An Endowment Fund is by law an entity which finances and sometimes implements actions of public interest. It must have a collegial governance; it is not to be controlled by one individual. The actions of public interest must be put in place swiftly with a tolerance period at the beginning to set it up. It must have an endowment (minimum 15k) and in this case it was also supposed to include the IP and the brands, otherwise the Fund has no relevance.

After numerous months of intense exchanges with the president of the EF, who is also the author, and given the deadlock the Fund was in, the Bureau decided to formally write to him demanding three things:

• the irrevocable transfer of the IP and the brands to the Fund (a meeting with the solicitor was set up and cancelled by the author at the last minute with no reason);

• that the president and author withdraws from the governance of the Task Force (which is a candidate to obtain the international license) since it was to us an obvious conflict of interest;

• a transparent process to allocate the international license.

We also stated that the lack of collegial governance was an issue for us. The president and author refused to comply with our demands, so the three members of the Bureau resigned.

In a letter to the community (available to read here), we - the employees of Climate Fresk - want to share our thoughts and feelings about the current situation.

The creation of the new international structure by the author, Global Climate Task Force, is the culmination of a series of crises that have consumed a considerable amount of time, energy, and resources to the detriment of our primary mission: the Climate Fresk project and the fight for the climate emergency. This situation :

• has led to the replacement of 5 Director Generals in 5 years, generating significant instability.

• has degraded, blocked or forced us to abandon fundamental projects and subjects which would have served the development of the Climate Fresk tool and further support of the community.

• has caused workload and stress that have led some employees to leave the association, while others have taken time off due to burnout.

A brief overview:

1. The launch of the Global Climate Task Force by the author without prior consultation with the association's Board of Directors, the salaried team, or the historic members of the community seems to us to be in contradiction to the values of the project. We feel an enormous sense of fatigue and helplessness after all our failed attempts at cooperating together.

2. Coupled to these feelings is a great sense of concern due to the uncertainty regarding the licensing rights, which are essential for the sustainability of the project, and which have still not been renewed, now four months before their expiration.

3. We wish to express our deep sense of injustice. We believe that the community is not receiving the recognition that it deserves for its immense contribution to the development of the project and to the value of the tool’s intellectual property (you will find examples in the letter).

Going forward, we sincerely hope that future decisions will be made with the project’s best interest at heart and be in line with the values that we uphold: transparency, cooperation, respect for individuals, and inclusivity.

✒️ It is for all these reasons that we have chosen to sign the petition launched by members of the community and that we support the measures proposed to overcome this crisis.

⇒ The full letter is available here.

Dear Freskers,

Dear community members,

Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns and expectations with me in a transparent and detailed way.

I'll come to the major points of concern you've raised. But first, I'd like to remind you what unites us in this project.

Introduction

Climate Fresk is not just a card game, it's also an incredible community. Together, we've invented a collective, that of the Freskers, and my debt to the community must be re-expressed here with force: what we've done together is incredible, and goes beyond running workshops or simple cards from the IPCC: we've become an unprecedented movement which, I firmly believe, is only just beginning.

We started from nothing, and we've managed to reach the highest levels of government and the management of the biggest companies, as well as elementary school, public events and even prisons.

In this eminently collaborative spirit, I can also claim to be at the origin of the creation of this movement, having built an association with other pioneers around founding principles that remain more relevant than ever.

I also understand that today this project can and must live differently than when it started in 2018: “I have to let go” on governance and I'm now ready to do so, because I've heard the message from a significant part of the community, and I trust it.

So I've definitely come to realize that while my future is and will remain intrinsically linked to the Fresk, it won't be on an operational form, and that I need to reinvent my role as a source person around how to inspire the world to join the community and extend this incredible story to the other 194 UN countries: for this reason, my desire to focus on the international roll out remains intact, and will be my priority and my place in the future project.

And it's this unshakeable ambition that partly explains the choices I've made in recent weeks, which I'd like to return to today, particularly with regard to the creation of the Task Force.

Answer to specific points you raised

I'd now like to go back on the misunderstandings that have caused so much concern recently.

Climate Global Task Force

When the Board of Directors asked me to leave the project last winter, they not only excluded me from the French association, but also from the international project, even though you had elected me to chair the International Strategic Committee on September 2nd, and even though I continuously said that I wanted to get involved in the internationalization of the Fresk. From that moment on, I found no other way to do so than to launch a parallel project.

The work carried out by the Task Force on internationalization was useful because it enabled us to start from a blank page, to take an entrepreneurial approach, and to design the project free from all the constraints of an already existing and operational structure. We thought about the countries' needs, and how things should be organized to enable them to develop rapidly, taking into account their specific economic and social features.

This approach is that of a business creator. It was these entrepreneurial qualities that enabled me to launch our project 6 years ago. It's these same qualities that the project needs to find the new momentum it needs to develop internationally, because the logic of development is not at all the same, as witnessed by the Freskers already established in other countries.

While the work carried out by the Task Force confirmed the level of ambition I wanted to have for the international development, it also gave me time to reflect on the role I had to play in such an adventure. And I have to admit that your messages have also prompted me to think about the best way for me to serve the movement.

I don't have the qualities for very operational involvement, as you've told me often enough, but I don't necessarily have the taste for it either. I'm much more attached to the community than you seem to imagine. That's why today I'm open to considering other schemes as long as they respect my legitimate desire as author and initiator of the project to be involved in this international development. This is my wish and it's also in the interest of the project, and I'm sure many of you understand it.

So, I'm keeping an open mind. Discussions between the Endowment Fund and the Association seem about to get underway. We need to give the negotiations time.

Intellectual property transfer

As you have understood, I have transferred the intellectual property of the Fresk to the Edowment Fund through a legal act called a “contribution” dated March 4, 2024, as I said in my communication of March 13. This contribution is reversible, but only under certain well- defined conditions. The next step is a donation, which is irreversible. This contribution enables the Endowment Fund to negotiate with the association, as my lawyer confirmed from the outset, and as was later confirmed by the law firm appointed by the Endowment Fund Board.

What prompted me to make this choice was a technical reason, and in no way a desire to be able to get my property back afterwards: an endowment fund is not exempt from risk (it can, for example, lose its public-interest status or go bankrupt). And if anything were to happen to it, the Intellectual Property would be at risk. For example, in certain contexts, it could be up to a judicial authority to decide who would recover the fund's assets. And there's no guarantee that they would give the Intellectual Property to the association.

To put it simply: it's not the Intellectual Property that's there to secure the fund, but the fund that's there to protect the Intellectual Property.

As long as the endowment fund does not offer sufficient guarantees (and in particular adequate financing), it is important not to transfer the Intellectual Property irrevocably to it. As soon as the conditions are met, I will proceed with the donation. Contrary to what may have been said or written, this is a very classic timing for this kind of operation.

That said, I understood the concern of the association's Board of Directors about the danger that the reversible nature of the contribution could represent for the negotiation, and that's why I proposed a solution to remedy the situation. I have signed an amendment to the contribution agreement in which I undertake to take over any commitment made by the fund to the association in the event of my having to recover the rights, for whatever reason. I also agree to be party to the contract to be signed between the Endowment Fund and the Association when the time comes. The association's Board of Directors is fully aware of all this.

The € 230.000 transaction

When I stepped down as president of the association, I announced to the community that I had benefited from a € 230 k transaction on the occasion of the 6-month rights renewal.

I know that some of you are shocked by this, and I should certainly have explained to you long ago what this money was for.

To be clear, it's not money to support my lifestyle.

As it happens, in my situation, I really need to have a financial capacity that I can use flexibly and completely autonomously, without having to ask anyone for permission. I don't consider myself accountable for the use of this money, but I'm committed to transparency, and as I can see that this sum has become a point of contention, I'd like to give you some information about what it's intended for, as I would have done with anyone who would have asked me.

To set up an endowment fund, the founder must personally invest € 15 k. I made this contribution this summer, and the part of the sum we're talking about was used for this purpose.

• For the first 5 years of the project, my personal assistant worked in the same proportion as I did for the project (so at around 50% of her time on average). This was never paid for by the association. The sum I received was used to make up for the financial contribution made by Blue Choice, which was not intended as a skills-based sponsorship for the project. This refund will remain in Blue Choice's accounts.

  • (As far as my personal involvement in the early years is concerned, it's still voluntary).

• In some cases, this sum has been or will be made available to me for remuneration in periods after September 2nd, 2023, when I spend time on projects that are not otherwise remunerated.

  • For those of you who may not know, I've been volunteering part-time for the Climate Fresk for 5 years, and I'm not questioning that, but the fact is I can no longer afford (or perhaps want) to volunteer to such an extent. Some of you animate Fresks to finance your volunteer time, and this was my case for 5 years at the start of the project. Today, the Fresks I facilitate finance my company and no longer balance out my volunteer work. This is the decision I made after September 2nd, 2023. Those present at the Annual General Assembly will understand why.

  • I may need to seek advice and lawyers to defend my rights and contractual commitments.

• In most cases, this sum will be used to finance projects linked to the Fresk or other climate or transition-related projects:

  • This has been particularly true recently for my company Blue Choice, which I was able to support financially this year on a temporary basis. Since then, I've raised funds that will enable it to pivot towards activities other than Climate Fresk, which is very good news.

  • I can have some expenses related to the project, that don't fit into any reimbursement boxes at the moment.

  • Even if the sums are small, the Task Force project has been financed by private money, including my own. It's an advance, but you still have to have the cash flow.

As a reminder, in the past, I advanced the project € 40 k to register trademarks internationally, at a time when the endowment fund didn't exist. Part of this was reimbursed by the fund, and part will be when I make the donation. This just goes to show that when you're managing a project like the Climate Fresk, amounts are in tens of thousands, not hundreds of euros. My experience is that it's better to have a safety cushion to cover any situation that may arise in the future.

Now that the transfer of Intellectual Property has been made, I have, in effect, definitively renounced any future remuneration based on IP rights.

On the other hand, in the future, I expect to be remunerated for any work I carry out for the project, including any new development or update of the game.

How the Endowment fund works

Another event that raised questions was the departure of the EF board members.

It was linked to a major disagreement between us, it's true. In particular, the Board wanted to impose a call for tenders for the allocation of international rights open to the French association. In the prevailing situation, a competitive bidding process would inevitably have been unfair, and no entity other than the association would have had a chance of winning. While I felt it was important that the association's proposal should be challenged.

The Task Force, because it started from a blank page and did not favor any given country, was able to act as a real challenger, either to manage international rights itself in the future, or to set a framework. This is why the Endowment Fund mandated the Task Force at its July 20th Board meeting to work on a strategic plan for international development.

Relations with members of the board have indeed deteriorated over time, and this is a pattern that has already occurred with other people, including the association's General Managers. I obviously bear a large share of the responsibility for this pattern, and I know that I need to work on my posture.

However, I reject the idea that the Endowment Fund is not collegial. Of the three requests made to me by the Board, two were my decision (the timing of the donation and my involvement in the Task Force) and one was a matter for the Board of Directors, and I had no intention of forcing the issue. I may go back later on how the Endowment fund works if you want me to be even more transparent. And please feel free to contact me should you have any further question on this.

Conclusion

When I created the game a few years ago, I could see that it was effective and fulfilled its educational role. And when the Fresk collective began to take shape, when I saw people from all walks of life fully engaged in running the workshops and deploying the game, when I saw that the public was getting the message that it was catching on, I knew we were onto something magical. And I still think so. And I'm still moved and grateful to all those pioneers and then all the people who followed us to make up the huge community we are today. This tremendous adventure has even inspired other players to create similar workshops on various topics, and I'm not afraid to say that we've invented a deployment model based on swarmwise principles, entrepreneurial spirit and transparency.

And the job is not over yet: the climate issue needs to be brought to the fore more quickly, and across all countries. We can do it, by pooling our energies and working together towards a common goal.

This will require dialogue - I'm ready for that - a great sense of responsibility on both sides, and a period of healing so that discussions can take place calmly and constructively, never forgetting what we're all committed to in this project.

For those who wish, I will respond below to each of the points in the letter addressed to me. Above all, I want us to remain united in the movement we have initiated together.

Cédric Ringenbach

Auteur de la Fresque du Climat

Président de Climate Fresk Endowment Fund

PS : Feel free to join this Telegram Chanel to chat with me. Please make feedbacks or ask questions directly to me through this form.

Point-by-point reply to the letter by Cédric Ringenbach

(My answers are in blue)

OUR REQUESTS

Here are the requests we are making to Cédric Ringenbach (author of the game Climate Fresk and President of the Endowment Fund) and to the Endowment Fund "Climate Fresk Endowment Fund":

• We are asking for the irreversible and unlimited transfer of the intellectual property to the Endowment Fund, in accordance with what the author announced at the General Assembly in September 2023.

  • Contrary to what was insinuated by the association's Board of Directors, the transfer of the Intellectual Property was indeed made on March 4, 2024. On the advice of my lawyer, I chose to make a contribution as a first step. This contribution has the same effects as a donation, i.e. it gives the same rights to the endowment fund to dispose of the Intellectual Property rights, such as signing a licensing agreement. On the other hand, it is reversible, whereas a donation is not.

  • I understand that this may have raised questions. But to be clear, my intention is not to take over the rights. I created this fund to protect the Intellectual Property in the event that something were to happen to me, and also to formalize my renunciation of any remuneration for my intellectual property rights. If I haven't yet made the donation, which is irrevocable, it's because, to secure the IP, it's essential that the Endowment Fund that will receive the donation is sustainable, i.e. that it has sufficient and regular financial income and is a confirmed entity of general interest. This requires some time.

  • Nevertheless, I understood the concern that the revocable nature of the transfer represented for the Association's Board of Directors, and to remedy this I proposed an amendment to the contribution agreement which stipulates that if I were to take over the rights for any reason whatsoever, I would take over all the commitments made by the Endowment Fund to the Association.

  • I have also responded favorably to the Association's request that the license contract to be signed be a tripartite contract including the Endowment Fund, the Association and the Author.

• We are asking the author and the Endowment Fund to respect our investment and the collective intelligence of the community at work since 2018, by allowing us to continue our activities in line with our purpose.

  • I have a deep respect and gratitude for what each and every member of the community has invested and made possible. From day one, I've always been touched by the energy that all those who joined the project put into deploying the game on their own scale, then working with me to build the association and define how it would function.

  • I'm proud and happy with what the collective intelligence has achieved. And it's clear to me that you must be able to continue your activities, both in France and internationally, in the interests of deploying the Fresk and raising awareness among as many people as possible.

  • Freskers will always be able to fresk. This has never been put into question.

  • The management of intellectual property by the endowment fund is both a means of supporting the expansion of the project, particularly outside France, and a means of protecting the work and investment of the Freskers. Without rigorous IP protection and management, the Fresk would soon be hijacked, deformed at the whim of users of all kinds, and eventually simply disappear.

Concerning French intellectual property:

Our requests are aimed at enabling the Association to harmoniously restructure, plan and stabilise itself in the pursuit of its activities, in line with its purpose.

• We are asking that the rights to the French trademark 'La Fresque du Climat' be transferred definitely and irreversibly to the association of the same name.

  • The intention is indeed for the Association to exploit the French trademark under conditions yet to be negotiated.

• We are asking the Endowment Fund to renew the contract for the transfer of copyright, license and use of the 'La Fresque du Climat' tool to the association of the same name and for a minimum period of 3 years. (Renewal of the current contract in force since 2019)

  • As I have already said, I am supportive of the association continuing to exploit the rights in France for a period to be negotiated with the following requirements:

    • France, as the most advanced entity, must contribute financially to the development of other countries.

    • The association must comply with all aspects of the exploitation license (which is not always the case at present).

  • If some have suggested otherwise, they have lied.

  • The time needed to reach a new agreement will depend on the ability to listen to each other and to converge. Negotiations must be allowed to run their course.

Concerning the International deployment:

• We are asking for the effective collegial governance of the Endowment Fund to be reflected in the articles of the association, as announced at the General Assembly in September 2023.

  • The endowment fund was created to protect my intellectual property rights to the game, and to safeguard these rights in the event of any misfortune befalling me. It is also a mechanism by which I renounce any personal enrichment from the royalties (by which I mean copyrights on the revenues generated by the Fresk, the order of magnitude of which would be in the millions, and not a one- off deduction of € 230 k about which I give details in my letter).

  • Its governance and operation must enable me to manage this fund with the support of enlightened opinions and a plurality of profiles, which is the case. I do, however, have a veto right (the possibility of refusing a decision, not an absolute power that would enable me to impose my decisions on the Endowment Fund's Board of Directors) which I hold dear.

• We are asking for the trademarks to be transferred to local entities where they exist, as is the case in France.

  • This point will be included in the negotiations.

• We are asking the Endowment Fund to evaluate in full transparency the association’s response to the set specifications for the international project.

  • This analysis is currently being carried out by the endowment fund.

  • My personal analysis is that France does not currently meet the conditions for exploiting international rights. The main reason is that it will be difficult for France to finance other countries when its own budget is in competition with theirs. The response to the call for tenders for the international part and, above all, the comparison of the two plans (the rights for France only and the rights for the world) confirm that the French association relies on international revenues to ensure its financial balance.

  • It is the responsibility of the fund to ensure that the international deployment project, whatever the entity that will operate it, is at the right level of ambition in terms of magnitude and speed, guarantees equitable support for different countries according to their maturity, and gives maximum autonomy to Country Coordinators to ensure their deployment.

Today, this is not possible, given that Cédric Ringenbach presides over both the structure that attributes the licences (EF) and the one that has been mandated to draw up the international strategic plan (Global Climate Task Force, a new association created by Cédric Ringenbach).

Today, the endowment fund is studying the association's application and will formulate the conditions to be met in order to use the rights internationally.

This new conflict of interest situation endangers the entire project.

We are counting on the discernment of Cédric Ringenbach and the Endowment Fund in response to the voice of us, the Freskers involved who are signing this letter, and for all those we represent.

We are asking for a response by September 2nd 2024, as well as concrete action.

THE CONTEXT

The story of the Climate Fresk is unique and its success extraordinary. In just 6 years, this collective movement has reached nearly 2 million people around the world, inspired a supportive and united international community, and shown that it is possible to have a strong impact with very little initial funding, based on affirmed shared values.

We are all proud to have contributed to this incredible movement and are determined to carry on with the same enthusiasm.

Today this fantastic story is facing a major challenge.

The intellectual property of the game, temporarily entrusted by Cédric Ringenbach to the association for a limited period, expires at the end of 2024.

The transfer contract has not yet been renewed and threatens to throw the association into an unprecedented budgetary crisis and instability.

Reminder concerning the Intellectual Property (IP); it includes:

1. THE TRADEMARK: The visibility and use of the name "Fresque du Climat" and the possibility of exploiting its benefits (domain name, incoming enquiries, communication, events, representation).

2. COPYRIGHT (LICENCE): The right to collect the 10% and the €3 granted by the licence to use the tool decided by its author.

THE RISKS

The risks are great. From January 2025, if nothing is agreed quickly, all intellectual property rights (trademarks and user licences) will leave the association and revert to the Endowment Fund (which is chaired by Cédric Ringenbach), or to the author himself.

It's true that there is a real risk, not for the project or the community as a whole, but for the association, and I'm aware of the importance of removing this risk quickly.

As I have already mentioned, granting the rights for France to the French association from January 1st shouldn’t be a problem. Its economic viability is therefore not at stake.

The slowdown in the Fresk’s activity in France is real (I know what I'm talking about, since Blue Choice – my own company – had to halve its workforce 8 months ago) and this may have consequences on the staff sizing. This is independent of the allocation of international rights (unless you consider that it is normal for France to finance its economic model in France through international revenues).

The Endowment Fund, which we welcomed, was created, according to the author' engagement, to hold and protect the Intellectual Property rights, indefinitely and irreversibly.

However, the latter is not the case at the time of writing, as the author has signed a 'contribution' (reversible) and not a 'transfer' (irreversible), however he said he did it in his email of 03/13/2024 sent to the community

The reason why the contribution is revocable is a technical one, and in no way a desire to be able to get my property back afterwards.

An endowment fund is not exempt from risk (it can, for example, lose its public-interest status or go bankrupt). It's not the Intellectual Property that is there to secure the fund, but the fund that must protect the IP. As long as the fund does not offer sufficient guarantees (and, in particular, sufficient financing), it is important not to irrevocably transfer the Intellectual Property to it.

I would remind you that the contribution made to the Endowment Fund enables the latter to negotiate the granting of rights to the association.

That said, I have understood the Board's concern about the danger that the reversible nature of the agreement may represent for the negotiation, and that's why I have proposed a solution to remedy the situation: an amendment to the contribution agreement which commits me personally to honor any commitment made by the fund to the association.

In addition, the governance of the Endowment Fund seems quite unstable. Indeed, members of the board, although chosen by Cédric Ringenbach 6 months ago, and he then took over as president.

The announced collegial leadership has not been achieved.

Collegiality does not mean community participation in defining the governance of the Endowment Fund. As the author and founder of this fund, I am the guarantor of the direction it takes. This is done in discussion with the members of the Board of Directors.

As in other organizations, it can happen that members of the Board of Directors or Executive Committee no longer wish to continue with the project. This is what happened. However, other people will join the Board of Directors (there are currently 4), so that I'm always surrounded by competent, committed people who help and challenge me in running the Endowment Fund.

All of this means that, at the end of the year, the association will potentially:

• no longer have the right to benefit from its own brand and to collect the royalties for a tool that it had helped to create and promote to its current level of popularity and reputation

  • The association has received the Fresque du Climat brand and the tool that were at the origin of its creation, and has contributed as much to building its influence as it has benefitted from it.

  • Once again, the future of the association is not in question, and I am confident that we will be able to make progress in the construction of the next operating plan.

  • The fact that members of the community have helped me to write the game's evolutions does not make the community a co-author of the tool. In a collaborative movement such as ours, it's only logical that volunteers or staff should give me a hand with development proposals that I then validate. However, I remain the sole author of the game.

• lose most of its income and its legal legitimacy

The only scenario in which it would lose the majority of its rights and its legal legitimacy is if it were to lose its exploitation rights in France, which again is not the plan.

• be forced to lay off all or part of its staff, who work every day to serve the Climate Fresk movement internationally. The proposal shared by Cédric Ringenbach to ‘take them over’ in his new structure does not seem realistic because it was made unilaterally, without taking into account the views of the employees.

The Fresk’s activity in France is slowing down (I'm well aware of that, since Blue Choice was forced to halve its workforce at the beginning of the year). This is the main reason why the association may be forced to lay off staff.

• no longer be able to properly support the international roll-out. The association would be forced to abandon its mission of supporting and accompanying local communities throughout the world. The time invested to date in building relationships of trust would be wasted and not respected.

The possible withdrawal of international rights from the association does not cancel the work that has been done to date. And once again: the question of the international rights attribution is still open.

We are very concerned about the ability of the association to withstand this shock, even by implementing an emergency transitional economic model. We would all be affected.

I regret what is happening just as much as you do, and I'm doing my utmost to take responsibility for the situation, to remain calm, responsible and transparent with you.

For Freskers, the impacts are multiple:

• Strong decline in commitment: This situation is likely to seriously affect our commitment and enthusiasm for the Climate Fresk, our sense of belonging and pride in being part of it, in being Freskers. We're afraid that this flame is dying, and we're already seeing signs of it.

I understand the turmoil and doubt that can arise from this situation, but I sincerely hope that we can find new momentum once these difficulties are behind us.

• The Community as we know it: Without the staff as our glue and provider of a shared toolbox, our network of national and international communities might lose what holds and brings it together. A splintered, uncoordinated network could affect the experience for both us Freskers and our participants – and therefore the overall impact of the global project.

  • As international development expands, it will inevitably lead to fragmentation. We're going to have a diversity of nationalities, cultures and languages, and a much larger community of active members than we have today. What constitutes the strength and unity of this movement is much more than just the association or the Task Force: it's the founding principles, values and vision that were born with the Climate Fresk, and which in fact pre-exist the association itself.

  • The values of a human enterprise are not the sum of the values of its members; they are the parameters that make up its DNA. And as far as the Fresk is concerned, as a “source person”, I feel I am the guardian of its values.

  • And the associations of the Fresk (whether the current one or others elsewhere or later) as well as the community as a whole animate and radiate these founding principles and values, thus creating the culture of our collective.

• The staff and supporting services from the central association: In the medium term, this would disrupt the online space (our Fresker Journey, the facilitator space filled with training and communication materials, indicators), the management of incoming requests, the event tools, as well as the attention, guidance and daily support of motivated staff. The elements shared in the international project presented by Cédric Ringenbach do not reassure us because they depend on negotiations with the association which have not yet taken place and which seem uncertain to us.

  • These support functions and assistance from a central team are essential and must be provided and financed in all cases.

  • There is no reason for the platform to be “unplugged” for French or non-French Freskers. We have already raised the possibility of remunerating the association for these services, if France does not manage international operations. It is the association's responsibility not to cut this service unilaterally, as this would, as you point out, be detrimental above all to the Freskers.

Ultimately, there is a risk of harming the image and reputation of the game, the author, the association, the community and all the educational workshops in this ecosystem.

I couldn't agree more. That's why I'm inviting the Board of Directors to enter into discussions with the Endowment Fund and find a way out of this situation.

HOW WE FEEL

We are saddened, disappointed and angry when we look back at what has led us to the current situation. Over the last 5 years, under the presidency of Cédric Ringenbach, the association has suffered successive instabilities that have not allowed it to develop its full potential, but rather have held it back.

What happened under my presidency was not always my doing. Indeed, I have very often been outvoted by the Board of Directors. The minutes of Board meetings bear witness to this. I'd like people not to take the caricature that everything that goes wrong is my fault, and everything that goes right is made by the community, the team or the Board. The project wouldn't have existed without me, and I'd like to reiterate that here.

• The resignation, exhaustion and dismissal of 4 successive directors since 2019.

  • I'm certainly not blameless: I may have made recruitment mistakes, and I may also have made management blunders. My role within the association has also evolved as it has grown and become more structured (I gradually moved from a very operational role at the start of the project to one that was less and less so), and I may not always have adapted quickly enough to my new prerogatives.

  • However, each director had a different reason for leaving the project, and I'm not necessarily the cause of their departure. We're talking about managing a fast-growing structure (which was doubling in size every year), which isn't easy for anyone.

• The suffering of the permanent team due to the critical interferences of the author-president

  • With hindsight, I realize that, although it was never my intention to destabilize employees, my involvement in certain highly operational issues, due to my role as Chairman at the time, may have created confusion or made managers or employees feel uncomfortable.

  • I also know that I have high standards, both because the subject we're all working on is eminently important and urgent in my eyes, and also, I admit, because I like things to move quickly. That's my temperament. And I've certainly, at times, put pressure to ensure that the product of our work lives up to my expectations.

  • And if team members have suffered from my interference at times, I'm truly sorry. I know they work a lot and are fully committed to the project.

• The numerous efforts made by successive Boards to talk, listen, find compromises and initiate a professional mediation process with the author in order to protect and support this collective project as the end of the contract approaches, without success so far.

  • I also have the feeling that I've made a lot of effort to establish a peaceful dialogue, but without success.

• The commitments made verbally by the author at the General Assembly in September 2023 have not been honoured.

  • If by this you mean 1) the non-personal enrichment and 2) the collegial operation of the Endowment Fund, I've already answered these two points.

There's no doubt that if it weren't for the internal conflict that has existed for so many years, we would already be much further ahead in spreading the movement and raising awareness on a large scale.

I totally agree with this (I think the internationalization project is at least a year, if not a year and a half behind schedule), but I don't consider myself responsible for this situation.

OUR NEEDS

• A need to make our disagreement with the situation explicit.

  • I hear you.

• A need for unity, for all of us to join forces to continue our collective commitment in the face of the climate and ecological crisis.

  • I share that.

• A need for visibility and security, in terms of our ability to continue this adventure together, while maintaining the conditions for success.

  • It is the reason why I urge the Association’s Board of directors to start the discussions with the Endowment Fund ASAP.

• A need for appeasement, in order to rediscover the caring and attentive attitude that has inspired us so much within the network.

  • I can’t agree more: let’s talk to each other!

  • I have opened a Telegram channel for that.

  • I also suggest that you express your feelings or ask me for clarification following this response (anonymously or not) in this form.

• A need to realign what we stand for with our values,

  • I have set the values for the project myself at the start and I would indeed like to see them respected.

• A need to maintain the enthusiasm of being part of the Climate Fresk movement and spreading the message around the world.

  • That's where we need to focus our efforts. The Fresk is a tool that can really change the world. I wanted to open it up so that you could all join the project. I need your help to carry on the project, just as you need me to embody it, and I'm prepared to make a proposal to the Board of Directors along these lines: to put me back where I belong in the project.

• A need to re-establish a constructive and horizontal dialogue between the community and the author so that he can once again support the movement in a healthy, sustainable way.

  • This is also my deepest wish. I've been working for Climate action for 15 years and for the Climate Fresk for 9. I want to continue to serve the cause of the living and to carry our project with you, powerfully, all over the world.

Hello everyone,

I understand through some exchanges that I had with you that my response to the petition is not clear enough.

If there were three key ideas to remember, they would be:

1) I have never considered withdrawing the rights for association on the perimeter of France, unless it refuses to respect the license and the founding principles. I have stated this on several occasions.

2) I am ready to discuss the conditions under which France could manage international development with the determining criterion that there is fair remuneration for the countries that start and real support for developing countries. This would imply, if this option were validated, that the work started with the Task Force would stop.

3) In this case, I would give up having an operational role whether in France or internationally, but I wish to find a role as spokesperson, ambassador and inspirer around the Fresk both within the community and externally, as author and founder of the game.

This being said, we will enter into negotiations tomorrow. I prefer during this period to limit my written communication to the strict minimum to allow the discussions to take place calmly.

I remain available to answer specific questions about my answer to the petition if you have any.

Kind regards,

Cédric