This article is from the November 2002 issue of Update.
Library and information professionals are somewhat ambivalent about regionalism and the need for regional library development. Some see it as too parochial for the global village, characterised as it is by national and international delivery of information. Others see regional approaches as an imposition on local community-based or institutionally-focused services, violating the integrity of local political accountability or academic independence. Many question whether there is really any added value at the regional level and point to the way many initiatives flow quite naturally from government to the local level.
Extraordinary examples
However, there are already some extraordinary examples of collaborative regional library initiatives. Here are just four of the dozens that could be cited:
- The Co-East project in the East of England1 has improved access by helping library users search across the databases of different authorities in the region. They are now extending this to other library sectors, with a pilot based in Norfolk (Co-East Plus). Had the region not agreed at the strategic level a joint bid to the DCMS/Wolfson Challenge Fund (and another one more recently to the British Library), none of this would have happened.
- The Inter-All project in the West Midlands2 has developed business information services in 12 authorities, supporting small businesses through a number of local service points as well as major central libraries. Had the region not made a high-level commitment to an ambitious ERDF (European Regional Development Fund) bid, Business Links and other providers would have continued to ignore libraries.
- Tomorrow’s History in the North East region3 is digitising material from special collections in libraries (as well as archives and museums) using money from the Heritage Lottery Fund. It has generated a huge amount of local studies and other historical material and made it accessible to all. Without regional partnerships, it is difficult to see how this level of impact could have been achieved.
- Libraries and Learners in London4 has involved public and HE libraries and the BL agreeing to provide managed access and referral for lifelong learners. Without the willingness to join a region-wide approach, these new opportunities, for people to use the learning support resources they really need, would not have possible.
Other regions are now exploring how to develop similar approaches, through Inspire. In the reader development field there is a particularly good range of regional projects, adding value to excellent national and local work and often involving the regional arts boards.
We dare not stand on the sidelines
As Regional Development Officer (for libraries in England),5 I have to acknowledge the general scepticism and limited enthusiasm that have characterised our professional response to regionalism so far. However, the situation at the grass roots is rapidly changing. Following the creation of my post by the British Library (BL), the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP) and Resource (the Council for Museums, Archives and Libraries) in March, there is a growing realisation that we dare not stand on the sidelines. If librarians opt out, it will be our users and services that will miss out.
Disappointing decade
The concept of libraries working together regionally goes back at least to the 30s when Andrew Carnegie’s generosity enabled the creation of the first regional library systems. Despite this tradition on which some have tried to build, the last decade has been acutely disappointing for advocates of an enhanced level of regional library activity. In 1996, the Department of National Heritage brought together the key players to consider Regional Library Development: where next?6 Three years later the Department for Culture, Media and Sport published Libraries and the Regions: a discussion paper.7 The assertion that ‘regional library bodies need to represent a broad range of libraries in their area’ was very welcome but there was no indication of where resources might come from to achieve the report’s ambitious vision. By 2000, the Library and Information Commission had published a key report commissioned from the Circle of Officers of National & Regional Library Systems (Conarls) — Carpe Diem: modelling futures for library regions in a changing cultural environment.8 This imaginatively reworked the arguments within the new cultural and cross-domain frameworks, but the result was the same.
Taking things into their own hands
By this time, without core funding from government or its agencies, library regions were starting to take things into their own hands. In the unique circumstances of London, the Comedia report led to the creation of the London Libraries Development Agency. In the North East, another area destined for pioneer status in the progress towards regionalism, Information North had been created. In due course it became part of the pilot regional agency for museums, libraries and archives, Nemlac. In the West Midlands, the regional library system was re-engineered into The Libraries Partnership, West Midlands. In the new East Region, Elisa and Co-East were developed.
Then, in 2001, two reports proposed actions at the national level that at last kick-started the process of regional library development for every region. First was the Library Association’s report of its Devolution and Regionalism in the UK Policy Advisory Group.9 Among other things this proposed the appointment of a Regional Development Officer (for libraries in England) to help fill the gap left by the demise of the Library and Information Co-operation Council (Linc). Second came Resource’s Holden Report,10 proposing joint regional agencies for museums, libraries and archives in every English region, funded by substantial growth in budgets (all expected to be operational by 2004).
Whatever we think of this approach, it now seems clear that library and information services will have to consider their regional futures as part of a new united sector, more securely core-funded than voluntary subscription bodies, but less independent and domain-specific than the library development agencies being championed in the mid-90s.
What is regional library development?
So what future does regional library development have against this background? To begin with we must define it. ‘Development’ suggests improvement, better library services, more effective application of resources to service delivery, demonstrable outcomes and, almost inevitably in the context of declining public sector funding through the 90s, more money available overall. However, under the present government, no extra cash comes without the expectation of reform and modernisation (as this summer’s Comprehensive Spending Review has again emphasised). More funding must combine with different ways of working to produce an impact for service users beyond what was there before. It is no use expecting to do this in splendid isolation, trapped within historic sectors or single domains. Partnerships of all kinds, not least regional and sub-regional ones, are becoming vital for library and information services. We will need to practice joined-up development to help users access all relevant services, providing wider choices and ‘one-stop shopping’.
‘Library’ development suggests something relevant to all kinds of library and information service, whether national, local authority, university, college or school, health, workplace or even private (so long as the public good is served, as for example with cathedral libraries).
‘Regional’ library development suggests a place somewhere between central government policy on the one hand and local authority and institutional delivery on the other, a management level at which impact can be made. However, the emphasis will be on strategic advocacy resulting in service improvements (via short-term projects and more long-term, sustainable collaborative initiatives rather than operational arrangements). It will be focused on a wider regional agenda for learning and skills, support for research, cultural enrichment and economic regeneration.
This includes both urban renewal and rural development. It will therefore relate to the whole range of regional and sub-regional organisations now coming into being — government offices, regional development agencies, learning and skills councils, regional cultural consortia, local government associations, higher education associations and the currently non-elected regional assemblies.
Whether this promotion of our valuable contribution is made within a cross-domain context (museums, libraries and archives together or as part of the cultural consortium), or whether there are single-domain aspects where libraries are particularly able to contribute, will be a matter of judgment in specific situations.
Combining resources and expertise to make services better is the ultimate outcome of the regional library development process. This does not necessarily mean that Resource’s regional agencies or CILIP’s new regional branches will interact directly with the library user. But it will require a keen awareness of what is happening at the sharp end and a willingness to consult with those who do have daily contact with service users. Otherwise strategic development processes will overheat and as a result seem irrelevant to the people they are supposed to help as well as the front-line staff whom they are designed to support.
Stronger infrastructure needed
The joint steering group (of BL, CILIP and Resource) managing my work has agreed that regional library development will require a ‘stronger infrastructure for library and information services in England’. Stronger in this context means more presence and inclusiveness, developmental impact, co-ordinated professional activity, single-domain and cross-domain advocacy and operational ‘best value’.
But why is this so important for libraries in the English regions? Won’t it just happen naturally through local services being set free to perform and UK-wide subject-based collaboration in the learning and research support areas? The reality is that co-operation, like other virtues, is more talked about than practised. Unless it is mainstreamed at a much deeper level in our working, it will remain merely a ‘good thing’ rather than a real force for good.
The region and the sub-region are the appropriate levels for much of this to happen but they are by no means the only ones. The case for regionalism is not helped by over-selling it or isolating regional approaches from either national strategies or local processes.
Regional structures will be strengthened regardless
If there are still doubts in our minds, reading the white paper Your Region, Your Choice…11 may dispel them. For one thing it explodes the myth that opting for political control (through an elected assembly) is the pre-condition for devolution within England. It is quite clear that regional structures will be strengthened regardless. In many ways devolution of governance is already happening and at an accelerating pace. The only thing that is unclear is how quickly regions will move politically. It may be that, if some take the plunge, it will be more difficult for those remaining parts to be the only areas of the European Union without any regional government.
Bringing us together
Given that the case can be made for regional library development, how can it be encouraged and supported? Appointing a Regional Development Officer for a limited period will not in itself achieve a great deal for services that need to relate to 50 million people in the English regions. A joint initiative between national bodies can only have an impact if it enables the right people to work together in the right way at every level. For this reason my work has been strongly focused on bringing us together, as the following examples will show.
The ‘Baseline Assessment’ of the English library regions (published this autumn on the Concord website) 12 is designed to provide a firm knowledge base from which to move forward, along with some of the regional library strategies now being produced. But everyone working at national and regional levels needs to recognise it and own it as an authentic snapshot of where we are. For this reason it has involved extensive consultation with library and information communities in the regions and specific input from people working at regional level for libraries who are conducting strategic mapping exercises. This latter grouping of managers needs support in the complex processes they are involved in, especially as their exact roles and organisational accountabilities are very different and constantly shifting. They need to share as much as they can to avoid duplication of effort (without of course denying legitimate regional diversity of approach) and to benefit from other regions’ approaches. The first stages of working together as a group, with the key representatives of the national bodies, are proving extremely fruitful.
Resource’s Wider Information and Libraries Issues Project (WILIP)13 is aimed at including all kinds of libraries and will provide more clarity about the nature of the domain, and how Resource’s agenda can address the concerns of our diverse sub-domains. This too will be an engaging process, built on consultation with as many different library interests as possible. This is even true of the work of the Regional Development Officer ‘project’ steering group to which I report (and its associated advisory group for national chief librarians and specialist groups). It is here that different regional agendas can converge and new understandings emerge.
Coherence between national and regional levels
There is going to be a growing regional dimension to the BL’s aim to help people advance knowledge to enrich lives. Some projects are already in place in specific regions and sub-regions, and the Reaching the Regions initiative is now in progress. The creation of CILIP means reform of the former LA and IIS branch structures, with new roles as well as different geographical borders for new CILIP branches. Resource’s regional agencies need to have the maximum library input to their formation and shaping — without this they will hardly be authentic museums, libraries and archives councils or agencies of any status. The question is how all these different regional approaches can come together in each region and across different regions. Regional library councils or forums (along with similar bodies for archives and museums) are being suggested. This will require coherence between national and regional levels if we are not to face the charge of multiplying bodies and layers of organisations unnecessarily.
Such practical steps will help to make a difference but in the wake of the publication of Your Region, Your Choice… the library and information services community in England still faces a choice — to seize the day or let the moment pass. On one hand there is the exciting possibility of a fruitful relationship with the new regional structures of governance, with our services benefiting from greater recognition and extra funding flowing in to improve them. On the other hand there is the depressing possibility that we will turn down the opportunity to become involved. Museums, libraries and archives will either be able to draw upon the diverse strengths of all three domains or else Resource’s regional vision for the whole sector could be seriously diminished. If we do fail, how long will it be before another government comes along with as much commitment to the things that matter most to library and information services as the current one has? And if we are not the channel for delivering key agendas in the regions, some other mechanisms will be found to reinvent what library and information services already know how to do best. It may already be happening.
If the wind of regionalism blows more strongly across England in three or five years’ time, it will be too late then to start hoisting our sails to catch it.
References
1 Co-East (www.co-east.net).
2 Inter-All (www.libraries4business.org.uk).
3 Tomorrow’s History (www.nemlac.co.uk/subitem/php3?15+20).
4 Libraries and Learners in London (www.llda.org.uk/partners/liblearn.html).
5 The Regional Development Officer ‘project’ documentation is at www.bl.uk/concord/otherpubrdo.html
6 Regional Library Development: where next? Proceedings of the [DNH] Regional Issues Seminar, 9-10 February 1996. Linc, 1873753071.
7 Libraries and the Regions: a discussion paper (1999) (www.culture.gov.uk/heritage/index.html).
8 Carpe Diem (http://thenortheast.com/conarls/index.htm [broken link removed on 14 April 2005]).
9 Devolution & Regionalism PAG report (www.cilip.org.uk/advocacy/pags.html).
10 Future Options for Regional Agencies (the Holden Report) (http://resource.gov.uk/action/regional/regagy.pdf).
11, 12 Your Region, Your Choice: revitalising the English regions (www.regions.dtlr.gov.uk/governance/whitepaper/index.htm).
13 News release on WILIP (www.resource.gov.uk/news/press_article.asp?articleid=410).
Geoff Warren is Regional Development Officer for libraries in England on behalf of the BL, CILIP and Resource. He can be contacted by email (rdo@stagborough15.freeserve.co.uk). This address is also where requests to join the lis-regions discussion list should be sent.