Asian Alliance for Solidarity Economy

Opening Session:

Mr. Hideo Ishizuka & Ms. Yukari Shigeto

Shoko Uchida (Secretariat of AFSE)

Yoko Kitazawa (Co-chairperson of AFSE Japanese committee)

Pierre Calame (FPH, France)

Farmer’s cooperatives are very strong in Asia, as is microcredit lending, with Bangladesh leading the way. However, these efforts are not often called “solidarity economy” or thought of as parts of the same process. Also, the agricultural cooperatives are not necessarily fighting neoliberalism or practicing participatory democracy.

The concept of “social economy” began in Europe after the war, but was later eclipsed by socialism, and then in the 1990’s was revived in the name of “solidarity economy” in the face of the havoc wreaked by neoliberalism and structural adjustment programs, the collapse of socialism, and new environmental challenges.

The World Social Forums are connected to the resurgence of solidarity economy and a response to the crisis of capitalism. Solidarity economy includes a broad variety of issues dealing with work, employment, production, technology, ethical consumption, participatory budgeting, socially responsible finance, sustainable finance, social/local currencies, debt cancellation, fair trade, women, and socially responsible enterprises. Tools include microcredit, fair trade, cooperatives, debt cancellation, international regulation and more.

We need to deepen and radicalize the solidarity economy movement. Go to the roots not treat the symptoms. The global economy has become invisible – we don’t know where or how what we consume is produced, where money comes from or goes, an opaque process.

“Economics” has become an ideology rather than a discipline, we need to address the gaps in the discipline and train economists for our future.

Plenary Session 1: “Solidarity Economy from the Global Perspective”

Ben Quinones (CSRSME Asia)

Vincent Dagenais (Groupe d’economie solidaire du Quebec: GESQ)

Martine Theveniaut (Lux-09 Workshop 7)

Yvon Poirier (Canadian Community Economic Development Network: CCEDNET, RIPESS North America)

David Thompson (Jobs Australia)

Must ensure that finance serves the real economy. We can’t forget about the world food crisis, the importance of local produce and good sovereignty.

Democracy is in crisis. Start with the grassroots not the large institutions, involve the excluded, make local agreements.

Territorial approach – talk about access to land, local food production, directly linking producers and consumers. How can we transfer from the globalized growth/debt driven economy to a federated local sustainable economies approach.

With oil/gas costs and diminishing resources transportation costs of the global production chain no longer makes sense.

Next steps: learning from and listening to people already practicing solidarity economy, linking with researchers, knowledge exchange, overcome intercultural and language barriers.

“The world is enough for everyone’s needs, but not enough for everyone’s greed.”

We have to look at solidarity economy like our bodies, we have different efforts, say feet, and hands, but we have to put it all together to make a full body.

The government in Australia is now trying to quantify the contribution of the non-profit sector in Australia, actually generates $80 billion/year, employs 880,000 people, and engages 2.7 million volunteers.

The non-profit sector is substantial, but how are our outcomes? We haven’t used the financial crisis to promote solidarity economy as well as we should.

We also need to document the outcomes and impacts of solidarity economy practices.

Climate change and the end of oil will cause energy to go up having implications for food and hunger, food sovereignty more important than ever.

Question and Answer

Question about territorial communities versus interest and internet based communities. We should not forget the advocacy potential of these communities, especially around corporate accountability and lobbying in the North to change policies towards the South. Also international territorial associations, such as people around the world living in mountains facing similar problems.

Question about isolation and suicide, and how to bring these people back into society.

Comment about difficulty of linking local to international and the importance of having all the layers, linking local to regional to national to international.

Comment about the need for microfinance, fair trade, coops, international regulation advocacy and others to work together rather than individually. RIPESS is working on this.

Plenary 2: Solidarity Economy from the Asian Perspective

Reiko Inoue (Co-chair of AFSE Japanese committee)

Ben Quinones (CSRSME Asia)

Denison Jayasooria (Binary University College, Malaysia)

Ila Shah (SEWA, India)

Jang Won Bong (Korea Foundation for Social Investment, Korea)

Jun Nishikawa (Co-chair of AFSE Japanese committee, Japan)

Solidarity economy practices have been active in Asia for a long time but have not been seen together as linked. The 1^st Asian Forum for Solidarity Economy in the Phillippines began this process.

CSRSME in Phillippines is promoting solidarity economy, facilitating dialogue on solidarity economy, has spun off two co-ops, has a holdings company for social enterprises, and an educational institution, International Institute for Solidarity Economy. Mobilize savings from the grassroots, co-ops, and invest in social enterprises. Approach: 1) building shared vision 2) mobilize local resources 3) link up with stakeholders, network, supply chain management 4) project management. How is solidarity economy different from the mainstream economy? It strengthens civil society. It is based on the “triple bottom line”, financial profit, social benefit, and environmental effects. “Social enterprises” as the intersection between non-profits and co-ops. Democratic ownership and a social mission, led by principles of sustainability, transparency, equity, and participatory democracy.

Malaysia experiencing economic growth and development, potential for co-op movement, growing civil society, also no minimum wage, wealth gap growing, digital divide, possibility of public sector being privatized into social enterprises.

Center for Social Entrepeneurship in Malaysia doing research and networking, rural community internet centers addressing the digital divide. Participatory approach key, need by-in from local community leaders. How to transform into a coherent political force?

SEWA in India strengthen local production and consumption, create a market within the organization for poor women’s enterprises, member-owned, concept of self-reliance, vocational training.

In Korea generally use term “social economy” instead of “solidarity economy”. 27 unions form the Korea Foundation for Social Investment, including 242 community self-support centers, almost 3,000 businesses, 26,000 people, 251 accredited social enterprises working in job creation, social services, social welfare, and environment. The social enterprises integrate marginalized people, those without technical skills, elderly, long-term unemployed, into the workforce. Social enterprises serve as middle man between civil society and government.

Japan in 1989 recognized juridical existence of NPO’s. The new government is advocating a “fraternity society” with a greater focus on the poor. How does Japan use it’s capital? Buying bonds from the US, how else could that capital be used? Solutions: local consumption and production, lifestyle shifts, social policies, connecting around the world.

Question and Answer

Question about the dependence of social economy on the government in Korea, should the social economy be more independent of the government? Social economy in Korea financed by a mix of government and private money, multiple goals, multiple stakeholders, multiple resources.

Plenary Session 3: Alternative Development Approaches & Solidarity Economy

Bernd Balkenhol (International Labor Organization)

Viviane Vandemeulebroucke (INAISE)

Micol Pistelli (MIX)

Mariko Kawaguchi (Daiwa Soken)

The difference between social finance and conventional finance: mission (social and financial goals), scale (microfinance being small, co-op finance in some nations includes 1/3 of the market), scope, values, innovations. Must look at both the interest of the stakeholders and the effects on the community. Social financial institutions must be profitable but they cannot maximize profits. Structural dependency on the government is not good. Social finance should include government policies that induce financial institutions to maximize public benefits.

AIG bailout was $170 billion, yet less than $40 billion invested in microfinance around the world.

Question: should social finance continue as a niche sector or spread to the whole economy? Often co-ops when get larger become easily convert into mainstream corporations.

The International Labor Association working on two research projects 1)to demonstrate the effects of microfinance on child labor and working conditions 2) to test approaches to microinsurance

INAISE is a social finance member organization network with 54 organizations in 30 countries. Socially conscious investors can invest in small medium enterprises and individuals, using the triple bottom line of people, planet, profit. Institute for Social Banking and International Summer School of Social Banking in Italy.

MIX is measuring social performance, serving as an information platform on microfinance institutions around the world, collecting financial and social performance data. They have developed 22 indicators. Respond to “mission drift” where firms begin to respond more to shareholders than community.

Question and Answer:

Some big corporations are now getting into fair trade, and the same is happening with microfinance, for example Citibank has a microfinance window – what are the opportunities and risks here?

There are opportunities, but it’s important to distinguish between exploitative institutions making small efforts in the name of reputation management, and real social banks.

Question for MIX about how microfinance institutions are measuring up – are they putting people more and more into debt or are they helping? Just starting to implement performance standards, those that have reported are doing well, but it is voluntary to report to them, so there may be many not doing well who choose not to report.

Plenary Session 4: Social Enterprises: Facets of Solidarity Economy

Sudha Reddy (Charter for Human Responsibility)

Ben Quinones (CSRSME Asia)

Chigusa Fujiki (Workers Collective Network, Japan)

Ha Jung Eun (Work Together Foundation, Korea)

Kenmichi Ohdaka (Seigakin University)

Majority of world’s population vulnerable to changes of globalization

Gandhian concept of trusteeship, cooperation and compassionate competition

“Social enterprise” – must generate economic value added, and also must generate social and environmental value added. Some examples: former Bed and Bath workers took over the factory and turned it into a coop, group trying to take back ancestral land, World Fair Trade conference, community based tour group guide, cooperatives of artisans making handicrafts, fair housing project, local coffee collective, financial services cooperative.

Work ahead:

-need for mapping of solidarity initiatives in geographic areas

-understand the interplay of governance, market, and solidarity economy activities

-develop the solidarity economy supply/value chains with networking

-develop performance measures

-policy advocacy – to see solidarity economy as an approach to development

The Workers Collective Network in Japan. 1980’s agricultural coops grew in Japan, 1984 disability rights national network, 98 non-profits recognized. Collectives must include 1 person, 1 vote, workers play a role in magagement. In 1980 collectives took off in Japan, collectives work in healthcare/nursing, childcare, meal delivery and services, funeral services. They are currently working for a national law defining cooperatives, drawing from Korea.

Work Together Foundation Korea. The Korean Social Enterprise Act supports and sets a system for certification of social enterprises. The criteria include: organization, paid employees, social purpose, democratic decision-making process (recipients, workers and stakeholders have a role), must make a profit, 2/3 of profits must be spent on a social purpose. In Korea there are 7,000 people employed in this sector, 58% of whom are from “disadvantaged” sector, employed in manufacturing, care services, recycling, and others. The Korean government provides regulation, loans capital, provides training and some finance. Internal issues remaining: reduction of ghettoes, balance social values and profits, tools for evaluation on social goals, project planning, skill development, social capital and alternative financial resources, networking and formation of markets, growth, alternative structures of governance, meeting the needs of clients and participants, strengthening leadership and interbusiness networks, social enterprise promotion and awareness in the public, greater research.

There is a new government in Japan, and there is the opportunity to promote social enterprises as employment generating mechanisms to be supported by stimulus money. We have to start by looking at social exclusion and move from there to business rather than starting with a business and then looking at social exclusion. In Japan, many social enterprises provide welfare services and jobs in various sectors of society. Social enterprises still don’t have legal status in Japan. Currently working to map social enterprise in Japan. How do you distinguish between social enterprise and “poverty business” that is exploiting the poor? How is being “social” defined? Are the voices of the excluded driving or even part of the governance of social enterprises?

Employment is often not enough for socially excluded people, they may need more comprehensive support, there are multiple interrelated problems. When talking to marginalized youth see they feel rejected, afraid of others, doubting themselves and their acceptance by society. Social enterprises should also be tools to build community and a sense of belonging.

Questions and Answers:

Question about whether Korean model, which started from the government, is a strong model for the future or too dependent on the government – is it self-reliant? Talked about the need for public resources in public/social service sectors, but that other sectors should be self-reliant.

WORKSHOP: International Solidarity Tax

Jun Nishikawa (Waseda University, Japan)

Kon Gihyon (Community Coalition for Environmental Justice, Korea)

Tohru Morotomi (Kyoto University, Japan)

Mr. Takehiko Uemura (Yokohama City University, Japan)

Proposal: International Solidarity Levy, to regulate the global money flow characterized by a non-human speculative nature, and to use this money to address global poverty and environmental issues.

Experience of Korea in the 1990’s, a reckless opening of foreign exchange and capital investment leading to financial crisis. 1995 Korea joined the Uruguay round of GATT, liberalized finance, lots of capital and investment came to Korea, when crisis hit, they all pulled out. In 1997, the World Bank and IMF imposed policies that made the crisis worse. For example, they demanded the transition from a banking system to a capital led system, which hurt Korean businesses and led to the buy-out of Korean banks by foreign banks, who then wouldn’t lend to domestic businesses but invested instead abroad in risky real estate projects. The inherent function of banks to take deposits form people and lend to productive businesses is being lost.

Solutions: recognize the real causes for the current crisis, reject World Bank and IMF policies, stop speculation instead of investment, the Tobin Tax.

Questions about the Tobin Tax (or International Solidarity Tax): who will levy this tax? If it is run by the IMF or World Bank as proposed by some current leaders, then it’s very problematic. Each country could have an independent authority related to the tax.

The Tobin Tax or Intl Solidarity Tax could help distribute wealth from North to South, help finance the Millenium Development Goals, and help address adaptation to global warming. Polluter pays principle – industrialized countries need to compensate others for effects of global warming. How would the revenue be distributed and who would decide? What if some countries implement the tax and others don’t? Will it really restrict currency volatility? Who will collect the tax? IMF would be problematic.

Currently France has started with a solidarity tax on airplane tickets that will be used to fight infectious disease in the developing world.

Why do we need a solidarity tax?

- to slow speculative capital

- to fund poverty reduction and environmental protection

- to expand transparency and accountability

2006 Paris Conference on the international solidarity tax – 13 countries were willing to do an airplane ticket solidarity tax and 9 countries are already implementing it – Japan and US have not joined.

Other types of global taxes: international transaction tax, multinational corporation tax, carbon tax, weapons trade tax.

Public Services International is discussing this in Cambodia with international network of trade unions, studying this issue. The Global Tax Research Committee has been established, and the non-profit, Association of Citizens for International Solidarity Taxes. His book The Potential for a Global Tax will be coming out next year.

Question and Answer;

This morning in the paper it talks about Gordon Brown supporting the idea of an international solidarity levy at the G20 meeting, but it would be through the IMF. How is this being addressed?

Yes, this is very problematic as the IMF is an undemocratic institution.

We talked a lot about investors from the West, but what about investors within Asia? How are they impacting local communities and environments? For example Japanese companies in poorer Asian nations, or China in Burma, Sri Lanka. Many of the threats to Asia are not only from West but from within Asia. We have talked about World Bank and IMF but what are the roles of ASEAN, APEC and other regional institutions to address these issues?

Asia is thinking about a common currency and maybe the Tobin Tax could be implemented within the Asian community. Leadership within Asia has to be looked at. Can Japan play a different type of leadership role than in the past?

What about the issue of hunger and speculation in commodities and food? Shouldn’t this be made illegal?

***Other workshops I was not able to attend since I had to pick one include:

-Social Finance/Microfinance & Solidarity Economy

-Fair Trade & Solidarity Economy

-Social Welfare & Solidarity Economy

-Agriculture and Local Initiative and Solidarity Economy.

Regrettably, I also was not able to attend the final Plenary Session 5 on “Social Performance Management for Promotion of Solidarity Economy”, the “Tokyo Consensus” or the “Closing Session” because of flight scheduling. Please check the attached official Statement of Commitment from the Asian Forum for Solidarity Economy.

*****************************************************************

I want to thank everyone so much for sharing your knowledge, analysis, and experiences with me at the Asian Forum for Solidarity Economy.  It was really inspiring to hear the stories and see the people with their feet on the ground building a healthier society and more just economy throughout Asia and the world.  And it was heartening to see the concrete planning and deeper thinking going into the formation of the Asian Alliance for Solidarity Economy moving forward from here.  I hope that I can contribute something from Taiwan in the next year and from the United States in the coming years.  Please feel free to contact me at any time (especially if you make it to Taiwan!), and I look forward to hearing more from all of you, and hopefully visiting some of your countries and projects as well.

I want to extend a special thanks to the organizers of the Asian Forum for Solidarity Economy, the staff and volunteers, who worked so hard to put on an excellent and fulfilling event which ran very smoothly logistically.

I typed up the notes I took during the Saturday and Sunday sessions to share with friends back home at the US Network for Solidarity Economy.  They are very incomplete because of missed sessions, interpretation issues, my own attention span, and other reasons, so are not intended to be an official recording of any type, but more a glimpse into a couple of the discussions taking place at the forum for friends back home.  Please feel free to let me know if any of the information needs to be corrected.  I also apologize for sending this email so late, as I was caught up in final exams the last few weeks.

Thank you again, keep up the good work, and I look forward to working together in the future!

Sincerely,
Hannah Weinstock

by Jeanne Marie O. Bernardo, CSRSME Asia

The recently concluded TalipapangKaunlaran (translated: “Development Marketplace”) Forum jointly organized by the Southeast Asia Interdisciplinary Development Institute (SAIDI) and the Coalition of Socially Responsible SMEs in Asia (CSRSME Asia) held at the University of the Philippines Hotel last October 23, 2009 brought to light current Filipino efforts in the arena of social enterprise development.

With 33 participants from diverse backgrounds including social enterprises, NGOs, the academe, faith-based groups, and training and research, the Forum was conducted with the purpose of appreciating and learning from these initiatives, primarily to develop a research document and compendium on all these experiences and to create a web of relationships for mutual learning to move towards a new model or vision for enterprise development in the Philippines.

Development Models presented during the Forum included the following:

1. Building Shared Vision (by Ben Quinones, Jr. of CSRSME Asia), a methodology that brings out the community’s shared vision or aspirations for a better society; the community’s capabilities in terms of attitude, time and talents that can be committed; the community enterprises that can be harnessed and the community’s opportunities and challenges in networking and interaction, all towards the achievement of their shared vision.

2. Fair Housing (by Jun Simon of Bumbaran Development Corporation), a response to the government’s relocation program which is seen to create more poverty rather than alleviate it, by constructing cost-effective, viable and affordable medium-rise buildings in squatter communities. It is deemed fair to all concerned whether squatter, investor or landowner, and includes a transformational module for resident squatters through value formation and community organization.

3. Funeral Services for the Poor (by Zeny de Jesus of the Inter-City Development Cooperative), an offshoot of the Cooperative’s microfinance program which aims to transform saver-borrowers to investor-employers, and finally to social investors. This model provides funeral care that is affordable, dignified and dynamically responsive to the current needs of Filipino families, and treats Cooperative members as their “customer-families.”

4. Coffee with an Advocacy (by Pastor Jun Sibanico of Chrimi Malunggay Coffee), which started with a vision of hope for the Filipino and a vision for a righteous Philippines. The model provides entrepreneurial opportunities for the poor through distributorships of Chrimi products, at the same time empowering the poor by training them to save and invest their resources.
5. Subsidiarity Movement (by Phillip Camara), as an organizing principle for Philippine renewal, promotes subsidiarity (through community-driven consensus and coordination) as against superiority (through bureaucracy-driven command and control). It involves organizing the whole of society by building communities, linking them to common goals and recapturing the bureaucracy.

6. Palengkenomics (by Phillip Camara) looks at the role of the market as the nucleus of the local economy and as being pivotal to economic growth. The model promotes a process by which markets can be development by assessing their potential, capability-building, market system development, infrastructure development, and support systems development, among others.

7. Public Market Project (by Bing de Ocampo and Chris Fereira) recognizes that vendors play a major role in the nation’s economic viability. The project focuses on transforming vendors’ economic mindsets, business practice values and sensitivity to environmental justice. The model has proven that markets are developed when vendors are transformed.

The short and crisp presentations did not prevent me from learning a great deal from them. Here are some of the realizations I had:

1. That everything starts with the individual, whether it is a value, a vision, or the desire for change;

2. That initiatives and innovations, whether they be methodologies, business models, or movements, that recognize the needs and aspirations of communities are on the rise;

3. That there is an increasing recognition of the importance of moving into supply or value chain economics at the local level in order to organize and empower communities;

4. That many enterprises are moving from mere corporate social responsibility or CSR to real social entrepreneurship;

5. That there is a need to bring more of these initiatives into the open and make these the standard rather than just “the alternative’; and

6. That creating a web of relationships among socially responsible entrepreneurs and movers is essential for them to mutually strengthen and empower one another.

If the enthusiasm of the participants were to be the gauge by which to measure the success of any activity, then I could personally say that the TalipapangKaunlaran Forum was a big hit. Given that the organizers had only scratched the surface of the totality of social enterprise initiatives out there, the prospects for holding more of these Forums are indeed very good. I certainly hope I will get to see more, hear more, and learn more from more of these laudable social entrepreneurs.

by CPRN / RCRPP
Release Date: 22 Oct 2009

>http://www.cprn.org/documents/51874_EN.jpg
>http://www.cprn.org/download.cfm?doc=2061&file=51874_EN.pdf&format=pdf&l=en
> http://www.cprn.org/images/page_go.gifDownload

Canada has long had a vibrant non-profit sector that provides important services to help meet the needs of our citizens.  Non-profit and charitable organizations work hard to make our communities a better place by providing
quality research, policy advice and front line services on everything from health care to housing to education, the environment and the economy.

What is not as well known is that the non-profit sector also makes up a significant portion of our workforce in Canada – employing 11 times more people than the automotive industry and four times more than the agricultural sector – and contributes as much to the gross domestic product (GDP) as other major sectors of the economy.  In other words, our country benefits doubly from non-profits:  through both social and economic contributions that affect us all.

Les organismes à but non lucratif jouent un rôle crucial au Canada sur le
plan de l’innovation sociale et de l’économie

par CPRN / RCRPP
Date de parution : 22 Oct 2009
>http://www.cprn.org/documents/51875_FR.jpg
>http://www.cprn.org/download.cfm?doc=2061&file=51875_FR.pdf&format=pdf&l=fr
> http://www.cprn.org/images/page_go.gifTélécharger

Le Canada possède depuis longtemps un secteur à but non lucratif dynamique qui offre des services importants en vue d’aider à combler les besoins de ses citoyens. Les organismes de bienfaisance et sans but lucratif s’efforcent de faire de nos collectivités un meilleur endroit pour y vivre en offrant des recherches de qualité, des conseils en matière de politiques et des services de première ligne, y compris dans les domaines des soins de santé, du logement, de l’éducation, de l’environnement et de l’économie.

Ce qui est moins bien connu, c’est le fait que le secteur à but non lucratif emploie aussi une fraction importante de la population active au Canada – en fait, il emploie 11 fois plus de gens que l’effectif total de l’industrie automobile et quatre fois plus que celui du secteur agricole – et qu’il contribue tout autant au produit intérieur brut (PIB) que le font d’autres
grands secteurs de l’économie. En d’autres termes, notre pays tire un double avantage des organismes à but non lucratif grâce à leur apport tant économique que social dont nous profitons tous.

Mots clés: innovation sociale, responsabilité sociale des entreprises, économie sociale, entreprise sociale, entrepreneur social, finance sociale, capital social, secteur à but non lucratif, stratégie nationale, partenariats

by Jeanne Marie O. Bernardo, CSRSME Asia

I have always had high hopes for the BSV Davao Team. During the first ever BSV Workshop in Davao in May of this year, the enthusiasm they showed as participants was exhilarating. This was a group that truly caught the vision of solidarity economy, we at CSRSME Asia all thought. But even this did not prepare me for what I was about to witness when I was in Davao to observe them conduct their own brand of the Building Shared Vision Workshop.

My Cebu Pacific flight was right on schedule. When I arrived at the Davao International airport at 4:30 pm on August 20, no less than the Chairman of the Davao Team, Mr. Ben Aquino, and his charming wife, were there to meet me. Braving the traffic  caused by the ongoing Kadayawan sa Dabaw Festival, we went straight to Kuya Ed’s Restaurant where the rest of the Davao Team was waiting for us for a sumptuous buffet dinner, and a pre-workshop meeting at the JIL Office soon after. The Team was in full force, more than 10 of them, each ready for their respective roles and excited about the next day. I found out they met like this regularly, which explains why they have kept fire and passion for the vision they articulated last May still burning within them. I couldn’t wait to see how the Workshop would turn out.

Call time for the Davao Team was 7:30am and they were there! When I went into the conference hall at 7:50am everyone was abuzz with the preparations. Busy at the Secretariat table were Ms. Monette Niez and Ms. Lorelyn Rivera. Participants started trickling in by 8:00 am and the activity was underway by 8:30am, just 15 minutes off-target, with Ms. Kaye Quinones as overall workshop moderator. After a soulful Praise and Worship led by Mr. Jess Baldecanas, the participants had fun with the “Getting-to-Know-You Game.” With just 17 participants and 15 Davao Team members in attendance, it was not long before a winner was announced and everyone could rest from all the commotion.

The speakers did a fantastic job. And all within their respective time limits. Mr. Ben Aquino explained what CSRSME Asia stood for as well as how the BSV Davao Team enters into the picture. Pastor Dennis Castillanes articulated the importance of having a vision using video and his own string of examples and anecdotes. Ms. Kaye Quinones focused on the learning disabilities that impede the development of learning organizations and how to overcome these. A role-play was done to demonstrate the dynamics within a dialogue team and the roles of the facilitator, discussant, inquirer and documentor. The four roles were effectively played by Mr. Ben Aquino as facilitator, Pastor Dennis Castillanes as discussant, Glen Nazareno as inquirer, and Monette Niez as documentor.

The participants were divided into four groups – green, blue, yellow and violet – for the workshops, wherein they used the methodology of dialogue to answer two questions: (1) What is your vision for a better Philippines? and (2) What concrete steps can I take to achieve my vision? Monitors from the Davao Team were assigned to each workgroup to check if the participants are able to effectively carry out their roles in their respective dialogue teams. After the workshops, each monitor was asked to report the “performance” of their groups to the plenary. With some monitors using individual scorecards to rate their workgroup’s “performance”, the overall consensus was that the workgroups were able to carry out the dialogue effectively.

The overall workshop documentor, Mr. Jerick Axalan, consolidated all the outputs of the group and came up with the following consolidated vision, which was approved by the plenary:

A God-fearing nation promoting social justice, good governance, financial security, and a healthy environment; where every Filipino loves their family, community and environment, and embedded in their hearts and minds the culture of cooperativism, nationalism, leadership and excellence.

Another innovation introduced by the Davao Team in the Workshop was the portion “Business in Focus” where they allowed two of their members to present their respective enterprises to the plenary. The enterprises presented in this case were QuadAcres Corporation, a real estate development company which offers lots at very affordable prices to low-income families, and GMP Ink Station, which markets the continuous ink supply system and allows you to save up to 90% in printing expenses.

Mr. Sam Sale presented the aa4se web portal, how to register and take advantage of its various features. The workshop moderator emphasized that regular blogging at the aa4se portal may give one’s blog the chance of being featured in CSRSME Asia’s bimonthly newsletter “Our Journey”.

I was given the privilege to present a more detailed explanation of the history of the solidarity economy movement in the country, and CSRSME Asia’s current initiatives towards the achievement of its vision of an alternative, compassionate, and socially responsible economy, through its Social Entrepreneurship Discipleship Program, of which the BSV Workshop is the first module. In particular, the Shared Vision Savings and Credit Cooperative was presented, how it differs from other cooperatives, and how it can contribute to the achievement of solidarity economy. It was quite encouraging to see the participants’ faces light up when they finally understood how all these initiatives will achieve solidarity economy and help uplift the life of the ordinary Filipino and move us out of the traditional market economy motivated by materialism, into a bayanihan compassionate economy motivated by social and environmental justice, as well as profit for sustainability rather than greed.

Mr. Jun Carmelotes provided a superb presentation on the Introduction to the Fundamentals of Financial Stewardship, the difference between social and commercial enterprises, the importance of savings and its impact on the financial security of the Filipino family, particularly if such savings are invested into sustainable social enterprises. The presentation was rich in personal testimony which enabled the participants to truly appreciate the concepts and realize the truth behind them. The participants were asked to write down an amount which they were willing to save each month. As a result, it did not become difficult for Mr. Boy Felix, the facilitator for the roundtable discussion, to usher in the idea of bringing these pledges into the Davao Shared Vision Cooperative, which the participants gladly agreed to. As a matter of fact, the participants consented to a monthly meeting with the Davao Team in setting up and joining the Cooperative.

This agreement among the participants and the Davao Team was a fitting end to a very fruitful BSV Workshop. This was evident when the participants gave their impressions during the closing ceremonies after dinner.

And, lest I forget, meals for the workshop were prepared by another batch of BSV Davao graduates, the young professionals group led by Mr. Michael Wong, who labored and toiled the whole day to provide delicious and nutritious food to all the participants.

This Davao BSV Workshop was truly a labor of love and commitment by the entire BSV Davao Team. As I told them during the Closing Ceremonies of the Workshop, never have I seen the spirit of Bayanihan so alive and in action than in Davao. We at CSRSME Asia salute you! May your passion be contagious and your light shine even brighter for ages and generations to come.

By Ben Quinones, Chairman, CSRSME Asia

(Photo: Clockwise - Ed Canela, Jiji Rodriguez, Dr. Denison Jaya, & Ben Quinones discussing the establishment of the International Institute of Solidarity Economy, October 2008 at the University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon city)  

In response to Jeanne’s entry dated August 12, 2009

 Dear Jeanne,

 Thank you for applying your thinking skills.

 To a great extent, you have interpreted the CSRSME Asia focal system in the right perspective. Your diagram describes the process through which we journeyed in translating the concept of Solidarity Invest Program (with specific application in the Philippines in the form of Bayanihan Invest Program, and as a means for actualizing solidarity economy) into a common program thrust of all the institutions we’re currently setting up – IT Coop, aa4se, SVSCC, Prothesis Charis, and not in too distant in the future, the International Institute of Solidarity Economy (IISE).

 In the beginning, the programs we initiated had no institutional form. They were fragments of our SE vision.  Then we began to further breakdown our vision into concrete projects, and we put more flesh on them by setting up the above institutions. The solidarity invest program is the “software” that needs to be ‘installed’ in all the institutional hardware.  If you look once more into your diagram backwards, or from bottom up, you’ll have a different perspective of the logical framework (logframe) of the CSRSME Asia focal system, although it’s the same thing. The top down perspective shows the process of the installation of the software into the institutional hardware; the bottom up perspective shows how the institutional hardware opratlionalizes the software to realize CSRSME Asia’s vision of solidarity economy.

 There’s one item in your diagram you need to review. In an objective results-oriented logframe, the results are stated as though they are already achieved.  CSRSME Asia is already existing, and so does aa4se, SVSCC, and IT Coop. In the diagram, you can locate these institutional entities right below CSRSME Asia - they are ‘embodiments’ of CSRSME Asia that specialize in carrying out its vision in different action areas.

 Place right below these institutions the programs/projects they’re carrying. You’ll find as you did that SEDP naturally falls under the institutional mandate of the Intl Institute of Solidarity Economy. I’ll come back to this item later. What is relevant at this point is to relate your diagram with the concentric circles which are depicted in my paper as the CSRSME Asia focal system.  You’ll note that the “focal system” is the inner core of the circle of institutions, beginning with the ‘macro’ (immediate environment, national geographic area) and expanding into the ‘mega’ system (remote but supportive, international environment).  The focal system is the shared operating system of the institutional networks existing respectively in the macro and mega environments.

 Among the CSRSME Asia staff, we have distributed ourselves so far into 4 groups: IT coop/ aa4se (Paul & Ian); Shared Vision Cooperative (HIlda); Prothesis Charis (Ben Q); and Logistics/ back office support (Joel). The IISE that still needs to be established is your domain.

 That’s how the whole system initiated by CSRSME Asia is evolving. And  at this stage we’re already thinking of revving up our focal system to move from the sphere of ‘learning organization’ into ‘entrepreneurial organization’. We need to look at all the new institutions we are establishing – IT coop/aa4se, SVSCC, Prothesis Charis, and IISE – as economically and financially sustainable ’social enterprises’.  They all need to attract socially responsible investments. They all need socially responsible entrepreneurs to be able to run. And we are the first-seed social entrepreneurs that will make these institutional innovations happen and succeed.

 I hope you will continue tweaking your diagram to reflect what you have seen in your mind at this stage.

1. Social Enterprises dealing with Creation of Resources

Social enterprises dealing with Ecological creation focus on earth processes – the birth and  growth of natural resources, including photosynthesis, respiration, geological & chemical transformation. etc. Social enterprises focusing on the subject of Cultural creation are interested in human cultural resources (language, stories, music, ideas, skills) generated & transformed over millions of years by collective creativity, imagination, intuition, observation & experimentation. 

 

 2.  Social Enterprises engaged in Production. 

These include:

(i)  Worker Cooperatives: enterprises owned and democratically controlled by their workers

(ii) “Solidarity cooperatives“: multi-stakeholder coops, bringing together all parties involved in a particular endeavor

(iii) Democratic ESOPs (“Employee Stock Ownership Plans”): workers own shares of stock in the business they work for.

(iv) Self-Employment: considered a “worker cooperative of one,” providing the worker with significant control over the conditions and terms of his/her work.

continue reading…