A BS T RAC T

A project dedicated to enhance management atMakerere University in Kampala, Uganda, was funded bythe European Union; in total, eight man-months wereallocated to the library. The purpose was to determine theareas in which preservation awareness could improve thelong-term stability, security, and accessibility of the libraryholdings. The overall objective was to integrate the preser-vation function, embodied in individual activities, withinthe management of the library.

In 1999–2000, the task was undertaken on site byFrederick A. Bearman, book conservator and consultant inlibrary collections conservation, Eléonore Kissel, paperconservator and consultant in preventive conservation, andColin Venus, consultant in micrographics and photogra-phy.

Following an evaluation phase during which the assetsand problems of the library were jointly assessed by theconsultants, a program was set up, comprising the follow-ing activities:• conception of a three-week preservation management

study course and workshop to train thirty members ofboth curatorial and technical staff;

• establishment of a maintenance and conservation unitwithin the existing bindery and training of selectedbinders;

• establishment of a photographic laboratory and facilityin the library and training of selected staff.

In 1999 three consultants were solicited by UNECIA(Universities of England Consortium for InternationalA c t i v i t i e s )1 to form the Technical Assistance Team to

Makerere University of Kampala Library (MUKL). Theircollective brief was to set up a preservation program forthe library holdings, each professional within his or herspecific field of expertise: preventive conservation forEléonore Kissel, book conservation and collections man-agement for Frederick A. Bearman, and photographic andmicrographic reproduction for Colin Venus.

The project being financed by the European UnionHuman Resources Development Program (EU-HRDP),2

its goal was to focus on professional development. Indeed,it quickly became clear that training and documentationwere going to be the keys to success for implementing aneffective preservation policy. This presentation will followthe chronological order in which the various activities tookplace, as they were planned sequentially so as to constitutea coherent, although not all-encompassing, program.

T H E S E T T I N G

Makerere University (MUK) is located on one of theseven hills surrounding Kampala, Uganda’s capital. Thisprestigious location was initially selected for the founda-tion of Makerere College, built in 1922 under the Britishprotectorate. The school was turned into a higher educa-tion facility, formally renamed in the 1950s “East Af r i c aU n i v e r s i t y.” Within the next two decades it was to becomea thriving learning environment for students of Uganda,Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan, and other English-speaking coun-tries located in the easternmost part of the continent.

H o w e v e r, political events during the 1970s and early1980s, under the leadership by Idi Amin Dada, led to amassive reduction in academic and technical staff due todeath, disappearance, and exile. Under acute suspicionbecause it was perceived by the tyrannical regime as a pos-sible source of dissension, the university functionedhaphazardly during several years. This period, quite natu-r a l l y, induced the progressive decay of university buildingsand grounds. Since the mid 1980s and the arrival in powerof General Museveni (who today still heads Uganda’s gov-

The Book and Paper Group Annual volume 19 20009

A Global Approach: Setting Up a Preservation Program atMakerere University Library in Kampala, Uganda

F R E D E R I C K B E A R M A N A N D E L É O N O R E K I SS E L

Presented at the Book & Paper Group Session, AIC 28th AnnualMeeting, June 8–13, 2000, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Receivedfor publication Fall 2000.

ernment), Makerere University has somewhat resumed itsregular course of activities, however still impaired by majorneeds in all aspects of its development. In fact, the situationdescribed below is worsened by the very popularity ofMUK, student enrollment reaching well over 22,000whilst the facilities were initially designed for approxi-mately 7,000.

It is this realization that prompted MUKL, as well asother departments of the university, to request fundingfrom both non-governmental and governmental organiza-tions such as the EU (fig. 1). The project managed byUNECIA called for eight man-months on site, which wereused as explained below.

I N I T I A L P R E L I M I N A R Y S U RV E Y

A twist in the planning made Eléonore Kissel arrive fir s ton site, in March 1999. She was to survey the context andhenceforth propose an action plan; she was thus propelled“ Team Leader,” a title that doesn’t bear justice to theformidable collective effort and camaraderie which under-lined the whole project.

The first few visits enabled the team to ascertain thatthe library had undeniable assets, most notably:• a somewhat sturdy, well-ventilated building: few mold

infestations occurred, although Uganda has a tropicalclimate (fig. 2);

• a library which had been carefully designed and initial-ly well, even somewhat luxuriously, equipped;

• very diverse holdings, typical of what would be foundin a university library (free access and reserved printedbooks, periodicals and theses, with additional archivaland photographic holdings);

• a staff conscious about security issues and the impor-tance of keeping the books usable as long as possible.

However, several major problems were also identified, ofwhich a list follows:

• absence of preservation strategy, including acquisition,deaccession, holdings maintenance, conservation andreformatting policies;

• insufficient staffing in all areas of the library;• lack of initial training in preservation for most support,

security, and maintenance personnel;3

• lack of continuing training in preservation for most pro-fessional staff;

• insufficient maintenance of existing buildings and facil-ities;

• i n s u f ficient security procedures and security equipment;• insufficient data about physical characteristics and cur-

rent condition of holdings;• incomplete equipment, and incompatibility of equip-

ment to some aims;4

• lack of local possibilities for service back-up and sup-plies ordering, or inadequacy of supplies routinelyordered.Soon after the team met in Kampala, it was jointly

decided to set up a training program for the library staff.The three main areas identified as needing consultancywere:• internal policies (i.e., policy making, budget prioritiz-

ing, conscious sharing of resources, etc.);• theoretical knowledge (i.e., raising preservation aware-

ness of both staff and users);• technical skills (i.e., teaching specific techniques in the

fields of conservation and microfilming).It should be noted here that, as part of MUK, the library

is meant to serve as an income generating as well as an aca-demic support unit. It is funded by the Ugandan

10 The Book and Paper Group Annual volume 19 2000

Fig. 1. Makerere University’s Main Library building, front view.Notice the dust road that leads to the entrance, allowing a thickred dust to enter the library and settle on the shelves and books,d i s figuring the library holdings and potentially causing abrasion.(Photo by E. Kissel, 1999)

Fig. 2. MUKL main building, side view. The constructionallows the air to flow freely through the building, as most of thewindows located behind the lace-like concrete panels areopened. (Photo by E. Kissel, 1999)

government, the university, and donations. The budgetallocated by the state is mostly deemed fit for everydayrunning costs, while the use of university funding is some-what less rigid. For instance, it may be used to improvethe facilities housing library materials, or to sustain amicrofilming program.

However, it was found during the inception phase thata significant part of the funds provided by the universityhad been set aside for MUKL’s extension project. Indeed,plans had been drawn for the building, although no com-prehensive survey regarding needs in terms of space andfunctionality had been conducted. Furthermore, most ofthe library senior staff were not involved in the planningstage, and no technical specifications were established byprofessionals of library facilities and preservation.Although a new extension to the existing main librarybuilding would undoubtedly be necessary to accommo-date the increase in the number of students, it was notedthat in the meantime few maintenance activities were car-ried out on the existing facilities. This was mainly due tofunding shortages, partly caused by budget savings setaside to fund the new extension.

The budget allocated to the EU-HRDP project wouldonly allow for importing a few preservation and micro-graphic supplies. While all three consultants realized thattheir proposal of training courses hardly answered thewishes expressed in the initial grant request to purchase adigital camera or an HVAC system, training did seem thebest procedure to raise awareness, while progressivelydirecting the library staff towards autonomy in terms ofholdings preservation and management. To sustain themomentum it was hoped the training could induce, thefirst step was nevertheless to establish an interest groupwithin the library.

T E C H N I C A L P R E S E RVAT I O N G R O U P

The Technical Preservation Group (TPG) was estab-lished by the library staff in the time between the inceptionand the implementation phase, upon the recommenda-tions made by the consultants in March/April 1999.

The TPG consists of ten members of senior staff, rep-resenting the various functions embodied in MUKL:legislative (head librarian, deputy head librarian); admin-istrative (administrative assistant); and executive (sixlibrarians representing various sections in the main library,branch libraries, or technical services). The chair personis the librarian head of the Africana section of the mainl i b r a r y, which holds the most specific collections, on whichthe preservation efforts will be particularly focused.

It was found by the consultants that the composition ofthe TPG was perfect, inasmuch as its members agreed torelay information to their colleagues, regardless of theirranking in the university. During July, the consultants were

invited to TPG meetings and acted as a support for deci-sion making. For instance, they gave advice regarding thebasic preservation courses that will be forwarded by sever-al TPG members to assistant librarians and support staffthat had not been able to attend the initial training ses-sions.

The effects of the dedication of the TPG were imme-diately perceptible, as its members promptly organized towrite and make official the policies necessary to implementpreservation management within MUKL.

Specific topics were allocated to various staff membersof the TPG, which will monitor the requirements andoutcomes of:• acquisition and weeding of holdings,• access to holdings and security,• photocopying and microfilming,• pest management,• buildings maintenance,• disaster preparedness and response.

Furthermore, it was planned that the TPG would indue time be transformed into a Committee (thereforeempowered with increased capacity for implementingdecisions), after approval from the University’s highadministration.

P R E S E RVAT I O N T RA I N I N G P R O G RA M

The preservation training program was held over a peri-od of three weeks, with classes on every working day.Thirty participants gathered, all hierarchical grades mixed;librarians, library assistants, binders, as well as staff fromthe university’s museum and herbarium were invited.Most members of the TPG managed to find the time andsuccessfully attended the training. Certificates were hand-ed out at the end of the program, an incentive to sustainattendance even though the consultants knew it was diffi-cult for both professional and technical staff to attend sucha demanding program.

The talks were given by Eléonore Kissel and FrederickBearman, as well as teachers from other departments5 andM U K-based consultants.6 It is hoped that these collabo-rations might have contributed to generating a sense ofcommunity among staff from the entire university.

The topics covered in the program were, in chronolog-ical order:1. General concepts in preservation and conservation2. Manufacturing materials and structure of library hold-

ings3. Environmental impact on holdings4. Biological degradation agents (fig. 3)5. Users and keepers (fig. 4)6. Disaster planning and recovery7. Documentation.

Bearman & Kissel A Global Approach: Setting Up a Preservation Program at Makerere University Library 11

The classes were both theoretical and practical; when-ever possible, examples were sought within the boundariesof the library. Suggestions for modifying a problematic sit-uation always took into account the specifics of MUKL andits staff: the tropical environment, the academic setting, thelimited budget, and the cultural background were alwayskept in mind. Handouts were distributed at the end of eachone-, two-, or three-day session, serving as a basis for asmall preservation documentation center.7

As with any teachings, the underlying principles were:• learning to see—chrysalids hanging from the walls and

dust on the shelves!• learning to act—how to dry books that have been flo o d-

ed!• learning when and where to turn for help—as exempli-

fied by Frederick Bearman’s idea of holding the lastsession in the library’s Internet room, so participantscould become familiar with the preservation related websites and free resources.

B O O K A N D A R C H I V E C O N S E RVAT I O N T RA I N I N G

Although some good collections care practices had man-ifestly been in operation in the preceding years, we wereall conscious—consultants and library staff alike—of thewidespread insect infestations and the lack of preservationawareness by the staff who were carrying out simple col-lections care procedures. These and other problems wereto be addressed by the three-part training agenda. Theoverall objectives of the training programs were muchenhanced by the construction of a new secure area for them i c r o film laboratory and a purpose-built room in the mainbindery for conservation work.

The first part of the project was conducted in July 1999.It involved raising collections care awareness by deliveryof a three-week preservation management study courseincluding hands-on workshops. Over thirty senior librari-ans from throughout the MUKL network, includingselected bindery staff, attended the courses. At the conclu-sion UNECIA diplomas for full attendance were handedout to each participant in a formal but friendly ceremony.

The next stage involved creating a special collectionsmaintenance and conservation unit. A team of six book-binders, selected from the main and the two branch librarybinderies, was instructed in collections care and basic non-interventive conservation skills (fig. 5). Training stressedthe testing of materials for pH levels, making appropriateenclosures, the identification of library and archive collec-tions degradation agents, and general washing andflattening techniques for single sheet items. The teams

12 The Book and Paper Group Annual volume 19 2000

Fig. 3. Damage by insects on book covers made of strawboard.Live pests are not considered a nuisance in everyday life, andtherefore and not eradicated within the library. (Photo by E .Kissel, 1999)

Fig. 4. Lack of space and, to a certain degree, of awareness ortraining favors disarray in the stacks. In this case, the books arehigher than the space between shelves, and therefore cannot beremoved without risking severe mechanical damage. (Photoby F. Bearman, 2000)

responded well to training and were later appointed to staffthe new conservation unit. Other skills taught involved astudy of the overall management of the bindery. Binderymanagers and members of the TPG were instructed in theuse of SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, andThreats) analyses and the benefits offered from the intro-duction of a work time points system for controlledmanagement.

R E F O R M AT T I N G T RA I N I N G

The third phase focused on establishing a new micro-filming and photographic laboratory within the mainl i b r a r y. The aim here was to train staff to a standard atwhich—by the end of the project—a fully operationalmicrofilming unit was in action (fig. 6).

C O N C LU S I O N

The purpose of the project was to determine the vari-ous ways in which preservation awareness and practicalknow-how could improve the long-term stability, securi-ty and accessibility of the library holdings, to the benefit ofquality education for the students at Makerere University.In the future, the outcome of integrated preservation man-agement should be accounted for in terms of reduced risksof damage, as well as in a lower rate of mechanical andchemical degradation of holdings. The outputs could bemeasured numerically (e.g., number of pamphlets boxed)while, whenever possible, collection condition surveysshould be used as objectively verifiable indicators of theprojects’ achievements. However, this is a step beyondwhat was performed in 1999–2000.

So far, it is fair to say that many of the staff involved inone or several of the training programs expressed a

renewed enthusiasm for their everyday activi-ties. Although difficult to assess objectively,this output is the fundamental basis withoutwhich preservation management could not beimplemented in the library. It is also perfectlyin phase with the overall purpose of theEuropean Union program funding this con-sultancy project.

It should be mentioned that the projecttook place during the last year of a triennialplan funded by the EU-HRDP, as it ended inMarch 2000. Sadly enough, the EuropeanUnion shifted its priority towards primaryeducation, thus leaving the library staff with-out any possibility of recourse for additionalconsultancy, as may periodically be needed onspecific topics within the next few years.

Nevertheless, the EU-HRDP conservationand preservation grant funded a successful

Bearman & Kissel A Global Approach: Setting Up a Preservation Program at Makerere University Library 13

Fig. 5. Frederick Bearman with five binders from the Book and ArchiveConservation Training Programme. (Photo by F. Bearman, 2000)

Fig. 6. Two microfilming technicians working in the reformat-ting laboratory. (Photo by F. Bearman, 2000)

management program. Indeed, the net result for MUKLwas a functioning microfilming laboratory, a conservationand collections care unit and a university library systemwhich is now in a better position to establish preservationpriorities and respond to conservation needs.

N O T E S

1. UNECIA is a firm set up by a consortium of British uni-versities in order to respond to tenders put forth in internationalprograms. Therefore its activities spread out over widely rangingprojects, MUKL’s being the first one dealing with cultural her-itage preservation.

2. Should a reader wish to seek further information from theEuropean Union archives, the project code for MUKL was7 ACP UG 013 HRDP.

3. There was no space set up specifically for maintenance orconservation work. The three existing binderies (one in the mainbuilding and two detached units located in annexes) were clut-tered with broken or otherwise unused equipment, pointing tothe fact that technical staff had not become aware of the impacttheir environment might bear on the quality of their work. As forreformatting, although two members of staff were given basictraining at the time of microfilming equipment delivery, this per-sonnel had since been allocated other tasks, the equipment beingleft in disarray.

4 . The electronic camera purchased by MUKL with EUfunds would not allow the microfilming of periodicals, althoughthey were considered priority items for reproduction. This situ-ation occurred because the proper expertise had not been soughtafter when preparing to spend an important amount on highlytechnical equipment.

5 . Professor Kaddu, lecturer in the Zoology Department(Faculty of Science), taught a session on entomology. He subse-quently agreed to continue helping the library staff by conductingi d e n t i fication of insect species whenever required and monitoringzoology student research projects on topics such as pest eradica-tion in the context of libraries under tropical climates (forinstance, using traditional non-polluting essential oils as insectrepellents).

6 . A team of consultants from the Estates and Wo r k sDepartment, namely P. Mc. Anena, O. Shittu and A. Ayo, jointlytaught a session on facilities surveying and preventive buildingmaintenance. They subsequently agreed to conduct a compre-hensive survey of the Main Library building, establish costing,and provide advice as to priority maintenance or repair activities.

7. Of course, any donations would be welcome! Please con-tact the authors for additional details.

AC K N O W L E D G M E N T S

We are cheerfully indebted to Colin Venus, our faithfulWelsh colleague. P. Mc. Anena, O. Shittu, and A. Ayo arealso thanked for their support of our project, expressed in

m a n y, often wonderful ways. Last but not least, let usextend our gratitude to Pr. Kaddu, an entomologist whounderstands insects as well as he does the importance ofpreserving Uganda’s written heritage.

FREDERICK A. BEARMANLibrary Collections ConservationArt Exploration Consultancy Ltd.London United Kingdom2@artex-ltd.co.uk

ELÉONORE KISS E LConsultant in PreservationInExtensoParisFrancekissel@compuserve.com.

14 The Book and Paper Group Annual volume 19 2000