BIBLIOGRAPHY GOYAGOY. ALONA RIZALINA G. APRIL...
BIBLIOGRAPHY
GOYAGOY. ALONA RIZALINA G. APRIL 2012. Characterization of Primary
Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga.Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet
Adviser: David Joseph Bognadon
ABSTRACT
The case study was conducted to determine the characteristics of Primary
cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga.
Thirty four cooperatives were the respondents and were classified intocredit and
service, producer, multi-purpose agriculture and multi-purpose non-agriculture. Majority
of cooperatives were operating in the city and existed for one to ten years. Majority of the
cooperatives were offering credit to their members and in terms of social services
majority were offering mortuary services. Delinquent borrowers were the most prevailing
problems of the cooperatives. Agricultural cooperative has the highest number of
members. In terms of financial and allocation to net surplus, non-agricultural
cooperatives have the highest average rate increase.
From the results, it was recommended that cooperative should have a strict policy
in lending in order to get rid of bankruptcy. Furthermore, it is also recommended that
these cooperatives should promptly submit requirements on time and they should conduct
frequent seminars that would be useful to educate their members not only the officers
itself. In addition, the Cooperative development Authority should strictly monitor the
performances of the different cooperatives.
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga/
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography..................................................................................................... i
Abstract............................................................................................................. i
Table of Contents..............................................................................................
iii
INTRODUCTION
Rationale................................................................................................
1
Importance of the Study.........................................................................
2
Statement of the Problem.......................................................................
3
Objectives of the Study..........................................................................
3
Scope and Delimitation of the Study.....................................................
4
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Benchmarking........................................................................................
5
Purpose of Benchmarking…………………………………….……….
5
Importance of Benchmarking................................................................
6
Benchmark/ Baseline Data....................................................................
6
The Benchmarking Process...................................................................
7
Typical Benchmarking Methodology....................................................
7
Issues
with
Benchmarking.....................................................................
8
Importance of Data Bank.......................................................................
9
General Statistics of Cooperatives by Type...........................................
10
Statistical Data of Cooperatives in all
10
Provinces of CAR..................................................................................
Definition of Cooperative......................................................................
10
Success Factors in Cooperatives............................................................
11
Failure Factors of Cooperatives.............................................................
12
Definition of Terms...............................................................................
13
METHODOLOGY
Locale and Time of the Study................................................................
14
Respondents of the Study......................................................................
14
Data Gathering Procedure......................................................................
14
Data
Analysis......................................................................................... 14
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Status of Operation of Primary Cooperatives
15
inTabuk City, Kalinga………………………………….………….....
Types of Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga.....................................
16
Date of Registration...............................................................................
18
Years in Operation.................................................................................
19
Number
of
Members.............................................................................. 19
Services
Offered.................................................................................... 21
Social
Services....................................................................................... 21
Problems Encountered by the Cooperatives..........................................
25
Growth in Membership.........................................................................
28
Total
Assets........................................................................................... 31
Total
Liabilities..................................................................................... 32
Paid-up Share Capital............................................................................
33
Gross
Revenues..................................................................................... 38
Net
Surplus............................................................................................ 41
General Reserve Fund...........................................................................
43
Due to CETF Local................................................................................
46
Interest on Share Capital........................................................................
48
Patronage
Refund................................................................................... 50
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary................................................................................................ 53
Conclusions............................................................................................ 55
Recommendations.................................................................................. 56
LITERATURE CITED.....................................................................................
57
APPENDICES
A. Letter to the Respondents…………………………………..…..…
59
B. Letter to the Barangay Officials…………………………..……....
60
C. Letter to the Mayor………………………………….……...……..
61
D. Survey Questionnaire………………………………………...….…
62
E. Data Sheet…………………………………………………..……...
64
1
INTRODUCTION
Rationale
A cooperative consist of persons who pool their resources under the principle of
equality and common understanding for their mutual benefit. It exists not to make profit
as an entity but if there should be profits, the same shall be divided equitably among the
members. It is based on the saying well known in the human circle that “in union there is
strength,” (Nolledo, 1996).
Tabuk is one of the municipalities of Kalinga and became the Cordillera’s second
City on June 23, 2007.Tabuk is nestled on an elevation of 3,000 to 5,000 feet above sea
level with a north-south assemblage of mountain ranges within the central Cordillera. The
city has a total land area of 77,447.25 hectares (774 sq. kms.) and is politically
subdivided into 42 barangays.
Tabuk is now a fifth class city with an annual income of approximately 110
million. It iss prominently considered as the rice granary of the Cordillera due mainly of
agriculture getting the largest area from the pie of which the bulk of production is on rice
where it even supplies other places. The city has also produced outstanding farmers at the
national level for the last two decades.
The road networks connecting Tabuk to Cagayan Valley and to Baguio City via
Bontoc, Mountain Province brought in more settlers and investments which fast tracked
the economic development of the city. The economy is purely agro-based and is
undoubtedly hastened by the completion of the Chico River Irrigation System. The
establishment of banks gave credit opportunities and business started to bloom.
Cooperatives were organized, schools were put up, and bus terminals were established
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
2
As of today, the number of registered business firms operating in the city is 1,074
distributed in the four major business sectors such as trading, services, agriculture, and
manufacturing in different line of business and classifications. The coffee and fruit wine
industry is now becoming a major processing business in the city aside from furniture,
wood craft, and loom weaving. The city is also the site of the proposed Regional Agro-
Industrial Center which aims to further develop the city and make it the agro-industrial
center of the region.
In project programming and prioritizing, data base is needed. Government and
non–government organizations providing support and assistance (whether financial or
technical support) to a certain community consider the unity of presence of an
organization or cooperative in the area. However the existence of a cooperative is not
only the major considerations but records such as profiles and benchmark data are
required. Banks providing financial assistance also consider financial and social status of
a cooperative. The cooperative and its assets are often used or considered as a guarantee
or security for agencies providing assistance.
In proposal preparation, benchmark data is required to support the significance of
any proposed project specific to the proposed area. Thus, this research activity would
establish baseline information of the different cooperatives as basis or reference for any
project proposal activity in the different barangays of Tabuk City in Kalinga.
Importance of the Study
This study was conducted to provide necessary data that would lead to the
improvement of cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga. Furthermore, the result of the study
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
3
would serve as a basis for the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) to address and
give solutions to the problems of various cooperatives.
Statement of the Problem
This study intended to answer the following questions:
1. What are the types and characteristics of cooperatives as to:
a. date of registration
b. services offered
c. number of members per cooperative
d. assets and liabilities
e. paid-up share capital
2. What are the performances of the cooperative in the following areas?
a. membership
b. operations
3. What are the issues encountered by the cooperative?
Objectives of the Study
The study aimed to:
1. Describe the types and characteristics of cooperatives in the city as to:
a. date of registration
b. services offered
c. number of member per cooperative
d. assets and liabilities
f. paid-up share capital
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
4
2. Document the performances of the cooperative in the following areas:
a. membership
b. Operations
3. Identify the issues encountered by the cooperative.
Scope and Delimitation of the Study
The study coverage were the primary cooperatives operating in Tabuk City,
Kalinga. The cooperatives’ respondents’ are those who have existed for 10 years or more.
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
5
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Benchmarking
Benchmarking is the process of comparing the business processes and
performance metrics including cost, cycle time, productivity, or quality to another that is
widely considered to be an industry standard benchmark or best practice. Essentially
benchmarking provides a snapshot of the performance of your business and helps you
understand where you are in relation to a particular standard. The result is often a
business case and “Burning Platform” for making changes in order to make
improvements. It is a pointy of reference for measurement, or standard (Rouselle, 2004).
Purpose of Benchmarking
The overriding purpose in benchmarking is of course to improve the competitive
position of the company. However, unlike other quality and management tools,
benchmarking achieves this objective through. Benchmarking provides an opportunity for
a company to take stock and gain a better understanding of the efficiency and
effectiveness of its business processes. An analysis and understanding of its strengths and
weaknesses will also have been made. The company will, therefore, be in a better
position to exploit its advantages and to improve upon its weaknesses (Boxwell, 1994).
The benchmarking process can be applied to all facets of a company's business,
be it in products, services or business processes. However, the focus of most
benchmarking projects is on business processes because the effective management of
these processes, including quality, speed, and service, is of vital importance to achieve
superior performance and he more competitive (Boxwell,1994).
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
6
Importance of Benchmarking
Successful benchmarking can improve a company's return on investment (ROI)
ratio, facilitate cost reductions, identify new business opportunities, and help develop
market competitiveness. However, there is limited evidence to understand factors that
contribute to successful outcomes during benchmarking. We focus on cooperative
benchmarking projects where the expected outcome is identifying best practices with a
partner organization. We characterize the benchmarking project in terms of its context,
process, and outcomes.
The data suggests that satisfaction with the benchmarking process and findings
(outcome variables) is strongly related to the following: internal context variables such as
training and experience of team members, clarity of project objectives and support from
top management, and the process owner; external context variables, such as
appropriateness of the benchmarking partners, and anticipation of constraints in data
collection during the project; project process effectiveness including commitment of the
team members and the synergy between the process owner, the team members, and the
partner organization. Project managers of cooperative benchmarking projects must
simultaneously pay attention to the needs of benchmarking team members, top
management, the owner of the process being benchmarked, as well as the partner
organization (Bogan, 2005).
Benchmark/Baseline Data
Benchmark data are information collected from industry resources to determine
howother firms (especially the best in class ones) achieve their high levels of
performance (Shahalizadeh, 2009).
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
7
Baseline data are initial collection of data which serves as a basis for comparison
with the subsequently acquired data. It is often used as a basis in decision making
(Richard, 2006).
The Benchmarking Process
Benchmarking involves looking outward (outside a particular business,
organization, industry, region or country) to examine how others achieve their
performance levels and to understand the processes they use. In this
way benchmarking helps explain the processes behind excellent performance. When the
lessons learnt from a benchmarking exercise are applied appropriately, they facilitate
improved performance in critical functions within an organization or in key areas of the
business environment (Boxwell, 1994).
Typical Benchmarking Methodology
Boxwell (1994) stated that there is a need to identify the problem areas because
benchmarking can be applied to any business process or function, a range of research
techniques may be required. They include: informal conversations with customers,
employees, or suppliers; exploratory research techniques such as focus groups; or in-
depth marketing research, quantitative research, surveys, questionnaires, re-engineering
analysis, process mapping, quality control variance reports, or financial ratio analysis.
Before embarking on comparison with other organizations it is essential that you know
your own organization's function, processes; base lining performance provides a point
against which improvement effort can be measured.
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
8
After the problem has been identified, you may now identify other industries that
have similar processes like for instance if one were interested in improving hand offs in
addiction treatment he/she would try to identify other fields that also have hand off
challenges. These could include air traffic control, cell phone switching between towers,
transfer of patients from surgery to recovery rooms. Then, identify organizations that are
leaders in these areas that you have to look for the very best in any industry and in any
country. An example of these are the consulting of customers, suppliers, financial
analysts, trade associations, and magazines to determine which companies are worthy of
study. You may also do survey, to survey companies for measures and
practices. Companies target specific business processes using detailed surveys of
measures and practices used to identify business process alternatives and leading
companies. Surveys are typically masked to protect confidential data by neutral
associations and consultants. Afterwards, you will visit the "best practice" companies to
identify leading edge practices that companies typically agree to mutually exchange
information beneficial to all parties in a benchmarking group and share the results within
the group. Lastly, is to implement new and improved business practices. Take the leading
edge practices and develop implementation plans which include identification of specific
opportunities, funding the project and selling the ideas to the organization for the purpose
of gaining demonstrated value from the process.
Issues with Benchmarking
The whole notion of what benchmarking is has been lost on the online community
and many flame wars have started based on incorrect perception of what benchmarking
really is.
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
9
Benchmarks cannot be used as an accurate basis of comparison between Macs and
PCs. Benchmarks test only how fast a program runs on a specific machine and nothing
more. Many people think that because Platform A runs Benchmark A faster than Platform
B, then Platform A is in fact faster. The only answer that a benchmark gives you is that
Platform. A runs faster than Platform B on this current program. A benchmark can easily
be changed to show one platform in a better light than another platform. Therefore a
benchmark optimized for whatever platform he was developing would give a better
picture as to how fast his programs would run comparatively on the different platforms.
In an attempt to alleviate this problem, companies have come up with real world
benchmarks as opposed to synthetic benchmarks. These benchmarks run tests based on
real world code, code that has been optimized to run as fast as possible on a wide array of
different machines. However, the tendency is to run one benchmark and come up with a
statement such as, "Since this program is floating point intensive and runs faster on
Platform A, Platform A has a better floating point unit." However, due to the scenario
presented before, optimizations may have favoured one platform over another and
perhaps another program may run floating point calculations faster on the other
platform (Tomas, 1992).
Importance of Data Bank
Databank provides information resource management solutions that help you
manage information and streamline processes. It provides customer-specific solutions
that help you improve productivity, efficiency, serve our customers better, and generate
more revenues and profits. It also provides an extensive range of solutions in the form of
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
10
products, equipment, and services focused on the management of information as a
valuable organizational resource (Yang, 1998).
General Statistics of Cooperative by Type
Cooperatives posted a total business volume worth P78.5-billion. Composed of
some 3.7-million members, the cooperatives garnered total assets of P79.9-billion and
P4.76-billion in net surplus. Moreover, it generated some l.6-million in jobs. That is
according to CDA. In terms of assets, cooperatives are a little behind their not-too-distant
cousins—the rural banks, whose assets of Pl50.9-billion in 2007 are almost 53% of the
total assets of cooperatives (Anonymous, 2010).
Statistical Data of Cooperatives in All Provinces of CAR
Based on the data of Cooperative Development Authority Car, there were 663
Cooperatives registered with a total of 208519 members. The cooperatives were
characterized as to type and it was subdivided into nine categories in terms of their
services offered. 315 Multi-purpose are cooperative agri, 242 Multi-purpose are
cooperative Non-agri, 69 for credit. 4 producers cooperatives, 2 are marketing
cooperatives, 9 are service cooperatives, 12 consumers cooperatives, 4 of which are
cooperative federation, and 6 cooperative unions (Cooperative Development Authority)
Definition of Cooperative
Cooperative is the dynamic form of business enterprise that embodies the
philosophy of Cooperation. It signifies the voluntary assent of people to form themselves
into a group for the promotions of their common needs by mutual action, democratic
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
11
control and sharing of economic benefits on the basis of patronage by members (Fajardo
and Abella, 1993).
Success Factors in Cooperatives
Wadsworth (2001) emphasized that cooperative are more likely to be successful
when their members fully understand their responsibilities to cooperative principles and
the practices they involve. Odds success for a cooperative also improve when the public
knows how cooperatives work and can see benefits to members and to communities, and
when young people learn what cooperatives are and how they operate so that their
interest takes hold.
The foremost factor perceived by the members that contributed to the success of
the cooperative is the frequent audit of book and good record keeping and continuous
education (Tabdi, 1997).
Alcala et al (1994), an important factor in the success of a cooperative
organization. The success cooperative ultimately hinges on the people. The kind of
attitude and value that members possess are essential determinants of the future of our
cooperative movement. Regressive values and institutions should be changed with better
ones in order to create an environment which is favourable to the growth of cooperatives
in our country. Perhaps it may not be possible to attain a real successful cooperative
program throughout the country in the next few years. Changing values and institutions
usually takes a longer time. But what is important is that we have started with good
program.
Fajardo and Abella (1993) mentioned that an important factor in the success of
cooperative is the presence of capable and dedicated leaders in the community.
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
12
These are the people who are expected to provide guidance and support to the
cooperative.
Perhaps, the greatest factor of any cooperative is its management. The members,
directors and managers of cooperative constitute management. The members of the board
and other important committees deliberate on proposed and existing policies of the
cooperative. The directors formulate the broad policies to be implemented by the
manager. However, for efficient operation of the organizations, the members and the
directors should not interface in the day-to-day management of the cooperative. The
manager is responsible for the detailed execution of the policies. He should be given
authority to perform such responsibility (Fajardo and Abella, 1993).
Failure Factors in Cooperative
Fajardo and Abella (1993) stated that it has been a common knowledge and most
cooperative in the past failed because the officials mismanage the funds of the
organization. Not few treasurers and president of the associations absconded with the
contribution of the members.
The concept of a cooperative is a form of change in people. When a person
becomes a member of a cooperative, he undergoes a continuous process of change in
attitudes and values. He begins to think of and work for group in interest. He has to form
his uneconomical habits. Moreover, he learns to involve himself in the problem of the
community and join others in achieving the goals and objectives of the cooperative
(Fajardo and Abella, 1993).
Lack of dynamic leadership is one of the causes of failure factors in cooperative.
In the past, many cooperative had been organized but they remained in their instance
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
13
stage and soon died in natural death. For a cooperative to be dynamic, its leadership must
be spread out to as many individuals as possible. The quality of leadership can be
improved through continues training and education. More members of the cooperative
should acquire leadership skills and values. It has been the policy of successful
cooperatives to rotate management positions to the officers and interested members in
order to equip them with the necessary expertise in the different management
positions. The process builds potent leaders and managers in the cooperative (Fajardo
and Abella, 1993).
Definition of Terms
Operational Cooperative-these are cooperatives who have been complying with
the requirements imposed by the CDA.
Non-operational Cooperative- these are cooperatives who had stop their operation
due to bankruptcy and dissolution.
Regular members- members who have paid their minimum share capital required
by the cooperative and so they have voting rights.
Associate members - are the depositors and do not have voting rights.
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
14
METHODOLOGY
Locale and Time of the Study
The study was conducted in Tabuk City, Kalinga. It covered all the existing
primary cooperatives.
This study was conducted from October 2011 to January 2012.
Respondents of the Study
The respondents of the study were the managers of the different cooperatives. In
cases where the manager was not around during the scheduled survey, the staff member
or present officer familiar with the business operation of the cooperative served as the
respondent.
Data Gathering Procedure
A prepared survey questionnaire provided with data sheet was used in collecting
the data. Back-up and additional data were gathered from the Cooperative Development
Authority serving as secondary data.
Annual reports and financial reports of the cooperative were also used as sources
of data gathering such as the financial status of the cooperatives, the growth in
membership, and allocation to net surplus.
Data Analysis
The data collected were tabulated, analyzed, and interpreted based on the
objectives of the study.
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
15
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Status of Operation of Primary Cooperatives
inTabuk City, Kalinga
Based on the list of cooperatives registered at the office of the Cooperative
Development Authority as of December 2010 there were 40 registered cooperatives.
There were 38 primary cooperatives the other two were the Cooperative Union and
Federation which were excluded and that are operating in Tabuk City, Kalinga. However,
during the conduct of this study it was found out that some cooperatives were no longer
operating because some of them could not be located because they closed several years
ago. According to some former members interviewed of these non-operating
cooperatives, some of them closed because they do not have enough capital to sustain
their operation, and some after getting the funds from the government they suddenly
disappears, while other cooperatives have closed because they do not have a bookkeeper
to record transactions and failed to submit reports to the CDA.
Table 1 presents the status of operation of the 38 primary cooperatives in Tabuk
City, Kalinga. Out of the 38 primary cooperatives, only 34 primary cooperatives are still
operating.
The result shows that there were 6(15.8%) credit cooperatives, 1(2.6%) service
cooperative, 1(2.6%) producer cooperative, 16(42.1%) Multipurpose Agri, and
10(26.3%) Multipurpose Non-agriare still operating. On the other hand, there were
(2.63%) Credit, (2.63%) MultipurposeAgri, 1(2.63%) Multipurpose (2.63%) Non-agri
and 1 (2.63%)Consumers cooperative were no longer operating.
The results revealed that 34 (89.5%) of the total cooperatives are still operating
while there are 4(10.53%) cooperatives are already non operational.
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
16
Table 1. Status of operation of cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga
Operational NUMBER
PERCENTAGE
Credit
6
15.8
Service 1
2.6
Producer 1
2.6
MPC Agri
16
42.1
MPC Non-agri
10
26.3
Consumer 0
0.0
TOTAL 34
89.5
Non-operational NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Credit
1
2.63
Service 0.00
Producer 0.00
MPC Agri
1
2.63
MPC Non-agri
1
2.63
Consumer 1
2.63
TOTAL
4
10.53
Type of cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga
Table 2 presents the different types of cooperatives established in Tabuk City,
Kalinga. The different cooperatives in Tabuk City are credit, service, multi-purpose
agriculture and multi-purpose non-agriculture. As shown in Table 2, six cooperatives
(18%) werecredit, 1 (3%) wereservice, 1 (3%) wereproducer,17(50%) were multi-purpose
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
17
agriculture,and 9 (26%) were multi-purpose non-agriculture. The results points out that
majority of cooperatives which are operating were multi-purpose agriculture and multi-
purpose non-agriculture.
Table 2. Type of cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga
TYPE OF COOPERATIVE
NUMBER
PERCENTAGE
Credit
6
18
Service 1
3
Producer 1
3
MPC Agri
17
50
MPC Non-agri
9
26
TOTAL 34
100
Table 3.Date of registration of cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga
DATE REGISTERED
NUMBER
PERCENTAGE
1995 and earlier
12
35
1996 to 2000
5
15
2001 to 2005
3
9
2006 to present
14
41
TOTAL 34
100
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
18
Date of registration
Table 3 presents the date of when the cooperatives were registered as of
December 2010. This only included the primary cooperatives that are still operating since
there was no available information on the non operating cooperatives. The results show
that two cooperatives were registered in 1971 and 1972 which are the Tabuk MPC and St.
Joseph MPC, 12 (39%) were registered in 1995 and earlier, 5 (15%) were registered
between the year 1996 to 2000, 3 (9%) were registered between the year 2001 to 2005
and 14 (41%) were registered between 2006 to present.
The results show that most of the cooperatives were registered in between 2006
and 2010 while the remaining numbers were registered in the years 1996 to 2000 .The
finding also shows that in the year 1993, 1994, 1995, 1998, 2001, and 2003, there were
no cooperatives which applied for registration. It shows that during the years 2006 to
2010, members of the cooperative especially the small ones begun to make their own
cooperative but it was just a residential and due to limited resources they did not put up
their small office so they preferred to organize a cooperative with just a minimum of 15
members and more.
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
19
Table 4. Years of existence of cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga
YEARS IN OPERATION
NUMBER
PERCENTAGE
10 and below
17
50
11 to 20
13
38
21 to 30
2
6
31 to 40
1
3
41 and above
1
3
TOTAL 34
100
Years in Operation
Table 4 presents the number of years in operation of the different primary
cooperatives. The two oldest cooperative existed for more than 40 years were the St.
Joseph Multipurpose cooperative and Tabuk Multipurpose cooperative both of which are
agricultural cooperative while the newest cooperative existed for 1 year were Tabuk
OFW Credit Coop, Tabuk Feed Producers Coop, Chico Igorot Credit Coop, Bulo RIC
Kalipi Credit Coop. The results indicate that the oldest cooperative existed were
agricultural cooperatives while the newest cooperative existed were almost credit and one
producer cooperative.
Number of members
Table 5 shows the number of members of the cooperatives studied. There were 62
male and 197 female (1.01%) for the credit cooperatives, 78 male and 11 female(0.35%)
for the service cooperative,9 male 15 female(0.09%) for the producer
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
20
cooperative,10248male and 1319 female(91.04) for multipurpose agricultural,804 male
and 1132 female(7.52%) for multipurpose non-agricultural.
The results show that Multipurpose agricultural got the highest number of
members with 91.04%(23,438)of the total members followed by multipurpose non-
agricultural with 7.52% (1,936) of the total members while Producers cooperative got the
least number of members 0.09% (24).
Table 5. Number of members of the primary cooperatives
NUMBER OF MEMBERS
TYPE OF COOPERATIVE
MALE FEMALE (F) (%)
Credit
62
197
259
1.01
Service
78 11 89
0.35
Producer
9 15 24
0.09
MPC Agri
10248 13190 23438
91.04
MPC Non-agri
804 1132 1936
7.52
TOTAL
11201 14545 25746
100
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
21
Services Offered
Table 6 shows the business operation of the cooperatives, 29 cooperatives are
offering lending or credit services wherein members borrow money from the cooperative
and promise to pay with a corresponding interest; 16 cooperatives offers savings which
includes savings and time deposits; 1 cooperative offers production and 1 for
transportation. Other services which include food terminal which is a small store or
carinderia; agricultural investment; PI water refilling station, funeral care service, inn and
restaurant and training center and ATM banking for the cooperative which has a multiple
service like the Tabuk Multi-purpose Cooperative; 5% marketing services which is
includes the buy and selling of rice; 4% for processing services which includes the rice
and coffee processing; and 3% for service which is transportation and consumer
services which includes consumer store and carinderia.
The finding shows that majority of the primary cooperatives in Tabuk City
offered credit services wherein cooperatives usually get their income and the ultimate
need of the members. Since Tabuk City is the granary rice of the Cordillera some
cooperatives were engaged in rice milling and the other one is the coffee processing
which is the main product of Kalinga.
Social services
Table 7 shows that 29% of the cooperatives are offering mortuary services,this
service will cover Funeral related expense of member, 26% for education that would be
given to their members which like pre-membership Education Seminar, 3%Community
Agri-based like passing on the gift that they received from “HPI- draft animal
projectCarabao” to their co- member; 3%Enrolment of indigent to Philhealth the
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
22
cooperatives are responsible to take charge of the their members especially those who are
needy ; services which include business/SME which members are the employees itself.
They also have consultancy services wherein members ask for some advice on how to
make their business prosper, and technical services (CFS/PP) preparation usually in
making financial reports, and other related trainings; 3% Love Gift to Retiree usually
given to their retired members; 3% Accident Assistance the cooperative will be
responsible for the expenses of the members, 3% Trainings and Information given to the
members who want to have a free training related to business. 9 % for Dental Services
includes consultation and the 12% are for medical services wherein members received an
amount for hospitalization bills.
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
23
Table 6. Services offered by the cooperatives
SERVICES OFFERED
COOPERATIVE
CREDIT SERVICE PRODUCER MPC
AGRI MPC
NON-AGRI TOTAL PERCENTAGE
Lending 5
1
15
8
29
85
Savings
10
6
16
47
Marketing 5
5
15
Production 1 1
3
Transportation 1
1
3
*multiple responses
Table 7. Social services offered by the cooperatives
SOCIAL SERVICES
COOPERATIVE
CREDIT
SERVICE PRODUCER
MPC AGRI
MPC NON-AGRI
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
Mortuary 10
10
29
Mortuary assistance
0 0
Medical 1
2
1
4
12
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
24
Table 7 continued…
SOCIAL SERVICES
COOPERATIVE
MPC
MPC NON-
CREDIT SERVICE PRODUCER AGRI
AGRI TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
Medical Assistance
1
1
3
Dental 1
1
1
3
9
Dental Assistance
0 0
Education 3
4
2
9
26
Trainings and Information
1
1
3
Love Gift to Retiree
1
1
3
Enrolment of indigent to
Philhealth
1 1 3
Community Agri-based
1
1
3
Consultancy service
1
1
3
Technical services and
Information
1 1 3
Accident Assistance
1
0
*Multiple responses
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
25
Problems Encountered by the Cooperatives
Table 8 presents that 62% of the cooperatives had problems on delinquent
borrowers wherein members failed to pay, 35% had a problem on limited resources
wherein cooperatives could not even expand their business and they were not affiliated to
some federation and union where they can ask assistance or help. Cooperatives had a
problem on lack of capital to sustain their operation consists 35%, due to small amount of
capital some cooperatives are hard up to sustain their operation; They also had a problem
on the lack of cooperative education and training for leaders and members with 39%,
some cooperatives could not conduct the said training because they have no place to
conduct a meeting, some cooperatives are only a residential and no enough capital to
conduct such trainings; 18% had problems on efficient leaders wherein the operation of
the cooperatives are slow because leaders do not have the capability to manage the
cooperative because they lack trainings especially on the leadership ;12% on the updating
of records wherein the cooperatives fail to record some important transactions and some
bookkeepers do not safe keep the records of the cooperative for future purposes; and
14.7% on the members who do not patronage the cooperative wherein members failed to
patronize the cooperative and some members do not care at all. Other issues were also
mentioned during the survey and it was found out that the operation of the cooperative
are not performing well due to some problems on the difficulty in collection wherein
members refuse to payback and as well as the delinquent borrowers, refusal of members
to attend general assemblies and emergency meetings, and lack of management wherein
there is no strong leadership in the cooperative. One cooperative said that they had a
problem in the unavailability of other feeds materials like micro elements because they
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
26
have limited resources and lack capital as well.
The most perceived problems by the credit cooperatives are the delinquent borrowers, in
the case of service cooperative that engage in transportation, they also had a problem on
the lack of cooperative education and training for leaders and members,lack of capital to
sustain the operation, limited resources and the members do not patronize the
cooperative. On the other hand, producers cooperative seems have a problem on the lack
of education for leaders and members, lack of capital to sustain the operation and limited
resources andunavailability of other feed materials like micro elements. As shown in
table 8, the cooperative do not have a problem on the delinquent borrowers.
The prevailing problems in the case of Multipurpose cooperative were the lack of
cooperative education and training for leaders and members, lack of capital to sustain the
operation,delinquent borrowers, limited resources, inefficient leaders,records are not
updatedMembers do not patronize the cooperative,difficulty in collection,refusal of
members to attend general assemblies and emergency meetings,and lack of management
The most seeming problems for the multipurpose non agricultural were the same
with the problems perceived by the Multipurpose agricultural, except that they do not
have much problem on the updating of records and the patronization of members to their
respective cooperative which they are member.The results show that the most perceived
problems by the cooperatives were the delinquent borrowers.
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
27
Table 8. Problems encountered by the cooperatives
COOPERATIVE
MPC NON-
PROBLEMS
CREDIT SERVICE
PRODUCER
MPC
AGRI AGRI TOTAL
F (%) F (%) F (%) F (%) F (%) F (%)
Lack of cooperative education and training for
leaders and members
2 33 1 100 1 100 4 24 7 78 13 38
Lack of capital to sustain the operation
3 50 1 100 1 100 8 47 2 22 12 35
Delinquent borrowers
5 83
100
14 82 7 78 21 62
Limited resources
5 83 1 100 1 100 7 41 3 33 12 35
Inefficient leaders
1 17
100
4 24 2 22 6 18
Records are not updated
2 33
100
4 24
4 12
Members do not patronize the cooperative
1
100
4
24
5
15
Difficulty in collection
1 6
1 3
Refusal of members to attend general assemblies
and emergency meetings
1 6
1 3
Lack of management
1 6
1 3
Unavailability of other feed materials like micro
elements 1
1
3
*multiple responses
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
28
Growth in Membership
Table 9 presents the number of cooperatives in the different cooperatives starting
from 2001 to 2010. Generally, all the cooperatives had an increase in their members.
Agricultural cooperatives posted the highest rate of growth among the three cooperatives
with14,211.80 % per annum.
Table shows the percentage changes from year to year. Credit cooperative had an
increase of 11.9 in 2006, 40.8 in 2007, and the succeeding years the rate of growth
became negative with 7 to 22 percent. It indicates that the numbers of members are
declining.
As shown in the table, service cooperative and producer cooperative reflected that
there were no rates of increase in their members since they are just newly registered
cooperatives.
Agricultural cooperatives had an increase of (152.92%) regular and (91.51%) associate in
2002.(-59.25%) regular and (26.60%) associate in 2003, (26.57%) regular and (-
37.74%) associate in 2004, (5.31%) regular and (315.63%) associate in 2005, (2.98%)
regular and (-69.47%) associate in 2006, (2.97%) regular and (48.77%) associatein 2007,
(5.02%) regular and ( 1,413.25%) associate in 2008,(3.35%) regular ( 9.78%) associate
in 2009, ( 0.86%) regular and (5.92%) associate in 2010.
Non agricultural cooperatives had an increase in regular members in 2002 with
(9.65%), (13.91%) in 2003, and none in 2003 and further increased in 2004 with
314.37% and had a decrease rate of growth (-74.23%) in 2005, and increased again in
2006 with 39.36% and continue to decrease in rate in the succeeding years with 15.66%
to 24.82%.
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
29
The finding signifies that regular member rate of growth show an upward trend in
all types of cooperatives while the associate rate of growth show a downward trend as
shown in Figure 1 and 2.
Table 9. Growth in membership of cooperatives
REGULAR MEMBER
YEAR
MPC NON-
CREDIT SERVICE MPC
AGRI
AGRI PRODUCER
2001 9,592
518
% 152.92
9.65
2002 24,260
568
% -
59.25
13.91
2003 9,887
647
% 26.57
-
2004 12,514
647
% 5.31
314.37
2005 151
13,178 2,681
% 11.92
2.98 -
74.23
2006 169
13,571 691
% 40.83
2.97
39.36
2007 238
13,974 963
%
-7.56 5.02
24.82
2008 220 43 14,676 1,202
%
-22.27 -
3.35 22.71
2009 171 43 15,168 1,475
%
-6.43 -
0.86 15.66
2010 160 43 15,298 1,706 19
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
30
Table 9 continued…
ASSOCIATE MEMBER
YEAR
MPC NON-
CREDIT SERVICE MPC
AGRI
AGRI PRODUCER
2001 212
% 91.51
2002 406
% 26.60
2003 514
%
-37.74
2004 320
% 315.63
2005 19
1,330
2
%
-15.79 -69.47
-100.00
2006 16
406
% 50.00
48.77
2007 24
604
89
%
-4.17 1,413.25
9,140
2008 23 46
9,140 112
% 60.87
-
9.78
9,140
2009 37 46 10,034 184
%
8.11 - 5.92 9,140
2010 40 46 10,628 347
5
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
31
30,000
25,000
20,000
Credit
15,000
Service
Producer
10,000
MPC agri
5,000
MPC non agri
-
Figure 1. Growth in Regular member of Primary Cooperatives
12,000
10,000
8,000
Credit
6,000
Service
Producer
4,000
MPC agri
2,000
MPC non agri
-
Figure 2. Growth in Associate member of Primary Cooperatives
Financial growth trend of cooperatives. This section presents the total assets, total
liabilities, and paid up share capital of the cooperatives.
Total assets. Table 10 shows that credit cooperatives posted its highest peak of
rate in 2007 with 2016.5% but sad to say they decreased in 2008 that resulted to negative
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
32
which indicates a decrease in the rate of growth of assets and increased again in 2009
with 35.6% and further decrease in 2010 with 32.7%. This indicates that there was a
decreased in the number of members in 2008. Service cooperative had an increase of
32.70% in 2010 this implies that members do not patronize the cooperative as was
indicated as one problem of the service cooperative that engage in transportation.
Agricultural cooperative had a decrease in the asset in 2002 which resulted to negative (-
76.04%) and further increased in the succeeding years. The highest posted rate of growth
in terms of assets was in 2004 with 402.02%
Non-agricultural cooperatives had a negative rate of growth in 2002, 2005 and 2007. The
highest rate of growth reached is 21,720.54% in 2002. This indicates that every other year
their assets tend to decrease but further increased in 2008 up to present.
Total Liabilities. Table 11 shows that credit cooperatives had a decrease rate of
growth in their liabilities. This indicates that over the past years, they do not incur many
expenses and members pay their loan in time.
Agricultural cooperatives had a decrease rate of growth in 2002 with (-66.41%)
and further increase in 2003 with 366.20% and it was shown in the table that it was the
year that they reached their highest rate of liabilities and further decreased in 2003 to
2010.
Non agricultural cooperatives had a negative one hundred percent (-100%) rate of
growth in 2002 and there was none in 2003 and further increased in 2004 with
(120.18%) and decreased again in 2005 with negative rate of (-86.90%) and it was in
2006 that they had their highest liabilities with 1106.31 and further decrease from 2007
up to present. It implies that every after year they had paid up their liabilities and it was
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
33
shown in the table that in 2006 they had reached their highest rate of growth that further
explains that the cooperatives have many receivables.
As shown in figure 4, agricultural cooperatives and non agricultural cooperatives
had an upward trend in 2005 to 2007.
Paid-up share capital. Table 12 shows that credit cooperatives had a decreased
rate of growth in the paid up share capital from 149% to 28.22%. Service cooperative had
an increase of 133.33% in 2010 and this indicates that members are doing their part well.
In the case of agricultural cooperatives, the highest posted rate of growth is 639.84% in
2003 and 515.98% in 2005 but they had a negative rate of growth in the years 2002, 2004
and 2006. It implies that there is a little percentage increase in the past ten years.
As shown in figure 5 that there is a wavelike trend sometimes it’s upward and sometimes
downward. It implies that there is no consistency in the rate of growth in terms of paid-up
share capital.
In the case of agricultural cooperatives they had a decreased rate of growth of
paid up share capital in 2002 and 2005 same holds through with the non-agricultural
cooperatives. Unlike in the agricultural cooperatives, the non agricultural cooperatives
had its highest peak of growth in 2002 with 13564.00% that already in thousands percent
followed by the year 2004 with 189.61% rate of growth. It implies that members of the
cooperatives had paid their share capital and the number of members also increased in
that particular year.
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
34
Table 10. Total assets of cooperatives
TOTAL ASSETS
YEAR
CREDIT
SERVICE
MPC AGRI
MPC NON-AGRI
2001 285,602,564.04
15,736,821.00
% -76.04
-99.75
2002 68,419,982.54
40,000.00
% 17.72
21,720.54
2003 80,542,505.56
8,728,217.79
% 402.02
204.13
2004 404,336,777.38
26,544,833.43
% 0.72
-
40.15
2005 791,593.24
407,266,670.98
15,887,056.14
% 248.13
3.25
85.19
2006 2,755,756.80
420,506,433.48
29,421,843.62
% 2,016.51
3.91
-0.60
2007 58,325,787.94
436,966,458.28
29,244,254.24
% -79.87
10.22
25.94
2008 11,742,953.76
481,610,507.41
36,829,654.64
% 35.57
27.35
22.93
2009 15,919,695.44
80,793.06
613,318,791.88
45,274,681.40
% 32.70
274.71
8.49
23.21
2010 21,125,284.27
302,735.96
665,416,179.22
55,782,280.05
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
35
Table 11. Total liabilities of cooperatives
TOTAL LIABILITIES
YEAR
CREDIT
SERVICE
MPC AGRI
MPC NON-AGRI
2001 93,008,238.28
4,175,923.00
% -66.41
-100.00
2002 31,241,175.42
% 366.20
2003 145,646,843.06
2,570,531.53
% 17.14
120.18
2004 170,605,209.73
5,659,839.24
% 1.82
-86.90
2005 175,934.04
173,704,282.61
741,299.32
% 568.02
11.37
1,106.31
2006 1,175,282.34
193,457,463.63
8,942,388.72
% 88.40
4.89
2.31
2007 2,214,202.44
203,398,913.17
9,148,942.33
% 160.14
18.71
32.02
2008 5,760,065.89
241,452,003.43
12,078,771.34
% 44.09
41.04
18.23
2009 8,299,466.23
14,195.24
340,537,653.57
14,280,646.00
% 35.81
25.34
14.22
10.92
2010 11,271,530.49
17,792.36
388,966,249.54
15,840,393.60
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
36
Table 12. Paid-up share capital of cooperatives
PAID-UP SHARE CAPITAL
YEAR
CREDIT
SERVICE
MPC AGRI
MPC NON-AGRI
2001 166,489,842.65
10,083,175.00
% -83.16
-99.60
2002 28,038,391.49
40,000.00
% 639.84
13,564.00
2003 207,438,905.51
5,465,600.03
% -84.13
189.61
2004 32,917,976.93
15,828,854.24
% 515.98
-39.20
2005 604,560.27
202,768,031.03
9,624,458.92
%
149.08
- 0.04
15.39
2006 1,505,816.07
202,689,015.90
11,105,940.36
% 128.69
2.92
56.72
2007 3,443,666.76
208,606,188.11
17,405,784.83
% 64.24
3.80
24.95
2008 5,655,710.10
216,531,328.55
21,748,369.81
% 33.44
16.03
23.43
2009 7,547,180.19
112,500.00
251,244,625.43
26,843,092.70
% 28.22
133.33
8.67
21.52
2010 9,677,179.85
262,500.00
273,039,010.28
32,620,775.46
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
37
700,000,000.00
600,000,000.00
500,000,000.00
400,000,000.00
Credit
300,000,000.00
Service
MPC agri
200,000,000.00
MPC non agri
100,000,000.00
-
Figure 3. Total assets of cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga
450,000,000.00
400,000,000.00
350,000,000.00
300,000,000.00
Credit
250,000,000.00
200,000,000.00
Service
150,000,000.00
MPC agri
100,000,000.00
MPC non
50,000,000.00
agri
-
Figure 4. Total liabilities of cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
38
300,000,000.00
250,000,000.00
200,000,000.00
Credit
150,000,000.00
Service
100,000,000.00
MPC agri
MPC non agri
50,000,000.00
-
Figure 5. Paid-up share capital of Cooperatives in Tabuk City Kalinga
Allocation to Net Surplus
This section presents the allocation of Net surplus of Agricultural cooperatives
and Non agricultural cooperatives that was distributed as follows: Gross Revenues, Due
to CETF Local, General Reserve Fund, Interest on Share Capital and Patronage Refund.
Gross
Revenues. Table 13 shows the amount allocated to gross revenues. Gross
revenues are the money gained from the sales and the cost of goods sold, before taking
indirect costs into account. Credit cooperatives had increased 261.83% in 2006 and
further decreased in 2007 with 126.99% and continue to decrease the succeeding years.
Service cooperative had increase in 2010 with 0.68% since it only started its operation in
2009.Agricultural cooperatives had a positive rate of growth in the past ten years and
reach its highest peak in 2009 with 12.46%. It was only in 2004 where it decreases to(-
10.88%).
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
39
Non Agricultural cooperatives had a rate of growth in 2002 with 1818.41% which
was the highest peak reached and the succeeding years it shows a negative rate and it was
only in 2006 and 2010 that they had a positive rate of growth which means an increase in
the gross revenues.
Table 13. Cooperatives Gross revenues
GROSS REVENUES
YEAR
MPC NON-
CREDIT SERVICE
MPC
AGRI AGRI
2001 46,174,941.69
118,000.00
% 2.55
1,818.41
2002 47,351,049.89
2,263,720.37
% 5.61
-8.05
2003 50,009,404.40
2,081,453.79
% -10.88
-21.37
2004 44,569,704.75
1,636,668.57
% 6.88
-27.79
2005 111,952.57
47,637,296.64
1,181,866.70
% 261.83
7.17
448.23
2006 405,082.90
51,055,137.02
6,479,345.44
% 126.99
5.49
-7.86
2007 919,502.57
53,859,492.80
5,970,300.78
% 66.80
9.85
-14.97
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
40
Table 13 continued…
GROSS REVENUES
YEAR
CREDIT
SERVICE
MPC AGRI
MPC NON-AGRI
2008 1,533,691.32
59,165,772.48
5,076,703.50
% 35.02
12.46
-
78.92
2009 2,070,753.41
665,300.00
66,536,927.48
1,070,351.70
% 17.57
0.68
10.03
73.02
2010 2,434,548.86
669,800.00
73,213,803.37
1,851,928.94
80000000
70000000
60000000
50000000
Credit
40000000
Service
30000000
MPC agri
MPC non agri
20000000
10000000
0
Figure 6. Cooperatives Gross revenues
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
41
Net
surplus.Table 14 shows the amount allocated to net surplus. Net surplus is the
excess of payments made by the members for the loans borrowed, or the goods and
services availed by them from the cooperative or the difference of the rightful amount
due to the members for their products sold or services rendered to the cooperative
including other inflows of assets resulting from other operating activities. Credit
cooperatives had a rate of growth in 2006 where it also reaches the highest peak of about
271.82% but sad to say it further decreased from 2007 to 2010. Service cooperatives had
a negative rate of growth in 2010 with (-51.43%) which means a decreased in the net
surplus.
Agricultural cooperatives had posted its highest rate of growth in 2007 with
35.18% but in the years 2004 and 2006 it had a decreased to -20.68 and 24.97
respectively. On the other hand, non-agricultural cooperatives posted its highest peak in
2006 with 147.62%. It was only in 2005 where it decreased to (-50.57%).
The results shows that the three of cooperatives experienced a negative rate of
growth in net surplus except for the credit cooperatives with a positive decreasing rate of
growth in net surplus.
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
42
Table 14. Cooperative net surplus
NET SURPLUS
YEAR
CREDIT
SERVICE
MPC AGRI
MPC NON-AGRI
2001 25,383,678.43
1,263,985.75
% 7.69
10.37
2002 27,336,673.01
1,395,007.55
% 4.25
7.16
2003 28,497,241.18
1,494,897.54
% -
20.68
56.09
2004 22,603,532.78
2,333,335.41
% 1.01
-
50.57
2005 44,395.70
22,831,199.04
1,153,408.87
% 271.82
-
24.97
147.62
2006 165,074.19
17,130,011.77
2,856,087.87
% 139.20
35.18
14.52
2007 394,865.71
23,156,610.91
3,270,733.32
% 69.84
3.50
9.44
2008 670,646.54
23,967,221.40
3,579,361.18
% 41.44
14.82
13.33
2009 948,594.62
148,129.82
27,519,762.64
4,056,340.02
% 7.53
-
51.43
13.08
34.57
2010 1,020,066.23
71,942.12
31,119,011.06
5,458,497.53
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
43
35000000
30000000
25000000
20000000
Credit
15000000
Service
MPC agri
10000000
MPC non agri
5000000
0
Figure 7. Cooperatives net surplus
General Reserve fund
Table 15 shows the amount allocated for the General Reserve Fund. General
Reserve fund refers to the accumulated amount of money annually deducted from the net
surplus. It is used for the stability of the cooperative.
Credit cooperatives had its highest rate of growth in 2006 with 271.82% but
further decreased to 263.41 to 49.23 in the succeeding years. It implies that the rate of
growth in the general reserve fund has been affected by the net surplus and gross income.
On the other hand, service cooperative posted a negative rate of growth in the general
reserve fund in 2010(-51.43%) same holds through with the credit cooperatives that it has
been affected by the decreased in the net surplus and gross income.
Agricultural cooperatives posted its highest rate of growth in 2003 with 15.58%
only which is lesser than what is expected. It had its negative rate of growth in the years
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
44
2004, 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2010. It implies that over the past ten years, it resulted to a
decreased in the allocation of general reserve fund. In the case of the non
Agricultural cooperatives, it was only in 2005 that they had decreased in the allocation of
general reserve fund and posted its highest rate of growth in 2006 with the maximum rate
of 50493.35% and it was quietly surprising.
The results show that among the four types of cooperatives. It was only the non
agricultural cooperatives who had been experiencing a positive rate of growth in the
general reserve fund. It implies that they were performing well and have tried to increase
their sales.
Table 15. Cooperatives general reserve fund
GENERAL RESERVE FUND
YEAR
CREDIT
SERVICE
MPC AGRI
MPC NON-AGRI
2001 3,319,339.79
120,398.48
% 2.57
6.73
2002 3,404,701.46
128,500.75
% 15.58
5.44
2003 3,935,254.16
135,489.75
% -18.65
85.62
2004 3,201,457.03
251,502.24
% -
-
99.27
2005 4,439.57
3,201,457.03
1,838.37
% 271.82
-
6.72
50,493.55
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
45
Table 15 continued…
GENERAL RESERVE FUND
YEAR
CREDIT
SERVICE
MPC AGRI
MPC NON-AGRI
2006 16,507.41
2,986,260.95
930,096.71
% 263.41
-
47.35
21.29
2007 59,989.49
1,572,318.34
1,128,078.92
% 129.55
0.84
18.24
2008 137,703.98
1,585,559.58
1,333,796.37
% 78.75
-
95.79
16.88
2009 246,151.88
14,812.92
66,674.43
1,558,911.18
%
49.23
- 51.43
- 4,182.40
1.31
2010 367,344.02
7,194.23
-
2,721,918.57
1,579,381.14
5000000
4000000
3000000
2000000
Credit
1000000
Service
0
MPC agri
-1000000
MPC non agri
-2000000
-3000000
-4000000
Figure 8. Cooperatives general reserve fund
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
46
Due to CETF Local. Table 16 shows the allocation to CETF Local. Cooperative
Education training fund is used to provide for the training, development and similar other
cooperative activities geared towards the growth of the cooperative movement.
Credit cooperatives had an increase rate of growth of about 271.85% in 2006 at
the same time it was in this year when it reached its highest peak but further decreased to
139.21 to 7.80 in 2007 to 2010 respectively. On the other hand, service cooperative had a
negative rate of growth of (-9.88). It implies that as year goes by, they tend to have a
decreased in the allocation of education and training fund for the members.
Agricultural cooperatives as shown in table 16, which they tend to decrease in
2003, 2004 and 2006 which resulted in a negative rate of growth. The rest years it shows
a positive rate of growth wherein that particular year they had increased in the allocation
of the education and training fund. On the other hand, non agricultural cooperatives had
also a negative rate of growth in the allocation of Education and training fund in the years
2005, 2008 and 2009 but posted its highest rate in 2006 with 3,612.66%.
Table 16. Cooperatives Due to CETF local
DUE TO CETF LOCAL
YEAR
CREDIT
SERVICE
MPC AGRI
MPC NON-AGRI
2001 1,432,288.93
60,199.00
%
2002 1,539,460.67
64,256.38
%
2003 921,717.22
67,744.88
% -1.37
57.26
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
47
Table 16 continued…
DUE TO CETF LOCAL
YEAR
CREDIT
SERVICE
MPC AGRI
MPC NON-AGRI
2004 909,090.33
106,537.17
%
5.60
- 95.29
2005 2,219.79
959,987.63 5,017.79
% 271.82
-
1.60
3,612.66
2006 8,253.70
944,609.93 186,293.30
% 139.21
23.68
58.26
2007 19,743.30
1,168,324.11 294,837.04
% 100.15
2.67
-
20.80
2008 39,515.65
1,199,564.57 233,498.44
% 14.56
6.53
-
48.61
2009 45,268.83 14,195.24 1,277,912.63 120,006.04
% 7.80
-
9.88
8.45
76.90
2010 48,800.81 12,792.36 1,385,958.84 212,293.96
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
48
1800000
1600000
1400000
1200000
1000000
Credit
800000
Service
600000
MPC agri
MPC non agri
400000
200000
0
Figure 9. Cooperative Due to CETF local
Interest on share capital.Table 17 shows the allocation in the Interest on share
Capital refers to the interest earned by the member’s paid-up to the capitalization of the
cooperative. Credit cooperatives posted its highest rate of growth in 2006 with 313.14%
but further decrease in the succeeding years with (139.20%) in 2007,(70.97%) in
2008,(37.88%) in 2009,and ( 6.73%) in 2010 the lowest rate of growth attained. On the
other hand, service cooperative posted its highest rate of growth in 2002 with
13,978.21%. In 2003 and 2005 it resulted a negative rate of growth with (-88.57) and (-
68.52%) respectively. In the case of non agricultural cooperatives, they posted the highest
rate of growth in 2002 with 971.42% and the lowest rate of growth reached was in 2005
with (-62.38%). The results show that service, multipurpose, and non agricultural
cooperatives had a decreased rate of growth in terms of interest on share capital.
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
49
Table 17. Cooperatives interest on share capital
INTEREST ON SHARE CAPITAL
YEAR
CREDIT
SERVICE
MPC AGRI
MPC NON-AGRI
2001 1,071,215.07
50,372.83
% 13,978.21
971.42
2002 150,807,946.29
539,703.18
% -
88.57
5.45
2003 17,236,625.48
569,103.18
% 13.48
108.23
2004 19,559,311.17
1,185,037.62
%
- 68.52
- 62.38
2005 19,578.51
6,157,122.22 445,798.53
% 313.14
46.99
83.01
2006 80,886.37
9,050,542.57 815,857.48
% 139.20
36.75
66.26
2007 193,484.20
12,376,229.27 1,356,421.94
% 70.97
6.83
14.30
2008 330,794.58
13,221,000.22 1,550,428.31
% 37.88
6.98
11.92
2009 456,111.94 103,690.45 14,144,434.27 1,735,282.58
% 6.73
-
51.43
16.86
50.52
2010 486,817.42 50,359.64
16,528,699.42 2,611,914.00
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
50
16000000
14000000
12000000
10000000
Credit
80000000
Service
60000000
MPC agri
MPC non agri
40000000
20000000
0
2001200220032004200520062007200820092010
Figure 10. Cooperatives interest on share capital
Patronage refund. Table 18 presents the allocation in patronage refund. Patronage
Refund refers to refund or return to the members of net savings generated from the
operations of the cooperative. The table shows that were no patronage refund made by
the credit cooperatives for the past 6 years, unlike for the service cooperatives wherein
they allocated an amount of 50,359.64 in 2010.
Agricultural cooperatives posted its highest rate of growth in 2002 with 556.29%
and further decreased in 2002 to 2010.As shown in table 18, it had a negative rate of
growth in the years 2006 and 2008. Non agricultural cooperatives on the other hand
posted its highest rate of growth in 2002 with 971.42% and further decreased in the
succeeding years. It was only in 2005 that they had a negative rate of growth in the
allocation of patronage refund.
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
51
The results indicate that agricultural and non agricultural cooperatives were the
ones who allocated their remaining percentage of net surplus in the patronage refund.On
the other hand, service and credit cooperatives did not allocate an amount to their
patronage refund.
Table 18. Cooperatives patronage refund
PATRONAGE REFUND
YEAR
CREDIT
SERVICE
MPC AGRI
MPC NON-AGRI
2001 642,874.87
33,581.88
% 556.29
971.42
2002 4,219,100.50
359,802.12
% 8.21
5.45
2003 4,565,544.25
379,402.12
% 26.12
108.23
2004 5,758,168.36
790,025.09
% 98.71
-
62.38
2005 11,442,225.78
297,199.02
% -
48.59
12.15
2006 5,882,544.99
333,298.14
% 8.65
118.84
2007 6,391,180.96
729,391.36
% -.97
11.97
2008 6,201,346.68
816,698.54
% 7.68
23.98
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
52
Table 18 continued…
PATRONAGE REFUND
YEAR
MPC NON-
CREDIT SERVICE
MPC
AGRI
AGRI
2009 6,677,855.12
1,012,510.16
% 14.88
21.79
2010
50,359.64
7,671,220.91
1,233,136.84
14000000
12000000
10000000
8000000
Credit
Service
6000000
MPC agri
4000000
MPC non agri
2000000
0
Figure 11.Cooperatives Patronage refund
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
53
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
The study was conducted to determine the types and characteristics of
cooperatives as to: date of registration, services offered, number of members per
cooperative, assets and liabilities, paid-up share capital, to document the performances of
the cooperative in the following areas in terms of membership and operations and to find
out there problems in managing a cooperative.
There were 40 cooperatives organized within the City of Tabuk. However, during
the conduct of the study, only 34 primary cooperatives were still active while the other 4
were no longer operating because of lack of capital to sustain their operation.
The oldest cooperative existed in the place were operating for 50 years while the
newest cooperatives were operating for 1 year. There were more cooperatives registered
during the years 2006 to present and it was found out that during the year 1993, 1994,
1995, 1998, 2001and 2003 there were no cooperatives applied for registration.
There were two kinds of members in the cooperative, categorized as regular and
associate members. As to gender, there were more female members than male members.
It was found out that female members were more active compared to male members.
The findings show that most of the cooperatives were offering credit services to
their members. There were some cooperatives engaged in rice milling and coffee
processing and funeral care services which were not all common to cooperatives.
In terms of social services offered, majority of the cooperative were offering
mortuary services. Some cooperatives offered assistance to their members in terms of
training and consultancy services.
54
The findings shows that majority of the cooperatives have a problem on the
delinquency of members in their loan repayment. Most of the cooperatives’ records were
not updated due to absence of bookkeepers and they have lack of capital to sustain their
operation, they also mentioned about the limited resources. Other issues and problems
capability were the refusal of members to attend general meetings, lack of management
wherein there is no strong leadership among the members and officers.
In terms of growth in membership the rate of regular members show an uptrend
growth while the associate members show a downtrend growth. In actual number,
Agricultural cooperatives topped the highest number of members while the producer
cooperative got the lowest number of member with 24 members only since it was a newly
registered cooperative.
In terms of financial growth trend, the rate of increase shows that non agricultural
cooperative has a higher percentage rate increase but in actual number agricultural
cooperatives topped the highest total assets.
In terms of allocation of net surplus, non agricultural cooperatives got the highest
average rate increase in gross revenues. Credit cooperatives got the highest average rate
increase and agricultural cooperatives got the lowest average rate increase but have the
highest amount in actual number. In terms of the allocation to general reserve fund, non
agricultural cooperatives got the highest average rate increase followed by the credit
cooperatives. On the other hand, agricultural cooperatives and service cooperatives had a
negative average rate of increase.
In terms in the allocation of due to CETF local, non agricultural cooperatives got
the highest average rate of increase followed by the credit cooperatives and service
55
cooperatives got the lowest average rate increase with a negative percentage increase
followed by the agricultural cooperatives.
In terms of the allocation of interest on share capital, agricultural cooperative got
the highest average rate of increase followed by non agricultural cooperatives.
In terms of the allocation to patronage refund, non agricultural cooperatives
posted the highest average rate increase followed by agricultural cooperatives. The
findings revealed that credit and service cooperative did not allocate the remaining of
their net surplus on the patronage refund.
Conclusion
Based on the findings of this study, the followings conclusions were drawn:
1. Majority of the cooperatives are registered as multipurpose cooperative and at
the same time offered savings deposits.
2. Majority of the cooperatives were residential and is not in close proximity to the
members which discourage them to attend assembly especially emergency meetings.
3. One of the prevailing problems of the cooperatives is the delinquent borrowers. This,
according to the results was due mainly to lack of proper management and recording.
4. Most of the cooperatives, especially the small ones, hardly submit their annual
reports to the CDA. This was associated to lack of management capability and absence of
efficient record keeping.
5. In terms of the financial performance and growth in membership, agricultural
cooperatives had the highest rate of increase over the past ten years; it is because most of
the agricultural cooperatives were the first cooperatives organized in Tabuk City,
Kalinga.
56
Recommendations
1. The cooperatives should avail training and seminars to enable them to improve the
operation and management of the cooperative. Cooperatives should seek the assistance of
the union or federation for training assistance. To make the trainings more helpful for the
cooperative, both members and officials should be sent to training to gain needed
knowledge and motivation to keep the cooperative going.
.
2. Cooperatives should have a strict policy on lending to avoid bankruptcy and in
order to minimize delinquent borrowers.
3.The Cooperative Development Authority to monitor the performance of the
cooperatives and strictly implement standard requirements from cooperatives.
4. The officers of the different cooperatives should always be responsible enough
to make the annual report of the cooperative that will be submitted to the CDA to avoid
penalties.
5. Cooperatives should enhance or improve their products or services so that more
members will join and at the same time, they will enjoy the benefits from the cooperative.
LITERATURE CITED
57
ALCALA, M., AGBISIT, R; BANAIRA, L; BASKINAS, J.; DOMINGO, A;
FONTAMILLAS A.; GAERLAN, J.; LEGASPI, C.; and STEVENLINCK, M.
1994. Trainer’s Manual for Cooperatives, Land Bank Countryside Development
Foundation, Inc. P. 72.
ANONYMOUS, 2010.Selected Statistics.Retrieved October 10, 2010 from
http://www.cda.gov.ph/website/Downloads/SelectedStats2010.pdf.
BOGAN, C. E. 2005.Testing the relationship between team and partner characteristics
and cooperative benchmarking outcomes: Retrieved July 11, 2011 from
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1288444
COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.2008. Master list of Registered
operating Cooperatives in all Provinces, CAR. Pp. 1-663.
BOXWELL, R. J. Jr. 1994. Benchmarking for Competitive Advantage.New York:
McGraw-Hill: Retrieved July 08, 2011 fromhttp://www.google.com.ph
FAJARDO, F.R. AND F.D. ABELLA. 1993. Cooperatives. Quezon City: Rex Bookstore.
P. 46.
NOLLEDO, J.N. 1996. Principles of Agrarians Reforms, Cooperatives and Taxation
Caloocan City, Philippines: Graphics Arts, Inc. P.13.
RICHARD D. 2006. National Cooperative Bank. NCB/NCBA Survey of Purchasing
Cooperatives on Benchmarking. Retrieved July 08, 2011 from
http://www.google.com.ph
ROUSELLE, L.2004. Benchmarking the Efficiency of Philippines Electric Cooperatives
Using Scholastic Frontier Analysis and Data Development Analysis, East-West
Center (ECW), Honolulu, United States: Retrieved July 11, 2011 from
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Digital-Library/Publications/Detail
SHAHALIZADEH, M. 2009. Benchmarking of Thesis Research: A Case Study of
Benchmarking. An International Journal: Retrieved July 08, 2011 from
http://www.fibre2fashion.com/industry-article/9/888/ benchmarking
TABDI , R. A. 1997. Baseline survey of cooperatives in Atok, Benguet. BS Thesis.
Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.P.48.
TOMAS S, 1992. "How To Get The Most Out Of Benchmarking The Motorola Way",
35th International Conference Proceedings of the APICS,, Montreal, Canada,
Pp.22-26. Retrieved July 08, 2011 from http://www.benchnet.com/wib.htm
58
WADSWORTH. 2001. Report to Congress on the Importance of the Support for
Overseas Development Act. Retrieved July 12, 2011 from
http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PPACJ894.pdf
YANG, E. H. 1998.Beating the competition: Importance of Data Bank. Washington, DC:
Kaiser Associates. 1988. P.
176. ISBN
978-
1563650185.http://www.google.com.ph
APPENDIX A
59
Letter to the Respondents
Republic of the Philippines
Benguet State University
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
AND AGRIBUSINESS MANAGEMENT
College of Agriculture
November 2011
_____________
_____________
_____________
_____________
Sir/Madam:
Warm
Greetings!
I am a graduating student of Benguet State University taking up Bachelor of
Science in Agribusiness, major in Cooperative Management. One of the requirements of
the course is a research work. I am currently conducting a research entitled
“Characterization of Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga”.
In this connection, may I therefore ask for your cooperation in providing the
necessary information about your cooperative.
Thank you very much for your support. God bless you all.
Very respectfully yours,
ALONA RIZALINA G. GOYAGOY
Student
Researcher
Noted:
DAVID JOSEPH BOGNADON
Thesis Adviser
APPENDIX B
60
Letter to the Barangay Officials
Republic of the Philippines
Benguet State University
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
AND AGRIBUSINESS MANAGEMENT
College of Agriculture
November 2011
Brgy. Captain
_____________
_____________
_____________
Sir/Madam:
Warm
Greetings!
I am a graduating student of Benguet State University taking up Bachelor of
Science in Agribusiness, major in Cooperative Management. One of the requirements of
the course is a research work. I am currently conducting a research entitled
“Characterization of Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga”.
In line with this, I would like to request your good office to allow me to conduct
interview with the different cooperatives existing in your barangay through a survey
questionnaire to give light on my objectives.
Thank you so much, sir. Your help will go a long way.
Truly
yours,
ALONA RIZALINA GOYAGOY
Noted:
Student Researcher
DAVID JOSEPH BOGNADON
Thesis Adviser
APPENDIX C
61
Letter to the Mayor
Republic of the Philippines
Benguet State University
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
AND AGRIBUSINESS MANAGEMENT
College of Agriculture
November 2011
HON. FERDINAND B. TUBBAN
City Mayor
City Hall, Dagupan,Tabuk City, Kalinga
Sir:
Warm
Greetings!
I am a graduating student of Benguet State University taking up Bachelor of
Science in Agribusiness, major in Cooperative Management. One of the requirements of
the course is a research work. I am currently conducting a research entitled
“Characterization of Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga”.
In line with this, I would like to request your good office to allow me to conduct
interview with the different cooperatives in Tabuk City through a survey questionnaire to
give light on my objectives.
Thank you so much, sir. Your help will go a long way.
Noted:
Truly
yours,
DAVID JOSEPH BOGNADON
ALONA
RIZALINAGOYAGOY
Thesis Adviser
Student Researcher
APPENDIX D
62
Survey Questionnaire
Direction: Please fill-up the blanks with the needed information and/or check the
parenthesis, which fits your answers.
I. General Information
1. Name of the Cooperative:_________________________________________________
2. Address: ______________________________________________________________
3. Date Organized/Start of Operation: _________________________________________
4. Date Registered: ________________________________________________________
5. Number of years in operation: _____________________________________________
6. Number of members in the cooperative (current)_______________________________
Capital Build up__________________________________________________________
Increase/Decrease (Growth) _________________________________________________
II. ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
1. Initial membership:
Regular
Associate
Male _______ ______
Female
_______ ______
III. BUSINESS OPERATIONS
1. Services Offered:
( ) Lending
( ) Trading
( ) Manufacturing
( ) Contract
( ) Transportation
( ) Electric
( ) Savings
( ) Insurance
( ) Marketing
( ) Others (please specify) ________________________________________
2. Social Services:
( ) Medical
( ) Mortuary
63
( ) Dental
( ) Education
( ) Others (please specify) ________________________________________
IV. What are the problems or issues encountered by the cooperative?
( ) Lack of cooperative education and training for leaders and members
( ) Lack of capital to sustain the operation
( ) Delinquent borrowers
( ) Limited resources
( ) Inefficient leaders
( ) Records are not updated
( ) Members do not patronize the cooperative
( ) Others (please specify) __________________________________________
6969
64
APPENDIX E
Data sheet
Name of Cooperative:
Type of Cooperative:
Cooperative No.1
A. Growth in Membership
Particulars
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
2009 2010
No. of Regular
members
(male)
No. of Regular
members
(female)
No. of associate
members(male)
No. of associate
members
(female)
Total No. of
members
6969
65
B. Financial Information
Particulars
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Total
Assets
Total
Liabilities
Paid-up
Share
Capital
C. Allocation to Net surplus
Particulars Percentage AMOUNT
ALLOCATED
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Gross
Revenues
Net
surplus
General
Reserve
Fund
CETF
Due to
CETF
Local
Interest on
Share
Capital
Patronage
Refund
6969
66
6969
67
6969
68
6969
69
6969
70
6969
71
6969
72
6969
73
6969
74
6969
75
6969
76
6969
77
GOYAGOY. ALONA RIZALINA G. APRIL 2012. Characterization of Primary
Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga.Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet
Adviser: David Joseph Bognadon
ABSTRACT
The case study was conducted to determine the characteristics of Primary
cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga.
Thirty four cooperatives were the respondents and were classified intocredit and
service, producer, multi-purpose agriculture and multi-purpose non-agriculture. Majority
of cooperatives were operating in the city and existed for one to ten years. Majority of the
cooperatives were offering credit to their members and in terms of social services
majority were offering mortuary services. Delinquent borrowers were the most prevailing
problems of the cooperatives. Agricultural cooperative has the highest number of
members. In terms of financial and allocation to net surplus, non-agricultural
cooperatives have the highest average rate increase.
From the results, it was recommended that cooperative should have a strict policy
in lending in order to get rid of bankruptcy. Furthermore, it is also recommended that
these cooperatives should promptly submit requirements on time and they should conduct
frequent seminars that would be useful to educate their members not only the officers
itself. In addition, the Cooperative development Authority should strictly monitor the
performances of the different cooperatives.
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga/
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography..................................................................................................... i
Abstract............................................................................................................. i
Table of Contents..............................................................................................
iii
INTRODUCTION
Rationale................................................................................................
1
Importance of the Study.........................................................................
2
Statement of the Problem.......................................................................
3
Objectives of the Study..........................................................................
3
Scope and Delimitation of the Study.....................................................
4
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Benchmarking........................................................................................
5
Purpose of Benchmarking…………………………………….……….
5
Importance of Benchmarking................................................................
6
Benchmark/ Baseline Data....................................................................
6
The Benchmarking Process...................................................................
7
Typical Benchmarking Methodology....................................................
7
Issues
with
Benchmarking.....................................................................
8
Importance of Data Bank.......................................................................
9
General Statistics of Cooperatives by Type...........................................
10
Statistical Data of Cooperatives in all
10
Provinces of CAR..................................................................................
Definition of Cooperative......................................................................
10
Success Factors in Cooperatives............................................................
11
Failure Factors of Cooperatives.............................................................
12
Definition of Terms...............................................................................
13
METHODOLOGY
Locale and Time of the Study................................................................
14
Respondents of the Study......................................................................
14
Data Gathering Procedure......................................................................
14
Data
Analysis......................................................................................... 14
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Status of Operation of Primary Cooperatives
15
inTabuk City, Kalinga………………………………….………….....
Types of Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga.....................................
16
Date of Registration...............................................................................
18
Years in Operation.................................................................................
19
Number
of
Members.............................................................................. 19
Services
Offered.................................................................................... 21
Social
Services....................................................................................... 21
Problems Encountered by the Cooperatives..........................................
25
Growth in Membership.........................................................................
28
Total
Assets........................................................................................... 31
Total
Liabilities..................................................................................... 32
Paid-up Share Capital............................................................................
33
Gross
Revenues..................................................................................... 38
Net
Surplus............................................................................................ 41
General Reserve Fund...........................................................................
43
Due to CETF Local................................................................................
46
Interest on Share Capital........................................................................
48
Patronage
Refund................................................................................... 50
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary................................................................................................ 53
Conclusions............................................................................................ 55
Recommendations.................................................................................. 56
LITERATURE CITED.....................................................................................
57
APPENDICES
A. Letter to the Respondents…………………………………..…..…
59
B. Letter to the Barangay Officials…………………………..……....
60
C. Letter to the Mayor………………………………….……...……..
61
D. Survey Questionnaire………………………………………...….…
62
E. Data Sheet…………………………………………………..……...
64
1
INTRODUCTION
Rationale
A cooperative consist of persons who pool their resources under the principle of
equality and common understanding for their mutual benefit. It exists not to make profit
as an entity but if there should be profits, the same shall be divided equitably among the
members. It is based on the saying well known in the human circle that “in union there is
strength,” (Nolledo, 1996).
Tabuk is one of the municipalities of Kalinga and became the Cordillera’s second
City on June 23, 2007.Tabuk is nestled on an elevation of 3,000 to 5,000 feet above sea
level with a north-south assemblage of mountain ranges within the central Cordillera. The
city has a total land area of 77,447.25 hectares (774 sq. kms.) and is politically
subdivided into 42 barangays.
Tabuk is now a fifth class city with an annual income of approximately 110
million. It iss prominently considered as the rice granary of the Cordillera due mainly of
agriculture getting the largest area from the pie of which the bulk of production is on rice
where it even supplies other places. The city has also produced outstanding farmers at the
national level for the last two decades.
The road networks connecting Tabuk to Cagayan Valley and to Baguio City via
Bontoc, Mountain Province brought in more settlers and investments which fast tracked
the economic development of the city. The economy is purely agro-based and is
undoubtedly hastened by the completion of the Chico River Irrigation System. The
establishment of banks gave credit opportunities and business started to bloom.
Cooperatives were organized, schools were put up, and bus terminals were established
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
2
As of today, the number of registered business firms operating in the city is 1,074
distributed in the four major business sectors such as trading, services, agriculture, and
manufacturing in different line of business and classifications. The coffee and fruit wine
industry is now becoming a major processing business in the city aside from furniture,
wood craft, and loom weaving. The city is also the site of the proposed Regional Agro-
Industrial Center which aims to further develop the city and make it the agro-industrial
center of the region.
In project programming and prioritizing, data base is needed. Government and
non–government organizations providing support and assistance (whether financial or
technical support) to a certain community consider the unity of presence of an
organization or cooperative in the area. However the existence of a cooperative is not
only the major considerations but records such as profiles and benchmark data are
required. Banks providing financial assistance also consider financial and social status of
a cooperative. The cooperative and its assets are often used or considered as a guarantee
or security for agencies providing assistance.
In proposal preparation, benchmark data is required to support the significance of
any proposed project specific to the proposed area. Thus, this research activity would
establish baseline information of the different cooperatives as basis or reference for any
project proposal activity in the different barangays of Tabuk City in Kalinga.
Importance of the Study
This study was conducted to provide necessary data that would lead to the
improvement of cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga. Furthermore, the result of the study
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
3
would serve as a basis for the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) to address and
give solutions to the problems of various cooperatives.
Statement of the Problem
This study intended to answer the following questions:
1. What are the types and characteristics of cooperatives as to:
a. date of registration
b. services offered
c. number of members per cooperative
d. assets and liabilities
e. paid-up share capital
2. What are the performances of the cooperative in the following areas?
a. membership
b. operations
3. What are the issues encountered by the cooperative?
Objectives of the Study
The study aimed to:
1. Describe the types and characteristics of cooperatives in the city as to:
a. date of registration
b. services offered
c. number of member per cooperative
d. assets and liabilities
f. paid-up share capital
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
4
2. Document the performances of the cooperative in the following areas:
a. membership
b. Operations
3. Identify the issues encountered by the cooperative.
Scope and Delimitation of the Study
The study coverage were the primary cooperatives operating in Tabuk City,
Kalinga. The cooperatives’ respondents’ are those who have existed for 10 years or more.
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
5
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Benchmarking
Benchmarking is the process of comparing the business processes and
performance metrics including cost, cycle time, productivity, or quality to another that is
widely considered to be an industry standard benchmark or best practice. Essentially
benchmarking provides a snapshot of the performance of your business and helps you
understand where you are in relation to a particular standard. The result is often a
business case and “Burning Platform” for making changes in order to make
improvements. It is a pointy of reference for measurement, or standard (Rouselle, 2004).
Purpose of Benchmarking
The overriding purpose in benchmarking is of course to improve the competitive
position of the company. However, unlike other quality and management tools,
benchmarking achieves this objective through. Benchmarking provides an opportunity for
a company to take stock and gain a better understanding of the efficiency and
effectiveness of its business processes. An analysis and understanding of its strengths and
weaknesses will also have been made. The company will, therefore, be in a better
position to exploit its advantages and to improve upon its weaknesses (Boxwell, 1994).
The benchmarking process can be applied to all facets of a company's business,
be it in products, services or business processes. However, the focus of most
benchmarking projects is on business processes because the effective management of
these processes, including quality, speed, and service, is of vital importance to achieve
superior performance and he more competitive (Boxwell,1994).
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
6
Importance of Benchmarking
Successful benchmarking can improve a company's return on investment (ROI)
ratio, facilitate cost reductions, identify new business opportunities, and help develop
market competitiveness. However, there is limited evidence to understand factors that
contribute to successful outcomes during benchmarking. We focus on cooperative
benchmarking projects where the expected outcome is identifying best practices with a
partner organization. We characterize the benchmarking project in terms of its context,
process, and outcomes.
The data suggests that satisfaction with the benchmarking process and findings
(outcome variables) is strongly related to the following: internal context variables such as
training and experience of team members, clarity of project objectives and support from
top management, and the process owner; external context variables, such as
appropriateness of the benchmarking partners, and anticipation of constraints in data
collection during the project; project process effectiveness including commitment of the
team members and the synergy between the process owner, the team members, and the
partner organization. Project managers of cooperative benchmarking projects must
simultaneously pay attention to the needs of benchmarking team members, top
management, the owner of the process being benchmarked, as well as the partner
organization (Bogan, 2005).
Benchmark/Baseline Data
Benchmark data are information collected from industry resources to determine
howother firms (especially the best in class ones) achieve their high levels of
performance (Shahalizadeh, 2009).
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
7
Baseline data are initial collection of data which serves as a basis for comparison
with the subsequently acquired data. It is often used as a basis in decision making
(Richard, 2006).
The Benchmarking Process
Benchmarking involves looking outward (outside a particular business,
organization, industry, region or country) to examine how others achieve their
performance levels and to understand the processes they use. In this
way benchmarking helps explain the processes behind excellent performance. When the
lessons learnt from a benchmarking exercise are applied appropriately, they facilitate
improved performance in critical functions within an organization or in key areas of the
business environment (Boxwell, 1994).
Typical Benchmarking Methodology
Boxwell (1994) stated that there is a need to identify the problem areas because
benchmarking can be applied to any business process or function, a range of research
techniques may be required. They include: informal conversations with customers,
employees, or suppliers; exploratory research techniques such as focus groups; or in-
depth marketing research, quantitative research, surveys, questionnaires, re-engineering
analysis, process mapping, quality control variance reports, or financial ratio analysis.
Before embarking on comparison with other organizations it is essential that you know
your own organization's function, processes; base lining performance provides a point
against which improvement effort can be measured.
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
8
After the problem has been identified, you may now identify other industries that
have similar processes like for instance if one were interested in improving hand offs in
addiction treatment he/she would try to identify other fields that also have hand off
challenges. These could include air traffic control, cell phone switching between towers,
transfer of patients from surgery to recovery rooms. Then, identify organizations that are
leaders in these areas that you have to look for the very best in any industry and in any
country. An example of these are the consulting of customers, suppliers, financial
analysts, trade associations, and magazines to determine which companies are worthy of
study. You may also do survey, to survey companies for measures and
practices. Companies target specific business processes using detailed surveys of
measures and practices used to identify business process alternatives and leading
companies. Surveys are typically masked to protect confidential data by neutral
associations and consultants. Afterwards, you will visit the "best practice" companies to
identify leading edge practices that companies typically agree to mutually exchange
information beneficial to all parties in a benchmarking group and share the results within
the group. Lastly, is to implement new and improved business practices. Take the leading
edge practices and develop implementation plans which include identification of specific
opportunities, funding the project and selling the ideas to the organization for the purpose
of gaining demonstrated value from the process.
Issues with Benchmarking
The whole notion of what benchmarking is has been lost on the online community
and many flame wars have started based on incorrect perception of what benchmarking
really is.
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
9
Benchmarks cannot be used as an accurate basis of comparison between Macs and
PCs. Benchmarks test only how fast a program runs on a specific machine and nothing
more. Many people think that because Platform A runs Benchmark A faster than Platform
B, then Platform A is in fact faster. The only answer that a benchmark gives you is that
Platform. A runs faster than Platform B on this current program. A benchmark can easily
be changed to show one platform in a better light than another platform. Therefore a
benchmark optimized for whatever platform he was developing would give a better
picture as to how fast his programs would run comparatively on the different platforms.
In an attempt to alleviate this problem, companies have come up with real world
benchmarks as opposed to synthetic benchmarks. These benchmarks run tests based on
real world code, code that has been optimized to run as fast as possible on a wide array of
different machines. However, the tendency is to run one benchmark and come up with a
statement such as, "Since this program is floating point intensive and runs faster on
Platform A, Platform A has a better floating point unit." However, due to the scenario
presented before, optimizations may have favoured one platform over another and
perhaps another program may run floating point calculations faster on the other
platform (Tomas, 1992).
Importance of Data Bank
Databank provides information resource management solutions that help you
manage information and streamline processes. It provides customer-specific solutions
that help you improve productivity, efficiency, serve our customers better, and generate
more revenues and profits. It also provides an extensive range of solutions in the form of
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
10
products, equipment, and services focused on the management of information as a
valuable organizational resource (Yang, 1998).
General Statistics of Cooperative by Type
Cooperatives posted a total business volume worth P78.5-billion. Composed of
some 3.7-million members, the cooperatives garnered total assets of P79.9-billion and
P4.76-billion in net surplus. Moreover, it generated some l.6-million in jobs. That is
according to CDA. In terms of assets, cooperatives are a little behind their not-too-distant
cousins—the rural banks, whose assets of Pl50.9-billion in 2007 are almost 53% of the
total assets of cooperatives (Anonymous, 2010).
Statistical Data of Cooperatives in All Provinces of CAR
Based on the data of Cooperative Development Authority Car, there were 663
Cooperatives registered with a total of 208519 members. The cooperatives were
characterized as to type and it was subdivided into nine categories in terms of their
services offered. 315 Multi-purpose are cooperative agri, 242 Multi-purpose are
cooperative Non-agri, 69 for credit. 4 producers cooperatives, 2 are marketing
cooperatives, 9 are service cooperatives, 12 consumers cooperatives, 4 of which are
cooperative federation, and 6 cooperative unions (Cooperative Development Authority)
Definition of Cooperative
Cooperative is the dynamic form of business enterprise that embodies the
philosophy of Cooperation. It signifies the voluntary assent of people to form themselves
into a group for the promotions of their common needs by mutual action, democratic
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
11
control and sharing of economic benefits on the basis of patronage by members (Fajardo
and Abella, 1993).
Success Factors in Cooperatives
Wadsworth (2001) emphasized that cooperative are more likely to be successful
when their members fully understand their responsibilities to cooperative principles and
the practices they involve. Odds success for a cooperative also improve when the public
knows how cooperatives work and can see benefits to members and to communities, and
when young people learn what cooperatives are and how they operate so that their
interest takes hold.
The foremost factor perceived by the members that contributed to the success of
the cooperative is the frequent audit of book and good record keeping and continuous
education (Tabdi, 1997).
Alcala et al (1994), an important factor in the success of a cooperative
organization. The success cooperative ultimately hinges on the people. The kind of
attitude and value that members possess are essential determinants of the future of our
cooperative movement. Regressive values and institutions should be changed with better
ones in order to create an environment which is favourable to the growth of cooperatives
in our country. Perhaps it may not be possible to attain a real successful cooperative
program throughout the country in the next few years. Changing values and institutions
usually takes a longer time. But what is important is that we have started with good
program.
Fajardo and Abella (1993) mentioned that an important factor in the success of
cooperative is the presence of capable and dedicated leaders in the community.
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
12
These are the people who are expected to provide guidance and support to the
cooperative.
Perhaps, the greatest factor of any cooperative is its management. The members,
directors and managers of cooperative constitute management. The members of the board
and other important committees deliberate on proposed and existing policies of the
cooperative. The directors formulate the broad policies to be implemented by the
manager. However, for efficient operation of the organizations, the members and the
directors should not interface in the day-to-day management of the cooperative. The
manager is responsible for the detailed execution of the policies. He should be given
authority to perform such responsibility (Fajardo and Abella, 1993).
Failure Factors in Cooperative
Fajardo and Abella (1993) stated that it has been a common knowledge and most
cooperative in the past failed because the officials mismanage the funds of the
organization. Not few treasurers and president of the associations absconded with the
contribution of the members.
The concept of a cooperative is a form of change in people. When a person
becomes a member of a cooperative, he undergoes a continuous process of change in
attitudes and values. He begins to think of and work for group in interest. He has to form
his uneconomical habits. Moreover, he learns to involve himself in the problem of the
community and join others in achieving the goals and objectives of the cooperative
(Fajardo and Abella, 1993).
Lack of dynamic leadership is one of the causes of failure factors in cooperative.
In the past, many cooperative had been organized but they remained in their instance
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
13
stage and soon died in natural death. For a cooperative to be dynamic, its leadership must
be spread out to as many individuals as possible. The quality of leadership can be
improved through continues training and education. More members of the cooperative
should acquire leadership skills and values. It has been the policy of successful
cooperatives to rotate management positions to the officers and interested members in
order to equip them with the necessary expertise in the different management
positions. The process builds potent leaders and managers in the cooperative (Fajardo
and Abella, 1993).
Definition of Terms
Operational Cooperative-these are cooperatives who have been complying with
the requirements imposed by the CDA.
Non-operational Cooperative- these are cooperatives who had stop their operation
due to bankruptcy and dissolution.
Regular members- members who have paid their minimum share capital required
by the cooperative and so they have voting rights.
Associate members - are the depositors and do not have voting rights.
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
14
METHODOLOGY
Locale and Time of the Study
The study was conducted in Tabuk City, Kalinga. It covered all the existing
primary cooperatives.
This study was conducted from October 2011 to January 2012.
Respondents of the Study
The respondents of the study were the managers of the different cooperatives. In
cases where the manager was not around during the scheduled survey, the staff member
or present officer familiar with the business operation of the cooperative served as the
respondent.
Data Gathering Procedure
A prepared survey questionnaire provided with data sheet was used in collecting
the data. Back-up and additional data were gathered from the Cooperative Development
Authority serving as secondary data.
Annual reports and financial reports of the cooperative were also used as sources
of data gathering such as the financial status of the cooperatives, the growth in
membership, and allocation to net surplus.
Data Analysis
The data collected were tabulated, analyzed, and interpreted based on the
objectives of the study.
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
15
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Status of Operation of Primary Cooperatives
inTabuk City, Kalinga
Based on the list of cooperatives registered at the office of the Cooperative
Development Authority as of December 2010 there were 40 registered cooperatives.
There were 38 primary cooperatives the other two were the Cooperative Union and
Federation which were excluded and that are operating in Tabuk City, Kalinga. However,
during the conduct of this study it was found out that some cooperatives were no longer
operating because some of them could not be located because they closed several years
ago. According to some former members interviewed of these non-operating
cooperatives, some of them closed because they do not have enough capital to sustain
their operation, and some after getting the funds from the government they suddenly
disappears, while other cooperatives have closed because they do not have a bookkeeper
to record transactions and failed to submit reports to the CDA.
Table 1 presents the status of operation of the 38 primary cooperatives in Tabuk
City, Kalinga. Out of the 38 primary cooperatives, only 34 primary cooperatives are still
operating.
The result shows that there were 6(15.8%) credit cooperatives, 1(2.6%) service
cooperative, 1(2.6%) producer cooperative, 16(42.1%) Multipurpose Agri, and
10(26.3%) Multipurpose Non-agriare still operating. On the other hand, there were
(2.63%) Credit, (2.63%) MultipurposeAgri, 1(2.63%) Multipurpose (2.63%) Non-agri
and 1 (2.63%)Consumers cooperative were no longer operating.
The results revealed that 34 (89.5%) of the total cooperatives are still operating
while there are 4(10.53%) cooperatives are already non operational.
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
16
Table 1. Status of operation of cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga
Operational NUMBER
PERCENTAGE
Credit
6
15.8
Service 1
2.6
Producer 1
2.6
MPC Agri
16
42.1
MPC Non-agri
10
26.3
Consumer 0
0.0
TOTAL 34
89.5
Non-operational NUMBER PERCENTAGE
Credit
1
2.63
Service 0.00
Producer 0.00
MPC Agri
1
2.63
MPC Non-agri
1
2.63
Consumer 1
2.63
TOTAL
4
10.53
Type of cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga
Table 2 presents the different types of cooperatives established in Tabuk City,
Kalinga. The different cooperatives in Tabuk City are credit, service, multi-purpose
agriculture and multi-purpose non-agriculture. As shown in Table 2, six cooperatives
(18%) werecredit, 1 (3%) wereservice, 1 (3%) wereproducer,17(50%) were multi-purpose
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
17
agriculture,and 9 (26%) were multi-purpose non-agriculture. The results points out that
majority of cooperatives which are operating were multi-purpose agriculture and multi-
purpose non-agriculture.
Table 2. Type of cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga
TYPE OF COOPERATIVE
NUMBER
PERCENTAGE
Credit
6
18
Service 1
3
Producer 1
3
MPC Agri
17
50
MPC Non-agri
9
26
TOTAL 34
100
Table 3.Date of registration of cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga
DATE REGISTERED
NUMBER
PERCENTAGE
1995 and earlier
12
35
1996 to 2000
5
15
2001 to 2005
3
9
2006 to present
14
41
TOTAL 34
100
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
18
Date of registration
Table 3 presents the date of when the cooperatives were registered as of
December 2010. This only included the primary cooperatives that are still operating since
there was no available information on the non operating cooperatives. The results show
that two cooperatives were registered in 1971 and 1972 which are the Tabuk MPC and St.
Joseph MPC, 12 (39%) were registered in 1995 and earlier, 5 (15%) were registered
between the year 1996 to 2000, 3 (9%) were registered between the year 2001 to 2005
and 14 (41%) were registered between 2006 to present.
The results show that most of the cooperatives were registered in between 2006
and 2010 while the remaining numbers were registered in the years 1996 to 2000 .The
finding also shows that in the year 1993, 1994, 1995, 1998, 2001, and 2003, there were
no cooperatives which applied for registration. It shows that during the years 2006 to
2010, members of the cooperative especially the small ones begun to make their own
cooperative but it was just a residential and due to limited resources they did not put up
their small office so they preferred to organize a cooperative with just a minimum of 15
members and more.
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
19
Table 4. Years of existence of cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga
YEARS IN OPERATION
NUMBER
PERCENTAGE
10 and below
17
50
11 to 20
13
38
21 to 30
2
6
31 to 40
1
3
41 and above
1
3
TOTAL 34
100
Years in Operation
Table 4 presents the number of years in operation of the different primary
cooperatives. The two oldest cooperative existed for more than 40 years were the St.
Joseph Multipurpose cooperative and Tabuk Multipurpose cooperative both of which are
agricultural cooperative while the newest cooperative existed for 1 year were Tabuk
OFW Credit Coop, Tabuk Feed Producers Coop, Chico Igorot Credit Coop, Bulo RIC
Kalipi Credit Coop. The results indicate that the oldest cooperative existed were
agricultural cooperatives while the newest cooperative existed were almost credit and one
producer cooperative.
Number of members
Table 5 shows the number of members of the cooperatives studied. There were 62
male and 197 female (1.01%) for the credit cooperatives, 78 male and 11 female(0.35%)
for the service cooperative,9 male 15 female(0.09%) for the producer
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
20
cooperative,10248male and 1319 female(91.04) for multipurpose agricultural,804 male
and 1132 female(7.52%) for multipurpose non-agricultural.
The results show that Multipurpose agricultural got the highest number of
members with 91.04%(23,438)of the total members followed by multipurpose non-
agricultural with 7.52% (1,936) of the total members while Producers cooperative got the
least number of members 0.09% (24).
Table 5. Number of members of the primary cooperatives
NUMBER OF MEMBERS
TYPE OF COOPERATIVE
MALE FEMALE (F) (%)
Credit
62
197
259
1.01
Service
78 11 89
0.35
Producer
9 15 24
0.09
MPC Agri
10248 13190 23438
91.04
MPC Non-agri
804 1132 1936
7.52
TOTAL
11201 14545 25746
100
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
21
Services Offered
Table 6 shows the business operation of the cooperatives, 29 cooperatives are
offering lending or credit services wherein members borrow money from the cooperative
and promise to pay with a corresponding interest; 16 cooperatives offers savings which
includes savings and time deposits; 1 cooperative offers production and 1 for
transportation. Other services which include food terminal which is a small store or
carinderia; agricultural investment; PI water refilling station, funeral care service, inn and
restaurant and training center and ATM banking for the cooperative which has a multiple
service like the Tabuk Multi-purpose Cooperative; 5% marketing services which is
includes the buy and selling of rice; 4% for processing services which includes the rice
and coffee processing; and 3% for service which is transportation and consumer
services which includes consumer store and carinderia.
The finding shows that majority of the primary cooperatives in Tabuk City
offered credit services wherein cooperatives usually get their income and the ultimate
need of the members. Since Tabuk City is the granary rice of the Cordillera some
cooperatives were engaged in rice milling and the other one is the coffee processing
which is the main product of Kalinga.
Social services
Table 7 shows that 29% of the cooperatives are offering mortuary services,this
service will cover Funeral related expense of member, 26% for education that would be
given to their members which like pre-membership Education Seminar, 3%Community
Agri-based like passing on the gift that they received from “HPI- draft animal
projectCarabao” to their co- member; 3%Enrolment of indigent to Philhealth the
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
22
cooperatives are responsible to take charge of the their members especially those who are
needy ; services which include business/SME which members are the employees itself.
They also have consultancy services wherein members ask for some advice on how to
make their business prosper, and technical services (CFS/PP) preparation usually in
making financial reports, and other related trainings; 3% Love Gift to Retiree usually
given to their retired members; 3% Accident Assistance the cooperative will be
responsible for the expenses of the members, 3% Trainings and Information given to the
members who want to have a free training related to business. 9 % for Dental Services
includes consultation and the 12% are for medical services wherein members received an
amount for hospitalization bills.
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
23
Table 6. Services offered by the cooperatives
SERVICES OFFERED
COOPERATIVE
CREDIT SERVICE PRODUCER MPC
AGRI MPC
NON-AGRI TOTAL PERCENTAGE
Lending 5
1
15
8
29
85
Savings
10
6
16
47
Marketing 5
5
15
Production 1 1
3
Transportation 1
1
3
*multiple responses
Table 7. Social services offered by the cooperatives
SOCIAL SERVICES
COOPERATIVE
CREDIT
SERVICE PRODUCER
MPC AGRI
MPC NON-AGRI
TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
Mortuary 10
10
29
Mortuary assistance
0 0
Medical 1
2
1
4
12
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
24
Table 7 continued…
SOCIAL SERVICES
COOPERATIVE
MPC
MPC NON-
CREDIT SERVICE PRODUCER AGRI
AGRI TOTAL
PERCENTAGE
Medical Assistance
1
1
3
Dental 1
1
1
3
9
Dental Assistance
0 0
Education 3
4
2
9
26
Trainings and Information
1
1
3
Love Gift to Retiree
1
1
3
Enrolment of indigent to
Philhealth
1 1 3
Community Agri-based
1
1
3
Consultancy service
1
1
3
Technical services and
Information
1 1 3
Accident Assistance
1
0
*Multiple responses
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
25
Problems Encountered by the Cooperatives
Table 8 presents that 62% of the cooperatives had problems on delinquent
borrowers wherein members failed to pay, 35% had a problem on limited resources
wherein cooperatives could not even expand their business and they were not affiliated to
some federation and union where they can ask assistance or help. Cooperatives had a
problem on lack of capital to sustain their operation consists 35%, due to small amount of
capital some cooperatives are hard up to sustain their operation; They also had a problem
on the lack of cooperative education and training for leaders and members with 39%,
some cooperatives could not conduct the said training because they have no place to
conduct a meeting, some cooperatives are only a residential and no enough capital to
conduct such trainings; 18% had problems on efficient leaders wherein the operation of
the cooperatives are slow because leaders do not have the capability to manage the
cooperative because they lack trainings especially on the leadership ;12% on the updating
of records wherein the cooperatives fail to record some important transactions and some
bookkeepers do not safe keep the records of the cooperative for future purposes; and
14.7% on the members who do not patronage the cooperative wherein members failed to
patronize the cooperative and some members do not care at all. Other issues were also
mentioned during the survey and it was found out that the operation of the cooperative
are not performing well due to some problems on the difficulty in collection wherein
members refuse to payback and as well as the delinquent borrowers, refusal of members
to attend general assemblies and emergency meetings, and lack of management wherein
there is no strong leadership in the cooperative. One cooperative said that they had a
problem in the unavailability of other feeds materials like micro elements because they
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
26
have limited resources and lack capital as well.
The most perceived problems by the credit cooperatives are the delinquent borrowers, in
the case of service cooperative that engage in transportation, they also had a problem on
the lack of cooperative education and training for leaders and members,lack of capital to
sustain the operation, limited resources and the members do not patronize the
cooperative. On the other hand, producers cooperative seems have a problem on the lack
of education for leaders and members, lack of capital to sustain the operation and limited
resources andunavailability of other feed materials like micro elements. As shown in
table 8, the cooperative do not have a problem on the delinquent borrowers.
The prevailing problems in the case of Multipurpose cooperative were the lack of
cooperative education and training for leaders and members, lack of capital to sustain the
operation,delinquent borrowers, limited resources, inefficient leaders,records are not
updatedMembers do not patronize the cooperative,difficulty in collection,refusal of
members to attend general assemblies and emergency meetings,and lack of management
The most seeming problems for the multipurpose non agricultural were the same
with the problems perceived by the Multipurpose agricultural, except that they do not
have much problem on the updating of records and the patronization of members to their
respective cooperative which they are member.The results show that the most perceived
problems by the cooperatives were the delinquent borrowers.
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
27
Table 8. Problems encountered by the cooperatives
COOPERATIVE
MPC NON-
PROBLEMS
CREDIT SERVICE
PRODUCER
MPC
AGRI AGRI TOTAL
F (%) F (%) F (%) F (%) F (%) F (%)
Lack of cooperative education and training for
leaders and members
2 33 1 100 1 100 4 24 7 78 13 38
Lack of capital to sustain the operation
3 50 1 100 1 100 8 47 2 22 12 35
Delinquent borrowers
5 83
100
14 82 7 78 21 62
Limited resources
5 83 1 100 1 100 7 41 3 33 12 35
Inefficient leaders
1 17
100
4 24 2 22 6 18
Records are not updated
2 33
100
4 24
4 12
Members do not patronize the cooperative
1
100
4
24
5
15
Difficulty in collection
1 6
1 3
Refusal of members to attend general assemblies
and emergency meetings
1 6
1 3
Lack of management
1 6
1 3
Unavailability of other feed materials like micro
elements 1
1
3
*multiple responses
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
28
Growth in Membership
Table 9 presents the number of cooperatives in the different cooperatives starting
from 2001 to 2010. Generally, all the cooperatives had an increase in their members.
Agricultural cooperatives posted the highest rate of growth among the three cooperatives
with14,211.80 % per annum.
Table shows the percentage changes from year to year. Credit cooperative had an
increase of 11.9 in 2006, 40.8 in 2007, and the succeeding years the rate of growth
became negative with 7 to 22 percent. It indicates that the numbers of members are
declining.
As shown in the table, service cooperative and producer cooperative reflected that
there were no rates of increase in their members since they are just newly registered
cooperatives.
Agricultural cooperatives had an increase of (152.92%) regular and (91.51%) associate in
2002.(-59.25%) regular and (26.60%) associate in 2003, (26.57%) regular and (-
37.74%) associate in 2004, (5.31%) regular and (315.63%) associate in 2005, (2.98%)
regular and (-69.47%) associate in 2006, (2.97%) regular and (48.77%) associatein 2007,
(5.02%) regular and ( 1,413.25%) associate in 2008,(3.35%) regular ( 9.78%) associate
in 2009, ( 0.86%) regular and (5.92%) associate in 2010.
Non agricultural cooperatives had an increase in regular members in 2002 with
(9.65%), (13.91%) in 2003, and none in 2003 and further increased in 2004 with
314.37% and had a decrease rate of growth (-74.23%) in 2005, and increased again in
2006 with 39.36% and continue to decrease in rate in the succeeding years with 15.66%
to 24.82%.
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
29
The finding signifies that regular member rate of growth show an upward trend in
all types of cooperatives while the associate rate of growth show a downward trend as
shown in Figure 1 and 2.
Table 9. Growth in membership of cooperatives
REGULAR MEMBER
YEAR
MPC NON-
CREDIT SERVICE MPC
AGRI
AGRI PRODUCER
2001 9,592
518
% 152.92
9.65
2002 24,260
568
% -
59.25
13.91
2003 9,887
647
% 26.57
-
2004 12,514
647
% 5.31
314.37
2005 151
13,178 2,681
% 11.92
2.98 -
74.23
2006 169
13,571 691
% 40.83
2.97
39.36
2007 238
13,974 963
%
-7.56 5.02
24.82
2008 220 43 14,676 1,202
%
-22.27 -
3.35 22.71
2009 171 43 15,168 1,475
%
-6.43 -
0.86 15.66
2010 160 43 15,298 1,706 19
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
30
Table 9 continued…
ASSOCIATE MEMBER
YEAR
MPC NON-
CREDIT SERVICE MPC
AGRI
AGRI PRODUCER
2001 212
% 91.51
2002 406
% 26.60
2003 514
%
-37.74
2004 320
% 315.63
2005 19
1,330
2
%
-15.79 -69.47
-100.00
2006 16
406
% 50.00
48.77
2007 24
604
89
%
-4.17 1,413.25
9,140
2008 23 46
9,140 112
% 60.87
-
9.78
9,140
2009 37 46 10,034 184
%
8.11 - 5.92 9,140
2010 40 46 10,628 347
5
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
31
30,000
25,000
20,000
Credit
15,000
Service
Producer
10,000
MPC agri
5,000
MPC non agri
-
Figure 1. Growth in Regular member of Primary Cooperatives
12,000
10,000
8,000
Credit
6,000
Service
Producer
4,000
MPC agri
2,000
MPC non agri
-
Figure 2. Growth in Associate member of Primary Cooperatives
Financial growth trend of cooperatives. This section presents the total assets, total
liabilities, and paid up share capital of the cooperatives.
Total assets. Table 10 shows that credit cooperatives posted its highest peak of
rate in 2007 with 2016.5% but sad to say they decreased in 2008 that resulted to negative
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
32
which indicates a decrease in the rate of growth of assets and increased again in 2009
with 35.6% and further decrease in 2010 with 32.7%. This indicates that there was a
decreased in the number of members in 2008. Service cooperative had an increase of
32.70% in 2010 this implies that members do not patronize the cooperative as was
indicated as one problem of the service cooperative that engage in transportation.
Agricultural cooperative had a decrease in the asset in 2002 which resulted to negative (-
76.04%) and further increased in the succeeding years. The highest posted rate of growth
in terms of assets was in 2004 with 402.02%
Non-agricultural cooperatives had a negative rate of growth in 2002, 2005 and 2007. The
highest rate of growth reached is 21,720.54% in 2002. This indicates that every other year
their assets tend to decrease but further increased in 2008 up to present.
Total Liabilities. Table 11 shows that credit cooperatives had a decrease rate of
growth in their liabilities. This indicates that over the past years, they do not incur many
expenses and members pay their loan in time.
Agricultural cooperatives had a decrease rate of growth in 2002 with (-66.41%)
and further increase in 2003 with 366.20% and it was shown in the table that it was the
year that they reached their highest rate of liabilities and further decreased in 2003 to
2010.
Non agricultural cooperatives had a negative one hundred percent (-100%) rate of
growth in 2002 and there was none in 2003 and further increased in 2004 with
(120.18%) and decreased again in 2005 with negative rate of (-86.90%) and it was in
2006 that they had their highest liabilities with 1106.31 and further decrease from 2007
up to present. It implies that every after year they had paid up their liabilities and it was
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
33
shown in the table that in 2006 they had reached their highest rate of growth that further
explains that the cooperatives have many receivables.
As shown in figure 4, agricultural cooperatives and non agricultural cooperatives
had an upward trend in 2005 to 2007.
Paid-up share capital. Table 12 shows that credit cooperatives had a decreased
rate of growth in the paid up share capital from 149% to 28.22%. Service cooperative had
an increase of 133.33% in 2010 and this indicates that members are doing their part well.
In the case of agricultural cooperatives, the highest posted rate of growth is 639.84% in
2003 and 515.98% in 2005 but they had a negative rate of growth in the years 2002, 2004
and 2006. It implies that there is a little percentage increase in the past ten years.
As shown in figure 5 that there is a wavelike trend sometimes it’s upward and sometimes
downward. It implies that there is no consistency in the rate of growth in terms of paid-up
share capital.
In the case of agricultural cooperatives they had a decreased rate of growth of
paid up share capital in 2002 and 2005 same holds through with the non-agricultural
cooperatives. Unlike in the agricultural cooperatives, the non agricultural cooperatives
had its highest peak of growth in 2002 with 13564.00% that already in thousands percent
followed by the year 2004 with 189.61% rate of growth. It implies that members of the
cooperatives had paid their share capital and the number of members also increased in
that particular year.
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
34
Table 10. Total assets of cooperatives
TOTAL ASSETS
YEAR
CREDIT
SERVICE
MPC AGRI
MPC NON-AGRI
2001 285,602,564.04
15,736,821.00
% -76.04
-99.75
2002 68,419,982.54
40,000.00
% 17.72
21,720.54
2003 80,542,505.56
8,728,217.79
% 402.02
204.13
2004 404,336,777.38
26,544,833.43
% 0.72
-
40.15
2005 791,593.24
407,266,670.98
15,887,056.14
% 248.13
3.25
85.19
2006 2,755,756.80
420,506,433.48
29,421,843.62
% 2,016.51
3.91
-0.60
2007 58,325,787.94
436,966,458.28
29,244,254.24
% -79.87
10.22
25.94
2008 11,742,953.76
481,610,507.41
36,829,654.64
% 35.57
27.35
22.93
2009 15,919,695.44
80,793.06
613,318,791.88
45,274,681.40
% 32.70
274.71
8.49
23.21
2010 21,125,284.27
302,735.96
665,416,179.22
55,782,280.05
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
35
Table 11. Total liabilities of cooperatives
TOTAL LIABILITIES
YEAR
CREDIT
SERVICE
MPC AGRI
MPC NON-AGRI
2001 93,008,238.28
4,175,923.00
% -66.41
-100.00
2002 31,241,175.42
% 366.20
2003 145,646,843.06
2,570,531.53
% 17.14
120.18
2004 170,605,209.73
5,659,839.24
% 1.82
-86.90
2005 175,934.04
173,704,282.61
741,299.32
% 568.02
11.37
1,106.31
2006 1,175,282.34
193,457,463.63
8,942,388.72
% 88.40
4.89
2.31
2007 2,214,202.44
203,398,913.17
9,148,942.33
% 160.14
18.71
32.02
2008 5,760,065.89
241,452,003.43
12,078,771.34
% 44.09
41.04
18.23
2009 8,299,466.23
14,195.24
340,537,653.57
14,280,646.00
% 35.81
25.34
14.22
10.92
2010 11,271,530.49
17,792.36
388,966,249.54
15,840,393.60
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
36
Table 12. Paid-up share capital of cooperatives
PAID-UP SHARE CAPITAL
YEAR
CREDIT
SERVICE
MPC AGRI
MPC NON-AGRI
2001 166,489,842.65
10,083,175.00
% -83.16
-99.60
2002 28,038,391.49
40,000.00
% 639.84
13,564.00
2003 207,438,905.51
5,465,600.03
% -84.13
189.61
2004 32,917,976.93
15,828,854.24
% 515.98
-39.20
2005 604,560.27
202,768,031.03
9,624,458.92
%
149.08
- 0.04
15.39
2006 1,505,816.07
202,689,015.90
11,105,940.36
% 128.69
2.92
56.72
2007 3,443,666.76
208,606,188.11
17,405,784.83
% 64.24
3.80
24.95
2008 5,655,710.10
216,531,328.55
21,748,369.81
% 33.44
16.03
23.43
2009 7,547,180.19
112,500.00
251,244,625.43
26,843,092.70
% 28.22
133.33
8.67
21.52
2010 9,677,179.85
262,500.00
273,039,010.28
32,620,775.46
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
37
700,000,000.00
600,000,000.00
500,000,000.00
400,000,000.00
Credit
300,000,000.00
Service
MPC agri
200,000,000.00
MPC non agri
100,000,000.00
-
Figure 3. Total assets of cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga
450,000,000.00
400,000,000.00
350,000,000.00
300,000,000.00
Credit
250,000,000.00
200,000,000.00
Service
150,000,000.00
MPC agri
100,000,000.00
MPC non
50,000,000.00
agri
-
Figure 4. Total liabilities of cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
38
300,000,000.00
250,000,000.00
200,000,000.00
Credit
150,000,000.00
Service
100,000,000.00
MPC agri
MPC non agri
50,000,000.00
-
Figure 5. Paid-up share capital of Cooperatives in Tabuk City Kalinga
Allocation to Net Surplus
This section presents the allocation of Net surplus of Agricultural cooperatives
and Non agricultural cooperatives that was distributed as follows: Gross Revenues, Due
to CETF Local, General Reserve Fund, Interest on Share Capital and Patronage Refund.
Gross
Revenues. Table 13 shows the amount allocated to gross revenues. Gross
revenues are the money gained from the sales and the cost of goods sold, before taking
indirect costs into account. Credit cooperatives had increased 261.83% in 2006 and
further decreased in 2007 with 126.99% and continue to decrease the succeeding years.
Service cooperative had increase in 2010 with 0.68% since it only started its operation in
2009.Agricultural cooperatives had a positive rate of growth in the past ten years and
reach its highest peak in 2009 with 12.46%. It was only in 2004 where it decreases to(-
10.88%).
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
39
Non Agricultural cooperatives had a rate of growth in 2002 with 1818.41% which
was the highest peak reached and the succeeding years it shows a negative rate and it was
only in 2006 and 2010 that they had a positive rate of growth which means an increase in
the gross revenues.
Table 13. Cooperatives Gross revenues
GROSS REVENUES
YEAR
MPC NON-
CREDIT SERVICE
MPC
AGRI AGRI
2001 46,174,941.69
118,000.00
% 2.55
1,818.41
2002 47,351,049.89
2,263,720.37
% 5.61
-8.05
2003 50,009,404.40
2,081,453.79
% -10.88
-21.37
2004 44,569,704.75
1,636,668.57
% 6.88
-27.79
2005 111,952.57
47,637,296.64
1,181,866.70
% 261.83
7.17
448.23
2006 405,082.90
51,055,137.02
6,479,345.44
% 126.99
5.49
-7.86
2007 919,502.57
53,859,492.80
5,970,300.78
% 66.80
9.85
-14.97
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
40
Table 13 continued…
GROSS REVENUES
YEAR
CREDIT
SERVICE
MPC AGRI
MPC NON-AGRI
2008 1,533,691.32
59,165,772.48
5,076,703.50
% 35.02
12.46
-
78.92
2009 2,070,753.41
665,300.00
66,536,927.48
1,070,351.70
% 17.57
0.68
10.03
73.02
2010 2,434,548.86
669,800.00
73,213,803.37
1,851,928.94
80000000
70000000
60000000
50000000
Credit
40000000
Service
30000000
MPC agri
MPC non agri
20000000
10000000
0
Figure 6. Cooperatives Gross revenues
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
41
Net
surplus.Table 14 shows the amount allocated to net surplus. Net surplus is the
excess of payments made by the members for the loans borrowed, or the goods and
services availed by them from the cooperative or the difference of the rightful amount
due to the members for their products sold or services rendered to the cooperative
including other inflows of assets resulting from other operating activities. Credit
cooperatives had a rate of growth in 2006 where it also reaches the highest peak of about
271.82% but sad to say it further decreased from 2007 to 2010. Service cooperatives had
a negative rate of growth in 2010 with (-51.43%) which means a decreased in the net
surplus.
Agricultural cooperatives had posted its highest rate of growth in 2007 with
35.18% but in the years 2004 and 2006 it had a decreased to -20.68 and 24.97
respectively. On the other hand, non-agricultural cooperatives posted its highest peak in
2006 with 147.62%. It was only in 2005 where it decreased to (-50.57%).
The results shows that the three of cooperatives experienced a negative rate of
growth in net surplus except for the credit cooperatives with a positive decreasing rate of
growth in net surplus.
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
42
Table 14. Cooperative net surplus
NET SURPLUS
YEAR
CREDIT
SERVICE
MPC AGRI
MPC NON-AGRI
2001 25,383,678.43
1,263,985.75
% 7.69
10.37
2002 27,336,673.01
1,395,007.55
% 4.25
7.16
2003 28,497,241.18
1,494,897.54
% -
20.68
56.09
2004 22,603,532.78
2,333,335.41
% 1.01
-
50.57
2005 44,395.70
22,831,199.04
1,153,408.87
% 271.82
-
24.97
147.62
2006 165,074.19
17,130,011.77
2,856,087.87
% 139.20
35.18
14.52
2007 394,865.71
23,156,610.91
3,270,733.32
% 69.84
3.50
9.44
2008 670,646.54
23,967,221.40
3,579,361.18
% 41.44
14.82
13.33
2009 948,594.62
148,129.82
27,519,762.64
4,056,340.02
% 7.53
-
51.43
13.08
34.57
2010 1,020,066.23
71,942.12
31,119,011.06
5,458,497.53
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
43
35000000
30000000
25000000
20000000
Credit
15000000
Service
MPC agri
10000000
MPC non agri
5000000
0
Figure 7. Cooperatives net surplus
General Reserve fund
Table 15 shows the amount allocated for the General Reserve Fund. General
Reserve fund refers to the accumulated amount of money annually deducted from the net
surplus. It is used for the stability of the cooperative.
Credit cooperatives had its highest rate of growth in 2006 with 271.82% but
further decreased to 263.41 to 49.23 in the succeeding years. It implies that the rate of
growth in the general reserve fund has been affected by the net surplus and gross income.
On the other hand, service cooperative posted a negative rate of growth in the general
reserve fund in 2010(-51.43%) same holds through with the credit cooperatives that it has
been affected by the decreased in the net surplus and gross income.
Agricultural cooperatives posted its highest rate of growth in 2003 with 15.58%
only which is lesser than what is expected. It had its negative rate of growth in the years
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
44
2004, 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2010. It implies that over the past ten years, it resulted to a
decreased in the allocation of general reserve fund. In the case of the non
Agricultural cooperatives, it was only in 2005 that they had decreased in the allocation of
general reserve fund and posted its highest rate of growth in 2006 with the maximum rate
of 50493.35% and it was quietly surprising.
The results show that among the four types of cooperatives. It was only the non
agricultural cooperatives who had been experiencing a positive rate of growth in the
general reserve fund. It implies that they were performing well and have tried to increase
their sales.
Table 15. Cooperatives general reserve fund
GENERAL RESERVE FUND
YEAR
CREDIT
SERVICE
MPC AGRI
MPC NON-AGRI
2001 3,319,339.79
120,398.48
% 2.57
6.73
2002 3,404,701.46
128,500.75
% 15.58
5.44
2003 3,935,254.16
135,489.75
% -18.65
85.62
2004 3,201,457.03
251,502.24
% -
-
99.27
2005 4,439.57
3,201,457.03
1,838.37
% 271.82
-
6.72
50,493.55
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
45
Table 15 continued…
GENERAL RESERVE FUND
YEAR
CREDIT
SERVICE
MPC AGRI
MPC NON-AGRI
2006 16,507.41
2,986,260.95
930,096.71
% 263.41
-
47.35
21.29
2007 59,989.49
1,572,318.34
1,128,078.92
% 129.55
0.84
18.24
2008 137,703.98
1,585,559.58
1,333,796.37
% 78.75
-
95.79
16.88
2009 246,151.88
14,812.92
66,674.43
1,558,911.18
%
49.23
- 51.43
- 4,182.40
1.31
2010 367,344.02
7,194.23
-
2,721,918.57
1,579,381.14
5000000
4000000
3000000
2000000
Credit
1000000
Service
0
MPC agri
-1000000
MPC non agri
-2000000
-3000000
-4000000
Figure 8. Cooperatives general reserve fund
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
46
Due to CETF Local. Table 16 shows the allocation to CETF Local. Cooperative
Education training fund is used to provide for the training, development and similar other
cooperative activities geared towards the growth of the cooperative movement.
Credit cooperatives had an increase rate of growth of about 271.85% in 2006 at
the same time it was in this year when it reached its highest peak but further decreased to
139.21 to 7.80 in 2007 to 2010 respectively. On the other hand, service cooperative had a
negative rate of growth of (-9.88). It implies that as year goes by, they tend to have a
decreased in the allocation of education and training fund for the members.
Agricultural cooperatives as shown in table 16, which they tend to decrease in
2003, 2004 and 2006 which resulted in a negative rate of growth. The rest years it shows
a positive rate of growth wherein that particular year they had increased in the allocation
of the education and training fund. On the other hand, non agricultural cooperatives had
also a negative rate of growth in the allocation of Education and training fund in the years
2005, 2008 and 2009 but posted its highest rate in 2006 with 3,612.66%.
Table 16. Cooperatives Due to CETF local
DUE TO CETF LOCAL
YEAR
CREDIT
SERVICE
MPC AGRI
MPC NON-AGRI
2001 1,432,288.93
60,199.00
%
2002 1,539,460.67
64,256.38
%
2003 921,717.22
67,744.88
% -1.37
57.26
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
47
Table 16 continued…
DUE TO CETF LOCAL
YEAR
CREDIT
SERVICE
MPC AGRI
MPC NON-AGRI
2004 909,090.33
106,537.17
%
5.60
- 95.29
2005 2,219.79
959,987.63 5,017.79
% 271.82
-
1.60
3,612.66
2006 8,253.70
944,609.93 186,293.30
% 139.21
23.68
58.26
2007 19,743.30
1,168,324.11 294,837.04
% 100.15
2.67
-
20.80
2008 39,515.65
1,199,564.57 233,498.44
% 14.56
6.53
-
48.61
2009 45,268.83 14,195.24 1,277,912.63 120,006.04
% 7.80
-
9.88
8.45
76.90
2010 48,800.81 12,792.36 1,385,958.84 212,293.96
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
48
1800000
1600000
1400000
1200000
1000000
Credit
800000
Service
600000
MPC agri
MPC non agri
400000
200000
0
Figure 9. Cooperative Due to CETF local
Interest on share capital.Table 17 shows the allocation in the Interest on share
Capital refers to the interest earned by the member’s paid-up to the capitalization of the
cooperative. Credit cooperatives posted its highest rate of growth in 2006 with 313.14%
but further decrease in the succeeding years with (139.20%) in 2007,(70.97%) in
2008,(37.88%) in 2009,and ( 6.73%) in 2010 the lowest rate of growth attained. On the
other hand, service cooperative posted its highest rate of growth in 2002 with
13,978.21%. In 2003 and 2005 it resulted a negative rate of growth with (-88.57) and (-
68.52%) respectively. In the case of non agricultural cooperatives, they posted the highest
rate of growth in 2002 with 971.42% and the lowest rate of growth reached was in 2005
with (-62.38%). The results show that service, multipurpose, and non agricultural
cooperatives had a decreased rate of growth in terms of interest on share capital.
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
49
Table 17. Cooperatives interest on share capital
INTEREST ON SHARE CAPITAL
YEAR
CREDIT
SERVICE
MPC AGRI
MPC NON-AGRI
2001 1,071,215.07
50,372.83
% 13,978.21
971.42
2002 150,807,946.29
539,703.18
% -
88.57
5.45
2003 17,236,625.48
569,103.18
% 13.48
108.23
2004 19,559,311.17
1,185,037.62
%
- 68.52
- 62.38
2005 19,578.51
6,157,122.22 445,798.53
% 313.14
46.99
83.01
2006 80,886.37
9,050,542.57 815,857.48
% 139.20
36.75
66.26
2007 193,484.20
12,376,229.27 1,356,421.94
% 70.97
6.83
14.30
2008 330,794.58
13,221,000.22 1,550,428.31
% 37.88
6.98
11.92
2009 456,111.94 103,690.45 14,144,434.27 1,735,282.58
% 6.73
-
51.43
16.86
50.52
2010 486,817.42 50,359.64
16,528,699.42 2,611,914.00
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
50
16000000
14000000
12000000
10000000
Credit
80000000
Service
60000000
MPC agri
MPC non agri
40000000
20000000
0
2001200220032004200520062007200820092010
Figure 10. Cooperatives interest on share capital
Patronage refund. Table 18 presents the allocation in patronage refund. Patronage
Refund refers to refund or return to the members of net savings generated from the
operations of the cooperative. The table shows that were no patronage refund made by
the credit cooperatives for the past 6 years, unlike for the service cooperatives wherein
they allocated an amount of 50,359.64 in 2010.
Agricultural cooperatives posted its highest rate of growth in 2002 with 556.29%
and further decreased in 2002 to 2010.As shown in table 18, it had a negative rate of
growth in the years 2006 and 2008. Non agricultural cooperatives on the other hand
posted its highest rate of growth in 2002 with 971.42% and further decreased in the
succeeding years. It was only in 2005 that they had a negative rate of growth in the
allocation of patronage refund.
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
51
The results indicate that agricultural and non agricultural cooperatives were the
ones who allocated their remaining percentage of net surplus in the patronage refund.On
the other hand, service and credit cooperatives did not allocate an amount to their
patronage refund.
Table 18. Cooperatives patronage refund
PATRONAGE REFUND
YEAR
CREDIT
SERVICE
MPC AGRI
MPC NON-AGRI
2001 642,874.87
33,581.88
% 556.29
971.42
2002 4,219,100.50
359,802.12
% 8.21
5.45
2003 4,565,544.25
379,402.12
% 26.12
108.23
2004 5,758,168.36
790,025.09
% 98.71
-
62.38
2005 11,442,225.78
297,199.02
% -
48.59
12.15
2006 5,882,544.99
333,298.14
% 8.65
118.84
2007 6,391,180.96
729,391.36
% -.97
11.97
2008 6,201,346.68
816,698.54
% 7.68
23.98
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
52
Table 18 continued…
PATRONAGE REFUND
YEAR
MPC NON-
CREDIT SERVICE
MPC
AGRI
AGRI
2009 6,677,855.12
1,012,510.16
% 14.88
21.79
2010
50,359.64
7,671,220.91
1,233,136.84
14000000
12000000
10000000
8000000
Credit
Service
6000000
MPC agri
4000000
MPC non agri
2000000
0
Figure 11.Cooperatives Patronage refund
Characterization of Primary Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga /
AlonaRizalina G. Goyagoy. 2012
53
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
The study was conducted to determine the types and characteristics of
cooperatives as to: date of registration, services offered, number of members per
cooperative, assets and liabilities, paid-up share capital, to document the performances of
the cooperative in the following areas in terms of membership and operations and to find
out there problems in managing a cooperative.
There were 40 cooperatives organized within the City of Tabuk. However, during
the conduct of the study, only 34 primary cooperatives were still active while the other 4
were no longer operating because of lack of capital to sustain their operation.
The oldest cooperative existed in the place were operating for 50 years while the
newest cooperatives were operating for 1 year. There were more cooperatives registered
during the years 2006 to present and it was found out that during the year 1993, 1994,
1995, 1998, 2001and 2003 there were no cooperatives applied for registration.
There were two kinds of members in the cooperative, categorized as regular and
associate members. As to gender, there were more female members than male members.
It was found out that female members were more active compared to male members.
The findings show that most of the cooperatives were offering credit services to
their members. There were some cooperatives engaged in rice milling and coffee
processing and funeral care services which were not all common to cooperatives.
In terms of social services offered, majority of the cooperative were offering
mortuary services. Some cooperatives offered assistance to their members in terms of
training and consultancy services.
54
The findings shows that majority of the cooperatives have a problem on the
delinquency of members in their loan repayment. Most of the cooperatives’ records were
not updated due to absence of bookkeepers and they have lack of capital to sustain their
operation, they also mentioned about the limited resources. Other issues and problems
capability were the refusal of members to attend general meetings, lack of management
wherein there is no strong leadership among the members and officers.
In terms of growth in membership the rate of regular members show an uptrend
growth while the associate members show a downtrend growth. In actual number,
Agricultural cooperatives topped the highest number of members while the producer
cooperative got the lowest number of member with 24 members only since it was a newly
registered cooperative.
In terms of financial growth trend, the rate of increase shows that non agricultural
cooperative has a higher percentage rate increase but in actual number agricultural
cooperatives topped the highest total assets.
In terms of allocation of net surplus, non agricultural cooperatives got the highest
average rate increase in gross revenues. Credit cooperatives got the highest average rate
increase and agricultural cooperatives got the lowest average rate increase but have the
highest amount in actual number. In terms of the allocation to general reserve fund, non
agricultural cooperatives got the highest average rate increase followed by the credit
cooperatives. On the other hand, agricultural cooperatives and service cooperatives had a
negative average rate of increase.
In terms in the allocation of due to CETF local, non agricultural cooperatives got
the highest average rate of increase followed by the credit cooperatives and service
55
cooperatives got the lowest average rate increase with a negative percentage increase
followed by the agricultural cooperatives.
In terms of the allocation of interest on share capital, agricultural cooperative got
the highest average rate of increase followed by non agricultural cooperatives.
In terms of the allocation to patronage refund, non agricultural cooperatives
posted the highest average rate increase followed by agricultural cooperatives. The
findings revealed that credit and service cooperative did not allocate the remaining of
their net surplus on the patronage refund.
Conclusion
Based on the findings of this study, the followings conclusions were drawn:
1. Majority of the cooperatives are registered as multipurpose cooperative and at
the same time offered savings deposits.
2. Majority of the cooperatives were residential and is not in close proximity to the
members which discourage them to attend assembly especially emergency meetings.
3. One of the prevailing problems of the cooperatives is the delinquent borrowers. This,
according to the results was due mainly to lack of proper management and recording.
4. Most of the cooperatives, especially the small ones, hardly submit their annual
reports to the CDA. This was associated to lack of management capability and absence of
efficient record keeping.
5. In terms of the financial performance and growth in membership, agricultural
cooperatives had the highest rate of increase over the past ten years; it is because most of
the agricultural cooperatives were the first cooperatives organized in Tabuk City,
Kalinga.
56
Recommendations
1. The cooperatives should avail training and seminars to enable them to improve the
operation and management of the cooperative. Cooperatives should seek the assistance of
the union or federation for training assistance. To make the trainings more helpful for the
cooperative, both members and officials should be sent to training to gain needed
knowledge and motivation to keep the cooperative going.
.
2. Cooperatives should have a strict policy on lending to avoid bankruptcy and in
order to minimize delinquent borrowers.
3.The Cooperative Development Authority to monitor the performance of the
cooperatives and strictly implement standard requirements from cooperatives.
4. The officers of the different cooperatives should always be responsible enough
to make the annual report of the cooperative that will be submitted to the CDA to avoid
penalties.
5. Cooperatives should enhance or improve their products or services so that more
members will join and at the same time, they will enjoy the benefits from the cooperative.
LITERATURE CITED
57
ALCALA, M., AGBISIT, R; BANAIRA, L; BASKINAS, J.; DOMINGO, A;
FONTAMILLAS A.; GAERLAN, J.; LEGASPI, C.; and STEVENLINCK, M.
1994. Trainer’s Manual for Cooperatives, Land Bank Countryside Development
Foundation, Inc. P. 72.
ANONYMOUS, 2010.Selected Statistics.Retrieved October 10, 2010 from
http://www.cda.gov.ph/website/Downloads/SelectedStats2010.pdf.
BOGAN, C. E. 2005.Testing the relationship between team and partner characteristics
and cooperative benchmarking outcomes: Retrieved July 11, 2011 from
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1288444
COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY.2008. Master list of Registered
operating Cooperatives in all Provinces, CAR. Pp. 1-663.
BOXWELL, R. J. Jr. 1994. Benchmarking for Competitive Advantage.New York:
McGraw-Hill: Retrieved July 08, 2011 fromhttp://www.google.com.ph
FAJARDO, F.R. AND F.D. ABELLA. 1993. Cooperatives. Quezon City: Rex Bookstore.
P. 46.
NOLLEDO, J.N. 1996. Principles of Agrarians Reforms, Cooperatives and Taxation
Caloocan City, Philippines: Graphics Arts, Inc. P.13.
RICHARD D. 2006. National Cooperative Bank. NCB/NCBA Survey of Purchasing
Cooperatives on Benchmarking. Retrieved July 08, 2011 from
http://www.google.com.ph
ROUSELLE, L.2004. Benchmarking the Efficiency of Philippines Electric Cooperatives
Using Scholastic Frontier Analysis and Data Development Analysis, East-West
Center (ECW), Honolulu, United States: Retrieved July 11, 2011 from
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Digital-Library/Publications/Detail
SHAHALIZADEH, M. 2009. Benchmarking of Thesis Research: A Case Study of
Benchmarking. An International Journal: Retrieved July 08, 2011 from
http://www.fibre2fashion.com/industry-article/9/888/ benchmarking
TABDI , R. A. 1997. Baseline survey of cooperatives in Atok, Benguet. BS Thesis.
Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.P.48.
TOMAS S, 1992. "How To Get The Most Out Of Benchmarking The Motorola Way",
35th International Conference Proceedings of the APICS,, Montreal, Canada,
Pp.22-26. Retrieved July 08, 2011 from http://www.benchnet.com/wib.htm
58
WADSWORTH. 2001. Report to Congress on the Importance of the Support for
Overseas Development Act. Retrieved July 12, 2011 from
http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PPACJ894.pdf
YANG, E. H. 1998.Beating the competition: Importance of Data Bank. Washington, DC:
Kaiser Associates. 1988. P.
176. ISBN
978-
1563650185.http://www.google.com.ph
APPENDIX A
59
Letter to the Respondents
Republic of the Philippines
Benguet State University
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
AND AGRIBUSINESS MANAGEMENT
College of Agriculture
November 2011
_____________
_____________
_____________
_____________
Sir/Madam:
Warm
Greetings!
I am a graduating student of Benguet State University taking up Bachelor of
Science in Agribusiness, major in Cooperative Management. One of the requirements of
the course is a research work. I am currently conducting a research entitled
“Characterization of Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga”.
In this connection, may I therefore ask for your cooperation in providing the
necessary information about your cooperative.
Thank you very much for your support. God bless you all.
Very respectfully yours,
ALONA RIZALINA G. GOYAGOY
Student
Researcher
Noted:
DAVID JOSEPH BOGNADON
Thesis Adviser
APPENDIX B
60
Letter to the Barangay Officials
Republic of the Philippines
Benguet State University
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
AND AGRIBUSINESS MANAGEMENT
College of Agriculture
November 2011
Brgy. Captain
_____________
_____________
_____________
Sir/Madam:
Warm
Greetings!
I am a graduating student of Benguet State University taking up Bachelor of
Science in Agribusiness, major in Cooperative Management. One of the requirements of
the course is a research work. I am currently conducting a research entitled
“Characterization of Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga”.
In line with this, I would like to request your good office to allow me to conduct
interview with the different cooperatives existing in your barangay through a survey
questionnaire to give light on my objectives.
Thank you so much, sir. Your help will go a long way.
Truly
yours,
ALONA RIZALINA GOYAGOY
Noted:
Student Researcher
DAVID JOSEPH BOGNADON
Thesis Adviser
APPENDIX C
61
Letter to the Mayor
Republic of the Philippines
Benguet State University
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
AND AGRIBUSINESS MANAGEMENT
College of Agriculture
November 2011
HON. FERDINAND B. TUBBAN
City Mayor
City Hall, Dagupan,Tabuk City, Kalinga
Sir:
Warm
Greetings!
I am a graduating student of Benguet State University taking up Bachelor of
Science in Agribusiness, major in Cooperative Management. One of the requirements of
the course is a research work. I am currently conducting a research entitled
“Characterization of Cooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga”.
In line with this, I would like to request your good office to allow me to conduct
interview with the different cooperatives in Tabuk City through a survey questionnaire to
give light on my objectives.
Thank you so much, sir. Your help will go a long way.
Noted:
Truly
yours,
DAVID JOSEPH BOGNADON
ALONA
RIZALINAGOYAGOY
Thesis Adviser
Student Researcher
APPENDIX D
62
Survey Questionnaire
Direction: Please fill-up the blanks with the needed information and/or check the
parenthesis, which fits your answers.
I. General Information
1. Name of the Cooperative:_________________________________________________
2. Address: ______________________________________________________________
3. Date Organized/Start of Operation: _________________________________________
4. Date Registered: ________________________________________________________
5. Number of years in operation: _____________________________________________
6. Number of members in the cooperative (current)_______________________________
Capital Build up__________________________________________________________
Increase/Decrease (Growth) _________________________________________________
II. ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
1. Initial membership:
Regular
Associate
Male _______ ______
Female
_______ ______
III. BUSINESS OPERATIONS
1. Services Offered:
( ) Lending
( ) Trading
( ) Manufacturing
( ) Contract
( ) Transportation
( ) Electric
( ) Savings
( ) Insurance
( ) Marketing
( ) Others (please specify) ________________________________________
2. Social Services:
( ) Medical
( ) Mortuary
63
( ) Dental
( ) Education
( ) Others (please specify) ________________________________________
IV. What are the problems or issues encountered by the cooperative?
( ) Lack of cooperative education and training for leaders and members
( ) Lack of capital to sustain the operation
( ) Delinquent borrowers
( ) Limited resources
( ) Inefficient leaders
( ) Records are not updated
( ) Members do not patronize the cooperative
( ) Others (please specify) __________________________________________
6969
64
APPENDIX E
Data sheet
Name of Cooperative:
Type of Cooperative:
Cooperative No.1
A. Growth in Membership
Particulars
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
2009 2010
No. of Regular
members
(male)
No. of Regular
members
(female)
No. of associate
members(male)
No. of associate
members
(female)
Total No. of
members
6969
65
B. Financial Information
Particulars
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Total
Assets
Total
Liabilities
Paid-up
Share
Capital
C. Allocation to Net surplus
Particulars Percentage AMOUNT
ALLOCATED
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Gross
Revenues
Net
surplus
General
Reserve
Fund
CETF
Due to
CETF
Local
Interest on
Share
Capital
Patronage
Refund
6969
66
6969
67
6969
68
6969
69
6969
70
6969
71
6969
72
6969
73
6969
74
6969
75
6969
76
6969
77
Document Outline
- Characterization of PrimaryCooperatives in Tabuk City, Kalinga
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- REVIEW OF LITERATURE
- METHODOLOGY
- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
- SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
- LITERATURE CITED