Written by: Richard Mujuni, Program Officer, DESIGN team, Uganda One of the major impediments to growing cooperative structures in Uganda is born from the multipurpose nature of our umbrella organizations. For example, in Mubende (just west of Kampala), there is the Mubende Growers Union, but this union contains diverse enterprises like coffee, beans, maize, and other produce grown in Mubende. A close assessment of this arrangement exposes the weaknesses and deficiencies of cooperative unions. In their current and complex settings, these unions find it difficult to adequately address individual value chain challenges and, hence, remain only unions in name and ineffective in addressing most cooperative challenges. I recently had the opportunity to understand these challenges when I was working in Mubende on a program survey. In speaking with community members about unions, it made me think about our program, DESIGN, and its challenge of how to work with stakeholders to strategically affect the cooperative movement in Uganda and to help move from multipurpose to value chain specific unions. I believe this specialization will strengthen farming operations of these cooperatives from access to quality inputs to value addition and stronger marketing terms. Earlier in the year, while on a learning trip in Kigali, note was made of the differences in the structures of cooperatives in Rwanda and Uganda in terms of how the cooperative movement is organized. In Rwanda, the cooperatives are structured /organized according to specific value chains from the grassroots where they have primary producer cooperatives, then on to district-based marketing unions and, lastly, national federations. The national federations forum was referred to as the national confederation of cooperatives. In Uganda, the structure is quite different with the primary producer cooperative societies at the grassroots level and the marketing unions at the district level; they both may engage in more than one value chain. In specific value chains like coffee and milk, the primary societies and unions are specialized, but do not have the national federation level. In some cases in Uganda, instead of unions at the district level, there is another tier of marketing cooperatives known as the Area Cooperative Enterprise (ACE), which is based at sub-county levels and handles more than one value chain. At the national level, all of these cooperatives are free to federate to the Uganda Cooperative Alliance (UCA). On the other hand, the Rwanda cooperative structure provides for better specialization and segregation of roles and responsibilities at each level, enabling cooperators and the government to concentrate on value chain specific challenges and solutions leading to increased access to quality seed, fertilizer, improving post harvesting and handling services, formal marketing practices manifested by contract signing, and partnership agreements across a wide range of cooperatives. The Ugandan case is still less specialized and organized, so the UCA remains a good apex cooperative umbrella, albeit with unclear members and roles. Looking at the areas visited so far, including the post-Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) conflict Lira district, the revision of the cooperative structure in Uganda will accelerate the revival of cooperatives in the greater part of the country and will help diversify areas of cooperation, facilitate complimentary actions between government programs and the cooperative agenda, ease research and monitoring for cooperatives, and guide policy formulation and support.
3 Comments
Kristin
6/6/2016 06:46:27 am
Richard - Are there any benefits to having a multi value chain Union? Are they able to lobby more effectively or purchase in bulk at levels that other smaller unions might not? Do they provide training for their members? It occurs to me that while the Uganda case is very different from the Rwanda value chain specific structure - there may be positives due to the flexibility. What do you think?
Reply
3/1/2017 04:23:00 am
Richard-I acknowledge the structural difference between the Uganda's and Rwanda's cooperative structures. But to me, I don't think having a multi-enterprise based cooperative model can hinder the possibilities for cooperatives to thrive. For instance, in Kiboga-Kyankwanzi ARUWE supports a women cooperative with soybean and maize enterprises. Over the last two years these women (members) have increased their production potential, marketing capacity, learnt leadership roles, resource management and are now adding value on to soybean and maize produces. The most interesting thing is the innovative model that has increased on livestock and poultry production fostered by having a multiplicity of enterprises, ie, the women have learnt how to use soybean and maize to process feeds for poultry and piggery which has lowered production cost and increased incomes from their farms. Leave a Reply. |
AboutThis blog is authored by professionals working in various parts of the developing world to strengthen co-operatives. Archives
December 2017
Categories |