Hi everyone! This is Jennifer from IFOAM-Organics Asia.

The motion 1b uploaded here does not represent the full motion that has been submitted and does not show in detail how the motion has been developed - only the December version has been included in the GA Report.

I have requested the Headoffice to include the full motion text in the GA Report and in the email from Headoffice sent out on April 30th and titled "Extended Deadline: GA Feedback Forum now open until 5 May" the full text of the motion 1b (second version), has been included at the end of the GA Report as "Appendix 4".

What has been uploaded as motion 1b here has been copy-pasted from two parts of the full motion submitted in March.

"Recognised and active Regional Bodies"
This double qualification is problematic. Recognition should be criteria based which may incluce a minimum set of criteria for a "living / active" body, something lie a pulse monitor. Accordingly the "active" criteria should be elmiminated and the criteria must include "live indicators" which if not met, the body falls our of the "recogniszed" status. This must be possible by decisiton of the world board with standard appeal process.

please make sure that the definition of "each major geographical area" does not follow the eurocentric division into continents or such. In Fairtrade International we have a real problem that SEA is subsumised with India into NAPP and as India is such a behemoth it squeeses everybody else against the wall, not by bad intent but simply by sheer numbers. Please keep the definition of "major geographical area" a living process, make India and Mainland China separate regions without subsumizing any other states with them so that also the members from smaller regions have a chance. 

"In each major geographical area where there is no recognised Regional Body, rules shall be established" this wording leaves it unclear of the rules shall be established by some players in the region (who shouts first and loudest wins) or by the world board. I would like to see a qualification of "shall be established by .... " to get an even set of rules. I believe it best that if no regional body is established the criteria and selection is done by the world board with active particiapation of members from the region. This might also assist in the initiation of a regional body. Once a regional body is established, the qualification criteria to qualify as representative and active must be met, this criteria set also is to be set by the World board, preferably under confirmation by the GA.

"The nomination of representatives to the reserved seats shall be the responsibility of the respective Regional Bodies or constituencies, in accordance with their own internal procedures." the internal procedures must be acceptable under a list of criteria set by the GA, during the structural development phase of the same the world board may flag missing or problematic criteria and demand changes before they are used for regional elections. This should help in keeping balances between diverging regional interests in check.

"The General Assembly of IFOAM – Organics International shall ratify the individuals nominated to occupy the seats allocated to Regional Bodies, INOFO and regions, ensuring overall accountability and consistency with the organization’s Statutes and values." This is important point but must include not only the ratification of individuals but also the set of rules used to select the nominee. Guarding the structures is most important and should not be done by flagging nominees if the rules of nomination are problematic. it is most important that a clear structure for publishing the criteria, rules and protocols of the regional bodies on the IFOAM master website are established and enforced.
This will
a) allow to easily monitor the "active" aspect of the regional offices
b) allow the members of the GA to monitor the rules, protocols and achievements of the regional organizations and their representatives.

This will strengthen transparency and interaction both on the regional and worldwide levels.

A Call for Thoughtful Deliberation - Not Taking Sides

Hello folks,

I'm asking all of us to stop and look clearly at where IFOAM stands today. It’s a fabulous organization that has completed 50 years. In such situations, most organizations re-orient themselves and evolve to face the realities of the present – this is true even for IFOAM. We must realize that status quo isn't working. We need change - but change that is grounded in reality, not only ideology, and that delivers solutions we can actually implement.

Motion 1A has a flaw: it pushes regional bodies to the margins.

For over twenty years, these organizations have been the engine of organic agriculture in their regions. They are not abstract entities - they are on the ground, working with farmers, building networks, lobbying governments. Many started small and have grown into formidable institutions with expanding memberships, all under the IFOAM banner.

Here's the math: over 60% of IFOAM's membership comes through regional bodies. Yet this motion does’nt give them adequate space. When IFOAM's reputation is at risk, so is theirs. When trust erodes at the global level, it can collapse at the regional level—threatening the survival of organizations that have spent decades building credibility.

And here's what I don't understand: Why are we being forced into a choice?

Why present members with "Motion 1A or Motion 1B" when a single, unified motion could have been crafted? Both contain important elements. Both are incomplete in some sense and need to be relooked. There is obvious common ground – not irreconcilable differences.

Governance reform of this magnitude cannot be rushed through in one vote. What cannot be resolved now should be carried forward to the General Assembly in the Philippines. This is not delay - it is diligence. Members deserve time to deliberate, not pressure to pick sides.

Let's govern like the movement we claim to be: collaborative, inclusive, and accountable to our members.

Persons coming forward to stand for election for any type of governance role of IFOAM, must represent and prove an affiliation with an organization that is already an IFOAM voting member. This doesn't have to become an unessarary strict process, on the contrary. For example not only salaried personnel of an organization can stand for election, but also an affiliated with the member organization person, provided he/she can provide a valid and recent endorsment from one particular member organization. 

@mathewkeystone-foundation-org Fully appreciate your perspective and completely agree that it is the correct priority to take more time in order to have a better outcome, rather than just adhere to the current schedule. The years-long process to get us to this point has been a lot slower than many of us have intended, but we can have a fully legitimate process in the end if we remain transparent. I support striving for one unified motion overall; maybe that won't be 100% possible (and with some amendments ultimately facing a GA vote) but I am optimistic we can find a better compromise. Neither Motion 1a nor 1b are sufficient as written, and I do not foresee under the current timing the appropriate amendments that would essentially take the best of both motions. 

How would we change course? Could a June 1 vote be to continue the discussion until a future date? Wouldn't even have to be as far out as the OWC...

Let's honor all the good and diverse thoughts so far by many very smart and caring people, and find a better combined solution.