Renewing the Countryside
Report date
August 2016
What has been most instrumental to your progress?
Partnerships. This project was about finding farmland access solutions. Building on current initiatives were key. From the beginning, we reached out to everyone we knew who was working in this space and sought to bring them onboard. Most individuals and organizations were very open and collaborative. Getting them to sign on to a joint effort helped to bring others, who were less open, to the table. We are pleased with the progress we have made in this arena. We now have a tight network of individuals who are actively working on this issue/opportunity.
Openness. One of our strengths is that we are very open-minded and push back against statements like, “you can’t do that,” or “that won’t work.” We look to other sectors and other places for models that might work for our issue, in our place. For example, we learned about Iroquois Valley Farms (IVF), a Illinois-based LLC that was buying farmland and leasing it back to farmers under very favorable terms. We invited them to Minnesota for a couple days of meetings. The issue in Minnesota is that the corporate farm law restricts the IVF model from being implemented here (and for some good reasons), but as a result of that meeting, Iroquois Valley implemented a new model, serving as a low interest lender to farms. Just recently, Iroquois has been working to implement this model with a farm in Minnesota that we introduced them to.
Key lessons learned
Building a coalition takes time. This project required that we engage with a broad group of stakeholders, all who were interested in farmland access. But as we dug into this, we learned that their reasons were different. For instance, groups working with farmers wanted to help those farmers get affordable, accessible land. Conservation groups wanted land kept in (or transitioned to) uses that provided ecosystem benefits. Food co-ops wanted to ensure that they would have ongoing supplies of local foods. So while the goal was the same, the objectives were different – and finding solutions that could bring all the stakeholders together took time and patience.
Complexity. We knew, going into this, that farmland access was a complex issue. What we didn’t fully realize was the emotional components of older landowners looking to transition their land and of younger farmers looking to access land. On the transitioning side, landowners receive all sorts of messaging related to the cash value of their land, but little in terms of the value as it relates to community, food systems, and their legacy. New farmers either have unrealistic expectations about farmland (i.e. they want the farm equivalent of a mansion when what the need and can afford is a starter home) and/or do not have the skills and resources to find the farmland that will work best for them. Breaking all of this down, both for retiring farmers and new farmers, is challenging and, at times, gut-wrenching.
Failure to fully break through walls. Most of the organizations working on this issue do not have “hard” funding to do so. Instead, they support this work – grant to grant. And so we all find ourselves competing for the same pools of funding. We think this is the reason why some organizations have been more difficult to engage. We have found that there are some people and organizations who will willingly come to the table to help find collective solutions — and others who are resistant. No one has turned us away completely, but we’ve definitely been given the brush off. While we’d like to call them bad names and out them to our funders, we’ll show restraint. We do continue to try and engage these organizations, and think, over time, we’ll be successful, but it does feel like a bit of a failure that we haven’t done so in the timeframe of the grant.
Reflections on the community innovation process
We love this diagram. It embodies how we work. While we thought we would spend most of our time on generating ideas and developing solutions, we found that we initially need to focus on gaining a collective understanding of the issue. While it wasn’t rocket science, it was powerful to get those interested in this issue in the same room, and to bring in experts like the attorney for MN Dept of Agriculture who oversees the corporate farm law.
We also felt like we were strong in being inclusive, collaborative, and resourceful. There is this balance when it comes to inclusiveness. We wanted to engage farmers who were seeking land access, but we also know they don’t have a lot of time to volunteer. The great thing about having a grant is that we could offer them stipends for their time. That ensured that we had important voices at the table, but without penalizing them for being willing to step forward.
We also felt like we were strong in being inclusive, collaborative, and resourceful. There is this balance when it comes to inclusiveness. We wanted to engage farmers who were seeking land access, but we also know they don’t have a lot of time to volunteer. The great thing about having a grant is that we could offer them stipends for their time. That ensured that we had important voices at the table, but without penalizing them for being willing to step forward.
Progress toward an innovation
There were many times during this project that we felt like we were banging our heads against a wall. And then it happened. At one of the many meetings we had, we birthed this idea of a Farmland Access Hub. The idea is to link vetted farmers needing land to a navigator who helps them to get prepared to access farmland (which includes getting their ducks in a row, being realistic, and being savvy), and then links them to appropriate experts (realtors, lenders, attorneys, and established farmers) to help them find and secure the right deal.
This seems like such a simple solution – but it did not exist prior to this grant! Now that we have formed and articulated the vision, we are receiving a lot of positive feedback when we share it. We’re only left with launching it (and securing the funding to do so)!
(A second innovation arose from our work – which revolves around a place-based pilot project that would demonstrate the multi-functional benefits of farmland access. We have transferred the lead of that initiative to a non-profit in Dakota County, where we hope to launch that project.)
This seems like such a simple solution – but it did not exist prior to this grant! Now that we have formed and articulated the vision, we are receiving a lot of positive feedback when we share it. We’re only left with launching it (and securing the funding to do so)!
(A second innovation arose from our work – which revolves around a place-based pilot project that would demonstrate the multi-functional benefits of farmland access. We have transferred the lead of that initiative to a non-profit in Dakota County, where we hope to launch that project.)
What's next?
To operationalize our innovation, we are going to need additional funds. We submitted a proposal to USDA’s Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program, and while we didn’t get funded, we received very high scores and will apply again this winter. We will also submit a proposal in the next round of Community Innovation Grants. We believe, over time, that we can make this innovation self-funding (by charging a fee to sellers/buyers of land), but that will take time.
In the meantime, we continue to be involved in conversations around farmland access and serve as a bridge between those who are ready to retire and those “local foods” farmers who are looking for land.
In the meantime, we continue to be involved in conversations around farmland access and serve as a bridge between those who are ready to retire and those “local foods” farmers who are looking for land.
If you could do it all over again...
Meet in person, multiple times if needed, with people you want to bring onboard. In the nonprofit world we are always trying to meet goals and objectives. It is easy to think that one can do that electronically. When it works, it is efficient and can be very effective. But for others, in person meetings make a big difference. When these people are scattered throughout the state, committing the time and resources to meet with them is substantial. But in the end, I think the time committed up front makes a lasting difference. This is important to know because nonprofits are always watching their costs. But sometimes an early investment can both save money in the future and can leverage resources (and goodwill).
One last thought
We are so appreciative of the funding we received for this project and, in general, the direction the Bush Foundation has taken. We feel like you have really been listening to your community and developing programs and initiatives that support those of us that are working both in the trenches and as visionaries. We say this both as a recipient of a grant, but also having been turned down from grants. We know there are more needs than there are funds.
We don't know if all program officers at Bush are as good as Amy Anderson, but she has been great! Our check ins have been less reports, and more conversations that were helpful in our own reflections on our work.
We don't know if all program officers at Bush are as good as Amy Anderson, but she has been great! Our check ins have been less reports, and more conversations that were helpful in our own reflections on our work.