The International Cricket Conference met in London this week, but after four days of discussion, they appear to have achieved very little of any substance. There were verbose press releases in media-speak which droned on about creating dialogue; an Ethics Officer was appointed; and Nigeria and the Cayman Islands were granted Associate Member status. But perhaps the most pressing problem - the growing reluctance of countries to tour regions they regard as unsafe - was effectively sidelined

Pakistan, financially crippled by a series of cancellations, initially because of September 11 and subsequently due to terrorist attacks in the country, had pressed for compensation and a thorough review of the ICC 10-year plan. They had also asked the ICC to apply far more pressure on countries which back out of series.

But the ICC stopped short of getting too involved and dismissed the idea of compensation as unworkable. Instead it charged itself with "creating dialogue, convening meetings and mediating on issues that threaten the fulfilment of a tour or tournament". In short, it will instigate talks, something which the relevant parties seem able to do all by themselves (with the possible exception of the deadlock between India and Pakistan, which is so complex that far greater minds than the ICC have failed to even scratch the surface).

The more that tours don't take place, the less credible the ICC's Test Championship becomes, but that did not appear to be a matter of great concern. It should have been. In all likelihood, the situation in Pakistan will not improve enough in the coming months to persuade Australia to tour, and Zimbabwe's rapidly deteriorating infrastructure not only threatens tours to the country but also the very future of their international side. To cap it all, India are scheduled to tour Pakistan next April and it is hard to envisage that one going ahead even if the series is moved to Morocco or Montreal. The Championship is heading for a fall.

In fairness, there is no easy solution to the problem. Countries could be forced to tour - Australia would almost certainly be able to assemble a decent squad even without their well-publicised non-travellers - although it would devalue the series and so the financial appeal to spectators and the media. But younger players would grab the opportunity, as they did in the Packer era, and at least there would be cricket for the local population to watch.

Neutral venues might be a solution, but there is no structure in place and the ICC need to be more proactive in scheduling and forcing the issue. The downside is that they are unlikely to be financially viable - Pakistan lost a considerable sum by hosting West Indies in Sharjah - but more thought as to the venues, and a little pressure from the ICC to force countries to compromise, might overcame many of these difficulties.

Talk is cheap but it is unlikely to bring results. National cricket boards always appear to be prepared to run the risk of touring regions where there is a risk; the players, who are the ones exposed on a daily basis, are the ones who are not so keen. The cancellation of the Australian tour to Zimbabwe in April was resisted by their board long after the players had started expressing reluctance to proceed, and a similar situation is developing with this autumn's trip to Pakistan where half-a-dozen leading lights have already said they are staying at home.

That the ICC are willing to join in talks will be of little consolation to the Pakistan Cricket Board which is reported to be as much as $20 million in debt, much of it due to the aborted visits by India and West Indies and the curtailed New Zealand series. The PCB's officials will return home with little to cheer them - or their bankers - in the coming months.

© Wisden CricInfo Ltd