The Countryside Exchange brings together international teams of volunteer professionals to work with communities on their most important issues. The Exchange is a catalyst. It uses a visit by an objective team of “outsiders” to identify a wide range of potential solutions, create diverse coalitions, spur the emergence of new leaders and inspire collaborative action. The community also benefits from new ideas, networks and information that it can use to help shape its future.

Since 1987, 110 communities in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and Japan have hosted a Countryside Exchange. Over 750 professionals from England, Scotland, Wales, the United States, Canada, Japan, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Australia have participated as team members.

Table of Contents
How Does the Exchange Work?
Community Description
Community Issues
A Sample Itinerary
The Team
The Report
ISSUE ONE: Land Use
ISSUE TWO: Developing a relationship between the farming and non-farming communities
ISSUE THREE: Supporting agriculture and value-added products, including equine farms
APPENDIX 1 What Farmers Would Like Non-Farmers to Know About Agriculture

How Does the Exchange Work? Top of Page

Communities are selected to participate in the Countryside Exchange through a competitive application process. Applications are evaluated based on such criteria as the depth of interest within the community, existing leadership and leadership skills and the strength and diversity of community members supporting the application. Applicants must also demonstrate flexibility, a willingness to learn new skills and processes, show commitment to working as a team and to developing a community based implementation strategy after the Exchange.

Once a community is selected, a Local Organizing Committee (LOC) is formed. The LOC is crucial to the success of the Exchange and must include a representative cross section of the community – business owners, farmers, developers, elected officials, conservationists and “average citizens.” The LOC identifies and refines the questions that the Exchange team will address. It also plans the Exchange week itinerary, takes care of logistics and handles publicity. After the Exchange, the LOC helps initiate implementation efforts.

The Exchange Team

Glynwood Center draws upon its extensive international network to form teams consisting of six to eight experienced professionals. Each team is international and interdisciplinary in its makeup. Team members are selected by matching a candidate’s expertise with the issues identified by the community. In order to ensure that teams are objective, participants must have had no previous connection to the host community.

The team spends a very intense week in the community. A full itinerary of issue oriented roundtables, presentations, tours, panel discussions and community gatherings gives the team an opportunity to speak with many residents, officials and organizations. The week culminates with the team presenting its observations and ideas at a public forum. A summary report is also published to assist the community with implementation.

Implementation

After the Exchange week, the team report is distributed throughout the community as a first step toward developing an implementation strategy. Most Exchange reports include some forty recommendations and determining priorities is one of the most important tasks facing the community. Glynwood maintains contact with its “Family of Exchange Communities” through its web site, www.glynwood.org, Update Newsletter, database and ongoing personal contact.

The Results

Just as communities vary, so do the results of each Exchange. Some team recommendations may be broad, others very specific. Some may be small-scale projects that can be implemented quickly. Others may be larger, requiring a policy change, a significant philosophical shift – and time. In some cases, the Exchange may trigger a change that the community widely acknowledged was needed. The report may articulate an issue that leads to community discussion and an alternate solution. What most Exchange communities share in common is that the new and strengthened partnerships, expanded leadership base and collaborative action cultivated through the Exchange pay dividends long into the future.

The Exchange in the Town of Goshen, New York

COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION Top of Page

The Town of Goshen was founded on April 1, 1789. It was the cradle of the trotting horse industry and home to the first standard bred horse breeding farm and racetrack in the country. The area is a mix of beautiful scenic vistas of upland farms and patchwork fields in the fertile “black dirt” region.

Located 65 miles northwest of midtown Manhattan, and two hours south of Albany, Goshen is located only two miles from the intersection of State Route 17 (soon to become an interstate highway) and Interstate 84. With its own exit on the east-west Route 17, Goshen has become a magnet for commuters to New York City who are looking for a quieter and more economical place to live.

More than 12,000 people reside in the Town of Goshen; approximately 5,000 live in the incorporated Village of Goshen, which is located at the center of the Town. Like most of Orange County, Goshen has experienced fairly steady growth over the past 30 years (1% per year), but has seen exponential residential growth over the last few years. Development pressure has shifted from the long-inhabited historic Village to the outlying and more rural Town. While the Village has grown by just over 30% in the last 30 years, the Town has exploded with nearly 79% population growth. If Goshen continues this trend of rapid expansion, there could be 15,842 residents within its borders by 2020.

Farmland in the Town and County is generally described as either upland or “black dirt,” (also called “muckland”). Upland farms total approximately 4,000 acres and are consist primarily of livestock, such as horses or dairy cows. The upland soils are particularly well suited to grasses and as a result grow good quality hay and silage. Equestrian agriculture, built on the important heritage of horse breeding and racing in the Goshen area, remains important both in terms of agriculture and recreation. Dairy farms have been disappearing quickly from the Town and County. Upland farms are under ever-increasing development pressure as the best soils are turned into residential developments resulting in field isolation and fragmented ownership.

The southern area of the Town, approximately 9,000 acres, contains prime agricultural farmland, known as the “black dirt” region. Vegetable crops are primarily grown here. Since most of the black dirt is wetlands, it is protected from development. This protection however, denies the black dirt farmer eligibility for any state, federal or local “purchase of development rights” programs and virtually renders the land valueless for anything but farming. Seven consecutive years of adverse weather has dealt farmers in this area a severe economic blow.

The Town has been addressing the impacts of explosive residential growth. These efforts include review of the 30-year old Town Master Plan, with adoption of a new plan imminent, together with a new zoning code and a soon to be adopted Open Space & Farmland Protection Plan. A town-wide moratorium on residential development has been in effect since May 2002 and will be lifted only when the new Master Plan and zoning ordinance have been adopted. The County has also recently updated its Master Plan, and will soon adopt a County Open Space & Farmland Protection Plan, including a 5-year economic development plan.

COMMUNITY ISSUES Top of Page

• What regulatory and implementation strategies and incentives can be instituted by the County and Town to preserve the diversity of agriculture and protect the productivity of farmland?
  1. How can land use regulations facilitate conversions by farmers to other farming or farming-related uses to increase income?
  2. How can the zoning code be modified to make it more farm-friendly and protective?
• How can we adapt to development pressures in a manner that will promote a supportive relationship between the farming and non-farming communities?
  1. How can the non-farming community learn about the value and necessity of agriculture and its practices?
  2. How can the community support agriculture and its products to enhance farming’s bottom line?
  3. Are there opportunities where improved cooperation between and among farmers and residents would be to the mutual benefit of all?
• What infrastructure, both physical and interpersonal, is needed to support agriculture and value-added products, including equine recreation and facilities?
  1. How can we invest public (federal, state, county, town) and private monies to increase revenues derived from agriculture?
  2. What types of partnerships would be beneficial to farmers?
  3. What infrastructure and relationships are needed to support the processing and marketing of agricultural products and deliver them to end users?
  4. What incentives can be created to help farmers implement new technologies to decrease expenses, increase revenues, and/or diversify their existing agricultural businesses?

A SAMPLE ITINERARY:
TWO DAYS FROM THE TOWN OF GOSHEN EXCHANGE Top of Page

Saturday, November 8
8:00 a.m. Tour Goshen’s Farmers’ Market
9:30 a.m. Tour Black Dirt Farms
12:30 p.m. Lunch with Vegetable Farmers at Quaker Creek Store
7:30 p.m. Community Barn Dance at Silent Farm

Sunday, November 9
7:30 a.m. Breakfast Meeting with Land Use Boards, Environmental Groups, Town Attorney, Engineer and Planner
Noon Lunch at Orange Inn
1:30 p.m. Tour and meet with alternative farmers – deer, cheese, sod
4:00 p.m. Team Time
6:30 p.m. Dinner with Town Officials

The Town of Goshen Exchange Team Top of Page

Charles Couzens is a Director of F3, The Foundation for Local Food Initiatives, a not-for-profit corporation that is involved with local food initiatives, community planning and social entrepreneurship in England. Its clients include government, community groups and the private sector.

Charles has worked in the environmental sector for over 20 years. His work in the food sector includes, developing new businesses based on local supply networks and sustainable production systems. He is a Director of Somerset Farmers’ Markets ltd in southern England.

Michael Crane is the former Executive Director of the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission in Vermont. In this position he designed, introduced, and won approval of an innovative “tiered-growth” model to regional land planning for the State’s largest and fastest growing region.

Michael has fifteen years of experience in community development with concentrations in land use planning, recreation/tourism, resource economics, community development, housing, public participation and consensus building. He’s worked for federal, state, and local governments and operated a private land planning consulting business in Vermont.

Eamon Crowe is currently a Project Officer for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in England. His work involves helping to develop and diversify agricultural businesses. This often involves supporting the core farming enterprise while exploring diversification and value added options.

This work has led to a variety of initiatives including: diversifying dairy farms to include cheese, butter and yogurt production; redeveloping old buildings for residential and tourist accommodations; horse equestrian bed and breakfast projects; and nature trails. He has also been involved in marketing initiatives for milk, cheese and regional beef businesses.

Jelleke de Nooy is a senior staff member of the International Agricultural Center for Strategic Cooperation at Wageningen University in the Netherlands. The Center works on various issues relating to sustainable food production and the environment both in the Netherlands and internationally.

From 1998 till 2002, Jelleke worked as a senior coordinator in research strategy for the University and the research center, with a focus on research for nature and landscape, soil and water, climate, organic agriculture and multi-stakeholder processes.

Rick Fisher is a mediator located in Binghamton, New York. He has more than a decade of experience assessing and improving collaborative interaction among individuals as well as within teams, organizations and communities.

Rick has experience in developing and delivering training workshops on communication, mediation and conflict resolution, collaboration and teamwork, and group problem-solving. In addition, he has facilitated meetings and focus groups for government agencies and non-profit organizations on subjects such as visioning, project planning and stakeholder satisfaction.

Stephen Marston is a Senior Rural Development Adviser within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in England. He works with farmers to help them diversify their production. This involves business development, marketing, specialty foods, direct sales initiatives, farm shops, farm recreation and farm tourism projects.

Stephen has twenty years of experience in agriculture including managing his own farm and woodland.

Susan Miller and her husband, Ken, are first generation dairy farmers in West Vincent Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania. Together, they milk 90 Holstein cows on their 80 acre farm, Birchrun Hills Farm, 35 miles northwest of Philadelphia. They lease an additional 300 acres of land to grow crops for their cows.

Two years ago the Miller’s diversified their farming operations to include community supported agriculture. After participating in the Phoenixville Countryside Exchange in October 2002, the Miller’s began to process and market their milk directly to the consumer. The Miller’s goal is to keep their farm profitable and give their children an opportunity to continue the family farm.

Gerhard H. te Voortwis works for the Foundation Plattelandshuis Achterhoek and Liemers, an organization for rural renewal in the eastern province Gelderland, in the Netherlands. For the past seven years, Gerhard has been working to establish a regional cooperative of organic farmers and a distribution system for regional agricultural products. He has also developed a rural tourism program for his community and has extensive experience in providing adult agricultural education programs in animal husbandry and farm management.

Gerhard operates an 85 acre farm where he raises beef cattle, grains, flowers, corn and potatoes, which are sold regionally.

The Town of Goshen Countryside Exchange
Team Report

INTRODUCTION Top of Page

There is a high quality of life in the Town of Goshen. Children have excellent schools, farmers have productive lands and much of the workforce can access major employment centers and return to a quiet home in the country. Similar to many fast growing communities throughout the United States and Europe, Goshen is a rapidly changing community. The events of September 11th, new train service to New York City, and the demand for large residential lots are some of the external forces that have accelerated the rate of change in Goshen.

The core issue in Goshen is the change in land use, particularly with respect to the future of farming. If the upland farms become housing developments, the landscape will change, as will the structure of the community. This could result in the loss of this rural landscape.

While change is inevitable, it is important to manage the process of change. This can be accomplished by building on the new Town Master Plan and zoning code and soon to be adopted Open Space & Farmland Protection Plan. The new plan and zoning will help sustain farming and protect landscape and retain family farms.

To achieve these goals, farmers, local and county government, residents and support agencies need to work together with a sense of urgency to craft a viable future that safeguards the distinctive qualities of Goshen. The time is ripe to move on from planning into action.

Issue – 1 Land Use Top of Page

Since the Team’s visit, the Town introduced to the public on November 24th, a proposed zoning code that is different from the draft zoning code reviewed by the Team during the Exchange Week. So as to avoid confusion, those sections referring to the draft zoning have been removed from this part of the Report.

Observations:

Many state, regional and local jurisdictions throughout the United States and Europe protect farms, forests, natural and cultural resources with land use regulations alone. Particularly in the US, local governments often combine regulations with voluntary techniques and incentives to preserve land. Both strategies have their advantages and disadvantages. In New York, townships have responsibility for comprehensive planning, zoning and land use decisions.

Land use regulations will not preserve the diversity of agriculture or protect the productivity of farmland because their purpose is to control the rate of physical development and directing its location.

Land use regulations, however, can help preserve open space, which keeps land open for agricultural use. Land use ordinances can be written to support agriculture by expanding the definition of agricultural uses and by organizing adjacent land uses to help reduce conflict with neighbors.

During the Exchange, the Team observed that there was significant misunderstanding about the recent bond referendum put forth by the Town Board to support open space protection. Despite extensive efforts by the Town to provide ample information about the bond referendum, many residents were unaware of the details of the referendum.

Recommendations

• For those areas where growth is appropriate, such as the new hamlets, conduct a generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) to streamline the development and approval process.
• Take advantage of sewer capacity in the village and direct growth towards its borders.
• Make more agricultural uses “by right”. Do not require site plan approval for farm related activity.
• Remove the special permit requirements for alternative farm related enterprises.
• Put the bond referendum to support open space preservation before the voters again next year.
• In the meantime, work with the Orange County Land Trust and other organizations to purchase development rights on farms to be preserve the land for agricultural use.
• Land trusts should prepare a standard handout that summarizes the tax and other benefits of donated conservation easements, to be distributed to area farmers and large land owners interested in keeping their farms in active production.
• Develop an education campaign targeted at those people who are considering buying property in an Agricultural District. This might consist of a short video explaining agricultural practice, coupled with a leaflet that explains what to expect if you live in a farming community.

Issue – 2 Developing a supportive relationship between the farming and non-farming communities. Top of Page

Observations:

There are many different stakeholders in Goshen. These include: the farmers – black dirt, dairy, and equestrian, both for hobby and industry; Town and County government; local businesses; residents; civic organizations; and recreational groups. Communication between these groups is limited by the demands of their daily lives and conflicting schedules. In addition, there seems to be few community events where everyone can meet on common ground.

There is a lack of understanding about agriculture and food production systems among the non-farming residents in Goshen. Farmers are feeling marginalized, threatened and misunderstood. They express concern that regular farm operations, such as manure spreading and driving agricultural machinery along public roads are causing conflict between farmers and local residents.

As one farmer stated, “This is who we are and what we do. We just want to progress and prosper”. They also expressed the desire for more respect for their traditional role in the community and the need for more support by the community for their continued existence.

Farmers also believe some residents think farming equates to environmental damage, through the use of pesticides or land management practice. Farmers are already doing several things on their own initiative to help address this. For example, one of the more well known farmers has a weekly radio talk show and other farmers are participating in open days at the farm and visits from school children.

Cooperation between the different farming sectors – dairy, black dirt and equine, is virtually non-existent. Each sector tends to operate in isolation from the other. However, survival in these times requires change and cooperation. Most farmers have common needs around which cooperation would be beneficial, including supply of feed, agricultural services, transportation, infrastructure, modern management knowledge, and need for investment capital.

From meetings with representatives of the non farming sectors of the community, it was clear that they sympathize with the farmers and, when pressed, would like to support them, even if all they can do is buy from the local farmers’ market.

One long-time resident who commutes daily to New York City told the Team, “Farms are part of the cultural history of this area, which is what makes this a nice area with a better quality of life than New York City.” Many residents think open space should be preserved and development should be controlled or limited. They express interest in helping local farmers but do not know how to do so.

County planners acknowledge that greater cooperation, better communication, and stronger leadership are immediately required to bring together what seems to be two opposing tracks of public interests and business interests. They have said there needs to be better ways of encouraging these things and getting various actors to “march together” in a single direction. As one person said “We need to understand we’re all in the same boat and that our individual interests are linked to the public interest.”

Recommendations:

• Organize additional programs to give residents better exposure to real farms and farmers and strengthen connections between consumers and producers. Have more open days at the farms and other agricultural tourism programs. These options could be decided based on market research about what potential users will want (i.e., in terms of entertainment, chances to “escape the city”). Agricultural organizations, such as Cornell Cooperative Extension, NY FarmNet, and others would be the most likely to initiate more widespread use of such programs.
• Develop a public relations campaign that will raise awareness among the non-farming residents and counter incorrect assumptions and stereotypes they might have about farming. The more non-farmers make intellectual and emotional connections to agriculture, the more likely they will be to take actions that support local farmers.
• Develop education programs for prospective non-farming home owners such as farmer and homeowner workshops and the provisions of the “right to farm” laws.
• Provide training to farmers in dealing with neighbor relations to assist them in representing themselves when confronted by particular issues.
• Consider alterations to farm operations in ways that will address the needs of non-farming neighbors. Examples include:
  • Injecting liquid manure into the soil as opposed to spreading it on the surface;
  • Adding a carbon product to manure (such as “FIR,” developed by the Dutch farming cooperative called Vel Vanla), either directly or indirectly by feeding it to cows, as a way of reducing smells and increasing the nitrogen content of the manure; and
  • Moving livestock across roads at times of lowest vehicular traffic.
• Facilitate networking between and among the various stakeholders in the community.
  • Among farmers: Cornell Cooperative Extension should focus on networks instead of different farming sectors. Clusters of farmers could be set up around a specific issue such as the supply of farm laborers, direct marketing opportunities, or value-added products.
  • Between farmers and non-farmers: Hold more community events that will bring the different sectors together, such as the Barn Dance that was held at the start of the Exchange week. Continue an annual recognition event for schoolchildren who write stories or draw illustrations of what farming means to them, their families and their community. Enable producers to meet retailers through informal networking, perhaps through the Chamber of Commerce.
• Deal with traffic issues by reducing speed limits, using traffic signs within ¼ mile of agricultural uses and using traffic devices such as speed bumps in agricultural zones.
• Use police services when agriculture activity is on major roads to help direct traffic.
• Reduce conflicts by creating 200 foot buffer strips of natural un-mowed natural growth between farmland and housing developments on the housing side.
• Utilize the services of the dispute resolution center in Goshen to resolve disputes between neighbors.

For more on what farmers believe non-farmers need to know about agriculture, see Appendix # 1

Issue 3 – Supporting agriculture and value-added products, including equine farms. Top of Page

Observations:

There are approximately 38 farms in the Town of Goshen, including 20 farms in the Black dirt area, less than 5 diary farms, over 10 equine and a variety of livestock and part-time farms. The diversity of farms gives the Town a healthy mix of food production and a good base for supplying local and regional markets. Goshen farmers however, are continuing traditional farming practices without recognizing the dynamics of an ever-changing market place. The ways of diversification are still thought of as traditional product diversification rather than the wide range of services farming can provide.

In the black dirt area, there is some infrastructure for vegetable farmers and some sharing of labor and equipment. However, the farmers are poorly organized. The concept of purchasing groups and formal co-operatives are viewed as unrealistic.

There are a few pioneers of organic farming in the black dirt area but there seems to be a general presumption that organic farming is technically impossible and an unneccessary imposition of urban misconceptions about farming systems.

With the decline in farming, the Town is losing large animal vets and experiencing a reduction in the number of machinery dealers and other service industries needed to support farming operations. There is also a lack of a skilled workforce to help on the farms. There are no slaughter facilities in the area and the need for a mobile slaughterhouse was discussed with several farmers. This type of facility could make the slaughter of certain species, such as, deer easier.

The indoor Farmers’ Market in Goshen is a very good idea. However, it is under developed and the current premise to be used during the winter is too small to accomodate larger numbers of farmers, such as dairy, meat and prepared foods. Currently there is no processing facility available for farmers who are interested in using what they grow to produce value added products.

The potential for direct sales including home delivery or a new permanent indoor Farmers’ Market in the Town seems to be significant as there is no supermarket in the Town and few places to buy fresh foods. There are also few Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs) projects in the area and the potential for an increase in CSAs could be significant.

There are few connections being made between the food served in local restaurants and caterers and the local sources of food. Many of the local caterers are sourcing foods locally but not promoting the fact to their customers. As a consequence there is little creation and reinforcement of a food culture which values the source as well as the quality of raw ingredients.

There are few official links between farms to create long distance trails for horse riders, cyclist and walkers. There seems to be little tourism accommodation and few opportunities for staying on farms. Despite its historical connection to the trotting horse and standard bred horse, there is no focus for equine events and shows in the Town.

Recommendations:

• Establish an agricultural roundtable consisting of interested farmers, tourism providers and local community organizations and agencies to explore opportunities for diversifying farms into rural enterprises. This type of diversification could include:
  • reconnecting city people with the country through “adopt a cow” or “adopt a hen” programs were consumers pay farmers for rearing and looking after an animal which they can visit and learn more about its life and husbandry;
  • care farms that provide opportunities for persons with disability to ride horses and older adults to help feed the farm animals;
  • recreational activities linked to riding, hunting and nature preserves; and
  • new uses for farm buildings.
• Develop better links between farmers and Cornell Cooperative Extension and New York Farm Net to access resources available at the state and federal levels that can provide mentoring services or skills training for farmers wanting to diversify their farm operations.
• Develop access funds to support diversification of agriculture.
• Put farmers in touch with market research and highlight examples of successful diversification projects in the USA and Europe.
• Create a cooperative network of traditional farmers, equine farmers and part-time farmers that can be used to broker needed farm operation support services and products.
• Create a center for local processing and distribution for a full range of foods including vegetables, fruit, dairy and meat.
• Sell local produce to local schools, prisons and hospitals using experience elsewhere in New York State.
• Improve the Farmers’ Market by identifying a larger building and recruiting new producers. There are many opportunities for autumn and winter sales at a Farmers’ Market focused on annual events and holidays such as Halloween, Thanksgiving and Christmas.
• Investigate the potential for a Farmers’ Market shop in the Village to be a permanent food shop.
• Create a comprehensive farm trail network for horse, cycle and foot recreational uses.
• Consider developing a new horse park that could be used by the equine industries for year round events and shows and will attract visitors to the region.
• Consider using new technologies such as weeding technologies for large scale organic vegetable production or the introduction of flower growing, fresh and dried to create new uses for farm buildings. Some of these products and techniques could be a way of reducing neighbor conflict by reducing the drift from pesticide spraying.
• Connect with workforce development services and funding. The State Labor Department will provide grant aid to help train existing workers in the required skills. If a cluster of farmers were to form, a local Labor Department counselor would be assigned to work with them to determine their labor needs and link them with qualified workers. They can provide services for employers who want to improve the skills of their existing workers (such as to learn new technologies), as well as for “industry clusters” who want to make connections to workers with specific skills.

CONCLUSION

The relationships between and among the various stakeholders in the Town of Goshen are very complex. Everyone has an interest in the wellbeing of the community, but there are different and at times opposing perceptions on what is best for the community and how it can be achieved. There are eight categories of stakeholders in the Town of Goshen all of whom have different perceptions and backgrounds. The following describes these stakeholders related to their role in the community:

• Farmers: These include black dirt, dairy, and equestrian, both for hobby and industry, who are trying to make a living from the land but also maintain broad expanses of scenic pasture and croplands. Goshen has a diversity of farm operations which produces a rich tapestry of land use and scenery and is a great asset to the community.
• Community members: Residents choose to live in Goshen because they want to maintain and improve their quality of life. Older and retired members of the community may not contribute as much to the local economy as others, but they help facilitate a perception of the common good, in part because of their memories of the region.
• Government representatives: These individuals help define the rules governing the community and use of the land, including zoning, environmental and development regulations. They operate on different scales based on various aspects of the land, such as administrative and community services, water supply and conservation, among others. They represent county, town and village governments.
• Young people: The youth of Goshen carry the long-term future of the region and many family farms on their shoulders — if they decide to stay.
• Businesses: Most businesses are located in the town and village and provide a significant contribution to the economic viability of the community. Small shops and restaurants owned by local residents provide “life” on the streets of the Town. These businesses will decline if family farms and the rural character of the Town are lost.
• Civic Organizations: Civic organizations often provide residents the only opportunity to “get involved” in their community and make a difference. Without the participation of local residents in these organizations the community will lose a valuable volunteer resource.
• Advisors: There are many governmental, non-profit and academic advisors working for a variety of organizations that provide input to farmers and other large landowners on the best practices and other technical issues, but they don’t always use the same language. Farmers and landowners are often faced with the need to assemble the pieces of advice together for themselves.
• Preservation and non-profit conservation organizations: Land Trusts and other organizations help protect the land by acquiring conservation easements, buying and protecting land, often transferring ownership to public conservation agencies. They can play a significant role in the future of agriculture and the viability of Goshen.

Goshen Stakeholders: Same Town, different interests

This snapshot of the social and organizational characteristics of the Town of Goshen is intended to show that there is a large and complex range of interests in the use of land. The appeal of Goshen can be lost if there is not a shared common vision or concern for the area. The good neighborhood, the small town or village, the feeling of security and safety, and other elements of a good society are what add value to Goshen. The total result is often the product of a fragile process of community collaboration and compromise. Maintaining the rural character of the area will be a product of a social process, not the work of individuals, one that will create common ground between all of the diverse stakeholders.

In hosting the Countryside Exchange program, the Town of Goshen, especially the Local Organizing Committee, initiated a process that could lead to a broad community awareness of the need for sharing concerns among all stakeholders in the web of influences that affect the use and appearance of the land. What are the next steps? Special efforts should be taken to continue and intensify the dialogue, and for sharing common concerns and ideas for future action, perhaps in a central place accepted by all. In this way, concrete and collaborative projects can emerge.

Our Thanks

The Team would like to thank the Town of Goshen Local Organizing Committee for being excellent hosts for the week. We support your efforts in trying to build the future for your community. We would also like to thank the Glynwood Center for creating this opportunity for learning and contributing our expertise to this process.

Appendix 1 What Farmers Would Like Non-Farmers to Know About Agriculture Top of Page

• Appreciate that farming has a long history and is part of the cultural heritage of this region.
• Intentionally buy more locally grown produce. This is the most successful way to keep farmers on the farm. If farmers are economically viable they are less likely to sell their farm.
• Be considerate and willing to learn about issues that affect farmers. Understand how weather, global economy and government policies and regulations affect small farmers’ profitability.
• Understand how food gets from producers (farmers) to consumers.
• Recognize that most farmers’ practices reflect care and responsibility for protecting the environment.
• Many farmers are well educated, intelligent business people.
• Farmers make important contributions to the local tax base and require very little in public services.
• Farmers want good relations with their neighbors.
• Neighbors need to recognize and respect farming activities in the area and respect the contributions farmers make to the community and the economy.
• Include farmers on planning committees because they too are “land-use experts”.
• Take a pro-agriculture stance.
• Recognize links between self-interests and issues affecting agriculture (i.e., interests in preserving open space, having quality food).

©2003 Glynwood Center