My first IFWEA General Conference was in 1983 in Paris.  Not only does that thought give me intimations of mortality; it allows me the privilege of having an overview of IFWEA’s development over nearly two decades. And that overview tells me that the Helsinki Conference must have been the best ever, that the Federation is in good shape and better placed to promote its ideals – in a practical way – than ever before.

Of course, it is tempting, and pleasing, to measure the success of the conference only in numbers.  Certainly, the attendance of delegates and visitors, the range of organisations present, and the number of countries represented, exceeded everyone’s expectations.  But numbers only start to tell the story.  We are demonstrably a serious organisation.  The Conference Centre was alive with people wanting to learn from each other, work together, carry experience and, most important, share these when they dispersed at the end, literally to the four corners of the globe.

It’s valuable to reflect on how IFWEA has developed to this high point.  However, it is also necessary to recognise that the expectations of our members are higher than ever before, and that we face real issues in meeting these expectations and in restructuring the Federation to ensure that is properly resourced to turn its vision into reality.

The major impetus for change has come from the development of regional IFWEA structures, ranging from the fully-fledged EURO-WEA to working partnerships and embryonic organisation.  These provide concrete relationships between members, of a kind which were difficult to sustain when the Federation consisted principally of an Executive Committee meeting 2 or 3 times a year, a secretariat (usually part-time) and a General Conference every 3, then 4, years.  Visible signs of IFWEA presence were usually limited to the activities of some larger member organisations (predominantly Northern and Western European).

This development has been significantly enhanced by the International Study Circles programme.  While the ISCs have, of course, their own intrinsic value, from IFWEA’s perspective they have facilitated regional and international links which have created a new substructure for the Federation.  These links will continue beyond the life of ISCs and, hopefully, will create a dynamic which will bring about new programmes and partnerships.

The acceptance by the Conference of the resolution to create a programme team to advise the Executive Committee on the development of IFWEA activities is a major step forward.  In its first phase, the team will establish a meeting point – real and virtual – for the practitioners of workers’ education operating under the IFWEA banner, or, more correctly, engaging in activities which might be defined as being connected with IFWEA.  The team should also have the job of assessing proposed programmes, securing partners for these from inside and outside the Federation and, critically, making realistic judgments on the likelihood of securing adequate funding.  This process will greatly improve the ability of the Executive to plan ahead.

The question of resourcing is a central one.  It is true that the resources, human and financial, that are available for IFWEA’s work are much greater than appear in IFWEA’s annual income and expenditure statements and balance sheet.  Member organisations sponsor events, provide hospitality, meet travel costs and so on.  The level of commitment is often very high, and the Executive should examine again ways in which this can be made explicit, and the volume of resourcing made clearer.

I think this is important for another reason.  Member organisations are more likely to allocate funding to IFWEA if they see it as supporting a programme of activities.  They are less likely to respond to general appeals for unspecified additional monies.  This is certainly the case with the WEA in England and Scotland.  As a result of our participation in Euro-WEA , the ISCs and other events, we have been able to increase our support for IFWEA substantially – unrelated to the membership “subscription”.  Our own internal decision – making processes mean that we have to relate funding allocations to concrete activity.  I’m sure that other members face the same issue.  This is not to say that IFWEA does not need to address the need to increase core funding – for example, to support the Secretariat, who have to meet the demands of an ever growing membership from a ridiculously small base.  I believe that these two approaches go hand in hand: the clear definition and identification of IFWEA’s work and contribution of members to it will enable arguments for increased core funding to carry more weight.

There is an area of resourcing which needs urgent attention, arising out of difficulties which became apparent at the Conference, and that is the provision of translation facilities and, indeed, the whole question of promoting language skills to enable easy and productive communication with IFWEA.  If there was any element of near farce at Helsinki, it was when important matters of business, including constitutional, questions were conducted in English only and some delegates were unaware of what was happening, and were thereby effectively disenfranchised.  The need to read out the Report of the Executive Committee (in English only) for translation purposes took up (wasted!) an inordinate amount of Conference time.  Two things need to be done.  First, although it is recognised that they are extremely expensive, comprehensive translation facilities need to be made available, certainly at General Conference and any major IFWEA events.  Second, as an educational body, we should take steps to promote the development of language skills among those active in our member organisations both for practical reasons and to underpin IFWEA as a genuinely diverse and international organisation.  The WEA in England and Scotland, which had the largest delegation at Conference, has recognised its own weakness in this respect, and steps are already being taken to provide opportunities for our members.

A further issue which deserves some comment is the matter of Conference Resolutions.  Given the opportunity that Conference provides for debate on issues of workers’ education, the relatively small number of resolutions submitted did not, I think, reflect the range of activities and barriers to development within the Federation’s membership.  Some resolutions – especially those not accepted by the Resolutions Committee – were more concerned with specific political issues and went too far beyond IFWEA’s charter.  The outcomes of the variety of workshops, however, went a considerable way to giving substance to our plans for the next four years.

One small point I feel needs mentioning is the absence of some previously very active European members.  I’m sure every effort will be made to persuade them back on the basis of the present and future value of IFWEA’s work.

These thoughts are in no way intended to diminish the success and enjoyment of Conference;  they are intended to recognise that such success brings new challenges.

It would be inappropriate to try to name all those who made a special contribution to Conference.  I would only want especially to thank TSL for their organisation and hospitality, the Secretariat (for winning against near-impossible odds) and, finally, the IFWEA President Dan Gallin, who has done so much to give rigour and intellectual substance to our deliberations, before, during, and assuredly after Conference.

The lasting impression of Helsinki for me is of having experienced genuine comradeship, in its truest sense. 

Contact Robert Lochrie at: WEA, Temple House, 17 Victoria Park Square, London, England; +44-20-89831515 (phone); +44-20-9834840 (fax); rlochrie@wea.org.uk (email).