Forest Landowner Co-operatives: ANREP 2004


Published on

Forest Landowner Co-operatives: What ANREP members need to know. Presentation at the 2004 ANREP conference, Wheeling WV.

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Forest Landowner Co-operatives: ANREP 2004

  1. 1. Forestry Cooperatives: What ANREP members need to know E. Sagor 1 , C. Blinn 1 , P. Jakes 2 , M. Rickenbach 3 , K. Zeuli 3 , D. Smith 1 and M. Sisock 3 1 University of Minnesota 2 USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station 3 University of Wisconsin
  2. 2. Notes to self <ul><li>This presentation worked well at ANREP 2004. 30 minute time slot, including questions. It came out a bit long and had a couple of rough spots but worked well. </li></ul>
  3. 3. Overview <ul><li>Introduction </li></ul><ul><li>The 2003 satellite conference </li></ul><ul><li>About forest landowner cooperatives </li></ul><ul><li>Opportunity and challenge </li></ul><ul><li>Relevance to ANREP members </li></ul><ul><li>Future directions </li></ul>
  4. 4. Introduction <ul><li>Nonindustrial private forests: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>60% land & timber </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Parcelization </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>9.3 million owners </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Timber secondary to other values </li></ul><ul><li>Co-op growth: one more way to reach a large and diverse group? </li></ul>
  5. 5. 2003 Satellite conference <ul><li>Purposes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Review context and trends in FLC development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Help NR and co-op development professionals evaluate possible roles </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Satellite conference case studies <ul><li>Blue Ridge Forest Landowner Co-op (VA) </li></ul><ul><li>Western Upper Peninsula Forest Improvement District (MI) </li></ul><ul><li>Massachusetts Woodlands Cooperative (MA) </li></ul><ul><li>Sustainable Woods Cooperative (WI) </li></ul><ul><li>Family Forest Foundation (WA) </li></ul>
  7. 7. About forest landowner cooperatives <ul><li>Cooperative structures and functions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Independent service providers or integrated business? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Purposes: wood processing, marketing, equipment sharing, education </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Currently 7-10 in the US, mostly in Midwest </li></ul>
  8. 8. About forest landowner cooperatives <ul><li>Relationship with other landowner programs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Technical assistance, cost-share, Extension </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cooperation vs. cooperative </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cooperative development process </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Intensive, long term, requires local leadership </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. Opportunities for today’s forest landowner co-ops <ul><li>Community connections </li></ul><ul><li>Access to equipment and labor </li></ul><ul><li>Reduced-cost certification </li></ul><ul><li>Advantages of joint processing and/or marketing </li></ul>
  10. 10. Challenges for today’s forest landowner co-ops <ul><li>Administration (formation and management) </li></ul><ul><li>Extremely competitive markets: Business planning </li></ul><ul><li>Resource management </li></ul><ul><li>Committed local leadership </li></ul><ul><li>Capital </li></ul>
  11. 11. Recent success and failure <ul><li>MA Woodlands Cooperative $500,000 grant </li></ul><ul><li>Sustainable Woods Cooperative closure </li></ul><ul><li>Most Midwestern cooperatives currently emphasizing education, not market benefits </li></ul>
  12. 12. Recent success and failure <ul><li>THIS SLIDE SEEMED REPETITIVE. NEED TO EXPLAIN WHY IT’S HERE. </li></ul><ul><li>MA Woodlands Cooperative $500,000 grant </li></ul><ul><li>Sustainable Woods Cooperative closure </li></ul><ul><li>Most Midwestern cooperatives currently emphasizing education, not market benefits </li></ul>
  13. 13. Relevance to ANREP members <ul><li>Potential Extension fit </li></ul><ul><li>But, role is critical </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Vision and leadership MUST come from members </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Extension: advise on resource management, make connections, instruct at events, help secure funding, etc. </li></ul></ul>
  14. 15. On-site evaluation: How will you use conference info? <ul><li>“ I do not see gov't or landowner attitudes changing enough to favor co-ops.” </li></ul><ul><li>“ Good information on steps to beginning a co-op that may prove beneficial to my clientele.” </li></ul><ul><li>“ I will be wary of cooperative endeavors.” </li></ul><ul><li>“ I now have a better understanding of co-ops, so if someone asks me about them, I have a better handle on what is involved and if it is really something they want to do.” </li></ul>
  15. 16. On-site evaluation: Audience barriers to co-op work <ul><li>“No local examples of success.” </li></ul><ul><li>“Difficulties on propagating distributed benefits to the communities.” </li></ul><ul><li>“Landowner interest and motivation!!!” </li></ul><ul><li>“Similar needs in landowners. Most landowners are very independent.” </li></ul><ul><li>“Lack of a niche market in the South” </li></ul>
  16. 17. Possible research questions <ul><li>Strengths and weakness of the F.L.C. model compared to others </li></ul><ul><li>Will existing groups survive? </li></ul><ul><li>Do co-op members manage differently? </li></ul><ul><li>Do co-ops engage new landowners? </li></ul>
  17. 18. Conference proceedings <ul><li>General Technical Report </li></ul><ul><li>Conference website: </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>
  18. 19. <ul><li>Eli Sagor </li></ul><ul><li>(612) 624-6948 </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul>