Back To Report List 

 

INTRODUCTION

A NOTE ON METHODOLOGY

BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS

DIMENSIONS OF PARTICIPATION AND ATTACHMENT

DIMENSTIONS OF SATISFACTION

ANALYSIS OF SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS

CONCLUSIONS

NOTES

 

The research for this study was supported by a grant from the Centre for Research on Work, St. Francis Xavier University. We gratefully thank the Centre, particularly Dr. Angus Braid, for the patience and support they have given to this project. Dr. Daniel MacInnes, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, St. Francis Xavier University and Dr. Svein Jentoft, University of Tromsö, Norway made very helpful suggestions, after reading early drafts of the interview instrument. Their background in and experience with co-operative organisations provided insights that led directly to the development of several key questions as measurements of membership participation and attachment. Our study was made much more useful as a result of their contributions. Mr. Stuart Beaton made it possible for us to conduct the study by welcoming our interest and agreeing to support our efforts in a presentation to the Board of Directors. Stuart also provided very helpful comments on an early draft of the interview questionnaire, the sorts of comments which shield the researchers from the consequences of their lack of familiarity with many of the particulars of the Nova Scotia Gulf fisheries. Mrs. Frances Baker provided her usual fine, professional touch in the preparation of the manuscript.

Of course, a special thank-you goes to all of the people who participated in the study. Interviews are difficult particularly when conducted by virtual strangers. Moreover, fishermen lately have been "studied" intensively, often with little direct benefit accruing to them for the time they give and information they volunteer. We hope that there is some return in this study for them.

The analyses, opinions and views expressed in this report are solely those of the authors.

Introduction

This report presents the preliminary description and analysis of an interview study concerning membership participation in and attachment to an independent Eastern Nova Scotian Fishermen's Co-operative -- The North Bay Fishermen's Co-op, located at Ballantyne's Cove, Antigonish County. Established in 1983, the North Bay Fishermen's Co-op is the latest descendent of area fishermen co-operatives first formed in the context of the Antigonish Movement. Indeed, Moses Coady personally participated in the initial study clubs and development of the original co-operatives, including the St. George's Co-op established in 1935 and situated at Ballantyne's Cove. The St. George's Co-op was a producer/consumer co-operative organisation. Among other activities, it operated a lobster and fish buying/processing facility, a general store and agricultural services such as ploughing and mowing. In 1954-55, the fish buying business, particularly lobster, was transferred to the Antigonish Co-op Fishermen (ACF) a county-wide producer co-operative organised by the St. Francis Xavier University Extension Department. Antigonish Co-op Fishermen marketed their resources through the United Maritime Fishermen (UMF), which was developed as an umbrella organisation within and through which local fisheries producer co-operatives could centralise and concentrate their marketing and economic interests. The North Bay Fishermen's Co-op arose from the ashes of a failing AFC-UMF business relationship. Once established, it purchased the existing office and processing facilities at Ballantyne's Cove. Since its inception in 1983, the North Bay Fishermen's Co-op has developed new facilities and aggressively pursued market opportunities.

Producer co-operatives within fisheries have been the subject of considerable interest on the part of community development organisers, academics concerned about factors affecting the socio-economic conditions of fishermen and fishing communities, and fishermen themselves. Co-operatives have been considered attractive by many as an alternative organisational form enabling independent, especially small-scale, producers to capture greater control over economic conditions key to their survival. For instance, fishermen participation as collective owners in community-based, business ventures which buy, process and market marine resources enhances the share captured by producers of the economic wealth generated from marine resources. A greater fishermen's share both enhances the material conditions of themselves, their families and their communities and, in so doing, retains greater amounts of fisheries generated wealth within fishing dependent communities, thereby resulting in spin off economic benefits stimulating employment and development beneficial to the entire community and area.

In addition, a co-operative is an attractive organisational form to many small boat producers since it maintains independence. That is, on joining a co-operative, small boat fishermen envision an organisation that will both reinforce and develop the independence of enterprise ownership and independence from marine resource buyers and processors, while, at the same time, enabling them to capture an increased share of potential economic wealth. Yet, while there are many compelling and attractive reasons for small boat fishermen to form co-operatives and work to create success, the global evidence clearly shows that fisheries co-operatives are much more likely to fail than they are to succeed.¹

Svein Jentoft, a Norwegian fisheries social scientist who has worked extensively with co-operatives, points out that three basic, necessary, and definitive qualities of co-operative organisational forms create a dilemma that can and often does result in failure. The three qualities are multipurpose functions, complexity and participatory decision-making.²

To begin with, fisheries co-operatives buy resources and sell services to their membership. Consequently, every member, while an owner, is a client. Often the individual economic interests of the client, which are experienced day-to-day (e.g., resource prices and costs), override the broader interests of the owner, broader interests that are focused most commonly in the mind of owners with events such as annual meetings. This dual quality to being a member can create, with tragic consequences, intense tension and conflict within co-operative organisations.

In order to manage and, hopefully, defuse owner/client generated conflict, co-operatives must be participatory-democratic organisations. That is, its membership must feel and be, if at all possible, engaged in the organisation's general and daily decision-making processes. So engaged, the membership forms attachments to the organisation, developing confidence in it as an appropriate vehicle for their specific interests and concerns. Consequently, participation in decision-making enables the members to reconcile their day-to-day concerns as clients with their broader interests as owners, thereby reducing conflict and tension.

However, co-operatives are established as businesses. Hence, their success is contingent, to a large extent, upon satisfying the operational requirements and economic efficiencies of business organisations, particularly where they exist in competitive market environments. Accomplishing this requires a strong leadership and management with the knowhow and ability to make difficult decisions and take steps, on a daily basis, representative of the business needs and qualities of the co-operative. Yet, such a leadership and practice contradicts the notion of on-going member participation in decision-making. Consequently, success as a business is often won at the cost of reducing membership attachment to and satisfaction with the co-operative. Such costs increase the probability of conflict within the co-operative, erode loyalty to the co-operative and create conditions whereby members may abandon the organisation, taking their share capital and, perhaps more importantly, "client" business with them (e.g., catches and purchases). In short, such developments often foretell the demise of a fisheries co-operative.

The study of the North Bay Fishermen's Co-op was engaged for a number of purposes. To begin with, it was designed to assess the current status of membership attachment to and participation in the co-op. Here, the intention is to describe the situation in the detail necessary for the co-operative's membership and management to assess the condition and, if deemed necessary, take steps appropriate to the co-operative's future development and success. Secondly, the study is intended to provide the quality and type of information that will permit a better understanding of small boat fisheries co-operatives. By completing a detailed case study of the North Bay Fishermen's Co-op, the information necessary to comparing the situation in Ballantyne's Cove with other fisheries co-operatives in Canada, the U.S., Europe and the Third World becomes possible. In doing this, a better understanding of the conditions associated with operational qualities and outcomes for this sort of organisation will be developed. Finally, the study was intended to provide a specific examination of the significance of the three organisational qualities mentioned above and the dilemmas and conflicts they are thought to create, dilemmas and conflicts which jeopardise the very existence of the producer co-operative.

 BACK TO TOP

A Note on Methodology

The data presented in this study was gathered through in-person, structured interviewing. An interview questionnaire was designed and pre-tested (cf. Appendix I). The pre-tested interview, objectives of the study, and a request for participation were presented to the Board of Directors of the North Bay Fisheries Co-operative. The Board of Directors agreed to participate with the study and released to the researchers the most current membership list, including mailing addresses. It was understood that, in all other ways, the study would proceed independent of the co-operative's management. Once in receipt of the membership list a letter introducing the study, outlining its purpose and requesting co-operation was sent to all members (cf. Appendix II).

One of the sixty-one members listed had withdrawn by the time interviews had begun. Every effort was made to establish face-to-face contacts with the remaining sixty members through repeated visits to their homes and boats between April and July, 1988. In this manner, fifty members were met and asked if they would participate in the study. Forty-nine agreed to be interviewed and one declined. Since it was essential that as many members as possible be included in the study, copies of the questionnaire accompanied with an explanatory letter (cf. Appendix III), and stamped, self-addressed return envelope were mailed to the remaining ten members. Of these, two returned completed questionnaires. One member sent back an uncompleted questionnaire with an enclosed note indicating a desire not to participate. In sum, fifty-one members participated in the study (85%) two declined (3%) and seven did not respond to the mailed questionnaire (12%)

 BACK TO TOP

BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS

Table 1 profiles selected background characteristics of the fifty-one co-op members that were interviewed. Almost sixty-five percent are forty-five years of age or younger. Nearly one in every two have graduated from high school and/or obtained some post-secondary education, including university and vocational training. Over eighty-six percent of the members interviewed earn in excess of sixty-one percent of their annual income from fishing; less than fourteen percent reported that they participated in paid work in addition to fishing; and more than ninety-two percent claimed that they would go into fishing if they had their lives to live over. These characteristics reveal that the co-op membership is composed largely of young, relatively well-educated persons who both derive the majority of their earned income from fishing and express general satisfaction with their choice of the occupation as the primary source for their livelihood. In short, the majority exhibit characteristics which would predict that the membership is both able and motivated in terms of its involvement with the co-operative.

All of the members interviewed reported that they owned their own boats. Ninety-eight percent identified themselves as inshore fishermen. The vast majority of the co-op's membership hold licenses which permit participation in the lobster and herring gill net fisheries, 98.0% and 96.1% respectively. Many also hold licenses allowing participation in other fisheries, for example, hook and line (60.8%), Otter Trawl (21.6%) and Scallop Drag (21.6%). However, the overall distributions of license types reveals that the lobster and herring fisheries constitute the central focus of membership fishing activities. This pattern suggests that concentrated participation is seasonal, with other fisheries such as groundfish containing a more diverse and less focused fishing effort.

Many of the members interviewed, especially the younger ones, reported that they would like to participate in the high-value scallop and crab fisheries but were prohibited from doing so by the inaccessibility of licenses, both in terms of the purchase costs and the severe Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) restrictions on the number of licenses issued. Aside from revealing the pattern of membership participation in the fisheries, this information suggests that the co-operative, as a marine resource processing and marketing enterprise, rests upon a rather narrow, specialised and largely seasonal resource supply base. If sustained, these qualities necessarily have potential consequences for the future growth and development of the co-operative. In business organisations, specialisation generally reduces flexibility and adaptability to negative price and market shifts, unless compensated for through strategies such as financial management (e.g., size of cash reserves, management of accounts payable and receivables etc.), contractual arrangements, volume supply and/or diverse marketing. While discussed further at a later point in the report, the co-operative's narrow and seasonally available marine resource base should be kept in mind throughout the following presentation.

Of the fifty-one members completing the interview, thirty-five percent fish out of Ballantyne's Cove, the site of the co-operative's office and processing facilities. The remaining sixty-five percent fish out of places such as Cribbon's Point, Bayfield, Southside Harbour, and Lismore. Notably, the majority of the co-operative's membership neither fish out of nor reside proximate to Ballantyne's Cove. Proximity to the co-operative's physical plant will be shown later to be an important factor in understanding membership attachment and participation.

Regardless of the port from which they fish, almost all of the membership interviewed report intense attachment to the community within which they reside (cf. Table 2). For instance, fully ninety-eight percent claim that, even if offered a better job elsewhere, they would choose to stay in their present community. Over eighty-four percent report that other family members live in the same community; ninety-eight percent claim to feel that they belong or really belong in their community; and ninety percent say that they know most or all of their neighbours well. While a common and expected feature of living in rural communities, intense community attachments and personal identification with a particular community often reduces the likelihood of involvement with and participation in organisations based in other communities. Indeed, strong community attachments and a way of life defined by association with family and familiars often specifies the lines that separate those you trust from all others, most of whom should be approached with suspicion. This dimension is potentially vital to understanding

the qualities of membership attachment to and participation in the North Bay Fishermen's Co-op, especially since a large majority of the membership resides in communities other than Ballantyne's Cove. In the following, we will examine, in specific detail, characteristics and qualities of membership attachment and participation.

 BACK TO TOP

DIMENSIONS OF PARTICIPATION AND ATTACHMENT

There are a variety of ways to measure and to describe membership participation. In this instance, activities such as meeting attendance,active participation in the co-op's affairs as measured by membership involvement with the Board of Directors, committees, official delegations and the like, and measures of the extent to which members' immediate families (e.g., spouse and children) participate in co-op affairs are used to profile the characteristics and qualities of membership participation.

Over ninety percent of the fishermen interviewed (46 of 51) reported that they had been members of the co-op for three or more years. In addition, many of the current members belonged to the fisheries co-operatives which immediately preceded North Bay. Consequently, the vast majority of the membership interviewed have lengthy association with and experience in co-operative organisations. When asked to indicate the various reasons why they joined the North Bay Fishermen's Co-op, 72.5% replied that the co-op represented the best opportunity to sell their catches; 62.8% felt the co-op was vital to the community and they wanted to support it; 33.3% noted that support for co-operatives is part of their family tradition; and 43.1% reported that they also joined because the success of the co-operative depended upon the support of as many people as possible. In addition, 25.5% of the membership noted that they joined because the co-operative form of organisation gives them a greater say in and benefit from matters directly concerning their livelihood such as dockside prices, value-added processing and marketing.

In these responses, it is apparent that many of the members, as a consequence of their previous experiences with co-operatives, readily support and have formed very positive feelings about the co-operative type of organisation. Most joined for these reasons, noting that they choose participation in the co-operative over the available alternative of selling their catches to a local private fish buyer. In short, this pattern of explanation suggests that, by and large, the membership expresses 'co-op consciousness' in their feelings, attitudes and choices. Most are committed to supporting co-operative organisational forms.

Curiously, the breadth of the membership's willingness to join and support co-operatives is not replicated in the more direct measures of participation. For instance, almost thirty percent of those interviewed report that they attend meetings either occasionally, rarely or never. Over sixty-six percent stated that they have never held an official, elected position with the co-op (34 of 51) and almost sixty-three percent (32 of 51) claimed that they had never been a member of a co-op committee or delegation. These data indicate that, while the vast majority of the membership are committed to joining and supporting co-operatives, a substantial number are not motivated sufficiently to always attend meetings and only about one in three of the membership actively participate, beyond attending meetings, in the co-op's affairs. Moreover, the spouses and children of co-op members are almost totally uninvolved in the co-op. Of the married members interviewed, only a couple reported that their spouses were involved with the co-op. In addition, none of the members interviewed had children who were involved.

Co-operatives are often thought of as community-based, community-rooted organisations. That is, their strengths and benefits are seen to arise out of dense connections with the communities within which they develop. Indeed, co-operative organisations often are considered of particular importance to communities since they offer community members an economic, institutional method to concentrating, investing, and controlling resources from within communities to the overall benefit of the communities. These features do not appear to describe the North Bay Fishermen's Co-op. As we have already seen, few of the members' spouses and none of their children are involved in the co-op, other than as employees. In short, the co-op is organised and operated to be strictly a captains/fishermen's organisation &endash; a producer co-op intended to involve, represent and further the economic interests of captains.

Most of the members interviewed think of the co-op in this manner. This is evident in their responses to the questions concerning the extension of membership to persons other than fishing captains. One in three (33%) thought membership should be extended to fishing crew; 13.7% would support extensions to members of their households; one in three support extension to support staff and production/dockside workers; almost forty percent would extend membership to management; and less than ten percent would support extension either to members of their own community or the members of communities within which the co-op buys lobster and fish. When asked why they would not support membership extension to those categories of persons, the members most frequently mentioned reasons such as co-ops fail because too many other than fishermen become involved, only fishermen know fishing, fishermen would lose control, and those who don't fish haven't the right to become members. In sum, a good majority of the membership is content to reserve membership in the co-op to those of their domain -- fishing captains.

In addition to reserving membership, the vast majority of the membership are prone, under certain conditions, to restrict the economic benefits of the co-op, as an employer, to their households. Almost seventy-three percent of those interviewed (37 of 51) feel the co-op should first offer available jobs to the spouses and children of members. When asked why, fifty-four percent of these (20 of 37) reasoned that members' spouses and children should get first crack at available jobs because the membership as captain/fishermen own and economically sustain the co-op. Others noted that such a practice would strengthen the members' sense of commitment to and benefit from the co-op, that it would help the memberships' families and that it would keep money in the area. Most of those supporting the idea of preferential job access specified that the practice should be followed only under the condition that the members' spouses and children were qualified for the jobs and competent as employees. However, it should be noted that a large number of those opposed to preferential job access for members' spouses and children neither fish out of nor reside in proximity to Ballantyne's Cove. They think such a practice would unfairly benefit the Ballantyne's Cove membership and result in poorly qualified and unmotivated employees -- a situation seen as detrimental to the co-op and their specific interests. The characteristics of membership responses in the above areas indicates that the North Bay Fishermen's Co-op is not considered to be a community co-operative. Rather, it is understood by the members to be a producer co-op. As such, most members consider maintenance of control over and distribution of economic benefits from the co-op to be a necessary and deserved quality of organisation in order to assure that it works for and reflects their interests, concerns and priorities.

Given that the co-operative is the key, local-level organisation directly associated with its membership's livelihoods, one would expect a better motivated, higher and more sustained level of active participation than is apparent in the membership's current pattern of involvement. Evidently, the North Bay Fishermen's Co-op is an organisation intended only to address the specific, economic prerogatives and needs of individual members. The members' families, let alone communities, are not in the least integrated. Indeed, the practices evident here require a closer examination since they suggest an organisational weakness in the co-operative that has the potential to erode membership loyalty, thereby putting in place the conditions for future economic vulnerability and crisis.

Potentials for vulnerability and crisis are further underlined by direct measures of membership attachment and loyalty to the co-op. For instance, when asked if they would sell to another fish buyer if offered higher prices, over thirty-five percent (18 of 51) of the members interviewed reported that they would sell to another buyer. Needless to say, while a minority of the membership, the resource supply represented by this group would be substantial, especially significant because of the extent to which the co-op is a specialised, seasonal venture. For the North Bay Fishermen's Co-op these data reveal a fundamental vulnerability to resource supply. This is rooted in both qualities of the relationship these members have with the co-op and their feelings about the co-op.

Aside from this measure of willingness to sell to other buyers, responses to several other questions clearly indicate the extent to which the membership has doubts about the co-op. Almost sixty-seven percent of those interviewed (34 of 51) reported that they are unwilling to put more of their fishing income into the co-op. Almost eighty percent (40 of 51) disagreed with the statement that members should be prepared to surrender income today in order to encourage long-term success and over eighty percent (42 of 51) responded negatively to the suggestion that the co-op management knows what is in the best financial interests of the co-op and its membership. In short, a large majority of the membership is unwilling to put more money into the co-op and an even larger majority expresses unwillingness to trust the judgement of co-op management. Given that the members own the co-op and that the success or failure of the co-op reflects directly on the members livelihoods, the pattern of responses here paints a picture of broad-based dissatisfaction and unease among the membership, not to mention distrust and obvious difficulties concerning attachment and loyalty to the organisation.

This situation is further underlined by the fact that few of the members are prepared to sacrifice aspects of their individual vested interests in fishing to the co-op. In their responses to a question which asked what they would be prepared to do if a majority of the co-op membership decided that the success of the co-op required redistribution of fishing effort, over ninety-six percent of those interviewed would refuse to surrender a fishing license; over eighty-six percent would refuse to replace their current boat with one that is smaller and less powerful; over eighty-four percent reported that they would not voluntarily transfer a license to another co-op member; ninety percent claimed that they would, as individuals, apply for new licenses; and almost seventy-seven percent reported that they would refuse to allow the co-op to hold and distribute licenses and quota. Only in one instance, reduction of fishing effort (e.g., number of days fished and/or the amount of gear fished), did a slim majority of those interviewed (52%) indicate a willingness to sacrifice individual interests for the benefit of the co-op and its membership.

These data reveal that, when it comes to their individual livelihood interests, most of the membership maintains an arms length relationship with the co-op, one that is not particularly demonstrative of intense attachment to the organisation. Without question, a good number of the membership are, minimally, unconvinced that the organisation can or should be trusted to represent their individual interests. These findings contrast sharply with the overall positive attitude and support expressed by the vast majority of the members toward co-operative forms of organisation. Why would members generally in favour and supportive of co-operatives report little willingness to sacrifice their individual interests for the benefit of the co-op and its membership, including themselves? Could this be yet another expression of the classic small boat fishermen's, as 'rugged individualists', distrust of representative organisations, whatever form they may take? Are there aspects of the North Bay Fishermen's Co-op management and organisation which underwrite members' suspicion and hesitation? In order to attempt answers to these and other questions we must search out explanations for the causes of the membership's ambivalence. Indeed, this ambivalent and, resulting, arms length relationship is made even more curious by the fact that over ninety percent of the members (46 of 51) report that they feel their opinion counts in the co-op. So, apparently they do not, as individuals, feel isolated or ignored within the organisation while, at the same time, expressing a general uncertainty of the relationship between their individual interests and those of the co-op. In order to find some answers we begin by examining aspects of membership satisfaction with the co-operative.

 BACK TO TOP

DIMENSIONS OF SATISFACTION

In attempting to isolate aspects of membership satisfaction with the co-ops, we asked members a variety of questions intended to reveal general feelings about the co-operative as well as specific opinions concerning particular aspects of the co-op's organisation and operation. To begin with, the vast majority of the membership interviewed reports that they are moderately to very satisfied with the service they receive from co-op dockside/plant workers (92.1%) and co-op office personnel (88.3%). Many made a point of emphasizing that these people and their work were of "the best sort". While slightly less than the previous levels, eighty-two percent of the members indicated that they were moderately to very satisfied with selling to the co-op. Apparently, while about one in three would sell to another fish buyer, most are satisfied with their present arrangement. The levels of satisfaction notably decrease in association with co-op management and co-op business and accounting practices. Almost sixty-seven percent reported satisfaction with business and accounting practices while under sixty per cent (58.8%) noted they were moderately to very satisfied with co-op management. These data suggest that a sizable number of members feel uneasy about these two particular aspects of the co-op. Responses to several general questions sheds some light on the factors involved here.

Almost sixty-five percent of the membership interviewed reported that the co-op represents their needs and concerns. Yet, about only one in every two of the members (26 of 51) claim that the co-op is satisfying their needs and concerns. The suggestion here is that while the majority of the membership welcomes the co-operative form of organisation as representative of their needs and concerns, many feel that these are not being satisfied through aspects of current practices. In particular, almost fifty-five percent of those interviewed (28 of 51) claim that they are not being kept adequately informed about the practices and plans of the co-operative. Fully sixty-seven percent (34 of 51) feel that they are not consulted frequently enough about management and development plans and initiatives.

These data reveal that the arms length practice and dissatisfaction of many towards the co-operative specifically concerns the perceived or real distance that they feel from the management and development plans, practices and initiatives on-going within the co-op. A majority of the members report they are inadequately informed and insufficiently consulted about these areas. Consequently, they are saying that, while they feel their opinion counts, it is not being sought out frequently enough. As a result, the suspicion noted earlier in some of the members' opinions and sentiments about the co-op is rooted, at least to an extent, in the feeling that they are not being integrated adequately in the decision-making processes, more than likely leaving many of the members without confidence in their knowledge about what is going on with the co-operative and, therefore, uncertain about and distrustful of management in the organisation. What remains to be done is a specific analysis of the responses in terms of selected membership characteristics for us to determine whether or not any particular set of factors offer further explanation of the patterns reported here.

 BACK TO TOP

ANALYSIS OF SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS

In order to develop a better understanding of the patterns reported above, members' responses were examined in relationship to a number of factors such as their fishing port, age, education, attendance at meetings, membership in a fishing organisation other than the co-op, and whether they felt they were being kept adequately informed. Table 3 profiles members' responses to particular questions in relation to their fishing port. It should be noted that this information is organised to examine the possible influence on members' responses of distance from the co-op's office and plant. If distance from the plant makes a difference to attachment, participation and satisfaction, it should be reflected in members' responses to the extent that those fishing from Ballantyne's Cove, thereby in day-to-day contact, should be notably different than those of members fishing from other ports.

The information in this table clearly indicates that in three notable and important categories members' responses are remarkably influenced by distance/nearness to the co-op's plant and office. Of course, there are also a number of rather surprising instances where this is not the case. Regardless of whether members fish from

This is not the case in three response categories. As would be expected, whether or not the member fishes from Ballantyne's Cove influences meeting attendance and, most probably as a result of this, the extent to which members feel satisfied with the extent to which they are consulted about plans and initiatives. Those that fish out of Ballantyne's Cove are more likely than those working out of other fishing ports to attend meetings, 88.3% and 66.7% respectively. Moreover, fewer of the Ballantyne's Cove fishermen (27.8%) than those fishing out of other ports (36.4%) reported they are dissatisfied with the extent to which they are consulted. While perhaps a predictable pattern as a result of the fact that the co-op, while based in Ballantyne's Cove, has a membership drawn from a variety of surrounding ports, these response patterns reflect potential difficulties for membership attachment to the co-op, particularly since a good majority of the membership (64.8% of those interviewed) fish out of ports other than Ballantyne's Cove. The seriousness of this is evident in members' willingness to consider selling to a fish buyer other than the co-op. Forty-two percent of those fishing from other ports report that they would sell to another fish buyer if offered higher prices. Only twenty-two percent of Ballantyne's Cove fishermen indicated that they would consider doing this. Given the seasonal, rather specialised qualities of the co-op's ocean resource supply, processing and marketing operations, a shift by such a large proportion of the membership to another fish buyer would, more than likely, have serious consequences for the co-op's economic viability.

Certainly this information reveals a fundamental vulnerability in the co-operative and in membership attachment/loyalty. Rural co-operatives, even when organised to represent the special interests of producers, have particular connections to the community contexts within which they are found. The simple fact that the processing and office facilities of North Bay are located at Ballantyne's Cove means local members are in sustained, day-to-day, contact with the buildings, activities and business of the co-op. Intended or not, its physical location results in the membership, whether residing and fishing out of there or not, associating the co-operative with the particular community in which it is situated. Consequently, members residing in and/or fishing out of the Ballantyne's Cove community area come to consider the co-operative as 'theirs' and are likely to form expected loyalties and attachments. For members residing in and fishing out of other community areas it is likely that a reverse process occurs. That is, they associate the co-operative with Ballantyne's Cove, not their own community areas. Experiencing much less frequent physical contact with the co-op while, at the same time, expressing strong attachments to their own communities, these members can be expected to be notably less loyal to the co-op than the Ballantyne's Cove community area members. After all, as a community-based organisation, the co-operative cannot even offer members of their families employment opportunities equal to those available to the families of Ballantyne's Cove community area workers; physical distance inhibits this.

Table 4 presents information that allows further investigation of these issues. Here membership responses are examined in terms of meeting attendance. This information reveals that those who always attend meetings are

Indeed, if anything, regular attendance at meetings reinforces some members' suspicions about not being kept adequately informed, 56.8% of those always attending report they feel this way while only 50% of the less frequent attenders report they feel inadequately informed. Furthermore, always attending meetings exerts a negative influence on whether or not members think the co-op represents their needs and concerns. Almost forty-one percent of those always attending report they feel the co-op does not represent their needs and concerns while only twenty-one percent of the less frequent attenders claim a similar opinion.

It is curious that a greater percentage of those always attending meetings, when compared with the less frequent attenders, expresses doubt about the co-op representing their needs and concerns, especially since a good majority of these very same members report they feel that members are consulted enough about plans and initiatives (70.3%). I suspect that this indicates that, while those always attending think they are consulted enough about plans and initiatives, some of them do not agree with the direction the co-op is taking. However, the attachment that many of these have to the co-op is strong enough thus far to maintain, regardless of this disagreement, their willingness to continue selling to the co-op even if another fish buyer offers higher prices.

Since the majority of the co-op members interviewed (72.5%) report that they belong to a fishermen's organisation other than the co-op, we thought it likely that such a practice would influence members attachment, participation and satisfaction with the co-op, particularly since the vast majority of those belonging to other fisheries organisations (97.3%) report that in addition to the co-op, they are members only of the Maritime Fishermen's Union (MFU). The effect on responses of members' participation in additional fisheries organisations is presented in Table 5. This information clearly reveals that membership in the MFU greatly influences attachment, participation and satisfaction. Members also belonging to the MFU, when compared with non-participants in the MFU, are less likely to sell to a fish buyer other than the co-op when offered higher prices (28.1% vs. 47.4%); are more likely to hold official positions (40.6% vs. 21.1%); are more likely to feel the co-op

The impact on membership attachment and satisfaction of feeling adequately informed is demonstrated in the distribution of responses presented in Table 6. Of those claiming they feel adequately informed, 91.3% belong to the MFU, 78.3% report that they would not sell to another fish buyer, 78.3% feel the co-op represents their needs and concerns, and 69.7% report that they think members are consulted enough about plans and initiatives.

Educational background and age characteristics shed further light upon the meaning of these patterns. Table 7 profiles the educational background of members interviewed. This information raises a number of points worthy of consideration. To begin with, members 45 years of age and younger have more formal education, as would be expected, than those older than 45 years. However, a good majority of the membership (63%) have a formal educational background of Grade 11 or less. Secondly, those whom have at least graduated from Grade 12 generally are more likely to belong to fisheries organisations, particularly the MFU, in addition to the co-op. Finally, one in two of those members infrequently attending meetings minimally have completed high school.

The above information, in revealing that the younger members with more formal education are likely to belong to the MFU, suggests that, given earlier discussion, the younger portion of the membership is likely to be more satisfied than the older workers with the co-op. This possibility is examined with the data presented in Table 8. The membership interviewed who are 45 years of age and younger are, indeed, more likely than those older than 45 to belong to the MFU; to feel the co-op members are kept adequately informed and to think the co-op

 

RESPONSE CATEGORIES	AGE GROUPINGS
	OLDER THAN 45		45 AND YOUNGER
	(N=18)		(N=33)
	NO	YES	NO	YES
	%	%	%	%
BELONG TO A FISHERIES ORGANISATION OTHER THAN CO-OP	55.5	44.4	21.2	78.8
WOULD SELL TO A FISH BUYER OTHER THAN CO-OP	72.2	27.8	60.6	39.4
HELD/HOLD POSITION WITH CO-OP	72.2	27.8	63.6	36.4
CO-OP REPRESENTS NEEDS AND CONCERNS	38.9	61.1	33.3	66.7
CO-OP MEMBERS ARE KEPT ADEQUATELY INFORMED	66.7	33.3	48.5	51.5
MEMBERS ARE CONSULTED ENOUGH ABOUT PLANS AND INITIATIVES	72.2	27.8	63.6	36.4

 represents their needs and concerns. At the same time a larger portion of them report that they would sell to another fish buyer (39.4%) as compared with 27.8%). Moreover, a goodly number of those 45 and younger (48.5) as well as over two in every three of those older than 45 (66.7%) feel that they are not being kept adequately informed. Finally, about sixty-four percent of the 45 and younger group and over seventy-two percent of those over 45 think members are not consulted enough about plans and initiatives. In short, this information supports the idea that dissatisfaction within the co-op regarding information and consultation is spread generally throughout the membership, largely regardless of background and personal characteristics. Notably, while the younger group of members indicates comparatively more satisfaction, segments of them are more likely to abandon the co-op and sell to another fish buyer than would be the case for those over 45 years of age.

In order to explore characteristics of satisfaction with co-op organisation and practice, members were asked to indicate their feelings about specific features on a five-point scale, ranging from very satisfied (5) through to very unsatisfied (1). The responses are presented in Table 9 in relationship to selected response categories. This information reveals several important characteristics of membership satisfaction and dissatisfaction. To begin with, the membership, regardless of the response category examined, is very satisfied with co-op office staff. Secondly, satisfaction is generally reported in association with selling to the co-op. Here the greatest dissatisfaction with selling to the co-op is registered among those who attend meetings infrequently and those who do not belong to other fisheries organisations, 28.6% and 36.8% respectively. Thirdly, around two in every three members are satisfied with co-op business and accounting practices. Notably, one in three are not. In this instance, several members mentioned difficulties understanding explanations of accounting practices. A number of others noted they felt uninformed and uncertain about the way the co-op determined dockside prices, especially in an environment where other buyers reputably were able and willing to offer higher prices.

Fourthly, members are about equally divided on their satisfaction/dissatisfaction with co-op management, including the business manager and Board of Directors. While 65.7% of those belonging to other fisheries organisations, 59.5% of those always attending meetings and 72.2% of the members older than 45 reported satisfaction with management; 57.9% of those not belonging to other fisheries organisations and 48.5% of the

 Measures of Members' Satisfaction with Co-op by Selected Response Categories

(S= Satisfied, U=Unsatisfied)

The final points to make regarding the information in Table 9 concerns the fact that a substantial number of those interviewed report that they are dissatisfied both with the sacrifices they have made and the time they have given to the co-op. While true for all response categories, high levels of dissatisfaction are the case particularly for those who do not belong to other fisheries organisations (42.9% sacrifices and 52.6% time), for those who attend meetings infrequently (57.1% for both sacrifice and time), and for those who are 45 years of age and younger (36.4% for both sacrifice and time). Here a large portion of the membership is expressing an awareness of the fact that they could and should be doing more for the co-op. There is little doubt that developing means to enable increased contributions/participation for this portion of the membership would go a long way to dispel concerns and raise satisfaction with management as well as other aspects of co-op operations and practices.

Determination of the extent to which members are prepared to give their time and resources as well as subordinate their immediate personal goals to the welfare of the co-op and its membership provides an important measurement of member attachment to and understanding of the organisation and its purpose. Table 10 profiles responses of the members interviewed to several questions intended to determine the extent to which they will sacrifice their interests for the overall benefit of the co-op. Responses to several questions not included in the table clearly outline aspects of what the members are not prepared to give. For instance, 96.1% of the members would not transfer a fishing license to another co-op member; 86.3% would not reduce the capacity of their fishing vessels; 84.3% would not surrender fishing licenses; and 90.2% would individually pursue new licenses. In short, co-op members are not prepared either to jeopardise or to subordinate their ability to fish, as this is specified by licenses and vessel capacity, to the co-op and its membership. However, as is apparent in Table 10, many would voluntarily reduce their fishing effort, for example the number of days fished and/or the amount of gear fished, if this was necessary in order for the co-op to succeed. But, an almost equal number in many of the response categories would be resistant to taking such a step. There are some notable variations in this information.

 

RESPONSE CATEGORIES	MEASURES OF ATTACHMENT
	Members Should Be Required to Give Time to the Co-op		Would Reduce Fishing Effort		Would Allow Co-op to Hold/Distribute Licenses and or Quotas		I've Put Enough Money Into the Co-op
	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No
	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%
Fishing Port
Ballantyne's Cove	66.7	33.3	52.9	47.1	35.3	64.7	66.6	33.3
Other	54.5	45.5	51.5	48.5	15.2	84.8	66.6	33.3
Belong to Other Fisheries Organisations
Belong	65.6	34.4	65.6	34.4	31.3	68.8	62.5	37.5
Don't Belong	47.4	52.6	27.8	72.2	5.6	94.4	68.4	26.3
Attend Meetings
Always	67.6	32.4	70.3	29.7	25.0	75.0	70.3	29.7
Less Than Always	35.7	64.3	57.1	42.9	14.3	85.7	57.1	42.9
Age
Older than 45	55.6	44.4	55.6	44.4	22.2	77.8	77.8	22.2
45 and Younger	60.6	39.4	50.0	50.0	21.9	78.1	60.6	39.4
Kept Adequately Informed
Yes	56.5	43.5	56.5	43.5	26.1	73.9	52.2	47.8
No	60.7	39.3	48.1	51.9	18.5	81.5	82.1	17.9

For example, those that belong to other fisheries organisations and report that they always attend co-op meetings are much more likely to reduce fishing effort voluntarily, 65% and 70.3% respectively, than are those that do not belong to other fisheries organisations (27.0% would reduce) and those that attend meetings infrequently (57.1% would reduce). Also, notice that 56.5% of those reporting that they are kept adequately informed would reduce fishing effort while only 48.1% of those feeling inadequately informed would support such a measure. These data reveal that participation in the co-op (meeting attendance), familiarity with the need for and participation in representative producer organisations (MFU) and feeling informed all positively impact upon members attachment to and confidence in the co-op and its purpose, to the extent that they would voluntarily reduce their fishing effort if such a measure was deemed necessary for the success of the co-op.

As apparent in the vast majority of responses to the question about allowing the co-op to hold and distribute licenses and quotas, there are real limits to the extent that the members are prepared to trust even `their' organisation with management of access and participation in the fisheries. Although this is generally true, a much greater percentage of those who belong to other fisheries organisations, always attend meetings and report feeling adequately informed than is otherwise the case would be prepared to trust the co-op with access management responsibilities. Again, the importance of developing and maintaining membership attachment to and confidence in the co-op is apparent here. Membership attachment develops trust in the organisation and its practices. It also cultivates confidence in management and membership decisions, confidence that the interests and practices of the co-op are synonymous with those of the individual member.

Similar associations are seen in the responses to the measure concerning members' financial commitments. Here the principle explored expresses the idea that the more attached to and confident in the co-op, the more likely the members will closely identify the co-op with their economic interests and future. Consequently, members so disposed should be willing to commit more of their dollars to the co-op. While a majority of the members interviewed indicate that they feel they have put enough money into the co-op, notable differences in the responses support the association between attachment and willingness to commit more financial support. For instance, 47.8% of those feeling adequately informed seem willing to put more money into the co-op. Also, notice that almost forty percent of the members 45 years of age and younger indicate a similar willingness as do almost thirty-eight percent of those who belong to other fisheries organisations. On the one hand, this information suggests that those co-op members with experience in representative organisations who feel they are being kept adequately informed are much more likely to perceive their economic interests as synonymous with those of the co-op and, as a result, willing to commit even greater portions of their earnings to the organisation. On the other hand, widespread dissatisfaction, as measured earlier, concerning management practices, information management and consultation processes without question would deter members from willingness to commit further financial resources since they would have neither the confidence in nor attachment to the organisation. Certainly this is expressed in the extent to which the largest number of members, regardless of response category examined, feel that they have put enough money into the co-op. When contrasted with member responses to the idea that members should be required to give time to the co-op, it is apparent that much of the noted dissatisfaction is `soft' in so far as it concerns particular aspects of the co-op's organisation and decision-making processes. For instance, many and, in numerous response categories most, of those interviewed think that members should be required to give time to the co-op as a condition of membership. This is particularly the case for those who fish out of Ballantyne's Cove (66.7%); for those who belong to other fisheries organisations (65.6%); and for those who report that they always attend meetings (67.6%). Notably, almost sixty-one percent of those who feel they are not adequately informed think that members should be required to give time. Only in the case of those who do not belong to other fisheries organisations and those who attend meetings infrequently do we see a majority expressing resistance to this idea; 52.6% and 64.3% respectively. No doubt measures designed to increase participation, attachment and satisfaction would positively influence the opinions and feelings of many of these members, as well as those in the other response categories expressing dissatisfaction. In short, the vast majority of the membership is generally supportive of and attached to co-operative types of organisation. Consequently, much of the measured dissatisfaction, lack of confidence and eroding attachment can be reversed through adjustment in co-op organisation, practices and procedures, adjustments designed to increase member participation and the sense among the membership that they know and are involved in what is going on.

BACK TO TOP

Conclusions

Co-operatives are complex organisations. Their success depends upon sustained and extensive membership support. Yet, equally vital to success is a strong and decisive leadership/ management. While these two aspects do not necessarily have to conflict, they will have a tendency to unless the co-operative is organised to identify and deal with this unique but potentially destructive complexity. This aspect of organisational complexity is revealed clearly in the information and discussion presented in the study.

While the vast majority of the current members express commitment to co-operative organisation, a substantial number of the North Bay Fishermen's Co-op membership are notably dissatisfied with the extent to which they are kept informed and consulted about co-op business practices, plans and initiatives. As a result of this, combined, in my judgement, with the fact that the membership is drawn from a variety of community areas in addition to Ballantyne's Cove, a larger number of members are not prepared to sacrifice more than they already have to make the co-op a success. Indeed, many members express dissatisfaction and suspicion concerning the co-op's management and leadership, particularly in regard to decisions such as the future development of the co-operative and ocean resource prices. This is so strongly felt by some that one in three of the current membership report that, if offered higher prices, they would sell to other buyers.

Of course, opinions and feelings such as these are not good news for the co-operative. They suggest that for many of the membership attachment and loyalty is conditional, reflecting the extent to which the co-op is perceived assuccessfully satisfying the members' particular 'client' interests in areas such as price and services. Moreover, attachment and loyalty are further jeopardised when members feel ambivalent about the manner in which co-op management and leadership are overseeing membership proprietor (i.e., ownership) interests. Ambivalent attachment and participation is an expected outcome from the coupling of 'client' discontent with uncertainty about the benefits and meaning of ownership status.

On the positive side, the analysis of attachment clearly shows that the vast majority of the membership are willing to sustain their association with and support the co-operative, even when expressing discontent with particular aspects of the organisation and their situation in relation to it. This is particularly important given the fact that much of the discontent expresses the feeling that the co-op is not doing enough to satisfy either the members 'client' interests in areas such as resource prices and ownership interests in matters such as the pay out of end of season bonuses. Not many business organisations experience continued patronage when 'clients' are unsatisfied with the economic benefits achieved, particularly when a business competing for patronage is locally active (Arasaig Fisheries). For many of the members, continuing association and patronage reflects a perception of the co-operative as being something other than just a buyer of their catches. Indeed, this quality of the membership provides the co-operative with a tremendous resource, one which expresses membership willingness to attach, with patience, tolerance and loyalty their particular economic interests to the co-operative. However, there are limits on the extent to which the membership can be expected to sustain their attachment, especially when feeling discontented and increasingly ambivalent about the ability and willingeness of the organisation to address their concerns.

In my judgement, sustaining membership attachment and loyalty as a strength of and resource in the North Bay Fishermen's Co-operative is key to the future success of the organisation. This could be accomplished in a variety and combination of ways, ranging from monthly communications with the membership in theform of newsletters and information sheets, through holding more frequent general meetings (some in places other than Ballantyne's Cove) to required participation in co-operative activities such as committees, membership education, planning, delegations, and policy formation. Measures such as these would address membership concerns, regarding information, communication, involvement and decision-making. Moreover, they would draw upon and augment the attachment and loyalty resources which this membership offers to the co-operative.

BACK TO TOP

 1. Svein Jentoft. Fisheries Co-operatives: Lessons Drawn from International Experiences. Canadian Journal of Development Studies VIII2: 197-209.

2. Svein Jentoft. Organising Fishery Co-operatives: The Case of Nicaragua. Human Organisation 45 (4): 353-358, 1986.