NEWSPLAN 2000 PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT TO THE HERITAGE LOTTERY FUND JULY 2005 1. INTRODUCTION In 1999, an application was made to the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) for funding for a 16M UK-wide programme to preserve all UK local newspaper titles at risk. The application was made by the LINC NEWSPLAN Panel, which had responsibility for coordinating the work of the NEWSPLAN Regions across the whole of the UK, with written confirmation of support from the Newspaper Society and the UK newspaper industry. The HLF had previously supported an application for funding for a study to investigate the feasibility of a UK-wide programme in 1998. In March 2000, the Heritage Lottery Fund made an award of 5M for Stage 1 of a complete programme to preserve all UK local newspaper titles at risk. The 5M was provided to fund a three-year programme of preservation microfilming to run from 2001 to 2004. In addition, partnership funding from the regional newspaper industry of the UK was to be provided up to a level of 1.3M, with libraries and archives providing 1M as in-kind support. Funding was also provided for a twelve-month Foundation Year to run from July 2000 to July 2001, during which staff would be appointed; the detail of the Project s implementation would be agreed between the Project, the HLF and participating libraries; and the partnership funding from the newspaper industry required to implement the Project would be put in place. 2. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES The aims and objectives of the programme were agreed with the Heritage Lottery Fund in the Project Implementation Document, which was submitted to the HLF in July 2001. They were: 2.1 Aims 1. To preserve a fragile and rapidly disappearing part of the cultural history of the nation. 2. To save the local newspaper titles of the United Kingdom from destruction and open them up to new and future generations. 3. To pioneer a new approach to preservation using the involvement of libraries, the newspaper industry and archival-quality preservation microfilming. 4. To create a partnership approach to a complex cultural preservation programme. 5. To benefit all sectors of society throughout the UK. 2.2 Objectives 1. To preserve 1,600 local newspaper runs held in libraries and archives, universities and publishers offices throughout the United Kingdom. 2. To create archival microfilm to preservation standards. 3. To deliver one free copy of each film to the appropriate local library. 4. To distribute free microfilm readers and reader printers throughout the UK. 5. To store master negative microfilm to archival standards. 6. To digitise and search the microfilm by making it available over the Internet.
7. To catalogue each title to international standards. 8. To provide multiple levels of access to the Project 3. RESULTS AND ACHIEVEMENTS The NEWSPLAN 2000 Project has met the approved purposes of the award as stipulated by HLF: 3.1 To preserve 1,600 UK local newspaper titles held in libraries and archives, universities and publishers offices throughout the United Kingdom. In 2001, as part of the Project Implementation Document (PID), it was estimated that the Project should budget for the production of 30,000 reels of archival-quality microfilm. It was estimated that 30,000 reels would equate to the 1,600 newspaper titles to be preserved, although it was recognized that there was no proven method of exactly measuring newsprint and film extent, since each newspaper title is different. The Project created 30,476 microfilm reels in all, and, in total, this has allowed a total of 1,325 of the most fragile and rare UK local newspaper titles to be preserved. It was not possible to preserve all of the 1,600 titles in the original approximate estimation due to the large size of many of the newspaper volumes that were within the schedule of titles to be filmed. 3.2 To create archival microfilm to preservation standards. In total, 30,476 reels of archival-quality were produced to international standards over a two-year period. The target set in the EU tender for the contract for preservation filming was a total of 30,000 reels. Taking the contract over the 30,000-reel limit meant that as many rare and fragile newspaper titles were preserved as possible within the limits of the Project budget. A tender for microfilming was circulated in 2001 under the EC procurement rules. The contract was awarded in 2002 to MicroFormat (UK) Ltd, based in Rochester, Kent. 3.3 To deliver one free copy of each film to the appropriate local library. All those library services that nominated a newspaper title of importance to its local area through its regional NEWSPLAN Committee have received a free copy of the microfilm of that title. In addition, other libraries have acquired copies of titles of importance to them; these include the three national libraries of the UK; the British Library, National Library of Wales and National Library of Scotland. 3.4 To distribute free microfilm readers and reader printers throughout the UK. In total, 156 microfilm reader-printers and 314 microfilm readers have been distributed to those library services who had requested equipment to allow them to access the reels of microfilm they received from the Project. The supply of the microfilm reading equipment was the subject of a tender conducted under the EC procurement rules in 2004. The contract for the supply of equipment was awarded to Kodak (UK) Ltd. 3.5 To store master negative microfilm to archival standards, and have arrangements in place for creating positive film from the working negatives. The 30,476 reels of master negative archival-quality microfilm are now stored in the purpose-built facility at the National Library of Wales. A memorandum of agreement between the NEWSPLAN Company and the National Library of Wales will govern the storage of the master negatives, as required by HLF. The memorandum covers long-term funding for the storage of archival-quality negatives for twenty-five years. A memorandum of agreement between the NEWSPLAN Company and the British Library
will govern the arrangements for the copying of NEWSPLAN film, as required by HLF. A memorandum of agreement between the NEWSPLAN Company and the UK Newspaper Industry, as required by HLF at the start of the Project, governs these requirements. 3.6 To digitise and search the microfilm by making it available over the Internet. In 2002, the HLF agreed that this objective should be removed from the Project s aims and objectives after it became clear that a number of other large-scale projects for the digitisation of film were being announced, including a 1M project by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) to the British Library. 3.7 To catalogue each title to international standards. By agreement with HLF, all 1,325 newspaper titles are listed on the Project s website. In addition, catalogue entries for those reels purchased by the national libraries of the UK are also available in their online catalogues. 3.8 To provide multiple levels of access to the Project. The Project s website at http://www.newsplan2000.org has allowed widespread access to the work of the Project. In addition, each NEWSPLAN region has raised awareness of the Project through its local media. 3.9 To pioneer a new approach to preservation using the involvement of libraries, the newspaper industry and archival-quality preservation microfilming. The regional newspaper industry of the UK, and a number of charitable bodies, provided 1.25M in partnership funding to support the programme. In addition, library services in the UK provided 1M in in-kind contributions to the programme through the servicing and preparation of newspaper volumes before preservation, and their transportation to and from the microfilming contractor. Both contractors appointed by the Project (MicroFormat (UK) Ltd and Kodak Ltd) have worked closely and effectively with the Project and its participants. 3.10 To create a partnership approach to a complex cultural preservation programme. The project preserved 1,325 local newspaper titles and supplied copies to over 200 library services throughout the UK. This involved each library service preparing newspaper volumes for preservation and transporting newspaper volumes to and from the microfilming contractor. The Project worked closely with the ten NEWSPLAN regional committees and with the UK & Ireland NEWSPLAN Committee, the successor to the LINC NEWSPLAN Committee. In addition, the Project worked closely with the newspaper industry and its representative bodies: the Newspaper Society and the Scottish Newspaper Publishers Association. 3.11 To benefit all sectors of society throughout the UK. Over 200 library services serving communities throughout the UK have received microfilm of their most precious and fragile local newspaper titles, which have been preserved for current and future generations. In addition, many titles are now available in communities where they have been unavailable because local libraries had not kept full archives of their local newspaper titles. 4. LESSONS LEARNED
The NEWSPLAN 2000 Project has been a large and complex operation. It has achieved its principal aims and objectives. Key lessons to be learned are as follows: 4.1 Partnership funding 1. The securing of 1.25M in partnership funding from the UK regional newspaper industry and charitable bodies was a significant achievement for the Project. Tributes are due to the industry for its support for the Project and the level of contributions made to the Project. It has been a unique form of support, unrivalled in any other country. 2. That said, a great deal of Project staff time, and that of the Chairman, was taken up working with the industry to secure funding support, because of the particular way in which the UK regional newspaper industry works. The main Project effort was taken up with making the case and ensuring continuity of communication with the Chief Executive Officers of the principal newspaper groups, which tend to have a rapid turnover in personnel. 3. In addition, each newspaper industry group insisted on being treated individually and separately from other groups, and it became clear that the industry is not coordinated in any way. 4. While the representative bodies of the industry, the Newspaper Society and the Scottish Newspaper Publishers Association, co-operated with the Project from the outset, it became evident very early on that the Project required the personal support of industry leaders to ensure that partnership contributions were actually received. This did require a substantial amount of effort each year, since the same process had to be gone through at the request of the industry in each of the Project years. 5. It became abundantly clear during the Project that the partnership funding from the industry could never have been assembled and deposited before the Project began its work. The HLF and the Project, therefore, took a correct decision in agreeing to launch the Project before the partnership funding was in place, but with the provision of written letters of partnership funding support from industry leaders. 6. All of the newspaper groups that pledged their support in 2001 and 2002 all continued to renew their partnership funding support up to the point of project completion. The single exception was Trinity Mirror plc, which did not renew its contribution in 2004. This decision was deeply resented the UK regional newspaper industry, since it appeared to have been made on the basis of personal whim rather than on any rational assessment, and it caused the reduction of the period of the maintenance contract in order to ensure that all libraries promised equipment could receive it. 4.2 Working with specialist contractors 1. The NEWSPLAN 2000 Project appointed two contractors to deliver key elements of the programme. MicroFormat (UK) Ltd was appointed to preserve newspaper files on archival microfilm and Kodak (UK) Ltd was appointed to supply microfilm-reading equipment.
2. Both contractors worked effectively and to the requirements of their contracts. 3. There was, however, a slow start to the microfilming programme, which caused the Project to fall behind its planned schedule of productivity and the HLF to place the Project on an Amber alert. 4. Problems with microfilming productivity became apparent in June 2001 when microfilming had been running for three months. The Project worked closely with the contractor to establish reasons for the slow pace of productivity but did not receive the co-operation it required or expected at that stage. 5. In September 2001 it became clear that illness was a factor. While the contract signed by the contractor called on them to have a management team in place, it was clear that because of illness this aspect of the project did not seem to be functioning properly. 6. In October 2001, with no signal improvement in productivity, it began to be clear that the specialist microfilm camera specially built by the contractor to handle the NEWSPLAN 2000 contract was not functioning at the pace estimated by the contractor. 7. In November 2001 the Project urgently requested a meeting with the parent company MicroFormat (Holland). From that point the Dutch arm of the operation became involved. Production improved from that point, but because the contractor had lost so much time through the delay, an extension to the microfilming contract was required to ensure that all 30,000 reels that had been contracted by the Project were produced. This extension was agreed by HLF, and was negotiated with the contractor and the British Library. It was cost-neutral to the Project and HLF, and the additional costs were borne by the contractor. 8. The key lesson here was the dependence on untested and specialist equipment to ensure a successful contract that had to be completed within a relatively short timeframe. With the benefit of hindsight, it was clear that the estimates made by the contractor for the productivity of its new camera were optimistic. On reflection, the Project should have insisted that the contractor extended its plans on productivity to allow for the bedding-in of new equipment. However, the plans presented were impressive, and the need to observe EC timetable rules on procurement, meant that the contractor was judged by the Tender Board assessing submissions as by far the best tenderer applying for the contract from NEWSPLAN 2000, and was duly selected by the Tender Board on the basis of its presented plans. 8. The Project did investigate the estimates for microfilm production prior to award of contract but in observing EC Procurement Rules had to accept the contractor s estimates, which were deemed to be reliable. 5. CONCLUSIONS 5.1 The NEWSPLAN 2000 Project has been a successful programme. It has operated to budget and has met its approved purposes.
5.2 The award made by the HLF has allowed a sizeable part of the historical record of the local newspaper press in the UK to be preserved for posterity. 5.3 Local newspaper titles previously unavailable in their local areas are now being read in public libraries by a wide spectrum of society. 5.4 The complex, delegated nature of the programme, underpinned by the NEWSPLAN regional committees, has worked well and responded with vigour to the challenges it has faced. 5.5 The UK regional newspaper industry has provided a sizeable amount of partnership funding and has taken an active role in the preservation of its own output. 5.6 The Project has generated a great deal of goodwill from local newspaper readers and libraries and archives towards the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) and the industry for their support for the preservation of newspapers. 5.7 In 2000, when NEWSPLAN 2000 was awarded 5M by the HLF, it was clearly understood that this would be the first stage in the award of the 16M applied for in 1999 to preserve all UK local newspapers identified as vulnerable to decay and loss. However, with the recent changed priorities of the HLF towards access and away from preservation, it is now likely that there will be no large-scale preservation programmes for local newspapers in the future. There is therefore a strong likelihood that some fragile local newspaper collections will be lost to the nation. John E. Lauder Project Director Ann Matheson Chairman 13 July 2005