Model D — Community Dividend
Surplus is shared with the wider dales community — local projects, community programmes, public benefit. Social licence priority.
How it works
Under Model D, the scheme's distributable surplus is directed outward — to the wider dales community rather than to individual producers. The surplus funds local projects, community programmes, and public benefit initiatives that strengthen the social fabric of the area and build visible support for the scheme's work.
In practice, this could take several forms. The might establish a community fund with an annual grants round, inviting applications from local organisations, parish councils, schools, or community groups. Alternatively, the surplus could be channelled through existing community foundations or directed at specific priorities agreed with local stakeholders — footpath maintenance, village hall improvements, youth programmes, flood resilience projects, or community transport.
The rationale is rooted in social licence. Landscape-scale environmental schemes operate within communities, and their long-term success depends on local support. A scheme that is seen to benefit only its producer members may face resistance, scepticism, or opposition from non-farming residents who perceive no tangible benefit. By directing surplus to community purposes, Model D builds goodwill, demonstrates that the scheme serves the public interest, and creates advocates beyond the farming community.
For producers, the trade-off is that they receive no direct financial return from the surplus. Their income from the scheme comes from baseline delivery payments only. However, they benefit from the improved social standing of the scheme, reduced conflict with neighbours and communities over land management decisions, and the intangible but real value of operating within a supportive local environment.
Administration requires a transparent grants or allocation process, clear criteria for eligible projects, and reporting on how community funds are spent. The Consortium would need to establish governance arrangements — potentially including community representation — to ensure the surplus is deployed effectively and accountably.
Indicative figures assume £400k distributable scheme surplus. The Consortium will agree actual splits in adoption.
What this means for your holding
Under Model D, surplus goes to the wider dales community — local projects, community programmes, public benefit initiatives. Your holding doesn't receive a direct financial return from surplus, but benefits from improved social licence, community support, and the goodwill that comes from visible public benefit.
Advantages and trade-offs
- Strongest social licence: Visible community benefit builds local support for the scheme, reducing opposition and creating advocates among non-farming residents and local organisations.
- Public benefit alignment: Positions the scheme as a genuine public good, which strengthens the case for continued public and private investment in landscape-scale ecological delivery.
- No producer financial return: Producers forgo any direct surplus payment, which may reduce participation incentives — particularly for holdings where margins are tight and additional income matters.
- Governance overhead: Requires a transparent grants process, eligibility criteria, community representation, and reporting — adding administrative complexity beyond what the scheme itself needs to operate.
In relation to the 4 Returns
Model D directs surplus outward to community projects, parish councils, schools, village-hall schemes, and the wider dales public. Against the Commonland 4 Returns framework, that produces a sharp tilt toward the social return.
- Return of Inspiration: Strong at the landscape level, thin at the holding level — the scheme becomes a visible public good that producers can feel proud to sit inside, but there is no personal financial narrative on the kitchen table.
- Return of Social Capital: Strongest of the five — explicit, visible community benefit builds the social licence a 20-year upland scheme depends on and creates advocates among non-farming residents.
- Return of Natural Capital: Indirect — ecological delivery continues to run on baseline funding only; community-fund projects may improve landscape outcomes (flood resilience, footpaths, habitat adjacent to settlements) but this is an additional, not substitutive, route to ecological gain.
- Return of Financial Capital: Weak at the holding level — producers see no direct return from surplus. The intangible value is reduced conflict, better planning conversations, and stronger standing in the dales, all of which are real but not bankable.