Be part of something extraordinary
![Have you registered for the 2024 ICA Global Cooperative Conference?](/sites/default/files/styles/full_image/public/2024-07/icanewdelhi2024_pop_up_ad_en_2.png?itok=9KJULHoq)
FULL NAME |
TYPE |
INDUSTRY |
COUNTRY |
REGION |
Gencisi / Youth Deal Cooperative |
Worker |
Service (Education & Communications) |
Turkey |
Europe |
Asia-Pacific Committee on Youth Cooperation (ICYC) |
Network |
Governance |
- |
Asia-Pacific |
Knowledge Worker |
Worker |
Service (Technical Assistance) |
Denmark |
Europe |
La Ventanilla |
Worker |
Service (Ecological Preservation & Tourism) |
Mexico |
Americas |
Red de Juventud (CRJ) |
Network |
Governance |
- |
Americas |
Red Root Cooperative |
Worker |
Service (Multimedia Design & Production) |
Philippines |
Asia-Pacific |
Vio.me |
Worker |
Manufacturing (Cleaning Products) |
Greece |
Europe |
Woodcraft Folk |
Service (Education) |
United Kingdom |
Europe |
|
Youth Cooperative Hub |
Multi- Stakeholder |
Service (Advocacy & Technical Assistance) |
South Africa |
Africa |
The vast majority of coercive relationships coopyouth reported having were with decidedly non-cooperative institutions, those with the ultimate goal of exercising control or maximizing their own profit.
Three of the cooperatives interviewed remarked upon government mandated actions they were – or are – being forced to take that will change how their cooperative functions. Of the below examples, there is only one that offers a “solution” to these mandates, while the others are held up as examples of strong cooperatives weathering legislative requirements and still experiencing success while acknowledging the impact this coercive regulation has on their potential.
In some instances, some of those cooperatives interviewed pushed back against coercive mandates from government bodies.
Overall, the coopyouth interviewed had not been able to creatively leverage conventional outside capital, and were more often excluded from even attempting participation in conventional financing systems. While these financing systems are not ideal for most cooperatives, they are sometimes the only option for needed capital so exclusion from the systems can cause a cooperative to be unable to launch or scale. However, some youth have formulated creative, community-based funding methods that are further outlined in the key issue section on “Capital.”
Most of the challenging relationships coopyouth have had to manage within the Cooperative Movement were reported to be with elements of the movement infrastructure - i.e. with federations and associations that claim to represent the Cooperative Movement nationally or regionally. The second largest grouping of coercive relationships the coopyouth interviewed encountered addresses when a cooperative is created by elders in order to serve youth. In such instances, the transition process from elder to youth control is often not easy or simple, and - in some instances - the transition never happens.
Within the Asia-Pacific region, the ICYC (Youth Network, Asia-Pacific) has had consistent struggles with their host federation, the ICA Asia-Pacific, as they exercise a great deal of surveillance and control over the youth committee. They are required to send all their newsletters and external communications to the regional federation prior to general distribution, and money that was given to the coopyouth by a member country is being withheld despite requests for access. As was noted previously, the Asia-Pacific region is the only region that has not yet complied with the ICA’s resolution that each region have a fully-empowered (e.g. voting, elected by the youth committee) youth member on their Board. Additionally, the region has unilaterally initiated coopyouth endeavors and activities (e.g. regional youth summit) without engaging any coopyouth, their cooperatives, or the ICYC in the process. Overall, those coopyouth interviewed within the region shared that they felt the region’s values were not congruent with those of the region’s coopyouth. The ICYC has experienced a great deal of frustration, especially because they cannot identify a specific person or reason for why they are so disempowered and ignored, and, as a result, struggle to figure out a solution to what may be a cultural, rather than personal or administrative, problem. This paternalism also impacted the reach and effectiveness of the research for this toolkit, as outlined in the “Methodology” section.
A unique occurrence within some youth cooperatives is the transition from an “incubated” youth cooperative to full youth control. While elder to youth transitions are unique to youth, this process has parallels to paternalism development models used by elders and institutions with more power to groups with less power, especially in instances of international development by wealthier countries in poorer countries. An especially powerful example of the challenges of shifting from elder to youth control is the ICYC (Network, Asia-Pacific), which was initiated many years ago by elder teachers. Today, the committee is only theoretically owned and controlled by its youth committee members, as they have internal integrity and autonomy (i.e. can convene, make decisions, elect people to positions within the committee), they are not granted voting seats on the region’s intergenerational Board, not allowed to decide membership eligibility or to be in charge of assessing new members, and are unable to access organizational funds. The regional Board and leaders refuse to fully grant them autonomy. A more successful transition happened during the founding of the Woodcraft Folk (MSC, UK) in the early twentieth century; however, it was not without its challenges. While youth were heavily involved in the creation of the organization from its conception, all funding was provided by elders and elder institutions. It was reported that there were struggles over how and for what the funding could be managed and used between the elders providing money and the youth putting it to use. A century later, the cooperative is entirely governed by youth and has greatly diversified its funding to include a mix of membership dues, donations, and grants.