AMHARA REGIONAL STATE BUREAU OF AGRICULTURE

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


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


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


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.



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



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



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



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.



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



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



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



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



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.


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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).


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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


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_______________


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


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!


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!!

AMHARA REGIONAL STATE BUREAU OF AGRICULTURE

Documents

Transcript of AMHARA REGIONAL STATE BUREAU OF AGRICULTURE