MANAGING TECHNOLOGY edited by Charles B. Lowry

The International Perspective-The European Union Experience in Library Co-operation by Ariane Iljon

In past columns, various dimensions of library cooperation have been explored-Ohiolink, Galileo, MdUSA, and Tex- Share in the United States and the Folette Program in the United Kingdom. The scale and complexity of these programs present reul challenges, but none so complex us those in the European Union (El/), described in Ariune Iljon ‘s essay. It is easy to uppreciate why budgets, political jurisdictions, difher- ence,s in funding and character of libraries across different countries of the EU wouldpre.sent,formidahle obstacles to cre- ating library cooperation, development of infrastructure, und research. What is heartening is the degree of progress and the momentum that bus been uchieved in the EU which will, ut least, Serve NS a benchmark for international success.-CBL, University of Maryland, College Purk, Maryland.

L ibrary co-operation in the European Union (EU) is complex. Such cooperation must have both short- as well as medium-term objectives and the mechanisms

to assure that emerging results and achievements will be useful as the next cycle of developments are defined and the goals are determined. Thus, current achievements contain the seeds for the future.

To understand the character of library co-operation in the EU, one must first understand the facts about the European set- ting. The EU is comprised of 1.5 countries and has 11 official languages (plus several others). Because our libraries’ activities fall within the Research and Technological Development (R&TD) framework and agreements have been signed, we must add the European Economic Area (EEA) countries-Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein-and now Israel, plus a further two languages. Moreover, there are also the neighboring Central and Eastern European countries which are actively negotiating with the EU and knocking on our door. One must remember that each country is sovereign and has its own tradi- tions and perceptions. Cultural diversity is a fact of life. There are some areas where the European Commission has tradition- ally never intervened (in order to regulate) because these areas are properly speaking a national/regional, or local responsibil- ity. If there is European Commission intervention in such areas, it is indirect and focused on the added-value of the action at the

Ariane lljon is Head of Unit DC; Xl/l-E4 Electronic Publishing and Libraries, European Commksion (Office EUFO 1274), B$t). Monnet, Plateau du Kirchherg, L-2920 Luxembourg.

EU level in agreement with member states. Libraries are, for obvious reasons, typically such an area.

Another fact is the complex and fragmented scene for librar- ies in Europe. Our best estimate is that there are some 96,000 libraries in the EU and EEA countries. Public libraries are the largest groupsaid to be around 40,000. Traditions, usage, and even public investments in the libraries’ infrastructure differ very much from country to country. For instance, if, on average across EU and EEA countries, a quarter of the population uses libraries, the figure can be as high as 60 percent in some and as low as 9 percent in others. Average expenditures on libraries per capita also oscillates between the same two extremes. Some countries, such as the Netherlands, have a highly sophisticated and highly developed infrastructure for libraries; other coun- tries, such as Greece, are very poorly provided in library facili- ties. Every country is organized differently and involves different ministries (State Departments) and different levels of authority.

Equally important for any catalog of facts is the budget which has been made available for dedicated EU-level actions. Our study in library economics estimated that libraries in the EU represented around 8- 10 billion ECU ($9.6$12 billion) in annual public expenditures in the decade of the 1980s. This is probably a conservative estimate as not all cost elements are calculable. We have had around 60 million ECU (about $72 million U.S.) altogether over a period of about 10 years for our libraries’ activities. Clearly, this very modest budget has to be set in proper perspective in order to be spent usefully, and that there is a potential benefit to all EU libraries. We tend to say that this kind of budget covers the costs of co-operation rather than the real cost of the action-and that is right because that is the EU added-value. Taking as an hypothesis that co-operation represents about 30 percent of costs, our budget represents then perhaps some 200 million ECU’s worth (or about $240 U.S.) set in motion. That is still pretty modest but more realistic of the kind of impact that such a budget can have in material terms.

This collection of facts has actually determined the kind of objectives that our “libraries’ program” could set itself and the fundamental criteria for the actions that could be launched. It is clear that our main preoccupation has had to be with the best way to catalyze a process of change which could thereafter build up a momentum of its own; and with the best way to foster European attitudes and to stimulate awareness of the implica- tions-and more especially the benefits of European library co- operation. This is the thread that connects all the projects and other activities launched since 1989, bearing in mind that there was no past tradition of systematic EU-wide co-operation and co-ordination in the libraries’ area.

March 199X 1.51

It is useful to linger a bit on these pragmatic goals we set ourselves and their implications. They contain a number of ele- ments which were relatively new to the libraries’ world, in Europe at least, and which, in themselves, represent a “culture change.” For instance, co-operation has to be multidimensional, across different cultures, different players, and different types of libraries-where traditionally library co-operation has been between peers in a hierarchical structure. This multidimen- sional co-operation has been freely entered into and goals have to be clearly defined, because it is much more difficult to main- tain a commitment to such co-operation than in the hierarchical structure.

Each project launched however small has to have the poten- tial for a multiplier effect; that is, it has to have potentially a broader interest than the one it has for the participants so that it can contribute to reaching the threshold beyond which change can occur. For instance, it should contribute to creating a body of know-how, skills, hands-on experience, and results re-usable by others across the whole of Europe. Most of the activities co- funded must have a finality; in other words, the European Com- mission’s budget must not be conceived as a purse (albeit an extremely small one) from which funds can be doled out for a good cause on a first come first served basis. This has probably been the most difficult concept to carry over. Finally, cata- lyzing change requires investment and a commitment down and up the line, where the financial investment is only one compo- nent. Time, for instance, is another essential component.

Similarly, it is helpful to understand the framework of longer term objectives within which these pragmatic goals have oper- ated. There were four initial objectives upon which there was consensus as far back as 1988: the libraries’ program should promote the availability and accessibility of modern library ser- vices throughout the EU, while taking account of geographic discrepancies in library provision. It should promote a more rapid but orderly penetration of information and communica- tion technologies in libraries in a cost-effective way. It should naturally focus on standardization and encourage harmoniza- tion and convergence of national policies for libraries.

Today, these formulations, albeit basically still valid, appear somewhat obvious and even rather old-fashioned. At the time they were formulated and used in our first work program, they focused the attention, in a very useful way, on meaningful key words (e.g., the recognition of uneven library provision across European countries, the need to modernize, the importance of technology, and the cost-effectiveness criterion). Our present work program has the key objective to help create a modem libraries’ infrastructure as an integral part of the larger informa- tion and communications infrastructure. This subsumes all the objectives of the previous program and, at the same time, adds a new dimension. The previous program focused entirely on libraries and their specific problems. The present one, in addi- tion to consolidation and continuity elements, aims explicitly at the recognition that libraries should integrate in the context of the broader information society. Although this may seem banal, it is not given the circumstances of libraries. First of all, librar- ies are sometimes taken so much for granted in some countries that it is not evident that they could be seen as participating in the latest information developments. Second, about three years have gone past since the formulation of this objective, and progress is rapid. Third, this formulation lends substance to cer- tain criteria and priorities of the work program itself.

The pragmatic goals and the more generic longer term objectives have been translated into practical work programs according to which the budgets allocated have and are still being spent. In fact, libraries have been included since 1990 in the EU’s five-years R&TD Framework programs as an “area” or sector of the specific programs on telmatics systems and applications. Prior to that small budgets had been obtained for preparatory and explanatory actions. Acceptance within the R&TD Framework has been a consecration so to speak. The R&TD Framework programs are, since the beginning of the 1980s the European added value to national research. However important the global budget may seem, it is, in fact, a small per- centage of the sum of the member states’ investment in research and development (R&D)- that is, 4 percent of public sector expenditures or 2 percent if you add in the private sector invest- ments as well.

We are presently engaged in the fourth Framework program and in parallel are preparing for the fifth one. The Framework programs are subdivided into specific programs which may themselves be further structured in areas or sectors. That is why the libraries’ program is actually a sector or subprogram of Telematics. The R & TD program imposes a certain number of principles, rules, mechanisms, and orientations on the imple- mentation of the individual work programs; for instance, calls for proposals are the main mechanism for the selection of projects to be funded; the principle of shared cost funding is generally applied (only “accompanying measures” can be funded at 100 percent). Projects and other actions must have a European dimension and, to be eligible, projects have to be co- operative, involving at minimum two independent organiza- tions from two member states. In our libraries’ area, we imposed a further refinement that one of the partners had to be a library or library-related organization.

The present Telematics program also imposes principles and requirements which are, in fact, entirely coherent with the approach of the libraries’ sector: for instance, the requirement for validation and demonstration phases in projects, the empha- sis on users of telematics (e.g., libraries), and the focus on multi-media.

The first work program which, in budget terms, ran from 199 1 to 1994, enabled us to launch 5 1 shared-cost co-operative R&TD projects involving 200 individual partners from all EU member states (of which almost half are libraries-principally academic libraries), over 20 studies and feasibilities, and three important platforms or concerted actions. The work launched is still on-going since not all the projects have quite finished. Prior to that four major precursor co-operative projects along the same model (and mainly in the networking area) had been started in 1989- 1990 as preparatory actions. The work program was structured in four action lines; encouraging the develop- ment of computerized catalog resources and techniques for RECON; developing testbeds of networked interconnections between libraries for specific functions; and promoting innova- tive services, tools, and products in libraries. Priority themes were defined to provide a focus on the scope and objectives of each of the action lines and, thus, help potential proposers determine the pertinence of their project idea.

The diversity of the topics addressed and technologies experimented with through all these projects is rather impres- sive. Most of the topics of current interest for libraries have been the object of investigation, in one way or another. One can group the projects in different ways: according to the technolo-

152 The Journal of Academic Librarianship

gies used, the standards applied, the issues, functions, or topics addressed. For instance, there is a cluster of networking projects using standards, such as SlUZ395OX3 for searching, X500 for directories, EDIFACT for data, and interchange (e.g, EDIL, ONE, EDILIBE, DALI, and LIRN). Another cluster is using imaging and OCR/ICR technologies on a range of differ- ent materials for different purposes, such as manuscripts, incun- abula, photographs, maps, microfilm, full text, and structured text (e.g., ELISE, INCIPIT, VAN EYCK, BAMBI, BIBLIO- TECA, and MORE). Another is developing toolboxes for dif- ferent purposes (e.g., OLUIT, CASELIBRARY, and MINSTREL), and yet another is experimenting with advanced technologies for voice recognition, sound archives, and multi- media CD-ROM (e.g., SPRINTEL, JUKEBOX, and MUM- LIB).

From another point of view, clusters of projects are looking at different data and text formats (e.g., USEMARCON, ELSA, and CANTATE); document delivery, electronic publishing and billing (e.g., FASTDOC, EDIL, DECOMATE, and COPI- NET); decision support (e.g., DECIDE, DECIMAL, EQLIPSE, and MINSTREL); multilingual access and even transliteration (CANAL/LS, TRANSLIB, and HELEN); and the list is not even complete.

All the projects are held to producing public deliverables, for example, technical reports-and most of them now have Web sites from which these deliverables are available. Quite a few of them have already produced software which has been put in the public domain and can be downloaded, or can be provided on request and easy terms. One indicator of the amount of effort put into these projects is the number of technical reports which have been produced-around 550 so far. Many projects have, in addition, held workshops across Europe to make known and discuss their results.

The variety of the projects calls for a few remarks. First of all, one can conclude that libraries in Europe are, indeed, mak- ing an effort to catch up on some widely recognized trends (e.g., standardization of data formats and communication proto- cols) and are preparing themselves for the digital age. Second, it is clear that libraries do not ignore the many problems raised by electronic publishing and are beginning to address them. Third, many projects are experimenting with new services which use technologies innovatively or which prepare users for the technologies. Fourth, most projects have several dimen- sions and cannot be characterized by a single label.

There are also important studies carried out on a broad range of technical topics and key issues (e.g., performance indicators, chipcard technologies, electronic legal deposit, and open dis- tance learning) that are published in the series “Libraries in the Information Society” (previously “Information Management”). There is also the work of the three platforms-EFILA: the implementors platform bringing together projects implement- ing communication protocols such as SR/Z39.50; the European Copyright Users Platform (ECUP)-working to create aware- ness in libraries of the copyright issues in an electronic environ- ment, which many of the projects have had to confront; and COBRA, which has created an active collaboration among European National Libraries on bibliographic issues, and led to investigations, for instance, on the use of Unicode, name authority files, files labeling, electronic legal deposit, common statistics, and so forth. All of this has created the building blocks for our current work program, which started before the work launched under the previous one had actually been com-

pleted. This has lasted longer than anticipated. The overlap is voluntary because, as some projects started at the very end of the program, it reinforces the overall requirement of continuity for R&TD, in general, and, at the same time, provides for the seeds of something new.

The new work program is about consolidating the process of change by building on the emerging results of the previous pro- gram, and it is about openness and outreach to the networked information world, in order to position libraries to exploit new services based on electronic and networked information resources. In that sense, it is designed to prepare libraries for the next decade. It is structured in three action lines reflecting the interlocking levels at which libraries operate: the library itself and its local network within its parent organization; the collec- tive resource of interconnected library services and intercon- nections with their traditional suppliers; and the library- mediated services to other information resources which are not held in libraries. The emphasis in the new work program is inter alia to encourage the shift from collection-based to access- based library services; to provoke new alliances with both tra- ditional partners and new partners (including other cultural organizations where there could be common solutions in areas of common interest); to promote integration of systems and applications; to respond to real needs; and to look to the future. As with the previous program, a series of themes or “call top- ics” have been defined to focus attention on the scope and goals of each action line.

By March 1997, a first call for proposals has enabled us to launch 15 new projects in 1996 and seven concerted actions and accompanying measures. A second call for proposals was pub- lished in December 1996, with a closing date of mid-April, 1997; this bringing another substantial batch of core projects.

The majority of the new projects launched are larger than before. Furthermore, they build on or integrate previous work or results, and they are as diverse in subject matter as the previ- ous ones. A few examples will give the flavor of this diversity. One focuses on image retrieval in an heterogeneous and distrib- uted international environment (ELISE II); another integrates networked functions in a sophisticated way, based on standards (UNIVERSE); one is developing children’s Internet services in Europe (CHILIAS); another is developing open distance learn- ing facilities on public library sites in different countries (LISTED); and still another is investigating algorithms for the registration of electronic publications in national bibliographies (BIBLINK).

Among the concerted actions, three pursue and enlarge the work carried out under the previous program (COBRA+, ECUP+, and EFILA+). Three new ones have been launched; these are:

PubliCA to mobilize public libraries across Europe;

HARMONICA to address issues concerning access to music information in a concerted way; and

CAMILE to consolidate the results of the cluster of four projects on management information and decision support, and, just as importantly, to share this know how across Europe.

Finally, the IMPRESS action should maintain the EDIFACT standard messages developed through the EDILIBE project for the ordering and invoicing of books from booksellers and expand awareness of Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) for libraries and the book trade.

March 1998 153

Although our present work program is hardly half-way through, we have already started thinking about the next Frame- work Program and where the needs would lie for the next period which spans the end of the century and the beginning of the next one. In 1996, we carried out a brainstorming exercise with well-known experts in different fields from across Europe. We asked them to come with their own list of what they consid- ered the top five priority topics. Interestingly enough, when analyzed, many of the topics identified can be tackled at least at the experimental level in the framework of our present action lines and call topics. Others had policy implications beyond our immediate remit. Furthermore, many of our new projects can actually contribute to the areas which were considered the most important for consideration when the debate was summarized. In brief, these areas concerned the techniques and strategies to create, archive, and ensure long-term availability of European digital information resources (e.g., in relation to electronic legal deposit); the management strategies and the resources discov- ery tools for the integration of and transition between digital and print media; the public libraries’ role as a gateway for citi- zens’ access for information at all levels; the role of libraries in support of life-long learning; the need for alliances with other actors on the information scene-with other so-called memory organizations (museums and archives), with publishers, with authors, etc.; and the development of collaborative manage- ment strategies of digital library services based on such alli- ances.

The implication is, of course, that continuity and mainte- nance of the momentum initiated with the past and present work are desirable and even crucial, despite the artificial breaks of finite programs. The momentum generated is also amplify- ing and incorporating, in a natural way, features which might have been considered premature in 1989. One must be mindful of the importance of the time component necessary to catalyze change-investment in time for the work to be carried out; but also recognition and incorporation of lead-time before the results can actually be felt.

In parallel with our reflections on the orientations for the future work program and the practical implementation of the present one, the time has also come to emphasize the impact of the actual work carried out-in other words, on the dissemina- tion, use, and exploitation of the results which are beginning to emerge from these many projects launched. It is not enough to say that we are addressing the issues, that we have projects in these areas. and that we have invested so much. There comes a

time of reckoning when we all have to ask questions such as what has been the follow-up, who is benefiting, and where are the multiplier effects and the practical consequences for library services? In our area of applied research involving public insti- tutions, this is a particularly difficult issue. For instance, how do we bridge the gap between experimental and operational ser- vice, between prototype and commercial systems, and between suitability in one environment and in another. We do not have the answers yet, but I believe that this requires, above all, also a political commitment.

One area which has not, thus far, been mentioned but which is, in fact, high up on our agenda is related to Central and East- ern Europe and their libraries. They can also benefit from the results of libraries’ projects launched in the EU; the multiplier impact can be extended to them. Our approach here is step- wise, and this cannot be otherwise for many reasons.

It is a truism to say that society is facing many challenges in this “fin de siecle.” Libraries are also facing changes and chal- lenges created not only by technology but also by transforma- tions in the workings of society, for instance, in education, publishing, and the expression of democratic values. One of the major challenges to the future of libraries in the brave new world is the “dangers of diminishing returns.” We hope that we all are taking the right steps to take us into the 2 1 st century.

Acknowledgment: This essay is based on a speech deliv- ered at the OCLC 15th Annual Conference of Research Library Directors, March lo- 1 1, 1997, Dublin, Ohio. For further infor- mation on the activities of the European Commission, Electronic Publishing and Libraries, see http://www.echo.lu/ libraries/en/ libraries.html.

In the ne.rt issue, David Chesnutt explores the utility und importunce of Stundard Generalized Murkup Lunguuge (SGML) for building high-qua&, $dl-te.xt resources of authoritative te,rt.

Individuals interested in contributing guest columns should send a pr&is of their proposed essay to: Charles B. Lowry, Deun oj’lihruries, Editor, “Managing Technology, ” JAL, Uni- versity of Maryland at College Park, 4121 McKeldin Library, College Park, MD 20742-70 11. Or, phone: (301) 405-9 127; Fax: (301) 3 14-9408; E-mail: clowry@deans.umd.edu.

154 The Journal of Academic Librarianship