T213 shared assets woodland social-enterprise-in-england 2013

Woodland Social Enterprise in England: Data Baseline
December 2013
Kate Swade, Mark Simmonds, Karen Barker and Mark Walton
Co-op Culture

Woodland Social Enterprise in England: Data Baseline Shared Assets, December 2013
2
Woodland Social Enterprise Baseline report
Shared Assets & Co-op Culture for the Forestry Commission
December 2013
Stage 1: England
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... 3
1. Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 4
1.1 Background and aims ....................................................................................................... 4
1.2 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 4
1.5 Key challenges .................................................................................................................. 6
1.6 The potential size of the sector ......................................................................................... 6
2. Background and Aims .......................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 8
3. Current Context, and Defining Social Enterprise ............................................................... 9
3.1 Context .............................................................................................................................. 9
3.2 Defining Social Enterprise ................................................................................................. 9
3.3 Woodland Social Enterprise and Social Forestry ............................................................ 10
3.4 Community Woodland Groups ........................................................................................ 11
4. Methodology and approach ................................................................................................ 12
4.1 Approach and survey design ........................................................................................... 12
4.2 Geographical Range of Responses ................................................................................ 14
4.3 Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 14
5. Survey Respondents ........................................................................................................... 15
5.1 Number Engaged in Woodlands ..................................................................................... 15
5.2 Social and Environmental Objectives .............................................................................. 16
5.3 Income Generation .......................................................................................................... 18
6. Woodland Social Enterprise Data Baseline: Basic Information ...................................... 20
6.1 Age .................................................................................................................................. 20
6.2 Staff Numbers ................................................................................................................. 21
6.3 Volunteers ....................................................................................................................... 21
7. Governance, Aims and Motivations ................................................................................... 23
7.1 Legal Structures .............................................................................................................. 23
7.2 Aims, Values and Motivations ......................................................................................... 25
7.3 Key Activities ................................................................................................................... 26
8. Woodlands ........................................................................................................................... 29
8.1 Area of Woodland ........................................................................................................... 29
8.2 Types of Woodland ......................................................................................................... 29
8.3 Woodland Tenure ............................................................................................................ 30
9. Finances ............................................................................................................................... 32
9.1 Turnover .......................................................................................................................... 32
9.2 Surplus ............................................................................................................................ 32

9.3 Turnover and surplus per hectare ................................................................................... 33
9.4 Start up costs .................................................................................................................. 35
9.5 Enterprise Tools .............................................................................................................. 37
9.6 Finance ........................................................................................................................... 40
10. Support needs and key challenges ................................................................................. 42
10.1 Retrospective support needs ........................................................................................ 42
10.2 Key challenges .............................................................................................................. 43
11. Aspiring Woodland Social Enterprises ........................................................................... 45
11.1 Proposed Activities ........................................................................................................ 45
11.2 Barriers Faced ............................................................................................................... 46
12. The Woodland Social Enterprise sector .......................................................................... 47
12.1 Defining the woodland social enterprise sector ............................................................. 47
12.2 The potential size of the sector ..................................................................................... 48
12.3 Feedback from landowners ........................................................................................... 48
12.4 Feedback from support organisations and funders ....................................................... 49
12.5 The role of leadership and entrepreneurs ..................................................................... 49
12.6 The potential size of the sector: in conclusion .............................................................. 50
13. Potential indicators to demonstrate change within the sector ..................................... 52
13.1 Indicators ....................................................................................................................... 52
13.2 Collection methods ........................................................................................................ 54
14. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 55
3
Acknowledgements
Thank
you
to
all
who
helped
with
the
design
and
dissemination
of
the
survey,
and
provided
valuable
reflections
on
the
results:
• The
Woodland
Social
Enterprise
Network
Management
Group:
Jennifer
Smith
and
Mike
Perry
from
Plunkett
Foundation,
Hugh
Rolo
from
Locality,
Nigel
Lowthrop
from
Hill
Holt
Wood,
Philippa
Borrill
from
Woodland
Trust,
David
Dixon
from
National
Association
of
Areas
of
Outstanding
Natural
Beauty;
• Matt
Taylor,
Blackbark,
Richard
Snow
and
Andy
Woodcock
who
all
tested
the
survey
for
us;
• Small
Woods
Association,
Grown
in
Britain,
the
Tree
Council,
Social
Enterprise
UK,
and
all
other
organisations
that
helped
us
disseminate
the
survey;
• All
members
of
the
Woodland
Social
Enterprise
Network
who
attended
the
meeting
on
the
3rd
December
2013;
• Bianca
Ambrose-‐Oji
at
Forest
Research,
and
Jane
Hull
and
Sheila
Ward
at
the
Forestry
Commission;
• Melanie
Konrad
for
her
help
in
proofing
and
layout
of
this
report;
and
• Everyone
who
took
the
time
to
complete
the
survey
and
participated
in
interviews.

4
1. Executive Summary
1.1 Background and aims
This
research
was
commissioned
by
the
Forestry
Commission
to
better
understand
the
current
woodland
social
enterprise
sector
in
England:
how
many
exist,
what
they
are
doing,
what
potential
there
is
for
the
sector
to
grow,
and
what
indicators
could
be
used
to
measure
any
growth
within
the
sector.
It
was
undertaken
by
Shared
Assets
from
October
to
December
2013,
and
will
be
followed
up
by
a
similar
piece
of
work
in
Scotland
and
Wales
in
January
–
March
2014.
1.2 Methodology
A
mixed
methodology
approach
was
taken,
with
the
key
data
source
being
an
online
questionnaire
for
woodland
social
enterprises,
with
a
less
detailed
version
for
aspiring
enterprises.
This
is
the
source
of
the
quantitative
data
in
this
report.
This
was
supplemented
with
semi-‐structured
telephone
interviews
with
ten
questionnaire
respondents,
and
eight
representatives
of
funders,
landowners
and
support
organisations.
1.3 Definitions
This
research
has
used
a
relatively
open
definition
of
a
woodland
social
enterprise
as:
• Being
woodland
based,
or
operating
in
a
woodland
setting;
• Having
primarily
social
or
environmental
objectives,
so
not
being
primarily
for
private
profit;
• Earning
income
through
trade
of
some
sort
–
not
totally
reliant
on
grants
or
donations.
There
is
debate
around
the
precise
definition
of
a
social
enterprise,
and
this
is
explored
in
relation
to
woodland
social
enterprise
below.
This
is
a
fast
growing
sector
with
substantial
contemporary
innovation
on
the
ground.
This
report
recommends
keeping
a
relatively
open
definition
of
what
constitutes
a
woodland
social
enterprise.
The
suggested
indicators
in
Section
13.1
show
how
change
at
a
local
level
could
be
captured.
What
is
clear
from
the
data
here
is
that
woodland
social
enterprise
is
not
a
homogeneous
sector:
organisations
within
it
vary
in
size,
scale,
activities,
governance
and
business
models.
What
unites
them
is
an
enterprising
approach
to
engaging
in
woodlands,
a
social
or
environmental
motivation
and
a
reinvestment
of
any
profits
into
their
objectives
or
their
community.
1.4 Key findings
Sections
6
–
9
outline
the
key
findings
of
this
research.
104
unique
responses
were
received
to
the
questionnaire.
60
of
these
met
the
three
criteria
outlined
above,
and
completed
the
full
questionnaire.
This
research
therefore
indicates
that
there
are
at
least
60
woodland
social
enterprises
in
England;
their
data
constitutes
the
baseline
for
this
report.

A
clear
majority
of
these
organisations
(41,
or
68%)
have
been
formed
since
2010.
This
seems
to
indicate
substantial
current
growth,
and
this
may
be
expected
to
continue.
Most
of
these
organisations
are
small,
with
48,
or
80%,
having
fewer
than
five
staff.
A
third
(22
or
36%)
reported
an
annual
turnover
of
less
than
£10,000,
although
11,
or
18%
had
a
turnover
of
more
than
£100,000.
Almost
half
(27,
or
45%)
reported
either
breaking
even
or
making
a
loss.
High
levels
of
volunteer
involvement
are
common.
A
hallmark
of
woodland
social
enterprise
appears
to
be
a
wide
range
of
activities,
inspired
by
multiple
aims
and
objectives.
Improving
biodiversity,
developing
productive
woodlands,
and
education
and
skills
development
were
the
three
key
values
for
the
majority
of
respondents.
The
top
five
main
activities
undertaken
were
woodland
management
for
biodiversity
and
for
conservation,
education
services
such
as
forest
schools,
coppicing,
and
skills
development
and
training.
A
wide
variety
of
health
and
environmental
activities
are
also
undertaken,
as
well
as
the
creation
of
small
woodland
products.
The
telephone
interviews
revealed
that
motivations
for
starting
woodland
social
enterprises
are
often
complex,
with
some
focusing
on
the
need
to
bring
woodlands
into
management
or
a
desire
create
sustainable
woodland-‐based
lifestyles.
Others
had
seen
a
business
opportunity
or
a
need
in
the
community.
Some
had
moved
in
to
try
and
save
an
asset
that
had
been
seen
as
under
threat.
A
wide
variety
of
legal
structures
are
in
use,
but
the
majority
of
respondents
are
not
registered
charities.
Charitable
status
restricts
trading
activity1,
which
can
limit
the
flexibility
of
social
enterprises.
Respondents
were
asked
how
much
woodland
they
“engage”
with,
or
are
active
in.
The
respondents
to
this
survey
engage
with
a
total
of
6980ha
of
woodland,
and
manage2624ha.
This
is
mainly
made
up
of
a
large
number
of
smaller
areas
of
woodland,
with
the
median
amount
under
management
being
11ha.
Many
organisations
have
complex
legal
relationships
with
the
woodlands
they
engage
with,
and
often
engage
across
more
than
one
site,
with
more
than
one
type
of
arrangement
in
place.
Almost
a
third
(17,
or
28%)
own
the
freehold
of
at
least
one
of
the
woodlands.
More,
though,
(24
or
40%)
reported
having
informal
agreements
with
a
woodland
owner,
and
21
or
35%
had
a
management
agreement.
Outright
ownership
is
not
always
sought
(indeed
it
is
often
not
desired),
but
a
lack
of
security
of
tenure
was
raised
by
interviewees
as
a
concern
for
the
sustainability
of
enterprises,
particularly
where
investment
is
required
in
advance
of
any
financial
return.
5
1
Charities
can
only
trade
in
the
course
of
carrying
out
their
charitable
purposes.

1.5 Key challenges
Money
-‐
or
lack
of
it
-‐
came
up
repeatedly
as
a
concern.
The
small
financial
scale
is
particularly
acute
for
the
worker
co-‐operatives
and
others
trying
to
develop
sustainable
livelihoods.
This
is
often
compounded
by
the
lack
of
security
of
tenure
noted
above:
there
is
no
guarantee
that
enterprises
will
be
able
to
recoup
the
investment
in
time,
energy
and
money
they
are
putting
into
a
site.
The
levels
of
traded
income
as
opposed
to
grant
are
generally
low,
which
may
in
part
be
due
to
the
newness
of
some
of
these
organisations.
There
are
some
examples
here,
however,
of
organisations
with
substantial
turnovers
carrying
out
woodland
social
enterprise
activities.
If
social
enterprise
is
to
play
a
significant
role
in
woodland
management
in
England,
it
will
be
important
to
support
the
newer
organisations
to
grow,
increase
trading,
and
become
sustainable.
Other
key
challenges
or
areas
where
support
was
needed
included
navigating
the
planning
system,
tax
advice
and
advice
on
the
organisation's
capacity.
A
desire
for
peer
support
was
expressed
by
a
number
of
survey
respondents
and
interviewees.
It
may
be
that
the
Woodland
Social
Enterprise
Network
can
help
facilitate
this.
1.6 The potential size of the sector
There
is
debate
over
the
details
of
what
constitutes
a
social
enterprise,
but
broad
agreement
on
the
key
defining
features:
not
for
private
profit,
reinvestment
of
surplus,
trading
activity
and
primarily
social
or
environmental
objectives.
Woodland
social
enterprise
encompasses
a
spectrum
of
models,
from
worker
co-‐operatives,
to
small
businesses
with
social
aims,
to
enterprising
community
woodland
groups
and
charities
using
woodlands
to
meet
their
wider
aims.
The
high
proportion
of
enterprises
that
have
started
up
in
the
past
three
years
shows
that
this
is
an
area
that
is
developing
rapidly.
This
report
suggests
that
it
is
sensible
to
keep
the
definition
of
woodland
social
enterprise
relatively
open
at
this
point
in
time,
and
that
it
is
more
useful
to
consider
social
enterprise
in
this
context
as
an
approach,
rather
than
as
an
organisational
type
or
form.
Organisations
may
take
a
social
enterprise
approach
to
woodland
management
and
other
activities,
but
not
call
themselves
"social
enterprises"
-‐
or
may
define
themselves
as
such
for
some
audiences
and
not
others.
If
woodland
social
enterprise
moves
up
the
political
agenda
it
may
become
more
useful
for
some
organisations
to
adopt
the
term.
Recent
changes
in
legislation
around
social
investment
may
also
influence
how
organisations
define
themselves.
When
discussing
the
potential
size
of
the
sector,
a
key
issue
is
what
is
meant
by
"size".
If
the
policy
objective
is
that
woodland
social
enterprise
is
a
way
of
adding
value
to
traditional
private
and
public
sector
forestry,
and
therefore
remaining
relatively
small,
it
is
likely
that
the
number
of
small
groups
and
enterprises
will
continue
to
increase,
but
remain
at
a
small
scale.
6

If,
however,
the
objective
is
that
social
enterprise
is
supported
as
a
new
way
of
doing
forestry,
and
that
there
should
be
growth
in
the
amount
of
woodland
under
social
enterprise
management,
a
different
approach
may
be
needed.
Relying
on
the
proliferation
of
small
organisations
engaging
in
relatively
small
areas
of
land
is
unlikely
to
bring
about
this
type
of
more
systemic
change.
Landowners
will
need
to
take
a
more
proactive
approach
in
supporting
these
enterprises.
1.7 Potential indicators
This
is
a
fast
changing
and
developing
area.
The
risk
of
deciding
on
specific
indicators
to
monitor
and
measure
is
that
"you
get
what
you
look
for";
growth,
change
and
innovation
may
be
happening
locally
but
not
captured
by
indicators.
It
will
be
important
to
revisit
this
data,
though;
this
is
a
snapshot
at
one
point
in
time
and
will
certainly
change
and
develop.
We
suggest
below
some
potential
indicators
and
different
ways
of
collecting
them.
In
summary,
it
would
be
useful
to
continue
to
capture
information
on:
1.
Number
of
enterprises
that
meet
the
three
broad
criteria
for
woodland
social
enterprise;
2.
Number
of
full
time
equivalent
staff,
and
volunteer
hours;
3.
Diversity
of
activities
and
impact;
4.
Woodlands
engaged
with,
and
managed,
in
ha;
5.
Security
of
tenure
/
legal
relationship
with
woodlands;
6.
Turnover
and
surplus2,
both
absolute
and
per
hectare;
and
7.
Use
of
surplus.
We
have
suggested
different
levels
of
information
that
could
be
collected
with
different
amounts
of
resources
and
three
different
but
not
mutually
exclusive
ways
of
collecting
and
analysing
this
data.
Given
the
developing
nature
of
the
sector,
it
would
be
useful
to
revisit
this
data
in
around
two
years’
time,
if
resources
allow.
7
2
The
balance
at
the
end
of
the
year,
after
costs
have
been
taken
into
account.

2. Background and Aims
Shared
Assets
was
commissioned
by
the
Forestry
Commission
in
September
2013
to
capture
information
on
the
number
and
type
of
woodland
based
social
enterprises
operating
in
the
UK.
There
are
two
stages
to
this
work:
Stage
1
involved
developing
a
methodology
and
then
testing
that
across
England.
Stage
2
will
run
from
January
–
March
2014
and
will
utilise
the
methodology
across
Scotland
and
Wales.
This
report
concludes
Stage
1.
2.1 Objectives
The
objectives
of
Stage
1
of
this
work,
as
described
by
the
Forestry
Commission,
are:
8
1. Development
of
methodology
to
capture
information
on
number
and
type
of
woodland
based
social
enterprises.
2. Testing
of
methodology
across
England
to
answer
the
following
questions:
• How
many
woodland
based
social
enterprises
are
currently
operating
in
England?
• What
area
of
woodland
do
they
engage
with
(manage
/
utilise)?
• What
type
of
activity
are
they
undertaking
(i.e.
woodland
management,
health
/
education
services,
recreation,
renewable
energy)?
• What
type
of
enterprise
tools
are
they
using
(i.e.
community
share
offers,
trading)?
• What
is
the
potential
size
of
the
sector
(is
there
evidence
of
demand/potential/intention
for
the
development
of
new
social
enterprises)?
• What
are
the
most
appropriate
indicators
for
demonstrating
change
within
the
sector
that
would
be
useful
to
a
range
of
stakeholders?
The
two
key
outputs
at
this
stage
are
a
database
of
woodland
social
enterprises,
and
this
report.
This
report
summarises
the
data,
discusses
definitions,
the
future
of
the
woodland
social
enterprise
sector,
and
suggests
indicators
to
demonstrate
any
future
changes
in
the
baseline
data.

9
3. Current Context, and Defining Social Enterprise
3.1 Context
The
Governments
in
England,
Scotland
and
Wales
have
an
interest
in
the
role
that
social
enterprises
can
play
in
delivering
public
services.
This
report
has
been
commissioned
by
Forestry
Commission
England
to
develop
evidence
on
the
number
and
type
of
woodland
based
social
enterprises
operating
in
the
UK.
The
Government’s
2013
Forestry
and
Woodlands
Policy
Statement3
stated
there
was
a
“growing
potential
for
social
enterprise
to
support
community
involvement
in
local
woodland
management”.
The
policy
statement
referred
to
England’s
woodlands
only.
The
UK
Forestry
Standard4
sets
out
the
approach
of
the
UK
governments
to
sustainable
forest
management.
This
includes
the
Forests
and
People5
guidelines,
which
state
that
woodland
owners
and
managers
should:
• Consider
the
potential
for
developing
sustainable
woodland-‐based
businesses
and
livelihoods
and
how
this
might
be
explored
with
interested
parties
and
through
local
co-‐operation;
• Consider
permitting
the
use
of
forests
for
sustainable
low-‐key
community
uses,
especially
where
such
uses
are
linked
to
cultural
activities
or
are
established
by
tradition;
• Consider
permitting
or
promoting
the
use
of
forests
for
education
and
learning
activities
of
all
kinds.
The
development
of
the
Woodland
Social
Enterprise
Network
during
2013
and
its
proposed
pilot
project
to
support
woodland
social
enterprise
is
another
indicator
of
the
interest
in
this
area6.
The
Network
may
be
able
to
increase
understanding
of
the
business
models
in
use
in
the
sector,
informed
by
the
results
of
work
such
as
this.
This
report
aims
to
provide
evidence
of
the
state
of
current
social
enterprise
activity
in
woodlands
in
order
to
inform
the
development
of
policy
and
support
for
woodland
social
enterprises.
Below
we
discuss
some
of
the
issues
around
defining
social
enterprise
in
general,
and
recent
work
on
woodland
social
enterprise.
Section
12.1
moves
on
to
discuss
the
definition
of
woodland
social
enterprise
in
the
context
of
the
data
in
this
report.
3.2 Defining Social Enterprise
We
initially
defined
woodland
social
enterprises
as
organisations
that
are
woodland
based,
with
social
or
environmental
objectives
and
some
trading
income
from
selling
goods
or
services.
3
Available
at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-‐forestry-‐policy-‐statement
4
Available
at:
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/ukfs
5
Available
at:
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-‐8bvgl5
6
See:
http://fieryspirits.com/group/woodlands-‐and-‐forestry

There
is
no
legal
form
that
defines
social
enterprise;
it
is
better
thought
of
as
an
approach
to
doing
business
rather
than
being
tied
to
a
particular
legal
or
governance
structure.
Charities,
co-‐operatives
and
limited
companies
can
all
be
social
enterprises.
According
to
Social
Enterprise
UK7,
social
enterprises
should:
10
• Have
a
clear
social
and/or
environmental
mission
set
out
in
their
governing
documents
• Generate
the
majority
of
their
income
through
trade
• Reinvest
the
majority
of
their
profits
• Be
autonomous
of
the
state
• Be
majority
controlled
in
the
interests
of
the
social
mission
• Be
accountable
and
transparent
Stewart
(2011)
recognises
that
while
there
is
a
broadly
accepted
definition
of
social
enterprise
as
being
businesses
that
operate
with
primarily
social
or
environmental
objectives,
the
“details
underlying
what
exactly
constitutes
a
social
enterprise
are
highly
contested”8.
3.3 Woodland Social Enterprise and Social Forestry
The
report
of
the
National
Association
for
Areas
of
Outstanding
Natural
Beauty
(NAAONB)’s
Social
Forestry
Pilot
Project9
usefully
discusses
the
relationship
between
social
forestry
and
woodland
social
enterprise.
It
defines
“social
forestry”
as,
in
broad
terms
“an
approach
that
involves
engaging
communities
with
the
ownership
or
management
of
woodlands,
and
the
production,
distribution
and
sale
of
woodland
related
products
and
services.”
Social
enterprises
are
seen
as
one
way
of
delivering
social
forestry.
Social
enterprise
is
not
the
only
way
of
delivering
social
forestry,
though
–
and
social
enterprises
can
engage
in
conventional
forestry
activities.
The
report
goes
on
to
say
that
social
enterprise
can
be
seen
as
either
a
particular
type
of
organisation,
or
as
an
activity.
In
either
case
there
is
business
activity,
which
generates
income
to
further
a
social
or
environmental
aim.
The
report
places
social
enterprise
in
the
“grey
area”
between
charities,
striving
for
maximum
public
benefit,
and
private
companies,
striving
for
maximum
private
benefit.
Forest
Research10
has
developed
a
matrix
exploring
a
spectrum
from
traditional
woodland
enterprise
to
community
woodland
groups,
with
social
and
community
enterprises
sitting
in
the
middle.
7
See:
http://www.socialenterprise.org.uk/about/about-‐social-‐enterprise#what%20are%20ses
8
Stewart,
A
(2011)
“Woodland
related
social
enterprise
–
Enabling
factors
and
barriers
to
success”.
Forest
Research.
Available
at:
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/INFD-‐84JD86
9
Crabtree,
T
(2013)
“Social
Forestry
Pilot
Project
Final
Report:
Supporting
woodland
economies
in
AONBs”
The
National
Association
for
Areas
of
Outstanding
Natural
Beauty.
Available
at:
http://fieryspirits.com/group/woodlands-‐and-‐forestry/forum/topics/social-‐forestry-‐pilot
10
Ambrose-‐Oji,
B,
et
al.,
(2014),
paper
in
review
with
Forest
Policy
and
Economics.

11
Within
this
framework,
the
main
thing
that
distinguishes
a
“social”
from
a
“community”
enterprise
is
that
community
enterprises
are
community
owned
and
that
staff
are
more
likely
to
be
drawn
from
the
local
community.
The
framework
describes
features
that
both
social
and
community
enterprises
are
likely
to
have:
• 50%
or
more
of
income
generated
through
the
sale
of
goods
and
services;
• The
potential
to
reduce
staff
costs
through
volunteering;
• A
business
plan
in
place;
• Less
than
40%
grant
income
or
subsidy;
• 50-‐65%
of
profits
spent
on
achieving
social
and
environmental
objectives;
and
• Assets
held
in
trust.
Section
12
below
develops
the
discussion
around
definitions
in
the
light
of
the
data
in
this
report.
3.4 Community Woodland Groups
It
is
useful
to
compare
the
information
in
this
report
with
the
available
information
on
community
woodland
groups.
In
2010,
there
were
317
community
woodland
groups
in
England11
and
there
is
a
similar
variety
of
approaches
found
within
the
community
woodland
sector
as
in
the
newer
social
enterprise
sector.
Tidey
and
Pollard
(2010)
define
community
woodland
groups
as:
“a
community-‐led
group
which
takes
an
active
role
in
the
management
of
a
woodland
which
it
might
own
or
lease,
or
work
in
with
the
owner‘s
permission”12.
There
is
some
crossover
–
some
of
the
respondents
to
this
survey
could
be
considered
community
woodland
groups
–
and
no
clear
and
absolute
distinction
between
the
two.
The
main
features
that
could
be
seen
to
distinguish
a
community
woodland
group
from
a
woodland
social
enterprise
are
often,
but
not
always,
the
lack
of
a
substantial
"trading"
element,
and
a
more
preservationist
or
conservationist
approach
to
woodland
management:
the
woodlands
are
less
likely
to
be
seen
as
productive
resource.
In
an
earlier
report
on
community
woodland
groups,
Pollard
and
Tidey
(2009)13
comment,
“very
few
of
[the
community
woodland
groups]
utilise
the
produce
from
the
woodland,
preferring
to
protect
the
land
for
environmental,
biodiversity
and
public
amenity
value.”
There
is
also
a
focus
on
community
and
the
local
area,
which
may
not
be
present
with
social
enterprises.
Lawrence
and
Ambrose-‐Oji
(2013)
have
developed
a
framework
for
the
collection
of
information
on
community
woodland
groups14
that
has
been
useful
in
informing
the
design
of
this
survey
and
the
interviews,
and
the
proposed
indicators
at
the
end
of
this
report.
11
Tidey,
P
&
Pollard,
A
(2010)
Characterising
Community
Woodlands
in
England
and
Exploring
Support
Needs,
Small
Woods
Association
for
Forest
Research.
Available
at:
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/INFD-‐7TSD7E
12
ibid.
13
Pollard,
A
&
Tidey,
P,
(2009)
Community
Woodlands
in
England
Baseline
Report,
Small
Woods
Association
for
Forest
Research,
available
at
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/INFD-‐7TSD7E
14
Lawrence,
A
&
Ambrose-‐Oji,
B
(2013),
A
framework
for
sharing
experiences
of
community
woodland
groups,
Forest
Research,
Available
at:
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/PDF/FCRN015.pdf/$FILE/FCRN015.pdf

12
4. Methodology and approach
Shared
Assets
took
a
mixed
methodology
approach
to
this
research.
The
key
data
source
is
an
online
questionnaire,
which
was
open
for
six
weeks
from
10
October
2013
to
19
November
2013.
This
was
supplemented
with
ten
semi-‐structured
telephone
interviews
with
survey
respondents
and
eight
with
representatives
of
funders,
support
organisations
and
landowners.
Each
interview
was
between
40
minutes
and
an
hour
long.
We
worked
with
Mark
Simmonds
of
Co-‐op
Culture
to
deliver
the
phone
interviews
with
survey
respondents.
Interviewees
were
selected
to
give
a
mix
of
organisational
and
business
types,
as
well
as
a
geographical
spread.
The
survey
was
described
as
a
“woodland
social
enterprise
survey”,
and
asked
people
to
respond
if
they
were
involved
in
social
or
environmental
activities
in
woodlands,
whether
or
not
they
considered
themselves
to
be
social
enterprises.
In
order
to
get
a
picture
of
both
the
current
size
of
the
sector
and
its
potential
development,
there
were
two
routes
within
the
questionnaire:
A. for
existing
social
enterprises,
asking
about
their
aims
and
objectives,
current
activities,
finances,
woodlands
engaged
with,
support
needs
and
feelings
about
the
future;
B. a
less
detailed
survey
for
“aspiring”
social
enterprises,
asking
about
their
plans,
proposed
activities
and
what
barriers
they
face
104
individual
responses
were
received
to
the
survey15.
A
link
to
the
survey
was
sent
to
known
existing
woodland
social
enterprises
and
community
groups;
it
was
distributed
through
the
Woodland
Social
Enterprise
Network
and
advertised
through
email
lists,
websites
and
on
Twitter.
4.1 Approach and survey design
In
order
to
maximise
the
amount
of
data
collected,
a
tight
definition
of
social
enterprise
was
not
drawn
at
this
stage.
Organisations
were
filtered
into
the
full
survey
(Route
A),
if
they
met
three
criteria:
1. being
partly,
mainly
or
entirely
“woodland
based”;
2. with
primarily
social
or
environmental
objectives16;
and
3. with
at
least
some
trading
income
–
i.e.
not
totally
reliant
on
grants
or
donations.
Those
who
indicated
that
they
aspired
to
meet
any
of
these
criteria
were
directed
down
Route
B
of
the
survey.
If
they
indicated
that
they
did
not
meet
these
criteria,
15
Nine
responses
were
discarded;
some
because
they
had
no
data
to
analyse,
some
were
from
Scotland
&
Wales
so
will
be
included
in
the
next
round
of
analysis.
Two
responses
were
duplicates
from
the
same
organization;
the
earlier
response
was
discarded.
16
A
note
was
added
to
the
survey
to
make
it
clear
that
this
did
not
preclude
the
need
to
generate
income,
but
did
preclude
operating
for
entirely
private
profit.

and
did
not
aspire
to,
they
were
routed
out
of
the
survey
altogether
(although
they
had
the
option
to
go
back
and
change
their
choices).
45
responses
were
received
from
240
groups17
that
were
already
known
to
the
researchers
and
who
were
sent
the
survey
directly.
59
of
the
responses
were
not
directly
solicited
by
us.
The
diagram
below
shows
the
routing
process.
A
total
of
60
respondents
met
the
three
criteria
outlined
above
and
went
through
to
the
full
“Route
A”
survey;
their
data
forms
the
substantive
analysis
reported
below.
All
together
19
respondents
(indicated
by
the
yellow
arrows)
stated
that
they
were
aspiring
social
enterprises;
their
data
has
been
used
to
inform
comment
on
the
potential
future
growth
of
the
sector,
but
has
not
been
included
in
the
main
analysis.
The
remaining
24
respondents
(indicated
by
red
arrows)
either
did
not
meet,
or
did
not
aspire
to
meet,
the
three
basic
criteria,
and
were
routed
out
of
the
survey
(they
were
given
the
chance
to
go
back
and
change
their
responses
if
they
had
misunderstood).
Fig.
1.
Survey
Design
13
Not
every
respondent
answered
every
question.
We
discarded
those
responses
where
there
was
not
enough
information
to
be
useful,
but
where
organisations
started
filling
in
the
survey
but
for
some
reason
did
not
finish,
we
have
kept
their
data
in
the
analysis.
We
indicate
the
total
number
of
responses
for
each
question
17
Mailing
lists
were
compiled
from
existing
databases
(particularly
the
Woodland
Social
Enterprise
Network)
and
previous
research,
particularly
on
Community
Woodlands
(Small
Woods
Association,
2009)
and
Community
Management
of
Local
Authority
Woodlands,
(Shared
Assets,
2013)
as
well
as
groups
known
to
the
researchers.
155
emails
were
sent
to
community
woodland
groups,
and
85
to
other
social
organisations
and
enterprises
with
an
interest
in
this
area.

below.
This
survey
is
unlikely
to
be
a
complete
reflection
of
the
entire
sector.
The
original
brief
estimated
30-‐50
enterprises
in
England;
this
report
is
based
on
60.
4.2 Geographical Range of Responses
The
survey
received
responses
from
every
English
region,
but
there
was
a
markedly
larger
number
of
responses
from
the
South
East
and
South
West.
Figure
2
illustrates
this.
Fig."2."Which"region"of"England"is"your"organisa<on"based"in?"
2"
12"
South"West"
South"East"
Yorkshire"and"the"Humber"
North"West"
East"Midlands"
East"of"England"
North"East"
West"Midlands"
Na-onal"
50
responses
–
almost
half
–
were
received
from
organisations
based
in
the
South
East
or
South
West.
We
cannot
tell
from
this
data
whether
this
is
because
there
are
more
woodland
social
enterprises
(or
organisations
that
would
identify
as
such)
in
the
South,
or
whether
the
survey
reached
more
southern
organisations.
All
but
one
of
the
northern
based
organisations
the
team
was
previously
aware
of
responded
to
the
survey.
There
was
no
marked
bias
in
the
distribution
lists,
but
not
all
were
geographically
specific.
Future
research
may
benefit
from
analysing
the
geographical
spread
of
contact
lists
before
beginning
any
surveying.
Variations
in
land
ownership
patterns
and
forest
size
between
the
North
and
the
South
may
also
account
for
some
of
the
discrepancies:
there
are
more
smaller
pockets
of
woodland
in
the
South
and
therefore
there
may
be
more
opportunities
for
social
enterprises.
One
of
the
northern
interviewees
commented
that
northern
local
authorities
did
not
seem
to
have
a
good
understanding
of
enterprise
in
general
–
this
may
affect
how
organisations
describe
themselves.
As
more
people
become
aware
of
social
enterprise,
more
organisations
may
describe
themselves
as
such.
4.3 Analysis
There
was
no
manipulation
or
coding
of
the
data;
the
information
here
is
straight
counts
and
percentages.
The
interview
data
was
analysed
thematically.
14
2"
5"
6"
7"
8"
12"
24"
26"
0" 5" 10" 15" 20" 25" 30"
London"
104"respondents"

5. Survey Respondents
Before
any
of
the
filtering
questions
were
asked,
respondents
to
the
survey
were
asked
whether
they
considered
themselves
to
be
woodland
social
enterprises.
As
Figure
3
shows,
44
of
104
respondents
said
that
they
did.
However,
60
answered
the
initial
filtering
questions
saying
that
they
were
woodland
based,
with
social
or
environmental
objectives
and
a
trading
income.
The
telephone
interviews
probed
some
of
those
who
had
answered
“no”.
Their
responses
varied
from
not
finding
“social
enterprise”
a
useful
term
to
being
unsure
whether
being
part
of
the
wider
woodland
economy
counted
as
being
a
“woodland”
enterprise.
Others
assumed
that
an
element
of
community
control
needed
to
be
in
place.
15
Fig.%3.%Do%you%consider%your%organisa2on%to%be%a%
woodland%social%enterprise?%%
Yes,%44,%42%%
104%responses%
No%
answer,%
11,%11%%
Aspiring,%15,%
15%%
Don't%know,%16,%
No%,%18,%17%%
15%%
5.1 Number Engaged in Woodlands
As
described
above,
three
filtering
questions
were
asked
to
establish
whether
to
route
the
respondent
down
Route
A
of
the
survey,
for
existing
enterprises,
or
Route
B,
for
aspiring
enterprises.
The
majority
of
the
respondents
were
engaged
in
woodlands
in
some
form.
Only
four
were
aspiring
to
be,
and
these
four
were
filtered
to
Route
B.

16
Fig.%4.%How%woodland%based%is%your%organisa4on?%
102(responses;(2(did(not(answer%%
Aspiring,(4,(4%(
En#rely()(many(
sites,(13,(13%(
En#rely()(one(site,(
28,(27%(
Partly,(25,(25%(
Mainly,(32,(31%(
Comments
showed
the
variety
of
levels
of
engagement
with
woodlands:
• We
manage
a
50
acre
site
of
which
about
15
acres
is
woodland,
remainder
wetland,
heath,
scrub
or
grassland
• We
see
forests,
and
non-‐woodland
trees
as
the
forefront
in
trying
to
engage
the
wider,
whole
population
in
coming
to
grips
with
their
landscapes
and
the
management
of
the
elements
within
their
landscape.
• Part
of
our
business
is
treework
(the
rest
being
woodfuels
and
sawn
timber).
Of
the
treework,
the
part
based
in
woodlands
is
less
than
half
the
whole.
• I
work
in
a
number
of
coppices
all
year
round.
• We
are
part
of
a
chain
of
Holiday
Parks
although
we
are
based
on
[one
site]
where
we
deliver
the
services
provided
• We
run
our
forest
school
from
a
privately
owned
woodland
• We
work
on
a
range
of
woodland
sites,
many
of
which
are
open
habitats,
farmland
and
orchards
…
but
are
increasingly
concentrating
on
woodland
management
5.2 Social and Environmental Objectives
Respondents
that
were
not
filtered
out
were
then
asked
about
their
social
and
environmental
objectives.

Fig.%5.%Does%your%organisa0on%exist%for%primarily%social%
and%/%or%environmental%reasons?%
% % % %% % % % %% %97%responses%
Not%at%the%
moment,%3,%3%%
Yes,%89,%92%%
No,%5,%5%%
Following
feedback
from
some
respondents,
a
note
was
added
to
this
question
during
the
survey,
which
read:
All
organisations
need
to
cover
their
costs
and
most
will
aim
to
make
a
surplus,
or
profit.
Social
enterprises
use
that
profit
for
social
and
environmental
purposes
rather
than
private
benefit.
Social
purposes
include
but
are
not
limited
to
health,
education,
training,
community
development,
job
creation,
woodland
creation
and
conservation.
Environmental
purposes
include
but
are
not
limited
to
woodland
creation,
conserving
existing
habitats,
improving
biodiversity,
and
tackling
climate
change.
The
three
that
answered
“not
at
the
moment,
but
we
aspire
to
have
more
social
or
environmental
impact
in
the
future”
were
filtered
down
Route
B.
Those
who
answered
“no”
were
filtered
out
of
the
survey.
Some
of
those
who
answered
“yes”
added
comments
that
showed
that
economic
considerations
were
equally
as
important
when
thinking
about
woodland
management,
for
example:
• Yes,
17
though
financial
stability
is
a
core
objective
and
our
forest
is
managed
on
a
properly
sustainable
platform
where
economic
sustainability
holds
as
much
importance
as
social
or
environmental
sustainability.
• And
economic,
aiming
to
provide
employment
and
lead
on
regeneration.
Comments
received
elsewhere
in
the
survey
and
informally
while
the
research
was
ongoing
revealed
that
some
people
strongly
disagree
with
the
traditional
“social
enterprise”
focus
on
social
and
environmental
objectives.

For
example,
one
of
the
final
comments
read:
Inevitably
it
is
a
broad
church
but
my
concern
is
that
in
separating
‘social’
from
commercial
forestry,
…
initiatives
…
will
be
seen
as
conservationists
playing
at
the
fringes
of
woodland
management,
rather
than
a
serious
prospect.
Some
exist
for
consciously
political
reasons:
We
have
4
core
objectives:
social,
economic,
biodiversity
and
climate
change.
For
us
climate
change
is
not
an
environmental
issue
but
a
political
economy
issue
–
you
may
also
want
to
unpack
that
in
your
analysis.
A
number
of
those
who
answered
“no”
identified
as
sole
traders
or
similar,
often
stressing
that
they
operated
within
a
wider
social
economy,
and
were
involved
in
training
volunteers
and
supporting
social
enterprises.
The
plurality
of
responses
to
the
term
‘social
enterprise’
indicates
that
it
remains
a
contested
term
among
practitioners,
as
well
policy
makers
and
academics.
5.3 Income Generation
The
remaining
89
respondents
were
asked
if
their
organisation
generated
any
income
through
trading;
i.e.
through
delivering
products
and
services,
rather
than
relying
entirely
on
donations
or
grants.
18
Fig.%6.%Does%your%organisa0on%generate%any%
income%through%trading?%
89%responses%
Yes,%60,%67%%
Not%yet,%12,%
14%%
No%,%17,%19%%
60
respondents
said
that
they
did,
and
were
routed
through
to
the
full
survey.

The
comments
showed
varying
scales
of
income
generation,
and
that
trading
makes
a
variable
contribution
to
overall
turnover:
19
• We
make
charcoal
from
felled
invasive
species,
mainly
rhododendron
and
sell
it
at
farm
shops
and
camp
sites.
• We
are
funded
mainly
(70%)
through
ticket
sales
for
our
events.
• Through
our
woodland
courses,
forest
schools
and
woodland
management
courses
to
secondary
schools,
coppice
products
and
holiday
woodland
activities
and
all
monies
generated
goes
back
into
the
woodlands.
• We
don't
generally
receive
any
grants
–
we
don't
have
capacity
to
apply
for
them.
We
generate
about
£1000
p.a.
from
firewood
sales
locally.
This
pays
for
our
woodland
management
activities.
We
have
held
a
Festival
(twice),
which
also
generated
about
£750
each
time.
• We
are
a
Community
Interest
Company
(CIC)
and
we
trade
our
service
as
woodland
managers
–
practical
and
advisory
services
as
our
main
source
of
income.
However
we
still
will
aim
to
raise
funds
through
other
means
such
as
grants.
• Most
of
our
income
is
through
subscriptions,
but
some
comes
from
payments
by
developers
for
doing
jobs
they
should
have
done,
to
speed
things
up
–
removing
barbed
wire,
making
noticeboards
etc.
• We
run
woodland
based
events,
mainly
for
children
at
which
we
make
small
charges
which
usually
results
in
some
funds
but
not
sufficient
to
allow
us
to
do
all
the
work
we
do
• We
recycle
lost
golf
balls.
This
wide
variety
of
activities
is
typical
of
organisations
in
this
field
and
is
explored
further
below.
Those
who
indicated
that
they
did
not
trade
mainly
referred
to
donations
and
grants
as
their
main
form
of
income.
12
respondents
indicated
they
were
aspiring
to
trade,
and
were
routed
to
Route
B
of
the
survey.

20
6. Woodland Social Enterprise Data Baseline: Basic Information
60
organisations
answered
“yes”
to
the
three
filtering
questions
that
established
they
were:
• woodland
based;
• with
social
and
environmental
objectives;
and
• earning
at
least
some
income
through
trading.
Whilst
we
acknowledge
there
are
on-‐going
definitional
issues
regarding
what
constitutes
a
social
enterprise,
we
are
taking
this
60
as
the
baseline
of
woodland
social
enterprises.
This
section
of
the
report
explores
the
variety
of
scales,
activities
and
organisational
forms
used.
It
addresses
the
points
in
the
brief
in
turn,
i.e.:
• Number
of
woodland
based
social
enterprises
currently
operating
in
England
• Area
of
woodland
that
they
engage
with
(manage
/
utilise)
• Type
of
activity
undertaken
• Type
of
enterprise
tools
in
use
6.1 Age
The
clear
majority
of
these
organisations
are
relatively
young,
with
41,
or
68%
indicating
that
they
had
been
formed
since
2010.
Fig.%7.%When%was%your%organisa2on%formed?%
1" 2"
60"respondents"
5"
11"
26"
15"
30"
25"
20"
15"
10"
5"
0"
Before"1979" 1980"to"89" 1990"to"99" 2000"to"09" 2010"to"2012" in"2013"
Some
of
the
comments
indicated
that
projects
or
groups
had
gone
through
various
stages
of
development
before
formalising,
but
there
is
a
clear
recent
uplift
in
interest
and
activity
in
this
area.
From
the
comments,
and
the
rest
of
the
survey
responses,

21
this
seems
to
be
an
increase
in
start-‐ups
rather
than
existing
organisations
changing
form.
The
suggested
indicators
for
monitoring
the
sector
include
tracking
the
number
of
enterprises
and
when
they
were
formed.
6.2 Staff Numbers
Respondents
were
asked
about
full
time
equivalent
staff,
in
order
to
get
a
sense
of
the
jobs
associated
with
their
organisations.
“Staff”
might
be
taken
to
mean
employees
or
freelance
or
associate
staff.
Volunteers
were
asked
about
in
the
next
question,
but
many
of
these
organisations
are
run
with
substantial
volunteer
input
and
time.
Staff
numbers
are
relatively
small,
with
29
having
fewer
than
five
staff,
and
19
having
no
staff
at
all.
Only
one
organisation
had
more
than
ten
staff
members.18
Fig.%8.%How%many%(full%2me%equivalent)%staff%does%%
19#
your%organisa2on%have?%
10#
20#
18#
16#
14#
12#
10#
8#
6#
4#
2#
53#respondents#
Of
those
that
did
not
answer,
some
indicated
that
they
were
partners
in
a
business
or
worker
co-‐operative
rather
than
employees;
some
that
all
those
working
on
a
project
were
freelance.
6.3 Volunteers
Many
organisations
benefit
from
significant
volunteer
time.
This
is
interesting
from
a
definitional
point
of
view:
some
of
the
landowners
interviewed
seemed
to
associate
volunteering
with
amateurism,
and
something
that
clearly
distinguishes
“social”
activities
in
woodlands
from
traditional
commercial
activities.
“Very
committed”
volunteers
were
cited
as
a
crucial
help
by
many
of
the
interviewees.
Volunteers
are
often
instrumental
in
the
running
and
governance
of
18
This
is
Hill
Holt
Wood
with
35
staff.
19#
4#
1#
0#
None# 1,#or#less#than#1# Between#1#and#5# Between#5#and#10# More#than#10#

the
organisation
–
and
in
some
cases
these
organisations
are
entirely
volunteer
run
and
led.
Burnout
and
exhaustion
were
recognised
as
key
challenges
to
organisational
sustainability
in
some
of
the
phone
interviews.
Many
of
the
survey
and
interview
responses
highlighted
the
link
between
volunteering
and
training
/
education
activities;
volunteers
are
seen
to
always
get
something
from
their
labour
(a
sense
of
community,
fitness,
new
skills).
One
of
the
interviewees
recognised
this,
saying
“people
feel
good
and
recognise
their
value
and
being
part
of
the
community”.
Enterprises
carrying
out
woodland
management
activities
can
do
much
more
with
volunteer
labour
than
they
could
with
only
paid
staff.
One
interviewee
highlighted
that
their
success
in
woodland
management
was
down
to
creating
a
professional
reputation
for
quality
service,
despite
relying
on
volunteers.
22
4"
13"
7"
9"
8"
5" 5"
2"
1"
14"
12"
10"
8"
6"
4"
2"
0"
None" 1"to"25" 26"to"50" 51"to"100" 101"to"250" 251"to"500" 501"to"
1000"
1001"to"
2000"
3000+"
Fig.9.&In&a&typical&month,&about&how&many&hours&do&
volunteers&give&to&your&organisa;on?&&
54"respondents"

7. Governance, Aims and Motivations
7.1 Legal Structures
Respondents
were
asked
to
choose
their
legal
structure
from
a
menu
of
choices.
The
most
common
choice
was
that
of
a
company
limited
by
guarantee,
followed
closely
by
an
unincorporated
association.
Fig.%10.%What%is%the%legal%form%of%your%enterprise?%%
47"respondents"(respondents"chose"one"answer)"
1"
1"
2"
2"
5"
Company"Limited"by"Guarantee"
Unincorporated"E"AssociaIon"
CoEoperaIve"Society"(formerly"an"Industrial"and"
Provident"Society"bona"fide"coEop)"
Charitable"Incorporated"OrganisaIon"
Community"Interest"Company"(limited"by"
guarantee)"
Community"Benefit"Society"(nonEcharitable)"
Community"Interest"Company"(limited"by"
shares)"
Unincorporated"E"Partnership"
Community"Benefit"Society"(charitable)"
Limited"Liability"Partnership"
Respondents
were
able
to
choose
one
answer;
charitable
status
was
asked
about
in
the
next
question.
Three
commented
that
they
had
two
separate
legal
forms
–
in
one
case
to
separate
land
ownership
from
the
operational
side
of
their
business.
The
unincorporated
associations
were
of
varying
sizes,
ranging
from
“friends
of”
groups
to
more
substantial
unincorporated
charities.
It
is
notable
that
there
are
five
23
1"
2"
5"
6"
9"
13"
0" 2" 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" 14"
Company"Limited"by"Shares"

Charitable
Incorporated
Organisations,
or
CIOs19
–
a
relatively
new
legal
structure.
Those
in
the
“other”
section
included
subsets
of
other
organisations
–
for
example,
a
group
that
was
part
of
a
chain
of
holiday
parks,
a
sole
trader,
and
a
sub
committee
of
a
parish
council.
This
again
raises
definitional
issues.
Stewart
(2011)20
recognises
that
one
of
the
key
debates
around
woodland
social
enterprise
is
whether
local
authority
trading
companies21
should
count.
Autonomy
from
the
state
is
one
of
Social
Enterprise
UK’s
defining
features
of
a
social
enterprise.22
However,
local
authority
or
parish
/
town
council
influence
is
a
feature
for
some
of
these
organisations.
One
of
the
larger
charitable
woodland
owners
interviewed
as
part
of
this
research
considered
devolving
management
to
parish
councils
as
facilitating
“community”
control.
Public
sector
woodland
owners
may
be
aware
of
the
benefits
of
the
multiple
activities
that
social
enterprises
can
run
on
their
sites
but
unwilling
to
give
up
complete
control23.
Social
Enterprise
UK’s
stipulation
that
social
enterprises
should
be
“autonomous
of
the
state”24
would
mean
defining
some
of
the
respondents
to
this
survey
(at
least
three,
on
the
information
we
have)
as
not
social
enterprises.
The
majority
of
these
organisations
are
not
registered
charities.
Fig$11.$Is$your$organisa/on$a$registered$charity?$
56$respondents$
19
For
more
information
see:
http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/frequently-‐asked-‐questions/faqs-‐about-‐
charitable-‐incorporated-‐organisations-‐(cios)/
20
Stewart,
A
(2011)
“Woodland
related
social
enterprise
–
Enabling
factors
and
barriers
to
success”.
Forest
Research.
Available
at:
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/INFD-‐84JD86
21
The
Local
Government
Act
2003
enables
councils
to
trade
by
setting
up
a
trading
company
to
generate
income
that
is
reinvested
in
the
local
area.
22
This
does
not
seem
to
preclude
reliance
on
the
state
in
the
form
of
contracts
for
service
provision.
23
For
more
discussion
of
this
see
Swade,
K,
et
al.
(2013)
“Community
Management
of
Local
Authority
Woodlands
in
England:
A
scoping
study”,
Shared
Assets
for
Forest
Research.
Available
at:
http://www.sharedassets.org.uk/policy-‐research/
24
See
http://www.socialenterprise.org.uk/about/about-‐social-‐enterprise#what%20are%20ses
24
Yes$
15$
27%$
No$
41$
73%$

Being
a
charity
restricts
the
activities
that
an
organisation
can
carry
out,
but
can
bring
tax
advantages.
It
may
be
beneficial
for
these
organisations
to
retain
the
flexibility
of
non-‐charitable
status.
Tax
status
was
not
asked
about
in
the
survey,
but
two
of
the
interviewees
bought
up
uncertainty
over
their
tax
status
as
issues:
both
from
the
point
of
view
of
their
own
business,
and
of
tax
relief
for
any
investors.
The
introduction
of
the
Social
Investment
Tax
Relief
as
of
April
2014
may
impact
on
these
businesses.25
7.2 Aims, Values and Motivations
Respondents
were
asked
about
the
core
values
and
aims
of
their
organisation,
and
asked
to
chose
as
many
as
applicable
from
a
menu
of
choices.
36#
32#
34#
23#
31#
40#
21#
26#
25#
20# 20#
21#
20#
21#
17#
27#
20#
28#
2#
4#
2#
10#
2#
1#
6#
8#
45#
40#
35#
30#
25#
20#
15#
10#
5#
40
of
59
respondents
identified
improving
biodiversity
and
creating
new
habitats
as
a
core
value,
with
productive
/
regenerative
woodland
management
coming
a
close
second.
A
number
of
people
added
other
core
values
in
the
comments
box
including:
25
• Reducing
reoffending;
• Maintaining
rural
skills,
addressing
behavioural
issues
with
young
people;
• Provide
recreation,
moving
towards
tourism;
• Heritage
education
–
linked
to
woodland
landscapes;
• Engaging
families
in
the
arts
in
wild
natural
landscapes;
and
• Improving
standards
of
woodfuel.
25
For
information
see
www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-‐on-‐social-‐investment-‐tax-‐relief
2#
0#
Produc1ve#/#
regenera1ve#
woodland#
management#
Educa1on#&#
skills#
development#
for#young#
people#
Educa1on#&#
skills#
development#
for#adults#
Local#economic#
development#/#
job#crea1on#
Community#
Development#
Improving#
biodiversity#/#
crea1ng#new#
habitats#
Crea1ng#
natural#
products#
Tackling#/#
addressing#
climate#change#
Health#and#
Wellbeing#
Fig.%12.%Which%of%the%following%values%and%aims%were%most%important%when%
se:ng%up%your%organisa<on?%
59#respondents#(respondents#could#select#mul1ple#answers)#
Core# Secondary# N/A#

The
creation
of
sustainable
livelihoods
(and
a
woodland
lifestyle)
was
seen
as
important
by
the
worker
co-‐ops
interviewed.
Another
theme
that
came
out
of
the
interviews
was
that
of
individuals
buying
land
with
the
intention
of
“giving
something
back”
and
working
with
other
community
members
to
develop
an
enterprise
on
or
around
it.
This
raised
worries
for
some
that
they
would
be
less
able
to
attract
grant
funding
as
they
would
be
seen
to
be
privately
backed.
Another
key
theme
involved
individual
social
entrepreneurs
developing
enterprises
and
looking
to
employ
staff
when
they
were
established
enough.
They
might
be
described
as
“socially
minded”,
supporting
community
organisations
by
providing
free
services,
and
motivated
by
community
concern.
They
tend
not
to
have
any
element
of
community
control
or
governance
–
and
no
intention
for
that
to
change.
Education
and
skills
development
is
another
important
motivating
factor
for
these
enterprises,
and
many
see
a
clear
link
between
engaging
in
woodlands
and
connecting
people
and
communities
to
nature.
One
interviewee
commented,
“the
magic
of
learning
in
woodland
[should
be]
much
more
embedded
in
the
culture”
and
education
or
training
activities
featured
in
many
organisations’
business
models.
7.3 Key Activities
Respondents
were
then
asked
to
indicate
the
key
activities
their
organisation
undertakes,
again
from
a
menu
of
choices.
Many
organisations
undertake
a
range
of
different
activities;
this
might
be
seen
as
a
hallmark
of
a
woodland
social
enterprise.
The
most
common
activities
involve
woodland
management,
with
46
of
60
respondents
indicating
that
they
managed
woodland.
26

27
Fig.%13.%What%are%the%main%ac1vi1es%your%organisa1on%carries%out?%
60"respondents"(respondents"could"select"mul0ple"answers)"""
7"
woodland"management:"to"improve"biodiversity"/"wildlife"
woodland"management:"preserva0on"of"exis0ng"habitats"/"
educa0on"services:"forest"schools"or"similar"
woodland"management:"coppicing"
educa0on"services:"skills"development"/"training"/"
providing"ameni0es:"maintaining"footpaths,"benches,"etc"
crea0on"of"products:"firewood"
crea0on"of"products:"craJ"
health"services:"physical"health"
woodland"management:"plan0ng"new"woodland"
health"services:"mental"health"
crea0on"of"products:"hedging"stakes,"pea"s0cks,"bean"poles"etc"
crea0on"of"products:"green"woodworking"
woodland"management:"for"produc0on"of"0mber"
food"growing:"forest"gardening"
crea0on"of"products:"charcoal"
Other"(please"specify)"
crea0on"of"products:"construc0on"/"furniture"
food"growing:"orchards"
providing"for"recrea0on:"campsites,"bike"tracks"etc"
crea0on"of"products:"wood"pellets"/"chip"
food"growing:"agroforestry"
Other
activities
that
respondents
specified
included:
• Preservation
11"
16"
16"
15"
26"
25"
23"
22"
21"
29"
34"
34"
of
landscape
features,
knowledge
transfer
and
preservation
and
growth
of
skills
to
preserve
sustainable
landscape
features
• Other
crafts,
food
production
• Sawn
timber
• Design
and
construction
of
buildings
out
of
natural
materials
• We
tend
to
provide
advice
and
support
across
these
types
of
activities
rather
than
undertake
the
work
ourselves
• Gardening
• Other
products:
Woodland
Herbs
&
wild
food,
tinctures
and
ointments.
• Arts/theatre
performance
and
workshops,
in
addition
to
large
festival
in
woods
and
parkland
nearby.
• Verify
production
of
Firewood,
Woodchip,
Pellets
and
Briquettes
• Grazing
cattle
and
sheep
• Offender
rehabilitation
6"
8"
11"
15"
21"
24"
29"
32"
46"
44"
0" 5" 10" 15" 20" 25" 30" 35" 40" 45" 50"
crea0on"of"products:"other";"please"specify"below"

The
wide
range
of
activities
undertaken
may
have
an
influence
on
the
debate
around
definitions.
One
question
that
may
be
worth
considering
is
whether
woodland
social
enterprise
should
encompass
the
wider
woodland
economy,
and
those
woodland
specific
organisations
that
support
it,
or
just
activities
carried
out
in
woodlands.
Interviewees
were
asked
about
their
original
motivations
and
whether
these
had
changed
or
evolved
over
the
course
of
the
development
of
their
enterprise.
A
number
had
encountered
unforeseen
issues,
and
highlighted
the
need
to
remain
flexible.
One
biomass
enterprise
commented,
“we
quickly
found
that
we
were
well
supplied
with
woodchip,
and
that
we
should
rather
concentrate
on
providing
the
customers
to
use
the
supply
or
actually
become
the
customer
ourselves”.
Others
had
found
that
their
initial
governance
structure
or
set
up
was
inadequate,
or
that
they
didn’t
have
the
capacity
to
deliver
what
they
had
initially
envisaged.
At
least
two
of
the
interviewees
had
developed
partnerships
with
other
community
or
social
organisations
to
help
them
deliver
their
projects.
One
commented
that,
on
reflection
their
group
had
not
had
the
capacity
to
deliver
what
they
were
planning,
and
they
wished
that
they
had
had
some
advice
on
this
before
they
began.
28

Fig.%14%How%much%woodland%does%your%organisa7on%engage%with,%in%ha?%
18&
16&
51&engaging&with&woodland;&47&managing&
5&
6&
2& 2&
1& 1&
23&
11&
5&
6&
2&
0& 0& 0&
under&10& 11&to&50& 51&to&100& 101&to&250& 251&to&500& 501&to&750& 751&to&1000& 1000+&
25&
20&
15&
10&
5&
0&
Engaged&with& 18& 16& 5& 6& 2& 2& 1& 1&
Manage& 23& 11& 5& 6& 2& 0& 0& 0&
29
8. Woodlands
8.1 Area of Woodland
Respondents
were
asked
approximately
how
many
hectares
of
woodland
they
are
active
on,
and
on
how
much
of
that,
if
any,
they
undertook
woodland
management
activities.
A
total
of
6980.27ha
of
woodland
is
engaged
with
by
51
organisations.
Woodland
management
activities
are
undertaken
on
2624.8ha
of
this
land,
by
47
organisations.
There
were
no
notable
regional
differences.
There
are
a
large
number
of
smaller
areas
of
woodland
being
both
engaged
with
and
managed.
The
median
amount
engaged
with
per
organisation
is
20ha;
and
the
median
amount
managed
is
11.3ha.
18
of
the
51
organisations
are
engaged
in
less
than
10ha
of
land,
and
only
four
of
the
51
are
engaged
in
more
than
500ha.
Small
areas
of
woodland
can
be
seen
as
challenging
to
manage
in
an
economically
viable
way.
27
of
the
48
organisations
doing
woodland
management
activities
manage
the
whole
area
of
woodland
that
they
are
engaged
with.
8.2 Types of Woodland
Respondents
were
asked
to
choose
as
many
types
of
woodland
as
applicable
from
a
menu
of
choices.
The
majority
are
engaged
with
broadleaved
woodland,
and
a
substantial
proportion
with
coppice.

30
Fig.%15.%What%type%of%woodlands%do%you%mainly%engage%with?%%
0"
56"respondents"(respondents"could"select"mulCple"answers)"
5"
7"
10"
17"
20"
19"
32"
34"
0" 5" 10" 15" 20" 25" 30" 35" 40"
Mixed"8"mainly"broadleaved"
Broadleaved"
Coppice"with"standards"
CreaCng"new"coppice"
Coppice"
Young"trees"
Mixed"8"mainly"conifer"
Conifer"
Shrub"
8.3 Woodland Tenure
Respondents
were
asked
to
choose
their
legal
relationship
to
the
woodlands
from
a
number
of
options.
Fig."16."What"is"your"legal"rela8onship"to"these"woodlands?""
56"respondents"(respondents"could"select"mu<ple"answers)"
3"
3"
3"
4"
7"
9"
17"
21"
24"
0" 5" 10" 15" 20" 25" 30"
Informal"agreement"with"the"owner"
Management"Agreement"
Freehold"ownership"
Contract"for"other"ac<vi<es";"please"specify"below"
Shorter"term"lease";"5"years"or"more"
Long"(25"years"or"more)"lease"
Contract"for"felling"
Licence"
Shorter"term"lease"(less"than"5"years)"
26
ticked
just
one
box.
30
ticked
more
than
one
box,
indicating
the
complexity
of
some
of
these
relationships.
Some
of
those
with
the
largest
number
of
relationships
are
those
with
the
largest
number
of
different
activities.
Some
own
woodland
outright
and
engage
in
other
ways
with
other
sites.
Lack
of
security
of
tenure
came
up
as
a
key
issue
for
enterprises
in
the
telephone
interviews.
This
does
not
mean

outright
ownership26,
but
enough
security
to
allow
an
enterprise
to
invest
in
a
site.
One
enterprise
had
not
taken
forward
an
opportunity
to
restore
overstood
coppice
due
to
a
fear
of
losing
access
to
the
site
once
the
coppice
became
profitable.
The
risk
of
informal
agreements
can
be
disproportionately
borne
by
the
enterprise.
There
was
space
provided
for
people
to
enter
more
details.
Some
of
the
comments
shed
further
light
on
the
different
arrangements:
31
• We
have
currently
no
direct
line
of
communication
with
the
owner,
[a
district
council].
• The
land
is
owned
by
the
Parish
Council
and
the
management
committee
is
a
sub
committee
of
the
P.
• Lease
of
2
hectares
length
unspecified.
• Advisory
service
/
woodland
initiative.
• We
develop
public
rights
of
way,
community
volunteering
activities.
• We
have
the
right
to
use
permissive
riding
trails.
• Main
site
lease,
other
sites
by
agreement.
• More
an
agent
relationship
with
woodland
owners
rather
than
us
actually
undertaking
the
work.
• We
have
a
contract
with
the
forestry
commission
to
cut
coppice.
• We
are
a
'Friends'
Group
and
operate
under
the
control
of
the
Borough
Council.
• Partnership
with
private
and
public
woodland
owners.
Fig.%17.%If%you%don't%own%the%woodland/s%you%work%on,%do%you%
know%who%does?%
47"respondents"(respondents"could"select"mu7ple"answers)"
2"
2"
8"
11"
13"
24"
24"
0" 5" 10" 15" 20" 25" 30"
Local"Authority"
Private"individual"/"family"
Charity"
Private"company"/"corpora7on"
Na7onal"Government"(and"agencies,"eg"Forestry"
Don't"know"
Crown"Estate"
Commission)"
Those
that
do
not
own
all
the
woodland
they
work
on
were
asked
to
choose
the
owner
from
a
multiple-‐choice
menu.
As
some
respondents
work
across
different
sites,
they
had
the
option
to
select
multiple
answers.
The
two
most
common
choices
were
the
local
authority,
and
private
individuals
or
families.
26
Indeed
Lawrence
&
Molteno
(2012)
indicate
that
for
community
woodlands,
ownership
is
often
not
preferred.
Community
Forest
Governance
–
a
Rapid
Evidence
Review,
2012.
Available
at:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/forestrypanel/files/Community-‐forest-‐governance-‐RER.pdf

9. Finances
9.1 Turnover
Respondents
were
asked
about
the
finances
of
their
organisations.
They
were
asked
to
indicate
the
turnover
(total
income)
of
the
organisation
from
a
series
of
categories.
11
respondents
indicated
a
total
income
of
over
£100,000.
13
had
less
than
£5000.
10"
9"
8"
7"
6"
5"
4"
3"
2"
1"
Some
of
those
that
didn’t
answer
indicated
that
this
was
their
first
year
of
trading
and
therefore
they
did
not
have
these
figures.
Some
are
part
of
larger
organisations
and
did
not
have
disaggregated
figures
to
hand.
9.2 Surplus
Respondents
were
asked
what
the
surplus
was
at
the
end
of
the
last
financial
year.
Surplus
was
defined
as
the
amount
of
money
left
after
all
costs
had
been
accounted
for.
As
above,
a
number
of
people
commented
that
as
this
was
the
first
year
of
trading
for
their
enterprise,
they
did
not
yet
have
figures.
Of
the
52
who
answered
this
question,
43
made
less
than
£5000
surplus,
and
13
made
a
loss.
The
range
of
activities
and
business
models
carried
out
by
organisations
in
this
sector
means
that
it
is
hard
to
draw
general
conclusions
from
this
data.
What
serves
as
a
comfortable
small
surplus
for
a
volunteer
led
organisation
may
be
unsustainable
for
a
worker
co-‐operative.
One
survey
respondent
commented,
“it's
inspirational
to
work
with
the
woodland
environment
doing
what
we
do,
but
it's
32
6"
7"
9"
4"
6"
5"
8"
3" 3"
0"
Less"than"
£1000"
Between"
£1000"and"
£5000"
Between"
£5000"and"
£10,000"
Between"
£10,000"
and"
£20,000"
Between"
£20,000"
and"
£50,000"
Between"
£50,000"
and"
£100,000"
Between"
£100,000"
and"
£500,000"
Over"
£500,000"
Don't"know"
Fig.%18.%What%was%your%turnover%in%the%last%financial%year?%
51"respondents"

33
hard
work
and
financially
quite
alarming.
We
survive
with
the
goodwill
of
owners,
staff,
and
volunteers.”
13#
Fig.%19.%What%was%the%surplus%at%the%end%of%the%last%financial%year?%%
14#
6#
10#
52#respondents#
0# 0#
1#
2#
1#
5#
16#
14#
12#
10#
8#
6#
4#
2#
0#
Nega.ve#(we#
made#a#loss)#
We#broke#
even#
Less#than#
£1000#
Between#
£1000#and#
£5000#
Between#
£5000#and#
£10,000#
Between#
£10,000#and#
£20,000#
Between#
£20,000#and#
£50,000#
Between#
£50,000#and#
£100,000#
Over#
£100,000#
Don't#know#
The
most
common
use
of
any
surplus
was
reinvestment
in
the
enterprise’s
existing
services.
Fig.%20.%If%you%made%a%surplus,%what%was%it%used%for?%
36"respondents"
0"
2"
3"
6"
8"
17"
0" 2" 4" 6" 8" 10" 12" 14" 16" 18"
Reinvestment"in"your"enterprise"to"grow"an"exisCng"service"
Growing"your"organisaCon's"reserves"
Investment"in"your"enterprise"to"develop"new"services"
Investment"in"other"community"or"social"enterprises"
Paid"as"a"bonus"to"staff"
Paid"as"a"dividend"to"members"/"shareholders"
9.3 Turnover and surplus per hectare
Turnover
and
surplus
per
hectare
of
woodland
managed
are
often
used
as
indicators
in
traditional
forestry
and
woodland
management.
The
data
gathered
here
does
not
allow
a
precise
calculation
of
these
figures,
but
by
taking
the
mid
point
of
the
categories
provided
for
turnover
and
surplus
in
Figures
18
and
19
above,
and
cross

34
referencing
with
the
amount
of
woodland
managed
(discussed
further
in
Section
8),
we
can
see
that
there
is
a
wide
variety
in
both.
1"
12"
Fig.%21.%Approximate%turnover%per%hectare%
5"
8"
39"respondents"
3"
4"
2"
0"
2" 2"
14"
12"
10"
8"
6"
4"
2"
0"
Under"£100"£101"to"£500" £501"to"
£1000"
£1001"to"
£3000"
£3001"to"
£5000"
£5001"to"
£10000"
£10,001"to"
£15,000"
£15,001"to"
£20,000"
£50,001"to"
£100,000"
over"
£100,000"
9"
13"
2"
Fig.%22.%Approximate%surplus%per%ha%
4"
38"respondents"
0"
1"
3"
0"
4"
2"
14"
12"
10"
8"
6"
4"
2"
0"
Less"than"£0" Break5even" £1"to"£25" £26"to"£50" £51"to"£75" £76"to"£100" £101"to"£150" £151"to"£200" £201"to"£500" more"than"
£1000"
The
majority
of
enterprises
(22
of
the
38
which
answered
both
questions)
are
breaking
even
or
making
a
loss
when
looked
at
in
this
way.
The
wide
variety
of
activities
that
social
enterprises
carry
out
can
mean
that
smaller
plots
of
land
are
more
intensively
used
and
that
in
some
cases
more
income
is
generated
than
would
be
the
case
with
commercial
woodland
management.
It
should
be
noted
that
these
can
only
be
approximate
figures,
and
do
not
take
into
account
non-‐monetary
contributions
like
volunteer
time
or
non-‐monetary
outputs
like
increased
wellbeing.

35
9.4 Start up costs
Respondents
were
then
asked
about
the
capital
needed
to
set
up
the
organisation,
where
it
came
from
and
what
it
was
used
for.
14#
Fig.%23.%Approximately%how%much%money%did%you%need%to%
9#
start%up%your%enterprise?%
4#
58#respondents#
3#
12#
3# 3#
10#
16#
14#
12#
10#
8#
6#
4#
2#
0#
Less#than#£1000#Between#£1000#
and#£5000#
Between#£5000#
and#£10,000#
Between#
£10,000#and#
£20,000#
Between#
£20,000#and#
£50,000#
Between#
£50,000#and#
£100,000#
Over#£100,000# Don't#know#
Fig.%24.%What%did%you%need%it%for?%%
5"
7"
7"
55"respondents"
15"
19"
19"
18"
34"
37"
0" 5" 10" 15" 20" 25" 30" 35" 40"
Equipment"costs"
Insurance"
Staff"costs"
Vehicle"costs"
Legal"fees"
Accredita:ons"
Site"purchase"
Site"rental"
Responses
in
the
“other”
category
included
construction
costs,
working
capital,
and
expenditure
associated
with
planning:

36
• Building
costs
• Running
costs
like
petrol,
repairs,
show
fees
• Setting
up
infrastructure
• Tree
planting,
fencing
• Website
• To
write
a
forest
plan
• Provision
of
an
onsite
cabin
• Cash
flow
• Running
taster
days
• Regeneration
of
the
site
• Enterprise
set
up
and
registration
• Construction
costs
for
Forest
Centre
(visitor
centre
and
conferencing
facility)
• Access
track
and
gate
• Publication
costs
• Business
planning
and
share
offer
costs
• Livestock
Fig.%25.%Where%did%it%come%from?%
0"
0"
3"
3"
2"
2"
5"
9"
Founders'"own"capital"–"cash"
Grants">"public"sector"
Grants">"trusts"&"foundaFons"
DonaFons"–"public"
Prepayment"by"customers"
Community"share"issue"
Loan">"family"&"friends"
Leasing"/"Hire"Purchase"
agreement"
Loan"–"commercial"lenders"
Other"share"issue"
Comments
in
the
“other”
category
included:
• We
15"
18"
20"
didn't
spend
any
money
until
we
had
earned
it
from
sales
of
beanpoles,
pea
sticks
and
firewood.
• Core
funding
was
provided
by
local
authority
partners
to
cover
costs.
30"
0" 5" 10" 15" 20" 25" 30" 35"
Loan"–"social"lenders"
55"respondents"

37
• Grants
plus
fund-‐raising
through
equestrian
events.
• Core
funding
from
local
authorities.
• Grant
support
from
FC,
plus
small
grants
from
County
Council
for
pilot
delivery
of
social
activities,
plus
support
from
NAAONB
social
forestry
pilots
project.
• Council
contracts
• Fundraising
activities
• Membership
fees
• Our
organisation
was
pre-‐existing,
organising
our
events
but
not
based
daily
in
woodland.
Most
organisations
had
received
some
kind
of
in
kind
support,
from
free
labour,
to
donation
of
equipment
and
materials.
Fig.%26.%Did%you%have%any%"in%kind"%contribu8ons,%where%no%money%changed%
21"
hands?%47"respondents"
Free"labour"(by"volunteers"and"other"supporters)"
Free"labour"(by"the"founders"of"the"enterprise)"
Free"use"of"land"
Free"professional"advice"
Dona:on"of"equipment"
Dona:on"of"materials"
Dona:on"of"premises"
9.5 Enterprise Tools
Respondents
were
asked
about
how
they
made
money.
They
were
asked
to
choose
approximately
how
much
of
their
income
came
from
various
sources:
• Trading
–
customers
• Contracts
–
private
businesses
• Contracts
–
public
sector
• Grants
–
public
sector
• Grants
–
trusts
&
foundations
• Donations
–
public
1"
5"
9"
18"
21"
32"
40"
0" 5" 10" 15" 20" 25" 30" 35" 40" 45"
Gi,"of"ownership"of"land"

38
There
was
an
option
to
tick
“other”
and
to
provide
further
details.
Figure
27
shows
how
important
each
of
these
sources
of
income
was
for
the
53
of
the
60
respondents
who
had
this
information
to
hand.
Fig.%27.%Can%you%show%roughly%how%your%organisa3on's%income%broke%down%
4"
10"
10"
8"
7"
5"
14"
last%year?%%
53"respondents"
10"
7"
18"
14"
12"
5"
0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%" 90%" 100%"
DonaEons"–"public"
Grants"B"trusts"&"foundaEons"
Grants"B"public"sector"
Contracts"–"public"sector"
Contracts"–"private"businesses"
Trading"–"customers"
Key
themes
that
come
out
of
this
data
include:
3"
3"
3"
4"
4"
7"
1"
3"
4"
3"
10"
2"
1"
None"
25%"or"less"
Between"25%"and"50%"
• most
organisations
have
at
least
some
trading
activity,
• none
are
entirely
reliant
on
donations
from
the
public,
• but
donations
are
an
important
lesser
source
of
income
for
many,
• organisations
have
varied
income
streams;
most
do
not
have
their
“eggs
in
one
basket”,
• for
those
that
do
rely
on
one
key
source
of
income,
it
is
mostly
trading
with
the
public.
Another
source
of
income
mentioned
by
some
respondents
was
feed
in
tariffs
and
the
renewable
heat
incentive.
Respondents
were
also
asked
how
they
expected
this
breakdown
to
change
over
the
next
three
years.
The
pattern
does
not
change
notably,
which
is
interesting
in
itself;
some
commented
that
they
did
not
expect
a
significant
change.

Fig.%28%How%do%you%expect%this%to%change%in%the%next%three%years?%%
7"
5"
7"
6"
2"
DonaEons"–"public"
Grants"B"trusts"&"foundaEons"
Grants"B"public"sector"
Contracts"–"public"sector"
Contracts"–"private"businesses"
As
seen
in
Section
9.2
above,
finances
are
often
tight
for
these
organisations.
This
is
particularly
acute
for
those
motivated
by
trying
to
make
a
living,
as
opposed
to
the
volunteer-‐led
organisations.
One
woodland
management
worker
co-‐operative
interviewed
commented
that
“we're
all
just
struggling
for
money
–
if
we
could
actually
live
on
the
land,
it
would
be
a
completely
viable
system.”
The
interviews
also
shed
light
on
some
of
the
different
types
of
business
models
in
use.
Partnership
working
featured
highly
for
many
enterprises,
and
almost
all
carried
out
a
wide
range
of
activities.
The
opportunity
to
manage
woodland
was
one
of
the
key
driving
factors
for
many
–
“all
those
woodlands,
just
waiting
to
be
cut”,
but
from
a
business
point
of
view,
“it's
the
people
stuff
that
makes
the
money”.
Contracts
with
public
authorities
to
engage
young
people
or
offenders
in
woodlands
featured
highly.
39
2"
6"
9"
4"
7"
8"
7"
12"
19"
8"
3"
7"
8"
3"
7"
3"
3"
10"
1"
0%" 10%" 20%" 30%" 40%" 50%" 60%" 70%" 80%" 90%" 100%"
Trading"–"customers"
48"respondents"
None"
25%"or"less"

9.6 Finance
Respondents
were
then
asked
whether
their
organisation
had
needed
financial
support
in
the
last
year,
and
asked
to
indicate
whether
they
had
considered
various
different
types
of
finance,
and
if
so
whether
they
had
been
successful
in
securing
them.
The
table
below
shows
their
responses.
11
had
been
successful
in
getting
a
Forestry
Commission
grant.
20
had
been
successful
in
pursuing
a
local
authority27
or
other
public
sector
grant.
Only
five
had
considered
community
share
issues,
and
only
two
pursued
them.
These
two
are
woodfuel
projects,
which
chimes
with
Co-‐operatives
UK’s
report
that
community
energy
projects
are
key
users
of
the
community
shares
mechanism.28
The
phone
interviews
revealed
that
a
number
of
organisations
are
considering
“community
supported
firewood”
schemes,
where
customers
pay
for
their
firewood
upfront,
to
help
them
with
cashflow,
rather
than
trying
to
source
grants
or
other
funding
or
finance.
27
Many
local
authorities
structure
their
contracts
with
third
sector
organisations
as
grants
in
order
to
simplify
the
procurement
process.
28
See
http://www.uk.coop/pressrelease/estimates-‐community-‐shares-‐2012-‐show-‐buoyant-‐and-‐growing-‐market
40

41
Fig.%29.%Has%your%organisa0on%needed%financial%support%in%the%last%year?%Please%let%us%know%what%
types%of%support%you%have%considered,%whether%you%pursued%them,%and%whether%you%were%
15&
5&
11&
Grant&'&Forestry&
Commission&
13&
20&
11& 11&
Grant&'&Local&
authority&/&other&
public&sector&
9&
18&
Grant&'&trust&or&
founda:on&
4&
1& 1&
1& 1&
Loan&'&commercial&
5&
lender& Loan&'&social&lender&
2&
2&
0& 0&
0& 0&
Hire&Purchase&or&
equipment&lease&
agreement&
5&
Community&Share&
2&
Issue&& Other&Share&Issue&
25&
20&
15&
10&
5&
Considered& 15& 13& 9& 4& 5& 2& 5& 2&
Applied&for&/&Pursued& 5& 11& 11& 1& 1& 0& 0& 0&
Secured&finance&/&funding& 11& 20& 18& 1& 1& 0& 2& 0&
0&
0&
successful.%%%

42
10. Support needs and key challenges
36
of
56
respondents
said
that
they
had
support
when
setting
up
their
businesses.
This
ranged
from
support
from
a
local
authority,
to
grant
funding,
to
business
support
from
infrastructure
organisations.
10.1 Retrospective support needs
Respondents
were
then
asked
what
type
of
support
would
have
been
useful,
and
to
chose
from
a
list
of
options.
Fig.%30%What%type%of%support%would%have%been%useful%when%se:ng%up%your%
5"
business?%53"respondents""
9"
14"
14"
20"
39"
0" 5" 10" 15" 20" 25" 30" 35" 40" 45"
Grant"Fund"
Business"Advice"
Woodland"Skills"training"
Easier"access"to"woodland"
Loan"Fund"
Some
of
the
comments
in
the
“other”
box
included
the
need
for
business
and
governance
advice,
training
and
business
planning
support:
• We
were
ok
setting
up,
but
we
don't
have
huge
aspirations,
and
we
had
the
expertise
available.
However,
we
could
do
so
much
more
if
we
had
the
vision
within
the
group.
Inspirational
activities
or
resources
would
have
helped.
• Legal
advice
was
crucial
but
very
expensive.
• We
had
a
long
battle
to
get
planning
permission
for
change
of
use
from
agricultural
(the
site
was
originally
a
field
where
we
planted
the
trees
with
a
FC
grant)
to
be
registered
as
an
educational
site
as
the
planning
department
insisted
we
should
be.
It
took
9
months
and
support
and
information
about
other
forest
school
planning
issues
would
have
really
helped.
• We
looked
at
becoming
a
social
enterprise
but
we
do
not
sell
products
or
produce
sufficient
income,
which
is
why
we
went
down
the
charity
route.
Some
proper
business
advice
at
this
point
might
have
produced
a
different
outcome.

43
• If
setting
up
now,
useful
advice
would
relate
to
governance
models
for
SEs
and
CICs,
data
from
research
relating
to
the
social
and
economic
potential
of
woodlands,
and
a
database
of
local
and
regional
organisations
operating
with
charitable/social
aims
…
a
piece
of
work
tailored
to
the
forestry
and
conservation
sector
would
be
useful.
• Support
for
business
planning
–
legislation
and
planning
plus
start
up
funds
• Training
to
get
key
staff
qualified
to
teach
adults.
• Free
training
for
core
skills
would
be
AMAZING
–
for
core
members
and
volunteers.
The
Making
Local
Food
Work
programme
may
provide
some
guidance
on
support
needs
for
land
based
social
and
community
enterprises.
The
final
report29
of
that
programme
stressed
the
importance
of
active
networks
and
long
term,
sector
specific
advice.
10.2 Key challenges
The
challenges
of
traditional
forestry
also
apply
to
woodland
social
enterprise:
disease,
insurance
and
equipment
costs,
and
the
“commercial
realities”
of
the
wood
market.
Many
of
these
organisations
are
straddling
two
sectors
and
have
the
opportunities
but
also
the
risks
of
both.
The
need
for
support
navigating
the
planning
system
also
came
up
in
the
phone
interviews.
Given
the
multiple
activities
many
of
these
organisations
carry
out,
structures
in
the
woodland
are
often
necessary.
Some
activities
that
might
be
essential
to
the
organisation’s
business
model
may
also
be
seen
as
being
“beyond
forestry”,
and
not
permitted.
One
of
the
survey
respondents
commented
that
“the
current
definition
of
forestry
in
Planning
Guidance
is
completely
out
of
date
and
therefore
getting
planning
to
carry
out
social
enterprises
and
set
up
infrastructure
is
extremely
difficult.
This
is
the
biggest
hurdle
for
most
aspiring
to
create
new
enterprises.”
The
phone
interviews
asked
in
more
detail
about
what
had
helped
or
hindered
the
development
of
these
enterprises.
Two
mentioned
that
the
“community
rights”
established
in
the
Localism
Act
201130
had
been
helpful
in
progressing
their
plans.
Both
woodfuel
enterprises
interviewed
said
that
the
Renewable
Heat
Incentive
had
been
crucial
in
their
development
so
far,
but
that
the
“volatile
nature
of
various
renewable
subsidies
is
a
particular
barrier
to
effective
planning”.
One
interviewee
mentioned
the
benefits
of
the
English
Woodland
Grant
Scheme,
and
as
noted
above
11
of
the
respondents
had
received
grants
from
the
Forestry
Commission.
The
combination
of
the
lack
of
security
of
tenure
noted
above
and
the
payment
of
grants
to
landowners
had
caused
a
problem
for
at
least
one
interviewee:
29
Making
Local
Food
Work:
Connecting
Land
and
People
through
Food,
Final
Report
(2012).
Available
at:
http://www.uk.coop/sites/storage/public/downloads/mlfw_connecting_land_and_people_final_report_0.pdf
30
For
more
information
see:
Department
for
Communities
and
Local
Government
(2011),
A
Plain
English
Guide
to
the
Localism
Act:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/5959/1896534.pdf

T213 shared assets woodland social-enterprise-in-england 2013

T213 shared assets woodland social-enterprise-in-england 2013

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (19)

Similaire à T213 shared assets woodland social-enterprise-in-england 2013

Similaire à T213 shared assets woodland social-enterprise-in-england 2013 (20)

Plus de laboratoridalbasso

Plus de laboratoridalbasso (20)

T213 shared assets woodland social-enterprise-in-england 2013