governance and sl livelihood research 2006
TRANSCRIPT
“Governance as enabling factor in promoting sustainable livelihood: A Case study of Kheda District Cooperative Milk Producers‟ Union
(AMUL) intervention in Kheda and Anand, Guajarat” (For partial fulfillment of Post Master (M. Phil level) course in Natural Resource
Management 2006)
(Supported by Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation)
Research Guide
Dr V K Sinha, IFS, Faculty & Research Guide
IIFM
Prepared By
Subhendu Pratihari Post Master (M Phil level) Course in Natural Resource Management,
Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal
INDIA. [email protected]
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF FOREST MANAGEMENT, BHOPAL
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am grateful to Prof. Vinay K. Shina, Faculty & Guide, Indian Institute of Forest Management in constantly guiding me to complete the research work in time. I place on
record of thanks to Mr B M Vyas, Managing Director, Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation (GCMMF) for agreeing and allowing me to undertake the research in GCMMF.
My express my deep sense of respect and gratitude to Dr Verghese Kurien, presently Chairman IRMA (earlier Chairman GCMMF) for providing his precious time and valuable
guidance in the research. I acknowledge the important contribution of Delphi Analysis Expert Panel (Appendix 2)
who has helped in time to complete the analysis. I would like to acknowledge the academic assistance and guidance I received through discussion and E Mail
correspondence with the following Expert Panel Members:
Dr. B N Hiramath, IRMA
Mr. R S Sodhi, GCMMF Dr. Sanjiv Phansalkar, IWMI-Tata
Mr. Rahul Srivastav, Kheda District Cooperative Milk Producers‟ Union Mr. Binoy Acharya Unnati
Ms. Veena Padia, Care India Mr. Deepinder S Kapur Water Aid India Mr. Jaydeep Biswas, Department for International Development (DFID)
Mr. K Srinivas, IAS Gujarat Urban Development Company Professor D N Pathak, Gujarat Vidyapith
Dr. J I Kristmukti, Tribhuvandas Foundation I have benefited immensely during my talk in the initial phase of research with Professor
T K Oommen and Mr N M Prusty.
Special thanks to Dr S T Desai, Mr Himanshu Rathod GCMMF for their unstinted support and guidance to me during the field work and desk review at Anand.
Thanks to Mr P A Joseph, Executive Assistant to Dr V Kurien for his support in providing innumerable reference material on AMUL governance.
I am also indebted to Dr N D Patel, Dr A V Savani of Kheda District Cooperative Milk Producers‟ Union and staffs of Tribhuvandas Foundation (Ilyasbhai, Pruthviraj Rajput,
Harshad Patel, Dinubhai Mir, Alpan Bhai) for their unstinted support to me in completing the research.
I acknowledge my profuse regards to all the Secretary, Chairperson and community members who gave their time and inputs without which this work could not have been
possible.
I wish to thank the Librarian IRMA for his generosity in allowing me to refer books and reference materials at IRMA Library.
I also express my deep gratitude to Biswanath Dash UNDP, Bhavani Dash (Development
Professional), Nitin Srivastav Post Master Student 2006 IIFM and Mr H P Mishra Kamdar Swasthya Surakhya Mandal for their constant inspiration and moral support to me.
Subhendu Pratihari
Post Master (M Phil level) Course in Natural Resource Management, Indian Institute of Forest Management
CONTENTS
Title Page: Certificate of Guide
Acknowledgement Abstract Particulars Page Number
1 Introduction 1-2
1.1 Justification/Need of the study 1.2 Research Question, Objectives & Hypothesis 3 1.3 Usefulness of the research/ scope of the research 3
1.4 Organization of the report 4 1.5 Methodology 4
1.6 Data Base of the Study 4-6 PART-I
2 Review of Literature
2.1 Governance and Sustainable Livelihood Indicators 6-9 2.2 Assessing governance effectiveness 10-11
2.3 Suggested Framework (Final summary of the literature) 12-13 Part-II
3 Case Considered & Delphi Analysis 14-17
Part III
4. Cooperative Governance as case study 18-28
PART-IV 5 Field indexing of the instrument
5.1 The Instrument 29
5.2 The Indicators and parameters 29-32 5.3 Typology of Indictors 32 5.4 Methodology for field testing and analysis 33-34
Part-V 35-64
6. Findings of field testing
6.1 Case–I (Balasinor Taluka) 6.2 Case-II (Kapadvanj Taluka)
6.3 Case-III (Tarpur Taluka)
Part VI: Summary & Conclusion 65
References 66-67
List of Appendix 1. Details of indicators and Parameter 68-70
2. Panel of Experts 71-72 4 Milk Procurement Trend 73-75
5. Interview Schedule (1) 76-78 6 Interview Schedule (2) 79-81 7. Extract Interview with Dr V Kurien 82
8. PRA Report Gorpura Lat 83-86 9. Photograph
List of Figures
1. Suggested Framework for assessing good governance in cooperatives 2. Accountability
3. Transparency 4. Participatory and People Centric
5. Organizational Effectiveness 6. Security and Safety 7. Asset Building
8. Responsiveness to Family Development 9. Collective Orientation
10. Collaborative and consultative atmosphere 11. Organizational Preparedness
List of Tables
1. Accountability 2. Transparency 3. Participatory and People Centric
4. Organizational Effectiveness 5. Security and Safety
6. Asset Building 7. Responsiveness to Family Development 8. Collective Orientation
9. Collaborative and consultative atmosphere 10. Organizational Preparedness
“A larger proportion of rural livelihoods in India are at the mercy of the law of diminishing marginal return from the land. This has led to the
bleak phenomena of rural-urban migration, casualisation of urban labour and feminization of agricultural labour etc. with the net effect of
extremely insecure rural livelihoods. A successful rural development program must help rural people stay on voluntarily and profitably in the villages. Cooperative dairy development on the AMUL Pattern has been
instrumental in securing rural livelihoods in many parts of the India through income generation, agricultural diversification, risk distribution,
female empowerment and assured employment. Consider for a moment the case of a subsistence farmer blessed with just a pair of buffaloes. At an average yield of 5-6 liters daily fro each animal, an additional
income of almost Rs 5000 per month is assured for the 300 days in the year. This does not compare too badly with any rural development
programme implemented by the government.”
Dr V Kurien,
Extract of Chairman‟s Speech, Annual Report of GCMMF 2004-05
Mare Gamade Lila Leher, Jahan Nache Morene Dhel Jahan Dhudh Ki Relam Chel, Jahan Badti Kali Chyan Ma Dubtijati Gaiya,
Awo Awo Re, Awe mare Gaon, Sabko Pawaro Mare Gaon,
yaad Rakheo Mare Gaon, Mare Ghar Anagana Na Na Bholoana
A village of great happiness, Where Peacocks dance with their mates, Where milk for all, where cows graze under the baniyan trees,
Come to my village which every one loves,
Do not forget to visit my village
Hindi Film Mathan 1 Introduction:
1.1 The last two decades have witnessed a dramatic sift in the development discourse leaning towards good governance. Good governance has emerged as central theme to
policy makers, UN Agencies, business organization, bilateral and multilateral organizations. The notion of good governance is propelled and propagated by the Bretten Woods institutions: The World Bank, The WTO and The IMF. This is a logical
extension of Structural Adjustment Program which talks about political reform to achieve greater accountability, transparency and effectiveness in public services
(Ommen 2003). 1.2 In its new form and act, governance has direct and clear linkages with development
of a country. Good governance entails a range of factors involving decentralization in the decision making process, people‟s participation and involvement in the affairs of
local development, planning, implementation and its linkages and relevance to sustainable livelihood.
The term governance and civil society are mutually being used by multilateral
organizations. It is being opined widely that an effective civil society push good governance further. There is a clear linkage between a vibrant civil society and
governance. 1.3 Vashenny (2002) has given a clear argument on the associational engagement and
civic networks helps in reducing communal tension. Varsheny points out that a vigorous associational life if inter communal, acts as a serious constraint over polarization of
political elites. 1.3 Shah (2000) in “Cooperativisation, liberalization and Diary Industries in India” (Page
no 6, 7, 8) has presented the following thoughts on cooperative governance: Lot of debate has been held world over as regards success and failure of cooperatives, very
few studies has been undertaken to standard, strong scientific methodology of measuring performance. Baviskar-Atwood measures the performance of cooperative in Western India in terms of a) Quantity, variety and durability of cooperatives, b)
Spontaneity, c) Managerial control with members, d) viability in terms of profitability. Tushar Shah has given another realistic set of criteria. The list includes: 1. Financial
viability, 2. basic condition of self governance,3. Adherence to the basic principles of cooperatives (voluntary membership, democratic control and patronage line surplus), 4.
Growth trend in business and membership, 5. Centrality to the economies of their membership and business, 6) downward rate net indicating a state of affairs suggesting a degree of stagnation, apathy ad irrelevance syndrome.
National Institute of Rural Development Expert MOHANAN and others in their study
supported by CIRDP on development of monitoring and evaluation list out 11 organizational, 14 operational and 8 members participation indicators
Some other findings for successful development of cooperatives in certain regions (Gujarta and Maharstra):
1. Social structure, caste system and dominant role played by Martha and Patidar
(Gujarat)
2. Stable alliance between large and small farmers 3. Strong sustainable leadership.
However the above indicators have some inherent limitation. These same conditions have not solely been responsible in promoting cooperatives in other areas of India.
Tashar Shah has given the following conditions:
1. Strong drive to success and strong collective will for the success 2. Member first model over value-first model 3. Service to members: Utility to members
4. Social commitment of cooperatives 5. Robust design concept
The debates in academic discourse have brought out eight basic parameters for good governance: accountability, transparency, participatory, consensus oriented, follows rule
of law, responsive, equitable and inclusiveness and effective. Later on good governance linkages with sustainable livelihood has also been central. The present research is
designed to test these parameters in a controlled situation that is AMUL governance. The research tries to explore the existing governance structure as well as provides a framework of improved governance and sustainable livelihood interface.
2 Research Question:
2.1 How far Dairy Cooperatives have been able to promote peoples participation in the management of Dairy Cooperative?
2.2 How far Dairy Cooperatives have been able to promote equity and inclusiveness in the management of Dairy Cooperative?
2.3 How far Dairy Cooperatives have been able to promote effective and efficient management of Dairy Cooperative? 2.4 How far Dairy Cooperatives have been able to promote accountable and transparent
process in the management of Dairy Cooperative? 3 Research Goal:
The four central questions outlines could be further stated in terms of research goal and
objectives. To generate comprehensive list of good governance indicators and develop a framework
which can be used to assess effective governance specifically in context to cooperative governance.
4 Objectives:
4.1 The research aims at assessing the issues around the dairy cooperatives (relating to governance, livelihood, gender and inclusion perspective) and how these
issues are affecting the cooperatives and village development.
4.2 To study the governance framework at AMUL and Dairy Cooperative levels in
context to basic design, structure, system and to develop understanding on how this has been an enabling factor in promoting sustainable livelihood.
4.3 Thirdly the research will identify parameters and indicators of effective governance and in the process will attempt to develop a instrument which can be
used to measure governance of social organization specifically cooperative governance.
5. Research Hypothesis:
The objectives of the research are further specified in to the following hypothesis:
1. Anand Pattern Dairy Cooperative structure is instrumental in bringing desired change in the socio-economic life of millions of farmers.
2. The effective governance of the cooperatives (at three levels) is the key to the success of the dairy cooperative process
3. The development of farmers has been attributed to the effective governance of Dairy Cooperative Society contributing to the sustainable livelihood of the people.
6. Usefulness of the project:
The research being exploratory in nature will try to enlarge the present set up the cooperative governance and in the Process may come with an improved governance structure. The outcome of the research is going to benefit the following groups:
Provide information on the governance and other decision making process in the dairy
cooperatives and its impact on community habitat security.
During the research various stakeholders such as communities, Dairy Cooperatives and
village level other institutions will be sensitized on the emerging issues such as Accountable Governance, Sustainable Livelihood, Gender Equity and Social Inclusion.
The research will try to build a vision of an improved governance structure at the dairy cooperative level.
7 Organization of the report:
This report is organized into four parts. Part-1 deals with the concept of good governance, sustainable livelihood. Through literature review of various studies and
paper on governance indicators, it attempts to provide a framework which can be used for assessment of effective governance. Part-II deals with the Delphi Analysis process and the final instrument which were tested
in the field for reliability and suitability. Part-III Governance of AMUL field findings
Part- IV Methodology to be used for indexing these indicators to get governance effective of dairy copperatives Part-V deals with four case-studies in which the instrument has been tested for its
usefulness and also provides analysis of the findings Part vI provides the conclusions.
8 Methodology:
The researcher did not get any organized bench mark study which is already done on the similar area. Therefore it decided to follow the following four major methods:
8.1 Delphi Analysis:
A panel of 20 experts of different background (see appendix 3) were selected and there by referred as Expert Panel, Delphi Analysis. These members were extensively
interviewed to gather their opinion and finalize on the parameters and indicators good governance and Sustainable Livelihood. The following were the steps of Delphi Analysis:
Step 1: Selection of expert panel was done (members of expert panel were from various Backgrounds): Completed in January 06.
Step 2: Draft schedule (Questionnaire) consisting of indicators of effective governance
and its linkage with sustainable livelihood were developed by extensive literature review. January 06
Step 3: The draft schedule were further tested for proper wording and avoiding ambiguities and vagueness January 06.
Step 4: First round Delphi Analysis questionnaires were sent to the panelists. January 06
Step 5: Analysis of the first round responses and preparing the 2nd round Delphi
Analysis. Step 6: Transmission of the second round questionnaires to the panelists. February 06
Step 8: Analysis of the second round responses completed in February 06.
Step 9: Preparing the final round of indicators based on the 2nd round scoring.
8.2 Field survey: Field data collection was done in 15 Dhudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandali Limited from 4 Talukas. There were two interview schedukle one for Dairy Cooperative
Schedule and the other for members of Dairy Cooperative Society. Step 1: Field data were generated through visiting Dairy Cooperatives conducting
focused group discussion. Simultaneously, 136 selected members were interviewed with structured schedule. It is ensured that the selected members are from varied caste,
income group and community through administering purposive sampling. Step 2: Particular care was taken to understand the perceptions, knowledge of
members and community regarding dairy cooperative governance and its linkages with livelihood options, addressing exclusion effect, overall development of the village. Such
types of data were collected through focus group discussion and in one Dairy Cooperative Participatory Rural Appraisal was conducted.
Step 3: Discussing the insights generated through studies at the village level (with the dairy cooperative society, community and other major actors).
8.3 Case Analysis:
Various case studies related to change in the livelihood of people were collected, analyzed and documented.
8.3 Secondary literature review:
Secondary literatures (progress report, World Bank Evaluation Report, various studies conducted by IRMA, working papers) were reviewed for gaining more perspectives of the topic. IRMA library, GCMMF library were used for the purpose.
8.4 Tools for data collection:
The data collection techniques for the qualitative and quantitative data cover several methodologies such as Focused Group Discussion, Structured Interview (Members and
DCS). The collection of data at household (Member) level data will be done by using a pre-designed format.
8.4.1 Focus Group Discussion and Structured Interview at Household Level will be used to collect data about the governance structure of dairy cooperatives, participation of
members, role of dairy cooperatives in providing livelihood and other securities such as habitat security and perception and attitude of various stakeholders on role of dairy cooperatives.
8.4.2 Use questionnaire in generating insight of experts for Delphi analysis
8.4.3 Quantitative tools: will be used for data analysis and interpretation. The purpose is to analyze the normality distribution of component such as participation, inclusion,
empowerment and gender equity. 8.4.4 Gender Information System: Work load analysis of men and women will be done
to understand the various gender difference.
8.5 Sampling: The study undertaken the following sampling method.
8.5.1 Selection of the District: Since the research aimed at understanding the governance of AMUL, Kheda and Anand districts were selected purposively. Kheda
District Cooperative Milk Producer Union‟s covers two districts (Kheda and Anand).
8.5.2 Selection of the Taluka. Three taluka among all the operational talukas of Kheda District Cooperative Milk Producer‟s Union were selected.
8.5.3 Selection of Dairy Cooperatives: Although stratified Random sampling was followed by selecting dairy cooperatives based on milk procurement. However it was also decided to take at least one Woman managed dairy cooperative in each Taluka
depending on availability. Accordingly 14 dairy cooperatives (5 in Balasinor and Kapadvanj, 4 in Tarapur Taluka) were selected in Tarapur, Kapadvanj and Balasinor
Talukas.
8.5.4 Selections of Sample respondents: Originally it was planned to collect 10 %
sample and not less than 10 members in one Dairy Cooperative will be covered.
However since the number of member in a Dairy Cooperative was in the range of 200 to 500, It was decided to take 10 number of members from each Cooperative. In case
on Gorpura Lat Women Dairy Cooperative Society only three members were interviewed and Participatory Rural Appraisal was conducted.
Member selection criteria: Total milk supply (Big supplier, Middle supplier and small suppliers)
8.5.5 For selecting members of Expert Panel for Delphi Analysis, Purposive sampling was used.
9 Data Base of the Study (Sources of data):
1. Secondary literatures source: GCMMF, Kheda Milk Producers‟ Union, Tribhuvandas
Foundation, Institute of Rural Management, Zila Panchayat, Taluka Panchayat
2. Village Information Sheet to collect data on village socio-economic profile 3. Participatory Rural Appraisal (One Village)
4. Delphi Analysis Questionnaire: 20 Experts were extensively interviewed on 10 parameters and 95 indicators for good governance and sustainable livelihood in cooperatives.
5. Schedule 1: Members 6. Schedule 2: Dairy Cooperatives
PART-I 1) Governance system and Sustainable Livelihood Indicators?
1.1) The talk of good governance dates back to the Tretaya period during the reign of
Rama. The Ramayan, one of the greatest epic of India has talked lucidly on good governance. Rama counsels Bharat the younger brother of Rama (who goes to meet Rama in the forest to request him to come back Ayodhya and takeover the
reign) on good governance: whether he has has appointed courageous, knowledgeable, high emotional quotient and strong will ministers? Rama has
counsel Bharat to take appropriate measure for irrigation development, livestock development and forest management as these have direct linkages with livelihood of common people.
Governance is a broad area of discourse and mean differently to different
organization. Broadly speaking good governance refers to quality management of affairs and system more responsive to community cause. Governance and
livelihood have a direct and clear linkage. Livelihood decisions even in the most remote areas of the world are increasingly affected by policies, institutions and processes. Resource management issues of an area are intrinsically governance
issues- because they address issues of collective responsibility, distribution, conflict management and power handling.
Governance is the system of values, policies and institutions by which a society
manages its economic, political and social affairs through interactions within and
among the state, civil society and private sector (UNDP Strategy Note on Governance for Human development, 2004). The UNDP publication on
Overcoming Human Poverty (UNDP 2000) has reported largely towards exploring the issues involved in the relationship between good governance and poverty
alleviation.
1.2) From literature review we find that United Nation Development Program, World
Bank have done extensive work on governance and sustainable livelihood indicators. Some times research scholars find World Bank view on good
governance is mainly on political reform and better management of state. From 1994, World Bank has initiated a cross country governance survey. Kaufmann, Kraay, and Zoido-Lobatón have used 31 indicators of good governance which
were constructed in 1997-98 by World Bank survey of governance in 159 countries. They illustrate the methodology by constructing aggregate indicators of
bureaucratic quality, rule of law, and graft for a sample of 160 countries. One of the major finding of the survey is that the aggregate indicators are imprecise despite high correlation observed between various sources of data.
United Nations Development Program and European Commission have also
largely involved in developing governance indicators. UNDP has prepared guide on the governance indicators “Governance Indicators: A users Guide. The book
has provided guidance note on measuring democracy, governance and human rights.
Department for International Development (DFID) approach to Sustainable Livelihood concise the following indicators:
1. People centered 2. Responsive and participatory
3. Multi level 4. Conduct in partnership
5. Sustainable 6. Dynamic
During 70s with the emergency of Common Property Resource Management took a sift propelled by Harden‟s Targedy of Common. Common Property Resource
Management approach envisages that individuals organize in to groups to govern and manage common property resources such as forests, water and other natural resources. The approach clearly states that action of one stakeholder to a
particular group is bound to create problem for other group. Therefore it talks about group management and put focus on conflict management.
Gupta Anilk K (2001) in his article on Criteria and Indicators of Sustainability has given a detailed explanation of properties of good indictors:
1) Is it parsimonious or „optimally‟ inaccurate?‟ The „optimally inaccuracy‟ in his
view is a way of making a trade-off between exactness and goodness. After all, an indicators is as good as the usable it provides to the decision-makers
2) Is it „internally‟ and „externally‟ valid? Internal validity means that an indicator
measures what it is supposed to be. The external validity implies that it measures the same thing every where, i.e., it is generalizable. The internal validity would
depend up on the logical consistency between the indicator and the phenomena being indicated.
3) Is it easily understandable by various groups of users?
4) Does it enable inter-connections among different sub-systems? To what extent does an indicator show an inter-connections among different components of an institutional or ecological system?
5) Is it easy to compare different situation over space, season and sector?
6) How specific is an indicator to a given context whether moral, spiritual, cultural, or socio-cultural? Some indicators are highly context-specific (Emic
indicators) , where as other are not culture-specific (Etic indicators). It is useful to identify the context of an indicators so that one knows the constraints under
which it should be used.
Spiritual understanding of different communities of natural resources is also different.
7) Does the indicators maintain their consistency to varying extent over time and space? The decrease in the meaningfulness of an indicator over time implies high
entropy. 8) To what extent is an indicator gender sensitive? Some indicators reveals the
differential stress on men and women in a given community while other do not.
The typology an indicator can be developed by looking at the characteristics described above in conjunction with the contextual variables. Not all indicators will provide early warning signals with the same lead time.
Singh Rajendra (2001) in his article “Making a Dry River Flow” Experience of a
Community-based Biodiversity and Water Cinservation in Alwar District of Rajstan has given the following thoughts: The approach to community based conservation is based on trust of the people and a decrease in the involvement of the
bureaucratic authorities. Once trust of the people and awareness is generated, the local folk will contribute heartily to conservation self-discipline and community
decisions taken in the Gram-Sabha. The entire process will not only mean sharing of benefits by the local community but also sharing the responsibility to protect and manage their own resources in a sustainable manner.
Vivekanadan P “Toold for participatory Action Learning” (2001) says, Linking
participatory approaches directly to accountability, empowerment of local groups
and transparency in decision making are the need of the hour in the current decade of development
Jain SC (2001) Approach and Indicators of sustainability in Natural Resource
Management Program has provided the following: Objective 1. Organize groups of beneficiaries and work towards capacity building
of these groups to create community based organization (CBO)
Norms: Organize-Ownership, Identity, Representation, Role of Women Indicators:
1. Clarity of purpose among all the members 2. Level of participation and representation of various sub-groups
3. (Farmers, land less, weaker section, Mahila Mandals, etcs) 4. Degree of participation in the evolution of the agenda and fairness in
distribution of benefits.
5. Contribution in the program activities. 6. Reasons for being together.
7. Personality and practical conflict do not disturb the process. 8. Decision making process- consultative and satisfaction of members.
9. Capacity to analyze own strength and identity issues for local action. 10. Legal identity. 11. Identification of natural leadership/selection process.
12. Does the leadership analyze an emerging situation in a right way and takes immediate initiative in responding it?
13. Women in the strategic position. 14. Record keeping-minutes of meeting, funds informative books of
account, transparency and accountability, etcs.
Capacitate CBO:
1. Awareness on NR Issue 2. Skill tom plan, implement and monitor
3. Functional skill and capacities 4. Sharing of benefits
5. Managerial/organizational capabilities 6. Component-based skill 7. Marketing skill etc.
Malhotra KC 2001 (Social Sustainability in Natural Resource Management) a paper
published in Criteria and Indicators in Sustainability in Rural Development in the conclusion has said that “social sustainability thus depends on addressing social, economic and cultural needs of local communities‟ dependant on a natural resource. It is
a relative concept, bound by time, space and people.
Rangenekar D V, G G Sohani and B R Kadke 2001 (Indicators of Sustainable Rural Development from the perspective of BAIF) has given a lucid presentation on the
indicators (Livestock program):
Ecological Indicators
1. Percentage of animals grazed and grazing time
2. Protection and development of village commons 3. Percentage of families using bio-gas
4. Use of improved composting method 5. Number of trees family and on village commons 6. Improvement in housing, sanitation waste disposal
Economic Indicators
1. Percentage of families having improved animals 2. Milk production and sales per family
3. Percentage of improved animal family 4. Sale of surplus or meat animals
5. Mortality and disease incidence in animals 6. Use income for improving housing, well or agricultural land
Social Indicators
1. Percentage of under privileged involved in the program 2. Participation of women in executive meeting, training
3. Use of milk for household consumption 4. Number of farmer women groups. Co-operative Societies 5. Involvement of under privileged in groups or Cooperative societies
6. Direct access and control on income by women 7. Percentage of under privileged having improved animals
8. Improvement in knowledge and awareness about livestock and environment 1.3) After going through various approaches, we come to conclusion that there are
enough efforts on measuring performance of Government and Civil Society and their impact on sustainable livelihood of people. However we find no enough work
has been undertaken to test the indicators in context to successful venture either by Government, Private and Civil Society. Moreover indicators are varied to varied situations. World Bank in its efforts of Governance Matter II, III have found out
the problem of imprecision in the indicators. The present research therefore has got conceptualized to address the above issues.
1.3) Assessing Governance in Dairy Cooperatives:
Governance is the reflection of quality management. Each organization‟s path to good governance is different depending on culture, geography, political and
administrative tradition, economic conditions, and many others (Sodhi & Upadhay 1998).
Governance plays a major role in determining the ground level performance of the
institutions. Issues in cooperatives have been put under Governance-Design Issue and Governance-Performance Issues (Gupta 2002). Tenth Five Year Plan for the
first time places cooperatives in the civil society and recognize them as partners in the development process. Groves (1995) has placed the uniqueness of cooperative management against non cooperatives under the following table:
Features of Cooperative Management vs Non Cooperative Management
Features Cooperatives Non Cooperatives Implication for cooperatives
Purpose Maximize Member income
Maximize return to stock holder
Profit maximizing decisions, not always the
best for the member
Decision making
process
Democratic: one
member one vote
One vote/Share
of common stock
Members need education
for decision making
Direct selection From members Inside/Outsides
or both
Directors often need
training
Structure Owner, user,
controller are all same people
Owner, user,
controller all are different people
Member need education
for decision making
Policy making procedure
Quasi public Often private Member need education for decision making
(Sodhi & Upadhay 1998) has given a concise thought on the possible indicators of
governance in cooperatives and have provided a long list of indicators:
1. Level of awareness the leader, executives and members have about the principle of cooperation and basic values of the cooperative philosophy;
2. How different are the expectation of the stake-holders in the cooperative vis-avis
corporate framework? 3. How clearly the members understand the ethical and moral elements which are
the essential components of the cooperative philosophy? 4. How different is the cooperative enterprise from a private enterprise or a state
enterprise
5. How conscious are the board members about their rights and responsibilities to the members? To what extent the board members realize that they are
accountable and answerable to the members who have reposed their confidence in them?
6. How much operational powers are delegated to the chief executive?
7. How much smooth are the communication channel between the Board and Chief Executive?
8. Whether any code of conduct/ethics has been developed and accepted by the organization and its affiliate?
9. How much is the level of transparency in dealing with the employees? How is the
discipline outlined on the use of assets of the organization? 10. How often are the meetings held (on schedule and in accordance with by-laws)
Pastakia Astad 2001, Health, Wealth and Sustainable Prosperity (A compilation of
Indicators of Institutional Sustainability) has provided a comprehensive check List of Indicators: (Some indicators are presented out of all the indicators provided by Astad)
Institutional Health:
1. Does the leadership have along term vision, which embodies the values of sustainable resource management?
2. Does the rank and file of the organization share the vision 3. Are the members united in a common cause? How strongly do they identify with
super-ordinate goals of the organization?
4. How broad based is the leadership? Is the institution dependent on a single charismatic leader or does it have a group leadership?
5. Are all relevant stakeholders represented in the decision making process? How does the management take care of the concerns of the indirect stakeholders, if any?
6. Are the risks and responsibilities of different stakeholders in proportion to the reward and benefits that they set out of the enterprises?
7. Is the power of the executive body balanced with the power of the general body? 8. Is it possible to identify the members who play the role of gatekeepers and
whistle-blowers, if any? 9. What are the mechanisms for conflict resolution of different types?
-Between member and executive
-Between factions -Between executive and general body
-Between first and second generation leadership -Between two or more leaders when leadership is collective? How effective are these mechanism
Institutional Strength
1. What is the size of the institution? What is the extent of financial and social capital available within the institutions?
2. To what extent does the institute invest in networking activities? What is the ability to mobiles resources through its various networks a) on short notice and b) over a
reasonable time frame? 3. What is the legitimacy of the institution and its activities in the eyes of the society? 4. Does the institution enjoy legal legitimacy? Does it have a legal personality? Are all
the property rights clearly defined ? Does it fulfill the requirement of the society in which it operates?
Wickramsingh Anoja (2001) Habitat Security in his article “A composite index of Sustainability of Rural development” has said the following:
The health of the local environment depends on four interrelated domains: the political,
economic, biosphere and socio-cultural. Where there is no outside intervention, matters have been managed with wisdoms of the community and its reciprocity. These have
deteriorated as a consequences of introduction of private property rights, declaration of common resources as state owned property and more recently with commercialization of
farm production system and trade liberalization.
Livelihoods of the rural poor and marginal farmers becomes the most important single criteria for ascertaining the sustainability of a natural resource development project
Kapur (2001)
2) Suggested Framework: As it is already mentioned, many works on governance indicators and measuring
performance of social organization has been done. Therefore the framework suggested here for assessing the governance and sustainable livelihood at
cooperatives builds on the previous similar work by (Shah), (Baviskar-Atwood). Two Sustainable Livelihood frameworks (DFID and IFAD) were also extensively reviewed. The parameters and indicators suggested in the framework are not the
end in itself. There can be many more based on different context. For suitability and appropriateness ten parameters, 95 indicators and 10 sub indicators are
finalized in the Delphi analysis.
Parameters:
2.1) Accountability:
2.2) Organizational Effectiveness (Design and Legitimacy): 2.3) Institution Building (Participatory and People Centric):
2.4) Security and safety (Governance leading to enhancement of the following security level at habitat level):
2.5) Assets Building (Governance leading to effective use & strengthening of assets):
2.6) Responsive to family development (Good Governance leading to building the followings at the family level):
2.7) Collective Orientation (Effective governance leading to enhancement of intercommunity engagement, pluralism and cohesion):
2.8) Transparency (is essential for ensuring accountability. Program must be designed
in such a manner that it brings out openly all the interrelations and linkages between various actions and actors):
2.9) Collaborative and consultative atmosphere (Relationship with external Stakeholders):
2.10) Organizational Preparedness:
Good Governance
Accountability
Asset Building (Natural
Capital, Social Capital,
Physical Capital, Human
Capital, Spiritual
Capital)
Security &
Safety (Family
and habitat level)
Collective
orientation
Institutional Building
(Participatory and
people centric)
Collaborative and
consultative
atmosphere
Responsiveness to
family
development
Organization
Preparedness
Transparency
Organizational
Effectiveness
Figure-I (Suggested Framework for assessing Governance Effectiveness)
Part-II 1) Case considered:
The framework suggested (Figure 1 of Part-I) for assessing governance and sustainable
livelihood is specifically developed for assessing cooperative governance. However it is expected that the instrument can be useful for testing governance and sustainable livelihood framework of all kinds of institutions.
1.1) While the research was conceptualized, a lot of debates were held with
academicians, development professionals as to how to develop a framework for governance measurement of a social organization. Is there any previous work which comprehensively prescribes any framework or a complete new framework
will be developed? Subsequently literature review satisfied all the questions. Therefore the study wanted to build from the previous work done already on
cooperative governance. 2) Delphi Analysis: One of the methodologies of the research was kept as Delphi
Analysis to gather expert opinion on possible indicators to be tested for the field testing. More than 100 indicators under the heading of 10 parameters were developed. However
this was quite big one to test in the filed. Based on 2nd round Delphi Analysis scoring, 47 indicators were taken in the form question for field testing. The Delphi Analysis was
mainly carried out in questionnaires method. Both postal and email communication was used for sending the questionnaires and sharing subsequent information. It took complete 45 days to compete the analysis.
2.1) Experts Panel: The experts selected are from varied background (See Appendix C).
Twenty four experts were contacted for the Delphi Analysis. Finally twenty experts agreed to become the member of the Expert Panel. 5 members are academicians, 2 from Bilateral Agency, 4 are from local NGO, one member is a senior Gujarat Cadre
IAS, 4 are from reputed International NGO and 5 are senior professionals from Cooperative Organizations.
2.2) The analysis was completed in two phases over a period of nine weeks. In the first
phase, a list of ninety five indicators under ten parameters was presented to the
panel of experts for their selection. The answers obtained from them were then reviewed and tabulated. In the second phase, all the indicators given to them in
the first round were again provided to them with ranking of the 1st round analysis. It is to be expressed here that the indicators provided to the Expert Panel under various parameters were repetitive and some times undesirable for a specific
parameters. But was done so in order to gather the best possible indicators from them and avoid biasness. The scoring is mainly based on number of members
providing rank 3 and 4 which are acceptable indicators.
2.3.
1. Accountability (Table 1)
1 Indicators
1.i Existence of policy framework to address problems and crisis related to its member 12
1.ii Existence of adequate policy to address discrimination and exclusion 9
1.iii Adequate representation of all caste in the executive committee 8
1.iv Democratic process (election & fairness in management) 14
1.v Responsiveness of grievance handling mechanism 12
1.vi Structured financial and assets management system 14
1.vii Timely financial audit and its compliance 13
1.viii Policy and space for gender representation 11
1.ix Regular social audit, follow up action and their presentation in general body 9
1.x Regularity of Executive Meeting focusing of members problem and crisis resolution 13
1. Organizational effectiveness (design and legitimacy) (Table 2)
2.i Shared vision and values (all members know the basic objectives of the organization) 13
2.ii Extent of functional control by general assembly 6
2.iii Independency of Executive Board in decision making 8
2.iv Formal rule of laws, contract between member and cooperatives in terms of rights and duties 13
2.v Existence of rule &, policy mechanism for conflict resolution 13
2.vi Division of space in terms of role, responsibility and action for Executive Committee, Management and General Committee 11
2.vii Representation of weaker, excluded and marginalized community 8
2.viii Image of cooperative as independent and effective management body 14
2.ix Effective Service delivery mechanism 13
2.x
Code of conduct and task description for all (General Assembly, EC,
Staff) 10
2. Institutional Building-Participatory and people centric (Table 3)
3.i Safeguard the interest of major as well as minor stakeholders 14
3.ii Flow of information and easy access to information by member 13
3.iii Promote participation of women and youth 9
3.iv Participation of community in major program decision 10
3.v
Principle of transparency, accountability and integrity in programming
process 15
3.vi Review of progress periodically with full participation of members 9
3.vii Focus on equity & inclusiveness in targeting while carrying out developmental activity 10
3.viii Program promoting pluralism & interfaith 8
3.ix Gender equity in governance of organization 9
3.x Training and capacity building of members 10
3.xi Responsiveness to members problem and complaints 13
3.xii Promote study circle and group activities of members 5
4) Security and safety (Governance leading to enhancement of the following security level at habitat level) (Table 4)
4.i Livelihood security (Livelihood security entails a range of factors which lead to a sustainable living at family level)
Access and control over productive resources (Natural Capital) 10
Easy access and availability of liquid capital for investment (Finance Capital) 12
Kinship, Intercommunity engagement, trust between community (Social
Capital) 7
Good health, access to quality education and knowledge (Human Capital) 10
Food & Nutrition security 8
4.ii Social network security
Social safety net 9
Interfaith associations, networks and groups promoting engagement 7
4.iii Habitat security
Equal opportunity 10
Gender equity in provisioning of education and employment 10
Ecological security 6
4.iv Economic security (Conducive fiscal policy, protection from monopoly market) 5
4.v Environmental Security 7
4.vi Psychosocial security (in context to any disaster/shock/trend) 6
4.vii Absence of conflict 6
4.viii Preparedness against all forms of distress & disaster 5
5) Asset Building (Table 5)
5.i
Natural Capital (land, water bodies, forest, pasture, tree, homestead &
etcs) 14
5.ii Physical Capital (Infrastructure) 13
5.iii Human Capital (Human resources/Labour force) 13
5.iv Social Capital ( Group cooperation, collective work, cooperation and cohesion among village level institutions) 12
5.v Financial Capital 12
5.vi
Political Capital (Responsive local governance, responsive political parties
with ideology suiting local development) 9
5.vii Intellectual Capital (Encourage and promote the development of innovation and creativity of members) 10
5.viii Cultural Capital (Way of life, established values & rituals governing the society) 6
5.ix Institutional Capital (Norms, rules, practices governing various the society) 8
5.x Knowledge capital (indigenous knowledge, traditional skill, experiences) 10
5.xi Spiritual Capital (Inner Human Space, Collective Belief and Orientation) 6
6) Responsiveness to Family Development (Table 6)
6.i Enlarge the individual aspiration & hopes 13
6.ii Better health, education and nutrition security 11
6.iii Improved gender relation leading to reduced drudgery to women 10
6.iv Psychological attributes (absence of fear & anxiety) 9
6.v Awareness level & access to information and rights 12
6.vi Perceived sense of physical and emotional safety 11
6.vii Solidarity & respect to each other 10
6.viii Build life Skills to counter conflict and stress 10
6.ix
Psychosocial safety (trust onto neighbor, space for ventilation, perceived
sense of safety from immediate society) 8
6.x
Personal empowerment (Programme reaching poorest and excluded to
make them secure from any shocks) 11
7) Collective Orientation (Table 7)
7.i Increased inter community & associational engagement 12
7.ii Presence and effective engagement of social and community organizations 11
7.iii Existence of common activity and group management system 9
7.iv Existence and good management of Common Property Resource 8
7.v Conflict as a positive force for development (resolution at local level) 6
7.vi Improved gender relation and gender equity perspective 9
7.vii Social Inclusion and cohesion exist at the habitat level 9
7.viii Promote & accept value of Citizenship 9
7.ix Believe in interfaith & pluralism 8
8) Transparency (Table 8)
8.i Access to official documents & information to all the member 12
8.ii Decision making process open and participatory (Involve all the stakeholders) 12
8.iii Social Audit by Gram Sabha and community members from same village 6
8.iv Periodic review and monitoring 10
8.v Redress and dispute handling timely 12
8.vi Performance and process need to be rooted through principles of accountability, transparency and integrity 4
8.vii Well defined division of responsibility between various functional bodies 12
8.viii Demonstrated effort to reach out excluded and marginalized community 10
8.ix Public hearing 6
9) Collaborative and consultative atmosphere (Relationship with external Stakeholders)
(Table 9)
9.i Community consultation (Public hearing, participatory planning) 7
9.ii Functional Networking and collaboration with multiple stakeholders 9
9.iii Interest of multiple stakeholders get represented in the governance 10
9.iv Joint partnership (implementation, monitoring of developmental activities) 7
9.v Promote intercommunity and associational engagement 6
9.vi Good relationship with Bank and other institutions 9
10) Organization Preparedness: (Table 10)
10.i
Perspective development plan document with Dairy Cooperative/local
governance 11
10.ii Presence & synergy between village level institutions and collectives for village development 12
10.iii Recovery ability (in case of any disaster, shocks, trend) 12
1o.iv General preparedness to counter stress period 12
10.v Village Development Fund 11
1.vi Effective provisioning of social services 10
10.vii Strong awareness level of community 6
10.viii Local Governance/Institutions accountable to community need 13
10.ix
Access & control over market (Breaking market monopoly, stopping
middlemen, polluter pay principle) 12
10.x Integrated management of natural resources (sustainable development principle) 6
The result of final round rating says that some of the indicators (30 indicators) have got lowest ranking by the expert panel. It is important to specify here that the indicators provided low rating by the Expert Panel does not mean that they are totally unsuitable.
May be a different Expert Panel would find them suitable. Therefore, the research while designing the instrument for field testing tried to use those indicators deemed suitable
at the filed. Though the final indicators selected for field testing are heavily leaned towards finding of the Delphi Analysis.
PART-III Cooperative Governance: Findings of field study:
Gujarat: Guajarat is one of the western states of India. It has border one side with
Maharastra, one side with Rajastan, one side with Arabian Sea. The total area of Gujarat is 196024 Sq Km. There are 19 districts with 184 Community Development laocks (called as Taluka). As per 1991 census the literacy rate of Males in Gujarat wis 73.1 and
Females literacy rate is 61.3. The dairy sector occupies an important place in the economy of Gujarat more specifically in Kheda district. The Kheda district is situated in
the central Gujarat is bounded on the north by Sbarkantha district, on the sounth by Mahi river and Gulf of Kambey, on the east by Panchmahals district. Total population of the district is 34, 40, 897 (1992 Cnesus).
Total population of Gujarat as per 1991 census was 45 million. The population as per
Religion break-up: Hindu: 89.48 %, Muslim: 8.73 %, Christina: .44 %, Jains: 1.19 % and other: rest
The climate of Gujarat varies lot. The geographical setting is also varied in nature.
When one side (Western region) of it faces regular drought, south region get good rainfall. Most of the people in Gujarat depend on Dairying as second most livelihood
occupation after agriculture. AMUL journey:
During mid 1950‟s the rural livelihood system of Kheda was mainly dependent on
seasonal agriculture and dairying. Unlike other areas of India, the framers of Kheda districts were subjected to exploitation in the hand of middle men, and private traders. In the absence of fair market, private traders were buying milk from farmers of Kheda
with low price and give more low price in lean seasons. With such background, Kheda District Cooperative milk Producers‟ Union (popularly know as AMUL) was formed. The
primary objective of setting up of AMUL was to free the milk producer from the so called scrupulous private traders and middle men.
The realization began during 1946, when Kaira District Milk Producer‟s Union began with a meager 246 liters of milk collection and with two dairy cooperatives. Today AMUL
procures processes and distribute over 10 lakh liters of milk per day owned by around 6 lakh farmer members. AMUL has become the sign and symbol of the aspirations of millions of farmers, and the pattern of liberation and self-reliance for every farmer. Now
there are total 1086 Village level Dairy Cooperatives across Anand and Kheda which are popularly called as Dhudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandali. The experiment has reframed a
positive gender relation in the villages. Out of all these cooperatives, thirteen cooperatives are managed by women which are called as Mahila Dhudh Utpadak Sahakari Manadli. There are around one lakh women members in all the cooperatives.
Two hundred fifty women are in the managing committee and there are twenty Dairy Cooperatives managed by women Chairperson.
AMUL changed the old system of milk business which was middlemen driven: lowest possible price to the milk producer, lowest possible quality of milk and milk product for
consumer and highest possible price to consumer. The profits are pocketed by middlemen. The new system is reverse “highest possible price to the milk producers,
lowest possible price for the consumer and highest possible quality of milk & milk products for sale. The profits ploughed back to Milk producers”.
3.1) The structure of the Anand Pattern (AMUL Governance):
One of the most important feature of cooperative system in Gujarat specifically Anand Pattern that these cooperatives runs by the farmers themselves. From planning, monitoring and evaluation, all the activities are being performed by the members who
use to be a farmer of the same village. These practices for a long period have made them guiding principles for all its units. Now from village level dairy Cooperatives to
District Union, the governance system is ideal. There is a three tier system of governance which is in practice in AMUL:
Figure 1 (Anand Pattern in Gujarat)
State Cooperative Marketing Federation
(Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation consisting of 12 District Unions)
District Cooperative Milk Producer‟s Union (Every District has a District Union formed by Representatives of Dairy Cooperative
Society)
Village Dairy Cooperative Society
(Consists of Milk Producers of Village)
Milk Producer
1st tier: Dairy Cooperative Society at village level consists of primary milk producers. To become a member, a milk producer pays an entrance fee of Rupee.1.00 and buys at
least one share of Rs.10.00.
There are seven cooperative principles based on which a village level Dairy Cooperative Society functions:
1. Open and voluntary membership (within Society area)
2. Democratic member control 3. Members financial contribution (Each member is expected to buy a share costing
Rs 10/- to become a member of the Cooperative) 4. Freedom and autonomy 5. Training, education and information
6. Social obligation 7. Cooperation between Dairy Cooperative Societies
Source: Discussion extract with Dr A Sravani, Manager CD,KDCMPU On the basis of cooperation principles, rule and laws are prepared. Later on the same
are incorporated in to by-law of the respective DCS.
The members elect a managing committee and the committee elects a Chairman. Each member has only one vote, regardless of the number of shares s/he has. Committee
works honorary and restricts to policy formulation and supervision. The general body further appoints Secretary who is a paid staff to manage the day to day affairs of the society. Other salaried staffs are employed for milk collection, fat-testing, book keeping,
other financial and assets registers and artificial insemination, etc.
Activities of Village Dairy Cooperative Society: 1. Collection of milk from milk producers and make payment of the milk procured to the
milk producer. In the study villages, the payment is done in every 14 days to the milk producers.
2. Providing support service to the members such as veterinary, Artificial Insemination, Cattle Feed sales, mineral mixtures sales, fodder seed sale, training and capacity
building of members on animal husbandry and dairying.
3. Supplying procured milk to District Union 4. Maintain detailed record of sale, profit and activities.
5. Overseas the developmental activities undertaken by the Dairy Cooperative Society
from its Reserve Fund, Education Fund and Charitable Fund. (A part of the society‟s profits is also channeled to schools, libraries, dispensaries and health centers, water works, drinking troughs for cattle, roads, electricity, telephone facilities, youth clubs,
cattle relief and veterinary services like first aid and artificial insemination in its village).
Profit Calculation for a Dairy Cooperative Society (calculated by taking Rs 100, 000 in to account) 1. 25 % (Reserve fund- can be utilized during any disaster/emergency): 25000
2. 3 % (Education Fund): 3000 3. 12 % (Member Share deed): 12000
--------------------------
40000 4. 65 % of remaining 60000 (Member bonus): 39000
5. 10 % (Charitable fund): 6000 6. 10 % (Staff bonus): 6000 7. 5% (cooperative development): 3000
8. 10 % (Animal welfare): 6000 ------------------
60000
2nd Tier: District Union: (Case study of Kheda District Cooperative Milk Producer‟s Union) is governed by a Board of Directors of which twelve are elected from among the
Chairperson of village societies. The Board elects a Chairperson and a Vice–Chairperson. It also appoints a Professional Managing Director for day to day management of the
union activities. The election takes place every three years where board members are selected. The Chairman is elected every year from amongst the village society
representatives.
Functions of District Union:
1. Provide constant market: Procurement of milk from all the member Dairy
Cooperative Societies in the district. 2. Logistic: Arrange the transportation of milk from Villages to District Union. 3. Regular payment of the milk procured to the village societies
4. Surplus bonus (Profit is ploughed back to milk producers by becoming bonus) 5. Social development activities
-Member Provident Fund (at present 101 DCS have been covered) -Member Death Scheme (316 DCS have been covered). Society pays immediate Rs 1000 to Rs 2, 000 to the family which suffer loss of it member.
-Accident Benefit Scheme: A member pay Rs 8/- per year to get benefit of the scheme. Rs 10, 000 is paid to the family in case of accident death of any
member. 6. Health and medical support: AMUL through Tribhuvandas Foundation and Sardar Patel Foundation address health problem of member.
7. Educational development: AMUL pays children of its member for Post Graduate and graduation studies related to technical courses.
8. Health Care of Animal: At present it is called as veterinary services. 2.5 lakh animals have been treated annually. The veterinary system run by AMUL is one of the most efficient systems in AMUL providing round the clock service to the farmer.
9. Health care of human: 800 DCS have first aid box consisting of essential medicine care, medicine are provided to members with 50 % subsidy.
10. Artificial insemination service: First in Gujarat, 6.5 lakh animals got inseminated every year.
Distinct features:
1. There are 850 Dairy Cooperative Societies at village level possessing ISO 9001-2000 certificate.
ISO 9001-2000 is a management standard which is given to a company or service
offered company in case of the following:
1. Customer at central focus
2. Leadership
3. Continuous improvement
4. Involvement of People and employee involvement
5. Process approach
6. System approach
7. Factual approach for decision marketing
8. Mutual beneficial supplier relation
Benefit received by Dairy Cooperative Society: Reduction of souring of milk/Bacteria reduction and 100 % fresh milk collection from these cooperatives. By 2007 these cooperatives are planning to get converted to ISO 22000 which covers all the points
of ISO 9001-2000 and additionally give focus on consistent capacity building of all the members, quality maintenance at all the level.
2. Vision, Mission and Strategy (VMS) exercise: In order to take the Dairy Cooperatives movement further and build long term vision and action plan, AMUL has facilitated organizing Vision Mission and Goal exercise in Dairy Cooperative Societies. The VMG
exercise is being directly facilitated by Internal Consultant Development which consists of trained staff members of AMUL who operates from District and Zone (geographical
unit for training). 3. Social Audit has been kept and viewed as an integral part. Local auditor one/two is
appointed by general body of each Dairy Cooperative Society to monitor the cooperative activities from the community perspective. The report of local auditor is discussed in
the Executive Committee and appropriate action is undertaken. The results are also discussed at general body meeting.
3rd Tier (State Cooperative Milk Federation): In order to enlarge the cooperative movement at the state level, ensure healthy competition and market growth, a state
level cooperative federation has been formed. Here Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation (GCMMF) has been acting as the State Level Federation formed with 12
district unions. The Board of Directors of the federation consisted of the Chairpersons of the all the 12 District unions as the members and in addition the following as ex officio members.
1. The Registrar of Cooperatives of Gujarat
2. Representative of National Dairy Development Board 3. One nominated Technical Expert
4. Managing Director of the state level federation.
GCMMF plays critical role in development of market, coordination between twelve district unions and constant capacity building of members of cooperative.
The Vision, Mission and Strategy exercise as a part of organization development process taken up in all 12 District Unions is being facilitated by GCMMF. The first workshop
which was organized in November 97 involving all Chairpersons, Managing Directors and Board Members of 12 District unions have identified the following key indicators:
1. Promise to fulfill producer‟s expectation 2. Create atmosphere to enable self-development of producer through education
3. Increasing procurement 4. Improved quality of products at all levels
Source: 1st VMS Workshop (1997) Document of Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing
Federation
3.2) Human development intervention of AMUL a result of effective governance:
During field study it is reported by the people (members of dairy cooperative society) about how AMUL also helps them in health care specifically the health of vulnerable women and children. The researcher took more interest to gain more understanding on
the intervention. The story of human health care intervention started with establishment of Tribhuvandas
Foundation a registered charitable trust to promote the health of women and child in Kheda district. The Tribhuvandas Foundation made a modest beginning with one village in the year
1980 and has spread its activities to 638 villages of Anand and Kheda districts today.
The focus of the organization is to provide primary health care along with tackling the associated problems of nutrition, environmental sanitation and rural poverty. The activities are financed by the milk co-operatives and managed by the people
themselves. Its health services operations reach to around 600 villages, covering almost 70% of the district population. The work of the organization has transformed the rural
villages in to vibrant society with good health indicators. The Infant mortality rate as well as maternal mortality rate has shown a significant decrease over the years.
10 year review of Live birth, neonatal Mortality/AMULoperational area in Anand and Kheda
Total villages covered 559
Sl No Year Live Birth
Neonatal Mortality (0-1
year) Rate per 000
1 1994-95 25155 1886 75
2 1995-96 28049 1937 69
3 1996-97 26675 1737 68
4 1997-98 29543 1697 57
5 1998-99 25615 1636 64
6 1999-2000 29818 1620 54
7 2000-01 25784 1626 63
8 2001-02 23536 1324 56
9 2002-03 22781 1255 55
10 2003-04 22684 1082 47.7
11 2004-05 22698 939 41.4
IMR Trend
01020304050607080
1994-
95
1995-
96
1996-
97
1997-
98
1998-
99
1999-
2000
2000-
01
2001-
02
2002-
03
2003-
04
2004-
05
Year
Rat
e p
er 0
00
Source: Tribhuvandas Foundation Annual Report, 2004-5
3.3) Governance issues:
Issues associated with governance in the dairy cooperative societies were studied by
administering the instrument (Part IV). The findings of the study are analyzed and discussed in the further chapter in the form of graphs and tables. In this section attempt has been made to discuss the issues in particular as well as generic sense. The issues
generated during field visits are provided in the form of the following interpretations:
The issues generated during filed visits are provided in the form of the following interpretations:
1) The Dairy Cooperative Societies have been able to cater the members need irrespective of caste, class and farm holding.
Issues related to members: Exclusion, Marginalization of the weaker and poor community, Ineffective service provisioning to the members, unable to promote
associational engagement and development in a village:
The score given by both Managing Committee and Members provide good rating (60 t0 70 %-Good) to Dairy Cooperative for promoting effectiveness of service delivery, strong accountability, organizational effectiveness, and program being members centric.
Most of the members of the Dairy Cooperative Societies opined positively on the effective delivery of services such as veterinary services, cattle feed, distribution of milk
money, profit, village development work (Except Indranaj Dairy Cooperative Societies)
The society could promote daily as well as associational form of engagement between inter community members leading to social harmony in the village.
2) The Dairy Cooperative Societies has undermine the caste factor in the governance of the society
Issues: Caste based exclusion The study reveals that except Mobha and Indranah, rest Dairy Cooperatives promotes
participatory and people centric in the governance of the Dairy Cooperatives. The scoring revolves around 22 % (Indranaj Dairy Cooperative Society) to 77% (Gorpura
Lat Dairy Cooperative Society) It is observed that in villages where there is high variation of social classes as well as
castes, the participation people from lower castes are low. But in case of villages having few castes mainly (Patel & Thakur) the participation and synergy is found to be positive.
3) The Dairy Cooperative Societies bring change in income, livelihood and assets of the
people and village Issues: Nutrition security is a myth, education still a problem, drought is regular,
migration is rampant
However the Dairy Cooperative has facilitated in building the asset base at family as well as habitat level. The scoring of governance effectiveness in this parameter revolves round 50 to 70%,
Part V (Except in case of Indranaj Dairy Cooperative Societies: 18%).
Most of the members interviewed in 12 villages (excluding Indrana Dairy Cooperative Society) opined that the establishment of Dairy Cooperative in the village changed the socio-economic profile of the village as well as village households. The natural capital
base of the village got transformed in to more productive and helped in enhancing the household income. One of the striking changes at the family is nutrition security.
Regular income from Dairy which ranges from Rs 5000 to Rs 40000/- has helped them to buy food and other necessary things for their family.
30 years back it was a dream, girl child education has got wider attention with the communities. Each studied villages possess Primary Schools as well as higher
educational institutions. The villages have social services sectors such as Anganwadi, ANM Centre & Balbadi.
4) The Dairy Cooperative Societies facilitate organization development, preparedness and growth of the village level institutions
Issues: Poor management, poor preparedness (human resource)
The performance of the Dairy Cooperative Societies under Kheda District Cooperative
Milk Producer‟s Union (as per field research) seems quite compatible with the principle laid down by International Cooperative Alliance. The gray areas where the
Dairy Cooperative Society need reflection is on the last two principles: Cooperative education and increasing the associational engagement of cooperative organization (Village and Gram Panchayat level).
The scoring in case of organization preparedness in almost all the Dairy Cooperative
Societies is low (Less than 40%). The other reason as reported by members of both managing committee as well as
general body is poor horizontal communication in the Dairy Cooperative (Secretary and trained members never share their learning to other), poor members education
on cooperative education (AMUL is providing much focus on milk production and collection aspect not on members development). Most striking example is about ISO 9001-2000 and Vision Mission Strategy Exercise conducted in their Dairy
Cooperatives. Most of the Managing Committee members including Chairperson of the society are not aware of the real purpose. In case some Dairy Cooperative
Societies (Zanda , Gorpuralat, the trend is reverse). Here the participation of both Managing Committee and General Body is positive in the governance of the society.
The Gorpura Lat Dairy Cooperative Societies being a Mahila cooperative has graduated to very active society. Due to establishment of the Dairy Cooperative Society, the stature of women in the village has been enhanced. There is an
improved gender relation between men and women. Both men and women sit together and jointly plan for the village development. Many times men also
participate in the governance of the Dairy Cooperative Society. 3. Poor participation and people centric:
The structure of Kheda District Cooperative Milk Producer‟s Union permits less
producers or members participation. A sociologist views the same as In the village cooperatives the Secretary a salaried employee enjoys far more power
than any members of the managing committee. He handles vast sum of money and runs the day to day affairs. The monthly meetings of the managing committee are
often perfunctory affairs. The secretary occupies the most important seat, conduct the proceeding, and indeed write the minutes of the meeting before it is held. As he feels confident that he will get the committee approval. (Baviskar 1988)
The study reveals that Secretaries of the Dairy Cooperatives are the main change
agents and act as catalysts in facilitating development of Dairy Cooperatives. Members of the all the societies studied provide focus on active Managing Committee and capacity building support of AMUL for eradicating such problem.
The study also reveals that the cooperative societies at the village level in Kheda are
unable to create interest of members to critically participate in the governance of the cooperatives. The reason can be attributed to the existing system of governance
which provides poor attention to horizontal communication, member education and participation beyond milk pouring.
Widespread illiteracy among the poor sections of the population (mainly from Vankar & Harizan (Shedule Caste) and Thakur (General Catse) is an important barrier that
prevents their active participation in the affairs of the dairies. It is observed that the illiterate member participation in managing committee affairs is very low as they often
find themselves suppressed by rich members and also find his presence unimportant at the meeting. Many scheduled caste and Tahkur households represented in Managing Committee as well as general body are interviewed for this study reported that though
the milk movement through Dairy Cooperative has definitely helped them but they are unable to reap benefit like other due to their poor participation in the governance.
4. Control of cooperatives Vs Democratic functioning: During series of focused group discussion, village leaders expressed that that the
cooperatives in its initial phase were controlled by big farmers specifically from the patidar caste (Patel). Most of the marginal farmers and land less belonging to
Khastriya and Harizan possess less number of votes to be involved in the governance of Dairy Cooperatives. Women members‟ participation is poor and limited to milk pouring.
The study reveals that certain practices carried on in the cooperatives deny active
participation of the poor, marginalized and weaker section. In the present set up, only those members who supplied at least 700 litres of milk in year and provided milk continuously for 180 days are eligible to cast vote and become members of the
managing committee. As members from scheduled castes, poor (agricultural labourers) pour less than 700 litres of milk per annum, they are automatically are
excluded from the voting process. However during last two decades due to consistence guidance of Kheda Union, space
was given to other castes to grow and participate in the governance of cooperatives. Now data reveals that out of 1086 total village level cooperatives, around 256 are
headed by Patidars and rest are headed by Khastriya and other caste communities.
5. Gender equity concept: The score given by all the managing committee on women participation in the dairy
cooperative governance has been more than average. But in practical the participation is limited to milk pouring (Except Women Cooperatives).
Van Dorsten (1985) neatly summarizes the women role in Anand Pattern Dairy Cooperatives under the following heads:
Endorsing Hypothesis
1. Women continue to bear the main responsibility for dairying, with much extension activity directed to them.
2. Dairy Cooperatives free rural women from traditional isolation, enabling them to manage co-operatives.
Critical Hypothesis
1. Westernization and commercialization convert some dairying activity from
women‟s work in to men‟s.
2. Women remain excluded from managing dairy cooperatives, whose payments for milk tends to reach men
The finding of the research confirms the above hypothesis. In most of the Dairy Cooperatives, women membership is found. But their role is limited to pouring of milk. Some of the members interviewed also opined that they participate in the
various meeting and training program of Dairy Cooperative Society, but they do not critically participate in the governance. Reasons as reflected by them: They are
unaware of the cooperative laws and rule, poor space for them to participate (They are reluctant in front of male members), less interest (more work in the home).
6. Social Equity:
The study reveals that efforts have been there to include the marginalized community in the Dairy Cooperative process (both economic and social process)
exists. It is reported that major beneficiaries of cow loan are from Khastriya, Harizan & Muslim since being under Below Poverty Line, they became eligible to receive loan.
The cooperative governance system has made the members aware of their rights and in the process governs the society effectively. The villagers are proud to run a
powerful economic institution at the door step. They happily associate them in framing law, rule and policy for effective management of cooperatives and union.
The cooperatives have played the role of a strong economic connector which has bonded a mix of the various ethnic and social groups and this has resulted in eroding
many social inequalities: high-low, rich-poor and gender inequity.
8. Conflict Transformation:
Conflict occurs when people pursue incompatible goal and every one tries to achieve
his/her goal. However the Dairy Cooperative being powerful economic institutions serving every one‟s interest, has encouraged people to unite and govern the various activities be it economic, social, political and cultural. Conflicts are resolved amicably at
the village level it self.
9. Associational Engagement: The study reveals that spiritual belief and respect to each other religion has enhanced
the daily form of engagement between inter-communities. Dairy cooperative has enhanced the daily as well as associational form of engagement between various groups
of people.
Political negotiation power of peoples has been tremendously increased. Now villagers held dialogue with local governance, education institutions, health bodies, veterinary
and other service providers for effective delivery of services. There is also responsive service provider.
10. Conclusions
The study argues that illiteracy, inequality in ownership of land, social exclusion, and
poverty and gender inequity are the greatest obstacles to the growth of a cooperative. These factors promote non participation of poor households in the governance of dairy cooperatives and deny these people to reap benefit out of the process. It is also found
that land tenure and caste plays critical role in the development of the village. However these factors can be well tackled if the governance of local level institutions and
governance is effective, efficient, promote participation & preparedness of community.
The 14 Dairy Cooperatives in three Talukas taken for the case analysis (Part V) indicate that governance effectiveness of the Dairy Cooperative Society has played important role breaking caste barriers, removing disparities in ownership of land, income, ensuring nutrition security, facilitating good education and effective provisioning of services of
local governance which has made the communities in the study area socially and economically empowered. The research also recommends that immediate attention
need to be given on the gray areas such as poor participation of women, cooperative education, organization preparedness (Organisation as well as community
preparedness) will help in building the process more vibrant and sustainable.
Figure 2
Governance & Sustainable Livelihood Model at a Village
Outcome 1. Improved Natural Capital
2. Availability of liquid capital
3. Good Social Capital Base
4. Improved Physical Capital Base
5. Overall human development
6. Collective Orientation
Process
1. Capacity building and
training
2. Focus on Joint efforts
and synergy between
village level institutions
3. Human Resource
Development
4. Organization
Development Process
Input
1. Regular Income
(Assured Livelihood)
2. Effective governance
3. Skill building
4. Reserve Fund
5. Educational
promotion
6. Village development
fund
7. Associational
Engagement
Structure & Institutions
1. Gram Panchyat
2. Bank
3. School
4. Credit Cooperative
Society
5. Mahila Mandal
6. Spiritual Association
Good Governance (Dairy
Cooperative)
Part IV Methodology field Indexing of the instrument:
1) The Instrument: The result of the Delphi analysis (given in part-II) provided basis for short-
listing the indicators under each parameter category. Only 48 indictors (falling under 10 parameters head) were finally taken for field testing. The short-listed indicators taken was based on the final round Delphi Analysis. However theses
are also influenced by the opinion of Expert Panel members with whom the researcher held considerable discussion. Many indicators although have been
rated good by Expert panel were not taken to form a useful a more suitable instrument for field testing. The final lists of indicators thus obtained to be used for assessing governance effectiveness are as follows.
2.1) Accountability (Requirement to explain and accept responsibility for carrying
out assigned duties in the light of agreed up on principle. A Dairy Cooperative Society as duty holder gets it legitimacy from its members and it is also accountable to its member/rights holder):
Eight indicators are chosen to measure accountability parameter of a Dairy
Cooperative.
2.1.1) The Dairy cooperative Society has adequate policy and it tries to address various problems and crisis related to members? Site Example and rate it
2.1.2) The Dairy Cooperative Society addresses discrimination in the organization
2.1.3) Effective delivery of services based on member's need by the Dairy Cooperative Society
2.1.4) The Dairy Cooperative Society is adequately represented by all caste and ethnic group (specifically) in the executive committee
2.1.5) The Dairy Cooperative Society election process is conducted democratically
and with fairness
2.1.6) The Dairy Cooperative Society shows enough responsiveness in handling
grievances 2.1.7) Executive Meeting and General Body Meeting take places in time focusing
member problem and crisis resolution
2.1.8) Financial audit and its compliance take place timely 2.2) Participatory and People Centric: (Access to decision-making and the exercise
of power by community in program development)
Four indicators are selected for assessing the participatory & people centric nature of the governance.
2.2.1) Do you agree that DCS safeguard the interest of major as well as minor
stakeholders
2.2.2) All the communities (specifically disadvantage communities) participate and play important role in the governance of the cooperatives
2.2.3) Level of decentralization of decision making process (participatory decision making) in the organization
2.2.4) Role of DCS in ensuring participation of women while carrying out developmental activity
2.3) Transparency (Program must be designed in such a manner that it brings out openly all the interrelations and linkages between various actions and actors):
Six indicators are chosen to assess organizational preparedness of a community.
2.3.1) The Dairy Cooperative Society maintains detailed records of its business, assets and activities
2.3.2) Members of the Dairy Cooperative Society have free access to official
documents & information 2.3.3) Decision making process open and participatory (Involve all the stakeholders)
2.3.4) Social Audit take place in the DCS and follow up action taken (Local auditor in
the context of cooperative) 2.3.5) The Dairy Cooperative Society handle redresses and disputes timely
2.3.6) Well defined division of responsibility between various functional bodies in the
DCS 2.4) Organizational effectiveness (design and legitimacy):
Four indicators have been chosen to assess the organizational effectiveness.
2.4.1) Shared vision and values (Members aware of and agreed on the same)
2.4.2) Representation of weak, excluded and marginalized community in the governance of DCS
2.4.3) Periodic review of financial related transaction of the society in the general
body meeting
2.4.4) Meeting undertaken with proper notification and well in advance
2.5) Security and safety (Governance leading to enhancement of the following security level at habitat level) Rate how DCS ensure the following security at habitat
level
a) Livelihood security (Livelihood security entails a range of factors which lead to a sustainable living at family level)
2.5.1) Increased access and control over productive resources (Natural Capital)
2.5.2) Easy access and availability of liquid capital for investment (Finance Capital) 2.5.3) Kinship, Intercommunity engagement, trust between community (Social
Capital)
2.5.4) Good health, access to quality education and knowledge (Human Capital) 2.5.5) Has ensure Food & Nutrition security
b) Social network security
2.5.6) Social safety net
2.5.7) Inter faith associations, networks and groups promoting engagement
C) Habitat security
2.5.8) Housing 2.5.9) Provisioning of better social services (education, health and etcs)
d) Psychosocial security (in context to any disaster/shock/trend)
2.5) Assets Building (Governance leading to effective use & strengthening of
assets):
Three indicators have been selected for measuring social capital in the community.
2.6.1) Physical Capital (Infrastructure development in the village)
2.6.2) Political Capital (Responsive local governance, responsive political parties with ideology suiting local development)
2.6.3) Spiritual Capital (Inner Human Space, Collective Belief and Orientation)
Under spiritual capital indicator, members as well as Managing Committee of Dairy Cooperative Societies expressed that their belief, trust on interfaith has been
enhanced due to associational engagement
2.7) Responsive to family development (Good Governance leading to building the followings at the family level):
The indicators in this parameter head are dependent on personal effort of an
individual household. 2.7.1) Enlarge the individual aspiration & hopes
2.7.2) Improved gender relation leading to reduced drudgery to women
2.7.3) Awareness level & access to information and rights 2.7.4) Psychological attributes (absence of fear & anxiety)
2.7.5) Personal empowerment (Programme reaching poorest and excluded to
make them secure from any shocks) 2.8) Collective Orientation (Effective governance leading to enhancement of
intercommunity engagement, pluralism and cohesion):
One indicator has been chosen to assess collective orientation of the community
2.8.1) Increased inter community engagement (Daily & associational engagement)
2.9) Collaborative and consultative atmosphere (Relationship with external Stakeholders:
Three indicators are selected under this category.
2.9.1) Community consultation (Public hearing, participatory planning)
2.9.2) Functional Networking and collaboration with multiple stakeholders 2.9.3) Good relationship with Bank, Gram Panchayat, Insurance, Veterinary and
other institutions
2.10) Organizational Preparedness:
The indicator chosen for organizational preparedness mainly depicts the
preparedness and organizational development aspect of the Dairy Cooperative Society.
2.10.1) Perspective development plan document with Dairy Cooperative Society
2.10.2) DCS plan and Vision, Mission, Goal prepared with participation of all members
2.10.3) Improved recovery ability (in case of any disaster, shocks, trend)
2.10.4) Village Development Fund (Saving and reserve fund for countering
stress period)
2.10.5) Human Resource Development through training and capacity building 3) Typology of Indicators:
The typology of indicators selected for measuring different parameters (as given
above) is represented in the following ways: 1. Institutional Health
Indicators such as DCS maintain detailed records of its business, assets and activities,
DCS have free access to official documents & information, decision making process open and participatory (Involve all the stakeholders), Social Audit take place in the DCS and follow up action taken, DCS handle redresses and disputes timely, well defined division
of responsibility between various functional bodies in the DCS, Shared vision and values (Members aware of and agreed on the same, Representation of weak, excluded and
marginalized community in the governance of DCS, Periodic review of financial related transaction of the society in the general body meeting, Meeting undertaken with proper
notification and well in advance comes under Institutional health. 2. Habitat Security & Development
The following indicators comes under this category: Increased access and control
over productive resources (Natural Capital), Easy access and availability of liquid capital for investment (Finance Capital), Kinship, Intercommunity engagement, trust between community (Social Capital), Good health, access to quality education and
knowledge (Human Capital), Food & Nutrition security, Social safety net, Inter faith associations, networks and groups promoting engagement, Housing, Provisioning of
better social services (education, health and etcs), Psychosocial security (in context to any disaster/shock/trend), Physical Capital (Infrastructure development in the village), Spiritual Capital (Inner Human Space, Collective Belief and Orientation),
Political Capital (Responsive local governance, responsive political parties with ideology suiting local development)
3. Organizational Preparedness:
Indicators such as Perspective development plan document with Dairy Cooperative Society, DCS plan and Vision, Mission, Goal prepared with participation of all members,
Improved recovery ability (in case of any disaster, shocks, trend), Village Development Fund (Saving and reserve fund for countering stress period), Good relationship with Bank, Gram Panchayat, Insurance, Veterinary and other institutions, Functional
Networking and collaboration with multiple stakeholders, Community consultation (Public hearing, participatory planning) comes under organizational preparedness head.
Rest six indicators are largely attributed to the development at family level.
4) Field Testing:
4.1) The final forty eight indicators were framed in to two schedules. One for Dairy
Cooperative Managing Committee and one for ordinary members of Dairy Cooperative Society. The questions of both the schedules are kept largely similar with a view to find the correlation of between the two findings.
4.1.1) Data collections was done through three methods: 1) Household Interview, 2_
Focused group Discussion, 3) Participatory Rural Appraisal. For first two types of survey, semi structured questionnaire method was employed.
4.2) Sample Size:
It was earlier decided to keep the sampling size of members to be 5 % of the respective Dairy Cooperative Society. However since some of the Dairy Society membership was quite high (300-600), it was decided to keep the lmit at 10 per
society. The selection of members was done by keeping many sub stratification: milk pouring at the society & caste. The sample size for Dairy Cooperatives were
kept as 5 per Taluka.
4.3) Survey Schedule: As already pointed out, the survey schedule for both members and Dairy Cooperative Society were designed based on the final round findings ogf Delphi Analysis. Both scheduled were designed in a manner keeping in view all the
ten parameters f effective governance and scope for regression analysis of both findings.
5) Methodology for rating:
Devising the rating for the governance indicators was a critical task. When the Delphi Analysis contains five rating scale. This was easier on the part of Member
of the Expert Panel to assign rating. But while designing the indicators for field testing the rating of the indicators were curtailed to three point scale. This was done looking in to the suitability aspect in the filed. The ratings for 43 indicators
were quantitative and 5 indicators were qualitative (mainly Yes/No) in case of member schedule. In case of Dairy Cooperative Schedule, all the indicators
possess quantitative rating.
5.2) Method:
5.2.1) Delphi Analysis: The method used is essentially a two tier approach where in the first phase both the quantitative are rated into a four point scale of a) bad
b) average c) good and d) very good and in the second phase they are converted into scores of 0, 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
5.2.2) Field Survey: The method used is again two tier approach: All the indicators both quantitative and qualitative are rated in to a) bad b) average c)
good and and secondly these rating were converted in to scores 0, 1, & 2.
5.2.3) Phase-I
Ratings for quantitative indicators (Scales used) Out of the total forty eight selected indicators, rating for forty three indicators
were based on the following rating scale: Scale: 0-25%----------Bad
25-50%--------Average 50-75%--------Good
For the remaining five indicators scale used was Yes/No.
5.2.4) Phase-II
In phase-II of indexing, the indicator‟s ratings have been converted into scores as follows. Bad----------------0
Average-----------1 Good--------------2
5.2.5) Phase-III
In the next phase of indexing, the arithmetic mean of the individual scores of
different indicators has been calculated and is converted into percentages.
5.3) The average of various parameter score (obtained from earlier phase) is calculated
for getting overall governance effectiveness of the dairy cooperatives (by members as well as Managing Committee) and is expressed in percentage terms. For calculating the overall governance effectiveness of the dairy cooperatives, the
parameter weighting has been considered and analysis such as r square, chi square and regression are used.
Part VI 7.3) Conclusions:
The framework designed and suggested for assessing governance effectiveness provides the following conclusions which were derived after testing the instrument
in the 14 Dairy Cooperatives:
1) The set of indicators selected and the method used for testing the instrument was
found to be highly reliable and suitable under different conditions.
2) The lowest level of governance effectiveness found to be 24 % % 33 % respectively for Indranaj Dhdh Utpadak Sahakari Mandali (Rating given by Managing Committee as well as members. In almost all the Dairy Cooperative Societies, the rating of
Organization Preparedness is low. In certain case the rating is as low as 2%. It indicates that the preparedness aspect specifically organization development
process is low. It raises question of the sustainability of the organization in the long run.
3) The instrument designed here is expected to be most useful for measuring progress
and performance in a regular basis and in case of new institutions.
4) The instrument tries to capture the governance effectiveness and its impact on
sustainable livelihood of rural community. However because of time constraint enough case studies could not be collected. There was little scope for the instrument to capture the same. Therefore it is suggested that in future, if any
researcher uses the instrument, the instrument may be reworked based on the context.
5) The instrument if further used will allow refinement and selection of more suitable
indicators. The future researcher may also use more statistical analysis for the data
interpretation which was not done by the present researcher.
REFERENCES
Baviskar, B S 1988. “Dairy Coopeartives and Rural Development in Gujarat” in D W
Attwood & B S Baviskar “who shares? Cooperatives and Rural Development. Delhi Oxford University Press
Department for International Development (DFID) approach to Sustainable, www.dfid.org
First VMS Workshop (1997) Document of Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation
Gupta Anilk K (2201)/Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. PVt. Ltd Criteria and Indicators of Sustainability
Jain SC (2001) Approach and Indicators of sustainability in Natural Resource
Management Program:
Kapur, S Deepinder (2001) Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Developemnt
Katherine, M, Caston, MC & Rewald Michel „A conceptual overview of underlying causes
of poverty‟.
Kaufmann, Kraay, and Zoido-Lobatón World Bank survey of governance in 159
countries.
Kurien V, Chairman‟s Speech, Annual Report of GCMMF 2004-05
Malhotra KC 2001 (Social Sustainability in Natural Resource Management) a paper published in Criteria and Indicators in Sustainability in Rural Development
Manikuty S, “Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd (2002)” a case study
published in Asian Case Research Journal
Member Control in Indian Cooperatives/Cooperative Development Foundation/in Democratic Governance, Kalinga Publication Delhi, 1996
Mishra, Deviprasad (Silver Jubilee Symposium, IRMA 2004) „Decentralization and Local
Governance‟
Oommen T K, “Civil Society and the goal of good governance”
Osmani, S R (2000) „Participatory Governance, People‟s Empowerment and Poverty
Reduction SEPED Conference Paper Series-7.
Pastakia Astad 2001, Health, Wealth and Sustainable Prosperity (A compilation of
Indicators of Institutional Sustainability)
Pratihari Subhendu, “Graduation Strategy Paper of Care India (GHP) an internal
document”
“Ramayan‟s Tips for Good Governance” Ashwattha July-September 2003
Rangenekar D V, G G Sohani and B R Kadke 2001 (Indicators of Sustainable Rural Development from the perspective of BAIF)
Shah Dillpi“Cooperativesation, liberalization and Diary Industries in India” (Page no 6, 7,
8) 2000, ABD publisher
Singh, Rajendra (2001) in his article “Making a Dry River Flow” Experience of a Community-based Biodiversity and Water Cinservation in Alwar District of Rajstan:
Sodhi R S & Upadhaya S B, “Governance in Gujarat Dairy Cooperatives (AMUL)” Silver
Jubilee Symposium.
Sriram (1993)/ M S Sriram “Feasibility Study of the Cooperative Sector, Proceeding of conference on Future of Cooperatives in India/1993 by HIVOS
The kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers‟ Union ltd (AMUL 50th Anniversary
Celebration 1996)
The kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers‟ Union ltd 59th Annual Report 04-05
UNDP Strategy Note on Governance for Human development, 2004). The UNDP publication on Overcoming Human Poverty (UNDP 2000)
Vashenny (2002) Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life: Hindus and Muslims in India, Oxford University Press, Delhi, India, 2002
Vivekanadan P “Toold for participatory Action Learning” (2001)
Wakhulu Arun, “Inner Transformation for Good Governance” Ashwattha, July-September
2003
Wickramsingh Anoja (2001) Habitat Security: A composite index of Sustainability of
Rural development: Appendix 1 List of Indicators considered
2.1) Accountability (Requirement to explain and accept responsibility for carrying out
assigned duties in the light of agreed up on principle. A Dairy Cooperative as duty holder gets it legitimacy from its members and it is also accountable to its member/rights holder):
Eight indicators are chosen to measure accountability parameter of a Dairy
Cooperative. 2.1.2) The Dairy cooperative Society has adequate policy and it tries to address various problems and crisis related to members? Site Example and rate it
2.1.2) The Dairy Cooperative Society addresses discrimination in the organization 2.1.3) Effective delivery of services based on member's need by the Dairy
Cooperative Society 2.1.4) The Dairy Cooperative Society is adequately represented by all caste and
ethnic group (specifically) in the executive committee 2.1.5) The Dairy Cooperative Society election process is conducted democratically
and with fairness
2.1.6) The Dairy Cooperative Society shows enough responsiveness in handling grievances
2.1.7) Executive Meeting and General Body Meeting take places in time focusing member problem and crisis resolution
2.1.8) Financial audit and its compliance take place timely
2.6) Participatory and People Centric: (Access to decision-making and the exercise
of power by community in program development) Four indicators are selected for assessing the participatory & people centric nature of
the governance.
2.2.1) Do you agree that DCS safeguard the interest of major as well as minor stakeholders
2.2.2) All the communities (specifically disadvantage communities) participate and
play important role in the governance of the cooperatives 2.2.3) Level of decentralization of decision making process (participatory decision
making) in the organization 2.2.4) Role of DCS in ensuring participation of women while carrying out
developmental activity
2.2) Transparency (Program must be designed in such a manner that it brings out
openly all the interrelations and linkages between various actions and actors):
Six indicators are chosen to assess organizational preparedness of a community.
2.3.1) The Dairy Cooperative Society maintains detailed records of its business, assets and activities
2.3.2) Members of DCS have free access to official documents & information 2.3.3) Decision making process open and participatory (Involve all the stakeholders) 2.3.4) Social Audit take place in the DCS and follow up action taken (Local auditor in
the context of cooperative) 2.3.5) The Dairy Cooperative Society handle redresses and disputes timely
2.3.6) Well defined division of responsibility between various functional bodies in the DCS
2.3) Organizational effectiveness (design and legitimacy):
Four indicators have been chosen to assess the organizational effectiveness.
2.4.1) Shared vision and values (Members aware of and agreed on the same)
2.4.2) Representation of weak, excluded and marginalized community in the governance of DCS
2.4.3) Periodic review of financial related transaction of the society in the general body meeting
2.4.4) Meeting undertaken with proper notification and well in advance 2.5) Security and safety (Governance leading to enhancement of the following
security level at habitat level) Rate how DCS ensure the following security at habitat level
a) Livelihood security (Livelihood security entails a range of factors which lead to a sustainable living at family level)
2.5.1) Increased access and control over productive resources (Natural Capital)
2.5.2) Easy access and availability of liquid capital for investment (Finance Capital) 2.5.3) Kinship, Intercommunity engagement, trust between community (Social
Capital)
2.5.4) Good health, access to quality education and knowledge (Human Capital) 2.5.5) Has ensure Food & Nutrition security
b) Social network security 2.5.6) Social safety net
2.5.7) Inter faith associations, networks and groups promoting engagement
C) Habitat security 2.5.8) Housing 2.5.9) Provisioning of better social services (education, health and etcs)
d) Psychosocial security (in context to any disaster/shock/trend)
2.7) Assets Building (Governance leading to effective use & strengthening of assets):
Three indicators have been selected for measuring social capital in the community.
2.6.1) Physical Capital (Infrastructure development in the village) 2.6.2) Political Capital (Responsive local governance, responsive political parties with
ideology suiting local development)
2.6.3) Spiritual Capital (Inner Human Space, Collective Belief and Orientation)
Under spiritual capital indicator, members as well as Managing Committee of Dairy Cooperative Societies expressed that their belief, trust on interfaith has been enhanced due to associational engagement
2.8) Responsive to family development (Good Governance leading to building the
followings at the family level): The indicators in this parameter head are dependent on personal effort of an
individual household. 2.7.1) Enlarge the individual aspiration & hopes
2.7.2) Improved gender relation leading to reduced drudgery to women 2.7.3) Awareness level & access to information and rights
2.7.4) Psychological attributes (absence of fear & anxiety) 2.7.5) Personal empowerment (Programme reaching poorest and excluded to make
them secure from any shocks)
2.9) Collective Orientation (Effective governance leading to enhancement of
intercommunity engagement, pluralism and cohesion):
One indicator has been chosen to assess collective orientation of the community
2.8.1) Increased inter community engagement (Daily & associational engagement)
2.9) Collaborative and consultative atmosphere (Relationship with external Stakeholders:
Three indicators are selected under this category.
2.9.1) Community consultation (Public hearing, participatory planning) 2.9.2) Functional Networking and collaboration with multiple stakeholders 2.9.3) Good relationship with Bank, Gram Panchayat, Insurance, Veterinary and other
institutions
2.11) Organizational Preparedness:
The indicator chosen for organizational preparedness mainly depicts the
preparedness and organizational development aspect of the Dairy Cooperative Society.
2.10.1) Perspective development plan document with Dairy Cooperative Society 2.10.2) DCS plan and Vision, Mission, Goal prepared with participation of all members
2.10.3) Improved recovery ability (in case of any disaster, shocks, trend) 2.10.4) Village Development Fund (Saving and reserve fund for countering stress
period) 2.10.5) Human Resource Development through training and capacity building
APPENDIX 2
Panel of Experts for the Delphi Analysis:
1. Dr Verghese Kurien,
Chairman Institute of Rural Management Anand Anand 388001, Guajart Telephone: 02692-261655
(Dr Kurien provided answers of Delphi Questions in face to face interview)
2. Dr B N Hiramath, Faculty Institute of Rural Management Anand, Anand 388001, Guajarat, Telephone: 02692-260391
3. Dr S N Phansalkar
Senior Researcher & ITP Leader, IWMI-Tata Water Policy Research Program Elecon Premise, Anand-Sojitra Raod,
Vallava Vidyanagar, Anand 388120 Mob: 9824799055
4. Mr R S Sodhi Chief General Manager, Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation
AMUL Dairy Road, Anand, 388001, Telephone: 02692-241673 5. Mr K Srivasan, IAS
Managing Director, Gujarat Urban Development Company, Gandhinagar, Gujarat
Mob: 9824051506 6. Mr Deepinder S Kapur
Country Represntative, WaterAid (London)
India Country Office, 25 Navjiban Vihar Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017, Telephone: 011-26692206
7. Mr Jaydeep Biswas Governance Advisor, Department for International Development (DFID)
New Delhi 8. Dr Debiprasad Mishra
Faculty Institute of Rural Management Anand Anand 388001, Telephone: 02692-260391
9. Mr Rahul Srivastav, Managing Director, Kheda District Cooperative Milk Producers‟ Union, AMUL Dairy Road, Anand, Gujarat 388001
Telephone: 02692-240026 10. Prof D N Pathak, Visiting Professor, Gujarat Vidyapith
21 Alka Puri, Near Govt Bunglow, Ambawadi Ahemdabad Telephone (Residence) - 079-26563378
11. Ms Veena Padia, Project Director, Care India Gujarat Swasthik Society, C G Road, Ahmedabad
Mob: 9825327129 12. Mr Binoy Acharya, Director Unnati
G1/200 Azad Society, Amabwadi, Ahemdabad: Mob- 9825245968
13. Mr N M Prusty Advisor Programs, India Disaster Management Support Program, 3rd Floor, 2 Purvi Marg, Vasant Vihar
New Delhi-110057, Tel : 011-52705166
14. Dr J I Khristmukti Honorary CEO, Tribhuvanbdas Foundation, Rajodpura, Anand
388001, Telephone: 02692-240151 15. Dr E Maishi Director
Institute of Social Research & Development, 2-A Satkar Society Azad Society, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad, Telephone: 079-26761664
16. Dr Ilaben Pathak Director Ahmedabad Women‟s Action Group Ambawadi, Ahmedabad, Mob: 9327004235
17. Mr Rajendra Joshi Director, Saath
Near Prerana Tirth, Jodhpur, Ahmedbad Mob: 9825005198 18. Mr Basant Kar State Program Representative, Care India Chattisgarh
35/1566, Arvindnagar, Byron Bazar, Raipur, Telephone: 0771-2422442
19. Mr Balaji S Chouhan, Director Emergency & Rehabilitation, Care India (was with USAID when became member Expert Panel), 27 Hauzkhas Village, New Delhi 110016, Telephone: 011-26969770
20. Dr D K Giri, Director, Schumacher India, New Delhi
Discussion held (Meeting, Telephonic conversation & E Mail):
1. Prof T K Oommen, Ex Professor, School of Social Science, JNU 2. Dr S N Biswas, Faculty Institute of Rural Management Anand
3. Bhavani Dash, Independent Reseracher 4. Manoj Pradhan, CPSW
5. Biswanath Dash, UNDP 6. Himanshu Rathod, GCMMF
7. Dr A Savani, AMUL 8. Dr N D Patel, AMUL
9. Zulifikar Khan (Concern World Wide, Kenya) Appendix 3 (Milk Procurement trend)
Dolatparda
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
1998-
1999
1999-
2000
2000-
2001
2001-
2002
2002-
2003
2003-
2004
2004-
2005
Year
Am
ou
nt
Pandwa
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1998
-199
9
1999
-200
0
2000
-200
1
2001
-200
2
2002
-200
3
2003
-200
4
2004
-200
5
Year
Am
ou
nt
Gorpura Lat
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
1998-
1999
1999-
2000
2000-
2001
2001-
2002
2002-
2003
2003-
2004
2004-
2005
Year
Am
ou
nt
Zanda milk procurement trend
0
200000
400000
600000800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
1998-
1999
1999-
2000
2000-
2001
2001-
2002
2002-
2003
2003-
2004
2004-
2005
Year
Am
ou
nt
Suki milk procurement trend
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1998
-199
9
1999
-200
0
2000
-200
1
2001
-200
2
2002
-200
3
2003
-200
4
2004
-200
5
Year
Am
ou
nt
APPENDIX-4
Survey Questionnaire for DCS Managing Committee
Interview Schedule: II
(Dairy Cooperative Society/Village)
Dairy Cooperative Code:…………………………………
(Size + Milk Collection, Example: L/+)
Name of Dairy Cooperatives & Year of Establishment:
Village:
Panchayat
Block/Taluka:
District:
Total number of member: ……Male…………………Female……..
Caste break-up: General……../OBC……./ST……./SC……./Other……
Milk Procurement details (Yearly/Monthly/Daily):…………..
Village Size: Large…… Medium…….
Rating
1 Disagree (Above 0, below 25 %)
2 Some what agree (25 % to 50 %)
3 Agree (50 % to 75 %)
Parameters/Indicators Rating
1
Table 1 Accountability ( A Dairy Cooperative as duty holder gets it legitimacy from its
members and it is also accountable to its member/rights holder).
1.i
Does the dairy cooperative has adequate policy and it tries to address various problems
and crisis related to members? Site Example and rate it
1.ii Does the Dairy Cooperative address discrimination in the organization?
1.iii
Does the Dairy Cooperative Society effectively provide services based on member's
need?
1.iv
Does the DCS has adequately represented by all caste and ethnic group (specifically) in the
executive committee?
1.v Does the DCS election process is conducted democratically and with fairness?
1.vi Does the DCS shows enough responsiveness in handling grievances?
1.vii
Does the Executive Meeting and General Body Meeting take places in time focusing members
problem and crisis resolution
1.viii Does financial audit and its compliance take place timely?
2
Table 2 Participatory and people centric (Access to decision-making and the
exercise of power by community in program development)
2.i Do you agree that DCS safeguard the interest of major as well as minor stakeholders?
2.ii
Do you feel that all the communities (specifically disadvantage communities) participate and
play important role in the governance of the cooperatives?
2.iii
How do you rate the decentralization of decision making process (participatory decision
making) in the organization?
2.iv
Can you rate the role of DCS in ensuring participation of women while carrying out
developmental activity?
3
Table 3. Transparency (Program must be designed in such a manner that it brings out
openly all the interrelations and linkages between various actions and actors)
3.i Does the DCS maintain detailed records of its business, assets and activities?
3.ii Do members of DCS has free access to official documents & information?
3.iii Does the decision making process open and participatory (Involve all the stakeholders)?
3.iv
Does Social Audit take place in the DCS and follow up action taken (Local auditor in the
context of cooperative)?
3.v Does the DCS handle redresses and disputes timely?
3.vi Is there well defined division of responsibility between various functional bodies in the DCS?
4 Table 4 Organizational effectiveness (design and legitimacy)
4.i Shared vision and values (Members aware of and agreed on the same)
4.ii Representation of weak, excluded and marginalized community in the governance of DCS
4.iii
Periodic review of financial related transaction of the society in the general body
meeting
4.iv Meeting undertaken with proper notification and well in advance
5
Table 5 Security and safety (Governance leading to enhancement of the following
security level at habitat level) Rate how DCS ensure the following security at habitat level
5.i
Livelihood security (Livelihood security entails a range of factors which lead to a sustainable
living at family level)
5.ii Increased access and control over productive resources (Natural Capital)
5.iii Easy access and availability of liquid capital for investment (Finance Capital)
5.iv Kinship, Intercommunity engagement, trust between community (Social Capital)
5.v Good health, access to quality education and knowledge (Human Capital)
5.vi Has ensure Food & Nutrition security
5.vii Social network security
Social safety net
Interfaith associations, networks and groups promoting engagement
5.viii Habitat security
Housing
Provisioning of better social services (education, health and etcs)
4.v Psychosocial security (in context to any disaster/shock/trend)
6
Table 6: Assets Building (Governance leading to effective use & strengthening of
assets)
6.i Physical Capital (Infrastructure)
6.ii
Political Capital (Responsive local governance, responsive political parties with ideology
suiting local development)
6.iii Spiritual Capital (Inner Human Space, Collective Belief and Orientation)
7
Table 7: Responsive to family development (Good Governance leading to
building the followings at the family level)
7.i Enlarge the individual aspiration & hopes
7.ii Improved gender relation leading to reduced drudgery to women
7.iii Awareness level & access to information and rights
7.iv Psychological attributes (absence of fear & anxiety)
7.v
Personal empowerment (Programme reaching poorest and excluded to make them secure from
any shocks)
8
Table 8: Collective Orientation (Effective governance leading to enhancement of
intercommunity engagement, pluralism and cohesion)
8.i Increased inter community & associational engagement
9
Table 9: Collaborative and consultative atmosphere (Relationship with external
Stakeholders)
9.i Community consultation (Public hearing, participatory planning)
9.ii Functional Networking and collaboration with multiple stakeholders
9.iii Good relationship with Bank, Panchyat, Insurance, Veterinary and other institutions
10 Table 10: Organizational Preparedness
10.i Perspective development plan document with Dairy Cooperative Society
10.ii DCS plan and Vision, Mission, Goal prepared with participation of all members
10.iii Improved recovery ability (in case of any disaster, shocks, trend)
10.iv Village Development Fund (Saving and reserve fund for countering stress period)
10.v Human Resource Development through training and capacity building
APPENDIX-5 Survey conducted for DCS Members
Interview Schedule: I
DCS Member (Household Survey)
Dairy Cooperative Code:…………………………………
(Size + Milk Collection, Example: L/+)
Name of Dairy Cooperatives & Year of Establishment:
Village:
Panchayat
Block/Taluka:
District:
1 Name of the Member:
2 Date of membership
3 Gender: Male…………..Female…………..
4 Age: ………………….
5 Marital Status: Married……………….Unmarried………………
Socio-Economic Status
6 Caste: General/OBC/ST/SC/Other
7
Education: Illiterate/Can Read only/Can Read and write/Primary/Middle/Secondary/Higher
Secondary/Graduate/More
8 Occupational Details
8.i Priamry:
8.ii Secondary:
8.iii Other:
9 Assets details
9.i Land (Unit: Acres) Less than 1 Acre……1 to 3 Acres……3 to 5 Acres….. 5 & above
9.ii House
9.iii Cow/Buffalo (Mention units)
9.iv Bullock
9.v Tractor
9.vi Pump/Paddy husking machine
9.vii Auto Rickshaw/Any other vehicle
9.viii Any Other (Please specify)
10 Other household assets: Cycle/Motor Cycle/Refrigerator/TV/Other
Rating
1 Disagree (0-25 %)
2 Some what agree (25 % to 50 %)
3 Agree (50 % to 75 %)
12 Parameters/Indicators Rating
1
Table 1 Accountability ( A Dairy Cooperative as duty holder gets it legitimacy from its
members and it is also accountable to its member/rights holder).
1.i Do you think that Dairy Cooperative has enough policy frame work to address problem of its member?
1.ii
Do you think that Dairy Cooperative Society has been able to address discrimination and such problem
in the organization?
1.iii
Do you think that Dairy Cooperative Society has been able to deliver effective service as per your
need?
1.iv
Have you ever been participated in election of DCS? Does the DCS election process is conducted
democratically and with fairness?
1.v Do you think that DCS has been responsive in handling grievances quickly?
1.vi
Does the Executive Meeting and General Body Meeting take places in time focusing members problem
and crisis resolution
1.vii Does financial audit and its compliance take place timely?
2
Table 2 Participatory and people centric (Access to decision-making and the exercise
of power by community in program development)
2.i
Do you think that Dairy Cooperative Society has concern for all its member irrespective of caste and
religion?
2.ii
Do you feel that all the communities (specifically disadvantage communities) participate and play
important role in the governance of the cooperatives?
2.iii
How do you rate the decentralization of decision making process (participatory decision making) in the
organization?
2.iv
Do you think that women members have equal rights and share equal responsibility with men members
in the DCS?
2.v Social Audit is taken place and presented in DCS appropriate committee for follow up action
3
Table 3. Transparency (Program must be designed in such a manner that it brings out
openly all the interrelations and linkages between various actions and actors)
3.i Do you think that DCS maintain detailed record regarding financial and physical assets?
3.ii Access to official documents & information to all the member
3.iii Decision making process open and participatory (Involve all the stakeholders)
3.iv Do you think that the complains and disputes of members are timely resolved?
4 Table 4 Organizational effectiveness (design and legitimacy
4.i Are you aware of the goal, vision and mission of the DCS? Do you agree to it? Yes/No
4.ii
What is your opinion about the division of role between Management Committee, Managerial Staff and
General Body?
4.iii
Do you think that DCS has adequate space for representation of weak, excluded and marginalized
community?
4.iv Are you satisfied with the service delivery of DCS? Yes/No
4.v
Do you think that important activities of DCS (financial related transaction) is discussed in the general
body meeting?
4.vi Does the meeting undertaken with proper notification and well in advance?
5
Table 5 Security and safety (Governance leading to enhancement of the following security
level in the habitat) Rate how DCS ensure the following securities at habitat level
5.i
Livelihood security (Livelihood security entails a range of factors-productive assets, liquid capital,
social capital, physical capital etcs, which lead to a sustainable living at family level)
5.ii Social safety net (Cohesion, Intercommunity engagement, Associational Engagement)
5.iii Habitat security
5.iv Housing
5.v Provisioning of better social services (education, health and etcs)
5.vi Psychosocial security (in context to any disaster/shock/trend)
6 Table 6 Assets Building (Governance leading to effective use & strengthening of assets)
6.i
Do you think that DCS has contributed in strengthening the Natural Capital base at family as well as
village level (land, water bodies, forest, pasture, tree, homestead & etcs)?
6.ii DCS has facilitated improvement of Physical Capital (Infrastructure)
6.iii
DCS has been able to enhance the Human Capital base (Knowledge, Skill, experience and other) for
better living
6.iv Financial Capital (liquid capital) base has been increased leading to economic security
6.v
DCS could able to mobilize local governance, political parties to be more responsive to local
development)
6.vi Spiritual Capital (Inner Human Space, Collective Belief and Orientation)
7
Table 7 Responsive to family development (Good Governance leading tos building
the followings at the family level)
7.i Do you think that DCS has enhanced your individual aspiration and hope?
7.ii Improved gender relation leading to reduced drudgery to women
7.iii Awareness level & access to information and rights
7.iv Psychological safety (Absence of fear and anxiety)
7.v Personal empowerment (DCS could able to empower economically and socially)
8
Table 8: Collective Orientation (Good governance leading to enhancement of
intercommunity engagement and associational engagement)
8.i Increased inter community engagement and associational engagement
9 Table 9 Collaborative and consultative atmosphere (Relationship with external
Stakeholders)
9.i Community consultation (Public hearing, participatory planning) for village development
9.ii Functional Networking and collaboration with multiple stakeholders
9.iii Good relationship with Bank, Panchyat, Insurance, Veterinary and other institutions
10 Table 10: Organizational Preparedness
10.i
Have you participated in the Vision, Mission, Goal exercise of DCS? Do you think that this helped you
to think more critically about developing DCS and yourself? Yes/No
10.ii Do you know about the Action plan of DCS?
10.iii Do you think that DCS has improved recovery ability (in case of any disaster, shocks, trend)
10.iv
Are you aware of the Village Development Fund (Saving and reserve fund for countering stress period)
of DCS? Yes/No
10.v Have you undertaken any training program conducted by DCS which has enhanced your skill? Yes/No
Appendix 6
Extract of Interview with Dr V Kurien, 30/1/06:
1. What are the points you looked in to most while nurturing AMUL during last 50
Years?
Ans: Professional management, Integrity, Commitment, Democratic functioning and
Competency. AMUL success lies with the above philosophy it carries since last 50 years.
2. Do you think that political capital and intellectual capital plays significant role in
shaping the development of any area? Ans: Yes, respective Government has come but has helped AMUL to grow. AMUL
initial success is largely due to the leadership of people like Tribhuvandas Patel and support of a large section of political leaders across party line (Sardar Patel,
Moraji Desai, Indira Gandhi, Lalbahadur Shastri and others), knowledge of professional manager like Kurien and technical skill of Dalaya.
3. What is good governance?
Ans: Ensure accountability, allow freedom and autonomy to work, Promote empowerment of people and participation. Instance: A Secretary of Village Dairy
Cooperative or a Managing Director of a District Union is appointed by the members of the society/board of directors who are elected representatives of all the members. If he does not satisfy them he looses his job. This is how
accountability built in to a structure.
APPENDIX-7
Participatory Rural Appraisal: Gorpuralat 6/3/06
A Participatory Rural Appraisal exercise was conducted in village Gorpuralat with involvement of 10 women members of Gorpura Lat Dhudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandali. Male members were allowed to participate to help in information compilation and PRA
exercise. The total participants were divided in to 4 groups and each group as per role assigned contributed the following:
1. Group 1: Village Social Map & Workload Analysis of men and women 2. Group 2: Village development trend (in context to establishment of Dairy
Cooperative) and problem 3. Group 3: Suggestion for improvement
4. Chapati Diagram (Importance of various Village Level Institution)
Methodology:
1. Transect work 2. Focus Group Discussion
Village trajectory:
Before 65 years, some families from Panchmal district of Gujara sifted to Gorpuralat for the sake of managing their cultivated land. The village comes under Alela Gram Panchayat of Balasinor Taluka. There are total 542 people in Gorpura Lat consisting of
100 HHs. Main occupation of people here is dairying and subsidiary is agriculture. People are entrepreneur in nature. Most of the farmers can be categorized under progressive
farmer categories. Till 1991, people from Gorpura Lat were supplying milk at Alela Duhu Utpadak Mandlai
Center. But long distance factor and irregular and untimely payment of their due were major concern for the milk pouring villagers. In order to come out of this problem,
villagers specifically women approached AMUL and requested for separate cooperative for their village. Kheda District Milk Producers‟ Union impressed by their request approved for setting up of a Women Cooperative. The Gorpura Lat Mahila Dhudh
Utpadak Mandali got established during 1991 with 118 members and 360 liter milk collection. Now the milk collection has been increased to 664 litre per day.
Dairy Cooperative Members Household Profile: Nabamuwda Para: 70
Dhari Dunguri Para: 5 Gundeli Para: 10
Gorpura Lat Para: 40 Group 1: Gorpuralat Dhudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandali Governance:
The Dhudh Mandlai function is based on the cooperative by laws supplied by Registrar of Cooperative and guide line of Kheda District Milk Producers‟ Union.
Guiding principles: 1. Cooperation
2. Effective management 3. Good strategy
4. Integrity 5. Quality
6. Selflessness 7. Ownership
There is an Executive Committee consisting of 11 members elected from among all the
members for general management of the DCS. It sits once in a month to review and plan.
The General Committee consisting of all the members sits once in a year to review and plan. A local auditor (honorary) is appointed by the General Committee for monitoring and
overseeing smooth functioning of the Cooperative. Vision Mission Strategy Exercise:
During 2004 with support of Kheda Union, Gorpura Lat undertook Vision Mission Strategy Exercise to make perspective plan of the Dairy Cooperative till 2010. Henceforth the activities of the cooperative has been largely been guided by the target
of the VMS. VMS Target 2010:
Increase of milk production: 850 liter Milk collection: 600 liter
Reduce milk sourness by 0% Increase in milk fat content Bonus to member
Reduction of management expenses: (2001-2: 49 paisa per liter to 32 paisa per liter in 2003-4)
Modernization (Introduction of internet and solar system) Fresh milk collection: 100 % Artificial Insemination 100%
Introduction of members welfare scheme (Provident Fund Scheme & Accident Death Benefit Scheme)
Educational promotion activities: Support to scholarly students Group 2: Village Social Map and Workload Analysis:
The village Gorpuralat is situated in Alela Gram Panchayat of Kapadvanj Taluka. The
village lies in the extreme south west of Kapadvanj Taluka. It is 26 kms far from Block Head Quarter. 130 House Holds inhabit the village. Majority dominated caste is patel (general caste).
Before the initiation of Dhudh Utpadak Sahakari Mandali, major source of livelihood was agriculture. Due to frequent drought, agriculture productivity was awesomely less
forcing the families to flee other area for work. Education was also a gray area (girl child education). People were unable to keep good variety cattle. Provisioning of social services such as (PRIs, Schools, Anganwadi, and Health) was poor.
The Dairy Cooperative got initiated during 1991. This has changed the socio-economic profile of the village. Now all most all the families have a member in the Mandali. People
pour milk and get back the money every 10 days. They utilize the money in buying household essential goods, cattle feed, expenses for education and etcs. People have
purchased good variety cow and gone for artificial insemination with the local one to get good variety breed. The village has been connected with an all weathered road (pitch), a
good primary school. Regular money has helped them to purchase land, erect well for irrigation.
Agriculture Profile: People cultivate the following: Winter: Sun Flower, Baliyari (Pan Masala), Zira, Caster (Dibala) Summer: Ground nut
Rainy: Maize, Bajra, Arhar Good harvest has ensured nutrition security in the family. Once shy women have come
out and manage the most powerful organization in the village that is Dhdhu Utpadak Sahakari Mandlai. Male member provides respect to them for their effort and courage in managing the Dhudh Mandali with all odd.
Workload Analysis of men and women:
Women:
4.30 am: She gets up from the bed. 4.30 to 5: Perform natures call
5 to 5.30: Feeding the cattle 5.30 to 6: Milching of cows
6 to 6.30: Visitng Dhudh Mandali for pouring milk 6.30 to 7: Cleaning of utensil 7 to 7.30: Preparing tea and serving snacks to male member
7.30 to 8.30: Green grass cutting in the field for cattle. 8.30 to 9: Cleaning cloth and utensil
10 to 11: House cleaning and Cooking 11 to 11.15: Feeding of cattle 11.30: Serving launch to family member
12 to 1: Rest 1: Preparing tea and serving
2 to 2.30: Feeding cattle 2.30 to 3: Cleaning utensil 3 to 4: Field work (joining male member)
4 to 4.30: Cleaning of cattle shed 4.30 to 5: Cattle feeding
5 to 5.30: Milching 5.30 to 6: Milk pouring at DCS 6 to 7: Cooking the dinner
7 to 8: Serving dinner 8 to 9: Looking after education of child (related to specific cases)
In total a woman work for around 17 hours a day. In contrast a man works effective for 8 hours a day.
Group 3: Chapati Diagram showing importance of Institutions in village:
For the group, it is Dhudh Mandlai which is most important to them. They get regular income, get space to ventilate and grow. The group has given biggest circle to it.
Group 4: Role of social audit and suggestion for improvement in village development:
At present the Dhudh Mandali has nominated a Local Auditor to monitor the activities of Dhudh Mandali. The Local Auditor is from the same village and is
nominated/selected unanimously by the general body. S/he is also answerable to the General Body. S/he keeps vigil eye on the day to day functioning of the society.
S/he participates in the Executive Meeting every month and share the functioning of the society from her/his perspective.
Suggestion for village development:
1. Village resource improvement plan and support (Natural capital, physical capital, institutional capital and other productive resources)
2. Capacity building of members: arranging training program
3. Facility of water 4. Tree plantation
5. Monitoring and support to maintain the society at par with latest development from AMUL.
Gorpura
Lat
Gorpuralat Dhudh
Sahakari Mandali
(Inside the village)
School
Gram
Panchayat
2 Kms Taluka
(16 Kms)
Bank
(Balasinor-
16 Kms)