The United Nations General Assembly in its resolution, The Role of Cooperatives in the Light of New Economic and Social Trends (A/RES/51/58), called on the United Nations' "Secretary-General to ascertain, in cooperation with COPAC, the desirability and feasibility of elaborating guidelines aimed at creating a supportive environment for the development of cooperatives...".

COPAC organized a Consultation Meeting of cooperative experts to review the initial work undertaken Report on United Nations Guidelines on Government Policy concerning Cooperatives and provide comments and suggestions. Documents provided to assist with discussions included: Elements for Discussion at the COPAC Consultation Meeting, UN General Assembly Resolution 51/58, the ICA Statement on the Co-operative Identity, ILO Recommendation No. 127, UN Guidelines for Consumer Protection, IRU Co-operative Guidelines, and "Proposal for a Review of ILO Recommendation No. 127 of 1966" by Dr. H. Münkner.

The COPAC Consultation Meeting brought together 22 cooperative experts from a variety of sectors and geographical regions to discuss its Report on United Nations Guidelines on Government Policy concerning Cooperatives.

The aim of the meeting was to share ideas on the major issues which effect cooperative development and operations, and identify elements which could be included in a proposal from COPAC to the United Nations' Secretariat on Guidelines. Participants were also asked to discuss specifically the question of desirability and feasibility of Guidelines as noted in UN resolution 51/58.

The chairmanship of the meeting was divided between Mr. Christopher Baker, COPAC Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the World Council of Credit Unions WOCCU, Mr. Bruce Thordarson, Director-General of the International Co-operative Alliance ICA, and Mr. Joe Fazzio, COPAC Vice-Chairman and Chief of the Coop Branch of the International Labour Office ILO.

Discussions were rich and covered a wide perspective of opinions and sharing of experience. This report identifies the issues that received the greatest attention and relates the comments made at the meeting in a summarized format. Note was made that participants were not expected to agree on any recommendations or conclusions and therefore the report does not express a consensus view of the participants.

Participants introduced themselves and noted particular points they wished the meeting to address. All participants expressed their appreciation of the Report on United Nations Guidelines on Government Policy concerning Cooperatives and thanked the author of the report, Mr. Michael Stubbs, for his thoroughness in addressing the subject matter. They also welcomed the opportunity to provide input on the report.

A general introduction was provided by COPAC members on the origins of the initiative for UN Guidelines. Note as made of the meeting held in New York on the occasion of the 2nd International Day of Cooperatives in July, 1996 where the idea of Guidelines was first discussed with high level UN officials. Background was provided on the negotiations of the UN General Assembly resolution 51/58 and note was made that the resolution was a compromise formulation to allow time for future lobbying to convince those delegations not supportive of cooperatives or generally opposed to any UN Guidelines of the need and usefulness of guidelines aimed at creating a supportive environment for the development of cooperatives.

The Chairman suggested that participants first focus on the process involved in having UN Guidelines adopted and then on the actual substance of those guidelines.

Participants were briefed on the implications of the UN resolution, the role of COPAC, and were provided information on the UN internal decision-making process and timetable for the adoption of a report and possibly UN guidelines.

COPAC representatives provided clarification on the role of COPAC. COPAC had been requested to prepare a report on the desirability and feasibility of elaborating guidelines aimed at creating a supportive environment for the development of cooperatives. At its 56th Board Meeting, COPAC decided to take the initiative of moving the process of preparation of UN Guidelines one step further by actually drafting the UN Guidelines for Cooperative Development. A consultant was engaged to draft a report to address both desirability, feasibility and provide a proposal for guidelines. The COPAC Consultation Meeting was called to seek input by cooperative experts on the work undertaken. Based on discussions during the Consultation Meeting, the COPAC report would be re-drafted for discussion at the next COPAC Board meeting in November, 1997.

It was noted that the United Nations Secretariat would expect to receive COPAC's submission as per resolution 51/58 by November, 1998. This would allow for it to be incorporated into the UN Secretary-General's report which will address not only the question of desirability and feasibility of UN Guidelines, but also legal and administrative constraints to cooperative development. This more comprehensive report would be reviewed by the Commission for Social Development in March, 1999. After review within the Commission, the report would be presented to the UN General Assembly in October, 1999 for adoption.

Participants stressed the need to present the report in the most useful format. The present format of the report was appreciated for the purpose of the Consultation and participants agreed that the information contained should be retained, but suggested that the format be reconsidered to enable access a variety of audiences. It was suggested that COPAC consider a submission that includes three separate documents: a report to answer the questions of desirability and feasibility, an annex with draft UN Guidelines, and a background paper on the contribution of cooperatives on specific policy areas for wide circulation. The background paper could become a COPAC publication to enable wide circulation. The educational/public relations value of the three components was underlined.

Participants also discussed the desirability of broadening the consultation process. Participants raised issues on how this could be done given the limited time and resources available before the November, 1998 submission date. Attention was drawn COPAC members noted that they had the intention of circularizing the document approved by the COPAC Board within their constituencies as way of not only receiving input, but also stimulating support. A number of other suggestions were made including making the material available via the internet on the COPAC Web Site, using the ICA Ministerial Conferences as fora to enable cooperative ministers to take note of the recommendations and seek support within their national bureaucracies. It was stressed that once the report had been introduced into the UN, cooperative organizations would need to lobby their governments for support. Some suggested that it would be useful to identify which delegations would be key within the UN process in order to ensure that the cooperative movement of that country begin the lobbying process as early as possible.

There was agreement by all participants that UN Guidelines were desirable. The reasons most commonly cited included:

• The renewed interest of governments in cooperatives as seen by the numerous references to cooperatives in the major UN conference reports (Copenhagen, Beijing, Istanbul, and Rome). This interest warrant some guidance on the government-cooperative relationship especially given the evolution of government power and the role of civil society.
  
  
• Guidelines would ensure the proper function of cooperatives and therefore contribute to societal goals. Note was made however, that careful wording be included to ensure the understanding that cooperatives are not tools for development.
  
  
• UN Guidelines would dispel misconceptions on the cooperative movement, by reiterating the recognition of the UN of the importance of cooperatives.

Reference was also made on the need for UN Guidelines given the unsuccessful attempt to revise ILO Recommendation 127. The reasons provided for the revision of Recommendation 127 could also be used to respond the UN Secretary-General's query regarding desirability: ILO Recommendation 127 is now over 30 years old and no longer responds to today's reality neither in terms of the changing role of government nor in terms of scope. Governments in all regions of the world are disengaging from a variety of traditionally governmental activities and looking to social partners to take on added responsibility. Revision is therefore needed to incorporate a global vision where recommendations would be addressed to industrialized countries, countries in transition as well as developing countries and to address a more progressive vision of the relationship between government and social partners. Attention was drawn to the fact that the materials prepared for the revision of ILO Recommendation 127 could be useful to the present work on drafting UN Guidelines.

Further note was made that UN Guidelines would bring increased attention to cooperatives by UN member states, the international cooperative movement and civil society; they would establish a standard for relations between cooperatives and the government which is important given the fact that governments do have an impact on cooperatives; and they would demonstrate cause and effect - i.e. it is likely that effective cooperatives will exist if national policy observes the Guidelines.

A number of participants concurred with the opinion expressed by the COPAC Board that feasibility could be best demonstrated by the actual drafting of UN Guidelines. Participants agreed however, that the drafting of guidelines is feasible if these are restricted to the basic requirements for establishing and maintaining effective cooperatives - creating a supportive environment. The outlining of basic requirement would allow for interpretation under varying conditions.

Participants agreed that the ICA Statement of the Co-operative Identity should be used to define a cooperative and its principles as noted in Chapter 1 of the Report on United Nations Guidelines on Government Policy concerning Cooperatives under "full recognition and the unique nature of cooperative enterprise" and "acknowledgement of the definition, values and principles". However, attention was drawn to other definitions that may be useful to consider including the US reference to 'user-driven organizations'.

Autonomy and independence were key elements endorsed by all participants.

A number of participants cautioned that the specific mention of the "recognition of cooperatives' contribution to societal goals" as a central element incurred risk of governments once again using cooperatives for their own goals of social policy and not allowing cooperatives to serve the needs of their members.

The concept of partnership was not endorsed by all participants. Some noted that partnership between two unequal entities could never be realized and would inevitably end with the stronger controlling the weaker. Others noting experiences from Israel and Japan where partnership between the cooperative movement and government was constructive and had not lead to governmental control. A proposal for conditional wording of the partnership concept - operational partnership or simply mutually-beneficial cooperative collaboration - was made.

The dilemma of how to reconcile the idea of "no special treatment" or "equal treatment" for cooperatives and the recognition of the special nature of cooperatives was recurrent in the discussion on how to create a supportive environment for cooperatives. Attention was drawn to legal significance of equal. Equal in international law does not signify identical.

Note was made that the rule of law was also a precondition for cooperative development along side the elements presented in the Report. It was also suggested to add reference to education/human resource development (see below).

In the discussion of legal and administrative provisions, a proposal was made to also include judicial decision and practices. Laws should recognize the cooperative identity; they should recognize the need for adequate and appropriate regulation that does not impinge upon cooperative identity. This need for appropriate oversight was specifically in reference to financial cooperatives and was later reformulated as 'laws should recognize the different needs of cooperatives of different sectors'. Note was also made that regulations and judicial practices should not contradict the existing laws under which cooperatives are regulated and the there was a need for harmonization.

The discussion on institutional structure reinforced a central point made by all participants -the need to ensure the autonomy and independence of cooperative enterprise. Some participants proposed a formulation whereby government should only provide a function for registering cooperatives, noting that this need not be a "Registrar of Cooperatives". However, there must be a register. Although the Chamber of Commerce may perform this task in some countries, care must be taken that the registering body be a public register for legal reasons - registered cooperatives acquire the status of a legal person.

Discussion of how to articulate the concept of partnership was discussed. The proposal for the formation of a national consultative body did not find full support among participants. The positive experience of Israel was cited where a consultative body for the distribution of water resources was established and in which agricultural cooperatives and government take decisions as equal stakeholders. Others noted negative experiences and therefore warned about the risk of including such a proposal. It was suggested that in light of the wide use of the partnership concept in UN circles, a less detailed proposal should remain in the text.

Research and statistics were noted as important elements. However, mention was made that collection of statistics must be relevant to those that are collecting the data and therefore, the function of government would likely be limited to data obligatory for purposes of certification. Impact research, seen as one of the most important types of research for cooperatives, was not seen as a likely area for government research.

Participants agreed to a large extent that government should not need to contribute to public awareness and understanding of cooperatives and therefore no special provisions regarding access to the media or publication of materials should be included in recommendations. Building awareness was the responsibility of cooperatives and was directly linked to effective functioning. However, the positive effects of government signalling effective functioning was recognized as a positive manner of raising awareness within bureaucracies and allowing better utilization of regional and international fora.

Public education was the only area in which government could have a role to play in building understanding on cooperatives. For example, government may wish to including cooperative education in school or university curricula.

The issue of provision of public funds was also controversial. Although participants generally recognized the risk to cooperative autonomy, in some situations the provision of public funds was considered as positive to cooperative development. Some argued that cooperatives should have equal access to government funds. While other cautioned that experience had shown, that in some sectors, accepting public funding led to the dissolution of cooperatives. The case of provision of government funds to cooperatives within the framework of privatization programmes was also discussed. Again a variety of experiences were noted - positive experiences notably from the agricultural, health and social care sectors - and negative from the financial sector. Also noted was the need for mention of appropriate transitional periods or processes if cooperatives were to be involved in privatization programmes. There was nonetheless general agreement that if governments provide public funds for cooperative development, funding should never be direct.

Additional text was proposed on the issue of provision of public fund to cooperatives, as follows:

1. Public funded research, development and training should include cooperative subjects.
2. Tax regimes for cooperative must take into account the particular character of cooperatives.
3. The promotion of the development of socio-economic institutions like cooperatives should take the form of supporting education, training and awareness creation rather than subsidizing ordinary economic activities.

Further text reformulation was suggested for facilitating the participation of cooperative enterprises in international fora and programmes. Participants also suggested inclusion of text regarding the role of intergovernmental organizations in the promotion of cooperatives. The excellent work of ILO and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAO was noted in this regard.

The COPAC Chairman reviewed follow-up to the Consultation Meeting noting that a second version of the document would be distributed to all participants for comments and observations. After incorporation of these final comments, the COPAC Board would review the document (November, 1997). COPAC would then send formal notification to the United Nations Secretary-General informing him of the work undertaken to comply with Resolution 51/58. Future strategies would include identifying political support in collaboration with national cooperative organizations.

With regard to broadening input and support for the revised report, the COPAC Chairman welcomed suggestions on who should be involved. Participants mentioned the Economic and Social Council of the European Union, the International Association of Cooperative Lawyers, the Organization of Cooperatives of America, the International Raiffeisen Union, as well the Canadian and US cooperative movements who would be crucial for lobbying their governments. Although regional consultations were suggested, there was discussion on the feasibility of holding such consultations. It was suggested that use be made of already scheduled meeting to introduce the report - ICA Regional Assembly meetings in 1998, and WOCCU and International Federation of Agricultural Producers IFAP meetings. A suggestion was also made that COPAC may wish to translate the report into French and Spanish to enable wide circulation and input.

Input provided from this wider circulation would again be incorporated a final draft would reviewed by the COPAC Board. Upon adoption, the report would be submitted to the United Nations in November, 1998.

Participants noted that lobbying will need to be targeted and therefore that it would be useful to know which member states are members of the Commission for Social Development. It was further noted that cooperative organizations should also lobby their governments to have cooperative experts on national delegations both in the Commission and at the General Assembly.

The COPAC Chairman thanked the participants and the COPAC Consultant, Mr. Michael Stubbs, for their high level of participation. He expressed his appreciation to the co-chairs, Bruce Thordarson and Joe Fazzio, as well as the COPAC Coordinator for making the meeting successful.

December, 1997

COPAC - 15 Route des Morillons, 1218 Grand Saconnex, Geneva, Switzerland

COPAC Members| COPAC Meetings | Publications and Information | International Day of Cooperatives | Cooperative Policy and Legislation | Cooperative Development Projects | Site Map

Comments or questions? Contact the COPAC Coordinator.

Comments or questions? Contact the COPAC Coordinator.
Updated: 12 November 1998