”‘..,‘wzi - 3.’ rr '.‘73 I WI 2.222,. 2. .III II III" 2222 II 1~I“' ""' ‘1111' . "".1’“I.'"III’ ,2; 11:10.11. . .2122. .~I‘:1".€' 212%,‘12- . 2 . 1 3.2..“ .:I.I.1' I . £175 2‘3; 22: .. J5. .. .zfi , . 2:24 a”; . ”r, 4 _ 3'" ' -‘_ 3.2.3.315: 5M. }. 2 L . L c 'l‘” 11123.3..11111'1' ,. I! ."1, '1"I. 1-11‘1" f ‘I"..' I' 'J'.I 11"1'1"'§.1 1.511 ’1‘ .- '15". 11'I2.‘ ‘Ifl..'. "I.- . :.'I11:III~EI1|I . '{I'II'1"""';1."II 'TIIIII'I": ' 2 .4.’ . 1"”. .L..‘"""'.11'..{ "1.1;-'I'2’"111'.1...;'2"'- ”11.111 . . '1' .' II1‘.‘2 ";1‘.'!'-' 2 III. 2: 2 I I "11 11"11'1'1. 21mm. '.." .I'I 11.11"“ 1'“ '1 "‘ 3 2 '1 I.' 2 I ;'1 2141311"I.I; 1111.11! ‘21'2' ' 1"" . .‘ ' 'V11'1'1.I1"""12'3'11'11-'1'I:'.I1.,,'-‘ 1..| ‘ .OI II " ' I 2.12 - "II 4.1" '.11'1 ('1' #13517. 1 iil'u1- 1.. .111 '1 :11'I0111_"".'11 I" -v .21: _' Jf‘. Ir 1"...IIB'I'L11 ’ ' . . n ’ f .r.’ 5' 7‘r-“ . - '.”'*z.-¢_ .. ’ _ :3' _—¢ 5 .11 1'1"" 1.1115111.'.11"'1 O V I I1. ' I! I 1". ' . t "o .2 "11" ""'1"' "'1 ""'"" 1212,2112 «2:111 . 1 1 . 22III ”1' .1211111. 152217... . . IIIII: , 21111113 . . :1. .1.'..' 'M II 11";.' I" 1" "' 51"1I'I"'1"1I1f2 I1I'1"13'|'I ’..“ L . .t .;.1 .. 2 III III "*211II2II22 "1‘ 1 1. . . . ‘ 11. ~ 4.xl'1 in '1; I 3111‘ :~ K21“. 12.21i'1'1"':11111'C.'I'7.=‘;'.1'11; ,11"‘I2".~1. 231-313. 11;..I:III1'§';‘..1I... :".‘;.1"1 2 I...’ ... f i E' 5111.. {1.1 11.1.3, :5‘21"i1"1;2.:':.‘., 1"" ‘ '2‘22'-‘I11~“3‘121I5"'!""I=:'I'I1‘2I1:IIII;.t.II; ‘ LI113‘1'1"'I""" 11.11“ ‘.JIII'III fjj331i3.I’.—'312'12'111.'IIII.2(?I§:, I"'."~, 5..., ‘1711117', Iii-I -"'i1'11' ~ ;:I122:=I'II=-’-?I'22:.2IIIIIIII5'IIJI 12.1.: I :I.,I,I.2.22 "I2" III: ”III' *2 w .2. 1122! ~ IIIIIIIII'2II.:.I'2 I 2 ””II ~‘ 2-I-- .IiI‘v .:~::~. I... .22. 11"""I'. "" "“1! ; 1.11.131... '2;32'212'1112.1231113113191 "1- I . 321.2I‘21.I.I:.11‘I ,I..III‘.. 1.1.1 '- .I 1 111(1'5" ’ I” "-:I' " ”’1 1I'2‘ 2 I'1".111'11§: 113". '1 12"“ 2. '1""' 5:,“ "1'l"’;"i' . .n "I“. 11' FE w} I13. :I ‘_ c. I ‘1. . 1...].“. ‘ ‘.. . "I? E5111. hi“ .6}: a: 1'2“” ' '2 1 '~I :~'-1,~ .‘ I :12 1"" i. ""112; '1 11'1"" '?.I ‘1 1.1)».1'1'1 1.11...." .-'.-;. I . ‘ .‘-;1"1'.1 I, “1....” .3 3.1;. 21W:1'..12 I '271'2'1_"._'1"""'"‘ -"":"1"'11' .,‘|. '1'... 11111 'lISI ::.[1I'l '..2 .2311I1h::}...," Ev .1il...[ " ‘. " ' H '.' ‘ 1"!III'C‘ 'I' .13“? '1"; '1'” - I1 I "I"I' ' 1 11.322.II31 511.1%} ... . ..:\‘:.'1..L... . . 111M! ' M91111”? . ('1; I“ ' I I “III'II ‘ .‘u A".,111"'::V:1'13'§f.flm331 Qtrd 1 2' " "11.11.11'111"'I"I"I' "'7 " '1'“ ' I 2 I .I , 1k1'1'1' I '2- .1" :3 ~ '2'I" 3'. l . ‘ ‘ . ." 1' "_.'""1'11'I'..' .' '1:.'1' 1;:1'. .111.” "1 I I "113‘. 11" 4.11.111 :11 "'1 'IféII {1; $153. '1? ”L' 1115: I..' I i‘ M . I "1" 1:31:13 .11.. «'1‘1' '1'" "’1'": 1' "' .‘11111'11' ' " '\ €11," .' , . '1': . 1".I 1. l'. I.'2\'I‘I'I '1“ 2“. N 2'" “.151“ ‘I.' .::I.' I ' "2' ,. 1'I'I1"1' I‘II'.1.E2!I '.Iin "'111'I'1'I"1"11'111'22 1'1" I.'1 . . 5‘ ;-2;I.2I 2'I' 221.111.1yf2111'tn1.11.1111. Iij"1'122 .. . I this MUNICIPIO Sacatepéquez D none 1 2 - a I I L l 4" - 4 oooooo 50 TABLE 6 CHARACTERISTICS OF GUATEMALAN COOPERATIVES, 1965 Characteristics % Location in predominantly Indian departments 63 Location in predominantly Ladino departments _3_7 100 _CI‘e-dit— c-Oop e-ra—t-i v—es— —————————————————————— 27 Traditional crop agricultural cooperatives 28 Commercial crop agricultural cooperatives _4_5_ ____________________________ . _ _ 103 Agricultural cooperatives inactive by 197 6 56 Traditional 43 Commercial 64 TABLE 7 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF GUATEMALAN COOPERATIVES - 1965 Indian Ladino Depts. Depts. Characteristics 4 % % Credit cooperatives 37 8 Traditional crop agricultural cooperatives 34 18 Commercial crop agricultural cooperatives 28 74 100 100 Agricultural cooperatives inactive by 1976 40 75 T raditional 3 5 7 1 Commercial 47 81 51 Ladino departments due to variations in the cooperative mix and Opera- tional status (Table 7). The Indian areas had more or less equal numbers of the three types of cooperatives while in the Ladino de- partments just the opposite was true. Here the commercial crop cooperatives prevailed. There was a difference of almost two to one in the rates of inactivity for agricultural cooperatives in Ladino and Indian areas. Both geographic areas, however, showed higher rates of inactivity for commercial crop cooperatives than traditional crOp cooperatives. The Partido Revoluciona’rio (PR) and Julio Mehdez Montenegro came to power in the presidential elections of 1966. This reformist party strongly encouraged the formation Of cooperatives through an increased budget for the Department of Cooperatives,by publicizing the cooperative movement and seeking additional amounts Of international financial assistance. As a result of these positive government policies, cooperatives developed extensively in all parts of the country not just in the Indian zone (Figure 5). In the five year time period (1966-1970) which corre- sponds to the presidency of Mehdez Montenegro, a total of 213 new cooperatives were established. As a result cooperatives were now found in all departments of the country. In the Indian area the zone of intensive cooperative development stretched from Huehuetenango to Chimaltenango. Alta and Baja Verapaz were added to the list of de- partments with cooperatives. 52 I 9m GUATEMALA RURAL AGRICULTURAL AND CREDIT COOPERATIVES:197O COOPERATIVES PER MUNICHHO IIBD 53 TABLE 8 CHARACTERISTICS OF GUATEMALAN COOPERATIVES, 1970 W Characteristics % Location in predominantly Indian departments 53 Location in predominantly Ladino departments _4_'_7_ 1 00 —C;e6i; COO-peTa-t-iv-es— —————————————————— — — —1-9. 3 Traditional crop agricultural cooperatives 37. 3 Commercial crop agricultural cooperatives _43_._3 99.9 Agricultural cooperatives inactive by 1976 46 Traditional 34 Commercial _ 56 TABLE 9 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF GUATEMALAN COOPERATIVES - 1970 _— _—> — Indian Ladin=o Depts. Depts. Characteristics 3 % % Credit cooperatives 28 9 Traditional crop agricultural cooperatives 41 34 Commercial crop agricultural cooperatives 31 57 100 100 ____________________ _l _ .... ... .- ... ... ... _ ... ... ... Agricultural cooperatives inactive by 197 6 28 61 Traditional 25 45 Commercial 32 72 54 In the Ladino areas cooperatives were expanded at a rapid rate and were established for the first time in Santa Rosa, Jalapa and Chiquimula. New societies were added to those already existing in the coastal plain and piedmont departments and in Guatemala, El Progreso, Zacapa and Izaba’l. At this time the Pete’n became a leading cooperative region. During this same interval the Federacidn Nacional de Coopera- tivas Agricolas (FENACOAG) was organized (1968). This association, however, was never fully effective in the 1960's and remained inactive until the mid 1970's. USAID increased its financial assistance to FENACOAC in the late 1960's and lent .. encouragement for the devel- opment of other cooperative programs. At the end of 197 0, 319 cooperatives had been organized in vari- ous parts of the country. By this time the number of cOoperatives in Ladino areas almost equalled those found in the Indian departments (Table 8). In respect to the cooperative mix, the relative amounts of traditional crop societies increased, credit unions decreased, and commercial crop societies decreased slightly, relative to 1965. The overall pattern of cooperative inactivity remained constant, i. e. , higher rates for commercial crop societies. However there were generally lower rates overall attributable to the generally younger ages of the cooperatives. Again, as in 1965, there were important differences between the 55 169 cooperatives situated in Indian departments and the 150 coopera- tives located in Ladino departments (Table 9). The relative number of cooperatives in each of the three functional categories remained the same for the Indian departments, while the Ladino departments showed a relative increase in traditional crop societies and decrease in commercial crop societies. The overall rates of cooperative in- activity decreased, again largely due to the younger COOperative pop u- lation, but the same patterns of higher Ladino and commercial inactivity remained. The 1970's initiated a more conservative government policy toward cooperatives with the election of Arana as President. The government no longer strongly promoted the formation of small societies, and in- stead put greater emphasis on thepromotion and strengthening of the existing successful cooperatives. This shift in policy was in response to the high rates Of failure that characterized many of the smaller agri- cultural cooperatives. Despite this change in emphasis, the five and one half year period, 1971 to mid 1976, resulted in an additional 107 cooperatives added to the national total. The period, 1971 to 1976, also brought greater USAID financial assistance to the cooperative movement. Loans to FENACOAC were increased and in 1972 the United States Government supported a pro- gram aimed at the development of six large regional agricultural co- operatives, joined together in a national association known as FECOAR 56 90° GUATEMALA RURAL AGRICULTURAL AND CREDIT COOPERATIVES:1976 COOPERATIVES PER MUNICIPIO [:] none E] 1 2% 2-3 0 50 100 - 4 or more Kilometers Solole 57 (Federacioh Nacional de Cooperativas Agricolas Regionales). In 1973 USAID expanded its cooperative assistance to include some of the Department of Cooperatives technical assistance programs. The Federacio’n Nacional de Cooperativas Agricolas (FENACOAG) which had become inactive in the late 1960's, was reorganized in May, 1975 and began some limited cooperative programs. As of July 30, 1976, there were 412 cooperatives of various types in Guatemala. They were concentrated in a belt stretching from Huehuetenango department to Guatemala and somewhat less numerous in the southeast part of the country (Figure 6). The relative patterns of cooperative location, functions and operational status, remained somewhat constant between 1970 and 1976 (Table 10). There was, however, a significant decrease in the percent of agricultural cooperatives that were inactive, again reflec- ting the younger ages of many cooperatives. Furthermore, the commercial crop cooperatives maintained their relatively higher level of inactivity, and the differences between the two major regional groupings, Indian and Ladino, were also similar to those of 197 0 (Table 11). By mid 1976, 123 of the 412 cooperatives established over the past twenty years had become inactive. These were found principally in five departments: Escuintla, Guatemala, Izaba’l, El Pete/n, and Chimaltenango (Figure 7). All of these, with the exception of Chimal- 58 TABLE 10 CHARACTERISTICS OF GUATEMALAN COOPERATIVES, 197 6 Characteristics % Location in predominantly Indian departments 52 Location in predominantly Ladino departments _48 100 3.31? .30; e151 Jes- ______________ ' " ' 12; Traditional crop agricultural cooperatives 40 Commercial crop agricultural cooperatives _4_2- 100 _AngOEItTIr—al—cgop-eFat—ive-s-In-ac-t-iv-e ———————————— " " ’3'; Traditional 25 Commercial I 47 TABLE 11 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF GUATEMALAN COOPERATIVES, 1976 Indian Ladino Depts. Depts. Characteristics % % Credit cooperatives 24 12 Traditional crop agricultural cooperatives 43 37 Commercial crop agricultural cooperatives 33 51 100 100 Agricultural cooperatives inactive 22 50 T raditional 1 8 3 3 Commercial 26 63 w l 90' GUATEMALA INACTIVE COOPERATIVES:1976 COOPERATIVES 15°- MUNICIPIO I: [:1 1 3‘ 2 3 0 so 100 - 4 mo L__1.__|__J__l Kllometere 60 G U ATEMAL A ACTIVE COOPERATIVES:1976 COOPERATIVES PER MlJNl(:IPIO [:] none E] 1 2-3 o 50 100 |—.I__I—-I—j - 4 or more Kilometers Sece tepequez Solole Figure 8 61 tenango, are predominantly Ladino departments. Other inactive cooperatives are scattered throughout the country, and once they are subtracted from the national total a more pronounced highland concentration is apparent. This concentration of COOperatives stretches from Huehuetenango to Chimaltenango, while relatively fewer cooperatives are found in the eastern and southern parts of the country (Figure 8). National Cooperative Organizations The Guatemalan cooperative movement is comprised of several major components. The most important organizations are the three national cooperative alliances: the Federacio’n Nacional de Coopera- tivas de Ahorro y Credito (FENACOAC), the Federacidn de Cooperati- vas Agricolas Regionales (FECOAR), and the Federacio’n Nacional de Cooperativas Agricolas (FENACOAG). In addition to the cooperatives belonging to these organizations, there are numerous small non- affiliated agricultural cooperatives. Support and assistance by the national government to the agricultural cOOperatives is directed through the Department of Cooperatives of the Ministry of Agriculture. The vast majority of Guatemalan cooperators belong to the credit cooperatives affiliated with FENACOAC (Table 12). This organi- zation is the most important cooperative system in the country. Next in importance are the FECOAR regionals followed by the FENACOAG agricultural cooperatives and the non-affiliated agricultural cooperatives. 62 TABLE 12 GUATEMALAN RURAL COOPERATIVE MEMBERSHIP - 1976 _ - __i _—‘ Ave. No. of Members per Organization Cooperatives Members Cooperative FENACOAC 74 55, 823 754 FECOAR 6 11, 549 l, 925 FENACOAG 73 5, 260 70 Non-affiliated active cooperatives 156 8, 581 54 309 81,213 260 - 1,200* 80, 013 *Subtraction for the Cooperative Santa Lucia in Solola’department which is both a member of FENACOAC and FENACOAG. FE NAC OAC FENACOAC was founded in 1964 by six highland credit coopera- tives. Since-that time it has become the largest and most important group of cooperatives in the country. Much of its success, however, is due to the extensive USAID funding that it has received since 1965. The initial AID support was limited to technical and administrative assistance contracted through the Credit Union National Association (CUNA) of the United States. In mid 1960, USAID initiated direct assistance to FENACOAC. Its major objectives were: 63 Assist the National Federation of Savings and Credit Cooperatives to increase member savings and mobilization of investment re- sources, availability of credit to the rural population with special emphasis on the small and medium farmer, the effectiveness of affiliated cooperative enterprises and to pro- mote the involvement through the organiza- tion of strong self-sufficient democratic institutions such as savings and credit cooperatives. 28 Thus, USAID envisioned four major goals for its project assisting FENACOAC: (1) the mobilization of local capital resources, (2) the provision of credit to small and medium sized farmers, (3) the strengthening of the local cooperatives and (4) the development of democratic institutions. Until 1970 the focus of the United States government funding was the provision of managerial and advisory services via CUNA, for the development of local savings and credit cooperatives. In 1970, man- agement of the Federation was turned over to the Guatemalans and a shift of emphasis took place from advisory services to direct financial assistance in order to strengthen the managerial and economic ser- vices provided by FENACOAC to its affiliated cooperatives. By 1975 the USAID had provided FENACOAC with grants totaling $1, 004, 760 and loans of $1, 300, 000. 29 28William H. Rusch, Fred L. Mann, and Eugene Braun, Rural Cooperatives in Guatemala: A Study of Their Development and Evalua- tion of AID Programs in Their Support, McLean, Virginia: American Technical Assistance Corporation, 197.5, Vol. II, p. 1. 29Ibid. . p. 4. 64 In the 1960's with the support of the USAID sponsored contract with CUNA, the number of credit cooperatives grew rapidly. At that time there were only the five credit cooperatives located in Huehue- tenango department, but by 1965 the number had increased to twenty- eight and by 1970 there were sixty-two, located mostly in the Indian departments (Table 5). In 1970, at the same time that AID shifted its funding emphasis, there was also a FENACOAC policy shift from organizing new credit unions to the consolidation and growth Of existing affiliated cooperatives. Whereas between 1965 and 1970 a total of thirty-four new credit cooperatives were organized, only twelve addi- tional ones were established between 1970 and 197 6. Individual mem- bership grew from approximately 1, 000 in 1965 to 16, 000 in 1970 to 55, 823 in 1976. Of these, Indian departments account for 35, 985 mem- bers while 19, 838 lived in Ladino departments.30 This is a member- ship growth from an average of 258 per affiliate in 1970 to an average of 754 in 1976. From a geographical perspective, most of the CUNA-USAID financial resources were channelled into the highland areas of the Indian departments, where the problems Of minifundia are most severe. Until 1970 the FENACOAC cooperatives were almost exclusively located in the indigenous areas. Since that time an attempt has been made to 30Ibid. , p. 5 65 90° GUATEMALA COOPERATIVES FENACOAC , .s ; .... . .../.... . who.» . 1.4;. .4 «.... 3.3;. u”, .. ... >,_ 3 e. "r.~ QNA/l A/%,\ <5 \. x 1.. A} Secetepequez Solole none 01' more 1 100 50 Kilometers Figure 9 66 distribute credit unions more evenly. By 1976, credit societies are found throughout the country (Figure 9). Of the seventy-four affilia- - ted credit societies Operating in the country at this time, fifty-one (with 35, 985 members) are located in Indian areas and twenty-three (with 19, 838 members) in Ladino areas. The organizational structure of FENACOAC is based in a General Assembly that consists of one delegate from each of the affil- iated cooperatives. This body chooses a ten member Administrative Council, which in turn selects a three member Executive Committee and a manager. The manager has the responsibility of supervising the assistant manager and the heads of the six administrative depart- ments comprised of finance, insurance and bonding, accounting, mar- keting, printing and public relations, and the regional offices. The regional offices, located in Huehuetenango, Quezaltenango and Solola’ have responsibility for education and technical assistance. Thus, the policies and goals of the federation are set by its members and the adminiStrative structure is responsible for carrying out these goals. FENACOAC cooperatives provide a number of services to their members, most important of which are credit and savings opportunities. The federation makes loans to affiliated cooperatives for up to five times the net worth of the cooperative (i. e. , five times its share capital). These loans are made almost exclusively for sub-loans to individual members for productive purposes. The term of loans to 67 affiliates is usually limited to eighteen months and interest charges vary between 8 and 10% depending on the source of the funds. Affiliated cooperatives lend to their members at 1% per month for terms of six, ten, and twelve months. Some cooperatives require a guarantor before the loan is granted while others require an unre- corded mortgage on the crop being financed, or on some other prop- erty. The maximum amount an individual member may borrow is set at five times the amount of his paid-in share capital. At the end of 1974, cooperatives had ninety-eight loans out- standing with the federation for a total value of $1, 599, 196. At the same time, 24, 440 individual members had loans outstanding with the affiliated cooperatives of $3, 647, 000. 31 Upon joining a credit cooperative an individual must make a small contribution, known as share capital. Thereafter he must make an additional contribution, usually equal to 10% of the amount that he borrows. This share capital forms the bulk of the affiliated coopera- tive's assets. A low rate of dividends is paid on these share interests (3 to 5%) and a member may not make withdrawals until he retires from the cooperative. This system has proved to be a highly successful method of mobilizing rural savings. In the future, a significant amount of the credit needed by small farmers can come from this locally created capital. 31Ibid. , p. 8 68 As of December 31, 1974, the total amount of loans outstanding by FENACOAC cooperatives ($3, 647, 000) was exceeded by the amount of members savings ($3, 848, 000).. Of the members' savings, $3, 440, 501 was in the form of share capital and $408, 000 was in savings accounts, which are voluntary and pay a somewhat higher yield than share accounts.32 The occupational status of FENACOAC cooperative members is predominantly agricultural. A survey of thirty-nine cooperatives con- ducted by the federation in 1973 revealed that 46% of their members were farmers while 14% were artisans and individuals engaged in small businesses and industries. The remaining 40% were classified as having other occupations. This group includes large numbers of people engaged in both farming and handicrafts as well as commercial activities. 33 The survey also indicated that the credit portfolios of the thirty- nine cooperatives generally were evenly divided between agricultural and commercial purposes (Table 13). The number of actual loans for agricultural purposes, however, is somewhat larger than that indicated. Many of the large category of loans for "other purposes" were for the purchase of agricultural land and for payment of debts, many of which were incurred in transactions relating to agricultural land, crops, and 32Ibici., p. 8. 33Ibid., p. 11. 69 TABLE 13 INVESTMENT AREAS OF FENACOAC LOANS Num3:ali=n—I= Dollar a Purpose Of loan of loans Amount Agriculture 6, 557 $836, 825 Livestock 618 114, 819 Artesania (handicrafts) 244 36, 522 Small industries or businesses 2, 695 767, 037 Transport vehicles 147 107, 340 Housing 225 94, 606 Other purposes 5, 569 784, 945 16, 055 $2, 742, 094 animals. Some transport vehicles also were purchased primarily for agricultural purposes. In addition to these agricultural loans, many small businessmen and artisans benefited through loans obtained from FENACOAC affiliated cooperatives. A large part of the success that FENACOAC cooperatives have experienced is due to the extensive funding that they have received from USAID. If nOt for these grants and loans totalling over 2. 3 million dollars, it would have been virtually impossible to extend a significant number of loans or generate the 4 million dollars of rural savings that have been accomplished. 70 FECOAR The Federacio’n de Cooperativas Agricolas Regionales is a system of six large regional cooperatives organized by the Agricul- tural Cooperative Development International on contract from the USAID. The objective of this project was "to assist the existing agricultural cooperatives to organize a national federation and re- gional cooperatives to . . . (a) serve as a channel for technical information (b) Provide production credit (c) provide necessary inputs (d) organize marketing and (e) provide an institutional struc- ture through which all of the above functions can be carried out with- out prejudice to the popular participation in the decision-making process and the social values of cooperation"?’4These objectives are very similar to those on which AID support to FENACOAC credit cooperatives was based. The regionals were organized by FECOAR extension teams that went into areas believed to have the greatest potential for forming regional cooperatives. They contacted the leaders of organizations working in the area and the mayors of the local aldeas (a division of a municipio). Through these persons they were better able to discuss with farmers the possibility of forming local groups interested in 34William H. Rusch, Fred L. Mann and Eugene Braun, Rural Cooperatives in Guatemala, A Study of Their Development and Evalua- tion of AID Programs in Their Support, McLean, Virginia: American Technical Assistance Corporation, 1975, p. 30. 71 associating with a new regional cooperative. They did not try to re- cruit existing cooperative members or groups. Again, as with the FENACOAC cooperatives, most of the activity was concentrated in the Indian highlands. Five of the six regionals (10, 403 members) are located in the eastern highlands (Figure 10). Each regional is made up of a number of local groups which must have at least fifteen members. These groups function as an informal ' sub-organization of the cooperative and have their own Board of Direc- tors consisting of a President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer, and one or two Vocales. Local groups have the responsibility of approving loans for members (through a Credit Committee), organi- zing education programs (Education Committee), and dealing with agricultural matters related to technical assistance, fertilizers and harvests (Agricultural Committee). A general assembly of one representative from each local group elects the regional's Board of Directors which consists of a President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer, two Vocales, and a Vigilance Committee of two members. These individuals in turn contract with a manager and he hires 'other employees. The FECOAR administrative organization consists of a General Assembly of affiliates, made up of five representatives from each of the regionals, who in turn are elected by their Board of Directors. The General Assembly chooses its own Board of Directors consisting of a 72 GUATE M ALA FECOAR COOPERATIVES . Regional Headquarters 1., ‘ “Se-v ‘ ’ 1 figs sgé'ji‘JO‘) 4,,» “"35. 2"”, v I- , g ,y ’ ‘.6 ’3‘? ‘. ...“. A.'.'\V .' r'» ........... 010 g__i km V Ssoetepequez E] none I. 1 ow more 0 50 100 l l I I #1 Kilometers Figure 10 73 President, Vice President, Secretary and two Vocales, who in turn, choose an Executive Committee and Vigilance Board and hire the general manager of the Federation. The major function of FECOAR is the provision of credit to its affiliates for redistribution to their members. The federation charges 8% interest on loans to its member cooperatives, while affiliates charge 1% per month for loans to members plus a 1 to 1.5% planning fee. Membership in a local group requires a purchase of a $10 capital share in the regional cooperative. Then the member may borrow up to five times the amount of capital shares that he possesses. Upon repayment of the loan, the individual is required to purchase additional capital shares equal to 10% of his loan. Share capital may not be with- drawn until the member retires from the cooperative. Through this mechanism local capital is mobilized and the financial resources of the cooperative are increased. The FECOAR regional cooperatives also offer a variety of other services to their members. They sell agricultural inputs, mostly fer- tilizer, but also seed, insecticides, and herbicides, and offer a wheat threshing service. Transportation services are provided by the re- gional cooperatives for inputs purchased and wheat sold to the coopera- tive. All of the regionals (except Rey Quiche’) market wheat, while others have sold small amounts of beans and corn. FECOAR provides technical assistance in bookkeeping and accounting and organizes educa- 74 cational courses and meetings for members and the regional Staffs. Each regional has two agricultural extension agents who provide agricultural advice to the members. The significant achievements which FECOAR has accomplished since 1970 are in large part due to the generous support it has received from the USAID. As of 197 5, this agency provided the federation with grants valued at $1, 463, 477 and long term low interest loans of $3, 000, 000.35 The extensive support, however, has mobilized over $400, 000 of local capital in the form of share capital and as the USAID loans are recycled, the independent financial strength of the regional cooperatives will be increased. FENAC OAG The Federacio’n Nacional de Cooperativas Agricolas was first organized in 1968. At this time, however, there was limited funding available and the federation remained inactive for a number of years. FENACOAG was reorganized in May, 197 5 with the assistance of a loan from the sugar cane cooperative, La Unidad in Suchitepequez. Since then the organization has received some funding from the Banco Nacional de Desarrollo Agricola of Guatemala (BANDESA) and the Inter-American Foundation. By August, 197 6, seventy-one agricultural cooperatives had 35mm. , p. 36. 75 lo 90 GUATEM AL A FENACOAG COOPERATIVES 76 joined the federation. Of these, twenty-seven, with 2, 680 members, were located in the Indian departments, while forty-four, with 2, 580 members, were located in Ladino areas (Figure 11). These coopera- tives have a peripheral concentration, which may represent an attempt by isolated cooperatives to obtain more assistance and aid from the government. Unlike the other two large national cooperative federa- tions, FENACOAG has not adopted a philosophy of close ties to the national government. It emphasizes an independent stance as the best method to achieve government action favorable to cooperation. The objectives of the federation are twofold; first, to promote cooperative agricultural education, and second, to assist in the com- mercialization of the cooperatives. To achieve these goals FENACOAG has adopted a three stage approach: (1) education, (2) technical ser- vices, and (3) credit. The federation at this time is still in the educa- tional stage of its program. It, however, has had some initial success in obtaining foreign marketing contracts for two of its affiliates. The cooperative Aquacata/n has an agreement with a North American pur- chaser for 250 tons of garlic a year and the cooperative Avicultores del Pete/n supplies 400 tons of honey annually to a Belgian contractor. FENACOAG is still in its early stages of development and it is uncertain whether it will become an important and lasting organization. Thus far its activities have been very limited and there is little hope for extensive growth development without outside financial assistance, either from the national government or international sources. 77 NON-AFFILIATED COOPERAT IVES The largest number of cooperatives in Guatemala, however, are small agricultural societies not affiliated with the national cooperative organizations. As with affiliated cooperatives, these are located mostly in the Indian departments (105 cooperatives, with 6, 478 mem- bers vs. 51 cooperatives with 2, 103 members in the Ladino depart- ments). Unlike the FECOAR and many FENACOAC cooperatives, the societies were usually developed through local initiatives. External sources of financial assistance are seldom available to these non- affiliated cooperatives, and due to this lack of financial resources, most are seldom able to provide significant services to their members. As a result, many of these societies lapse into inactivity after a few years. It is among these cooperatives that FENACOAG is attempting to unify into a more effective cooperative movement. There are, however, two sources of assistance for these coopera- tives. The Department of Cooperatives provides advice on cooperative organization and administration, planning for the provision of essential agricultural inputs, and technical agricultural information. Also, on a number of occasions, the department has made loans to those coopera- tives that were considered to have the greatest potential. The agricultural cooperatives which produce coffee have an addi- tional institution to which they can turn for aid, the Associacio/n Nacional del Cafe (ANACAFE). This organization is responsible for 78 the promotion and protection of coffee production and coffee producers. ANACAFE provides a wide range of technical services to the coffee producers and has exclusive authority to distribute production quotas and regulate exports. Each cooperative is allocated a production quota which is then divided among the members. The major service provided by the coffee cooperatives to their members is the processing of coffee. Coffee cherries must be pro- cessed shortly after harvesting, and if a producer does not have pro- cessing equipment or transportation, he has to sell quickly, often at low prices. Thus, it is an advantage for cOOperatives to construct small processing operations, store the product until the price is favor- able, and transport the coffee at an appropriate time. A number of coffee cOOperati'ves have joined together to form an association whose headquarters is located in Palin, Escuintla. Again, with the exception of the coffee cooperatives and a certain limited number of others, most of the non-affiliated societies offer limited member services, due to their. small size and lack of financial resources. Whether or not FENACOAG can organize them into a meaningful and effective national association remains to be seen. Present Pattern of Cooperation Since the size of a cooperative varies significantly with its function and affiliation status, a municipio may have a large number of coopera- 79 tives, but they may all be very small and weak, resulting in low rates of cooperative membership. Similarly an area may contain one large cooperative and relatively high rates of membership. Thus, to obtain an accurate idea of the strength of cooperation in any given area, the relative number of cooperative members per capita is a better measure than the absolute number of COOperatives. In calculating the number of cooperative members for each muni- c_ip_>i_<_), some estimation was necessary. Many of the FENACOAC coop- eratives and all of the FECOAR regionals have members in more than one municipio. A breakdown of membership by local area was obtain- able for most of the FECOAR agricultural cooperatives, but unattain- able for most of the larger credit unions. In instances such as these, the number of members per municipio was estimated by apportioning the number of members relative to each municipio's population. The resulting pattern of relative cooperative membership indicates a concentration in the predominantly indigenous departments (Figure 12). A concentration of cooperative membership exists in the highlands and extends from Huehuetenango through northern San Marcos, Quezelten- ango and Solola/to Chimaltenango and Alta and Baja Verapaz. Other areas of significant cooperative membership outside of this zone are found in the lowlands of southern San Marcos, in the departments of El Progreso and Zacapa and in El Pete/n. Areas of insignificant coop- erative membership exist in the Pacific lowlands, the eastern highlands, 80 90 GUATEMALA MEMBERS 1,000 POPULATION COOPERATIVE PER e BANDESA Credit Offices 1 5°- Secetepequez Solole [3 0-10 [3 11 -4o 100 50 Kilometers - 71 or more Figure 12 81 and the central interior of the country. In mid-1976 there were a total of 80, 013 cooperative members in Guatemala, indigenous departments accounting for 54, 346 members, while 25, 667 were in Ladino depart- ments. The municipios with the highest rates of cooperation exist in those areas with important credit or regional agricultural societies (Table 14). It is important to note that this classification is based on the number of cooperative members per 1, 000 population. The soci- eties listed include many of the most important in the country, in addition to relatively small cooperatives in small municipios. There are many other large and important COOperatives, which are located in areas with large populations. Twenty-six cooperatives have mem- berships of more than 1, 000 (Table 15). Thus, with 51, 587 members the twenty-six largest societies account for 64% of the total national cooperative membership. Cooperative membership is not only concen- trated in the FENACOAC and FECOAR alliances, but also is found pre- dominantly in the largest of the affiliated cooperatives. 36 BANDESA Credit Offices Spatial distributions of cooperative membership may be influenced by the small farmer credit programs of BANDESA, the Government of 36The appendices provide a complete listing of all Guatemalan cooperatives, giving their location, membership, and date of organization. 82 TABLE 14 MUNICIPIOS WITH 71 OR MORE COOPERATIVE MEMBERS PER 1, 000 POPULATION _ _i Municipio Cooperative I Tamahu Alta Verapaz San Antonio Huista Huehuetenango Sayaxche: Peten Huitan Concepcion Chiquirlchapa Quezaltenango Tejutla Rio Blanco Ayutla Pajapita Catarina / Ocos San Marcos / Santa Lucia Utatlan Solola’ Santo Tomas la Union . I Suchitepequez La Union Zacapa Santa Maria Asuncion (FENACOAC) San Antonio (non-affiliated) Lucha Progresista (FENACOAC) Numerous FENACOAG cooperatives I San Cristobal Cabrican (FENACOAC) Cerrito Chiquirlchapa (FENACOAC) Movimiento Campesino (FENACOAC) J usto Rufino Barrios (FECOAR) San Cristobal Cabrican (FENACOAC) Healy Castillo (FENACOAC) Adelante (FENACOAC) Adelante (FENACOAC) Adelante (FENACOAC) Adelante (FENACOAC) Santa Lucia (FENACOAC, FENACOAG) La Florida (FENACOAC) La Paz (FENACOAC) La Union (FENACOAG) 83 TABLE 15 COOPERATIVES WITH MORE THAN 1, 000 MEMBERS m Cooperative Location Members 1. Union Progresista Amatitlan, Guatemala 4, 450 Amatitlaneca 2. Santiago de Coatepeque, Quezaltenango 3, 700 Coatepeque 3. Adelante Ayutla, San Marcos 3, 300 4. Flor Chimalteca Chimaltenango, Chimal- 2, 664 tenango 5. Justo Rufino San Marcos, San Marcos 2, 640 Barrios 6. Rey Quiche’ Quiche’, El Quiche’ 2, 640 7. San Cristobal San Cristobal Verapaz, 2, 570 Alta Verapaz 8. Movimiento Tejutla, San Marcos 2, 497 Campesino 9. San Miguel Guala’n Guala’n, Zacapa 2, 442 10. Coan Cobain, Alta Verapaz 2, 400 11.. Diez de Mazatenango, Suchite- 2, 137 Septiembre pe’quez I 12. Kato - Ki Chimaltenango, Chimal- 2, 050 I tenango 13. Guayacan El Progreso, El Progreso 1, 983 14. San Andres San Andres Semetabaj, 1, 631 Semetabaj Solola 15. San Pablo I Rabinal, Baja Verapaz 1, 437 Rabinal Achi . l6. Chiquimulja Chiquimula, Chiquimula 1, 426 , 84 TABLE 15 (continued) Cooperative Location Members 17. San Jose/Obrero Esquipulas, Chiquimula 1, 426 18. San Miguel / Totonicapan, Totonicapan 1, 310 Chuimequena ’ I 19. Santa Lucia Santa Lucia Utatlan, Solola 1, 200 20. Santa Lucia Escuintla, Escuintla 1, 146 Cotzumalguapa 21. Cuna del Sol Jutiapa, Jutiapa 1, 146 22. San Juan Bautista San Juan Sacatepe’quez, l, 129 Guatemala 23. Esperanza Chiantleca Chiantleca, Huehuetenango 1, 114 24. San Jeronimo San Jeronimo, Baja Verapaz 1, 062 25. La Paz La Union, Zacapa 1, 044 26. San Andres Cuilco, Huehuetenango 1, 043 51, 587 Guatemala's development bank (Figure 12). This agency lends money directly to small farmers at subsidized interest rates of 5 to 8% annually, compared to the 12% cost of a FENACOAC or FECOAR loan. If farmers can obtain credit at a lower rate, there is no advantage for an individual to join a credit union or regional agricultural cooperative with their rigid savings requirements and loan restrictions. Thus, the government is, in effect, in competition with the credit cooperatives in the provision of credit to small farmers. 85 It is noteworthy that in only one case (Sayaxche, Pete/n) is a BANDESA credit office found within a municipio with seventy-one or more cooperative members per one thousand population. Furthermore, the cooperatives in Sayaxche are all small agricultural cooperatives which do not engage in the provision of credit. In only two instances (Flores, El Peten and El Progreso, E1 Progreso) does a BANDESA office coincide with a municipio in the forty-one to seventy members per one thousand category. There are, however, numerous cases where a BANDESA coincides with a municipio in the eleven to forty member category per one thousand population. Thus, it seems as though the subsidized credit practices of the Guatemalan government have to a degree affected the final spatial pattern of cooperatives in Guatemala, by competing with cooperatives in selected areas. CHAPTER V CONC LUS IONS The conclusions that follow are based on consideration of the evidence pertaining to the hypotheses stated in Chapter III. Further- more, the major issues facing the cooperative movement in the lesser developed world (Chapter I) will be examined in their Guatemalan con- text. Hypotheses Examined The four hypotheses advanced in Chapter III expected that there would be (1) more cooperatives and cooperative members in the Indian departments, (2) a greater frequency of commercial agricul- tural cooperatives in the Ladino area, (3) a greater frequency of in- active agricultural cooperatives in Ladino departments, and (4) higher rates of population growth in those municipios where cooperation is well established due to the anticipated improved economic conditions. Each of these hypotheses will be considered in regard to the data presented in the previous chapter. Regional Frequency Variations The information presented indicates that the predominantly Indian departments have substantially higher rates of COOperative 86 87 membership and a greater number of organized active cooperatives than the predominantly I._,a_C_i_i_n_o departments (Tables 5, 6, 8, 10; Figure 12). Thus the first hypothesis that seeks to establish higher rates of cooperative activity in the indigenous areas is supported. This concentration, however is not caused by the traditional com- munal Indian society being more conducive to group innovations than the more individualistic I:_a_d_in_o society. The difference is attribu- table to greater government efforts to organize cooperatives among the Indian population. As seen earlier, the major geographic focus of the USAID supported FENACOAC and FECOAR programs was, and still is, the Indian zone. Only recently have these projects been ex- panded to the rest of the country. The Department of Cooperatives, as well as other development organizations such as the Peace Corps and various religious groups, have also emphasized the Indian high- lands in their work. The communal oriented social structure of the indigenous popu- lation, however, does seem to be a contributing factor in the regional variations in cooperative activity. The data indicates that the smaller agricultural cooperatives, largely the result of purely local initiatives, if also have a bias in favor of the Indian areas. Thus, given the absence of any spurious factors such as outside financing, it seems coopera- tives and cooperative membership would have a greater concentration in the more traditional communal oriented part of the country. 88 Regional Differences in the Functions of Agricultural Cooperatives The second hypothesis stated that in the Ladino areas there would be a greater emphasis on commercial crop agricultural cooper- atives than on traditional crop agricultural cooperatives which were expected to prevail in the Indian areas. Again, the information pre- sented supports this hypothesis (Tables 5, 7, 9, 11). This emphasis on commercial cooperatives existed in both the absolute and relative measures, though less so in the absolute consideration in recent years (Table 5). The assumption that Ladinos are more highly educated and have greater interactions with the commercial economy offers one possible explanation of this regional difference. Other factors which might tend to favor the establishment of commercial cooperatives in the predominantly Ladino departments are (1) their closer proximity to Guatemala City, the main center of com- mercial activity and the largest market for agricultural produce in the country and (2) the relatively greater problems of transportation in the very rugged and often isolated Indian areas of the country. Regional Variations in Agricultural Cooperative Inactivity The third hypothesis, which stated that there would be higher rates of agricultural inactivity found in the Ladino areas, is also supported by the evidence presented (Tables 5, 7, 9, 11). The Ladino areas experienced higher relative and absolute rates of inactivity, 89 which is in large part due to the emphasis on commercial crop agricul- tural cooperatives. These cooperatives are much more difficult to successfully develop due to problems that may arise in marketing the produce. Commodity prices may fall making it impossible for a cooperative to sell its agricultural produce at a profit, and often commercial cooperatives are organized only to later find that there is no effective market for the type of product they hOped to produce. Traditional crop cooperatives, on the other hand, seldom have diffi- culty in finding a market for their agricultural produce. There exists in all parts of the country a strong local demand for the basic grains (corn, wheat, beans). The greater incidence of commercial agricultural cooperatives in Ladino areas, however, does not sufficiently explain the higher rates of inactivity found there. The Indian areas have experienced not only lower absolute and relative rates of failure for agricultural cooperatives as a whole, but they also have lower rates .of inactivity for each of the two types of agricultural cooperatives. Thus there must be additional factors involved in this problem. Perhaps the most important variable involved in this regional variation in cooperative inactivity is the difference in the nature of Indian and Ladino social structure. As stated previously, the Indian areas are characterized by a very traditional and stable social system. Ladino society, on the other hand, being more western, is characterized 90 by a greater transience and impermanence relative to Indian society. Thus, the problems that might lead to cooperative inactivity (i. e. quarreling among members, or the migration of certain members to urban areas) more likely would arise in the Ladino rather than Indian areas. One final factor which contributes to the relatively higher rates of cooperative inactivity in the Ladino departments is the high number of inactive cooperatives found in El Pete/n and lzabal. Recently these two departments have been the scene of extensive pioneer settlement from the highlands. Therefore, the high inactivity rates may be due to the failure of initial agricultural settlements where cooperatives had been formed, as well as the previously described cultural factor. Impact of Cooperatives on Local Economic Development It was assumed that the economic conditions of an area would have an impact on the local rates of population growth. Here it was thought that improved economic conditions would contribute to higher rates of populatiOn growth due to the lessened need for outmigration and birth control practices. This assumption led to the hypothesis that if the cooperative movement has had a significant impact on rural economic conditions in Guatemala, then those municipios which have the highest rates of membership should experience relatively higher rates of population growth. 91 This hypothesis was tested by using data from the nine predominantly indigenous departments where two thirds of all the cooperative members are located. The rates of total and rural population change between 1964 and 1973 for each munici- pig in the Indian departments was calculated as well as the number of COOperative members per 1,000 population. Other variables included population density, the percent of land in holdings of over ten manzanas, and the percent of families with holdings of less than two manzanas. A statistical analysis was performed in an attempt to deter- mine the relationship between population change (both total and rural) and the municipios' rates of cooperative membership (Tables 16 and 17). The test resulted in correlation coefficients of .09 for the variables "total population change" and "percent cooperation membership", and .11 for the variables "rural pOpulation change" and "percent coop- erative membership". These low correlation coefficients indicate that there is little significant linear relationship between a municipio's rate of cooperative membership and its rate of pOpulation growth. There are two possible conclusions that could be drawn from the above results. One, that the cooperative movement in Guatemala has 92 not yet developed to an extent where the economic gains that it brings to an area can be manifested in that area's rate of population growth. If the assumption of a close relationship between economic conditions and population growth is accepted, then this indicates that the coopera- tive movement has not had a significant overall impact on economic conditions in the indigenous departments of Guatemala. The assumption of a strong relationship between the economic conditions of a local area and its rate of population growth, however, may not be a valid assumption. The statistical analysis indicated that the land tenure and density variables also had little significant linear relationship with the two population change variables. The correlation coefficients for the "total population change" variable and the "density", "percent latifundia”, and ”percent minifundia" variables were -. 18, -. 12, and -. 00 respectively, while the correlation coefficients for the "rural population change" variable and the ”density", "percent latifundia", and "percent minifundia" were -. 18, -. 21, and .01 respectively. The restric- tiveness of the land tenure system and the population density are perhaps the most important factors which determine the relative economic condi- tions for most of the rural inhabitants of Guatemala. Thus, it may be concluded that the rate of population change is not a good indicator of dif- ferential levels of economic affluence at the local level. It would be inappropriate to draw a conclusion as to the impact of the cooperative movement on the various municipios' economic conditions given the appar- ent inappropriateness of the assumption on which the hypothesis was based. 93 TABLE 16 CORRELATION MATRIX: TOTAL POPULATION CHANGE AND RELEVANT VARIABLES X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X1 “70W change 1.00000 X2 % cooperative membership . 11537 1. 00000 X3 population density -. 18432 -. 09655 1. 00000 X4 % minifundia -. 00287 -. 07602 . 51490 1. 00000 X5 % latifundia -. 12133 . 00219 -. 36141 -. 38265 1. 00000 TABLE 17 CORRELATION MATRIX: RURAL POPULATION CHANGE AND RELEVANT VARIABLES X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X1 % rural population change 1.00000 X2 % cooperative membership . 08688 1. 00000 X3 population density -. 17962 , . 09655 1. 00000 X4 % minifundia . 01141 -. 07602 . 51490 1. 00000 X5 % latifundia -. 21213 . 00219 -. 36141 -. 38265 1. 00000 L 94 Major Issues of Cooperation As stated previously the cooperative movement in the lesser deve10ped world in general has not lived up to its expectations. Guatemala, however, is an exception to this rule. Here the coopera- tive movement has not only lived up to the objectives postulated by its benefactor (USAID), but has surpassed them. The cooperative move- ment in this country has been effective and dynamic, providing credit and services to rural peoples. To understand the reasons for its rapid growth and success it is necessary to put the Guatemalan situa- tion in the context of the major issues facing cooperation in the lesser developed world today. These issues which were stated in Chapter I involve: (l) the cultural differences between the western and third worlds, (2) the role of state aid, (3) the issue of cooperation and politics, and (4) the issue of cooperation and non-solvent people. These major issues will now be examined in their Guatemalan context. A perennial problem of initiating cooperatives in the lesser de- veloped countries has been the difficulties in having the local popula- tion adopt the ethics of hard work and thrift. Without these ethics a cooperative movement cannot succeed. In Guatemala the cooperators who are members of the larger dynamic cooperatives have demonstrated these characteristics. They have been eager to obtain credit for fertilizer purchase in order to increase the productivity of their land. The required purchases of additional share capital with each additional 95 loan has proven to be an effective method of mobilizing local capital, which is so essential for continued self-sustaining economic develop- ment. The Guatemalan cooperative movement as a whole has not suffered from the motivational problems which have plagued other Third World movements, and it has developed an effective institutional mechanism to ensure the continued development of a local capital base. Moreover, the most important single issue, which has had the greatest impact on the development of cooperatives in Guatemala, is that of state aid. Without the assistance that the USAID has provided for FENACOAC and FECOAR, it would have been impossible for these organizations to develop to their present size and scale. This financial aid has proven to be a necessary catalyst for the mobilization of local capital upon which the cooperatives will later be developed. Without an outside source of capital assistance, cooperatives in the early development stage find it difficult to provide the services which their organizers had hoped for. An absence of these services often results in a cooperative lapsing into inactivity. Furthermore, the state aid which the movement received has had a positive effect on the saving habits of the members. Without this USAID capital, the loans, which are so essential in building up member share capital, could not have been accomplished. The cooperative movement in Guatemala has felt the often harsh repression which occurs when it identifies itself with a "radical" 96 political philosophy. Following the fall of the revolutionary government the movement was suppressed throughout the country. Given the present political situation in the country the cooperative movement has chosen to be non-political and cooperate with the government as much as pos- sible. This policy has paid off well in the form of various types of governmental assistance. The most important issue, however, that the Guatemalan coopera- tive movement has to face today and in the future is that of cooperation and non-solvent people. For a credit union to provide loans to its mem- bers it must be certain that the credit will be repaid. If a cooperative cannot make good on its outstanding capital then the members will lose confidence in it and withdraw their savings. Thus far the FENACOAC and FECOAR cooperatives have not been plagued by this problem due to their generous overhead support from AID. This foreign assistance, however, cannot be expected to continue indefinitely. Many of the cooperative members of Guatemala are already existing in very marginal economic circumstances, and if these mem- bers subdivide their lands to pass on to their sons the problem will be- come even more serious. Thus, a situation may develop where the cooperative movement will be unable to assist a large segment of the population. A cooperative can help individuals to develop to a greater extent those resources that they have available to themselves. There is little, however, that a cooperative can accomplish if its members have no resources that can be developed more efficiently. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY Modern cooperatives were first developed in Western Europe, during the middle of the 19th century, as an attempt by the lower classes to form production, consumption, and credit societies, thus escaping from the exploitive forces of the capitalistic economy. The principles of voluntary and open membership, democratic control, coop-erative education, and mutual assistance, combined with the ethics iof hard work, self help, and thrift, contributed to the gradual accumu- lation of capital, freeing the peasants from exploitation and allowing them to increase their wealth through its reinvestment. The success of cooperatives in Western Europe led to their intro- duction into the Third World, where similar achievements were ex- pected. In India, the British hoped that cooperatives could solve the problem of rural indebtedness, which had reduced large segments of the lower classes to debt bondage. These expectations, however, were not fulfilled. Throughout the less developed world, cooperative move- ments have seldom made a significant impact in alleviating poverty. Indeed, in these countries, often the only viable cooperatives were those organized by the well-to-do farmers who engaged in export agri- cultural production. The great problem to be overcome was the effec- 97 98 tive diffusion of these organizations among the lowest classes who have most need of them. J Guatemala provides an example of a Third World cooperative movement that has succeeded in its objectives, reaching large seg- / ments of the lower classes.‘/ Here, rural indebtedness is not a prob- lem to be overcome, as the countryside generally lacks any kind of credit system/The objectives of the movement are to help farmers with limited acreages increase their agricultural productivity by pro- viding credit and technical assistance. / j The first societies were organized during the Are’valo/Arbenz period (1944-1954), when the new liberal governments sought to build power bases in the countryside among the peasants. With the subse- quent revolution, these cooperatives fell into inactivity. Gradually the association of cooperation with Communism diminished, and in the late 1950's and early 1960's, legislation was again passed permitting a resurgence of cooperative activity... /The first societies to be organized in this new period of coopera- tion were credit unions in Huehuetenango department and agricultural societies found throughout the highlands. Between 1961 and 1965, cooperatives experienced extensive growth in the country. FENACOAC, a national association of credit unions, was established in 1964 and the USAID began its funding of this organization the following year. At the end of 1965 a total of 106 cooperatives were in existence, located mostly in the Indian highlands. V/ 99 "The cooperative movement received a major stimulus in 1966, when Julio Me’ndez Montenegro, . member of the Partido Revoluciona/rio, assumed the Presidency. This reformist President strongly encouraged the formation of cooperatives. During his term in office (1966-1970) a total of 213 new cooperatives were established.V-‘ At the same time, USAID greatly expanded its financial assistance to FENACOAC. At the end of 1970, 319 cooperatives had been organized in various parts of the country, the majority of which sprung up in the Mama. In the 197 0'3 there was a lessening of government support for the forma- tion of small local societies, and instead greater emphasis placed. on the promotion and strengthening of existing successful cooperatives. This policy shift was in response to the high rates of failure that char- acterized many of the smaller cooperatives. In the 1970's loans to FENACOAC, from USAID, were increased and the United States gov- ernment supported a program aimed at the development of six large regional agricultural cooperatives, joined in a national association, FECOAR. The third national cooperative alliance, FENACOAG, was reorganized in 197 5 when it began limited programs. By July 30, 197 6, there were 412 cooperatives of various types in the country, concen- trated in a belt stretching from the departments of Huehuetenango to Guatemala. Cooperatives are somewhat less numerous in the south- east part of the country. Of the total. cooperative groups over one- fourth have become inactive since their organization. v" 100 The various types of cooperatives differ in membership size. The FENACOAC credit unions and FECOAR regionals are much larger and together they make up over three-fourths of the total cooperative mem- bership. Furthermore, these cooperatives have provided most of the cooperative services that have been delivered to members. When the ratio of cooperative members to total population is mapped, a concentra- tion of cooperation appears in the Indian highlands, reflecting the predom- inant location of the alliances' affiliates. Certain spatial variations in the cooperative movement were anticipated, specifically the hypotheses expected that there would be: ( 1) more cooperatives and cooperative members in the Indian depart- ments, (2) a greater frequency of commercial agricultural cooperatives in the Ladino areas, (3) a higher rate of inactive cooperatives in Ladino departments, and (4) higher rates of population growth in those municipios where cooperation is well established, due to anticipated improved economic conditions. The first three hypotheses were substantiated, while the fourth was not. Greater numbers of cooperatives and coopera- tive members were found in the Indian departments, due primarily to the concentration of outside financial assistance in this region. The com- munal oriented social structure of the indigenous population also seems to be a contributing factor. As the data indicates the smaller agricul- tural cooperatives, largely a result of purely local initiatives, also have a bias in favor of the Indian areas. 101 Commercial crop agricultural cooperatives were found to be more frequent in the Ladino departments This concentration is attributable to the Hispanic population being more highly educated and having greater interactions within the commercial economy, as well as being closer to Guatemala City, the main center of business activity. Higher rates of inactivity in the L__agi_n_o departments may be attri- butable to the greater transience and impermanence of Ladino society relative to the indigenous population. Problems that might lead to cooperative inactivity more likely would arise in the Ladino than the Indian areas. Furthermore, the Ladino emphasis on commercial crop agricultural cooperatives, which are more difficult to successfully de- velop, is an important factor in the disparity. . Little relationship was found between the local rates of cooperative membership and the differential rates of population growth. The absence of this relationship may indicate that the cooperative movement is still too young to have had a significant impact on local economic conditions, or that changes in a municipio's level of living may not be manifested in its rate of population growth. The major factors which have contributed to the success of the Guatemalan cooperative movement, have been the support of the rural poor, the assistance from the USAID, and the encouragement from the national government. It still remains to be seen whether the coopera- tives will make a significant contribution to the overall development effort, given the magnitude of the problem. BIB LIOGRAP HY Adams, R. N. Crucifixion by Power; Essays on Guatemalan National Social Structure, 1944-1946. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press, 1970. All India Rural Credit Survey: Report of the Committee of Direction, Vol. 2, The General Report. Bombay: The Reserve Bank of India, 1954. Annotated Bibliography of Literature Produced by the Co-operative Move- ments in South-east Asia. New Delhi: International Cooperative Alliance, 1963. Annuaries de Comercio Exterior, 1967-1968. Guatemala: Direccion General de Estadistica, Ministerio de Economia, 1971. Bedi, R. D. Theory, History and Practice of Co-operation, 7th Rev. Ed. Meerut: Loyal Book Depot, 1969. Bibliography on Cooperation. New Delhi: National Cooperative Union of India, Committee for Co-operative Training, 1963. Censo de Poblacion, VIII. Guatemala: Direccion General de Estadistica, Ministerio de Economia, 1974. Cooperation in Independent India, Ministry of Agriculture, Dept. of Coopera- tion, Government of India. New Delhi: National Cooperative Union of India, 197 6. Cooperative Movement in East Pakistan. Dacca: Cooperative Directorate, Government of East Pakistan, 1967. Dombrowski, J. Area Handbook fgr Guatemala. Washington: U. S. Gov- ernment Printing Office, 197 0 El Asociado. Guatemala: Federacion de Cooperativas Agricolas Regionales El Movimiento Federado de Ahorro y Credito: una Experiencia de Credito Rural en Guatemala. Guatemala: Federacion Nacional de Coopera- tivas de Ahorro y Credito. 102 103 Estatutos. Guatemala: Federacion de Cooperativas Agricolas Regionales, 1973. Fabra Ribas, A. The Cooperative Movement in Latin America: Its Sig- nificance in Hemisphere Solidarity. Albuquerque: The University of New Mexico Press, 1943. Fledderjohn, D. "Regional Cooperatives in Guatemala", International Journal of Cooperative Development. Madison, Wisconsin: Univer- sity of Wisconsin Extension, 5 (4), 1973. Fletcher, L. B., et al. Guatemala's Economic Development: The Role of Agriculture. Ames: Iowa State University Press, 1970. Flores Oblitas, J. Credito Rural y Cooperativismo en Bolivia, La Paz: Publicacion de la Cooperativa Minera, "La Salvadora", 1963 . Ford, J. J. Spatial Integration of Political Participation: 'Guatemala, A Case Study. Thesis (M. A. ), Michigan State University, Depart- ment of Geography, 1971. Gerardo Ponciano, J. "El Cooperativismo en Guatemala". Guatemala: Impressiones. Guerra Borges, A. Geografia Economica de Guatemala. Guatemala: Editorial Universitaria, 1969. Hough, E. M. The Cooperative Movement in India, 5th Ed. Rev. Calcutta: Indian Branch, Oxford University Press, 1966. Horst, O. H. "The Spector of Death in a Guatemalan Highland Community", The Geographical Review, 57 (2), 1967. Kelsey, V. & Osborne, L. de J. Four Keys to Guatemala. New York: Funk 8: Wagnalls, 1961. Legislacion Cooperativa. Guatemala: Departamento De Cooperativas Agricolas, Ministerio de Agricultura, 197 6. Los Servicios de la Regional. Guatemala: Federacion de Cooperativas Agricolas Regionales. Luz, F. Sinopse do Movimento Cooperativo Brasileiro. Rio de Janeiro: Edicoes SIA, 1960. 104 Marcucci Ramirez, O. Nuevo Orden; e1 Cooperatismo Gremial en Accion. Bogota, 1960. Matos Hermosilla, B. M. Estudio del Cooperativismo y Su Porvenir Para Guatemala. Guatemala: Universidad de San Carlos, 1948. Melville, T. Guatemala: The Politics of Land Ownership. New York: Free Press, 1971. Memoria Anual, 1975. Guatemala: Federacion Nacional de Cooperativas de Ahorro y Credito, 1975. Memoria Anual, 1976. Guatemala: Federacion Nacional de Cooperativas de Ahorro y Credito, 197 6. Primer Congreso de Cooperativas. Departamento de Fomento Cooperativo, Guatemala: Editorial del Ministerio de Educacion Publica; 1950. . Primer Mernoria de Labors, Julio a Diciembre de 1,973, Enero a Diciembre de 1, 974. Guatemala: Federacion de Cooperativas Agricolas Regionales, 1975. Research in Cooperation in India - A Review. New Delhi: International Cooperation Alliance, 1965. Rogers, E. M. Communication of Innovations; A Cross-Cultural Approach. New York: Free Press, 1971. Rojas Coria, R. Tratado de Cooperativismo Mexicano. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Economica, 1952. Rusch, W. H., Mann, F. L., & Braun, E. Rural Cooperatives in Guatemala: A Study of Their Development and Evaluation of AID Programs in Their Support, Vol. I, II. McLean, Virginia: American Technical Assis- tance Corporation, 1975. Segunda Congreso de Cooperativas. Guatemala: Departamento de Fomento Cooperativo, Editorial del Ministerio de Educacion Publica, 1952. Segunda Memoria de Labors, Enero a Diciembre de 1, 975. Guatemala: Federacion de Cooperativas Agricolas Regionales, 1976. Sherwood, F. B. The Role of Central Government in the Economic Devel- opment of Guatemala. Thesis (Ph. D. ), University of Illinois, Urbana, 1966. 105 Situacion del Desarrollo Economico y Social de Guatemala. Guatemala: Consejo Nacional de Planificacion Economica, 1965. State and Cooperative Development. Experts' Conference on the Role of Government in Cooperative Development, Bangkok, 1966. Bombay: Allied Publishers, 1971. Tax, S. Penny Capitalism; a Guatemalan Indian Economy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963. Tereshtenko, V. J. Bibliographical Review of Literature on Cooperation in Latin America. New York: Published with the assistance of the Edward A. Filene Good Will Fund, Inc. , 1942. The Development of the COOperative Movement in Asia. Geneva: Inter- national Labor Office, 1949. The Economic Development of Guatemala. Washington: Bank for Recon- struction and Development, in Collaboration with the Government of Guatemala, 1951. United Nations Demographic Yearbooks. New York: Publishing Service of the United Nations, 1973, 1970, 1968, 1964, 1960, 1959, 1957, 1951. Whetten, N. L. Guatemala, the Land and the People. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961. Whitney, H. Bibliography on Cooperatives and Social and Economic Development. Madison: International Cooperative Training Center, University Extension Division, University of Wisconsin, 1964. APPENDIX A FENACOAC CREDIT COOPERAT IVES Cooperative Municipio"< Members Year Alta Verapaz Cobén Cobén, Panzds, Tucuruf 2,400 1969 San Cristobal San Cristobal Verapaz, Lanqui’n, 2, 570 1967 Cahabdn (Alta Verapaz), Santa Cruz, Uspantan (El Quiche) Santa Maria Tactic, Tamahti 927 1967 Asuncion Baja Verapaz San J erdnimo San J erdnimo, Salama l, 062 1972 San Pablo Rabinal Rabinal, San Miguel Chicaj 1, 437 1967 I Chimaltenango Kato - K1 Chimaltenango, San Martin Jilote- 2, 050 1972 I I . peque, Patzun, Tecpan, E1 Tejar San Juan Comalapa Comalapa 220 1964 Chiquimula Chiquimulja Chiquimula, Ipala, San Jose’ La 1, 426 1969 Arada La Divina Pastora Olopa NA 1968 San Jose’ Obrero Esquipulas, Quezeltepeque, 1, 426 1966 Concepcidn Las Minas El Progreso Guayacan El Progreso, San Agustin 1, 983 1966 Acasaguastlan, Sanarate, San Cristobal Acasaguastlan *For those cooperatives with members in more than one municipio, the cooperative office is located in the first municipio listed. 106 Estrella del Norte Parroquial Santa Cruz It 2 uc int lan Santa Lucia Cotzumalguapa Union Popular San Jose Palencia San Juan Bautista Union Progresista Amatitlaneca Santa Elena Coatan Esperanza Chiant- leca Esquipulas Flor Bataneca Guadalupe Ixtateca La Encarnacidn La Esperanza Lucha Progresista 107 E1 Quiche San Miguel Uspanta’n Santa Cruz del Quiche, Chichicasten- ango, San Pedro Jocopilas, San Antonio llotenango Escuintla Escuintla, Guanagazapa Escuintla Tiquisate Guatemala Palencia San Juan Sacatepe’quez, San Pedro Sacatepequez, San Raymundo Amatitla’n, Villa Nueva, Villa Canales (Guatemala), Pali’n (Escuintla) Villa C anales Huehuetenango San Sebastian Coatan Chiantla La Libertad San Sebastian Huehuetenango Santa Cruz Barillas San Mateo Ixtatan I Aquacatan San Juan Ixcoy San Antonio Huista 179 NA 500 1, 146 284 NA 1,129, 4, 450 300 188 1,114 239 240 304 132 520 291 175 1969 1963 1972 1971 1972 1965 1968 1965 1966 1964 1966 1964 1971 1969 1967 1966 1969 1967 Miguelenos Nentdn Rafaelena San Andres San Ildefonso San Pedro Santa Ana Santa Eulalia Santa Teresita Santa Teresita Frontera El Estor Alianza San Pedro Moyuta El Despertar Advance Popular Cerrito Chiquiri- chapa E1 Bienestar Flor de Mayo Healy Castillo 108 San Miguel Acatan Nentdn San Rafael La Independencia Cuilco Ixtahuacafn Soloma Malacatancito Santa Eulalia San Pedro Necta 'La Democracia Izabal E1 Estor J alapa San Pedro Pinula J utiapa Moyuta Peten San Benito, Flores Quezaltenango Cantel . Concepcidn Chiquirichapa Cantel Cajola’ San Carlos Sija, Sibilia (Quezaltenango), Rio Blanco (San Marcos) 374 107 185 1,043 291 493 157 566 159 733 382 112 NA 491 491 956 411 NA 428 1965 1967 1969 1956 1956 1956 1953 1956 1966 1967 1973 1970 1976 1969 1962 1963 1963 1969 1965 La Espiga de Oro . I Salcaja San Cristdbal Cabrican San Francisco La Unitin- Santiago de Coatepeque Z unil Shampelita Adelante Maria Auxiliadora Movimiento Campesino Flor de Pascua Tonantel La Union Santa Clara Santa Lucia Diez de Septiembre La Florida 1 09 La Esperanza . I Salcaja Cabrican, Huitan (Quezaltenango), Rio Blanco (San Marcos) San Francisco La Unidn Coatepeque, Colomba, Génova Zunil Retalhuleu San Filipe San Marcos Ayutla, Ocds, Pajapita, Catarina E1 Quetzal, La Reforma, San Cristobal Cucho Tejutla, Tacané, San Jose’ Ojetenan, Sibinal, Comitancillo, Concepcidn Tutuapa Santa Rosa San Rafael las Flores, Casillas (Santa Rosa), Mataguescuintla (Jalapa) Nueva Santa Rosa 30101-5 W Santa Clara la Laguna Santa Lucia Utatlan Suchitepequez Mazatenango, Chicacao, Patulul, Yunilito Santo Tomas la Unidn 148 828 672 NA 3, 700 216 NA 3, 300 826 2, 497 NA NA NA NA 1, 200 2, 137 586 1963 1965 1962 1965 1970 1962 1975 1969 1968 1973 1976 1976 1965 1968 1965 1969 1968 Buenabaj El Triunfo Espai'ia Chiquita Maya Momosteca San Miguel Chuime- quena . I . Un1on Franc1squense San Miguel Gualan La Paz Teculutén 110 . / Totomcapan Momostenango San Cristobal Momostenango Momostenango , I Totomcap an San Francisco El Alto Zacapa Gualgn, Los Amates, Sansare :La'Unidn T ec ulutan, Usumatlan 161 180 NA 248 1,310 252 2,442 1,044 NA 1965 1963 1968 1966 1966 1970 1966 1965 1975 APPENDIX B FECOAR REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL COOPERAT IVES Cooperative Municip io Members Year Flor Chimalteca San Andres Semetabaj El 12 de Octubre San Martin Jilotepeque, San Jose’ 2, 664 1971 Poaquil, Comalapa, Zaragoza, Chimaltenango, Paramos, Acatenango, Patzicia, Tecpén Guatemala, Santa Apolonia, Santa Cruz Balanya’, San Andres Itzapa, El Tejar (Chimaltenango Dept. ) Antigua, Jocotenango, Pastores, Sumpango, Santo Domingo Xenacoj, Santiago Sacatepequez, San Bartolomé Milpas Altas, San Lucas Sacatepequez, Santa Lucia Milpas Altas, Magdalena Milpas Altas, Santa Maria de Jesus, Ciudad Vieja, San Miguel Duefias, San Antonio Aguas Calientes, Santa Catarina Barahona (Sacatepequez Dept) San Andres Semetabaj, 301015, San 1,631 1971 Antonio Palopd, San JoseI Chacaya, Santa Maria Visitacion, Santa Lucia Utatla’n, Nahuala, Santa Clara 1a Laguna, San Pablo la Laguna, Santa Cruz 1a Laguna, Concepcion, Panajachel, Santa Catarina Palopo (30101.4 Dept.) Tecpan Guatemala, Patzrin, Acaten- ango (Chimaltenango Dept. ) Chichicastenango ’ (El Quiche’ Dept. ) Quezaltenango, Cajolzi, San Miguel 828 1974 Siguila’, Ostuncalco, San Martin Sacatepequez, Cantel, La Esperanza, Olintepeque, Huitan, Sibilia, Pales- tina de lor Altos, San Francisco 1a Union, Cabrican (Quezaltenango Dept. ) 111 J usto Rufino Barrios Rey Quiche Cuna del Sol 112 , I Totomcap an (Totonicap an Dept. ) San Marcos, Esquipulas Palo Gordo, 2, 640 San Pedro Sacatepe’quez, San Antonio Sacatepequez, Rio Blanco, San Lorenzo, Tejutla, Ixchiguan, Tacana, Sipacapa, Comitancillo, Concepcidn Tutuapa, San Miguel Ixtahuacan (San Marcos Dept.) Santa Cruz del Quiche’, Chiche’, 2, 640 Chichicastenango, San Pedro Jocopilas, Chinique, San Antonio llotenango, Joyabaj, Patzite’, Zacualpa, Cunen, Sacapulas, San BartolomeI J ocotenango (El Quiche Dept.) Jutiapa, El Progreso, Santa Catarina 1, 146 Mita, Asuncion Mita, Yupiltepeque, Atescatempa, Jerez, El Adelanto, Zapotitlan, Comapa, Jalpatagua, Moyuta, Quesada (J utiapa Dept. ) Chiquimulilla, Casillas (Santa Rosa Dept. ) 1972 1973 1974 APPENDIX C FENACOAG AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVES Cooperative Municipio Function Members Year Alta Verapaz Los Pinos Panzos Corn 35 1970 Baja Verapaz E1 Valle de San San J er6nimo Vegetables 20 197 5 Jer6nimo Chimaltenango Ruc Ux Paquixic Comalapa Wheat 25 1969 Chiquimula Centro Campesino Camotén Agriculture 34 1973 E1 Progreso Cerritos Sansare Yuca 116 1965 El Quiche’ Agricola Cunén Cunén Wheat 20 1966 Escuintla Aliza Nueva Concep- Nueva Concepcidn Corn 50 1966 cion Arizona Puerto de San Jose’ Platano 26 1969 Coopesmar Puerto de San Jose’ Fish 27 1967 La Concordia Nueva Concepcidn Corn 20 1966 Los Amigos del Nueva Concepci6n Corn 5 1964 Campo ’ Los Angeles Puerto de San Jose Milk 39 1963 Santa Isabel Puerto de San Jose Cattle 30 1962 Guatemala Mater e1 Magistra San Pedro Ayampuc Corn 30 1967 Nueva Vida San Juan Sacatepequez Flowers 19 197 0 Huehuetenango Cuilco I Cuilco Corn 123 1967 La Asuncion Aguacatan Vegetables 35 1968 Aguacata’n Nueva Esperanza San Sebastian Huehue- Corn 63 1966 tenango Rio Azul J acaltenango Coffee 247 1968 San Ildefonso Ixtahuacan Corn 72 1967 11‘2 Chichipate Las Delicias San Felipe de Lara Apicultores de Peten Bella Guatemala Bethel E1 Arbolito E1 Consuelo Flor de la Esperanza Ixmucané La Amistad La Felicidad La Lucha La Palma La Perseverancia Las Flores Los Laureles Los Pipiles Machaquila Manos Unidas Mario Mendez Montenegro Monte de Sinai Santiago Cabrican Trigueros de Sibilia Zunil Santiago Agricola El Xab Eterna Primavera El Nuevo Sembrador Comitancillo El Paraiso El Tumbador Grano de Oro La Union La Tejutleca Siete de Mayo 114 Izabal E1 Estor Puerto Barrios Livingston Petén Flores La Libertad I Sayaxche Sayaxche Dolores La Libertad La.Iibertad Dolores Sayaxche La Libertad Sayaxché Sayaxche Sanu1AUHi Iriljbertad Sayaxche San Luis Sayaxche Sayaxche La Libertad Quezaltenango Cab rican Sibilia Z unil Retalhuleu Champerico El Asintal Sacatepequez Santa Maria de Jesus Santa Maria de Jesus San Marcos Comitanc illo Tej utla El Tumbador Catarina Ocds Tej utla Rio Blanco Corn Pineapple Rice Honey Corn Corn Corn Corn Corn Corn Corn Corn Corn Corn Corn Corn Corn Corn lNood Corn Corn Corn Wheat Wheat Vegetables Cotton Corn Corn Corn Wheat Wheat Coffee Coffee Platano Wheat Corn 22 25 71 30 24 58 47 25 31 41 34 33 31 83 20 27 43 16 28 49 59 25 50 43 26 32 48 23 21 21 17 32 24 28 60 26 1976 1970 1967 1968 1976 1967 1968 1970 1969 1967 1970 1966 1976 1969 1967 1970 1970 1966 1969 1967 1967 1967 1962 1966 1968 1965 1976 1971 1973 1970 1968 1966 1968 1965 1967 1976 Agua Blanca E1 Hawai Las Lisas Pasacul Pixabaj San Juan de Argueta Santa Lucia Xocomil La Unidad Cuarenta y Ocho La Espiga San Rafaél El Rosario ”Gualan La Fragua La Unidn Motagua 115 Santa Rosa Santa Cruz N aranjo Chiquimulilla Chiquimulilla 361615 Na'h' u‘a"'1'e{ 801015 801015 Santa Lucia Utatlan Santiago Atitlan Suchitep équez San Antonio Suchitep é- quez , I Totomcap an Totonicap an . I Totomcap an . I Totomcap an Zacapa Rio Hondo Gualan Zacapa La Unién Cabafias Corn Fish Fish Coffee Wheat Wheat Wheat Corn Sugar Cane Wheat Wheat Wheat Vegetables Vegetables Vegetables Coffee Vegetables 30 26 29 84 75 161 1, 200 64 50 NA 60 69 32 275 30 712 54 INACTIVE FENACOAG AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVES Santa Ana Canaan La Buen Fe’ El Buen Samaritano Chimaltenango Chimaltenango Peten Sayaxche Sayaxche Retalhuleu San Felipe Wheat Corn Corn Agriculture 1975 1971 1974 1966 1968 1966 1963 1966 1967 1976 1971 1970 1970 1968 1970 1965 1968 1965 1966 1967 1971 APPENDIX D NON-AFFILIATED COOPERATIVES 116 Cooperative Municipio Function Members Year Alta Verapaz Aquil San Cristobal Coffee 85 1974 Cahaboncito Panzds Corn 27 1969 Canilla Cohan Corn 32 1975 Cardamomeros de Coba’m Cardamo 20 1968 Alta Verapaz Coban Cobain Cardamo 42 1971 Chimoldn Tamahu Coffee 77 1968 Ixcapaps San Pedro Carcha Corn 75 1971 Lomas del Norte Cobain Corn 41 1976 Moxan Cobain Corn 20 1975 Rio Negro Cohan Cardamo 51 1971 Valparaiso Santa Cruz Verapaz Vegetables 20 1975 Chimaltenango Acatenango Acatenango Coffee 1 19 1 9 67 Barrio e1 Guitcin San Martin Jilotepeque Corn 17 197 0 Cienaga Grande Chimaltenango Potatoes 22 1964 E1 Agro Patzfin Wheat 91 1965 El Esfuerzo Santa Cruz Balanyé Wheat 10 1964 El Pensativo Acatenango Coffee 40 197 0 El Progreso Tecpa’n Guatemala Wheat 89 ’ 1965 Hacienda Maria San Jose’ Poaquil Wheat 71 1966 Iximché Tecpan Guatemala Wheat 16 1965 La Colmena Tecpan Guatemala Corn 15 1965 La Esmeralda Comalapa Corn 16 1967 Los Mayas Patzicia Potatoes 18 1964 Nima Chumil Patzrin Corn 63 1967 Pedro de Bethancourt Chimaltenango Corn 32 1973 'Ruc Ux Paquixic Comalapa Wheat 25 1969 San J ua’n Comalapa Comalapa Potatoes 24 1960 San Martin San Martin Jilotepeque Corn 60 1969 San Pedrana Yepocapa Coffee 100 1967 Sumatan Yepocapa Corn 25 197 6 Tres Aldeas San Jose Poaquil Corn 15 1967 Unidn Fuerza Tecpan Guatemala Wheat 35 1968 Chiquimula Adelante Chanmagua Esquipulas Corn 20 1976 Chiquimula Chiquimula Vegetables 47 1969 San Pedro Camota’n Vegetables 22 1965 El Mash La Resurreccidn - San Isidor Labrador Tunaja’i Xalbal Zona Reyna Ceiba David Snyder Los Chatos Cayaec Central de Lecheros Clan Comaya Libertad Canalena Promoci6n 45 E. P. Aqua Dulce Buenos Aries Cambalan Candelaria Choizunil El Todo Santero Hoja Blanca Ixcan Grande Joya Hermosa Kaibil Balan La Virgen Luz de los Altos Mah’n Mequel Nuestro Futuro P. Quinn San Antgnio San Jose El Obrero San Juan Ixcoy San Mateo San Pedro Necta Santa Cruz Yalmox Tojumuco 117 E1 Quiche Chichicastenango Chajul Santa Cruz del Quiche’ J oyabaj Chajul Uspanta’n Esc uintla Palin San Vicente La Gomera Guatemala Guatemala San Jose Pinula Guatemala Guatemala Villa Canal es Guatemala Huehuetenango Cuilco Chiantla Barillas Chiantla Santa Eulalia Barillas Cuilco Barillas Aquata’n Chiantla Santiago Chimaltenango Chiantla Barillas San Miguel Acatan La Democracia Chiantla San Antonio Huista La Libertad San Juan Ixcoy San Mateo Ixtatan San Pedro Necta Barillas Chiantla Corn Corn Corn Corn Corn Corn Coffee Coffee Cattle Corn Milk Corn Corn Coffee Corn Coffee Coffee Coffee Agriculture Coffee Cardamo Coffee C arda mo Wheat Corn Coflbe Vegetables Agriculture Agriculture Coffee Coffee Coffee Coffee Lumber Wheat Coffee Coffee Coffee 10 22 100 25 22 115 106 59 10 25 37 34 25 32 15 32 172 36 28 20 32 76 468 100 83 23 40 24 46 135 18 699 159 23 22 400 25 171 1968 1976 1964 1976 1976 1976 1966 1965 1967 1976 1968 1975 1975 1968 1976 1973 1973 1969 1967 1973 1973 1970 1970 1974 1969 1975 1968 1965 1967 1969 1976 1966 1964 1976 1964 1965 1973 1970 Atlantida Chichipate Choc o’n Ema us Sartun E1 Arado La Corona Las Brisas San Juan Bautista Canc uén Caoba El Manantial I Guayacan La Competidora ’ La Gaza del Rio de la Pasidn Los Cenotes Paz y Progreso Rayos de Esperanza Tierra Virgen Chiquirichapa El Cielito El Rep 050 La Guadalup ana 118 Izabal Puerto Barrios El Estor Livingston Livingston Livingston J alapa San Carlos J alap a Mataquescuintla J utiapa Moyuta Peten San Luis San Luis Poptlin Santa Elena Flores Sayaxche Flores Santa Elena San Francisco San Luis Quezaltenango Concepcidn Chiquiri- chapa San Carlos Sija Ge’nova Ostuncalco La Llave de Almd‘onga Almolonga Los Manz anales Morazan San Carlos Taltut Tesoro del Pueblo Trigueros de Olintepeque T uichipech Xelac’ Xelaj u Huitan Génova San Carlos Sija Génova San Francisco La Union Olintepeque Concepcién Chiquir- ichapa Quezaltenango Quezaltenango Rice Corn Corn Corn Rice Wheat Corn Coffee Coffee Cattle Corn Corn Cattle Cattle Corn Chicle Corn Corn Corn Corn Wheat Cattle Vegetables Vegetables Wheat Coffee Wheat Cofihe Corn Wheat Potatoes Cattle Wheat 15 22 22 17 35 16 20 143 79 18 22 17 30 19 20 20 33 32 20 25 24 120 16 24 17 20 87 110 28 20 20 21 20 1976 1976 1970 1970 1967 1966 1976 1967 1968 1971 1976 1972 1968 1966 1967 1973 1976 1976 1976 1967 1971 1964 1975 1974 1966 1969 1964 1966 1969 1959 1971 1975 1966 Champerico E1 Asintal Triunfo Union Campesina Xolhuitz La San J uanerita Monja Blanca Santiago de los Caballeros Cabén La Curbina La Florida La Fronteriza La Reforma Nuevo Progreso San Luis Malacatén San Pablo Siete de Mayo El J unquillo El Naranjo La Abundancia La Chiapaneca Oratorio Renacimiento Rinconefia Santa Cruz Chiquimu-L- lilla Gobernador Tzoc La Chaquijyaquefi'a Nahuala Nuestra Sefiora de las Mercedes N ueva Estrella San J osé San Lucas Toliman Santa Catarina Tzutuhilepop Tzutuiles 119 Retalh uleu Champerico E1 Asintal San Sebastian Champerico Nuevo San Carlos Sacatepequez Alotenango Sumpango Santiago Sacatepequez San Marcos San Pedro Sacatepequez Ocos San Pablo Malacatén La Reforma Nueva Progreso Malacatén San Pablo Rio Blanco Santa Rosa Barbarena Santa Cruz Naranjo Nueva Santa Rosa Santa Rosa Oratorio Nue'va Santa Rosa Santa Rosa de Lima Santa Cruz Chiquimu- lilla Solola Nah ualé Solola Nahuala, Solola’ Nahuala’ Santa Catarina San Lucas Toliman Santa Catarina Santiago Atitlan Nahuala Fish Coffee Coffee Corn Coffee Coffee Corn Vegetables Wheat Fish Coffee Coffee Coffee Coffee Corn Coffee Corn Coffee Coffee Coffee Potatoes Coffee Coffee Potatoes Rice Wheat Wheat Coffee Corn Coffee Corn Coffee Coffee Corn Cofibe 23 105 30 20 21 81 29 69 25 12 100 150 48 206 40 61 26 22 88 26 32 38 32 20 60 25 30 74 20 82 28 74 32 15 23 1976 1966 1969 1975 1974 1968 1966 1966 1968 1970 1967 1973 1967 1964 1973 1965 1976 1973 1969 1968 1968 1976 1969 1968 1960 1968 1968 1965 1975 1973 1965 1964 1965 1972 1973 Agricultores de San Julian Chocola’ Madre Vieja Siempre Adelante Buenabaj Cojxag Chiguan Choanoj E1 Porvenir La Religiosa Chuimekena 120 Suchitepequez Pat ulul San Pablo J oc0pilas Pat ulul Cuyotenango , I Totomcap an Momostenango Totonicap an Santa Lucia La Reforma Totonicapan Totonicapan San Andres Totonicapan Corn Corn Sugar Cane Corn Corn Agriculture Corn Wheat Wheat Wheat Agriculture 25 39 20 380 43 32 28 19 37 33 37 1971 1976 1975 1960 1976 1967 1976 1968 1969 1969 1964 APPENDIX E INACTIVE C OOPERAT IVES Cooperative Municipio Function Year Alta Verapaz Caj Coj San Cristobal Sugar cane 1968 Chamil San Juan Chamelco Maguey 1969 Chiquin Guax Cux Tamahli Coffee 1968 Com6n Crucefi'a Santa Cruz Verapaz Hogs 1969 Maxaxen Cahabdn Corn 1967 San Juan Chamelco San Juan Chamelco Hogs 1965 Baja Verapaz Tezulutlén Salama Cattle 1973 Chimaltenango Alianza Parramos Parramos Corn 1965 Colonia Joya Grande Zaragoza Potatoes 1965 Conejera Chimalteca Chimaltenango Rabbits 1965 El Potosi y Anexos Pochuta Coffee 1967 La Esperanza Santa Cruz Balanya Agriculture 1965 La Estrella Chimaltenango Corn 1967 Nojel Chijtin San José Poaquil Corn 1966 San Vicente Patzicia Wheat 1966 Chiquimula Olopa Olopa Coffee 1969 El Progreso Guastatoyana E1 Progreso Corn 1967 San Vicente de Patil El Jicaro Vegetables 1966 E1 Quiche Pachilip Joyabaj Corn 1968 Escuintla Agropecuaria de Masagua Cattle 1965 Cuyuta Algodonera Cuyuta Masagua Cotton 1965 Del Sur Escuintla Corn 1967 El Cajon Santa Lucia Sugar cane 1959 El Corozo Nueva Concepcidn Corn 1966 Esmeralda Masagua Corn 1961 La Prosperidad Santa Lucia Sugar cane 1965 San Andres Oruna San Andres Coffee 1967 121 Bartolome de las Casas Carnefina Cavina Centro Americana A Centro Americana B Floragro Floricultores Valle de Guatemala La Chapina Matias de Galvez Polochic San J ose’ Palencia Santa Rosa Tecuma’in Técnica Agrop. Peten Lecheros Santa Elena Barillas Las Nubes Or Mariano Galvez E1 Trebol Espiritu Santo Los Cuchumatanes San Bartdlo San Dionicio Bananeros de Norte Cayaguense Ceres Cumbre del Eden Champona Del Atlantico El Caribe El Golfito E1 Refugio E1 Riachuelo Ganaderos de los Amates Ganaderos Sagrado Corazon de Jesds Hulera de Navajoa Izabal 122 Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Villa Nue va Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Palencia Guatemala Guatemala Guatemala Villa Canales San J ose’ Pinula Guatemala Huehuetenango Chiantla Huehuetenango Chiantla Chiantla Santa Eulalia Izabal Morales Morales Morales Izabal Morales Puerto Barrios Puerto Barrios Livingston Morales Morales Los Amates Morales Morales Morales C attle Hogs Honey Corn Fruit Flowers Flowers Honey Corn Corn Corn Vegetables Cattle Cattle Milk Corn Corn Corn Agriculture Vegetables Vegetables Corn Bananas Rice Bananas Corn Rice Corn Fish Rice Cattle Rice Cattle Cattle Rubber Citrus fruits 1960 1969 1965 1960 1965 1970 1967 1969 1960 1967 1960 1960 1960 1963 1961 1966 1960 1969 1967 1960 1968 1964 1967 1967 1968 1967 1967 1966 1970 1967 1971 1968 1969 1961 1959 1969 John F. Kennedy Los Andes Nuevo Livingston San Francisco Santa Ines Vergel York Cotagua Lecheros de Asuncidn Mita Quezada Valle de Retana Bonanza La Favorita La Laguna Peten Itza Piedras Negras Rancho Alegre San Benito Pete’n Trabajo y Progreso Usumacinta Coatepeque Choqui El Adelanto Los Altos Pensamiento Palmira Trigueros de Cantel Azucarera Retalteca Guatemalteca Agro Industrial San Francisco Pecul Antigua Unién San Luguense 123 Livingston Puerto Barrios Livingston Morales Los Amates Morales Morales J alapa Monjas J utiapa As uncidn Mita , Quesada El Progreso Peten Sayaxche Sayaxche Sayaxche Flores Sayaxche Ifiiljbertad San Benito Sayaxché Sayaxche Quezaltenango Coatepeque Quezaltenango Quezaltenango Quezaltenango Colomba Cantel Retalhuleu Retalhuleu San Andrés San Felipe Sacatepequez Antigua San Liicas Rice Platano Fish Rice Cattle Rice Rice Tobacco Milk Tobacco Rice Corn Caflfle Corn Cattle Corn Corn Frufis Corn Corn Corn Wheat Corn Fruit Coffee Wheat Sugar cane Corn Sugar cane Corn Corn 1964 1968 1965 1967 1964 1969 1968 1968 1959 1967 1968 1967 1966 1967 1970 1967 1966 1963 1967 1967 1967 1965 1962 1971 1962 1960 1968 1967 1960 1967 1973 Chamac Champollap La Floresta T uililen San Pedro La Laguna Sololateca Industrial Guata16n Santa Elena La Antorcha San Jose e1 Idolo Santa Elena Guata16n Suchitepequez Atanacio Tzul Palemora Santiago Momosten- ango Estanzuela Regional de Oriente "CARSVO" 124 San Marcos San Pedro Sacatepequez Agriculture El Quetzal Comitanc illo Solola’ San Pedro Solola Suchitepequez Rio BFavo San Antonio San J ose’ Rio Brav6 San Antonio , I T otonlcap an Totonicapan San Andre’s Momostenango Zacapa Estanz uela Teculuta’n Coffee Wheat Agriculture Agriculture Sugar cane Coffee Rice Sugar cane Cacao Wheat Wheat Agric ult ure Vegetables Vegetables 1964 1969 1968 1964 1960 1967 1969 1965 1961 1966 1967 1965 1963 1972 1965' "7'1 iffiiiititfltf