Regions have been a topic ever since I'e been active in CISV
International. In fact I was a member of a JB taskforce that created a
first regional model as well as the position "ReCo" (Regional
Co-ordinator). The regions have caused a lot of turmoil because some
people considered regional meetings, conferences or trainings as
exclusive for those regions. The IJRs created a long document called iGoRC a while
ago, to settle the issue at least a bit.
While updating data into the bubble statistics, I recently updated the regions to comply with the new model suggested by the ODC (Organizational Development Committee): Americas, Asia-Pacific, Europe-North, Europe-Central and Europe-South.
At first these regions seem a bit strange because they don't seem to fit into the geographic continents, but after looking at them for a while they make perfect sense: They solve the problem that Europe has so many CISV NAs by splitting the continent. They get a good mix of strong and weak NAs into every region. They solve the dilemma of the Middle East NAs by grouping them with a whole bunch of European countries. It should be mentioned that some people have suggested grouping all three Europes together (links to Devils with excellent discussion!), but this system creates regions of similar sizes, too.
Because I like these regions so much, I think CISV consider how to strengthen these regional networks and adopt this system into other areas of the organisation:
1) Regional JB conferences should be held for every new region. In fact, this means EJBM should be split up into three seperate conferences, with three seperate regional co-ordinators. ARM and JASPARC would of course stay the same.
2) AIM hosting should rotate through the 5 regions according to a certain system, i.e: Europe North, Americas, Europe South, Asia-Pacific, Europe Central. This would shift the system once suggested by COD (a taskforce that doesn't exist any more, that suggested having AIMs alternate between Europe and Asia-Pacific/Americas, more towards Europe - which makes sense if you look at the cost of travelling. Having two AIMs in Latin America within 3 years (Colombia 2007, Guatemala 2009) is quite unconvenient for everybody NOT from that region.
3) It has been suggested for Youth Meetings to become a regional programme. Why not make a football pool, where invitations go to countries from the same region only.
4) Buddy countries should be arranged within one region.
I thought this way in 1998 and still do today: Regions in CISV should become self-sustaining structures in CISV in order to strengthen the overall organisation and save costs.
While updating data into the bubble statistics, I recently updated the regions to comply with the new model suggested by the ODC (Organizational Development Committee): Americas, Asia-Pacific, Europe-North, Europe-Central and Europe-South.
At first these regions seem a bit strange because they don't seem to fit into the geographic continents, but after looking at them for a while they make perfect sense: They solve the problem that Europe has so many CISV NAs by splitting the continent. They get a good mix of strong and weak NAs into every region. They solve the dilemma of the Middle East NAs by grouping them with a whole bunch of European countries. It should be mentioned that some people have suggested grouping all three Europes together (links to Devils with excellent discussion!), but this system creates regions of similar sizes, too.
Because I like these regions so much, I think CISV consider how to strengthen these regional networks and adopt this system into other areas of the organisation:
1) Regional JB conferences should be held for every new region. In fact, this means EJBM should be split up into three seperate conferences, with three seperate regional co-ordinators. ARM and JASPARC would of course stay the same.
2) AIM hosting should rotate through the 5 regions according to a certain system, i.e: Europe North, Americas, Europe South, Asia-Pacific, Europe Central. This would shift the system once suggested by COD (a taskforce that doesn't exist any more, that suggested having AIMs alternate between Europe and Asia-Pacific/Americas, more towards Europe - which makes sense if you look at the cost of travelling. Having two AIMs in Latin America within 3 years (Colombia 2007, Guatemala 2009) is quite unconvenient for everybody NOT from that region.
3) It has been suggested for Youth Meetings to become a regional programme. Why not make a football pool, where invitations go to countries from the same region only.
4) Buddy countries should be arranged within one region.
I thought this way in 1998 and still do today: Regions in CISV should become self-sustaining structures in CISV in order to strengthen the overall organisation and save costs.
I think this potential new regional model is something that should be seriously considered. Despite recently attending AIMs and being involved internationally, it isn't something I've heard a lot about. I think regions have potential and under the current system that doesn't seem to be utilized. Smaller regions would not only be easier to manage (I can only imagine how unwieldy the current Europe+ region is) but would also allow for closer ties to be formed. Also, I agree that having diversity in NA/PA strength and size is important to every region- so strong regions don't suck out equally strong NAs from smaller regions.
Personally I still find the Americas region to be a bit overwhelming geographically, but the recent groupings that have been put in place on the JB level (Andinos, South etc) have been positive, and I think is an example of how downsizing regions is a positive. I'd be interested to hear how people in the big European region feel about splitting it up...
Lastly, I think having Youth Meetings as regions specific is exactly what is needed for the program to grow successfully outside of Europe and to ensure the programme remains financially accessible :) -Kalenne (CISV Canada)
Agree
It has been recently decided at EJBM that the European Region according to Junior Branch shouldn't exclude anyone. So we stated that any country willing to cooperate with a member of the region would be part of it. However, EJB as been separated in 4 neighbourhoods for a better cooperation and an easier way to work for the EJB Team. And since we've been working with this "structure" only for a year, I think people want to us it more and see how we can benefit from it.
I think that's exactly why the regions have been somewhat of a flop in the past years because everybody understood regions as "splitting up" and "excluding". It's time to think about what power a region of a decent size could have, by supporting each other, by sharing training resources, human resources, etc. - and all without completely limiting it to the regions borders. But as long as we keep coming up with new regions, or group NAs into huge clusters (to leave nobody out), and are afraid of giving regions a role, we won't be getting anywhere.
Imagine this vision: Every region elects two trustees that meet at the AIM for a board meeting. How much money could be saved for CISV. And how much more efficient could a board meeting be? Somebody needs to take a brave step here, me thinks.
I don't see how this is much different from what we're moving towards at the moment.
The key thing is that now we're starting to work with "soft regions", that are self-sustainable and based on the interest of participation (this last one, clarified by iGorc) - rather than "hard regions". They are much better than "splitting" europe or the americas because they are more easily adaptable.
Geographic reference matter, but still much less than low cost airlines. To start a region is much easier than to kill one (and its costs), so it's important to have in mind the need for it to be constantly transformable into something that is relevant in the short/mid term.
So, in a way, I don't agree that regions have been a flop in the past few years. Regional Training Forums are already the key strategy to spread information and training in CISV International. They will very soon become more important than AIM (if not already). In the IJB, while 3 or 4 years ago we reached 150 people per year - now it's probably 4 times this.
Regionalisation is working. Just not the way it was imagined 10 years ago.
"[RTFs] will very soon become more important than AIM".
That would be fantastic. RTFs are a great example how a "soft region" can work: Make sure there's one RTF in every region, but anybody can participate. I visited the RTF in Hamburg last week, and could see the spirit there.
AIM's have always been seen as a good place to train people, but just aren't made for that.
"Regionalisation is working. Just not the way it was imagined 10 years ago."
Could you elaborate more on what was that that was imagined 10 years ago regarding Regions? But I do agree that RTFs will become more important than AIM just like many people say EJBM is waaaaaaaaaaaay better than IJBC... which I totally agree (and I don't know about ARMM and JASPARC... but soon enough these two will become even more better than IJBC just as EJBM is in its current form).
Non-Proximity of the international meetings (AIM, IJBC) is an issue in CISV. I think that being able to attend the next best thing after AIM or IJBC (whether an RTF or EJBM/ARMM/JASPARC or even smaller JB workshops in the regions) makes people more attracted to the regional meetings and that will mean expecting a lot from these meetings which makes us want to make them the best.
This also goes for Youth Meetings. I think that regional IYM should become a reality to develop this program. Will that be exclusive to other "soft regions"? exclusion is relative - so is are the different methods of development.
All the documents of past taskforces on regionalisation/cooperation since 1993 are in the library. you can check them out.
And I think the comparison between RTFs and AIMs (as much as Regional Meetings and IJBC) in terms of "better" or "worse" is quite silly, if not misleading. Just because they have completely different target groups and objectives. But yeah, I do agree regional meetings (all of them, but specially jasparc) are much more enjoyable...
I can't really say anything about RTF and AIM since I haven't been to any of those and only know about what the second is aimed to do, but when it comes to the IJB, I don't think it's silly or misleading. It's what a lot of people said after last IJBC. Yes, IJBC is a kind of "training" for the people attending that are mainly NJRs but other active JBers too, and region meetings are a kind of "experience sharing" to improve JBs and the regions, and they both have different goals. But that doesn't mean that people can't prefer one over the other. I don't think it's silly at all that I and many others prefer the regional meetings because they are better structured in my opinion and benefit the JBs more than IJBC did. This was a comment at last IJBC, it lacked experience sharing to improve JBs. When faced with the choice between IJBC and regional meetings (for financial issues for example), the choice is being regional meetings...and not only because they are more enjoyable... it's because they are more JB development oriented :)
Yeap! they are (more JB Development oriented).
In fact, I think it was since 2005 that IJRs (at the time James and Astrid, I think) started recommending people to go to Regional Meeting than to IJBC if they have to choose.
I guess what I mean (and that people should understand) is that they are made to complement each other, not to compete. And to invent a competition between things that are meant to complement is... silly.
But I see your point, and I can agree with it - too.