THE EXPERIENCE OF THE ORAP MOVEMENT IN ZIMBABWE: A PEASANT STRATEGY FOR FINANCIAL AUTONOMY

Let’s compare the “Father Mills, Daughter Mills, Son Mills” case study with the experience of the ORAP movement in Zimbabwe, highlighting the similarities and differences in their approaches to local financing and development. We will then examine the potential challenges of replicating the mills model and propose strategies to mitigate them.

The ORAP (Organization of Rural Associations for Progress) movement in Zimbabwe is presented in the sources as a “peasant strategy for financial autonomy.” Its main objective was to strengthen the financial autonomy of rural communities and their organizations.

• Local Financing Approach: ORAP actively engaged in mobilizing local resources as the pillar of its financing. Emphasis was placed on the “own effort” of communities. An innovative initiative was ORAP’s attempt in 1993 to strengthen its financial autonomy by reaching out to the private sector. An opportunity arose with the sale of the Zimbabwean subsidiary of Lucas Batteries (Pvt) Ltd., which was wholly foreign-owned. ORAP sought to acquire this company, recognizing that, under Zimbabwean law, part of the sale price had to be paid in foreign currency, which had diminished the company’s value in the local market. Although the direct acquisition is not explicitly detailed as an immediate success in this excerpt, it illustrates a bold approach to raising capital beyond traditional community contributions by seeking opportunities in the private sector.
• Development Strategies: ORAP’s approach appears broader than that of the NAAM groups, aiming for self-financing of the organization itself to support various development projects within rural communities. “Business creation” and “income-generating projects” (hardware, garage, ranch, etc.) were key elements of this strategy, aimed at generating income for ORAP’s self-financing. The objective was to move from disaffected aid dependence to a sustainable self-financing system. ORAP is cited as an example of “people’s movements in action” in several countries around the world, alongside initiatives such as the FONGS peasant movement in Senegal and the slum dwellers of Mumbai.

COMMON POINTS BETWEEN “MOULINS PÈRES” AND ORAP #

1. Priority to Financial Autonomy and Own Effort: Both initiatives emphasize the need for local communities to take charge of their development and not depend solely on external aid [82, our previous conversation]. The “Moulin Père” is financed by village contributions, and ORAP actively seeks ways of self-financing through the creation of businesses [our previous conversation, 82]. “There is no development without first own effort.”
2. Local Resource Mobilization: Both examples illustrate the ability of communities to mobilize their own resources, whether through community contributions for mills [our previous conversation] or engagement in income-generating projects for ORAP. “More than we think, African savings are not negligible.”
3. Responding to Local Needs: The mills project addresses the critical need to reduce the drudgery of millet pounding for women [our previous conversation], while ORAP aims to support broader development initiatives at the rural community level.
4. Potential for Replication and Scale: The “Moulins Fils et Filles” concept implies gradual replication within the community [our previous conversation]. ORAP, as a movement bringing together several associations, also has the potential for impact on a broader scale. “These examples should be multiplied and strengthened.”

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN “MOULINS PÈRES” AND ORAP #

1. Specific Funding Mechanism vs. Organizational Strategy : The mill model relies on a very specific revolving financing mechanism for the acquisition of a specific asset [our previous conversation]. ORAP adopts a broader strategy aimed at self-financing the entire organization through various economic activities.
2. Scale and Scope of Activities: The mill initiative focuses on a specific need at the village level [our previous conversation]. ORAP has a broader scope, potentially encompassing various sectors of activity and a network of rural associations.
3. Level of Engagement with the Private Sector: While both approaches emphasize local resources, the ORAP initiative appears to be more actively exploring engagement with the private sector on a significant scale (attempted acquisition of Lucas Batteries) as a means of strengthening its financial autonomy. The mill model relies primarily on solidarity and initial community contributions [our previous conversation].
4. Vulnerability to External Factors: The mill initiative, once established, could be more directly affected by local factors (mill management, community conflicts) [our previous conversation]. ORAP, as a larger organization, could face more complex macroeconomic and political challenges, as illustrated by the difficult economic context in Zimbabwe mentioned during the acquisition attempt.

POTENTIAL CHALLENGES OF REPLICATING THE “FATHER MILLS, DAUGHTER MILLS, SON MILLS” MODEL IN OTHER CONTEXTS #

1. Level of Social Cohesion and Community Trust: The success of the revolving fund relies heavily on mutual trust and solidarity within the community [our previous conversation]. In contexts where the social fabric is more fragile or marked by divisions, the reimbursement of contributions and collective management may be more difficult to ensure. “The tontine system, however, has its limitations. Savings are most often used to finance social and therefore non-productive expenses.”
2. Local Management and Accounting Capacity: Transparent and accountable management of the revolving fund and the income generated by the mills is essential [our previous conversation]. In communities where management and accounting skills are limited, support and training may be necessary to ensure the sustainability of the system. “Experience has shown that training is an essential component of small loans and that this training cannot be financed through loan capital.”
3. Economic Sustainability of the Mill’s Operation: The ability of the “Father Mill” to generate sufficient revenue to enable the acquisition of new mills depends on the demand for this service and the price charged [our previous conversation]. Factors such as the availability of cheaper alternatives, fluctuations in grain prices, or mill maintenance costs could impact the economic viability of the system.
4. Adaptability to Different Needs and Contexts: The mill model addresses a specific need related to grain processing. Its direct replication to other needs (access to water, healthcare, etc.) could require significant adaptations to the financing and management mechanism.
5. Potential for Conflict and Jealousy: The distribution of profits and the allocation of new mills could potentially generate tensions or jealousies within the community if the criteria are not clear and perceived as fair.
6. Influence of Local Power Structures: Local elites or traditional power structures may attempt to appropriate or control the system for their own benefit, thereby undermining its original objective of benefiting the greatest number.

CONCLUSION #

In conclusion, although the “Father Mills, Daughter Mills, Son Mills” model and the ORAP experience in Zimbabwe share a common vision of financial autonomy and local resource mobilization, they differ in their specific mechanisms and scale of intervention. Replicating the mills model in other contexts will require careful consideration of local specificities and the implementation of strategies to strengthen social cohesion, management capacity, and economic sustainability, while ensuring transparent governance and contextual adaptation of the model.