These are not some unlikely sports scores but the numbers of listed participants from some countries attending the recent International Tunnelling Association World Tunnel Congress in Milan.
In terms of attendance the event was an undoubted success, with nearly 1000 delegates. Some observers noted , with some surprise, large delegations from countries previously not noted for their participation in this annual event, such as Russia and Slovakia (21 delegates). On the other hand, one would think that those countries with an active international tunnelling business base (such as USA – 16, UK – 12, Spain – 9) would have managed greater participation.
Of course there are probably many reasons for this. The national societies of the co-organisers of the event (Italy and Switzerland) might be expected to have large delegations, and the relatively small delegations from the United States, Canada and Mexico will have obviously been affected by the Rapid Excavation & Tunneling Conference in San Diego at the same time. Traditional supporters such as Germany (48) and Japan (58) may also be self-explanatory.
Of course, one obviously shouldn’t really question large delegations, since they contribute to a successful event. Small ones are the problem. As ever, the reason most often put forward for this lack is money. The large delegations may benefit from commercial sponsorship or national funding from ‘planned economies’. Even in free market economies there has been central funds for research and development allowing leading engineers to attend events where there are important learning opportunities.
But why the small numbers? Apart from apathy, presumably unlikely in dedicated professionals, the main reasons are demands on time and budget (if any). Thus those countries which depend most heavily on the economics of the free market tend to have low participation compared with the size of their tunnelling industries, alongside countries with little tunnelling activity or those distant from the congress. The ‘free market’ argument is that if an event like the World Tunnel Congress is worth attending it is worth paying for, but not by the government. But if the country’s government itself thinks that the benefits of underground construction for a modern infrastructure are worth supporting, then it should show that support with R&D finance. Interaction with other leading tunnelling engineers in the world, and learning from their experience, is arguably as valuable an element in R&D and development work in isolation.
Media such as this one play an important role in communicating the latest developments, but is rarely possible in sufficient detail for proper research. There is no substitute for personal experience and communication, and those governments desiring a thriving tunnelling industry should realise this.
