Proposal #10: Three Regions.

I propose that CISV international includes the following three official regions into its constitutional structure:

1. Asia-Pacific Region (ASPARC)
2. The Americas (ARC)
3. Europe, Mediterranean and Africa (EMA)

Regions should specifically focus on training and development.

Rationale

1.) Regions exist already, albeit inofficially.

Regions have been on the agenda for many years, especially within the Junior structure. Advantages and disadvantages have been discussed over and over again. Most regions have in fact already developed a form of desired regional structure, that fits their individual needs. Obviously many problems can much easier be solved on a regional level.

2.) The three listed regions suggested make a lot of sense.

Why these suggested regions? Most people who disagree with a regional structure put forward that regions are imbalanced. Most strong NAs can be found in Europe and North America. Nevertheless, with a fixed regional structure, as suggested, all three regions have a number of strong NAs that can help support developing countries. The biggestregion most obvously is No. 3 (EMA), but they also face the biggest challenges in development (Africa). And: Do all regions really need to be identical?

3. Training and development is better with a regional focus.

Buddy countries, training workshops, promotion into new countries is done best on a regional level. Successful work has already mostly happened within regional structures.
Let's make this work-sharing official. Training Workshops for all areas (Seminar Camp staff, Chapter development, Mosaic) is best done on regional level, especially since travel costs are high.

4. Reduce workload of CISV international and IO.

Dump down Responsibilities from International! Moving the decision making process on where to host the next AIM down from the international board to the regions has saved a lot of time during the AIM sessions. It is also a good example to show how to deal with the
fact that regions are not identical: It's Europe's turn every two years to host, whereas other regions only host every 4 years. More decisions could be moved to regional structures: Where workshops should be hosted, who will pay for them. Which countries to buddy up with which one, how to co-ordinate promotional work. Finally regions could even have a "Regional office" with paid employees to complement the work the IO is doing at the moment.

5. A chance for regional activities.
I imagine the development of new regional activities: JB-X never had a chance within CISV-international - as a regional activity it could see arevival. Maybe Youth Meeting would do better with a regional focus?

6. Basically, only "EMA" needs to be "founded" to make it reality.
The first step for CISV would be to recognize that regions exist, and which countries belong to which region. Step two would be to create official structures for the regions. This step should be taken with care, since creating complicated burocratical structures would be a step backwards in many senses. In fact, for Asia-Pacific and ARC some form of structure already exists, mostly Europe needs to take a big step in this area. Every region could establish their own
structure, adapted to their regional needs. Step three would be to officially "dump" decisions and responsibilities upon these regions to make the international structure as "slim" as possible.

7. Reduce costs!

IO and AIM are the biggest numbers in the annual budget. With regional structures, both could be smaller, and work more focussed and effective. Of course new regional structures would need money as well, also these could be more effective, if focussed and adapted to the regions needs.

8. A big YES to inclusiveness
Whereever possible regions should work on the basis, that everybody is welcome and nobody is excluded. Regional work should be an opportunity "on top" and not "exclusive". CISVers from other regions should always be welcome to take part and contribute to whatever is done within a specific region.

Nick (GER)