Euro petition final review22mar11

What is a Petition ?
Why:
Easy first ‘democratic step’ - takes citizens beyond being passive
Easily understood by democratic bodies and the public
A small thing to do – but can be a big increase in participation
Involves more citizens
One of the few ways that the public have to put something on the agenda
“ A formal, written request made to an official person or organised body, often containing many signatures. A petition may be oral rather than written, and in this era may be transmitted via the Internet”.
Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu

“ europetitions” – 2 fundamental rights of European citizens
Petitions to the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions
Any citizen, acting individually or jointly with others, may at any time exercise his right of petition to the European Parliament under Article 227 of the EC Treaty.
European Citizens Initiatives (ECI)
Article 11 of the Treaty of European Union (Lisbon Treaty) One million citizens from a significant number of Member States can call on the European Commission to bring forward new policy proposals .
Likely to become live in 2012.

Why electronic or ePetitions?
Simple , fast & easy way to participate & engage in the Democratic process.
Eases ability for Citizens to communicate with a community & gather support
High profile systems have caught the public’s imagination ( high impact )
More accessible way to engage the public in democratic debate
Pre-petition moderation opportunity to improve petitions.
Opens the door to further participation & engagement
Ideal tool to bridge from informal discussions on social networks etc, to connect into the formal democratic process .

ePetitions within an overall eParticipation Strategy Status Processes Communication Informal Participation Formal Consultation (Council) Formal Democracy (Representative) The Wild West The Law Social Networks/ Online communities Video Magazines Formal webcasting ePetitions Support representative PB Local strategic plan Flip point Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu

European Parliament – Petitions Committee – “europetitions”
1200 to 1500 petitions per annum.
Have achieved:
Improved transparency
A number of Directives improved / implemented
Subject of the petition must be issues of European Union interest or responsibility:
rights as a European citizen
environmental matters
consumer protection
employment issues and social policy
other problems related to the implementation of EU law.
Petitions are submitted on paper OR online
No requirements for signatures.
Much Liaison between Petitions Committee Secretariat & EuroPetition
Petitions Committee EP receives / moderates / reviews Petitions

www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do?id=49&language=en
eParticipation Conference, EP, 15/12/09 www.EuroPetition.eu
European Parliament online ePetitions form
1,500 petitions in 2009
46% were in-scope

European Citizens Initiative “europetitions”
Lisbon Treaty introduces a new form of public participation in EU policy shaping - the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI),
one million citizen’s signatures from a significant number of Member States
can call directly on the European Commission to bring forward an initiative in an area of EU competence.
Expected to become active in 2012.
Commission Green Paper Consultation & Procedures Regulation
EuroPetition Submission
Met & input to European Commission General Secretariat on ECI Procedures
EuroPetition project’s Pilot Trials during 2010
Demonstrated a viable approach & system.
Response to DIGIT study on ‘ open source software for online collection of statements of support’
EuroPetition meets the requirements – could be reused - avoid ‘re-inventing the wheel’

EuroPetition Project – www.europetition.eu
EuroPetition – a service that empowers Citizens to obtain support from many Regions & Member States to increase the impact of their petition .
Using collaborative Web 2.0 Social Networking Services.
Provides Local Authorities with an ePetitioning Service for their citizens
Pilot Trials in 2010 at Regional & European level
with 5 Member State Clusters of 18 Local Authorities & 8M citizens .
coordinated submission of more & better quality ePetitions :
Local & National
Cross-border Europetitions to the European Parliament - Petitions Committee
Validated an online system for European Citizens Initiatives
Explore the issues involved.
Viable system.

EuroPetition PEC1, www.EuroPetition.eu Kingston North Lincs Birmingham Bristol signatures Gothenburg Malmö Stockholm Linkoping Pitea Almere Flevoland Den Haag Groningen Amsterdam Abla Córdoba M á lag a Vicenza Article 8b of the Treaty of Lisbon “ One million citizens from a number of Member States will have the possibility to call on the Commission to bring forward new policy proposals. . ” http://europa.eu/lisbon_treaty/glance/index_en.htm European Citizens Initiative

Collaborative – using Social Networking tools.
Cross-Regional & Multilingual – mediated by Local Authorities
Open & Transparent - in clearly defined Stages.
EuroPetition - open simple process Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu

EuroPetition Service. Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu

Work Done over the Project Duration (Jan09-Dec10 )
First Half Year focused on
Establishing the consortium, project procedures, dissemination & evaluation
Investigating the EuroPetition System user requirements,
Defining & designing the EuroPetition service based on the user requirements.
Second Half Year focused on
Developing & completing the EuroPetition service
Interim Dissemination Event in Malmo, 18 th November 2009
Installing the EuroPetition service & procedures at the 5 Cluster User Sites
Third Half Year focused on
Operation/evaluation of the Service at the 5 Cluster Pilot Trials.
The Mid-project Review.
Interaction with ECI process & procedures.
Final Half Year focused on
Operation & Evaluation Results of the Service at the 5 Cluster Pilot Trials.
Final Dissemination Event in Barcelona, 5 th Oct 2010.
Final Viability Plan & continuation of the Services.
Final Reivew, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu

Project Achievements
EuroPetition service was researched, specified, implemented, tested & operational at the 5 pilot sites in ES, IT, NL, SE & UK
5 EuroPetition Clusters were operational throughout 2010
involving 18 Local Authorities & potentially targeting 8m citizens
Local ePetitions are growing significantly in all Regions.
with the following results from the Pilot Trials:
Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu Number of Baseline/expected for the 5 Pilot Regions Actual at end of 2010 Change Europetitions 25 63 +152% Europetitions in Scope for the EP Petitions Committee 10 23 +130% Europetition Signatures 0 1,392 n/a Registered Users 1,788 2,576 +44% User Visits 223,538 374,746 +68%

Project Achievements
EuroPetition Final Viability Plan for sustainable operation of the service
Based on commercial operation using the open source software
Dissemination - & awareness-creation of EU Citizens’ “Europetitioning Rights”
At 170 events - potentially addressing over 7,500 people
Direct collaboration with MOMENTUM & 5 other projects.
Dissemination Workshops
Interim – at Pre-Conference to the Malmo Ministerial Conference in Nov09.
Final – at Personal Democracy Forum Europe in Oct10, Barcelona.
Best Paper at eDem09 & an Editors Choice on ePractice.eu
European Citizen Initiative (ECI) - Submission & active involvement in the Consultations & direct input to its online procedures.
EuroPetition suitable open source software platform for the implementation of ECIs
www.europetition.eu - 18,000 visitors & 83,000 visits during project . (1k/3.3k since)
Links (>100) and Events (>50) Pages particularly popular.
18 project deliverables completed - as planned.

Lessons Learnt – Clusters from Final Report
ePetitions and Europetitions do provide a first easy step to proactive eParticipation
ePetitions can influence Decision Making
Need for institutional support from the European Parliament
Potential to meet the needs expressed by the European Parliament Petition Committee
Open data standards for ePetitions and the ECI process presents an opportunity for the EuroPetition service
Promotion of EuroPetitions
Local Support and Ownership
Transparency and Clarity of petitioning process
Legal Obligations are not a barrier
Relationship between local and euro-petitions
Final Reivew, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu

EuroPetition Journey LPS = Local Petitioning System € CA = Euro Cluster Admin EPS = Euro only Petitioning System
Cluster Admin
European Parliament European Commission Euro Institutions € CA € CA € CA € CA € CA English English English English Spanish English Swedish Italian Dutch = Euro Flag button LPS LPS LPS LPS UK LPS Netherlands Spain LPS LPS LPS Italy LPS EPS EPS Sweden Malmö Bristol
Petitioners
Local Admin
}

Sweden Pilot Trials’ Experience, Impacts and Plans of Users Grethe, Malmo. EuroPetition Final Review

Malmöinitiativet – launched July 2008
Soon became popular with citizens
Approx. 500 initiatives taken
More than 7000 supporters
EuroPetition in Sweden = Europaförslag

Swedish clusters
Cooperation – top level
Enthusiastic partners
Moderation done by Malmö
Different LG’s with optimal evaluation possibilities
Professional in marketing
Malmö Göteborg Linköping Stockholm Piteå Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu

Conference on eGovernance in Malmö
EU’s 5th Ministerial conference – nice publicity for petitioning
Dissemination seminar on Europetition
e-participation a part of the Malmö Declaration.

Europaförslag.se - launched March 2010
Information folders
Ads in free riders
Posters
LG’s homepages
EU’s representatives
Libraries
Individual press activites
Workshops

Final status for Sweden shows that the Swedes are interested !
697 Europetitions Signatures whereof one petition receives 220.
A qualitative study using Internet in a chatforum – people positive, especially young people.

Continuation.
All partners in Sweden continues in 2011 - because we all believe in the project, and because petition projects are here to stay.

Review Meeting Fraser Henderson March 2011 for Bristol City Council, UK UK Cluster

Periodic summary by locality Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu North Lincolnshire : Rural, industrial. New to ePetitions Birmingham City : Urban, Multi-cultural. New to ePetitions Bristol City : Urban, longstanding local ePetition system RB Kingston Upon Thames : Wealthy London borough, longstanding local ePetitioning

A period of change
Stretched resources
LDEDC Act (2009/10)
General elections
Budget cuts
Change
No.10 Website & new policy direction
- Data standards
- Rigorous due diligence

Activity Evidence from other Parliamentary systems suggests opening an ePetition facility does not significantly increase petition volumes. i.e. Aim not to create a new burden. Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu March 2011 “ We, the ordinary citizens of the EU object to the interference in the EU in our daily lives and in particular the ruling by the European Court of Justice that men and women should pay equal insurance premiums. This ruling defies all logic and should be rescinded.” Approx 50% rejection ratio

Marketing and outreach
"Petitions are a really important means of giving citizens direct access to the European Institutions. The European Parliament's Petition's Committee follows up every petition it receives. Where we see that action is needed, we really get results. Some of our reports have led to significant policy changes. So it is great to see Birmingham pioneering citizens’ direct access to the EU through the EuroPetitions project.“
-Malcolm Harbour MEP

Presence at national conferences (e.g. Headstar eDemocracy’09) – which led to BBC coverage. Stimulus for article in Computing Which? Magazine.
Items in national periodicals , local newspapers and council magazines.
Localised event e.g. Lincoln LocalGov Camp (Oct’09), Technologies for participation (Manchester – Nov’09).
Marketing and outreach Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu

Our experience
Negatives
Low usefulness in the case of local ePetition escalation
Deficit in terms of public appreciation of benefits and influence of EP on their lives, evident from false positives
Lack of substantial commitment/support from petitions committee
Concern over impact on established local ePetitions - Reputational issues related to getting a response.
Longer to process. (No local experts in European matters)
Process differences compared to local petitions

Our experience
Positives
Opportunity to observe the breadth of issues from participating member states
Gave us ideas in terms of methods for co-ordinating action across boundaries, such as language translation
Activity bolstered efforts around local ePetition facilities, helped to launch new facilities in some cases
Allowed us to further refine the software
Better understanding of barriers to implementing ECI

22nd March 2011 Dutch Cluster Dirk-Jan, Dijksman.com EuroPetition Review Meeting

EuroPetition Review Meeting – 22 nd March 2011
Dutch Cluster
Dijksman.com, online and offline citizens participation
Petities.nl, website to petition all Dutch governments
EuroPetition Review Meeting – 22nd March 2011 , www.EuroPetition.eu

Experience
Dutch Municipalities were not really interested in a local petitioning system
Hard to find cluster partners within the Netherlands
Petities.nl was an existing website which hosted most of the Dutch petitions (several petitions with 100k signatures and more)
On petities.nl governmental organization can open a desk where they can receive petitions
We opened a desk for Europetitions and worked together with the founder of petities.nl; Reinder Rustema
We also started a national site for Europetions with the public-i system, mainly to communicate with the other clusters and the translation for the petitions. (www.europetition.nl)

Experience
Launch Europetitions online February 2010 on Petities.nl
2 months later www.europetition.nl was activated as bridge with petities.nl and this proved to work well
Petitioners initially intended to petition a local or national government and were suggested to petition the EP
Translation system and the network has proven to work well

Facts Petities.nl
Dutch

Facts Europetitions.nl
Dutch

Europetition The Netherlands Italy Great- Brittain Sweden Spain 1 million signatures Petities.nl Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu

Impacts
Petition against child abduction started in The Netherlands collected the most signatures (180+ petities.nl & 300+ europetition.nl)
Petitions only work if the petitioner is passionate about the petition (petities.nl -> europetition.nl )
Europetitions got the same numbers of signatures comparable to a mid-size municipality on Petities.nl
Citizens most likely start petitions that concern them directly
Press release and event attracted national radio and a live interview was broadcast.

Plans of User
Desk on Petities.nl will stay open.
Petities.nl will take over its moderation.
Application Programming Interface (API) to bridge with EuroPetition is relying on a data standard for petitions/initiatives which is being developed now in the network, anticipating the ECI

22nd March 2011 Italian Cluster Christian, NESTOR EuroPetition Review Meeting

Italian Regional Cluster
Status – Italian cluster
Coordinator:
Nestor Lab University of Rome “Tor Vergata”
Local authorities:
Vicenza
CST – Service Center Vicenza Area

Italian Regional Cluster Overview
The Municipality of Vicenza and the CST have been very enthusiastic about taking part in this project.
The project has been perceived as innovative since petitioning is not yet an instrument commonly used by citizens in Italy to engage with their politicians and policy makers
The Italian cluster members shared an IT system and Nestor Lab acted as the coordinator.

Italian Regional Cluster Site for the Italian Cluster
The URL domain chosen for the Italian cluster is www.europetition.it
Translation and tuning of the platform to help people using the IT infrastructure

Italian Regional Cluster Press release and site launch
Press conference in the Municipality of Vicenza and site launch on March 19th 2010

Press release for the project on Local newspapers
Italian Regional Cluster Press release and site launch Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu

Italian Regional Cluster Support activities
Preliminary Questionnaire sent to a selected list of people chosen by the Municipality
Training of Vicenza public officers in using the platform
Support in designing and implementing internal processes for dealing with petitions

Italian Regional Cluster Marketing activities
Creation of the Twitter and Facebook accounts to market all the Europetitions
Translation of posters and flyers to be used by Local Authorities to draw attention to the project
Use of the Municipalities’ web pages, press conferences and interviews with local media

Italian Regional Cluster Dissemination activities
Distribution of dissemination material and direct contact with potential users through the Municipality Forum, social networks and email
Organization of Workshops and conferences to inform potential users about the system, participation in events organized by other parties
Dissemination of the petitioning process through University seminars in projects meetings of the Ministry of Interior with local authorities

Euronews interview April 12th, 2010 with interview to Prof. Talamo and demo of the Europetition site
International Conference " e-ID management for e-services " May 20-21 2010 in Rome

Euronews interview to the Project Coordinator and to Vicenza Major in Vicenza June 2010
Workshop “ European cities experiences in
e - Democracy and e- Partecipation” in Vicenza,
June 23rd 2010
World e-Gov Forum – Forum Mondial De la Démocratie et de L’Administration Electroniques
Global Forum 2010, Washington

Italian Regional Cluster Italian experience
Vicenza citizens are quite actively participating in the social and democratic life of the Municipality, however, there was concern about using an electronic platform to submit petitions.
A part of the population is skeptical about obtaining answers from the Local Authorities and about creating a cooperative relationship with the Local Politicians
People are worried about privacy and security issues connected to signing an electronic petition
Municipal statutes need to be updated for the use of present technologies, like e-petitioning, that allow people to participate in local democracy and to be connected with decision makers

Italian Regional Cluster Future Plans
The Vicenza Municipality and Nestor will continue the project in 2011
Suggestion for future projects:
Combine the technologies currently available for e-petitioning with digital identity and attribute management as well as multimedia sharing
Create strong, cross border e-communities for e-participation that share opinions, knowledge and documents to advice and influence policy decisions
Extend the analysis of this material beyond correctly counting votes to obtain quantitative data about social variables based on sentiment analysis and related methods

Spanish Cluster Laia, I2BC

Spanish Regional Cluster
Status & Experience to date – Spanish cluster
EuroPetition Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11, www.EuroPetition.eu
Coordinator:
I2BC
Local authorities:
Malaga
Cordoba
Abla
No petitioning experience in any of the councils

www.europetitionandalucia.es EuroPetition Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11, www.EuroPetition.eu

General Stats

General stats (as of 16/03/2011)
Total number of petitions sent via the Spanish system: 176
Total number of petitions dealt with at time of close of project: 51
Total number of Europetitions: 42
Total number of local petitions: 134
Malaga: 99
Cordoba: 17
Abla: 18

Europetitions

Europetitions
Key themes:
Animal rights (6)
Environment (10)
Most successful petitions:
That Bullfighting be included in European animal rights laws as a banned practice (81)
More help at a European level for people who suffer from Arnold Chari disease (224)
Modification of the divorce laws in Spain (83)
One petition presented to the European Parliament so far:
Modification of the divorce laws in Spain / 5 pending presentation

Local petitions

Local Petitions
Key themes:
Varied themes with a very local and specific focus (different for each council)
Most successful petitions:
That the metro reaches the Andalusian Technology Park in Malaga (1360)
Regarding the need for a roundabout outside of the University campus in Malaga (399)
To save the Cruz Conde park in Cordoba (194)
To improve the faces of the buildings in Abla (11)
Most active citizen participation in Malaga

Dissemination actions

Dissemination actions
Press conferences
A total of 7 press conferences regarding the launch of the project and the launch of the Europetition system in Andalucia
TV interviews
2 TV interviews on the Cordoba council´s local TV channel
Radio promotion
Interview on local radio show aimed at foreign residents in Malaga
Workshops
2 Specialist workshops for both young and elderly users in Abla
Social networking
Constant dissemination carried out via Facebook and twitter

Project impact

Project impact
Extensive press coverage
System launch and key petitions covered by local and regional press in all three councils
Petitioning culture installed locally
EuropetitionAndalucia adopted by Malaga council as service offered by them.
Huge participation by citizens taking into account that there wass not a petitioning system in place beforehand
Response from local governments
Bicycle parking in Abla
Provocation of local political debates
That the Metro reaches the PTA + petition regarding the delays in the work taking place to develop the port of Malaga

Lessons learned

Lessons learned
Political will is key to successful petitioning systems
Direct and timely communication improves the citizen´s democratic experience
Need for an extension of the petitioning service to a regional and national level
Petitions can generate political debate and action on certain issues

Evaluation Report Peter Cruickshank Edinburgh Napier University EuroPetition Project Review

EuroPetition Final Review Agenda Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
Presentation of Achievements by the Project Team + Q&A
1000 - EuroPetition Project Overview, Status & Resources – John
1030 - EuroPetition Service Demonstration - Paul
1045 - Pilot Trials’ Experience, Impacts and Plans of Users
Sweden, UK, Netherlands, Italy & Spain - (10 mins each)
1145 - Evaluation - Project Outcomes/Results/Impact
1145 Evaluation Results and Recommendations. - Peter
1215 European Citizen Initiative - what was done & learned - Peter
1230 - Dissemination Activities - Catherine
1245 - Sustainability of the Service and Future Plans – John
13.00 - Lunch
14.00 - Reviewers’ Discussion and Common assessment (for Review Report)
14.45 - Presentation of Results to Project Team
15.00 - End of the Review

Evaluation requirements
That the EuroPetition platform does address use of ePetitions in the Legislative decision making processes and eParticipation needs of local government in various contexts at local, regional, national and European level
That the assumptions in the initial viability plan are reasonable to sustain the service in the various contexts.
That the service can be delivered in multiple contexts and languages across Europe on an interoperable operational basis.
That alternative solutions and services are accommodated
The legislative participation impact of EuroPetition, including its political impact and affect on policy-making processes, its impact on cross-border cooperation between citizens, and its relationship to wider aspects of e-governance
User Engagement Report , documenting user engagement for identified user groups
Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu

Evaluation scope
Acceptability & uptake
Does it work
Do the stakeholders like it
Feelings of self-efficacy
Democratic impact
Changes to (council) agenda
Proportion of people who have not interacted before
Increased engagement with formal democratic system
Viability
Will decision makers support it long term?
At this stage: Formative approach
‘ Critical friend’

Evaluation work Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu Element Source of data Status Baseline data Online survey tool hosted by PI Covered in interim review + report Application installation & training Questionnaires to Pilot Sites Covered in interim review + report Viewership and website behaviour statistics, including use of Web2.0 tools PI Database analysis
Online Expectation & Perception Questionnaires
Petitioners
Citizens
Online survey tool hosted by PI Data gathered Focus groups with citizens and petitioners Pilot sites Sweden, Spain, (Netherlands), England Market survey and pricing questionnaire Pilot sites, MAC Review of viability report Data from participating officers and members Pilot sites, MAC/PI Review of viability report

Other outputs
Refined model of e-petitioning process
Papers on self-efficacy and the role of the lurker
Supported process of publishing to OSOR.eu as EUPL-licensed open source application
Data standard for e-petitions
Engaged with dialog on ECI and clarifying process

Live running Install & Operate Design & Develop Service User Requirements & Service Spec Establish Baseline & Develop Evaluation Plan Ongoing Evaluation & monitoring of pilots Dialogue to build data gathering into system Validate system meets eval objectives Data gathering, responding to issues Baseline survey (authority-held data) Baseline survey (of citizens) Lit review Scenario-testing workshops Evaluation process Final Evaluation Final data collection ‘ exit’ surveys Debate statistics System data Partner monitoring data Interviews Database analysis Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu

How the petitioning process can support engagement Opportunity to sign a petition Signing a petition is one of the smallest possible steps in active e-participation Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu

Research interest: Facing the challenge of the lurker Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu

Lurkers present a real challenge to us as e-participation researchers, and to the democratic process in general:
is being ‘a face in a crowd’ at a political demonstration a bad thing? (no)
is it similar to lurking online? (yes).
After all, just spending time at a demonstration or following a political topic is still a commitment.
Therefore lurkers are interesting to us in their own right
and should not be
negatively portrayed
ignored
Lurkers are better than ignorers
Use of baseline questionnaire allows us to contact people who are interested, but did not sign a petition
Research interest: Facing the challenge of the lurker Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu

Self efficacy: Understanding the lurker Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu

Theoretical background: Self Efficacy Experience of the process matters Adapted from Compeau & Higgins 1999 Positive and negative reinforcement from previous experiences Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu Self Efficacy Outcome expectations (Performance) Outcome expectations (Personal) Affect Anxiety Usage

Baseline Data Knowing our respondents
As suspected, the people responding are confident users of both computer and political systems
… most also say they voted in local and European elections
As well as national elections
Challenge: pro-active outreach

Acceptance Questionnaire
Purpose
Record clusters and councils perspective
Helps ensure product & training meets expectations
Consists of
Installation & configuration questionnaire
Checklist based on feature list
To record issues and extent of testing
Training questionnaire
Process
Distributed to cluster leaders
Completed as the work is done

Acceptance questions Initial responses
Installation & Customisation
Generally smooth
Close cooperation with developer
Issues
Localisation process
Documentation
Security, verification of signatures
Training
Training sessions useful
Well adapted in Spain
Timing
Needs
Familiarity with ‘petition’ as a process (eg Spain)
Cultural issue
Good customer service skills
Will be continuing learning process

Survey of potential market in early 2010
Starting with ALDA
What e-participation activities are already underway
What demand is there
Who would use and/or support it
Sustainability
Organisational engagement
Local workshops & questionnaires
Licensing model
Exploring EUPL, commercial open source model
Standards compliance
E-petitioning law in England & Wales is setting precedent
Data standards
Best practise
Issues around authentication , anonymity and security
Viability / Sustainability  Initial report for Vicenza meeting Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu

4. ‘Impact’ Discuss at meeting Feedback Response 3. Submission Close* Write report (Set up web-cast) 2. Input & Dialogue Collect signatures Online debate(s) 1. Preparation Submit Approve Activate*
Data on ‘starters’
Volumes and Demographics
Topics
Citizen perceptions (exit Qs - quantitative data)
Debate statistics
Citizen Perceptions (FGs - qualitative data)
Representative perceptions (S-S interviews)
Collection of ‘Service in use’ Data Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu

Data analysis Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu

Baseline survey Mobile computing to access internet Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu

Total petitions and time to accept Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu

Daily signature counts by cluster Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu

Cumulative signature counts Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu

Signatures on Europetitions Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu

Uptake of EuroPetitions by country Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu

Focus group
findings

Theme: Privacy & Identity
Use of identification infrastructure
Eg provided by banks (risks?) or official national infrastructures
Worry over retention of signatures
And who would monitor them?
Need to have more clarity over what is done with the data and why it is gathered
Does as much info have to be gathered to sign a petition?
Fake signatures not felt to be an issue
ECI does need identification process

Findings: Clarity of process
Generally clear for both petitioners and signatories
Though some confusion with the details
Some usability and accessibility issues
Group affiliations should be transparent
Expectations of speed need to be managed
Linked to need to communicate updates

Role of clusters and Trans EU campaigns
Interest is mostly with local issues, less with EU
Missing central government step is obvious gap
Need for flexible clustering model
Need long term promotion of petitioning
Need to support links between petitioners in different clusters
Length of Euro-process means more effort on maintaining communication

Recommendations: European Parliament
Online petitions system required by the EP’s rules
Meets the EP’s specification for an online petitioning system
A mechanism for formally communicating this fact to the Petitions Committee should be found.
Next step: commitment from the EP as an institution
From the Secretariat as well as MEPs to ensure that petitioners are supported in
wording the petition correctly
identifying more appropriate targets for their action
The clear benefit for the Committee will be the reduced number of irrelevant or out of scope petitions they reject
currently over half
Need to support local partners in this work

Other recommendations
Technical
Develop APIs for sharing data, supporting functionality - open standards
Petitioner information
100 days is generally sufficiently long for a petition to be open
Feedback on signature numbers
Transnational aspects
Highlight difference between municipal and European level e-petitions, and providing a centre of expertise.
EuroPetition-branded area on municipal e-participation pages to draw the citizens in, and
National/Regional cluster actually operating the EuroPetition service
All partners should sign up to code of conduct for
Need to support links between petitioners in different clusters
Project completion
Communication to all participants to explain what will happen now that the project is completed

Findings & challenges Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu

ePetitions do provide the first easy step to proactive eParticipation
EuroPetition demonstrated a best practice e-Service for local, national & European petitions
Could provide a validated online platform & service for ECI procedures.
Very active local ePetitioning…
EuroPetition helped connect European citizens with the European Parliament & Commission
Raised awareness of EU Citizens’ ability/right to petition
Improved the quality & relevance of petitions to the European Parliament through collaboration & moderation
Input to the ECI online implementation procedures.
Promoted the concept of epetitions & europetitions to widen citizen participation & address democratic deficit across the EU
Conclusion Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu

Future work…
Technical challenges
Verification – location/cross-border signing & checking
Security / tamper proofing …PKI
Data standards / Data sharing / APIs
Transferable petitions / linking petitions across regions
Trans-EU, trans-regional networking
New partners
Linking to other existing petitioning systems
Underlying concepts: citizenship & identity

European Citizens Initiative
What does done and learned

ECI: What we did
Direct discussions with the responsible Commission officials
Groups such as the ECI Board and the ECI campaign
General education and discussion through blogging and presentation at practitioner groups such as PEP-NET etc
to create a common understanding of the implication for system requirements of the Regulation as it was drafted.
Our work included the visualisation of the ECI process (highlighting areas of complexity) and the security implications of the draft Regulation…

Journey of an ECI signature National Identity Database(s) Secure Storage  Certified, tamper-proof records Signature records Validation By National Authorities 100% or sample based  Certification Authority eg Verisign, EuroPKI Verification First line verification  Handwritten Signature Confirmation email Other methods Identity Spam checks CAPTCHA etc Record signature  Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu

ECI Process What is a system? How is it approved? By whom? Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu Organiser e-ECI system provider Think of subject for ECI Find online ECI system Submit ECI and name service provider Basic Approval of wording of ECI OK Set up ECI (multilingual) Configure online system Collect paper signatures Obtain certification Collate signatures by country etc National Competent Authorities Give certification Collate e-signatures by country etc Validate signatures according to national practice Target reached (in time)? Collate certificates & submit to Commission Verify submission conditions met YES Into legislative / policy process Advanced e-signatures Collect e-signatures Certificate Ref Log Rejection reason Record on system ECI number, admin access Translations Approx 100,000 signatures Target not reached Confirm wording acceptable Formal & informal agree ’ t processes Destroy records within one month To Commission ? European Commission

ECI Process Will the EC allow unofficial translations? How to audit signatures? What can be used from e-petitioning systems? Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu Organiser e-ECI system provider Think of subject for ECI Find online ECI system Submit ECI and name service provider Basic Approval of wording of ECI OK Set up ECI (multilingual) Configure online system Collect paper signatures Obtain certification Collate signatures by country etc National Competent Authorities Give certification Collate e-signatures by country etc Validate signatures according to national practice Target reached (in time)? Collate certificates & submit to Commission Verify submission conditions met YES Into legislative / policy process Advanced e-signatures Collect e-signatures Certificate Ref Log Rejection reason Record on system ECI number, admin access Translations Approx 100,000 signatures Target not reached Confirm wording acceptable Formal & informal agree ’ t processes Destroy records within one month To Commission ? European Commission

Feedback on draft Regulation
Copies of certificates: need for electronic form on
Need to check by secured page hosted by the Commission
Otherwise it would be simple for a fake ECI campaign to merely post a webpage on its site claiming that it’s an official campaign.
Open source software
Maintenance of code once issued
Use of the EUPL ( www.osor.eu/eupl ) and OSOR.eu
Certification of online systems
Online service providers may be separate from campaigning organisation
Required technical features
Permissible to use a system that has already been certified?
Compliance with Data Protection Directive and its successors
“ Proof that citizen has only signed once”
Virtually impossible to prove without national identity numbers
A (statistical/sample based) process would give adequate assurance
Statements of support
Use of structured (XML) form for reuse, rather than thousands of PDFs
Establishment of standard
Link to work carried out in England last year to define data standards for recording petition
Allow for regular updates and stakeholder involvement in their definition

Project Dissemination Activities Catherine, Public-i EuroPetition Final Review

EuroPetition Final Review Agenda Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
Presentation of Achievements by the Project Team + Q&A
1000 - EuroPetition Project Overview, Status & Resources – John
1030 - EuroPetition Service Demonstration - Paul
1045 - Pilot Trials’ Experience, Impacts and Plans of Users
Sweden, UK, Netherlands, Italy & Spain - (10 mins each)
1145 - Evaluation - Project Outcomes/Results/Impact
1145 Evaluation Results and Recommendations. - Peter
1215 European Citizen Initiative - what was done & learned - Peter
1230 - Dissemination Activities - Catherine
1245 - Sustainability of the Service and Future Plans – John
13.00 - Lunch
14.00 - Reviewers’ Discussion and Common assessment (for Review Report)
14.45 - Presentation of Results to Project Team
15.00 - End of the Review

Three strands of activity:
Dissemination to practitioners
Supporting marketing to citizens within the clusters
Central marketing of the Europetition proposition
170 events addressing over 7,500 people

Physical dissemination
2 principle dissemination workshops
Regional dissemination workshops with Cluster members to demonstrate the EuroPetition service to local stakeholders (MEP’s, neighbouring Councils,
Strategic partners, Regional / Central Government and citizens)
Attendance / Exhibiting / demonstrations at identified conferences / events within the EU
Meetings / presentations to identified representatives within Central Government /
MEP’s and other Local Authority agencies/organisations in each partner territory
Demonstration of the system to the European Parliament / PETI.

Print / Marketing material
Creation of marketing materials (such as banners / flysheets etc)
Press Coverage both at regional, national and EU level
Creation of a Project Logo (s)
Provision and maintenance of a EuroPetitions website www.europetition.eu

Interim Dissemination Event Malmo, 18 Nov 09.
D2.2.2 - EuroPetition Interim Dissemination Event –PI-Nov09
Final Dissemination Event Barcelona, October 2010
D2.2.3 - EuroPetition Final Dissemination Event –PI-Nov09
Ongoing Liaison with European Parliament’s Petitions Committee Secretatriat
Input to ECI process & procedures validation.
Other dissemination activities

Other dissemination activities
24th March: Workshop with MEP's in Malaga
Exhibiting at CEMR Biannual General Assembly in Malmo 22-24 April 2009
Exhibiting at UK - LGA Annual conference Harrogate 30 June - 2 July 2010
Exhibiting / speaking at eDemocracy 2009 Conference 25 Nov - London
Prize winning paper at eDem 2009 Vienna
Workshop at Future eDemocracy conference London, November 2010

Post project activities
Continue to raise awareness of the project at an EU level
Distribute the Summary of Lessons Learned
Redevelop the europetition.eu website as a resource for the ongoing network
Contribute to the ongoing discussion around the ECI

Lessons Learned
We have created a ‘cookbook’ showing lessons learned which we will use to disseminate the project results

A major group of findings are around the importance of the Local Authorities in the success of the petitioning process
At the same time you need to keep a clear separation of responsibilities

There are also a number of issues with respect to cross-border collaboration
Some of these are around privacy
We need to examine exactly who benefits – and who should pay
But the major finding was the fact that we developed a useable system

We have discovered a natural lifespan for petitions of 100 days – this is extremely useful for practitioners
We have also addressed technical challenges around integration between different petitioning systems

We have evidenced real impacts on decision making as a result of petitions at the local level
We also explored some of the issues of clarity that are required by the public

We feel that future projects need to learn from our experience and engage further and harder with the Parliament in order to ensure the sustainability of a petitioning approach

EuroPetition Future Plans
Immediate future - 2011
All 5 Clusters and their 8 Websites will continue in operation .
Funded by the Local Authorities with Public-i providing the service at cost .
Some sites will split the local ePetitioning and EuroPetitioning services.
MAC will continue to maintain the www.europetition.eu website.
Medium-Term – 2012 & beyond
Public-i will provide the service on a commercially sustainable basis,
as part of its eParticipation Suite of products,
through its Network of Business Partners .
focusing mainly on local ePetitioning .
EuroPetition Partners will aim to attract European Commission, European Parliament and National funding
to target European and National level ePetitioning across Europe.

Euro petition final review22mar11

by frazzy123 on Mar 24, 2011

Accessibility

Categories

Tags

Upload Details

Usage Rights

Statistics

Euro petition final review22mar11 — Presentation Transcript