Being the only active founder and only beneficiary I have to acknowledge that the desire to implement the trust is unattractive to the other founders and unattractive for others to take advantage of. My intent in defining isn't to change the foundation of the trust but in analysing it's origin to clarify the purpose and future benefits. And although I write this as an individual I will be consulting others on the concepts that I consider to be at the heart of the trust and will note other opinions; such authors having the option to add comments to this analysis.

There are two focal points I want to use, one is the name, ELF and the other the phrase in the preamble 'increasingly ecological'.

ELF
In the first the acronym expresses a light-heartedness and I feel that is important to keep and I am reluctant to change the name as yet. It's extended meaning was always tongue in cheek (Extremely Lazy Fuckers) with secondary variable uses when suitable (European Land Federation) etc.

The significant of each is meaning full and so I will confirm the issues:
In the first case it was to note that there should be a minimal amount of work undertaken to provide for our needs, the second that the area seen as liberal enough to expand into was the European Union and that it seemed attractive to have other locations in southern Europe especially that could be areas included in what is essentially a land trust.

The difficulty most obvious to overcome is not using animals. I am sure that if the founders were vegetarian there would be no end of applicants with their domestication and exploitation of one species or another.

Yet although the vegan ideals that are basic to the original values are not a condition I can not envisage some one who does not consider themselves vegan as being eligible.

And here is a insight into the problem as I see it, or as another has put it, my view is the problem. However the words 'increasingly ecological' are the one I wish to use to describe the impetus.

Increasing Ecological
Here is the heart of the trust and it is often touted that a vegan lifestyle is more ecological. Well this clearly isn't true and detracts from the notion of not exploiting vulnerable creatures. This isn't the same as the extreme view held by some religious groups that it is unacceptable to kill an animal no matter how small but a sign of intend to minimise such.

And it is the requirement that minimisation is an ongoing process of caring. Ecological concerns fit into this very well but not because of any concern for the environment but as a technique to hone the skills needed to form a conciousness that desires to survive without exploitation.

Survival without exploitation may seem unachievable but 'Increasing ecological' must have that goal and it's practice may well include being vegan as the trust provides for.

The matter now focuses on the first issue, ELF, the option for someone to practice caring in an increasingly ecological manner, whilst the focus of the caring is to relieve oneself of the need for conciousness to be dependent upon exploitation. So whereas it is implicit in it's notion the will is not to protect anyone. or any aspect of the environment, but to invest in immortal conciousness that can only be achieved if humanity can survive without the consumption of resources, human, animal, plant, water, heat or quantum particles.

Now who wants to take up an acre of land with the intent on minimal exploitation.

I would like to that the image of an elf sat upon a mushroom wondering if there is anything that could be done is as close to lazy as I can get at times, yet to reach that lofty place requires a lot of manual labour. Labour that requires me to find the strength to carry it out with the decreasing use of resources.
Clearly I need the will to carry on but can my body work the fields?