United States 

Department 

of Agriculture

Forest Service

General Technical

Report NC-266

April 2006 

Forestry Cooperatives:

What Today’s Resource

Professionals Need 

To Know
United States 

Department 

of Agriculture

Forest Service

General Technical

Report NC-266

April 2006 

Forestry Cooperatives:

What Today’s Resource

Professionals Need 

To Know

A satellite conference held November 18, 2003, 

St. Paul, MN.

Pamela Jakes, compiler

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service

North Central Research Station

1992 Folwell Avenue

St. Paul, MN 55108

www.ncrs.fs.fed.us
Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know iii

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Charlie Blinn

Nonindustrial Private Forest Landowners and Sources of Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Eli Sagor

What is a Cooperative? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Kimberly Zeuli

Cooperative Functions: Meeting Members’ Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Mark G. Rickenbach 

Forestry Cooperatives: Past and Present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Mark G. Rickenbach 

Forest Owner Cooperation Around the World: Where, How, and Why It Succeeds . . .31

David B. Kittredge

Achieving Cooperative Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

Kimberly Zeuli

Learning From the Experiences of Others: Four Forest Landowner Cooperatives 

Share Their Stories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53

Pamela Jakes
iv Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know
Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know 1

Charlie Blinn1

Nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) land represents approximately 48 percent of the

forest land cover in the United States and has played an important role in meeting an

increasing domestic wood demand (Smith et al. 2004). Conscientious stewardship of

these forests is a perennial issue facing natural resource professionals due to the large

number of owners and their diverse interests. Landowner assistance programs such as

the American Tree Farm System, the Forest Stewardship Program, and woodland owner

associations exist to stimulate forest management and reforestation on these ownerships

through subsidies of money and materials.

Today, some entrepreneurial NIPF landowners are developing forest landowner

cooperatives—an old idea that has re-emerged with the growing interest in forest

certification and the allure of increased profit through the value-added processing of

timber products. Forest landowner cooperatives are defined as “user-owned and usercontrolled forestry-related businesses that distribute benefits to members on the basis of

their use.” They generally share two characteristics: (1) they are jointly owned and

managed by members who are NIPF landowners, and (2) members equitably share the

costs and benefits of maintaining/operating the cooperative. Today’s forest landowner

cooperatives, like those in the past, look to provide members with services otherwise

unavailable, such as improved access to markets and increased revenue from forest

management. Unlike prior efforts, these organizations also tend to foster sustainable

forestry (e.g., forest certification), land protection, and ecological restoration.

In recent years, a number of regional nonprofit, government, and university

organizations have begun to support and educate NIPF owners interested in forming

cooperatives. However, many natural resource professionals have only cursory

knowledge of the opportunities and barriers associated with cooperatives. Also,

although cooperative development specialists are knowledgeable about cooperative

formation, organizational structures, and management, they are generally not

knowledgeable about forestry and NIPF landowners. Furthermore, natural resource

professionals and cooperative development specialists know little about each other and

the role they both can play in the development and support of forest landowner

cooperatives.

The satellite conference “Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals

Need to Know” was broadcast on November 18, 2003. It was the brainchild of the Local

Introduction

A cooperative, something that

brings more sensitive

management to the land, is

certainly appealing because we

want to protect what’s here, we

want to make it better, and we

want to generate some income.

Blue Ridge Forest Cooperative

Potential Member

There are many potential

benefits from a cooperative.

Marketing, access to markets,

being able to label your

products, getting landowners to

communicate and voice their

opinions effectively are

probably the largest ones.

Lewis County, Washington,

Potential Cooperative Member

1 Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, cblinn@umn.edu
2 Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know

Forest Cooperatives Working Group—a joint venture of the University of Minnesota, the

University of Wisconsin, and the USDA Forest Service. The conference was sponsored

by the University of Minnesota College of Natural Resources, the University of

Minnesota Extension Service, the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, the

University of Wisconsin Extension Cooperative Extension, and the USDA Forest

Service North Central Research Station. Funding was provided by the USDA

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES). 

The satellite conference was designed to help natural resource professionals and

cooperative development specialists to: 

• Gain a better understanding of cooperatives and a deeper insight into some of the

successes and challenges of cooperatives

• Evaluate whether the forestry cooperative model is right for a specific area and if

so, how to further the discussion locally

• See how cooperatives can complement other landowner assistance programs such as

Tree Farm, Forest Stewardship, and woodland owner associations

• Hear firsthand about the experiences of forestry cooperative initiatives from

Massachusetts, Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Washington

This report summarizes much of the information presented during that satellite

conference. It also includes a DVD of the case studies shown during the conference. We

would like to thank the members of these cooperatives for sharing their stories with us

and with our broader conference audience.

We would also like to thank Chery Hays Day, a Senior Media Resources Producer

with the University of Minnesota Extension Service, for her outstanding

videoconference production work and for her never-failing uplifting personality; John

Day for playing the music lead-in to the video conference and for keeping everyone

loose during the satellite uplink; and all of the staff at Minnesota Satellite and

Technology (MnSAT) for facilitating the satellite conference uplink.

Literature Cited

Smith, W.B.; Miles, P.D.; Vissage, J.S.; Pugh, S.A. 2004. Forest resources of the United

States, 2002. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-241. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 137 p.
Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know 3

Eli Sagor1

Nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) lands make up a large and important portion of the

forested land base in the U.S. Forest management decisions on these lands have

important impacts on the nature and level of benefits derived from the land. This

chapter will review some important findings about NIPF owners as they relate to forest

landowner cooperatives. 

About NIPF Owners

Collectively, NIPF landowners are tremendously important to the condition of forested

ecosystems and forest-dependent businesses. In 1994, NIPF lands in the United States

totaled 232 million acres, or 59 percent of the total forest land (Birch 1996). NIPF lands

account for a higher percentage of forest land in the Eastern United States than in the West. 

NIPF landowners also accounted for 60 percent of all United States timber

removals in 1997. This percentage is projected to rise between 1997 and 2050,

particularly in the East (Haynes et al. 1995). The availability of timber from private

forest lands is important to the long-term viability of domestic timber-producing

companies and the people who work for them.

Nonindustrial Private Forest Landowners and Sources

of Assistance

Figure 1.—Parcelization is a potential threat to the long-term productivity of our

forest land. (Photo credit: NCRS Image Library).

1 University of Minnesota Extension Service, St. Paul, MN, sagor001@umn.edu
4 Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know

NIPF parcels are becoming more numerous and smaller. This process, called

parcelization, poses a potential threat to the long-term productivity of the forested land

base. Between 1978 and 1994, the total amount of private woodlands increased by about

27 percent. However, during the same period, the total amount of this land in parcels of

less than 100 acres increased by 73 percent, from 72 million to 124 million acres (Birch

1996). Most forest management activities are less economically feasible on smaller

parcels than on larger parcels (Row 1978). Parcelization therefore has the potential to

reduce forest land productivity (Kline et al. 2004). The potential diseconomy of scale of

managing forests on so many small parcels has been a concern for the forestry

community for many years ( Alig et al. 1990, Skok and Gregersen 1975). 

Despite the potential benefits of a high level of timber harvest from NIPF lands,

management for timber is not a primary objective for many NIPF landowners.

Numerous studies have found that most NIPF landowners consider financial returns

from harvesting timber on their land to be of relatively minor importance (Alig et al.

1990, Bliss and Martin 1989, Elwood et al. 2003, Young and Reichenbach 1987). For

many owners, nonmarket amenities and services such as wildlife habitat, recreation, and

solitude are of greater interest.

Figure 2.—For many nonindustrial private

landowners, activities such as wildlife viewing are the

primary reason for owning and managing their land.

(Photo credit: R. Haack, NCRS).
Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know 5

NIPF landowners consult a variety of information sources in making forestry

decisions. Studies in Michigan (West et al. 1988) and Minnesota (Baughman et al.

1998) suggested that landowners prefer to obtain information from neighbors or peers

rather than more distant sources. This preference may favor the development of

landowner groups that foster dialogue among local landowners. 

Existing Sources of Assistance

Most individual NIPF landowners have little knowledge or day-to-day access to

information for making forest management decisions. Nor do they typically have an

important financial incentive to find this information, because most do not consider

financial returns to be a primary management concern. Nonetheless, numerous sources

of information, technical assistance, education, and money are available to help NIPF

landowners make and implement smart decisions for managing their forests. This

section introduces and briefly discusses some of the most important sources of

information and assistance available to most NIPF owners.

Technical assistance, cost sharing, education, and other programs provide NIPF

landowners with information and assistance in the management of their woodlands.

These initiatives and the research behind them have focused on the NIPF “problem” of

relatively low timber harvest levels. By most assessments, these programs have been

both efficient and effective (Cubbage et al. 1987, Esseks and Moulton 2000, Skok and

Gregersen 1975). 

Technical Assistance 

Technical assistance programs offer NIPF landowners access to the services of

professional foresters, soil conservation experts, or other natural resource professionals

for reduced, or no, fees. Technical assistance also includes access to extension and other

educational programs and resources. The most common services provided are direct,

onsite forest management advice for landowners, education for landowners, and

education for loggers, wood processors, and others (Cubbage et al. 1996, Egan et al.

2001). Assistance for landowners is designed to help them make informed decisions

about what forest management activities to conduct and how to find resources necessary

to implement them. Assistance for loggers is generally designed to promote the use of

best forest management practices (BMPs) during timber harvest. 

The availability of technical assistance programs has been shown to increase

implementation of BMPs. In West Virginia, forest improvement practices recommended

in a forest stewardship plan were more likely to be implemented than practices not

recommended (Egan et al. 2001). Egan (1999) also found higher rates of implementation

of BMPs on sales administered by a professional forester than on those in which a
6 Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know

forester was not involved. Landowners also frequently mention the educational value of

working one-on-one with a professional forester. Although independent, paid consultants

are available in most situations, technical assistance programs often reach landowners

who would not be willing to spend the necessary money to hire a private consultant.

These programs, then, play a critical role in making landowners aware of the services

that professional foresters provide. 

Technical assistance programs have been found to be efficient and effective. The

Forest Stewardship Program offers NIPF owners free or low-cost management plan

development services provided by public or private professional foresters. Many states

also make professional foresters available to advise landowners as they consider options

for timber harvests or other forest practices. Cubbage et al. (1985) found a benefit of

$600 per acre in net present value from working with a service forester in Georgia. The

same study found that working with a forester also increased stumpage (standing

timber) prices paid to NIPF owners by 58 percent. A subsequent study conducted in

Minnesota found similar results: the average bid price on aspen sales was $4.66 per cord

on sales assisted by a forester and only $3.32 on sales not assisted by a forester (Henly

et al. 1988). Similar studies in other states have found similar results, if less pronounced

than in the original study (Cubbage et al. 1996).

The benefits of forest landowner assistance programs have been shown to accrue

not only to individual landowners, but also to society. Cubbage et al. (1985) found that

government investments in the Georgia Rural Forestry Assistance program consistently

provided positive returns at the individual and social levels. 

Cost Share Programs

Cost share programs are funded and administered at the Federal, State, and local levels.

Most of these programs are funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and many

originated from initiatives to maintain or restore water quality or the productivity of the

agricultural and forested land base. In 1987, 14 States offered their own cost share

programs (Bullard and Straka 1988). These programs included free tree seedlings,

fencing, timber stand improvement, reforestation, and other activities.

Financial support for reforestation activities helps to ensure a sustained supply of

wood products. Payments to support erosion control devices, wildlife habitat features,

and similar items help maintain clean water and viable wildlife populations. Most

studies of the value of technical assistance and cost share programs found them to be

efficient and effective (Bullard and Straka 1988, Cubbage et al. 1985, Henly et al.

1988). These and similar studies generally found net positive returns for investments in

private forestry assistance, but to varying degrees. However, others questioned the value

of public funds used to influence what might otherwise be free markets. 
Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know 7

Cost sharing increases the impact of technical assistance programs (Esseks and

Moulton 2000). Royer (1987) found that reforestation behavior among southern NIPF

owners was highly sensitive to price and the availability of cost share assistance. Where

reforestation costs were high and cost share funds were not available, less reforestation

occurred. State and provincial forestry agency directors considered technical assistance

and cost share programs to be the most effective policy tools to influence behavior on

NIPF lands (Kilgore and Blinn 2004).

In a survey of forest management program leaders, financial and technical

assistance (referred to as educational programs, technical assistance, and fiscal

incentives) were found to be the three policy options perceived to be most effective

(Cheng and Ellefson 1993). Education and technical assistance in particular were

perceived to be highly effective and efficient.

Education and Information 

The Cooperative Extension Service, woodland owner associations, forest landowner

cooperatives, and other organizations offer information and educational opportunities to

NIPF owners. Organizations like the American Tree Farm System (ATFS), the National

Woodland Owners’ Association, and similar organizations at State and local levels are

examples of woodland owner associations. As an example of the reach of these

organizations, the ATFS currently has more than 65,000 members nationally, all of

whom receive a monthly magazine with information landowners can use to better

manage their woodlands. 

Figure 3.—Organizations such as Cooperative Extensions, woodland owner

associations, and forest landowner cooperatives offer information and

educational opportunities to nonindustrial private forest landowners.

(Photo credit: E. Sagor).
8 Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know

Regulatory Programs 

Although they may exist for other reasons, forest practices regulatory systems can be

important sources of information for landowners considering timber harvest. These

systems can be voluntary or mandatory and vary widely in the practices covered

(Ellefson et al. 1995). Although most program administrators consider mandatory

regulations to be one of the least preferred program options (Kilgore and Blinn 2004,

National Association of State Foresters 2001), regulatory programs do seem to be an

effective way to achieve implementation of specified forest management practices

(Henly et al. 1986). 

A related development is the growth in non-State forest practices regulations in the

form of forest certification systems. These voluntary systems are rapidly increasing in

acreage and importance both in the United States and worldwide. They certify landowner

compliance with a specified set of forest management procedures and practices. Although

these systems are expected to continue to increase in importance, growth on NIPF lands

is expected to trail that of other ownership types (Cashore et al. 2003).

Forest Landowner Cooperation

Although they have yet to reach a substantial number of landowners nationwide,

examples of forest landowner cooperation are not hard to find. The Massachusetts

Woodlands Cooperative (Barten et al. 2001) helps its NIPF owner members to obtain

educational services, increased financial returns, access to equipment and professional

expertise, and more. As we will learn in a later chapter, examples of forest landowner

cooperation from other countries demonstrate that, in the right situations, these

organizations can persist and provide value to their members. 

Conclusions

The condition and trends across the United States describe a huge and widely dispersed

population of small owners of a large land base. Collectively, the forest management

decisions made by the members of this group will have important impacts on the

availability of wood products for wood-using businesses. A diverse set of programs has

been created to encourage active, sustainable forest management on NIPF lands. These

programs have offered technical assistance, cost share payments, education, information,

beneficial tax status, and other benefits, and the programs have had important impacts. 

No single program can reach all landowners. Some studies (Bliss and Martin 1988,

Egan 1997, Jones et al. 1995, Young and Reichenbach 1987) suggested that the forestry

community’s focus on the timber “problem” may prevent some programs from reaching

landowners with different interests. Participation in a forest landowner cooperative

provides a different opportunity for landowners to become engaged in their communities
Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know 9

and to find local, trusted sources of information about forest management opportunities.

Their potential to involve new landowners makes the trend in new cooperative development

worthy of further attention. Whether, and for how long, large numbers of NIPF owners

get involved in forest landowner cooperatives may determine the impact that these

organizations will ultimately have. 

Literature Cited

Alig, R.J.; Lee, K.J.; Moulton, R.J. 1990. Likelihood of timber management on

nonindustrial private forests: evidence from research studies. Gen. Tech. Rep. SE-60.

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest

Experiment Station. 17 p.

Barten, P.K.; Damery, D.; Catanzaro, P.; et al. 2001. Massachusetts family forests: birth

of a landowner cooperative. Journal of Forestry. 99: 23-30.

Baughman, M.J.; Cervantes, J.C.; Rathke, D.M. 1998. Reaching Minnesota’s nonindustrial

private forest landowners. Unpublished report. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota. 5

p. [Available from author].

Birch, T.W. 1996. Private forest-land owners of the northern United States, 1994.

Resour. Bull. NE-136. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 293 p.

Bliss, J.C.; Martin, A.J. 1988. Identity and private forest management. Society and

Natural Resources. 1: 365-376.

Bliss, J.C.; Martin, A.J. 1989. Identifying NIPF management motivations with qualitative

methods. Forest Science. 35: 601-622.

Bullard, S.H.; Straka, T.J. 1988. Structure and funding of state-level forestry cost-share

programs. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 5: 132-135.

Cashore, B.; Auld, G.; Newsom, D. 2003. Forest certification (eco-labeling) programs

and their policy-making authority: explaining divergence among North American and

European case studies. Forest Policy and Economics. 5: 225-247.

Cheng, A.S.; Ellefson, P.V. 1993. State programs directed at the forestry practices of

private landowners: program administrators’ assessment of effectiveness. Staff Pap. 87.

St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Department of Forest Resources. 35 p.
10 Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know

Cubbage, F.W.; New, B.D.; Moulton, R.J. 1996. Evaluations of technical assistance

programs for nonindustrial private forest landowners. In: Baughman, M.J., ed.

Symposium on nonindustrial private forests: learning from the past, prospects for the

future. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Extension Special Programs, Minnesota

Extension Service: 367-376.

Cubbage, F.W.; Risbrudt, C.D.; Skinner, T.M. 1987. Evaluating public forestry assistance

programs: a case study in Georgia. Evaluation Review. 11: 33-49.

Cubbage, F.W.; Skinner, T.M.; Risbrudt, C.D. 1985. An economic evaluation of the

Georgia Rural Forestry Assistance Program. Res. Bull. 322. Athens, GA: University of

Georgia College of Agriculture Experiment Stations. 59 p.

Egan, A.F. 1997. From timber to forests and people: a view of nonindustrial private

forest research. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 14: 189-193.

Egan, A.F. 1999. Reducing forest road erosion: do foresters and logging contracts

matter? Journal of Forestry. 97: 36-39. 

Egan, A.F; Gibson, D.; Whipkey, R. 2001. Evaluating the effectiveness of the Forest

Stewardship Program in West Virginia. Journal of Forestry. 99: 31-36.

Ellefson, P.V.; Cheng, A.S.; Moulton, R.J.; University of Minnesota Agricultural

Experiment Station. 1995. Regulation of private forestry practices by state governments.

St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station.

Elwood, N.E.; Hansen, E.N.; Oester, P. 2003. Management plans and Oregon’s NIPF

owners: a survey of attitudes and practices. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 18:

127-132.

Esseks, J.D.; Moulton, R.J. 2000. Evaluating the Forest Stewardship Program through a

national survey of participating forest land owners. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois

University, Center for Governmental Studies, Social Science Research Institute. 113 p.

Haynes, R.W.; Adams, D.M.; Mills, J.R. 1995. The 1993 RPA timber assessment update.

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 66 p.

Henly, R.K.; Ellefson, P.V.; Baughman, M.J.; University of Minnesota Agricultural

Experiment Station. 1988. Minnesota’s private forestry assistance program: an economic

evaluation. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Minnesota Agricultural Experiment

Station.
Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know 11

Henly, R.K.; Ellefson, P.V.; University of Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station.

1986. State forest practice regulation in the United States: administration, cost, and

accomplishments. St. Paul, MN: University of Minnesota, Minnesota Agricultural

Experiment Station.

Jones, S.B.; Luloff, A.E.; Finley, J.C. 1995. Another look at NIPFs: facing our “myths.”

Journal of Forestry. 93: 41-44.

Kilgore, M.A.; Blinn, C.R. 2004. Policy tools to encourage the application of sustainable

timber harvesting practices in the United States and Canada. Forest Policy and Economics.

6: 111-127.

Kline, J.D.; Azuma, D.L.; Alig, R.J. 2004. Population growth, urban expansion, and

private forestry in western Oregon. Forest Science. 50: 33-43.

National Association of State Foresters. 2001. 2000 Progress report: State nonpoint

source pollution control programs for silviculture. [Available on Internet:

http://www.stateforesters.org/reports/NONPOINT%20REPORT.htm].

Row, C. 1978. Economies of tract size in timber growing. Journal of Forestry. 76: 576-582. 

Royer, J.P. 1987. Determinants of reforestation behavior among southern landowners.

Forest Science. 33: 654-667.

Skok, R.A.; Gregersen, H.M. 1975. Motivating private forestry: an overview. Journal of

Forestry. 73: 202-205.

West, P.C.; Fly, J.M.; Blahna, D.J. 1988. The communication and diffusion of NIPF

management strategies. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 5: 265-270.

Young, A.R.; Reichenbach, M.R. 1987. Factors influencing the timber harvesting

intentions of nonindustrial private forest owners. Forest Science. 33: 381-393.
12 Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know
Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know 13

Kimberly Zeuli1

Groups of individuals throughout time have worked together in pursuit of common

goals. The earliest forms of hunting and agriculture required a great deal of cooperation

among humans. Although the word “cooperative” can be applied to many different types

of group activities, in this publication it refers to a formal business model. Cooperative

businesses are found in nearly all countries, in numerous and varied sectors of the

economy. As Ivan Emelianoff (1942, 13), a respected cooperative scholar, once

remarked, “the diversity of cooperatives is kaleidoscopic and their variability is literally

infinite.” As a consequence of this diversity, no universally accepted definition of a

cooperative exists. Two definitions, however, are commonly used.

What is a Cooperative?

Figure 1.—The “twin pines” is a familiar symbol for

cooperatives in the United States. The Cooperative

League of the USA, which eventually became the

National Cooperative Business Association (NCBA),

adopted it as their logo in 1922. The pine tree is an

ancient symbol of endurance and immortality. The two

pines represent mutual cooperation—people helping

people. 

1 Agriculture and Applied Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, zeuli@aae.wisc.edu
14 Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know

According to the International Co-operative Alliance (ICA), a cooperative is an

autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic,

social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically

controlled enterprise. Cooperative leaders around the world recognize the ICA, a nongovernmental organization with more than 230 member organizations from more than

100 countries, as a leading authority on cooperative definition and values. The ICA

definition recognizes the essential element of cooperatives: membership is voluntary.

True cooperation with others arises from a belief in mutual help; it can’t be coerced. In

authentic cooperatives, people join voluntarily and have the freedom to quit the

cooperative at any time. Therefore, the forced collectives prevalent in the former Soviet

Union, for example, were not true cooperatives. 

Another widely accepted cooperative definition is the one adopted by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1987: a cooperative is a user-owned, user-controlled

business that distributes benefits on the basis of use. This definition captures what are

generally considered the three hallmarks of cooperatives: user-ownership, user-control,

and proportional distribution of benefits. The “user-owner” principle implies that the

people who use the co-op (members) help finance the co-op and, therefore, own the co-op.

Members are responsible for providing at least some of the cooperative’s capital. The

equity capital contribution of each member should be in equal proportion to that

member’s use (patronage) of the co-op. This shared financing creates joint ownership.

Cooperatives can certainly acquire debt capital, and in fact there are banks (such as

CoBank and the National Cooperative Bank) that primarily loan to cooperatives.

Typically, members generally contribute at least half of the capital in most cooperatives.

They can contribute their share over time or when they join. 

The “user-control” concept means that cooperative members govern their

organization. They approve and amend the co-op’s governing principles—the articles of

incorporation and bylaws. They also elect a board of directors and must approve all

mergers and any bankruptcy decisions. Cooperative state statutes and bylaws usually

dictate that only active co-op members (those who use the co-op) are eligible to become

voting directors, although nonmembers sometimes serve on boards in a non-voting,

advisory capacity. Advisory directors are becoming more common in large agricultural

cooperatives in the U.S., where complex financial and business operations require the

expertise of financial and industry experts. 

Voting rights are generally tied to membership status, usually one-member, one-vote,

and not to the level of investment in or patronage of the cooperative. Cooperative law in

a number of states in the U.S. and in other countries, however, also permits proportional

voting. Instead of one vote per member, voting rights are based on the volume of

business the member transacted the previous year with the cooperative. Generally,

however, to prevent control by a minority of members, there is also a maximum number

Building that forest family of

small landowners—if we can

develop a vision of what forest

land can be today and

tomorrow, and collectively work

together to bring that initiative

forward, it works for everybody.

Western Upper Peninsula

Forest Improvement District

Member
Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know 15

of votes any member may cast. For example, a grain cooperative might permit one vote

to be cast for each 1,000 bushels of grain marketed the year before, but any single

member would be limited to a maximum of 10 votes. Democratic control is maintained

by tying voting rights to patronage. Equitable voting, or democratic control, is a

quintessential attribute of cooperatives.

Cooperatives are bottom-up, not top-down organizations (fig. 2). Member control in

a cooperative should not, however, extend into daily operations of the business. In most

cooperatives, the board of directors hires a manager to take care of business. It is

essential that the board understands the manager’s (or management team’s)

responsibilities and does not try to micromanage the business. Therefore, it is important

that care is taken in hiring a highly qualified, trustworthy individual as manager. The

manager, the only employee that answers directly to the board, is responsible for

carrying out the mission and vision of the cooperative, as established by the board of

directors. In certain types of cooperatives—worker-owned or those managed as

collectives—the members may also run the daily operations of the business.

“Distribution of benefits on the basis of use” is another key foundation for

cooperatives. Members should share the benefits, costs, and risks of doing business in

equal proportion to their patronage. The proportional basis is fair, easily explained

(transparent), and entirely feasible from an operational standpoint. To do otherwise

distorts the individual contributions of members and diminishes their incentives to join

and patronize the cooperative.

Figure 2.—Typical organization of a cooperative.

(Source: Margaret Bau, USDA Rural Business

Cooperative Service).
16 Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know

Co-op benefits may include better prices for goods and services, improved services,

and dependable sources of inputs and markets for outputs. Most cooperatives also

realize annual net profits, all or part of which are returned to members in proportion to

their patronage (thus, they are aptly called patronage refunds). Cooperatives also can

return a portion of their profits as dividends on investment. In the U.S., however, Federal

and most State statutes set an 8-percent maximum on annual dividend payments to

ensure that the benefits of a cooperative accrue to those who use it most rather than to

those who may have the most invested. Today, some co-op leaders and scholars consider

this dividend restriction arbitrary and harmful to cooperatives. From their perspective,

the 8-percent maximum makes investing in cooperatives less attractive than other forms

of business. It makes cooperatives less competitive as well, especially in the agricultural

processing sector, which requires a lot of capital for startup and growth.

In sum, cooperatives are organized to serve member needs and are focused on

generating member benefits rather than returns to investors. This member-driven

orientation makes them fundamentally different from other corporations. Additional

cooperative structural characteristics and guiding principles further distinguish them

from other business models. In most countries, the cooperative model represents only

one of several different ways a business can choose to legally organize. One should

consider many factors when choosing a business structure, including the liability of

investors/owners, equity requirements, tax treatment, and ease/cost of business startup.

There are four basic categories of business in the U.S. (table 1). The sole

proprietorship is the simplest, oldest, and most numerous of all types of business. One

person owns and controls the enterprise. Partnerships involve at least two individuals.

The primary downside of general partnerships and proprietorships is the unlimited

liability: owners may lose not only their investment in the business, but also their other

assets. The Limited Liability Company (LLC) is perhaps the most popular business

form for multiple investors right now. It is a special type of partnership with a lot of

flexibility and the limited liability status of other corporations. The fourth category

includes all corporations. A cooperative is a special type of corporation, a subchapter T.

The most predominant form of corporation (e.g., those traded on a public stock

exchange) is the subchapter C. Any type of business can elect to be a nonprofit. Many

people think of cooperatives as nonprofit enterprises, but this is incorrect. Most

cooperatives in the U.S. are profit-oriented enterprises. However, unlike C-corporations,

cooperatives return a portion or all of their profits to their members on the basis of their

patronage rather than their investment levels.

I think if our cooperative could

gather those products and seek

higher-end, higher-value markets

for them, we could really help

stimulate the rural economy.

Again, right now, mostly we

have a collection of individual

businesses out there trying to

make a go of it by themselves.

But if a co-op could really

strongly act as a marketing

entity, I think it could really

help raise the profitability of all

those businesses collectively.

Lewis County, Washington,

Potential Cooperative Member
Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know 17

Cooperatives in the U.S. Economy 

Cooperatives exist in nearly every segment of our economy and have a significant

economic impact. Cooperatives range in size from just a few employees in one small

office, to very large firms with multinational operations. Most people are familiar with

the large agricultural cooperative brand names such as Land O’Lakes in Minnesota,

Cabot Creamery in Vermont, and Ocean Spray. Farmers create farm supply and

marketing cooperatives to help them maximize their farms’ net profits. This requires

both effectively marketing their products for better prices as well as keeping input costs

as low as possible. The farmers recognize they are more efficient and knowledgeable as

producers than as marketers or purchasers. By selling and buying in larger volumes

through a cooperative, they also can usually achieve better prices. 

Consumer cooperatives are established to sell the products a group of consumers

want but cannot find elsewhere at affordable prices. The consumer members are

primarily interested in improving their purchasing power—the quantity of goods and

services they can buy with their income. They naturally wish to get as much as possible

for their money in terms of quantity and quality. As owners, the members have a say in

what products their stores carry. Most people are probably familiar with local consumer

food cooperatives, which often sell a whole range of grocery and health products, but

often focus on natural or organic foods.

Rural utility cooperatives, created in the 1930s but now given a new image with the

touchstone energy marketing campaign, credit unions, and health care cooperatives are

also familiar to most of us. But cooperatives also exist in many other industries as

well—ski resorts, newspapers, orchestras, funeral homes, and more. In some cases,

these are worker-owned cooperatives. As the name suggests, a worker-owned

cooperative is owned and controlled by its employees. Employees establish cooperatives

in the hopes of increasing their wages and fringe benefits, improving their general

working conditions, and ensuring job security.

Sole proprietorship

Partnership

Limited liability company (LLC)

Corporation Subchapter S

Investor-owned firm (Subchapter C)

Cooperative (Subchapter T)

Structure Variation

Table 1.—Basic business structures in the United States.
18 Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know

Cooperatives play an important role in the American economy. About 48,000

cooperatives, operating in nearly every business sector imaginable, serve 120 million

members, or roughly 4 out of 10 Americans (National Cooperative Business Association

2003a). The National Cooperative Bank keeps track of the top revenue generating

cooperatives in America. Each co-op listed on its Co-op 100 index generated at least

$346 million in revenue during 2002. Several cooperatives have been on the Fortune 500

list. The top 100 cooperatives in the U.S. generated, in the aggregate, $119 billion in

2002 (National Cooperative Business Association 2003b). They represent agriculture,

finance, grocery, hardware, healthcare, recreation, and energy industries. Cooperatives

are especially important to agriculture. In 2002, 3,140 agricultural cooperatives—with

roughly 3.1 million farmer members (many farmers are members of more than one

cooperative)—marketed and/or processed farm commodities, sold farm supplies, and

provided other farm-related services. In 2001, they captured 28 percent of the market

share of the cash value of products marketed by farmers and of the inputs purchased by

farmers (Eversull 2004). In terms of nonagricultural cooperatives, 84 million Americans

are members of 9,569 credit unions; 865 electric co-ops serve 37 million people in 47

States; more than 1.5 million families live in housing cooperatives; and more than 3

million people are members of 5,000 food cooperatives (Consumer Federation of

America 2004, National Association of Housing Cooperatives 2004, National Rural

Electric Cooperative Association 2004, United States Credit Union 2003).

Conclusions

When people think of cooperatives, they probably tend to think of their local consumer

co-op or credit union or one of the large agricultural cooperatives. But cooperatives play

a much broader role in our economy. It is therefore not surprising that people are

rediscovering the cooperative model for applications in forestry. 

Literature Cited

Consumer Federation of America. 2004. 2004 Statistics. [Available on Internet:

http://consumerfed.org/backpage/coops.html#six].

Emelianoff, I. 1942. Economic theory of cooperation: economic structure of cooperative

organizations. New York, NY: Columbia University. 279 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Eversull, E.E. 2004. Farmer cooperative sales, incomes fall in 2002. Rural Cooperative

Magazine. January/February: 28-29.
Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know 19

National Association of Housing Cooperatives. 2004. 2004 Statistics. [Available on

Internet: http://www.coophousing.org/about_nahc.shtml].

National Cooperative Business Association (NCBA). 2003a. October 2003 Statistics.

[Available on Internet: http://www.ncba.coop/abcoop_stats.cfm].

National Cooperative Business Association (NCBA). 2003b. Co-op 100 Statistics.

[Available on Internet: http://www.co-op100.coop/coop100/indextop100.htm].

National Rural Electric Cooperative Asocation (NRECA). 2004. 2004 Statistics.

[Available on Internet: http://nreca.coop/nreca/About_Us/Our_Members/Statistics/

Statistics].

United States Credit Union. 2003. 2003 Statistics. [Available on Internet:

http://www.cuna.org].
20 Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know
Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know 21

Mark G. Rickenbach1

Cooperatives are effective when they meet the needs of the members. In past and

current offerings by cooperatives as a whole and forestry cooperatives in particular, four

functional categories cover the typical services a forest landowner might gain access to

through joining (Cobia 1989). The four categories—marketing, supply, service, and

social—are defined and examples are provided.

Marketing

The marketing function of a cooperative is intended to increase the returns to members

for forest products harvested from their land. By acting collectively in capturing

economies of scale, private forest landowners receive greater profit than by acting

alone. This collective action can, but does not have to, include value-added processing.

While most foresters naturally think of timber products, landowner cooperatives also

have been created around nontimber products such as maple syrup.

At the most basic level, the marketing function provides opportunities for the joint

sale of timber. The co-op can organize several smaller sales that may be unprofitable as

individual sales into a single, profitable sale as is commonly done by foresters in the

private sector. If the co-op could predict wood supply from their members’ lands over

time, such knowledge might allow the co-op to negotiate long-term arrangements with

local loggers or mills. Such knowledge may allow the co-op greater leverage in the

marketplace to at least negotiate more favorable contracts, if not command higher prices. 

Value-added processing can range from something as simple as a log sorting yard

for the marketing of sawn logs to a sawmill or other facility that processes wood

products for final sale to the public. However, entering the value-added wood products

industry demands greater capital investments and greater attention to the factors that

drive production. If members do not have wood available for the sawmill, where will the

co-op get logs to keep the mill (and its employees) working? Even a log sorting yard

can require careful consideration. Will the co-op buy or rent land? Will it harvest and

haul the timber to the yard or will that work be contracted to others? Value-added

processing can be an important part of a forest landowner cooperative: Sörda, the

largest Swedish co-op, operates sawmills and paper mills.

Cooperative Functions: Meeting Members’ Needs

We intend to market a product

that has a story behind it,

where we can tell people where

the wood came from, how it

was harvested, and where it

was processed. We’ve been

amazed at the wonderful

reception we’ve been getting so

far from people in this area.

Massachusetts Woodlands

Cooperative Member

1 Forest Ecology and Management, University of Wisconsin-Madison, mgrickenbach@wisc.edu
22 Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know

Supply

Rather than (or in addition to) marketing to external buyers, co-ops can help members

by reducing the cost of supplies. In theory, a co-op can purchase supplies in bulk at

prices lower than members purchasing by themselves. For example, agricultural co-ops

purchase seed and fertilizers for their member farmers. In forestry, a co-op could

purchase tree seedlings on behalf of all members and receive better prices for

purchasing in bulk quantities. A co-op might also purchase equipment that could be

shared by all members, but that would be impractical for individuals to purchase on

their own, such as tree planters, pruning poles, or a firewood splitter.

Service

The service function includes those activities that are not strictly related to marketing or

purchasing, but that still benefit members. Services might improve the profitability of

individual members or the productivity of their forests. Many forestry co-ops assist

members in developing written management plans, and they provide other technical

assistance. The Sustainable Woods Cooperative of Lone Rock, WI, organized experts

and members to burn prairies and oak savannahs to improve the qualities of those

ecosystems. A co-op may retain or employ a forester or other professional to assist

landowners with management activities. A co-op could also assist members by preparing

applications to Federal or State cost share programs, overseeing members’ participation

in a forest certification system, or advising members on timber taxation issues.

The new co-ops have spent much effort in educating their members about forests

and the practice of forestry. Co-ops, like others who work with forest landowners, have

found that education is often the first step toward active forest management. This

education has included everything from traditional forestry topics such as silviculture

and timber marketing to ecological restoration and horse logging. The new co-ops also

have used a variety of educational tools such as workshops, field days, publications,

newsletters, and Internet sites. For co-ops, the educational service can be an important

way of retaining members. Because forestry often requires only infrequent contact with

members, educational programs can reconnect members with the co-op and remind

them of the benefits it provides.

Social

Closely related to this reconnection through education is the social function that

cooperatives play. Any group of people that interacts creates a social relationship.

Several studies (Sturgess 2003, Tiles 2003) indicate that forest landowner co-ops bring

The co-op provides the

opportunity for landowners to

get together as both a buying

group and a selling group,

which is not true of any of the

other forestry associations;

that’s not their intent. That’s

pretty unique.

Massachusetts Woodlands

Cooperative Member
Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know 23

together like-minded landowners with similar goals who gain much from their

interaction with other members. Often, participation in the co-op further builds

solidarity and like-thinking among members. However, these social benefits must be put

in perspective. The decision to start or to participate in a co-op requires a full

consideration of the costs and benefits, but the social benefits also can figure into an

individual decision to join. 

Conclusions

Forest landowner cooperatives can meet a variety of potential member needs ranging

from marketing and supply arrangements to a wide range of professional and technical

services. Through these cooperatives, members can create a social network of likeminded individuals. The selection of which needs to meet depends on a careful

assessment of potential members and the existing market. 

Literature Cited

Cobia, D.W., ed. 1989. Cooperatives in agriculture. London: Prentice Hall. 447 p.

Sturgess, E.D. 2003. Lumbering through lessons in landowner cooperation: a study of

member perceptions of the Sustainable Woods Cooperative in southwestern Wisconsin.

Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Department of Forest Ecology and

Management. 91 p. M.S. thesis. 

Tiles, K.A. 2003. Local landowner forestry groups and their members: what makes

cooperation. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Department of Forest Ecology and

Management. 109 p. M.S. thesis.

The thing I really like about

cooperatives—there’re other

people there. You can call a

half dozen landowners and say,

“Hey, let me run this by you...”

So, a cooperative is a resource

that creates a continuous fabric.

That’s what I’m looking for.

Blue Ridge Forest Cooperative

Potential Member
24 Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know
Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know 25

Mark G. Rickenbach1

Forest landowner cooperatives are not a new phenomenon, but past efforts to create and

sustain these businesses have been largely unsuccessful in the U.S. Before and just after

World War II saw significant investment in cooperative development that failed to create

durable business. The purpose of this chapter is to briefly describe the history of

forestry cooperatives in the U.S. and to provide a snapshot of co-ops today.

Checkered Past

An extensive literature review indicates that the first forestry co-ops in the U.S. were

formed around the 1910s (Cunningham 1947). For example, the Rock Cooperative

Company of Rock, MI, began in 1914. Solin (1940), in a case study of four forestry

cooperatives in the Northeastern U.S., indicated that in upstate New York and New

Hampshire co-ops were present as early as the 1920s. The Great Depression saw an

increase in the number of co-ops with 57 in operation by 1944 (Cunningham 1947). In

his review, Cunningham identified five categories—cooperative stores, marketing,

processing, federations, and special purpose—of forestry co-ops based on the types of

services (i.e., function) they provided their members (table 1). The largest and only

processing co-op during this period was the Otsego Forest Products Cooperative of

Cooperstown, NY (Inter-bureau Committee on Postwar Programs 1945), which had 950

members and annual sawtimber production of 2-3 million board feet.

Forestry Cooperatives: Past and Present

Cooperative store 3 Sold forest products for members (and sometimes for others) but were uninvolved with

processing or forest management. 

Marketing 30 Formed primarily for collective marketing of logs, pulpwood, and other timber products but

strongly encouraged members to follow approved methods of logging and other forestry

practices.

Processing 1 Processed members’ timber.

Federation 11 Worked with local nonforestry cooperatives to conduct forest operations to provide members

with lumber or wooden containers or to help them market timber products. 

Special purpose 12 Formed to share forestry equipment and to market secondary forest products (e.g., Christmas

cooperative trees, syrup).

Function Number Purpose and scope of activities

Table 1.—Forestry cooperatives in the United States, 1935–47 by functional category. 

1 Forest Ecology and Management, University of Wisconsin-Madison, mgrickenbach@wisc.edu

Source: Cunningham 1947.
26 Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know

World War II and the postwar economic expansion were problematic for forestry

co-ops. The Inter-bureau Committee on Postwar Programs (1945) identified several

challenges to them, many “peculiar to cooperatives in the field of forestry” (p. 26). The

report goes on...

Perhaps the most important is maintaining adequate control of timber

cutting and other forest practices so as to keep the woodlands productive. There

is little justification for any public support of marketing cooperatives that are

not concerned with conservation of the forest resource. Another problem is how

to maintain member interest when woodland operations are undertaken only at

intervals of 3, 5, or 10 years rather than annually. A third problem is

diversification of outlets for forest products so as to facilitate more complete

utilization of the forest crop, improve growing stock, and make thinnings and

other cultural practices profitable.

Still another problem, especially serious in cooperatives limited to

marketing service, is getting members to sustain their output and live up to

production commitments. The difficulty encountered on this is inherent in the

fact that forestry is seldom the major concern of farmers and that there is no

compelling time urgency for forest operations as with other crops. (p. 26-27)

Postwar cooperatives faced additional challenges including labor shortages,

insufficient capital, competition from a growing forest products sector, and increased

stumpage prices leading owners to deal directly with mills (Dempsey 1965). Amid these

many challenges, forestry co-ops faded, but did not completely disappear. 

Dempsey (1965) estimated that 20 co-ops remained in operation in 1965, and there

was significant concern about their future. In that same year, Edward Grest, then

Director of Cooperative Forest Management with the USDA Forest Service, addressed a

forestry cooperative conference and asked attendees to avoid comparing current efforts

to past failures (Grest 1965). To be clear, not all cooperatives during that period failed.

For example, the Pertersham Forestry Cooperative Association was formed in 1938 to

salvage timber from the 1938 hurricane. When the timber was salvaged, the co-op

closed its doors. Nevertheless, the majority closed because they were unsuccessful.

As late as 1979, the number of forestry cooperatives was still small, seven by one

account (Simon and Scoville 1982), and none survived through to the present day. Of

these seven, none were formed before 1965.

Current Status

The late 1990s saw the resurgence of forest landowner cooperatives. Data from various

sources (Smith and Sisock 2002, Tiles et al. 2004) indicate that 15-20 local forest

I’m not into a subsidized future,

I’m more interested in a

sustainable future. I think what

we really need to do is focus on

helping businesses get up and

running that are natural

resource based, and then we’ll

make a lot of progress towards

creating sustainable rural

economy.

Lewis County, Washington,

Potential Cooperative Member
Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know 27

landowner organizations are in various stages of development. Just over half are either

cooperatives or organizations favoring that approach. The majority of the cooperatives

are located in the Upper Midwest. Wisconsin has the most cooperatives and Minnesota

and Iowa contribute several more. Other parts of the U.S., from the Pacific Northwest to

the Northeast, also are seeing cooperatives form. The Southeast, at this point, has the

fewest (Tiles et al. 2004).

Unlike previous efforts to form forest landowner cooperatives, current efforts have

not relied substantially on direct public investment. The driving forces behind many

current startups are nongovernmental organizations such as Cooperative Development

Services (Madison, WI) and the Community Forest Resource Center (Minneapolis, MN)

and landowners themselves. Also, the current emphasis has been on ecologically

sustainable forest practices instead of past emphases such as economic development and

timber supply. Often this emphasis on sustainable practices includes forest certification. 

As was noted, landowners are a driving force in the current cooperative movement.

While membership is defined by each co-op, anecdotal evidence suggests that

landowners are the only members. Loggers and small-scale processors can also be found

in modern forest landowner co-ops.

Learning from the Past

Given the checkered, but well-documented past of forestry cooperatives in the U.S.,

review of past literature, particularly those publications that have a “how-to” focus

(Dempsey 1968, Dempsey and Markeson 1969, Hoffman 1985, Markeson 1965, USDA

1967), can provide information for current efforts. These publications distill success or

at least attribute success to three factors: (1) get the numbers right, (2) complete an

inventory before formation, and (3) ensure member commitment for the long term.

Get the Numbers Right

Cooperatives are fundamentally businesses. For a business to be successful, its costs and

expected returns must provide acceptable returns to investors. Although most owners do

not look to their land to provide significant income, they also do not want to throw

money away. Landowners, like everyone else, want to know what they are in for when

they join something, and the finances are a big part of that.

Complete an Inventory

It is important to understand the forest resource upon which the cooperative is built.

Knowing how many owners with how much land tells a great deal about the types of

services and amount of time that might be required. Such data are essential in setting a

In order to succeed you need

two very important factors. You

need to produce a good

product. You also need

consumers. You need to notify

potential local consumers,

people who drive by your land

who have no idea what you’re

doing. You need to have them

understand the importance of

buying local products.

Massachusetts Woodlands

Cooperative Member
28 Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know

cost and fee structure that reflects the operational reality of the cooperative. If value-added

processing is to be a primary service of the cooperative, detailed inventory and harvest

schedule data are essential to determining the likely success of a processing facility.

Ensure Member Commitment

It is essential that the cooperative have members that are committed to its success. The

best way to do this is to create a cooperative that reflects the needs, interests, and values

of the members. With forest landowners and their often varied ownership objectives, this

can be easier said than done. Yet, to remain a viable cooperative over the long term,

member commitment is essential.

Conclusion

Cooperatives are not a new phenomenon in the U.S., but they have a checkered past

often marked by failure. The current effort to create forestry cooperatives would do well

to build on the lessons of previous attempts. Specifically, new and forming forest

landowner cooperatives should carefully evaluate the costs and benefits to members,

build these estimates on accurate inventories of the forest resources, and maintain a

committed membership. Even after following this advice, the cooperative may fail, but it

is sure to do so if these lessons are ignored.

Literature Cited

Cunningham, R.N. 1947. Forestry cooperatives in the United States. USDA Forest Service

Report 6. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 18 p.

Dempsey, G.P. 1965. A review of forest-based cooperatives. In: Forestry cooperatives:

workshop proceedings; 1965 September 14-15; Denver, CO. Washington, DC: USDA

Committee on Forestry: 49-61.

Dempsey, G.P. 1968. Some new guidelines for the forest cooperative. Journal of

Forestry. 66(1): 17-21.

Dempsey, G.P.; Markeson, C.B. 1969. Guidelines for establishing forestry cooperatives.

Res. Pap. NE-133. Upper Darby, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Northeastern Forest Experiment Station. 38 p.

Grest, E.G. 1965. Objectives of workshop. In: Forestry Cooperatives: workshop

proceedings; 1965 September 14-15; Denver, CO: 1965 April 20-21; Princeton, WV.

Washington DC: USDA Committee on Forestry cooperatives. 

The members were a select

group. They were landowners

and most had some history

where they had seen really poor

forestry practices, and they

thought something could be

done better.

Sustainable Woods Cooperative

Member
Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know 29

Hoffman, B.F., Jr. 1985. Estimating production of forest cooperative members. Res.

Rep. 45. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Cooperative

Service. 34 p.

Inter-bureau Committee on Postwar Programs. 1945. Agricultural cooperatives in the

postwar period. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture. 41 p.

Simon, D.M.; Scoville, O.J. 1982. Forestry cooperatives: organization and performance.

Res. Rep. 25. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural

Cooperative Service. 24 p.

Smith, D.; Sisock, M. 2002. Distribution of existing forestry cooperatives in the United

States. In: 9th International symposium on society and resource management; 2002 June

2-5; Bloomington, IN. [Unpublished paper].

Solin, L. 1940. A study of farm woodland cooperatives in the United States. Bulletin of

the New York State College of Forestry Tech. Pub. 48. Syracuse, NY: New York State

College of Forestry. 118 p.

Tiles, K.A.; Rickenbach, M.G.; Sturgess, E.D.; Zeuli, K. 2004. U.S. forest landowner

cooperatives: What do members expect? What can cooperatives deliver? In:

Baumgartner, D.M., ed. Human dimensions of family, farm, and community forestry;

2004 March 29-April 1; Pullman, WA. Pullman, WA: Washington State University

Extension: 135, 138.

USDA. 1967. Proceedings of Forestry Cooperatives Workshops, 1967. Proceedings of

workshops held in Atlanta, GA; Columbus, OH; and Salt Lake City, UT during 1967.

43 p.
30 Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know
Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know 31

David B. Kittredge1

The cooperation of private forest owners appears to be enjoying a renaissance of interest

in the United States. The success of the national satellite conference on the subject is

just one indication of new popularity, or a need to know more. Small, locally based

efforts are springing up in a number of states, and a certain momentum has built in the

last 5-10 years. As described by Rickenbach in an earlier chapter, this is apparently not

the first time there has been interest like this in the United States. Groups of private

landowners have experimented with different types of cooperation over the years, but

they have not withstood the test of time. As a result, to some, this current interest may

appear new. Private forest owners in other countries have cooperated for decades and

continue to do so, however, and many examples have proven to be both durable and

productive. 

In 2002, I sought examples of private forest owner cooperation from around the

world to determine the extent of this activity and look for common causes or themes

central to its success. I intentionally limited my search to countries with developed

economies and relatively high standards of living. There are many examples of

cooperation on a subsistence or community basis from developing nations, but I wanted

to find examples that would be applicable in the United States, where private forest

owners are relatively affluent and do not generally depend on their woodlands for

subsistence income. I also sought examples from temperate countries that have forest

growth rates roughly equivalent to those in the United States. Cooperation might work

well in tropical countries with rapid forest growth rates, but I wanted to find examples

that would be relevant to the forest conditions more typical of the U.S. climate. 

My search for information involved several different techniques. I conducted a

comprehensive review of the published forestry literature that went back to 1988. I also

conducted an Internet search of applicable Web sites. In addition, I e-mailed more than

150 Extension Forestry professionals from around the world who participate in the

International Union of Forestry Research Organizations’ Extension Working Group. I

requested leads, contacts, or other information about private forest owner cooperation in

their countries. Finally, I had the good fortune to be able to travel to Sweden for 2

weeks and visit four of the largest private forest owner cooperatives and learn firsthand

about their success. I cannot claim that my search was comprehensive or that I

succeeded in finding all examples. Information about cooperatives may not make it into

Forest Owner Cooperation Around the World:

Where, How, and Why It Succeeds

1 Department of Natural Resources Conservation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, dbk@forwild.umass.edu
32 Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know

the published forestry literature, which often focuses on research results. I may not have

found everything there is on the Internet, or I may have been thwarted by a language

barrier. I believe my results provide a strong indication of the extent and nature of

private forest owner cooperation internationally, but I am equally certain that I missed

some excellent examples. Because my search was limited to written materials, I may not

have gathered all the fine details of how these organizations function, a full understanding

of which would come from a personal visit. Lastly, my search uncovered no other

similar review. 

Results

Where

In the broadest sense, I found evidence of private forest owner cooperation from more

than 19 countries (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, Sweden, Denmark,

Germany, France, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland, Netherlands, United Kingdom,

Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, Lithuania, Slovenia). It is very hard to estimate the total

numbers of owners who cooperate, since that cooperation can take different forms. Also,

a single “member” or participant may be an organization like a church or local

community, composed itself of members. I broadly estimate that more than 3.6 million

private forest owners are involved in some form of cooperation, and the total area of

affected forest land exceeds 28.3 million ha.

I found more than 300 descriptions of cooperative organizations in temperate

countries with developed economies. Although the levels of cooperation vary, millions

of private owners work together to achieve results they believe are superior to what they

could do independently. Cooperation for some may be merely working together on a

newsletter or otherwise exchanging information, but for many others it represents

working together and marketing millions of cubic meters of wood annually. Although

cooperation may be viewed as a re-emerging fad among some owners in the United

States, it has succeeded for decades elsewhere. 

How

I found a wide variety of different forms and degrees of cooperation, which could be

broken down into four types: information, equipment, financial, management.
Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know 33

Information Cooperation

Information, techniques, experiences, and advice are exchanged among owners, but

cooperation does not extend to actual land management or marketing. These

organizations or associations disseminate and exchange information through a variety of

means, such as workshops, meetings, trips, newsletters, market reports, advice, and

“advocacy” of private owner interests in State or Federal policy activities. Examples of

this type of cooperation can be found in most countries.

Equipment Cooperation

Participating landowners share equipment and machinery for road building and access

and for harvesting/transport, but their lands are managed independently of one another.

Equipment cooperation is practiced in the Canadian provinces of Quebec, New

Brunswick, and Nova Scotia as well as in Finland and Slovenia.

Figure 1.—Japanese forest owners who are part of a

cooperative discuss silvicultural options for a Japanese larch

stand. (Photo credit: D. Kittredge).

Figure 2.—Forester for Swedish forest owners cooperative poses

with operator of a small harvester in a dense Scotch pine stand.

(Photo credit: D. Kittredge).
34 Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know

Financial Cooperation

This type of cooperation involves members who collectively market wood products to

gain a better position in the marketplace. This is common in Scandinavia, where large

organizations with thousands of owners negotiate strong prices with industrial buyers of

roundwood. This model is also found in Japan, South Korea, eastern Canadian

provinces, Germany, and Austria. 

These organizations generally operate on the cooperative principle of one-memberone-vote. Members purchase and own shares, the number of which is often based on the

size of their property. They earn annual dividends, value growth of their shares, or

profits when the “company” has a successful year. In comparison, private corporations

return profits to stockholders rather than to forest owners. Industrial roundwood buyers

strive to minimize the price paid for wood to maximize profits for stockholders.

Negotiations between the cooperative organizations and buyers of roundwood generally

result in higher overall prices in the marketplace. Thus, members benefit when they sell

wood, and they benefit from a return on their shares as the value of those shares grows.

In some cases, these organizations are not exclusive, and they will buy wood from

nonmembers, as well. 

Over time, many of these organizations have realized the gains of capturing “valueadded” benefits and now do more than simply negotiate the sale of roundwood. Many

have added sawmill capacity, and one cooperative in southern Sweden has even built its

own pulp mill. 

Figure 3.—Forester for Swedish forest owners cooperative uses

his cell phone to make contact with roundwood buyers. (Photo

credit: D. Kittredge).
Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know 35

Many of these organizations do not limit themselves to wood transactions. They

offer members many other benefits, such as information and educational opportunities,

and advocacy representation. They also offer the benefits of economies of scale to

purchase in large quantities and pass savings for goods and services on to members.

Several of these organizations have evolved to further offer land management services

to members generally on a fee-for-service basis. They either do this in-house with their

own staff or refer members to independent contractors. Many urban absentee owners,

who often live some distance from their property, welcome this “full service”

opportunity. This is actually a growing trend in Scandinavia, Japan, and eastern Canada,

and this “consignment” or “absentee” management role is anticipated to grow. 

Management Cooperation

Although participants in financial cooperation organizations collaborate for a better

position in the marketplace, they do not necessarily cooperate in a true integrated

management sense, making decisions on similar spatial and temporal scales and in

context of their surroundings. This kind of “ecosystem-based approach to management”

seems quite rare, although the activities of Landcare groups in Australia seem to

approach this. There are examples of owners who cooperate in management, but not in a

necessarily integrated way at larger ecosystem scales. 

Examples of the different types of cooperatives are shown in table 1.

Figure 4.—Forest owners cooperative in southern Germany

deals not only in conventional wood products, but also in

pelletized wood for home heating. (Photo credit: D. Kittredge).
36 Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know

Why

In basically all circumstances, government was involved in the development of

cooperative groups. These organizations are considered a means to implement national

forest policy or safeguard public benefits on private lands. In Nova Scotia, for example,

government funding supported the creation of a cooperative, and members used creative

entrepreneurial ideas to succeed beyond the initial supported phase. In Belgium, the

Netherlands, France, Germany, and Japan, governments financially support

cooperatives, where they are an effective tool to promote forest management on private

lands. This support is delivered either directly through payments to the organization, or

indirectly, routing subsidies for landowner management through the organization, which

takes an overhead share. Some governments actually pay landowners directly to join

their local cooperative organization (e.g., France, Netherlands). State and Federal

• Lobbying or political

activity and advocacy

• Sharing knowledge and

peer experiences (e.g.,

compare experiences

with a given contractor,

which would be

impossible for public

sector foresters to fairly

or ethically do)

• Information and

educational opportunities

• Share equipment or

contractors for a

particular task

• Road construction,

access, and maintenance

tasks

• Purchase supplies or

insurance in bulk, thereby

gaining a better price

• Purchase professional

services, such as boundary

work, surveys, or

management planning

• Collective marketing of wood

• Financial assistance (e.g.,

South Korean owners may

take out loans from their

local cooperative)

• Assemble a sufficient

volume of land and owners to

participate in some form of

green certification

• Develop regional recognition

or a “brand” for wood

products, and potentially

greater value

• Due to economies of scale,

attain greater access to

government and private

sector grants (e.g., the

Landcare group experiences

in Australia)

• Fire detection, fuel reduction,

and response

• Joint recreation and habitat

planning, access, and lease

opportunities

• Promotion and organization

of afforestation or

reforestation efforts

• Ecosystem-level services

(e.g., avalanche protection in

mountainous regions such as

Switzerland and Japan)

• Management services for

absentee landowners 

• Consolidation of very small

parcels in fragmented

landscapes to assemble an

effective management unit

(e.g., groupings of parcels in

France, Germany, and the

Netherlands)

Resources being shared

Information Equipment Financial Management

Table 1.—Examples of different types of cooperation in the forestry sector found outside the United States.
Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know 37

programs in the United States promote good forestry on private lands through direct

cost sharing of activities and provision of technical assistance through public-sector

county foresters. In contrast, other counties view the role of successful cooperative

organizations as worthy of public investment and as a means to promote good forestry

on private lands.

In all cases, cooperation of private landowners was in response to some issue or

stimulus. In Scandinavia, low prices and a lack of competition inspired landowners to

bargain collectively for a higher roundwood price. A similar interest in negotiating from

a position of strength led owners in the Canadian Maritime provinces to cooperate. The

need for fuelwood in Scandinavia during World War II called for an efficient means of

production and distribution. 

A need for reforestation in rural areas moved the South Korean government to form

Village Forestry Associations. Likewise, the need for reforestation on private lands led

the Québec Provincial government to work with cooperatives. Later, when a need for

local woodsworker training and recruiting surfaced, cooperatives were seen as a good

approach. In the UK and the Netherlands, the need to restore native broadleaved

woodlands inspired nature conservancy organizations and the government to form

cooperative organizations. Similarly in Australia, concern over environmental

degradation inspired local volunteer groups to collaborate with government and industry

through Landcare programs.

Some woodland owners in British Columbia sought an alternative to either the

large-scale industrial or provincial approach to forestry and instead started organizations

for information, education, and support. Such organizations can provide a means to

pursue some form of green certification. 

Figure 5.—Foresters for a Swedish forest owners cooperative on

a landing with wood sold to a local buyer. (Photo credit: D.

Kittredge).
38 Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know

The continued hyper-fragmentation of land into tiny parcels through inheritance

motivated government officials and foresters in France, Belgium, parts of Germany, and

the Netherlands to start cooperative organizations. In southern Germany, for example,

average ownership size can be 10 acres or less, distributed between two or three

different parcels. Any kind of effective management or care of these tiny properties

requires efficiencies of cooperation. 

The development of overstocked or newly established conifer plantations in need of

tending, as well as a market for small wood, inspired governments or landowners to seek

cooperative means to promote action on private lands in Japan, Ireland, and parts of the UK. 

Hundreds of examples and success stories from 19 different countries attest to the

effectiveness of cooperation. Many of these have withstood the test of time, prospering

for 50 years or more. These organizations, in spite of impressive track records, are not

universally appealing to all owners, however. For example, Finnish landowners are

legally required to contribute to associations, but only 75 percent of them actually

participate in them. Thousands of Swedish owners participate in a cooperative, but this

still represents only roughly half the NIPF owner population. Approximately two-thirds

of Japanese owners, and three-fourths of forest land are enrolled in a cooperative.

Roughly a quarter of the landowners and two-thirds of the forest are enrolled in a

cooperative in the southern German state of Bavaria. Even where cooperation is very

successful, it is not universally accepted. Clearly individual owners have their own

reasons for participating in cooperatives, or deciding not to. 

Conclusions

This review reveals hundreds of examples of forest owner cooperation at a nonsubsistence level from temperate countries around the world. Thousands of owners and

millions of hectares are involved. Cooperation ranges from a simple exchange of

information to sophisticated business transactions annually involving millions of cubic

meters. Although the nature and extent of cooperation vary, both private owners and

governments deem the outcomes beneficial. In virtually all examples, there was some

level of public sector involvement, at least in the early stages, and a cause or stimulus

that prompted a cooperative response. This review cannot be considered exhaustive or to

represent all forms of cooperation worldwide. It does provide a good indication of the

relative success of cooperation in other countries similar to the United States. Although

cooperation in these countries may not enjoy universal appeal, it is an integral part of

the success of forestry.
Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know 39

Kimberly Zeuli2

Success of a cooperative depends on the foundation built during its organization.

Successful businesses are not started overnight. Careful and deliberate planning must be

started long before the co-op opens its doors. This chapter begins with an outline of six

fundamental steps that should be followed when organizing any cooperative. From

initial concept to the start of operations, this process may take anywhere from 6 months

to several years. This outline is followed by excerpts from interviews with three forestry

cooperative resource professionals: Paul Catanzaro, Katie Fernholz, and E.G. Nadeau.

They share their insights into the roles such professionals play in forestry co-op

development. Finally, this chapter ends with a summary of the lessons they have learned

in establishing successful cooperatives.

Steps for Organizing a Cooperative

Step 1: Determine the Need for the Co-op

The first step is the most essential. Co-ops should be organized only in response to a

specific problem or an opportunity identified by a group. Viable cooperatives are

usually initiated by a small group of people who share a common problem or see some

opportunity they can capture by working together. They jointly decide what the

cooperative will do. Often this group becomes the co-op’s steering committee. The

steering committee puts in a lot of time and effort in developing the co-op committee.

The committee has four general responsibilities:

1. Direct the preparation of a feasibility study

• Find a reputable and experienced person or firm to prepare the study

• Compare business models

2. Prepare a business plan that defines the co-op’s operations and requirements for

success

• Find a reputable and experienced person or firm to prepare the plan

3. Present results from the feasibility study and business plan to other potential

members

4. Determine whether to proceed or not with the co-op development

Achieving Cooperative Success1

1 The author wishes to thank Margaret Bau, a Cooperative Development Specialist at USDA Rural Development in

Wisconsin, for her insightful comments.

2 Agriculture and Applied Economics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, zeuli@aae.wisc.edu
40 Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know

Step 2: Hold an Exploratory Meeting

If group members are able to decide on a joint business idea, they need to hold an

exploratory meeting with other potential members to gauge their interest in the idea. Is

there sufficient interest? If not, the organizational efforts may stop here. Perhaps the

group can look into other business models such as LLCs or Partnerships that require

less support. The advantages and disadvantages of the cooperative model should be

discussed at this meeting. Co-ops require time and money from each member. At this

meeting the typical member should learn what will be expected from him or her, both in

the short term and well into the future.

A great way to ensure member commitment is to ask the participants for their time

and for some seed money to help with the ongoing organizational effort. Some people at

the meeting also should be willing to serve on a steering committee to help bring the

idea to the next level. 

Step 3: Determine If the Co-op Is a Feasible Business Idea

Feasibility studies, no matter how good, are only expectations. They do not guarantee

success. If the study is positive, the steering committee then proceeds to create a

business plan. Typically, it takes 1.5-2 years to organize a cooperative. Researching and

writing a feasibility study and business plan are by far the most time consuming tasks in

co-op development. Often, people feel projects lose their momentum at this stage. But it

is critical for potential co-ops to do their homework before asking members to invest

hard-earned money and resources. 

Step 4: Incorporate

If, after completing the feasibility study and business plan, the steering committee

members decide to proceed, they need to incorporate their business. This is an

appropriate time to consult a lawyer, if one hasn’t already been consulted. All businesses

need to incorporate with their state. If the organization is a co-op, the co-op typically

has to write the bylaws, essentially an owner’s manual for the co-op. Bylaws state how

the co-op will be governed and how it will conduct business. 

Step 5: Raise Sufficient Capital

The most challenging step for businesses is usually raising adequate capital. This can be

more of a challenge for cooperatives because, as mentioned by Sagor, the members

provide a substantial amount of the capital. For capital-intensive ventures, this may be

sufficient reason for a group to choose a different business structure. For example, if the

group decides it wants to build a timber mill, which costs a few million dollars, it may

not be able to finance that solely with member capital and bank loans. It may decide to

become an LLC or a publicly traded company to access some venture capital. If a group

A cooperative would provide a

good opportunity for area

landowners to have control

over the resources that they

haven’t had control over in the

past—their woods—to preserve

them as well as make some

profit off them—it’s the way we

can keep our land, by making

some profit. 

Blue Ridge Cooperative

Member
Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know 41

wants less capital-intensive services, such as forest management or education, raising

member equity is less of an issue. 

Step 6: Get Started!

A few things need to get done to get the co-op off and running on the right track. At the

first meeting, the members approve the co-op bylaws and elect a board of directors.

Finding great board members is really essential. Finding the right initial manager is also

critical. Then there are the details of finding the right facilities, of the manager hiring

other staff, and getting operations under way. 

The Role of the Resource Professional: Discussions with Paul

Catanzaro, Katie Fernholz, and E.G. Nadeau

There is much to learn from people who have experience in organizing and running a

forest landowner cooperative. We interviewed three resource professionals who have

worked in the area for a number of years. Paul Catanzaro is a service forester in the

Bureau of Forestry under the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation,

and in that capacity he provides technical assistance to private landowners and land trust

towns. He is also a regulator and implements the Massachusetts Forest Cutting Practices

Act as well as the State’s current use program (Chapter 61).

Katie Fernholz is a forester at the Community Forestry Resource Center (CFRC), a

program of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) in Minneapolis, MN.3

Katie has worked at CFRC since 1999 and has helped support the development of more

than a dozen landowner groups and cooperatives in the Upper Midwest. Katie also has

helped facilitate co-op development in other parts of the country through sharing her

experiences and the lessons learned in the Midwest. Katie’s specific tasks with

cooperative development efforts have primarily been related to helping landowners

realize their forest management goals. By arranging educational opportunities, field

days, and workshops, Katie has helped co-op members learn more about land

management options and tools they can use to achieve their goals. Katie also has helped

many of the groups with their goal of having their forests certified. Katie helped

establish CFRC’s Umbrella Certification Program that provides co-op members and

other family forests in the Upper Midwest access to Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)

certification through an innovative group certification structure and enrollment process.

E.G. Nadeau is the director of research, planning and development for Cooperative

Development Services (CDS). E.G. has more than 20 years of cooperative development

experience, including 7 years working with forestry co-ops and associations. He is the

I wish we had fought the

temptation to stay in business

on money that was really

intended to build capital.

Sustainable Woods Cooperative

Member

3 Katie left CFRC in June 2004 and is now at Dovetail Partners in White Bear Lake, MN.
42 Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know

national coordinator of WoodWorks, a network of seven cooperative development

centers interested in forest owner cooperation.

We start with Paul and move on to learn from Katie and E.G.

How did you originally get involved with the Massachusetts Woodland Cooperative?

Paul: I originally got involved with the Massachusetts Woodland Cooperative because

of a need I identified in my daily routine as a service forester. It became increasingly

difficult to watch landowners implement management which did not achieve their goals.

Either the work they were getting wasn’t up to their standards or they were making resource

decisions based on misinformation. This has huge implications when the landscapes are

dominated by nonindustrial private landowners. It jeopardizes the public good that flows

from these lands. In response, several other resource professionals and I decided to get

together and propose the forestry co-op idea to several landowners in the area as a way

of helping landowners achieve their goals while at the same time raising the standard of

management in the area and protecting the public benefits that private forests provide.

In the summer of 1999 I had conversations with the state’s extension forester, Dave

Kittredge, as well as another professor at U Mass, Paul Barten, about the idea of

gathering some landowners together to take a look at getting the group certified. Was it

even possible? Paul Barten and I talked to other resource professionals in the fall of

1999, and we all threw into the hat the names of landowners we knew that may be open

to exploring this idea. We organized a meeting of landowners and resource professionals

in October 1999. The landowners expressed interest in pursuing the idea. We then began

meeting every month for approximately 3 or 4 years. 

My involvement with the cooperative in its startup phases moved very quickly from

one of being an organizer to one of being a resource professional giving technical

assistance. Originally, it was a group of resource professionals that organized the first

several meetings, identified some key landowners in our target area, and invited them to

a meeting and presented them with the co-op idea. We all agreed that for this initiative

to be successful, it needed to be landowner driven with support from resource

professionals. Unlike many traditional forestry programs where landowners are passive

participants, we all felt that one of the important outcomes would be a group of

empowered landowners. It was important to move from leader to technical support as

quickly as possible. Indeed, within two to three meetings, landowners were comfortable

and excited enough to start running the meetings and provide direction for the cooperative. 

At our original meeting, we invited 20 to 25 landowners and by the second or third

meeting we had probably close to 15; several had dropped out but several new

landowners had heard of the meeting and really wanted to attend. So we have been

working primarily with somewhere around 15 dedicated landowners.
Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know 43

Today, the group has formally organized legally as an LLC with cooperative bylaws.

The LLC has obtained Green Certification through FSC and is in the process of

developing a business plan.

So what is your role today? How much time do you still devote to this project?

Paul: Early in the process we received a $40,000 grant from the Forest Service through

its Focus Funding Project, which we used as seed money to help with this initiative. As

part of that grant, I used a portion of my time as a match (an in-kind contribution), devoting

an average of 5 hours a week for the 2-year life of the grant. My match for the grant was

spent providing technical assistance for the fledgling effort. The cooperative is now at a

point where I’m giving approximately 5 hours a month, and I have moved from being an

organizer to primarily working with the landowners on their FSC Green Certification.

One of the things, especially early on, that I found very helpful in my work with the

cooperative was being able to provide some stability during the fits and the starts of the

startup phase as landowners got tired or something discouraging happened. In the future,

I envision my role as one of continued technical assistance and support. 

And what about you, Katie and E.G., what experiences have you had with forestry 

cooperatives?

Katie: I think the role of anyone who’s trying to assist in co-op development, whatever

their background experience might be, is to facilitate and empower the local group, to

help them articulate and pursue whatever their ideas are. So it’s a very delicate process

because even if the development specialist has a lot of experience and can see all of the

things that the group should be doing and whatnot, it’s very important that they go only

at the pace that the group is capable of. You have to step back and let the local people

who are the members of the co-op run the show and you step in when they really need

help, when they are kind of getting bogged down in something or when they ask for

help, but not lead it, not push it, and not force it to be something that it doesn’t want to

be. The strength of any co-op project is the local ownership, the local investment. That’s

what will keep the project going when the co-op development specialists go away. 

E.G.: We do a whole range of things to help existing co-ops and to work with people

who are interested in forming co-ops. We do everything from facilitating initial

planning meetings, to writing business plans, to doing market studies, to helping groups

secure financing for their projects. 

When do you generally get involved in the process?

Katie: Co-op development specialists or assistants can come in at a variety of stages

throughout a project. Some communities have a culture that says right from the beginning

they want to pull in as many people as possible so they’ll invite a wide range of people

to the very first visioning meetings. Other communities have a culture that says no, we

Well, the benefit of having

loggers, foresters, processors,

and landowners come together

in a co-op is one of basic

familiarity. When people come

together over and over and

over again, they get to know

each other, and they understand

and respect each other.

Massachusetts Woodland

Cooperative Member
44 Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know

first have to get our own footing and identify for ourselves what our boundaries are and

our goals are, and once we’re secure in that then we will bring in other people when we

get to specific questions or needs. So, in my experience, it depends on the culture of the

community. 

E.G.: Cooperative development specialists can be brought into a co-op development

process at a variety of different stages. We can be involved at the very first organizing

meeting where a co-op idea is being discussed all the way to working with a co-op that

has been in existence for 50 years and assisting the leadership to carry out a strategic

planning review. 

How do you measure the interest of potential cooperative members? 

Katie: The interest level for co-op development in a community or among potential

members can be measured very formally through surveys. I think every group I’ve been

involved with has done an initial survey of landowners within their region. They usually

identify a watershed or a county or a multiple county area and get a list of the various

landowners and just do a blanket mailing. The response to that gives some indication of

what the interest level is. 

More informally, interest level can be gauged just by how enthusiastically the

people respond to the idea. I mean, most groups do have a first meeting and at the end

of that first meeting you’ll have kind of a show of hands of who thinks we should keep

going with this. I remember one meeting I was at, it was a broad informational meeting;

people were going to present on co-op experiences from other groups and it was a pretty

full room, maybe 100 or a 150 landowners from a couple of counties in that area. It was

really hard to tell during that meeting what was going to happen because there weren’t a

lot of questions; the audience was kind of tight-lipped and arms were crossed and you

weren’t quite sure if they were into it or not. But at the end of the meeting, they were

asked whether they thought this was a good idea. Every hand went up. Sometimes

you’ve just got to ask. 

E.G.: A professional consultant like me can’t really determine for a group whether or

not they have a good idea for a co-op. We can work with a group or with a co-op and

explore together whether it makes sense to proceed with a business based on their idea.

One thing that can be very useful is to do a survey of potential members of a local coop. In the forestry co-ops that we’ve been working with around the Midwest, one of the

steps that we almost always recommend is to contact local landowners who might be

interested in joining the co-op. Ask them if they are interested in receiving forestry

services from the co-op. If so, what kinds of services do they want? This should be a

key initial decision-making point on whether or not to proceed with the development of

the co-op. 
Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know 45

If you don’t do a member survey when a co-op or association is being formed, the

organizing group can head off in a direction that is different from what potential

members want. In fact, I can think of one critical example where the organizers did do a

membership survey and then didn’t follow it. The membership survey showed that

people were very interested in education and in receiving forest management services,

and not very interested in marketing their timber or creating value-added products. And

yet, the co-op leaders made value-added wood processing their priority activity. So it’s

not just a matter of doing the survey, you also have to pay attention to the results.

How do you initially get members involved?

Katie: To get members involved in the beginning, one of the best strategies I’ve seen is

to simply do a field day, a workshop, or a walk in the woods that is focused around

what is perceived to be an important issue in the area. Holding an informal workshop

and inviting people from the area helps identify what people have in common and who

might be the leaders in that community. 

E.G.: There’s no magic formula for how to start one of these things. There are some

cautions about what not to do, though. One caution is that you don’t just keep having

open-ended meetings. You have maybe one open-ended meeting. Then you pick a

steering committee. Then the steering committee creates an action plan and follows the

action plan. If you have a series of open-ended meetings and anybody who wants to can

come and talk about whatever they want, it becomes like the movie “Groundhog Day.”

Every meeting is a variation on the same theme that is played out again and again and

again. People get discouraged and think they are wasting their time and stop coming.

What about bringing in other resource professionals? 

Katie: Co-ops in early development stages can benefit from bringing in outside

financial expertise at a variety of stages. Some groups worry about the numbers and the

dollar signs very early in the process, and they really want to get down into the financial

nitty-gritty as soon as possible. But I think the financial expertise can be brought in at a

variety of stages. I do think that finance is one area where external expertise is the most

important. When it comes to really having enough experience with the numbers, unless

the board members are personally experienced in their other lives at doing business

planning or financial forecasts, it is an area where outside third parties and financial

experts become critical.

All kinds of different experts can blend information and experience at the various

co-op development stages. For any co-op, every time a question comes up in a meeting,

it’s appropriate to say, ‘is there someone else that would know more about this?’They

should make sure that it is someone that they trust, that they trust to both provide them

good information and also to be respectful of any requests they have for privacy about

Forestry is getting to be a very

complex business these days.

You’ve got to have foresters,

you’ve got to have business

people, you need to have money

people, legal people, biologists,

“-ologists,” the whole ball of

wax. I really think that one of

the strengths of a cooperative is

being able to draw together a

very wide, diverse professional

set of resource professionals to

make the whole thing work.

Lewis County, Washington,

Potential Cooperative Member
46 Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know

their process and about the debates they are having. Various forestry co-ops have

certainly benefited from the engagement of resource managers, foresters, ecologists, and

loggers—all kinds of people working through the whole range of the forest products

industry. 

E.G.: It’s very important to talk to a lawyer when you are developing your bylaws and

deciding on the kind of business you want to form. One thing that you have to be

careful of though is not to bring an attorney in too quickly. Attorneys are expensive. So,

my advice is to get a pretty good idea of the direction you want to go with your

organization and then consult an attorney and find out if there are any major reasons

why you should or should not go in the direction you have decided. If you follow that

approach, you can get good legal advice without having to invest a lot of money in it.

A number of very good forestry professionals can be helpful at different stages in

the formation of a forest co-op or association. They include State foresters, and forestry

staff located around States. They include private consulting foresters, loggers, extension

staff, and staff of local resource conservation and development districts. All these people

are potentially valuable resource people in forming an organization. In some cases,

groups bring in a variety of forestry professionals at a very early stage. They bring them

in to give presentations or to be part of the audience and ask good questions and provide

a reality check on what might work or what might not work.

Lessons Learned

Our forestry cooperative experts were asked if they had any pearls of wisdom they would

pass on to others interested in starting a forestry cooperative. Their answers follow.

Gather the Right Group of People

Paul: The time commitment landowners have to devote to this type of project is

tremendous. My suggestion would be to make sure you work with a dedicated core

group of landowners that are committed to this idea. Active, engaged landowners may

be the greatest product that cooperatives produce. 

The Massachusetts Woodlands Cooperative has 25 members now and more than

3,000 acres. Of those 25 members, around 15 are very active, each of them bringing

unique talent to the group. We have a gentleman who is retired that has done a lot of

professional organization and grant writing in his day and has brought that to the table.

We have people that run a portable sawmill, a landowner who brings that to the table,

we have a professor who teaches design work at a local college who has been very

helpful in designing logos and so forth. And so, each landowner really does bring kind

of a unique gift and talent to the group. And capitalizing on that, I think, allows the

stakeholders to really take ownership of it. Foresters are constantly trying to bring
Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know 47

landowners into active forest management on our terms, usually based on growing

timber. The co-op model allows people to engage their properties, while helping the

greater cause of forestry, on their terms, be it grant writing, graphic design, or wood

processing.

Katie: In my opinion, if you have at least three people in that area who want to do

something, you’ve got plenty of interest. You don’t need 100; you don’t need 200.

Sometimes it’s better to start small because it’s very difficult early on to know what you

can promise people. If you have a dozen, that’s a real nice number because there are a

lot of different people there that can volunteer for different things and cover a lot of

bases. As long as you have a handful, you have a place to start because a handful of

people have a lot of friends and sit around a lot of kitchen tables and coffee tables and

coffee shops and can talk it up plenty. If there’s really no interest, if there’s only one

person in the community that likes this and everyone thinks they’re crazy, then I say just

wait. Just wait and see if there’s something else you can do besides a formal co-op. 

I think that one of the biggest keys to success for a co-op project is the leadership.

It’s a very challenging thing for co-ops to balance leadership roles because a co-op, by

nature, is very democratic. But every organization needs someone to spearhead change

and to spearhead new ideas to make progress. I think one of the things that I’ve seen coops benefit from a great deal is board training—training people in effective

communication and meeting management to help the group stay on task and stay

focused on the things that need to get done.

E.G.: Without good local leaders—volunteer steering committee members, board

members, and paid staff—a lot of good co-op ideas are likely to fail or have a difficult

time getting off the ground. Without mentioning the name of the co-op, one story

illustrates this point. The co-op’s first coordinator turned out not to be very committed

to the job. He didn’t do much for about nine months. Then the board decided to hire a

replacement. He had the right skills, but, for whatever reason, never really got focused

on the project and quit after a few months. Then the board hired a third coordinator.

He’s been there for over three years and is doing a superb job. The co-op is now

operating effectively. So, launching a successful co-op has a whole lot to do with

finding the right coordinator or manager and having a board of directors committed to

what they are doing.

I wouldn’t be discouraged about low attendance at initial meetings. Bringing in a

large number of landowner-members can occur at some later stage. It doesn’t need to

happen in the early stages. I think the time to be discouraged though is if the steering

committee goes through a lot of work, develops a basic plan for the organization, does a

lot of promotion and advertising, and then very few people show up to a potential

member meeting; that would be a time to be concerned. You’d need to either look back

One of the areas which I think

led to our demise was the fact

that we did not have that one

individual, that entrepreneurial

individual that would take the

leadership of the co-op.

Sustainable Woods Cooperative

Member
48 Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know

and see whether or not you did an adequate job of promoting the event, or you may have

to conclude that there just isn’t enough interest in what you are trying to do.

Keep the Members Informed

Katie: The steering committee and the co-op board need to constantly get feedback

from their membership. With co-ops, the annual meetings should be very open and

allow for some element of discussion. One co-op I work with does a very good job of

having their board meetings very well publicized so that the members are able to attend

all of those board meetings and get input to the board continually, not just once a year at

the annual meeting. To get people to board meetings the little things count, like having

them in the evenings, having them on Saturdays or having them followed-up or started

by an education walk in the woods or an informational event so that there’s motivation

for members to come to those meetings. Co-ops are member organizations, and they

rely on member support and member enthusiasm.

Have a Clear Mission

Katie: Many times communities come together around an idea in response to community

turmoil or stress. Maybe it’s that some major wood industry is failing, or they don’t feel

that their land is being managed well. But it is important that whatever inspires the co-op

is sustaining and is positive and becomes something that the community can really

gather around and rally around for the long term. What is our co-op trying to do? What

are we trying to address? What are we trying to create change around? 

Co-ops sometimes are initiated with a couple of friends, a couple of neighbors or

people that have been in the community a long time and have seen things change and

say ‘you know, we’ve got to do something about this and I think a co-op might help; I

think a landowner group might help us address our forest management concerns, might

help us address our marketing constraints.’ It’s important to get from that informal idea

into a structured formalized process in a timely manner. It doesn’t have to happen

instantly; you don’t have to make everything formal at the first meeting. It’s important to

have an informal environment where all kinds of different ideas are drawn out. 

But if you don’t formalize a mission statement, it’s difficult for people to

understand their role and how to participate. When it’s formalized, when there’s a formal

process for nominating people for the board or for the steering committee, when there’s

a formal process for when and where meetings are held, when all of these things are

formalized in a reliable structured way, it’s much more predictable and people have a

more understandable way of engaging. It’s much more transparent and the community

can understand the process that’s going on.
Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know 49

The most important step in my experience of co-op development is early in the

process, doing a really good job with the visioning and the mission statement goals. It’s

important early in the process to spend a lot of time on that. Too many groups, I think,

try and just quickly get something down on paper and make it real broad and general,

but it’s really an opportunity to articulate what’s unique about your group and to be very

specific about what your group will do. 

Be Sure To Have a Business Plan

Katie: If a co-op is aiming to do some kind of business venture, a business plan

becomes very important. Business plans are a critical way of working through all kinds

of issues in a structured manner: what are we trying to do, how much do we need to do

to afford this, and what are our priorities for staff or for expenditures and whatnot. It

helps get everything out on the table and organized. 

I think it’s also important that business plans be very fluid, and very flexible and

that they are constantly revisited. So every 3 months, every 6 months, the board or the

steering committee takes out this document, revises it, adds another chapter or updates

it in some way, keep notes in the margin, whatever it might be, so that it stays current

and stays relevant and doesn’t collect dust because if a business plan is done right, it

should be a working document. 

E.G.: Here are some recipes for disaster:

• If your business plan says that you need $100,000 to launch your co-op and you get

$50,000 and you say, ‘Oh well, we can muddle through and start with 50.’

• If your business plan says you need to have a competent manager who knows

something about the forest industry and you have a nice, friendly manager who

doesn’t have the background in the industry and you say, ‘Oh well, we can make it

work with that.’

• If your business plan says you have to identify solid markets where you have signed

agreements for products and instead you have a vague sense that maybe this or that

company will buy your products and ‘It’ll work out.’

Make Sure You Choose the Right Business Model

Paul: I would encourage resource managers looking at this to realize that every group

of landowners and that every landscape they are trying this in is very different from

those in which other cooperatives exist. I would highly recommend taking a look at

other business models in the country and take the best from these models and leave the

mistakes behind. I have found it very useful to contact people from other cooperatives;

everybody has been very open about sharing information. I would encourage you then if
50 Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know

you do get one up and going to maintain that openness and share your mistakes and

your successes. Lessons can and should be learned from other groups, but ultimately

you need to tailor the effort to your particular landscape. 

Katie: You can do some things under a co-op that you can or cannot do under an LLC

that you can or cannot do as a nonprofit. So some of the debate is about what is this

group trying to do, what are our priorities, what are our goals? When you incorporate as

a co-op, it limits you in some ways that other structures don’t. And one of the innovative

approaches that I see increasingly used is to have both a co-op as the business arm of

the landowner group and a nonprofit arm that partners with that co-op so that the

nonprofit can get funding to hold workshops and educational events. By keeping some

of the education and member services a little bit separate from the business operations,

they don’t compete and bury each other. You’re able to divert resources equally.

Is it Worth the Effort?

Paul: As a service forester, what I hoped from the beginning is that the cooperative

would help raise the bar in our project area for the quality of work being done so that

other landowners could see that it is possible to achieve your objectives, to manage the

forest sustainably in an ecologically sensitive way, to add value to forest products, and to

keep wood locally and help the local economy. Those are fairly lofty goals, and I would

say that in 3 or 4 years, we haven’t achieved all of those, but we’ve seen glimpses of

success enough to keep us going.

I’m charged, as I mentioned earlier, with technical assistance and education

outreach, and having a group of landowners such as this makes my job much more

efficient; being able to deliver the information to one group of landowners, 25 sitting in

a room as opposed to running around to 24 different properties, again, makes my job

much easier. Likewise, cooperatives provide an economy of scale for technology

transfer. For example, most consulting foresters cannot afford to invest the time and

money into GIS. Through the co-op, we hope to make technology available to landowner

consultants so that they can make the best management decisions for their clients. The

same goes for the regulatory portion of my job. Instead of meeting a State minimum

under the Forest Cutting Practices Act, we now have a group of landowners achieving

FSC Certification Standards, which by far exceed the State minimums. 

This has been a very rewarding experience for me professionally in terms of my

growth and development, the opportunity to write grants, to work with diverse people on

a complex project. It has really been the joy of my professional career so far. Being

involved with a project that starts taking a look at some concepts that I only read about

in college, landscape level management and so forth, in a predominantly private

landowner landscape is very exciting and I’m thrilled to be a part of this.
Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know 51

Katie: Co-ops can really be a way to reach landowners more effectively and more

efficiently. They are a group all in one spot, a captive audience, and so you can deliver

your message to that group as a whole rather than each landowner individually. And

certainly my experience with co-ops shows that the landowners that are members of coops tend to be very interested in taking a part—taking a hands-on role in their forest

management and so as foresters, that empowers us to do things on the land that maybe

otherwise it’d be really tedious, time consuming and economically infeasible to

accomplish. That would allow us to do things like the little timber stand improvement

projects, small-scale planting projects, some of the invasive species control projects that

no one has enough time and money to tackle. 

Co-ops can be very challenging for resource managers, for foresters because they

are social organizations; it’s another kind of a bureaucracy, it’s another meeting, another

group, and another organization when already we all have so many organizations to deal

with. But they have a unique role to play because they are landowner members and they

are very local. Resource managers should find ways to work with these groups because

they are trying to do something that has the potential to effect change. 

E.G.: Working with local forest landowner groups, whether they are co-ops or nonprofit

associations, can be frustrating sometimes. But what keeps me coming back is that I

really believe there’s a need for these kinds of organizations. The vast majority of nonindustrial private forest land in the United States is not managed. I firmly believe that

getting local landowners together to learn more about their woods, to access services, to

work together to improve their forests can be a viable supplement to the other ways in

which government and private organizations are trying to assist private landowners. So,

that keeps me coming back. The need is there and somehow we have to figure out a

good way to meet it.
52 Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know
Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know 53

Pamela Jakes1

For a community or group investigating the appropriateness of a cooperative as a means

for organizing local landowners to accomplish forest management or marketing

objectives, it is useful to hear about the experiences of other communities or cooperatives.

For the conference, we put together a series of video case studies, summarizing the stories

of four forest landowner cooperatives as told by cooperative members or potential

members. A DVD of the video case studies is included with this report. What follows is

a brief description of each cooperative, based on the perceptions and insights of the

people we interviewed. Also included is an update on progress made by the cooperative

since the interviews were conducted in the summer and early fall of 2003.

Massachusetts Woodland Cooperative, LLC

www.masswoodlands.coop

Interviews conducted by Eli Sagor, August 2003

The Story

Since it was incorporated in the summer of 2001, the Massachusetts Woodland

Cooperative (MWC) has set the standard for how to bring together private landowners

in an organizational structure that promotes economic development while protecting and

enhancing the health of forests in the region. In the summer of 1999 a group of forestry

professionals from the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and the University of

Massachusetts met with local landowners, consulting foresters, loggers, and mill operators

to discuss the possibility of forming a forestry landowner cooperative in western

Massachusetts. What followed was the formation of a task group to study the feasibility

of forming a cooperative. In 2001, after many meetings and a landowner survey, the

MWC was established. The Massachusetts laws relating to cooperatives were seen as

archaic, so the group formed as a limited liability company that operates as a cooperative.

What this means is that they have “cooperative” in their name, that each member of the

cooperative has one vote, and that all profits are returned to the cooperative members. A

unique step taken by the group was the formation of a nonprofit organization (a 501C3

organization), the Massachusetts Woodlands Institute. This nonprofit organization is

completely separate from the cooperative. While the cooperative focuses on business,

the institute is free to focus on education, technical assistance, and community economic

Learning From the Experiences of Others: Four Forest

Landowner Cooperatives Share Their Stories 

We’ve learned a lot from other

co-ops. We’ve learned a lot

about not going too fast, not

spending too much money,

keeping it small, keeping it

grassroots, and keeping

landowners at the center.

Massachusetts Woodlands

Cooperative Member

1 USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station, St. Paul, MN, pjakes@fs.fed.us
54 Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know

development. The institute’s nonprofit status allows it to apply for grants that may not be

available to the cooperative. 

Members of the cooperative belong to or participate in other forestry associations—

they are members of Tree Farm (www.treefarmsystem.org) and the Massachusetts

Forestry Association (www.massforests.org) and have participated in the Forest

Stewardship Program (www.fs.fed.us/cooperativeforestry/programs/loa/fsp.shtml), but

they find something unique in belonging to a cooperative. The MWC provides many

services to its members including forestry services (for example, guiding preparation of

forest plans; identifying reliable foresters, loggers, and other operators), ecological

services (for example, controlling exotic/invasive species, documenting the history of

the land and its uses), marketing services (for example, developing local and regional

markets for low-grade material; arranging for wholesale, retail, and discount sales), and

educational services (for example, providing publications and training in the use of

forestry equipment). Through all these activities, the guiding star of the MWC is

sustainable forestry, and its practice and implementation through Forest Stewardship

Council (FSC) green certification.

Members see sustainable forestry as analogous to organic farming. Where 15 or 20

years ago organic farmers could recover the extra costs of producing their products

through higher prices, now they receive a premium. MWC members are focused on

producing value-added, FSC-certified products with the hope that their cooperative will

be well positioned to take advantage of thoughtful customers who care about the health

of the world’s forests. 

Members of the MWC are aware of the economic and business elements that are

necessary for them to succeed. They are excited about opportunities to come together as

a buying group and a selling group, opportunities that are not found in other forest

landowner associations. As a buying group, members can achieve economies of scale

not available to individual landowners. As a selling group, they are investigating how

they can produce a value-added product that is of high quality, is competitive, and in

demand. Members are developing a strong marketing plan that focuses on the story

behind the product.

The MWC has developed partnerships that are critical to obtaining necessary

services. Professors and extension professionals from the University of MassachusettsAmherst (www.umass.edu) have provided advice and technical assistance related to

forest inventory, wood technology and potential products, and green certification.

Additional help with green certification has been provided by SmartWood

(www.rainforest-alliance.org/programs/forestry/smartwood). Foresters from the

Massachusetts Bureau of Forestry (www.mass.gov/dcr/stewardship/forestry) were

critical to initiating the effort. The Hilltown Community Development Corporation

(www.hilltowncdc.org), New England Forestry Foundation (www.neforestry.org), and

The time commitment to this

project has been tremendous,

and it’s been an all volunteer

effort on the part of

landowners... My suggestion to

other resource managers would

be to make sure you work with

a dedicated core group of

landowners that are committed

to this idea. I think that will

make your project go much

smoother.

Massachusetts Bureau of

Forestry Forester
Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know 55

Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) (www.buylocalfood.com) have

also provided key assistance. Local sawmills and other businesses have been important

partners. In each instance the key was finding an individual in the organization who had

a personal interest in the cooperative and who was in a position to bring resources

(expertise, equipment, dollars) to the effort.

Members think the future looks bright for the MWC. They feel they have learned

much from the experiences of other cooperatives, and they will succeed if they move

slowly, not take on a lot or debt, and look for niche products they can produce

efficiently and with high quality.

The Update

In January 2004, the MWC was awarded a 3-year, $499,253 grant from the U.S.

Department of Agriculture. The goal of this grant is to expand niche markets for MWC

that focus on Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) green-certified materials and other

value-added forest products. Project activities include:

Development of niche markets. Develop and implement MWC niche markets for

flooring, timber frame materials, and residual wood products (e.g., bark mulch, firewood,

and pallet wood). This will be accomplished by gathering, sorting, and marketing logs

according to grade and species and processing selected logs into value-added products. 

Green certification. MWC is already green certified under the group certification

process provided by the FSC. However, to market the cooperative’s value-added products

as green certified, MWC will also need to apply for and receive group chain-of-custody

certification from FSC. This will require (1) development of a system for monitoring

forest materials as they are transformed into value-added products; and (2) establishing

a network of value-added producers who are interested in obtaining FSC-certified wood

from the cooperative.

Database development. Expand the MWC database so that it will (1) provide detailed

information on forest material that is available for harvesting from MWC members; (2)

monitor forest materials as they are transformed into value-added products; (3) organize

information needed for the cooperative to function as a business (cost of goods

purchased, inventory, sales, marketing, etc.), and (4) link the database with the MWC

Web site so that MWC members and those who work on their land can have password

access to information about the property. 

Expansion of membership and land base. MWC currently has 30 members who

together manage around 5,000 acres of forest land. MWC will expand its membership

base to 125 members with over 20,000 acres of forest land and identify 25 regional

I see the co-op as being a

major step in the education of

the American people. Everyone

around here, we need to work

together cooperatively if we’re

going to see the planet survive.

Having a co-op, I think, is one

of the strongest ways we can do

that.

Massachusetts Woodlands

Cooperative Member
56 Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know

artisans, craftspeople, and other woodworkers who will (1) become associate members

of MWC, (2) receive Group FSC chain-of-custody certification as a part of their

membership, and (3) create value-added products from FSC green-certified material that

is harvested from MWC member forests. 

Biomass assessment. Assess the market potential for the use of forest-based biomass

fuels in southern New England by analyzing supply and cost data for forest-based

biomass fuels. 

Information dissemination. Compile, organize, and disseminate information about

MWC.

The USDA grant has provided MWC with the working capital needed to

accomplish the above tasks. With this grant, MWC has hired employees, supported

interns from the University of Massachusetts, established and operated an office,

provided partial support for FSC Certification Assessment, and financed an initial

inventory of value-added products. 

Western Upper Peninsula Forest Improvement District

Interviews conducted by Pamela Jakes, September 2003

The Story

In the late 1970s, the State of Michigan was going through a recession. When the

legislature started looking for ways to improve the State’s economy, they saw Michigan’s

vast forest lands and the diverse and potentially valuable forest products those lands

could provide. They commissioned a Finnish consulting firm to determine what could

be done to improve the health of Michigan’s forests and to inject new vitality into the

State’s economy. The firm recommended the establishment of forest improvement

districts, modeled after those found in northern Europe. Legislators recognized the

concept of forest improvement districts as similar to the old farmers’ cooperatives that

were so successful in the Upper Great Lakes States. Forest improvement districts would

assist small private landowners, who hold more than half of Michigan’s forest land, in

managing their forest land, producing healthier forests, and generating raw material that

would help stimulate forest product industries. In October 1995, The Western Upper

Peninsula Forest Improvement District (WUPFID) was organized as a 5-year pilot study. 

Although WUPFID referred to itself as a cooperative and is often cited as the first

forestry cooperative in the U.S., it lacks many of the standard characteristics of a

cooperative—although members make up the board of directors, WUPFID is not

actually owned by its members, and there is no profit sharing among members. It

operates more as a private consulting firm with a list of clients referred to as members.

The main reason I see for new

members coming to WUPFID

now is they feel that they can

trust our organization to do the

right job for them.

Western Upper Peninsula

Forest Improvement District

Staff Member
Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know 57

Members receive a variety of services—management plans are written, sales planned

and administered, and other improvements carried out on the land. Members of

WUPFID continue to participate in the organization because they believe that the

professionals at WUPFID can be trusted to manage their land according to their

objectives. For the many absentee landowners who are members, this trust is critical to

their participating in land management activities.

Although WUPFID was meant to be a 5-year pilot project, its success in improving

forest management in the region convinced the legislature to extend the project another

year. Over those 6 years, WUPFID received approximately $2 million from the State of

Michigan. In return, the State has benefited from WUPFID’s management of more than

100,000 acres of forest land—land that was not being managed or reaching its

productive potential before WUPFID. In addition, WUPFID activities generated jobs

and income from the sale of forest products and implementation of management

activities. It’s been estimated that this $2 million investment has returned more than

$100 million to the State. 

In the early years, State investment allowed WUPFID to purchase a building and

equipment, and employ foresters, technicians, and an office staff. In 2003, WUPFID’s

paid professional staff was down to two part-time employees—a forester and an office

manager. Over the years, all the assets were sold to finance operations. The staff and

board are searching for ways to continue to finance the operation. Poor economic times

means there will be no additional State funding. Although WUPFID has a membership

of 900 and manages more than 150,000 acres, only around 300 members pay the

voluntary $20 annual fee. Most of the cooperative’s income comes from fees for

service, and the staff and the board believe that it would be impossible to raise those

fees. Members have other options for obtaining the services they obtain from WUPFID,

and the board feels that if rates become too high, members will go elsewhere,

eliminating WUPFID’s primary source of income.

Despite the funding challenges, members are focused on re-energizing WUPFID

through increased publicity. WUPFID staff feel that if they could generate funding to

increase visibility, they could recruit more members, thereby generating more income

from management of newly enrolled land. Ideas for increasing visibility include holding

field trips and creating a demonstration forest that will show potential members the

benefits of sustainable forest management. They hope that after 18 years of experience

they can continue to provide services that maintain and improve the health of western

Upper Peninsula forests.

The Update

In June 2004, WUPFID ended operations. Given the wood market in the Upper

Peninsula and the lack of State funding, the board and staff found it impossible to

Here we are, 18 years later,

and I think we have finally

perfected what we do best. You

look around and see healthy

forests, and I really believe that

we’ve been a big big part of

that. It’s really sad to think that

we are not going to be here

much longer.

Western Upper Peninsula

Forest Improvement District

Staff Member
58 Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know

maintain the office and provide member services. WUPFID records, including

management plans and harvesting history, are being stored in the Department of Natural

Resources Baraga office. The board of directors will continue to meet annually,

preserving the possibility of resurrecting the cooperative if conditions change.

Sustainable Woods Cooperative

http://www.sustainablewoods.com/

Interviews conducted by Mark Rickenbach, June 2003

The Story

The Sustainable Woods Cooperative (SWC) in southwestern Wisconsin was the first

group to use a cooperative structure to practice certified forest management to produce

and market chain-of-custody wood products. Organized in 1998, the SWC board of

directors voted to dissolve the cooperative in 2003. The former members of SWC are

committed to sharing their experiences—offering lessons from which others can learn. 

When it closed its doors in 2003, SWC had 150 members with more than 120,000

acres in 11 counties in southwestern Wisconsin. There were two type of SWC

members—producers and consumers. Producer-members were characterized as

landowners who had purchased their property primarily for recreation, but wanted to

manage the land to improve forest health. Many members had experienced or seen poor

forestry practices on the land and were looking for an alternative management approach.

The consumer-members were portrayed as green consumers who liked the idea of

purchasing a product that was processed locally and told a story of sustainable

management—they wanted to be part of that story.

So what went wrong? The focus of SWC was on manufacturing and education.

Manufacturing was producing certified valued-added products, from primarily small

diameter or low-quality material from members’ high-graded forests that would satisfy

consumer demand. SWC members speak of two phases of SWC: the startup phase

(1998-2001) and the market development phase (2001-2003). It appears that debt taken

on in the startup phase did not allow goals in the market development stage to be realized. 

It’s well understood that any startup is challenging—the capitalization, cash flow,

need to start generating income can be problematic—and the forestry business is

particularly challenging. Several members voiced the opinion that SWC moved too

quickly into manufacturing—purchasing land, equipment, and hiring staff—in response

to members’ desire to see something happening. The manufacturing process required

great amounts of capital (land, kilns, storage facilities, and equipment), operating funds

(salaries, advertising, utilities), and sophisticated expertise to operate. Debt was incurred

early on, and the costs of loans from banks, from members, and from a utility company,

and the expenses for day-to-day operations eventually sank the cooperative. 

I think most of the landowners

were looking for the same thing

I was looking for. I think we all

wanted that camaraderie,

wanted to be able to talk over

our different management plans

with each other and get some

feedback. Of course people had

been trying different

management concepts as well,

and we got feedback on the

results of that.

Former Sustainable Woods

Cooperative Member
Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know 59

Members had several suggestions for other communities considering forest

landowner cooperatives. First, start small. Try bringing together a few neighbors who

can share time, expertise, and equipment in managing their land. Test some different

approaches to collaboration. Try selling a few products, and move on from there.

Second, watch out for debt. Be very clear about why you are borrowing the money, and

do not give into the temptation to use borrowed funds for other purposes. Third, have a

clear idea of the mission of the cooperative. In your rush to create a business, do not

lose sight of the importance of member services. By developing a strong record of

member service, you build support for the cooperative within the membership. Fourth,

start your product development and marketing early. One SWC member said that the

attitude was, “if we build the stuff people will buy it.” However, when SWC products

were available, members found that there were not enough consumers to generate the

income necessary to keep the cooperative operating. They had not developed a market

for that product or had not analyzed the market to ensure they were producing something

for which there was a niche. Finally, tap into those networks that exist to support

cooperatives. Groups like the Richland County Economic Development Commission,

Cooperative Development Services (http://www.cdsus.coop/), University of Wisconsin

Center for Cooperatives (http://www.wisc.edu/uwcc/), and Community Forestry

Resource Center (http://www.forestrycenter.org/) all provided valuable services to SWC. 

The Update

The Sustainable Woods Cooperative is gone, but there are a group of landowners who

continue to meet and share ideas. They are committed to improving the quality of their

forests and the landscape—that commitment remains even if the cooperative does not.

Blue Ridge Forest Cooperative

http://nextgenwoods.com/blue_ridge_forest_landowner_coop.htm

Interviews conducted by Eli Sagor, August 2003

The Story

In the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia, local landowners are investigating the

possibility for encouraging sustainable forest management through a forest landowner

cooperative. Many local landowners have had bad experiences with loggers or other

woodsworkers, and they are looking for ways to take back control of their forests. They

want a management approach for timber and nontimber forest products (ginseng,

medicinal plants, recreation) that maintains or improves ecological health while

generating income. What these neighbors envision is a vertically integrated

organization, member governed, that is certified to do sustainable forest management,

I think the advantage of a co-op

versus other organizations is

the fact that you are really

hands on. I mean, you go to a

cooperative meeting and its

members are talking about very

specific concerns that the co-op

has and the members have, and

they are all local neighbors... I

was needing information on

forestry that applies to me and

I felt the co-op helped me in

that way.

Former Sustainable Woods

Cooperative Member
60 Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know

harvesting and hauling, and processing, while educating members and the community

about options for keeping the three legs of the sustainability stool—forest sustainability,

economic sustainability, and social sustainability—in balance. 

This infant organization has received advice and support from many quarters. Staff

members at the Community Forestry Resource Center (http://www.forestrycenter.org),

Appalachian Forest Resource Center (http://www.appalachianforest.org/), and Virginia

Department of Forestry (http://www.dof.virginia.gov) have been a great source of

information. But the researchers of this idea have found the existing forest landowner

cooperatives in Massachusetts, Wisconsin, and elsewhere—others who have been

through the process the Virginia group is just beginning—to be their most important

partners. 

Many questions remain to be answered—What organizational structure will be

adopted (it’s not clear that this will be a cooperative, as opposed to a limited liability

partnership or some other organization)? How large should the membership be? How do

they raise capital? But many people feel that the cooperative is off to a good start with a

processor already on board and a Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified forester

interested in participating (www.fsc.org/en). Locals are optimistic about the potential for

a cooperative in the Blue Ridge Mountains and what it could mean for their community.

They look forward to the interaction people will be having with each other, and the

sharing of members’ talents, skills, and resources in the sustainable management of their

forest land. 

The Update

In the past year the Blue Ridge Mountain group has organized as a cooperative under

Virginia statutes—the Blue Ridge Forest Cooperative, Inc.

Lewis County, Washington

Interviews conducted by Charlie Blinn, August 2003

The Story 

For our last case study we go to southwestern Washington. The Family Forest

Foundation (FFF) (http://www.familyforestfoundation.org/) is leading an effort to

explore the feasibility of developing a forest landowner cooperative to market trees from

non-industrial private forests. Foundation members received a grant from the U.S.

Department of Agriculture to conduct a feasibility study in Lewis County. They want to

know if landowner interest in a cooperative is sufficient to proceed, if there are enough

resources (timber, technical, and human resources), and if markets exist for potential

products that might be produced by a cooperative. 

Folks in other cooperatives

have been very free and open

about sharing information—

hearing who’s made what

mistakes and who’s had what

successes has just been an

enormous help. It’s going to

keep us, hopefully, from making

the same mistakes, and allow

us to build on the hard knocks

others have already gone

through.

Potential Blue Ridge Forest

Cooperative Member

People who are interested in

this cooperative aren’t the cut

out and get out kind of people,

you know. They’re someone

who’s interested in the longterm health of the resource—

managing it sustainably and

wanting it to endure and be

lasting.

Potential Blue Ridge Forest

Cooperative Member
Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know 61

Forest landowners in Lewis County already participate in a number of forestry

programs, but while these programs offer a diverse assortment of educational programs,

they don’t function as a business. A cooperative would bring forest landowners together

to manage their tree farms collectively as an efficient business and to pool their

resources so that they have leverage in the market. Maintaining, improving, and

developing markets is the primary reason given for initiating a forest landowner

cooperative in Lewis County. In this region, small forest landowners tend to grow larger

trees than their industrial neighbors. At this time there are few processors for medium to

large diameter trees, hence it’s a buyers’ market. Marketing, having access to markets,

being able to label your products as certified and/or locally produced, and bringing

together landowners to more effectively communicate with each other and with

policymakers were identified as the most important reasons for starting a cooperative.

Organizers and potential members have learned much from visiting other

cooperatives. They see a need for a cooperative clearinghouse where the lessons of

different cooperatives can be gathered and shared with other interested parties. One

lesson the Lewis County group learned from their visits is to avoid becoming grant

dependent. However, they see a significant role for grants in the startup phases of a

cooperative. They also know they need to focus on developing a realistic business plan

that includes a significant marketing effort in advance of producing a product. They

want to create a recognizable brand and educate potential consumers so they can

differentiate between a wood product processed locally from wood produced on a local

family forest and a product produced elsewhere on some other type of forest. 

In addition to these challenges, the Lewis County group will need to overcome the

fiercely independent nature of many southwestern Washington landowners. A

cooperative is about bringing people together to manage land and run a business

cooperatively so overcoming the desire to “do it my way” will be a challenge for

building membership and running the cooperative. They also see a need to develop

positive, constructive partnerships with local forestry businesses. Professional

consulting foresters, in particular, may see a cooperative as a threat, so the cooperative

will need to find ways to include these potential partners in the early planning and

development stages.

The Lewis County group has identified roles for a number of potential partners—

foresters, bankers, lawyers, biologists, other “–ologists.” They recognize that forestry is

a very complex business and that they will need to draw on the expertise of a diverse

group of professionals to make the cooperative work.

For now, the landowners of Lewis County see the year 2004 as being an intensive

planning period, and they anticipate having a sound business plan and being in a

position to hire a project manager by the end of 2004. Depending on the findings from

the feasibility study, they hope to be operating as a cooperative in 2005. 

I think that cooperatives would

be essential in the long-term

survivorship of the family

forest. If we don’t work and try

to establish cooperatives—that,

I think, would be a negative in

the future of private forest

lands.

Lewis County, Washington,

Potential Cooperative Member
62 Forestry Cooperatives: What Today’s Resource Professionals Need To Know

The Update

The Family Forest Foundation recently completed a feasibility study for a small forest

landowner cooperative in southwestern Washington State. The final report for the

feasibility study can be found on the Web at: www.familyforestfoundation.org. The

results of the feasibility study indicated significant interest among landowners in

formally organizing to address a number of forest management needs. Landowners

expressed interest in the following services provided by a cooperative: reliable forest

management information, estate planning, assistance with complex State and Federal

regulations, and forest management planning. The feasibility study identified a number

of unique marketing opportunities for logs and value-added forest products; however,

organizing to market these products is a complicated prospect and landowners did not

express discontent with the current process of marketing and selling logs.

The Family Forest Foundation concluded that before any efforts are made to

improve the marketing of forest products from small forest lands, landowners must be

organized around a central common principle. Landowners in southwestern Washington

identified as their greatest need an approach for minimizing the burden of State and

Federal regulations. In response to this need, the foundation is first working to organize

landowners around a federally recognized Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) (http://

endangered.fws.gov/hcp/HCP_Incidental_Take.pdf). The HCP protects a landowner

against changes in State and Federal forest management laws if his/her management

plan and its implementation reflect state-of-the-art knowledge and regulations at the

time it was prepared and carried out. The HCP will also assist landowners with

developing a long-term forest management plan. Through the HCP, landowners will

inventory their forests and this inventory will provide information for future efforts to

find better market opportunities for their logs.

The word health shares the

same roots as heal, whole, and

holy. So if we look at the forests

through those lenses, with all

those words coming together,

the health of our forests reflects

back on our own health—

economically, physically, and

spiritually.

Potential Blue Ridge Forest

Cooperative Member
Jakes, P., comp. 2006. Forestry cooperatives: what today’s resource professionals

need to know. Proceedings of a satellite conference; 2003 November 18; St. Paul,

MN. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-266. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, North Central Research Station. 62 p.

Nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) land represents approximately 48

percent of the forest land cover in the United States, and conscientious

stewardship of these forests is a perennial issue facing natural resource

professionals. In an attempt to draw on the strengths of NIPF ownership,

some entrepreneurial forest landowners are developing forest landowner

cooperatives. In this proceedings of a satellite conference, we present

information designed to help natural resource professionals and cooperative

development specialists to: (1) gain a better understanding of cooperatives

and a deeper insight into some of the successes and challenges of

cooperatives; (2) evaluate whether the forestry cooperative model is right for

your area and, if so, how to further the discussion locally; (3) see how

cooperatives can complement other landowner assistance programs such as

Tree Farm, Forest Stewardship, and woodland owner associations; and (4)

hear first hand about the experiences of forestry cooperative initiatives in

Massachusetts, Virginia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Washington.

KEY WORDS: nonindustrial private forest landowner, landowner assistance, co-op,

landowner associations

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities

on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status,

familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs,

reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program.

(Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means

for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write

USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-

9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider

and employer.