INCREASING INCLUSION IN

COMMUNITY SUPPORTED
AGRICULTURE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank the Community Supported Agriculture

Network members and producers who gave their time freely and
accompanied us on this enquiry and Jade Bashford of the Real Farming
Trust for her contribution on the different models. We would also like to
thank The Esmeé Fairbairn Foundation which funded this work.

WWW.COMMUNITYSUPPORTEDAGRICULTURE.ORG.UK
WWW.COMMUNITYSUPPORTEDAGRICULTURE.ORG.UK
INTRODUCTION
The Covid 19 pandemic exposed the fragility of the agrifood system in the UK with its just-in-time
system that relied on long supply chains from global markets and seasonal workers from Eastern
Europe and further afield. With supermarkets unable to meet demand for fresh vegetables and fruit,
Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) saw an explosion in take up (Wheeler et al, 2020). At the
same time household food insecurity and poverty were increasing as a result of people being
furloughed or losing their jobs and businesses (Goudie S et al, March 2021). In response, charitable
food aid provision based on agrifood system waste grew exponentially. The situation has grown
worse as a result of the war in Ukraine and the increasing impact of climate change on food supply. In
the UK, 7.3 million adults and 2.9 million children have experienced food insecurity (Food Foundation,
April 2022). There are now more food banks than McDonald's branches. (Irvine et al, Jul 2022). The
food from these, though, is largely highly processed, not fresh and globally produced.

One of the major issues of concern within the global and UK CSA movements is the lack of diversity in
both farmers and membership and lack of inclusion of people who are financially excluded. In a 2022
survey of UK CSA members, on a question about ethnic origin, 88% identified as White (English,
Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British, Irish, Gypsy or Irish Traveller, Any other White background)
with 3.75% identifying as other than that and 8% who preferred not to say. 77% were educated to
graduate degree level or higher. 52% had a pretax personal income of £20,000 or more.

From the very conception of CSA the principles have considered the benefits to the wider community
whilst primarily centring on the farmer, and then shareholders. As the inequality crisis and rising food
prices increase food insecurity the desire on the part of CSAs to meet the increased need for
accessible good food has only grown stronger. The question of how to do this in both the immediate
and longer term, in a way which maintains the quality and integrity of the food at the same time as
continuing to maintain a viable business, was the subject of this enquiry.

WWW.COMMUNITYSUPPORTEDAGRICULTURE.ORG.UK
THE WORK
In Spring 2022, Suzy Russell from the CSA Network UK worked with Christian Jaccarini from the New
Economics Foundation (NEF) and food systems practitioner, advocate and consultant Dee Woods to
undertake a collective enquiry with 12 members of the CSA Network UK from across England and the
devolved nations. The enquiry was conducted online over three workshops to explore the barriers
for people from marginalised groups in accessing CSAs, to look at current practices and challenges,
to examine existing models and to explore the development of new models. This report shares the
findings, shared learning and reflections from the enquiry and offers some suggestions and
recommendations for next steps for action by CSAs in the short and longer term. The CSAs that took
part were: Berwick Woods Produce (Aberdeenshire); Blackgrove Greens CSA (Hertfordshire); Camel
CSA (Cornwall); East Neuk Market Garden (Fife); Granville Community Kitchen (London); Kirkstall
Valley Farm CSA (Leeds); Lauriston Farm (Edinburgh); School Farm CSA (Devon); Sims Hill Shared
Harvest (Bristol); Soul Farm CSA (Cornwall); Stanford Hall CSA (Leicestershire) and Tomnah’a
Market Garden (Perthshire).

This report lays out the results of the enquiry, includes our exploration of existing models aiming to
increase food access and ends with our recommendations. Where possible we have used direct
quotes from the work to illustrate the points made.

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS
CSAs can listen to what people say and need without making assumptions and be willing to flex
There are a host of quick and/or inexpensive actions which can be taken to increase access
without doing anything financial
Models which are based on income redistribution through pricing e.g., sliding scale/wage
solidarity, can work very well but need to be adjusted to meet the individual needs of each CSA
and its members
Ensure CSAs understand the financial costs and benefits intimately before they begin
It is advisable to ensure that the CSA business is financially stable before starting to make
changes to increase access - economic analysis of CSAs shows it can take up to five years to
reach break even point. Selling at cost price or below before the business is stable is likely to
put serious pressure on the model, and if the CSA doesn't work financially it won’t be able to
offer increased access to food either
Diversification can work to make CSAs more financially viable, however it is essential to
understand how much income it will bring in before diversifying or they run the risk of doubling
workload without increasing income
Cooperative structures may have potential to support increased access but more exploration
needs to be done to see how this might work in practice
Where possible support another community to start a CSA rather than trying to incorporate
them into an existing one

WWW.COMMUNITYSUPPORTEDAGRICULTURE.ORG.UK
 WHAT IS A CSA?

It is important to offer our UK definition of CSA as there is some variation across the
globe. CSA in the UK is defined by a charter agreed by the Network's member farms. The
charter states that CSAs are:

Agroecological, as defined by the Association of Agroecology Europe where

agroecology is considered jointly as a science, a practice and a social movement.
There is intrinsic community investment and commitment in the model and a sharing
of the risks, rewards and responsibilities of farming. This is most often through
commitment to buy produce for a whole season rather than on an adhoc basis but
can also be through labour and or ownership of the business and/or land.
Viable businesses whose main aim is to produce food, flowers, fibre or fuel.
A hyper local direct distribution model which produces most of what they sell
themselves although they may supplement by buying-in.

This model is supported by the three core values of care; ecology and diversity; and
fairness, solidarity and reciprocity.

Globally, CSAs are the best known iteration of the movement of regional and Local
Solidarity-based Partnerships for Agroecology (LSPAs). LSPA initiatives typically involve
multiple stakeholders from the local food systems: producers, consumers, researchers,
local officials, etc.. They are based upon partnership, local exchange, or direct
relationships where producers can earn decent livelihoods, and consumers share the
risks and rewards of sustainable agriculture in return for their share of healthy,
nutritious, locally- grown food. There is no fixed way of organising these partnerships: it
is a framework to inspire communities to work together with their local farmers, provide
mutual benefits and social cohesion, and reconnect people with one another and to the
land where their food is grown (www.urgenci.net).

All our participants were workers or volunteers in a UK CSA.

WWW.COMMUNITYSUPPORTEDAGRICULTURE.ORG.UK
 LOCATING OURSELVES

Prior to and during the first session, participants were invited to explore and share some of
the barriers to delivering accessible food. We began by asking them to locate themselves
within the systems that impact on people's access to fresh, nutritious and culturally
acceptable food. As those present reflected on their status and how this impacted on their
work it was clear that these reflections were not new and that there was a strong
awareness of the fact that they occupied a position of privilege on various levels including
gender, race, socio-economic status and citizenship.

“There are a mixture of work and education backgrounds amongst the people that are
involved in running our farm, but everyone seems to have financial security. People also
have time available to attend meetings and/or do practical work on an unpaid basis.”

“The majority of members are privileged; white, mainly middle class, well educated, able
bodied.”

It also quickly became clear that whilst important, economics were not the only barrier:

“We've tried to share with others that don't usually access the high quality, organic, good
food we grow, but have been faced with many barriers even to giving our surplus away.”

“Giving away food for free isn't necessarily the answer either. Obviously, we're not
advocating for food banks, but even giving food away for free may take away some of the
dignity from the process.”

“At £3.10, price isn't an obstacle for the cheapest box - it’s cultural stuff.”

“Diverse community access not just to food but to volunteering, a community, education,
green space, nature - all the other things a CSA can provide.”

“Food is just one aspect. Education, community, green jobs, showcasing. For example,
changing the way in which land work is thought about.”

Once we had located ourselves in the context, we started looking at the barriers to food
access. Those we identified fell into three different themes: economic, sociocultural and
physical and communication.
Relatively early on in the work the group acknowledged that many issues affecting food
access such as financial support for small farms, reduced inequality, better education were
aspects which needed policy change and a decision was made to concentrate on changes
within our sphere of influence.

“Policy issues, determined by government, are key and largely out of our hands.”

WWW.COMMUNITYSUPPORTEDAGRICULTURE.ORG.UK
 ECONOMIC BARRIERS

Economic barriers clearly exist, and the traditional CSA model where members pay an
upfront subscription, often in a monthly or quarterly payment, was immediately identified
as a potential economic barrier.

"The premise of pay in advance is exclusionary."

“The traditional CSA subscription model committing to a full season is a financial barrier.”

However, as we began to explore alternatives to this, other (potential) internal economic

barriers were identified including the increased administrative costs and greater instability
of running different pricing/distribution models, lack of capacity and a desire to pay people
properly on the part of CSAs.

“From a CSA's perspective, to customise subscriptions increases the admin burden.”

“Trying to reduce economic barriers makes it difficult financially from a CSA's point of view
(e.g. if people are taking subscription breaks).”

“Well-paid growers make food more expensive.”

External barriers identified were general lack of money, the ability (or not) to volunteer
time, competition with supermarkets and cheap imports and the dominant capitalist model.

“People do come subtly to say they can't afford - people get fed on site or swap work for
food. Some people do use this as a way of getting food.”

“We are trying to compete with supermarket prices. We need people to be morally engaged
to join to support.”

“It's also about providing an alternative system to the dominant capitalist society we live
in.”

“We work on such a tight budget that providing discounted boxes is hard. We could operate
a sliding scale if most members could afford to pay, not if most were on a low income.”

“We don't have room to expand. If we did more low cost boxes, we would need to make up
the income somehow. We don't want grants, we want to be financially sustainable.”

More positively, it was noted that the rising cost of food, tied as it is to fossil fuel price
increases, may mean that CSA produce becomes relatively more affordable over time.

“Regular food prices are rising which makes CSA relatively less expensive.”

WWW.COMMUNITYSUPPORTEDAGRICULTURE.ORG.UK
 SOCIOCULTURAL BARRIERS

After an initial discussion of sociocultural barriers we undertook a more structured review

of the societal problems, identifying those that could be addressed and those that were
more challenging. Cooking skills, perceptions around connection to land and food growing,
confidence, facilities to be able to cook from raw ingredients, language and culturally
appropriate produce were all barriers that the CSAs mentioned.

Some spoke about certain vegetables and the quantity provided not being culturally
relevant to people from diverse cultures. For instance, one CSA reported how a Pakistani
member had pointed out that in her social group most families would cook with large
quantities of two ingredients, rather than small quantities of many more, so a typical mixed
share was of little use as a main source of ingredients. A Scottish CSA highlighted the
existence of confusing stereotypes and cultural norms around eating vegetables generally.

“Lack of skills in food preparation and low confidence. low income and lots of people to
feed. Lack of knowledge about the role of food in health and alternatives to the
supermarket.”

“The share isn't customised to meet the diets of a variety of cultures.”

“Food education is crucial.”

Particularly for the CSA members located in urban or peri-urban areas of cities, with
greater ethnic and racial diversity, racism, power and privilege were noted as a major
barrier. Some participants had experienced or heard about racial microagressions, such as
referring to culturally appropriate foods as exotic. This reflects research which highlights
race and equity as key issues within the CSA movement in the global north
(www.csainnovationnetwork.org/equity).

“Racial microaggressions at veg pick up, eg a white member/volunteer asking a person of

colour how they cook a certain veg in "your cooking", or presuming a person of colour will
want extra chillies.”

It was interesting to note the varying perceptions of the use of word of mouth as a tool for
community engagement either as unintentionally racist or as an effective way to engage
with communities especially where English is not a first language.

“The (unintentional) racism inherent in relying on "word of mouth" to recruit members, as

this replicates existing social networks and structures.”

However, one participant had used word of mouth to increase diversity with great success,
considering it doubling as proactive marketing, by offering trial shares to people who might
then spread the word in their own community.

WWW.COMMUNITYSUPPORTEDAGRICULTURE.ORG.UK
 SOCIOCULTURAL BARRIERS

As the group explored racial diversity, the issue of diversity amongst the farmers and
growers themselves came up. A 2022 survey of UK CSAs found that 98% of CSA farmers
identified as White (English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British, Irish, Gypsy or Irish
Traveller, Any other White background) and 80% were educated to graduate or
postgraduate degree level. The group felt that changing attitudes towards landwork could
help change this, especially in communities where landwork may be perceived as
uninspirational and a poor career choice.

“Landwork is seen as un-aspirational, backwards, impoverished, risky, slavery. Our work is

to show the diverse, interdependent, valuable, creative, connected jobs on the land.”

The group discussed the use of food banks with many of the CSAs present having had
previous interactions with food banks. One challenge was the fact that the majority of food
banks were unwilling to accept fresh produce. And, even if they were welcoming of fresh
produce, the group agreed that social stigma associated with accepting food aid and other
charity acted as another sociocultural barrier.

All in all, in relation to food banks, participants were clear that charitable food aid was not a
long-term solution to meeting the basic need for good food with dignity.

Some farms had experimented with working in partnership to tackle some of these
sociocultural issues with mixed results. Whilst for some this had allowed them to increase
diversity and access, for many there was simply a lack of available partners and for others
the relationships had not been easy.

“Working through a local partner was really difficult. Not a panacea.”

WWW.COMMUNITYSUPPORTEDAGRICULTURE.ORG.UK
 PHYSICAL AND
COMMUNICATION BARRIERS

A number of physical barriers were identified including location and distance to members,
inadequate public and private transport, accessibility, visibility and communication
channels.

The impact of disability on access to local food has been little researched and remains a
significant barrier to healthy food access within CSA. What we do know is that persons with
disabilities in the UK are five times more likely to experience household food insecurity
(Food Foundation Food Insecurity Tracking Round 9, 7/ 2/2022).

The location of CSAs and their distance from population centres was noted as an issue for
those without their own means of transport as many CSAs ask members to come to the
farm to pick up their share and they are often located in rural areas where there is little or
no public transport. Even with transport to and from the site for those in wheelchairs or
with other mobility issues, the uneven terrain and lack of disabled facilities at most CSAs
adds additional barriers.

“Physical access. I found out that one of our members always sends her partner to collect
veg because she is a wheelchair user and the amount of effort it would take her to access
the farm is too much.”

Some CSAs do offer delivery, but this can prove difficult for members in certain types of
housing such as flats where there is no “safe place” to leave a share.

“Nowhere to leave veg boxes if people live in flats and are not at home due to their work
schedule (people on lower incomes less likely to be at home).”

The group also discussed the visibility of the CSA, not just as a physical entity where they
were often down small country lanes with limited signposting, but also in other spaces
such as the online world. The group acknowledged the strong presence of different online
communities with little interaction between them and the goldfish bowl effect. In practice
this means that despite feeling that your message is reaching the world, it is in fact
reaching a small number of people “like you”.

“If you want to reach people you have to go out to them, they won't come to you.”

“Some people may love to find us but don't know that we're there."

"We're in different spaces online.”

WWW.COMMUNITYSUPPORTEDAGRICULTURE.ORG.UK
 PHYSICAL AND
COMMUNICATION BARRIERS
INTERNAL
Finally, the BARRIERS
group were clear that the barriers reached far deeper than simply making
produce available, accessible and affordable.

“We had a grant to offer trial boxes to help people get started. Feedback was that people
don't understand the veg, they want other things.”

“Diverse community access not just to food but to volunteering, a community, education,
green space, nature - all the other things a CSA can provide.”

“Food is just one aspect. Education, community, green jobs, showcasing. For example,
changing the way in which landwork is thought about.”

INTERNAL BARRIERS

The group talked about internal barriers to increasing access, noting capacity issues (both
financial and time), balancing fixing the food system with maintaining a decent standard of
living for the farmers themselves and disconnection from the land as perhaps the most
significant.

“Most people are marginalised from food and land connection. We're so disconnected from
land, and agro-eco food production.”

“I'm overwhelmed by the difficulty of food access. It's not just food, it's also housing and
everything. It is a lot of work just growing the food, accessibility is quite difficult.”

“ A constant battle - it is difficult to fix everything to do with the food system and balance
this with making a living/having a good standard of life.”

WWW.COMMUNITYSUPPORTEDAGRICULTURE.ORG.UK
 RESPONSIBILITY

The discussion around internal barriers led to a discussion of whose responsibility it was to
increase/enable food access. It became clear that opinions varied as to the extent of
responsibility that CSAs should have for addressing the inequalities of social and
economically marginalised groups.
Some people felt it was enough just to be producing local agroecological food whilst others
felt that supporting the community was part of the CSA identity.

“Without making it accessible to everyone then you’ve lost before you’ve started.”

“It's a skilled job addressing poverty and engaging and it takes time. Should it be a defining
feature of CSA? Maybe it's enough for a well-off community to support someone who
wants to be a good farmer?”

“I think it should be a defining feature of CSA, otherwise it isn't community.”

“It's good to know what your own part in this is. There are other organisations doing good
stuff. We can't do everything. Relationships with other groups is good.”

"Yes, this is our purpose. We could have just sold wholesale, but that's not our motivation.”

“Those involved with food production feel a responsibility to do this but this also comes
with a lot of pressure.”

“Not a bolt on,...the whole thing is about access.”

“CSA is a model for community connection that prioritises our values (equity & respect).”

Despite differences of opinion, the overriding desire of the group was towards movement
building and jointly tackling these issues as illustrated by this quote:

“I was thinking about the importance of remaining as one movement of CSAs. Even though
there's a spectrum of CSAs, on one end primarily community projects, and very strongly
interested in food access, and right at the other end of the scale, the farmers who wouldn't
otherwise be talking to anyone at all and who set up because they want the consumers to
share the risks of farming. I don't want to split into two different kinds of CSA, I think it's
really important that we do this work together and share our thinking on that spectrum.”

The discussion ended with CSAs keen to look at options for increasing access and clear that
there was benefit to anything which might increase access, however large or small the
change.

WWW.COMMUNITYSUPPORTEDAGRICULTURE.ORG.UK
 WHAT IS ALEADY
HAPPENING?

Having discussed the barriers and our responsibility to tackle them we began looking at
solutions, firstly by widening our gaze to what was already happening. The group quite
quickly divided responses into things which they could tweak or do within their existing
models, most of which tackled barriers within the sociocultural and physical and
communication spheres; and those which involved new economic systems.

Examples of existing solutions to economic barriers are presented here, firstly those being
used in the UK and then those found further afield:

MODELS BEING USED IN THE UK

THE SLIDING SCALE MODEL

The sliding scale model, used by Soul Farm and Tomnah’a CSAs seemed to be working well
and offered an answer to the “I can’t afford it” response by allowing people to self-certify
on income and choose the price they pay accordingly.

How does it work: For Tomnah’a, for example, in 2022 the cost price of a share was £9.
They charged £6/9/12/15 according to income, asking people to look at government stats
about average income and decide for themselves. They said: “With the sliding scale, it's
useful to have four choices, including a 'high'. Otherwise everyone goes for the middle of
three options cos they feel like they are middle income.”

Soul Farm said: “It was hard to find and meet the most disadvantaged households. We
Ipartnered organisations that have those relationships eg food banks. Now we have 30
solidarity boxes.”

PAY IT FORWARD/BURSARIES
In this model, used by Edible Futures and Chagfood CSAs amongst others, additional
voluntary payment from some members subsidises or covers the cost of shares for other
members. Members are invited to pay extra into a bursary fund or pay for all or part of an
extra share. This payment is optional, and additional to the price of a regular share. This
additional resource then allows other households with less money to receive free or
reduced price shares.

How does it work: Edible Futures CSA members in Bristol can buy two veg boxes, one for
themselves, and a second for a family that needs it which is delivered through their partner
organisation, Borderlands, a refugee project. At Chagfood CSA, one of their members has
funded two additional shares which are distributed anonymously through the local GP and
they also run a pay it forward scheme where members can add an additional £2 to their
share to fund low cost or free shares.

WWW.COMMUNITYSUPPORTEDAGRICULTURE.ORG.UK
 WHAT IS ALEADY
HAPPENING?

FOOD CO-OPS
This model does not reduce the price of the share, but does allow members to buy other
foodstuffs at reduced rates which might then free up money to pay for the veg share.
Stroud Community Agriculture and Go Local Food both run food co-ops.

How does it work: Stroud Community Agriculture members have formed a separate food
co-op which can bulk buy at reduced prices from a supplier. The food co-op can source
from an existing CSA or make an affordable bulk purchase from a farm, on partnership
terms. GO Local Food buy-in other ethical produce and sell it at less than retail prices to
their members.

WORKSHARES
This model allows members to work as contribution for all or part of the cost of their
produce and leans towards the share farming model of CSA where all members volunteer
labour in return for a share and little money changes hands. The Oak Tree Community Farm
on Suffolk, Sims Hill Shared Harvest, Camel , CSA and Gibside CSA food all offer workshares.

How does it work: At Gibside CSA, 10 workshares are available for those who want to come
to the field regularly and learn about growing veg. They are invited to join as members
(£10/year) pay an annual subscription of £150 per year and offer to volunteer for 180 hours
over a year. They receive a free share each week. For those who are on a low income or
unwaged, there are spaces available to join as a member £10, offer to volunteer for 180
hours over a year and receive the free weekly share without the annual subscription. In
addition any member is encouraged to come to volunteer on the field regularly. The Oak
Tree Community Farm offers a range of differently priced shares, with the cost dependent
on how many hours you volunteer. “Full” members volunteer an average of six hours per
month and receive a share for the lowest price, “Reduced hour” members volunteer an
average of three hours per month and receive a share for the middle price and “supporter”
members are not obliged to do any volunteer hours but pay the highest price. They also
offer a “half share” option where you volunteer an average of three hours per month and
receive a share every two weeks for the same cost per share as the “full” member option.
This offers a variety of options for those wanting more or less produce and with more or
less time.

FUNDRAISING EVENT
CSAs hold an annual solidarity barn dance, meal, or other event, perhaps in partnership
with a community project and sell tickets to raise funds for subsidised boxes.

How does it work: Steepholding CSA runs an annual barn dance to raise money for local
causes.

WWW.COMMUNITYSUPPORTEDAGRICULTURE.ORG.UK
 WHAT IS ALEADY
HAPPENING?

GIFT BOXES
Unwanted items are donated to others.

How does it work: At Canalside CSA and Stroud Community Agriculture, when veg shares
are collected, members put any unwanted items in the "gift box". Any excess from the farm
or produce that is unsuitable for regular shares can be added, along with gifts from home
allotments or elsewhere. Anyone who wants it, takes it and/or it is donate to a food bank or
local food project.

HEALTHY START VOUCHERS (England)

The government issues Healthy Start Vouchers to pregnant women and young children in
low-income families. CSAs can accept these and receive the cash value.

How does it work: Take-up in many areas is low but CSAs can encourage take up and
register to accept payment from the government. Camel CSA accepts Healthy Start
vouchers. Many CSAs are interested but unfortunately the admin can be time consuming
and take-up can be poor unless there is specific resource to push the scheme.

TRIAL SUBSCRIPTIONS
It can put people off if they feel they have to commit to a long subscription without
knowing whether it will work for them. Trial subscriptions can reduce anxiety and increase
sign ups.

How does it work: CSAs allow people to sign up for a four-week trial with no expectation of
continuing. At the end of the four weeks they can sign up for the season or leave. Camel
CSA in Cornwall require all new members to start with a trial subscription before signing
up.

FLEXIBLE SHARE OFFERS AND PAYMENTS

It may help some people to participate if you just arrange your existing food offer
differently and are flexible where you can be, for instance offering a range of share sizes to
include a share small enough for a single elderly person; allowing weekly payments rather
than large lump sums; allowing membership holidays if cash flow is tight; choosing
payments dates to fit around payday; making collections easy without a car or making it
easy to subscribe without a computer.

How does it work: There are various ways to do this and it can be as public or private as
you wish. Camel CSA in Cornwall offers weekly payments for those who need it and
Stanford Hall CSA are happy to adapt shares to individual needs in particular cases.

WWW.COMMUNITYSUPPORTEDAGRICULTURE.ORG.UK
 WHAT IS ALEADY
HAPPENING?

BRING AND SHARE MEALS

These can feed people with CSA produce who might not be able to afford a share.

How does it work: CSA members organise bring and share meals which can be open to
everyone, not just members. Everyone brings something to share and this is discreetely
added to a large buffet table from which everyone eats. Stanford Hall CSA and Blackgrove
Greens offer regular free meals for volunteers.

GRANTS
While it might be difficult to get grant funding for your trading activities, you may be
eligible for grant funding to address disadvantage. You will need the right legal structure
and skills and time to apply for and manage a grant. Since most grants are short term we
would encourage CSAs to seek financial sustainability without grants as this is more likely
to guarantee your survival and ability to feed people long term.

How does it work: Blackgrove Greens CSA has received a grant to support those on low
incomes to access their food and farm. Cae Tan CSA has received a grant to help schools
access the farm but not to provide them with food.

NOT JUST FOOD

Whether or not a CSA offers low-cost food, it can still ensure it is friendly and accessible to
all and can play an important part in protecting households at risk of food poverty by being
inclusive, offering skills development and training, welcoming volunteers, helping
community networks and protecting mental health by connection with nature. To do this
really well requires outreach and a good understanding of who lives in your area.

How does it work: Find out who lives in your area and who isn't accessing your CSA.
Organise inclusive activities and open days and make sure you advertise them in networks
where the people you are targeting might be connected.

TRIAL SUBSCRIPTIONS
It may help some people to participate if you just arrange your existing food offer
differently and are flexible where you can be, for instance offering a range of share sizes to
include a share small enough for a single elderly person; allowing weekly payments rather
than large lump sums; allowing membership holidays if cash flow is tight; choosing
payments dates to fit around payday, making collections easy without a car or making it
easy to subscribe without a computer.

How does it work: There are various ways to do this and it can be as public or private as
you wish. Camel CSA in Cornwall offers weekly payments for those who need it and
Stanford Hall CSA are happy to adapt shares to individual needs in particular cases.

WWW.COMMUNITYSUPPORTEDAGRICULTURE.ORG.UK
 WHAT IS ALEADY
HAPPENING?

MODELS BEING USED FURTHER AFIELD

BIDDING ROUNDS
In this model, the membership jointly resources the entire farm budget by paying what they
can afford.

How does it work: The farm draws up a budget for the year which they share with the
members. The farm decides how many people or households can be fed by the farm and
invites that many people to participate as members. The members attend an annual
meeting and are told the average price of a share that would allow the farm to break even.
Each member makes an offer for how much they would like to pay. These are added up. If
the total is insufficient to cover the budget, the process is repeated. If bids exceed the
budget, the community decides what to do with the excess. The amount each member pays
does not determine how much food they get or their voting rights. Nobody is means tested;
they simply decide how much they want or are able to contribute. It is possible to run
several different bidding rounds for different products, e.g. a veg share or a meat share.
Temple Wilton CSA in the US, Solawi Trier (Germany) and Solawi Ortenau (Germany) use
this model.

WAGE EQUITY MODEL

In this model, members pay for their share according to what they themselves are paid for
their work.

How does it work: the farmers calculate how many hours of labour it takes to produce
each box and share the costs of running the farm. Members are invited to pay the farmers
the same rate per hour as they are paid themselves with an additional payment towards
running costs. This may need some adjustment for wealthier members who receive income
from pensions, shares, rent, etc rather than wage labour. This model is used at Ommuurde
Tuin CSA in the Netherlands.

GROUP DISCUSSION OF MODELS

Once we had explored the existing models we discussed other ways of financing access,
including generating additional income and we looked at three possible alternatives in
more detail as the most viable options. These were: the wage equity model, described in the
section above; the possibility of organising a co-operative amongst a number of CSAs to
reduce costs by pooling work and freeing up additional resources; and diversification with
high-value income streams generating finances to fund better food access for marginalised
groups. For each model we explored positives and challenges.

WWW.COMMUNITYSUPPORTEDAGRICULTURE.ORG.UK
 WAGE EQUITY MODEL

POSITIVES:

Encourages members to think about what they pay for food

Brings equity into food payment
Has the potential to provide farmer with living wage
Applicable in both urban and rural places

THINGS TO THINK ABOUT:

What happens if you have a lot of people on low/no income?

Tricky if your business is diversified so your hours are split between strands - would
need good record keeping
How are volunteer hours accounted for?
Could it alienate people?
Does it allow extension to increase production and feed more rather than continuing
doing what you're doing?
An hour's wage has a different meaning in a household that has paid off their mortgage
to one that has a massive housing cost.
You'd be concentrating on the finances to drive forward the equity rather than equity
driving the finances
Would need careful budgeting to make it work out
It doesn’t centre on ecological justice
It would need careful explanation and there was a sense that CSAs in the UK were
reticent about asking for more money from members. It was interesting to compare this
to CSAs in Europe where the solidarity aspect of the business was much more visible.

WWW.COMMUNITYSUPPORTEDAGRICULTURE.ORG.UK
 CO-OPERATIVE CSAS

This model considers how operational functions of finance, marketing, communications,

training, logistics and finding markets through school and hospital procurement,
hospitality, food businesses and farmers' markets can be organised regionally.

POSITIVES:

Addresses the economic inefficiencies of small scale operation that CSAs face versus
mainstream food system competitors through economies of scale
Does some of the jobs CSAs most dislike such as marketing
Brings CSAs together
Potential job creation benefits
Culture of cooperation helps to recognise contribution of all
Shared finance and/or admin system could be very useful
Could make buying in more possible
Coordinated marketing to restaurants would work for developing diversified business
Cooperation for certain tasks, eg bulk buying reduces overheads
Could see it working well in urban & peri-urban areas.

THINGS TO THINK ABOUT:

Would be more work and meetings

Would need to compete with other companies who are really good at this kind of stuff
“This idea adds complication and we need easy wins, we are already stretched adding
more layers of operation, complexity and management doesn't always increase profit!”
Increased profits won't necessarily result from this
“All of this cooperative work requires so much work to set up. Exhausted just thinking
about it.”
“Don't have time to invest in development projects.”
“Exchange economy, co-op concepts, pay as you feel etc requires a lot of social skill to
participate.”
“Co-operatives might narrow access and can be exclusive.”
“Exchange economy doesn't make all people feel safe and welcome.”

WWW.COMMUNITYSUPPORTEDAGRICULTURE.ORG.UK
 HIGH VALUE
DIVERSIFICATION

This model has one or more high-value businesses within the farm, such as procurement
through wholesale/restaurants, high-value crops such as flowers including edible flowers,
education and training provision, the production and sale of added value products. Added
value products include bread, fermented foods such as kimchi and sauerkraut, and charcoal
from woodlands.

POSITIVES:

“We do make some profits from floristry, actually more than cut flowers themselves.”
“Allotments - quite an easy way to generate revenue is subletting.”
“Education and training - people are willing to pay quite a lot in courses.”
“Events - ties into community access. Money could in theory be used to subsidise
boxes.”
“Could be a group of businesses who commit to buy a season’s worth of produce – like
flower CSA in Cornwall where 10 cafes all committed to buying a bucket of flowers a
week.”
“I used woodland profit to keep veg price down.”

THINGS TO THINK ABOUT:

“All these things take time from the main activity.”

“Growing high-end stuff for a restaurant chain - uses up a lot of space.”
“There's a trade-off. Not in the spirit of the core business If you do go for high end,
takes a lot of effort and space and changes the mindset of what you're doing.”
“Different sort of approach to the other two. Finance directed, not as interesting.”
Do the supposedly high earning aspects of the farm actually earn money? How do you
track? There could be problems with measuring impact.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS ON THE DIFFERENT MODELS

The group looked at the pros and cons of the models in light of the current economic
situation and political climate with regards to poverty and food insecurity. In addition each
CSA took into account their particular needs and limitations and tried to balance these with
the desire to provide better food access. The group concluded that the wage access model
or some variant of the existing sliding scale model was the most likely to achieve greater
food access.

WWW.COMMUNITYSUPPORTEDAGRICULTURE.ORG.UK
 RECOMMENDATIONS

THINGS CSAS CAN DO TO ADDRESS ECONOMIC BARRIERS

Adopt a model like the sliding scale if it feels possible
Remember that some people need help for a short period only, when their
circumstances change, so allow for this if possible in your current set-up
Talk about solidarity payments in your community and to your members as it raises
awareness
Understand your community and offer different ways to participate, such as weekly or
cash payments
Partner with local diverse community groups, faith groups and organisations which
may be able to subsidise shares or help reduce costs
Offer trial shares

THINGS CSAS CAN DO TO ADDRESS SOCIOCULTURAL BARRIERS

Think about who makes up your board/core group/volunteer group/membership and
take steps to actively recruit from less-represented groups
Include a section in membership sign-up form that asks about any physical access and
cultural needs
Explore ways to get word out beyond word of mouth, such as proactive marketing e.g.
offer trial shares to people who might then spread the word in their own community.
Run on-farm events targeting specific groups
Develop new resources on how to prepare/cook veg that are culturally diverse
Understand your community and co-create safer inclusion for under-represented
members of your community
Think about the internal and external narratives that are helping to shape your CSA
Translate materials
Training on racial, gender and disability equity
Outreach
Look at power in your group or organisation
Incorporate diversity, equity and inclusion in policies and practises
Review and strengthen current anti-discriminatory policies
Write a diversity statement
Partner with local diverse community groups, faith groups and organisations
Recruit a diversity champion
Co-create the share offer with different marginalised groups
Offer a regular printed and/or online vegetable/fruit information section
Invite local chefs and cooks from diverse backgrounds to do food demonstrations at
events
Participate in local events led by diverse community partners

WWW.COMMUNITYSUPPORTEDAGRICULTURE.ORG.UK
 RECOMMENDATIONS

THINGS CSAS CAN DO TO ADDRESS PHYSICAL AND

COMMUNICATION BARRIERS
Include a section in membership sign-up form that asks about any physical access and
cultural needs
Word of mouth
Explore creative multimedia such as short videos on Instagram and Facebook
Do narrative change training
Translate materials
Learn different outreach and engagement methods
Partner with local diverse community groups, faith groups and organisations to
promote your CSA
Learn how to use different marketing methods
Offer delivery or alternative pick up points for anyone who can’t make it to the farm

SUPPORT THE CSA NETWORK COULD OFFER

Produce short guide on working with marginalised groups
Produce a template membership form with appropriate questions
Produce a list of resources on popular culturally diverse vegetables
Produce a guide on the sliding scale model
Produce software that could deal with sliding scale/wage equity model and people
taking payment breaks
Do some financial modelling for different solidarity schemes and different types of CSA
Produce media that explains food solidarity
Produce a guide on how to use the Indices of Multiple Deprivation
Fund some engagement work in various CSAs
Create an explainer for different solidarity types
Fund a co-operative model pilot
Produce sample budgets for various diversification models with potential projected
incomes
Run a workshop for CSAs to encourage them to begin to think about exploring food
insecurity in their area and the variety of ways they could address it. This could be done
as a collaborative process with CSAs and community partners

SUPPORT OTHER ORGANISATIONS COULD OFFER

Offer financial support to CSAs to start-up
Connect CSAs with other organisations which might facilitate access to CSA food
Procure food from CSAs where possible
Organise visits to CSAs (and pay for the time)
Support individuals to connect with and access CSAs
Offer financial support to additional CSA staff to increase access

WWW.COMMUNITYSUPPORTEDAGRICULTURE.ORG.UK
CONCLUSION
Community Supported Agriculture projects are a keystone in a just and
sustainable food system. They can play a vital role in ensuring that their
communities can eat, especially in the face of rising food prices, empty
supermarket shelves and uncertain supply chains. However, they also need
to ensure that they start and continue as viable businesses able to survive
in the long term, providing both for their farmers and their communities.
Financial models can be adjusted to move towards a more equitable food
system. These new approaches towards food justice would enhance even
further the amazing work that CSAs are already doing in caring for the
planet, building community and providing stable incomes for those who
produce our food.

WWW.COMMUNITYSUPPORTEDAGRICULTURE.ORG.UK
WWW.COMMUNITYSUPPORTEDAGRICULTURE.ORG.UK