This document outlines a study on strategies to resuscitate agricultural cooperatives in Manicaland Province, Zimbabwe. The study found that cooperatives face several challenges threatening their sustainability, including institutional flaws, poor governance, low performance, market access problems, and lack of support. Based on these findings, the document recommends establishing cooperative management training, promoting self-help organizations by phasing out external funding, revising cooperative laws, and implementing policies to support market-oriented restructuring and democratic management of cooperatives.

1. TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE
SOLUTIONS TO THE RESUSCITATION
OF AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVES
IN ZIMBABWE: A CASE FOR
MANICALAND PROVINCE
by
Lorraine Charinda

2. OUTLINE
Introduction
Methodology
Procedure
Results and Discussion
Conclusions and
Recommendations

3. Introduction
 Agricultural sector in Zimbabwe consists of
mainly smallholder farmers.
 They are currently facing serious challenges of
productivity and marketing which they cannot
resolve on their own.
 Collapse of many agricultural cooperatives in
Zimbabwe is a setback to agricultural
development.

4. Introduction cont’d
 The New Institutional Economics (NIE) provided
a useful theoretical framework as basis for our
investigation.
 Effective and efficient cooperatives ensure
smallholder farmer development which is
central in promoting economic development of
the country.
 The study determines the strategies to use to
fully exploit the potentials of cooperatives for
sustainability.

5. METHODOLOGY
Research design
 A mixed research design was
employed consisting of quantitative
and qualitative approach.
 Purposive sampling was used to
select cases.

6. Population and sample
 The target population reached was members of
agricultural cooperatives and affiliate groups
and other stakeholders who render services to
them.
 The study covers Mutasa and Chimanimani
districts in Manicaland province.
 The criteria for selecting the study sites
included: market environment, accessibility,
presences of cooperatives both successful and
unsuccessful.

7. Population and sample cont’d
 In addition, accessibility to the sites by the
researcher was considered important.
 Five agricultural cooperatives were selected as
cases.

8. Research instruments
Three instruments were used in this study
namely:
 survey questionnaire;
 focus group discussions checklist; and
 in-depth interview questionnaire checklist.

9. Procedure
 Fieldwork involved visiting cooperative sites and
institutions.
 Survey questionnaires were administered to
118 cooperative members.
 Five focus groups discussions were then
conducted and in-depth interviews.
 Information was gleaned from interactions with
different respondents and documented sources.

10. Data analysis
 Data analysis for the survey questionnaires
were analyzed using Microsoft excel and SPSS
(Statistical Package for Social Sciences-21).
 Qualitative data analysis was also used in the
study.
 Identification of recurring themes and ideas was
done with a focus on the frequency of
occurrence and consequently sorted into
categories, which were then placed within an
overall framework.

11. Results and Discussions
Problems affecting
sustainability of
cooperatives
1) Institutional flaws as a result of :
 Free-rider problems due to open and free membership;
 influence and control problems due to equal voting
rights; and
 investment problems due to equal benefits.

12. 2) Governance flaws of
cooperatives:
 incompetency of management;
 low education levels; and
 lack of production and management skills
training.
3) Poor performance due to:
 poor cooperative governance;
 internal problems which include limited skills
leading to misuse of resources;
 transport constraints to accessing better

13. 4. Market access problems due to:
lack of transport facilities; and
poor product quality
5. Management
incompetent
low skills level
6. Poorly implemented financial support
7. Detrimental government policies

14. 8. Economic viability
low productivity
low economic returns
weak economic viability leads to a cycle of
cooperatives’ performance trap shown below:
Poor
performan
ce
Poor
marketing
environme
nt
Low
productivit
y
Poor
financin
g and
support
Low
economic
returns
Poor
investme
nts in the
cooperati
ve

15. 9. External support
Reduced extension support
Lack of trainings
Dependency on aid agencies
10. Social acceptability
dissatisfied members
11. Farming knowledge
low product quality

16. Recommendations
1. Establishment of a cooperative management
training programme.
2. Cooperatives should be promoted as self-help
organizations without any external interference by:
 Phasing out external funding over a limited period;
 Design of a business advisory unit for technical
assistance; and
 The service should focus on capacity building and
human resource development.

17. 3. Cooperatives should encourage savings and credit
unions.
4. A revision of the Cooperatives Act of 2005 is required.
 Voting rights should be made in proportional to
investment and patronage; and
Members should receive full benefits according to their
investment.
5. The government needs more design and constant
review of cooperative development policies guided by
the members e.g.
Policies which support other cooperative-styled types

18. 6. Implication of a public research policy with:
A follow up program that provides longer term
assistance for the policies implemented; and
Provides instruments such as policy manual, legal
checklist and legal expertise.
7. A market oriented restructuring process is essential.
8. New forms of democratic management are needed.

19. THE END
THANK YOU