eCitizenship for AllSurvey 2003.

Richard DrewesPorto, November 24th 2003

Topics

•TeleCities & Deloitte

•eCitizenship for all - Survey 2003

•Challenges

•Conclusions

TeleCities

•Major European network of cities committed to leadership in the Information and Knowledge Society

•Open to democratically elected city governments as and business and scientific partners

•Some 120 local authorities from 20 European countries

Win-win relation

TeleCities

• Catalyst of experience and knowledge transfer amongst European cities, knowledge base

Deloitte

• Leading advisor of European cities with intimate knowledge of the public sector

• TeleCities’ strategic development partner

Survey participantsAustria• Linz• ViennaBelgium• Antwerp• Brussels Capital RegionCroatia• RijekaCzech Republic• Hradec Kralové • Ostrava• PragueDenmark• Aalborg• Frederikshavn• NaestvedEstland• VilniusFrance• Cannes• Lyon• Metz• Nice

Hungary• BudapestNetherlands• Amsterdam• Eindhoven • The Hague• Rotterdam• UtrechtPoland• Gdansk• KatowicePortugal• PortoSlovenia• KoperSpain• Barcelona• Bilbao• Gijón• Madrid• Reus • San Sebastian• Terrassa• Totana• Valencia• Viladecans

Finland • Espoo• Helsinki• Oulu• Tampere• Turku • VantaaGermany• Bonn• Bremen• Cologne• Hagen• Leipzig • Munich

Greece

• Amaroussion

Italy• Bari• Bologna• Grosseto • Livorno• Rome• Siena• Turin

Sweden• Gothenburg

• Hudiksvall• Linköping• Ronneby• Tranås• Stockholm • UppsalaTurkey• YalovaUnited Kingdom• Birmingham• Camden-London• Edinburgh• Glasgow• Kingston upon Hull• Leeds• Liverpool • Manchester• Newcastle

eCitizenship for All - Challenges

• Re-engineering Local Public Administration• Cities will have re-engineered their service-rendering

processes in order to improve the cost-benefit ratio and the quality of all services

• eDemocracy and Community Building• All cities will have implemented eDemocracy with all the

new forms of citizens' participation and community empowerment

• eLearning and Digital Inclusion• All European citizens will be digital literate and able to

benefit from the gains of the Information Society

• eSecurity• All citizens will have the right to eSecurity

Re-engineering

•Electronic services are #1 on eGovernment agenda

•Triggers for eServices are cost reduction and responding to legislation

•Re-engineering projects tend to be inside-out and not outside-in

•Budget issues and resistance to change are still the main obstacles

•Two-way communication and transactional services are planned

eDemocracy

•eDemocracy facilitates democratic renewal and improves citizen participation

•eDemocracy is one aspect of participation; the context is the wider agenda for democratic renewal and citizenship

•eVoting is relatively untested

•eServices have priority over eDemocracy

•Cost of innovation is still an issue

eLearning

•Life-long learning is a political issue in 3 out of 4 cities

•One third of the cities have an eLearning strategy

•Cities use regional structures for eLearning

•In 50% of the cities educational programmes

are on-line

•ICT entered the class-rooms, but is not yet an integrated part of the education

•Awareness of excluded groups is high, strategies and programmes are focused on specific groups

eSecurity

•eSecurity lags behind the development of eServices

•In 2 out of 3 cities, citizens have access to eGovernment applications

•More than 85% of eServices include personal information of citizens

•25% of the cities have intrusion detection processes in place

•Only 37.5% of the cities use anti-virus software

Conclusions

•Cities have taken up eCitizenship for All

•eServices is the #1 issue and hence re-engineering

•Cities have an inside-out approach not outside-in

•eDemocracy is recognized but scarcely taken up

•Awareness of eSecurity is far higher than implementing eSecurity

•eLearning is a political issue; the number of projects is modest, the quality seems to be high