At the LIBER Annual Conference in Berne in 1997 Professor John Feather presented the results of a survey of preservation policies in European Research Libraries. Following this, those libraries that indicated in the survey that they had a written preservation policy were approached with the request to send a copy of their policy. Of the twenty-two libraries with a written policy, five national libraries and seven university libraries sent their documents, while a number of libraries replied that their policy was purely for internal use and not for general circulation. The policies that were received were translated into English (where necessary) and were analysed3 in order to determine whether a common trend could be found and whether a model could be developed on which to base a preservation policy for European research libraries

Foot, MM

English

Mirjam M. Foot

Directory of Open Access Journals

LIBER Quarterly

Towards a Preservation Policy for European Research Libraries

UCL Discovery

LIBER QUARTERLY, ISSN 1435-5205ã LIBER 1999. All rights reservedK.G. Saur, Munich. Printed in GermanyLIBER QUARTERLY 9: 323-326 323Towards a Preservation Policy forEuropean Research Librariesby MIRJAM M. FOOTAt the LIBER Annual Conference in Berne in 1997 Professor John Featherpresented the results of a survey of preservation policies in EuropeanResearch Libraries. Following this, those libraries that indicated in the surveythat they had a written preservation policy were approached with the requestto send a copy of their policy. Of the twenty-two libraries with a writtenpolicy, five national libraries1 and seven university libraries2 sent theirdocuments, while a number of libraries replied that their policy was purely forinternal use and not for general circulation. The policies that were receivedwere translated into English (where necessary) and were analysed3 in order todetermine whether a common trend could be found and whether a modelcould be developed on which to base a preservation policy for Europeanresearch libraries.Preservation policies ranged in length from comprehensive documents of overninety pages long (NLS) to a simple sentence (Göteborg); they also variedfrom purely strategic statements to practical guides. Most were of fairly recentdate (1990-98), but 2 dated from the late 1980s. Several covered both strategyand practice and it was clear that a number did not stand alone, but formedpart of a wider range of collection management or general library policies (e.g.BL). It was therefore very difficult to make useful comparisons and no clearcommon model emerged.An attempt was made to use the Guidelines on Preservation and ConservationPolicies in Libraries and Archives, published by UNESCO in 1990, as abenchmark, but it became clear that few of the policies received had followedthese guidelines and, moreover, although they are meant to be „guidelines forthe preparation and implementation of a preservation policy” (2, para. 1.3),several of the topics listed4 as those that should be covered in a preservationpolicy, are in fact topics for which many libraries have separate policies, suchas security, disposal, reprography and exhibitions. Some refer to specificprogrammes and should arguably not be part of a policy. Moreover, theTowards a Preservation Policy for European Research Libraries324UNESCO guidelines do not by any means list all the necessary elements. Thecomparison of the policies received with the UNESCO guidelines made itclear that there were considerable differences between them.For example, the policy of the National Library of Italy does not cover any ofthe topics listed in these guidelines, while the National Library of Ireland, theNational Library of Scotland, the National Library of Wales and theUniversity Library of Fribourg encompass all but one. The British Librarycovers four of the 10 topics, and has separate policies for five more; theUniversity of Göteborg only covers one of the ten issues; and so on. The depthin which the various issues are treated also varies a great deal. For example,the NL Wales spends 140 lines on staff training, while the NL Ireland dealswith this subject in one broad sentence; the University of Marburg has fourlines on reprography, while Helsinki University Library devotes 225 lines tothis. Some documents are clearly meant to give practical instruction to theinstitution’s conservators (such as the University of Marburg whose policydocument suggests particular materials and techniques and even lists specificproducts and suppliers), while others are aimed at the governing body of theinstitution or - in some cases - at the government of the country concerned.Just over half the policies refer to published books or articles, or to otherinternal documents on preservation.This diversity is of course not surprising. Preservation policies are written for anumber of different reasons and are governed by a variety of local circum-stances. In some cases the policies are written in order to establish prioritiesand thus to formulate preservation programmes; in some cases they form anargument for funding, being part of the regular cycle of budgeting and bidding.In some cases they form part of the library’s mission statement, in others theyare the basis for inter-library cooperation, while others still concentrate onone particular aspect of preservation, e.g. on surrogating, with the intention tounderpin services, but also to achieve a balance between unlimited serviceaccess now and a responsibility for access in the future.The best preservation policies are firmly linked to collection development andretention policies. They either encompass or refer to policies on collectionsecurity; to storage and environmental policies; and give guidelines for properhandling of the collections, be it for on-site or remote use, for reprographic orsurrogating processes, or for exhibitions and loans. They are based on anassessment of the preservation needs of the collection, taking into accountboth the intrinsic value and rarity of the material, the amount of use it gets,the way in which it is stored, and its physical condition. But they alsoconsider the risks the material may be exposed to, both in its ordinary life-cycle of selection, acquisition, storage, use, travel, exposure, moves, chemicalMIRJAM M. FOOT325and mechanical deterioration; and under extreme conditions, such as terroristor enemy attack, fire, floods, building collapse, or biological infestation (be itinsects or fungus). The most comprehensive policy received (NLS) is amixture of strategic statements and practical guidelines.It will by now be clear that the existing policies are too diverse in the subjectsthey cover and too varied in the depth and detail of their coverage, either toform the building blocks for a more general preservation policy for Europeanresearch libraries, or to be usable as a model for such a policy.However, when one puts them all together and when one also looks at a fewcomprehensive policies that have been produced outside Europe, e.g. inplaces like Australia and Canada, some useful pointers emerge and I wouldlike at least to circulate - for discussion - a list of headings that a preservationpolicy should contain. This list consists of two parts: ten general, strategicheadings that would be applicable to any institution and that could be usedfor wider, external dissemination, and eight headings that would apply morespecifically internally and that some institutions might prefer not to circulatemore widely.There may well be elements that should be added and it would be mostvaluable if these could be brought out in our discussion. There may also be aneed for further elaboration under the various headings.If LIBER is to try and develop a preservation strategy for European ResearchLibraries, with the intention to make cooperation between libraries a morerealistic and practical proposition, wider dissemination of all statements, boththe more general and the more specific, would be essential.I hope that the Preservation Division has made a useful start to achieve suchcooperation and I would very much welcome your comments.REFERENCES1 BL London; N.L. Ireland; N.L. Italy, Milan; NLS; NLW.2 Fribourg and Lausanne (Switzerland); Göteborg (Sweden); Helsinki (Finland);Univ. London; Marburg (Germany); Trondheim (Norway).3 Tracy Hopkins of Loughborough University.Towards a Preservation Policy for European Research Libraries3264 Preventive measures; housekeeping routines; staff and user training; security;protective measures; a substitution programme; conservation treatment; dis-posal programmes; reprography policies; exhibition policies.Dr. Mirjam M. FootBritish LibraryCollections and Preservation96 Euston RoadNW1 2DB London, Englandmirjam.foot@bl.uk

Preventive measures; housekeeping routines; staff and user training; security; protective measures; a substitution programme; conservation treatment; disposal programmes; reprography policies; exhibition policies.

Towards a preservation policy for European Research Libraries

Foot, Mirjam M.

Utrecht University Repository

Towards a preservation policy for European Research Libraries

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Directory of Open Access Journals

UCL Discovery

Utrecht University Repository

Directory of Open Access Journals