I have introduced you to the basic idea of co-operatives, why co-operatives are considered resilient organisations particularly but not only in a context of crisis, and what some of the challenges are to resilience in the African context. I have also discussed the concept of resilience and provided you with a framework for analysing and understanding resilience – a framework that has been developed initially with the African co-operative movement in mind but which is applicable to other settings.
In this and the next section, I am going to ask you to do more independent study by applying that framework to some case studies. In the final section, I will suggest how you might use the framework in other contexts.
In this section, I want you to consider the experience of two producer co-operative unions in the country of Malawi. Borda-Rodriguez and Vicari researched these co-operative unions (and those considered in Section 4) in February and March of 2013. They have written two short case studies of these co-operative unions (as well as two savings and credit co-operative unions, which appear in Section 4).
I would like you now to carry out the following activity, which I will then discuss.
Please read the MZCPCU case study (Case Study 1) and the TMCU case study (Case Study 2), which you can locate by clicking on the links.
As you read each case study, using the resilience framework, make notes on:
Note: to help you order your thoughts on the evidence in the case studies, you could use a table such as the one below. When you are considering the dimension of innovation, try to identify what type of innovation or upgrading has taken place.
Co-operative X | Demonstration of resilience | Constraints on resilience |
Membership | ||
Collective skills | ||
Networks | ||
Innovation | ||
Role of government |
Here is my table for MZCPCU.
MZCPCU | Demonstration of resilience | Constraints on resilience |
Membership | Central management team well qualified with experience of international organisations Loyal membership based on good organisation and services to members, as well as good understanding of values and principles Inclusion of women members and participation |
Low literacy levels Difficulties in attracting good managers to remote areas Extreme poverty HIV/AIDS Donor dependency Experiencing effects of climate change |
Collective skills | Provision of capacity building, training and coaching Good organisational structures that enable good governance within the co-operatives and union, divisions of labour, skills to be built, services to be provided Improvements in use of technologies and agricultural practices |
Low managerial capacity at co-operative level |
Networks | Access to international organisations and buyers Access to Fair Trade markets Some international organisations (e.g. Twin Trading) have helped to build farming practices and promoted women’s inclusion |
Poor road networks Unreliable telecomms. Challenges of meeting Fair Trade standards Reliance on donor support |
Innovation | Process and product upgrading: changes in technologies that improve quantity and quality of coffee beans Chain upgrading: engagement in new value chains (tourist industry) through the guest house and coffee shop ‘Social innovation’: increasing engagement of women in production and co-operative participation |
|
Role of government | Good links with government ministries, partly as a result of donor links |
Were you able to identify the different types of innovation?
You will have noticed in my table that I also used the concept of ‘social’ innovation, put in inverted commas as I haven’t mentioned it so far.
The reason is that I was trying to think about why women’s inclusion was categorised as an innovation in the case study (rather than, say, a point for a socially just and inclusive membership). I concluded that it might be seen as an innovation in the context where women might not normally be included and where women are well-placed to use the new technologies and farming practices. Inclusion is directly beneficial to women both in market terms and in terms of their social position within the co-operative.
This process could perhaps be called ‘social’ innovation in the terms that two writers on co-operatives and social enterprises (Borzaga and Bodini, 2012) conceptualise it:
Would you agree or disagree?
In general terms, with respect to resilience, I would want to know more about the relationship with the international organisations and the buyers of the coffee. This relationship seems to be having positive effects, however I was wondering if there were any downsides.
I was also thinking that it would be hard for MZCPCU to address the illiteracy and management skills gap in the primary co-operatives; this is almost a national policy issue. Would you agree or do you think this is something the co-operative union could deal with?
This is my table for TMCU.
TMCU | Demonstration of resilience | Constraints on resilience |
Membership | Members working towards responsible forest management | Members have low levels of literacy Some very remote Members not yet imbued with co-operative values and principles Although growing number of youth, only small per cent of women (18%) |
Collective skills | TMCU provides a platform for sharing knowledge, experiences and ideas STIL provides opportunities for training in use of machinery and furniture making |
STIL training opportunities only available to some members |
Networks | Self-reliant approach Creation of STIL has enabled access to commercial credit Developing networks with buyers in Botswana and South Africa |
Not enough contact with other co-operatives Networks still in the process of development STIL still in infancy and not yet providing value added for members Some members sell to middlemen rather than STIL: problem of distance and transport |
Innovation | Upgrading of processes and products through setting up STIL, with the aim of supplying different types of timber to different markets | Lack of national standard for selling sawn timber: makes it difficult to negotiate deals with buyers |
Role of government | Government has provided forest concession for 15 years | TMCU thinks government should also patrol forests and borders, help to provide credit (not available for co-operatives) and training |
My picture of TMCU is that government support and a better regulatory environment is needed for the future. There are clearly some infrastructural needs in terms of transport of timber, and also education and training needs, including the type of social learning within co-operatives discussed in Section 2 of this unit. But this is early days for TMCU and some of the challenges are very different from those of producing and marketing coffee, particularly with respect to the regulatory environment.
I think I would want to know a bit more about the financing and governance of STIL and its potential markets.
Were there other issues that occurred to you from your own experience?
Although it is tempting to compare the two cases, that is quite hard to do because they have very different histories, are involved in different products with different challenges, and have had different amounts of external intervention. What comes through to me from studying these cases is that a co-operative and a co-operative union cannot stand still if it is to be resilient. This may apply to all businesses (indeed it does), however co-operatives have additional organisational demands because they are member-owned and they also have different potential for being resilient organisations for the same reason.
It is, however, important to remember that resilience is a process not a state. Contexts change, technologies change, market competitors change. Assembling the collective resources that co-operatives have at their disposal offers enormous potential, but that potential also requires a number of features, as outlined in the resilience framework.
You may have additional elements to add from your own experience of working in, or with, co-operatives.