s4ag-community

name	s4ag-community
description	Build community through the farm — CSAs, food hubs, cooperatives, shared land. Use when the user says 'community supported agriculture', 'food hub', 'cooperative', 'shared land', 'members', 'community', 'collective', or 'food sovereignty'.
allowed-tools	["Read"]

Community

Your farm can be the anchor of a food community — not just a production unit selling at arm's length. A well-designed CSA creates members who understand how food is grown and why it matters; a food hub connects you with farmers who share costs and markets; a cooperative gives you buying power you cannot have alone; shared land models make farming possible for people who cannot access it otherwise. The goal of this skill is to help you build those structures well, starting where you are.

How this skill works: Each sub-tool pauses at a Checkpoint to confirm the assumptions it is about to build on before producing output. A recommendation built on a wrong assumption wastes time and money — confirm the checkpoint before acting. Each sub-tool ends with Next steps — the skills worth running once you have acted on this one.

---

Expert Lineage

The thinkers whose frameworks underpin this skill — and what they specifically discovered that changes how you farm.

Elizabeth Henderson — The CSA as Community, Not Commerce Henderson documented more than a decade of CSA operation at Peacework Farm (New York) and synthesised findings from hundreds of CSA farms across North America in Sharing the Harvest. Her specific finding: CSAs that frame membership as risk-sharing — not subscription boxes — have dramatically higher retention and deeper member engagement. Members who understand they are co-farmers, not customers, tolerate imperfect shares, seasonal variation, and crop failure without leaving. The implication: how you onboard and language a share determines whether you have a community or a churn problem.

La Via Campesina — Food Sovereignty as the Political Frame La Via Campesina, a movement of over 182 member organisations across 81 countries, articulated food sovereignty — the right of peoples to define their own food systems — as a counterframe to commodity agriculture. Their actionable contribution: community food structures (CSAs, cooperatives, food hubs) are not just marketing strategies; they are the institutional form through which food sovereignty is practiced at farm scale. The implication for any farmer building community is that explaining the stakes — why this structure exists — builds stronger commitment from members than convenience ever could.

SARE (Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education) — Community Food System Building SARE's decades of practitioner research established that the most financially resilient small farms are those with strong community ties — not necessarily the most technically sophisticated. Their specific finding: farms with active member or community engagement report significantly higher income stability during climate events, market disruptions, and personal crises. Community is not soft infrastructure; it is financial risk management.

Robin Wall Kimmerer — Reciprocity as the Operating Principle Kimmerer's Braiding Sweetgrass describes the Honorable Harvest: take only what you need, give back what you can, share what you have. Applied to farm community structures, her contribution is the principle of reciprocity as a design criterion — the most durable community food relationships are those where the exchange runs both ways. CSAs where members visit, volunteer, or simply witness the farm outperform pure transaction models because both parties feel invested in the outcome.

Vandana Shiva — Seed Sovereignty and Community Resilience Shiva's work on seed sovereignty established that community-held knowledge and resources are more resilient than individually-held ones. Her actionable insight for farm community structures: shared inputs (seed libraries, equipment cooperatives, shared cold storage) are not just cost-reduction strategies — they are the material form of community resilience. A farming community that shares biological resources is harder to destroy by market failure than a collection of competing individuals.

E.F. Schumacher — Appropriate Scale and Human-Centred Economics Schumacher's Small Is Beautiful established the case for human-scale economics and the limits of growth for its own sake. His specific insight applicable here: community economic structures that remain at human scale — where members know the farmer and the farmer knows the land — outperform growth-for-scale strategies on every measure except volume. The implication: resist the temptation to scale community structures beyond the point where relationships become transactional.

---

Which tool fits

You need to...	Tool
Build a genuine CSA member community, not just a box scheme	csa-community
Join or establish a food hub for shared aggregation and marketing	food-hub-participation
Set up or join a farmer cooperative for shared buying or marketing	cooperative-models
Create or participate in shared land ownership or management	shared-land

Routing Decision

• Have CSA members but they feel like customers, not community → csa-community
• Struggling to reach enough customers alone; want shared marketing → food-hub-participation
• Want to reduce input costs through collective buying → cooperative-models (buying cooperative path)
• Want to reach markets too large to supply alone → cooperative-models (marketing cooperative path)
• Farming rented land; want more secure or collective access → shared-land
• New entrant looking for land access through community models → shared-land
• Unsure → csa-community first; it is the entry point for most farm-community relationships

---

CSA Community

Builds a CSA membership that functions as genuine community — shared risk, shared investment, durable relationships — rather than a subscription service.

Why the distinction matters

A subscription box service and a CSA are superficially similar and structurally opposite. A subscription service delivers a product and the customer decides whether it was worth paying for. A CSA involves members paying before the season starts to share the farm's risk — good harvests and bad. This distinction determines whether your members stay when the season is hard.

The failure mode of most CSA operations is treating membership as a marketing decision rather than a structural one. Members who joined for convenience leave at the first inconvenience. Members who joined because they understood the purpose stay through crop failure, pest pressure, and weather events.

The three dimensions of CSA community

1. Risk-sharing framing

How you language the share at signup determines what kind of member you attract. Compare:

Subscription framing	CSA framing
"Get a weekly box of fresh vegetables"	"Become a member of the farm and share in its harvest"
"Cancel anytime"	"Your payment supports the farm before the first seed is sown"
"We guarantee variety and quality"	"Some weeks will be extraordinary; some will be hard — you are part of that"
"Customer"	"Member"

Use CSA language consistently from the first contact. Attract members who understand what they are joining.

2. Member engagement structures

Engagement does not happen by accident. Build it into the design:

• Farm days: 2–4 open days per year where members visit, see the work, handle the biology. Members who have touched the soil do not leave because one week's share was light.
• Newsletters: Not marketing copy — real reports from the field. What failed and why. What the soil test showed. What the food web looks like this year. Members who receive genuine information become advocates.
• Volunteering: Optional working days. Members who have weeded a bed do not waste a share.
• Decision participation: Where genuine decisions can involve members (crop choices, timing, share contents), involve them. Members who shaped the share value it differently.

3. Retention and relationship

Retention is a relationship outcome, not a marketing outcome. Track:

• Which members renew without prompting
• Which members bring new members (the most reliable growth mechanism)
• Which members engage (farm days, volunteer days, newsletter opens)
• Reasons for non-renewal — exit conversations are the most valuable data

Share pricing and structure

Structure	When it works	When it doesn't
Single share size, fixed price	Simplest to operate; fair distribution	Fails members with variable household size
Multiple share sizes	Accommodates household variation	More harvest logistics
Sliding scale (pay what you can within a range)	Accessible to lower-income households	Requires administrative confidence and clear framing
Work-share (discounted in exchange for labour)	Deepens engagement; reduces labour cost	Management overhead; matching skill to task
Income-tiered (solidarity CSA)	Explicitly broadens access; builds community diversity	Requires founding members at higher tier to subsidise

Soil health and the CSA story

CSA members who understand soil biology become the farm's most effective advocates. Build the food web story into member communication:

• Share what the soil test shows — not as a technical document but as a health report on the farm's foundation.
• Explain why you manage the way you do in biological terms. Members who understand that compost feeds the food web, that cover crops sustain the biology through winter, and that spray decisions affect the system they co-own are members who care.
• Invite members to do a worm count. Nothing communicates soil health more immediately than holding a handful of living soil and counting what moves.

Checkpoint — confirm before finalising:

• Are you starting a CSA from scratch, or converting an existing box scheme into genuine community? The approach differs significantly — existing customers may resist the framing shift.
• What is your realistic member capacity given your production scale? Over-committing is the most common early failure.
• Do you have the time for member engagement activities (farm days, newsletters, calls), or do you need a minimal-engagement model to start?

A CSA designed for the community you wish you had, rather than the time and capacity you actually have, will create resentment on both sides before the season ends.

Output:

CSA COMMUNITY DESIGN
Farm name: [name]
Season: [year / season]
Share capacity: [number of shares]

SHARE STRUCTURE
Share type(s): [single size / multiple sizes / sliding scale / solidarity]
Share price: [price per share / price range]
Payment timing: [pre-season / split / monthly]
Work-share option: [yes/no — if yes, terms]

MEMBER ONBOARDING
Signup language: [CSA framing — 3 sentences you will use]
What members receive at signup: [welcome pack contents]
First contact point: [farm day / newsletter / video / visit]

ENGAGEMENT CALENDAR
[Month]: [engagement activity — farm day / newsletter / volunteer day / decision moment]
[Month]: [engagement activity]
[Month]: [engagement activity]
[repeat for each season month]

RETENTION TRACKING
Renewal prompt date: [date]
Exit conversation protocol: [how you will ask non-renewers why]
Referral mechanism: [how members bring new members]

SOIL HEALTH COMMUNICATION
Season story: [one paragraph — what you will share with members about the soil this season]
Member soil activity: [worm count / jar test / farm walk to check cover crop establishment]

Next steps:

• /s4ag-direct-marketing — the CSA community is the most valuable direct marketing asset you have; build the customer relationship infrastructure around it.
• /s4ag-seasons — lock the engagement calendar (farm days, newsletter timing, member decision points) into the year-round production calendar so community activities do not compete with farm work.
• Run food-hub-participation (within this skill) — once CSA capacity is maximised, a food hub is the natural next channel for surplus production.

---

Food Hub Participation

Decides whether and how to join or establish a food hub — a shared aggregation and distribution infrastructure for multiple farm producers.

What a food hub is

A food hub is a facility and management structure that aggregates, distributes, and markets locally and regionally produced food. For a farm, it is the difference between selling only what you can distribute yourself and accessing institutional buyers, retail accounts, or urban markets that require reliable, aggregated volume.

Food hubs range from informal producer networks sharing a market stall to formal multi-million-dollar facilities with cold storage, processing, and e-commerce infrastructure.

Is a food hub right for you?

Join an existing hub when:

• Your production exceeds your direct marketing capacity
• You have reliable surplus but no route to institutional buyers (schools, hospitals, restaurants, grocery)
• You want to reduce distribution labour without losing the premium over wholesale
• You are geographically isolated from your customers

Start a new hub when:

• No hub exists in your region; you have identified producers willing to participate
• You have the capital, management time, and marketing capability to build infrastructure
• A specific institutional buyer (school district, hospital, food service company) exists but requires aggregated volume you cannot supply alone

Do not pursue a food hub when:

• Your direct marketing channels are at capacity and profitable — a hub adds complexity without adding margin
• You cannot commit to supply reliability — hubs require consistent, predictable product from participating farms

Assessing an existing food hub before joining

Ask these questions before committing:

Question	What the answer tells you
What is the hub's take rate / aggregation fee?	Typically 15–35%. Know your margin after the fee.
Who are the current customers and what volumes do they require?	Are they buyers you cannot reach alone?
What are the quality and pack requirements?	Can you meet them without expensive changes?
What is the payment timeline?	Net-30 or net-60 kills small farm cash flow.
What is the hub's default / failure track record?	Hubs have a high failure rate; check financial stability.
Can you sell direct in parallel?	Some hubs require exclusivity. Understand the terms.

Food hub business model types

Model	Description	Farmer risk	Best for
Producer-owned cooperative hub	Farmers collectively own and govern	Shared — farmers absorb losses	Farms willing to invest capital and governance time
Non-profit hub	Mission-driven; often grant-funded	Low — hub absorbs operational risk	Farms in underserved markets or food access missions
For-profit aggregator	Private company aggregates and marks up	Counterparty risk — hub may prioritise margin	Farms with strong product differentiation
Virtual hub / buying club	Order aggregation without physical facility	Low — no facility risk	Farms with own distribution in reach of buyers

Starting a food hub: the minimum viable version

Before investing in infrastructure, test with:

1. A producer group — 3–6 farms with complementary products (one produces veg, one meat, one eggs, one dairy). Informal agreement to fulfill shared orders.
2. A pilot buyer — one restaurant, one small grocery, or one institution willing to receive an aggregated order weekly.
3. A shared logistics arrangement — one farmer delivers for all on rotation, or a local distributor handles the run.
4. A shared account and invoicing system — even a shared spreadsheet and one bank account.

Operate this minimum version for one season before investing in facilities, cold storage, or legal structure.

Soil health and the food hub

Food hubs create the scale to access institutional buyers who can specify growing practice — including soil health standards. School food programmes, hospital food service, and quality grocery accounts increasingly ask how food is grown. A food hub whose participating farms all use cover crops, minimal synthetics, and biological fertility has a differentiating story that no individual farm can tell at the volume those buyers need. Community-level soil health investment becomes a marketable collective asset.

Checkpoint — confirm before finalising:

• Are you assessing an existing hub to join, or considering starting one? These are entirely different exercises in time, capital, and risk.
• What is your reliable surplus volume, and how consistent is it across the season? Hub buyers need predictability — variable production is a disqualifying problem.
• What is your target buyer type — institutional (school, hospital, food service), retail (grocery, food co-op), or restaurant? Each has different requirements and payment terms.

Joining a hub on the assumption that you can supply reliably when your production is variable, or starting a hub without a committed anchor buyer, are the two most common failure paths.

Output:

FOOD HUB PARTICIPATION ASSESSMENT
Farm: [name]
Assessment date: [date]

SITUATION
Surplus volume available: [product] [volume/week] [season]
Current direct marketing capacity: [% of production sold direct]
Target buyer type: [institutional / retail / restaurant]

RECOMMENDED APPROACH: [join existing / start minimal hub / do not pursue yet]

IF JOINING AN EXISTING HUB
Hub name: [name]
Aggregation fee: [%]
Net payment terms: [days]
Exclusivity clause: [yes/no — terms]
Minimum supply commitment: [volume and frequency]
Decision: [proceed / investigate further / decline — reason]

IF STARTING A MINIMAL HUB
Participating farms: [list — name / product]
Pilot buyer: [name / product requirement / volume]
Logistics arrangement: [delivery rotation / third-party distributor]
Legal structure required at pilot stage: [informal agreement / partnership / none]
Capital required: [£/$ — what for]
Timeline to first delivery: [weeks]

NEXT REVIEW DATE: [date — after one pilot season]

Next steps:

• Run cooperative-models (within this skill) — if the food hub grows, a cooperative legal structure is often the appropriate governance model for a producer-owned facility.
• /s4ag-finance — run the food hub participation through a gross margin calculation before committing; aggregation fees erode margin faster than expected.
• /s4ag-direct-marketing — food hub and direct marketing should complement rather than compete; understand how the channels interact before committing to hub terms.

---

Cooperative Models

Designs or evaluates a farming cooperative — for shared input buying, shared marketing, shared equipment, or shared processing.

Why cooperatives exist

A cooperative is an enterprise owned and governed by its members, who share both the benefits and the obligations. Cooperatives exist in agriculture because many farm inputs, markets, and services are only accessible at scale that no individual farm can achieve — but a group of farms operating together can.

The cooperative model has two dominant applications for small farms:

Buying cooperative: Members pool purchasing power to buy inputs at volumes that attract wholesale pricing — seed, feed, fertiliser, fuel, packaging, equipment. A group of ten farms buying together can access pricing and supplier relationships unavailable to any one farm alone.

Marketing cooperative: Members pool production to access buyers who require consistent volume, reliability, and range that no individual farm can supply. The cooperative handles aggregation, quality control, branding, and sales.

Buying cooperative design

What to aggregate first:

Input	Typical volume discount	Complexity
Seed (common varieties)	15–30% at case quantities	Low — easy to specify and compare
Packaging (bags, boxes, labels)	20–40% at pallet quantities	Low — standardise specifications
Feed (grain, mineral mixes)	10–25% at tonne quantities	Low — commodity product
Fuel (diesel, heating oil)	5–15% through collective account	Low — common service
Fertiliser / soil amendments	10–30% at bulk quantities	Medium — needs agreed spec
Equipment (shared purchase or lease)	30–60% of individual cost per farm	High — governance and maintenance agreements needed

Minimum viable buying group:

1. Identify 3–8 farms with genuinely overlapping input needs — not just "we both use seed."
2. Agree on one input category to aggregate first. Do not attempt to aggregate everything.
3. Designate one coordinator (rotating or fixed) to handle the order and delivery.
4. Open a shared bank account or use a single farm's account with a clear ledger.
5. Agree the markup (if any) the coordinator charges for administration time.
6. Run one season. Review. Expand if it worked.

Governance rules for buying cooperatives:

• One farm, one vote on input specifications and suppliers.
• Late payment by one member does not prevent supply to others — the risk is individual, not collective.
• Any member can exit at season end without penalty.
• The coordinator rotates annually.

Marketing cooperative design

Marketing cooperatives are more complex than buying cooperatives because they require farms to subordinate individual marketing decisions to collective ones — and to produce to a collective standard.

What makes a marketing cooperative work:

Success factor	What it requires
Quality consistency	Agreed grading standards; all members meet them or product is downgraded
Volume reliability	Collective supply commitments; individual farms must honour allocations
Shared brand	Members sell under the cooperative brand, not individual farm names
Revenue distribution	Clear formula — by volume, by value, or by points — that feels fair
Governance	Democratic control; one member, one vote; elected management committee

Common failure modes:

• One high-volume farm dominates governance and pricing decisions.
• Quality standards are agreed but not enforced — one poor-quality member degrades the whole brand.
• Revenue distribution formula is ambiguous and creates conflict.
• Members exit at first market difficulty, removing volume reliability exactly when the buyer needs it most.

Legal structures for cooperatives:

Structure	Jurisdiction	When to use
Informal producer group	Any	Pilot stage only — no legal protection
Partnership	Any	Small groups (2–4 farms); simple; unlimited liability
Limited Liability Company (LLC) / LLP	US / UK	Most common for small cooperatives; limited liability; flexible governance
Incorporated cooperative (Co-op)	US (state law varies) / UK (Cooperative and Community Benefit Societies Act)	Larger groups; full cooperative governance; member share capital
Community Interest Company (CIC)	UK	Mission-driven cooperatives with community benefit mandate

Get legal advice before choosing a structure. The cost of a lawyer to establish the right structure is far lower than the cost of resolving a dispute in the wrong one.

Soil health and the cooperative

A buying cooperative can transform the economics of soil health inputs. Rock minerals, compost feedstocks, cover crop seed, biological inoculants, and mycorrhizal products are all significantly cheaper at cooperative buying scale. The farms that cannot afford the soil biology inputs individually can often access them collectively. A cooperative that standardises on biological inputs also creates a shared identity — collectively, a group of farms buying biological fertility is a differentiating story for a marketing cooperative. The soil health investment becomes the cooperative's brand.

Checkpoint — confirm before finalising:

• Is this a buying cooperative, a marketing cooperative, or both? Mixed cooperatives are harder to govern and should be approached sequentially.
• How many farms are genuinely interested, and do they have overlapping needs or production? A cooperative needs both willingness and genuine overlap to function.
• What is the governance appetite of the participating farms? Marketing cooperatives require willingness to subordinate individual decisions to collective ones — not all farmers can do this.

A marketing cooperative whose members still prioritise their individual sales channels over collective commitments will fail when the buyer most needs reliability.

Output:

COOPERATIVE DESIGN
Type: [buying / marketing / both]
Participating farms: [number] — [brief profile: what each produces / what each needs]

IF BUYING COOPERATIVE
Input categories to aggregate: [list — start with one]
Estimated volume at group scale: [unit]
Target supplier(s): [name — or "to be sourced"]
Estimated discount vs. individual purchase: [%]
Coordinator: [farm name — rotating or fixed]
Governance: [one farm one vote / proportional to volume / other]
Legal structure: [informal / LLC / other]

IF MARKETING COOPERATIVE
Products to market collectively: [list]
Target buyer(s): [institutional / retail / restaurant — named if known]
Quality standard: [brief grading specification]
Revenue distribution formula: [by volume / by value / by points]
Brand name: [cooperative brand — not individual farm names]
Minimum supply commitment per farm: [volume / frequency]
Management committee: [elected from members — term length]
Legal structure: [LLC / cooperative / CIC / other]
Legal advice obtained: [yes / no — get this before proceeding]

LAUNCH TIMELINE
Phase 1 (pilot, [date]–[date]): [what happens — one input category, one buyer]
Phase 2 (review, [date]): [what is assessed before proceeding]
Phase 3 (expand, [date]): [what is added if pilot succeeds]

Next steps:

• /s4ag-finance — run the cooperative's economics before committing: what does the buying discount or marketing margin actually deliver net of coordination costs?
• Run food-hub-participation (within this skill) — a marketing cooperative often needs the physical infrastructure of a food hub; understand how they relate.
• /s4ag-certification — cooperatives that achieve certification collectively often have lower per-farm certification costs and stronger market positioning than individual certified farms.

---

Shared Land

Evaluates and designs community land ownership and management models — for farmers seeking secure access and communities seeking productive land.

Why land access is the constraint

For most new entrant farmers, land is the primary barrier. Ownership is financially out of reach; commercial tenancy is short-term and insecure; and insecure tenure is the reason farmers do not invest in soil biology — the benefits accrue after the tenancy ends. Shared land models solve this by separating land ownership from land management in ways that align incentives for long-term stewardship.

The spectrum of shared land models

Model	Who owns the land	Who farms	Security for farmer	Capital required	Governance complexity
Commercial tenancy	Private landlord	Tenant farmer	Low (annual or short FBT)	Low	Low
Long-term agricultural tenancy	Private landlord	Tenant farmer	Medium (5–10 year agreements)	Low	Low
Share farming	Landlord and farmer joint venture	Joint	Medium	Medium	Medium
Community land trust (CLT)	Community-owned trust	Individual or group farmers	High (renewable long-term leases)	High to establish	High
Producer cooperative land	Cooperative	Member farmers	High (member equity)	High	High
Shared smallholding / multi-family farm	Multiple families / households	All shareholders	High (co-ownership)	Medium–high	Medium
Lease-to-own / equity accumulation	Private or charitable owner	Farmer earns equity over time	Medium to high	Low entry	Low to medium

Assessing which model fits

Ask three questions:

1. What is the farmer's need?

• Security for long-term soil investment → CLT or producer cooperative land
• Affordable entry without high capital → share farming or lease-to-own
• Access to land already in community/institutional ownership → CLT lease

2. What is the land owner's situation?

• Private family willing to enable farming but not farm → share farming or long-term tenancy
• Charitable or institutional landowner with mission overlap → CLT or community lease
• Estate or trust land → community purchase with grant support

3. What is the governance capacity of the people involved?

• CLTs and producer cooperatives require sustained governance capacity — meetings, legal compliance, financial oversight, membership management. Underestimating this is the most common failure.

Community Land Trust (CLT) — the highest-security model

A CLT is a non-profit organisation that acquires land and holds it permanently for community benefit, leasing to farmers at affordable rates with long-term renewable agreements. The farmer builds equity through farm improvements rather than land value appreciation.

Establishing a CLT:

1. Incorporate as a non-profit or community benefit society.
2. Identify land for acquisition — community ownership, purchase, or donation.
3. Secure funding for land purchase (grants, community share issue, philanthropic investment).
4. Establish a governance board with community, leaseholder, and independent representation.
5. Design the lease terms: long duration (25–99 years), renewable, below-market rent, soil stewardship obligations.

Key resources by region:

• UK: Community Land Trust Network (clts.org.uk); Ecological Land Cooperative
• US: National Community Land Trust Network; Land For Good; Vermont Land Trust
• Australia: Community land trust legislation varies by state

Share farming — the simplest entry to collaborative land management

Share farming is a joint venture between a landowner (who contributes land and sometimes capital) and a farmer (who contributes labour and management). Profits and costs are shared by agreed formula.

How the share is typically structured:

• Landowner contribution: land, fixed assets, a percentage of variable costs.
• Farmer contribution: labour, management, machinery, a percentage of variable costs.
• Revenue split: typically 30–40% landowner / 60–70% farmer, adjusted by contribution ratio.
• Duration: typically 3–5 years with review; longer than a tenancy but shorter than ownership.

Legal requirements: Share farming is distinct from employment and tenancy. A properly drafted share farming agreement prevents ambiguity about employment status, Agricultual Holdings Act implications (UK), and profit distribution. Get legal advice before signing.

Soil health and shared land

Long-term tenure is the prerequisite for long-term soil investment. A farmer on a rolling annual tenancy has no rational economic incentive to invest in soil biology — the benefits are three to seven years away and the tenancy may not last. A farmer with a 25-year CLT lease has every incentive.

This is not a minor point: the structural alignment between land tenure security and soil health investment is one of the most important insights in agricultural economics. Any shared land model design should make the connection explicit — build soil stewardship obligations into the lease or agreement, and build the economic benefits of improved soil into the farmer's equity or rental terms.

Practically: a CLT lease that includes a soil health assessment at entry and at five-year intervals, with rental terms that credit documented OM improvement, aligns financial and ecological incentives. A farmer who builds the soil should pay less rent, not more.

Checkpoint — confirm before finalising:

• Are you a farmer seeking land access, or a landowner/community seeking to enable farming? The design process is different for each.
• What is the governance capacity of the group involved? A CLT or producer cooperative requires sustained legal, financial, and community governance — this is not achievable with three people and no administrative support.
• What is the timeframe and capital available? CLT establishment typically requires 2–4 years and significant grant funding. Faster, lower-capital entry points (share farming, long-term tenancy) should be considered if timeline or capital is constrained.

A community land trust attempted by a group without governance capacity or adequate funding will collapse before it can deliver security to any farmer.

Output:

SHARED LAND ASSESSMENT
Date: [date]
Situation: [farmer seeking access / landowner seeking farming partnership / community seeking productive land]

LAND DETAILS
Location: [region / county]
Area: [ha / acres]
Current status: [owned / leased / available for purchase / other]
Current land use: [arable / pasture / mixed / degraded / other]

RECOMMENDED MODEL: [share farming / long-term tenancy / CLT / producer cooperative / lease-to-own]
Reason: [2–3 sentences — why this model fits the situation]

IF SHARE FARMING
Landowner contribution: [land / fixed assets / % of variable costs]
Farmer contribution: [labour / machinery / management / % of variable costs]
Revenue split: [landowner %] / [farmer %]
Agreement duration: [years]
Legal advice required: [yes — before signing]

IF COMMUNITY LAND TRUST
Incorporation type: [non-profit / community benefit society / CIC]
Land acquisition route: [purchase / donation / community asset transfer]
Estimated capital required: [£/$]
Funding sources to pursue: [grants / community share issue / philanthropic]
Governance board composition: [community / leaseholder / independent seats]
Lease terms: [duration / rental basis / soil stewardship obligations]
First actions: [next 3 steps — legal incorporation / land identification / community engagement]

SOIL STEWARDSHIP TERMS
Entry assessment: [soil test / biological assessment — what and who conducts]
Review frequency: [every [n] years]
OM improvement mechanism: [rental credit / lease renewal benefit / documented and published]

RESOURCES
Primary support organisation: [CLT Network / Land For Good / other regional body]
Legal support: [name of solicitor or firm experienced in agricultural land agreements — or "to be identified"]

Next steps:

• /s4ag-succession — shared land models and farm succession are closely linked; use succession sub-tools to understand the full range of land access and transfer options.
• /s4ag-finance — model the economics of the proposed arrangement before entering it; the financial terms of a shared land model must work for both parties across a multi-year period.
• Run cooperative-models (within this skill) — many shared land arrangements evolve into producer cooperatives once the farming enterprise is established; understand that trajectory before designing the initial structure.