0
What is a Petition ? <ul><li>Why: </li></ul><ul><li>Easy  first ‘democratic step’  - takes citizens beyond being passive <...
“ europetitions”  – 2  fundamental rights of European citizens <ul><li>Petitions to the European Parliament’s Committee on...
Why electronic or ePetitions? <ul><li>Simple ,  fast  &  easy  way to participate & engage in the Democratic process. </li...
ePetitions within an overall eParticipation Strategy Status Processes Communication Informal  Participation Formal  Consul...
European Parliament – Petitions Committee –  “europetitions” <ul><li>1200 to 1500 petitions per annum. </li></ul><ul><li>H...
<ul><li>www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do?id=49&language=en   </li></ul>eParticipation Conference,...
European Citizens Initiative  “europetitions”  <ul><li>Lisbon Treaty introduces a new form of public participation in EU p...
EuroPetition Project –  www.europetition.eu   <ul><li>EuroPetition – a service that  empowers Citizens  to obtain support ...
EuroPetition PEC1,  www.EuroPetition.eu Kingston North Lincs Birmingham Bristol signatures Gothenburg Malmö Stockholm Link...
<ul><li>Collaborative –  using Social Networking tools. </li></ul><ul><li>Cross-Regional  &  Multilingual  – mediated by L...
EuroPetition Service. Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11  www.EuroPetition.eu
Work Done over the Project Duration  (Jan09-Dec10 ) <ul><li>First Half Year focused on   </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Establishin...
Project Achievements <ul><li>EuroPetition service  was researched, specified, implemented, tested & operational at the 5 p...
Project Achievements <ul><li>EuroPetition  Final Viability Plan  for sustainable operation of the service </li></ul><ul><u...
Lessons Learnt  – Clusters from Final Report <ul><li>ePetitions and Europetitions do provide a first easy step to proactiv...
EuroPetition Journey LPS = Local Petitioning System € CA = Euro Cluster Admin EPS = Euro only Petitioning System <ul><li>C...
Sweden Pilot Trials’ Experience, Impacts and Plans of Users Grethe, Malmo. EuroPetition   Final Review
<ul><li>Malmöinitiativet – launched July 2008 </li></ul><ul><li>Soon became popular with citizens </li></ul><ul><li>Approx...
Swedish clusters <ul><li>Cooperation – top level </li></ul><ul><li>Enthusiastic partners </li></ul><ul><li>Moderation done...
Conference on  eGovernance in Malmö <ul><li>EU’s 5th Ministerial conference – nice publicity for petitioning </li></ul><ul...
Europaförslag.se  - launched March 2010 <ul><li>Information folders </li></ul><ul><li>Ads in free riders </li></ul><ul><li...
Final status for Sweden shows that the Swedes are interested ! <ul><li>697 Europetitions Signatures whereof one  petition ...
Continuation. <ul><li>All partners in Sweden continues in 2011 - because we all believe in the project, and because petiti...
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....
A period of change <ul><li>Stretched resources </li></ul><ul><li>LDEDC Act (2009/10) </li></ul><ul><li>General elections <...
Activity Evidence from other Parliamentary systems suggests opening an ePetition facility does not significantly increase ...
Marketing and outreach <ul><li>&quot;Petitions are a really important means of giving citizens direct access to the Europe...
<ul><li>Presence at  national conferences  (e.g. Headstar eDemocracy’09) – which led to BBC coverage.  Stimulus for articl...
Our experience <ul><li>Negatives </li></ul><ul><li>Low usefulness in the case of local ePetition escalation </li></ul><ul>...
Our experience <ul><li>Positives </li></ul><ul><li>Opportunity to observe the breadth of issues from participating member ...
22nd March 2011 Dutch Cluster Dirk-Jan, Dijksman.com EuroPetition   Review Meeting
EuroPetition Review Meeting – 22 nd  March 2011 <ul><li>Dutch Cluster </li></ul><ul><li>Dijksman.com, online and offline c...
EuroPetition Review Meeting – 22 nd  March 2011 <ul><li>Experience </li></ul><ul><li>Dutch Municipalities were not really ...
EuroPetition Review Meeting – 22 nd  March 2011 <ul><li>Experience </li></ul><ul><li>Launch Europetitions online February ...
EuroPetition Review Meeting – 22 nd  March 2011 <ul><li>Facts Petities.nl </li></ul><ul><li>Dutch  </li></ul>EuroPetition ...
EuroPetition Review Meeting – 22 nd  March 2011 <ul><li>Facts Europetitions.nl </li></ul><ul><li>Dutch  </li></ul>EuroPeti...
Europetition The   Netherlands Italy Great- Brittain Sweden Spain 1 million signatures Petities.nl Final Review, Brussels,...
EuroPetition Review Meeting – 22 nd  March 2011 <ul><li>Impacts </li></ul><ul><li>Petition against child abduction started...
EuroPetition Review Meeting – 22 nd  March 2011 <ul><li>Plans of User </li></ul><ul><li>Desk on Petities.nl will stay open...
22nd March 2011 Italian Cluster Christian, NESTOR EuroPetition   Review Meeting
Italian Regional Cluster <ul><li>Status – Italian cluster </li></ul><ul><li>Coordinator: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Nestor Lab ...
Italian Regional Cluster Overview <ul><li>The Municipality of Vicenza and the CST have been very enthusiastic about taking...
Italian Regional Cluster Site for the Italian Cluster <ul><li>The URL domain chosen for the Italian cluster is  www.europe...
Italian Regional Cluster Press release and site launch <ul><li>Press conference in the Municipality of Vicenza and site la...
<ul><li>Press release for the project on Local newspapers </li></ul>Italian Regional Cluster Press release and site launch...
Italian Regional Cluster Support activities <ul><li>Preliminary Questionnaire sent to a selected list of people chosen by ...
Italian Regional Cluster Marketing activities <ul><li>Creation of the Twitter and Facebook accounts to market all the Euro...
Italian Regional Cluster Dissemination activities <ul><ul><li>Distribution of dissemination material and direct contact wi...
Italian Regional Cluster Dissemination activities <ul><li>Euronews interview April 12th, 2010 with interview to Prof. Tala...
Italian Regional Cluster Dissemination activities <ul><li>Euronews interview  to the Project Coordinator and to Vicenza Ma...
Italian Regional Cluster Italian experience <ul><li>Vicenza citizens are quite actively participating in the social and de...
Italian Regional Cluster Future Plans <ul><li>The Vicenza Municipality and Nestor will continue the project in 2011 </li><...
Spanish Cluster Laia, I2BC
Spanish Regional Cluster <ul><li>Status & Experience to date – Spanish cluster </li></ul>EuroPetition Final Review, Brusse...
www.europetitionandalucia.es EuroPetition Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11,  www.EuroPetition.eu
General Stats
General stats  (as of 16/03/2011) <ul><li>Total number of petitions sent via the Spanish system:  176 </li></ul><ul><li>To...
Europetitions
Europetitions <ul><li>Key themes:  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Animal rights  (6) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Environment  (10) <...
Local petitions
Local Petitions <ul><li>Key themes:  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Varied themes with a very local and specific focus (different f...
Dissemination actions
Dissemination actions <ul><li>Press conferences </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A total of 7 press conferences regarding the launch ...
Project impact
Project impact <ul><li>Extensive press coverage </li></ul><ul><ul><li>System launch and key petitions covered by local and...
Lessons learned
Lessons learned <ul><li>Political will is key to successful petitioning systems </li></ul><ul><li>Direct and timely commun...
Evaluation Report Peter Cruickshank Edinburgh Napier University EuroPetition   Project Review
EuroPetition Final Review Agenda Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11  www.EuroPetition.eu <ul><li>Presentation of Achievement...
Evaluation requirements <ul><li>That the EuroPetition platform does  address use of ePetitions in the Legislative decision...
Evaluation scope <ul><li>Acceptability & uptake </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Does it work </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Do the stake...
Evaluation work Final Project Review  www.EuroPetition.eu Element Source of data Status Baseline data Online survey tool h...
Other outputs <ul><li>Refined model of e-petitioning process </li></ul><ul><li>Papers on self-efficacy and the role of the...
Live running Install & Operate Design &  Develop Service User Requirements & Service Spec Establish Baseline &  Develop Ev...
How the petitioning process can support engagement Opportunity to sign a petition Signing a petition is one of the smalles...
Research interest: Facing the challenge of the lurker Final Project Review  www.EuroPetition.eu
<ul><li>Lurkers present a real challenge to us as e-participation researchers, and to the democratic process in general:  ...
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 n...
Baseline Data Knowing our respondents  <ul><li>As suspected, the people responding are confident users of both computer an...
Acceptance Questionnaire  <ul><li>Purpose </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Record clusters and councils perspective  </li></ul></ul><...
Acceptance questions Initial responses <ul><li>Installation & Customisation </li></ul><ul><li>Generally smooth </li></ul><...
<ul><li>Survey of potential market in early 2010 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Starting with  ALDA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What...
4. ‘Impact’ Discuss at meeting Feedback Response 3. Submission Close* Write report (Set up web-cast) 2. Input & Dialogue C...
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
<ul><li>Focus group </li></ul><ul><li>findings </li></ul>Final Project Review  www.EuroPetition.eu
Theme: Privacy & Identity <ul><li>Use of identification infrastructure  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Eg provided by banks (risks?...
Findings: Clarity of process <ul><li>Generally clear for both petitioners and signatories </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Though som...
Role of clusters and Trans EU campaigns <ul><li>Interest is mostly with local issues, less with EU </li></ul><ul><ul><li>M...
Recommendations: European Parliament <ul><li>Online petitions system required by the EP’s rules </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Meet...
Other recommendations <ul><li>Technical </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Develop APIs for sharing data, supporting functionality - op...
Findings & challenges Final Project Review  www.EuroPetition.eu
<ul><li>ePetitions do provide the first easy step to proactive eParticipation </li></ul><ul><li>EuroPetition demonstrated ...
Future work… <ul><li>Technical challenges </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Verification – location/cross-border signing & checking </...
<ul><li>European Citizens Initiative </li></ul><ul><li>What does done and learned </li></ul>Final Project Review  www.Euro...
ECI: What we did <ul><li>Direct discussions with the responsible Commission officials </li></ul><ul><li>Groups such as the...
Journey of an ECI signature National Identity Database(s) Secure Storage  Certified, tamper-proof records Signature recor...
ECI Process What is a system? How is it approved? By whom? Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11  www.EuroPetition.eu Organiser...
ECI Process Will the EC allow unofficial translations? How to audit signatures? What can be used from e-petitioning system...
Feedback on draft Regulation <ul><li>Copies of certificates: need for electronic form on  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Need to ch...
Project Dissemination Activities Catherine, Public-i EuroPetition   Final Review
EuroPetition Final Review Agenda Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11  www.EuroPetition.eu <ul><li>Presentation of Achievement...
<ul><li>Three strands of activity: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Dissemination to practitioners </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Support...
Physical dissemination <ul><li>2 principle dissemination workshops </li></ul><ul><li>Regional dissemination workshops with...
Print / Marketing material <ul><li>Creation of marketing materials (such as banners / flysheets etc) </li></ul><ul><li>Pre...
<ul><li>Interim Dissemination Event Malmo, 18 Nov 09. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>D2.2.2 - EuroPetition Interim Dissemination Ev...
Other dissemination activities <ul><li>24th March: Workshop with MEP's in Malaga  </li></ul><ul><li>Exhibiting at CEMR Bia...
Post project activities <ul><li>Continue to raise awareness of the project at an EU level </li></ul><ul><li>Distribute the...
Lessons Learned <ul><li>We have created a ‘cookbook’ showing lessons learned which we will use to disseminate the project ...
<ul><li>A major group of findings are around the importance of the Local Authorities in the success of the petitioning pro...
<ul><li>There are also a number of issues with respect to cross-border collaboration </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Some of these a...
<ul><li>We have discovered a natural lifespan for petitions of 100 days – this is extremely useful for practitioners </li>...
<ul><li>We have evidenced real impacts on decision making as a result of petitions at the local level </li></ul><ul><li>We...
<ul><li>We feel that future projects need to learn from our experience and engage further and harder with the Parliament i...
EuroPetition Future Plans <ul><li>Immediate future - 2011 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>All 5 Clusters and their 8 Websites  will ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Euro petition final review22mar11

1,071

Published on

EuroPetition final meeting slides - includes updates from the national clusters

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,071
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Relevance except in a negative way. Beaurocratic , like insurance gender discussion.
  • Transcript of "Euro petition final review22mar11"

    1. 1. What is a Petition ? <ul><li>Why: </li></ul><ul><li>Easy first ‘democratic step’ - takes citizens beyond being passive </li></ul><ul><li>Easily understood by democratic bodies and the public </li></ul><ul><li>A small thing to do – but can be a big increase in participation </li></ul><ul><li>Involves more citizens </li></ul><ul><li>One of the few ways that the public have to put something on the agenda </li></ul><ul><li>“ 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”. </li></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    2. 2. “ europetitions” – 2 fundamental rights of European citizens <ul><li>Petitions to the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>European Citizens Initiatives (ECI) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>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 . </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Likely to become live in 2012. </li></ul></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    3. 3. Why electronic or ePetitions? <ul><li>Simple , fast & easy way to participate & engage in the Democratic process. </li></ul><ul><li>Eases ability for Citizens to communicate with a community & gather support </li></ul><ul><li>High profile systems have caught the public’s imagination ( high impact ) </li></ul><ul><li>More accessible way to engage the public in democratic debate </li></ul><ul><li>Pre-petition moderation opportunity to improve petitions. </li></ul><ul><li>Opens the door to further participation & engagement </li></ul><ul><li>Ideal tool to bridge from informal discussions on social networks etc, to connect into the formal democratic process . </li></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    4. 4. 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
    5. 5. European Parliament – Petitions Committee – “europetitions” <ul><li>1200 to 1500 petitions per annum. </li></ul><ul><li>Have achieved: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Improved transparency </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A number of Directives improved / implemented </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Subject of the petition must be issues of European Union interest or responsibility: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>rights as a European citizen </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>environmental matters </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>consumer protection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>employment issues and social policy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>other problems related to the implementation of EU law. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Petitions are submitted on paper OR online </li></ul><ul><ul><li>No requirements for signatures. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Much Liaison between Petitions Committee Secretariat & EuroPetition </li></ul><ul><li>Petitions Committee EP receives / moderates / reviews Petitions </li></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    6. 6. <ul><li>www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do?id=49&language=en </li></ul>eParticipation Conference, EP, 15/12/09 www.EuroPetition.eu <ul><li>European Parliament online ePetitions form </li></ul><ul><li>1,500 petitions in 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>46% were in-scope </li></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    7. 7. European Citizens Initiative “europetitions” <ul><li>Lisbon Treaty introduces a new form of public participation in EU policy shaping - the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI), </li></ul><ul><ul><li>one million citizen’s signatures from a significant number of Member States </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>can call directly on the European Commission to bring forward an initiative in an area of EU competence. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Expected to become active in 2012. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Commission Green Paper Consultation & Procedures Regulation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>EuroPetition Submission </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Met & input to European Commission General Secretariat on ECI Procedures </li></ul></ul><ul><li>EuroPetition project’s Pilot Trials during 2010 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Demonstrated a viable approach & system. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Response to DIGIT study on ‘ open source software for online collection of statements of support’ </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>EuroPetition meets the requirements – could be reused - avoid ‘re-inventing the wheel’ </li></ul></ul></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    8. 8. EuroPetition Project – www.europetition.eu <ul><li>EuroPetition – a service that empowers Citizens to obtain support from many Regions & Member States to increase the impact of their petition . </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Using collaborative Web 2.0 Social Networking Services. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provides Local Authorities with an ePetitioning Service for their citizens </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Pilot Trials in 2010 at Regional & European level </li></ul><ul><ul><li>with 5 Member State Clusters of 18 Local Authorities & 8M citizens . </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>coordinated submission of more & better quality ePetitions : </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Local & National </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cross-border Europetitions to the European Parliament - Petitions Committee </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Validated an online system for European Citizens Initiatives </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Explore the issues involved. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Viable system. </li></ul></ul></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    9. 9. 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
    10. 10. <ul><li>Collaborative – using Social Networking tools. </li></ul><ul><li>Cross-Regional & Multilingual – mediated by Local Authorities </li></ul><ul><li>Open & Transparent - in clearly defined Stages. </li></ul>EuroPetition - open simple process Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    11. 11. EuroPetition Service. Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    12. 12. Work Done over the Project Duration (Jan09-Dec10 ) <ul><li>First Half Year focused on </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Establishing the consortium, project procedures, dissemination & evaluation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Investigating the EuroPetition System user requirements, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Defining & designing the EuroPetition service based on the user requirements. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Second Half Year focused on </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Developing & completing the EuroPetition service </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interim Dissemination Event in Malmo, 18 th November 2009 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Installing the EuroPetition service & procedures at the 5 Cluster User Sites </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Third Half Year focused on </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Operation/evaluation of the Service at the 5 Cluster Pilot Trials. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The Mid-project Review. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interaction with ECI process & procedures. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Final Half Year focused on </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Operation & Evaluation Results of the Service at the 5 Cluster Pilot Trials. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Final Dissemination Event in Barcelona, 5 th Oct 2010. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Final Viability Plan & continuation of the Services. </li></ul></ul>Final Reivew, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    13. 13. Project Achievements <ul><li>EuroPetition service was researched, specified, implemented, tested & operational at the 5 pilot sites in ES, IT, NL, SE & UK </li></ul><ul><li>5 EuroPetition Clusters were operational throughout 2010 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>involving 18 Local Authorities & potentially targeting 8m citizens </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Local ePetitions are growing significantly in all Regions. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>with the following results from the Pilot Trials: </li></ul></ul>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%
    14. 14. Project Achievements <ul><li>EuroPetition Final Viability Plan for sustainable operation of the service </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Based on commercial operation using the open source software </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Dissemination - & awareness-creation of EU Citizens’ “Europetitioning Rights” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>At 170 events - potentially addressing over 7,500 people </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Direct collaboration with MOMENTUM & 5 other projects. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dissemination Workshops </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Interim – at Pre-Conference to the Malmo Ministerial Conference in Nov09. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Final – at Personal Democracy Forum Europe in Oct10, Barcelona. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Best Paper at eDem09 & an Editors Choice on ePractice.eu </li></ul></ul><ul><li>European Citizen Initiative (ECI) - Submission & active involvement in the Consultations & direct input to its online procedures. </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>EuroPetition suitable open source software platform for the implementation of ECIs </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>www.europetition.eu - 18,000 visitors & 83,000 visits during project . (1k/3.3k since) </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Links (>100) and Events (>50) Pages particularly popular. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>18 project deliverables completed - as planned. </li></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    15. 15. Lessons Learnt – Clusters from Final Report <ul><li>ePetitions and Europetitions do provide a first easy step to proactive eParticipation </li></ul><ul><li>ePetitions can influence Decision Making </li></ul><ul><li>Need for institutional support from the European Parliament </li></ul><ul><li>Potential to meet the needs expressed by the European Parliament Petition Committee </li></ul><ul><li>Open data standards for ePetitions and the ECI process presents an opportunity for the EuroPetition service </li></ul><ul><li>Promotion of EuroPetitions </li></ul><ul><li>Local Support and Ownership </li></ul><ul><li>Transparency and Clarity of petitioning process </li></ul><ul><li>Legal Obligations are not a barrier </li></ul><ul><li>Relationship between local and euro-petitions </li></ul>Final Reivew, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    16. 16. EuroPetition Journey LPS = Local Petitioning System € CA = Euro Cluster Admin EPS = Euro only Petitioning System <ul><li>Cluster Admin </li></ul>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 <ul><li>Petitioners </li></ul><ul><li>Local Admin </li></ul>}
    17. 17. Sweden Pilot Trials’ Experience, Impacts and Plans of Users Grethe, Malmo. EuroPetition Final Review
    18. 18. <ul><li>Malmöinitiativet – launched July 2008 </li></ul><ul><li>Soon became popular with citizens </li></ul><ul><li>Approx. 500 initiatives taken </li></ul><ul><li>More than 7000 supporters </li></ul>EuroPetition in Sweden = Europaförslag
    19. 19. Swedish clusters <ul><li>Cooperation – top level </li></ul><ul><li>Enthusiastic partners </li></ul><ul><li>Moderation done by Malmö </li></ul><ul><li>Different LG’s with optimal evaluation possibilities </li></ul><ul><li>Professional in marketing </li></ul>Malmö Göteborg Linköping Stockholm Piteå Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    20. 20. Conference on eGovernance in Malmö <ul><li>EU’s 5th Ministerial conference – nice publicity for petitioning </li></ul><ul><li>Dissemination seminar on Europetition </li></ul><ul><li>e-participation a part of the Malmö Declaration. </li></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    21. 21. Europaförslag.se - launched March 2010 <ul><li>Information folders </li></ul><ul><li>Ads in free riders </li></ul><ul><li>Posters </li></ul><ul><li>LG’s homepages </li></ul><ul><li>EU’s representatives </li></ul><ul><li>Libraries </li></ul><ul><li>Individual press activites </li></ul><ul><li>Workshops </li></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    22. 22. Final status for Sweden shows that the Swedes are interested ! <ul><li>697 Europetitions Signatures whereof one petition receives 220. </li></ul><ul><li>A qualitative study using Internet in a chatforum – people positive, especially young people. </li></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    23. 23. Continuation. <ul><li>All partners in Sweden continues in 2011 - because we all believe in the project, and because petition projects are here to stay. </li></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    24. 24. Review Meeting Fraser Henderson March 2011 for Bristol City Council, UK UK Cluster
    25. 25. 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
    26. 26. A period of change <ul><li>Stretched resources </li></ul><ul><li>LDEDC Act (2009/10) </li></ul><ul><li>General elections </li></ul><ul><li>Budget cuts </li></ul><ul><li>Change </li></ul><ul><li>No.10 Website & new policy direction </li></ul><ul><li>- Data standards </li></ul><ul><li>- Rigorous due diligence </li></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    27. 27. 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
    28. 28. Marketing and outreach <ul><li>&quot;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.“ </li></ul><ul><li>-Malcolm Harbour MEP </li></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    29. 29. <ul><li>Presence at national conferences (e.g. Headstar eDemocracy’09) – which led to BBC coverage. Stimulus for article in Computing Which? Magazine. </li></ul><ul><li>Items in national periodicals , local newspapers and council magazines. </li></ul><ul><li>Localised event e.g. Lincoln LocalGov Camp (Oct’09), Technologies for participation (Manchester – Nov’09). </li></ul>Marketing and outreach Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    30. 30. Our experience <ul><li>Negatives </li></ul><ul><li>Low usefulness in the case of local ePetition escalation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Deficit in terms of public appreciation of benefits and influence of EP on their lives, evident from false positives </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Lack of substantial commitment/support from petitions committee </li></ul><ul><li>Concern over impact on established local ePetitions - Reputational issues related to getting a response. </li></ul><ul><li>Longer to process. (No local experts in European matters) </li></ul><ul><li>Process differences compared to local petitions </li></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    31. 31. Our experience <ul><li>Positives </li></ul><ul><li>Opportunity to observe the breadth of issues from participating member states </li></ul><ul><li>Gave us ideas in terms of methods for co-ordinating action across boundaries, such as language translation </li></ul><ul><li>Activity bolstered efforts around local ePetition facilities, helped to launch new facilities in some cases </li></ul><ul><li>Allowed us to further refine the software </li></ul><ul><li>Better understanding of barriers to implementing ECI </li></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    32. 32. 22nd March 2011 Dutch Cluster Dirk-Jan, Dijksman.com EuroPetition Review Meeting
    33. 33. EuroPetition Review Meeting – 22 nd March 2011 <ul><li>Dutch Cluster </li></ul><ul><li>Dijksman.com, online and offline citizens participation </li></ul><ul><li>Petities.nl, website to petition all Dutch governments </li></ul>EuroPetition Review Meeting – 22nd March 2011 , www.EuroPetition.eu
    34. 34. EuroPetition Review Meeting – 22 nd March 2011 <ul><li>Experience </li></ul><ul><li>Dutch Municipalities were not really interested in a local petitioning system </li></ul><ul><li>Hard to find cluster partners within the Netherlands </li></ul><ul><li>Petities.nl was an existing website which hosted most of the Dutch petitions (several petitions with 100k signatures and more) </li></ul><ul><li>On petities.nl governmental organization can open a desk where they can receive petitions </li></ul><ul><li>We opened a desk for Europetitions and worked together with the founder of petities.nl; Reinder Rustema </li></ul><ul><li>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) </li></ul>EuroPetition Review Meeting – 22nd March 2011 , www.EuroPetition.eu
    35. 35. EuroPetition Review Meeting – 22 nd March 2011 <ul><li>Experience </li></ul><ul><li>Launch Europetitions online February 2010 on Petities.nl </li></ul><ul><li>2 months later www.europetition.nl was activated as bridge with petities.nl and this proved to work well </li></ul><ul><li>Petitioners initially intended to petition a local or national government and were suggested to petition the EP </li></ul><ul><li>Translation system and the network has proven to work well </li></ul>EuroPetition Review Meeting – 22nd March 2011 , www.EuroPetition.eu
    36. 36. EuroPetition Review Meeting – 22 nd March 2011 <ul><li>Facts Petities.nl </li></ul><ul><li>Dutch </li></ul>EuroPetition Review Meeting – 22nd March 2011 , www.EuroPetition.eu
    37. 37. EuroPetition Review Meeting – 22 nd March 2011 <ul><li>Facts Europetitions.nl </li></ul><ul><li>Dutch </li></ul>EuroPetition Review Meeting – 22nd March 2011 , www.EuroPetition.eu
    38. 38. Europetition The Netherlands Italy Great- Brittain Sweden Spain 1 million signatures Petities.nl Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    39. 39. EuroPetition Review Meeting – 22 nd March 2011 <ul><li>Impacts </li></ul><ul><li>Petition against child abduction started in The Netherlands collected the most signatures (180+ petities.nl & 300+ europetition.nl) </li></ul><ul><li>Petitions only work if the petitioner is passionate about the petition (petities.nl -> europetition.nl ) </li></ul><ul><li>Europetitions got the same numbers of signatures comparable to a mid-size municipality on Petities.nl </li></ul><ul><li>Citizens most likely start petitions that concern them directly </li></ul><ul><li>Press release and event attracted national radio and a live interview was broadcast. </li></ul>EuroPetition Review Meeting – 22nd March 2011 , www.EuroPetition.eu
    40. 40. EuroPetition Review Meeting – 22 nd March 2011 <ul><li>Plans of User </li></ul><ul><li>Desk on Petities.nl will stay open. </li></ul><ul><li>Petities.nl will take over its moderation. </li></ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul>EuroPetition Review Meeting – 22nd March 2011 , www.EuroPetition.eu
    41. 41. 22nd March 2011 Italian Cluster Christian, NESTOR EuroPetition Review Meeting
    42. 42. Italian Regional Cluster <ul><li>Status – Italian cluster </li></ul><ul><li>Coordinator: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Nestor Lab University of Rome “Tor Vergata” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Local authorities: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Vicenza </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CST – Service Center Vicenza Area </li></ul></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    43. 43. Italian Regional Cluster Overview <ul><li>The Municipality of Vicenza and the CST have been very enthusiastic about taking part in this project. </li></ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul><ul><li>The Italian cluster members shared an IT system and Nestor Lab acted as the coordinator. </li></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    44. 44. Italian Regional Cluster Site for the Italian Cluster <ul><li>The URL domain chosen for the Italian cluster is www.europetition.it </li></ul><ul><li>Translation and tuning of the platform to help people using the IT infrastructure </li></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    45. 45. Italian Regional Cluster Press release and site launch <ul><li>Press conference in the Municipality of Vicenza and site launch on March 19th 2010 </li></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    46. 46. <ul><li>Press release for the project on Local newspapers </li></ul>Italian Regional Cluster Press release and site launch Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    47. 47. Italian Regional Cluster Support activities <ul><li>Preliminary Questionnaire sent to a selected list of people chosen by the Municipality </li></ul><ul><li>Training of Vicenza public officers in using the platform </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Support in designing and implementing internal processes for dealing with petitions </li></ul></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    48. 48. Italian Regional Cluster Marketing activities <ul><li>Creation of the Twitter and Facebook accounts to market all the Europetitions </li></ul><ul><li>Translation of posters and flyers to be used by Local Authorities to draw attention to the project </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Use of the Municipalities’ web pages, press conferences and interviews with local media </li></ul></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    49. 49. Italian Regional Cluster Dissemination activities <ul><ul><li>Distribution of dissemination material and direct contact with potential users through the Municipality Forum, social networks and email </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Organization of Workshops and conferences to inform potential users about the system, participation in events organized by other parties </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Dissemination of the petitioning process through University seminars in projects meetings of the Ministry of Interior with local authorities </li></ul></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    50. 50. Italian Regional Cluster Dissemination activities <ul><li>Euronews interview April 12th, 2010 with interview to Prof. Talamo and demo of the Europetition site </li></ul><ul><li>International Conference &quot; e-ID management for e-services &quot; May 20-21 2010 in Rome </li></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    51. 51. Italian Regional Cluster Dissemination activities <ul><li>Euronews interview to the Project Coordinator and to Vicenza Major in Vicenza June 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>Workshop “ European cities experiences in </li></ul><ul><li>e - Democracy and e- Partecipation” in Vicenza, </li></ul><ul><li>June 23rd 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>World e-Gov Forum – Forum Mondial De la Démocratie et de L’Administration Electroniques </li></ul><ul><li>Global Forum 2010, Washington </li></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    52. 52. Italian Regional Cluster Italian experience <ul><li>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. </li></ul><ul><li>A part of the population is skeptical about obtaining answers from the Local Authorities and about creating a cooperative relationship with the Local Politicians </li></ul><ul><li>People are worried about privacy and security issues connected to signing an electronic petition </li></ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    53. 53. Italian Regional Cluster Future Plans <ul><li>The Vicenza Municipality and Nestor will continue the project in 2011 </li></ul><ul><li>Suggestion for future projects: </li></ul><ul><li>Combine the technologies currently available for e-petitioning with digital identity and attribute management as well as multimedia sharing </li></ul><ul><li>Create strong, cross border e-communities for e-participation that share opinions, knowledge and documents to advice and influence policy decisions </li></ul><ul><li>Extend the analysis of this material beyond correctly counting votes to obtain quantitative data about social variables based on sentiment analysis and related methods </li></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    54. 54. Spanish Cluster Laia, I2BC
    55. 55. Spanish Regional Cluster <ul><li>Status & Experience to date – Spanish cluster </li></ul>EuroPetition Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11, www.EuroPetition.eu <ul><li>Coordinator: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>I2BC </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Local authorities: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Malaga </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cordoba </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Abla </li></ul></ul><ul><li>No petitioning experience in any of the councils </li></ul>
    56. 56. www.europetitionandalucia.es EuroPetition Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11, www.EuroPetition.eu
    57. 57. General Stats
    58. 58. General stats (as of 16/03/2011) <ul><li>Total number of petitions sent via the Spanish system: 176 </li></ul><ul><li>Total number of petitions dealt with at time of close of project: 51 </li></ul><ul><li>Total number of Europetitions: 42 </li></ul><ul><li>Total number of local petitions: 134 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Malaga: 99 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cordoba: 17 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Abla: 18 </li></ul></ul>EuroPetition Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11, www.EuroPetition.eu
    59. 59. Europetitions
    60. 60. Europetitions <ul><li>Key themes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Animal rights (6) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Environment (10) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Most successful petitions: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>That Bullfighting be included in European animal rights laws as a banned practice (81) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>More help at a European level for people who suffer from Arnold Chari disease (224) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Modification of the divorce laws in Spain (83) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>One petition presented to the European Parliament so far: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Modification of the divorce laws in Spain / 5 pending presentation </li></ul></ul>EuroPetition Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11, www.EuroPetition.eu
    61. 61. Local petitions
    62. 62. Local Petitions <ul><li>Key themes: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Varied themes with a very local and specific focus (different for each council) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Most successful petitions: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>That the metro reaches the Andalusian Technology Park in Malaga (1360) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Regarding the need for a roundabout outside of the University campus in Malaga (399) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To save the Cruz Conde park in Cordoba (194) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>To improve the faces of the buildings in Abla (11) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Most active citizen participation in Malaga </li></ul>EuroPetition Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11, www.EuroPetition.eu
    63. 63. Dissemination actions
    64. 64. Dissemination actions <ul><li>Press conferences </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A total of 7 press conferences regarding the launch of the project and the launch of the Europetition system in Andalucia </li></ul></ul><ul><li>TV interviews </li></ul><ul><ul><li>2 TV interviews on the Cordoba council´s local TV channel </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Radio promotion </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Interview on local radio show aimed at foreign residents in Malaga </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Workshops </li></ul><ul><ul><li>2 Specialist workshops for both young and elderly users in Abla </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Social networking </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Constant dissemination carried out via Facebook and twitter </li></ul></ul>EuroPetition Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11, www.EuroPetition.eu
    65. 65. Project impact
    66. 66. Project impact <ul><li>Extensive press coverage </li></ul><ul><ul><li>System launch and key petitions covered by local and regional press in all three councils </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Petitioning culture installed locally </li></ul><ul><ul><li>EuropetitionAndalucia adopted by Malaga council as service offered by them. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Huge participation by citizens taking into account that there wass not a petitioning system in place beforehand </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Response from local governments </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Bicycle parking in Abla </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Provocation of local political debates </li></ul><ul><ul><li>That the Metro reaches the PTA + petition regarding the delays in the work taking place to develop the port of Malaga </li></ul></ul>EuroPetition Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11, www.EuroPetition.eu
    67. 67. Lessons learned
    68. 68. Lessons learned <ul><li>Political will is key to successful petitioning systems </li></ul><ul><li>Direct and timely communication improves the citizen´s democratic experience </li></ul><ul><li>Need for an extension of the petitioning service to a regional and national level </li></ul><ul><li>Petitions can generate political debate and action on certain issues </li></ul>EuroPetition Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11, www.EuroPetition.eu
    69. 69. Evaluation Report Peter Cruickshank Edinburgh Napier University EuroPetition Project Review
    70. 70. EuroPetition Final Review Agenda Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu <ul><li>Presentation of Achievements by the Project Team + Q&A </li></ul><ul><li>1000 - EuroPetition Project Overview, Status & Resources – John </li></ul><ul><li>1030 - EuroPetition Service Demonstration - Paul </li></ul><ul><li>1045 - Pilot Trials’ Experience, Impacts and Plans of Users </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Sweden, UK, Netherlands, Italy & Spain - (10 mins each) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>1145 - Evaluation - Project Outcomes/Results/Impact </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1145 Evaluation Results and Recommendations. - Peter </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1215 European Citizen Initiative - what was done & learned - Peter </li></ul></ul><ul><li>1230 - Dissemination Activities - Catherine </li></ul><ul><li>1245 - Sustainability of the Service and Future Plans – John </li></ul><ul><li>13.00 - Lunch </li></ul><ul><li>14.00 - Reviewers’ Discussion and Common assessment (for Review Report) </li></ul><ul><li>14.45 - Presentation of Results to Project Team </li></ul><ul><li>15.00 - End of the Review </li></ul>
    71. 71. Evaluation requirements <ul><li>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 </li></ul><ul><li>That the assumptions in the initial viability plan are reasonable to sustain the service in the various contexts. </li></ul><ul><li>That the service can be delivered in multiple contexts and languages across Europe on an interoperable operational basis. </li></ul><ul><li>That alternative solutions and services are accommodated </li></ul><ul><li>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 </li></ul><ul><li>User Engagement Report , documenting user engagement for identified user groups </li></ul>Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu
    72. 72. Evaluation scope <ul><li>Acceptability & uptake </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Does it work </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Do the stakeholders like it </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Feelings of self-efficacy </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Democratic impact </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Changes to (council) agenda </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Proportion of people who have not interacted before </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Increased engagement with formal democratic system </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Viability </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Will decision makers support it long term? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>At this stage: Formative approach </li></ul><ul><ul><li>‘ Critical friend’ </li></ul></ul>Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu
    73. 73. 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 <ul><li>Online Expectation & Perception Questionnaires </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Petitioners </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Citizens </li></ul></ul>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
    74. 74. Other outputs <ul><li>Refined model of e-petitioning process </li></ul><ul><li>Papers on self-efficacy and the role of the lurker </li></ul><ul><li>Supported process of publishing to OSOR.eu as EUPL-licensed open source application </li></ul><ul><li>Data standard for e-petitions </li></ul><ul><li>Engaged with dialog on ECI and clarifying process </li></ul>Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu
    75. 75. 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
    76. 76. 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
    77. 77. Research interest: Facing the challenge of the lurker Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu
    78. 78. <ul><li>Lurkers present a real challenge to us as e-participation researchers, and to the democratic process in general: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>is being ‘a face in a crowd’ at a political demonstration a bad thing? (no) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>is it similar to lurking online? (yes). </li></ul></ul><ul><li>After all, just spending time at a demonstration or following a political topic is still a commitment. </li></ul><ul><li>Therefore lurkers are interesting to us in their own right </li></ul><ul><ul><li>and should not be </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>negatively portrayed </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>ignored </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Lurkers are better than ignorers </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Use of baseline questionnaire allows us to contact people who are interested, but did not sign a petition </li></ul>Research interest: Facing the challenge of the lurker Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu
    79. 79. Self efficacy: Understanding the lurker Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu
    80. 80. 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
    81. 81. Baseline Data Knowing our respondents <ul><li>As suspected, the people responding are confident users of both computer and political systems </li></ul><ul><li>… most also say they voted in local and European elections </li></ul><ul><ul><li>As well as national elections </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Challenge: pro-active outreach </li></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    82. 82. Acceptance Questionnaire <ul><li>Purpose </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Record clusters and councils perspective </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Helps ensure product & training meets expectations </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Consists of </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Installation & configuration questionnaire </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Checklist based on feature list </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>To record issues and extent of testing </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Training questionnaire </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Process </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Distributed to cluster leaders </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Completed as the work is done </li></ul></ul>Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu
    83. 83. Acceptance questions Initial responses <ul><li>Installation & Customisation </li></ul><ul><li>Generally smooth </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Close cooperation with developer </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Issues </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Localisation process </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Documentation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Security, verification of signatures </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Training </li></ul><ul><li>Training sessions useful </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Well adapted in Spain </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Timing </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Needs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Familiarity with ‘petition’ as a process (eg Spain) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Cultural issue </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Good customer service skills </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Will be continuing learning process </li></ul></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    84. 84. <ul><li>Survey of potential market in early 2010 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Starting with ALDA </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What e-participation activities are already underway </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What demand is there </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Who would use and/or support it </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Sustainability </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Organisational engagement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Local workshops & questionnaires </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Licensing model </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Exploring EUPL, commercial open source model </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Standards compliance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>E-petitioning law in England & Wales is setting precedent </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Data standards </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Best practise </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Issues around authentication , anonymity and security </li></ul></ul></ul>Viability / Sustainability  Initial report for Vicenza meeting Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    85. 85. 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* <ul><li>Data on ‘starters’ </li></ul><ul><li>Volumes and Demographics </li></ul><ul><li>Topics </li></ul><ul><li>Citizen perceptions (exit Qs - quantitative data) </li></ul><ul><li>Debate statistics </li></ul><ul><li>Citizen Perceptions (FGs - qualitative data) </li></ul><ul><li>Representative perceptions (S-S interviews) </li></ul>Collection of ‘Service in use’ Data Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu
    86. 86. Data analysis Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu
    87. 87. Baseline survey Mobile computing to access internet Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu
    88. 88. Total petitions and time to accept Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu
    89. 89. Daily signature counts by cluster Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu
    90. 90. Cumulative signature counts Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu
    91. 91. Signatures on Europetitions Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu
    92. 92. Uptake of EuroPetitions by country Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu
    93. 93. <ul><li>Focus group </li></ul><ul><li>findings </li></ul>Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu
    94. 94. Theme: Privacy & Identity <ul><li>Use of identification infrastructure </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Eg provided by banks (risks?) or official national infrastructures </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Worry over retention of signatures </li></ul><ul><ul><li>And who would monitor them? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Need to have more clarity over what is done with the data and why it is gathered </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Does as much info have to be gathered to sign a petition? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Fake signatures not felt to be an issue </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ECI does need identification process </li></ul></ul>Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu
    95. 95. Findings: Clarity of process <ul><li>Generally clear for both petitioners and signatories </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Though some confusion with the details </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Some usability and accessibility issues </li></ul><ul><li>Group affiliations should be transparent </li></ul><ul><li>Expectations of speed need to be managed </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Linked to need to communicate updates </li></ul></ul>Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu
    96. 96. Role of clusters and Trans EU campaigns <ul><li>Interest is mostly with local issues, less with EU </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Missing central government step is obvious gap </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Need for flexible clustering model </li></ul><ul><li>Need long term promotion of petitioning </li></ul><ul><li>Need to support links between petitioners in different clusters </li></ul><ul><li>Length of Euro-process means more effort on maintaining communication </li></ul>Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu
    97. 97. Recommendations: European Parliament <ul><li>Online petitions system required by the EP’s rules </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Meets the EP’s specification for an online petitioning system </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A mechanism for formally communicating this fact to the Petitions Committee should be found. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Next step: commitment from the EP as an institution </li></ul><ul><ul><li>From the Secretariat as well as MEPs to ensure that petitioners are supported in </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>wording the petition correctly </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>identifying more appropriate targets for their action </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The clear benefit for the Committee will be the reduced number of irrelevant or out of scope petitions they reject </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>currently over half </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Need to support local partners in this work </li></ul></ul>Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu
    98. 98. Other recommendations <ul><li>Technical </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Develop APIs for sharing data, supporting functionality - open standards </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Petitioner information </li></ul><ul><ul><li>100 days is generally sufficiently long for a petition to be open </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Feedback on signature numbers </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Transnational aspects </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Highlight difference between municipal and European level e-petitions, and providing a centre of expertise. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>EuroPetition-branded area on municipal e-participation pages to draw the citizens in, and </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>National/Regional cluster actually operating the EuroPetition service </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All partners should sign up to code of conduct for </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Need to support links between petitioners in different clusters </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Project completion </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Communication to all participants to explain what will happen now that the project is completed </li></ul></ul>Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu
    99. 99. Findings & challenges Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu
    100. 100. <ul><li>ePetitions do provide the first easy step to proactive eParticipation </li></ul><ul><li>EuroPetition demonstrated a best practice e-Service for local, national & European petitions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Could provide a validated online platform & service for ECI procedures. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Very active local ePetitioning… </li></ul></ul><ul><li>EuroPetition helped connect European citizens with the European Parliament & Commission </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Raised awareness of EU Citizens’ ability/right to petition </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Improved the quality & relevance of petitions to the European Parliament through collaboration & moderation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Input to the ECI online implementation procedures. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Promoted the concept of epetitions & europetitions to widen citizen participation & address democratic deficit across the EU </li></ul>Conclusion Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    101. 101. Future work… <ul><li>Technical challenges </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Verification – location/cross-border signing & checking </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Security / tamper proofing …PKI </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Data standards / Data sharing / APIs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transferable petitions / linking petitions across regions </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Trans-EU, trans-regional networking </li></ul><ul><ul><li>New partners </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Linking to other existing petitioning systems </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Underlying concepts: citizenship & identity </li></ul></ul></ul>Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu
    102. 102. <ul><li>European Citizens Initiative </li></ul><ul><li>What does done and learned </li></ul>Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu
    103. 103. ECI: What we did <ul><li>Direct discussions with the responsible Commission officials </li></ul><ul><li>Groups such as the ECI Board and the ECI campaign </li></ul><ul><li>General education and discussion through blogging and presentation at practitioner groups such as PEP-NET etc </li></ul><ul><ul><li>to create a common understanding of the implication for system requirements of the Regulation as it was drafted. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Our work included the visualisation of the ECI process (highlighting areas of complexity) and the security implications of the draft Regulation… </li></ul>Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu
    104. 104. 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
    105. 105. 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
    106. 106. 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
    107. 107. Feedback on draft Regulation <ul><li>Copies of certificates: need for electronic form on </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Need to check by secured page hosted by the Commission </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>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. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Open source software </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Maintenance of code once issued </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Use of the EUPL ( www.osor.eu/eupl ) and OSOR.eu </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Certification of online systems </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Online service providers may be separate from campaigning organisation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Required technical features </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Permissible to use a system that has already been certified? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Compliance with Data Protection Directive and its successors </li></ul></ul><ul><li>“ Proof that citizen has only signed once” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Virtually impossible to prove without national identity numbers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>A (statistical/sample based) process would give adequate assurance </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Statements of support </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Use of structured (XML) form for reuse, rather than thousands of PDFs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Establishment of standard </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Link to work carried out in England last year to define data standards for recording petition </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Allow for regular updates and stakeholder involvement in their definition </li></ul></ul>Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu
    108. 108. Project Dissemination Activities Catherine, Public-i EuroPetition Final Review
    109. 109. EuroPetition Final Review Agenda Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu <ul><li>Presentation of Achievements by the Project Team + Q&A </li></ul><ul><li>1000 - EuroPetition Project Overview, Status & Resources – John </li></ul><ul><li>1030 - EuroPetition Service Demonstration - Paul </li></ul><ul><li>1045 - Pilot Trials’ Experience, Impacts and Plans of Users </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Sweden, UK, Netherlands, Italy & Spain - (10 mins each) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>1145 - Evaluation - Project Outcomes/Results/Impact </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1145 Evaluation Results and Recommendations. - Peter </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1215 European Citizen Initiative - what was done & learned - Peter </li></ul></ul><ul><li>1230 - Dissemination Activities - Catherine </li></ul><ul><li>1245 - Sustainability of the Service and Future Plans – John </li></ul><ul><li>13.00 - Lunch </li></ul><ul><li>14.00 - Reviewers’ Discussion and Common assessment (for Review Report) </li></ul><ul><li>14.45 - Presentation of Results to Project Team </li></ul><ul><li>15.00 - End of the Review </li></ul>
    110. 110. <ul><li>Three strands of activity: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Dissemination to practitioners </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Supporting marketing to citizens within the clusters </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Central marketing of the Europetition proposition </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>170 events addressing over 7,500 people </li></ul></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    111. 111. Physical dissemination <ul><li>2 principle dissemination workshops </li></ul><ul><li>Regional dissemination workshops with Cluster members to demonstrate the EuroPetition service to local stakeholders (MEP’s, neighbouring Councils, </li></ul><ul><li>Strategic partners, Regional / Central Government and citizens) </li></ul><ul><li>Attendance / Exhibiting / demonstrations at identified conferences / events within the EU </li></ul><ul><li>Meetings / presentations to identified representatives within Central Government / </li></ul><ul><li>MEP’s and other Local Authority agencies/organisations in each partner territory </li></ul><ul><li>Demonstration of the system to the European Parliament / PETI. </li></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    112. 112. Print / Marketing material <ul><li>Creation of marketing materials (such as banners / flysheets etc) </li></ul><ul><li>Press Coverage both at regional, national and EU level </li></ul><ul><li>Creation of a Project Logo (s) </li></ul><ul><li>Provision and maintenance of a EuroPetitions website www.europetition.eu </li></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    113. 113. <ul><li>Interim Dissemination Event Malmo, 18 Nov 09. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>D2.2.2 - EuroPetition Interim Dissemination Event –PI-Nov09 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Final Dissemination Event Barcelona, October 2010 </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>D2.2.3 - EuroPetition Final Dissemination Event –PI-Nov09 </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Ongoing Liaison with European Parliament’s Petitions Committee Secretatriat </li></ul><ul><li>Input to ECI process & procedures validation. </li></ul><ul><li>Other dissemination activities </li></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    114. 114. Other dissemination activities <ul><li>24th March: Workshop with MEP's in Malaga </li></ul><ul><li>Exhibiting at CEMR Biannual General Assembly in Malmo 22-24 April 2009 </li></ul><ul><li>Exhibiting at UK - LGA Annual conference Harrogate 30 June - 2 July 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>Exhibiting / speaking at eDemocracy 2009 Conference 25 Nov - London </li></ul><ul><li>Prize winning paper at eDem 2009 Vienna </li></ul><ul><li>Workshop at Future eDemocracy conference London, November 2010 </li></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    115. 115. Post project activities <ul><li>Continue to raise awareness of the project at an EU level </li></ul><ul><li>Distribute the Summary of Lessons Learned </li></ul><ul><li>Redevelop the europetition.eu website as a resource for the ongoing network </li></ul><ul><li>Contribute to the ongoing discussion around the ECI </li></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    116. 116. Lessons Learned <ul><li>We have created a ‘cookbook’ showing lessons learned which we will use to disseminate the project results </li></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    117. 117. <ul><li>A major group of findings are around the importance of the Local Authorities in the success of the petitioning process </li></ul><ul><li>At the same time you need to keep a clear separation of responsibilities </li></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    118. 118. <ul><li>There are also a number of issues with respect to cross-border collaboration </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Some of these are around privacy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>We need to examine exactly who benefits – and who should pay </li></ul></ul><ul><li>But the major finding was the fact that we developed a useable system </li></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    119. 119. <ul><li>We have discovered a natural lifespan for petitions of 100 days – this is extremely useful for practitioners </li></ul><ul><li>We have also addressed technical challenges around integration between different petitioning systems </li></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    120. 120. <ul><li>We have evidenced real impacts on decision making as a result of petitions at the local level </li></ul><ul><li>We also explored some of the issues of clarity that are required by the public </li></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    121. 121. <ul><li>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 </li></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    122. 122. EuroPetition Future Plans <ul><li>Immediate future - 2011 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>All 5 Clusters and their 8 Websites will continue in operation . </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Funded by the Local Authorities with Public-i providing the service at cost . </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Some sites will split the local ePetitioning and EuroPetitioning services. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>MAC will continue to maintain the www.europetition.eu website. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Medium-Term – 2012 & beyond </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Public-i will provide the service on a commercially sustainable basis, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>as part of its eParticipation Suite of products, </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>through its Network of Business Partners . </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>focusing mainly on local ePetitioning . </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>EuroPetition Partners will aim to attract European Commission, European Parliament and National funding </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>to target European and National level ePetitioning across Europe. </li></ul></ul></ul>Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×