Tag Archives: Library advocacy

Mobilising the resources to sustain libraries: why the G7 tax agreement matters for our field

Last week, a big story in many media outlets was the agreement between finance ministers of G7 countries to act to counter tax avoidance by major multinational companies. When this issue comes to the G20 later this year, it will be a truly global concern.

This blog looks a little further at the issues, why fighting tax avoidance could be part of library advocacy work, and why there is a particularly strong argument for multinational digital companies to pay their share.

Mobilising resources to pay for development

Tax avoidance is not a new issue of course. For years, there have been concerns about the ability of firms to exploit loopholes and inconsistencies between corporation tax (i.e. taxes on profits, rather than taxes on sales or turnover) rules in different jurisdictions to limit how much they need to pay.

By (nominally) locating key assets such as intellectual property in low-tax countries, or using complicated systems of loans or holding companies, highly profitable companies can make much of their fiscal liabilities disappear.

A lot of the focus has been on the practices of major internet companies, but they are not alone. Any company operating in different jurisdictions may be able to benefit, with Starbucks, care home operators, and even publishers such as Pearson being accused of this.

While, to some extent, it may be a question of political choice how much a country wants to rely on tax-funded public services or rather leave things to the market, it is undeniable that such decisions, when they affect corporate taxation, do have effects on others.

As such, it is a key part of ‘resource mobilisation’, the term used in the context of the Sustainable Development Goals to describe efforts to ensure efficient and effective taxation systems. Getting an international agreement is particularly important, given that while governments are responsible for tackling corruption or other failures to ensure that domestic actors contribute to public services and investments, they can do little once profits are ‘moved’ abroad.

The 2008 crisis intensified focus on these issues, as governments faced the question of how to pay the cost of the financial crisis. Useful work was done around tax transparency and combatting tax havens. In the wake of the pandemic, this focus seems likely only to intensify, and perhaps explains the G7 announcements themselves.

A pre-condition for sustaining library budgets

It’s not hard to imagine why this matters for libraries, at least those which rely to a greater or lesser degree on central government funding. It also matters for the achievement of many of the goals that libraries seek to support, such as education, connectivity or research.

For example, in the education sector, the Global Partnership for Education places a strong emphasis on resource mobilisation as the one sustainable way to support education funding sustainably into the future. Education International has explicitly called for stronger efforts against tax avoidance.

Similarly, the World Health Organization, back in 2018, also highlighted the importance of action on tax to support the delivery of global health goals. Organisations working on broader development, such as Oxfam, have also been strong on the topic.

Clearly, campaigning for more effective taxation is a less direct means of ensuring that libraries have adequate resources than working directly to influence how spending is structured, although it would be an area where libraries would find allies.

Moreover, the availability of funds to spend on libraries depends on funds being there in the first place, which is a tax question. In short, it becomes easier to call for stable, or increased spending on libraries when overall budgets are healthier.

Digital dividends

The argument is particularly strong in the case of libraries and digital companies, given the strong role of libraries in helping people to get online in the first place.

In the case of internet service providers, including phone companies, there are sometimes even dedicated taxes which feed into universal service and access funds. These can be (but are not always) used to help libraries provide wider connectivity.

As such, they help deliver what is increasingly recognised as the human right to connectivity, while also, arguably, helping to create new customers in the future for these same firms.

Yet digital content companies arguably benefit even more directly from when more people are brought online, along with anyone involved in eCommerce. You cannot buy things online, use social media for whatever reason, host websites, use cloud services or whatever else without being connected.

This makes it all the more relevant to argue that they should be paying their part, as much out of enlightened self-interest as because of a wider duty to support public services.

A long way to go

The welcome for the G7 announcements from organisations campaigning for effective action on tax avoidance has been lukewarm. The minimum tax rate set out has been seen as lacking ambition, and of course the deal only covers a few countries, even if they are rich.

Nonetheless, it is arguably a step in a positive direction, even if the final destination is unclear. As such, there is still plenty to do, both when the question comes to the G20, and beyond.

Clearly libraries must make choices about how to allocate time and effort around advocacy. The nature of our institutions mean that we have arguments to make across a wide range of policy fields – many more than we can feasible engage in.

Nonetheless, calling for action on tax avoidance in order to support libraries and other public services – especially those supporting connectivity, and alongside partners – is certainly worth thinking about as part of our advocacy work.

Dreamers and Schemers: a simple recipe for library advocacy

Studies of human behaviour are often characterised by a distinction between idealism and realism, between emotion and logic, or between the heart and the head.

Some decisions and actions we see as being driven by instinct, optimism or by a broader sense of values, while others seem to come down to cold, hard rationality.

A Nobel Prize for Economics went to Daniel Kahneman for his work on the difference between choices made rapidly, based on feelings, and those made after deep consideration.

International relations also traditionally differentiates between realists (who argue that countries follow their own interests and use their power freely) and idealism (who argue that states promote their domestic values in their international activities).

How does this relate to library advocacy?

Previous blogs, notably in partnership with OCLC’s WebJunction, have explored the idea of how a range of individual strengths (described as personality types) can come together in order to make for effective advocacy.

At a simpler level, however, we can see library advocacy as requiring a combination of idealism and realism in order to achieve its goals. In other words – as set out in the title of this blog – we need both dreamers and schemers in order to succeed.

Why we need dreamers?

Idealism remains a powerful motivator of action. Fortunately, libraries tend to have this in abundance!

Our institutions are strongly based on values – the importance of equitable access to information, of service to all, of safeguarding heritage for the future, all without the motivation of profit or private gain.

Where these values – and the budgets needed to deliver on them – have been challenged, libraries have become stronger and stronger in defending them.

We have produced communications materials, brought together stories and examples of how libraries contribute to development and other community goals, and build networks of friends and supporters.

Work based on idealism helps to create a positive feeling around libraries, raising interest among decision-makers and voters alike. Even in less democratic systems, those in power often rely on the support of the people for legitimacy, and so will care about what they feel.

Done effectively, it also helps make the step from sympathy to active support among – something that is crucial if libraries are to benefit from the funding and laws they need.

Why we need schemers?

However, idealism does not always solve everything. The fact of acting in the public interest, or delivering on well acknowledged values, is not necessarily enough to bring about adequate funding or favourable reforms to libraries. Understandably, this can be disheartening.

However, we can respond by complementing idealism with a dose of realpolitik. We need to be both dreamers and schemers.

Sometimes, it’s a question of knowing where, when, how, and to whom to make your points most effectively.

For example, a campaign in favour of libraries in the months before a key decision is taken is clearly more useful than one just after.

The answer is to build up your understanding of how decisions are taken, and ideally your relationships with key people involved in the process. If you look, you may well find someone who feels warmly about libraries, and so who can help you. In turn, their advice and insights can help you increase the impact of your work.

There is also the reality that decisions to support additional funding, or favourable laws for libraries, are not always simple. There can be opposition, for example from those resistant to spending in general, other potential beneficiaries of money, or those who feel that better laws for libraries will disadvantage them.

This opposition can be based on values, or simply on concern about profit margins. It is important to think about the arguments that can be made against stronger support for libraires, and how you can counter these.

Of course, in doing so, it is usually best to avoid looking like you do not care about the views of others. Decision-makers often want to avoid ‘picking sides’ in order not to lose support. However, you can usually make progress by showing that supporting libraries brings benefits for all.

 

As highlighted earlier in this blog, libraries are often already strong when it comes to being ‘dreamers’. We know that our work is based on values, service, and the wider public interest, and are becoming better and better at articulating this.

A key area of development is therefore around how also to become ‘schemers’ – how to understand the processes that lead to decisions being taken about libraries, and how to influence them most effectively.

This is far from the world of pure private lobbying, centred on how to maximise profits for a particular sector (or its shareholders). Throughout libraries’ engagement in decision-making, our values can and should shine through – this is what sets us apart.

 

In short, we need both to be dreamers and schemers in order to make the best and most effective case for libraries into the future.

The costs of non-access (part 2): why it matters when uses of works are prevented or complicated

In a post last week, we looked at the importance of being able to explain why non-investment in libraries matters.

As highlighted, in difficult budgetary times, governments are faced with the challenge of how to make cuts while causing least pain.

Being able to explain the harm that reducing or freezing library spending can create is therefore an important part of advocacy.

But as set out in another blog, decisions about funding are often just one side of the same coin as decisions about what libraries can do with their funding, notably as regards copyright.

A generous budget with highly restrictive rules on how resources are used can lead to a library having the same impact as one with a much smaller budget, but one where there are much broader possibilities to use works.

So just as we need to be able to talk about the cost of not investing financially in libraries, we should also learn to set out the harm done when library users are not able to use works.

There is a particular need for such arguments when it comes to copyright, given that the argument will often be made that the sorts of exceptions and limitations that allow library users and libraries to carry out such activities come at the cost of sales, or at least licensing revenues.

Such arguments are even used in the case of books that are no longer on sale at all, on the premiss that they may at some time in the future come back into commerce.

Of course, the evidence of such library activities actually causing harm is limited. The European Commission’s impact assessment on the draft Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market made clear that allowing libraries to preserve works, or library users to carry out text and data mining would not cause any significant damage.

This does not mean that there is no cost to rightholders from such acts. It isn’t possible to prevent a reader from borrowing a book or copying a couple of pages just because she or he could also buy it – this would be to turn against the universalist mission of libraries.

Similarly, there will often be a collective management organisation ready to invent a licensing offer for a new type of use, and so claim that copyright exceptions cost revenue.

To convince decision-makers to legislate in favour of copyright exceptions and limitations, we therefore need to be show that the cost of denying or complicating access is higher. So what arguments can be used?

Lending: when libraries are not able to lend books, this effectively condemns those who are not able to buy them to exclusion from access to culture. It can also choke off a means for new authors to be discovered by readers. Preventing digital lending will tend to exclude readers who are not able to get to a library, for reasons of disability, health, distance, or – obviously enough – COVID-19 restrictions.

Research (TDM): allowing uses of works for text and data mining improves the quality of the results of mining activities, thereby advancing science. Preventing such uses will have the inverse effect. In particular in the case of machine learning, there is growing awareness that limiting the range of works that can be used for learning can lead to biases and problems.

Education: teachers and learners benefit from being able to use the best suited materials for the context and situation, in order to achieve the best results. When teachers are obliged to take time to find works they can use – or rely on a limited offer – then they are less able to do their jobs. Similarly, a lack of adequate exceptions can restrict the production of open educational resources.

Preservation: this is a core function of libraries, ensuring that the works of yesterday and today are available into the future, recognised in international law. Where it is made more difficult, fewer works can be preserved. Ironically, the imposition of restrictions on preservation copying, motivated by a desire to sustain revenues, can risk reducing the chances of the work itself surviving into the future.

Document Supply: while a traditional activity of libraries using physical works, not all copyright laws allow for digital document supply. This has an obvious impact on those whose research is facilitated by being able to access often unique books held far away. Without this, the scope of research is unnecessarily limited to the works that are available on site, defeating the object of research in the first place.

Access for People with Print Disabilities: the challenge tackled by the Marrakesh Treaty was the book famine – the tiny share of books worldwide which are available in accessible formats. A failure to allow exceptions left the choice (and responsibility) for making such copies available in the hands of rightholders, often themselves unable to make the switch. The failures caused by a lack of reform led to violation of the right of people with print disabilities to education, and to participation in scientific and cultural life.

 

As in our first blog on the costs of non-access, such arguments should be used relatively sparingly. It is important to be positive as well, focusing on how reforms could lead to better services to – and support for – communities. Yet being able to underline costs can be helpful in making it clear that there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

As part of your advocacy, you are therefore encouraged to gather stories of problems – of the costs of non-access.

How HathiTrust Emergency Temporary Access Service (ETAS) supports Libraries in pandemic times

By Sara R. Benson, Copyright Librarian, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. Check out Sara’s podcast titled Copyright Chat at https://go.illinois.edu/copyrightchat

It’s Fair Use/Fair Dealing week and that means it is once again time to let folks know about exciting developments with the HathiTrust Digital Library. Last year on Fair Use Week I highlighted the ability of researchers to engage with copyright protected materials for text and data mining through the HathiTrust Research Data Capsule. This year, I would like to make readers aware of the HathiTrust Emergency Temporary Access Service or ETAS.

What is the ETAS? It is a portal allowing affiliated libraries to permit their patrons to access in copyright works remotely. Why is the ETAS available? COVID 19 has caused many libraries, such as my own (the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign Library) to temporarily limit physical access to library materials. Almost half of our collection, however, has been digitized and is available in the HathiTrust corpus. Normally, users can only perform searches for how many times a given term appears in copyright protected works in the HathiTrust corpus. However, due to COVID 19, the ETAS allows users to view (but not download) entire copyright protected works remotely. Libraries participating must have the physical book in their collection and agree not to lend out the physical book. Thus, the book is being lent remotely on a one-to-one ratio to the Library’s physical collection on the basis of fair use. This type of lending is made possible because it is non-commercial, educational in purpose and justified due to the emergency nature of the pandemic virus. As noted by April Hathcock in a public statement created by copyright specialists and available at https://tinyurl.com/tvnty3a, “fair use is made for just these kinds of contingencies.”

So, as you celebrate Fair Use/Fair Dealing week this year, note that the pandemic has brought with it many challenges, but Fair Use has enabled libraries to keep lending their works digitally so that researchers and the public can continue to create, thrive, and produce . . . even during a crisis.

(Pre)Conditions for Success: What Governments Need to Do to Fulfil Libraries’ Potential

Much library advocacy at the moment is focused on how libraries can contribute to the response to, and recovery from, the COVID-19 pandemic.

In previous blogs here, and from libraries and library organisations around the world, there has been a focus on what our institutions can do to build back better – through wider and more meaningful access to information, stronger connectivity, better competences, more rapid innovation, and making the most of culture and heritage.

We promote the importance of school and public libraries in building foundational literacy skills from a young age. Of public and community libraries in promoting inclusion, offering internet access and training, and providing a portal to new opportunities for those at risk of being left out or left behind. Of academic and research libraries in supporting more open science and scholarship, and helping the researchers of tomorrow. Of national and heritage libraries in ensuring that documentary heritage can both inform decision-making today and build identity and community cohesion.

In short, the library vision of the future is of more literate and better informed people, and fairer, more inclusive and more engaged societies.

As before, our staff, services and spaces will be at the heart of this.

Yet these are things that cannot be taken for granted. While libraries and library staff – with the support of organisations like IFLA and other library associations – work to deliver the best possible support in the circumstances, they also rely on the actions of governments and other decision-makers – policies, laws and funding – to fulfil their potential.

This blog sets out five ways in which governments and other decision-makers can support libraries:

1. Ensure that librarians working in frontline roles should benefit from the same vaccine priority as other frontline workers: there is a clear value in ensuring that if libraries are to re-open to provide in-person services, staff should be able to benefit from the protection that vaccination can offer. Of course, this also is a plus for users, who will be able to make use of better staffed institutions, although precautions seem likely to remain necessary until a much larger share of the population is vaccinated.

2. Ensure that libraries benefit from adequate internet connections and hardware: the pandemic has made clear the importance of connectivity in enabling at least some elements of life to continue despite lockdowns, accelerating an existing trend towards digital tools and services. With the need for continued care to limit infections, the ability of libraries to make full use of the internet will remain important for some time to come. Stronger connectivity also opens up possibilities for extending internet access out into communities, for example through TV Whitespace technologies or community networks, allowing users to make more use of library content and beyond, helping to combat digital exclusion.

3. Ensure that libraries are involved in planning: as governments and other decision-makers look to define plans for ongoing response and future recovery, we cannot take for granted that they will understand the specific nature of libraries and the services they offer. Outdated perceptions of our institutions can make things worse, often ignoring the rich programmes of activities and support offered by libraries of all types in the pursuit of their missions. The best solution to this is to make the case to be part of committees or groups which are planning ahead. This can help not just ensure that the rules applying to libraries are relevant, but also open up possibilities to engage in wider programmes and projects.

4. Ensure that libraries are funded and staffed to offer support: while the need for adequate funding to support the work of libraries is nothing new, it is likely to be necessary to make the case as strongly as ever now. This is both because of the pressure on funding that is likely to result from the economic consequences of the pandemic, but also because providing services in a pandemic may simply be more expensive. For example, digital resources can cost a multiple of the price of their physical equivalents, while implementing services under restrictions can prove more staff-intensive. In such situations, innovation and efficiencies alone are unlikely to be enough if a good level of service is to be maintained.

5. Ensure that libraries benefit from flexibilities to carry out their missions: connected to the question of resources is that of what libraries can do with them. It is essential that the public or institutional funding that goes into libraries is not made less effective because of laws and regulation. A key example is around copyright, which determines what uses libraries – and their patrons – can make of works they have acquired or accessed. But other restrictions may also limit what libraries can do, for example by preventing the extension of library card privileges to refugees or others in the community, or by preventing the formation of partnerships.

The subject of how libraries can realise their potential in the context of the response to, and recovery from, COVID-19 will be at the heart of a series of side-events organised at UN regional sustainable development fora in the coming months – watch our website for more, and share your own ideas below!

The costs of non-access: why we should talk about the impacts of not investing in libraries

A lot of advocacy for libraries focuses on showing the return that our institutions provide on investment. Through this, we work to demonstrate that however much governments or other funders spend, the value created by the presence and work of libraries is more.

These arguments can be very helpful at times when governments need to take decisions, by building the case for choosing a new, renovated, expanded or enhanced library.

What we tend to do less is explore what are the costs of not acting. In other words, what are government and societies missing out on, if they do not allocate resources to the library? What harms can this cause to the achievement of wider social, economic and cultural goals?

This reflection is likely to help in developing arguments in the coming months and years. We have difficult times ahead – and already with us in many cases. Those who are currently not facing challenges are likely to do so when stimulus packages come to an end, and austerity hits, at least in many countries.

It seems more likely that the choice facing funders will not be where to spend new money, but rather how to allocate reductions in budgets. In this situation, the goal then is how to cause the least pain.

From the point of view of our institutions, it will be necessary to be able to show that cuts to library staff and services should never be an easy option.

Fortunately, a lot of the time, this can simply require ‘flipping’ existing arguments for libraries.

A case for a literacy programme that increases reading confidence and performance can also be presented as an avoidance of cost – without the library’s intervention, participants would be less likely to read, both reducing demand for books, and leaving them less able to cope with information around them.

In this situation, there would be harm both to the individual, who would be deprived of possibilities to discover new opportunities, participate in the cultural life of the community or engage in civic and political life. This community in turn loses out by having members who are less able to become involved and active. And the economy loses out when people are not able to realise their potential, with bookshops and others in particular suffering from a smaller reading population.

Similarly, an argument for having a space to welcome local community groups can also be phrased in terms of the cost of not having such a space. Forcing groups to meet in private or commercial spaces may exclude individuals, or simply make these sorts of meetings impractical.

This would have a negative effect on community cohesion and civic engagement. When not all people feel comfortable joining groups, then opportunities to build social cohesion and inclusion are lost. Local civil society does not reflect the wider population, and so loses impact. And of course, if groups which may not be able to afford private space are unable to meet, the community as a whole risks being poorer.

Provision of internet access and internet-enabled devices offers another example. The costs of non-access to the internet through public centres such as libraries will, for some people, mean significantly reduced possibilities to get online, for others it may mean none at all. There are also impacts in terms of losing a key part of the digital skills infrastructure.

For individuals, the negative effects include a lack of access to eGovernment services, to information about jobs and business opportunities, and to a growing share of culture and information in general. When skills cannot be provided, the risks of under-use (and even mis-use) of the internet grow. eCommerce also suffers from there being fewer customers.

So many other library activities can also be argued for in this way. In doing so, it is important to make sure you are working on the basis of reasonable evidence, for example surveys of what users would miss.

Clearly, such arguments should be used carefully. It is important not to end up looking excessively negative, or ‘crying wolf’ – i.e. claiming things that are unlikely or hard to believe. Furthermore, while concern about harm is a powerful motivator, so too is a friendly face and a positive approach.

Nonetheless, an ability to talk about the harm caused by not investing in libraries is an important part of any advocacy toolkit.

The 10-Minute International Librarian #28: Find Out Which International Organisations are Present in Your Country

The work of international organisations can sometimes seem very distant.

But it doesn’t need to be!

Rather than the big meetings and conferences, the main work of these organisations is often rather what happens on the ground, through support to governments, projects, and outreach.

All of the biggest organisations tend to have regional structures, in order better to manage this work. They are often present on the ground through regional and even national offices.

These can be useful potential contacts. IFLA has done a lot of work to support libraries to engage around the Sustainable Development Goals. Regional and national offices of UN institutions will likely be interested in forming partnerships around this.

But there can be many other areas where there can be interest in working with libraries.

So for our 28th 10-Minute International Librarian exercise, find out which international organisations are present in your country.

Many countries have a United Nations office (see the list of UN country teams), which can also host other organisations, such as UNESCO or the United Nations Development Programme.

Most countries also have UNESCO National Commissions, which provide a liaison between UNESCO as a whole and the national context.  And there are 59 UN Information Centres around the world.

Collect this information, together with information you can gather about the priorities of each of these offices. It can be a great contact list for your work, as we will discuss in next week’s post.

Share your stories of successful collaborations with national or regional offices of international organisations in the chat below.

Good luck!

 

This idea relates to the IFLA Strategy! 1.2 Build a strong presence in international organizations and meetings as a valued partner.

You can view all of our ideas using the #10MinuteInternationalLibrarian tag on this blog, and of course on IFLA’s Ideas Store! Do also share your ideas in the comments box.