Developing sustainable food systems • •West Dorset Food and Land Trust –Charity, established 1996 •Local Food Links –Trading company, established as subsidiary of Trust in 1999 •Wessex Reinvestment Trust –Community Development Financial Institution established 2003 Archive 002_edited Pict0005 West Dorset Food Week & Bridport Food Festival Farmers’ Markets Grow it, Cook it, Eat it Project Bridport Centre for Local Food Bridport Centre for Local Food Bridport Centre for Local Food School Fruit Scheme Spanish Fruit Sales Inc Fruit scheme > Soup Lunch Pilot Soup Lunch Pilot Nottingham Ready Meals Inc Fruit scheme Soup scheme > Development of school meals service •Local Food Links restructured as Industrial and Provident Society •One member, one vote •Parents, schools, members of the community eligible to join •Potential for community share issue to raise funds •Initial grant funds raised for new kitchen New Central Kitchen at Centre for Local Food Creating user-led school catering services in Dorset •There are 143 primary schools in Dorset – almost all have no kitchens •The government wanted all schools to offer a hot meal •90 – 95% of those meals will be purchased by parents •5 – 10% will be paid for with government funding (free school meals) •Therefore parents and children should be at the heart of any service, not just be passive consumers. What do children, parents and schools want? •Above all, a school meals service that is consistent with the “Healthy Schools”, “Every Child Matters” and “Sustainable Schools” agendas •So, when asked, parents and children say they want a school meals service that: •Provides healthy food consistent with healthy eating messages. •Is high quality but low cost, and is therefore not for profit. •Is produced locally, creating local employment and training opportunities. •Supports the local economy by sourcing from local farmers and food producers. •Is as sustainable as possible, cutting down on food miles and supporting organic or free range/non-intensive production. • Central procurement v. local procurement arrangements •If large central contracts are negotiated on behalf of schools, then only national/multi-national companies will have the capacity to deliver. •If individual schools have to run a catering service on their own they will struggle with cost, complexity and capacity. •Therefore, there is a need for clusters of schools to work together, and operate as a “federation” or “consortium”. •Dorset County Council supported the 8 Bridport schools to pilot this model. The Bridport Pilot Scheme: Local Food Links Ltd •8 schools worked with local charity to establish social enterprise - Local Food Links Ltd - as Industrial & Provident Society. •£50,000 from DCC, £250,000 raised from other funders. •Central kitchen in Bridport Centre for Local Food. •DCC supported the 8 schools to upgrade their serveries: e.g. dishwashers & handbasins. • Transported meal service •80 pence spend per meal on ingredients, 75% from local suppliers. Turnover for 2008 – 2009: £210,000. •12 jobs created within Local Food Links, 12 within the schools. The Bridport Pilot Scheme: continued •User participation is critical: •Parents and schools eligible for membership of Local Food Links (£1). •Members of the community can join through share issue (minimum £100). •Engagement through taster sessions, pyramid steering group, working groups in schools, comments books, questionnaires. •Potential to extend the model to other schools, e.g. the Blandford cluster, and to other services e.g. catering for older people such as meals on wheels. Pupils from St. Mary’s Primary – A Food for Life Flagship School – visiting the central kitchen at the Bridport Centre for Local Food Local Food Links: ethical sourcing •Meat – Genesis Farmers •Milk – Coombe Farm •Yogurt – Yeo Valley •Butter – Denhay Farms & Coombe Farm •Cheese – Denhay & Coombe Farm •Flour – Edward Gallia, Cerne Abbas •Eggs – Vurlands Farm •Vegetables in season – Bothen Hill Organic, Washingpool Farm, Somerset Organic Link •Fruit in season – Elwell Farm •Bread – Leakers, Punch & Judy Bakery •Food service – Essential Trading Expansion of school meals service •5 new schools and 1 nursery joined the service in West Dorset •New kitchen opened in Blandford •10 new schools and 2 nurseries joined the Blandford operation •24 staff •Turnover: £500,000 p.a. •Over 200,000 meals per year Trusty Bank plc Fruit scheme Hot lunch scheme Soup scheme > High subsidy Low subsidy No margin Low margin High margin “Free” meals School meals Lunch clubs, Care homes, Day centres Meals on Wheels Local/organic take home meals Cafes & Juice Bars Take home family meals Training restaurants Spectrum of potential catering activities Vocational Training •Contract with 3 local secondary schools •Contract with Children Out Of School Service •24 students over 3 days •Year 10 and 11 •NVQ levels 1 and 2 NVQ Training in Catering Time of year Jan Feb Mar Apr June May July Aug Sep Oct Dec Nov Sales to older people & other groups in the community School meals sales Private sector sales: focused on Xmas, Easter & Summer Local Food Links: Balancing Demand through Diversification Initial Food Preparation at Central Kitchen Personnel Development & Training Menu Development Sourcing/ Purchasing ICT systems Financial Systems Satellite Kitchen at Care Home Satellite Kitchen at Day Centre Satellite Kitchen at Nursing Home Work-space Hot lunch scheme MCj04417080000[1] FISC MCj04417080000[1] Training & Education > Local Food Links 13 W. Dorset Schools 8 Blandford Schools 3 Community Nurseries Cookery Workshops Vocational Training Day Centre – Chancery Hse Outside catering Local Food Links 13 W. Dorset Schools 8 Blandford Schools 4 Community Nurseries Cookery Workshops Vocational Training Day Centre – Chancery Hse Outside catering Hospitality Sector Lunch clubs Food Club Care Homes Prepared Meals MCj04369060000[1] MCj04417080000[1] MCj04376730000[1] Food and Land Trust initiative Secondary structure Local Food Links initiative Centre for Local Food Farmers’ Markets Community gardens Food Festival Local Food Directory Food Week Cookery workshops Wessex Reinvestment Trust Grow it, Cook it, Eat it Soup scheme Older People’s Catering School catering Fruit scheme Vocational training 2010 2005 2006 2008 2004 2001 2003 2002 1999 1999 2000 2003 1998 1998 Research with Cardiff University •Commissioned by Making Local Food Work - £10 million programme supporting range of community food enterprises •Key questions: –How can the sector increase its impact? –Do individual enterprises want to scale up? –If not, are there other interventions, e.g. secondary structures, which could be developed? Locating enterprises along the food chain •The food chain can be divided into separate stages: –Primary production –Basic processing –Value added processing –Distribution –Retail & Food Service –Consumption ABATTOIR SPEC’LIST GROWER FARMERS FISH FARMING FISH INDUSTRY FISH POULTRY DAIRY RED MEAT VEG’S CEREALS BASIC PROCESSING PREPARED MEAT/FISH READY MEALS GOURMET FOOD SNACKS DESSERTS YOGHURT BAKERY PASTRY CREAM BUTTER FAST FOOD VALUE ADDED PROCESSING RETAIL/FOOD SERVICE END USERS PUBS AND REST’ANTS SCHOOLS & HOSPITALS RESID’IAL HOMES FOOD COOPS & BUYING GROUPS BOX SCHEME SUPPLIES IND RETAILERS HOTELS LOCAL DISTRIBUTION REGIONAL NATIONAL DISTRIBUTION CONSUMERS IMPORTED FOOD SPECIALIST BREEDER THE FOOD CHAIN Farming & growing Processing Food service Retail -CSA’s -Care Farms -City Farms -Community gardens -Community farm land trusts -Community orchards -Land share schemes -School Farms -Co-operative meat cutting rooms -Co-operative dairies -Local Food Hubs -Breakfast clubs -Community cafes -Community catering -Community pubs -Lunch clubs -Training restaurants - Food Co-ops and Buying Groups - Farmers’ Markets - Country Markets - Community owned shops -Worker-owned stores -Consumer-owned stores The following diagram locates different types of enterprise along the food chain, and gives examples Secondary structure Community food enterprise Co-operative & Mutual Food Enterprises Producer owned local food enterprises Primary Production Basic Processing Value Added Processing Distribution Retail/Food Service Community owned shop Growing Communities Growing Communities Veg box scheme Farmers’ Market Country Market Pick your own Wholefood Distributor SUMA Frome Buying Group Community gardens City Farms CSA’s Care Farms Farm shops Organic farms Local farms Community orchards “Local”, “Organic”, “Ethical” food sector Community food sector Initiatives aimed at creating an ethical alternative Initiatives aimed at defending local economies and livelihoods Initiatives using food as a vehicle for other purposes How Low Can We Go? •“Using a detailed inventory of emissions developed from LCA of a wide range of foods and processes, we estimate that the supply of food and drink for the UK results in a direct emission equivalent of 152 Mt CO2. A further 101 Mt CO2e from land use change is attributable to UK food. Total UK consumption emissions are estimated to be about 748 Mt CO2e (excluding land use change). This means that direct emissions from the UK food system are about 20% of the currently estimated consumption emissions. When our estimate of land use change emissions is added to these, this rises to 30%.” •How low can we go? An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from the UK food system and the scope to reduce them by 2050. WWF, 2010 Food Miles are not the main problem….. •“Tara Garnett of the Food Climate Research Network has estimated that the food system accounts for 20% of UK GHGs, but that food transport accounts for only 2.5%. This seems to include “store to home” transport, which we know accounts for over half of all carbon emissions from food transport. This implies that “farm to store” transport accounts for less than half of that, perhaps 1.2%. However, we also know that around half of carbon emissions from “farm to store” transport are attributable to transport outside the UK (ie of imported foods). This implies that “farm to store” and “port to store” transport within the UK accounts for only about 0.6% of UK GHG emissions – or something like one-thirtieth of the GHG impact of the food system. Yet if we insist on food with local provenance – as opposed to just food with UK provenance – this 0.6% is the only part we are influencing.” •Limitations of Provenance, East Anglia Food Link Framework Outcomes Need/baseline Activities Outcomes for older people Impacts for the community Health & well-being -High incidence of malnutrition in older people -High incidence of diet-related ill-health, e.g. cancer & heart disease -Mobility restrictions, e.g. getting to shops -Disability restrictions, e.g. difficulties preparing food -Local Food Clubs (food co-operatives) established -Supply of prepared fruit & vegetables into Food Clubs -Provision of catering for lunch clubs in community settings -Lunch clubs linked to Cookery workshops, e.g. older people sharing skills with younger people, lessons for single men, etc -Community Kitchen sessions at Centre for Local Food -Produce meals & soups to be cooked in older people’s homes -Creation of catering services operating from hub kitchens & satellites - support catering services in day centres and care homes/ nursing homes -Reduction in malnutrition -Improved health -Improved sense of well-being -More older people feeling they are making a positive contribution -Reduced sense of dependency -Improvements in health reflected in reduction in costs of malnutrition & diet related ill-health -Older people able to stay at home longer Community development -Increasing isolation felt by some older people -Sense of dependency felt by some older people -Limited opportunities to get involved and contribute -Pressure on existing carers -Reduced links between the generations -Reduced isolation through greater opportunities for socialising over food -Inter-generational links created through work with schools -Increase in the number of carers drawn from older people -Volunteering opportunities -More people volunteering and caring for others -Improved community cohesion -Greater cross-generational links -A more positive food culture, with more people eating together Economic development -Affordability is a major concern for older people on low incomes -Limited capacity to produce meals for older people in Dorset -Lost opportunities to create local jobs or provide a market for local producers -Improved affordability of quality food -Improved accessibility through range of initiatives -Employment opportunities -Training opportunities -Reduction in “food poverty” -Jobs & training opportunities created -Opportunities for local suppliers -Import substitution: local economic activity created -Local multiplier improved -Increase in value added locally (GVA) Environmental sustainability -Environmental impact of food transportation -Limited sourcing from sustainable food producers -Consequent pollution -Enhanced understanding of food provenance & the sustainability implications of food choices -Increase in sustainable food production -Reduction in carbon output has positive impact on climate change 10.00 Some questions from Workshop1 10.10 1.Background theory, motivations & local economic systems •Supply & Demand & 5 Capitals framework •Different levels of activity •Wessex Reinvestment Trust group 10.40 Exercise 1: What initiatives could be developed in Cz or Sl? 10.55 Break 11.10 2. Integrating food and energy • Developing Food Hubs • Joint project: BREG and WCA – Bridport Energy Services Co • Work with the Magdalen Foundation – Multi-function farms 11.40 Exercise 2: What are the barriers here & how could they be overcome? 11.55 Break 12.10 3. Finance and structures • Different types of finance • Implications for choice of structure • BESCO as an example 12.40 Exercise 3: What aims/principles/motivations are required at the centre of a local economic system? 12.50 Fill in evaluation forms Session 1: Background theory and development of local economic systems • Can we evolve a new economic system? •In Small is Beautiful, Schumacher explained that the “modern private enterprise system ingeniously employs the human urges of greed and envy as its motive power”, but then asks: “Can such a system conceivably deal with the problems we are now having to face? The answer is self-evident: greed and envy demand continuous and limitless economic growth of a material kind, without proper regard for conservation, and this type of growth cannot possibly fit into a finite environment. We must therefore study the essential nature of the private enterprise system and the possibilities of evolving an alternative system which might fit the new situation.”[1] • [1] Schumacher, E.F. 1973 Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered Sphere Books •In the SW of England a group of practitioners have been attempting to build elements of the alternative system called for by Schumacher. •These efforts have required: • - a focus on identifying appropriate organisational formats, in particular because of the need to balance a range of stakeholder interests – from employees and investors to consumers, the wider community and the environment; • - a focus on creating “primary” social economy organisations which deliver goods and services focused on basic needs such as food, energy and housing; •- a focus on building “secondary structures”, designed to: •(i) make resources or “capitals” available to the primary organisations described above; •(ii) provide functions on behalf of these primary enterprises, e.g. processing, distribution and marketing; •(iii) provide expertise and resources which allow the replication of primary enterprises. The need to address 4 key factors Land: In rural areas of the South West, land for housing and employment cannot be “created” (because of natural and planning constraints) so the market cannot clear at levels that are affordable for local residents and businesses. The logical solution is to hold a percentage of land in trust, and create markets for the housing or workspace alone. Labour: - Young people are leaving rural areas, because of the greater financial (and non-financial) rewards in larger urban areas, but there is a need to attract back younger individuals with skills and experience. This is another area of market failure which could be addressed through links with FE/HE institutions, intern programmes linked to social economy activity and so on. Capital: levels of aggregate savings in areas such as Dorset are high, but the majority of these funds are not reinvested in the local economy. There is therefore a need for “reinvestment” mechanisms which can offer local investors secure opportunities in enterprise and asset-based projects. Knowledge: through patenting and the processes described under the “labour” section, areas like rural Dorset are struggling to compete in the knowledge-based economy. There is therefore a need for local learning processes, and links to “open-source” knowledge. Strengthening activity in the social economy: 3 levels of activity •Level 1: direct provision of goods and services which meet local needs; • •Level 2: provision of secondary business services, in order to underpin the provision of goods and services; • •Level 3: the 4 key “factors of production” - land, labour, capital and knowledge – made available through democratic institutions, to support levels 1 & 2. Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Direct provision of goods and services Provision of secondary business services Land, Labour, Capital & Knowledge - subject to democratic governance Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Local Food Links – providing local catering services Supported by managed workspace: Bridport Centre for Local Food Underpinned by access to finance from Wessex Reinvestment Trust (a Community Development Finance Institution) Economic democracy Social justice Environmental sustainability Land Labour Knowledge Capital Level 2 services Food Warmth Shelter Care Culture Communication Wastes Wastes Land Labour Knowledge Capital Level 2: Services e.g. Farmers Markets & the Centre for Local Food Meat Dairy Seafood Drink Fruit & Veg Bakery goods Wastes Wastes Level 1: Production Level 3: Key Resources Energy Exercise 1: What initiatives could be developed here? • Farming & growing Processing Food service Retail -CSA’s -Care Farms -City Farms -Community gardens -Community farm land trusts -Community orchards -Land share schemes -School Farms -Co-operative meat cutting rooms -Co-operative dairies -Local Food Hubs -Breakfast clubs -Community cafes -Community catering -Community pubs -Lunch clubs -Training restaurants - Food Co-ops and Buying Groups - Farmers’ Markets - Country Markets - Community owned shops -Worker-owned stores -Consumer-owned stores Session 2: Integrating food & energy • Local Food Links: The Future •Scaling up will require improved infrastructure to underpin: –Added value processing –Catering –Distribution •In Bridport, this new infrastructure could take the form of a new Local Food Hub sketch section 150dpi bubble diagrams 150dpi Small scale, local Intermediate models Industrial scale, centralised Health & Wellbeing (Quality of food) - less processing fresh = better - higher nutritional content? - to what extent does extra refrigeration, cooking + extra time affect nutrition - more processing frozen=less fresh - lower nutritional content? Social impact /Community cohesion -highest level of connection b/w users& producers - potential for co-production approach - less separation than ind., but must be worked at - hub kitchen can be used 4 w’shops, training etc - distant Quality of production process for participants (workers, volunteers) - more opps to develop cooking + mgt/admin skills - depends on how diversified the operations are, e.g. School meals + outside catering - less opps for co-production - de-skilling Economic efficiency/ Economic impact - less efficient but requires most jobs - full set of equipment each kitchen - saves having all equipment at each prime kitchen - but needs blast chillers etc.. - more ‚efficient’ - lower local multiplier effect Environmental impact - no transportation of the meal - but many suppliers delivering to many kitchens - opps for local consolidation - but extra refrigeration, heating & deliveries - food miles -> best potential consolidation - food miles -> meals must be delivered frozen.. •An example: •BESCO •(Bridport Energy Services Company) BESCO being established by: •Bridport Renewable Energy Group CIC Ltd (company limited by guarantee) • •Wessex Community Assets (industrial & provident society for the benefit of the community) • Magdalen Farm •132 acre farm owned by Trust •Educational focus – school visits, volunteering and care farming •Kitchen prepares 20,000 meals per year •Farm manager aims to produce as much food as possible for the kitchen CIMG2019 Exercise 2: What are the barriers to developing eco-social enterprises here, and how could they be addressed? Session 3: Finance and structures Finance for social enterprises •The legal structure adopted by a social enterprise will affect the type of finance which it is able to attract. •Registered charities and organisations with charitable objectives and an asset lock will find it easier to attract grants. •For the raising of a loan, the legal structure adopted is not so important– the key issues are security & risk. •The key area where charities and many social enterprises (if registered as companies limited by guarantee) are precluded is that of equity finance. Equity finance •Loans (or debt finance) require interest payments and the repayment of the amount borrowed (i.e. it is investment with the expectation of repayment and regular interest payments). •Equity, is investment in exchange for a stake in the organisation, in the form of shares. This stake usually entitles shareholders to a share of the profits of the organisation, or payments once a certain limit of earnings has been achieved. •Equity finance can be useful in the early stages of growth or when developing a new product or service. Unlike a loan, investors providing equity finance are effectively sharing the risk with the organisation and are likely to defer any expectation of a financial return for some time. Low Risk High Risk Secured loan Unsecured loans (“mezzanine”) Equity Grants, donations Fixed assets, “hard development capital” Working Capital Sunk costs, “soft development capital” High Risk Low Risk Pre-planning Piloting/partnership development Infrastructure development Sales Senior debt Grants, donation, equity Gifts in kind Mezzanine debt (unsecured loans) Source: J.Ludlow, Venturesome Wessex Reinvestment Trust group •The group has 4 separate structures: •Wessex Reinvestment Trust, a registered charity •Wessex Community Assets, which supports community asset development. •Wessex Reinvestment Society, which provides business loans in partnership with the Frederick’s Foundation. •Wessex Core Company Limited, which provides home improvement lending. From “fundraising” to “investment” •Recognition that some community services are best delivered through a business model •Growing public appreciation that businesses can be run for a social purpose, not private profit •Historic shift in financing community enterprises: from fundraising approach (events, gifts, donations) to investment in community shares •Greater autonomy for communities Community shares by trade activity Trade activity Number orgns. Share capital Members Renewable energy 28 32,191,000 11,687 Regeneration, land and buildings 22 13,516,000 2,947 Consumer co-operatives 19 182,455,000 5,843,000 Community retail stores 18 571,000 2,561 Transport (inc historic railways) 18 20,809,000 n/a Finance and investment 10 7,489,000 1,858 Food production and farming 6 886,000 9,539 Fair trade products 5 33,409,000 18,705 Pubs and breweries 5 575,000 388 Football 4 1,231,000 31,704 Other 6 8,849,000 39,084 Recent community share offers Share capital £ No. of member Av. £ per member The Cochabamba Project 623,003 89 7,000 Sustainable Hockerton 167,550 41 4,100 Ecological Land Co-operative 123,000 38 3,200 Hudswell Community Pub 219,100 151 1,450 Go! Co-operative 58,006 70 830 Motcombe Community Shop 70,000 100 700 Topsham Ales 35,000 55 640 Busy Bee Toyshop Co-operative 32,250 102 300 Fairtraders Co-operative 85,000 370 230 Slaithwaite Co-operative 15,000 121 120 Dunbar Community Bakery 23,000 230 100 Members improve competitive advantage Members roles How these roles improve competitive advantage Investor Lower cost of capital; greater acceptance of risk Customer Greater loyalty; accept higher prices & dividend Service user Demonstrates support to funders; better feedback Activist More engagement; better feedback; better targeting Volunteer Lower labour costs; access to specialist skills Suppliers Greater loyalty; lower input prices Workers Greater loyalty; lower input prices; better feedback Directors Access to specialist skills; lower input prices •An example: •BESCO •(Bridport Energy Services Company) BESCO being established by: •Bridport Renewable Energy Group CIC Ltd (company limited by guarantee) • •Wessex Community Assets (industrial & provident society for the benefit of the community) • •With potential support from Bridport Area Development Trust (company limited by guarantee with charitable status) Consumer aspirations Producer / worker aspirations Trustee / community benefit aspirations Investor aspirations - Discounted energy supply - Energy efficiency services - Learning opportunities - Address climate change - Build community assets - Finance fuel poverty work - Education - Maximise financial return - Meet chosen risk criteria - Maximise financial return - Long term aspirations: develop the company BESCO: scoring the different aspirations •Investors –Medium return required •Trusteeship –Asset lock required •Consumers: –Price of services an issue •Producers / workers: –Reward for sweat equity IPS Ben Com? IPS Co-op? PV & Wind-power Installations Finance Installation & maintenance Business administration Community engagement Community assets PV & Wind-power Installations Business Administration: Employee-owned company Community Engagement: BREG CIC Finance: IPS Installation & Maintenance: Free-lance contractors Community Assets IPS Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 BESCO Services (CIC Share Co – Employee Owned) Underpinned by access to finance through BESCO (IPS Ben Com) & access to technical aid through WCA Underpinned by access to land held by IPS Ben Com & Underpinned by access to knowledge from members of BREG Public benefit Private benefit BESCO: Does it need more than one institution on the spectrum? BREG CIC Industrial & Provident Society CIC share company and and Exercise 3: What’s in the centre? Food Care Housing Energy Culture Food Care Housing Energy Culture QUESTION: WHAT’S IN THE CENTRE? ? DH Lawrence: • •“ We cannot bear connection. That is our malady. We must break away, and be isolate. We call that being freed, being individual. Beyond a certain point, which we have reached, it is suicide.” •