We hope that, in addition to informing you about our work, this helps you think about how you and your associations could mobilise to advocate for libraries!

Connect the culture sector in your country with those planning and reporting on sustainable development

Analyzing the 36 Voluntary National Reviews prepared and presented by UN Member States at this year’s High-Level Political Forum shows that, once again, governments around the world recognize the importance of culture in sustainable development. Despite the absence of a goal, reports show that many countries to see culture both as a goal in itself and as a driver and determinant of success in other areas. There is still more work to do – both in connecting cultural sectors with those responsible for sustainable development planning and advocating for the presence of culture in the post-2030 development framework.

Highlight how libraries are preserving and providing access to documentary heritage

This month, UNESCO launched the 3rd consultation on the implementation of the 2015 Recommendation concerning the preservation of, and access to, documentary heritage including in digital form, inviting Member States to report on actions taken over the past four years to preserve and improve access to documentary heritage, including digital collections. This is a great opportunity for you to engage, as Member States are encouraged to work with ministries, memory institutions, professional associations, civil society organizations, and UNESCO National Commissions to prepare their reports, which will inform a consolidated global assessment to be presented in 2027. Connect with your UNESCO National Commission to share your impact.

Step back and consider how assumptions, key beliefs, or things we may take for granted have shaped the present.

The third edition of the IFLA Future Club was something very special. It featured 15 emerging leaders from around the world who came together in Busan, South Korea, during WLIC to explore how a mixture of external forces, assumptions, and our own choices have shaped the present, and how we can challenge this to shape the future. Check out the recap of the session [or watch it here], and then take the first Quest in our Great IFLA100 Futures Challenge and share your own ideas! For even more, watch Sohail Inayatullah’s WLIC 2026 keynote on alternative futures of libraries.

Be vocal about how libraries in your community are fostering partnerships and driving systems-level transformation

Libraries in communities around the world are adapting and building partnerships that can help address major social, cultural, and institutional challenges. International librarianship can help share lessons from different regions on what works to sustain these activities – from collaborative models that expand reach, approaches that support identity, resilience, and community connection, and strategies that embed advocacy within institutional and policy frameworks. Watch the session from IFLA’s Regional Division Committee and start sharing your own experiences.

Take the pledge to build climate resilience in your library – and in your community.

In June, IFLA was proud to help launch the Heritage Adapts project with partners from across the culture and climate sector. We are inviting our members to join the project by taking the pledge and then taking advantage of the 100+ learning modules that span all steps of taking resilience-building action. Watch the introduction of Heritage Adapts for Libraries and get started protecting libraries, collections and community spaces that are so important for helping our communities adapt.

Think big about how libraries can help people and communities actively shape their futures

IFLA’s Powering Transformation in Cities and Communities WLIC Session explored how libraries can drive systems change through providing people and communities with the knowledge, skills, trusted spaces and agency to shape their futures. To enable this future, speakers identified the need for sustainable funding, more connected library ecosystems, and cross-sector partnerships so that libraries can serve as inclusive “agents of hope” that actively support resilient and connected communities. Consider the ideal vision of a future where libraries actively create more sustainable cities and communities, and the actions we need to take now to achieve this.

Position libraries as leaders in climate action and sustainability

IFLA’s Powering Transformation for Planet and People WLIC Session stressed that libraries have a critical role to play in supporting climate transformation by providing trusted information, strengthening climate literacy, and connecting communities with opportunities for meaningful action. Speakers highlighted that policymakers and library leaders should ensure that libraries are represented in climate planning and decision-making, supported through dedicated funding and partnerships, and recognized as essential institutions for building a greener and more sustainable future. Consider what stakeholders and decision-makers in your community may be the best to connect with to make this future happen.

Be a voice for safeguarding knowledge diversity in the future information ecosystem

IFLA’s Powering Transformation for Knowledge and Information WLIC Session made a powerful call for libraries to take an active role in shaping the future information ecosystem. Speakers emphasized the importance of addressing the challenges posed by artificial intelligence, strengthening collaborations across sectors, supporting open access and open science, and embedding Indigenous knowledge and governance throughout library systems. Consider what practices, and what partners, you would you need to establish in order to make this vision a reality.

Subscribe to read more of our Advoc8 series in the future!

Subscribe now

In debates around technology, it’s often claimed that new tools are intrinsically neutral, with their ultimate positive or negative impact coming from the way in which they are used. This raises in turn the question of how we determine and describe what the ‘right’ way of using such tools is – or in other words, what constitutes ‘responsible’ use.

This question is of course not a new one. Throughout history, constitutions, conventions, laws and other tools are designed (or at least are supposed to be designed) to set out what responsible use of tools and power looks like, and enforce these behaviours (more or less successfully).

This is also a familiar idea for our field. We have a sense of responsibility to our users, present and future, knowing that we need to manage our collections, spaces and programming optimally in order to continue to earn the trust of our communities.

The concept of ‘responsibility’ also appears in the scholarly publishing space, for example with the emergence of initiatives such as the Coalition for Responsible Sharing, and now with discussions about what responsible AI looks like. These imply a judgement about where the line lies between responsible and irresponsible sharing (or AI) looks like, which is worth digging into.

This is particular important given that references to ‘responsibility’ are also used in advocacy, in favour of certain approaches or actors, and so against others. It is therefore not a term that should be used, or accepted, lightly.

As a result, as part of our occasional series looking more deeply into the words we use, this blog digs into what questions we should be asking ourselves when we hear the word ‘responsible’.

It looks first at what library responsibilities could be, then those around ‘responsible’ sharing of articles and other materials, and finally, responsible AI. A short summary table is given in each section to explore the questions.

Unpacking responsibility in libraries

A useful starting point for any exploration of what ‘responsible’ means is to ask ourselves, ‘for what’, ‘to whom’, and how. We can start by applying this to our own work in libraries.

For example traditionally, responsibility in libraries may have been more focused on

building up and safeguarding collections, and providing simple (and controlled) access.

We saw ourselves as responsible to our communities, but perhaps did not ask so many questions about what that meant in reality. Were we giving preference to future generations over present ones by limiting access? To what extent were we really giving access to everyone, or just those already using the library? Were our ways of providing access actually what people needed?

With time, the answers to these questions have also evolved. Certainly, the relevance of safeguarding collections for future generations remains very significant. However, we arguably see a stronger focus on activating knowledge rather than just providing access to it. There is also a sense that as public buildings, we also need to make the best use of our ‘real estate’ – especially in cases where there may not be any other non-commercial ‘third spaces’ in our communities.

In terms of to whom we are responsible, there is also more active reflection about who this is. Libraries are readier to challenge themselves about whether all members of the community really are benefitting from what they can offer, and to find new ways to reach out to them.

This all feeds into different answers to the question of how libraries fulfil their responsibility, including through a greater openness to community input and influence, in order to make sure that we are fulfilling our duties and demonstrating accountability.

Nonetheless, this is an ongoing process: we are always learning more things about our community, while technology creates new possibilities. This in turn means that the answers to the questions – for what, to whom, and how – are in turn evolving.

‘Responsible’ Sharing

Looking beyond the library field, we can apply the same approach to the idea of ‘responsible sharing’. This is a term that emerged in response to concern about the extent and impact of sharing articles and books among researchers outside of more formal structures, with a particular focus on Research Gate, the commercial social media platform for the research field.

In formal communication around this, the key focus has been on responsible sharing as implying that taking place through official channels. In contrast, unofficial sharing is presented as more likely to be associated with unverified copies, and so allowing the spread of less reliable results.

The implication here is of a responsibility to the scientific community as a whole, and the wider population, with the ‘how’ being the use of official platforms.

However, it is possible to read this use of the word ‘responsible’ in other ways. Doubtless, one concern was certainly about the potential for lost subscription revenues if researchers could access materials without paying. Sharing outside of official channels (i.e. ‘irresponsible’ sharing) also means that publishers may not have complete data about numbers of downloads and views of articles and books (and even how they are read and used). This reduces the value of analytical products based on these.

In these cases, we are talking much more about a responsibility to a particular business model. This may not be so obviously beneficial for the wider world. Indeed, to the degree that imposing particular models of sharing reduces access to research and excludes actors, it may even be harmful to the wider research field. This is a core reason why open access has been seen as a priority for so many.

It can of course be argued that the money that flows into the sector pays for other valuable services – for example, research assessment does rely heavily on data that can be provided about use. At the same time, that argument is also based on assumptions about whether such services need to be provided by commercial publishers, and even if so, whether there are not better ways of doing it.

‘Responsible’ AI

We can apply the same approach to efforts to define what ‘responsible’ AI is. This is of course a more complex discussion, not least given that within the concept of ‘AI’ there are questions about all of basic training, practical application (including using Retrieval Augmented Generation), and then how AI outputs are subsequently used.

In terms of ‘what’ there should be responsibility for, some discussions focus on the specific content of outputs (and the harm or good they may do), while others highlight the broader environmental and economic consequences of training, as well as the impacts of use of AI on both creative sectors and individual cognition.

As for the question of ‘to whom’ there is responsibility, some arguments focus on the wider economy, and the idea that countries need to draw on the productivity gains that AI can drive. Yet it is also the same economy that needs to be protected from harmful products. Furthermore, responsibilities to limit climate change, ensure that economies can sustain jobs, and safeguard people’s ability to think independently are also matters of general concern.

More narrowly, AI companies will see themselves as having a responsibility to their investors and shareholders (something imposed by law on public companies). In contrast, those segments of the cultural industries seeing their business models challenged claim that there is a responsibility to them (and will also argue that there is a broader societal interest in a healthy cultural sector).

These different dimensions lead to different definitions then of ‘how’ this responsibility is delivered, from environmental regulation to consumer protection laws, as well as using taxation from AI companies (or users) to support initiatives around culture and education.

Turning to the specific case of what ‘responsible’ means in the AI and copyright space, the term is often used by rightholders to imply that it is only by using their works, under licence, that AI can be responsible.

In terms of ‘what’ there is responsibility for, one focus is therefore around the quality of outputs. As the argument goes, it is only through access to the definitive versions of articles or books (the version of record), that it is possible to train AI that offers quality answers. A second focus is on the idea that there is a need to provide additional incomes to the publishing sector in order to pay for the services that it offers.

Implicit in these arguments are both responsibilities both to society as a whole (to protect it against poor quality AI), and specifically to the publishing sector. ‘How’ this responsibility is exercised is through making supplementary payments to use materials that, a priori, have already been licensed, or which are available open access.

All of these arguments should be tested before being believed. While well-packaged data with good metadata does support training, there is a performance cost to restricting access, with implications for the wider economy, as well as the research sector.

Approaches that only really work for richer players will harm smaller ones (both users, and potential competitors) and there is certainly no benefit to the scientific community when researchers face higher costs for performing text-and-data mining or using AI applications. In the meanwhile, to the extent that the rise of AI is increasing demand for materials, it is worth assessing how far there are truly additional costs being faced which need to be compensated.

Even when it is accepted that there is grounds for additional payments associated with use of materials to train AI, as well as in applications of it, there are legitimate questions around ‘how’ this happens. Alternatives to voluntary (re)licensing include levies, mandatory licensing, and targeted subsidies to pay for the most valuable services, which may be more equitable.

In short, when it is argued that there is only one way to do AI ‘responsibly’ – which seems to be to pay a fee – it is worth taking a moment to think before simply accepting this claim.

For what, to whom, and how

This blog has attempted to show that we should be both alert and critical when using the word ‘responsible’, or hearing it used by others. It does imply value judgements that should not go unexplored. In particular, we should be ready to call out those who try to use it as a means of asserting their own interests above our own, or those of the wider community.

Trust is a big issue right now. It gets a high profile in IFLA’s 2024 Trend Report, which underlines how this is being renegotiated. Many of those institutions or structures which used to be able to count on it now face a loss of confidence. Among these, we can count governments, traditional media, and to a degree, science.

In response, we have seen a rise of efforts to promote open government, to develop standards for journalism, as well as an intensification of work around research integrity. While libraries too have in general been spared (so far) this slump in trust, there is nonetheless an awareness of the need to be open and transparent towards communities.

The theme also comes up frequently in discussions around digital regulation. The conversation around media and information literacy largely implies the ability to distinguish between sources which are more or less trustworthy. Regulations distinguish between actors which are seen as trusted or not (for example as flaggers, or as platforms). Discussions about copyright sometimes, for example, touch on whether exceptions and limitations should only be available to ‘trusted’ institutions, using ‘trusted’ tools.

The rise of AI has only added a new dimension to this, with publishers trading heavily on the idea that the content to which they give access is ‘trusted’, as opposed to that which is accessed on the wider internet. This becomes a selling point for the access that they sell to private and other actors. It has also made it far easier to generate things that look real, raising further questions about what is true and what is merely plausible.

What is trust?

It is worth digging into what is going on with the idea of ‘trust’ here.

An important point is that trust is something personal and subjective. Therefore, calling something ‘trusted’ raises the question of ‘by whom’. Sometimes the answer is clear – for example, a legislator may decide that it is willing to ‘trust’ a platform or other actors to carry out a certain function, or to operate with less oversight.

In the copyright debates mentioned above, it may well mean trusted by the copyright industry – something that may only come with extensive demands around surveillance of what libraries and their users are doing.

In other cases, it is less certain who is supposed to be doing the trusting. The actor or institution is simply making a claim that points to a sense of entitlement to be trusted which is arguably out of place in 2026.

Trust is also a subjective concept – something that is down to each individual – meaning that it may be more useful to focus on what it means to be trustworthy. Building off the previous point, there may well have been a greater readiness in the past to believe that someone or something was trustworthy simply because of who or what they were. Think about long-running newspapers, institutions, or governments. This risks becoming a way of preserving existing structures and allocations of power, while disadvantaging newer voices who cannot count on having a reputation or ‘inheriting’ trust.

What makes something trustworthy?

There is a growing focus on trying to clarify what this is (while also noting that given the subjective nature of trust, a lot will depend on whose trust you are trying to earn, and that some people will never be convinced).

Librarians of course have a long record of trying to answer this difficult question, and are joined in this by many other players (for example, most recently, Trustmarc). The answer is also a shifting one, not just as the wider information environment changes, but also as we gain new insights. Tools that may once have been seen as effective can end up subject to criticism of a tendency to perpetuate old biases. Some approaches to trust may be so expensive to operate that they are only accessible to richer and larger players, and therefore exclude others.

Finally, there is the need to recognise that trust is not an either/or question. Not only is it specific to a given situation, but it also exists on a scale. There are plenty of instances of people or institutions who are certainly credible on one issue trying to claim expertise on others, and getting things horribly wrong. Moreover, no person or institution is ultimately infallible, and a situation of 100% trust is not realistic. Indeed, science itself is based on the idea that any idea or proposal is right until it can be proven wrong, meaning that there is always an element of uncertainty. It is therefore more useful to think about trust as being contextual, and a question of degree.

Implications for libraries

So what does this mean when we talk about trust in a library or connected environment? First of all, when looking at ourselves, we need to understand that trust is not a right, but something to be earned, and to keep on being earned. We can only hope for this when we are ourselves trustworthy, something that implies a readiness to engage with communities in order to understand what is needed for this. At the same time, there will always be some who have simply decided not to trust us, and so regardless of what we do, will never be convinced.

Secondly, we should take an attitude of healthy scepticism towards those who claim that they are ‘trusted’. Do they just have a sense of entitlement to trust, or do they actually have the processes and values in place to be trustworthy? This is particularly relevant when it comes to those using trust as a selling point for the goods or services that they are selling.

Finally, we need to be realistic. We cannot expect to be able to give 100% trust, given that no-one is infallible. However, in most things it is enough to be able to work with a very high level of confidence in how trustworthy a given actor or entity is in a given situation, while then taking more precautions when there are more reasons to doubt. This is not just an issue for ourselves, but also an attitude that we will need to build in our communities.

We hope this can help you think about how you and your associations could mobilise to advocate for libraries!

1. As we look towards a post-2030 Agenda, libraries need to be engaged

IFLA once again brought a delegation of library advocates to the High-Level Political Forum in New York to express in their own words how libraries around the world help advance sustainable development. As we look at the final few years of Agenda 2030, this is an important moment to reflect on how libraries around the world have had an impact on the SDGs. Consider how future agendas could lead to a more systematic mobilisation of libraries, and where you may start having these conversations inside (and outside) the library.

2. Public access to the internet is as important a drive of digital inclusion as ever

The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Forum 2026, took place in Geneva this month, bringing together governments and other stakeholders to explore how to build a people-centred internet. IFLA joined the United Postal Union and UNESCO to highlight the importance of place-based connectivity in a rights-based internet – building on the recognition of libraries in the WSIS+20 outcome document. Looking forward to the third decade of WSIS, we encourage library professionals to think about how public access institutions can be meaningfully included in broader digital inclusion strategies. Read more here and share your ideas on what a programme of activities and research into the place of public access in digital inclusion could look like.

3. Librarians are at the heart of the open knowledge movement

IFLA headed to Paris to join the annual meeting of Wikipedians – dedicated volunteers and professionals around the world working to bring information to everyone, everywhere. We led a conversation on legislating for the free flow of knowledge and spoke with partners and collaborators on helping library professionals engage more deeply in this work to share their own knowledge, and that of their collections. Some time ago, IFLA and Wikipedia explored opportunities for public libraries and for academic and research libraries to engage with Wikipedia. Think about how you may get involved in the movement (and if there are new opportunities emerging!)

4. Libraries need to be included in (and supported by) media literacy and digital learning strategies

Following engagement by IFLA and its European partners, a Recent report from the European Parliament highlighted that libraries should be included in the European Union’s next strategy on media literacy and digital learning. This not only recognised the value of libraries in supporting capacity-building, but in turn underlined that libraries themselves should benefit from support to fulfil this potential. You can draw on this report in your own engagement in favour of the full recognition of libraries as essential actors in building the skills needed to succeed in the digital environment.

5. Urgent action is required for ensuring cultural sustainability for the wellbeing of all – especially in some key areas

Following the Culture2030Goal Campaign’s launch of a Draft Culture Goal last year, the campaign ran a pulse survey to see how well the world has done over the past year. While respondents were optimistic for positive change in the future, concerns remain about backsliding in certain areas, such as developing a culture of peace and protecting artists’ rights. Check out the Draft Culture Goal’s targets and indicators and think about which of your activities might contribute to advocacy, monitoring, and evaluation of culture’s impact on development.

6. Libraries can (and must) help shape the future of public knowledge

IFLA’s Future’s Club was joined by Patricia Hswe, the Program Director at the Mellon Foundation’s Public Knowledge programme. She highlighted the importance of building trusted relationships with community actors, as well as the value of interdisciplinary collaboration in ensuring diverse knowledge and culture is preserved and made available for present and future use. The ability for libraries to connect with their communities, as well as take part in such interdisciplinary action, is key to our field’s ability to address complex challenges and shape resilient futures – including in the face of emerging tech. Listen to the session and think about what parters in your community you can work with to ensure innovation supports public knowledge.

7. Libraries have a role to play in helping open science values guide how AI is developed and governed

IFLA joined a side event to the High Level Political Forum hosted by the UN’s Dag Hammarskjöld Library on operationalising AI within an open, human rights-centered framework. We shared ideas for how open Science values such as participation, attribution, transparency, diversity, and collective benefit offer a framework for ensuring that AI serves the public good, rather than concentrating power or limiting access to knowledge. In this, we stressed that library professionals can help apply these values to AI development, deployment and governance, but we need a supportive legal environment to do this work. Review IFLA’s Statement on Copyright and AI and think about how you can incorporate these recommendations in your advocacy.

8. Governments are already recognising libraries’ contribution to sustainable development

IFLA’s analysis of 2026 Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs) finds that one-third of reporting countries explicitly recognised libraries as contributors to achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), demonstrating growing political recognition of our impact. Examples across a wide range of priorities, including education, social cohesion, inclusion, wellbeing, cultural heritage, democracy, and partnerships, show how integrating libraries into national development strategies is both valuable and increasingly common. Check out which countries are currently planning to submit VNRs in 2027 and highlight to SDG coordinators how libraries in your country are delivering sustainable, people-centred development.

Subscribe to read more of our Advoc8 series in the future!

Subscribe now

Each library, and each worker, is also embedded in their environment – a larger institution, a local community, a political space. We share these spaces with others – users, decision-makers, (potential) collaborators.

A major focus for IFLA – and indeed for many in our field – is to explore how we can make the most of our relations with these others in order to pursue our missions and make our communities better.

The attitude we take to these interactions is key. Our expectations and assumptions – and in particular how we conceive of these relations – play a major role. In particular, there is a need to get the right balance between pride and humility in order to build what we need to build. This is what this blog explores.

On Being Proud

Pride is not necessarily something that is associated with the stereotypical librarian. Words like ‘arrogant’ or ‘boastful’ just don’t seem to fit. Of course there is such a thing as pride in doing a good job, which doubtless does exist in abundance, but this is not necessarily something that appears in our relations with others.

But maybe we do need to be prouder? Pride is also about a readiness to stand up for the principles that we follow, as well as the value of our own work. In particular in an advocacy context, it is a necessity – if we believe in what we are doing, we need to be able to talk about it, as we should not simply expect others to do so on our behalf.

Pride also gives us a tool for engaging with change, a readiness to see ourselves as agents, with the ability to take an independent position and an ability to influence things. AI is a good example – there are certainly efforts from both the content industry and tech companies to win libraries over (a sign that we are seen as a valuable voice). However, we should not feel like we simply need to align with an existing position, but rather to establish our own, in line with what matters to us.

Similarly, pride opens the door to overcoming a sense of imposter syndrome when working with others. By having faith in the power of what we can do, and knowing that we have the evidence base to back it up, we can engage more actively in other spaces. Through this, we can convince those who might never have thought of working with libraries that we are the partner that they need. In other words, our pride should give us confidence in engaging in the wider world.

On Being Humble

In contrast with pride, humility does seem to sit far better with common expectations of what a librarian is and does. The image is rather of someone who is careful to be responsive to the needs of others, ready to do the legwork necessary to provide service without expecting prizes or rewards.

However, we should think of humility as something broader than this, also including a readiness to reassess and reevaluate ourselves and what we do. Crucially, it is about accepting that even in areas where we have a lot of experience and record of delivery, others may also have something to contribute.

Humility can therefore manifest itself in a readiness to bring partners and users in on decision-making, and designing spaces and services in ways that allow others to use them in creative and adaptive ways. Humility can also be crucial in allowing us to deal with change, abandoning old assumptions and practices when the evidence makes clear that they no longer make sense.

Again taking the example of AI, humility is also about taking a realistic position, accepting that the technology is now established, and sufficiently ingrained in people’s lives to mean that it is senseless to try to deny it, or turn back the clock. Looking like we are opposing it is only likely to make us appear irrelevant in the eyes of many, as if we are telling those who are using AI that somehow ‘we know better’.

Finding a Balance

Pride and humility are opposites, and managing them is a question of managing tensions – not necessarily an easy job. A measure of both is necessary in every interaction we have with partners and decision-makers.

Of course we will often do this sub-consciously, influenced by our own personalities, as well as our attitudes and assumptions about the situation we are in. What is valuable is to try and make this process more conscious, and be ready to challenge ourselves when we go too far in the direction of pride or humility.

If we get the mix right, we will be more effective partners and advocates, both better able to form the relationships we need to pursue our missions, and to learn and gain from the lessons that others have to offer.

Behind this are two key drivers. First of all is the recognition that in the face of challenges that are as complex as they are serious, the need for collaborative research is pressing. Second, however, is a growing list of factors that are making this harder, coming both from outside and inside the sector (read on for more).

These questions are not foreign to libraries. The concept of ‘library diplomacy’ has also been around for a number of years, most notably in the doctoral work of Randolf Mariano, as well as Scout Bell. By exploring this as a concept, their work not only helps highlight the role of libraries within wider science (and knowledge) diplomacy concepts, but also provides a valuable reference structure for libraries in thinking about how and why we engage internationally (and how we can do it better).

The topic is a particularly interesting one in the light of IFLA’s rapidly approaching centenary in 2027. This is – in some ways at least – also the centenary of a particular type of library and science diplomacy. In this context, this article starts by looking at definitions of science diplomacy and how this can apply to libraries. Next, it looks at some of the barriers to both of these, and finally sets out some questions that IFLA itself could look to address in the context of its centenary.

What Do We Mean by Science Diplomacy?

We, just like Randolf Mariano, start with the framework developed by the Royal Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2010. This highlights the following pillars of science diplomacy:

· Science in Diplomacy: how science can inform foreign policy and global agreements, such as around climate and environmental negotiations

· Science for Diplomacy: using connections between scientists as a means of improving international relationships more generally.

· Diplomacy for Science: diplomatic activity that specifically enables scientific cooperation, for example by enabling exchanges or meetings, creating structures, or developing conventions.

The recent model adopted in the European Union adds a fourth pillar to this – Diplomacy in Science. This is defined as the application of diplomatic skills and tools by scientists and science in order to achieve relevant goals, and can apply both to the need to develop the ability to work across cultures, but also to find a balance between openness and the need to protect particular interests.

Across these themes, there is a potentially important distinction to be made between forms of diplomacy primarily aimed at advancing national interests, and those which are more focused on a common interest. Differences between the EU approach (which highlights the desire to promote the EU’s own profile, values and interests, alongside the pursuit of global goals) and the Royal Society/AAAS approach (which are more focused on the latter) become clear.

It is easy to dismiss ‘national interest’ concerns as being somehow less ‘virtuous’ than the common interest, but this is not necessarily helpful. First of all, it is not always as if a national interest is in opposition to a common one – we all, for example, benefit from meaningful climate action. There are governments which do explicitly choose to champion shared interests also.

Secondly, the line is not always an easy one to draw; for example, international scientific scholarship programmes may be promoted as being about selling a culture and way of life to those travelling, but they can also help expose ‘receiving’ countries to other cultures. We will return to this point later in this article.

From Science Diplomacy to Library Diplomacy

Mariano’s work then applies the Royal Society/AAAS model to libraries. Libraries in diplomacy refers to the work of libraries to shape international policy agendas (such as through work around the SDGs), as well as to influence national approaches to cross-border issues (such as copyright).

Libraries for diplomacy refers to initiatives through which libraries become part of wider initiatives in order to promote understanding among peoples. He cites examples like American Corners and the work of national cultural agencies with library services, as well as the goals pursued by Libraries for Peace.

Diplomacy for libraries would be best seen in initiatives to enable international collaboration between libraries themselves, in order to advance libraries and librarianship. IFLA itself is a good example here, but so too are other networks, for example to enable document supply and more.

Mariano doesn’t address the topic of diplomacy in libraries, but implicitly this is present both in how libraries and information workers learn how to cooperate themselves across borders, and in the degree to which they are expected to apply different principles, such as around security or sanctions.

The same distinction between approaches focused more on national as opposed to common interests may also be made. Libraries within foreign or security ministries have a clear role in helping to strengthen national policy-making through the knowledge to which they give access. Libraries within international organisations are more focused on the common interest, as is (ideally) IFLA in its work to shape work at the United Nations, UNESCO, WIPO and more.

Science and Library Diplomacy at Risk

As highlighted in the introduction, a key reason for the focus on the role of science diplomacy today is the sense that international scientific cooperation is under threat. As underlined by the International Science Council’s Maria Jarquin in IFLA’s UN STI Forum Side-Event, the sorts of international events that opened the way to the understanding of plate tectonics in the 1950s, for example, seem almost unimaginable today.

One challenge is around polarisation and fragmentation around the world. There is a loss of faith in the multilateral system and so multilateral cooperation in general, driven in particular by larger powers seemingly no longer feeling like they need to work within that framework. Rather than seeing cooperation and consensus as valuable goals in themselves, there is a more naked pursuit of self-interest, as well as appeals to sovereignty that often look more like isolationism or bids for self-sufficiency. This all too often runs against free investigation and exchange with others

A linked concern is around security and protectionism. With less focus on cooperation, and more on gaining an advantage over others – or at least avoiding dependence on them – the need to consider security is become normalised in many settings. Cooperations with certain countries are banned, or need to be vetted. Materials cannot be shared. There is even talk of geoblocking open access, with access only possible to countries which are seen as not hostile, or which are also strong on applying open access to their own output. While some security measures do of course make sense – not least of course to protect privacy or in the case of particularly sensitive content – it is not possible to eliminate risk without also shutting down collaboration.

A broader concern – also linked to polarisation – is the risk of a loss of trust in science, as well as deliberate rejection of scientific consensus in support of national interests. A strong example seen today is ongoing climate change denial. Populists have gained plenty of attention by dismissing ‘experts’ and focusing rather on what they feel people want to hear. But of course the scientific sector is not blameless, with growing concerns about research malpractice and the impact of papermills driven by perverse incentives within the sector. While this is not an issue unique to international scientific collaboration, populism is not associated with stronger cross-border cooperation, while mistrust (and differing approaches to addressing it) can also constitute a barrier.

Finally, there are risks around too strong an emphasis on the national interest, as highlighted in the previous section. Where science becomes associated with particular national agendas (or a colonial approach), obtaining information and resources (potentially in covert ways), and an instrumentalised approach to the exercise of power, it loses credibility.

These issues filter through into library diplomacy also. There are risks when information inequalities serve to strengthen power inequalities, when libraries are clearly used as a national ‘shop window’, when international cooperation serves to promote a particular model of librarianship rather than being a space for different models to come together, and when national/political differences are placed before what library and information workers have in common.

What Role for IFLA in the Future of Library Diplomacy?

Mariano’s approach sees IFLA as primarily having a role in the libraries in diplomacy and diplomacy for libraries pillars (respectively through its advocacy towards the UN, UNESCO and WIPO, and through providing a forum for cooperation intended to boost librarianship respectively).

However, it arguably also plays its part more broadly. Also under libraries in diplomacy, there is the work of IFLA’s professional units focusing on Government and Parliamentary Libraries, which aims to help them to boost their effectiveness in informing government decision-making. IFLA also offers a structure for pursuing libraries for diplomacy; it is an arena where bilaterial partnerships can be developed and strengthened, and of course people involved in IFLA do – hopefully – spread a more international perspective among their peers.

IFLA’s contribution to diplomacy for libraries is clear enough, and perhaps in an alternative university we would have become an intergovernmental organisation, similar to the Universal Postal Union or International Telecommunications Union. We certainly do benefit from an international environment that enables meeting and exchange. And for those involved in IFLA’s work, there is also both a need for diplomacy in libraries, and an opportunity to develop regular skills, in order to make the most of the opportunities that the structure offers.

However, and particularly with IFLA100 soon upon us, we do need to think about how we can make sure that we are making the most of library diplomacy. Possible areas of focus could include:

· How can we work – both in our practice and advocacy – to ensure maximum global access to information, and push back against self-interested and disproportionate restrictions on this?

· How can we support each other to provide access to knowledge – including through international exchanges – in ways that support the common good rather than purely pursuing particular interests?

· How can we ensure that in our own collaboration, there is space for all voices and experiences, and we resist single definitions of success that may serve to promote narrow visions of librarianship?

· How can we in our own interactions focus best on what we have in common, rather than making our differences a reason for a fragmented approach to collaboration?

· How can we provide structures, spaces and tools that make intercultural communication, collaboration and cocreation as rich and effective as possible?

1. Libraries are key players in Climate Adaptation

Libraries are increasingly recognized as community hubs for climate literacy, resilience, and access to environmental information, and this month was big for libraries and climate action! IFLA helped launch the UN-recognised initiative Heritage Adapts! to support libraries (alongside heritage sites and practices from around the world) in protecting collections and communities from climate risks. Explore the new platform and consider taking the pledge – or sharing with those in your network who can benefit.

2. Libraries drive climate empowerment

Alongside our work on heritage and climate adaptation, IFLA has been active in promoting libraries as key partners for local and national government to deliver commitments on Action for Climate Empowerment (ACE). With the ACE Action Plan currently up for negotiation, we would like to see greater emphasis placed on working across ministries and institutions (including with cultural actors) to make national ACE strategies. Connect with national ACE focal points and start a conversation on how libraries in your country could help advance their work.

3. Libraries help build caring cities

A key theme at the United Cities and Local Governments Congress taking place this month has been the importance of developing approaches to local public services that makes a reality of the idea of caring cities. While there are various definitions of this out there, libraries contribute to all – through hosting and supporting care workers, making the lives of those with caring responsibilities easier, and more generally through supporting the physical, emotional and social wellbeing and ensuring that everyone can fulfil their rights. Libraries everywhere can potentially integrate the concepts of care and caring cities into their advocacy, and get involved in new conversations with local governments.

4. Libraries are at the forefront of efforts to address social challenges

IFLA joined the European Cultural Foundation’s conference this month, which showcased innovative library projects from across Europe that address key social challenges. This comes ahead of the report, Strengthening Europe through Public Libraries, the outcome of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) Expert Group on European libraries. These best practices share ideas for how libraries big and small can address issues like health and wellbeing, climate action, social cohesion, and resilience-building. Explore the good practices here and think about how you could highlight libraries in your community that are doing similar work. Do these inspire partnerships you could foster at home?

5. Multilingualism and multiculturalism online (and in AI)

The Microsoft Open Innovation Centre, the Council of Europe, and Github jointly hosted a meeting exploring the importance of AI that is reflective of diversity of cultures and languages. Many regional and marginal languages (across Europe and around the world) are underrepresented in in today’s AI systems, due to limited online presence and a lack of dedicated resources. This event explored how this gap must be addressed through open data, open models, and the cross-institutional partnerships. Library voices, including BnF-Partenariats and IFLA, shared perspectives from the library field – and especially the potential of libraries to contribute this multicultural and multilingual material, as well as the supportive environment needed to achieve this. Are libraries in your network a part of conversation on cross-institutional partnerships for more equitable AI?

6. Libraries are essential to deliver on information for all

IFLA attended the 35^th Bureau meeting of the UNESCO Information for All Programme this month, and presented on progress promoting the IFLA-UNESCO Public and School Library Manifestos. We also highlighted our recent UNESCO Information Brief, which provides actionable recommendations on partnering with libraries to advance access to information for all. IFLA is a strong voice in this space, so we invite you to use these tools in your advocacy, and perhaps connect with your national IFAP Committee on joint actions.

7. Libraries supporting civic participation

IFLA sat down with Civicus to speak about the real difficulties facing libraries around the world, who are finding more and more challenges to freedom of expression and access to information [read the interview here]. We highlighted how this affects what materials libraries are able to collect and lend, as well as who’s memory they preserve, and how they tell these stories. IFLA highlighted how the work of our volunteers, including the Advisory Committee on Freedom of Access to Information and Freedom of Expression, as well as the materials and advocacy produced by IFLA HQ, connect the library field and help equip them with tools to strengthen their position as human rights defenders. How are you standing up for freedom of expression and access to information?

8. The end of ownership threatens core library functions

In the context of International Archives Week, Knowledge Rights 21 (an initiative administered by IFLA and made possible by Arcadia) underlined the risks for archives and libraries created by the shift from buying to licensing content. When our institutions can no longer build up permanent collections, but rather just rent access for limited periods (which can also be cut short), this risks undermining a range of essential library activities and missions. It is important to act to update laws – to allow libraries to acquire content wholesale, to extend legal deposit laws, and to protect our institutions against unfair contract terms.

Subscribe to read more of our Advoc8 series in the future!

In preparing a chapter for the IFLA Centenary book that is to be published in 2027, I’ve made heavy use of the published proceedings of the International Library Committee (ILC). It struck me that some information about the proceedings should be of interest to other IFLA historians, hence this post. The information was gleaned from the Actes themselves.

The International Library Committee (ILC)

The committee was established in 1927 when IFLA was founded in Edinburgh, as the “International Library and Bibliographic Committee”. It met for the first time in Rome in 1928 to give effect to the resolution adopted in Edinburgh and to prepare for the World Library and Bibliographical Congress in Italy the following year, 1929. It was there that IFLA’s constitution as a federation, and its name as the International Federation of Library Associations, were approved. The word “Bibliography” was deleted from the Committee’s name as a result of some political manoeuvring that will be discussed in my chapter, but the International Library Committee remained, serving as IFLA’s standing or executive committee, roughly the equivalent of today’s Governing Board. It met annually in different cities, almost exclusively in Europe, and at its meetings, each member association had one vote, although there could be additional non-voting delegates. These were often interested librarians from the countries where the meeting was held. In fact, as time passed, the numbers of participants grew, so that by the late 1930s the meetings started looking like IFLA conferences of later years.

Although the Committee met annually, IFLA’s international congresses were to take place every five years. (As a result of economic and geopolitical factors, only one took place during the Interwar years, in 1935.) Consequently, it was by the name of its standing committee, the International Library Committee, that IFLA was generally known. As a result, information and documentation about IFLA can more readily be found in the contemporary literature and in the archives of the League of Nations and elsewhere, under that name than under the name IFLA.

A Multilingual Committee

I estimate that in IFLA’s early years French was used more than English. In fact, many of the ILC delegates were admirably multilingual. French, English, German, Italian and Spanish were spoken at meetings, roughly in that order of frequency. Members spoke in any of these five languages, and their remarks and reports were recorded in the languages in which they spoke. There is hardly ever any mention of any form of interpretation, although a few documents were translated. Admirable as this multilingualism is (in my view) it also led to considerable confusion.

The use of the term “session” (in French séance) is an example. An annual meeting of the ILC, which would take place over several (English) sessions on several days, was a single session in French, and in IFLA also in English. The various sittings (each of a few hours, several per day) were called séances. The executive committee (the president, vice-presidents, secretary general, and assistant secretary) was mostly called the Bureau, but occasionally referred to as the Executive, as was the Committee itself. This confusion is minor when compared to the confusion that we find in the archives of the League of Nations. Here we find that terms such as names of committees, used very inconsistently to start with, were translated from English into French, and back again into English, and back again into French, and vice versa. The French commission was mostly translated into English as ‘committee’, but sometimes as ‘commission’. The Expert Committee of Librarians, which plays a big role in my chapter, was sometimes the Committee of Library Experts and sometimes the Committee of Expert Librarians.

The “Sessions” of the International Library Committee

In 1930 the ILC met in Stockholm. This was its third annual meeting, but the first “routine” meeting, the first two meetings having been mainly concerned with getting the organisation running. Starting in 1930, meeting proceedings were written up very comprehensively, professionally edited, and published in printed volumes by a succession of scholarly publishers, under the name Actes du Comité international des bibliothèques, which is why they are commonly referred to as the Actes.

The proceedings of the meeting in 1930 were published in 1930 in Uppsala, Sweden, by Almqvist & Wiksell, numbered as Volume II. Volume I was published in the following year, 1931, also by Almqvist & Wiksell. It contained accounts of the Travaux péparatoires (the meetings in Prague in 1926, in Atlantic City and Philadelphia in 1926, and in Edinburgh in 1927, at which the decision to establish IFLA gradually crystallised) followed by proceedings of the first session in Rome in 1928 and of the second session in Rome, Florence and Venice on the fringes of the World Congress of Libraries and Bibliography, which met in all those cities in 1929. The numbers and dates appear somewhat confusing, since volume numbers are always one less than session numbers, and the year of publication of Actes does not always correspond to the year of the Session. The timeline below (Table 1) sets out the sequence from 1926 to 1930.

Table 1: Timeline of IFLA’s creation and naming, 1926-1932

Contents of the Actes

By 1932, a standard pattern for the Actes has been established. In the Actes of the Bern meeting of that year, we find a group photo and list of delegates. A comparison of the successive group photographs reflects how IFLA’s gender and geographical representativeness evolved. These are followed by flowery welcoming addresses, responses to the addresses, and reports by the President and Secretary General.

The President often addressed important events that had occurred in the preceding year, such as major publications, bibliographic projects, new library projects or library fires. Sometimes the President commented on important trends, such as the rise of documentation and what it meant for libraries (1938) and on a few occasions political and ethical issues were addressed. A prime example was President Marcel Godet’s 1939 circumspect but firm rejection of totalitarian restrictions on freedom of information (1939). The Secretary General (T.P. Sevensma throughout this period) reported on internal matters such as new members and work carried out by the Bureau, and of course finance.

These were followed by various communications (matters that delegates wanted to have discussed); and reports by subcommittees. The communications and subcommittee reports reveal the scope of IFLA’s activities, for example, international inter-library lending and customs tariffs, public libraries, training of librarians, national library and book production statistics, exchanges of university theses, microfilming, standardisation of publications, and prices and “overproduction” of periodicals. Some of the reports were long and detailed, the result of in depth investigation, often given in full as annexes. The reports were discussed in depth, the discussions being reported in some detail. An example is an impressive report on a survey of hospital libraries presented in 1932. Are historians of hospital and medical libraries aware of this source? Over time the number of annexes increased.

Among the communications we find annual reports from the Paris Institute (International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation on their work in librarianship and bibliography. From 1936 onwards, there are also reports from the International Institute (later Federation) for Documentation.

I want to draw attention to the country reports of which we see a growing number starting in 1931. In these reports delegates report on developments in their countries. Of special historical interest are the occasional reports from less prominent countries such as Latvia, Estonia, Iran, the Philippines, Mexico, and New Zealand. But even the regular annual reports from major member countries such as the UK and the USA offer material that may be of interest to historians.

Immediately after each meeting, IFLA’s assistant secretary, Sevensma’s young Austrian law librarian, Arthur Breycha-Vauthier, produced a meeting résumé which was promptly disseminated to the members.

Like reflections of reality reaching the interior of (a comfortable) Plato’s cave, echoes of political and economic turmoil also reached the quiet and dignified meetings of the International Library Committee: the budget cuts affecting libraries during the Great Depression (1929-1939); a report by the Secretary General on a programme to assist German librarians who had been forced out of their jobs because they were Jewish or otherwise unacceptable to the Nazi regime; a farsighted but rejected proposal by Czech librarian Jan Emler to introduce an emblem for identifying important cultural property (Actes 1933); and reports from Spanish librarians on practical measures to safeguard valuable collections during the Spanish Civil War (Actes 1937). During the Second Sino-Japanese War of 1937-1945, the representative of the Japanese Library Association blandly reported that a national library was being created for the puppet state of Manchukuo, a Chinese province that had been captured by Japan (Actes 1938).

In 1938 country reports from Austria ceased, after the country had been incorporated into Germany (the Anschluss of 1938). A careful reading between the lines of successive annual reports from Germany in the 1930s reveals a slow but steady spread of Nazi control over the Volksbüchereien (people’s libraries) and their collections, as had happened in Fascist Italy. This is the background to the Presidential address by Godet to which I referred earlier.

For us today, knowing what was soon to happen, it seems incredible that the ILC members in 1939 confirmed IFLA’s acceptance of the invitation from Germany to host the Third World Congress there in 1940 as part of the celebrations of the (re)invention of printing in the West 500 years earlier, a celebration which risked the exploitation of IFLA for Nazi cultural propaganda. Needless to say, that event did not take place.

Access

The Actes are quite substantial documents that were not only distributed to member associations but also offered for sale. Today they are available in digital format. All the Actes have been scanned and are available via the HathiTrust.

Paging through the Actes, I encountered many “pearls” – snippets and comments that bring librarianship and library personalities of the period to life. A detailed cumulative index to the Actes for 1928 to 1964 greatly facilitates their use.

Some statistics

To conclude, Table 2 presents some statistics of attendance of the ILC meetings and of their Actes, last page.

Table 2: Analysis of IFLA Actes 1930-1939¹

[1] The Actes of the first two sessions (meetings) of the International Library Committee were short and not yet organised in a standard pattern.

[2] The figures in this column are from the introductory paragraph on the first page of each volume.

[3] The figures in this column are from the introductory paragraph on the first page of each volume. The term delegates appear to have been used loosely to refer to multiple participants per country, not voting delegates.

[4] Difficult to count, not always evident from attendance list.

[5] Higher attendance attributable to the holding of the Second International Congress of Libraries and Bibliography, 20-30 May 1935.

[6] High turnout attributable to the holding of the World Congress of Universal Documentation (Congrès Mondial de la Documentation Universelle) (16-21 August) and the Exposition Internationale des Arts et Techniques, held in Paris in that month.

Download Tables 1-2:

Those Actes, tables 1-2

112KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Originally published: 2026-03-26

This Revision: 2026-06-05

Given the profile of the topic among actors in the local and regional government space, it is worth taking a look at what it means, and in particular what it means for libraries – how do libraries fit into caring cities?

A Layered Concept

Depending on who you read or listen to, the idea of caring cities will be described in different ways, often reflecting their own preoccupations. This does not mean that any approach is wrong, and indeed can be helping in trying to make sense of the idea within libraries.

One approach focuses most specifically on the importance of care workers – social workers and others – whose work is too often underappreciated, or contracted out to third-party providers whose priority is making a profit while doing the necessary to fulfil the terms of their agreement with local governments.

A broader approach – often coming from organisations and actors focused on gender equality – expands the focus to cover all people with caring responsibilities, typically unpaid. This underlines the value of this work – caring for children and older people for example, as well as for other basic goods – and the importance of making this as simple as possible.

Practically, this can influence how cities think about ensuring that those caring can easily access basic services (shops, water, culture, transport), in order to help them in these roles, to the benefit both of them and the people for whom they are caring.

Finally, there is also the broader approach that emphasises that cities should be built and run around people and their experience (rather than just focusing on specific issues, or only considering specific groups). This approach defines care as ‘our individual and common ability to provide the political, social, material and emotional conditions” for a more sustainable, connected, and caring world’.

This pushes us to think more generally about whether cities are really delivering for wellbeing and the fulfilment of rights. Narrower definitions of care are clearly part of this, but so too is ‘the physical, emotional, and social well-being of people in their everyday lives’.

This idea is close to ideas about the 15-minute city, as well as the logic of universal and multifunctional public services and universal design. It also shines a light on the need to think about intersectionality, recognising that people and their needs are more complex than any one single characteristic.

So where do libraries fit in?

Reading through the three ‘layers’ of thinking about caring cities above, it does not take much imagination to see the connection with the work of libraries.

In many cities and countries, the role of the library as a workplace for social workers is well-established, providing a space where they can engage with members of the community who most need their help.

Libraries also have a valuable role for those involved in care, from traditional roles in lending children’s books or accessible materials, to story-times, play spaces that children can use while carers take on other tasks, or activities focused on older persons allowing for a sharing of roles. Ensuring that libraries are accessible in all parts of towns and cities also contributes.

Finally, the logic of a public service that serves everyone, to achieve many different goals, is also a familiar one for libraries. We have long focused on building a service offer around what each individual needs, rather than imposing answers to questions that many simply aren’t asking. Crucially, through supporting access to and engagement with knowledge, we are helping people to find their own way, rather than telling them what to do.

This all gives libraries a strong starting point, but there is always more to do, both when thinking about what we do within our institutions, and to engage in wider discussions about caring cities.

While we should resist efforts to leave libraries to compensate for cuts to spending on social care without receiving greater support themselves, there are certainly opportunities to engage more closely with agencies and professionals in this space. Similarly, we should always be attentive to the needs of users who may have hidden caring responsibilities, and whose lives we can make easier – for example through opening at different times of day.

As for the broadest logic of care, this provides a useful framework for us to think about our own service design – are we maximising physical, emotional and social well-being? – and in thinking through how our services combine with those provided by others – could we be integrating services and support more effectively for all?

As underlined above, the logic of caring cities can both provide opportunities for libraries to highlight what they are already contributing, but also get involved in ongoing reflections on what effective universal local services could and should look like.

1. Libraries Defend Press Freedom and Fight Disinformation

World Press Freedom Day 2026 highlighted the fundamental role of free, independent, and pluralistic media in supporting democracy and access to information worldwide. UNESCO released a Call to Action: A Decisive Shift for Peace, Security and Development, which calls on all stakeholders to operationalise and scale normative frameworks, standards, tools and mechanisms that protect freedom of expression. Consider what this means for the library field and how we can get involved.

2. Assessing Implementation of Cultural Rights with libraries

IFLA has contributed to the UN Special Rapporteur’s call for input to inform her upcoming guidance to the UN General Assembly on how to measure progress in the implementation of cultural rights for all. We highlighted how libraries are both data providers and indicators themselves of respect for cultural rights. Have a look at our submission and think about how you can integrate (or build on!) these messages in your own conversations on cultural rights or measuring the impact of culture on sustainable development.

3. Calling for comprehensive efforts towards Open Science in Europe

IFLA has added its name to a joint statement prepared by European Open Science actors, representing libraries, academies and infrastructures, calling for a coordinated and concerted approach to realising the principles and potential of openness. Europe has played a strong role in advancing open science, but there is still much to be done to realise the principles and potential of Open Science fully. We hope that this statement will not only help put upcoming legislative discussions in a broader context, but also offer a framework for a more concerted drive towards Open Science across the range of the EU’s work. Read more and consider your own role in advocating for Open Science in Europe or beyond.

4. Enabling a more purposeful approach to the future

IFLA’s Futures Club provides a platform to share experience and ideas of what it means to make futures thinking part of library work today, in the context of our plans for IFLA100. In the first session, guest speakers Masud Khokhar, Chief Digital and Information Officer at the University of Leeds in the United Kingdom, and Matt Huculak, Director of Kula: Library Futures Academy, at the University of Victoria Libraries, Canada spoke frankly about the benefits of thinking about futures, and the challenges this brings. Join the conversation! Find out more and watch the recording.

5. Knowledge in the Post-2030 Agenda

IFLA hosted a virtual side-event to the United Nations Science, Technology and Innovation Forum, focused on exploring the potential place of knowledge in the post-2030 Agenda. As the conversations on the successor to the 2030 Agenda begin, it is a moment to reflect on how a more meaningful inclusion of knowledge and information in a future agenda could unlock better outcomes for more people. Where are these conversations happening in your country? Read more about the side event and think about how you could advocate.

6. Upholding the rights and interests of libraries and users in copyright law

IFLA was in Geneva joining the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights to make a case for meaningful, international action to uphold the rights and interests of libraries and their users. IFLA’s engagement at the SCCRR centres around pushing for progress towards a concrete output that can support on-the-ground change. One positive upcoming output we expect is the agreement of a toolkit on access to the collections of heritage collections, which can support libraries to fulfil their missions.

7. Advocating for documentary heritage in crisis

IFLA has routinely joined coordination meetings convened by UNESCO to bring perspectives from libraries into practical discussions on safeguarding culture during armed conflict. In the most recent coordination meeting regarding Sudan, IFLA was represented by Wahbi Abdalfattah Abdalrahman, member of the Advisory Committee on Cultural Heritage, who has been leading work on digitising at-risk manuscripts for the Sudan Memory Project at Nile Valley University. Together, we brought wider awareness to the specific risks and challenges related to preserving manuscripts and other forms of documentary heritage. Are you working with other memory and cultural institutions in your country to integrate library collections in efforts to safeguard memory?

8. Bringing Greening Communities Guidance to life

Developed within the framework of the UNESCO Greening Education Partnership (GEP), the Greening Communities Guidance helps stakeholders at the city and community level drive climate empowerment through lifelong learning. Together with the UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning, IFLA helped facilitate an online training sharing tips and practical advice for identifying gaps, opportunities and resources for greening communities. Access this resource and put it into practice in your community.

However, not all novelty requires destruction. Structures and activities linked to values and key public interest goals are worth protecting. The emergence of innovations should rather strengthen our pursuit of them, rather than seeing them forgotten or lost.

This cannot be taken for granted in the face of rapid and seemingly overwhelming change, such as the rapid advance of AI (both in terms of the technology itself and its take-up in society). As different actors (governments, private companies, libraries themselves) try to work out how to adapt and respond, they can risk taking far-reaching decisions, often without full consultation or reflection on the consequences.

Worse still, the sense that ‘anything goes’ can become an opportunity to advance agendas which run counter to the public interest. As alluded to in the title of this blog, we are at risk of being in a period where it is somehow easier to take actions that in ‘normal’ times would be far more controversial.

It would of course be too much to suggest any sort of coordinated effort, there are nonetheless parallel signs that some key principles for libraries are under threat. We need to act to ensure that the ‘creative destruction’ of AI does not count these amongst its casualties.

Preserving Preservation

Challenges around building library collections in a time of licensing are already well-known, and certainly pre-date the current cycle of discussion around AI. However, in parallel with licensed content, the ability to collect content from publicly available websites is also vital in order to be able to build a comprehensive historical record.

However, the Internet Archive has been highlighting in recent weeks that their crawlers are being blocked by news sites. This puts the integrity of the Wayback Machine at risk – a source that is extremely valuable for journalists, researchers and others by making it possible to see what was being said on websites in the past.

The argument here has been that the Wayback Machine then becomes a place where AI companies can train their materials, bypassing the original sources and whatever blocks they have in place. However, whatever the impact of this is can hardly compare with the consequences of losing a guarantee of the ability to develop a historical record, and provide access to it into the future.

Protecting Privacy

The chilling effects of surveillance over what library users access and use is well-established. The possibility to ask questions and pursue interests is essential to academic and wider intellectual freedom. At least in the research library context, a major challenge brought by AI is therefore the drive by publishers and others to demand full information around what materials are being used and how in the context of text-and-data mining and wider AI development. [CM1.1][SW1.2]

Beyond concerns about how feasible it is to compile a bibliography of potentially thousands, if not millions, of works, there is also the fact that there are already provisions in place around research ethics that impose a more proportionate approach to transparency. There are also growing concerns about the degree to which the prompts provided by users can be taken and used by AI tool providers in order to develop (and sell) analytics to others.

The argument for this violation of privacy and freedom is that such a degree of transparency is necessary to ensure that all materials used have been legally accessed or required. However, such a requirement is not new, and has been well upheld up to now through much more proportionate approaches (the work of libraries, research ethics).

Keeping Open Access Open

2026 is the year of the 25th anniversary of the Budapest Open Access Initiative, and will provide plenty of opportunity for reflection on both what has been achieved, as well as what remains to be done. In particular, successes in removing paywalls as a barrier to access have made it possible to identify more clearly other obstacles to inclusive and effective science.

Yet at the same time as the research community explores ways to overcome these additional challenges, the current AI cycle is also providing space for those who seek to reverse gains around basic access. Concerns are spread around whether researchers want their work to help train large language models, while publishers are known to be encouraging them to opt for more restrictive licenses for the OA versions of their works, under the pretence that this will offer greater ‘protection’.

While both arguments can seem intuitively strong, it remains the case that a key goal of research is to develop and disseminate knowledge precisely so that others can use it. This is indeed why governments invest public money in allowing it to happen. Furthermore, making it harder for AI firms to use OA publications only helps boost the value of the packages that publishers subsequently sell to them.

Clearly there are legitimate concerns about the stresses on OA infrastructures from badly designed AI activities. However, it is hard to argue that the answer to this should be to undermine the fundamental principles of OA by changing basic legal terms of access. Technological solutions focused on poorly designed AI training tools appear to offer a much more proportionate approach.

A Plea for Proportionality

The three examples given here illustrate ways in which concern around the rise of AI and its impacts are providing a space in which some potentially very harmful attacks on key library activities and goals are being actively considered.

The blocking of web-harvesting, the invasion of researcher privacy, and the tightening of the terms of access to research are all highly concerning trends, risking rolling back progress which has taken years, if not decades, to achieve.

Libraries and those who share our views need to be attentive to these risks, and be ready to call them out when we see them at work.

1. Diversity of Cultural Expressions and AI

IFLA contributed expert input to the draft of a new Strategic framework for the implementation of the UNESCO 2005 Convention in the context of AI. Our input highlighted libraries as essential public institutions for ethical AI, and proposed amendments for a balanced AI policy that supported creators while also not limiting freedom of expression or lawful uses serving the public interest, including preservation, transparency, research, and education. Think about how libraries can work together with other cultural institutions and actors to navigate our role in inclusive, accountable, and culturally responsible AI ecosystems.

2. Earth Day

Earth Day 2026 is all about collective action for the climate. Libraries deliver around the world deliver opportunities to come together and engage in climate action at the community level. Ensuring all people have access to information about climate change, especially in a way that is locally and culturally relevant, is critical to achieving goals on climate empowerment. Have a look at the recent UNESCO Greening Communities Guidance and consider how to put the suggested actions into practice.

3. Climate Adaptation Indicators

One key outcome of the 30^th UN Climate Change Conference was a set of indicators that help define progress within the Paris Agreement’s Global Goal on Adaptation. This was a very challenging debate, but IFLA was happy to see that indicators on protecting cultural heritage from the impacts of climate-related risks include protection through digitization measures as well as storage of movable heritage in climate-resilient facilities. This is an opportunity for libraries to meaningfully be included in climate adaptation (and represented in monitoring and reporting!) IFLA is now taking a lead in helping provide guidance to the UNFCCC and States on implementing this indicator. Do you have good ideas on how this can be measured? Let us know!

4. World Book and Copyright Day

World Book and Copyright Day – 23 April – marked the moment that a new World Book Capital – Accra, Ghana – takes up its mandate, and also saw IFLA contributing to a consultation workshop on Public Lending Right in Chisinau, Moldova. In this, we highlighted in particular the importance of remembering the relevance of non-copyright tools for supporting a strong book and reading sector, given their greater power to achieve targeted objectives around supporting local creativity, with stronger democratic oversight. Where Public Lending Rights exist, they need to be run in ways that optimally support cultural policy goals.

5. World Creativity and Innovation Day

This UN day is all about harnessing the power of creativity to solve the most pressing problems of the day, which has been a key theme of UNESCO’s culture and development work, not the least at MONDIACULT 2025 (review IFLA’s work there!). UNESCO’s fourth global Re|Shaping Policies for Creativity report, published earlier this year, provides a global look at how governance is helping creativity and innovation enhance all aspects of human development. Have a look back on key messages and trends from this report and what they mean for libraries, and use this in your own conversations on our role in unlocking creativity for innovation.

6. Equitable Access to Heritage and Global Challenges

IFLA has been active with partners from Creative Commons on helping define potential international policy on open access to heritage. This has resulted in the Open Heritage Statement launched in 2025. We are looking forward to continuing this dialogue with partners from across the civil society spectrum working on openness and access to heritage, including at an upcoming exploratory dialogue at UNESCO. IFLA’s wider community is invited to consider what Open Heritage might mean for the library field, including balancing openness with existing frameworks on intellectual property, including, for example, the CARE Principles.

7. Exploring new entry points for AI

Libraries are increasingly being asked to license AI tools, and the choices made today will shape trust, ethics, and access tomorrow. IFLA therefore is exploring adding a new scenario, “Licensing an AI service from a publisher,” to the Entry Point for Libraries and AI document, inviting librarians to explore a realistic procurement situation involving an AI‑enhanced search tool that promises rapid summaries of a publisher’s content. Comments and ideas on this are welcome to be shared with Maria De Brasdefer (Maria.DeBrasdefer@ifla.org).

8. Equity in Open Science

Drawing on insights from a range of our committees, IFLA shared inputs on a draft UN-UNESCO briefing on equity in open science. This highlights the ongoing relevance not just of efforts to remove paywalls, but also to identify and address other barriers to equitable participation in research. Our comments stressed in particular the value of providing stronger protections of researchers’ right to publish open access, make openness the default when it comes to publications and research information, and more broadly to ensure that librarians are part of decision-making processes around openness. Read more about the work of our Open Science and Scholarship Advisory Committee.

While there are real questions about whether the world will even be able to agree on a single agenda at a time of rising instability and uncertainty, the basic value of such an overall agenda to promote comprehensive approaches to development remains strong.

The 2030 Agenda – the one we have today – does of course include reference to the importance of access to information (in SDG 16.10), as well as in a range of other targets.

At the same time, it would be hard to argue that it provides a particularly strong basis for a purposeful, coordinated approach to a knowledge and information environment that supports broader development. Instead, it bears the marks of a world in which the topic of knowledge and information, and how this should feature in public policy, was still viewed from a sectoral lens, where it was even considered at all.

As we look forward to the 2027 SDG Summit, it is worth thinking about whether we are now in a world where there could be a greater readiness to think about knowledge and information as a coherent policy area, and so field of action, rather than as something that can be addressed sector-by-sector. A more coherent approach would of course fit better with libraries’ own work as multi-functional centres for knowledge access, preservation and activation.

This blog looks to compare where we were in 2015 with where we might be in 2027, and draw conclusions about the case for a stronger emphasis on knowledge and information in the post-2030 agenda.

It focuses on different dimensions of knowledge and information, and remains at a high level. There is both a case for a much broader approach, as well as deeper exploration of each question, but this is beyond the scope of this format. However, as we work towards defining an IFLA position on the post-2030 agenda, there will be plenty of scope to explore these issues in more depth.

Information Literacy and Integrity

• In 2015: there was awareness of the need to build skills to deal with misinformation and lies, but the focus was still far more on purer media literacy around traditional . UNESCO had been active on the topic for some time, with the Global Alliance for Partnerships for Media and Information Literacy launched in 2013. This remained a relatively minor area of focus.

• In 2027: with the 2016 US elections, the issue exploded onto the scene, and has only grown in significance since then, not least with concerns around the Infodemic during COVID, and growing focus on the role of information integrity in climate action. MIL week became a global observance in 2021, and the Global Principles on Information Integrity were approved in 2024. Nonetheless, there remains the risk that the focus of information integrity efforts is on platform regulation, rather than giving individuals the skills and confidence to navigate the information environment.

• Implications: With growing recognition of the importance of information integrity to achieve a wider range of policy goals, there is a case for a stronger place for this. However, care will be needed to ensure a focus on human-centred skills-based approaches, rather than those purely focused on top-down regulation.

Digital Inclusion

• In 2015: the world marked the ten-year anniversary of the first World Summit on the Information Society process (WSIS+10), with a recognition of the need to continue to pursue a people-centred internet. Yet with only 40% of the world’s population online, the primary focus was still on basic connectivity, with less emphasis on skills and content. This is reflected in the 2030 Agenda, and in particular SDG 9.

• In 2027: we will be 25 years on from the original WSIS process, but with the Declaration from WSIS+20, the goal of a people-centred internet remains central. However, with connectivity likely to be well over 80% by then, there is awareness that we need a far more advanced approach, focused on the quality of connectivity. This will need to give a far greater role to the importance of skills and access to content, as well as the speed and reliability of connections.

• Implications: there is a good argument that the post-2030 should take a broader approach to digital inclusion, looking at all of connectivity, skills and content. This would move beyond the tech-centric approach in the existing 2030 Agenda.

Internet Regulation

• In 2015: there was already a growing focus on the need to act to protect the public interest online. This came both in terms of efforts to resist the power of dominant private actors (for example via upholding net neutrality), but also to safeguard key enablers of free expression and exchange online, such as limitations on intermediary liability. There was also a growing push to enable the development of local internet access, for example through community networks.

• In 2027: Already in 2018, the Cambridge Analytica scandal drew strong attention to the potential impacts of the decisions made by major internet actors on key aspects of our societies and political systems. Since then, there have been efforts around the world to look again at platform regulation, both from a market regulation and user-protection point of view, not least in the form of the Global Digital Compact. The rush to regulate has nonetheless brought some concerns about the impact on the wider information environment, including libraries and research institutions, as well as the ability of individuals to get the best out of the internet.

• Implications: With the Global Digital Compact a core part of the 2024 Pact for the Future, it seems likely that digital policy as a whole is likely to feature in the post-2030 agenda. The question then is whether it will take place in a way that puts the importance of access to knowledge and information for all at the centre.

Copyright

• In 2015: the round of law-making that took place around the Millennium (kicked off with the WIPO Internet Treaties of 1996) was already coming into question. There were arguments around whether copyright holders needed additional rights in the face of the practices of internet platforms, while libraries and users were already highlighting concerns about the shift to digital undermining their ability to preserve, give access and create.

• In 2027: In many ways the debates are the same, but with the rise of AI intensifying questions around control and access even further. Fears around the impact of AI on traditional business models are leading to calls for dramatic changes to laws that bring the risk of a major extension of downstream control over content. Meanwhile, libraries and their users in many countries continue to enjoy less protection of their rights in the digital world than they did in the physical.

• Implications: Intellectual property has only a limited presence in the 2030 Agenda, but we are likely to see calls for stronger references in any post-2030 texts. This comes with the risk of a focus only on protection, without consideration of the role of openness not only in promoting innovation and equity, but also resilience.

Evidence-Based Policy-Making

• In 2015: the idea that policies should be based on evidence was of course already well established, with efforts at both the national and international levels to bring together and organise information to support decision-making. The 2030 Agenda itself, of course, was an opportunity to underline the inter-relation between work in policy areas, and led to the launch of the series of Global Sustainable Development Reports.

• In 2027: there is a growing focus on the need to develop and make use of information. Work around the indicators associated with the 2030 Agenda has highlighted weaknesses, but has also allowed for some progress, including in the disaggregation of data. New tools for collecting data are available, and AI provides possibilities for new forms of analysis, including across different disciplines. The UN itself has placed data and research at the heart of its UN 2.0 initiative. At the same time, resistance to the lessons of science has also grown, while library services in government departments are threatened by wider cuts to public spending.

• Implications: There is already some excellent work underway, driving in particular by actors such as the International Science Council. We are likely to see a further push to consolidate structures allowing for science-policy interfaces, including scientific advice mechanisms.

Information Freedoms and Democracy

• In 2015: at least on some measures, the world was still in a relative golden age for democracy and key freedoms, including academic freedom. At the same time, once population weightings are taken into account, a decline had arguably already started to set in. Nonetheless, the fact that the 2030 Agenda could include goals and targets around access to information and democratic participation tells of a relatively strong consensus still around this.

• In 2027: concern around the state of information rights has grown, with V-DEM warning that the gains experienced in the world since the 1970s have been eradicated. Both governmental and civil society actors are mobilising to call for stronger protections for academic freedoms, while populism and authoritarianism are creating room for efforts to censor and restrict access. Concern about the possibilities created by technology for surveillance and control are also on the agenda.

• Implications: provisions around rights and freedoms are likely to be particularly contentious in discussions around a post-2030 agenda, with more and more countries ready to question them. This, however, only underlines the need to demonstrate how these contribute to healthier, more equitable societies as well as the achievement of public policy goals.

Science and Research

• In 2015: The open access movement was already well established, with a variety of models being explored to make a reality of it. The need to do more than simply remove paywalls to access was nonetheless becoming clearer, with a growing focus on broader open science practices. The dominance of traditionally richer parts of the world remained strong.

• In 2027: there has been marked progress around both open access and open science, but with this has come growing awareness of the need for more comprehensive approaches to achieve the goal of more inclusive and effective research systems. The inclusion of a whole chapter on science, technology and innovation in the Pact for the Future also sends a positive signal. At the same time, worries about AI, cuts to funding, and vested interests continue to slow progress. The research world is also more multi-polar, but with this has come a growing focus on security, which brings threats of serious restrictions on collaboration. In parallel, worries about research integrity – also linked to AI – are intensifying, requiring efforts across the board to respond.

• Implications: we can hope for a stronger focus on science, technology and innovation in the post-2030 agenda, although this also brings the risk of politicisation. A likely flashpoint will be around academic and scientific freedoms.

Culture

• In 2015: the lack of a culture goal in the 2030 Agenda is arguably one of its key weaknesses, representing both an under-estimation of the value of culture as a goal in itself, and of its power to support the achievement of other goals. As underlined in the work of the Culture2030Goal campaign, this arguably reflected both a lack of emphasis and coordination within the culture sector – even a form of isolationism – as well as a failure to promote culture properly as a policy lever on the same level as those topics that were deemed ‘goalable’.

• In 2027: UNESCO’s move to reinstate the series of MONDIACULT conferences has provided an opportunity to step up coordination across the field, and assert the need to see culture as a real and important area for policy action. Attention to the need to uphold cultural rights has also grown, although this has not been without opposition. Arguably, growing attention to the need to move away from GDP and towards wider metrics of wellbeing also opens up new spaces to talk about culture in the context of development.

• Implications: we are in a stronger place to promote the idea of culture as a goal in the post-2030 agenda, although there will be opposition, both more broadly to ‘adding’ new goals, as well as to the idea of culture as a goal (at least where this is perceived as being aligned with political viewpoints that see culture as being not a matter for government policy, or being a partisan issue).

Towards a Coherent Approach?

Across the different themes covered in this blog, there are arguably very strong signs of a case for stronger consideration of knowledge and information in the post-2030 agenda. From greater focus on the way that knowledge ecosystems are regulated and the need for knowledge skills, to awareness of the impacts of effective approaches on the achievement of wider policy objectives, there is cause for optimism.

Nonetheless, the pressure for change comes from different perspectives and policy communities, and does not always face in the same direction. Furthermore, there may well be opposition, once again for a variety of reasons – from a denial of the idea that people should enjoy a right to information and culture, to efforts to deny expertise and undermine democracy, as well as over-hasty regulation that fails to consider the needs and rights of people.

Importantly though, this may well still lead to an approach to knowledge and information in the post-2030 agenda that is fragmented. This would fall short of recognising the relevance and value of addressing this in a more joined-up way, both through regulation that enables and ensures meaningful access and participation, as well as investments in knowledge generation, skills and infrastructures such as libraries.

The path to a stronger role for knowledge and information in the post-2030 agenda will not be an easy one, but there is a case for believing that we have a good opportunity in front of us.

We hope that, in addition to informing you about our work, they might also help you think about how you and your associations could mobilise to advocate for libraries!

Connect and enable libraries to connect and enable societies: a new IFLA report presents the key findings of the Libraries Boosting Connectivity (LBC) initiative launched in 2024 to collect crucial data on how libraries are navigating and adapting to the digital landscape. This both highlights what libraries are practically doing to support digital inclusion, but also the challenges they encounter in trying to do this. It will soon be accompanied by a pilot website demonstrating how existing approaches to tracking and displaying school connectivity can also be applied to libraries. Together, these tools demonstrate both the need to invest more in libraries, but also the feasibility of doing so along efforts to connect schools.

Opening Heritage with Respect for Communities: IFLA joined Creative Commons (CC) and Internet Archive Europe, and Open Nederland for an event entitled “Ensuring equitable access to heritage in the digital environment: A leading role for the Netherlands on the global stage”. IFLA highlighted the global library sector’s commitment to equitable access to cultural heritage, and stressed the importance of aligning any future policy with existing frameworks such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Explore what Open Heritage may mean here.

International Women’s Day: International Women’s Day 2026 explored the theme “Rights. Justice. Action. For ALL Women and Girls”. Libraries play a vital role in advancing gender equality by promoting multiple literacies, enabling lifelong learning and access to opportunities that support employment, and providing access to information that empowers women and girls. With Agenda 2030 coming to a close in just a few years, explore the ways in which libraries have created equal opportunities for women on IFLA’s Library Map of the World SDG Stories.

Universal Service and Access Fund: In addition to our report on building connectivity, we also released our study of 66 Universal Service and Access Funds, demonstrating that almost half are already investing in libraries, both as connectivity points and as providers of key services that make a reality of digital inclusion. A further group supports such services without highlighting libraries, but could potentially maximise reach and impact by integrating our institutions into their work. The report is available as a reference point for libraries in starting conversations about drawing on these funds to support their work.

The future of Action for Climate Empowerment: Action for Climate Empowerment (ACE) is the aspect of the UN’s climate policy that concerns education, access to information, and public participation in matters relating to the climate crisis. With the current international action plan being renewed in 2026, it is an opportunity for libraries to be more meaningfully involved in activity in the coming 4 years. IFLA’s submission to help inform the 2026 ACE Dialogues highlights the vital role libraries play in climate communication and education and the need for more ways for libraries to get involved in implementing ACE with national policymakers. Learn more about the work programme here and think about how you can get involved.

Libraries powering book- and reading-based urban development: UNESCO has announced that Medellín, Colombia will hold the title of World Book Capital from April 2027, based on a bid built around the role of libraries and librarians, alongside bookshops, authors and publishers. Medellín offers not just a long history of giving libraries a strategic role in wider urban development, but also an inspiring story of how building libraries has helped rebuild cohesion after years of violence. It is a model for other cities on how libraries can and should be central to building safer, better connected cities.

A cross-cutting contribution to social goals: a report on libraries’ engagement at the G20 Social Summit at the end of last year provides a great snapshot of the wide range of development-related issues where libraries have a role to play, from inclusion, digital public infrastructures, access to knowledge, accountability, heritage and wider social justice. It underlines the value of seeing libraries as a key actor in wider discussions about how to build fairer and more inclusive societies. We encourage libraries everywhere to look for such spaces in their own contexts, and be ready to speak up and share their experience there.

Closing the protection gap against unfair contract terms: with the shift from physical to digital materials, the ability of libraries to develop collections depends very much on the terms that they can negotiate in licences. However, there are not always protections for libraries against being offered – or feeling like they are compelled to accept – terms which are unfavourable or restrictive. Crucially, libraries do not always benefit from safeguards against unfair contract terms that can exist for individuals and even for companies. It is time to extend such safeguards to libraries, in the interests of the researchers, teachers, learners and readers who rely on them. Check out the Knowledge Rights 21 Insights report for more.

Share

1. Greening Communities: The 18th International Forum of NGOs in Official Partnership with UNESCO was held this month on the topic: “Greening Education Partnership: NGOs engaged for sustainable impact”. Particularly interesting for libraries may be the fourth pillar of the Greening Education Partnership, which focuses on Greening Communities. IFLA experts co-authored the Greening Communities Guidance. Have a look at the Guidance document and see where you may take action – with library partners as well as others in your communities.

2. Inclusive digital futures: Following the publication of the UNESCO IFAP Issue Brief on Empowering Libraries for an Inclusive Digital Future, IFLA and UNESCO IFAP collaborated on a webinar to examine the brief in practice. The webinar included introductions from IFLA HQ staff and colleagues from the UNESCO IFAP Secretariat, as well as two library experts from IFLA’s community. Speakers from Canada and Uganda shared excellent examples of how their libraries have worked in partnership with government agencies on collective approaches to bridging the digital divide. Find out more about the webinar here and consider how you may put the recommendations in the Issue Brief into practice.

3. Making Marrakesh Work: IFLA released its annual update on how countries are updating their own laws for libraries supporting people with print disabilities to access information – the Marrakesh Monitoring Report. This refers to the Marrakesh Treaty, which removes unnecessary barriers to making and sharing accessible format copies of works. The data both highlights what is possible, but also how much there is still to do – both in terms of countries signing up to the Treaty (around 1/3 of countries still need to), and in ensuring that those that do have make the necessary legislative changes to give libraries certainty in what they are doing. Read more in the Report.

4. Let Libraries Be Libraries: the shift from the physical to the digital world has brought exciting new possibilities to enable access and use. However, it has also been accompanied by a quiet deregulation of the markets on which libraries rely to acquire and access the content that our users need. Old guarantees of the ability of libraries to build collections, and then preserve, organise, give access to and enable use of works – in other words, to ‘be libraries’ – have been replaced by the ability to negotiate contracts that allow these core functions to take place. A new publication from Knowledge Rights 21 – Safeguard Access, Empower Europe – shares a practical set of steps that can be taken to ensure that libraries can continue to carry out their core functions.

5. Reshaping policies for creativity: UNESCO has just published the 4th edition of its Re|shaping policies for creativity report. In it, libraries are highlighted as essential cultural infrastructure that reduces inequality by providing inclusive access to knowledge, digital skills, and cultural participation, especially in underserved communities. Their rapid digitalisation is reshaping how people access cultural heritage and supporting the discoverability of diverse cultural expressions online. Yet major structural gaps persist, including uneven digital access, limited funding, and the absence of libraries in many national digital, AI, and sustainable development policies. Consider how this report can be used to advocate for the integration and funding of libraries within national digital, AI, and cultural strategies – positioning them as core public infrastructures for cultural rights.

6. Multilingualism: International Mother Language Day is celebrated in February, which is a moment to promote the importance of linguistic and cultural diversity and multilingualism. This year’s theme highlighted youth voices on multilingual education, stressing in particular the importance of multilingualism for young learners. According to the UN, 40% of learners worldwide still lack access to education in their mother language, with indigenous, migrant, and minority youth most affected. Libraries are recognised in UNESCO’s Re|shaping policies for creativity report (above) as key community cultural spaces for promoting linguistic diversity, including local and minority languages and particularly in underserved or multilingual communities. Consider how libraries are supporting multilingualism, including for young learners, in your communities.

7. World Day for Social Justice: This year’s World Day for Social Justice encouraged renewed commitments to Social Development and Social Justice following the adoption of the Doha Political Declaration last November – see our summary report for more. With a core role in helping people enjoy their rights and improve their lives through knowledge and information, libraries are arguably an essential and multi-functional part of the infrastructure for achieving social development. National governments are now urged to translate political commitments into concrete and measurable outcomes – so actors like libraries and library associations can have a strong role in bringing these commitments to life within communities.

8. Voluntary National Reviews: 36 countries this year will be carrying out Voluntary National Reviews of their implementation of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. These can be a great opportunity to engage in a policy process alongside a range of stakeholders who may not have thought much about what libraries can contribute, and so build your networks. And if you are successful in ensuring that the work of libraries is referenced, you help our advocacy at a global level by showing the world that libraries are recognised as partners for development. Check if your country is on the list, and use our briefing to find out more.

Read on for more about eight key areas where IFLA will be active in its advocacy in 2026, through its Headquarters team, Advisory Committees and beyond. We’d love to start conversations about how and where you and your unit, association or organisation can get involved!

1. Heritage: Protection and Participation, Today and Tomorrow
   Safeguarding heritage and exploring how culture can help advance solutions for the world’s pressing challenges will be a focus in 2026. Placing access to and participation in culture firmly at the heart of building more resilient and thriving communities will be an important goal for IFLA, as well as for our global partner cultural organisations.
   
   Cyprus’s presidency of the Council of the European Union during the first half of 2026 will prioritise the protection of cultural rights and cultural heritage, with a particular focus on countering theft and trafficking of cultural heritage. IFLA plans to continue our work with partners to highlight the specific considerations for protecting documentary heritage.
   
   IFLA will also place an increasing focus on heritage futures in 2026. We will advance work on identifying global trends and “weak signals” on the horizon which may affect how culture and heritage are preserved, accessed, and applied. This includes taking a closer look at digital cultural heritage, the role of AI on culture, and open access to heritage.

2. Climate: Unleashing the Potential of Information, Culture and Libraries
   Over the past few years, the role of culture in accelerating climate action has been increasingly recognised by actors both within the culture sector and beyond. With more Ministries of Culture placing a focus on the role of culture and heritage in powering climate adaptation, IFLA will work both within our network and with partners to advance how libraries can not only adapt themselves, but also enable their users to adapt effectively to changing climate realities.
   
   We will continue to advance recognition of the role that libraries have in climate empowerment, including informing the review of the Glasgow Work Programme on Action for Climate Empowerment taking place this year. Helping libraries and potential partners make the most of the recent UNESCO Greening Communities Guidance will also be a focus.
   
   Ahead of COP31, hosted by Türkiye later this year, IFLA also plans to build capacity across the global library field to engage in work around information integrity and climate change. We will continue using the tools we launched last year, and work with partners, to advance action on the role of libraries in fact-based climate communication.

3. Digital Inclusion: Growing Awareness of How (Skills) Infrastructures Matter
   Digital access continues to expand. In October 2025, the number of Internet users passed the 6 billion mark, and this number is projected to increase throughout 2026. This might have big implications for libraries globally as global digital skills and infrastructure become essential for people to participate meaningfully in society.

   In 2026, there will be a big focus on the development of general digital skills and in particular AI literacy and ethical use of AI. Beyond their role as information stewards, libraries should be framed as enablers of economic equity. This may also help shift the narrative of their value beyond the cultural and educational spheres and emphasize how they build digital capacity at scale, reduce infrastructure costs and support local communities and digital ecosystems.

   This year will be a good moment to leverage the WSIS+20 review outcome document that recognised the role of libraries as public access facilities that make Internet access available to all, including those in vulnerable situations. The setup of an internal task force to strengthen financial mechanisms within the WSIS+20 process is also a highlight of this document and something to follow throughout the year.

4. Sustainable Development: Delivering Today, but Planning for Tomorrow
   In September 2027, the SDG Summit will represent a key moment for Heads of State and Government to review progress on the Sustainable Development Goals and launch the process of defining the post-2030 development agenda. The process of preparing this will start this year, even as the UN selects a new Secretary General, and we too will be looking at what the current agenda has meant for libraries, and what the next could mean.

   IFLA’s global network has been working for over a decade to highlight the diverse impact of the library and information sector on achieving the SDGs. We will continue to highlight the importance of access to information on sustainable development, and support associations and others to engage in Voluntary National Reviews of SDG implementation.

   We will also step up efforts to build political support for the recognition of the role of culture in sustainable development, namely through a stand-alone goal in the post-2030 development framework. Working with partners from the Culture2030Goal Campaign, we will work to implement our Culture Goal Proposal, which we launched last September.

5. Copyright and Open Science: the AI Debate Intensifies Existing Tensions

   Like it or not, much of the debate around copyright in 2026 will revolve around the implications of and response to (generative) artificial intelligence. While the basics should be well-established – there needs to be legitimate access before there is training, and the exact or near-exact reproduction of copyrighted works is illegal – we are still likely to see efforts to broaden the debate.

   One angle is a new chapter in the discussion about what is left of ownership in a digital environment. Libraries already struggle to build collections when they can only access and use works under licence, raising fears about how to ensure preservation of digital works. Concerns around AI risk leading to further limitations on what can be done with articles, books and other materials found in library catalogues.

   Another is around the risk of both the controls highlighted above, stresses on infrastructures caused by badly programmed AI scrapers, and general discomfort with AI leading to a reverse of progress towards openness in science, culture and beyond. There is, however, cause for optimism, with opportunities through new legislation (notably the European Research Area Act in the European Union) and ongoing initiatives to make new breakthroughs in ensuring that openness becomes the norm.

6. Urban Development: No Sustainable Community without a Library

   Cities often demonstrate leadership in developing innovative policy and practical solutions for diverse challenges, from inequality to climate resilience. As many libraries are embedded within local government and community contexts, the opportunities for expanding partnerships and collaborative strategies for advancing the role of libraries in making healthier, more connected, communities.

   This year’s World Urban Forum will focus on housing for safe and resilient cities and communities. Recent publications like the UNESCO Greening Communities Guidance also present ideas to step up partnerships. This year is an opportunity to frame libraries as key urban assets that support social cohesion, digital inclusion, educational opportunity, community health, disaster preparedness, and participatory governance.

   To realise their potential, libraries must not only be recognised as a core part of the infrastructure available to local government to achieve policy goals, but be adequately supported and integrated into planning.

7. Human Rights: Libraries Can Lead the Way to a Rights-Promoting World

   Human rights challenges will not get any less serious in 2026. There is a risk that the developments already seen in the United States and documented in The Librarians will see copy-cat developments elsewhere, powered by the rise of populism. IFLA will continue to place a focus on libraries who are finding themselves and their collections a target for censorship.

   Another area of growing focus will be around both how to promote rights-respecting and enhancing uses of Artificial Intelligence, both in libraries’ own practice and in the communities they serve. There is work to be done to help libraries make optimal decisions when choosing and negotiating with third party vendors, as well as with users to help them to understand how they can exercise their rights, and in broader public debate around AI regulation. As mentioned, IFLA will increase efforts to build AI literacy among librarians around the globe, as well as ensuring anxiety around AI is not leveraged to limit access to information.

   Finally, cultural rights continue all too often to be the poor relation of other human rights, despite existing alongside economic and social rights in international law. Technology-enabled homogenisation, political division and polarisation and cuts to cultural funding risk making this situation worse.

   With this background in mind, IFLA’s work in 2026 will be strongly anchored in cultural rights. We will continue to follow up on the results of MONDIACULT 2025 to highlight libraries as ready-made infrastructure enabling a truly equitable distribution of opportunities to access, contribute to, and benefit from culture.

8. Information Integrity: a Growing Opportunity, but No Guaranteed Seat at the Table

   There is a growing awareness of the need to integrate an information integrity component into efforts to achieve a wide range of policy goals. During COVID-19, we had work around the ‘Infodemic’, and now – as already highlighted above – the importance of addressing misinformation is part of the climate agenda. This has given a new impetus to the more general work around information integrity launched with the United Nations’ Global Principles in 2024.

   The challenge for libraries is around how to ensure that there is awareness amongst other stakeholders of our potential and how to realise it. There is already a strong tendency in information integrity debates to focus on the regulation of platforms and social media, as well as how to support journalism. Both of these are of course welcome, if done equitably and effectively, but do not offer any meaningful way of building skills and attitudes at the individual and local level. While apps and other tools designed to bridge this gap may also appear, little compares with the spaces and support libraries can offer.

   
   In 2026, IFLA will therefore continue its engagement with the global information integrity agenda, working to make sure that the opportunity to engage and mobilise libraries is not forgotten. We believe that libraries must be central to information integrity strategies at all levels, around the world.

We hope that this will not just inform you about IFLA’s advocacy work, but perhaps also inspire you in your own work to make the case for libraries, library values, and a supportive broader environment for meaningful and inclusive access to information. In particular, if you are an IFLA volunteer and can see how your committee’s work can contribute – let us know!

1. We need to make the right to knowledge central to policymaking

   The right to knowledge is essential for people to fully function in today’s society, and is correctly recognised as a human right. Policymakers and other actors can deliver on this not only by creating the conditions for libraries be functional and well-funded, but also by working directly with them to design equitable information policies. Recent practices in the information ecosystem like the use and deployment of AI systems, the commercialisation of knowledge and others have intensified the policy relevance of the right to knowledge, and libraries as institutions that help serve civil society may offer a counterbalance to information ecosystems that are solely market and platform driven. Follow the work of our Advisory Committee on Freedom of Access to Information and Freedom of Expression for more.

2. Internet Governance must be people-centred

   While the Internet Governance (IG) ecosystem has evolved throughout the past decades, there are still many policy and decision-making processes that are still guided by narrow interests and perspectives, leaving users with limited influence over how digital spaces are designed and governed. Platform-driven business models prioritize profit over community needs, often giving space for frameworks that do not reflect the daily realities of their users. Libraries have and continue to provide digital services to many communities worldwide and are trusted institutions that should be an integral part of national/international IG processes. Read more about our position here in our Internet Manifesto.

3. A global, virtual world still needs local, physical solutions

   While the number of people counted as connected to the internet has risen dramatically, this figure includes many who have only limited access, and says nothing about levels of skill, confidence, or access to relevant content. There are also 2 billion people who are not connected at all – a huge number, and concentrated in the Global South. Helping them to make the most of the internet of course does require better connectivity – something that will need the right high-level policies and regulation. But it also needs local infrastructures, able to recognise the needs of each community and individual. It also needs institutions that can help ensure greater presence of local (language) content in ways that respect community wishes. Read more about our side event at the WSIS+20 UN event.

4. Stakeholders across government and beyond need to see libraries as partners

   Libraries bring a unique set of strengths that make them powerful partners in achieving wider development goals at local level. When they have the structures necessary to act in a coordinated way, they can make a major contribution to delivering change at scale, making libraries interesting for regional and national governments to work with. While making a success of partnerships will also require changes in habits and practices among libraries, it needs governments both to change their perceptions, and help libraries to realise their potential fully. Read more about our work here, and the meeting of IFLA’s Regional Offices in Doha, Qatar.

5. Protecting the past is an investment in the (PAC Hub)

   Documentary heritage is the record of human memory, creativity, history, and expression, and a powerful way to promote shared understanding and cultural and linguistic diversity. IFLA’s Preservation and Conservation (PAC) Centres, hosted in major institutions around the world, are focal points of knowledge on regional and international issues in cultural heritage conservation and preservation. There is much potential to work across this network to build the capacity for more libraries to safeguard their heritage collections. This work needs to be supported to realise its potential! Read more about the naming of the University of Cape Town Libraries (UCTL) as our new PAC Hub.

6. Copyright deregulation is not working for libraries (KR21)

   The shape of copyright laws determines what libraries and their users are allowed to do with the materials that they have acquired or otherwise legitimately accessed. However, with the shift to digital, these laws are becoming less and less relevant, replaced by contracts libraries sign with rightholders. However, a new EU-commissioned study on remote access has underlined that a large majority of libraries are not getting what they need from this system to serve their users. In short, a laissez-faire approach is not working! Read more in the summary on the Knowledge Rights 21 site (an initiative administered by IFLA).

7. Information integrity cannot just be about regulating Google (WSIS, Information Integrity)

   The idea of information integrity covers a range of themes from the skills required to assess whether individual resources are accurate and verifiable, through to wider discussions about what makes for a healthy information environment. Clearly, the effective regulation of those companies whose services very much shape our experience of the internet matters, as does support for independent and high-quality journalism. Yet a complete approach cannot focus only on the ‘supply side’ of information, and needs a focus on building skills and curiosity. This is something that can only really be done through local infrastructures, such as libraries! We’ll be making these points at the WSIS+20 meeting at the UN.

8. Library fields need strong central institutions (Somali letter)

   A national library is more than a building. It is a symbol of a country’s commitment to a sustainable, inclusive, and knowledge-based future. National libraries are at the heart of a country’s knowledge, information and cultural infrastructure, and help people both within a country and beyond engage with and share memory, creativity, and heritage. Efforts to invest in the development of strong central institutions represent a sign of commitment to a stronger future. We encourage governments everywhere to support their national libraries and enable them to fulfil their potential, drawing on ideas and good practices globally via IFLA’s PAC Centres, Professional Units and wider membership.

We hope they both shine a light on our work at IFLA Headquarters, and give you ideas and inspiration for how you can get involved in shaping the environment in which libraries work.

1. Climate and information integrity

   One of the outcomes of the UN Climate Change Conference (COP30) is the signing of a landmark declaration on the critical role of information integrity in addressing the climate crisis. Members of the Global Initiative on Information Integrity for Climate Change launched this declaration to promote equitable access to accurate, consistent, evidence-based, and understandable information on climate change for all stakeholders. Libraries play an important role both in research and in ensuring access to reliable information on the climate. Spread the word and help IFLA get every library acting as information integrity champions.

2. Culture and Heritage in Climate Adaptation

   In 2023, COP28 offered a breakthrough for the culture and heritage community, who have been tirelessly advocating for recognition of our sector as critical enablers of climate action. The Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) Framework that resulted from COP28 included heritage spaces and cultural practices as a priority area where to build climate resilience and adapt to withstand climate change.
   At COP30 this month, the CMA6 Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) decision operationalises these priorities. We are happy to see this framework includes institutions storing moveable heritage among indicators to measure progress. Libraries should be supported in adapting to the changing climate, as well as recognised as spaces that support wider societal adaptation.

3. Culture, Communication, and Information Goals at UNESCO

   Member States of UNESCO met in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, this month for the 43rd UNESCO General Conference. One of the main items for discussion and decision at the 43rd General Conference was the draft budget and programme for the period 2026-2027. IFLA was mentioned directly among key partners for supporting the preservation of and access to documentary heritage.
   Other priorities for the Communication and Information Sector include ensuring information integrity, supporting media and information literacy, and expanding access to reliable information via digital public goods and open solutions. The Culture Sector will work to strengthen the role of culture in public policies for sustainable development, prepare for emergencies, combat trafficking, and support art and culture education. Libraries can be partners with each other.

4. Information integrity matters for social development: one of the most interesting sessions at the World Social Summit earlier this month was a session focused on the importance of trust – in particular in government – for policies to be effective. The need for information integrity was clear. Governments themselves need to model good information management and sharing, and populations need the skills and attitudes necessary to engage. These are areas where libraries – government and parliamentary on the one hand, public and academic on the other – can play a role in helping governments organise and share information, and helping societies to be fully informed.

5. Libraries as partners for policy delivery: another conclusion from the Social Summit was the need for local infrastructures in order to advance a variety of policy goals. Especially in social policy, a focus on the needs of individuals and communities, as well as an understanding of local culture and characteristics, makes a big difference. While libraries cannot and should not be expected to do everything on their own, they are excellently placed to work as partners, alongside public, private and civil society stakeholders to make change happen. They need to be supported and integrated into all relevant plans in this space.

6. Get Marrakesh implementation right! A recent news piece on our website underlined a number of ways in which the potential of the Marrakesh Treaty to deliver access to knowledge for people with print disabilities is being blocked. The Treaty promises to remove unnecessary copyright-related exceptions to making and sharing accessible format copies of works, providing a solution to a long-standing market failure. However, too many governments have either failed to follow through on implementation, or have introduced steps which add cost and complexity to the work of libraries and others. To fulfil the promise of Marrakesh, it is time to act.

7. Internet regulation needs to be people-centred: next month will see the WSIS+20 High-Level Event at the United Nations in New York, which will look to reaffirm and build on the original WSIS agreements of 20 years ago. These agreements underlined the need for a people-centred internet, focused not just on technology but also on how it could make a difference to people’s lives. The draft declaration, currently being finalised, highlights the ongoing relevance of libraries and other public access centres like post offices in ensuring the internet delivers for all. In turn, we need wider internet regulation to enable the work of libraries, recognising their value as a public infrastructure. Check out our planned side event on 16 December.

8. Libraries as a local digital inclusion infrastructure

   We are excited to announce the launch of a new Issue Brief published by the UNESCO Information For All Programme (IFAP) titled: Global Network of Libraries and Local Impact: A Policy Roadmap to Build an Inclusive Digital Future.

   Co-authored by IFLA, this practical tool includes recommendations to foster inclusive knowledge societies in the digital age. UNESCO has shared this brief with its 50+ field offices. It is an ideal moment for libraries to reach out to partners, discuss the recommendations in the Issue Brief, and explore collaborative actions to bring the policy roadmap to life. Join IFLA’s upcoming webinar to learn how to get started.

A thread running through all the sessions, and reflected in the values at the heart of the Wiki movement, is the importance of community and the open sharing of knowledge and information. It’s clear therefore why so many librarians are engaged in its work.

The theme of the conference was resilience. The term is a popular one right now, used in a wide variety of settings in response to a sense of growing turbulence and unpredictability in the world. Climate change has been a reality for years, but to this is added the rise of political extremes and populism, coupled with worries about economic disruption and dislocation.

So what are the building blocks of resilience? A plenary session at the conference tackled this question head on, bringing together speakers from a variety of perspectives, ranging from technological infrastructures to questions of governance and law and a more human dimension. Concerns about political interference, economic change and the persistence of communities all came up.

This range of experience pointed in the direction of a need to think about resilience – both in the case of Wikimedia and of libraries – as being circular. Libraries (and Wiki projects) can support the resilience of communities, but in turn, communities support the resilience of libraries (and Wiki projects). This blog explores this relationship in more depth.

Libraries for more resilient communities

While we may not always use the word, we regularly talk about the role of libraries in supporting the ability of the communities they serve not just to survive but to thrive in a changing world.

Through building skills, providing the information necessary for effective decision-making, and offering spaces (both for wider community-building and during times of emergency), we contribute to making communities stronger, better able to respond to change.

We have a particular role when it comes to the safeguarding and evolution of the knowledge and stories of communities, in ways that work for them. These can play an essential role in building identity, supporting creativity, and ensuring a sense of rootedness – all essential for resilience.

It is a role that overlaps strongly with the work of the Wikimedia ecosystem, which provides both a practical infrastructure and a community and mindset that contribute to these same goals. Through this, we don’t just create a ‘back-up’ of the knowledge that underpins how communities work, but indeed help these communities to become more vibrant and able to deal with change with confidence.

Communities for more resilient libraries

This is of course an area of ongoing learning. Libraries and Wikimedia projects alike can only truly contribute to community resilience by working with them, stepping back from one-size-fits-all solutions and ensuring ownership.

The theme of ownership takes us to the second half of the circle – the degree to which the resilience of libraries (and Wikimedia) depends on communities.

In short, it is clear that a library that does not engage its community is unlikely to have much of a future.

This is partly a question of politics and resourcing. Governments at different levels, as well as the other funders on which libraries rely need to take tough decisions about resourcing, and they are not going to spend money on services that are not being used.

However, it is also more fundamental. Given that libraries have a mission to enable access to knowledge (including the possibilities to apply it and build on it to create new knowledge), if we are not engaging communities we are not fulfilling our mission, and so not able to develop services and offers in ways that ensure our ongoing relevance.

Similarly with Wikimedia projects, these work because of the community of volunteers ready to contribute time, expertise and knowledge, as well as a user community that values its range and quality. This support base makes it possible to continue in a changing environment, both guaranteeing existing products and refreshing the broader offer as necessary. Without them, Wikimedia risks losing its relevance and ability to deliver on its missions too.

Supporting mutual resilience

This blog has sought to argue that just as libraries (and Wikimedia) can be key actors and infrastructures in building community resilience, we in turn rely on the engagement and support of communities to be resilient ourselves.

This points to the value of an approach to planning that underlies this ‘symbiosis’ of institution and community, ensuring that in the choices we make, we think hard about this mutual dependency.

In doing so, we make an investment in the future, helping to ensure that our institutions and communities alike are better prepared to face the future with confidence.

1. The internet should work for people: Preparations for the WSIS+20 conference in December are well underway, where leaders will reaffirm and build on the principles first set down in 2005 around the importance of a people-centred internet. We argue that libraries are essential to any infrastructure for achieving this, bringing together dedicated staff, non-commercial spaces, access to content, and a centuries-old record of enabling people to access information in ways that work for people. Look out for further communication about how to help shape the outcomes.

2. Libraries are a key infrastructure for climate empowerment: a successful response to climate change, both in terms of reducing emissions and adapting to the consequences of temperature rises will, in part, depend on behaviour changes. Libraries are excellent venues for enabling this, based within communities and with a unique ability to help people engage with science and knowledge, and make the right decisions based on this. Look out for news stories in the coming weeks about COP30, held in Belem, Brazil.

3. Libraries are an essential infrastructure for media and information literacy: among the issues under discussion at the upcoming biennial UNESCO General Conference, this year being held in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, will be the importance of media and information literacy. We are also currently celebrating Global Media and Information Literacy Week. We argue that action here cannot just focus on the media and internet platforms, but must also include a focus on building skills, attitudes and curiosity among people, something that libraries are uniquely well placed to support. Take the opportunity to share evidence about what your library or association is doing here through this UN survey – deadline 31 December, but ideas are welcome as soon as possible!

4. We need concerted action to advance inclusive open science: while there is widespread recognition of the value of open science as a driver both of scientific progress and inclusion, it is far from universally applied. Political and economic pressures still lead to exclusion among researchers and readers alike, and there is growing awareness of the need to ensure that open science practices align with other goals, not least the protection and promotion of the interests of Indigenous peoples. Governments can help here by ensuring that there is the necessary financial and political support for progress. Read more about what our Advisory Committee on Open Science and Scholarship did for Open Access Week 2025.

5. Open culture builds resilience: as already underlined, cultural rights are a crucial pillar of the wider human rights framework, enabling individuals and communities to thrive, even in the face of adversity. At this year’s GLAM Wiki conference in Lisbon, Portugal, we’ll be engaging with Wikimedians and other activists, exploring how we can make culture open so that everyone can benefit and contribute. We’ll be focusing in particular on advocacy and promoting supportive legislative change.

6. Markets for libraries need to work: while libraries themselves are not market institutions, they rely on markets in order to be able to acquire or otherwise access content on behalf of their users. However, these markets are too often imperfect, leaving libraries facing high prices, unfavourable terms, or even simply a refusal to sell or license. A new report from Knowledge Rights 21 highlights evidence of challenges, as a basis for taking forward engagement with competition and market authorities.

7. We need global copyright reform: the rights to information, education, research and culture are universal, but the degree to which copyright laws enable libraries to deliver on these varies hugely from country to country. Due to a lack of certainty or capacity, as well as lobbying from corporate interests, too many countries lack frameworks that give libraries clear space to operate, including across borders. We are therefore looking forward to discussing new proposals for an international legal instrument that could help here, as proposed by the African Group at the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights. Look out for suggestions on how you can support this work through engaging your own copyright offices.

8. We need to take knowledge and information more seriously in development: we published a report looking at the place of knowledge and information in the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals. This underlines how, despite limited references in the 2030 Agenda itself, governments have recognised the diverse and significant ways in which they contribute. This, we argue, underlines the case for a more coordinated, focused approach to making the most of knowledge and information, both now and in the post-2030 Agenda.