The Role of Agricultural Marketing Cooperatives in Reducing

Rural Poverty: The Case of Yirgachefe and Sidama-Elto

Cooperative Unions in SNNP Regional State

BY: Alemu Tereda

Advisor: Tegegne Teka (PhD)

Addis Ababa University

School of Graduate Studies
College of Management, Informatics and Economic Sciences
Department of Public Administration and Management
Masters program in Public Management and Policy

JULY 2011

ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA

1
 The Role of Agricultural Marketing Cooperatives in Reducing Rural
Poverty: The Case of Yirgachefe and Sidama-Elto Cooperative Unions
in SNNP Regional State

By: Alemu Tereda

Advisor: Tegegne Teka (PhD)

A Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Addis

Ababa University in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Masters of Art in Public Management and Policy (Development Management) in
the Department of Public Administration and Management

JULY 2011

ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA

2
 Addis Ababa University
School of Graduate Studies

The Role of Agricultural Marketing Cooperatives in Reducing Rural Poverty:

The Case of Yirgachefe and Sidama Elto Cooperative Unions in SNNP
Regional State

By: Alemu Tereda

Approved By Board of Examiners:

______________________ __________________________
Advisor Signature

______________________ __________________________
Examiner Signature

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To God be the glory for it’s neither by my power nor my might but by His grace that is
superfluous and more than sufficient. I thank Him for making this a reality.

I am so grateful to my advisor Dr Tegegne Teka for his painstaking and thoroughness in advising
and guiding this thesis.

I acknowledge the immense support I received from large number of individuals in one way or
another. However, it is worth mentioning those without their support it was unthinkable for the
study to be real. I have no phrase to express the deep support and love my friends gave me
during the times that I never thought will pass when I encountered devastating challenges during
the period of the program especially Ato Anteneh Gebeyehu and Ato Ashebir Abebe.

The hosting, encouragement and love of my relatives in Hawassa town, Ato Wondmu Denbu and
his wife W/ro Mekdes Zewde together with their families was unexpressive during my stay there
at data collection period. It gives me pleasure to thank Ato Getahun Alemu, a BA Degree
Cooperative graduate of Hawassa University, who was with me facing all the challenges of rural
travel to assist me in gathering data. And my heart-felt gratitude goes to Ato Roha Wendmneh,
from Addis Ababa University, for his encouragement and support during the whole period of the
program.

I am also very grateful to the Agricultural Sector in JICA Ethiopia,Woreda Office of Agriculture
and Rural Development heads in the study areas, SNNP Regional Cooperative Promotion Office
workers, cooperative experts, cooperative leaders and farmers without their help and cooperation
this study would have not been materialized.

Finally, I am indebted to the works and authors that I used in this research and to several
anonymous referees whose works added value to this thesis in one way or another.

4
 Table of Contents

Page
Acknowledgements................................................................................................................i

Table of Contents...................................................................................................................ii

List of Tables .........................................................................................................................v

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................vii

Acronyms ..............................................................................................................................viii

Abstract .................................................................................................................................. ix

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION.................................................................................... 1

1.1 Background and Rationale......................................................................................... 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem........................................................................................... 3

1.3 Basic Research Questions ........................................................................................ 4

1.4 Objective of the Study ............................................................................................... 4

1.4.1 General Objective ............................................................................................. 4

1.4.2. Specific Objectives .......................................................................................... 4

1.5 Scope of the Study ................................................................................................... 5

1.6 Significance of the Study ......................................................................................... 5

1.7 Research Methodology .............................................................................................. 5

1.7.1 Design of the Research ..................................................................................... 5

1.7.2 Method of Sampling and Sample Size............................................................. 6

1.7.3 Method of Data Collection................................................................................ 7

1.7.4 Method of Data Analysis and Presentation....................................................... 8

1.8 Limitations of the Study ............................................................................................ 8

1.9 Organization of the Paper ........................................................................................ 8

5
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................ 9

2.1 Cooperatives Definition and concepts .......................................................................... 9

2.1.1 Cooperative Values and Principles ......................................................................... 10

2.1.2 Types of Cooperative Society................................................................................. 11

2.2 Agricultural marketing cooperatives in Developing Countries .................................... 12

2.3 Cooperative movement in Ethiopia .............................................................................. 13

2.3.1 Traditional forms of Cooperation in Ethiopia......................................................... 13

2.3.2 Modern Cooperative Movement in Ethiopia......................................................... 14

2.3.2.1 Pre-revolutionary Cooperative Movement ....................................................... 14

2.3.2.2 Cooperative Movement during the Military Regime (1974-1991)................... 15

2.3.2.3 Cooperative Movement in Post – 1991 Ethiopia .............................................. 16

2.4 Cooperatives in Poverty Reduction ........................................................................... 18

2.4.1 Poverty Definition and Concepts ...................................................................... 18

2.4.2 Measurement of Poverty ................................................................................... 19
2.4.3 The potential roles of cooperatives in development ......................................... 21
2.4.4 Cooperatives and Members’ Expectations........................................................ 23
2.4.5 The need for the formation of Agricultural marketing cooperatives ................ 25
2.4.6 Benefits gained from agricultural marketing cooperatives ............................... 26
2.4.7 Working with Cooperatives for Poverty Reduction.......................................... 27
2.4.8 The Role of Cooperatives in Rural Socio-Economic Development ................. 28
CHAPTER THREE: DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF SAMPLE
COOPERATIVES IN THE TWO SELECTED AGRICULTURAL MARKETING
COOPERATIVE UNIONS ................................................................................................... 30
3.1. Data Presentation and Analysis of Sample Cooperatives in Yirgachefe
Coffee Farmers Cooperative Union .......................................................................... 30
3.1.1. Background of Yirgachefe Coffee Farmers Cooperative Union ................... 30
3.1.2. Basic Socio-demographic characteristics of sampled respondents ................ 30
3.1.3 Welfare status of sample respondents ............................................................. 31

6
 3.1.4 Membership in the cooperatives...................................................................... 34
3.1.5 Services of the cooperatives ............................................................................ 36
3.1.6. Economic benefits of the cooperatives........................................................... 41
3.1.7. Participation of the cooperatives in community affairs ................................. 44
3.1.8 Empowerment of men and women by cooperatives ....................................... 45

3.1.9 Overall views on the roles of cooperatives ................................................... 47

3.2. Data Presentation and Analysis of Sample Cooperatives in Sidama-Elto

Farmers Cooperative Union.................................................................................... 50

3.2.1 Background of Sidama Elto Coffee Farmers Cooperative Union ................... 50

3.2.2 Basic Socio-demographic characteristics of sampled respondents................... 50

3.2.3 Welfare status of sample respondents............................................................... 51

3.2.4 Membership in the cooperatives ....................................................................... 53

3.2.5 Services of the cooperatives.............................................................................. 56

3.2.6 Economic benefits of the cooperatives.............................................................. 60

3.2.7 Participation of the cooperatives in community affairs.................................... 63

3.2.8 Empowerment of men and women by cooperatives .......................................... 64

3.2.9 Overall views on the roles of cooperatives ....................................................... 66

3.3 Discussion and Analysis on the Role of Agricultural Marketing Cooperatives in the
Reduction of Rural Poverty in Yirgachefe and Sidama-Elto Cooperative Unions.............70

3.3.1. Cooperatives in Increasing Income and Generating Economic Activities ... 70

3.3.2 Cooperatives in Capital accumulation and asset building ............................. 73
3.3.3 Cooperatives in Enhancement of Social Infrastructure ................................. 73

3.4 The Role of Cooperatives in Membership Empowerment ........................................ 75

CHAPTER FOUR: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................77

4.1 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................77

4.2 Recommendations...................................................................................................78

References .................................................................................................................80
Appendices

7
 List of Tables

Table 3.1 Basic Socio-demographic characteristics of the Sampled Respondents................31

Table 3.2 Material used for flooring and Cooking ................................................................33

Table 3.3 Asset ownership status of the respondents ............................................................33

Table 3.4 Reasons for joining cooperatives ...........................................................................35

Table 3.5 Criteria for getting membership of the cooperatives .............................................36

Table 3.6 Factors Rating for affordability of membership payments....................................36

Table 3.8 Transaction basis for purchasing the cooperative’s product..................................38

Table 3.9 Focus Points of training/education .......................................................................39

Table 3.10 Accessibility and quality of traded goods/services..............................................40

Table 3.11 Utilization of income from Dividends ............................................................................. 42

Table 3.12 Expenditure trends and reasons ...........................................................................42

Table 3.13 Ways of creating Additional Income by cooperatives ..................................................... 43

Table 3.14 Community/Social participation of cooperatives ................................................45

Table 3.15 Level of awareness on different aspects of the cooperative ................................46

Table 3.16 Cooperatives commitment in empowering members ..........................................47

Table 3.17 Overall views of respondents on cooperatives’ role............................................47

Table 3.18 Basic Socio-demographic characteristics of the Sampled Respondents..............51

Table 3.19 Material usage for flooring and Cooking.............................................................53

Table 3.20 Property record of the respondents ......................................................................53

Table 3.21 Reasons for joining cooperatives .........................................................................55

Table 3.22 Criteria for getting membership of the cooperatives ...........................................56

8
Table 3.23 Factors Rating for affordability of membership payments..................................56
Table 3.25 Focus Points of training/education ......................................................................58

Table 3.26 Accessibility and quality of traded goods/services..............................................59

Table 3.27 Utilization of income from Dividends ......................................................................61
Table 3.28 Expenditure trends and reasons ...........................................................................62

Table 3.29 Ways of creating Additional Income by cooperatives.........................................63

Table 3.30 Community/Social participation of cooperatives ................................................64

Table 3.31 Level of awareness on different aspects of the cooperative ................................65

Table 3.32 Cooperatives commitment in empowering members ..........................................66

Table 3.33 Overall views on cooperatives’ role ....................................................................67

9
 List of Figures

Fig. 3.1 Age Range of Mortal Infants ....................................................................................32

Fig. 3.2 Service Types Rendered by cooperatives .................................................................37

Fig.3.3 Suitability of Loan repayment ..................................................................................38

Fig.3.4 Post-harvest Services.................................................................................................39

Fig.3.5 Evaluation of Cooperatives’ Achievement................................................................40

Fig.3.6 Dividend's Sufficiency...............................................................................................41

Fig. 3.7 Areas of Greater Expenditure ...................................................................................43

Fig. 3.9 Age Range of Mortal Infants ....................................................................................52

Fig.3.10 Service Types Rendered by cooperatives ................................................................57

Fig.3.12 Post-harvest Services...............................................................................................58

Fig.3.13 Evaluation of Cooperatives’ Achievement..............................................................60

Fig.3.14 Dividend's Sufficiency.............................................................................................61

Fig. 3.15 Areas of Greater Expenditure .................................................................................62

Fig. 3.16 Improvement on livelihood through cooperatives..................................................68

10
 Acronyms
BoFED ....... Bureau of Finance and Economic Development

COPAC ...... Committee for the Promotion and Advancement of Cooperatives

CSA ………Central Statistical Agency

ECX ........ Ethiopian Commodity Exchange

ETB …….. Ethiopian Birr

FDRE ........ Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

HDR ......... Human Development Report

ICA ......... International Co-operative Alliance

ILO ......... International Labor Organization

IMF .......... International Monetary Fund

JICA …….. Japan International Cooperation Agency

MDGs ........ Millennium Development Goals

MoFED ........ Ministry of Finance and Economic Development

MPI ......... Multidimensional Poverty Index

NGOs ......... Non-Governmental Organizations

OPHI ......... Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative

RCPA ........ Regional Cooperative Promotion Agency

SDPR ........ Sustainable Development and Poverty Reduction

SEFCU ........ Sidama Elto Farmer’s Cooperative Union

SNNP ........ Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples

UN ........ United Nations

UNDP ........ United Nations Development Program

YCFCU ........ Yirgachefe Coffee Farmer’s Cooperative Union

11
 ABSTRACT

The study on The Role of Agricultural Marketing Cooperatives in Reducing Rural Poverty- the
case of Yirgachefe Coffee Farmers Cooperative Union and Sidama Elto Farmers Cooperative
Union tried to analyze the overall impact of agricultural marketing cooperatives on rural
farmers with a view of assessing the real and potential role of agricultural marketing
cooperatives on the reduction of rural poverty through Socio-Economic Development of the
rural poor.

The study used cross qualitative and quantitative approach by means of structured interview
with sample members in the cooperative sector as the basic data gathering tool followed by in-
depth interviews with leaders and officials in selected cooperative societies and concerned
bodies at different levels and focus group discussions with a view to illuminate on the finding
from the secondary data reviews.

The study shows that the selected case study cooperatives have considerably contributed to rural
poverty reduction through agricultural cost reduction, access to market and better price for
outputs to their members. However, the potentials of the cooperatives and the extent of their
development have fallen short of success due to low standard of performance, narrow scope of
services, poor management, financial limitations, corruptions and misuse of funds, and lack of
coordinated work of stakeholders.

The findings of the study on the selected cooperatives and households show that given the
willingness of the farmers to join cooperatives, the feeling of belongingness they have to the
cooperatives and the participatory method of development the cooperatives have, the rural low-
income population would take any opportunity to join cooperatives that would help members to
end poverty at the household level.

12
 CHAPTER ONE
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background and Rationale

“With almost half of the world’s people living on less than two dollars a day, alleviation of
poverty has become the biggest challenge to the human society. In response, the global campaign
against poverty has gained momentum, with various development actors suggesting the use of
different instruments to alleviate poverty” (Wanyama et al, 2008:1). Poverty reduction is an area
of concern not only to the government of a nation but also to non governmental organizations
and the society itself. This is the reason why many organizations including cooperatives are
established and are being working in many part of the world aiming to ensure the wellbeing of
people.

There is an emerging consensus among many actors of development including UNDP, that the
cooperative enterprise is one of the new forms of organization that meet all dimensions in the
reduction of poverty. The United Nations resolution on the role of cooperatives in social
development recognizes the contribution and potential of cooperatives in social development and
encourages member states to establish an environment conducive to their development (UN,
2009:6). Consequently, cooperatives are increasingly being presented as one of the pre-condition
for a successful drive against poverty and exclusion (Birchall, 2003:12; ILO, 2003:7). Similarly,
Destahun (2007:35) underlined that the use of cooperatives in fostering community development
and local economic development has received great attention and emphasis with much work
focused on the use of different types of cooperatives as a means for local economic development.
The argument is that the emphasis is now on the promotion of development from below and from
within to reduce local dependence on non-local corporations and to broaden the benefits of
development to more groups within the locality.

Cooperatives have a long history in Ethiopia, particularly in the form of traditional collective
action organizations, such as work groups (jiges, wonfels, debos), rotating savings and credit
associations (iquobs), and burial societies (idirs), which are still very much present (Bernard et
al, 2010:10). However, it was after the early 1950s that a formal cooperative movement began in

13
the country, and only in 1960 did the Imperial Government introduce the first cooperative act;
“Farm Workers Co-operatives” that gave rise to the institution in its modern sense (Destahun,
2007:24). The Military Derg Regime that ruled Ethiopia from 1974 to 1991 introduced a new
type of cooperative, based on more Marxist principles aimed at ending capitalist exploitation of
the peasantry (Bernard et al, 2010:15). As of Bernard et al (2010), during this period, the
government established a massive network of cooperatives to organize peasants, manage
production and purchasing, and sell inputs and consumer goods to members. At its height, the
network included more than 7,700 primary (community-level) cooperatives and 4.8 million
members (ibid). However, in its true sense, the cooperative movement is reviving after the
reform in the second half of the 1990s that it received a widespread popular acclaim (Destahun,
2007:25).
The current Government of Ethiopia’s various poverty-reduction strategy papers also reflect its
support for cooperatives. For example, Ethiopia’s Sustainable Development and Poverty
Reduction Program(SDPR), (Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia 2002:43) includes
cooperatives as one of its main goals for agricultural development: “to organize, strengthen and
diversify autonomous cooperatives to provide better marketing services and serve as a bridge
between small farmers (peasants) and the non-peasant private sector” (Bernard et al, 2010:16).
Hence, it is indicated in SDPR strategy paper of the Federal Government of Ethiopia that the
government has currently recognized the developmental role of cooperatives and given a special
emphasis for their establishment (Ministry of Finance and Economic Development, 2002:107).
Accordingly, a new proclamation, Proclamation No. 147/1998 was issued for the establishment
of cooperatives which was amended later on by Proclamation No. 402/2004.
Today there is a growing evidence of cooperatives success across the country, particularly in the
area of agricultural marketing. Taking this growth of cooperatives as a very important vernacular
to reduce rural poverty, the researcher wanted to investigate whether the quality of life of the
rural poor has improved along with the successive development of cooperatives.

14
1.2 Statement of the Problem
It is well known that the small holder farmers who comprise the majority of the rural poor need
effective production support and marketing services to facilitate production and sales of their
produce. Production sales comprise the major source of income for the rural poor. It therefore
constitutes a major means of poverty reduction for the majority of the rural poor (Walton,
2001:9).

Many scholars have indicated that cooperatives could play a very crucial role in varies socio-
economic development areas if they operate in accordance to the universally accepted
cooperative organizing principles and core values. For instance, Alan (1984) cited in Hailu
(2007:34) argued that cooperative link is important for several reasons such as developing high
social capital, reduce labor mobility, and in utilization of indigenous resources such as local
capital for local development. Moreover, Birchall (2003:4) stated that “cooperatives have a lot of
opportunities in lifting the poor out of poverty and all other forms of deprivation. More precisely,
cooperatives respond to three key concepts associated with poverty as defined by the World
Bank; opportunity, empowerment, and security (World Bank, 2002:79). The broad argument is
that cooperatives have the advantages of identifying economic opportunities for the poor;
empowering the disadvantaged to defend their interests; and providing security to the poor by
allowing them to convert individual risks into collective risks.” However, empirical evidence is
necessary to show how cooperatives contribute to growth and development in smallholder-based
agriculture in order to help realize their potentials.

As a result of the initiatives made by the current Federal government, as mentioned earlier,
various cooperative organizations are being established in different parts of the country.
Agricultural marketing cooperatives are among these organizations which operate with the
intention to ensure food security, accelerate rural development and reduce poverty. To be more
specific, they are expected to serve the rural poor in such areas including; provision of market
and market information for members, supply of modern agricultural inputs (such as fertilizer and
improved seeds), and consumer goods to the members, participation in rural infrastructural
development programs such as roads, schools and clinics which may serve both members and
non members (Bernard et al, 2010:17). The issue now is to find out the extent to which they are
doing the same.

15
Nevertheless, the continuing debate on the suitability of cooperatives for poverty alleviation in
Africa tends to be based on expectations rather than the empirical evidence of these
organizations on the Continent (Wanyama et al, 2008:4). Cooperatives have also been viewed as
state instrumentalities or parastatals, and as being less concerned about the genuine needs of their
members (UN, 2009:6). Therefore, based on these realities one can ask to what extent
cooperatives in Ethiopia and more specifically in Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples’
(SNNP) Regional State have contributed in reducing rural poverty? The purpose of this thesis is
therefore to fill this gap by investigating the actual and potential contributions and impacts of
agricultural marketing cooperatives in the reduction of rural poverty using empirical evidence
from two selected agricultural marketing cooperative unions in SNNPR.

1.3 Basic Research Questions

i. What roles do agricultural marketing cooperatives play on socio-economic development
of the rural households?
ii. What makes the agricultural marketing cooperatives useful for the rural poor? What
methods do agricultural marketing cooperatives employ in the reduction of rural poverty?
iii. How do agricultural marketing cooperatives operate? And how can one measure their
success and failure?
iv. What are the attitudes and perceptions of members about agricultural marketing
cooperatives?

1.4 Objective of the Study

1.4.1 General Objective

The basic aim of this study is to explore and reveal the role, contributions, and impacts of
Agricultural marketing cooperatives and investigate how they reduce rural poverty.

1.4.2. Specific Objectives

The specific objectives of the study include:
1. To investigate and analyze the benefits agricultural marketing cooperatives offer to the
rural poor in terms of socio-economic development.

16
 2. To assess the overall situation of agricultural marketing cooperatives operating in the
study area and make an analysis on their strong and weak sides.
3. To evaluate the attitudes and perceptions of members in the local community toward the
agricultural marketing cooperatives.
4. To identify if there are any implications that may necessitate policy amendment or
initiate new policy and planning measures in cooperatives development programs.

1.5 Scope of the Study

The study on the role of agricultural marketing cooperatives in reducing rural poverty is
conducted in SNNP Regional State. The study considers only two selected agricultural marketing
unions in the region. The study paid particular attention to investigate the role of selected
cooperatives in reducing rural poverty with respect to socio-economic development. Not all the
primary cooperatives involved in agricultural input and output marketing activity found in the
study area were covered. The study is confined to rural agricultural cooperatives which are
engaged in agricultural input and output marketing.

1.6 Significance of the Study

The study on the role of agricultural marketing cooperatives in reducing rural poverty provides
some new empirical evidences that may help us to understand the conditions under which
agricultural marketing cooperatives are promoting the standard of living to the rural poor and
generating rural welfare improvements in study area in particular and SNNPR, Ethiopia in
general. The researcher also hopes that this thesis provides new insight for policymakers,
researchers, and development practitioners.

1.7 Research Methodology

1.7.1 Design of the Research

The purpose of this study is to assess and understand the role of agricultural marketing
cooperatives and their real and potential impacts on the reduction of rural poverty through socio-
economic development of the rural poor. The study investigates and analyzes the cooperative
business operations and their salience to members and the rural local community in selected
agricultural marketing cooperative unions in SNNP Regional State. A cross qualitative and
quantitative method is applied for two basic advantages. First, it is appropriate for easy

17
triangulation. The secondary data obtained from different sources such as Federal, regional and
local cooperative offices is triangulated with primary data from members in the local community.
Secondly, one method can be nested with in another method to provide insight into different
levels or units of analysis (Creswell, 2008:10-13).

1.7.2 Method of Sampling and Sample Size

According to the preliminary information from Regional Cooperative Promotion Agency
(RCPA), Agricultural marketing cooperatives in SNNPR had been categorized into 16 cereal and
5 coffee marketing unions. From each, one union is selected by using stratified purposeful
sampling technique for the case study. The criteria put into consideration during selection of case
study unions are; focusing on areas that are in the radius of 200km from the capital city of the
region, Hawasa. A radius of 200km is considered to meet time and cost constraints, nature of
respective areas/zones to represent the large population size and finally, prevention of zonal/areal
repetition. The technique is chosen because it illustrates characteristics of particular sub groups
of interest and facilitates comparisons among different groups. Then, a two-staged random
sampling technique is applied in an effort to generate the necessary data and information from
the representative samples of the survey population which is relatively homogeneous. The first
stage involved random sampling of two primary cooperatives from each union. In the second
stage, random sampling of individual members are selected from the four primary cooperatives
on the basis of proportionate size on which the sampled cooperatives are organized as shown in
the table, hereunder.

18
The selected cooperative unions and their membership

Selected cooperative Type of Number of member Number of total members

S.No. unions the union cooperatives in the union in the union
1 Sidama-Elito Cereal 56 587
2 Yirgachefe Coffee 22 3254
Total 78 3841
Sample in percentage 5% 1.2%
Source: Southern Region Farmers’ Cooperative Federation Members’ Basic Data, Hawasa, 2010.

Accordingly, four primary cooperatives from the two case study unions are taken. These are
Hafursa and Konga primary cooperatives from Yirgachefe Coffee Farmers Cooperative Union,
and Kayo and Shelo-belela primary cooperatives from Sidama-Elto Farmers Cooperative Union.
Stratified simple random sampling technique is applied to select the sample respondents. The
rational for using simple random sampling technique here was that, each of the cooperatives had
a complete name list of their members, facilitating the use of this particular sampling method.
Moreover, this technique made it possible to give every element in the population a known and
equal chance of belongingness to the sample and by so doing, sample bias is either minimized or
completely eliminated. Therefore, according to members’ data in each corresponding cooperative
office, members were categorized into strata based on Kebeles, where they are from. Then,
proportionate numbers of respondents are chosen using simple random sampling technique. The
sample size is made smaller due to the challenging task of conducting an interview with each
respondent, the homogeneous nature of respondents, and considering the time and cost allotted
for the study.

1.7.3 Method of Data Collection

A structured interview questionnaire was used as a basic tool of data collection from sample
members. Together with the members’ interview administration, semi-structured interviews were
also applied with officials at different levels such as cooperatives’ and unions’ leaders and
cooperative promotion bureau officials. The basic purpose of these interviews is to ascertain the
historical development of the survey cooperatives, their business operations, and their salience to
members in the locality as well as to address the cooperative governance aspects. In addition, it
enriches and supplements the data from members. Secondary data is also compiled to shed light
on the research problem from different sources such as the Federal Cooperatives Agency,

19
regional federation of unions, local cooperative offices, and different materials from internet.
Personal observation and focus group discussions were also used in the data collection.

1.7.4 Method of Data Analysis and Presentation

To meet the intended purpose of the study, the data gathered from various sources was first
edited, tallied, coded and summarized. The quantitative data summary has gone through different
descriptive statistical tools such as tables, bar graphs and pie charts followed by the
corresponding interpretations while the qualitative data was summarized in a report form. The
analysis does not merely depend on numerical measurements; it also included respondents’
perception on the issue. Finally, a discussion on basic findings is made so as to draw conclusion
and recommendations.

1.8 Limitations of the Study

The researcher encountered numerous problems which affected the smooth running of the work.
There were a lot of constraints as to getting information and materials for developing concepts
in the thesis. Most of the data used were very difficult to come by, as the case areas where far
apart, rural areas having no transportation facilities in addition to the difficulty to get the target
respondents. A lot of time was wasted as the researcher visited the organizations and individuals
together with government agencies to obtain valuable information for the thesis. Due to budget
limitation, the researcher was limited to cooperative unions in the radius of 200km.

1.9 Organization of the Paper

This thesis is divided into four chapters. Chapter one constitutes background and rationale,
statement of the problem, research questions, objectives, research methodology, scope,
significance, and limitations of the study. The second chapter presents literature review that
provides theoretical and empirical framework to the research. The third chapter is the main body
of the research that comprises data analysis, interpretation and findings. Finally, the fourth
chapter presents conclusion and recommendations.

20
 CHAPTER TWO
2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Cooperatives Definition and concepts

The definitions of cooperatives are numerous and varied. The International Cooperatives
Alliance (ICA) defines a cooperative as “An autonomous association of persons united
voluntarily to meet their common economic, social and cultural needs and aspirations
through a jointly owned and democratically-controlled enterprise”. This suggests that
cooperatives are, first and foremost, voluntary business associations formed by people of limited
means through contribution of share capital that forms the basis of sharing out the profits that
accrue from the business. In addition, the income generated from the enterprise can as well be
used to meet other social and cultural needs and aspirations as determined by the members
(Wanyama et al, 2008:3).

Individual countries tend to define a cooperative, usually in their relevant legislation, in ways
that reflect the national contribution they see the cooperative model of organization making.
Similarly, the Ethiopian Federal Negarit Gazeta (cooperative societies Proclamation No.
147/1998) defined cooperative society as “a society established by individuals on voluntary
basis to collectively solve their economic and social problems and to democratically manage
the same” This definition partly explains why the management of a cooperative has to be
democratic: to give the members the opportunity to determine how the proceeds of the enterprise
can be utilized. Of course the other explanation for this form of management is that the
association is open and voluntary: a member is free to join and also cease to be a member at
his/her discretion. Cooperatives emerge under different objective and subjective situations to
achieve different ends. Therefore, it is difficult to find a definition that embraces the valid use of
the concept “cooperative” in different economic situations. What is common however is the
organizations’ main aim is geared towards the fulfillment of the needs of its members.

Cooperative societies may, according to their nature, be established at different levels from
primary up to the federal level (Ethiopian Federal Negarit Gazeta cooperative societies
Proclamation No. 147/1998). Cooperative societies at primary level are with individual persons
as members, while cooperative unions are formed at the secondary level with cooperative

21
societies as the members. Thus, in the latter case, cooperative societies in the same sector within
a specific geographical region could join together to form a cooperative union for purposes of
mobilizing capital to invest in a bigger business venture that is beyond the reach of a single
cooperative society. The same logic is used by cooperative unions to form cooperative
federations and ultimately an apex organization at the national level to represent all cooperatives
in the country (Wanyama et al, 2008:3).

2.1.1 Cooperative Values and Principles

The cooperative values compass-common values on which all cooperatives are based; but they
may be interpreted by different traditions of cooperatives according to their operating conditions
and specific environments. But still, it is possible to identify certain common characteristics and
features of cooperative organizations though there are distinctive traits for every type of
cooperative. Cooperatives are private sector enterprises set up to meet their members’ needs.
They are owned and democratically controlled by their members - a governance model
distinguishing them from private firms. In principle, they are based on values of self-help, self-
responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity. They cover a wide range of activities
including: agriculture, financial services, manufacturing, transport, utilities, health care and
funerals (DFID, 2010:5).

The cooperative principles are guidelines by which cooperatives put their values into practice.
Cooperative societies have certain distinguishing principles or characteristics, which set them
apart from other forms of business organizations. According to literatures, there are seven
principles generally agreed upon by theoreticians and practitioners in the area. International
Cooperative Alliance( ICA) (1995) stated the principles as follows:
1. Voluntary and Open Membership: Co-operatives are voluntary organizations, open to all
persons able to use their services and willing to accept the responsibilities of membership,
without gender, social, racial, political or religious discrimination.
2. Democratic Member Control: Cooperatives are democratic organizations controlled by
their members, who actively participate in setting their policies and making decisions. Men
and women serving as elected representatives are accountable to the membership. In primary
cooperatives members have equal voting rights (one member, one vote) and cooperatives at

22
 other levels are also organized in a democratic manner.
3. Member Economic Participation: Members contribute equitably to, and democratically
control, the capital of their cooperative. At least part of that capital is usually the common
property of the cooperative. Members usually receive limited compensation, if any, on
capital subscribed as a condition of membership. Members allocate surpluses for any or all of
the following purposes: developing their cooperative, possibly by setting up reserves, part of
which at least would be indivisible; benefiting members in proportion to their transactions
with the cooperative; and supporting other activities approved by the membership.
4. Autonomy and Independence: Cooperatives are autonomous, self-help organizations
controlled by their members. If they enter to agreements with other organizations, including
governments, or raise capital from external sources, they do so on terms that ensure
democratic control by their members and maintain their cooperative autonomy.
5. Education, Training and Information: Cooperatives provide education and training for
their members, elected representatives, managers, and employees so they can contribute
effectively to the development of their cooperatives. They inform the general public -
particularly young people and opinion leaders - about the nature and benefits of cooperation.
6. Cooperation among Cooperatives: Cooperatives serve their members most effectively and
strengthen the cooperative movement by working together through local, national, regional
and international structures.
7. Concern for Community: Cooperatives work for the sustainable development of their
communities through policies approved by their members.

2.1.2 Types of Cooperative Society

Earlier literatures indicate that there were only two types of cooperatives called producer
cooperatives and service cooperatives (Kebebew, 1978; Tegegne, 1984; cited in Bernard et al,
2010:15). A cooperative society may engage in production or service rendering activities or in
both production and service rendering activities. As stated in Ethiopian Councils of Ministers
Regulation No. 106/2004, cooperative societies of different type may be organized in any
economic or social sector of the country. Cooperative societies differ from others based on their

23
unique nature such as their working place, establishment, function and legal personality they
have.
According to cooperative society’s proclamation No. 147/1998, there are about seven
cooperative types that are given recognition and operating in the country. These are: agricultural
cooperatives, housing cooperatives, industrial and artisan producers’ cooperatives, consumers’
cooperatives, saving and credit cooperatives, fishery cooperatives, and mining cooperatives.

2.2 Agricultural marketing cooperatives in Developing Countries

In developing countries, the percentages of the population living in rural areas are typically the
majority; the villages are almost farmers and are distinguished by subsistence economy. Their
production unit is based on the family labor which produces the food for its own consumption,
and for payment of debt, taxes, and other expenses (Galor, 2009:16). Another characteristic of
the agricultural marketing in rural areas lies in the fact that poor famers in developing countries
sell their produce at the harvest time as ‘distress sale’ because the poor have no holding power,
till prices rise by the better farmers, because of pressure of several type of objectives, as to pay
taxes and meet household needs children’s education, clothing and other basic necessities which
need urgent fulfillment (Woldu, 2007:24).

The issues and concerns in marketing relate mainly to the performance (efficiency) of the
marketing system, which depends on the structure and conduct of the market. An efficient
marketing system helps in optimization of resource use, output management, increase in farm
incomes, widening of markets, growth of agro-based industry, addition to national income
through value addition, and employment creation (Acharya, 2004:1).

Agricultural marketing cooperatives are set up in order to market and sell the marketable
surpluses produced by its members such as cereals, vegetables, oilseeds, coffee, livestock, and
fish produces when prices are better for their maximum benefit. So marketing co-operative is a
beneficial system in which a group of farmers join together in order to carry out part or all of the
process involved in bringing the produce from producers to consumers (Woldu, 2007:25).

At the same time Eberhard (1977) cited in Woldu (2007:26) has identified that the agricultural
service cooperatives can engage in any of the following operations.

24
 a) Supplying of artificial fertilizers, selected improved seeds or plants chemicals tools and
technical equipments, lubricating oil and other similar products and animal feed;
b) Provision of financial means trough credit schemes, supply of other needs goods etc, and
the arrangements for their repayment
c) Consultation on agricultural problems with respect to choice of crops, selection of proper
cultivation methods.
d) Produce storage on farms and in the corporative establishment;
e) Marketing of cash crops (coffee, cocoa, tea etc) by exportation and of minor crops
(vegetables, citrus, fruits, etc, within the nation or outside.

2.3 Cooperative movement in Ethiopia

Cooperation is an age-old tradition that runs through the fabric of Ethiopian society. For
centuries, the spirit of self-help has been an integral part of farming communities. However,
despite the existence of a number of agricultural cooperatives in Ethiopia, with a membership of
millions, smallholder farmers continue to be under-served, exploited and marginalized (Walton,
2001:1).

The modern from of cooperatives were formed in Ethiopia during the era of Emperor
Haileselassie I. since then, it has gone through several modifications, and now it has been
redefined in proclamation No. 147/1998 issued on December 29, 1998. This proclamation is
consistent with the Universal Cooperative Principles and the 2002 ILO Recommendation 193.
The proclamation consists of 10 parts which explain what is cooperative societies, how to form
and register a cooperative, rights and duties of cooperative and so on. The progress and
development of cooperative movement in Ethiopia is chronologically summarized as follows.

2.3.1 Traditional forms of Cooperation in Ethiopia

As many literatures indicate, cooperative life is very common and age-old practice among the
Ethiopian communities. According to these literatures, the country has experienced various
traditional/informal/institutions both in rural and urban areas for a long time. Some of such
informal co operations include: Debo, Wonfel, Iddir, Iqub, Mahiber, and etc. These traditional
forms of institutions are autonomous, and highly respected organizations, that perform diverse
socio-economic and political activities (Kebebew, 1978:8; Tegegne, 2001:41).

25
The various socio-economic activities that are undertaken through such organizations includes
ploughing, weeding, moving, harvesting, house construction, and conducting wedding and
funeral ceremonies and so on. According to Tegegne (2001:41), the embedded social capital
between the members of such organizations facilitates cooperation, information communication,
trust and linkage among members, all of which are very important to undertake the
aforementioned functions. However, the development potentials of such institutions has not been
fully utilized yet mainly because of absence supportive legal and policy framework (Hailu,
2007:23).

2.3.2 Modern Cooperative Movement in Ethiopia

The history of modern cooperative movement in Ethiopia dates back to imperial regime, where
government formally issued decrees for the first time to establish modern cooperatives
(Kebebew, 1978:8; Hailu, 2007:24). The historical overview of such modern cooperative
movement in the country is presented briefly in the following sections.

2.3.2.1 Pre-revolutionary Cooperative Movement

In the 1960s, two cooperative acts were adopted for the first time in Ethiopia. The first was
Decree No. 44 of the 1960 called the “Farm Workers Cooperatives”. It was considered to be
important in implementing the first five year development plan of the government (i.e. 1958-
1962), and was meant to serve purposes of arranging cooperative production, processing,
transportation and marketing of agricultural production and commodities. Moreover, it was
supposed to operate and administer the livestock, machineries and other agricultural properties of
the cooperatives; promote good farming and other agricultural practices; and cooperation among
members of cooperatives. The sprit and provisions of these decree was to create collective
production cooperatives under Ministry of National Community Development, for landless
tenants. The creation of such cooperatives was taken as an alternative means to overcome
pressure against an oppressive land tenure system, which was feared to entail land tenure reform,
that if materialized could disturb the then existing domineering socio-economic and political
order. Accordingly, the government was to provide the cooperatives with government land,
which was to be owned collectively as ‘Rist’ land, and thereby control the then prevailing serious
unemployment and other socio-economic problems on a ‘piece-meal’ fashion, of course, without
making any fundamental policy of structural change (Kebebew, 1978:8).

26
The second decree was the Cooperative Society Proclamation No.241/1966 which was part of
the governments Second Five Year Development Plan (1963-1967). According to Kebebew
(1978); in the 1966 decree, the government aimed at the establishment of service cooperatives,
where ownership of the means of production and cultivation remains independent, but
agricultural inputs and marketing are performed cooperatively. The objectives of these
cooperatives include: reducing the cost of credit, reducing the cost of goods and services for
production and consumption; minimizing and reducing the individual impact of risks and
uncertainties, spreading knowledge of practical technical improvements; and other related
activities (Hailu, 2007:25).

However, another argument states that during the imperial era, cooperatives were primarily
created to support the production of high-value agricultural exports, such as coffee. Membership
consisted of farmers with large landholdings and tended to exclude smallholders. By 1974, the
end of the imperial era, only 149 cooperatives existed in the entire country, including 94
multipurpose, 19 savings and credit, 19 consumer, and 17 handicraft cooperatives (Bernard et al,
2010:15).

2.3.2.2 Cooperative Movement during the Military Regime (1974-1991)

The 1974 revolution of Ethiopia had brought about fundamental structural changes in socio-
economic and political order of the country. It has created a significant landmark by adopting
socialist line of development in 1975. According to Kebebew (1978:10), the revolution has
considerably and effectively attacked some of the obstacles to cooperative movement during the
pre-revolutionary period such as institutional (like land tenure system), and other financial and
administrative problems. Abolishing the relationship between the landowners and the tenants,
and the formation of Peasants Association at Kebele, Woreda, and Awraja levels were provided
by Proc. No. 31/1975, which was issued by the Provisional Military Administrative Council
/PMAC/ to put ground towards the implementation of agrarian reform. Accordingly, Proc. No.
31/1975 proclaimed for public ownership of land by abolishing private ownership, and also
provided for the establishment of Peasant Associations (PAs). Besides PMAC issued Proc. No.
138/1978, which was even more imperative for the development of cooperatives, that intern were

27
deemed to be crucial in addressing the intended agrarian reform (Kebebew, 1978:10; Tegegne,
1988:6; Hailu, 2007:26).

There were two main types of farmers’ cooperative during the Derg: service cooperatives and
producer cooperatives. The former were charged with managing input supply, credit, output
purchasing, milling services, and the sale of consumer goods for smallholders. The latter were
collective production units that were ultimately found to be one-third less productive than
individual farms (Desalegn, 1994:138; Kebebew, 1978:10; Bernard et al, 2010:15). Both types of
cooperatives played a central role, alongside the kebele administration, in levying and collecting
taxes from smallholders, extending state control to the local level, and promoting a socialist
ideology. Farmers came to view these cooperatives as well as their state-appointed leaders as
synonymous with government oppression. It was not until 1989 that some degree of
liberalization was introduced, though it proved to be too little and too late, as the Derg was
overthrown by 1991 (Bernard et al, 2010:16).

2.3.2.3 Cooperative Movement in Post – 1991 Ethiopia

Following the 1991 collapse of the military government, many radical changes have been
observed in socio-economic and political atmosphere of the county. For one thing, the country
has changed from centrally planned command economic policy to free market economy (Hailu,
2007: 28). It has also undergone various political and economic reforms such as decentralization,
democratizations, privatization, currency devaluation and economic liberalization (Hailu,
2007:29). In line with these measures, the government acknowledged the decisive role of peasant
associations such as cooperative, and made some positive policy statements towards
cooperatives. Accordingly, the transitional government of Ethiopian has enacted its first
agricultural co-operative law (i.e. Proc.No. 85/1994), which provided for the establishment and
reorganization of autonomous and genuine primary level agricultural cooperatives that are
supposed to operate in accordance with the rule of free market economy (ibid).

Moreover, The Ethiopian Government in 1996/97 prepared a draft cooperative law with the
mission to enable the rural and urban working people solving their socio-economic problems
based on their local resource basis. To this end, the new law proposed for the pooling of the
responsibilities of organizing and promoting all types of cooperative societies under a single

28
administrate agency (i.e. a commission at federal level and bureau at regional levels); unlike
Proc.No.138/1987 of the previous government that segregates such responsibilities to different
government organs (Hailu, 2007:31). Accordingly, Federal Cooperative Commission is
established by “Cooperative Commission” Establishment Proclamation No., 274/2002, which
latter on renamed as Federal cooperative Agency in 2006. It is established as autonomous federal
government organ, which is accountable to the Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Development
(ibid).

According to Hailu (2007), legal and policy defects of the 1994 proclamation and related
cooperative laws have given an impetus to the formulation and issuance of the “Cooperative
Societies Proc.No.147/1998 Which provides a detailed policy rules with respect to issues such
as: the formation and registration of cooperative societies; the rights and duties of members of a
society; management of cooperative societies; and their special privileges. Moreover, it
proclaimed for the issues of asset and funds of cooperative societies; their audit and inspection;
dissolution and winding up of societies; settlement of disputes, and other miscellaneous
provisions. Accordingly, with some amendments made latter on to Proc. No 147/1998 by
“Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Proc. No 402/2004, which, the Council of Minster has
provided for its implementation by “Councils of Ministers Regulation No. 106/2004 (Federal
Negarit Gazeta, No 27/1998; and No. 43 and No. 47/2004).

Moreover, Cooperative Society proc. No. 147/1998 also provides for the establishment of
cooperatives, according to their nature, at different levels into four-tier structures: the primary
societies (i.e. the lowest level which is supposed to be formed by ten or more persons who live,
or work within a given area, and who have common interest); the secondary level (i.e. district
and regional unions formed by two or more primary level cooperative societies); tertiary level
(i.e. federation of different unions at regional and/or inter-regional level); and the quaternary
level or cooperative league (i.e. the confederation of all level cooperatives in the country at the
national level).

Accordingly, the Government of Ethiopia’s economic growth strategy, Agriculture

Development–Led Industrialization, has placed high priority since the early 1990s on
accelerating agricultural growth through the commercialization of smallholder production. The

29
strategy has driven the introduction of policies to promote (1) a more supportive macroeconomic
framework for growth and development; (2) liberalized markets for agricultural products; and (3)
a strong extension and credit-led push to intensify staple production with modern inputs,
especially seed and fertilizer (Bernard et al, 2010:16).

2.4 Cooperatives in Poverty Reduction

2.4.1 Poverty Definition and Concepts

Poverty is a complex concept which does not fit into a neat definition. It is multidimensional but
specific to a location and a social group (Walton, 2001:.3). It entails a complex interconnection
of descriptors surrounding the livelihood status of people in communities. According to the
World Summit for Social Development held in Copenhagen in 1995:
Poverty has various manifestations including lack of income and productive
resources sufficient to ensure sustainable livelihoods; hunger and malnutrition;
ill health; limited or lack of access to education and other basic services;
increased morbidity and mortality from illness; homelessness and inadequate
housing; unsafe environments; and social discrimination and exclusion. It is also
characterized by lack of participation in decision making and in civil, social and
cultural life … (Walton, 2001:3).

Given that poverty is much more complex, it is defined in this thesis as a condition that deprives
the individual the basic necessities for existence like food, water, shelter and clothing as well as
other fundamentals to life like health, education, security, opportunity and freedom (Wanyama et
al, 2008:2). Deprivation of these basic and fundamental demands of life results into the exclusion
of the individual in society due to lack of capability to function and exercise the freedom of
choice.

Subsistence is the tendency in production and the emphasis is still on meeting food security
needs. Most of the smallholder farmers that earn less than 2 dollars a day are not organized
(Pinto, 2009:2). The smallholder farm sector in developing countries is largely left without
necessary support arrangements in infrastructure, extension services, local processing capacity,
basic health care and education. They have not been included in policies to enhance their
businesses in the liberalized market contexts. At the same time, the price paid to farmers for their
products has always been very low. This has been the result of a deliberate process led by some

30
governments and international technocrats. The idea was simple and classic as put by Pinto
(2009:2), “Let the market function. And do not save what should not be saved. Throw the rural
organizations into the water and let’s see which ones can swim.” In most cases, decade after
decade, price policies have consequently punished farmers in order to benefit the urban
consumers (clients of the ruling parties). For that reason, governments have been pressing prices
down through price regulations and imports of staples from major producing nations. This was
the case in many former Soviet States as well as in young free nations such as Mozambique,
Zambia, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, and elsewhere in Africa. During this period, meetings with
ministers and government officers have been painful exercises when the focus of the discussions
was centered on small-scale farming or farmers’ cooperatives. The World Bank, the bilateral
agencies and most of the major NGOs followed the same path. In many African countries,
incentives for local farming have no longer been a priority (ibid).

However, since the scale of poverty weights too heavily on rural people, any type of
development approach which neglects the rural area cannot be successful. Among the
various rural development strategies, the development of agricultural cooperatives holds a
relatively significant promise to the improvement of small scale peasant agriculture.
(Walton, 2001:5)

2.4.2 Measurement of Poverty

As it is said earlier poverty is multi- dimensional which necessitates multidimensional indicators
for measurement. The measurement of poverty can be split into two distinct operations. The first
is identification of the poor and the second is aggregation of their poverty characteristics into an
overall measure. The most common route to identification is through specifying a set of ‘basic’
or ‘minimum’ needs, and regarding the inability to fulfill these needs as the test of poverty (Sen,
1991:24). The underlying considerations come out most sharply in the alternative approaches to
the concept of poverty that one can find in the literature. Some of these approaches have been
subjected to severe attacks recently, while others have not been examined critically. There is no
particular reason to suppose that the concept of poverty must itself be clear-cut and sharp. In fact,
a certain amount of vagueness is implicit in both the concept and the reality (Sen, 1991:12). For
this particular study, a multidimensional poverty index (MPI) developed by Oxford Poverty and
Human Development Initiative (OPHI) and the United Nations Development Program Human

31
Development Report (UNDP HDR) is preferred in order to relate it to the welfare status of the
people under study.

The MPI is a new international measure of poverty covering 104 developing counties (OPHI,
2010:1). The MPI complements income poverty measures by reflecting the acute deprivations
that people face at the same time. It identifies people who contended with multiple deprivations
across three dimensions: education, health and living standards. The three dimensions of MPI
use 10 indicators which largely reflect the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and thus
international standards (ibid).

Inside the MPI

1. Education

Year of schooling – deprived if no household member has completed five year of schooling.

School attendance – deprived if any school aged child is not attending school in years 1 to 8.

2. Health

Child mortality – deprived if any child has died in the family.

Nutrition – deprived if any adult or child for whom there is nutritional information is
malnourished.

3. Standard of living

Electricity – deprived if the household has no electricity

Drinking water –deprived if the household does not have access to clear drinking water or
clear water is more than 30 minutes walk from home.

Sanitation – deprived if the household does not have adequate sanitation or if their toilet
is shared.

Flooring – deprived if the household has a dirt, sand or dung floor

Cooking fuel – deprived if the household cooks with wood, charcoal, or dung.

32
 Assets – deprived if the household does not own more than one of radio, TV, telephone,
bike, motorbike, or refrigerator and does not own a car or tractor.

The components of the model can be summarized diagrammatically as follows.

Source: Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI), 2010

2.4.3 The potential roles of cooperatives in development

In his report to the General Assembly of the UN on cooperatives [document A/49/213 of 1 July
1994], the Secretary-General concluded,
“Cooperative enterprises provide the organizational means whereby a
significant proportion of humanity is able to take into its own hands the tasks of
creating productive employment, overcoming poverty and achieving social
integration.” He added that cooperatives have “continued to be an important
means, often the only one available, whereby the poor, as well as those better off
but at perpetual risk of becoming poor, have been able to achieve economic
security and an acceptable standard of living and quality of life.”(Imoisili
2001:6).

Imoisili (2001) further classifies the role of cooperatives into six major areas as: empowerment
of men and women, gender equality, pro-poor growth, global benefit from global competition, an
enabling environment for pro-poor policies and market, and special international support.

Regarding the marketing role of co-operatives, many literatures indicate that their role is very
vital in providing marketing service, especially for rural communities. For instance, Woldu
(2007:24) has noted that such service of cooperatives are even better appreciated when one
considers the incidence of illiteracy among farmers especially in developing countries, and the
ancillary functions connected with marketing of agricultural produce such as grading, weighing,
33
storage and looking for the best market. In line with this argument, Woldu also noted that
individualistic systems of agricultural product marketing remains inefficient for a number of
reasons such as in economies of scale, lack of strong bargaining power, vulnerability to buyers
side exploitation due to high dependence of farmers on traders, inappropriate post harvest
handling (i.e. grading, transportation, storage etc), and processing and long marketing chains.
Thus, the role of farmers’ cooperatives in marketing farm output thereby reduces the costs of
moving agricultural commodities from farmers to consumers and improving farmers’ bargaining
power in the country’s expanding market economy (Woldu, 2007:25).

Cooperatives are expected to assist smallholders in aggregating their surplus output, realizing
scale economies in marketing, and bargaining for better terms of trade in the marketplace. They
are also expected to serve as a means of identifying the rural poor, securing grassroots partners
for state and non-state development programs, and representing the voice of the rural poor in
local governance systems. In short, cooperatives are viewed as a key institutional mechanism to
improve rural livelihoods (Bernard et al, 2010:70).

Furthermore, several scholars and researchers analyzed and discussed the role of cooperatives in
different ways. Though the roles cooperatives can play differ from country to country, from one
system of government to another system of government and one type of cooperative to another
type, DFID (2010:3) described the most common of them which characterize most cooperatives
in a summary form as follows:

1. Cooperatives can be significant economic players that contribute to sustained growth

processes

The top 300 global co-operatives have a combined turnover of US $1.1 trillion. Cooperatives
employ over 100 million people (more than multinational corporations) and contribute to
increased agricultural productivity, expanded access to financial services and critical utilities
such as electricity. Cooperatives can make a significant contribution to GDP (DFID, 2010:3).

2. Cooperatives help create more equitable growth

Cooperatives can help make markets work better for poor people, by generating economies of
scale, increasing access to information, and improving bargaining power. Cooperatives can have

34
millions of members and many operate in the informal sector where they can transform the
survival activities of the poor into viable livelihoods. Cooperative profits are re-invested in the
business or shared with members so the rewards of enterprise are retained locally. Coalitions
between the poor and not-so-poor in one cooperative can help improve the performance of the
enterprise and reduce the poverty of its poorer members.

3. Cooperatives help tackle rural poverty

Cooperatives increase the productivity and incomes of small scale farmers by helping them
collectively negotiate better prices for seeds, fertilizer, transport and storage. Cooperatives help
farmers expand market access and capture more of the value chain - for example, by getting
involved in processing activities. Farmer groups can help farmers move out of poverty, and
cooperatives are one form that these groups can take. Cooperatives are often the main channel
through which smallholders can access fair-trade.

4. Cooperatives expand poor people’s access to financial services

These include credit savings and in some cases insurance and remittances. These services can
support enterprise start-up and expansion; enable the risk taking that can lead to increased
profitability; and reduce vulnerability by allowing the poor to accrue savings, build assets and
smooth out consumption. Cooperatives are active across the financial sector – from micro
finance to mainstream banking. Cooperatives are one of the largest providers of micro finance
services to the poor, and some cooperatives have become major financial sector players. A 2007
IMF study found that cooperative banks are more stable than commercial banks. This finding is
due to the lower volatility of the cooperative banks' returns, which more than offsets their lower
profitability and capitalization. This is most likely due to cooperative banks' ability to use
customer surplus as a cushion in weaker periods (DFID, 2010:3).

2.4.4 Cooperatives and Members’ Expectations

[[[

Member is a radiant factor from which the power of agricultural cooperatives emanates (Prakash,
2000:8). Member is the key and the main source of economic strength of the cooperative. A
member should not feel that he/she is dependent on the cooperative. He/she has several other
options which may not be as economically attractive. It is the cooperative which should be

35
dependent on the member. It is often heard that cooperatives do not do enough for them. For the
cooperative, the focus should be on the member and his/her business potential, rather than on
itself. The main point is that the members should not run after their cooperatives to provide them
with services and facilities – it should be the cooperative which should, on its own, be keen to
offer a variety of services and facilities to the members which they need (ibid).

Farmers need money and that money has to be a reasonably good return for the investments
made. To secure returns, two factors are very important: Value-addition and Marketing. The
process of marketing is more difficult than that of production. It requires an intimate knowledge
of market trends. It should be scientific and well-organized, otherwise the farmer runs the risk of
not getting the full value of his produce and the investment made. In cases where cooperatives
are not able to respond to the marketing needs of the members, middlemen thrive and the farmer-
members get sucked into the vicious circle which the cooperatives are supported to break.
Provision of post-harvest services, warehousing, grading, packaging, shipment, and market
information are the essential links in the chain of marketing (Prakash, 2000:8).

Cooperatives are often blamed for non-performance mainly due to lack of participation on the
part of their members. In agricultural cooperatives the entire business moves around the
economic benefits which the members expect from their cooperative. Farmer members are eager
to sell their produce and obtain timely and sufficient funds to increase their produce. Their
expectations from the cooperative generally revolve around: Guidance, advice and support in
matters of farm technology; Supply of farm inputs e.g., fertilizers, farm chemicals, farm
machines and implements etc.; Easy accessibility to the sources of credit for purchase of
improved seeds, maintenance of fields, investments in long-term items e.g., tube wells, farm
cattle etc.; Assistance and advice on environment-related issues e.g., disposal of animal wastes
and others; Improvement and development of infrastructure e.g., grading centers, packaging
facilities, forwarding facilities, plastics and pipes etc (ibid).

Farmers on their own individual strengths cannot harness all these services and facilities. They
would naturally expect their cooperative to develop such services and provide them when
needed. Members also expect their cooperative to find suitable marketing avenues, which
involve: supply of market information, warehousing, value-addition possibilities by erecting

36
some agro-processing facilities and maintaining some business contacts with wholesale markets
and bulk buyers.

These expectations naturally become the responsibilities or tasks to be undertaken by the

management leaders of the cooperative, which include the Board and the managers. It then
becomes a plan of action for the cooperative. All efforts are then made to implement the plan. If
the expectations are not met members get disjointed from the cooperative. Their participation in
business and organizational affairs get reduced, which a cooperative can hardly afford (Prakash,
2000:14).

2.4.5 The need for the formation of Agricultural marketing cooperatives

Formation of agricultural marketing cooperatives points out two major reasons: solve market
failures and to address distortions in the supply chain (Nimble, 2005:1). Furthermore, Nimble
(2005) stated that the need for formation of agricultural marketing cooperatives lies on the
elimination of middle person (unnecessary profits in trade and commerce) and promotion of
socio-economic well-being of their members, in the long run, among the people.

Market failures have mainly been in the form of exploitation of individual farmers or producers
largely by market intermediaries resulting in remunerative prices not reaching the individual
producers. Distortions in supply chain are mainly through market intermediaries who get into a
win-win situation for themselves both from the supply of raw material or agricultural inputs to
the disposal of the produce. Global studies on agricultural produce markets have revealed that
supply chain inefficiencies contribute to as much as 30-50% loss of revenue to the producer.
(Nimble, 2005:2)

Thus individual producers-typically small and medium farmers who do not have a great deal of
negotiation powers due to 1) quantity and value of the assets they have, 2) carrying capacity-both
financial and infrastructural, 3) volume of operations; 4) lack of market information and 5) lack
of access to formal financing mechanism in absence of collaterals(ibid). This relationship also
prevents the individual farmers in seeking alternative market mechanisms because loans against
no collaterals also means advance mortgaging their produce to the market intermediaries who
discount procurement prices and sale at market prices making high profits. Since the
cooperatives are formed around a commodity or group of similar commodities, it enables the

37
members to pool their resources and thus take advantages of economy of scale. The economy of
scale provides benefits at all level of supply chain starting from the procurement of raw material
or agricultural inputs to economical warehousing facilities; to leveraging of transportation costs,
processing and finally marketing eliminating intermediaries. Consequently, cooperatives are
always found to be engaged in economic activities promoting increase in income and thereby
enhancing living standards.

2.4.6 Benefits gained from agricultural marketing cooperatives

Cooperation in agriculture has been in practice since the Babylonian civilization, before Christ.
However its present form owes its genesis to the industrial revolution in Britain in the 19th
century (Nimble, 2005:1). The cooperatives were formed to take advantages of economies of
scale against exploitation by middlemen and traders and share the benefits “equitably” among
the members. Most agricultural cooperatives are formed around a common “commodity” or
“group of similar commodities” e.g. thrift cooperatives around savings and credit (Asia &
Africa), dairy cooperatives around milk (India), oilseeds cooperatives around oilseeds (India),
coffee growers cooperatives around coffee (Ethiopia) etc (ibid). The principle of formation and
management of cooperatives, as the term itself refers, is the promotion of cooperation among
members for common good, equitable ownership of the enterprise thus formed and profit
distribution in share of the patronage by members.

Agricultural cooperatives can help farmers get a better deal at various stages of production and
distribution (Prakash, 2000:9). Through membership in a cooperative, farmers are collectively
able to negotiate better prices for inputs, transport and storage facilities. Cooperatives can also
help them expand access to markets and capture more of the value chain, for example by getting
involved in processing activities.

The other benefits are social in nature. As experiences have shown that the cooperative model
allow for employment of local youth. Creation of social cohesion, creation or to upgrade societal
infrastructure (mainly education and health awareness, creation of employment opportunities,
updated market information, quality consciousness, education on power of collective action,
common goods etc.). Cooperatives also enable their members to leverage finance at softer

38
interest rates and attract international development agencies to even provide grants for societal
infrastructural development and investment in other livelihood opportunities (Nimble, 2005:3).

2.4.7 Working with Cooperatives for Poverty Reduction

Cooperatives provide a range of services such as health care, housing, and utilities such as water
and electricity. Cooperatives have been successful in expanding access to water and electricity
for poor people and reducing wastage from illegal diversion of utilities. In Bangladesh, as in the
US, rural electricity cooperatives were set up to meet communities’ own needs in the absence of
any external private firm seeing this as a viable market opportunity, in Bangladesh cooperatives
serve about 28 million people, with start up support from DFID and USAID (DFID, 2010:4).

Cooperatives can provide an opportunity for self determination and empowerment of poor
people. They foster a culture of good citizenship and enable their members to have a voice and
participate in a democratic process, thus having empowering development effects beyond their
economic benefits.

Cooperatives can help with conflict resolution, peace-building and social cohesion. Where
cooperatives bring together people of different religious, ethnic and political groups they can
build trust and solidarity leading to greater social stability. Cooperatives have been found to
contribute to recovery from conflict by fostering positive relations between ethnic groups
previously in conflict in Bosnia, East Timor, Lebanon, Macedonia, Mozambique, Nepal and
Rwanda (ibid).

The empirical evidences form across-countries by ILO seem to substantiate such theoretical
underpinnings. For instance, according to ILO (2001:15), 33% of the agricultural market in the
United States; and 40% of local agriculture in the Republic of Korea was marketed through
cooperatives as of 1998. Moreover, during this period, the cooperatives were reported to have a
share of 40% of total national export in Uruguay; 69% of farm supply in Denmark; and 37% of
consumer goods supply in India, among others. Hence, such significant market shares hold by
cooperatives in the production and distributions of various products and/or services validate their
macroeconomic importance with these regards (Imoisili, 2001:3; DFID, 2010:8).

39
2.4.8 The Role of Cooperatives in Rural Socio-Economic Development
Cooperatives can effectively create and maintain employment (both direct/ salaried/
employment, and self employment) in both urban and rural areas of the world. They can provide
self-employment through millions of worker-owned production and service delivery activities
(producer cooperatives); by promoting resource mobilizing and saving for productive investment
as in the case of (financial cooperatives); and provision of affordable goods and services, and
thereby enable the community to save a proportion of their income for investment (consumer
cooperatives). Similarly, user-owned cooperatives such as housing, utility, health, and social care
cooperatives provide affordable access to basic services and help them to get access to various
self-employment opportunities (Woldu, 2007:37).

On the other hand, cooperatives can create enormous direct or salaried employment opportunities
by engaging themselves in various sectors of the economy such as production, marketing,
processing and so on. According to ILO (2001), in a number of African countries and some other
countries around the world, cooperatives are said to be the second largest employer surpassed
only by the government. The practical employment data of many countries around the world
seems to justify this theoretical foundation. For instance, the data on self-employment and direct
employment indicated by Committee for the Promotion of Agricultural Cooperatives (COPAC)
for some African countries shows that there were 220,713, and 58,468 self employment and
direct employment respectively in South Africa in 1997; while the 1996 corresponding figure for
self-employment and direct employment were 91,035 and 3,235 in Ghana; 27,792 and 42,709 in
Morocco; 32,168 and 8,455 in Uganda; and 23,424 and 494 in Zimbabwe respectively (Woldu,
2007:38).

Cooperative form of enterprises can assure any group of individuals an effective means to
combine their resource, however small they are (COPAC 2000:17). By doing so, they permit a
large resource mobilization than what could be possible within the capacity of most individuals
and small enterprises, and can serve as a catalyst for local entrepreneurial growth; retain the
capital mobilized by the communities within the communities and the surplus derived from
outside transactions, both of which are very crucial in bringing further development to give local
area. Moreover, cooperatives have the greatest direct economic impact at the micro level in
creating additional income for their members. They achieve this by securing higher prices for

40
members’ products lowering input costs for members, by creating employment opportunities and
by introducing technological innovations. Besides, they can provide consumable goods, deliver
education, housing and other socio-economic service as lower price, and thereby help the local
community save their income for further investment (ILO, 2001:16; COPAC, 2000:1-4).

Hence, successful cooperatives enable their members generate more income by improving the
member productivity or the productivity of the member enterprises; and by improving market
position of the members as producers, consumers, and employees. Besides, they can enhance
income generating capacity of members by improving their access to material and non-material
resources; and by helping them sustaining their income, production level and prices.
Furthermore, by improving the local communities (members) overall living condition through
provision of social and physical infrastructures, and by improving their know-how (i.e. through
formal and informal education and training), and by enhancing their standard of information,
cooperatives can encourage local resource mobilization and income diversification, and there by
promote local economic development (ibid).

41
 CHAPTER THREE
3. DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF SAMPLE
COOPERATIVES IN THE TWO SELECTED AGRICULTURAL
MARKETING COOPERATIVE UNIONS

3.1 Data Presentation and Analysis of Sample Cooperatives in Yirgachefe Coffee

Farmers Cooperative Union

3.1.1 Background of Yirgachefe Coffee Farmers Cooperative Union

As its name implies, Yirgachefe Coffee Farmers Cooperative Union (YCFCU) is farmers’
cooperative union that is engaged in production, processing and marketing of coffee. YCFCU is
found in Yirgachefe woreda, Gedeo zone of Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples Region
which is one of the most famous coffee growing zones in the country. The environmental
condition of Gedeo zone is characterized by Woina dega, known to be comfortable for varieties
of products specially, for the union’s specific area of engagement that is organic coffee
production.
YCFCU is established in June 2002. Currently, the union is engaged in production, processing
and marketing of coffee that is categorized as marketing of members’ agricultural products.
Additionally, provision of marketing information, introducing agricultural technologies,
provision of training and provision of warehouse and transportation services to members are
included. From Yirgachefe Coffee Farmers’ Cooperative Union, there are two primary
cooperatives sampled for the investigation. These are Hafursa and Konga. Both of them are
located in Yirgachefe woreda and engaged in Coffee Marketing. Hafursa covers two kebeles;
Hafursa Harja and Hafursa worbi While, Konga covers three kebeles; Konga wote, sega and
Birbiskela.

3.1.2 Basic Socio-demographic characteristics of sample respondents

The table below represents the basic socio-demographic characteristics of respondents from
sample primary cooperatives, Hafursa and Konga in Yirgachefe coffee farmers’ cooperative
union. As shown in the table, 90% of the respondents were male and the remaining 10% female.
The age groups of 26-55 are majority in the cooperatives.

42
 With respect to respondents educational status, out of the sampled household, 22.5% were
illiterate or had not received any type of education, and 12.5% got basic education or knew read
and write only. The rest of the sample respondents had attended elementary- 42.5%, high school
17.5%, preparatory (senior high school) 2.5% and the rest 2.5% belongs to others category which
includes diploma and technique schools. Concerning the occupational status or work category all
sampled respondents are farmers.

As shown in Table 3.1, 52.5% of the respondents have a household size of 6 to 9 members
followed by the range from 10 to 12 accounting 35% the remaining 10% and 2.5% belonging to
below 6 and above 12, respectively.

Table 3.1 Basic Socio-demographic characteristics of the Sampled Respondents

S.No Description
1.1 Sex Male Female Total
No. of respondents 36 4 40
Percentage 90% 10% 100%
Below
1.2 Age 18 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 Above 55
No. of respondents Nil 2 11 11 11 5
Percentage Nil 5.00% 27.50% 27.50% 27.50% 12.50%
Read & Elementary High School Preparatory First
1.3 Educational Level Illiterate Write only (1-8) (9-10) (11-12) Degree Msc/MA Others
No. of respondents 9 5 17 7 1 Nil Nil 1
Percentage 22.50% 12.50% 42.50% 17.50% 2.50% 0.00% 0.00% 2.50%

1.4 Household Size in no. Below 6 (6-9) (10-12) Above 12

No. of respondents 4 21 14 1
Percentage 10.00% 52.50% 35.00% 2.50%
Source: Own field survey, 2011

3.1.3 Welfare status of sample respondents

The general welfare status is referred to be the quality of living and assessed according to the
multidimensional poverty index (MPI) across three dimensions; education, health and living
standard. Accordingly, from the households of sample respondents, 45 % had children aged 5
and above not attending school. On the other hand, 35% of the sample household respondents
had mortal children. As shown in figure below, 50% of the mortal children died at the age of less

43
than 1, 14% at the ages of 1 to 2, around 29% at the age from 2 to 3, and the remaining 7% at the
age of 4 to5.

Fig. 3.1 Age Range of Mortal Infants

Source: Own field survey, 2011

Concerning the electricity coverage in the study area, 45% of sample respondents reported to
have electricity facility while 55% of the respondents’ households were deprived of the facility.
Of those who reported to have the facility; only around 28% had got from cooperatives, the
majority of the rest (61%) from government and the remaining 11% from NGOs.

On the other hand, only 35% respondents stated that their household had got access to clean
drinking water from which 40% walk less than 10 minutes from their home to get access, around
33% 10 to 20 minutes, 20%, 21 to 30 minutes and only the remaining 7% walk more than 30
minutes from home to get the same .

Government is the most dominant stakeholder to provide clean drinking water to the study area
and provided the facility to around 86% of the beneficiary respondents and the remaining 14%
got the facility form NGOs. Cooperatives’ contribution is nothing in this case.

In response for the type of toilet used by the household, all the sampled respondents replied to
have own built private toilet.

44
As shown in the table below dirt is used for flooring by majority (80%) of the sample
respondents. The remaining respondents used sand and dung in the percentage of 17.5% and
10%, respectively. And, 7.5% used combination of two or more of the materials.

Almost all (95%) of the respondents used wood as their basic cooking fuel. 10% used charcoal
and 20% used dung for cooking. Moreover, 25% respondents used two or more of the materials
alternatively.

Table 3.2 Material used for flooring and Cooking

Materials used Dirt Sand Dung

For Flooring 32 7 4

Percentage 80.00% 17.50% 10.00%

Materials used Wood Charcoal Dung

For Cooking 38 4 8

Percentage 95% 10% 20%

Source: Own field survey, 2011

With regard to asset ownership, out of the sample respondents majority of them (87.5%) owned
radio, 27.5% posses telephone integrating fixed telephone and mobile, 12.5% owned Television,
5% Bike and only 2.5% Refrigerator. However, 77.5% of the respondents reported that they have
other types of properties which of course may not be considered as home equipments, cattle.

Table 3.3 Asset ownership status of the respondents

Assets Radio Television Telephone /Mobile/ Bike Refrigerator Others

No. of
Respondents 35 5 11 2 1 31

Percentage Share 87.5% 12.5% 27.5% 5.0% 2.5% 77.5%

Source: Own field survey, 2011

45
3.1.4 Membership in the cooperatives
With respect to the respondents status of relationship with the cooperatives, 82.5% were
members only and the remaining 17.5% were member as well as working in the cooperatives and
as of the response of sample respondents there was no external push in joining the cooperatives
as all of them joined the cooperatives willingly.

As presented in table 3.4, getting periodic dividend is chosen as highly important reason for
joining cooperatives by 67.5% of respondents 25% considered it as critically important and the
remaining 7.5% considered it as moderately important reason. Almost contrarily, to get access of
employment by the cooperative was taken as not important, and slightly important reason for
joining the cooperatives by 32.5% and 50% of sample respondents. In similar analysis of the
table, to get access to credit or loan was selected by 20% as not important at all and 27.5% of
respondents as slightly important the other 20%, 17.5% and 15% of respondents chosen it to be
moderately important, highly important and critically important respectively.

To get access to inputs market is highly important reason of joining cooperative for 50%
respondents, moderately important for 27.5% of respondents, and slightly important and not
important for 12.55% and 10% of respondents respectively. 52.5% of sampled respondents
chosen to get access to output or produce market to be critically important reason of joining
cooperatives followed by 40% respondents choosing it as highly important reason. To get access
to consumer goods was chosen to be highly important reason by 37.5% of respondents followed
by moderately important and critically important reason by 35% and 32.5% of respondents
respectively, 17.5% selected it as critically important reason and only 7.5% and 5% of
respondents selected it as not important reason for being member in cooperatives.

46
Table 3.4 Reasons for joining cooperatives

Not Slightly Moderately Highly Critically

Reason important important important Important important
Nil Nil 7.50% 67.50% 25.00%
To get Periodic Dividend
32.50% 50.00% 15.00% 2.50% Nil
To get access for employment
20.00% 27.50% 20.00% 17.50% 15.00%
To get access for Credit/Loan
10.00% 12.50% 27.50% 50.00% Nil
To get access for input market
2.50% Nil 5.00% 40.00% 52.50%
To get access for output market
7.50% 5.00% 27.50% 37.50% 22.50%
To get access to consumed goods
7.50% 5.00% 32.50% 35.00% 17.50%
To get access for Trainings
Source: Own field survey, 2011

As indicated in table 3.5 greater proportion (62.5%) of respondents reported ability to contribute
the initial capital as a critically important for getting cooperatives membership followed by 30%
of respondents corresponding to highly important criteria.

Ability to pay periodic payment was not considered as criteria for almost all the respondents as
57.5% said it is not important and 40% less important.

Promise to buy the corporative product/service got 45% vote to be highly important criteria
followed by 27.5% vote to be moderately important while promise to sell outputs to or through
cooperatives got vote of 52.5% and 30% to be highly important and critically important criteria
for being member in cooperatives respectively.

47
Table 3.5 Criteria for getting membership of the cooperatives

Not Less Moderately Highly Critically

Criteria important important important Important important
Nil 2.50% 5.00% 30.00% 62.50%
Ability to contribute the initial capital
57.50% 40.00% 2.50% Nil Nil
Ability to pay the periodic payment
Promise to buy the cooperatives 20.00% 5.00% 27.50% 45.00% 2.50%
product/service
Promise to sell outputs to/through the Nil Nil 12.50% 52.50% 35.00%
cooperative
Source: Own field survey, 2011

With regard to the affordability of membership contributions, almost all respondents (92.5%)
agreed that the registration fee is low and more than half (55%) agreed that the share price is
moderate followed by 27.5 % saying the share price is low. On the other hand, all correspondents
agreed that there were no periodic payments expected from members once they got full status of
membership.

Table 3.6 Affordability of membership payments

Factors Not Applicable Very Low Low Moderate High

Nil 2.50% 92.50% 5.00% Nil
Registration Fee
Nil 2.50% 27.50% 55.00% 15.00%
Share price
100% Nil Nil Nil Nil
periodic contribution
Length of time for periodic 100% Nil Nil Nil Nil
payment
Source: Own field survey, 2011

3.1.5 Services of the cooperatives

Regarding the services of the cooperatives in the study area, there are about five types of services
that members got from their cooperatives though the extent and coverage varies.

Accordingly, as shown in the pie chart below, 26% of the respondent reported of getting
marketing of agricultural products and training or guidance service equally. The next 25%
assured that they got marketing agricultural inputs, 17% of respondents got consumer goods

48
marketing for their cooperatives and the smallest non-zero percentage goes to credit or loan
facility.

Fig. 3.2 Service Types Rendered by cooperatives

Source: Own field survey, 2011

In comparison to other currently available options, the access and quality goods/services of the
cooperatives are highly better for 75% of sample respondents and slightly better for the
remaining 25% respondents. Respondents were also asked whether they got cooperative services
on credit and almost all of them (97.5%) replied yes to the question.

As of the pie chart below, the loan repayment arrangement of the Hafursa and Konga
cooperatives in Yirgachefe Cooperative Union is suitable for the highest proportion of
respondents (82%), very suitable for 15% of the respondents and unsubtle for only 3% of the
respondents.

49
Fig.3.3 Suitability of Loan repayment

Source: Own field survey, 2011

As of the table shown below, 52.5% of the respondents replied that the cooperatives in the study
area purchased products from their members on cash basis while for the remaining 47.5% of the
respondents the cooperatives purchased on both cash and credit basis.

Table 3.8 Transaction basis for purchasing the cooperative’s product

Means of Transaction On Cash On Credit On Both

No. of Respondents 21 Nil 19
%age Share 52.50% Nil 47.50%
Source: Own field survey, 2011

In addition to their major purposes of formation literatures indicate that agricultural marketing
cooperatives provide other post harvest services to their members, which include warehousing,
grading, packaging, shipment, market information and others. According to the data from the
figure below, almost all (97.5%) of the respondents got market information from their
cooperatives, 65% got warehousing service,40% got transportation or shipment service, 32.5%
grading service and only 12.5% got packaging service.

50
Fig.3.4 Post-harvest Services

Source: Own field survey, 2011

For 77.5% of the respondents, there was education, training or information given by their
cooperatives. However, the rest 22.5% of the respondents got neither of them.

From those who got training from the cooperatives 80% reported that the training was focusing
on cooperative natures and benefits, 60% reported the focus was on how to generate income
from different sources and 25% reported the focus was on how to apply new technologies. On
the other hand, none of them reported as the cooperatives involved in political trainings.

Table 3.9 Focus Points of training and education

Focus Points for training and education

selection No. of Respondents Percentage
Cooperative nature and Benefits 31 100%
How to apply new Technologies 10 32.26%
How to generate income from different 77.42%
sources 24
Source: Own field survey, 2011

In looking at respondents rating of quality and accessibility of the two agricultural marketing
cooperatives in the study case area, the table below shows that 65% of the respondents believed
that fairness of market price is highly improved 35% believed that market proximity or
availability of market at nearby places are highly improved, 30% believed adequacy of market

51
sources is highly improved and 22.5% believed availability of market at any time needed is
highly improved. In similarly analysis of the table, 67.5% of the respondents thought that
adequacy of market services are somehow improved. Availability of market at any time, market
proximity and fairness of market price were also said to be somehow improved by 62.5%, 52.5%
and 35% of respondents respectively.

Table 3.10 Accessibility and quality of traded goods/services

Accessibility and quality of Somehow Highly

traded goods/services Deteriorated Similar improved improved
Nil 2.50% 67.50% 30.00%
Adequacy of Market Services
Availability of market at any 2.50% 12.50% 62.50% 22.50%
time
Availability of market at Short Nil 12.50% 52.50% 35.00%
distance
Nil Nil 35.00% 65.00%
Fairness of the market Price
Source: Own field survey, 2011

As expressed by the chart below, more than half of the respondents (55%) gave their opinion on
the achievement of cooperatives in introducing new agricultural technologies to be good. 40%
evaluated their achievement to be poor and only 5% of the respondents’ evaluation goes to very
good achievement of cooperatives’ in introducing new agricultural technologies to their
members and the community.
Fig.3.5 Introduction of New Agricultural Technologies by Cooperatives

Source: Own field survey, 2011

52
3.1.6 Economic benefits of the cooperatives

According to nearly all of sample respondents (95%), studied cooperatives paid regular
dividends to their members. The remaining 5% of the respondents argued that the dividend
payment was not regular. It is based on level of profit generated.

And all of the respondents, who said there was dividend payment by the cooperatives, explain as
the dividend payment is made annually.

As the chart below clearly enumerates, 63% of the respondents who reported the payment of
dividend by cooperatives, disagree with the statement that “the dividend paid by the cooperatives
is sufficient to fulfill basic requirements of the households.” 34% of the respondents agree with
the statement while the remaining 3% strongly disagree.

Fig.3.6 Opinions on Dividends Paid by Cooperatives

Source: Own field survey, 2011

From those respondents who receive dividend from their cooperatives all used the dividend
received for personal and family consumptions. In addition, 26% allocated for repayment of debt
or loan, 18% allotted for purchase of fixed assets and only 5% deposited or saved in a bank.

53
 Table 3.11 Utilization of income from Dividends

Utilization of income from Dividends No. of Respondents Percentage

Personal & Family consumption 38 100.00%
Repayment of Debt/Loan 10 26.32%
Deposit in Bank 2 5.26%
Purchase/Building of Fixed Assets 7 18.42%
Source: Own field survey, 2011

The dominant share of the respondents (92.5%) thought that being member of cooperatives
improved their expenditure. From which 65% said that the improvement is by smoothening
consumption, 38% by investing in long term items, and 32% by increasing saving. Moreover,
from those who invested in long term items, about 36% built house, about 29% purchased farm
aids and about 43% purchased home equipments.

Table 3.12 Expenditure trends and reasons

Asset Built due to the improved

expenditure
Purchase of
Reasons for improved No. of Built Purchase of home
expenditure Respondents Percentage House farm aids equipments
By increasing Saving 12 32.43% − − −
By Investing in Long term
items 14 37.84% 35.7% 28.6% 42.8%
By Smoothing out
consumption 24 64.86% − − −
Source: Own field survey, 2011

As presented in the figure below, concerning greater expenditure areas by respondents,

expenditure on daily consumption accounts for 90%, expenditure on children schooling 70%,
expenditure on family health care 40% and expenditure on long term assets 5%.

54
Fig. 3.7 Areas of Greater Expenditure

Source: Own field survey, 2011

As all the respondents agreed cooperatives created additional income for their members and
regarding the way how cooperatives crated additional income, again all mentioned by securing
higher price for their products as shown in the table below, 58% said by providing training to
increase productivity, 42% by lowering input costs, 26% introducing new and efficient
technologies, 11% by creating employment opportunities and other categories each. By
providing cash dividend is specified in the ‘others’ category by about 10% of respondents.

Table 3.13 Ways of creating Additional Income by cooperatives

Ways of creating Additional Income No. of Respondents Percentage

Securing higher price for my product 40 100.00%
Lowering inputs cost 16 42.11%
providing training to increase
productivity 22 57.89%
introducing new & efficient technologies 10 26.32%
creating employment opportunity 4 10.53%
Others 4 10.53%
Source: Own field survey, 2011

55
On the other hand, those respondents who said the cooperatives are poor in creating additional
income to their remembers stated the basic reasons as less/no dividend distribution, narrow scope
of services and lack of commitment by leaders.

3.1.7 Participation of cooperatives in community affairs

To improve the well being of a community, involvement in social welfare activities is very
crucial. As it can be seen from the table below, respondents had different level of satisfaction on
the level of cooperatives’ participation in community development activities. Accordingly,
47.5% of the respondents said cooperatives participation in education is satisfactory, 32.5% said
it is unsatisfactory and the remaining 20% said it is very unsatisfactory.

Community health care is another important issue requiring multi stakeholders’ involvement and
when we have a look at of respondents’ level of satisfaction on cooperatives’ participation in the
issue at hand, more than half (52.5%) of the respondents were unsatisfied, 42.5% of the
respondents were very unsatisfied, and only 5% which is insignificant share of the proportion
were satisfied by cooperatives’ participation in community health care activities. As we can see
from the table, respondents had poor level of satisfaction or dissatisfied by cooperatives’
participation in the other elements of social affairs.

Building additional classes, maintenances of damaged schools, and initiating the community
parents to send their children to school were among the ways cooperatives participated in
education. On the other hand, creating awareness, orientation and initiating the community were
mentioned by respondents who said cooperatives’ participation in community health care was
satisfactory, as ways of involvement (Focus Group Discussion held in Hafursa and Konga,
January 25, 2011).

56
 Table 3.14 Community/Social participation of cooperatives

Not Very
Community/Social Affairs Applicable Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Satisfactory
Nil 20.00% 32.50% 47.50%
Nil Education
Nil 42.50% 52.50% 5.00%
Health care services
17.50% 50.00% 25.00% 7.50%
Utilities
87.50% 10.00% 2.50% Nil
Housing
47.50% 35.00% 15.00% 2.50%
Environment/Sanitation
Conflict resolution & social 50.00% 20.00% 30.00% Nil
cohesion
Avoiding harmful practices 50.00% 17.50% 30.00% 2.50%
and norms
50.00% 10.00% 37.50% 2.50%
Fostering good citizenship
Source: Own field survey, 2011

3.1.8 Empowerment of men and women by cooperatives

Empowerment is one of the fundamental means in reducing rural poverty. In this section of the
study, the role of cooperatives in empowering members was seen from three dimensions; level of
awareness created for members on different aspects of the cooperatives, participation of
members on cooperatives leaders selection process, and the cooperatives commitment to
empower their members.

As revealed in the table below, respondents who know well were 35% about objectives of their
cooperative, 37.5% about their rights on the cooperatives, 40% about their duties and
responsibilities, 42.5% about management committee members, 50% about types of services
provides by their cooperatives, 30% about the member of members in the cooperatives and only
10% about current capitals of the cooperatives. On the other hand, respondents know little about
objectives, rights of members, duties and responsibilities, management committee, types of
services, number of members and current capital were 50%, 37.5%, 27.5%, 25%,20%, 22.5%
and 15% respectively. The others had very little and very well levels of awareness according to
their proportions as expressed in the table below.

57
Concerning the election process of leaders, as all respondents replied, they participate in the
election process and their participation is through general assembly.

Table 3.15 Level of awareness on different aspects of the cooperative

Very
Cooperative aspects Little Little Well Very Well
2.50% 47.50% 35.00% 15.00%
Objective of the cooperative
10.00% 37.50% 37.50% 15.00%
Rights of members
17.50% 27.50% 40.00% 15.00%
Duties & Responsibilities of members
Management committee members of 12.50% 25.00% 42.50% 20.00%
the cooperative
Types of services provided by the 2.50% 20.00% 50.00% 27.50%
cooperative
Number of members of the 32.50% 22.50% 30.00% 17.50%
cooperative
67.50% 15.00% 10.00% 12.50%
Current capital of the cooperative
Source: Own field survey, 2011

According to the table below, cooperatives’ political commitment to serving and protecting their
political, economic, social and legal rights satisfied 70% of the respondents and very satisfied
12.5% of the respondents while dissatisfied 17.5% of the respondents.

The evaluation of 62.5% of the respondents, the cooperatives’ commitment in policy reforms and
actions to enable them gain access to assets so as to make them less vulnerable was satisfactory.
It was very satisfactory for 12.5% of the respondents and dissatisfactory for the rest 17.5% of to
respondents. The respondents’ evaluation of cooperatives’ commitment in taking part in
achievement of education and healthcare for all is satisfactory for 45%, very satisfactory for 17.5
and dissatisfactory for the remaining 37.5% of the respondents. Cooperatives’ commitment to
address safe water and sanitation in the community is evaluated to be dissatisfactory by 77.5% of
the respondent’s and satisfactory by 17.5% to the respondents. Finally, most of the respondents
(80%) are very dissatisfied by the cooperatives’ commitment in creating social safety nets to
prevent their members from falling into destitution or to rescue from disaster.

58
 Table 3.16 Cooperatives commitment in empowering members

Very Very
Rating Factor Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory
Political commitment to serving & protecting Nil 17.50% 70.00% 12.50%
your political, economic, social & legal rights
Policy reforms & actions to enable you gain
access to assets so as to make you less 2.50% 32.50% 62.50% 2.50%
vulnerable
Nil 37.50% 45.00% 17.50%
Education & health care for all
2.50% 77.50% 17.50% 2.50%
Safe water & Sanitation
Social Safety nets to prevent you from falling 80.00% 12.50% 5.00% 2.50%
in to destitution or rescue from disaster
Source: Own field survey, 2011

3.1.9 Overall views on the roles of cooperatives

The table below is a summary of respondents’ perception on overall achievement of cooperatives
in the areas of access to credit service, access to inputs, access to market for output and access to
asset building by local community.

Consequently, 32.5% of the respondents strongly agreed with cooperatives’ promotion of access
to market for outputs for the local community and another 25% agreed with the same. Contrarily,
37.5% of the respondents disagree with the statement and 5% even strongly disagree. As shown
on the table, on the other elements listed before the negative perceptions (strongly disagree and
disagree) overweight the positive once (agree and strongly agree).

Table 3.17 Overall views of respondents on cooperatives’ roles

Strongly Strongly
Rating Factor for cooperative Disagree Disagree Agree agree
Provision of credit for the local 20.00% 70.00% 10.00% Nil
community
Promotion access to inputs for the 30.00% 70.00% Nil Nil
local community
Promotion access to market for 5.00% 37.50% 25.00% 32.50%
outputs for the local community
Promotion access to Asset building 55.00% 30.00% 15.00% Nil
for the local community
Source: Own field survey, 2011

59
Sample respondents faced different problems in relation to accessing agricultural inputs. The
most basic ones are insufficient inputs delivery and delay in supply of inputs. The respondents
suggested improving distribution system of inputs, preparing readymade stock of inputs and
sufficient and timely delivery of inputs especially coffee seeds as solutions to the above
mentioned problems related to agricultural input supply.

Insufficient and delayed return, poor infrastructure and unions delay in return and consequently
failure to meet bank payback period are the major agricultural output market access related
problems encouraged by members of the sample cooperatives. To tackle these problems,
respondents said that building infrastructure, timely and sufficient delivery of returns for
produce, close supervision of unions and sufficient loan provision by banks to cooperatives are
the possible ways.

On the other hand, some of the respondents said the cooperatives should take actions by
introducing advanced technologies for washing and packaging of coffee in order to play the role
of local capital accumulation or asset building.

Concerning the improvement of livelihood through cooperatives, 55% of the respondents thought
that there was some extent of improvement in their livelihood after being member of
cooperatives and the remaining 45% thought that there has been a large extent of improvement.
In a similar pace, all respondents thought that cooperative businesses brought improvements in
the living conditions of people in the community. Moreover, all respondents together suggest
that the cooperative business should continue and expand.

The major strengths of the cooperative under the study according to sampled respondents are:
better participation in social affairs particularly education, better bargaining power through the
cooperatives, presence of some committed committee members, fair price set for produce,
progressive capacity of the cooperatives, and their role in initiating farmers/members for better
production. On the other hand, the major weakness are said by the respondents to include; infant
progress of using technological equipments and machines, poor credit package, centrality of
decision making due to lack of frequent contact with members, and shortage of skilled
manpower.

60
Moreover, diversifying and expanding the cooperative services, emphasizing on awareness
creation and educating members, capacity building in the areas of warehouse, machinery and
personnel, and better training and experience sharing are the general recommendations of sample
members from Hafursa and Konga primary cooperatives in YCFCU to enhance the role of
cooperatives in improving quality of living in rural areas.

61
 3.2 Data Presentation and Analysis of Sample Cooperatives in
Sidama Elto Farmers Cooperative Union

3.2.1 Background of Sidama Elto Farmers Cooperative Union

Sidama Elto Farmers Cooperative Union (SEFCU) is farmers’ cooperative union organized with
the aim of marketing cereal crops. It is found in Southern Nations Natioalities and Peoples
Region, sidama zone with a head quarter at Hawassa, the capital of the region. The union was
established in October 2004. The environmental condition of sidama zone is known to be
comfortable for varieties of products. However especially in Dega and kola areas cereal food
crops are produced in bulk. Accordingly, SEFCU is established to easily contacting these market
oriented cereal crops with customers and bring the desired market price to the producers.
The union gives a particular attention to cereals and pulses which include; maize, Teff, sorghum,
wheat, Haricots and soon. Accordingly, the union supplies improved seeds of the above listed
crops and farm fertilizers including dap and urea. In addition, the union is providing a short term
loan for those cooperatives facing capital shortage by borrowing from lending sources. The two
primary cooperatives selected for the investigation are Kayo and Shelo-Belela. Both of them are
located in Borcha Woreda of Sidama Zone and engaged in marketing of cereal crops. Kayo and
Shelo-Belela together cover five Kebeles, Shelo-Belela, Shelo-Abore, Shelo-Elancho, Konsore-
Ranja and Sinmo-Chole.

3.2.2 Basic Socio-demographic characteristics of sample respondents

The table below represents the basic socio-demographic characteristics of sample respondents
from Kayo and Shelo-Belela in Sidama Elto farmers’ cooperative union. As shown in the table,
95% of the respondents were male and the remaining 5% were female. The age groups that range
from 26 to 55 are the majority in the cooperatives. With respect to respondents educational
status, out of the sample households, 27.5% were illiterate or had not received any type of
education, and 10% got basic education or knew read and write only. The rest of the sample
respondents had attended elementary (35%), high school (17.5%), preparatory/senior high school
(2.5%) and the rest 7.5% belongs to others category which includes diploma and technique
schools. As shown in the table below, majority (57.5%) of the respondents have a household size
of 6 to 9 members followed by the range from 10 to 12 accounting 30% the remaining 7.5% and
5% belonging to below 6 and above 12, respectively.

62
 Table 3.18 Basic Socio-demographic characteristics of the Sampled Respondents

S.No Description
1.1 Sex Male Female
No. of respondents 38 2 40
Percentage 95% 5% 100%
Below Above
1.2 Age 18 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 55
No. of respondents Nil 1 9 16 9 5
Percentage 0.00% 2.50% 22.50% 40.00% 22.50% 12.50%
Read & Elementary High School Preparatory 1st
1.3 Educational Level Illiterate Write only (1-8) (9-10) (11-12) Degree Others
No. of respondents 11 4 14 7 1 Nil 3
Percentage 27.50% 10.00% 35.00% 17.50% 2.50% Nil 7.50%
1.4 Household size in no. Below 6 (6-9) (10-12) Above 12
No. of respondents 3 23 12 2
Percentage 7.50% 57.50% 30.00% 5.00%
Source: Own field survey, 2011

3.2.3 Welfare status of sample respondents

From the households of sample respondents, 45 % had children aged 5 and above not attending
school. On the other hand, 37.5% of the sampled household respondents had mortal children. As
shown in the chart below, 44% of the mortal children died at the ages 1 to 2. And, equal
percentage share of 17% belongs to the mortal age groups died at the age of less than 1, 2 to 3
and 3 to 4 and 6% of the respondents’ mortal infants belong to the age group of 4 to 5 years old.

63
Fig. 3.9 Age Range of Mortal Infants

Source: Own field survey, 2011

Concerning the electricity coverage in the study area, from the total sample respondents 42.5%
reported to have electricity facility while 57.5% of the respondents’ households were deprived of
the facility. Of those who reported to have the facility; only around 6% had got from
cooperatives, the majority of the rest (76%) from government and the remaining 18% from
NGOs.

On the other hand, only 40% respondents stated that their household had got access to clean
drinking water from which 44% walk less than 10 minutes from their home to get access, around
50% from 11 to 20 minutes and the remaining 6% walks from 21 to 30 minutes.

Government is the only stakeholder to provide clean drinking water to the study area and
provided the facility to all of the respondents. Contributions of NGOs and Cooperatives are
nothing in this case.

In response for the type of toilet used by the household, all of the sample respondents replied as
they have own private toilet built by themselves.

As shown in the table below, dirt is used for flooring by majority 82.5% of the sample
respondents. The remaining respondents used sand with the percentage of 22.5%. Wood is used
for cooking by majority of the respondents accounting about 85%, followed by 45%, 5% and 3%

64
who are responded as they used charcoal, dung and the combination of two or more of the fuel
materials, respectively.

Table 3.19 Material usage for flooring and Cooking

Materials Used Dirt Sand Dung Others

For Flooring 33 9 Nil Nil

Percentage 82.50% 22.50% Nil Nil

Materials Used Wood Charcoal Dung Others

For Cooking 34 Nil 18 1

Percentage 85% Nil 45% 3%

Source: Own field survey, 2011

With regard to asset ownership, out of the sample respondents in Kayo and Shelo-Belela
cooperatives, 52.5%, 22.5% and 20% owned Radio, Television and Telephone respectively.
Refrigerator and Bike share similar percentage of 2.5. Although, it is not considered as home
equipments, the greatest percentage share i.e. 90% goes other than the expected possible
alternatives outlined, but to the living property i.e. cattle.

Table 3.20 Property record of the respondents

Assets Radio Television Telephone /Mobile/ Bike Refrigerator Others

No. of Respondents 21 9 8 1 1 36

Percentage Share 52.50% 22.50% 20.00% 2.50% 2.50% 90.00%

Source: Own field survey, 2011

3.2.4 Membership in the cooperatives

With respect to the respondents’ status of relationship with the cooperatives, 95% were members
only and the remaining 5% were member as well as working in the cooperatives and as of the
response of sample respondents there was no external push in joining the cooperatives as all of
them joined the cooperatives willingly.

65
As presented in the table below, getting periodic dividend is chosen as moderately important
reason for joining cooperatives by 47.5% of respondents, 37.5% considered it as highly
important and the remaining 10% and 2.5% respondents considered it as critically and slightly
important reason respectively. On the other hand, to get access of employment by the
cooperative was taken as slightly important and moderately important reason for joining the
cooperatives by 57.5% and 17.5% of sample respondents whereas, the remaining and the least
percentage share is scrambled among not important, highly important and critically important
constituting 15%, 7.5% and 2.5%, respectively. In similar analysis of the table, to get access to
credit or loan was selected by 37.5% as moderately important followed by 30% & 20% of
respondents who consider as slightly and highly important, respectively. And the least
percentage cover of respondents goes to 7.5% as not important and 5% as critically important.
To get access to inputs market is highly important reason of joining cooperative for 67.5%
respondents, moderately and critically important with equal share of 15% of respondents and not
important for 5% of respondents. 55% of sample respondent membership role to get access for
output market as a highly important reason for joining cooperatives followed by 40% and 5%
respondents who choose it as critically and moderately important reason, respectively. To get
access to consumer goods was chosen to be moderately important reason by 42.5% of
respondents followed by highly, slightly, critically and not important reason by 32.5%, 12.5%
7.5% and 5% of respondents, respectively. The highest percentage share 52.5% and 40% belongs
to those who have selected it as highly and moderately important reason, respectively. And, only
7.5% of the respondent selected it as critically important reason for being member in
cooperatives to get access for training.

66
Table 3.21 Reasons for joining cooperatives

Not Moderately Highly Critically

Reason important Slightly important important Important important

To get Periodic Dividend Nil 2.50% 47.50% 37.50% 10.00%

To get access for employment 15.00% 57.50% 17.50% 7.50% 2.50%

To get access for Credit/Loan 7.50% 30.00% 37.50% 20.00% 5.00%

To get access for input market 5.00% Nil 15.00% 67.50% 15.00%

To get access for output market Nil Nil 5.00% 55.00% 40.00%

To get access to consumed

goods 5.00% 12.50% 42.50% 32.50% 7.50%

To get access for Trainings Nil Nil 40.00% 52.50% 7.50%

Source: Own field survey, 2011

As indicated in the table below, relatively greater proportion i.e. 45% of respondents reported the
ability to contribute the initial capital as critically important criteria for getting cooperatives
membership followed by 37.5% of respondents corresponding to less important criteria.

The ability to pay periodic payment was not considered as decisive criteria for most of the
respondents. As, 50% said it is less important and 42.5% not important.

Promise to buy the cooperative’s product/service rated as critically, highly and moderately
important criteria with a percentage load of 35%, 25% and 15%, respectively. And, the least
share of 12.5% and 7.5% as not important and less important, respectively. On the other hand,
promise to sell output to/through the cooperative is rated as a critically and highly important
criteria with equal and high percentage coverage of 47.5%

67
Table 3.22 Criteria for getting membership of the cooperatives

Not Less Moderately Highly Critically

Criteria important important important Important important

Ability to contribute the initial capital Nil 37.5% 7.5% 7.5% 45.0%

Ability to pay the periodic payment 42.5% 50.0% 7.5% Nil Nil

Promise to buy the cooperatives

product/service 12.5% 7.5% 15.0% 25.0% 35.0%

Promise to sell outputs to/through the

cooperative Nil Nil 5.0% 47.5% 47.5%

Source: Own field survey, 2011

With regard to the affordability of membership contributions, almost all respondents, 92.5%
agreed that the registration fee is low and more than half 65% agreed that the share price is also
low followed by 35 % saying the share price is Moderate. On the other hand, all respondents
agreed that there were no periodic payments expected from members once they got full status of
membership.

Table 3.23 Affordability of membership payments

Factors Not Applicable Very Low Low Moderate

Registration Fee Nil 2.50% 92.50% 5.00%

Share price Nil Nil 65.00% 35.00%

periodic contribution 100% Nil Nil Nil

Length of time for periodic payment 100% Nil Nil Nil

Source: Own field survey, 2011

3.2.5 Services of the cooperatives

Regarding the services of the cooperatives in the study area, there are about five types of services
that sample members got from the cooperatives though the extent and coverage varies.

68
Accordingly, as shown in the pie chart below, 42% and 30% of the respondent reported as they
got marketing agricultural products and marketing agricultural inputs, respectively. The
remaining percentage share is covered by training/guidance, marketing consumer goods and
credit/loan facility service for 16%, 9% and 3%, respectively.

Fig.3.10 Service Types Rendered by cooperatives

Source: own field survey, 2011

In comparison to other currently available options, the access and quality goods/services of the
cooperatives are highly better for 60% of sampled respondents and slightly better for the
remaining 40% respondents. Respondents were asked whether they got cooperative services on
credit or not and majority of them i.e. 67.5% replied yes to the question.

The loan repayment arrangement of Kayo and Shelo-Belela primary cooperatives in SEFCU was
suitable for the highest proportion of respondents, 63% followed by the remaining 37% as it is
very suitable. The cooperatives in the study area purchase products from their respective
members through fully cash basis transaction process.

In addition to their major purposes for formation literatures indicate that agricultural marketing
cooperatives provide other post harvest services to their members, which include warehousing,
grading, packaging, packaging, shipment, market information and others. According to the data
from the diagram below, the respondents that constitute 80%, 30% and 28% got delivery of post
harvesting services related with market information, warehousing and shipment, respectively.

69
About 62% of the respondents replied there is education, training or information given by their
cooperatives. However, the rest 38% of the respondents replied there is not.

Fig.3.12 Post-harvest Services

Source: Own field survey, 2011

From those who got training from the cooperatives 100% reported that the training was focusing
on cooperative natures and benefits, 84% reported as the focus of trainings was on how to
generate income from different sources and 52% reported the focus was on how to apply new
technologies. On the other hand, none of them reported as the cooperatives involved in political
trainings.

Table 3.25 Focus Points of training and education

Focus Points for training and education

selection No. of Respondents Percentage

Cooperative nature and Benefits 25 100%

How to apply new Technologies 13 52%

How to generate income from different sources 21 84%

Source: Own field survey, 2011

70
In looking at respondents rating of quality and accessibility of cooperatives marketing in the
study case area, the table below shows that 82.5% of the respondents believed that adequacy of
market services is somehow improved, 55% of the respondents believed that market proximity or
availability of market at nearby places are somehow improved, followed by 32.5% who believed
as it is highly improved. Concerning with availability of market at any time it is rated with
greater percentage share of 62.5%, 20% and 12.5% as it somehow improved, highly improved
and similar with the previous/other options, respectively. Fairness of the market price is reported
as somehow improved and highly improved with almost similar percentage share of 50% and
47.5%, respectively.

Table 3.26 Accessibility and quality of traded goods/services

Accessibility and quality of Highly Somehow Highly

traded goods/services Deteriorated Deteriorated Similar improved improved

Adequacy of Market Services 2.50% Nil 5.00% 82.50% 10.00%

Availability of market at any time 2.50% 2.50% 20.00% 62.50% 12.50%

Availability of market at Short

distance 2.50% 7.50% 2.50% 55.00% 32.50%

Fairness of the market Price Nil Nil 2.50% 50.00% 47.50%

Source: Own field survey, 2011

As expressed by the chart below, more than half of the respondents, 57% gave their opinions the
achievement of cooperatives in introducing new agricultural technologies as Poor followed by
28% who evaluated as good. The least share of 10% and 5% of the respondents evaluated the
cooperatives achievement in introducing new technologies as very poor and very good,
respectively.

71
Fig.3.13 Introduction of New Agricultural Technologies by Cooperatives

Source: Own field survey, 2011

3.2.6 Economic benefits of the cooperatives

Majority of the sample respondents comprising 62% replied as cooperatives paid regular
dividends to their members. The remaining 38% of the respondents argued that the dividend
payment was not paid regularly. It is based on level of profit generated. And, all of the
respondents, who said there was dividend payment by the cooperatives, explain as the dividend
payment is made annually.

As the chart below clearly innumerate, 85% of the respondents who reported the payment of
dividend by cooperatives, disagree with the statement that “the dividend paid by the cooperatives
is sufficient to fulfill basic requirements of their households”, 11% of the respondents strongly
disagree with the statement while the remaining 4% agree.

72
Fig.3.14 Opinions on Dividends Paid by Cooperatives

Source: Own field survey, 2011

From those respondents who receive dividend from their cooperatives most of them accounting
88% used the dividend received for personal and family consumptions. In addition, 48%
allocated for purchase of fixed assets, 8% deposited or saved in a bank and 4% for repayment of
debt or loan.

Table 3.27 Utilization of income from Dividends

Utilization of income from

Dividends No. of Respondents Percentage

Personal & Family consumption 22 88%

Repayment of Debt/Loan 1 4%

Deposit in Bank 2 8%

Purchase/Building of Fixed Assets 12 48%

Source: Own field survey, 2011

All of the respondents thought that being member of cooperatives improved their expenditure.
From which 86% said that the improvement is by smoothening consumption, 32% by investing
in long term items, and 8% by increasing saving. Moreover, from those who invested in long

73
term items, about 92% built house, about 25% purchased home equipments and 8% purchased
farm aids.

Table 3.28 Expenditure trends and reasons

Any Asset Built through the improved

expenditure
Purchase
Reasons for No. of Built of farm Purchase of home
improved expenditure Respondents Percentage House aids equipments
By increasing Saving 8 21.62% − − −
By Investing in Long
term items 12 32.43% 92% 8% 25%
By Smoothing out
consumption 32 86.49% − − −
Source: Own field survey, 2011

As presented in the figure below, concerning greater expenditure areas by respondents,

expenditure on daily consumption accounts for 100%, expenditure on children schooling 80%,
expenditure on family health care 50% and expenditure on long term assets 13% of the
respondents.

Fig. 3.15 Areas of Greater Expenditure

Source: Own field survey, 2011

As all the respondents agreed cooperatives created additional income for their members and
regarding the way how cooperatives crated additional income, as shown in the table below, 97%
said by securing higher price for their products, 58% by providing training to increase

74
productivity, 56% by lowering input costs, 14% by creating employment opportunities and 8%
introducing new and efficient technologies.
Table 3.29 Ways of creating Additional Income by cooperatives

No. of
Ways of creating Additional Income Respondents Percentage

Securing higher price for my product 35 97.22%

Lowering inputs cost 20 55.56%

Creating employment opportunity 5 13.89%

Introducing new & efficient

technologies 3 8.33%

Providing training to increase

Productivity 21 58.33%
Source: Own field survey, 2011

On the other hand, those respondents who said “our cooperatives are poor or unable to create
additional income to their members” stated the basic reasons as low or no dividend distribution
due to less profitability or return of the cooperatives, leader’s embezzlement, capacity problem
and narrow scope of services.

3.2.7 Participation of the cooperatives in community affairs

To improve the well being of a community, involvement in social welfare activities is very
crucial. As it can be seen from the table below, respondents had different level of satisfaction on
the categories of cooperatives’ participation in community development activities. Accordingly,
42.5% of the respondents said cooperatives participation in education is very unsatisfactory, 30%
& 27.5% said they are not engaged in such social service and it is unsatisfactory, respectively.

Community health care is another important issue requiring multi stakeholders’ involvement and
when we have a look at on respondents’ level of satisfaction on cooperatives’ participation in the
issue at hand, more than half 62.5% of the respondents respond as it is not applicable, 20% of the
respondents were very unsatisfied, and 17.5% of the respondents were unsatisfied by
cooperatives’ participation in community health care activities. As we can see from the table,

75
respondents had poor level of satisfaction or dissatisfied by cooperatives’ participation in the
other elements of social affairs.

Table 3.30 Community/Social participation of cooperatives

Not Applicable Very Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Satisfactory
Community/Social Affairs
Education 30.00% 42.50% 27.50% Nil

Health care services 62.50% 20.00% 17.50% Nil

Utilities 62.50% 32.50% 2.50% 2.50%

Housing 57.50% 35.00% 5.00% 2.50%

Environment/Sanitation 25.00% 55.00% 17.50% 2.50%

Conflict resolution & social

cohesion 7.50% 57.50% 30.00% 5.00%

Avoiding harmful practices and

norms 7.50% 55.00% 35.00% 2.50%

Fostering good citizenship 7.50% 50.00% 40.00% 2.50%

Source: Own field survey, 2011

3.2.8 Empowerment of men and women by cooperatives

Empowerment is one of the fundamental means in reducing rural poverty. In this section of the
study, the role of Kayo and Shelo-Belela primary cooperatives in empowering members was
seen from three dimensions; level of awareness created for members on different aspects of the
cooperatives, participation of members on cooperatives leaders’ election process and the
cooperatives’ commitment to empower their members.

As revealed in the table below, respondents who knows well were 40% about objectives of their
cooperative, 42.5% about their rights on the cooperatives, 30% about their duties and
responsibilities, 27.5% about management committee members, 40% about types of services
provides by their cooperatives, 32.5% about the member of members in the cooperatives and
only 10% about current capitals of the cooperatives. On the other hand, respondents know little
about objectives, rights of members, duties and responsibilities, management committee, types of
services, number of members and current capital were 40%, 40%, 42.5%, 30%,32.5%, 15% and
12.5% respectively. The others had very little and very well levels of awareness according to
their proportions as expressed in the table below.

76
Table 3.31 Level of awareness on different aspects of the cooperative

Cooperative aspects Very Little Little Well Very well

15.00% 40.00% 40.00% 5.00%
Objective of the cooperative
7.50% 40.00% 42.50% 10.00%
Rights of members
15.00% 42.50% 30.00% 12.50%
Duties & Responsibilities of members
management committee members of the 27.50% 30.00% 27.50% 12.50%
cooperative
Types of services provided by the 10.00% 32.50% 40.00% 17.50%
cooperative
42.50% 15.00% 32.50% 10.00%
Number of members of the cooperative
72.50% 12.50% 10.00% 5.00%
Current capital of the cooperative
Source: Own field survey, 2011

Concerning the election process of leaders, as all respondents replied, they participate in the
election process and their participation is through general assembly.

According to the table below, cooperatives’ political commitment to serving and protecting their
political, economic, social and legal rights satisfied 12.5% of the respondents and very satisfied
7.5% of the respondents while 77.5% and 2.5% of the respondents were dissatisfied and very
dissatisfied, respectively.

According to the evaluation 12.5% and 2.5% respondents rate, the cooperatives’ commitment in
policy reforms and actions to enable them gain access to assets so as to make them less
vulnerable was satisfactory and very satisfactory, respectively. On the other hand, it was
evaluated as unsatisfactory and very unsatisfactory by 60% and 25% of the respondents,
respectively. The respondents’ evaluation of cooperatives’ commitment in taking part in
achievement of education and healthcare for all is satisfactory for 2.5%, unsatisfactory for 30%
of the respondents and 67.5% for those who were very unsatisfied. Cooperatives’ commitment to
address safe water and sanitation in the community is evaluated as satisfactory by 2.5% of the
respondent’s and unsatisfactory and very unsatisfactory by 22.5% and 75% of the respondents,
respectively. The cooperatives’ commitment in creating social safety nets to prevent their
members from falling into destitution or to rescue from disaster also evaluated as satisfactory,

77
 very satisfactory, unsatisfactory and very unsatisfactory by 32.5%,17.5%, 35% and 40% of the
respondents, respectively.

Table 3.32 Cooperatives commitment in empowering members

Very Very
Rating Factor Unsatisfactory Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory

Political commitment to serving & protecting

your political, economic, social & legal rights 2.50% 77.50% 12.50% 7.50%

Policy reforms & actions to enable you gain

access to assets so as to make you less
venerable 25.00% 60.00% 12.50% 2.50%

Education & health care for all 67.50% 30.00% 2.50% Nil

Safe water & Sanitation 75.00% 22.50% 2.50% Nil

Social Safety nets to prevent you from falling

in to destitution or rescue from disaster 40.00% 35.00% 20.00% 5.00%

Source: Own field survey, 2011

3.2.9 Overall views on the roles of cooperatives

The below table is a summary of respondents’ perception on overall achievement of Kayo and
Shelo-Belela primary cooperatives in SEFCU in the areas of access to credit service, access to
inputs, access to market for output and access to asset building by local community.

Consequently, majorities of the respondents accounting about 75% disagree about cooperatives’
role on provision of credit for local community while the remaining percentage share of 22.5%
and 2.5% was covered by those who were reacted the question with strongly disagreement and
agreement, respectively. With regard to the promotion access to inputs for the local community
via the cooperatives, 77.5% of the respondents disagree, 15% agree and the remaining 7.5% of
the respondents strongly disagree. The greater percentage shares that constitute 50% & 42.5%
are covered by those who were agree and disagree on cooperatives’ role in promotion of access
to market for outputs for the local community, respectively. Cooperatives’ role in promotion of
access to Asset building for the local community is also rated with 75% of disagreement and
12.5% of strong disagreement and agreement, similarly.

78
Table 3.33 overall views on cooperatives’ roles

Rating Factor for cooperative Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree
provision of credit for the local 22.50% 75.00% 2.50% Nil
community
promotion access to inputs for the 7.50% 77.50% 15.00% Nil
local community
promotion access to market for Nil 42.50% 50.00% 7.50%
outputs for the local community
promotion access to Asset building 12.50% 75.00% 12.50% Nil
for the local community
Source: Own field survey, 2011

Sample respondents faced different problems in relation to accessing agricultural inputs. The
most basic of these problems include shortage and delay in supply of improved seeds miss
conduct and embezzlement of appointed officials (Woreda rural development officials) e.g.
embezzlement of prepaid money for improved seeds, and sell of improved seeds to traders in a
higher price (Focus group discussion, held in Belela, Jan 20, 2011), and lack of communication
and collaboration between supporters who deliver improved seeds. The respondents suggested
several solutions to tackle problems related to agricultural inputs. “Similar to fertilizer improved
seeds should be distributed through cooperatives” said the respondents (currently the mandate of
distributing improved seeds is given by government to woreda bureau of agriculture and rural
development). Moreover, information and awareness creation on the issue of which seeds are
favorable to the locality, timely and sufficient delivery of improved seeds, facilitating the
communication and collaboration of all stakeholders in delivery of improved seeds, and better
and continuous researches on improving seeds are among the forwarded solution by the
respondents.

Lack of warehouse/store houses, time gap between demand of market and market availability,
market inadequacy, and lack of modern grading machines to deliver quality produce are the
major agricultural output market access related problems encountered by the members of Kayo
and Shelo-Belela cooperatives. As to the respondents the possible measures to tackle these
problems include; organizing the team for tackling warehouse problems, improving the
bargaining power to decide on price of produce, acquiring modern grading machines and
creating well established channel up to the central markets.

79
As most of the respondents agreed the cooperatives should take actions by building their capacity
especially in the areas of technical personnel, offices, warehouse and machineries, diversification
of service delivery, participation in social affairs, consistent/regular and sufficient delivery of
dividend/returns and improving the awareness of members through education, enabling to
diversity income generation in order to play the role of local capital accumulation or asset
building.

As shown in the diagram below, 72.5% of the respondents thought that there was some extent of
improvement in their livelihood after being member of cooperatives and the remaining 15% and
12.5% of the respondents thought that there has been insignificant change and large extent of
improvement, respectively. In a similar pace, all respondents thought that cooperative businesses
brought improvements in the living conditions of people in the community. Moreover, all
respondents together suggest that the cooperative business should continue and expand.

Fig. 3.16 Improvement on livelihood through cooperatives

Source: own field survey, 2011

According to the respondents, the major strengths of the two sample cooperatives under Sidama-
Elto Farmers’ Cooperative Union are provision of market information, training members,
working with other supporting organizations, closeness to members locality, and engagement in
multidimensional activities (both input and output marketing). On the other hand, the major

80
weaknesses as to the respondents include; poor capacity in warehousing, technology utilization,
technical and skilled personnel for managing cooperative matters, narrow scope of service
delivery, absence of well established plan and clear work procedures and weak control and
supervision.

Moreover, diversifying services especially facilitating credit programs, encouraging women

participation, improving members awareness on diversified income generation and saving and
investment issues, improving infrastructural development, peaceful resolution of neighborhood
conflicts, and creation of multi-dimensional partnership with different supporters to build
capacity are the general recommendations of Kayo and Shelo-Belela members to enhance the
role of the cooperatives in improving quality of living in rural areas.

81
3.3. Discussion and Analysis on the Role of Agricultural Marketing
Cooperatives in the Reduction of Rural Poverty in Yirgachefe and Sidama-
Elto Cooperative Unions

This section deals with discussions and analyses on major findings of the study on the role of the
four primary cooperatives namely Hafursa and Konga from Yergachefe Coffee Farmers
Cooperative Union (YCFCU) and Kayo and Shello-Belela from Sidama-Elto Cereal Farmers
Cooperative Union (SEFCU). The real and potential impacts of these primary cooperatives on
the reduction of rural poverty through the increase of income and generating economic activities
and capital accumulation and asset building will be discussed and analyzed. In addition to these,
the role of the primary cooperatives in the enhancement of social infrastructure and improving
the voice and representation of vulnerable groups in the rural community will also be discussed.

3.3.1 Cooperatives in Increasing Income and Generating Economic Activities

Theories and empirical studies on cooperatives agreed that one of the key motives of
cooperatives is to fulfill the economic needs of their members. The two most important means by
which the cooperatives in YCFCU and SEFCU create additional income to their members are
through securing better price for their agricultural produce and charging lower costs for their
agricultural inputs. This is because the dividend directly distributed to members is not sufficient
and the improvement on expenditures is dominantly on the consumption side. According to the
Cooperatives Code of Conduct of the Federal Cooperative Agency of Ethiopia, 70% of profit
generated by the cooperatives should be distributed to members in the form of dividend.
However, the profitability of the cooperatives, the number of members in the cooperatives and
the commitment of officials to execute the rule determine the amount of dividend share to each
member. Based on the data from Hafursa primary cooperative of Yirgachefe Coffee Cooperative
Union, due to better marketing opportunity created in the coffee market and the increasing price
of coffee, the dividend payment for members has been increasing with an average rate of 80%.
While 100 ETB per Kuntal of cereal delivered to the cooperative has been distributed by Shello-
Belela primary cooperative of Sidama-Elto Cereal Cooperative Union until 2008. Since 2008 no
dividend distribution is made by the cooperative due to failure to generate profit as indicated by
the leaders of the cooperative. A clear implication from the above numerical description is that in

82
terms of income from dividend, members of coffee marketing cooperatives are better-off than
that of cereal. However, since the dividend distribution is on annual basis and the household size
is large on average (reaching more than 12 in some cases), the net effect of the dividend on the
living standard of the households is low.

Although the benefits of providing training and introducing new agricultural technologies by the
cooperatives are not negligible, the income generating opportunity created by both coffee and
cereal cooperatives is not remarkable. As a result, reduced input costs and increased output
prices are the only considerable economic contributors that the cooperatives provide to their
members. The contributions of the four primary cooperatives on input costs and output prices are
discussed below.

i. Marketing Agricultural Inputs by Coffee and Cereal Cooperatives

Agricultural inputs supply is one of the valuable functions that cooperatives perform. This role of
cooperatives is deemed to be very essential for the rural communities where such services are
either missing and/or inadequate. Addressing the necessary farm inputs is inevitable in
improving the productivity and income level of the farming communities, which in turn could
improve the livelihood of the local community and promote the socio-economic development.
The input supply services of seed production and distribution as well as multi-purpose
cooperatives are playing major role in the case of the Cereal Cooperative Union. While, inputs
marketing is relatively less important in the case of the Coffee Cooperative Union for two
reasons. First, since the coffee production is organic there is no need of fertilizer usage by the
farmers; and secondly, most of the coffee farmers in the area are able to produce their own coffee
seeds each time. The cooperatives of cereal farmers, are importing and distributing farm inputs
specially, fertilizers to their members. Due to such collective efforts that cooperatives have
made, a relatively better input delivery at low cost has been actualized in Borcha Wereda and
surrounding communities where the two sampled cereal cooperatives, Kayo and Shello-Belela,
are found. The delivery of inputs at low cost has also been supported by few other non-
governmental development organizations such as Self Help Africa (SHA) (working in
collaboration with Hawasa University College of Agriculture), Goal Ethiopia, Meserete Kirstos
Church and Plan Ethiopia. Moreover, some members of these cooperatives have noted that such
benefits have enabled them to diversify their income, improve expenditures, and enhance their

83
livelihood. Hence, it is important to note that this has far reaching implication in boosting
commercial agriculture and agro-processing, which intern promote the locality to size up on its
competitive advantages, and there by trigger socio-economic development.

However, there are many problems and bottlenecks that cooperative members mentioned in
relation to input supply. Members faced information gap or less awareness on successions of
improved seeds to the climatic conditions of the area. Delay in the supply of inputs together with
shortage of improve seeds is another chronic problem. Especially members in the cereal
cooperatives that produce twice a year mentioned that due to delay in delivery of improved
seeds, harvesting of the first production season has been delayed and this followed interruption
on the second season production. There has been also lack of communication and collaboration
between supporters who deliver improved seeds. Moreover, in a focus group discussion,
members of the cooperatives indicated that, there has been a miss conduct and embezzlement by
appointed officials of Wereda Rural Development Bureau (which is the sole government
appointed provider of improved seeds to farmer is the area). For example prepaid money for
purchase of improved seeds is fraud, and improved seeds are sold to traders at higher price.

ii. Marketing Agricultural Outputs by Coffee and Cereal Cooperatives

Under the current free market situation, farmers have faced the difficulty of high competition in
the market. To alleviate this difficulty, the role of cooperatives has become bigger than ever
before. In the case of output market, the market share of cooperatives is very low due to shortage
of finance, poor infrastructure, inadequate and poor quality warehouse, and weak
entrepreneurship skills including business management, planning and financial management.

Due to the problems mentioned above, members got insufficient and delayed returns for their
output. Cooperatives are unable to meet bank’s loan repayment/payback period, meet market
demand of their members and acquire modern processing machines to deliver quality product
and hence compete in the market. This is particularly true in case of Cereal Marketing
Cooperatives as the coffee markets are better structured specially by the recent efforts made by
the Ethiopian Commodity Exchange (ECX), Fair Trade and USAID.

Apart from this argument the product marketing role of both types of cooperative (coffee and
cereal) seems promising. The four primary cooperatives in the study undertook product

84
marketing services in their own areas of engagement i.e. coffee by Hafursa and Konga of
Yirgachefe Coffee Cooperative Union and different types of cereal crop products especially
maize and Haricot by Kayo and Shello-Belela of Sidama-Elto Cereal Cooperative Union.
Though cooperative output marketing seems sluggish in some cases, the performance in other
cases seems encouraging. For instance, some members in both coffee and cereal cooperatives
indicated that such marketing services by their respective cooperatives have enabled them to
generate additional income improved their expenditure and build their own assets. These services
by cooperatives can benefit the local community at large through its spill-over effect, and
thereby enhance their productivity and livelihood.

Though there are still so many areas to be enhanced to be more competitive in the markets in the
local area and the market opportunities available elsewhere in the country (e.g. Hawassa), the
cooperatives have played encouraging roles in linking the producers directly with the market
opportunity available by avoiding the middlemen who are considered to be basic contributors of
unfair trade. However, the prevailing marketing capacity and network in these case areas are not
yet well developed to their best levels as these cooperatives are also constrained by most of the
problems mentioned in the previous paragraph.

3.3.2 Cooperatives in Capital accumulation and asset building

Cooperatives can play central role in promoting local communities capital accumulation and
asset building which in turn are central for the overall socio-economic development. As agreed
by the majority of respondents, both type of cooperatives promoted less to local people’s asset
building and capital accumulation, which in turn could help to promote local employment and
income generation opportunities and there by contribute for development livelihood of the local
communities and the growth of the locality. Though there is a lot to be done, some of the
members in both coffee and cereal cooperatives improved investment expenditure in long term
maturing assets such as houses, farm aid tools and home equipments. Weather the money is
shared directly in the form of divided or indirectly through incomes from price of output, it can
positively contribute to local economic development.

Reinvesting locally generated resources (i.e. own fund) and external resources such as loan
within a given locality is helpful to ensure overall wellbeing. This could further promote

85
diversity in income sources or local business development both inside and outside agriculture
and there by accelerate local employments which are vital for reducing rural poverty.
Furthermore, it can promote investment in social welfare activities such as schools health
centers, roads and other social infrastructures. However, respondents stated that the cooperatives
are not performing well in this regard in ways that adequately ensure the realization of benefits to
their members.

Regarding asset building, both coffee and cereal types of the cooperatives are not doing much.
The investment made by either the cooperatives or their members is either absent and/ or
inadequate with no trend of improvement. Asset is not building because of the absence of
meaningful and sufficient dividend incentive, daily consumption oriented expenditure trends and
poor culture of saving and investment. Moreover, accumulation of capital of these cooperatives
seems undermined by hosts of constraining factors such as lack of adequate participation of
members, operational inefficiencies, lack of diversified activities, lack of commitment on the
part of leaders, finical and technology bottlenecks and lack of adequate government and other
stakeholders support.

3.3.3 Cooperatives in Enhancement of Social Infrastructure

In principle, the role of cooperatives is to go beyond mere economic sphere and includes
participation in valuable social welfare activities and provision of social safety net services. But
this is not the case of the four primary cooperatives in the two unions. It is understood from the
study that primary cooperatives are involved in only limited social services. Though in a limited
extent, the cooperatives involved in some social services such as education, health care,
electricity, village roads and other social welfare issues. For instance, members from Hafursa
primary cooperative in the coffee union particularly indicated that the cooperative built
additional classes for primary schools of the two neighboring kebeles. On the other hand,
members from Konga primary cooperative of the same union stated that their cooperative
provides a transportation service to the community for both members and non members using its
truck car to local health centers and even remote hospitals in the case of emergency illnesses.
Few members from the cereal cooperative union also indicated that they got electricity facility
from their cooperatives at least in collaboration with government and NGOs in the area.

86
Cooperatives are found to be important community-based organizations in linking the local
people with different development actors. The importance of their partnership in accessing local
community is acknowledged by different institutions. Literatures indicated that many
government and non-governmental organizations are now working with cooperatives in
effectively addressing their respective objectives. Yet the existing linkage between cooperatives
and other development actors such as government institutions, NGOs, private sectors and other
community-based organizations in the study area seems inadequate in accelerating the realization
of development potential of these development partners. The integration between the
cooperatives in the study area is virtually weak except few instances such as finical and material
borrowing in the case of Konga and Hafursa of Yirgachefe coffee cooperative union and
common membership in the case of Kayo and Shello-bellela of Sidama-Elto cereal cooperative
union. NGOs found in the area who are partners of the cooperatives such as Fair Trade and
USAID in the case of Yirgachefe coffee cooperative union; and Goal Ethiopia, Meserete Korstos
Church, Self help Africa (SHA) and Plan Ethiopia in the case of Kayo of Sidama-Elto cereal
cooperative union are operating in uncoordinated and isolated fashion.

3.3.4 Cooperatives in Improving the Voice and Representation of Vulnerable Members

Promoting local community participation and empowerment is one of the most important means
by which cooperatives can play a central role in the mobilization of resource for the development
of a given locality so as to reduce poverty and improve livelihood. Cooperatives can empower
their members and the community through awareness creation, reducing gender gap,
participatory decision making in elections, and political commitment to ensure access to assets,
safeguard their socio-economic, political and legal rights and infrastructural facilities. In the case
of the coffee and cereal cooperatives, members had heterogeneous outlooks. All members
participate in election process of leaders and the general assembly decides on matters such as
divided distribution and share prices. The management committee is accountable to the general
assembly and reports to Wereda Cooperative Promotion Office which is mandated by
government to supervise and support cooperatives. The level of awareness of members on the
operation of cooperatives is limited but the cooperatives have a mandate to empower their
members especially the disadvantaged. Such tasks were found to be unsatisfactory for most of
the respondents in both coffee and cereal cooperatives.

87
On the other hand, visible deficiency is seen in enabling women to become active and strong
members in both coffee and cereal marketing cooperatives. The coffee and cereal cooperatives
have not done much to develop the full potential of women members that would benefit the well-
being of the rural community as a whole. Women members need to be empowered and increase
their capabilities through education, and skills training, primary health care and promotion of
family planning. Gender dimensions cut across all aforementioned issues and should therefore be
at the fore front of pro-poor development policies. In this regard the coffee and cereal
cooperatives need to play the initiative role to review and implement new reforms and actions to
enable women members have access to assets so as to make them less vulnerable, and creating
social safety nets that would help them come out of poverty.

88
 CHAPTER FOUR
4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Conclusion
The study on the Role of Agricultural Marketing Cooperatives in Reducing Rural Poverty is
conducted using a case study on two unions in Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples
Region: Yirgachefe Coffee Farmers Cooperative Union and Sidama Elto Cereal Farmers
Cooperative Union. The former is found in Gedeo zone. It is engaged in production, processing
and marketing of coffee. The later is found in Sidama zone and it is engaged in marketing of
cereal crops. Data was gathered from members of four primary cooperatives, two from each case
study union. From the findings of the study the following conclusion is drawn.

The agricultural marketing cooperatives addressed in the study made considerable economic
contribution to members in rural community on agricultural cost reduction, increased produce
price, local access to markets, reduction in marketing risks and illumination of abnormal
practices of private traders. As a result, the attitude of members towards their respective
cooperatives is optimistic and they feel that cooperative business brought some sort of
improvement in the living condition of the people in their community and suggest/wish the
cooperative business to continue and expand. However, the cooperatives are unable to bring the
desired progress on generation of economic activities, asset building, women’s
participation/empowerment and participation in local community affairs. This is the reason why
most of the cooperative members are still living in a poor standard of life as majority are
deprived of most elements of the 2010 OPHI’s multi dimensional poverty index.

Towards this end, the study identified many bottlenecks and challenges that should be addressed
such as low standard of performance, poor management, capacity limitations, corruption and
misuse of funds by the executives of cooperatives and unions, narrow scope of services and lack
of collaborative work. If the cooperatives work to avoid these bottlenecks, they can further
develop and bring remarkable changes in the living standard of the rural poor.

89
4.2 Recommendations
Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations are forwarded.

1. Members should use the income they generated from their cooperatives not only just to
meet their household consumption needs but also to enhance potential income generating
capacity together with investing on education and health care requirements. For this,
there should be continuous awareness creation schemes though education, training and
other means so as to enable them diversify income generation.
2. Building the capacity of cooperatives in introducing new crop seeds and technologies to
increase productivity, acquisition of operational facilities and initiating active
participation of women should be given due attention.
3. Agricultural marketing cooperatives that operate through apex organizations such as
Unions and Federations take a unified negotiating position in dealing with the market
actors. However, most of the time, these actors seen less concerned to the basic aim of
the cooperatives, to improve their members living condition. To address this issue, due
enforcement of regulations through effective supervision, members training, and ethics
guidelines for management is very essential to guarantee that the benefits of cooperation
will reach the poor rather than being captured by the elite/appointee or officials at local.
Cooperatives must work to prevent corruption at the local level.
4. To be effective and acceptable, cooperatives must take the members view and their felt
needs into consideration, regular dialogue among farmers, cooperatives and market
authorities should be undertaken to resolve problems. To this end, cooperatives should be
lead and managed by energetic, professional and dynamic persons.
5. For the rural population, gaining direct access to economic services is extremely
important. Therefore rural cooperative credit and saving institutions/associations should
be created, strengthened and linked to agricultural marketing.
6. In the absence of the development of formal social security system, cooperatives should
create solidarity mechanisms to resolve ethnic and border disputes and restructure the
informal traditional mutual aid systems such as idir by creating mechanisms to cover
members unexpected expenses related to illness, death and other socio-economic
problems like; draught and crop failures.

90
7. Cooperatives need the support of all stakeholders such as government, NGOs, think
thanks and the private sector in terms of capacity building in the form of education,
research, extension and marketing.
8. Finally, Agricultural Marketing Cooperatives can play a remarkable role to upgrade rural
living and reduce rural poverty. However, their success requires a great deal of
promotional effort, close follow-ups and investment in human and physical capital.

91
 References

Abebe Ayele (2005). “Opportunities and Challenges of Cooperative Development in post-1991

Ethiopia: case of Coffee farmers’ cooperatives in Aleta Wowdo, Sidama Zone, SNNP.”
Unpublished M.A thesis. Addis Ababa University.

Acharya, S.S. (2004). “Agricultural Marketing and Credit Status; Issues and Reform Agenda.”
National Center for Agricultural Economics and Research. New Delhi.

Bernard, T. et al (2010). Cooperatives for Staple Crop Marketing: Evidence from Ethiopia.
International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington.

Birchall, J. (2003). Rediscovering the cooperative advantage: Poverty reduction through self-
help. International Labor Office, Cooperative Branch. Geneva.

COPAC (2000a). “Open Forum on Decent Work: Can cooperatives make a difference?” A Paper
presented to COPAC open forum. Geneva.

COPAC (2000b). “Strategic Alliances: cooperatives, farmers and rural workers’ organizations.”
A COPAC commissioned study. Geneva.

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods

Approaches. 2nd Ed. Washington: Sage Publications Inc.

Desalegn Rahmato (1994). “After the Derg: An assessment of Rural Land Tenure issues in
Ethiopia.” Institute of Development Research. Addis Ababa University.

Destahun Hailu (2007). “Cooperative Approach to Local Development the case of Coffee
growing Regions of Ethiopia.” Unpublished M.A thesis. Addis Ababa University.

Federal Negarit Gazeta of The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (1998). Cooperative
Societies. Proclamation No.147/1998.

Federal Negarit Gazeta of The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (1998). Councils of
Ministers. Regulation No.106/2004.

Federal Negarit Gazeta of The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (1998). Cooperative
Societies (Amendment). Proclamation No. 402/2004.

Galor, Z. (2009). “Demutualization of Cooperatives: Rural Cooperation in the 21 century:

lessons from the past pathway to the future.” www.coopgalor.com (Accessed on
22/12/2010).

Hailu Adugna (2007). “An Assessment of the Role of Cooperatives in Local Economic
Development.” Unpublished M.A thesis. Addis Ababa University.

92
ILO (2001). “Cooperative Enterprises.”
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/region/asro/bangkok/ability/msme_lao_03.htm
(accessed on 18/11/2010)

ILO (2001). “The Role of Cooperatives and Other Self-Help Organizations in Crisis Resolution
and Socio-Economic Recovery.” ILO Cooperative Branch. Geneva.

ILO (2007). “Handbook on cooperatives for use of workers’ organizations.” Geneva.

Imoisili, C. (2001). “The Role of Cooperatives in Poverty Alleviation.” A Paper presented at the
44th Annual International Convention/30th Annual General Meeting of the Caribbean
Confederation of Credit Unions, CCCU, at St. Maarten, Netherlands Antilles, West
Indies, on 18 July, 2001.

Interim Report (1) (October, 2010). “The Development Study on Strengthening Agricultural
Marketing System in SNNPR.” Overseas Merchandise Inspection Co., Ltd & Nippon
Koei Co., Ltd.

International Cooperative Alliance (1995). International Co-operatives Research Conference,

Statement on the Cooperative Identity. Geneva.

International Cooperative Alliance (2005). “International Co-operatives Research Conference,

Cork.” http://www.ucc.ie/acad/foodbus/CCS/ICA/Ppr_OSullivan.pdf (accessed on
18/11/2010).

Kebebew Daka (1978). “The Role of Cooperatives in the Socialist Transformation of

Agriculture.” A paper presented at Institute of Development Research Seminar, Nazareth
Ethiopia.

MoFED (2006). “Ethiopia: Building on Progress.” A Plan for Accelerated and Sustained
Development to End Poverty (PASDEP) (2005/6-2009/10). vol.1

Mukarugwiza, E. (2010). The hope for rural transformation: A rejuvenating Cooperative

movement in Rwanda. ILO country office for the United Republic of Tanzania, Kenya,
Rwanda and Uganda. Dar es Salaam: ILO.

Nimble, (2005). “Cooperative Model: success engine for Agricultural commodities.”

www.nimble.in (accessed on 22/12/2010)

Oxford University and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) (2010). “Multidimensional

Poverty Index.” www.ophi.org.uk (accessed on 22/12/2010)

Ozah B. N. (2009) “Problems and prospects of cooperative society in Nigeria.” Akwa Iborn
state Polytechnic College.

Pinto, A. C. (2009). Agricultural Cooperatives and Farmers Organizations-Role in Rural

Development and Poverty Reduction. Stockholm: Swedish Cooperative Center.

93
Prakash, D. (2000). Development of Agricultural Cooperatives –Relevance of Japanese
Experience to Developing Countries.” A Paper presented at the 14th ICA-Japan
International Training Course on Strengthening Management of Agricultural
Cooperatives in Asia held at IDACA-Japan on April 18 2000.

Sen, A. (1991). Poverty and Famines: An essay on Entitlement and Deprivation, English
Language Book Society. Oxford University Press

Sizya, M. J. (2001). “The Role Cooperatives Play in Poverty Reduction in Tanzania.” A Paper
Presented at the United Nations in observance of the International Day for the
Eradication of Poverty on 17 October 2001in Cooperative College Moshi.

Tegegne G/Egziabher (2001). Institutional Setting for Local Development Planning in Ethiopia.
Jetro: IDE.

Tegegne Teka (1984). “Cooperatives and National Development: The Ethiopian Experience.”
Institute of Development Research. Addis Ababa University.

______ (1988). “Rural Institutions in Post-Revolutionary Ethiopia: a focus on Agricultural

Producers’ Cooperatives.” Oxford Center for African Studies. Oxford University.

UN (2009). Cooperatives in Social Development: Report of the Secretary General.

Walton, J. (2001). “Agricultural Cooperatives in Ethiopia.” ACDI/VOCA.

Wanyama, F. O. et al. (2008). “Encountering the Evidence: cooperatives and Poverty Reduction
in Africa.” A Working paper on social and cooperative Entrepreneurship WP-SCE 08-02.
http://www.cooperatiefondernemen.be/WP/WP SCE 08-02.pdf (accessed on 03/11/2010).

Woldu G/selassie (2007). “Opportunities, Challenges and Contributions of Cooperatives for

Agricultural Benefits.” Unpublished M.A thesis. Addis Ababa University.

Working with Cooperatives for Poverty Reduction. (2010). Department for International
Development (DFID).

World Bank (2002). Report on World Development.

World Bank (2009). Poverty Reduction and Economic Management: Assessing the use of
Poverty and Social Impact Analysis in World Bank Development Policy Loans.

94
 Appendix 1

Instructions to the Interviewer

I. Read out the introductory statement to the respondents

II. During interview put ‘√’ mark in the boxes provided or in proper cell and fill responses in
the space provided otherwise
III. Ticking in more than one box is possible when it is necessary
IV. When the question is put in rating, put the number corresponding to each weight in
appropriate box.
Identifications

Questionnaire code No._______________________________________________

Name of Union_____________________________________________________
Name of Cooperative________________________________________________
Type of Cooperative_________________________________________________
Name of Interviewer_________________________________________________
Date of Interview___________________________________________________

DEAR RESPONDENT, THIS STUDY IS INTENDED TO EVALUATE THE ROLE OF

AGRICULTURAL MARKETING COOPERATIVES IN REDUCING RURAL
POVERTY. INFORMATION YOU PROVIDED WILL BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL
AND WILL ONLY BE USED FOR ACADEMIC PURPOSES. YOUR CO-
CO-OPERATION
IN PROVIDING YOUR HONEST VIEW IS VERY MUCH APPRECIATED.

Thank you!!

1. General Background of Respondents

1.1. Sex 1. Male 2. Female
95
 1.2. Age 1. Below 18 4. 36-45
2. 18-25 5. 46-55
3. 26-35 6. Above 55
1.3. Educational level:
1. Illiterate 5. Preparatory (11-12)
2. Read and write only 6. 1 st Degree
3. Elementary (1-8) 7. MA/MSc
4. High school (9-10) 8. Others (specify) _____
1.4. Occupational Background of the Respondent:
1. Farmer
2. Crafts person
3. Trader
4. Government employee
5. Private Co. employee
6. NGO employee
7. Others (specify) ________________________________
1.5. Household size_______

2. Household welfare status

2.1. Is/are there any Child/children aged 5 and above not attending school?
Yes No
2.2. Is/are there any Child/children died in the family? Yes No
2.2.1. If yes, at the age of _________
2.3. Does the house hold have electricity facility? Yes No
2.3.1. If yes, who delivered the facility?

1. Government
2. Cooperative
3. NGOs
4. Others (specify)______________________
2.4. Is there clean drinking water availability to the household? Yes No

96
 2.4.1. If yes, how far it is? _________minutes walk from home.
2.4.2. If your answer to Q No. 2.4 is yes, who delivered the facility?

1. Government
2. Cooperative
3. NGOs
4. Others (specify)______________________
2.5. The type of toilet that the household uses: private shared/public
2.5.1. If your answer to question no. 2.5 is Shared/public, Who built the toilet?
1. Government

2. Cooperative

3. NGOs

4. Others (specify) ______________________

2.6. The main material used for flooring of house: dirt sand dung
Others (specify) ____________________
2.7. The type of fuel used for cooking: wood charcoal dung
Others (specify) _____________________
2.8. What assets does the household have? (more than one answer is possible) Nothing
Radio Television telephone bike motor bike refrigerator
car or tractor others(specify)___________________

3. Membership in the Cooperative

3.1. Relation of the respondent with the cooperative:
1. Member only
2. Member and employee

3.2. How did you become member of the cooperative?

1. Willingly 3. Forced by government department
2. Forced by law 4. Forced by ` the society
5. Others (specify) ______________________________________

97
3.3. What was your purpose/objective of joining the cooperative? (Put the ‘
’ mark in
appropriate cell)
1. Not important 4. Highly important
2. Slightly important 5. Critically important
3. Moderately important

No Reasons Degree of importance

1 2 3 4 5

1 To get periodic dividend

2 To get access to employment

3 To get access to credit/loan service

4 To get access to input market

5 To get access to output/produce market

6 To get access to consumer goods

7 To get access to training

8 For other reasons (specify& rate)_________________

3.4. What are the criteria to get the cooperative’s membership status?
1. Not important 4. Highly important
2. Less important 5. Critically important
3. Moderately important

No Criteria Degree of importance

1 2 3 4 5

1 Ability to contribute the initial capital

2 Ability to pay periodic payment

3 Promise to buy goods/services from the cooperative

4 Promise to sell production output to/through the cooperative

5 Others (specify & rate)_______________________

3.5. Affordability of membership contribution to the cooperative (NA means not applicable)

98
 O = NA 1 = Very low 2= Low 3 = Moderate, 4 = High 5 = Very high
1. Amount of registration fee
2. Amount of share price
3. Amount of periodic contribution
4. Length of time interval for periodic contribution
3.6. In your opinion, which group of the community becomes member of the cooperative most of
the time (multiple answer is possible)
1. Low income groups 4. From all income groups
2. Middle income groups 5. Others (specify) __________________
3. High income groups
4. Services of the Cooperative
4.1. What services does the cooperative render to its members? (More than one answer is
possible)
1. Marketing agricultural inputs
2. Marketing agricultural produce
3. Marketing consumer goods
4. Credit/loan facility
5. Training, guidance and advice
6. Others (specify) _____________
4.2. For those inputs or services the cooperative provides, how do you rate access to and quality
of goods/or services relative to other currently available options?
1. No other option 4. Slightly better
2. Lower 5. Highly better
3. Similar
4.3. Can you access the goods/services of the cooperative on credit?
1. Yes 2. No

4.3.1. If your answer to the question 4.3 is yes, how do you rate the suitability of the credit
repayment arrangement?

99
 1. Very unsuitable 3. Suitable
2. Unsuitable 4. Very suitable
4.4. How does the cooperative purchase your produce?
1. On cash 2. On credit 3. Both cash and credit
4.5. Does the cooperative provide you timely and sufficient return (fund) to your produce?
1. Yes 2. No
4.6. What type of post-harvest services does the cooperative deliver?
1. Warehousing 4. Shipment/transportation
2. Grading 5. Market information
3. Packaging 6. Others (specify) ________
4.7. Is there any education, training or information given to you by the cooperative?
1. Yes 2. No
4.7.1. If your answer to Q. No 4.7 is yes, what was the focus?
1. Political issues
2. Cooperative nature and benefits
3. How to apply new technologies
4. How to generate income from different sources
5. Others (specify) ____________________
4.8. For those goods that the cooperative currently markets/trades, please rate the accessibility
and quality of market service provided relative to other/previous options.
(Use 1 = highly deteriorated, 2= Deteriorated, 3= Similar, 4= somehow improved,
5 = highly improved)

No Access to and quality of market provided by Rating

the cooperative
1 2 3 4 5

1 Adequacy of market service

2 Availability of market at any time

100
 3 Availability of market at short distance
(market proximity)

4 Fairness of market price

5 Other (specify and rate) ___________

4.9. How do you evaluate the cooperative’s achievement in introducing new agricultural technologies?
1. Very poor 3. Good
2. Poor 4. Very good

5. Economic Benefits
5.1. Does the cooperative pay you a regular dividend?
1. Yes 2. No
5.1.1. If your answer to Q. No. 5.1 is No, what do you think is the reason? (Multiple answers is possible)
1. The cooperative use the total surplus for investment purpose
2. No surplus is generated by the cooperative so far
3. The cooperative put the surplus in a bank for reserve
4. For some other reason (please specify) __________________
5. I do not know the reason
5.1.2. If your answer to Q. No. 5.1 is yes, how frequent is the dividend payment?
1. Monthly 3. Annually
2. Semi-annually 4. Other (specify) _____________
5.1.3. If your answer to Q. No. 5.1 is yes, the dividend payment is sufficient to fulfill the basic
requirements of your household.
1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree
2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree
5.1.4. If your answer to Q. No. 5.1 is yes, what purpose did you spend the income received as
dividend (multiple answers is possible)
1. for personal and family consumption
2. for repayment of debt/loan

101
 3. Deposited in a bank
4. Purchase/building of fixed/capital assets
5. Others (specify) ____________________
5.2. Do you think that being a member of the cooperative improved your expenditure?
1. Yes 2. No
5.2.1. If your answer to Q. No. 5.2 above is yes, how did it improve your expenditure (multiple
answers is possible)
1. By increasing saving
2. By increasing asset building (investment in long term items)
3. By smoothing consumption
4. Others (specify) ________________
5.2.2. If your answer to Q No. 5.2.1 above is asset building, what are the basic assets you built or
bought after you become member of the cooperative? (Multiple answers is possible)
1. Built House
2. Purchased farm aids such as machineries and oxen
3. Purchased home equipments such as TV and refrigerator
4. Others (specify)_______________________________
5.2.3. If your answer to Q. No. 5.2 is yes, which of your expenditure became better? (More
than one answer is possible)
1. expenditure on daily consumption items
2. expenditure on children schooling
3. expenditure on family health care
4. expenditure on long term assets
5. others (specify)________________________________
5.3. Does the cooperative created additional income?
Yes No
5.3.1. If your answer to Q. No. 5.3 above is No, what do you think is the problem?
______________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________
5.3.2. If your answer to Q. No. 5.3 above is yes, in what way the cooperative created additional
income? (Multiple answers is possible)

102
 1. By securing higher price for my produce
2. By lowering input costs
3. By creating employment opportunities
4. By introducing new and efficient technologies
5. By providing training to increase productivity
6. Others (specify) ________________________________________________

6. Participation in Community Affairs

6.1. In what type of community development activities has the cooperative participated so far?
(Multiple answers is possible) (NA means not applicable) 0 = NA, 1 = Very unsatisfactory,
2 = Unsatisfactory, 3 = Satisfactory, 4 = Very satisfactory

No Community/social affairs Level of participation

0 1 2 3 4

1 Education (school building and so on)

2 Health care services

3 Utilities (water and electricity)

4 Housing

5 Environment (sanitation)

6 Conflict resolution, peace building and social

cohesion

7 Avoiding harmful practices and norms

8 Fostering good citizenship

9 Others (specify and rate) _______________

6.1.1 If your choice on Q. No. 6.1 is ‘education’ how did the cooperative involved in
educational activities?
1. building schools
2. purchasing school materials
3. hiring of teachers
4. covering school fee for those unable to pay
5. others (specify)_______________________________
6.1.2 If your choice on Q. No. 6.1 is ‘health care’, how did the cooperative involved in health
care activities?
103
 1. building clinics and health centres
2. purchasing clinical materials
3. hiring of health workers
4. covering medical costs for patients who are unable to cover
5. others (specify)_______________________________
7. Empowerment of men and women
7.1. Level of awareness on the different aspects of the cooperative
0 = Nil 1= Very little 2 = Little 3 = Well 4= Very well

No Cooperative aspects Level of awareness

0 1 2 3 4

1 Objective of the cooperative

2 Rights of Members

3 Duties and responsibilities of members

4 Management committee members of the

cooperative

5 Types of services provided by the cooperative

6 Number of members of the cooperative

7 Current capital of the cooperative

7.2. Do you participate in the election process of leaders of the cooperative?

1. Yes 2. No
7.2.1. If your answer to Q. No. 7.2 above is No, what do you think is the reason?
1. The system does not allow me
2. I am not willing to participate
3. For some other reasons (please specify) ______________________
7.2.2. If the answer to Q. No. 7.2 above is yes, how do you participate?
1. In general assembly
2. In representative committee
3. Others (please specify) _____________________
7.3. How do you evaluate the commitment of the cooperative in empowering you?

104
 1= Very unsatisfactory 2 = Unsatisfactory
3 = Satisfactory 4 = Very satisfactory

No Strategies Level of Satisfaction

1 2 3 4

1 Political commitment to serving and

protecting your political, economic, social and
legal rights

2 Policy reforms and actions to enable you to

gain access to assets so as to make you less
vulnerable

3 Education and health care for all

4 safe water and sanitation

5 Social safety nets to prevent you from falling

in to destitution or to rescue from disaster

8. Overall views of respondents

8.1. The cooperative promotes access to credit service for the local community
1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree
2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree
8.2. The cooperative promotes access to input for the local community
1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree
2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree

8.2.1. Are there major problems you encountered so far with respect to access to inputs?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
8.2.2. What do you think should be the remedial action to overcome the problem/s?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________

105
8.3. The cooperative promotes access to market for output/produce for the local community?
1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree
2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree
8.3.1. Are there major problems you encountered so far with respect to access to market for
output?__________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________

8.3.2. What do you think should be the remedial action to overcome the problem/s?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
8.4. The cooperative promotes capital accumulation/asset building by the local people?
1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree
2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree
8.4.1 What should the co-operatives do to promote local capital accumulation/asset building/?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
8.5. Do you think that there is improvement in your livelihood after being a member of the
cooperative?
1. No change at all 3. To some extent
2. Insignificant change 4. To large extent
8.6. Do you suggest a cooperative business should continue?
1. Yes 2. No
8.7. Do you think that a cooperative business brought improvements in the living condition of
the community? Yes No
8.8. Would you please state the major strengths and weaknesses of the cooperative?
Strengthes_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
Weaknesses_______________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________

106
 _________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
8.9. What should the cooperative do to promote the improvement of quality of living in rural
areas?
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________

107
 Appendix 2

Official’s Interview guiding questions

1. What are the criteria to be a member of the cooperative?

2. What are the rights and duties of the cooperative’s members?
3. How is the dividend distribution system?
4. How is the cooperative controlled?
5. To whom audit report is presented?
6. In what type of community development activities does the cooperative participated so
far?
7. What about future plan?
8. What is the role of the cooperative in equity distribution of wealth?
9. Are there major factors that constrain efficiency and goal achievement of the
cooperative?
10. What remedial action do you suggest to solve these problems?
11. What are the partner organizations to the cooperative?

Appendix 3

Guiding issues for Focus Group Discussions

The role of the cooperative in reducing rural/local poverty

The economic benefits of the cooperative

Social development promotion role of the cooperative

Problems related to the contribution of the cooperatives’ role in socio-economic development
of the locality

Remedial actions needed

108
Appendix 4

109
 Declaration

I, the undersigned, declare that this is my original work and has not been presented for a degree
in any other university, and all source of materials used for the study has been duly
acknowledged.

Declared by: Alemu Tereda

Signature __________

Date: June 16, 2010

Confirmed by advisor:

Name: Tegegne Teka (PhD)

Signature ________________

Date ______________

110