amhara regional state bureau of agriculture
TRANSCRIPT
AMHARA REGIONAL STATE BUREAU OF AGRICULTURE
PARTICIPATORY SMALL SCALE IRRIGATION PROGRAM
(PASIDP II)
ASSESMENT ON STATUS AND EXISTING CHALLANGES AFFECTING
IRRIGATION INPUT AND MARKETING COOPERATIVE FUNCTIONALITY IN
PASIDP II INTERVENTION AREAS OF AMHRARA REGION
1Shiferaw Solomon and 2Ewnetu Yeshiwas
January 2020,
Bahir Dar,Ethiopia
1 Agribusiness Specialist- PASIDP II-Amhara 2 Cooperative Marketing Expert- ANRS Cooperative promotion Agency
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
i | P a g e
Abbreviations and Acronyms
AGB Agribusiness
ANRS Amhara National Regional State
BoA Bureau of Agriculture
BoFEC Bureau of Finance and Economic Cooperation
COOP Cooperatives
CPA Cooperative Promotion Agency
CSA Central Statistical Agency
FGD Focus Group Discussion
FPCU Federal Program Coordination Unit
GoE Government of Ethiopia
HVC High value Crops
IFAD International Fund for Agriculture
IIMC Irrigation Input and Marketing Cooperatives
IWUA Irrigation Water Users Associations
MAA Market Access Alliance
PASIDP I Participatory Small Scale Irrigation development Program I
PASIDP II Participatory Small Scale Irrigation development Program II
PDO Programme Development Objective
RPCU Regional Program Coordination Unit
RuSACCO Rural saving and Credit Cooperatives
SSI Small Scale Irrigation
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
ii | P a g e
Contents
Abbreviations and Acronyms .......................................................................................................... i
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. iii
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 4
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 5
1.1. Background-Cooperative ................................................................................................. 5
1.2. PASIDP II and Agribusiness ................................................................................................ 6
2. Objective .................................................................................................................................. 7
3. Significance of the Study ......................................................................................................... 7
4. Scope and Limitations ............................................................................................................. 8
5. Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 9
5.1. Description of the Area .................................................................................................... 9
5.2. Data Type and Source .................................................................................................... 11
5.3. Sampling Techniques ..................................................................................................... 11
5.4. Data Analysis ................................................................................................................. 13
6. Result and Discussion ............................................................................................................ 14
6.1. Status of Irrigation Input & Marketing Cooperatives in PASIDP II intervention area .. 14
6.1.1. Membership, Members Participation and Governance ........................................... 14
6.1.2. Internal Capital and Financial services Status ........................................................ 16
6.1.3. Facilities/Furniture, office, storage and land certification ...................................... 17
6.1.4. Audit and profit Dividend ....................................................................................... 18
6.1.5. Vertical Integration ................................................................................................. 19
6.1.6. Marketing through cooperatives ............................................................................. 20
6.2. Challenges Affecting Irrigation Input and Marketing cooperatives Functionality ........ 21
6.2.1. Household Interview Results .................................................................................. 22
6.2.2. Professionals, Key informant and FGD results on Challenges Affecting IIMCs functionality ...... 23
6.2.3. Cause Effect and Possible Solutions ....................................................................... 28
7. Conclusion and Recommendation ......................................................................................... 30
8. References ............................................................................................................................. 32
9. Annex..................................................................................................................................... 33
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
iii | P a g e
List of Tables
Table 1: Geographic Location Of Pasidp Ii Agribusiness Intervention Areas ............................... 9
Table 2: Distribution Of Sampled Cooperative Member Respondents ........................................ 12
Table 3: Implementers Interviewed .............................................................................................. 12
Table 4 IIMCs Member Vs. Potential Comparison ...................................................................... 15
Table 5 Capital Status Of Iimcs In Pasidp Intervention Areas ..................................................... 17
Table 6 Cooperative Facilities ...................................................................................................... 18
Table 7 Audit And Patronage Dividend By Cooperatives ............................................................ 19
Table 8 IIMCs Stats On Office, Storage Facilities And Marketing Linkage Activities ............... 21
Table 9 Constraints In Irrigation Input And Marketing Cooperatives .......................................... 23
Table 10 Challenges Affecting Iimcs Functionality ..................................................................... 24
Table 11: Problems, Cause, Effect And Suggested Possible Solutions ........................................ 28
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
PASIDP II Amhara Page 4
Abstract
With a general objective, to assess the status and existing challenges facing irrigation input and
marketing cooperatives, this assessment overview the current status of irrigation input and
marketing cooperatives and identify constraints which affect IIMCs functionality in PASIDP II
intervention areas of Amhara Region. For Irrigation input and marketing cooperatives status
assessment all 31 IIMCs’ basic and current data was considered. While for assessment of
challenges affecting IIMC functionality stratified sampling based on the projects time, of 12
PASIDP I schemes 3 are purposively selected, from 19 PASIDP II and new schemes 5 are selected
purposively based on geographic demonstrative. Number of households were determined and
selected for interview based on the proportionate of irrigation users and cooperative members in
each scheme. For the sake of triangulating, data were collected with conducting focus group
discussions and key informants interview were employed. Based on the assessment membership,
capital formation, facilities like furniture, office, and storage and land certification status of IIMCs
in the region are limited. Only 9 IIMCs are audited and 6 IIMCs pay patronage dividend for
members. Vertical integration or union formation is better in both irrigation input and marketing
cooperative unions and RUSACCO unions. 14 cooperatives started supply inputs (seed) to their
members. Only three cooperatives sold their members product through marketing linkage and
commissioning. About three cooperative facilitate financial service to members through
RuSACCO unions to their members. The major challenges hinder irrigation input and marketing
cooperatives functionality are limited internal capital and loan problems; lack of integration among
stakeholders, low participation of members in cooperative activities, input problem and
fragmented production, lack of transparency and accountability, unhealthy competition and
marketing linkages, limited capacity of management Committee, Poor market infrastructure and
low awareness background of members. Like other cooperatives, the cooperative promotion agency
at all level should give attention to irrigation input and marketing cooperative, improve good
governance accountability and transparency, pay patronage dividend to members” by the IIMCs,
To improve financial access all members should be a member of local RuSACCO and IIMCs
should be a member of RuSACCO Union, mobilization, sensitization and awareness creation are
needed to alleviate financial problems; this will in turn attract funding agency and credit
institutions. Women involvement in leadership should be improved. ‘Market Access Alliance’
should be established where the farmer, cooperatives and consumers should be joined to facilitate
marketing.
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
PASIDP II Amhara Page 5
1. Introduction
1.1. Background-Cooperative
According to the international cooperative alliance (ICA, 1995) “A cooperative is defined 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”.
Cooperatives around the world are guided by the same seven principles: - voluntary and open
membership; democratic member control; member economic participation; autonomy and
independence; education, training, and information; cooperation among cooperatives; and concern
for community.
Cooperatives have a long history in Ethiopia, while their growth is not effective as equating to their
age. In Amhara region there are more than 22 types of cooperatives including irrigation input and
marketing cooperatives. Irrigation input and Marketing cooperatives(IIMC) are needed to the
region since the agricultural sector of region is dominated by scattered small-scale farmers, which
demands effective aggregations and marketing system that promote economy of scale especially
for those commodities where the private sector has limited interest and cooperatives can play a key
role. Input provision and output marketing of irrigation crops need more attention than ever we
have seen in agricultural marketing needs cooperatives that believe in self-help, social
responsibility caring for members.
The regional cooperative promotion agencies had established irrigation cooperatives in modern
irrigation schemes after completion of the construction. But as we know the legal framework of
cooperatives is not an appropriate legal basis for IWUAs. Not surprisingly, a very frequent problem
is low membership of irrigation cooperatives. Non-members are often the majority of farmers, and
they do not recognize the irrigation cooperative (IC) as the institution responsible for the
management of their irrigation scheme and therefore do not adhere to the irrigation cooperative’s
rules and regulations and refuse to pay the irrigation fee to the irrigation cooperative. The irrigation
cooperative is considered to be weak by farmers as it lacks sufficient authority and support among
the farmers to enforce rules and regulations related to management, operation and maintenance of
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
PASIDP II Amhara Page 6
the irrigation system. This lead to a breakdown of this cooperative in to irrigation input and
marketing cooperative and irrigation water users association; leaving the water management to the
IWUA.
The IIMCs may undertake, in addition to procurement of inputs and sale of produce also storage
and processing, etc. In that case, it is extremely difficult for them to have all the necessary capacity
for doing so adequately. Moreover, cooperatives are subject to marketing risks and may face
financial difficulties forcing them into debt. That is a threat to the sustainability of irrigation
development. Due to these complexes IIMCs are separated from IWUAs leaving all scheme
management to the association and focusing on business activities like marketing of members’
input and irrigation products in aggregate for a satisfaction of members.
1.2. PASIDP II and Agribusiness
Government of Ethiopia (GOE) and IFAD have been implementing a programmatic approach with
a longer-term vision for lending in the Ethiopian small-scale irrigation subsector. Participatory
Small Scale Irrigation Development Program (PASIDP II) has been proposed based on the
assumption that poor farmers with access to a secure irrigation development will be able to produce
and market greater volume of products in a profitable manner. The Program Development
Objective (PDO) is to provide improved income and food security for rural households on a
sustainable basis. PASIDP II has three major components: (i) Investment in Small-scale Irrigation
Infrastructure, (ii) Investment in Capacity for Sustainable Agriculture, and (iii) Program
Management, M&E, and Knowledge Management (PIM, 2017).
During phase I/ 2008-2015 PASIDP I constructed 28 small scale irrigations (SSI) in Amhara
region. While during this phase (phase two) January 2017 onwards PASIDP II program completed
22 SSI and started agriculture and agribusiness development, while other 13 are in progress with in
this short period of time. The PASIDP II targets food insecure Woredas. Developing agri-business
linkages and market access is one of the main sub-components of this program included in the
second component of the program. The objective of the component is to strengthen the marketing
and agribusiness of irrigation based products in the project areas. Thus, the expected outcome of
this program component with motto “ we do nothing until we create marketing access and
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
PASIDP II Amhara Page 7
agribusiness linkage to smallholder farmers” would be “increase in percentage of volume and value
of sales of the major irrigation based commodities supported by the program”. It will support a
range of activities designed to ensure that the beneficiaries operate in an environment that is more
conducive to rural commercial development.
It is financing the strengthening of farmers’ cooperatives, the development of agribusiness linkages
(market access alliance/MAA) and access to financial services. It supports improving participation,
awareness, knowledge and skill and business linkages of the private business enterprises (e.g. small
farmers, cooperatives/unions, processors, assemblers, wholesalers, retailers, exporters and relevant
public agencies).
2. Objective
The general objective is to assess the status and existing challenges facing irrigation input and
marketing cooperatives in PASIDP II intervention areas of Amhara Region.
Specifically:
To Overview the current Status of Irrigation input and marketing cooperatives in PASIDP
II intervention areas of Amhara Region
To identify constraints which affect IIMCs functionality in the area
Startup Questions:
1. What are the existing status/ functionality of IIMC in the intervention area?
2. What are the challenges that hinder IIMC functionality (internal and external?)
3. Significance of the Study
The cooperative movement has, however, for a long period of time been burdened with serious
weaknesses and problems. The three basic weaknesses are: the economic viability of the major
activities undertaken, the cooperative leadership and management capacity, and the lack of
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
PASIDP II Amhara Page 8
democratic control by the members (FAO, 1994). While this assessment will approve occurrence of
these weakness to irrigation input and marketing cooperatives especially to PASIDP II intervention
area of Amhara Region. IIMCs have no more attention by the cooperative promotion agency as
other cooperatives. So this assessment recommendation will support for more attention to
strengthen and functioning of IIMC in the region.
This assessment is hopefully expected to become a stepping stone for others who would like
to conduct further research and assessments pertaining to this agenda. Surely, it would be
useful to address the need, status and challenges of IIMC and members to benefit from their
cooperative by taking the intervention area into consideration.
4. Scope and Limitations
The scope of this study is to assess the status and major Challenges that affect the Irrigation
marketing Cooperatives functionality to their members in ANRS, Eight (8) Zones, twenty (20)
Woredas, and thirty one (31) IIMCs those are open to agribusiness development interventions. A
sample from members were selected and data was collected and analyzed for those samples only,
to see level of functionality while to show the recent conditions and performances in the irrigation
marketing cooperatives scheme based census is considered. This assessment is limited in status and
challenges affecting IIMCs functionality, due to constraints of time, resources and scope targeted.
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
PASIDP II Amhara Page 9
5. Methodology
5.1. Description of the Area
Amhara Region with a total surface area of 157,076 km2 divided in to 11 administrative zones and
150 Districts i.e. 128 rural & 22 town administrations. Based on CSA, 2013 projections
Demographic situation of the Amhara region (2014-2037) shows a total population size to 22.14
million for this year. The population of the region accounts for roughly 24 percent of the total
population of the country while in terms of area; the region contributes around 15 percent.
Regarding the settlement pattern, the overwhelming majority, i.e. nearly 87.1 percent of the
population, resides in rural areas and is engaged mainly in agriculture. Societal dependency ratio of
the region is 87 per cent. The average life expectancy at birth is roughly 54 years.
While PASIDP II intervention area includes food insured Woredas while for the moment, for
agribusiness purpose it intervene also in a few western Amhara region PASIDP I schemes. See the
detail in table 1 and figure 1and 2 below.
Table 1: Geographic Location of PASIDP II Agribusiness Intervention Areas
Zone Wereda Kebele Scheme
Awi
N/Zone
Dangila Gayeta U/Quashini
Gissan Kisan Gizani
Banja Askuna Buchiksi
Sureta Alita Tilku Fetam
Guagussa
Shiqudad Jebita Tineshu Fetam
W/Gojjam Wenberma Sebadar Kallu
D/Damot Arfa Gimbara
E/Gojjam Machakel Werekema Jedeb-4
N/Showa
Asagirt Tamo Amitu
Mojana Wedera
Zubaba&Feres
Megalebya Keskash
Oromo
N/Zone
Jili Timuga Wesen Korkur Wesen Korkur
Balechi Sewur-3
Artuma Fursi Beshi Edada Borkena
D/Chafa Tuche Beteho
S/Wello
Argoba Gubera 07 Meleka Gubira
Kallu Abecho Cheleka
Werebabu Chali/012 Chali
Tehuleder Segelen &Tebisa Bureka
N/Wello Kobo K012 Amid
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
PASIDP II Amhara Page 10
Zone Wereda Kebele Scheme
Aburie Gollina-1
Afaf/022 Gollina-2
Amaya Gobu-1
Jarota/04 Gobu-3
Kidesegi/05 Gobu-4
Mekit K021 Shema Matebia
C/Gonder
East Belessa Goga & Akite Bahirlibo
W/Belessa
Ferefer Agamwuha
Dawech Mena Dawech
Debegzie Gullana
Kinfaze Begela Filikelik Ambowuha
Tebtebeta Aderkayena
8 20 39 31
Figure 1: Map of PASIDP II Agribusiness Intervention Areas
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
PASIDP II Amhara Page 11
Figure 2: PASIDP II Schemes for Agribusiness Intervention
5.2. Data Type and Source
The primary and secondary data was collected from members and non-members of cooperatives
among the beneficiaries of the program, implementing actors, service providers and other
institutions accordingly. The quantitative and qualitative data was gathered through household
interview, Focus Group Discussion and formal interview through prepared questioner to
implementer officials and experts (see the annexed questionnaires).
5.3. Sampling Techniques
For Irrigation input and marketing cooperatives status assessment (first specific objective) all 31
IIMCs’ basic and current data was considered. While for assessment of challenges affecting IIMC
functionality (second specific objective) stratified sampling based on the projects time, of 12
PASIDP I schemes 3 are purposively selected, from 19 PASIDP II and new schemes 5 are selected
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
PASIDP II Amhara Page 12
purposively based on geographic demonstrative. Number of households were determined and
selected for interview based on the proportionate of irrigation users and cooperative members in
each scheme.
For the sake of triangulating, data were collected with conducting focus group discussions (FGD),
8 FGDs were conducted with management committee members of sample cooperatives. Moreover,
key informants interview (KII) was employed with Woreda and zonal cooperative promoters
through interview guide check list (see the attached checklist in annex II and IV).
Table 2: Distribution of sampled Cooperative member respondents
No Name of
Irrigation
marketing
Cooperatives
Total Irrigation marketing
Cooperatives members /Sample
frame/
Decided
Sample
size
Remark
Male Female Total
1 U/Quashini 311 75 386 31 PASIDP I
2 Buchiksi 414 73 487 34 PASIDP I
3 Mojana Wedera 153 20 173 19 PASIDP II
4 Wesen Korkur 73 22 95 11 PASIDP I
5 Tehuledrie 75 12 87 10 PASIDP II
6 Amid 70 14 84 9 PASIDP II
7 Shema Matebia 47 11 58 6 New
8 Mena Dawechi 61 3 64 7 PASIDP II
Total 1204 230 1434 128
Before households questionnaires prepared, 87 Zonal, Wereda and Kebele level implementers/
governmental were interviewed with open ended questionnaires during July/2019 Deber Tabor
annual review workshop. Its’ purpose was for identification of major challenges that facing IIMCs
and members that hinder coops functionality and members benefit. These implementers were from
different agribusiness implementer offices such as agriculture office, Trade and Marketing office,
Cooperative Promotion offices concerned cooperative promotion and marketing experts,
horticulture linkage experts, irrigation agronomy experts, process coordinators and office heads.
Table 3: Implementers Interviewed
N
o.
Implementers office Office
head
Process
Coordinator
Experts Total Remark
1 Agriculture office 4 2 15 21
2 Trade & Marketing Development
Offices
3 15 13 31
3 Cooperative Promotion Offices 11 9 15 35
Total 18 26 43 87
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
PASIDP II Amhara Page 13
5.4. Data Analysis
Both qualitative and quantitative techniques of data analysis were used to describe and analyze the
assessment questions. The data collected from household survey were organized, coded and
entered in to STATA software version 16 and Microsoft Excel 2010. And, descriptive statistics
such as frequency, percentages, graphs and tabular ways of data presentation were used and then
the figures were analyzed and interpreted. On the other hand, data gathered from interview, and
focus group discussions were first categorized thematically, and written up in to narrative, then it
was followed by analysis and interpretation and triangulation of results.
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
14 | P a g e
6. Result and Discussion
6.1. Status of Irrigation Input & Marketing Cooperatives in PASIDP II intervention area
Here Cooperative basic data and current data are collected from the cooperative audit report and
Wereda reports, Based on formal data collection format (see Annex 9.1.I-V). The basic parameters
used to see the status of any cooperative is broadly categorized in to organizational functionality,
financial status( internal capital) and effectiveness on marketing ( objective of establishment). The
following are considered as basic parameters to evaluate status of the cooperative:
Membership and members participation and governance
Internal Capital and financial services
Marketing
6.1.1. Membership, Members Participation and Governance
Even though one is voluntary and open membership, according to irrigation input and marketing
cooperative guideline all irrigation water users are expected to be a member of the IIMC. While the
assessment showed quite different result, majority of the IIMC have members much less than the
expected. Of the 31 IIMCs only 6 IIMCs i.e 19% IIMC (Buchiksi, Gizani, Tineshu Fetam and
Gimebara) have best performance in this regard, while others are far away from the expected targets
(see table 4 below).
Here the difference cooperative members’ vs. potential members are quite different from scheme to
scheme; new schemes need more effort to improve cooperative membership. It is because of
cooperative members are a basic element for cooperative strengthening and power of marketing
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
15 | P a g e
Table 4 IIMCs member vs. Potential comparison
Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total
1 Quashini IIMC U/Quashini 451 57 508 338 54 392 113 3 116
2 Bereket IIMC Gizani 84 13 97 83 6 89 1 7 8
3 Midere Genet IIMC Buchiksi 191 57 248 454 65 519
4 Fetam IIMC Tilku Fetam 298 14 312 230 14 244 68 0 68
5 Tadess Fetam IIMC Tineshu Fetam 247 33 280 252 80 3326 Kallu IIMC Kallu 141 49 190 140 49 189 1 0 1
7 Gimbara IIMC Gimbara 120 44 164 86 23 109 34 21 55
8 Andenet IIMC Jedeb-4 551 125 676 298 41 339 253 84 3379 Demeko IIMC Amitu 351 61 412 154 21 175 197 40 237
10 Keskash IIMC Keskash 166 93 259 100 39 139 66 54 120
11 Wesen Korkur IIMC Wesen Korkur 136 23 159 73 22 95 63 1 64
12 Baleche IIMC Sewur-3 81 16 97 44 2 46 37 14 51
13 Butu Borkena 180 48 228 58 13 71 122 35 15714 Boda IIMC Beteho 285 49 334 113 49 162 172 0 172
15 Meleka Gubira IIMC Meleka Gubira 95 9 104 82 7 89 13 2 15
16 Cheleka IIMC Cheleka 81 7 88 69 7 76 12 0 12
17 Chali IIMC Chali 113 26 139 102 17 119 11 9 2018 Burka IIMC Bureka 95 23 118 82 14 96 13 9 22
19 Amid IIMC Amid 142 24 166 84 24 108 58 0 58
20 Gollina-1 IIMC Gollina-1 562 301 863 320 102 422 242 199 441
21 Gollina-2 Gollina-2 411 135 546 411 135 546
22 Gobu-1 IIMC Gobu-1 342 158 500 311 37 348 31 121 152
23 Gobu-3 Gobu-3 317 93 410 317 93 410
24 Gobu-4 Gobu-4 225 43 268 225 43 268
25 Shemamatebia ShemaMatebia 288 69 357 66 11 77 222 58 280
26 Bahirlibo IIMC Bahirlibo 83 5 88 83 5 88 0 0 0
27 Agamuha IIMC Agamwuha 356 80 436 103 103 253 80 33328 MenaDawech IIMC Mena Dawech 282 38 320 57 0 57 225 38 263
29 Gullana IIMC Gullana 333 87 420 215 7 222 118 80 198
30 AmboWuha IIMC Ambowuha 157 11 168 155 9 164 2 2 4
31 Lemlemu Agecha IIMC Aderkayena 229 21 250 181 8 189 48 13 61
7393 1812 9205 4333 726 5059 3328 1141 4146Total
Sno. IIMC SchemeBeneficiaries Coop Non- MembersCoop Members
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
16 | P a g e
Figure 4 Irrigation water Users vs IIMC members assessment
Source own computations
Regarding to members participation; focus group discussion result showed members didn’t participate
in any of activities and they don’t consider this cooperatives as their own. Election of the committee is
not participatory lacks transparency and accountability. It is a sign of bad governance. Weak
governance structure may result due to lack of accountability among the committee members. The
members of their elected representative are not experienced enough to manage the coops. Because of
limited capital they are not able to get professional management. All IIMCs, except Tineshu Fetam
IIMC in PASIDP II interventional area have no recruited employees. They are still being managed by
management committee on a voluntary basis. As a result of the absence of permanent employees or a
professional management team in cooperatives, the governance and accountability of cooperatives
have been affected to large extent. The main reason for the cooperative organizations to fail is lack of
integrity among the management and the members of cooperatives with limited number of cooperative
membership vs. the potential members.
6.1.2. Internal Capital and Financial services Status
As we know members are the major source capital for cooperatives. While capital is limited to these
coops leads to law performance in marketing activities like provision of input and product marketing.
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
17 | P a g e
Table 5 Capital Status of IIMCs in PASIDP Intervention areas
Source IIMCs reports, January, 2020
Cooperatives like Gobu-1 and Wesenkorkur that performed marketing linkage to members are in a
better position in terms of capital than others. As we see from the table a total capital of all 31 PASIDP
II IIMCs is 910,282.37 Birr; it is quite small comparing to the potential. Based on this assessment
report all IIMCs capital is very limited and can’t prove alleviation of members’ problem on input
provision and output marketing. So capital formation should be a prior agenda to have a strong
cooperative for the members’ satisfaction.
6.1.3. Facilities/Furniture, office, storage and land certification
Majority IIMCs have no office and warehouse except their handover campus made of corrugated sheet
and chip wood houses. Land certification for cooperative ownership is also a serious problem; only
Sno. IIMC Capital in Birr
1 Quashini IIMC 55,815.00
2 Bereket IIMC 23,614.43
3 Midere Genet IIMC 79,823.60
4 Fetam IIMC 10,830.00
5 Tadess Fetam IIMC 33,706.53
6 Kallu IIMC 65,450.00
7 Gimbara IIMC 13,106.22
8 Andenet IIMC 43,572.46
9 Demeko IIMC 12,460.00
10 Keskash IIMC 87,785.00
11 Wesen Korkur IIMC 72,408.78
12 Baleche IIMC 6,900.00
13 Butu 7,100.00
14 Boda IIMC 44,174.35
15 Meleka Gubira IIMC 58,000.00
16 Cheleka IIMC 7,800.00
17 Chali IIMC 15,470.00
18 Burka IIMC 6,090.00
19 Amid IIMC 37,930.00
20 Gollina-1 IIMC 54,330.00
21 Gollina-2 -
22 Gobu-1 IIMC 107,146.00
23 Gobu-3 -
24 Gobu-4 -
25 Shemamatebia 6,930.00
26 Bahirlibo IIMC 8,300.00
27 Agamuha IIMC 5,150.00
28 MenaDawech IIMC 9,800.00
29 Gullana IIMC 16,100.00
30 AmboWuha IIMC 9,150.00
31 Lemlemu Agecha IIMC 11,340.00
910,282.37 Total
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
18 | P a g e
six IIMCs have realized their land certification (Jedeb-4, Tineshu Fetam, Tiliku Fetam, Wesen korkur,
sure-3 and Beteho IIMCs) see table 6 for details. While the majority of the cooperatives (24 of 31)
have furniture like shelve, chair, Bench and tables.
Table 6 cooperative Facilities
6.1.4. Audit and profit Dividend
About 9 of IIMCs audited and have annual audit reports, while only six cooperatives pay patronage
dividend for members (see table 7 below). All audit reports showed no embezzlement of cash
resource. This may be because of no transaction is made during the previous year in the cooperatives.
1 Quashini IIMC X X X2 Bereket IIMC X X X3 Midere Genet IIMC X X X4 Fetam IIMC X5 Tadess Fetam IIMC X X X X6 Kallu IIMC X7 Gimbara IIMC X X X8 Andenet IIMC X X X X9 Demeko IIMC X
10 Keskash IIMC X11 Wesen Korkur IIMC X X X X12 Baleche IIMC X X X X13 Butu IIMc14 Boda IIMC X X X X15 Meleka Gubira IIMC X16 Cheleka IIMC
17 Chali IIMC18 Burka IIMC19 Amid IIMC X20 Gollina-1 IIMC X X X21 Gollina-2 X22 Gobu-1 IIMC X X X23 Gobu-3 X24 Gobu-4 X25 Shemamatebia26 Bahirlibo IIMC27 Agamuha IIMC28 MenaDawech IIMC X X X29 Gullana IIMC X X X30 AmboWuha IIMC
31 Lemlemu Agecha IIMC X X X
Total 24 14 14 6
Sno.
Irrigation Input and
Marketing
Coopertive
OfficeStorage/Ware
house Facilites
Land
certificateFurniture
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
19 | P a g e
Table 7 Audit and patronage dividend by cooperatives
6.1.5. Vertical Integration
It is formation of unions and federations of primary cooperatives. Here IIMCs of PASIDP
intervention area started to form irrigation input and marketing cooperative unions or entered to
already established horticulture unions and RuSACCO unions.
With a great effort 10 IIMCs are already members of irrigation input and marketing cooperative
unions. These are:
U/Quashini IIMC to Zenegena Union
Gizani (Berket) IIMC to Zenegena Union
Buchiksi (Mederegenet) IIMC to Zenegena Union
Tineshu Fetam (Tadess Fetam) IIMC- to Zenegena Union
Sno. Coop Name Audit
Pay
patronage
dividend
Business
Plan
1 Quashini IIMC - - X
2 Bereket IIMC - - X
3 Midere Genet IIMC X X X
4 Fetam IIMC X X X
5 Tadess Fetam IIMC X X X
6 Kallu IIMC - - -
7 Gimbara IIMC X X -
8 Andenet IIMC - - X
9 Demeko IIMC - - X
10 Keskash IIMC - - X
11 Wesen Korkur IIMC - - X
12 Baleche IIMC - - -
13 Butu IIMC - - X
14 Boda IIMC - - X
15 Meleka Gubira IIMC - - X
16 Cheleka IIMC - - -
17 Chali IIMC - - X
18 Burka IIMC X - -
19 Amid IIMC X X X
20 Gollina-1 IIMC X X X
21 Gollina-2 - - -
22 Gobu-1 IIMC X X X
23 Gobu-3 - - -
24 Gobu-4 - - -
25 Shemamatebia - - X
26 Bahirlibo IIMC - - X
27 Agamuha IIMC - - X
28 MenaDawech IIMC X - X
29 Gullana IIMC - - X
30 AmboWuha IIMC - - -
31 Lemlemu Agecha IIMC - - -
Total 9 6 21
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
20 | P a g e
Kallu IIMC to Adeget Union
Wesen Korkur IIMC to Chefa Union
Beteho (Boda) IIMC to Chefa Union
Gobu-1 IIMC to Semin Wegagen Union
Amid IIMC to Semin Wegagen Union
Gollina-1 IIMC to Semin Wegagen Union
The following 11 IIMC are also a member of nearby RuSSACCO union to alleviate saving and
credit problems of the cooperative and its’ members
U/Quashini IIMC to Sosur union
Gizani (Berket) IIMC to sosur union
Buchiksi (Mederegenet) IIMC to Kokeb Union
Tiliku Fetam IIMC to Kokeb union
Tineshu Fetam (Tadess Fetam) IIMC to Kokeb union
Kallu IIMC to Gohe Union
Gimebara to Jabi union
Gedebe-4 (Andenet) IIMC to Menkorer union
Gobu-1 IIMC to Bisert union
Amid IIMC to Biserat union
Gollina-1 IIMC to Biserat union
6.1.6. Marketing through cooperatives
Here 14 cooperatives started supply inputs (seed) to their members. Only three cooperatives sold their
members product through marketing linkage and commissioning. About three cooperative facilitate
financial service to members through RuSACCO unions to their members (see table 8).
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
21 | P a g e
Table 8 IIMCs stats on office, storage Facilities and Marketing linkage activities
Soure Coopertive Status assessment data (January, 2020)
The vegetable and fruits marketing cooperatives and unions do have specific constraints unlike to
other cooperatives involved in other crops, which is linked with the specific nature of the products
mainly associated with their perishability, maturing in similar seasons, high cost of storage, and the
need for maximum care during transportation; and the poor national marketing systems.
.
6.2. Challenges Affecting Irrigation Input and Marketing cooperatives Functionality
Cooperatives are formed with the idea of mutual co-operation. Every cooperative is developed to
render quality and quantity service to its members. However, IIMCs from start like other cooperative
movement faced many problems and challenges that need to be addressed by the cooperative them-
1 Quashini IIMC X Sosur union
2 Bereket IIMC X3 Midere Genet IIMC X X Kokeb union
4 Fetam IIMC5 Tadess Fetam IIMC Kokeb union
6 Kallu IIMC
7 Gimbara IIMC
8 Andenet IIMC X9 Demeko IIMC X
10 Keskash IIMC X11 Wesen Korkur IIMC X12 Baleche IIMC
13 Butu IIMc14 Boda IIMC
15 Meleka Gubira IIMC X16 Cheleka IIMC X17 Chali IIMC X18 Burka IIMC X19 Amid IIMC X20 Gollina-1 IIMC
21 Gollina-2
22 Gobu-1 IIMC X23 Gobu-3
24 Gobu-4
25 Shemamatebia26 Bahirlibo IIMC27 Agamuha IIMC X28 MenaDawech IIMC X29 Gullana IIMC X30 AmboWuha IIMC
31 Lemlemu Agecha IIMC
Total 3 14 3
Source of
Finance
output linkage
through
IIMCs
Input Linkage
through IIMCsSno.
Irrigation Input and
Marketing
Coopertive
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
22 | P a g e
selves and the government. For many years, issues such as lack of capital, undertaking of conventional
activities, weak structure, absence of good governance, lack of cooperation between cooperatives in
the field of business, training, education and facilitating services, lack of managerial talent, lack of
integrity among the management and the members in some cooperatives, are contributing to the
inefficient performance of cooperatives. However the main cause of those issues is due to the lack of
public’s confidence that may affect the stability, growth and development of the cooperative
movement.
Challenges which slow down IIMCs growth are identified by different mechanizes such as household
interview and FGD for members and open ended questions for implementer experts; triangulated to
realize followed by analysis and interpretation.
6.2.1. Household Interview Results
Cooperative members were asked to give their view on the major constraints of agricultural input and
output marketing activities of the IIMCs. The members identified 18 major constraints that affect the
agricultural input and output marketing activity of the cooperative societies. More importantly, the
sample 128 respondents’ opinion on the constraints of agricultural input and output marketing was
categorized as less important, important and very important with a value of 1, 2, and 3 respectively
(Table 9). The categories have received an average frequency score of 34.88 (27.25%) for less
important constraints, 75.52 (59.0%) for important constraints and 17.6(13.75%) for very important
constraints.
Based on this computation farmers put poor marketing linkage, lack of commitment of management
committee, lack of timely provision of input, high price of input and shortage of capital as the top five
prior challenges of cooperative members followed by other related problems. While financial
embezzlement, audit, and recruitment of professional manager as a less constraint, this may be because
of awareness problem by cooperative members unable to differentiate value of these parameters to be
a power full cooperative. See the details on table 9 below.
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
23 | P a g e
Table 9 Constraints in Irrigation input and Marketing cooperatives
No.
Constraints
Less
important Important Very
important
Weig
hted
inde
x
1 2 3 from
3 Freque
ncy %
Frequ
ency %
Fre
que
ncy %
1 Poor marketing system and marketing linkages 30 23.2 25 19.7 73 57.2 2.342
2 Lack of commitment of management
committee
12 9.1 66 51.9 50 38.9 2.296
3 Lack of timely provision of inputs 13 10.15 79 61.7 36 28.13 2.180
4 High price of agricultural inputs 13 10.2 90 70.1 25 19.6 2.092
5 Shortage of capital 17 13 91 71.2 20 15.9 2.031
6 Transportation Problems 26 20.3 79 61.5 23 18.2 1.979 7 Lack of sense of ownership by members 26 20.2 87 68.3 15 11.5 1.913
8 Credit problems 28 22.1 85 66.3 15 11.5 1.892
9 Less Quality of seed and chemicals 33 26 78 61.1 17 13 1.872
10 Lack of Members confidence on their cooperative 37 28.8 78 60.6 14 10.6 1.818
11 Recurrent drought and water shortage 53 41.3 49 38 26 20.7 1.794
12 Unable to pay dividend to members 58 45.7 39 30.1 31 24 1.779
13 Poor technical support by cooperative
promoters 39 30.8 78 61.1 10 8.2 1.776
14 Training of members and management
committee 63 49.1 40 31.6 25 19.2 1.699
15 Storage problem 56 43.8 70 54.3 2 1.9 1.581
16 Financial embezzlement in the cooperative 61 47.4 60 47.2 7 5.4 1.580
17 Timely audit problem 65 50.5 59 46.2 4 3.4 1.531
18 Lack of professional manager 88 68.8 18 14.4 22 16.8 1.480
Source: own computation from household survey (January, 2020)
6.2.2. Professionals, Key informant and FGD results on Challenges Affecting IIMCs
functionality
In assessment of major factors that affect irrigation input and marketing cooperative, values were
given to put challenges in the order of importancy.0 for not sure, 1 for not challenging, 2 for less
challenges, 2 for challenging, 3 for more challenging factors. Based on the analysis of respondents’
answer with STATA version 13, the following are the major challenges of IIMCs that hinder
cooperative functionality weighted by governmental implementers, key informants around the
schemes and focus group discussions results in descending order see table 10 below).
Limited Internal Capital and loan problems
Lack of Integration among Stakeholders
Low participation of members in the cooperative business
Input problem and fragmented production
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
24 | P a g e
Lack of transparency and accountability
Unhealthy Competition and marketing linkages
Limited capacity of management Committee
Poor market infrastructure
Low awareness background of members
Table 10 Challenges Affecting IIMCs Functionality
Challenges N Mean Std. Deviation
Limited Internal Capital and loan problems 86 3.33 .743
Lack of Integration among Stakeholders 85 3.28 .946
Low participation of members in Business 81 3.01 .829
Input problem and fragmented production 86 2.93 .748
Lack of transparency and accountability 83 2.84 .418
Unhealthy Competition and marketing linkages 86 2.80 .905
Limited capacity of management Committee 87 2.57 .658
Poor market infrastructure 83 2.45 .720
Low awareness background of members 87 1.95 .504
Valid N (listwise) 71
Source: own computation from Implementers Interview (January, 2020)
1. Limited Internal Capital and Loan Problems
Co-operatives are dependent on the internal resources of capital which is the share capital, fee and
accumulated profits. Due to that, IIMCs are facing problem in generating and getting sufficient capital
to implement their activities. The effect of this shortcoming has led cooperative societies unable to
provision of input and members product. The issue of the lack of capital can hinder the cooperative
from maintaining a good level of accountability where the compliance to collect members product and
input provision , this lead to neglected by cooperative members if they are inactive in these processes.
Adequate capital is one of the fundamental requisites for the sound cooperatives business operation.
From the stand point of ownership, there are two kinds of capital equity and debt capital. Equity
capital is provided by the members’; owners of the business.
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
25 | P a g e
During the assessment; to identify the adequacy of internal capital the respondents were asked and
the response given results with a mean of 3.33 is a more challenging hinder behind the functionality
of IIMCs in PASID II intervention areas.
2. Lack of Integration among Stakeholders
This is the second most important challenge with average score of 3.28 (see table 10) that hinder
cooperative functionality in PASIDP II intervention area of the region. Irrigation development and
agribusiness has been fragmented, with different agencies and multiple players working on their own
programs and agendas often redundantly with no clear institutional duties and responsibilities
sometimes at cross-purposes, and usually on single issues. We should establish a platform in
understanding the need for integrated management, coordination, and collaboration.
However, stakeholder participation in cooperative promotion is not yet well established. There are a
number of issues that have to be considered in facilitating stakeholder participation such as inadequate
knowledge sharing at all levels and between local, Wereda, Zonal and regional levels; lack of effective
representation of stakeholders at decision levels; and weak capacities of stakeholders, particularly at
local levels to understand and implement principles of cooperatives.
3. Low participation of members in cooperative activities
According to the assessment, this is also the third most important problem that hinders cooperatives
functionality. No cooperative can exist without members’ participation. Due to lack of awareness, and
training on cooperatives related issues, most of the cooperative members are not participating actively
in decision making, planning and implementation of business activities of the cooperative The
assessment also showed 31.4% of household survey’s respondents are not clear with own cooperative
by laws & 34% of respondents were not participated in approval of by laws. Most of the primary
cooperatives have been established without organizing proper cooperative education programs to
create sufficient knowledge and skills on cooperative aspects. Hence, there is a need to create
awareness on benefits, legal aspects, services and advantages of cooperatives. If members of the
cooperatives have good knowledge on cooperative services and advantages, participation of members
can be increased.
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
26 | P a g e
4. Input problem and fragmented production
The assessment indicated that, inputs like fertilizer, seed and chemical provision has a serious problem
and it is a cause to fail to cooperatives and members loos linkage. Majority of input provision is
through private traders. Quality and quantity of seed at time of delivery problem have a direct impact
on irrigation production and productivity this in turn affect members participation and the cooperative
functionality. The assessment result showed, 84% respondents have agreed that limited access to
Agricultural input supply for irrigation production improvement.
5. Lack of transparency and accountability( Absence of Good Governance)
Effective cooperative governance is important to promote accountability and transparency in
cooperative. It was found that most of the Committees of cooperative that have been appointed by the
members failed to exercise their duties, functions and responsibilities. The appointment should be
based on members’ experience and trustworthiness rather than their popularity. Because of limited
capital they are not able to get professional management. Furthermore, a large proportion of the
cooperative societies are still being managed by committee on a voluntary basis and not by the
fulltime professional managers as in the bigger and more successful cooperatives. As a result of the
absence of permanent employees or a professional management team in cooperatives, the governance
and account ability of cooperatives have been affected to some extent. Lack of transparency is a big
issue to weak members’ participation and trust on their cooperative and refused to buy share for
capital building and this enter affect cooperatives function.
6. Unhealthy Competition and marketing linkages
Consequently, cooperatives were unable to involve in marketing of agricultural product due to the
high existences of competitors that reduces its marketing activities. Cooperatives usually face
unhealthy competition with private traders. Traders’ negation with producer farmers is flexible with
the current market price than cooperatives. And also 92% of respondents not supplied their Irrigation
production for their cooperative when they produce. Therefore, there is no profit share and production
market transaction and participation with in the IIMCs. This hinders the IIMC functionality far from
the exception.
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
27 | P a g e
7. Limited capacity of management Committee
Management committee is responsible in implementation of what has been decided by the general
assembly. However, there are problems in the decision making and implementation process, which are
related with limited capacity of the management committee i.e. inadequate knowledge and awareness
about the decision making processes; and limited ownership feelings and participation of members of
the general assembly and management committee. The respondents’ put it as between less challenging
and challenging (with a mean of 2.57) factor, but also need attention for a best functionality of IIMCs.
According to the principle of cooperative; cooperatives are democratic organizations controlled by
their members who actively participate in setting their policies and making decisions. The idea that
said ‘Men and women serving equally as elected representatives’ is violated in these cooperatives
too (only 12% of the committee are women).
8. Poor market infrastructure
This includes access to transportation, road and storage facilities. Above the majority of the
respondents with mean of 2.49 respond that this is a challenging issue for IIMCs that hinder
cooperative functionality to facilitate marketing to members. Here irrigated crops need accessible
road, storage facilities and market information. But these are lacked with in these IIMCs. These hinder
cooperatives functionality.
9. Low awareness background of members
In some cooperatives members are not clear about their cooperative objective, but it is mainly with the
interest and push off the organizers. While according to this assessment IIMCs in PASIDP II
intervention area members are clear in some extent while not decided to be a member of the
cooperative and differentiate the role of the IIMC to irrigation water user association. It needs further
attention to irrigation input and marketing cooperatives by cooperative office.
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
28 | P a g e
6.2.3. Cause Effect and Possible Solutions
Based on this multi-dimensional assessment major challenges affecting irrigation input and marketing
cooperatives functionality are identified. Accordingly, the causes, effects, and possible solutions or
best practices as perceived by the community, key informants and implementers are illustrated in
Table 11 below.
Table 11: problems, cause, effect and suggested possible solutions
S.No Challenges Causes Effects Suggested solutions and best
practices
1 Limited Internal
Capital and loan
problems
-small share capital
-poor linkage with
MFs and
RuSACCOs
-IIMCs not render
quality service to its
members
-Low Bargaining
Power
-Neglected by coop
members
-Improve members share
capital/internal capital
-Link and be a member of
RuSACCOO unions
-Better credit services that can
strengthen the financial
capacity of cooperatives
2 Lack of
Integration
among
Stakeholders
-unclear mandates
and arrangements
-Sectorial interest
-Legal frames and
enforcement
-inadequate
knowledge sharing
-Gap/Duplication of
efforts
-Low performance
of IIMCs
-Assess the current linkages in
line with coordination and
cooperation
-Develop and implement
performance based training
programs
-Strengthen and/or establish
sub Basin Forums and
initiatives for empowerment
and cooperation among stakes
3 Low
participation of
members in
cooperative
activities
-Awareness problem
-lack of good
governance and
transparency
-weak IIMCs that
didn’t alleviate
members’ problems
-Sensitization, training and
motivation of members
- create awareness on
comparative advantage of
coops
4 Input problem
and fragmented
production
-Absence of modern
production extension
and research
- long
marketing/supply
chain and presence
of many middle men
-Low seed quality
and high prices
- Absence of quality
control on seed
suppliers
-Crop yield
reduction
- Inability to pay
loan on time
- Supply of high
amount of produce
to the market during
harvesting time to
cover loans
- Domestic production of seed
and HVC
-Seed quality should be
controlled
and certified
-Decrease market chain actors
through coops and unions
- motivate cluster farming and
scheduling
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
29 | P a g e
S.No Challenges Causes Effects Suggested solutions and best
practices
5 Lack of
transparency and
accountability
-awareness problem
-unenforceable law
and proclamation
and policies
-Fail to exercise
their duties and
responsibilities
Lack amenability of
the cooperative by
members
-Discussion with members
-Pay for patronage dividend
-enforce policies and laws
6 Unhealthy
Competition and
marketing
linkages
-Presence of illegal
-traders and brokers
Information gap
-Weak linkage in the
value chain
-no pay to patronage
dividend
-Improve market information
and intelligence
- facilitating vertical
integration in the value chain
7 Limited
capacity of
management
Committee
Knowledge and skill
gap in decision
making
-Unskilled
management
committee
-lack of knowhow
on coop operation
-Recue skilled manager
-Strong monitoring and
evaluation
-provide training and technical
assistance to the committee
8 Poor market
infrastructure
-poor transportation
and road access
-storage facility
problem
-Lead to pershablity
-high cost of input
-low selling price to
irrigation products
-High post-harvest
loss
adequate facilities such as
store and transportation;
9 Low awareness
background of
members
- Knowledge and
skill gap for
participation
-Information gap
Awareness problem
Weak participation
of members
-Training to members
-Learning visit and experience
sharing
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
30 | P a g e
7. Conclusion and Recommendation
The assessment showed that irrigation input and marketing cooperatives of PASIDP II
intervention areas are at low status measure in regarding in all aspects minimum requirement that
any cooperative should have; like members participation, capital formation, assets, and linkage
and marketing participations. The major challenges hinder irrigation input and marketing
cooperatives functionality are Limited Internal Capital and loan problems; Lack of Integration
among Stakeholders, Low participation of members in cooperative activities, Input
problem and fragmented production, Lack of transparency and accountability, Unhealthy
Competition and marketing linkages, Limited capacity of management Committee, Poor
market infrastructure and Low awareness background of members. So the following are
recommended to improve IIMCs functionality:
Like other cooperatives, the cooperative promotion agency at all level should give
attention to irrigation input and marketing cooperative
Improve good governance accountability and transparency
Out of the very important motivating is pay patronage dividend to members” by the
IIMCs. This highly affects the business growth and sense of ownership of the cooperative
members. Therefore, cooperatives should be able to pay patronage dividend to their
member patrons when they have got profit after auditing their business operations.
To improve financial access all members should be a member of local RuSACCO and
IIMCs should be a member of RuSACCO Union.
Ideally the members of cooperatives should provide the capital to finances its operations.
Since the cooperative exists to deliver benefits to its members, each member should
contribute to capital in direct proportion to usage of services the cooperative provides. So
mobilization, sensitization and awareness creation are needed to alleviate financial
problems internally; this will in turn attract funding agency and credit institutions.
Women involvement in leadership should be improved. Women engagement in
leadership position to IIMCs needs emphasis. To improve cooperatives functionality
empowering women economically and socially this in turn will attracts other women to
the cooperatives.
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
31 | P a g e
Elimination of Intermediaries: The elimination of mediators is necessary from
agricultural marketing, because unless the farmer is allowed the facility of direct sales to
the customer through cooperative, he cannot receive a fair price for it. Thus, with the
elimination of mediators, ‘Market Access Alliance’ should be established where the
farmer, cooperatives and consumers could be joined to facilitate marketing.
Members and leaders of cooperatives ought to be trained to improve performance of
cooperatives. This is because educated leaders have good governance skills, good
management skills, and visionary and can be relied on. Members should be trained since
trained members clearly understand cooperative goals, participate fully in the
cooperative, understand their rights in the cooperative, exert control over their
cooperative and own their cooperative.
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
32 | P a g e
8. References
Federal Cooperative societies amended Proclamation No. 402/2004.
Federal Cooperative society’s proclamation No. 147/98.
Federal Cooperative societies proclamation No. 985/2016
ANRS Cooperative Development Agency (2018/19) Annual Report. Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.
Unpublished materials
ICA/International Cooperative Alliance (1995). Statement on the Cooperative Identity.
Geneva, Switzerland.
Muthyalu Meniga (Dr), Mekelle University. Article in International Journal of Scientific
Research · March 2015: Growth and Challenges of Cooperative Sector in Ethiopia
FAO, 1994. The Development of Independent cooperatives in Zambia, Case study, Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome-Italy.
Alema Woldemariam Atsbaha March, 2008.Analysis of the Role of Cooperatives in
Agricultural Input and Output Marketing in Southern Zone of Tigray, Ethiopia
CSA (Central Stastics Authority), 2012. Population projection for Ethiopia/2014-2037
BoFED/ ANRS Bureau of Finance and Economy, 2017/18 ANRS development
Indicators. Bahir dar Ethiopia.
Dejen Debeb and Matthews Haile (2016). Agricultural Cooperatives, Opportunities and
Challenges, the Case of Bench Maji Zone, Ethiopia. Journal of Poverty, Investment and
Investment An International Peer-reviewed Journal Vol.22, 2016
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
33 | P a g e
9. Annex
የዳሰሳ ጥናት/ የመስኖ ግብዓትና ምርት ግብይት ህብረት ስራ ማህበራት ያሉበት ሁኔታና
ችግሮች
I. ለቤተሰብ ሀላፊዎች የተዘጋጀ መጠየቅ
1. መለያ የቤተሰብ ኃላፊ ስም _________________ መለያ ቁጥር ______ ቀበሌ _________________ጎጥ ___________እድሜ_____ጾታ_____የጋብቻ ሁኔታ_____በመስኖ የሚለማ መሬት በሄክታር____
2. አባልነት 2.1. በአካባቢዎ ያለው የመስኖ ግብዓትና ምርት ግብይት ህብረት ስራ ማህበር ስም ማን ነው? 2.2. የመስኖ ግብዓትና ምርት ግብይት ህብረት ስራ ማህበር አባል ነዎት? 1=አዎ 0= አይደለሁም 2.3. አባል ከሆኑ ከመቼ ጀምሮ ነው?______________ 2.4. በማህበሩ ያለዎት የእጣ ብዛት_______ የገንዘብ መጠን______________ 2.5. አባል ካልሆኑ ለምን?
1= መረጃው የለኝም 2= ቅስቀሳው አነስተኛ ስለሆነ 3= የገንዘብ እጥረት 4= አስፈላጊ ባለመሆኑ (ስለማይጠቅመኝ) 5= ሌላ ከአለ ይገለፅ ______
3. ግብዓት አቅርቦት 3.1. በአለፉት ዓመታት ዘር አቅርቦት ከየት ነበር?
1= ከግብዓትና ግብይት ህ/ስራ ማህበሩ 2= ከሁለገብ ህ/ሰራ ማህበሩ/ዩንዬን 3= ከግለሰብ ነጋዴዎች 4= ቀጥታ ከዘር አቅራቢዎች 5= የአካባቢ ዘር በመለወጥ 6=ሌላ ከአለ ይገለፅ ______
3.2. በአትክልትና ፍራፍሬ ዘር አቅረቦት ያሉ ችግሮች 1=በወቅቱ አለመቅረብ 2= የጥራት ችግር 3=የሚፈለገው ዝርያ አለመቅረብ 4=ሌላ ከአለ ይገለፅ
3.3. በአለፉት ዓመታት የማደበሪያ አቅርቦት 1= ከግብዓትና ግብይት ህ/ሰራ ማህበሩ 2= ከሁለገብ ህ/ሰራ ማህበሩ/ዩንዬን 3= ከግለሰብ ነጋዴዎች 4= ቀጥታ ከዘር አቅራቢዎች 5= የአካባቢ ዘር በመለወጥ 6=ሌላ ከአለ ይገለፅ ______
3.4. በአፈር ማዳበሪያ አቅረቦት ያሉ ችግሮች 1=በወቅቱ አለመቅረብ 2= የጥራት ችግር 3= የሚፈለገው ዝርያ አለመቅረብ 4=ሌላ ከአለ ይገለፅ
3.5. በአለፉት ዓመታት የኬሚካል አቅርቦት
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
34 | P a g e
1= ከግብዓትና ግብይት ህ/ሰራ ማህበሩ 2= ከሁለገብ ህ/ሰራ ማህበሩ/ዩንዬን 3= ከግለሰብ ነጋዴዎች 4= ቀጥታ ከዘር አቅራቢዎች 5= የአካባቢ ዘር በመለወጥ 6=ሌላ ከአለ ይገለፅ ______
3.6. በኬሚካል አቅርቦት አቅረቦት ያሉ ችግሮች 1=በወቅቱ አለመቅረብ 2= የጥራት ችግር 3= የሚፈለገው ዝርያ አለመቅረብ 4=ሌላ ከአለ ይገለፅ
4. ብድር 4.1. በ2ዐ10/11 ምርት ዘመን ብድር ወስደዋል? 1=አዎ 0= የለም 4.2. ከላይ ለተጠቀሰው መልስ አዎ ከሆነ ምንጭ
1=አብቁተ 2=ባንኮች 3=ብዙሃን ማህበራት 4=ህብረት ሥ/ማህበራት 5=ባህላዊ ማህበር 6=ዘመድ 7=ነጋዴዎች 8=ሌላ____
4.3. የብድሩ ዓላማ 1=ለማዳበሪያና 2=ምርጥ ዘር 3= ኪሚካል 4=የውሃ ፖምኘ ለመግዛት 5=እንሰሳትን ለመግዛት ምግብ ለመግዛት 7=ለቢዝነስ(ንግድ) 8=ሌላ__
4.4. ብድር ካልወሰዱ ለምን? 1=መክፈል ስለማልችል 2=የብድር ማስያዥ የለኝም 3= አበዳሪ የለም 4= ከፍተኛ ወለድ በመኖሩ 5= ብድር ስለማልፈልግ 6= ሌላ ከአለ ይገለፅ ____
5. ምርት ግብይት 5.1. በአሁኑ ጊዜ ከምታመርታቸው ምርቶች አትራፊው ምን እንደሆነ ያውቃሉ?
1=አዎ 0= አላውቅም 5.2. ለላይኛው ጥያቄ መልሱ አዎ ከሆነ የትኛው ነው ትርፋማ?
1=አትክልቶች 2= ፍራፍሬ 3= ጥራጥሬ 4= የቅባት እህሎች 5= የብርና የአገዳ ሰብሎች 6= ሌላ ከአለ ይገለፅ _____
5.3. አሁን እየሠሩት ያለው ትርፋማ ከአልሆነ ለምን ትርፋማ አታደርጉትም? 1=የገበያ ችግር 2= የዋጋ ችግር 3=የእውቀት ማነስ/መረጃ 4=ደርቅ/የውሃእጥረት 5=የግብአት ችግር 6=ሌላ ከአለ ይገለፅ ______
5.4. ምርትዎን የሚሸጡት የት ነው? 1=ከእርሻ ቦታ ለምርት ሰባሳቢዎች 2=በግብዓት ግብይት ህብረት ሥራ ማህበሩ በኩል 3=በዩንዬኑ በኩል 4= አካባቢው ገበያ በመውሰድ 5= ሌላ ከአለ ይገለፅ_____
5.5. ምርትዎን በግብዓት ግብይት ህብረት ሥራ ማህበሩ በኩል ለምን አይሸጡም? 1=ማህበሩ ተግባሩን ስላመይፈፅም 2=ማህበሩ ኮሚቴዎችን አላምንም 3=በግብዓት ግብይት ህብረት ሥራ ማህበሩ በትክክለኛ ዋጋ ስለማይገዛ 4=ነጋዴዎች በተሻለ ዋጋ ስለሚገዙ 5=ሌላ ከአለ ይገለፅ_____
5.6. ጥሩ ዋጋ የማያገኙ ከሆነ ለምን? 1=ፈላጊ የለውም 2= ብዙ ምርት ወደ ገበያ ይወጣል 3= የገበያው አቅም አነስተኛ በመሆኑ 4= ዋጋ በደላለውና በነጋዴው በመወሰኑ 5= ሌላ ከአለ ይገለፅ ______
5.7. የሚከተሉት ችግሮች አሉብዎት? የምርት ማስቀመጫ 1= አለብኝ 0= የለብኝም
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
35 | P a g e
ትራንስፖርት 1= አለብኝ 0= የለብኝም 5.8. የግብይት ዋና ዋና ችግሮች ምንድን ናቸው?
1=የትራንስፖርት ችግር 2=የመደራድር አቅም ማነስ 3= የገበያ ርቀት 4=የግብርና ምርቶች ዋጋ ማነስ 5= ሌላ ከአለ ይገለፅ __
6. ጥቅል ጉዳዮች 6.1. በማህበሩ በሚያገኙት አገልግሎት ለምን አልረኩም?
1=የአደራጅ መ/ቤቱ ድጋፍና ክትትል ዝቅተኛ ስለሆነ 2=የኮሜቴ ችግርና ትኩረት ያለመሰጠት 3=የማህበሩ የካፒታል አቅም 4=ደላላና ነጋዴዎች የተሸላ ስለሚቀርቡን
6.2. ማህበሩ እንዲጠናክር ምን ይደረግ?
II. ለ ቡ ድ ን ው ይ ይ ት የ ተ ዘ ጋ ጀ
1. ግብዓት( ዘር፤ ማደበሪያና ኬሚካል) የምታኙት በምን መንገድ ነው? ለምን ይህን መንገድ መረጣችሁ፤ ጥቅሙና ጉዳቱ ምን ነበር?
2. ምርት ለገበያ እየቀረበ ያለው በምን መንገድ ነው? ለምን ይህን መንገድ መረጣችሁ፤ ጥቅሙና ጉዳቱ ምን ነበር?
3. የምርት ግብይት በግብዓትና ግብይት ህ/ስራ ማህበሩ በኩል ከሆነ ምን ጥቅም አገኛችሁ ችግሩስ ምንድን ነው?
4. የምርት ግብይት በግብዓትና ግብይት ህ/ስራ ማህበሩ በኩል ማድረግ ያልተቻለው ለምንድን ነው?
5. የመስኖ ግብዓትና ግብይት ህ/ስራ ማህበሩ የዩንየን አባል ለምን አልሆነም? 6. የመስኖ ግብዓትና ግብይት ህ/ስራ ማህበሩ የሚጠበቅበትን ተግባር እንደይወጣ ያደረጉ ዋና
ምክናያቶች ምንድን ናቸው? 7. የመስኖ ግብዓትና ግብይት ህ/ስራ ማህበሩ የሚጠበቅበትን ተግባር እንዲወጣ ምን ይደረግ?
III. ለመስኖ ግብዓትና ምርት ግብይት የህብረት ስራ ማህበራት የሚሞላ መጠይቅ
1. የህብረት ስራ ማህበሩ ስም ____________________________________________ 2. የተመሰረተበት ጊዜ (ቀን፤ወር፤ዓ.ም)________________ 3. እንደገና የተመዘገበበት ጊዜ (ቀን፤ወር፤ዓ.ም)_______________________________ 4. የህጋዊ ሰውነት ያገኘበት ቁጥር 5. መስራች አባላት ወንድ_________ሴት______________ድምር_____________ 6. የህብረት ስራ ማህበሩ አባላት ወንድ________ሴት____________ድምር__________ 7. የህብረት ስራ ማህበሩ አባላት ቤተሰብ ወንድ_______ሴት_______ድምር_________ 8. መስኖ ተጠቃሚዎች ብዛት ወንድ_________ሴት________ድምር_______________
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
36 | P a g e
9. በስራ ክልሉ የሚኖሩ/መስኖ ተጠቃሚዎች ሆነው የህብረት ስራ ማህበሩ አባል ያልሆኑ ብዛት ወንድ_________ሴት_________________ድምር____________________
10. የዕጣና መመዝገቢያ ሁኔታ ለሽያጭ የተዘጋጀ የዕጣ ብዛት_______________ የአንድ እጣ ዋጋ ብር _______________ ለመመዝገቢያ ብር የተሸጠ ዕጣ ብዛት_______________ ከዕጣ ሽያጭ የተሰበሰበ ካፒታል ብር_______________ ከመመዝገቢያ ክፍያ ብር_______________
11. ኦዲት ኦዲት የተደረገበት ጊዜ( ወርና ዓ.ም)_______________ በኦዲት የተገኘ ጉድለት ብር_______________ ትርፍ ክፍፍል የተረደገበት ዓ.ም __________________
12. የማህበሩ ሀብትና እዳ ሁኔታ ሀብት ቋሚ_________________ተንቀሳቃሽ_________________ ድምር ዕዳ_________________ ካፒታል_________________ የካፒታል ምንጭ ከዕጣ ሽያጭ ብር ______ርዳታ ስጦታ ብር __________
13. ደረሰኝና ህትመትና ዶክመንት( ከተሟላ ራይት ይደረግ) በጠቅላላ ጉባኤው የፀደቅ መተዳደሪያ ደንብ የአባላት መዝገብ የግል ፋይል ቃለ ጉባኤ የቋሚ ንብረት መዝገብ የገቢ ደረሰኝ የወጪ ማዘዥ የወጪ ማዘዣ የገቢና የወጪ መዝገብ አጠቃላይ የሂሳብ ቋት የንብረት ገቢና ወጪ ማድረጊያ ሰነዶች የግዥና የሽያጪ መዝገብ የአባላት የተሳትፎ መዝገብ ሌሎች
14. ኮሜቴና ቅጥር ሰራተኞች
የስራ አመራር ኮሜቴ ብዛት ወንድ_________ሴት_______ድምር________ የቁጥጥር ኮሜቴ ብዛት ወንድ_________ሴት_______ድምር____________ የቅጥር ሰራተኞች ብዛት ወንድ_________ሴት______ድምር___________
15. የማህበሩ ይዞታ/የራሱ ቦታ አለው አለዉ የለዉም
16. የራሱ ቦታ ካለው የራሱ የይዞታ ማረጋገጫ፤ አለዉ የለዉም
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
37 | P a g e
17. የገነባዉ የራሱ ጽ/ቤት፤ አለዉ የለዉም 18. መልሱ አለው ከሆነ ግንባታዉ የተገነባው፤ በራሱ በህብረት ስራ ማህበሩ በመንግስት
መንግስታዊ ባልሆኑ ድርጅቶች/ በፕሮጀክቶች
19. ለጥያቄ ተራ ቁጥር 18 መልሱ የለውም ከሆነ ማህበሩ ስራዉን የሚያከናዉነዉ፤ በኪራይ ሌላ ካለ ይጠቀስ -----------------------
20. የህብረት ስራ ማህበሩ ከአባላት የተረከበዉን ምርት የሚያቆይበት የራሱ የሆነ መጋዘን፤ አለዉ የለዉም
21. ካለዉ ግንባታዉ የተካሄደው በራሱ በህብረት ስራ ማህበሩ በመንግስት መንግስታዊ ባልሆኑ ድርጅቶች/ በፕሮጀክቶች
22. ለጥያቄ ተራ ቁጥር 14 መልሱ የለውም ከሆነ ማህበሩ ከአባላት የተረከበዉን ምርት የሚያቆየዉ፤ በኪራይ ሌላ ካለ ይጠቀስ -----------------------
23. የኅብረት ሥራ ማኅበሩ በዓመት ጠቅላላ ጉባኤ ተሰብስቦዋልን?፤ አዎ አልተሰበሰበም
24. ማህበሩ ከመደራጀቱ በፊት የአዋጭነት ጥናት አስጠንቷልን? አዎ አላስጠናም
25. ማህበሩ ከሚያከናዉናቸዉ ተግባራት፤ የንግድ ስራ ዕቅድ (Business plan)፤ አለዉ የለዉም
26. ያለዉ ከሆነ የንግድ ስራ ዕቅድ (Business plan)፤ ማን አዘጋጀዉ? ባለሙያዎች የማህበሩ ስራ አመራር ባለሙያዎችና የማህበሩ ስራ አመራር በጋራ ሌሎች -------------------------------------------------
27. የግብይት ተሳትፎ
27.1. የህብረት ስራ ማህበሩ የሚሰጣቸው አገልግሎቶች ( ግብዓት አቅረቦት፤ ብድር አገልግሎት/የወለድ ምጣኔ ይጠቀስ፤ የምርት ግብይት….) በመጠን ይጠቀስ
_______________ ________________ ________________ ________________
27.2. በህብረት ስራ ማህበሩ በኩል የተፈፀሙ የገበያ ትስስር ዝርዝር መረጃ፡ አመሰግናለሁ!
Assessment on Status and Challenges Affecting Cooperative Functionalities
38 | P a g e
IV. ለሌሎች አጋር አካላትና ባለድርሻ አካላት የሚቀርቡ መጠይቆች
1. የግብዓትና ግብይት ህ/ስራ ማህበሩ ወደ ስራ ለማስገባት ምን ተግባራት ተከናወኑ? 2. የህብረት ስራ ማህበሩ ምን ተግባራትን አሳካ? 3. በጋራ ለመስራት ምን ፈተናዎች (ችግሮች) አሉ? 4. የግብዓትና ግብይት ህ/ስራ ማህበሩ ወደ ግብይት እንደይገባ ያደረጉት ማነቆዎች (ችግሮች)
በቅደም ተከተል ይዘርዘሩ 5. ከተሳትፎአዊ አነስተኛ መስኖ ልማት ፕሮግራም ጋር የግብዓትና ግብይት ህ/ስራ ማህበሩትን
የአርሶ አደሩ የግብይት መሳሪያ እንዲሆኑ እየተደረገ ባለሂደት አጋር አካላትና ፕሮግራሙ ተግባራቸውን እንዳይወጡ የገጠሙ ችግሮች ምንድን ናቸው 1=ግልጽ ያልሆነ በጀት 2= የበጀት እጥረት 3 = ከስራ ይልቅ በጥቅም መጋጨት 4= የስራ መገፋፈት ተግባርን ያለማወቅ 5= የቅርብ ክትትል አለመኖር 6= የባለሙያ ተነሳሽነት አለመኖር 7= ስራን አቅዶ አለመመራት 8=ያለተረጋጋ ገበያ 9 =ሌሎች ከአሉ ይገለጽ
6. የግብዓትና ግብይት ህ/ስራ ማህበሩ በሙሉ አቅሙ እንዲሰራ ምን ይደረግ? አመሰግናለሁ!!