80 likes | 195 Vues
Helsinki Neighbourhoods Association Helka. WORKING PARTY ON INFORMATION – CLUB OF VENICE JOINT SEMINAR on ” Open Government in the making ” 4 October, 2012. Pirjo Tulikukka, Executive Director Helsinki Neighbourhoods Association Helka pirjo.tulikukka@helka.net.
E N D
Helsinki Neighbourhoods Association Helka WORKING PARTY ON INFORMATION – CLUB OF VENICE JOINT SEMINARon ”OpenGovernment in the making” 4 October, 2012 • Pirjo Tulikukka, Executive Director Helsinki Neighbourhoods Association Helkapirjo.tulikukka@helka.net
Helsinki Neighbourhoods Association Helka • FACTS: • Non-governmental, non-profit organisation • Founded in 1964 • Members: 78 local voluntary Neighbourhood Associations • Office in the City • staff of 2 + 2 to 4 project personnel yearly • Financing: yearly grant from the City of Helsinki (appr.40%)+ various project funding (60%) • Coordinates an open source web platform of neighbourhood web pages – an “online channel” from the neighbourhoods and to the neighbourhoods
Helka supports and networks neighbourhood actors by Developingmethodsandtoolsforparticipation Providing support for neighbourhood networks & development Coordinatinga networkof localweb-pages Offeringseminarsandworkshops Collectingresidentsopinions/ ‘voice’ Helka’s members!(Neighbourhood Associations) Enhancing dialogue: between residents,local stakeholders&city
A CASE EXAMPLE OF HELKA ACTIVITIES:LOCAL NEIGHBOURHOOD WEB PAGES • As a project since 1997, now an essential part of Helka’s normal activities • A retailed platform (open source, joomla) for Helsinki neighbourhoods (financing: a modest yearly grant paid by the City of Helsinki, only enough for basic functions; development is funded via various projects) • Helka provides technical and other support for designated moderators/ editors, also develops new functionalities (Local Service Index etc.) • Dispersed creation of content (less vulnerability): anyone can add a piece of news or an event on their local neighbourhood web page (moderation needed also); some neighbourhoods have challenges in recruiting content providers/moderators (volunteers) • Development of interfaces from official city pages to the neighbourhood pages is emerging (RSS-feeds, city’s service map), also the integration of social media (fb) ‘windows’ • ongoing peer-to-peer development of the platform
Some interesting new openings from Finland: • Open Ministry (an open source platform for citizens to discuss proposals for legislation and collect the necessary signatures online) • Participatory budgeting (a pilot case from Helsinki: the City Library is letting citizens decide on how to use 100 000 € for the newly planned Central Library) • Helsinki Region Infoshare, HRI (the opening up of regional data; possibilities for anyone to use and create new services /businesse– challenge to overcome: new applications are still mainly IT geek driven..)
SOME LEARNINGS: • Participation requires: motivation + ownership (people need to be motivated to participate and at the same time the process that they take part in has to be owned by the actor/governing body etc. So they have to able to do something about the issue at hand) • National scale participation processes are challenging in general because people are motivated almost solely by local/neighbourhood issues (local infrastructure/ services etc.) A bad example was the Finnish Ministry of Justice’s 1st version of the Otakantaa.fi (”Take part”) discussion portal – nobody wanted to use it (too distant, abstract..) Now it is being designed anew together with a user panel and with a fresh approach
NEW DEVELOPMENTS: • Citizens want to participate – new neighbourhood movements are being formed (in Helsinki) by younger generations via social media – “the democracy of action” (from “village parties” to local peer-to-peer service production) – challenge: how to overcome the digital divide & generation gap..? • Public – Private – People –Partnerships are in the making: the city governance, entrepreneurs and local residents form partnerships to work together for more striving local communities – but there is still a long way to go (challenge: different organisational cultures and languages change agents/mediators, mediating organisations are needed)