what are the basic problems of the cooperative? and what is the solutions?

1. Co-operative groups are challenged in interacting with the market. Co-operatives buy inputs in such small quantities and so infrequently that it is not worthwhile for input supply firms to make an effort to sell to them. Co-operatives produce in such small quantities that it is not worthwhile for buyers to make an effort to buy from them. Co-operative members do not feel comfortable interacting with larger or more formal businesses as they do not understand their business culture and norms. Co-operative members do not feel comfortable negotiating business contracts or even basic pricing and ordering. Co-operatives are influenced by informal rules and norms that limit their ability to interact with other businesses or their ability to benefit from commercial transactions in any significant way. 2. There is a lack of understanding by the development project of the realities and perceptions of co-operatives within their country's contexts. A development project should understand the realities of co-operatives within their country context. For example, has there been a negative history of co-operatives leaving a lack of trust around this structure? Or perhaps the culture of the community itself is one of a lack of trust and a lack of cooperation, creating challenges within the co-operative structure? 3. There are general management challenges. There is a lack of understanding or knowledge by farmers about the co-operative structure and co-operative management. There is mistrust among co-operative members as well as amongst general members and the management / board. A key challenge within co-operatives is a lack of transparency between the governing board and the general members. There are often a lack of leadership and managerial and financial management skills. 4. There is limited member participation. Members may embrace cooperation but not necessarily collective business (shared finance). Often farmers have individual businesses or other activities, so there is limited participation in the co-operative. The co-operative is often not the main income source for many members so they allocate a small amount of time to co-operative activities. Because of the difference in education levels, some members do not actively participate (due to a lack of self-confidence). Projects often, unintentionally, force cooperation where it would not naturally exist. If, for example, individuals come together in a co-operative structure just to access training that a development project will provide, perhaps there is a better, more effective way to offer training to this community outside of the co-operative structure. Results of trainings take time to materialize. It is also difficult to train all co-operative members, so the challenge exists of ensuring that those who are trained actually pass on this new information to other co-operative members. Not all co-operatives are formed for the “right” reasons. Projects should understand that, unfortunately, individuals often join co-operatives based upon the expectation that they will “get something out of it” in the form of free inputs, access to free equipment, etc. In many parts of the developing world, the aid culture has been full of handouts, and it can often be difficult to change expectations of co-operative members, especially if your project is clearly supporting the co-operative. 5. Co-operative members do not support the co-operative contracts with market actors. A common challenge within agricultural co-operatives is the issue of side-selling by co-operative members. This hinders co-operatives’ ability to predict production, fulfill contracts, and form lasting, trusted relationships with buyers. ​ 6. The circumstances and profile of co-operative members provides operational challenges. Co-operative members are geographically dispersed, making it difficult to communicate. On average members are older and less open to change. 7. Co-operative members side-sell or sell to channels outside of the co-operative. Another recurring challenge within co-operative development programs, especially those in the agricultural sector, is incentivizing co-operative members to actually sell their harvests through the co-operative. Within the wider agricultural programming, a similar challenge comes up through side-selling in contract farming, where a contract is signed for a producer (or group of producers) to sell their harvest to a single buyer, often for a predetermined price, and regularly receiving inputs or support as a part of the contract. However, upon harvest, producers may decide to side-sell to other buyers who, perhaps, are offering a better price but with whom they had not contracted with initially. Solutions .1 There is a growing awareness that many problems in society cannot be adequately dealt with by relying on a few to make collectively binding decisions without involving others, leaving poorly resourced individuals to tackle them on their own, or asking people to vote on options without any informed deliberation. 2. Evidence built up over decades from cooperative management, participatory engagement, and restorative practices have shown that better outcomes (e.g., business success, community safety, environmental enhancement, education attainment, social cohesion) can be secured when the people affected are enabled to cooperate together on equal and reciprocal terms to decide how to solve the problems they face. 3. The increasing acknowledgement of the value of ‘cooperative’, ‘mutual’, ‘co-productive’ approaches, however, is not always backed by sufficient appreciation of what the essential elements of cooperative problem-solving really are, or what it takes to implement them effectively. Therefore, decision makers, irrespective of the sectors in which they operate, should ensure that any verbal embrace of cooperative working is matched by a genuine commitment to apply cooperative problem-solving without leaving out any of the following four key features: 4. First, all those affected by the problem in question and any proposed solution should have the opportunity, with the help of a facilitator, to express their concerns. Under conditions of openness and equal respect, everyone who has a relevant point to make should be given a hearing, and no one who is abusive or seeking to dominate discussions should be allowed to disrupt proceedings. 5. Secondly, those involved should be enabled to hear from and question witnesses, experts, and anyone else currently assigned a specific responsibility to deal with the problem under discussion. This is to ensure relevant consideration is given to what possible solutions there might be, the pros and cons of going along with them, and what constraints there might be to taking any other courses of action. 6. Thirdly, participants should be encouraged to contribute any suggestion of their own, discuss with each other how conflicting positions can be resolved, and explore the implications of mutual concessions and support, before giving their backing to a set of collectively ranked priority actions. 7. Finally, responsibilities and resource implications are to be agreed for taking forward the prioritised actions and for reporting back on their impact in practice. The feedback will then form the basis of a review of the effectiveness of the action plan, and inform whether further changes need to be considered. 8. It is not easy to incorporate all four elements that have just been outlined. Efforts are required to ensure marginalised voices are not ignored. Attention is needed to identify, and if necessary train up, facilitators who can be both firm and empathetic. Tension and conflict have to be sensitively resolved, not suppressed, to bring about consensus. Where large numbers are involved, representative selection or proportionate election may have to be used to obtain groups wherein meaningful deliberations can take place. Above all, power differences have to be managed so that no participant can have an unfair advantage over others in securing support for their preferred position. 9. Whatever the difficulties, the costs of overcoming them are likely to be outweighed by the benefits, because the solutions produced are shaped by people’s needs, unlikely to require expensive corrections, serve the common good rather than the interests of just a few, and are more sustainable because people take ownership of them. 10. To share the lessons on how the approach outlined above can help us deal more effectively with diverse social, economic and environmental challenges, we are committed to promoting learning and research in the development and application of cooperative problem-solving.