EURBICA:

Suggestions for a Working Programme

Bern, 21 April 2001

We have an urgent need for a working programme which we can present to the General Assembly in Florence. May 29, 2001. This programme should define the content of our work for the next three years and be more than a pure schedule of meetings (even if this last point should not be neglected). I think it would be wise not to invent a complete new programme but to continue with the work done by the former Coordinating Board for the European Programme (ICA/EUR) (as far as this work is not completed yet), what seems to be, in my opinion, to a large extent compatible to our discussions in Paris and Lund in January and April 2001 respectively.

The following suggestions are not only my ideas. I have included what I remember having been discussed in Paris (see P. Cadell's minutes) and Lund. However, it reflects my individual and personal view.

Our programme has to take into consideration that a lot of professional committees within the frame of ICA ore of related organisations are already working on very important issues. We also may take profit from national efforts in solving archival or technical problems etc. There is no need to duplicate any work. The best we can do is to co-ordinate efforts, to define precisely the need for solutions in the large field of archiving and to overcome (institutional and/or national) borders.

The unifying purpose and overall concept could be defined with Common european archival heritage (an enlargement to global heritage remains open1). Such a concept would enable us to deal with a large number of archival issues, always under a specific European geographical and political perspective.

1. Building up of (virtual) cross-border-archives or international archives, including national (regional etc.) archives and archives of international / supranational organisations, private institutions etc. of international importance respectively. This issue could include questions of appraisal (not methodical questions but questions of content related to the building up a common heritage) as well as questions of access etc. The idea should not be, to promote reconstitution or exchange ("repatriation") of archival holdings, but to to promote the inclusion of a broad(er) perspective during the processes of appraisal, taking into account not only the needs and interest of one archival institution / one isolated archival community but those of the European Community (in the sense of EURBICA). Therefore, to discuss issues of content will be (remain) a more or less permanent dialogue between archivists and historians has to be organised.2
Co-operation with European Community projects is important in this field (see EAN, EUAN, EVA etc.). Need for harmonisation: Starting from the idea of a steady process of building up a common virtual archival European universe, we should accept existing projects as core for further development (and improvement as necessary), not promote the start of new similar projects.
The Black Book revision could be part of common-heritage-activities too.

Organisafion of roundtables, seminars, institutionalisation of cross-insititional co-operation, definition of cross- insititional, sibject-centre apparaisal prodrammes todether in a dialogue between the archival and the scientific community etc.

2. We should, at the same time, promote a more professional archival policy for private institutions / enterprises of some importance3, for non-governmental organisations, for inter- or supranational institutions etc. The public archives are not (no longer) the only (or most important) ones to contribute to a common archival heritage which guarantees an adequate societal memory.

Promotion activities (mainly on the national level but with support from Eurbica) in co-operation with the professional associations: sensitisation programme (professional information management, knowledge management, knowledge manage-ment - to use some buzz words - and professional archives to serve and support an enterprise's economic goals; appeal to social responsibility).

3. Access to the common European archival heritage: Besides the legal and technical aspects of access we also should stress the need for access free of charge (linked with a lot of legal questions of copyright etc.). Co-operation with many different institutions, not only European ones, but e.g. also the UNESCO will be important. I would like to subsume under this point the active exploitation of archival holdings for the benefit of a large public - together with museums, libraries or other interested institutions.

Work done by Eurbica itself, n close co-operation with the ICA Committee on Archival Legal Matters (ICA/CLM): recommendations, lobbying to international Organisations (UNESCO, EU etc.)?

4. There might still be some need to continue clarifying the position of archive services within public administrations and. even more important, to contribute to the enhancement of their position.

The organisation of a regular exchange of (senior) staff could be an initiative to improve the mutual understanding and for permanent education.

Work organisation of a regular exchange (senior) staff could be an initiative to improve the mutual understanding and for permanent education.

5. Archival buildings: see Committee on Archival Buildings and Equipment (ICA/CBQ)?

6. Liaison with the European Union and with the Council of Europe: special task, responsibility by P. Cadell (no need for change, "only" interest in regular exchange of information).

The two recommendations concerning access to public documents in the archives and in the administration (almost finished).
EU Green Paper on public sector information in the information society: ??
Ev. add here the issue of an European glossary (co-operation with (inter-) national organisations, e.g. European Union, Open Society, Interpares or the ICA Project Group on Terminology (ICA/DAT) is absolutely necessary).

Some former projects (Comintern project. CIS-projects), however, are not of priority for EURBICA anymore (given the splitting up of Europe into two regional branches). Other activities like the DLM-Forum, even the EUAN- / EVA-projects are more a part of European Community activities: Our involvement has to be adequate to our resources and interests (for EURBICA'S interest in these projects see above, point 1).

Our main activity should not be to answer questions or to solve problems but to ask questions and to put problems on the agenda. We then should create a framework for discussion, bring people together and encourage new initiatives (co-operation, new approaches, not necessarily new projects), stimulate new networks of cooperation etc. If anybody thinks we will be able to do more - I'm interested too, however, I'm afraid that our working capacities will be too limited. To fulfil these aims we need the support of a lot of public (national, regional) and private institutions.

What to do now?

1. Compiling of a working plan (by mail-exchange) including a) a definition of a working plan. b) a list of products / concrete activities and c) a concrete schedule, ev. d) a demand for support by the members (constitution of working groups).
Everybody is invited to change these suggestions, to add new items or to eliminate items, to add more better fitting or more suitable examples.

2. Definition of an agenda for the General Assembly (I think that the invitations should be sent to the members one month, at least three weeks, in advance, i.e. the deadline is May, 8).

3. According to the not yet formally approved rules the acting president and the proposed new president should define the agenda and organise - together with our secretary general - the mailing.

If there is some need. I'm willing to collect commentaries, further suggestions and to merge all feed-back into a new document, translate the whole in French (as Swiss French and French are different and as English is not an official language in Switzerland, a careful examination of the final text will be necessary).

Andreas Kellerhals. Berne

Main challenge for EURBICA:

Harmonise the various initiatives and projects running today4, promote the addition of content to create a critical mass of cross-institutional accessible information.

Harmonise the appraisal concepts according to the idea of an European archival heritage, in permanent dialogue between the archivists of all types of archives in Europe and with the historians (or other customers) too.

¹ Europe is not a clearly defined part of the world. Many links connect Europe with the rest of the world with which we share a large common history. See among others e.g. the Association Internationales des Archives Francophones (AIAF) back...

² Cross-institutional work could be done for clearly defined topics, public historical debates serving as an indicator for societal or governmental needs, see e.g. the guide to archives related to the history of the Second World War (US Holocaust Memorial Museum: International List of Current Activities Regarding Holocaust-Era Assets, http://www.ushmm.org/assets/) or The Slave Trade Archives Project, initiated by UNESCO (Access to and preservation of original archive materials relating to the slave trade; project funded by the Norwegian Agency for Development Co-operation (NORAD) within the framework of UNESCO's Memory of the World Programme, in collaboration with the International Scientific Committee for UNESCO's "Slave Route" Project and with the International Council on Archives (ICA) back...

³ Serious work has been done in the banking sector, see e.g. the European Guide on Banking and Business Archives. Other economic domains are on the way back...

⁴ Institution oriented access: E.g. EAN / UNESCO archival portal / Archive in der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Alpenlander (ARGE ALP: www.lad-bw.de/argealp) - EU Black book. Content oriented access: E.g. EUAN / EVA in the EU-context, e.g. MEMORIAV as example on the national level in Switzerland, for Italy e.g. Veniva (1995-98) back...