Report from the Regional Committee charged with drafting observations and recommendations of Arab World Region on the Governance Reform and Resource Allocation Preliminary reports
Following the review of the Governance Reform and the Resource Allocation preliminary report by members of the Arab World Regional council members, during the regional Council held in Tunis on September 28-29, 2019, and the presentations made by the representatives of the two commissions on the reform proposals and the interaction that took place with the RC participants, the Regional Council members thanked the two commissions for the efforts put in producing those reports and thanked the commission representatives who’s presentations raised several follow-up discussions.
Based on the results of these follow-up discussions, the Regional Council recommended that the Regional Executive Committee, which was scheduled to meet immediately after the Council RC meeting, form a Regional Committee comprised of the Presidents of Member Association to formulate the questions and suggestions raised during the Regional Council meeting regarding these two draft reports. RC members also stressed on the need to consider these observations and suggestions in the final draft to be presented at the General Assembly meeting to be held in India in November 2019. They expressed that the participation of the AWR MAs at the GA meeting and the nature of their relationship with the Federation are dependent on taking these observations and suggestions into account.
The observations and suggestions were as follows:
To the AWR Regional Council:
Thank you very much for your carefully written comments, which were received on 17 October. As you are no doubt aware, your comments arrived after the date by which the Independent Governance Reform Commission (IGRC) was required to submit our final report for translation and transmission to the IPPF membership. Therefore, unfortunately we were unable to consider them in drafting our final report and recommendations.
That said, I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of the Commission to respond to those points in your letter that relate to the IGRC report. There are other sections that deal with procedural and policy issues that are not part of the IGRC’s remit, and still others that relate to the Independent Resource Allocation Commission’s work. Those will be addressed by others, I am sure.
On your first point, about the extent of reform proposed in our report, we were mandated by the Governing Council resolution to undertake a “radical reform” of IPPF governance, not an “evolutionary” reform as suggested by your letter. In our report we have described in considerable detail precisely why we felt that smaller, more incremental reforms, as were enacted in 1997 and 2016, for example, had not fundamentally improved IPPF’s governance performance.
We were required by GC decision and our terms of reference to complete our work in six months according to a strict timetable that required our final report and recommendations to be available for review six weeks prior to the November 29-30 General Assembly. It was a demanding schedule, but we feel we did the best job we could within the allotted time.
Your third point, regarding the process of review and approval, is for the Exco and the GC itself to decide. Our second and final report, which is scheduled to be published online early next week (commencing 20 October), takes into account the many comments, criticisms and suggestions we received after issuing our initial report in September. We amended many of our initial ideas on the basis of these responses from all stakeholders and I reported on this at a virtual meeting on 18 October with the Honorary Officers and the Exco. Again, we very much regret that your letter reached us too late to affect our final report.
Regarding the methodology, first, the selection of commission members was done before my appointment and I had no part in their appointments. However, I can say that the IGRC had excellent members and that we worked extremely well together. While not all Regions could be represented, we had reps from EN, ESEAOR and AR who ably expressed the regional and MA perspectives on all the issues we addressed.
Regarding the surveys, they were designed to provide an opportunity for the largest possible number of stakeholders to express their views on the issues we had been tasked to address. They were not designed to be representative in the scientific sense and we were disappointed that a disproportionately small number of volunteers, as compared to staff, chose to respond to the questionnaires. If more volunteers had responded, I am sure the volunteer voice would have been more robustly expressed.
In the background section of our report and the section on our research of other federated organizations, we explained in considerable detail the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats inherent in the present system of governance and in alternative possible designs. All the other organizations we studied, including FIFA, have characteristics in common with IPPF.
While accountability is indeed included among IPPF’s core principles, it is the opinion of the IGRC that this principle was as often expressed in the breach as in the observance and that, while IPPF has been effective in some aspects of performance accountability (e.g., service statistics), it has been deficient in others (e.g. financial accountability). This has in part been due to insufficient governance oversight.
I have no knowledge regarding your point (8) on p.4 dealing with promotion of the two commissions’ reports.
As to the legal questions you have raised on p. 4, our commission was guided in its work from the beginning by expert outside legal counsel with deep familiarity of Charity Commission rules and standards, and by internal IPPF Counsel as well.
We have no authority to comment on the November General Assembly in New Delhi.
Regarding your comments on the General Assembly, we are indeed recommending that the present Governing Council be replaced by a Board of Trustees. Your further queries (2,3 and p. 5) about what will happen at the New Delhi meeting and afterward lie beyond our remit and should be addressed by the current GC and Panel Exco.
Regarding the proposed General Assembly in the new structure, its powers and responsibilities are clearly laid out in our final report, as well as the proposal that it meet once every 3 years.
The initial membership of the Board of Trustees is proposed to be established by vote of the present Governing Council, based on a roster of candidates prepared by a transitional committee to be appointed by the GC and advice and assistance from a reputable international executive search firm. We propose that 8 trustees be drawn from the MAs, but not as representatives of Regions, and 7 be externally recruited. All will need to meet strict criteria and exacting standards established by the Board itself. Thereafter, the board will depend upon its own proposed Nominating, Governance and Membership Committee, with heavy representation of MAs, for the nomination of new trustees to replace those rotating off the board when their terms expire or upon their resignation. It is proposed that trustees have three-year terms with eligibility to be reelected twice for a total of a possible nine years of total eligibility. It is proposed that the BoT meet four times a year, twice face-to-face and twice virtually.
I believe all the questions or issues that follow on pp. 7 and 8, including those regarding existing Regional Councils and Regional Executive Committees, are answered in the report you will be receiving next week.
Once you have received that report and had the opportunity to study it carefully, and at any time prior to our meeting in New Delhi, I would be very happy to hear and respond to your questions or your comments. Once again, issues regarding how our report is to be handled procedurally, both before and during the New Delhi General Assembly, is beyond the control or authority of the IGRC.
Thank you again for the care you have taken in responding to our initial report.
Steven W. Sinding, Chair, IGRC
Did AWRO MAs decided to not go to Delhi for vote?please share their decisions sent from them.
Also since AWRO report discusses dimocracy,let’s go to Delhi then decide not dont go and dont understand.
Please next time, note that MAs need to state their own wording on time.
We did not receive as associations the report from the regional committee for review before disseminating it? democracy?!!!
We’ ve been used by our regional director for a long time.Today,we decide and we say STOP to this comedy. We signed nothing.The AWRO director and his friends wrote those things on our behalf with no consent on the content.
AWRO MAs have the right to decide their future. AWRO RD please stop deciding on our behalf. you did good job for us before we thank you for that but it is time for you to retire . some Regional volunteers should also think differently or go with thanks.
MAs, it is our right to make our own decisions. We have to have our say ourselves, that is what the vote in India is about. We must think of what is best for the Federation of MAs not the regional offices and definitely not personal bias and benefits.
This Federation will collapse if we don’t have significant reform. Donors will leave in droves and IPPF will be a shell. What will GC members be members of? What will RDs be RDs of? Nothing. We need to stop the rot, fix our governance, resourcing and accountability mechanisms and look to a bright future, not be stuck in a dark past.
I’m writing on this topic these days, baccarat online, but I have stopped writing because there is no reference material. Then I accidentally found your article. I can refer to a variety of materials, so I think the work I was preparing will work! Thank you for your efforts.
Thank you, Dr. Steve, for responding and giving more clarifications on the points raised by AWR.
We are astonished by the way this report has been written. It contains a direct attack to the honorable commissions’ members that some of them left their mark in the federation and served it as well as MAs for years and years with dedication and love. Seeing the other comments, it is obvious that people at MAs in that region are suffering from the dictatorship of the Regional Director and some MAs’ presidents. Here are few comments:
– In the report, it has been said that the term of the current GC will end in May 2020. It reflects the incompetence of the governance people in the regional office because the GC’s term will end on November 2020.
– All this plan for change has been approved by the GC and we know that every region was represented by three members so if we speak about democracy, we think the process of the reforms is a good example.
– The changes were required by donors because they surely saw a necessity to do this especially after what happened in Africa Region and the way in which this report was written gave us the impression that we are in front of a similar situation.
– It is absolutely not professional to say that “the survey was sent at a haste during the summer months, and with technical issues, the MAs did not have enough time to virtually consult and answer it”. It is a ridiculous excuse and if we consider that this is true, normally the role of the regional office is to ensure that this information will reach all involved people in the region.
– “SWOT analysis”? The two commissions in their reports adopted this approach and did a marvelous job to gather all the needed information and made a proper analysis of our external and internal environment. They also shared our weaknesses and strengths. All this was documented in the reforms’ reports. So it is clear that no one did read well the reports and this is a shame.
– On page 5/paragraph 6, and this is the extreme illustration of dictatorship operated by the regional director and some senior volunteers, they clearly reject any involvement of the EDs in the decision-making process. It is unfortunate to see the “rejection mindset” still existing and this is why a radical change is not a necessity, but an OBLIGATION. The EDs are giving their lifetime, effort and sweat every day and in the end, they are not part of the decision. It is the ultimate image of SHAME.
– One of the questions needs to be asked to AWR: what justifies this persecution for WHR and EN? It is not professional, not to say immoral, to play that game “Cutting off the nose to spite the face”.
– By the way, several information needs to be examined in the report because they have no sense. (Example: by law EDs have not the right to vote???)
– Final observation is that how could this report be constructive if in 10 pages response, 8 of them are covering only governance questions and only 1 page for resource allocation (the last page is a conclusion). From a psychological point of view, this could be translated in……
To conclude, I think the content of this report and the way it has been written with gave us a reflection about the seriousness of our issues in the federation and if we do not stand altogether to have a unique voice against dictatorship, we will certainly lose all what we built so far.
Dear Steve and Blanca,
Thank you for your comments. Hope our RD will understand that change is coming.
in Africa, we have heard too much about the Arab world director. he is not more important than us. we need our donors. plz stop this.
Dear All,
Thank you for the many passionate contributions. We sincerely welcome the debate. However we urge you to keep the comments civil and to refrain from directing comments at individuals.
The message below is from Mr. Mohamed Tarek Ghedira/Chairperson AWR Regional Executive Committee
The Arab World Response to recent posts on this forum
1. This is the Arab World response to recent posts on this forum. We fully expect that this forum will henceforth be appropriately and responsibly moderated, and that inappropriate, personally targeted allegations will be screened out and will not be allowed to be posted. This will not compensate for the unjust allegations that have, until recently, been permitted to appear on this platform, but it should ensure that, in future, this forum is moderated in a way that allows for a robust but professional exchange of views in a tone that reflects mutual respect for the diversity of opinions expressed.
2. With regard to the timing of the Arab World Regional response to the Commission’s report, the Region believes that the importance of ensuring due diligence and adequate scrutiny of the recommendations should take precedence over deadlines, which have already, in some cases, been extended. The dates of the Arab World Regional Council have not changed in over two decades; these meetings always take place during the final week of September. Commission members joined us for that meeting, heard the views expressed by Council participants, and knew that the Region was going to send a report summarizing these and other comments on the Reform proposals. This report was sent to Central Office immediately after it was finalized.
3. The values at the heart of this reform process include transparency, democracy, accountability and diversity. Expressing difference of opinion should be welcomed, not discouraged, respected, not abused. It is only through respect for the diversity of opinion within IPPF, and the respectful discussion and analysis of those different views that we can hope to arrive at a synthesis that represents consensus on the best way forward. We would like to place on record our thanks to, and appreciation of the work of Gill Greer and Steven Sinding. Difference of opinion should not be seen as opposition, nor should it generate a defensive response; it should be welcomed as a constructive contribution to the debate. Within the Arab World Region, for example, we believe the essence of IPPF’s unique contribution to global efforts to advance sexual and reproductive health and rights lies in the independence of its national member associations, and its leadership drawn from the authentic voice of its volunteers. Decisions are always best when informed by technical professionals and advisers well-versed in the state-of-the-art developments in our field, but they should be taken by volunteers who lead our work at national level. That is our view. It cannot be healthy to create an environment within which such views cannot be expressed, particularly since the success of IPPF until now has been based on recognition that this is precisely how IPPF differentiates itself from other actors and agencies, which may be more nimble, but are not as legitimately representative of the nations and communities that they serve. Equally, the Arab World Region believes that the quid pro quo for securing the authenticity of our voluntary leadership is our capacity-building mission to create, nurture and support sustainability autonomous member associations. We in the Arab World build institutions to generate lasting change. That’s different to supporting projects for delivering short-term results. Here we know we may be different to others, where the emphasis is on project support, but, in our context, the greatest good IPPF can do is contribute to the developing maturity of civil society in our countries through the creation of effective, responsive and accountable NGOs.
4. The Arab World Region has been supportive of evolutionary change in the governance structure of IPPF. Ever since 1952, and the subsequent 1977 IPPF Act of Parliament, IPPF has taken an evolutionary approach, including structural changes resulting from the work of the governance task force in the 1990s. These moves were widely welcomed by donors. Since then, there have been other significant changes in 2006 and in 2016. Far from being resistant to change, it is a matter of record that the Arab World Region was, in mid-2018, an early promotor of governance reform, having agreed plans with the DG for the AW region to host a meeting in March 2019 in Tunis which was to have brought together Senior GC Officers, Presidents of Regions, the DLT, together with representation from MA staff and volunteers. This meeting was to have been facilitated by Dr Steven Sinding as a former DG, together with Dr Jacqui Sharpe as a former President, with the objective of generating consensus for lasting governance change. A decision was made early in 2019 by the Director-General to postpone the meeting to September 2019, in Tunis but the Region’s support for governance change is beyond question; allegations that the Region is resistant to change are not consistent with the facts, which show the Arab World Region to be an early supporter of evolutionary governance reform.
5. The Arab World Region wants to clarify at this time the status of the Report from the Regional Committee charged by RC/REC with drafting observations and recommendations from the Region on the Reform proposals. Contrary to some of the allegations recently circulating on the Commission interactive platform, suggesting that the Report was drafted by the REC/AWRO, the Report represented and reflected the views of MA representatives on the Regional committee, voiced in response to the Commission presentation together with other volunteer and staff perspectives from within the Region.
6. Since the Commission has now issued its final Report, the Arab World Region will review the document carefully, and will shortly submit its considered comments in an effort to respond constructively to the proposals under review before the meeting in India, so that, in line with the recent communication from the Director-General, others can consider our comments ahead of time, and our discussions in India can then be based on the widest possible consultation process, and the broadest possible range of ideas under review.
Thank you for the responses. While they are not addressing the discrepancies we read in the publication, it will be a great opportunity to better explain them in the General Assembly for all the audience (members associations, donors and other stakeholders).
Just a brief comment about the planned March’s governance meeting which has been postponed as per the Director-General’s decision: we do not understand what governance issues were supposed to be discussed on March 2019. Normally, the meeting objective wasn’t to discuss the governance reforms, because the decision to bring radical reforms and the establishment of the two commissions has been decided during the GC in May 2019.
Saying this, New Delhi’s meeting will be an opportunity to discuss this and we will ask these questions to the concerned people.
Wonderful, yay!
It’s really pleasant that AWR changes its “planned” decision and will participate in New Delhi’s meeting even though the response is quite broad and contains a number of contradictory responses and doesn’t reply to the comments shared above. Everyone will have the opportunity to express democratically his opinion and vote freely and anonymously. This confirms the utility of the Commission interactive platform which allows ideas and opinions sharing.
But for sure, we are in front of a CRITICAL moment for our so lovely federation and on the outcomes of the General Assembly, depends the future of our members associations and most importantly, OUR CLIENTS who are the essence of our existence.
See you all in New Delhi…
To the Arab World Regional Council
21 October 2019
Dear Regional Council members,
Thank you firstly for your recent hospitality on my visit to meet with you. It was important to me and the Commission to be able to acknowledge, in person, the importance of your region, and the outstanding contribution of your individual and collective work, in spite of the many extreme challenges that you, your MAs, the secretariat, and the people of your region face on a daily basis.
It was also important to hear your thoughts about the IPPF Reform process, and, in particular, the ideas in the Independent Resource Allocation Commission’s draft report. It was a pleasure to meet you, and the youth representatives, alongside my colleagues from the Independent Governance reform Commission..
My apologies for not replying sooner but I wanted to be able to give your letter the time and thought it deserved.
It was unfortunate that your letter arrived after we had submitted our report on the 10th. However, I said at the meeting in Tunis that I would bring back your suggestions and have done so.
I am sorry that the MAs’ EDs could not also attend the meeting, as their views are also very valuable, and we did in fact make the request that you be included in the consultation, as we really wanted to hear from you.
I am equally sorry that other members of the Commission were also not able to join us. As you know several optional dates were explored and a meeting date was agreed. However, this was subsequently changed because of important political events in Tunis. My colleague, Steven Sinding, and I were also disappointed Dr Kamahl had to cancel a planned conversation with us.
We have been fortunate in having the ED of the Moroccan MA on the Commission, as well as your Deputy Regional Director in a management and support role. Both spoke eloquently on behalf of the region’s MAs, but they, like other members of the Commissions and Chairs, were there primarily and specifically to develop recommendations together for a new way forward for IPPF as a federation.
This need was seen as urgent by IPPF’s Governing Council, donors and other stakeholders because it was clear early in 2019 that IPPF was confronting a number of challenges which threatened its reputation and existence.
As a result the provision of vital services, advocacy, education and support that you and other regions provide, required by millions of people across the globe, would have been stalled at a time when the global environment for SRHR and women’s rights is already under threat in many countries. and at the UN.
With regard to your specific points:
Section I The Shape of Reform: its nature and causes
1) I’m pleased to hear that the AWR’s representatives are ‘with the reform,’as solidarity is critical across the federation at such an important time, for the good of the whole. I can assure you that the intention of those serving on the Commission and others who are involved in various ways, is to ensure that IPPF, as a Federation, should be able to determine its own future, address issues which threaten the whole organisation, and ensure that IPPF’s MAs and secretariat are responsive, relevant, accountable and agile.
2)3) 4)5) If IPPF itself does not make decisions at this time that demonstrate its values, including accountability , as you mention, and does not do so quickly, decisions could well be made for it, in spite of the Federation’s remarkable history including the outstanding IPPF leaders from your region, and the continuing importance of SRHR.
As you will know several other leading NGOs, with a proud history, like IPPF, have recently experienced internal challenges and reputational damage, with ongoing impacts.To take more than six months, from January 2019 to May 2020 as you suggest, to sort out the issues that had led to media attention, UK Charities Commission’s concerns, and questions from donors and stakeholders would not have demonstrated the agility and accountability that Governing Council it wished to see.
Our world is one where support for SRHR is under threat -at the UN and locally. Many others are understandably seeking funding for other critical issues such as climate change. None of us can or should take funding for granted, in an environment where donors have urgent new issues and ongoing challenges to address, and as they increasingly focus on restricted funding for projects.
II Reform methodology
1)It is not my place to comment on the processes that have been determined, as the Commissions were not involved at that point. I believe that there has been a genuine commitment to ensuring “the required level of inclusion” through meetings with regions’ MAs, secretariat and volunteers, in person, and on line; the sharing of information and drafts in transparent ways at simultaneous times; two surveys,;electronic newsletters; the development of the website including the ability to send individual and collective responses to the Commission Chairs, to which we have responded, and a number of webinars and Zoom calls in which we have been involved with participants across the regions.
The General Assembly,while inevitably expensive, demonstrates the commitment to include EDs and volunteers from all MAs to share their views after 5 months of ongoing communication. I understand that the funds have been raised extraordinarily from restricted sources, and I believe the donors have supported all this because they still value IPPF and are concerned about the major threats to SRHR at this time.
2)3)4) The surveys were intended to provide an indication of the views of volunteers and staff, and the period was extended for the second survey to assist this.
5) I believe the Commissions’ consultations, surveys, and final reports carry out a very similar function to a SWOT analysis but have involved a wider range and number of people than usual.
6) We considered examples of policies and practices from respected organisations that are similarly engaged at country level, or more widely, and which can be usefully considered by IPPF or others when going through a change process as learning organisations.
8) It would have been impossible to meet every region at the same time but this was done in as close succession as possible to ensure transparency and ensure none were advantaged. It was disappointing that AWRC was not available earlier. Firm closing dates for closing off consultations, and sharing survey results and reports, again ensured, as far as possible,that no-one was unequally privileged by receiving information ahead of others. The General Assembly provides a unique opportunity,to again ensure information is shared as simultaneously and widely as possible-a challenge in any organisation,and particularly in a global federation made up of thousands of people.
III Legally
1)2)3) I am not able to answer questions related to the issues you raise though I have no doubt that these issues will have been explored.
Report on the Independent) Commission on Resource Allocation
1)2)3)4) Several possible options for a resource allocation model were suggested in the first draft report. It was not,however, intended that the World Bank classification of countries into low income, low middle to upper middle income, and high income countries, would be the only criteria used in deciding how to allocate unrestricted funding, although such categories could be part of the formula, together with the unmet needs of that country, and level of MAs performance. You will see that some of the concerns you shared in Tunis have been addressed in the final report, together with issues related to unmet need that were always to be included, and decision making (3).
Inclusion of Advocacy and CSE was also always intended, but I agree that was not sufficiently clear. It is now spelled out in the final report.
5) I also agree that AWR has real reason to be proud of its achievements and I hope that I made this very clear when we met, when I also mentioned that your valuable work in meeting your region’s challenges deserves to continue to be funded as well as possible.
This was also why I emphasised the importance of flexibility and transparency so that funding decisions which recognise these values could be clearly explained.
We have also worked to develop a more phased, staged and predictable process, with transition periods rather than unexpected, rapid changes. Much of the detail will, however, be decided by IPPF itself, in Phase 2, post Delhi.
Thank you again for sharing your time and thoughts -and your commitment and hard work. I look forward to seeing some of you in Delhi. As before, please feel free to write to me in the meantime, at the IRAC email address on the website.
I very much hope that IPPF, with your support, will be able to rise once again to the challenges of the present, as it has done so often in the past.
With warm regards and best wishes,
Gill
Gill Greer (CBE, MNZM, PhD)
I’ve been troubled for several days with this topic. majorsite, But by chance looking at your post solved my problem! I will leave my blog, so when would you like to visit it?
Dear immortals, I need some wow gold inspiration to create.
From start to finish, this blog post had us hooked. The content was insightful, entertaining, and had us feeling grateful for all the amazing resources out there. Keep up the great work!
Surveillance
securitysolutions
“Keep it up!”
I want to express my appreciation for the writer of this blog post. It’s clear they put a lot of effort and thought into their work, and it shows. From the informative content to the engaging writing style, I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.
“Keep it up!”
“Fantastic!”
“Bravo!”
“Keep it up!”
“Impressive!”
“Fantastic!”
“Keep it up!”
“Impressive!”
“Keep it up!”
Your writing has a way of making complicated topics easier to understand It’s evident how much research and effort goes into each post
“Bravo!”
An intriguing read with a fresh perspective.
I’m impressed by the quality of your arguments.
An article that’s as informative as it is inspiring.
A masterful blend of facts and analysis.
I commend the eloquence of this piece.
An article that’s as informative as it is inspiring.
Hello Neat post Theres an issue together with your site in internet explorer would check this IE still is the marketplace chief and a large element of other folks will leave out your magnificent writing due to this problem
Your blog has become my daily dose of positivity and inspiration It’s a space that I always look forward to visiting
“You’re amazing!”
“Bravo!”
“You’re amazing!”
“Excellent!”
“Impressive!”
“Nice work!”
“Impressive!”
“Well done!”