Aquaculture farmer organizations and cluster management: concepts and experiences

Sound governance and management
Thompson 
et al.
(2009) point to sound governance as an important factor contributing 
to the success of an FO. Democratic control of the organization by members on 
the basis of one member one vote, along with clear and consistent rules to establish 
norms of behaviour by officials and members (with systems for monitoring and 
applying sanctions and reducing the transaction costs of negotiating, monitoring and 
enforcing agreements between the organization and its members) are necessary for 
the successful governance of an FO. Equally important is a governance system that 
creates a strong sense of ownership and trust of the leadership by giving members the 
ability to participate meaningfully in decision-making. If members do not have a good 
understanding of the FO and its business, however, it is difficult for them to participate 
in decision-making or to know whether the FO is really serving their interests or not. 
General meetings can be a bureaucratic process where members simply endorse the 
proposals put forward by the leadership. Many FOs reflect the existing power and 
gender relations within the community (Khan, 2007), and thus it can be difficult for 
individual members (especially women) to challenge these power relations, particularly 
when elections are not conducted by secret ballot. Sound governance and management 
within FOs therefore also depend on individual members having the capacity, 
confidence and freedom to participate in meaningful decision-making (Penrose- 
Buckley, 2007). This can be achieved by creating an enabling culture that encourages 
previously marginal groups and individuals to influence FO leadership and ensure their 
needs are adequately served. According to Vorley and Proctor (2008), a primary success 
factor in FOs centres around management models that balance member inclusion and 
group competitiveness. These models usually involve differentiation of membership 
to cope with the range of landholdings, wealth, education, etc., for instance, grouping 
smaller-scale farmers around a larger farmer or differentiating between year-round core 
suppliers and seasonal “top-up” suppliers. Any member differentiation, however, can 
be a challenge to a group ethos of cooperation and equality.