Aspects of the cooperative ecosystem in Karditsa

Karditsa is a small city in Thessaly. It is not typically a destination in its own right, perhaps only a stopover for those heading towards Lake Plastiras.

It is a city of the “typical” apartment blocks that characterise most Greek urban centres, while at the same time still hosting, not far from its centre, detached houses and two-storey homes with gardens. It has pedestrian streets, open public spaces and parks, and for years now it has appeared on the map of sustainable cities due to the steadily increasing use of bicycles. Many people cycle consciously as part of their daily routine, commuting to work by bike, and not only on car-free days.

The Regional Unit of Karditsa has been among the areas most affected by the weather-related and ecological disasters that have struck Greece in recent years, leaving behind a devastated plain. During the 2018 storm, approximately 10,000 hectares were flooded, while in 2023, due to storm “Daniel”, the affected area was almost seven times larger.

No city or region, however, can be reduced to statistical data, just as it cannot be reduced to what is immediately visible or measurable. The less visible aspects of a place, such as its social processes, play a crucial role in shaping its identity and its dynamics.

The city of Karditsa, and the wider area more generally, appears to have cultivated a strong sense of belonging among its residents. It is not an impersonal place. It is a place where the “human element”, a factor that increasingly occupies international literature and policy strategies on “smart cities”, remains at the forefront. Residents identify with the community in which they live.

Despite the disasters of recent years, the region remains productive, with significant activity in the primary sector. This does not mean, however, that it is unaffected by broader trends observable across Greece. Rural areas continue to depopulate, village populations steadily decline, and younger people tend to prefer the daily life and conveniences of urban centres, even when their primary occupation, such as farming, remains based in the countryside.

This is one dimension of the issue, at the level of observation and analysis. Another is that a number of local actors in the Karditsa region are investing in a particular understanding of cooperativism, viewing it as a potential solution. Not only as a way to support new businesses, start-ups, innovative ventures and small and medium-sized enterprises, but also as a means of making life outside urban centres more attractive.

In such conditions, however, the survival and success of these initiatives, and the emergence of cooperativism not merely as an alternative proposal but as a viable way of working, developing and ultimately securing a dignified livelihood, presuppose the existence of an “ecosystem”.

The key question, then, is whether a “cooperative ecosystem” actually exists in Karditsa, and secondly, what it aspires to become.

The short answer is yes; there is a basic precondition for such initiatives: people who operate within a cooperative mindset or who want to actively engage with this particular field. It is therefore no coincidence that, on this basis, a cooperative ecosystem has been able to develop, despite the difficulties and challenges. As of 2025, the available data point to a relatively advanced version of such an ecosystem in the Karditsa region.

To reach a more thorough conclusion, some information regarding the support available to a cooperative in Karditsa will be helpful.

The Development Agency of Karditsa SA (ANKA SA), for instance, is a development-oriented société anonyme in which both levels of local government participate, alongside organisations such as the Cooperative Bank of Karditsa, the Chamber of Commerce and the Union of Agricultural Cooperatives. As its General Director, Vangelis Sakellariou, notes, “The work of the Development Agency of Karditsa has revolved around cooperativism for many years”, promoting the collaboration of actors or citizens across any field or activity, from small associations to large cooperatives, from informal initiatives to structured organisations, including sports and cultural associations.” ANKA SA plays a coordinating role, both because of its institutional structure and because of its involvement in the management and implementation of development programmes and funding schemes.

Another crucial factor is financial support. The Cooperative Bank of Karditsa, a bank that, according to its executives, “will remain cooperative” at a time when the mainstream banking sector in Greece is not particularly supportive of such initiatives, participates in ANKA SA and provides financial backing to cooperative ventures. Its CEO, Panagiotis Tournavitis, is explicit about the organisation’s “cooperative DNA”: “The cooperative character of the bank is certainly embedded in our DNA. But it is not just a matter of historical origins or an attachment to a particular legal form. It has to do with the philosophy and culture we uphold as an organisation and as a management team.”

The understanding of cooperativism as a forward-looking approach also appears, though more sporadically, within local government. The Municipality of Lake Plastiras bases a significant part of its development planning on cooperative models. Indicative of the different ways in which cooperation is understood by various actors is the municipality’s reference to local traditions, early forms of small-scale production, and concrete examples drawn from the social and economic life of the Agrafa region. Today, the municipality aims to implement a development programme, covering three municipalities of Agrafa, with total funding of €90 million, to support infrastructure, the rural economy, tourism and other sectors. Within this broader effort, the municipality also sees an opportunity to renew its human capital, curb rural outmigration and strengthen its demographic base.

We return, then, to the central question: does a cooperative ecosystem exist in Karditsa?

Giorgos Bellis, a member of Komvos Social Hub, a Social Cooperative Enterprise (KoinSEp) that supports other cooperative ventures and organisations through services that could loosely be described as business consultancy, argues that it does. “At the moment, there is an ecosystem in the Karditsa region. However, I would not describe it as a conscious ecosystem”, he notes, describing a landscape in which initiatives collaborate in small groups, without yet fully recognising the broader picture or their shared needs.

And how does the wider public perceive these initiatives?

This sense of an existing but not fully articulated cooperative ecosystem is also reflected in its various expressions. Beyond the Social Solidarity Economy organisations already operating in the area, cooperative proposals reflect a wide range of interpretations of what cooperativism means. “Some of what we propose is well received; people are waiting for it. Other initiatives may not achieve the desired outcome. This is largely because mountain communities have been heavily depopulated,” notes the mayor, Panagiotis Nanos, highlighting both public receptiveness and its limits.

The existence of “pillars” that support cooperative efforts is, however, both a key enabling factor and a guarantee of credibility and sustainability. As Tournavitis puts it, “the uniqueness of our region lies in the close collaboration among all actors. We support one another. No one follows an isolated strategy. Regardless of each organisation’s specific priorities, we try to find common ground.”

In recent months, particularly during the spring and summer of 2025, there has been intense activity within the region’s cooperative ecosystem, with a series of programme-based interventions underway. Cooperative initiatives, Social Solidarity Economy organisations and business proposals were presented across multiple events and even competed in hackathons.

These proposals spanned a wide range of ideas, operational models and objectives. They could be seen as a “map” of how participants understand and interpret cooperative entrepreneurship.

In short, there is no single shared understanding of what cooperativism is. Each actor, depending on its scope and objectives, assigns different meanings to it. Taken together, these perspectives point to something essential: in uncertain times, where the dominant model of development does not benefit everyone, there is a clear need for cooperation. The further development of a cooperative ecosystem is therefore necessary. And ultimately, the cooperative ecosystem in the Karditsa region will need to define itself more clearly and more decisively.