1. The IFMSA – EMSA
collaboration
May 11th 2013

2. What is EMSA?
• “EMSA is a politically neutral, non-governmental
student organisation, created in 1991, led by
medical students for medical students represented
currently in 22 countries on a faculty level across
geographical Europe. It seeks to improve the health
and quality of care of the citizens of Europe, by
acting as a conduit for increased interaction and
sharing of knowledge between European medical
students in the areas of Medical Education, Medical
Ethics and Medical Science.” – European Partnership
agreement

3. The last Agreement
General remarks:
• Other agreements:
– Barcelona Agreement (92-94)
– Porto Agreement (2001)
• Jena Agreement (2002)
– European Partnership Agreement (2007)
– Agreement with AMEE Executive Board (2008)

4. The last Agreement
Mission:
• establish closer contacts and increase
communication between IFMSA and EMSA
• promote long-term stability in relations between
the two organisations
• stimulate this contact at a local, national and
international level

5. The last Agreement
Communication:
• regular communication through LOSO (EMSA) and
RC Europe (IFMSA)
• promote communication via emsa-
ifmsa@yahoogroups.com

6. The last Agreement
Communication:
• regular communication through LOSO (EMSA) and
RC Europe (IFMSA)
• promote communication via emsa-
ifmsa@yahoogroups.com
• Both organisations will send their newsletters and
official publications
• Individual Project Co-ordinators of EMSA and IFMSA
shall maintain regularcommunications on
collaborations, as appropriate and if applicable

7. The last Agreement
Professional Partners:
• The professional partner of EMSA is the Comité
Permanent des Médecins Européens (CPME). IFMSA
is represented towards the CPME by EMSA.
• The professional partner of IFMSA is the World
Medical Association (WMA). EMSA is represented
towards the WMA by IFMSA.
• Ask for feedback 8 weeks in advance and report

8. The last Agreement
Professional Partners:
• EMSA will maintain a Liaison Officer to the World
Health Organization – Regional Office for Europe
(WHO-EURO). IFMSA will maintain a Liaison Officer
to the World Health Organization (WHO)
• will remain in consistent communication regarding
the opportunities and activities available

9. The last Agreement
Joint Projects and Publications:
• “The Teddy Bear Hospital scheme is a joint project
of EMSA and IFMSA” and shall be referred to as
such in all international promotional materials of
both Associations (www.teddybearhospital.org).

10. The last Agreement
Joint Projects and Publications:
• “The Teddy Bear Hospital scheme is a joint project
of EMSA and IFMSA” and shall be referred to as
such in all international promotional materials of
both Associations (www.teddybearhospital.org).
• When EMSA and IFMSA will have a joint publication,
both logos must be on top of it. Logos of any
translating association should be at the bottom.

11. The last Agreement
Meetings:
• EMSA will receive 2 free registrations to use for
MM, EuRegMe and AM, with max one spot for
meeting.
• The delegation of EMSA to a GA shall be 4 delegates
(2 per country max) and 5 to the EuRegMe (max 2
per country) IFMSA will receive 2 free registrations
to use for the EMSA GA or the National Co-
ordinators’ Meeting (max 4 delegates, 2 per
country)

12. The last Agreement
Timeline:
• From 1 April 2007 until 31 March 2012 (5 years).

13. Differences between
IFMSA and EMSA
IFMSA:
• NMOs
• Our Standing
Committees
• Via NMOs, 80% of
Med Schools in
Europe
EMSA:
• FMOs (= IFMSA’s local
committee)
• Pillars (Med ed; ethics
and culture, sciences,
european integration,
public health)
• 15% of Med schools
(only a few not part of
the IFMSA network)

14. AMEE – a stress point
• IFMSA has been in relationship with AMEE (Association
for Medical Education in Europe) even before EMSA existed
• There was an agreement signed by EMSA with no deadline
recognizing that IFMSA was the representative of
Medical Students and EMSA towards AMEE
• Last year EMSA ushered itself in the AMEE board
meetings, ignoring our only standing agreement and the AMEE
constitution (says that only 1 medical student can be in the meetings)

15. A working timeline
Agreed upon in October:
• 1 – 31st Oct – IFMSA sends MoU template
• 2 - EMSA would say yes or no
• 3 – 2nd week Dec - share ideas on what should be included
• 4 - TOM2 – IFMSA discusses EMSA’s proposal
• 5 – Feb - EMSA's EB discusses IFMSA proposal
• 6 – MM13 and EuRegMe – IFMSA discusses EMSA’s proposal
• 7 – NCM – EMSA discusses IFMSA proposal
• 8 – Finalize agreement till AM13 GA and IFMSA approves it
• 9 – September – EMSA approves the agreement in their GA

16. What has been done?
• 1 – 29th Oct – IFMSA sent MoU template
• 2 – EMSA said yes on Nov 29th – and that they would make a
proposal
• 3 – early Dec – I shared IFMSA ideas with EMSA on a face to
face meeting. No concrete input from EMSA
• 4 - TOM2 – EMSA had not shared input, but IFMSA still
discussed the topic
• 5 – Feb – no news from EMSA till March 9th when they send
a proposal (in attach to mail)
• 6 – MM13 and EuRegMe – IFMSA discusses the agreement,
not exactly the proposal
• 7 – NCM – EMSA discusses IFMSA proposal  hope so.
IFMSA sent the latest input on May 11th, so during the NCM

17. What has been done?
• Additionaly:
– IFMSA met the past CPME president in a meeting through
Fabian, the treasurer
– We were requested to send more info about IFMSA
– We informed EMSA of this on Nov 17th
– We sent the IFMSA presentation to the past CPME president
– We have not heard back from the CPME
– The RC Europe and the LOMEi used some free time in Brussels
after TOM2 and passed by the CPME office to follow up on the
contact – left a business card and were told they would be
contacted by the CPME
– On May 10th, the IFMSA president is contacted by the EMSA
president about this visit
– We still have not received a contact from the CPME

18. Outcomes EuRegME 12
(shared with EMSA in early September)
• have agreements of 2 years rather than 5
• have more than only one person for communication
from each
• Trying to be more realistic in the points we agree on
• Acknowledging the current problems that our
relationship is facing
• Trying to involve as much people as possible in the
discussion of the agreement

19. Outcomes AM 12
(shared with EMSA in early September)
• interesting and concrete proposal:
• joint meeting between IFMSA and EMSA to discuss
their relationship and how to improve it. The idea
would be to have both organisations co-responsible
for the organisation of a meeting where people
from both organisations, only from IFMSA and only
EMSA would be present in equal percentage (so, 1/3
for each of the groups) so that we could have a
balanced group of participants.

20. Outcomes TOM 2
(shared with EMSA in May 11th)
• Topics that need to be addressed in the MoU:
– The collaboration between IFMSA and EMSA towards
AMEE
– The need for a clear distinction between IFMSA and
EMSA in external meetings
– Conflicts at the local level

21. Outcomes MM13
(shared with EMSA in May 11th)
• Topics that should be address in the MoU:
– Projects between the 2 organizations
– How to maintain Communication
– Joint efforts of advocacy at the regional level
– Relationships with externals, specifically AMEE
• Ideas to be considered:
– To merge IFMSA and EMSA at the european level
– To make the RC Europe part of the board of EMSA

22. Outcomes EuRegMe 13
(shared with EMSA in May 11th)
• different approach: divide people into 3
different SWGs based on their context to comment
on what should the MoU be:
– 1 group where the NMOs did not have EMSA FMOs in
their country,
– 1 group where the NMO did have EMSA's FMO and the
relations with the IFMSA local committees where good
– 1 where the relationships where not good.

23. Outcomes EuRegMe 13
(shared with EMSA in May 11th)
1 - Group with no FMOs:
what we need to know:
• EMSA's goals
• Their activities and what do we have overlapping
• what are the differences between IFMSA and EMSA
• Representation:
– does EMSA include other health-care professions?
– What structures does EMSA have in place to ensure actual
representation of the interests of local students?
• Identify the possible expertise that exist in
one organization and not in the other
• Is it more efficient to stay separate organizations?
• There should be organizational transparency

24. Outcomes EuRegMe 13
(shared with EMSA in May 11th)
2 - Group with FMOs with good relationships
• In the agreement it should be included:
– Regular meetings between both organizations (2/2
months between the EEB and the RC europe)
– EMSA should be represented in the EuRegMe
– The RC Europe should be in the CCM and EMSA's GA (or a
substitute)
– There should be a 20min presentation of
an EMSA representative in the EuRegMe and a 20min
presentation from the IFMSA in the NCM.
– The RC should start a survey

25. Outcomes EuRegMe 13
(shared with EMSA in May 11th)
3 - Group with FMOs with bad relationships
• Problems that need to be addressed in the MoU:
– Copying of projects/events
– Miscommunication
– No will of collaboration
• Suggestions:
– Clarification of IFMSA and EMSA responsibilities on the
international level:
– EMSA EB doing the same thing

26. The Next Steps
• Try to go for a joint meeting before August so that
both organizations can approve the agreement
before the end of the year.
– Is your NMO interested in hosting this meeting? Let me
know
• Survey to understand better our current reality at
the local level
• Propose a concrete text for the agreement in line
with the outcomes we got

27. 
Just mail me
Questions?