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 1

“europetitions” – 2 fundamental rights of European citizens

2

1. 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.

2. 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.

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

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.


Sta

tus

Pro

ce

ss

es

CommunicationInformal

Participation

Formal Consultation

(Council)

Formal Democracy

(Representative)

The Wild West The Law

Social Networks/Online communities

VideoMagazines

Formal webcasting

ePetitions

Support representative

PB

Local strategic plan

Fli

p p

oin

t

ePetitions within an overall eParticipation Strategy


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


6eParticipation Conference, EP, 15/12/09 www.EuroPetition.eu

• www.europarl.europa.eu/parliament/public/staticDisplay.do?id=49&language=en

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’

7Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu

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

KingstonNorth LincsBirmingham

Bristol

signaturessignatures

GothenburgMalmö

StockholmLinkoping

Pitea

Almere FlevolandDen HaagGroningenAmsterdam

AblaCórdoba

Málaga

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


EuroPetition Service.


Final Reivew, Brussels, 22/03/11www.EuroPetition.eu 12

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, 18th 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, 5th Oct 2010.– Final Viability Plan & continuation of the Services.

13

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:


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/aRegistered Users 1,788 2,576 +44%User Visits 223,538 374,746 +68%

14

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

1. ePetitions and Europetitions do provide a first easy step to proactive eParticipation

2. ePetitions can influence Decision Making

3. Need for institutional support from the European Parliament

4. Potential to meet the needs expressed by the European Parliament Petition Committee

5. Open data standards for ePetitions and the ECI process presents an opportunity for the EuroPetition service

6. Promotion of EuroPetitions

7. Local Support and Ownership

8. Transparency and Clarity of petitioning process

9. Legal Obligations are not a barrier

10. Relationship between local and euro-petitions

Final Reivew, Brussels, 22/03/11www.EuroPetition.eu 15

EuroPetition Journey

LPS = Local Petitioning System

€CA = Euro Cluster Admin

EuropeanParliament

EuropeanCommission

Euro Institutions

€CA €CA€CA €CA €CA

EnglishEnglishEnglishEnglish

Spanish

English Swedish Italian Dutch

= Euro Flag button

EPS = Euro only Petitioning System

LPS LPS

LPS LPS

UK

LPS

NetherlandsSpain

LPS LPS

LPS

Italy

LPS EPSEPS

Sweden

MalmöBristol

• Cluster Admin

• Petitioners• Local

Admin

}

eParticipation through Petitioning in Europe

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

19

Swedish clusters

•Cooperation – top level•Enthusiastic partners•Moderation done by Malmö

•Different LG’s with optimal evaluation possibilities

•Professional in marketing

Malmö

GöteborgLinköping

Stockholm

Piteå


20

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.


21

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 MeetingFraser Henderson

March 2011for Bristol City Council, UK

UK Cluster

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

Periodic summary by locality


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.

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


29

• 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


30

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 petitionsFinal Review, Brussels, 22/03/11 www.EuroPetition.eu

31

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

33

EuroPetition Review Meeting – 22nd 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

34


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)


35


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


36


Facts Petities.nl• Dutch


37


Facts Europetitions.nl• Dutch


Europetition

The Netherlands

Europetition

The Netherlands

ItalyItaly Great-BrittainGreat-

BrittainSwedenSweden SpainSpain1 million signatures1 million

signatures

Petities.nlPetities.nl


39


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.


40


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

42

• Status – Italian cluster

• Coordinator:• Nestor Lab

University of Rome “Tor Vergata”

• Local authorities:• Vicenza• CST – Service

Center Vicenza Area


Italian Regional ClusterOverview

• 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 ClusterSite 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 ClusterPress 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

46

Italian Regional ClusterPress release and site launch


Italian Regional ClusterSupport 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 ClusterMarketing 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 ClusterDissemination activities

49

• 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 ClusterItalian experience

52

• 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 ClusterFuture Plans

53

• 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

EuroPetition Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11, www.EuroPetition.eu55

• Status & Experience to date – Spanish cluster

• Coordinator:• I2BC

• Local authorities:• Malaga• Cordoba• Abla

• No petitioning experience in any of the councils

www.europetitionandalucia.es

56EuroPetition Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11, www.EuroPetition.eu


General Stats

General stats (as of 16/03/2011)

58

• 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

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


Europetitions

Europetitions

60

• 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

62

• 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

64

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


Project impact

Project impact

66

• 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

68

• 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 CruickshankEdinburgh Napier University

EuroPetition Project Review

70

EuroPetition Final Review Agenda


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 – John13.00 - 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

71Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu

Evaluation work

Element Source of data StatusBaseline data Online survey

tool hosted by PICovered 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

Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu 74

Live running

Live running

Install &OperateInstall &Operate

Design & DevelopService

Design & DevelopService

UserRequirements& Service Spec

UserRequirements& Service Spec

Establish Baseline & Develop Evaluation Plan

Establish Baseline & Develop Evaluation Plan

Ongoing Evaluation & monitoring of pilots

Ongoing Evaluation & monitoring of pilots

Dialogue to build data gathering into system

Validate system meets eval objectives

Data gathering, respondin

g to issues

Baseline survey (authority-held data)Baseline survey (of citizens)Lit reviewScenario-testing workshops

Evaluation process

Final Evaluation

Final Evaluation

Final data collection

‘exit’ surveysDebate statisticsSystem dataPartner monitoring data

InterviewsDatabase analysis


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


Theoretical background: Self EfficacyExperience of the process matters

Self Efficac

y

Outcome expectations(Performanc

e)

Outcome expectations

(Personal)

Affect

Anxiety

Usage

Adapted from Compeau & Higgins 1999

Positive and negative reinforcement from

previous experiences


Acceptance questionsInitial 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


Data analysis


Baseline surveyMobile computing to access internet


Total petitions and time to accept


Daily signature counts by cluster


Cumulative signature counts


Signatures on Europetitions


Uptake of EuroPetitions by country


Focus groupfindings


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

Final Project Review www.EuroPetition.eu94

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


Findings & challenges


• 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

100 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

104

National Identity Database(s)

National Identity Database(s)

Se

cu

reS

tora

ge

Se

cu

reS

tora

ge

Certified, tamper-proof

records

Signature records

Va

lida

tion

By N

atio

na

l Au

tho

rities

10

0%

or sa

mp

le b

ase

d

Va

lida

tion

By N

atio

na

l Au

tho

rities

10

0%

or sa

mp

le b

ase

d

Certification Authority

eg Verisign, EuroPKI

Certification Authority

eg Verisign, EuroPKI

Ve

rifi

ca

tio

nV

eri

fic

ati

on

First line verification

Handwritten Signature

Confirmation email

Other methods

IdentityIdentity

Spam checksCAPTCHA etc

Record signature


ECI Process

105

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

OKOK

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


national practice

Target reached (in time)?Target reached (in time)?

Collate certificates & submit to Commission

Verify submission conditions met

YESYES

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 signaturesApprox 100,000 signatures

Target not reached

Confirm wording acceptable

Formal & informalagree’t processes

Destroy recordswithin one

month

To Commission

?

European Commission

What is a system?How is it

approved? By whom?


ECI Process

106

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

OKOK

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


national practice


national practice

Target reached (in time)?Target reached (in time)?

Collate certificates & submit to Commission

Verify submission conditions met

YESYES

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 signaturesApprox 100,000 signatures

Target not reached

Confirm wording acceptable

Formal & informalagree’t processes

Destroy recordswithin one

month

To Commission

?

European Commission

Will the EC allow unofficial translations?

How to audit signatures?

What can be used from e-petitioning systems?


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

109

EuroPetition Final Review Agenda


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 – John13.00 - 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.

122Final Review, Brussels, 22/03/11www.EuroPetition.eu