Help! Guatemala needs to sell more Peanut Butter!

So I have had this idea floating around in my head for a few years now. When I was in Guatemala, the groups I was working for quite often required some expertise or service in a particular area, but either:

• Didn't know where to find this service
• Were dubious about the quality of the service
• Could not afford the price of the service

An example would have been the labels we had to design for the products the groups were selling. The "to-market" time of many of these products was extremely fast, meaning that someone had to design a package and presentation for the product in often a very short period. The design could be one by anyone from the groups themselves to someone working in the "economic ministry", many of which had dubious credentials inproduct design. Mostly the groups themselves or more importantly the customers had no input into the product design.

My thought, as I myself (not a product designer!) was trying to improve the design of a peanut butter jar and label (see right), was that there must exist literally thousands of people in the world (either locals or in other countries) that would love to try and design a peanut butter label for a group of indigenous women in Guatemala. 

Who did I have in mind? 

1. Art design students, thousands of which I am guessing create designs for mythical products that don't exist (and I am definitely including students from Guatemalan Universities in this).
2. Art design professionals, who work in an ad agency doing work where they themselves have little creative input. 

There are perhaps other obvious candidates, but none that come to mind at present. 

But how could such a connection be established? Obviously, through the internet. On a basic level, a problem would be posted, with a fee to be paid by the group (calculated by themselves, and perhaps in the future by a third party). This problem could be taken up by a number of parties (or one party that the group chose themselves), and the "winner" awarded the fee. A professor, for example, could present the problem to his students. A maximum of four competing people could design peanut butter labels within the parameters defined. 

For design professionals and professors/students, access to the internet is not usually a problem. For businesses in the non-profit world, that access is not so assured. It would require local groups to promote such an offer. But these local groups are now involved in third-world countries in several areas: Micro-loans, Internet courses, etc. It would be partnerships with these groups that could promote the service. 

How much would such a service cost? The idea of charging a fee for the service has, in my view, three advantages. One, that the business realises they are getting a service, and not something for free, which gives it more worth to them and also helps them in running the business, rather than a charity. Two, that the person providing the service is renumerated for their services. Three, that the service website has some small amount of income to allow for maintenance, etc.

It is also possible to forsee that the website itself could provide some consulting in terms of which groups receive priority for services, that not too many service requests for $0.01 are posted on the website, and perhaps in the future that certain services cost a base fee, or a standard fee. The website could also translate problems into other languages. It is envisaged that the website would fulfill a role similar to the Kiva website, helping users distinguish which services were for them. 

What services could be requested? Ideas for improving the project management of a stagnated small business, label design, product funtionality design (for example with solar systems for remote communities), website design. 

What does it need? For me, a good place to start would be with an international organisation that would be able to promote such a service. We are talking in one specific country at first, say India, with a Microcredit organisation. The website would be built and managed whereever (it would make sense to base it in a country where the team could actively promote it to universities), with a team collaborating over the web. Hopefully, after the proof-of-concept was, well, proven, other organisations involved in non-profit development could help promote the website through their own website, and on the ground with their own contacts. 

Thoughts?

A little about cooperatives in Guatemala

I have often been asked about my work in Guatemala, particularly with regard to which organisation(s) I was working with. Most people I guess expect to hear that I was working with World Vision, UNICEF, Save the Children, etc. Indeed it was a question I was not only asked by foreigners, but also by Guatemalans, especially from other grass-roots organisations that I came into contact with. But that had more to do with the history of Guatemala and their experiences. Hopefully more about that in a future blog.

The simple answer is that I didn't find the work through any multi-national help organisation, and in fact I rarely came into contact with any of them. The groups I worked with were almost exclusively "grass-roots" ones. I will try and clarify what I mean by that, and why I felt so drawn to them.

In many Guatemalan communities there exists what is known as a cooperativa  ("co-operative" in English). This cooperative generally "represents" the community in a variety of roles. It is usually a registered commercial entity, and must keep tabs on incoming and outgoing funds. The purchasing of land titles, communal vehicles, supplies for communal buildings are usually performed through this entity. It is also an organisational body, meaning that decisions affecting the community are conducted and voted upon using the structure of the cooperative. It's kind of a community "council". Members (of which there are usually 5 or more) are elected each year and hold positions such as President, Treasurer, Secretary, etc.

It is with this organisational and financial aspect in mind that most cooperatives were initially conceived. Traditionally, Guatemalan communities have dedicated themselves to one (or two closely related) activities that require an external market, or external representation. These would be mainly agricultural activities, such as cultivation of coffee, cacao, fruits and vegetables, etc. And the main function of the cooperative is to coordinate, transport and sell these raw materials. That function has extended in recent years to include also the processing, and quality control at a minimal level.

As an aside, funds donated to or given to the community for public works are generally managed by the cooperative, and any joint ventures (known as projectos) generally mean plenty of meetings involving the whole community. Projects can also involve only a small sub-section of the community, or I guess what would be termed a "sub-commitee" and these projects can be chaired by someone outside the cooperative commitee. The money though, as I understand it, is managed by the cooperative.

An example would be a project, funded by an NGO, to buy calves to fatten into cows. The NGO would give certain funds or the raw materials (perhaps including things like fences and fencing materials) and the community, in the guise of the cooperative, would decide for example:

• Who from the community would participate in the project
• How the labour for building the pens would be organised
• How the animals would be distributed
• How the funds from the sales of the cows would be distributed or re-invested

The money for these operations would then either be controlled directly by the Treasurer for the cooperative, or given to the person designated to run the cattle sub-project.

Some coopertives have more reach than others, by which I mean that some contribute to the running of the community more than others. In general, younger established communities still have a cooperative that functions relatively universally in the community, and in many other communities the people have opted to control their own finances and operations, which means that the cooperative has less influence, or at least that people take it less seriously. The decision to reduce the "communality" of the cooperative is generally taken by the cooperative members themselves, although cooperatives can cease to represent the community simply because the majority of the community don't agree with or feel that the decisions affect them any more.

The reason I have introduced the Guatemalan community "cooperative" is because every community has one. This universality has meant that the name and structure is employed by many groups within a community, groups that effectively perform the function of a sub-commitee. That is, they are community members who dedicate themselves to a specific task (or project), but this commitee is not governed by the rules of the cooperative, and does not receive funds from it. Nevertheless, the principals of the group are similar:

• They dedicate themselves to a specific task
• They elect a board of directors to handle the operations of the group
• All members are involved in the decisions of the project
• The members decide on the allocation of funds within the project

The simplest explanation of why this structure is so common in Guatemala is perhaps pratically all Guatemalans understand how such a structure functions or have experienced one in their lifetime.

All the groups I was involved with when I worked in Guatemala had this structure. Some were more closely connected with the "community cooperative" than others. The histories of how these groups had formed and arrived at their present states is perhaps too long and complicated to detail here. The important points can be summarised so:

1. They were all autonomous groups that had been formed in their own communities, by community members with a common goal
2. They were directed by a sub-commitee of women from within the community, with no assitance (at a board level) from outside

The actual groups themselves I hope to detail in the coming week.