Monthly Archives: May 2022

The 10-Minute International Librarian #89: Make a connection

Libraries are already strongly characterised by collaboration.

Within and across institutions, we rely on this in order to deliver information and services to users. Through it, we can provide a much wider range of support than alone.

We also partner with other actors of course, combining the strengths of libraries with those of others in order to do more.

But libraries can also act as a catalyst – a place where new collaborations and partnerships can begin, bringing together other players who might not otherwise work together.

Through this, libraries can help build stronger communities and cohesion.

So for our 89th 10-Minute International Librarian exercise, make a connection.

Think of the different people, organisations and groups that you work with.

Which ones could cooperate, but aren’t doing so at the moment?

How can you make the link? How can you encourage potential partners to get involved?

Let us know about the most successful connections that you have made in the chat!

Good luck!

 

This idea relates to the IFLA Strategy! Key Initiative 3.2: Support virtual networking and connections 

As we publish more ideas, you will be able to view these using the #10MinuteInternationalLibrarian tag on this blog, and of course on IFLA’s Ideas Store! Do also share your ideas in the comments box below!

COVID-19 Impacts on Cultural Industries and Education and Research Institutions: Key Questions from the WIPO Report

Tomorrow, the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) will hold an information session on the impact of COVID-19 on the cultural and creative industries, on the one hand, and on education and research on the other.

This follows requests from Member States at the previous meeting, conscious of the need to make sense of the experience of actors affected by copyright – either as owners, or as users, of relevant materials. While the meeting formally takes place outside of the SCCR agenda, its place at the beginning of the week will mean that it has the potential to shape discussions over the following days.

To support this, WIPO has published a commissioned study, based both on a series of responses to a call for evidence, and interviews with experts in different countries. The terms of reference for the study have not been shared, but it looks both to tackle the broader question of experiences (as mandated by the last meeting), and to cite case studies of initiatives taken (which goes beyond the mandate).

Ahead of this session – which will be available on WIPO’s webcasting service – this blog looks at some of the questions and issues raised by the report (intentionally or otherwise), and which the meeting tomorrow can hopefully address.

 

Public spending needed… but on what terms?

A consistent message from the report is the sense that governments need to step in to provide financial and other support, to institutions, businesses and individuals working with copyright where these would otherwise risk disappearing or disengaging. The report underlines in particular that the pandemic has represented a major shock to those actors depending on in-person engagement and activities, such as concerts, author events, or museum visits, as well as events where much business is done, such as book fairs.

Some – but not all – governments have of course taken action to help otherwise viable businesses from failing. The report underlines that more could and should have been done however, with independent authors in a particularly tough situation.

Looking forwards, however, this does raise the question of how to ensure that this support has maximum positive impact. Beyond the preservation of employment, how can this serve to support public interest goals, such as access to education, research and culture?

 

Digital here to stay, but how?

The report is clear about the fact that the shift to digital is going to be a lasting phenomenon, raising the question of how to ensure the sustainability of digital activities. It underlines components of a response, including efforts to get more people online, training and support for digital maturity, and new policy approaches in general.

A crucial point made is that libraries themselves have invested significantly in digital content – often paying again for the same material that they had already bought in physical format. Clearly, it cannot be sustainable for libraries to pay twice for the same things.

In terms of recommendations, the report does highlight the need to ‘provide clarity to institutions and organizations regarding the copyright implications of moving towards a digital world, and to evaluate appropriate means and innovative ways to make digital uses easier’.

Of course, this could be read either as a case for providing more flexible exceptions and limitations that adapt to needs, or for facilitating licensing. It is to be hoped that COVID will not be used as an excuse to extend the reach of licensing at the expense of the sort of free exceptions that libraries have traditionally relied on extensively, draining their resources.

More worrying is the suggestion that copyright for digital works should be tighter than that for physical ones (i.e. have weaker limitations and exceptions) in order to protect investments. This is to argue that there is less need to protect possibilities for education, research and cultural participation online than in person.

This of course flies in the face of the argument that rights offline should also be protected online, and indeed the case made by the UN Secretary-General that more effort is required to ensure that it is not only the decisions of private companies that should determine what we can and cannot do digitally.

 

An under-supply of digital content

A persistent issue is the lack of digital content available, especially in developing regions. The report suggests that this is sometimes due to a lack of capacity, but can also be the result of a conscious choice by rightholders not to make works available in digital form, for example due to apparent fears of piracy.

This raises a serious issue about the functioning of markets, and whether it really serves societal interest for works not to be sold in a form that works for people who may not be able to access libraries or bookshops, or even work with physical copies of books. The report suggests more licensing, but this has been a possibility for a long time, and does not seem to have delivered.

Instead, it’s worth remembering that it was the under-supply of accessible format works that underpinned the Marrakesh Treaty, which opened up the possibility to carry out format-shifting of works to make them accessible.

A parallel argument is that the ability of creators themselves to use digital platforms could be a useful area of focus. This is an area where libraries, through providing public access, can indeed help, although to do so need to have the necessary resources to offer such services.

 

Impacts are varied

At least terms of market impacts on different sectors, the story varies. For example, while extensively citing European research suggesting that the publishing sector there suffered strongly, it notes that publishing in the United States continued to grow. The US of course is characterised by a very flexible copyright regime – fair use – while another country whose model is celebrated, Canada, is also under regular attach from rightholders for the flexibility of their education exceptions.

In addition, the pandemic is reported as having been particularly hard for authors who, in addition to the impacts of falling sales (where sales actually fell), also missed out on other opportunities to earn, such as book fairs and signings. The same goes for performers, and people working as freelancers or on temporary contracts. This does raise questions about terms of employment, and what can be done to ensure fairer distribution of revenues to those missing out.

 

Anecdotes and rules

A point alluded to in the title is that the focus on examples of initiatives in the report goes beyond what was in the mandate proposed by Member States. This is of course valuable in terms of providing illustrations, but can also lead to the impression that everything is going well.

Furthermore, the report fails to reflect the view of many libraries that these initiatives, while welcome, were often hard to implement and were withdrawn well before the end of the pandemic – see IFLA’s own report on libraries, copyright and COVID-19 for more. Indeed, there is the argument that they were often intended as marketing exercises, aimed at building use of and reliance on services which could then be charged for.

The more systematic examples come the US, where the flexibility provided by fair use is underlined as having enabled initiatives like the Hathi Trust Emergency Temporary Access Service. These arguably provide better pointers for how to build resilience than individual stories that may depend on a wide variety of other factors which are potentially not replicable.

 

And an old cliché about lending and sales…

The report does touch a number of times on the relationship between library activities and sales. There are unsubstantiated claims about the impact of higher levels of library lending and use. The one reference given is to a speculative conclusion in a German study about future impacts of eLending. This same study also underlines that cutting back on library lending is unlikely to lead to any increase in the purchasing of eBooks.

These arguments also do not sit well with the report’s conclusion that increased spending by libraries on digital content raises sustainability concerns for our institutions. In this case, the question needs rather to be ‘where is the money’?

Going further, unfortunately, it also repeats old tropes implying that the work of libraries is not significantly different to copyright piracy. These betray a fundamental misunderstanding of what copyright is about and how limitations and exceptions work. It also suggests an inability to differentiate between the interests of one particular lobby group, and of society as a whole. It is of course a shame that such claims are repeated in a WIPO-branded report.

 

Follow the discussion on WIPO’s webcasting service, from 11:30-16:30 Geneva time, for more!

The City We Need Now 2.0 – Library Implications

The COVID-19 pandemic came at a time of already insufficient progress towards development goals. Achieving the UN’s 2030 Agenda has gone from hard to much harder, and with it, the need for ambitious, concerted, innovative effort has grown.

Both the challenges we face, and the potential for finding solutions, are so often concentrated in cities. As the places and structures in which people live, work, socialise, learn and create, our ability to realise our potential, and our rights, is heavily influenced by them. Getting cities policy – or policies – right, makes a huge difference.

With the half-way point in the 2030 Agenda fast approaching, the World Urban Forum just next month, and with the General Assembly reviewing the implementation of the New Urban Agenda recently, this question is high on the international agenda.

To shape thinking, the World Urban Campaign, of which IFLA is a member, launched a 2.0 version of its The City We Need Now campaign. This looked to bring together thinkers from across the board in the urban policy space, in order to identify themes around which to build action.

On 25 April, following consultations around the world, the key conclusions of this work were published, highlighting 10 priority areas for action. These are being promoted by Campaign members, and brought to decision-makers, from the local to the global levels.

The document is a helpful one for libraries, both in terms of identifying themes which matter for libraries, and actions where libraries have a strong role to play.

This blog summarises these, in order to help libraries and library associations draw on this as a resource for advocacy, especially with local governments and local government associations. It focuses on each of the identified highlights in turn:

1) The city we need now is healthy and promotes wellbeing: an obvious priority in the light of the COVID-19 pandemic, this nonetheless focuses on how to improve quality of life durably, including in the face of non-communicable diseases. Improving mental health and wellbeing, as well as the determinants of health (education, housing, social connections) are all underlined.

Libraries of course have a long-standing role in supporting wellbeing, through their collections (including growing awareness of the potential of bibliotherapy) and simply offering a quiet space. They can contribute more actively to healthy living through supporting public health campaigns and enabling access to eHealth.

2) The city we need now is free from violence, war and fosters a culture of peace: the threat of insecurity has always been there for many, with Russia’s war against Ukraine only the latest reminder. The Campaign highlights the need, in addition to an immediate end to aggression, to support initiatives that bring people together and move them away from conflict.

In their role as community hubs, open for all of the community, libraries are well placed to support here, acting as living labs. They are on the front lines in some cases, for example Colombia where they have been among the first public services to return to areas previously marked by conflict. Through supporting democratic engagement and empowerment, they also strengthen people’s ability to find solutions and act.

3) The city we need now is resilient, low-carbon and adapts to climate change: COP26 marked a major reaffirmation of the need for action to reduce emissions and promote adaptation and resilience. Cities are part of this, both as actors in limiting climate change, and in needing to respond. The Campaign calls for stronger engagement in climate action, as well as a drive to change behaviours.

As IFLA highlighted in the run-up to COP26, libraries have the potential to play a powerful role in climate action and empowerment. Through informing decision-making, sharing information that drives behaviour change, and providing a space for communities to build consensus around action, there is much that they can do to make a difference here.

4) The city we need now is inclusive and promotes gender equality: linked to the highlight around a culture of peace, the Campaign underlines the need for tolerance – and indeed celebration – of diversity, and forms of decision-making that include everyone. It calls for proactive efforts to educate and share experiences, and value the lives and experience of all.

As spaces open to all, libraries can act as catalysts for successful multiculturalism and broader equality, designing services which respond to the needs of all. Focused programming can go further, especially when libraries benefit from investment and training. They can also offer a ‘safer’, more structured environment for all to get involved in decision-making.

5) The city we need now is economically vibrant and provides opportunities for all: the need for people to have a livelihood and to encourage local business and job possibilities also features. The informal economy, as well as new forms such as the shared economy, can play a role, but of course rely on people knowing about opportunities, and having the skills to realise them.

Public libraries in many countries were founded on the principle that they would help people continue to learn throughout life, and they continue to do this in a huge variety of ways as a core part of the lifelong learning infrastructure. In parallel with this, they offer crucial support for jobseekers, both in applying for support (where available) and finding new opportunities.

6) The city we need now has a strong sense of place and has room for diverse identities: in effect, this is the culture goal of the Campaign, stressing the need both to consider cultural factors, and to engage cultural actors in order to support sustainable development. The sector has, however, suffered from the forced closure of venues and limits of travel. There needs to be investment now, in order to ensure future returns.

Libraries are often the densest, and best-used cultural networks cities have, enabling people both to access their shared culture, and achieve their broader cultural rights. They need to be better recognised within cultural policies however, in particular those that look to realise the potential of culture to drive integration and success in wider policy goals.

7) The city we need now is managed through public participation and democratically governed: as stressed already above, there is a pressing need for citizens to be involved in decision-making, not just in order to increase a sense of engagement and belonging, but also to improve the quality and relevance of decisions taken. The Campaign notes in particular the value of open data, and proactive outreach to all members of the community.

Libraries are increasingly realising their role as part of the democratic infrastructure. In addition to traditional work in helping people to take informed decisions, many provide space for democratic debate for the community as a whole, key public legal information to help people realise their rights, and portals for engaging with open data. Some even help designing these portals in order best to meet user needs.

8) The city we need now fosters comprehensive and integrated planning and development: the way in which buildings and neighbourhoods are planned and used is a key concern, and something over which city authorities can have a significant impact. The need to move towards more localised communities (15-Minute Cities) is on the agenda, as is the need to regenerate and re-use existing places, rather than simply taking more land.

There are already great examples of libraries sitting at the heart of efforts to bring life back to previously run-down areas, including IFLA’s publication on new libraries in old buildings. There is also clearly an important role for information in effective urban planning and policy, something that library and information professionals are well placed to support, either within governments or wider research centres.

9) The city we need now ensures access to housing, services and mobility: closely linked to better planning is the need to ensure that everyone can access the services and opportunities that they need. Clearly, improving housing provision is also essential, as this unlocks a major series of other economic and societal benefits (health, wellbeing, disposable incomes, education).

Through operating as networks, public libraries already represent an example of decentralised service provision in action (and indeed, in many cases act as multifunctional service centres, partnering with other parts of government). When libraries are accessible on foot or by bicycle, this reduces the need for polluting travel, or for excluding those without their own form of transport. In parallel, through internet access provision, as well as helping people find out about their rights, libraries can also support access to housing and the defence of tenant rights.

10) The city we need now learns and innovates: building on a point already made above, the Campaign stresses the need for intelligent policy making, based on strong information management, a readiness to innovate, and the encouragement of partnerships and connections.

Libraries in the government and parliamentary fields already do just this at the national level, helping to ensure that decisions are based on the latest data and research. The skills and services they offer are also invaluable at the local level, and could certainly be drawn on more.

 

The City We Need Now campaign is not over. With key moments coming up this year, the above highlights will be referred to regularly in a variety of events and processes. Take a look at The City We Need Now site, and in particular its regional campaigns, to find out about new opportunities, or simply reach out to your own local government associations to talk about how libraries can make a reality of the Campaign’s goals.

The 15-Minute City: A Key Reference for Libraries?

An idea that has picked up a lot of attention in the last couple of years in urban development discussions has been that of the 15-Minute City.

The concept – or similar ones – have been around for a number of years, with Carlos Moreno often cited as the primary source, but was most prominently taken up by the Mayor of Paris, Anne Hidalgo, in her successful 2020 re-election campaign. Since then, a number of global organisations – including the C40 Cities network – have taken it up with enthusiasm, and it features near the top of The City We Need Now 2.0, a recent publication of the World Urban Campaign (see a future blog).

It provides a neat way of bringing together a lot of thinking about how to make cities more liveable into a single, understandable idea – that people should be able to do all of the essential things in their lives – shopping, eating, working, relaxing, learning – within a 15-minute walk or bicycle ride.

It stands in contrast to models of cities where people need to travel much longer distances – often by private transport – in order to fulfil these basic needs, leading not only to pollution and lost time, but also a sense of dislocation.

This is particularly the case in cities subject to sprawl (i.e. which spread over huge spaces) or with unmixed zoning (i.e. residential areas are kept separate from commercial or industrial ones). Too often, for example, distant suburbs or housing estates are the ones that experience the most serious problems. Many groups in such areas, for example, may simply be unable to travel long distances, for reasons of cost, disability, or simply lack of time.

Moreno himself, in his TED talk, sets out four underlying principles: 1) ecology – the idea that we need to be promoting ways of living that are better for the environment and nature, with more green spaces and less pollution; 2) proximity – the idea that key services (including culture) are close by; 3) social connection – that people benefit from knowing their neighbours and building stronger relations and collaborations, and 4) engagement – that people need to more closely involved in decision-making about their areas.

The library angle

As highlighted, while the term ’15-minute city’ may be new, it brings together existing ideas, including many which will be familiar to libraries. Indeed, the idea of libraries providing services in places that don’t require people to drive is already familiar from the IFLA Green Library Checklist.

Firstly, there is the obvious role of networks of public and community libraries in providing services in proximity to their users. It is well understood that in order to respond to local needs, a key factor for success is being close enough to be able to understand these, and give everyone an opportunity to benefit. Protests against library closures often focus on the fact that forcing users to travel longer distances risk excluding them. It is a source of pride that libraries represent perhaps the densest network of cultural institutions that many cities or countries have.

A second angle is the idea of multi-functionality. 15-Minute City proponents argue that there needs to be better use of space, including flexibility to ensure that any one building or location can serve a number of purposes and publics. This is of course what libraries already do, acting as centres for culture, education, democracy, public health, and beyond. This is supported by libraries’ emphasis on responding to user needs, rather than trying to apply a rigid, one-size-fits-all service model. This is also something that libraries are developing, building on their role – often – as the only non-commercial indoor public space, with dedicated staff and internet access.

Strongly connected to the above is the emphasis on the social function of libraries as places not just for individual study or enjoyment (although this if of course important), but also for interaction. As highlighted, it is vital to have these opportunities outside of commercial locations or those that may be off-limits for different groups. Here too, libraries around the world are developing their capacity as meeting places, where social capital can be built and maintained. Through offering programming, rooms, access to shared cultural references, opening eyes to other cultures, or simply by allowing people to be together, they make the difference.

A further role of libraries, again linked to the above, is in boosting democracy. Collective decision-making of course starts with a feeling of belonging to the same community, and being able to talk, discuss, share, and work together to develop new ideas. As highlighted, libraries already enable this through their social function. However, they can go further, for example acting as centres for providing access to – and facilitating use of – local open data. They can be venues for consultations and conversations between decision-makers and citizens. And they can help fight misinformation by building the skills to evaluate and use information effectively.

Questions to address

Of course, the 15-minute city concept does raise questions, and indeed has its critiques, notably from those who suggest that without significant efforts, it tends to be richer areas and communities that benefit. For example, in Paris, the conversion of roads along the Seine in parks was seen as primarily benefitting the (better off) communities living there, at the expense of those living further away, and who rely on their cars to get to work.

For libraries in particular, there is the question of how to manage the perceived trade off between scale and impact – is it better to have fewer, bigger institutions with more possibilities to offer services and programming, or more, smaller ones (for example, see the variation highlighted in our Library Stat of the Week post)?

Of course, this may be a false dichotomy. When working effectively as a network, smaller libraries can benefit from the advantages of scale, for example in access to collections. However, it is clearly also the case that offering a wide range of programming and activities with reduced space and staff is harder than for a big central library.

Connected to the critique of 15-minute cities mentioned above, there is a particular need to ensure that all communities – not just wealthier ones – benefit. This implies a need to invest more in library services in deprived areas.

This of course can have a major pay-off, given that it can be people facing poverty who can benefit most from library services, and who would otherwise not be able to travel longer distances to a bigger institution. However, it does of course require investment, and strong support for librarians so that they in turn can share have the greatest positive effect. This includes work within the library field to share ideas and resources, from the level of local networks of libraries, to the national and even the global level.

A powerful reference for library advocacy

The idea of a 15-Minute City has the potential to be a powerful one for libraries, given how far it plays to our institutions’ existing strengths. We can fit in well with urban development agendas that use it as a reference point, although of course may need to work to remind decision-makers that this is the case.

At the same time, it does raise questions that libraries will need to address, notably about how to ensure that all residents of towns and cities have reasonable access to libraries. Ideally, we can make the most of 15-minute city policies to ensure that our institutions – and profession – receive the investment and support needed to (continue) to make this a reality.

The 10-Minute International Librarian #88: Think of a process where libraries should be included

Libraries have an incredible breadth of expertise and action.

As has been said before in this series, when someone walks through the door of a library (or visits a library website!), it can be for a huge variety of reasons.

In each of these areas, libraries bring important expertise to bear, both in terms of the role of information, and in how to respond to the needs of users.

For example, they can be well placed to explain how users find and interact with information, community programming, and the specific needs of people in a local area.

This can make a major contribution to the goals of different groups and processes. But too often, libraries are forgotten or ignored!

So for our 88th 10-Minute International Librarian exercise, think of a process where libraries should be included.

For example, groups or committees on public health could gain from libraries’ knowledge of, and role in, providing information about eating better and doing more exercise.

Lifelong learning initiatives miss a opportunity when they don’t involve libraries, as venues for training, access points for online learning, and portals to further courses.

And it is hard to imagine open science strategies fulfilling their potential without library understanding of promoting preservation and discoverability.

A particular example is around the Sustainable Development Goals, where there are often civil society or official groups or networks.

What examples do you have of processes which would gain from engaging libraries better? Share them in the comments below!

Good luck!

 

This idea relates to the IFLA Strategy! Key Initiative 1.3: Work with library associations and libraries to identify key legal and funding challenges to their work, and advocate for action 

As we publish more ideas, you will be able to view these using the #10MinuteInternationalLibrarian tag on this blog, and of course on IFLA’s Ideas Store! Do also share your ideas in the comments box below!