Community co-operatives can be a mechanism for vitalisation of rural communities, according to a recent article on the Co-opBus E-mail list by Phyllis Winnington-Ingram.

Phyllis Winnington-Ingram, principal of Winnington-Ingram & Associates, a planning and community development consulting group, says that the community co-op alternative is both timely and effective. She has developed and incorporated four community co-operatives and a number of innovative co-operative structures that meet specific community needs, one of which is the Ontario Energy Co-operative in Canada.

In her article Phyllis Winnington-Ingram writes of the revitalisation of the Muskoka District, covering 4000 sq.km north of Toronto. The Government had merged 25 townships into six municipalities, to reduce costs, but the long-term effects had been painful. The small communities had been left without a voice. Services declined although people paid their taxes. Rural Canadians were dependent on local councillors to present their views, but public meetings were rare. In many communities, the lingering result was anger and apathy. Without a cohesive voice to clearly articulate their concerns, these communities literally found themselves, "out of sight; out of mind."

Villages and small communities began to look for options for gaining unity and self-reliance; influencing their future; and initiating and implementing economic development in their small rural areas. The Community Co-operative Model addressed these issues. Described as "people coming together to help themselves," the model recognised the unique value of rural hamlets, villages, and small towns, and the importance of utilising and channelling each community members' strengths and talents to promote economic and social well-being.

In the midst of the 1994 recession, the town of Gravenhurst (population 9,000) lost its major industries. Winnington-Ingram initiated the formation of the Gravenhurst Food Co-operative to provide healthy, affordable food and a revenue generating business. As the co-op developed, members also wanted to address community issues but found it difficult to find an appropriate structure. It was during this process, in 1996, that the Community Co-operative Model was born. The new co-op formed partnerships with local agencies to undertake various projects. One of the projects successfully brought the first Community Internet Site to Muskoka. Others included: a pre-natal nutrition project titled Great Beginnings, later adopted in five other communities, and a Youth Drop-in Centre.

Today, Muskoka has four Community Co-operatives, and two District/County Associations, with an increasing number of enquiries from communities considering implementation of this model. Rather than being marginalised, communities can take charge of their future. For example: When the phone company failed to list them in the yellow pages, the residents of Honey Harbour (population 400) launched a Community Co-op. The co-op developed and distributed a directory of local businesses and services.

Another example is the general store, often the anchor of a small village, when faced with closure. Rather than wait for outside investors, townsfolk are now able to buy shares and form a community-owned business, which can be operated as a co-op. Working collectively, a community can facilitate entrepreneurs, act on opportunities and move forward.

Phyllis Winnington-Ingram describes the Community Co-operative Model as a multi-purpose umbrella that meets the diverse social and economic needs of rural communities without creating another level of government. This inclusive, democratic structure can call meetings, identify local needs, advocate common interests, and create local solutions, as well as form partnerships with organisations, political bodies, and funding agencies. In her report, Winnington-Ingram writes "... appropriate basic structure of the Community Co-op depends on the size of the community and number of residing organisations. A mid-sized community with several service clubs and business associations would organise a second tier co-op, with membership comprised of representatives from these organisations. This type of umbrella structure supports bi-directional feedback with each sector of the community sitting at the table: the municipality, service clubs, business associations, and others. This prevents issues from falling through the cracks and costly duplication of services and resources."

Phyllis Winnington-Ingram identifies some critical factors for developing a successful community co-op. These are:

• Capacity Building: teach people about co-ops, how they operate, and how to carry out the electoral and consultation processes.
• Relationship Building: reach out to local politicians, organisations, and other groups and maintain a long-term relationship with them.
• Mentoring: hear directly from other co-ops about the successes and pitfalls that they have experienced.
• Membership Development: expansion of membership through discussions.
• Human Resources: assistance from outside, experienced fieldworkers.
• Political: Co-ops must avoid partisan politics but productive communications between the Co-op and the government are essential.

Phyllis Winnington-Ingram recently won two provincial awards for her work. She can be contacted on: (tel) 705-645-4491, (fax) 705-645-9879, or (e-mail) phyllis.ingram@sympatico.ca.

In contrast, Hunter Organics - Winter 2001 highlighted the development of Murrurundi, a small town with a declining population. Faced with a rather bleak outlook the local community decided to take action and formed a regional investment company, with residents as the shareholders.

The article describes Murrurundi as being "... in the extreme Upper Hunter, on the Pages River, a northern tributary of the Hunter ... It's on the New England Highway, next to the Liverpool Ranges, about two hours drive from Newcastle. A small town with a declining population, like many other small rural centres, Murrurundi is facing a number of problems that are threatening it's very existence. Service providers such as banks and others have gradually left and as a result there are fewer employment opportunities. This is exacerbated by the fact that the children go to schools in Quirindi or Scone, and so shopping tends to be done there, too. The average age of the population is increasing as the young people move away in search of jobs and the average household income has fallen to well below the national average".

The article goes on to state that: "Faced with a rather bleak outlook the local community decided to act. The Murrurundi Community Development Association applied to the Shire Council for funds and hired a consultant to develop a Marketing Plan for Growth. ... The aim of the plan was to reverse the downward trend by identifying specific actions that would offer opportunities for growth, retain existing services and encourage new ones. ... our opportunities for growth were identified: tourism; returning government infrastructure and services; passive investors who chose to invest in the area based on a lifestyle choice; and finally business development, both from existing businesses, including agricultural concerns, and new business coming into the area. The central conclusion was that the greatest opportunity for growth lies in exploiting the major strength of the area, its pristine and unpolluted environment. ... This would call for narrowing the agricultural focus from general agriculture to "natural farming", that is, farming without chemicals so as to profit from the rapidly expanding organic market. ... As a logical next step, it was felt that there would be an excellent opportunity for promoting local products which could then be marketed under a single brand, and ensuring that any new businesses fit the Murrurundi image of a clean area".

To achieve these objectives, a regional investment company was established, with residents as the shareholders. A common brand name and the possibility of selling the area's produce through a new Community Centre are being investigated. The construction of a Rural Transaction Centre that will house face-to-face banking facilities and government offices is also being considered.

The methodology for the development of Murrurundi differs from the Muskoka experience, although one may argue that the underlying features of community motivation and participation are the same. The common objective of achieving community development has motivated members of both communities to engage with each other and develop a sense of co-operation. While the result in Canada is a co-operative structure, with the prime motive of 'maximising service', Murrurundi community has adopted a 'for-profit' model, which is the more prominent organisational structure in Australia.