IPPF Regional Management Meeting in Tallinn

Dear Director General and Executive Committee of IPPF,

Following our discussions and reflections at the IPPF Regional Management Meeting in Tallinn, we write as Exective Directors (EDs), to contribute to the transformation process and share our ideas on the future.

Firstly, in the light of the recent developments within IPPF, we acknowledge that such a process is needed. Indeed, in May, we all signed a letter supporting institutional change in IPPF and we remain strong supporters of timely transformation.

Also, we are grateful to all of those within the Governing Council and Secretariat who are working hard to both ensure that the process is successful and that IPPF will become an accountable, agile and modernized federation.

Information

Although we acknowledge the urgency required to move forward and find solutions, we are disappointed by the lack of information and inclusivity. To date we have lacked information on the background to the crisis and information on the development of the plan to move forward.

We have noticed that there are huge differences in the level of information that various EDs have recieved. This has created an atmosphere of frustration and exclusion.

Both progress and challenges need to be communicated on a continous basis, even in periods when there are no ready proposals to present.

We propose monthly long distance meetings with the EDs of the European Network as well as the two representatives from MAs in Europe who are currently part of the two recently established commissions.  

We also believe that there is a need for more information on the background of the crisis within IPPF. MAs require this to make informed decisions on future proposals or the recommendations of the commissions.

We hope that such information can be included in the process and shared with MA’s, even if it must be done on a confidential basis. This information is crucial to MAs being actively involved in finding solutions rather than simply being used as a justication for decisions at the end of the process.

Inclusivity

It is our view that the need for urgency must not negatively impact on MAs ability to participate in the process, or to hamper transparency, participation and inclusiveness. And it is our firm view that inclusivness throughout this process is a crucial foundation on which to build IPPF’s future.

In the document “A Plan to Transform IPPF”, we cannot indentify a strategy to realistically engage MAs.

We request information about the criteria that have been used when appointing members of the two commissions, as well as their backgrounds. You are tasking the commissions to develop proposals for the future of IPPF. We need to trust that they have the skills, experience and share IPPF values. We also want information on how regional representation within the commissions has been decided.

Timelines

We are particularly concerned about the short timeline. We would appreciate the following information: on why a 6-month limit has been decided for Phase I; if there will be additional phases; and if so, what do they aim to achieve. We would be grateful if these issues could be clarified and communicated as soon as possible.

Key topics

As EDs, we also had very good discussions on the key topics that both the governance and resource allocation committees should tackle.

These topics are initial thoughts rather than a definitive response. They are not prioritized, they are mainly presented as questions for the commissions. They do not neccessarily have the full support from all ED’s, nor have they been discussed with the volunteers from our organizations.

For the Governance committee to consider:

 A. Provide clarity on IPPF’s identity and main constituencies

• What does it mean that IPPF is a federation?
• What does it mean to be an global SRHR organization and not an development NGO?

B. Transparency on governance issues

• What would it mean for the various governance bodies if there were clearer criteria and qualifications for election into specific roles?
• Can there be more transparency on criteria for who is elected and on why decisions are being made?
• Can there be a wider role for independent advisory bodies for ‘ hot topics’?

C.Reorganization of regional and global governance

• Can the commission discuss whether there should be one global board with regional representation i.e. no regional boards?
• Should volunteer only boards be reconsidered?
• Would better use of independent advisors work?

D. Accreditation / accountability

• The accreditation system should be lighter and applicable for all – including the secretariat
• Better communication

For the Finance/Resource Allocation committee to consider:

• There needs to be transparency and understanding on how much money goes where and what criteria is used.
• Resource allocation should be based on the strategic priorities of IPPF not only on a fixed DAC focus system. This links back to IPPF’s indentitiy as a gobal SRHR NGO or a development aid NGO.
• Consider whether resource allocations should be based on competitive processes dependent on the specific context.
• Consider if reseource allocations could be performance-based and time-bound (3 years)
• Consider if a threshold /ceiling for those that are eligible (ie ‘too rich’)

As EDs, we remain fully committed to the need for transformation of IPPF, and we look forward to receiving your response to this letter and the proposals of the committees in a timely manner so that we can prepare our positions and engage in the process.

Best regards,

Marko Gummert, Estonia 

Jutta Gueldenpfennig, Germany

Angela Tunkel, Austria

Eija Koivuranta, Finland

Sharon Cherkasky, Israel

Dragana Stojanovic, Serbia

Nino Tsuleiskiri, Georgia

Galina Maistruk, Ukraine

Bojan Jovanovski , Macedonia

Bjarne B Christensen , Denmark

Maria Epaminonda , Cyprus

Barbara Berger , Switzerland

Bruna Hylviu , Albania

Carmen Suraianu , Romania

Rita Barros , Portugal

Dirk Pyck , Sensoa (Belgium)

Ton Coenen , The Netherlands

Gema González Diaz , Spain

Anna-Karin Johansson , Sweden

Galina Grebennikova , Kazakhstan

Dragana Stojanovic , Serbia

Niall Behan , Ireland

Esmeralda Kuliesyte , Lithuania

Tor-Hugne Olsen , Norway

Iveta Kelle , Latvia