What is the definition of GNI?

It is the Gross National Income per capita. The GNIpc Atlas method is provided by the World Bank (WB).

Why was the index GNI (RNB) used and not the GDP (PIB) per capita or the HDI?

The formula for determining registration fees for Categories C and D could be considered complicated but this is required to ensure the registration fee system is equitable. The income groupings use the French RNB or English GNI per capita (in US Dollars, converted from local currency using the Atlas method) as they follow the same methodology used by the World Bank when determining its operational lending policy. It is accepted that GNI per capita does not completely summarise a country’s level of development or measure welfare, however it has proven to be a useful and easily available indicator that is closely correlated with other, non-monetary measures of the quality of life, such as life expectancy at birth, mortality rates of children and enrolment rates in school. The Human Development Index (HDI) is a summary measure of average achievement in key dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable, having a decent standard of living. HDI captures only part of what human development entails and the calculations needed to construct the fee component of the WOSM budget would make it more complex to use in comparison with others. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is a production indicator, a monetary measure of the market value of all final goods and services produced in a period (quarterly or yearly) of time. Nominal GDP estimates are commonly used to determine economic performance of a whole country or region and to make international comparisons. After having considered a range of indicators including GDP (PIB in French) and HDI, it was still considered that the GNI per capita, as previously used by WOSM, remains the most appropriate for WOSM's context.

Does the proposed model suggest changes to the existing 4 categories?

The proposed model continues to use a classification of NSOs into 4 categories. The proposed model maintains the classification of each NSO into one of four categories (A to D) based on the GNI per capita of the country (GNIpc) as defined by the World Bank.

Should the flat fees for categories A and B NSO's be automatically calculated for inflation?

Following the most recent consultations with NSOs, this is now included. The endorsed model would see the registration fees for Categories A and B adjusted for inflation at every World Scout Conference. Registration fees for Categories C and D would be automatically adjusted for inflation via the GNI per capita formula.

Can we simulate a comparison of the models with current fee and what a future fee would be with the new model? This should also show what a 10% increase in membership would be in WOSM membership fee in both the current and proposed system.

The request for a chart of the current and future registration fees is helpful. We have developed a simple tool with explanations to use this. It is available as part of the Toolkit. This requires each NSO to input the data they consider will apply for their NSO at a point in time, they determine.

We don’t collect fees from all members, should we only pay for members from whom fees are collected?

Amendments to the WOSM Constitution were made by the 41st World Scout Conference in 2017, removing links to a per capita rate. Article XXII.1. now states that ‘Each Member Organization shall pay an annual registration fee at a rate and according to a formula to be determined from time to time by the World Scout Conference by a two-thirds majority of the votes cast.’ This shift from ‘fee per member’ to ‘registration fee per NSO’ reinforces that the registration fees collected from NSOs are in response to the operational cost to achieve the Triennial Plan approved by the World Scout Conference rather than a national ‘fee per member’ that previously considered NSOs could afford and pass on to their individual members. This shift from per capita emphasizes that each NSO must determine how it will raise the funds needed to pay its registration fee to WOSM. While the endorsed formula is derived on a per capita basis, this does not mean that NSOs must collect fees from their members. It is up to each NSO to determine the payment method of the registration fees.

How would the proposed model encourage growth in NSOs?

The Task Force continued its work which was started in the previous triennium, based on the six principles which were approved by the 2014-2017 World Scout Committee. These principles were: Continue to use four categories of countries based on the financial figures updated by the World Bank where NSOs in category A and B will pay a flat fee linked to the membership ranges and NSOs in category C and D will pay based on actual membership as currently occurs. The increase in the amount to be paid by any NSO will be limited to a maximum of 25% extra each triennium only for NSOs in categories C and D, compared to the previous triennium. No NSO should be charged an annual registration fee of more than 35% of the total annual fees budgeted. In extreme circumstances, an NSO can send its request for transition arrangements for the payment of fees to the Secretary General. When an NSO contributes additional funds, such generosity should be acknowledged.

Why is a cap put at 5% of youth membership, as these countries are still likely to collect fees from their members?

The proposed 5% cap on youth membership is an incentive for an NSO to continue to grow its membership. This includes the total youth population of a country including girls and boys. When it reaches this cap, each NSO can decide whether it retains any additional income or if it makes an additional contribution to WOSM. Some NSOs currently do.

Are there plans to include punitive measures for NSO's that deal with declining membership?

The proposed model does not propose, and nor is it proposed, to introduce punitive measures for NSOS that report a decline in membership.

Are the fees collectible fixed at US$4.8m?

No. WOSM's Annual Budget is developed in response to the requirements of a Yearly Operational Plan which is informed by the Triennial Plan as approved by the World Scout Conference. For this exercise, the Task Force used the most current figure of US $4.8 million, and understands that there is no intention for WOSM to fix the fees collectible to a specific figure.

Would NSOs with greater membership have more votes as those NSOs with more membership pay higher Annual Registration Fees?

Following wide consultation conducted over many years at world and regional events, there is an overwhelming consensus that the status quo in relation to voting rights should be maintained. That is that each National Scout Organisation should have 6 votes. The reasons for this were based on solidarity and unity of the Movement.

Why aren’t the figures of GNI and census updated every year and the annual registration fee should be based on the latest figures of them?

From trend data it is known that membership figures as well as GNI per capita figures vary slightly only from one year to the next. It is considered that three years is a suitable time given the difficulties some NSOs have in collecting this data. Updating membership figures and GNI per capita figures every 3 years for World Scout Conferences would assist NSOs in forward planning and budgeting as there would be confidence in knowing what registration fees would be due over a 3-year period. Similarly, this approach would enable the World Scout Committee and World Scout Bureau with its forward planning and budgeting.

What would the incentive be to report correctly and join the next cap if it only means that the bill will increase? A cap system is not better in this regard for Category A and B countries. If an NSO reaches 200,001 Scouts and it was 198,200 Scouts in last census, the cost of reporting those last Scouts will be very high compared to a system where the increase is based on the individual.

A country which is in the bracket 100,001 to 199,999 pays "only" for each set of 100,000 members. If it has 198,200 as per the example given, it "saves" fees for/from 98,200 members. It therefore is only fair that if it moves to the next 100,000 step - i.e. 200,001 in the example given, - it pays for that bracket. It also must be noted that the fee per 100,000 members in Categories A and B is of USD 1,000 and USD 2,000 which is deemed reasonable.

How does the suggested model address the challenge of NSOs who can't collect fees and have a difficulty paying fees to WOSM?

The proposed model is a step forward in addressing the issues regarding registration fees. As the majority of NSOs that experience difficulties in this area come from categories A and B, the wide inclusion of increased membership numbers in each range makes this more possible.

Would the fee be renamed to voluntary contribution? It would have major implications for our ability to get government support to pay our fees which is crucial for our survival.

No. It is not proposed to rename registration fee to voluntary contribution. However, it is recognised that in addition to paying the registration fee, some NSOs may wish to make an additional contribution. Over the last decade, in addition to paying the registration fee, some NSOs have made additional contributions.

What would an increase in budget of WOSM mean for category C and D NSOs?

If this increase was greater than inflation this would require increase in funds provided from a number of possible sources. One option may be from the contribution of the World Scout Foundation, or from other independent providers or from an increase in fees collected by all NSOs in Categories C and D.

What would happen if the model proposed by the World Scout Committee is not accepted at the World Scout Conference in Egypt in 2020?

This is up to the World Scout Conference at that time. One option is for the previous model prior to the 39th World Scout Conference in Brazil to continue to be used, adjusted to include the new data for each NSO. It is recognised that significant work and consultation has gone into researching the proposed model which is more finely tuned to accommodate differences than the previous model used prior to Brazil. As such it is hoped any concerns with the model being proposed can be raised as part of the ongoing consultations with any World Scout Committee member at any time to enable any concerns to be addressed in an appropriate manner.

What was the process used to develop the model being proposed?

The matter was considered by each of the World Scout Committees following the 39th World Scout Conference in Brazil. In 2014 the third Task Force was established. This Task Force consulted extensively at regional conferences and major events. More than 14 different models were considered including those used by other non-governmental global agencies as well as the United Nations. In April 2017, the World Scout Committee agreed to a model for wide consultation. This information was made available in July to all NSOs and interested parties via scout.org. A visual presentation supported the paper. Dedicated workshop sessions were held on the model during the 41st World Scout Conference in Azerbaijan and at regional events. A response sheet was provided to assist the consultation process. Further work was done with some regions and NSOs. Invitations were extended to all NSOs to seek further input if required which closed on 15 January 2018. Following this the World Scout Committee agreed to endorse the fine-tuned model in April 2018. This has been shared widely and a webpage established to assist NSOs in learning more about the proposal which will be considered by NSOs at the 42nd World Scout Conference in August 2020 in Egypt.

Will this proposed WOSM Registration Fees Model affect Regional fees?

The WOSM Registration Fees are completely separate from Regional fees, and the currently proposed model has no impact on the Regional fees.

Who were the members of the Task Force from 2014-2018?

The Task Force was led by Dr W.A. Davis, Chairperson of the African Region. It included Luc Panissod (Switzerland), Mohammed Khalid (India), Wahid Labidi (Tunisia), Nelson Pavon (Honduras), Juan Reig Serrano (Spain), John May (United Kingdom), Dan Ownby (later replaced by Karin Ahlbäck) and Peter Blatch (World Scout Committee;) Srinath Tirumale Venugopal (later replaced by Noha Shawky) (World Scout Bureau). The Task Force concluded its work in April 2018 following submission of its final report and recommendations to the World Scout Committee.

Are you sure you want to delete this?
Welcome to Scout.org! We use cookies on this website to enhance your experience.To learn more about our Cookies Policy go here!
By continuing to use our website, you are giving us your consent to use cookies.