Q. Are cooperatives playing any role in forest resource conservation?

A. Among other reasons, many forestry cooperatives exist to help their members find the information and resources that they need in order to make good decisions about their land. So one might expect a higher quality of management on co-op member lands. But, it’s hard to make conclusive statements about actual on-the-ground impacts that result from membership in a cooperative. This is an important area for future research. (Respondent: Eli Sagor esagor@umn.edu)

Q. Can cooperatives identify and sustain marketing opportunities for timber and non-timber products?

A. In my experience, many people who have joined forestry cooperatives cite potential marketing advantages as important reasons for joining. And many co-ops are working to develop marketing advantages for their members. However, the there are few clear examples of success thus far in this area. This may well change in the future—many North American co-ops are still at a very early stage of business development. Massachusetts Woodlands Cooperative and the Blue Ridge group are both working toward models including marketing nontimber products. But to my knowledge they are not yet active in these markets. (Respondent: Eli Sagor esagor@umn.edu)

Q. Dave Kittredge, in what country do we find the largest number of cooperatives?

A. For my project studying cooperatives around the world, I originally tried to compile a large spread sheet, listing the number of coops, owners, acres, and other factors by country. This would help me compare cooperation on a country-to-country basis.  I soon concluded, however, that this would be difficult to do. First, since there are different kinds of cooperatives (e.g., some only provide information/education functions, while others are financial), it is tough to generate a "total" for each country, or compare on that simple basis. Second, they use different organizational structures. Some are very large with thousands of members, and others are very small, local institutions, so comparing the absolute number of them in a given country might be misleading. For example, I estimate that there are only 5 or 6 cooperatives in Sweden, but there are approximately 90,000 landowners who are members, and this represents roughly 50% of all family forestland in the country. On the other hand, there are over 1,000 cooperatives in Japan, with over 1.7 million private forest owners participating. In Finland, I estimate that there are 14 cooperatives, with 330,000 members.  In other countries, it was difficult to generate a total number of cooperatives. I only found excellent examples of cooperation in the Netherlands, Norway, and South Korea, but was not able with assurance to generate an estimated total number of cooperatives. The upshot is that the total number of cooperatives in a country is difficult to estimate, and not a good indicator, in my mind, of the relative amount of cooperation happening. (Respondent: Dr. David B. Kittredge, dbk@forwild.umass.edu)

Q. I already belong to a Woodland Owners Association, why would I need to join a co-op?

A. The bigger question is – why not? Different organizations usually provide different opportunities. Oftentimes these opportunities are also very complementary. Before joining or supporting any organization or project, you need to weigh the costs and benefits. If the benefits are there and the cost fits your budget as well, you may consider joining. Some people may find multiple memberships overwhelming, but others may have an attitude of “the more the merrier”. There are even some people that join multiple co-ops! (Respondent: Katie Fernholz kfernholz@iatp.org http://www.forestrycenter.org)

Q. What is green certification?

A. Green, or forest, certification is a voluntary program that establishes a contractual arrangement between a certifier and a landowner (broadly defined). Under this contract, the landowner agrees to use and document a forest management system that is consistent with a standard of forest management and practices developed by the certifiers that often exceeds either BMP or regulatory standards. The American Tree Farm System, Forest Stewardship Council, and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative are three certification systems found in the U.S. For more information, download the publication from this link: http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/edmat/EC1518.pdf. (Respondent: Mark Rickenbach mgrickenbach@wisc.edu)

Q. With the status of the green certified materials market being limited and difficult to market, what other marketing strategies are recommended to co-ops dealing with logs to optimize the bottom line?

A. There are two possibilities that come to mind as marketing opportunities for co-ops while green certification matures. Firstly, in eco-labeling research and marketing circles, it is well known that the most effective ‘eco-label’ is simply ‘locally-grown’. Consumers care first and foremost about where products come from. However, the impact of ‘locally-grown’ gets diluted as the material moves up the processing change and the linkage to the field or forest is more distant. Therefore, secondly, locally-grown links to ‘locally-used’. Co-ops may find a strong market niche just selling to members, fields, and neighbors or helping landowners use their own logs for their own projects. (Respondent: Katie Fernholz kfernholz@iatp.org http://www.forestrycenter.org)

Q: Is there a particular forest type (e.g., mature, age-related) that these landowners enroll in co-ops?

A. Based on the location of the recently started co-ops, I cannot discern a particular pattern related to forest/stand conditions. For example, the Sustainable Woods Cooperatives was formed in southern Wisconsin where oak tends to dominate, while Western UP Forest Improvement District is located in areas more associated with Northern forest types (e.g., northern hardwoods and aspen). Your question, though, probably requires some consideration. Different forest types and conditions might lead to different goals and expectation from owners. (Respondent: Mark Rickenbach mgrickenbach@wisc.edu)

Q. Are any cooperatives dealing with non-timber forest product management and marketing?

A. The short answer is yes – the long answer is more varied. Generally speaking, the forestry cooperatives most talked about in the conference are not formally managing, processing or marketing non-timber products for members as a major element of their business planning. However, many members of the groups are very interested and experienced in this area so there is educational and more informal work being done to develop their ideas and interests. More specifically, there are efforts to develop a maple syruping co-op in Wisconsin, and there are also very targeted non-timber projects being initiated by Rural Action in Ohio, primarily around ginseng. (Respondent: Katie Fernholz kfernholz@iatp.org http://www.forestrycenter.org)

Q. Use of local wood for community projects (e.g. schools, libraries, etc) seems a good niche market for cooperatives. Can you comment?

A. Yes! Absolutely! Using locally grown, well-managed wood and non-wood products in local buildings and community projects makes perfect sense for a number of ecological, economic and social reasons. These projects reduce impacts from long-distance transportation, support the economic development of the co-op, and help build community benefit. Why ship away something the local community needs? (Respondent: Katie Fernholz kfernholz@iatp.org http://www.forestrycenter.org)

Q. What happens when a co-op member’s management plan dictates a sale and the co-op member decides they do not want to do the harvest either at that time or ever?

A. If the landowner signed a contract with the co-op, plan preparer or other entity regarding a commitment to having a sale, the landowner will need to comply with whatever obligations are stipulated in the agreement. Most contracts should allow the landowner to change his or her mind, but may require that that landowner pay a penalty. Landowners should be very familiar with what is written in their management plan and fully understand their obligations in order to avoid last minute changes of heart and miscommunication. (Respondent: Katie Fernholz kfernholz@iatp.org http://www.forestrycenter.org)

Q. Can you inform us of any forest landowner co-ops who market recreational opportunities (hunting, fishing, hiking, horse trails, off-highway vehicle trails, etc.) for revenue generation?

A. This is a common question. We’re not aware of any forest landowner cooperatives that are marketing recreational uses of their land. Even in co-ops, it's common for potential members to balk at the idea of giving up or sharing property rights—members often want to retain control over the use of their land. This may preclude leasing members' land for recreational uses. However, various landowner groups are involved in promoting recreational opportunities without any associated fees. For example, a forestry group in Wisconsin has been instrumental in promotion of a local regional trail that crosses members' properties. Although forestry co-ops may not be leasing recreational land, numerous individual and industrial forest landowners, hunting clubs, and other organizations are lease land for hunting or recreational purposes. (Respondents: Eli Sagor esagor@umn.edu and Katie Fernholz kfernholz@iatp.org http://www.forestrycenter.org)

Q. After participating in the Forest Landowner Cooperatives teleconference, we are wondering if there are any successful forest cooperatives in the entire country. We left the conference feeling rather depressed as we have been trying to start a cooperative in Ohio, especially for pines.

A. Yes, there are successful forestry co-ops in North America.  There are forestry co-ops that are successfully improving forest management on member's lands, overseeing FSC certified harvests and marketing member's logs and wood products.  Of the nearly 30 landowner groups that have been started in the U.S. since 1995, only one, SWC, has closed its doors. (Respondent: Katie Fernholz kfernholz@iatp.org http://www.forestrycenter.org)

Most of the new forestry co-ops in the US are relatively young and early in their development. Consider the steps of co-op development. The first steps involve convening a steering committee, spending 1-2 years developing a business plan, recruiting members, and so on. These are not high-visibility activities. Only after these things are done can the co-op achieve success in ways that might be more visible or tangible. So, many if not all of the early successes will happen well out of the limelight. Will today’s co-ops stand the test of time? It's hard to say. But I wouldn't give up just yet. (Respondent: Eli Sagor esagor@umn.edu)

Q. Dave Kittredge, did you find examples of lumber marketing cooperatives in your international studies? Getting wood to markets profitably is a major challenge for forest owners in Brazil, Central America, etc. Also, did you find a link between improving marketing/finances and improving forest care?

A. I never found explicit examples of lumber marketing in my review of forest owner cooperatives around the world. I found numerous examples of forest owner cooperatives that processed roundwood into lumber and then marketed it (e.g., Japan, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Norway), but I never found an example where people or mills actually pooled lumber from various places and then marketed it cooperatively. It seems like a good idea to me. Small mills do not have an advantage of scale in terms of production, and could conceivably assemble viable volumes of lumber to market if they "pooled their resources." This would be especially advantageous for relatively unusual species that mills may process, but have a difficult time of accumulating a viable critical mass to offer to the marketplace. In New England, for example, species like the various hickories or tulip poplar are not all that abundant, yet do grow well and end up being harvested and sold to mills in a load of logs. Some method to collectively market processed lumber of these species would be advantageous.

Regarding the “link between improving marketing/finances and improving forest care,” it is a good question, and all foresters and those who care about first stewardship would hope that improved returns from the forest would translate into improved care. I only sought examples of owner cooperation, to learn how extensive this model was, and how effective it might be. As a result, I did not take it to the next step to explore cooperation/improved returns, and link it back to what was happening in the woods. Indirectly, though, one might assume that if lands owned by members of a cooperative are green certified by some standard, then they are better cared for. I did find explicit examples in Sweden, where cooperatives are encouraging members to have their lands certified, and are providing the technical assistance in the form of management plan development on a fee-for-service basis to meet those certified standards. Indeed, one cooperative actually pays its members a slight premium for wood from members if their lands are certified. For more information, I refer you to: Kittredge, D. B. 2003. Private forest owners in Sweden: large-scale cooperation in action. Journal of Forestry. 101(2): 41-46. (Respondent: David B. Kittredge dbk@forwild.umass.edu)

Q. Is there significant history regarding forest industry hostility toward cooperative marketing of roundwood and subsequent price increases?

A. My limited review of historical data suggests that hostility toward cooperative marketing was not the main reason for previous demise. Cooperatives during the post-war boom could not compete with mills on return to landowners. I could understand that mills might be threatened by cooperatives, but might also see them as opportunities for long-term procurement goals. For example, a co-op might form a relationship with local mill(s) that might benefit all parties. (Respondent: Mark Rickenbach mgrickenbach@wisc.edu)

Q. How does a co-op effort handle a landowner who owns a significant block of land (40-400 acres) that's situated in the middle of a proposed hunting co-op?

A. Cooperatives are voluntary business arrangements. If a landowner, after reviewing the opportunity and its potential benefits and costs, decides not to participate, that is their decision—at least for the time being. If the co-op is able to document success, revisiting the landowner may be useful. Their reluctance may be from risk aversion. It may also require that other co-op members be the primary salespersons based on their past experience with the reluctant owner. (Respondent: Mark Rickenbach mgrickenbach@wisc.edu)

Q. How do you overcome the significant reluctance of landowners to be “joiners”?

Hence, in considering any type of organization, the critical questions are what might landowners want or need and then what is the best way to deliver those goods and services. No, not everyone will join, but if an organization provides something that people say they want in way that is easy for them to access, it should be able to work. (Respondent: Mark Rickenbach mgrickenbach@wisc.edu)

Q. Is there an example of a large wood/lumber marketing co-op such as REI or Ace Hardware or Ocean Spray? (Is there a big co-op?)

A. Not domestically. However internationally, forestry cooperatives can be major players. Sweden's Mellanskog is a cooperative of 28,000 landowners controlling 3.8 million acres of private forests that include processing and mill facilities. For more on Mellanskog, visit: http://www4.techsell.se/mellanskog-intranet/smpage.fwx?page=136. (Respondent: Mark Rickenbach mgrickenbach@wisc.edu)

Q. If you are part of a co-op, will this prevent land from being taken by state, federal, or local government that may claim eminent domain due to progress of development?

A. No. Eminent domain allows government to take private lands regardless of participation in a cooperative or other business form. (Respondent: Mark Rickenbach mgrickenbach@wisc.edu)

Q. There were several questions referring to funding sources for forest landowner cooperatives as well as the positives and negatives to these financial resources.

A. There are various options should you decide to pursue grant money or assistance in developing a forest landowner cooperative. Some funding sources may be more appropriate than others depending on the goals of your organization, stage of development, and the legal structure of the organization (assuming the group has gotten as far as formally organizing). The organization providing the financial resource will choose organizations to invest in that meet their outlined goals. Some financial resources are meant to be distributed for use in organizing while others may fund only value-adding activities. The funding organization may also have limitations to the types of organizations that they can give money ex. profit vs. non-profit. It is important to match your organization and its needs to an appropriate funding source. To the best of my knowledge, most of the recent forest landowner cooperatives have received some sort of assistance. Below are some potential sources:

• USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS): Formally the Soil Conservation Service, NRCS is a federal program which assists agricultural activities. They offer assistance with cooperative development and do offer value added grants.
• USFS – State and Private: State and Private is the U.S. Forest Service unit which works with private landowners. Focus funding offers states the opportunity to develop projects which meet the goals of the state’s forestry programs. The project must be sponsored by the State Forester. The Massachusetts Woodlands Cooperative received a focus funding grant which was used to start help form the organization.
• State programs of business development and local Community Development Corporations: These groups may be able to put you in touch with programs that assist start-up businesses.
• Private Foundations and Environmental Organizations: There are numerous private foundations and environmental organizations, too many to list, which give grants to organizations working for similar ends. I would suggest utilizing the internet as well as asking environmental organizations in your area about potential funding sources and their missions. It is crucial to target foundations with similar missions.

Positive aspects to grant money: Grant money can offer an opportunity to develop a forest landowner cooperative with little or no risk. It may also offer funding sources a very cost efficient way to assure public values continue to flow from private lands with relatively low cost. It is not uncommon for the forest industry to receive grant money to try new equipment or innovative approaches. I would suggest it is equally appropriate to assist private landowners in reaching their goals.

Negative aspects to grant money: One of the biggest drawbacks to grant money is the risk of “grant dependency”. If an organization becomes too dependent on using grants, it can significantly inhibit commitment to the cooperative. Cooperative businesses tend to have more success in getting up and running because of the dedication of the owner/members and the amount of resource they have invested. If the landowners have not invested anything into the cooperative, they are less likely to be committed to it. A forest landowner cooperative is a business and therefore demands the commitment that comes with starting a business. Grants can prevent landowners from developing a sense of ownership and commitment to the cooperative. The earlier the investment by landowners, the earlier strong commitment to the cooperative can be developed. (Respondent: Paul Catanzaro Paul.Catanzaro@state.ma.us)

Q:  Do your co-ops work with Small Business Development Centers in your state?

A:  Small Business Development Centers (SBDC) could serve as a resource to forestry co-ops.  However, I have found that not many SBDC personnel are familiar with the co-op form of business.  I would suggest contacting your local SBDC for assistance in developing a feasibility study, business plan, and strategies for raising capital.  But for technical assistance in the steps necessary to organize a co-op, contact your state's USDA Rural Development office.  Each USDA Rural Development state office should have a Co-op Development Specialist available to help you through the process of organizing a co-op.  They can also direct you to a nonprofit or university center that specializes in co-op development. 

  To locate your USDA state co-op development specialist, link to:
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/cscontac.htm  

The National Cooperative Business Association maintains a listing of co-op development resources across the country.  To locate a co-op development center that serves your region, link to: http://www.ncba.coop/econcenters.cfm (Respondent: Margaret Bau Margaret.Bau@wi.usda.gov)

Q. Are there property tax advantages for participating forest landowners?

A. No, forest landowners do not enjoy any preferential tax treatment for their involvement in a cooperative. However, involvement with landowner cooperatives may make it easier for landowners to join their state’s forest current use program which does provide tax benefits to landowners committed to long-term forest management. Contact your local state service forester for more information on your individual state’s forest tax law program. (Respondent: Paul Catanzaro Paul.Catanzaro@state.ma.us)

Q. What are typical start-up costs for forestry cooperatives?

A. The answer to this question depends on the type of co-op being formed. The first step of getting 5-10 landowners together to form a steering committee doesn’t need to cost anything except volunteer time and, preferably, technical assistance from someone who has some familiarity with forestry co-ops. Then, the cost of a business plan can vary from a few thousand dollars to $50,000 or more, depending on the complexity of the proposed business activities. A forestry services co-op can begin operation with very little capital. A wood processing co-op may require a lot more capital to get started because of because land, building and equipment purchases and working capital costs. (Respondent: E.G. Nadeau egnadeau@inxpress.net)

Q. What is an appropriate pay range for a co-op manager?

A. The answer to this question depends on the location and size of the co-op, the manager’s responsibilities and level of experience, and other benefits that will be included as part of a total compensation package. The co-op needs to remember that, as with most things, you get what you pay for. Co-ops need to offer competitive pay to their employees. This means being willing to pay what non-cooperative firms offer in order to attract the best employees. In addition to asking what other similar firms are paying, co-ops can also ask resource people at universities and other educational institutions that regularly place graduates in new jobs. The following are some additional publications that may be useful: Cooperative Employee Compensation (USDA RBS Research Report 189), http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/rr189.pdf; “Benefits often key to keeping best employees” at http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/mar02/best.htm; and “Managerial Compensation in Midwestern Cooperatives” by Robert King, David Trechter, and David Cobia (Journal of Cooperatives, volume 13, 1998). (Respondent: Kim Zeuli zeuli@aae.wisc.edu).

Q. Is written material available that describes the benefit of forest landowner cooperatives.

Q. Although higher prices can be obtained through co-ops, does this outweigh the costs of running the co-op?

A. Cooperatives are businesses and therefore, need to be profitable in order to remain viable over the long run. Initially, the co-op’s costs may exceed its revenues. This is true with most businesses in the start-up phase (which can last a few years). Eventually, though, the revenues must exceed the costs or the co-op will face bankruptcy. A solid feasibility study and business plan will help co-op members ascertain whether they can expect their company to be profitable (given a certain set of conditions). There are certainly many examples of very profitable and successful cooperatives. (Respondent: Kim Zeuli zeuli@aae.wisc.edu)

Q. Paul Catanzaro mentioned that there was some controversy about the amount of time you spent with the cooperative. Can you expand on that a bit?

A. There were two main concerns: 1. What is an appropriate role for a state/public employee? and 2. How much time is appropriate for a state/public employee to spend? I address them individually below.

Response to the first concern – What is an appropriate role for a state/public employee? As a service forester in Massachusetts, my job description includes duties such as education, technical assistance, technology transfer, and finding ways to improve forest management. One of the reasons I began pursuing the idea of forest landowner cooperatives was because of the potential efficiency the cooperative model offers. Instead of reaching landowners one at a time or seeing the same landowners show up at every forestry workshop, I can reach multiple landowners at one time and assist them in helping themselves. I have found the cooperative model also attracts people that may not ordinarily consider forestry because of its reputation (deserved or perceived). As far as public resources go, investment in the beginning may be a very cost effective way of assuring that public values (clean water, forest products, wildlife, etc.) continue to flow from private land. The cooperative model also offers the opportunity for landscape level management in predominantly private, non-industrial landscapes, in essence de-fragmenting the parcels. The cooperative is also in a position to help distribute technology such as GIS and GPS that has, thus far, not reached private landowners and most private foresters. My position requires both a regulatory and an education/outreach/tech. assistance component. I have focused some of my education/outreach/tech. assistance time to the cooperative in the hopes of helping to develop a new model of delivering state services.

Funding for my position, in part, comes from the US Forest Service. They have been supportive of forest landowner cooperatives and even provided a focus funding grant for us to pursue the forest landowner cooperative in Massachusetts. There is tremendous precedent for the use of public resources in helping private landowners manage there properties and there has been tremendous precedent for the use of public resources to improve the wood industry, this project brings both of those ideas together. Most states have Marketing and Utilization foresters dedicated to improving the wood industry; I believe that it is equally important to help the people that actually own the majority of the resource.

Response to the second concern -- How much time is appropriate for a state/public employee to spend? Forest landowner cooperatives are not business as usual in the forestry world. In many ways we are in uncharted territory. A few consulting foresters have been concerned about the amount of time I have put to the development of the cooperative. One consulting forester even asked to sit down with my boss to review two years worth of time sheets and discuss my role with the coop.

The original meeting to discuss the idea of starting a cooperative was initiated by a small group of resource professionals including service foresters, forest stewardship personnel, and university professors. From the beginning it was our goal to move from a leadership role to one of technical assistance. If a forest landowner cooperative was going to work, it had to be a landowner initiative. We organized the first few meetings and ran them. Within 3-4 meetings, a dedicated core group of landowners and a few leaders emerged and took the lead. The resource team has stayed involved to provide technical assistance and momentum during the “fits and starts” stages.

Our organizational grant from the USFS required match. Jennifer Fish, a fellow Massachusetts service forester, and I dedicated five hours (or 12.5% of our time) of match per week for two years. Since then, our time is now directed to assisting the group with Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification and is roughly 10 hours a month (or 6.25%). We are also very open to work with others beyond the cooperative interested in FSC certification and would help others should the interest arise. (Respondent: Paul Catanzaro Paul.Catanzaro@state.ma.us)

Q. What is the range of land acreage (smallest and average)? And, how close or far apart are members’ properties?

A. The answer to this question may vary based on geography, efficiency of transportation networks, and co-op organizational structure and mission. However, most cooperatives restrict membership to properties within a 50-100 mile radius of one another. Spreading out more widely can make it difficult for members to attend co-op functions, to transport wood products in an efficient manner, and to cultivate the kind of community that is important to most co-op groups that have formed thus far. (Respondent: Eli Sagor esagor@umn.edu)

Q. Are there any coops involved with energy production with low value wood? How are they dealing with this?

A. Not that I know of. But, I wouldn’t be surprised if we see more of this in the future. Biomass energy production is a popular topic these days. Forestry cooperatives may help to reduce challenges (e.g. negative economies of scale, and marketing to larger and larger groups of small landowners) associated with harvesting products from nonindustrial private forest land. So, I’d keep an eye on this topic. (Respondent: Eli Sagor esagor@umn.edu)

Q. Can loggers, foresters and wood processors be members of cooperatives with landowners?

A. Yes, but with a caution. A co-op is designed to provide benefits to its members. If a co-op has a diverse group of members, their goals and objectives may vary. This can cause friction within the organization. Landowners purchase services from loggers and foresters and sell wood to processors. Members of all these groups may agree on the importance of sustainable forestry, but their economic interests regarding how to achieve this goal may not be the same. (Respondent: E.G. Nadeau egnadeau@inxpress.net)

Q. When should a local group form a co-op and when should it organize a non-profit organization?

A. The key issue here is whether a group of landowners is ready to form a business or whether they are primarily interested in “non-profit” activities such as education, information-sharing, joint work activities, etc. Some local groups may later decide to start out as a non-profit and consider forming a cooperative or other form of business at a later date. (Respondent: E.G. Nadeau egnadeau@inxpress.net)

Q. How many landowners do you need to get started?

A. Four or five landowners are enough to form a steering committee to explore the formation of a co-op. A critical mass of members for going into business as a cooperative varies depending on what activities the co-op is designed to carry out. This should be determined in the co-op’s business plan. Also, once you are at the stage of incorporating the co-op, you will need to check with state laws regarding the minimum number of members required (e.g., in Wisconsin it is 5) (Respondents: E.G. Nadeau egnadeau@inxpress.net and Kim Zeuli zeuli@aae.wisc.edu)

Q. Some states have been passing new cooperative laws. What will be the impact of these laws on forest co-ops?

A. New cooperative laws have been passed in Wyoming and Minnesota and are being considered in Wisconsin, Vermont, Iowa and other states. These laws do not replace existing co-op laws, but offer an additional statue under which co-ops can be incorporated. Their most fundamental difference is that they allow co-ops to attract non-member capital. Cooperatives have always been able to offer a certain class of shares to non-member investors, but the shareholders had virtually no control in the co-op. The new laws allow the non-member (technically non-patronage member) shareholders to share in the governance of the co-op, therefore, making it a more attractive option. The new laws will give all cooperative organizations incorporated under those laws greater flexibility in attracting capital. (Respondent: Kim Zeuli zeuli@aae.wisc.edu).

Q. Have you seen any successful cooperatives start by buying an existing business as a foundation for their cooperative business?

A. We are not aware of any forest owner co-ops that have begun operation by buying out an existing business in the past couple of decades in the United States. There are, however, many examples of successful agricultural co-ops that have begun in this manner. For example, the American Crystal Sugar Company in Minnesota was purchased by sugar beet growers in 1972 and continues as a cooperative to this day. (Respondent: E.G. Nadeau egnadeau@inxpress.net)

Q. Do cooperatives that produce a finished product do better financially over those that sell logs or lumber?

A. It depends. As the case studies showed, “value-added” co-ops, such as the Sustainable Woods Cooperative, can run into trouble for a variety of reasons, including inadequate capital, lack of forest industry expertise, inefficient processing, and problems in accessing markets. In some cases, it’s better to start out by providing forestry services and by marketing timber than by getting into the riskier and more expensive business of marketing higher value products. (Respondent: E.G. Nadeau egnadeau@inxpress.net)

Q. Is a prescribed fire cooperative a possible solution to managing prescribed fire across the landscape – particularly in wildfire prone forestlands? Do you know of any?

A. Yes, a cooperative or association of this kind is a great idea. Partners in Forestry in Wisconsin is a co-op that has fire protection as one of its primary goals. This type of organization would be especially appropriate in many western states that have experienced catastrophic fires in recent years. (Respondent: E.G. Nadeau egnadeau@inxpress.net)