Update: National policy on the Digitisation of Heritage Resources

The Department of Arts hosted a consultative workshop on 3 February 20011

Delegates packed a large hall at Gallagher Estate, Midrand, eager to hear more, and have their say about the National Policy on the Digitisation of Heritage Resources.

Acting Director General of Heritage in the Department of Arts and Culture (DAC), Vusithemba Ndima opened the workshop, reiterated that the policy was a priority for the DAC in terms of meeting their mandate to preserve memory, and that the DAC was committed to working with stakeholders to determine ways in which to do this effectively. Admitting that some amongst the audience were probably anxious about the change, Ndima urged delegates to embrace new ways of working and respond to the exciting opportunities and challenges posed by news technologies. Ndima pointed our that the policy dealt with the ever-present issues problems of ownership and access and asked that delegates work with the team to find ways to facilitate access to heritage resources without compromising the rights of copyright holders.

Director of Heritage, Research and Legislation Mbhazima Makhubele, delivered a presentation outlining the policy development process, methodology and key objectives. In his presentation, Makhubele informed the workshop that the policy had emerged as stakeholder concerns and pressure from international agencies. Makhubele also stressed that policy development was an ongoing and dynamic process , requiring all concerned to respond quickly, but with due consideration, to new challenges.

Roger Layton, lead consultant in the team that prepared the policy presented key policy challenges and statements, taking us on a whistle stop tour of the key recommendations outlined in the policy document. It was a lengthy session, and to Layton’s credit that his lively style of presentation and flashy graphics kept the audience awake and alert. If you don’t have time to read the whole document, attached, focus on Chapter 3 which includes 27 policy statements dealing with: getting digitisation done; Ownership, copyright and foreign funding; access; financing, digitisation and relationship to other government bodies; repository management;  capacity and institution building and; creating support systems for digitisation.

Delegates broke into smaller groups for focussed discussion on key issues and the lively report back session that followed the lunch break offered proof that delegates had engaged energetically with the issues.

Questions following Layton’s marathon session and the report back by breakaway groups focussed on a number of key issues. 

• The relationship of this policy to that of initiatives of the Department of Communication, Science and Technology – concerns were expressed about unnecessary duplication or inconsistencies in approach. Layton and DAC expressed their commitment to engaging with relevant departments to ensure synergy.
• The extent to which policy recommendations could be implemented. There was some concern that some of the recommendations might not be technically feasible yet.
• The nature of the proposed National Digital Repositories and the way in which these might relate to existing institutions. Layton explained that existing institutions may, if they met certain criteria, be declared as NDRs.
• The nature of the proposed Institute for Digital Heritage; delegates seemed somewhat resistant to the notion of creating additional institutions, bureaucracies or professional bodies.
• The extent to which the policy reinforced existing inequities rather than furthering transformation.
• The capacity of overburdened and under-resourced institutions to deal with the additional demands of digitisation, as outlined in the policy document.
• The preservation of original material. It was suggested that recommendations pertaining to this be included in the document – it seems that some museum professionals are concerned that the focus on digitisation will put the conservation of objects and records at risk. It was noted that digital preservation made documents accessible, but did not preserve them!

I have attended many policy workshops over the years. Many have been marked by heated engagements between the DAC officials, consultant teams and stakeholders. This workshop was relatively calm; possibly because the issues under discussion were generally technical, rather than conceptual. But still, I would have liked the policy to respond to some of the critical questions facing heritage practitioners today. How could digitisation contribute to issues of transformation, to addressing historic inequities and marginilised histories? How could digitisation facilitate access to heritage resources? How could digitisation play a role in democratising heritage? At the end of the day surely digitisation is a tool – a wonderful and exciting tool – rather than an end in itself.

The consultant team will be amending the policy before submitting it to the DAC for further consideration.

Jo-Anne Duggan

Leave a comment