South Asia Region IPPF Resolution on IPPF Reform Commission’s Draft Reports

Agenda Item No:     5

Resolution passed by REC of the South Asia Region of IPPF in its meeting held on 25^th October 2019

Background:

The IPPF Reforms Commission draft reports shared for feedback in IPPF system were analyzed by volunteers of the South Asia Region of IPPF, feedback of the volunteers of the Region were considered by the REC of the South Asia Region of IPPF during its skype meeting held on 25^th October 2019 on behalf of the volunteers being their elected representatives to the REC of the South Asia Region, the reports were also analyzed in the context/correlation of the Arab World Region and Africa region Reports on the same and the Resolution passed by National Council of Rahnuma-FPAP regarding the same draft reports. Before that the discussion was initiated by the Chairperson Regional council IPPF SAR Mr. Umesh Aradhya raising many concerns two commission’s reports. 

By taking into consideration the all above mentioned reports the forum discussed thoroughly all the issues and agreed that:

The South Asia Region being the birth place of IPPF, the volunteerism and the introduction of democratic characteristics/practices in a social welfare organization (the very first of its kind) places even higher responsibility on the Governing body of this very Region to place matters in its true context/spirit in which the IPPF was founded by the Volunteers from India, Sri Lanka and Pakistan (to name some).

IPPF was established/founded as a movement to raise funds for the MA (the then Affiliates) and that over time, IPPF became a global movement and name with involvement of hundreds and millions of volunteers who have/had given their time, energy and expertise making the IPPF one of the largest SRHR organization worldwide.

Consideration/analysis:

Governing Structure Reforms Commission Report: The report was found to propose to discontinue with the current Elected Bodies and proposes to replace it with the selected board. Selection has been recommended over election and authoritarianism has been recommended over democratic principles.     

The REC of SAR while agreeing to the AWR RC and Africa Region’s report on the issues, highlighted that heading the reform as “changing by choice” does not make it a process by choice but there are clear evidences of coercion and threatening in the process

The forum felt that the commission’s composition was lacking the spirit of volunteerism/ Governance rather it carries one sided view of management only.

Resource Allocation Reforms Commission Report:

The REC SAR showed satisfaction over revised recommendation regarding the Resource allocation earlier proposed by the commission after the concerns raised by FPAP, AWR and AR.

Recommendations

1. The REC unanimously passed the resolution that the draft reports in its current shape are unacceptable:
2. Because of the non-inclusion of the very concept of volunteerism, democratic norms and accountability through volunteers.
3. In formulation the recommendations of commissions, the constitution of IPPF has not been taken into consideration rather it is ignored.
4. The process of inclusion of the non-elected members (in the name of experts) with voting rights in GC is not acceptable.
5. Equal representation of the regions in the GC must be ensured.
6. The role and responsibilities given to the forum like GA (about 500 delegates) seems to be impractical. We should refrain from leaving policy making decision on such forums.
7. Meeting of GC with a long interval (2-3 years) would compromise the oversight functions of the governance. Hence it is not supported.
8. The constitutional changes of IPPF should be supported by two third majority votes by the GC only.  
9. In the reform process, any decision where voting is required management (ED, CEO etc.) should not be included as voters.
10. Cumulative tenure of 15 years of volunteers in any governing body of IPPF including MA should be followed as it is.
11.  The time given for the approval of two commissions’ recommendations by GA (non-legal entity) and subsequently by GC is not sufficient to bring such important changes in such a short period of time. The approval process should be postponed till the next GC expected to be held in May 2020 GC.