priority 2
year 3
annual total 'need to do' priority 1
2006/7
'nice to do' priority 2
years 1 to 3
total funds total funds prioroty 1
2004 - 2007
total costs priority 2
HIE LECs SEERAD HHB HI funds and NOF/CC CSA member subsciptions total
£ £ £ £ £ £ £
41,000 15,000 18,000 74,000
£
41,000
£ £ £ £ £ 15,000 18,000 £ £ £
73,000 40,000 30,000 32,000 78,000 8,000 261,000
£ £
67,000 20,000
£ £ £
6,000 20,000 30,000 5,000 18,000 8,000 87,000
£ £ £ £ £ £ £
95,000 70,000 110,000 35,000 109,000 16,000 435,000
£ £ £ £ £
95,000 50,000 80,000 30,000 90,000 £ £ £ £ £ 20,000 30,000 5,000 19,000 16,000 90,000
£ £ £ £ £ £ £
209,000 110,000 140,000 82,000 205,000 24,000 770,000
£ £ £ £ £ £ £
203,000 70,000 80,000 57,000 150,000 560,000
£ £ £ £ £ £ £
6,000 40,000 60,000 25,000 55,000 24,000 210,000
£ £
27,000 60,000
£ £ £
£
41,000
£
33,000
£
£
174,000
£
£
345,000
£
private sector investment
£
-
£
-
£
-
£
180,000
£
85,500
£
94,500
£
192,000
£
91,500
£
100,500
£
372,000
£
177,000
£
195,000
Annual profile of funds for community agriculture. Years 4 to 6.
community agriculture cluster year 4
annual total 'need to do' priority 1
2007/8
'nice to do' priority 2
year 5
annual total 'need to do' priority 1
2008/9
'nice to do' priority 2
year 6
annual total 'need to do' priority 1
2009/10
'nice to do' priority 2
years 4 to 6
total costs total costs prioroty 1
2007 - 2010
total costs priority 2
HIE LECs SEERAD HHB HI funds and NOF/CC CSA member subsciptions total
£ £ £ £ £ £ £
77,500 52,500 65,000 41,000 85,000 22,000 343,000
£ £ £ £ £
77,500 40,000 50,000 31,000 60,000 £ £ £ £ £ 12,500 15,000 10,000 25,000 22,000 84,500
£ £ £ £ £ £ £
78,000 65,000 50,000 42,000 66,000 28,000 329,000
£ £
58,000 20,000
£ £ £
20,000 45,000 50,000 10,000 31,000 28,000 184,000
£ £ £ £ £ £ £
52,500 2,500 10,000 30,000 9,500 30,000 134,500
£
40,000
£ £ £
12,500 2,500 10,000 10,000 9,500 30,000 74,500
£ £ £ £ £ £ £
208,000 120,000 125,000 113,000 160,500 80,000 806,500
£ £ £ £ £ £ £
175,500 60,000 50,000 83,000 95,000 463,500
£ £ £ £ £ £ £
32,500 60,000 75,000 30,000 65,500 80,000 343,000
£ £
32,000 35,000
£ £ £
£
20,000
£ £ £
£
258,500
£
£
145,000
£
£
60,000
£
private sector investment
£ 168,000
£
80,500 £
87,500
£
156,000 £
74,500 £
81,500
£
66,000
£
32,000 £
34,000
£ 390,000
£
187,000 £
203,000
57
The figures are a potential allocation of funds among different sources. They have not been discussed in detail with the organisations, at the time of writing, and remain open to negotiation.
Community agriculture funds profile 2004 to 2010
£450,000 £400,000 £350,000 LECs £300,000 £250,000 £200,000 £150,000 £100,000 £50,000 £HI and NOF/CC CSAs SEERAD HHB HIE
year 1
year 2
year 3
year 4
year 5
year 6
The projected profile of funds is rather lumpy, as it follows the levels of resources needed to deliver the program. The funds needed peak in year 3 and as this is due mainly to capital spending on new infrastructure – and due to this, the contribution from SEERAD varies the most. Funds from other sources are fairly constant over years 2 to 5. HIE makes a proportionately larger contribution in year 1, as it is leading the development of the program. CSAs make a gradually increasing contribution through the lifetime of the project, as the total number of consumer members grow. By the end of the project the CSAs generate £30,000 a year toward the costs of running their own support network. As with resource spend, the variation between years is largely dependent on capital spend and the profile could be flattened if the construction of processing units and other infrastructure can be brought forward, or are covered by other initiatives. Recommendation 9: a funding package be put together for the 6 year CSA program, led by HIE and the Health Boards and involving SEERAD, local authorities, producers and community groups. An approach be made to potential strategic funders, including the New Opportunities Fund, the Community Fund, the Scottish Executive Health Improvement fund and several charity sector community innovation funds.
10
Timing
To create a cluster of CSA crofts, farms and community food groups in H&I that are well established and can become fully self-supporting will take at least 6 years and possibly longer. Experience in several countries show that each CSA takes 3 or 4 years to gain the right mix of skilled producers, committed customers and trust needed to run a stable and financially secure social business. Starting the cluster will need to be staggered over several years, and this will need to be preceded by a year of lead-in preparations. The cluster could be created over a period of 10 years – if the commitment can be given for such a length of time – 6 years is the minimum time needed to create a cluster that is skilled, successful and self-supporting thereafter.
58
The 6 year project could be split into two consecutive 3-year phases, enabling public sector resources to be committed on a 3 year planning cycle. An interim review toward the end of phase 1 would provide an opportunity to look at progress and amend planned delivery in the second phase. Estimates of resources and outputs are given for these tow phases. Establishing Scotland’s first community agriculture cluster is going to require long term commitment from a large number of individuals in communities across H&I. They, in turn, will require consistent backing from public agencies to support and resource their efforts throughout the start-up years. Any short term halts to support for the program during the 6 years of start-up could severely impact the CSA businesses and community confidence in the concept CSA. A public commitment from local agencies to the full 6 years of the project to develop community agriculture, and the resources necessary to get it established, is essential to the success of CSA establishment in the area. The three stages for developing the community agriculture program and the earliest dates at which they could happen are: • Lead-in to program– Year 1 – 2004/5: during the next 12 months an active network could be established among the first 20 existing and potential community agriculture projects. Development steps should be taken to assist their start-up; strategic funding could be accessed and the program team could be brought together in readiness to deliver the main program. • H&I community agriculture program – Years 2 to 6 – 2005-2010: a 5 year program, following on from the lead-in year could be run through scaling up the local delivery network and adding the four elements to provide information, processing facilities, skilled new CSA operators and subsidised access for consumers. • H&I community agriculture cluster– Years 6+ - 2010+: as the CSA cluster grows self-management will be introduced, along with a membership levy, so that the group has a structure and resources to continue to support and network independently. The 6 years of activity to develop CSA in H&I could start in 2004, with the lead-in to the program, followed by the main program commencing in 2005. Commencing the project in 2004 will enable the 18 producers and groups already interested to be engaged, and mean the main program is up and running in time for the introduction of reformed CAP payments to H&I farmers and crofters. The program could still go ahead if the start were delayed by one or two years, but there are no advantages in doing so and the impetus of interest already expressed would be lost. Recommendation 10: a six year program to develop community agriculture in H&I be commenced in 2004, with a lead-in year to establish the network and secure resources in 200/5, followed by delivery of a 5 year program of action from 2005 to 2010, after which time the community agriculture network will continue on a self-sustaining basis.
11
Impacts
11.1 Activity and impacts
Community agriculture is all about delivering real and useful benefits to small farm producers and local families: fresh food for consumers; a living wage for the
59
producers and a strong co-operation between them. The success of the H&I community agriculture program can be measured in two ways: • Activity indicators - measuring what new community food activity is taking place: the number of CSAs; members; investment made, and so on • Impact indicators – the effect this new activity is having on farmer incomes; the local economy; business viability, and so on. These can all be measured and estimated outputs for the program are given below, upto the end of the first 3 year phase, and the whole 6 years. Reliable estimates are not possible for some outputs due to lack of firm results for CSAs elsewhere, they are, however, still important and should be measured. In addition to these more tangible outputs, there will be many softer impacts on the people involved: job satisfaction; a sense of belonging to a community; confidence to expand a business; trust among community members that leads to other local projects being carried out, to name but a few. These cannot be empirically measured but are still real and can be assessed through review sessions with CSA groups and their members.
11.2 Anticipated impacts by end of year 3
Activity indicators community agriculture activity by end of year 3 CSAs CFGs total
Number of CA groups set up Private sector investment Increase in annual turnover New skills gained (courses attended/ qualifications gained) Number of consumer members Number of health and low income members Area using organic production methods Number of volunteers involved Number of units composting waste Number of units using renewable energy Increase in length of supply season Number of units covering full operating costs in share price £ £
20 360,000 560,000 60 £ £
11 66,000 44,000 22 £ £
31 426,000 604,000 82
1200 120 80 unknown unknown unknown unknown 17 unknown unknown unknown unknown
440 132 5.5 unknown unknown unknown unknown 9
1640 252 85.5
26
60
Impact indicators
community agriculture impacts by end year 3 CSAs CFGs 17 9 total 26
Number of CA groups fully operational and selfsupporting Additional annual income to producers Economic multiplier in local community Jobs safeguarded/ created (direct) Farm/ croft/ units in viable use Food miles covered by each CSAs produce Number of young families as members Number of over 50’s a members Tonnes of waste composted Increase in energy efficiency Proportion of members renewing membership
£ £
240,000 1,075,200 22 34
£ £
27,000 105,600 2 0
£ £
267,000 1,180,800 24 34
unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown 70%
unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown 70%
unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown 70%
11.2 Anticipated impacts by end of year 6
Activity indicators community agriculture activity by end of year 6 CSAs CFGs total
Number of CA groups set up Private sector investment Increase in annual turnover New skills gained (courses attended/ qualifications gained) Number of consumer members Number of health and low income members Area using organic production methods Number of volunteers involved Number of units composting waste Number of units using renewable energy Increase in length of supply season Number of units covering full operating costs in share price
34 £ £ 612,000 952,000 102 £ £
25 150,000 100,000 50 £ £
59 762,000 1,052,000 152
2040 204 136 unknown unknown unknown unknown 29 unknown unknown unknown unknown
1000 300 12.5 unknown unknown unknown unknown 20
3040 504 148.5
49
61
Impact indicators
community agriculture impacts by end year 6 CSAs CFGs 29 20 total 49
Number of CA groups fully operational and self-supporting Additional annual income to producers Economic multiplier in local community Jobs safeguarded/ created (direct) Farm/ croft/ units in viable use Food miles covered by each CSAs produce Number of young families as members Number of over 50’s a members Tonnes of waste composted Increase in energy efficiency Proportion of members renewing membership
£ £
408,000 1,827,840 37 58
£ £
60,000 240,000 4 0
£ £
468,000 2,067,840 42 58
unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown 80%
unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown 80%
unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown 80%
11
VFM
The value for money delivered by the program can be measured by a series of key ratios of private sector output to public sector input: private sector investment leverage private sector long term revenue increase public investment per long term job annual cost per consumer
139%
117%
£
26,632
£
62.47
There is almost one-and-a-half times as much private capital invested as public. The one-off investment of every public sector pound will produce the same recurring annual increase in private sector turnover. It takes around £25K to create each permanent job in a CSA. Averaged out over all the CSA consumers, the program invests £60 a year – equivalent to about £1.20 a week – for each CSA member to receive a healthy supply of local produce for 5 years. The program should apply three rules to increase VFM – avoid duplication by utilising existing resources (eg project staff form ‘Food for Thought’). Second, purchase 62
services from existing providers where they are available (eg buying consultancy based advice and management rather than creating a new staff structure; and buying into the continuation of the Cultivation Communities project for national networking of CSAs). And third keep all spend as local as possible to increase the local multiplier. The program should aim to spend 90%+ of its resources through small rural businesses within H&I, and this could be set as a VFM indicator. The other way to assess VFM of the proposed program is to benchmark it to other similar projects. Five useful benchmarks being: • GLASU - £10K per CSA during start-up in 18 months, exclusive of project staff time and services provided by Powys Food Links • Cultivating Communities project - £140K per year to provide a remote information network for 70 CSAs • Skye and Lochalsh Horticultural Association - £32K over 2 years to support 6 new growers, a mentoring scheme and a local group co-ordinator • Nutrition theme year - £144K ( £121K from HHB and £23K external) to deliver a collection of 27 nutrition promotion actions • Food for Thought - £190K over 3 years to target diet improvement in health risk groups in Thurso, Speyside and Lochaber. By comparison, a H&I community agriculture program offers good VFM, at unit costs comparable to other ways of delivering CSA support and diet action. Recommendation 11: the success of the community agriculture program be measured through collecting data on activity and impacts, supported by views from participants and agencies. An interim review be carried out in the third year and a final review toward the end of the six year program.
12
Exit strategy
The role of the public sector in community agriculture is to help individual producers start-up as CSAs and create co-operation among them. The exit point for the public sector comes when there are no new CSAs starting up and the CSAs that are operational are co-operating and supporting each other. The target is to reach this stage in 6 years time, with a viable cluster of CSAs in H&I that has the capacity to be self-sustaining. The timing of the withdrawal of public sector funds and support will need to be led by achieving this target, and the program will need to keep under review the demand for CSA start-ups and the ability of the group of CSAs to run their own co-operative network. The three key tests are: is each CSA fully viable? Are there enough CSAs and CFGs in H&I that it is recognised by consumers are a regular way to get local fresh food? And, does the network have income coming in to pay for the resources it needs to connect and assist CSAs? Once this stage is reached, it is time for the public sector to step back and handover control and resourcing to the cluster of CSAs. The cluster will need a structure that can manage funds and deliver services, and do this in a way that is accountable to its membership. The focus will be on the continuing need to link the CSA producers and groups; help them develop new products and skills; recruit new members and offer advice between groups. An exit strategy to build up the structure and income so that the community agriculture groups can provide this for themselves through self-management, has three strands:
63
• •
•
Start-up: each CSA should remain financially independent and self-managing, with assistance to cover its full production costs from member subscriptions Shared management: the steering of the program should include producer and consumer representatives from an early stage and hand over control to CSA representatives over time. It may be appropriate for a formal group to be set up to take over providing support, led by CSA reps. In the longer term some of the functions of the program could be taken on board by a new H&I food links group, if it is developed. Income stream: a £20 per year levy will be charged by the program to each CSA member and this will form part of the agreement with each CSA. This will provide a modest income of around £30,000 by year 6 with which will give the CSAs the resources needed to employ a part time network organiser, continue the networking and provide information through the newsletter and website
There will and should be a continuing role for the public sector in the community agriculture cluster, based on: • Demonstration: if it can be successfully established, the groups will be the first such farmer/consumer social business cluster in Scotland. monitoring the long term impacts of CSA and sharing this information and experience on community agriculture delivery with others will be an important part of demonstrating the value of continued support. Disseminating the experience to other areas and groups will be a continuing role for the public sector partners. • Paying for public goods: long term continuity for the CSAs will be best secured by making sure that producers are rewarded for the additional public goods that their CSA operation delivers. CSAs are social enterprises: they are privately owned but produce very significant public benefits for health, community co-operation, rural development and the natural environment. The best way to keep CSAs going is to value these public goods and pay the CSA farmer for delivering them, by linking them to farm payments. This will require new CAP modulation in Scotland to be used to in part to fund a suite of argri-community schemes that reward the social value that small farms producing local food can deliver - similar to agri-environment schemes but paying farmers to deliver more rural jobs, community activity and healthy local food. This may sound far-fetched, but 15 years ago there were just a few pioneering areas where farmers were paid to adapt their methods to benefit the environment, and today agri-environment schemes cover over 25% of Scotland’s land areas and form a regular part of the income of 1 in 3 farms. To achieve the same for community agriculture, the public sector program partners will need to work with SEERAD and lobby to ensure the opening up of this opportunity over the next 2-3 years, to come on stream in time to support the producers at the end of this start-up program. Recommendation 12: agency partners actively encourage self-management of the CSAs and program; investigate and act on setting up a local food links organisation for H&I during the next 3 years, and lobby for the use of modulated CAP funds to reward producers for the social benefits of farming.
64
Part III – Feasibility and Next steps
CSA Feasibility Study Summary report for HIE
65
Blaeberry June 2004
Feasibility of delivery proposals
Is CSA possible in the Highlands and Islands? Will the proposals put forward make it happen? And is it a sound investment of public funds? Operating environment for CSA in H&I: • Physical environment: an oceanic climate and limited availability of good cultivatable land mean that the production of a diverse range of vegetables and fruit is possible but hard work. The lack of availability of local processing means that preparing meat and other produce for sale requires significant investment, beyond the reach of most individual CSAs • Economic environment: the increasing prosperity of the Inner Moray Firth, and the poor availability of fresh produce combined with the ‘captive audience’ of consumers in remote communities, is a strong consumer base for CSA • Skills environment: the lack of tradition and experience in producing a range of local food means that most producers face a long and steep learning curve • Social environment: strong community identity and high levels of community activity and participation are a sound base for CSA. However, attitudes towards entrepreneurship, producer co-operation and the operation of private business to meet community needs are slow to change. • Political environment: public policy on health improvement and the survival of small scale agriculture are strong drivers for change. The gulf between the economic development and health agendas in H&I requires new bridges. Deliverability of CSA in H&I: • Possible? - a significant proportion of producers and consumers want to switch food buying power toward locally produced fresh food. A high proportion of those already expressing interest are willing to co-operate with others in their community, commit for a year ahead and pay a bit more. • Viable? – established CSA farm businesses prove to be viable in both the short and long term, especially if the share price openly reflects true costs • Continuity? – CSA businesses prove to be self-supporting after their initial start-up period and resilient to changes in their operating environment • Certain outputs? – the economic impacts of CSA are reasonably well understood; the environmental impacts for similar small farms are understood, but not specifically on CSAs; the health benefits of diet are well understood but the ability of CSA to achieve long lasting change has not been measured • Good value? – CSA provides genuinely new and non duplicating activity at favourably comparable unit costs and good long term investment ratios. Risks associated with CSA in H&I: • individual CSAs - represent relatively low levels of risk due to low investment for start-up and prior committed customers. The risk is mostly of farmer time. • cluster of CSAs – represent medium levels of risk due to the medium scale of investment needed and the relatively long start-up period. The Highlands and Islands represent a harsh physical environment and a soft social environment for CSA. The program to stimulate more CSA is deliverable, offers reasonably good value and returns, and CSAs do go on to be fully self- supporting. There are medium risks associated with the public investment, and this is due to the scale and duration of support needed to establish the first regional community agriculture cluster in Scotland.
CSA Feasibility Study Summary report for HIE 66 Blaeberry June 2004
Next steps
If it is decided worthwhile to proceed with the establishment of a community agriculture cluster in H&I, there are at least 12 months of lead-in activity required to get it up and running. The key steps required are: In next 6 months: • Program partners – run a seminar for public agency partners for feedback on proposals; and agree tasks and terms for a small management group to steer its’ set-up over the next 12 months (HIE, HHB, Action 35 and LA rep) • Project leader – appoint an interim program leader/ manager to deliver the lead-in actions agreed by the management group • Linked organisations – meet with each organisation to keep them informed and seek their input (Health Department, CPPs in all 5 LA areas of H&I, Soil Association and SCDP) • Seek backers - approach potential strategic funders with backing of CPPs and SE Health Department (Health Improvement Fund, New Opportunities Fund and Community Fund) • Existing projects – meet with existing projects to bring them into the network and seek their agreement to using project staff as local contacts (Action 35, Food for Thought, Fas Fallain, SHLA, and others) • Existing and potential CSAs – visit each CSA to explain long term plans, meet local contacts, assess the CSAs suitability and potential contribution to the network, and identify support needs • Funding: put together detailed proposals and financial package and present to partner agencies and potential strategic funders • Project team – identify all the potential members of the team needed to deliver the program and hold development meeting for them all to meet and contribute to plans • CSA visit – take all the partner organisation staff and the potential project team to visit Earthshare and Wester Lawrenceston Farm In 6-12 months time: • Management – continue regular management group meetings and action • Keep informed - keep all groups and the potential project team identified above informed of progress • Funding commitment - secure 5 year program funding commitments from partner and strategic funders • Team commitment – sort out contracts for project team members • Spread the net – put out first program newsletter to wide circulation of producers, community groups and organisations to publicise what will be happening. Ask them to register interest. Also give more presentations. • Producer commitment – November will be the key time for potential CSAs to decide if they want to start production in following year. Hold seminar for all interested and sign-up first group of 10 for 2005, also use event to bring partner organisations and project team together with producers • Inspirational visit – small delegation of producers and partner staff to attend US CSA conference in early December 2004 , and visit CSA farms • Start-up CSAs – visit each start-up CSA and introduce them to local contact, agree business plan and support package and sign contract • Countdown – confirm funds and start date of main program and make practical preparations.
CSA Feasibility Study Summary report for HIE 67 Blaeberry June 2004