European Paralympic Committee - President,s Report

EPC GENERAL ASSEMBLY - SEPTEMBER 2003 - ATHENS PRESIDENT’S REPORT

Introduction

In the two years since my election as EPC President, a lot has happened. Indeed, so much has happened during this time, within EPC and IPC, that it is difficult to know where to start this report, what to include and what to omit.

EPC’s newly elected Executive Committee first met in Budapest and has met since in Salamanca, Bollnäs and Athens. In addition, it has organised an anti-doping congress in Bratislava (under the expert guidance of Hans Lindström and others), a development meeting in Budapest (with our new IOSD members), an Eastern European development project in Croatia (jointly with CP-ISRA), a conference in Bollnäs (on relations with the European Union) and a multi-faceted conference in Athens (to follow this year’s General Assembly) … not to mention, of course, the many ‘lesser’ meetings involving individual members of EPC’s Executive Committee.

At the same time, as EPC’s President, it has also fallen to me to represent Europe on IPC’s Executive Committee and, in this capacity, I have been closely associated with the development of IPC’s long-awaited strategic review, involved with other Regional and IOSD representatives in the deliberations of IPC’s Development Committee and, more recently, recruited to membership of IPC’s Legal Committee.

In other respects, too, the past two years have proven to be extremely busy: IPC and EPC have jointly entered into an agreement with the European Disability Forum; the European Commission in Brussels has been promoting 2003 as the European Year of People with Disabilities and 2004 as the European Year of Education through Sport; Phil Craven and I were both invited to the Special Olympics World Games in Dublin; the EPC championships programme has been at its busiest (at one point I attended three major events in less than two weeks); and, only last month, I was in Azerbaijan as a guest of its NPC so that I might better understand the situation of a part of Europe that, previously, I knew not at all well.

These observations are not intended as a vehicle for self-congratulation nor, even when I reflect on how much has not been achieved, as an excuse for inactivity. They are intended quite simply as an illustration of how much is happening and as a reminder, if such is needed, of the inadequacy of EPC’s staff resource. This is doubtless a theme to which we will return in future but, for the time being, let me simply acknowledge my debt of gratitude to the other members of the Executive Committee (Enrique Sanchez-Guijo and Jürg Weber in particular) and to those members of IPC’s staff in Bonn that, unashamedly, we use as our own.

In the latest issue of EPC News, I have somewhat belatedly welcomed Bart Schell to EPC. For those who may not yet be aware, Bart is jointly employed by IPC and EPC and is already proving an invaluable resource … for EPC at least, providing much needed continuity between meetings of the Executive Committee.

Clearly, these are very exciting times for everyone associated with the Paralympic movement. Equally clearly, there is no need for this report to repeat all that is likely to be covered in more detail by other members of the EPC Executive later in the meeting. What follows, therefore, is intended simply to identify key developments and, where appropriate, to comment on or add emphasis to the more detailed reports of others. For ease of reference, I will treat IPC and EPC under different heads.

IPC development

IPC’s strategic review: At long last, all members of the Paralympic family now have the information that enables them to contribute usefully to the debate that will take place at IPC’s General Assembly in Turin during November. As the largest region (in terms of membership) and with some of the oldest NPCs, Europe will be expected to play a significant part in this debate and I am delighted that IPC’s President, Phil Craven, has agreed to address this topic at EPC’s Conference on 29 September. For my part, I would simply add at this stage that the strategic review and the recommendations that flow from it enjoy my wholehearted support.

IPC Executive: Under IPC’s current constitution, the membership of its Executive Committee extends to 22 people, with eight of these (supported by the staff in IPC’s Bonn office) also acting as a Management Committee. In truth, neither of these committees is ‘executive’ or ‘management’ … these being the responsibility of the paid staff … but, in any event, the numbers are excessive. Not surprisingly, therefore, the strategic review is recommending (i) a clearer definition of the relationship between elected officers (whatever they are called) and paid staff and (ii) a much smaller ‘Executive’ (by whatever name). While, as I have already said, these developments enjoy my full support, it is important for EPC’s membership to understand that one of the consequences of this will be that IPC’s Regions and the IOSDs no longer have ex officio seats on its Executive. However, both parts of IPC’s membership will have other opportunities to contribute to IPC’s further development through newly created ‘Councils’ and, for the first time, IPC’s Regions will also be full members entitled to vote at General Assemblies.

Development: If the strategic review is implemented as recommended, the implications for NPCs, IOSDs, IPC Regions and the sports themselves will be considerable in many respects and not least in the context of development. I realise that much has been said about this already, but I believe the debate suffers because we use the same word ‘development’ to mean different things. Despite this difficulty, I believe that there are more than enough ‘development’ roles (albeit different ones) for all members of the Paralympic family to play their part. All that is needed is a clear understanding of what those different roles might be, a dialogue to establish who is best placed to do what and, of course, a willingness to collaborate. At both strategic and operational levels, this hugely important area of activity will also benefit from a formal review of the roles and responsibilities of IPC’s Development Committee and its still to be appointed Development Manager.

EPC development

EPC Executive: At the close of the last EPC General Assembly in Ireland, the newly elected Executive Committee was still without a Treasurer; a deficit that was resolved the following morning by the co-option as Acting Treasurer of Jürg Weber. Jürg’s contribution since then has been immense and I have no hesitation whatsoever in recommending the formal ratification of his appointment when the appropriate agenda item is reached later in the meeting. Our new Secretary General, Enrique Sanchez-Guijo, has also been a huge asset, combining his normal EPC duties with IPC and IOC athlete representation and a growing expertise in matters relating to the European Union. EPC’s Technical Officer, Karl Quade, and its Development Officer, Sverre Bergenholdt, also warrant special mention. However, we are a committee of nine and I would not want to neglect the contributions also made by our members-at-large: Ratko Kovacic, Arto Pehkonen, Pal Szekeres and by our recently recruited athlete representative, Christian Sainz.

Operations Plan: For ease of reference, the Operations Plan for 2002-2003 has been reproduced precisely as presented to and agreed by the General Assembly that took place in Ireland two years ago, with the EPC Executive Committee’s comments on progress to date added in bold italics (see agenda item 4.5). Even though much remains to be done, it is gratifying to be able to observe that (i) significant progress has been made in a number of areas; (ii) several projects, even if not completed, are well under way; and (iii) some lack of progress has been inevitably associated with uncertainty surrounding the outcome of IPC’s strategic review. With the benefit of further discussion at EPC’s General Assembly and a clear indication of IPC’s future direction following discussion of the strategic review at its General Assembly, it will be possible for the EPC Executive Committee to consider any further amendment to the Plan early in 2004 ... reverting to the full EPC membership as and when appropriate.

Championships: The EPC championships programme will be covered in more detail by the Technical Officer’s report, but there are several aspects that merit special attention: (i) EPC’s achievements in this area are second to none (there is no other IPC region with a comparable calendar of regional events), but we have still fallen short of our target and it may be necessary to consider a four-year cycle rather than attempting (and failing) to offer EPC championships every two years; (ii) there is still no agreed formula for the avoidance of conflict between IPC/EPC championships and IOSD events; (iii) for me at least, the distinction between ‘IPC sports’ and other Paralympic sports is no longer relevant; and (iv) almost certainly, the whole basis for IPC regions (and arguably the IOSDs as well) offering their own separate championships programmes will need to be fundamentally reviewed when/if each of the sports within the Paralympic programme achieves independence.

Communication: With an EPC membership of fifty-five NPCs and IOSDs and an all-volunteer Executive Committee, even with the help that IPC is now offering, communication between Executive Committee members and EPC members more generally is arguably the single most important challenge before us. With e-mail, EPC News, a new web-site and a human resource in IPC’s Bonn office, there are grounds for optimism. However, EPC’s effectiveness as a bridge between IPC and the nations requires the commitment of all of us. As I have said recently in EPC News: ‘If there are problems, let us know; if things are improving, let us know; if you can suggest ways to help us improve further, again let us know’.

Summary

In closing, let me repeat what I have said many times already: the EPC Executive is particularly keen to identify ways of providing help and encouragement to all 50+ of our member NPCs and IOSDs and, as the EPC President, I am particularly keen to build bridges between NPCs, between different parts of Europe and between Europe, the other IPC Regions and the IOSDs. As before, I would welcome any suggestions for taking this forward and I encourage each of you to contact me (or other members of the EPC Executive) by whatever means are most convenient. In the meantime, I look forward to seeing you all again in Athens.

Dr Bob Price (EPC President)