- Email: [email protected]
European Documentation Centres: The development of a UK information relay
Journal of Government Information, Vol. 24.
No. 2, pp. 103-112. 1997 0 1997 Elseviet Science Ltd Printed in rhe USA. All rights reserved
Copyright
Pergamon
1352-0237/97 $17.00+ .00
PII S1352-0237(W)OOOO3-8
EUROPEAN DOCUMENTATION CENTRES: THE DEVELOPMENT OF A UK INFORMATION RELAY RICHARD European
CADDEL”
Documentation Centre, Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DHl 3LY. United Kingdom; Internet: [email protected]
Abstract-This paper traces the development of European Documentation Centres (EDCs) in the United Kingdom (UK). EDCs exist to serve the higher education sector with European Union information, and date back about a quarter of a century. Yet, until 1995 a basic document outlining what services EDCs were to provide, and to whom they were to provide it was unavailable. As the European information world streamlines itself for the challenges of the millenium, the UK EDCs take their place alongside other EU information providers as part of the rapidly evolving network of information relays. 0 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd Keywords-European Union-Information, European documentation relays, United Kingdom-University libraries
THE EMERGENCE
OF EDCs IN THE UNITED
centres, Information
KINGDOM
The European Commission has for many years disseminated its published information through a number of designated information agencies, targeted to different audiences. These are referred to as Relays. The most established of these Relays are the networks of Depository Libraries (DEPs), European Documentation Centres (EDCs), and European Reference Centres (ERCs). The exact functions and relations between these partners appear to vary around the world in a subtle and often unacknowledged way. In general, within the European Union (EU) itself, the Relays may be expected to contribute to the information provision of “the Citizens of Europe”; in prospective EU countries there is an evident intent to contribute to the heightening of EU awareness; and in other countries the functions are perhaps more general, diplomatic or educational. Within the EU itself, DEPs are generally comprehensive collections of national importance that serve specific communities (the British Library Document Supply Centre [BLDSC], which provides an interlibrary loan back-up service to the full range of UK libraries, is one example). EDCs are located in higher education or research establish-
‘“Richard Caddel is European Documentation Centre librarian at Durham University Library, UK. He is also the United Kingdom’s EDC Representative to the Commission and has contributed to the development of European Union Information Relays over a number of years. In 1994 he received the European Information Association’s Helen Greer Award for his contribution to European Union information work. He is editor/convener of Eurodoc, the e-mail bulletin board for EDC librarians throughout the world. Caddel is also Director of Durham University’s Basil Bunting Poetry Centre and has edited Bunting’s Complere Poems for Oxford University Press. As a poet he has two published collections and has given poetry readings in Britain, Ireland. Italy, Poland, Estonia, the United States, and Canada. 103
104
R. CADDEL
merits. The Relay was initiated in 1963, and there are currently 299 within the EU and 110 in the rest of the world. Since 1988, EDCs have been subdivided into Comprehensive EDCs, which carry the full range of EU publications, and Selective EDCs, which receive a predetermined selection of publications. ERCs receive only a limited selection of general and free publications. From the first, publications have been distributed free to all these Relays-on the understanding that they in turn will undertake the considerable costs involved in housing and preserving these documents and making them available to their designated audiences. This paper looks at one particular part of the overall network of EU Information Relays, the EDCs in the United Kingdom (UK), and traces their development and their place in today’s rapidly evolving EU information world. There are 44 EDCs in the UK, established at the entry of the UK into the Common Market (as it was then known) in 1973, though many of them had been collecting European Communities publications for some years before that. All were established in higher education or research establishments-that is, within the university or polytechnic environment, which they were intended primarily to serve (the UK’s polytechnics became universities in 1992). In the first stage, it would not have been easy to find so many academic departments or courses that highlighted the tricky and, at that time, unusual subject of European Integration. The range and spread of institutions designated at EDCs at that time (it is the institution, not the library, that officially carries the title of EDC) reflects a fairly intensive trawl. The geographical spread of these EDCs, for instance, is by no means even. An even geographic distribution was not considered necessary at that stage. The UK’s EDCs are all in academic libraries (unlike some faculty-based EDCs elsewhere in Europe) and reflect academic interests within law schools, politics departments, or other academic interests such as economics, business, or social sciences. A requirement of the Commission was that in addition to having a named librarian for each EDC, there should also be an “academic responsible”-an ill-defined role that was met with some derision amongst UK librarians and was little used. However, all the UK EDC collections serve broader communities than a single department. Not only are they available for the whole of their institution, but there has been, from the first, an understanding that EDCs would contribute to the information provision of the communities around them. To “contribute to” is not to supply completely; it was assumed that other information providers would emerge. Some did, most notably in the big urban public libraries. But as the UK’s ideological battle raged over commitment to Europe, there was at best a patchy coverage of the country in European-information terms. In this situation, it often fell to an EDC, its resources already stretched, to attempt to meet the information needs of an impossibly large region. Very little of the EDC’s early work was defined or monitored. EDCs were left to develop on their own. For this reason there is to the present day a very broad range in the nature of EDCs, with many different professional emphases and initiatives reflecting the different situations and concerns of host institutions and, in many cases, the different individual characteristics of the people who had supervised their establishment. Relations with Directorate General X (the parent DG) were remote at best at the outset, and if there was an initial contract governing EDC’s purpose, few EDC librarians saw it. In the absence of centrally agreed-upon (or even centrally decreed) policy, the UK EDCs established a self-help group, the Association of EDC Librarians, who met and began to thrash out the basics of EDC policy and practice, to try to define levels of service, and to grapple with the documenting of EC publications.
European
Documentation
Centres
105
DOCUMENTATION Although most EDCs now handle information in a wide range of forms including the full range of electronic sources, they are, as the name implies, built around an essential core of hard-copy documentation, which remains important in meeting the needs of most users. At the heart of the unread constitution of EDCs there lies a continuing supply of EU publications and documents sent from the Office of Official Publication of the European Union (EUR-OP) direct to individual EDCs. There has never been a systematic statement of this material, which may, however, be summarised as follows: legislative material including the all-important Oficiaf Journal of the European Communities (L, C, and S sections, plus debates, indexes etc), COM Documents, Opinions of the Economic and Social Committee (ECOSOC), Working Papers of the European Parliament, the Treaties and other compilations; major publications and series of the individual directorates and institutions (such as DG V’s Social Europe, and DG II’s European Economy); a core of the European Statistical Agency EUROSTAT’s statistical publications; bibliographic material; and finally (and often the most sought-after material) miscellaneous Commission publications and work from the associated bodies such as the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. There is also an abundance of free publications such as Europe on the Move, supplied in multiple copies and suitable for very general enquiries, Individual EDC librarians have sought to augment this material with important documentation not otherwise included in EUR-OP’s distribution. Among this documentation is crucial “grey literature,” which is produced in Brussels and frequently forms the important basis of policy-making discussion. Although of great academic and public interest, this documentation is seldom incorporated into the formal publication process (EUR-OP makes no secret of its inability to control EU publishing in this way). Indeed, one of the most frustrating aspects of the generally egalitarian process of EU information is the artificial and often incomprehensible disconnection between what is available to EDCs and what is not. Publications (which are either available to the public through Relays or may be bought through national agencies) are allegedly in the public domain, but Documents (which may be made available through Relays, or may not) are not so consistently available. For example, a recent, apparently arbitrary, decision to reclassify the ECOSOC Bulletin as a document rather than a publication resulted in this title becoming unavailable through EUR-OP. Since this reclassification was unannounced, individual EDC librarians were left to notice that it had stopped coming and then seek, belatedly, to rectify the situation and to fill the gap. This example does not, regrettably, represent a unique or rare occurrence. In addition to documentation, EDCs have privileged access to EU databases such as EUROBASES. Privileged has, up to now, meant free though that has never been guaranteed. Under this heading comes CELEX, the EU full-text legal database, and SCAD, the EU’s bibliographic database. These two databases have recently been supplemented by a group of other datasets offering differing degrees of practical usefulness, amongst which are ECLAS, the catalogue of the Commission’s library, and the press briefings of the Commission’s Spokesman Service. The difficulties of mastering EUROBASES command language and search strategy have discouraged many from native versions of CELEX and SCAD and pushed them towards the more user-friendly “repackaged” versions marketed by commercial vendors. Increasingly these commercial versions are in CD-ROM format and are especially useful for EDCs where whole classes of students are required to learn searching skills. However, for many hard-pressed higher educa-
106
R. CADDEL
tion institutions, the savings offered by an EDC’s “free” access outweighs any consideration of relative ease of use. No official source in Brussels can provide a reliable cash value for the documentation supplied to EDCs, let alone for database access. A number of estimates have been produced (either by Commission officials, or by the EDCs themselves), which vary according to the purpose for which they were produced-high estimates to demonstrate the value of EDC status; low estimates to suggest economy and (from the Commission auditor’s viewpoint) value-for-money. Even the most general estimate, however, makes it clear that the annual cost of maintaining an EDC (cataloguing and processing, binding and storage, and staffing) far exceeds the annual value of the materials received. THE EMERGENCE OF AN EC&U INFORMATION POLICY From the foregoing it should be apparent that little consideration was given at the outset to an overall European Community information policy that would articulate the activities of the Community for its citizens. Since the sector of DG X responsible for EDCs was primarily concerned with the academic approach-that is, teaching and research on European integration-little thought was given to the needs of other sectors, and, indeed, from the UK perspective there was, in any case, little appetite on the part of the general public for European affairs. This was to change irrevocably following the passage of the Single European Act (1986) and with the initiation of the 1992 programme for the Completion of the Internal Market. In a short space of time a mass of European Community legislation was passed that, it became increasingly obvious, affected the lives of the citizens of the Community and produced an immediate demand for information from general policy level, to marketing information, to specific regulatory information for manufacturing. UK small businesses, professionals, students, and ordinary citizens began to appreciate in full the potential benefits and drawbacks of being part of a wider community. The proportion of UK citizens perceiving EU membership as a “good thing” rose from 37 percent at the passage of the Single European Act in 1986 to 57 percent-its highest point in two decades-in 1991 [l]. The changing demand for information was immediately perceptible in the UK EDC world, where a rapid rise in increasingly diverse public enquiries became evident throughout the late 1980s and into the 1990s. At the same time, Europe became increasingly prominent in the higher education curriculum, not simply in the growth of “Euro-specific” courses, but in courses which touched on European issues, or recognized a European dimension within existing courses. This growth was not, of course, restricted to universities with EDCs. At that time, additional institutions tried in vain to attain EDC status. By this time, however, budget restraints had reached all the offices of the Commission, and the cost of document provision was becoming an issue that would henceforth inhibit the growth of Relays, The cost of supporting new academic interest in European Studies was informally deflected to the existing network of EDCs, or to the Commission’s London Office, valiantly trying not to be swamped with outside enquiries, or were picked up piecemeal by the institutions themselves. In fact, far from supplying more documentation to each EDC as the “information market” grew, the Commission began cutting back in its distribution of documentation. In part, this was due to the increasing cost of supplying Relays beyond the Community (it should be noted that the creation and development of Relays outside the Community accelerated considerably with the opening up of Eastern Europe), and, in part, this
European
Documentation
Centres
107
followed the increasing “budget-centre” awareness of the individual DGs and offices of the Commission. The imposition of “selective” status on a number of EDCs (leaving them to elect which subject areas of documentation they had “selected”) took place at approximately the same time, and was followed by further cuts, which resulted in such actions as the decision to supply Parliament Working Papers only in a less-useable microform format. EUROSTAT’s almost total withdrawal from EUR-OP distribution (brought about by financial crisis), resulted in whole series of publications (including Industry Statistical Yearbook, Balance of Payments, Labour Force Survey, and others) not being distributed to EDCs or having ceased publication altogether. This left EDCs with gaps in their collections, which remain unfillable in many cases. Not even the library of the London Office of the Commission received these important publications at that time. The longterm effect of this hiatus upon the credibility of the otherwise praiseworthy statisticsgathering agency of the EU remains to be seen. As long as EUROSTAT fails in its responsibility to find a way to make these years of lost data readily available to the Commission’s Relays, the value of their current work will likely appear suspect. Ripples of a planning crisis within EUROSTAT still surface in the EU information world from time to time, most recently in the conflicting rumours about the availability of their CD-ROM products to EDCs and in EUROSTAT’s absurd notion that libraries would be interested in a CD-ROM product in which the data are non-downloadable. While the EDC world was suffering from the tightening of Commission resources in the ways described above, it should be noted that the UK higher education system was beginning a period of dramatic expansion. In five years, the proportion of young people in higher education shifted from about one in eight of the l&20 age group, to about one in three. Not surprisingly, this increase was not matched by a corresponding rise in resources, and it has become increasingly difficult for university libraries to maintain optimal levels of staffing for all their activities. Faced with dwindling resources and poor support from the Commission, yet aware of the emergence of DG XXIII’s wellresourced and well-directed Relay of European Information Centres (EICs) to deal specifically with small business enquiries, some UK EDC librarians [2, 31 began to call openly for the Commission to clarify its information policy and its relationship with one of its oldest Information Relays, the EDCs. Whether that review of policy would have taken place without the almost catastrophic passage of the Maastricht Treaty, remains a moot point. THE NEW UK RELAYS Increasing evidence of lack of public understanding of European policies and achievement led eventually to an awareness of the need for an overall information policy for the European Union [4]. This need was first addressed by Commission Pinheiro in the document Information, Communication, Openness [5]. This document asserted the fundamental need for openness in the EU information process and the requirement for EU information partners to work together more closely to achieve such openness. It also outlined the significant reorganisation of DG X, which was required in order to articulate these policies. EDCs were no longer to be the cozy preserve of a Higher Education office. Instead they joined DG X’s newly formed Information Networks and Relays Unit (INRU). The role of EDCs, it was thus emphasized, lay alongside other information Relays. The path towards cooperation between Relays, which had been urged by UK information professionals for some time, lay revealed.
108
R. CADDEL
The new arrangement implied closer cooperation with other Relays. It also suggested, and led directly to, the creation of new Relays. These actions were not strictly new. The European Information Centres (EICs) referred to above had been set up by DG XXIII to serve small businesses in the late 1980s and had pointed out clearly what could be achieved with good direction and clear objectives. It is worth noting that some EDCs acquired EIC status at this stage and that the combined roles and resources gave them an extremely effective platform for service development. As the Maastricht Treaty had demonstrated, at least in the UK, there was a yawning “information deficit” as far as the general public was concerned. Consequently, it was predictable that the first new Relay to emerge in the UK would be one designed to provide information aimed at that particular problem. The Public Information Relay (PIR), based on public library systems, grew out of a series of European information conferences convened by the UK Offices of the Commission from 1993 onwards. Known informally as the Stoke Rochford Conferences (after the place where the first two were held), these meetings of EU information providers from all sectors laid the foundations for a network of public information provision that is currently in placefor the most part-in public libraries across the country. Two elements of information provision were absent at this stage. First, notably missing from these early conferences were UK government departments and government ministers. It was dangerous to be seen as pro-Europe at this time, as at others. Active participation of UK government information sources remained patchy for some time, and only recently have plans to incorporate national government information into the EU information process approached fruition. A determinant of pace in this process seems to be the lack of staff continuity in the “Europe Desks” of UK government departments. Second, also recognized in these conferences was the fact, which had been asserted for some time by UK EDCs, that there was no Relay set up to deal with the growing demand for European Information from schools and from further education. EDCs had already wrestled with this problem and could testify that appropriate published material for these groups simply did not exist. Again, at the time of this writing, there are hopes that such Relays will be established in the near future. The Public Information Relay does not receive free documentation. Instead, these Relays are offered a certain amount of free literature and a 50 percent reduction on other publications. Not surprisingly, some have questioned the privileged status of EDCs in this context, though it is questionable how many would have desired such comprehensive collections, with their attendant maintenance costs. Even more unlikely is that many institutions would have sought to develop such collections over 20 years ago. In this context, and against the background of changed priorities within DG X, it became necessary to reappraise the functions and resources of EDCs. The best way to approach that issue was generally recognised as being through a new contract or agreement. NEGOTIATING
A NEW AGREEMENT
The possibility of a new contract between the Commission and EDCs was first mooted at the Annual Meeting of the Association of EDC Librarians in 1988. It was to finalise what was expected of EDCs, how they were to serve the public, what resources they were to have, and how their performance would be measured. No text was circulated for discussion, and the contract remained offstage, about to make a dramatic appearance. Progress was slow in succeeding years. A draft, in French, was shown to some EDC librarians in 1991 by a lecturer who had acquired a copy during a visit to Brussels.
European
Documentation
Centres
109
The document was “to be issued shortly,” they were told. A further draft-headed “Agreement’‘-was distributed to EDCs in July 1992 by the then-EDC Representative of the European Information Association (the successor to the Association of EDC Librarians). This draft was accompanied by a letter urging EDC librarians to respond without delay and to alert their Vice Chancellors. The responses that EDC librarians made on that occasion were apparently lost without trace, and for nearly a year the contract remained a Godot-like entity in the world of EDCs. In 1993, the new Information Networks and Relays Unit circulated another draft of the contract. Although substantially the same as the 1992 version, this time the document was termed a Convention. UK EDCs were asked to comment, with the assurance that the document was to be issued soon. This version mentioned the need for EDCs to cooperate with other information Relays and also reiterated the old concept of the “Academic Responsible.” The “Convention” was circulated along with a trial evaluation exercise, which bore little relation to the work actually done in UK EDCs. In many respects it demonstrated the extent to which the Commission had grown out of touch with its Relays. The “Convention” asked for statistics, which no practicing UK librarian had ever thought to gather, and did not ask for any record of the full range of services that EDCs provided. Regardless, all UK EDCs were deemed to have passed it. Comments on the contract were fed back to INRU, and this time they appeared to be wellreceived. A final document seemed close. More time passed. Following the UK EDC’s Annual Meeting in Autumn 1994, a new draft was presented to a select group of EDC librarians-the core, as it turned out, of a newly established UK EDC Committee-and further comments (mostly in the form of requests for clarification) were made. The issuing of the contract, the group was told, was “at hand” and already two other member states had accepted it; others would follow. By this time, however, EDCs across Europe (and beyond) were linked by an e-mail bulletin board, and it was very apparent that the proposed contract of late 1994 was not acceptable in all cases. There were serious doubts about the value of what it delivered in return for a lot of service. Following intensive discussion via e-mail in early 1995, only one country had signed the agreement, another had deferred, and others were asking what all the fuss was about. In this context, however, UK EDC librarians elected to press for conclusion of the contract in order to clarify their roles alongside the new Relays emerging in the UK and also to restore face with their Vice Chancellors, who had been alerted to expect a contract “at any time” since 1992! At the “Stoke Rochford 199.5” Conference (held in Birmingham in January) heated pleas were made for a speedy conclusion to the matter. “On its way,” came the reply. Later that month, the UK EDC representative was called to Brussels to finalise the text with members of INRU and the UK Representation of the Commission. As the tide of Euroscepticism was swelling on the right of the Conservative party, it really did appear that another brick of Commission information policy was about to fall into place. The text that emerged from this meeting seemed to be the best to date. The role of EDCs as providers for higher education and the continued free supply of documentation were confirmed. The requirement for an “Academic Responsible” had vanished. Gone too was a suggestion that any EDC that ceased, for whatever reason, to function should be made to return its collections (no UK Vice Chancellor would have accepted this, in any case). Other provisions are outlined below. It was urged that this document should be distributed to EDCs for signing without further delay. By May 1995, the new EDC agreement had been received by all Vice Chancellors and passed for signing. There was a momentary hold-up when, late in the year, it
110
R. CADDEL
emerged that the Commission had failed to ask institutions to return the correct number of copies, but by the end of the year all UK EDCs were at last signed up to a workable contract with the Commission. THE AGREEMENT In the agreement, the Commission undertakes to recognize that the university has the status of an EDC; to supply free of charge “all publications of the institutions of the European Union”; to provide privileged access to databases; to support EDCs in their tasks; and to carry out an annual evaluation. EDCs agree to promote and develop study and research in the field of European integration; to place a full-time qualified librarian in charge of the collection; to set aside a special area for the EDC and to signpost it; to cooperate with other bodies where appropriate; and to bear the cost of managing the collection. The objectives of the EDC are defined in an annex: to help the university in the teaching and research of European Integration; to make EU information available to the public, both in the University and elsewhere; and to participate in debate about the European Union with other Relays and networks. The tasks of an EDC are defined in the annex as processing, cataloguing, and indexing; serving as a central point for all EU information; providing access to the public; working with other Relays; cooperating in the Commission’s information activities; and reporting on all activities including events in which the EDC participates. The agreement is to be monitored by a programme of evaluation based on reports, visits, and “other discussions.” Where evaluation produces unfavourable comment, a written reminder of action to be taken will be issued. Where the action is not taken, the EDC will cease to function. MAKING THE AGREEMENT
WORK IN THE NEW SITUATION
Most EDC librarians would agree that there is no reason why such a document could not have been sent out and agreed upon five years ago, if not 20. Having reached this point, it is the concern of UK EDCs to ensure that this agreement is made to work and to get on with the comparatively simple business of providing an information service. In the weeks following the circulation of the agreement, EDC librarians discussed the issues it raised, and a number of core concerns were identified that required clarification, or in which it was necessary to stress to the Commission the positive work that had been going on for years. The key issues were: How should EDCs work with other Relays? Who exactly should have access to EDCs and how? What shall be done to improve the distribution of documentation (which is still faulty)? and How will the evaluation work? These were the issues that UK EDCs addressed at their annual meeting in November 1995. The discussions were drawn together into a document that was forwarded to the Commission as a unified position paper for its collective comment. To date, no reply from the Commission has been received. Although the UK EDC’s document is generally positive, it may not be exactly what the Commission wants, for it poses questions that may be unwelcome. In addressing the question of evaluation, for instance, the UK EDCs have made it plain that they assume that a two-way dialogue will take place in order to develop an effective exercise.
European
Documentation
Centres
111
Evaluation is very much a fact of life in UK higher education, and when it is properly conducted, it is recognised as a very constructive process. However, evaluation can also throw light upon lapses in communication and effectiveness on both sides. Will the Commission take up the challenge of this two-way process? Perhaps a hint towards this was given in the announcement that an external organisation had been appointed to carry out evaluation and that its remit would include consideration of DG X’s activities and those of national Representative Offices, as well as the activities and geographic distribution of networks and Relays. Perceptions of end-users would also be considered. However, the early experiences of this process are not encouraging. In the first weeks of 1996 evaluators visited groups of EDCs in various countries (without prior consultation) with a 71-point questionnaire and little information on the whole of the evaluation process. At present, although it is understood that “all UK EDCs have passed the evaluation,” there has been no formal announcement of their findings or of their next steps. One can only hope that the process can be improved. UK EDCs have committed themselves positively to supporting the other Relays around them, to signposting where appropriate, to providing documentary back-up, and to accepting referred enquiries. How this commitment will work in practice will vary from region to region. In some parts of the country EDCs are poorly represented; in others, the Public Library Relays are either newly founded or nonexistent. Other Relays remain, as yet, unestablished. How will cooperation work and be measured in these circumstances? The agreement is now back with the EDC-carrying universities to put into practice as best they can, with what resources they can muster. One commentator [6] has been quick to point out what many EDC librarians realise-the agreement provides a platform upon which their services and their contribution can be judged and from which they can develop “a new emphasis on a high-profile proactive service.” This will be interpreted in different ways across the country.
BEYOND
THE NEW AGREEMENT
The UK’s EDCs have developed independently, with little more than cursory direction from the Commission for more than 20 years. Individually, they have achieved remarkable success. Collectively, they represent a considerable investment and a remarkable resource, which the officers of the Commission would do well to recognise and to support positively at this stage when the European process appears to be faltering. With the strength of their new, long-overdue agreement, these resources can put an uncertain past behind them and begin to develop with a little confidence. Together with other Relays, they can offer a range of accurate and perceptive information on the EU. Will this be sufficient to stem the tide of Euroscepticism, which now flows strongly through the daily life of the country? Has the Commission articulated its information policy too late to attain its objective of open information for the hearts and minds of its citizens? Only time will tell.
NOTES Unit, Eurobarometer: Public Opinion in the European Union: (Brussels: European Commission, 1994). 85-86. 2. Richard Caddel, “EDCs: Their Role in the EC Information Chain,” European Access 5 (1991): 34-35. 1. European
Commission,
20th Aniversary
Survey Research
Issue; Trends 1974-1993
112
R. CADDEL
3. Peter Harbord, “EDCs and the Commission’s Information Policy,” European Access 1 (1989): 27-28. 4. Richard Caddel, “Information Policy in the EU: Towards a Local Approach,” European Urban and Regional Studies 2, no. 4 (1995): 351-53. 5. J. de D. Pinheiro, Information, Communication, Openness (Luxembourg: Office of Official Publications of the EC, 1994). 96. 6. Ian Thomson, “Challenges Facing European Documentation Centres,” European Access 6 (1995): 16-l 9.
No. 2, pp. 103-112. 1997 0 1997 Elseviet Science Ltd Printed in rhe USA. All rights reserved
Copyright
Pergamon
1352-0237/97 $17.00+ .00
PII S1352-0237(W)OOOO3-8
EUROPEAN DOCUMENTATION CENTRES: THE DEVELOPMENT OF A UK INFORMATION RELAY RICHARD European
CADDEL”
Documentation Centre, Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DHl 3LY. United Kingdom; Internet: [email protected]
Abstract-This paper traces the development of European Documentation Centres (EDCs) in the United Kingdom (UK). EDCs exist to serve the higher education sector with European Union information, and date back about a quarter of a century. Yet, until 1995 a basic document outlining what services EDCs were to provide, and to whom they were to provide it was unavailable. As the European information world streamlines itself for the challenges of the millenium, the UK EDCs take their place alongside other EU information providers as part of the rapidly evolving network of information relays. 0 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd Keywords-European Union-Information, European documentation relays, United Kingdom-University libraries
THE EMERGENCE
OF EDCs IN THE UNITED
centres, Information
KINGDOM
The European Commission has for many years disseminated its published information through a number of designated information agencies, targeted to different audiences. These are referred to as Relays. The most established of these Relays are the networks of Depository Libraries (DEPs), European Documentation Centres (EDCs), and European Reference Centres (ERCs). The exact functions and relations between these partners appear to vary around the world in a subtle and often unacknowledged way. In general, within the European Union (EU) itself, the Relays may be expected to contribute to the information provision of “the Citizens of Europe”; in prospective EU countries there is an evident intent to contribute to the heightening of EU awareness; and in other countries the functions are perhaps more general, diplomatic or educational. Within the EU itself, DEPs are generally comprehensive collections of national importance that serve specific communities (the British Library Document Supply Centre [BLDSC], which provides an interlibrary loan back-up service to the full range of UK libraries, is one example). EDCs are located in higher education or research establish-
‘“Richard Caddel is European Documentation Centre librarian at Durham University Library, UK. He is also the United Kingdom’s EDC Representative to the Commission and has contributed to the development of European Union Information Relays over a number of years. In 1994 he received the European Information Association’s Helen Greer Award for his contribution to European Union information work. He is editor/convener of Eurodoc, the e-mail bulletin board for EDC librarians throughout the world. Caddel is also Director of Durham University’s Basil Bunting Poetry Centre and has edited Bunting’s Complere Poems for Oxford University Press. As a poet he has two published collections and has given poetry readings in Britain, Ireland. Italy, Poland, Estonia, the United States, and Canada. 103
104
R. CADDEL
merits. The Relay was initiated in 1963, and there are currently 299 within the EU and 110 in the rest of the world. Since 1988, EDCs have been subdivided into Comprehensive EDCs, which carry the full range of EU publications, and Selective EDCs, which receive a predetermined selection of publications. ERCs receive only a limited selection of general and free publications. From the first, publications have been distributed free to all these Relays-on the understanding that they in turn will undertake the considerable costs involved in housing and preserving these documents and making them available to their designated audiences. This paper looks at one particular part of the overall network of EU Information Relays, the EDCs in the United Kingdom (UK), and traces their development and their place in today’s rapidly evolving EU information world. There are 44 EDCs in the UK, established at the entry of the UK into the Common Market (as it was then known) in 1973, though many of them had been collecting European Communities publications for some years before that. All were established in higher education or research establishments-that is, within the university or polytechnic environment, which they were intended primarily to serve (the UK’s polytechnics became universities in 1992). In the first stage, it would not have been easy to find so many academic departments or courses that highlighted the tricky and, at that time, unusual subject of European Integration. The range and spread of institutions designated at EDCs at that time (it is the institution, not the library, that officially carries the title of EDC) reflects a fairly intensive trawl. The geographical spread of these EDCs, for instance, is by no means even. An even geographic distribution was not considered necessary at that stage. The UK’s EDCs are all in academic libraries (unlike some faculty-based EDCs elsewhere in Europe) and reflect academic interests within law schools, politics departments, or other academic interests such as economics, business, or social sciences. A requirement of the Commission was that in addition to having a named librarian for each EDC, there should also be an “academic responsible”-an ill-defined role that was met with some derision amongst UK librarians and was little used. However, all the UK EDC collections serve broader communities than a single department. Not only are they available for the whole of their institution, but there has been, from the first, an understanding that EDCs would contribute to the information provision of the communities around them. To “contribute to” is not to supply completely; it was assumed that other information providers would emerge. Some did, most notably in the big urban public libraries. But as the UK’s ideological battle raged over commitment to Europe, there was at best a patchy coverage of the country in European-information terms. In this situation, it often fell to an EDC, its resources already stretched, to attempt to meet the information needs of an impossibly large region. Very little of the EDC’s early work was defined or monitored. EDCs were left to develop on their own. For this reason there is to the present day a very broad range in the nature of EDCs, with many different professional emphases and initiatives reflecting the different situations and concerns of host institutions and, in many cases, the different individual characteristics of the people who had supervised their establishment. Relations with Directorate General X (the parent DG) were remote at best at the outset, and if there was an initial contract governing EDC’s purpose, few EDC librarians saw it. In the absence of centrally agreed-upon (or even centrally decreed) policy, the UK EDCs established a self-help group, the Association of EDC Librarians, who met and began to thrash out the basics of EDC policy and practice, to try to define levels of service, and to grapple with the documenting of EC publications.
European
Documentation
Centres
105
DOCUMENTATION Although most EDCs now handle information in a wide range of forms including the full range of electronic sources, they are, as the name implies, built around an essential core of hard-copy documentation, which remains important in meeting the needs of most users. At the heart of the unread constitution of EDCs there lies a continuing supply of EU publications and documents sent from the Office of Official Publication of the European Union (EUR-OP) direct to individual EDCs. There has never been a systematic statement of this material, which may, however, be summarised as follows: legislative material including the all-important Oficiaf Journal of the European Communities (L, C, and S sections, plus debates, indexes etc), COM Documents, Opinions of the Economic and Social Committee (ECOSOC), Working Papers of the European Parliament, the Treaties and other compilations; major publications and series of the individual directorates and institutions (such as DG V’s Social Europe, and DG II’s European Economy); a core of the European Statistical Agency EUROSTAT’s statistical publications; bibliographic material; and finally (and often the most sought-after material) miscellaneous Commission publications and work from the associated bodies such as the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. There is also an abundance of free publications such as Europe on the Move, supplied in multiple copies and suitable for very general enquiries, Individual EDC librarians have sought to augment this material with important documentation not otherwise included in EUR-OP’s distribution. Among this documentation is crucial “grey literature,” which is produced in Brussels and frequently forms the important basis of policy-making discussion. Although of great academic and public interest, this documentation is seldom incorporated into the formal publication process (EUR-OP makes no secret of its inability to control EU publishing in this way). Indeed, one of the most frustrating aspects of the generally egalitarian process of EU information is the artificial and often incomprehensible disconnection between what is available to EDCs and what is not. Publications (which are either available to the public through Relays or may be bought through national agencies) are allegedly in the public domain, but Documents (which may be made available through Relays, or may not) are not so consistently available. For example, a recent, apparently arbitrary, decision to reclassify the ECOSOC Bulletin as a document rather than a publication resulted in this title becoming unavailable through EUR-OP. Since this reclassification was unannounced, individual EDC librarians were left to notice that it had stopped coming and then seek, belatedly, to rectify the situation and to fill the gap. This example does not, regrettably, represent a unique or rare occurrence. In addition to documentation, EDCs have privileged access to EU databases such as EUROBASES. Privileged has, up to now, meant free though that has never been guaranteed. Under this heading comes CELEX, the EU full-text legal database, and SCAD, the EU’s bibliographic database. These two databases have recently been supplemented by a group of other datasets offering differing degrees of practical usefulness, amongst which are ECLAS, the catalogue of the Commission’s library, and the press briefings of the Commission’s Spokesman Service. The difficulties of mastering EUROBASES command language and search strategy have discouraged many from native versions of CELEX and SCAD and pushed them towards the more user-friendly “repackaged” versions marketed by commercial vendors. Increasingly these commercial versions are in CD-ROM format and are especially useful for EDCs where whole classes of students are required to learn searching skills. However, for many hard-pressed higher educa-
106
R. CADDEL
tion institutions, the savings offered by an EDC’s “free” access outweighs any consideration of relative ease of use. No official source in Brussels can provide a reliable cash value for the documentation supplied to EDCs, let alone for database access. A number of estimates have been produced (either by Commission officials, or by the EDCs themselves), which vary according to the purpose for which they were produced-high estimates to demonstrate the value of EDC status; low estimates to suggest economy and (from the Commission auditor’s viewpoint) value-for-money. Even the most general estimate, however, makes it clear that the annual cost of maintaining an EDC (cataloguing and processing, binding and storage, and staffing) far exceeds the annual value of the materials received. THE EMERGENCE OF AN EC&U INFORMATION POLICY From the foregoing it should be apparent that little consideration was given at the outset to an overall European Community information policy that would articulate the activities of the Community for its citizens. Since the sector of DG X responsible for EDCs was primarily concerned with the academic approach-that is, teaching and research on European integration-little thought was given to the needs of other sectors, and, indeed, from the UK perspective there was, in any case, little appetite on the part of the general public for European affairs. This was to change irrevocably following the passage of the Single European Act (1986) and with the initiation of the 1992 programme for the Completion of the Internal Market. In a short space of time a mass of European Community legislation was passed that, it became increasingly obvious, affected the lives of the citizens of the Community and produced an immediate demand for information from general policy level, to marketing information, to specific regulatory information for manufacturing. UK small businesses, professionals, students, and ordinary citizens began to appreciate in full the potential benefits and drawbacks of being part of a wider community. The proportion of UK citizens perceiving EU membership as a “good thing” rose from 37 percent at the passage of the Single European Act in 1986 to 57 percent-its highest point in two decades-in 1991 [l]. The changing demand for information was immediately perceptible in the UK EDC world, where a rapid rise in increasingly diverse public enquiries became evident throughout the late 1980s and into the 1990s. At the same time, Europe became increasingly prominent in the higher education curriculum, not simply in the growth of “Euro-specific” courses, but in courses which touched on European issues, or recognized a European dimension within existing courses. This growth was not, of course, restricted to universities with EDCs. At that time, additional institutions tried in vain to attain EDC status. By this time, however, budget restraints had reached all the offices of the Commission, and the cost of document provision was becoming an issue that would henceforth inhibit the growth of Relays, The cost of supporting new academic interest in European Studies was informally deflected to the existing network of EDCs, or to the Commission’s London Office, valiantly trying not to be swamped with outside enquiries, or were picked up piecemeal by the institutions themselves. In fact, far from supplying more documentation to each EDC as the “information market” grew, the Commission began cutting back in its distribution of documentation. In part, this was due to the increasing cost of supplying Relays beyond the Community (it should be noted that the creation and development of Relays outside the Community accelerated considerably with the opening up of Eastern Europe), and, in part, this
European
Documentation
Centres
107
followed the increasing “budget-centre” awareness of the individual DGs and offices of the Commission. The imposition of “selective” status on a number of EDCs (leaving them to elect which subject areas of documentation they had “selected”) took place at approximately the same time, and was followed by further cuts, which resulted in such actions as the decision to supply Parliament Working Papers only in a less-useable microform format. EUROSTAT’s almost total withdrawal from EUR-OP distribution (brought about by financial crisis), resulted in whole series of publications (including Industry Statistical Yearbook, Balance of Payments, Labour Force Survey, and others) not being distributed to EDCs or having ceased publication altogether. This left EDCs with gaps in their collections, which remain unfillable in many cases. Not even the library of the London Office of the Commission received these important publications at that time. The longterm effect of this hiatus upon the credibility of the otherwise praiseworthy statisticsgathering agency of the EU remains to be seen. As long as EUROSTAT fails in its responsibility to find a way to make these years of lost data readily available to the Commission’s Relays, the value of their current work will likely appear suspect. Ripples of a planning crisis within EUROSTAT still surface in the EU information world from time to time, most recently in the conflicting rumours about the availability of their CD-ROM products to EDCs and in EUROSTAT’s absurd notion that libraries would be interested in a CD-ROM product in which the data are non-downloadable. While the EDC world was suffering from the tightening of Commission resources in the ways described above, it should be noted that the UK higher education system was beginning a period of dramatic expansion. In five years, the proportion of young people in higher education shifted from about one in eight of the l&20 age group, to about one in three. Not surprisingly, this increase was not matched by a corresponding rise in resources, and it has become increasingly difficult for university libraries to maintain optimal levels of staffing for all their activities. Faced with dwindling resources and poor support from the Commission, yet aware of the emergence of DG XXIII’s wellresourced and well-directed Relay of European Information Centres (EICs) to deal specifically with small business enquiries, some UK EDC librarians [2, 31 began to call openly for the Commission to clarify its information policy and its relationship with one of its oldest Information Relays, the EDCs. Whether that review of policy would have taken place without the almost catastrophic passage of the Maastricht Treaty, remains a moot point. THE NEW UK RELAYS Increasing evidence of lack of public understanding of European policies and achievement led eventually to an awareness of the need for an overall information policy for the European Union [4]. This need was first addressed by Commission Pinheiro in the document Information, Communication, Openness [5]. This document asserted the fundamental need for openness in the EU information process and the requirement for EU information partners to work together more closely to achieve such openness. It also outlined the significant reorganisation of DG X, which was required in order to articulate these policies. EDCs were no longer to be the cozy preserve of a Higher Education office. Instead they joined DG X’s newly formed Information Networks and Relays Unit (INRU). The role of EDCs, it was thus emphasized, lay alongside other information Relays. The path towards cooperation between Relays, which had been urged by UK information professionals for some time, lay revealed.
108
R. CADDEL
The new arrangement implied closer cooperation with other Relays. It also suggested, and led directly to, the creation of new Relays. These actions were not strictly new. The European Information Centres (EICs) referred to above had been set up by DG XXIII to serve small businesses in the late 1980s and had pointed out clearly what could be achieved with good direction and clear objectives. It is worth noting that some EDCs acquired EIC status at this stage and that the combined roles and resources gave them an extremely effective platform for service development. As the Maastricht Treaty had demonstrated, at least in the UK, there was a yawning “information deficit” as far as the general public was concerned. Consequently, it was predictable that the first new Relay to emerge in the UK would be one designed to provide information aimed at that particular problem. The Public Information Relay (PIR), based on public library systems, grew out of a series of European information conferences convened by the UK Offices of the Commission from 1993 onwards. Known informally as the Stoke Rochford Conferences (after the place where the first two were held), these meetings of EU information providers from all sectors laid the foundations for a network of public information provision that is currently in placefor the most part-in public libraries across the country. Two elements of information provision were absent at this stage. First, notably missing from these early conferences were UK government departments and government ministers. It was dangerous to be seen as pro-Europe at this time, as at others. Active participation of UK government information sources remained patchy for some time, and only recently have plans to incorporate national government information into the EU information process approached fruition. A determinant of pace in this process seems to be the lack of staff continuity in the “Europe Desks” of UK government departments. Second, also recognized in these conferences was the fact, which had been asserted for some time by UK EDCs, that there was no Relay set up to deal with the growing demand for European Information from schools and from further education. EDCs had already wrestled with this problem and could testify that appropriate published material for these groups simply did not exist. Again, at the time of this writing, there are hopes that such Relays will be established in the near future. The Public Information Relay does not receive free documentation. Instead, these Relays are offered a certain amount of free literature and a 50 percent reduction on other publications. Not surprisingly, some have questioned the privileged status of EDCs in this context, though it is questionable how many would have desired such comprehensive collections, with their attendant maintenance costs. Even more unlikely is that many institutions would have sought to develop such collections over 20 years ago. In this context, and against the background of changed priorities within DG X, it became necessary to reappraise the functions and resources of EDCs. The best way to approach that issue was generally recognised as being through a new contract or agreement. NEGOTIATING
A NEW AGREEMENT
The possibility of a new contract between the Commission and EDCs was first mooted at the Annual Meeting of the Association of EDC Librarians in 1988. It was to finalise what was expected of EDCs, how they were to serve the public, what resources they were to have, and how their performance would be measured. No text was circulated for discussion, and the contract remained offstage, about to make a dramatic appearance. Progress was slow in succeeding years. A draft, in French, was shown to some EDC librarians in 1991 by a lecturer who had acquired a copy during a visit to Brussels.
European
Documentation
Centres
109
The document was “to be issued shortly,” they were told. A further draft-headed “Agreement’‘-was distributed to EDCs in July 1992 by the then-EDC Representative of the European Information Association (the successor to the Association of EDC Librarians). This draft was accompanied by a letter urging EDC librarians to respond without delay and to alert their Vice Chancellors. The responses that EDC librarians made on that occasion were apparently lost without trace, and for nearly a year the contract remained a Godot-like entity in the world of EDCs. In 1993, the new Information Networks and Relays Unit circulated another draft of the contract. Although substantially the same as the 1992 version, this time the document was termed a Convention. UK EDCs were asked to comment, with the assurance that the document was to be issued soon. This version mentioned the need for EDCs to cooperate with other information Relays and also reiterated the old concept of the “Academic Responsible.” The “Convention” was circulated along with a trial evaluation exercise, which bore little relation to the work actually done in UK EDCs. In many respects it demonstrated the extent to which the Commission had grown out of touch with its Relays. The “Convention” asked for statistics, which no practicing UK librarian had ever thought to gather, and did not ask for any record of the full range of services that EDCs provided. Regardless, all UK EDCs were deemed to have passed it. Comments on the contract were fed back to INRU, and this time they appeared to be wellreceived. A final document seemed close. More time passed. Following the UK EDC’s Annual Meeting in Autumn 1994, a new draft was presented to a select group of EDC librarians-the core, as it turned out, of a newly established UK EDC Committee-and further comments (mostly in the form of requests for clarification) were made. The issuing of the contract, the group was told, was “at hand” and already two other member states had accepted it; others would follow. By this time, however, EDCs across Europe (and beyond) were linked by an e-mail bulletin board, and it was very apparent that the proposed contract of late 1994 was not acceptable in all cases. There were serious doubts about the value of what it delivered in return for a lot of service. Following intensive discussion via e-mail in early 1995, only one country had signed the agreement, another had deferred, and others were asking what all the fuss was about. In this context, however, UK EDC librarians elected to press for conclusion of the contract in order to clarify their roles alongside the new Relays emerging in the UK and also to restore face with their Vice Chancellors, who had been alerted to expect a contract “at any time” since 1992! At the “Stoke Rochford 199.5” Conference (held in Birmingham in January) heated pleas were made for a speedy conclusion to the matter. “On its way,” came the reply. Later that month, the UK EDC representative was called to Brussels to finalise the text with members of INRU and the UK Representation of the Commission. As the tide of Euroscepticism was swelling on the right of the Conservative party, it really did appear that another brick of Commission information policy was about to fall into place. The text that emerged from this meeting seemed to be the best to date. The role of EDCs as providers for higher education and the continued free supply of documentation were confirmed. The requirement for an “Academic Responsible” had vanished. Gone too was a suggestion that any EDC that ceased, for whatever reason, to function should be made to return its collections (no UK Vice Chancellor would have accepted this, in any case). Other provisions are outlined below. It was urged that this document should be distributed to EDCs for signing without further delay. By May 1995, the new EDC agreement had been received by all Vice Chancellors and passed for signing. There was a momentary hold-up when, late in the year, it
110
R. CADDEL
emerged that the Commission had failed to ask institutions to return the correct number of copies, but by the end of the year all UK EDCs were at last signed up to a workable contract with the Commission. THE AGREEMENT In the agreement, the Commission undertakes to recognize that the university has the status of an EDC; to supply free of charge “all publications of the institutions of the European Union”; to provide privileged access to databases; to support EDCs in their tasks; and to carry out an annual evaluation. EDCs agree to promote and develop study and research in the field of European integration; to place a full-time qualified librarian in charge of the collection; to set aside a special area for the EDC and to signpost it; to cooperate with other bodies where appropriate; and to bear the cost of managing the collection. The objectives of the EDC are defined in an annex: to help the university in the teaching and research of European Integration; to make EU information available to the public, both in the University and elsewhere; and to participate in debate about the European Union with other Relays and networks. The tasks of an EDC are defined in the annex as processing, cataloguing, and indexing; serving as a central point for all EU information; providing access to the public; working with other Relays; cooperating in the Commission’s information activities; and reporting on all activities including events in which the EDC participates. The agreement is to be monitored by a programme of evaluation based on reports, visits, and “other discussions.” Where evaluation produces unfavourable comment, a written reminder of action to be taken will be issued. Where the action is not taken, the EDC will cease to function. MAKING THE AGREEMENT
WORK IN THE NEW SITUATION
Most EDC librarians would agree that there is no reason why such a document could not have been sent out and agreed upon five years ago, if not 20. Having reached this point, it is the concern of UK EDCs to ensure that this agreement is made to work and to get on with the comparatively simple business of providing an information service. In the weeks following the circulation of the agreement, EDC librarians discussed the issues it raised, and a number of core concerns were identified that required clarification, or in which it was necessary to stress to the Commission the positive work that had been going on for years. The key issues were: How should EDCs work with other Relays? Who exactly should have access to EDCs and how? What shall be done to improve the distribution of documentation (which is still faulty)? and How will the evaluation work? These were the issues that UK EDCs addressed at their annual meeting in November 1995. The discussions were drawn together into a document that was forwarded to the Commission as a unified position paper for its collective comment. To date, no reply from the Commission has been received. Although the UK EDC’s document is generally positive, it may not be exactly what the Commission wants, for it poses questions that may be unwelcome. In addressing the question of evaluation, for instance, the UK EDCs have made it plain that they assume that a two-way dialogue will take place in order to develop an effective exercise.
European
Documentation
Centres
111
Evaluation is very much a fact of life in UK higher education, and when it is properly conducted, it is recognised as a very constructive process. However, evaluation can also throw light upon lapses in communication and effectiveness on both sides. Will the Commission take up the challenge of this two-way process? Perhaps a hint towards this was given in the announcement that an external organisation had been appointed to carry out evaluation and that its remit would include consideration of DG X’s activities and those of national Representative Offices, as well as the activities and geographic distribution of networks and Relays. Perceptions of end-users would also be considered. However, the early experiences of this process are not encouraging. In the first weeks of 1996 evaluators visited groups of EDCs in various countries (without prior consultation) with a 71-point questionnaire and little information on the whole of the evaluation process. At present, although it is understood that “all UK EDCs have passed the evaluation,” there has been no formal announcement of their findings or of their next steps. One can only hope that the process can be improved. UK EDCs have committed themselves positively to supporting the other Relays around them, to signposting where appropriate, to providing documentary back-up, and to accepting referred enquiries. How this commitment will work in practice will vary from region to region. In some parts of the country EDCs are poorly represented; in others, the Public Library Relays are either newly founded or nonexistent. Other Relays remain, as yet, unestablished. How will cooperation work and be measured in these circumstances? The agreement is now back with the EDC-carrying universities to put into practice as best they can, with what resources they can muster. One commentator [6] has been quick to point out what many EDC librarians realise-the agreement provides a platform upon which their services and their contribution can be judged and from which they can develop “a new emphasis on a high-profile proactive service.” This will be interpreted in different ways across the country.
BEYOND
THE NEW AGREEMENT
The UK’s EDCs have developed independently, with little more than cursory direction from the Commission for more than 20 years. Individually, they have achieved remarkable success. Collectively, they represent a considerable investment and a remarkable resource, which the officers of the Commission would do well to recognise and to support positively at this stage when the European process appears to be faltering. With the strength of their new, long-overdue agreement, these resources can put an uncertain past behind them and begin to develop with a little confidence. Together with other Relays, they can offer a range of accurate and perceptive information on the EU. Will this be sufficient to stem the tide of Euroscepticism, which now flows strongly through the daily life of the country? Has the Commission articulated its information policy too late to attain its objective of open information for the hearts and minds of its citizens? Only time will tell.
NOTES Unit, Eurobarometer: Public Opinion in the European Union: (Brussels: European Commission, 1994). 85-86. 2. Richard Caddel, “EDCs: Their Role in the EC Information Chain,” European Access 5 (1991): 34-35. 1. European
Commission,
20th Aniversary
Survey Research
Issue; Trends 1974-1993
112
R. CADDEL
3. Peter Harbord, “EDCs and the Commission’s Information Policy,” European Access 1 (1989): 27-28. 4. Richard Caddel, “Information Policy in the EU: Towards a Local Approach,” European Urban and Regional Studies 2, no. 4 (1995): 351-53. 5. J. de D. Pinheiro, Information, Communication, Openness (Luxembourg: Office of Official Publications of the EC, 1994). 96. 6. Ian Thomson, “Challenges Facing European Documentation Centres,” European Access 6 (1995): 16-l 9.