The FCO Quinquennial Review, while assessing positively our external projects, has called into question the value of the membership activities in terms of Easterns Department's objectives. It leaves the management of BRC to decide whether to continue with membership on condition that the full costs are covered by subscriptions.

  There are several important issues, however, which should be addressed before any decision is taken:

1.  There is value in the good name built up over 40 years by the Great Britain—USSR Association, Britain-Russia Centre and British East-West Centre which should not be abandoned lightly.

2.  There has been a radical change in priorities in recent years towards the external projects required by Eastern Department's objectives without increase in Grant-in-Aid or major reduction in membership activities.

3.  Attempts to separate membership activities from external projects are largely artificial. Insofar as relative costs can be distinguished, subscription charges match the actual expenditure on members.

4.  Every organisation has to change with the times. Over the past six years there have been radical changes which have been carefully managed, without any sense of confrontation with members. The present situation is unfortunate, but it is not too late to return to a policy of carefully managed change.

SHOULD WE ABANDON OUR "BRAND IMAGE" DEVELOPED OVER 40 YEARS?

  The difference between our project activities and our membership activities is not clear cut. The projects carried out by the Centres in Britain aim to provide visitors with a carefully balanced programme, helping to make them aware of the British experience in their professional area of interest, and establishing long-term connections to the benefit of both countries. Since visitors—selected as leaders in their field rather than for their linguistic competence—often find it difficult to continue to communicate directly with the British specialists they have met, they continue their connection with Britain through us. It is important that the Centres preserve the "brand image" that has been built up by the directors and staff over 40 years.

  FCO diplomats and British Council officers working with our partner countries normally move on to other parts of the world after two to three years. Our director and staff join the Centres with degrees and work experience in relevant areas, and aim to spend their working life dealing with Russia and our other partner countries. This highly professional approach is properly reinforced by the library, the "British East-West Journal", and the backing of more than a thousand members, including politicians, diplomats, academics, journalists, and businessmen, clearly demonstrating to visitors that Britain is indeed interested in establishing long-term relations with their countries.

  Russians tend to be very sensitive about their loss of superpower status, and can take criticism of their government's policies badly (even when they may feel that there are indeed grounds for criticism, as in the case of Chechnya). When hosting a high-level visit, the Centres can demonstrate that people in Britain regard Russia and the other countries as part of our common civilisation, and that criticisms come from a genuine desire to improve conditions, rather than simply vaunt our superiority. Our culture would be so much the poorer without Tolstoi and Prokofiev, Pushkin and Tchaikovsky. When Russian politicians browsing in our library between meetings find signed copies of books by their favourite authors presented in the course of a visit, the impression is both positive and lasting.

  Potential participants who see our leaflet, journal and annual report are clear about the background of the organisation which is responsible for hosting their visit and preparing their programme. In attracting participants of the highest calibre, 40 years of experience should not be discarded lightly. A handful of people working on one-year contracts in an FCO executive agency could not hope to have the same positive impact, especially as the new organisation would be unlikely to attract such highly qualified and dedicated staff.

WHAT IS THE RECORD ON EXTERNAL PROJECT FUNDING?

  When I started as Director in May 1993 I accepted fully the recommendations of the previous Review that there should be greater emphasis on external project work, and that we should aim to match more closely grant in aid with funding won for external projects. I was convinced, however, that membership activities were a clear asset in achieving successful external projects, and set out to develop all the positive aspects of the organisation, which I regarded as complementary and integrated, rather than separate. In 1992-93 money won for direct expenditure on external projects was £34,179—just 14 per cent of the amount received as grant in aid, £240,000. By 1997-98 this percentage was 92 per cent. Taking the figures in the table on page 13 of the Quinquennial Review, the steady change in the right direction was as follows:

1998-99

84% (the year of relocation)

1997-98

92%

1996-97

88%

1995-96

54%

1994-95

28%

  In the same way we moved from grant-in-aid representing 82 per cent of total budget in 1992-93 to less than half (48 per cent) in 1997-98:

1998-99

51%

1997-98

48%

1996-97

49%

1995-96

58%

1994-95

71%

  The enclosed graphs illustrate the positive changes achieved over recent years, while preserving and developing what is best in our membership activities. We have already greatly reduced time spent on casual enquiries, while insisting on answering telephone callers politely. We have instituted a system of charging for the use of staff time and information resources, but where it matches our plan targets of assisting NGOs active in our field are prepared to be flexible.

The library is no longer a major time or cost factor

  We have already reduced opening times to one half day and evening and intend to reduce this further by allowing access only to readers prepared to pay at similar rates to the London Library and other such institutions, or to corporate members also paying the full cost of any services. This has been a natural process of carefully managed change, achieved with the minimum of protest from members.

  The above tables demonstrate clearly how radically the BRC has moved in the direction of external projects with no increase in grant-in-aid. We believe that the talks programme and Journal are better than they have ever been, and at less cost to the taxpayer. As the reviewer states on page 20: "Some of the membership activities are closely related to project work." This is certainly the case. The Journal, for instance, encourages NGOs by giving publicity to their valuable work and promotes networking by providing contact addresses. It helps us greatly in projects, serving as a calling card in establishing the first contacts, when identifying high level participants, and helping maintain the long-term links central to our project strategy.

  Our recent Kyrgyz groups were delighted to receive copies of the "British East-West Journal" with articles and illustrations dedicated to their country, and promised to contribute further materials. The library is likewise always a great success with our visitors, especially when they find that their favourite author has spoken at the Centre and donated signed copies of his/her books. I think every group has included writers (now mainly political) who have been honoured to continue this tradition, donating a copy of their latest works.

  I am not aware of any fully satisfactory definition of a successful project, but am absolutely convinced that such details stay in the memory of participants, and contribute significantly to the long-term contacts we are in business to establish. The table on pages 3-4 has no FCO objectives corresponding to library, information services, and journal. Until a few years ago BRC worked with Cultural Relations Department which has as an objective: "To promote cultural co-operation in line with FCO objectives and priorities, so as to enhance UK influence world wide, using cultural budgets and staff resources as cost effectively and efficiently as possible." I believe that membership activities, in the light of the great importance given to national cultures in our partner countries are of value in pursuing political links.

WHAT ARE THE ACTUAL COSTS OF MEMBERSHIP ACTIVITIES?

  The table on page 20 is accompanied with the reviewer's sensible warning that "It is difficult to put a figure on the cost of membership activities." In discussion with the relevant staff, we believe that the costs can be reduced by dropping access to the library and continuing to streamline the membership operation by maximum use of computer software. Some of the costs included in the table on page 20 are necessary for external projects, such as printing brochures, visiting cards, and annual report, or buying annual information and "who is who" books. It is I think misleading to include an estimate of 5 per cent of the time of the Director and Project Officer, since our time goes wholly on project related work. I am happy to chair the talks in the evening in my own time, just as I see it as an interesting and useful extra to attend receptions on the invitation of Ambassadors and others connected with our partner countries. Extra hours and enthusiasm are normal for professionals working in our area, But I would not want to charge my time to the members.

  From January 2000 annual membership costs (accepting the Review figures of £18,000 actual expenditure plus £11,000 estimated 50 per cent salary) will be £29,000, a shortfall on present income of £1,000 or £5,800 if the estimate of 10 per cent of rent and service charge is included. Since the Centres are committed to the present accommodation until 2004, there would be no saving if membership were to be killed. Some of our embassies produce English-language magazines for which there must be only a small demand, and which are not paid for by subscription. Our Journal is valuable as a "calling card" and is given free to our high-level visitors in support of our projects. In this way the membership activities actually contribute value to our external projects, rather than being an unnecessary charge on our grant-in-aid, as seems to be argued in the Review. I believe that the value in terms of external projects is much more than this, but accept that we should still aim to increase subscription revenue to make the figures even more positive.

  My conclusion, based on 35 years' experience of working with Russians since my first visit in 1964, plus six years as director of the Centres, is that the membership activities contribute considerably to the aims of the Centres as agreed with the FCO, and at insignificant cost. We save more on a single project by negotiating favourable flight and accommodation costs than any perceived shortfall in the annual subcription income.

  The Centres have changed greatly in recent years, and should continue to change as the director and staff respond to FCO priorities, and to shifts in public interests regarding our partner countries. I am convinced that the right way forward is to continue with carefully managed change, rather than by unnecessary confrontation with the taxpayers, represented as they are by our members.

Iain Elliot
Director