There’s been a lot of talk about fraud at IFLA, but there’s something behind the scenes that gets very little mention. Each year IFLA holds it’s congress – the World Library and Information Congress. As some of us have become familiar with, this process starts with a call for expressions of interest. With the recent controversy about Dubai, some people observed that IFLA asks for 700000 euros from host governments. Despite this issue being raised (it obviously makes the playing field not level between different countries with different resources) , and IFLA failing to get willing host countries for the next two years, so far, the new IFLA GB and the new IFLA Secretary General are still sticking IFLA’s greedy little hands out and asking for this.
Reading the Call for Expressions of Interest highlights another issue though. Early calls for expressions of interest have recently been blocked on IFLA’s website, but are still available in the Google cache. Perhaps we should not speculate on why IFLA seems to have gone down the same path as SIGL and wanting their historical documents and accounting to vanish from history! From 2017 IFLA has been telling potential host countries that the event attracts 3000-4000 delegates. Surprisingly for a ticketed event, IFLA often does not know how many delegates it has had – giving different numbers in news items on its website, orally in the general assembly, and in the organization’s annual reports. For that reason I used the annual reports to establish the delegate numbers as I felt it was the most likely to be accurate(er).
2012 – There were 2152 full time delegates and 1113 day delegates. If we’re generous we can say there were 3265 delegates, although it seems probable to me that day delegates could contain people who visited on multiple days and are therefore counted twice. It’s likely an over-estimate then.
2013 – 2092 full time and 612 day delegates = 2704. With the same note as above, there could be duplication in the day delegates.
2014 – 2287 full time, 832 day delegates = 3119 (note as with the previous ones for day delegates)
2015 – 2287 full time, 832 day delegates = 3119 (IFLA seems to have just relisted the previous year’s figures!)
2016 – 3200
2017 – 3100
2018 – 3390
2019 – 3340
2020 – cancelled
2021 – 2835 (virtual) participants
2022 – 1931 on-site and 493 online = 2425
After Gerald Leitner started as Secretary General the format of reporting stopped reporting day delegates, so it is difficult to estimate how much duplication there was (with delegates potentially counted twice). This introduction of a lack of clarity is, by the way, true of many things under Leitner/Mandl. For example, the growth of personal membership was rolled into organisational members with claims of how many members IFLA has. Technically true but it abstracts away vital information. The attendee figures, though, carry on from the same previous levels so it seems safe to assume this is a maximum of tickets rather than individual delegates.
A key point here is that even if we ignore the fact that in recent years WLIC has performed exceptionally poorly, an average of all those very generous figures gives 3050 delegates a year. At no point has IFLA come close to the 4000 delegates it is claiming in the call for expressions of interest. It hasn’t even ever, not even once, got past the halfway point of their claimed 3000-4000 attendees. And that’s when we’re counting generously!
IFLA asks for government funding based on these figures. Most recently some 700,000 euros. The argument for this is, of course, that WLIC brings benefits to the local economy. One argument they use that WLIC, an event that lasts a few days, sells 25000 nights of hotel accommodation. At the 4000 attendees level that would have every single attendee (even those only attending one day or those who live in the host country) staying for 6.25 days – nearly a whole week. But at a generous estimate of 3000 attendees, that’s everyone staying 8.33 days. Assuming, of course, that nobody room shares. It’s clearly so untrue as to be ludicrous, although I will admit it might be accounted for if you consider SIGL and the ex IFLA SG holidaying there on gate’s millions.
There’s a line between sales speak and outright dishonesty that IFLA’s 4000 attendee claim crosses, goes down the road, over the hill, along the motorway, and much much more on. They’ve very clearly crossed it at a minimum of 33% exaggeration.
Another interesting thing comes to light. Whilst IFLA has blocked access to former calls for expressions of interest in WLIC, some are still accessible in Google cache. Before 2017 I couldn’t find any, so we cannot tell what the practice was pre-Leitner. 2018 suggests that in previous years IFLA was suggesting that “The Congress brings a large amount of income to the host city. IFLA has successfully received over 550,000 Euro in local business and government sponsorship for each of its congresses for many years”.
For IFLA’s flagship event and probably the only thing IFLA is actually known for amongst the majority of the field, the call for expressions of interest has had so little attention given to it that occasionally the truth leaks out. Look for example at the call for expressions of interest at https://www.ifla.org/wp-content/uploads/wlic-eio-2025_rev.pdf and it does ask for 700,000 and claims 3000-4000 attendees.
But on page 3 it is the old 550,000 euro figure and only later on page 29 has this jumped to 700,000. Then right at the end of that page it suggests that “IFLA has successfully achieved over 450,000 euro in local business and government sponsorship for its congresses for many years”.
That’s not the only example of the truth poking through the lies. For example, on page 3 there’s the claim of 3000 – 4000 attendees. Page 30 then goes on to say “Attendee profile: Around 3500 attendees, including 3000 delegates”. So 3000 then.
For that reason my sympathy for host countries is limited, it’s really obviously not a truthful document and the numbers just don’t add up or make sense. If you don’t realize you’re being scammed from that then some of the responsibility is on you. But the 4000 figure given for attendees is just untrue, and asking for money on the basis of a significant lie is, despite what Lison would doubtless tell us, fraudulent.
The 2024 call for expressions of interest has the statement “in the recent past, NC’s have been able to secure 700,000 euro to cover for example the venue rental fee (incl. AV equipment) and the costs for the cultural evening)”. Given the timings this refers either to Dublin or Rotterdam or both. These, if I’m not mistaken are events that had their dates altered due to coronavirus. I hope IFLA haven’t rolled coronavirus grants into those funding figures and then used that to ask for more from future hosts. I worry that that might explain the rapid inflation in expectations. In any case, I’d argue that these conferences were unusual in multiple ways and that setting expectations based on them without being clear about the scheduling differences, etc, is at best confusing and misleading.
But I digress a little bit. Back to the point – IFLA WLIC has never reached the claimed 4000 attendees figure. It has barely tipped past the 3000 mark, if that (given the situation with duplication and host countries are expected to just accept IFLA’s erratic, unexplained, and inconsistent counting). If IFLA asks for donations and grants based on a figure that is at least 33% inflated from the reality – then it’s committing fraud. Simple as that. It’s also one that, far from Lison’s claims about wanting to be global, disadvantages countries that are less well off than Ireland or the Netherlands by asking for the same amounts of money based on false information! And it’s one that the current Secretary General and the current President and GB know about, and are happy to repeat! Ask them about this and you get absolutely no answer, the standard response of scammers everywhere!
Felicity Jupiler 
Leave a comment