Brazil Transitional Results Report 2018-2021

This report covers the implementation of Brazil’s fourth action plan for 2018–2021. In 2021, the IRM started implementing a new approach to its research process and the scope of its reporting on action plans, approved by the IRM Refresh.^[1] The IRM adjusted its Implementation Reports for 2018–2021 action plans to fit the transition process to the new IRM products and enable the IRM to adjust its workflow in light of the COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on OGP country processes.

Action Plan Implementation

The IRM Transitional Results Report assesses the status of the action plan’s commitments and the results from their implementation at the end of the action planAction plans are at the core of a government’s participation in OGP. They are the product of a co-creation process in which government and civil society jointly develop commitments to open governmen... cycle. This report does not re-visit the assessments for “VerifiabilityOGP commitments should be clear and specific enough to enable measurement of their progress. Verifiable commitments include specific activities that can be monitored. Following an action plan’s subm...,” “RelevanceAccording to the OGP Articles of Governance, OGP commitments should include a clear open government lens. Specifically, they should advance at least one of the OGP values: transparency, citizen partic...,” or “Potential Impact.” The IRM assesses those three indicators in IRM Design Reports. For more details on each indicator, please see Annex I in this report.

General highlights and results

The process of developing and implementing Brazil’s fourth national action plan followed the same methodology and built upon actions initiated in the previous plan, which saw an extensive co-creation between the government and civil society at various stages and processes. The collaborative efforts resulted in defining 11 commitments focused on increasing access to information, enhancing transparencyAccording to OGP’s Articles of Governance, transparency occurs when “government-held information (including on activities and decisions) is open, comprehensive, timely, freely available to the pub... More in government processes, and strengthening public accountabilityAccording to OGP’s Articles of Governance, public accountability occurs when ”rules, regulations, and mechanisms in place call upon government actors to justify their actions, act upon criticisms ... More.

The implementation of the fourth action plan faced several obstacles. The government underwent various political and administrative changes, which led to alterations in the structures of responsible agencies and limited civic participation. Internal uncertainties related to the appointment of officials and the designation of focal points hindered the execution of nearly all commitments as initially planned. Additionally, misalignment between the cycles of the federal government and OGP action plan posed obstacles and delays to the implementation of certain commitments, such as open government at the state and municipal levels, as well as climate and land transparency.

The COVID-19 pandemic posed significant challenges especially in terms of conducting meetings for action plan implementation. Federal, state, district, and municipal government agencies needed to reorient political and budgetary agendas to prioritize emergency public health policies and actions. Civil society also had to implement numerous adjustments to their administrative structures and priority agendas. Regardless, commitments’ implementation continued while adapting to the changing circumstances and challenges brought on by political and health safety-related factors.

Despite these shortcomings, stakeholders were able to complete most milestones. Commitments 2, 3, 5, 7, 10, and 11 were fully implemented, while Commitments 1 and 6 recorded a substantial level of implementation. Commitments 4, 8, and 9 were only partially implemented.

The plan led to improvements in access to information, civic participation, and public accountability, which are positive outcomes. Commitment 1 disseminated open government best practices by engaging with subnational actors. Commitment 2 presented a Reference Model for Open Data Disclosure. Commitment 3 advanced open science as a nascent field in the governmental agenda, leading to public disclosure of scientific data and the establishment of open repositories. Commitment 5 successfully integrated a mechanism for user feedback in transportation services via a larger public service improvement initiative developed by Comptroller-General of the Union (CGU), the User’s Councils. Commitment 6 is helping inform and empower social control by those affected by the Mariana Dam disaster. Commitment 7 had the participation of subnational legislative actors as a conscious effort to increase other public bodies’ participation in the OGP process. Furthermore, it has allowed citizens to track and monitor bills’ progress in the National Congress, Chamber of Deputies, and the Federal Senate. Commitment 10 improved the National Water Resources Information System (SNIRH) through a participatory process that truly considered the suggestions of various actors. Commitment 11 had a measurable impact on increasing compliance with the Access to Information Law at the subnational level and created a platform, Fala.BR which serves as a reference in open government practices.

Moreover, the fourth action plan had an active component of knowledge sharing, awareness-raising, and capacity building (specifically Commitments 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 11). This resulted in more than 21 training actions, including courses, workshops, instructional videos, and training sessions that had the direct participation of more than 50,000 people, as well as the creation of manuals and reference materials readily available.[2] While the in-person activities were severely limited by COVID-19, the participants of the Plan were able to navigate these obstacles.

However, not all commitments resulted in transformative change as challenges remained in achieving broader and more significant outcomes. Beyond the political context and COVID-19 pandemic, some commitments lacked concrete and tangible results, pursued less ambitious goals, were more activity-based, their milestones lacked specificity, or their potential impact depends on effective adoption. Commitments 1 and 2 disseminated open government best practices at all levels of government but lacked an active component in implementing and adopting such practices. While there has been a reported increase in federal and subnational transparency,[3] this result can be attributable to other actions within the plan (e.g., CommitmentOGP commitments are promises for reform co-created by governments and civil society and submitted as part of an action plan. Commitments typically include a description of the problem, concrete action... 11) and outside the plan. Commitments 5, 6, and 10 developed or improved existing portals that increase access to information and social monitoring. Nevertheless, the impact of these practices will be more tangible in the future and dependent on citizens and civil society actively using these tools. The commitments with limited implementation (4, 8, and 9) did not have enough evidence to assess early resultsEarly results refer to concrete changes in government practice related to transparency, citizen participation, and/or public accountability as a result of a commitment’s implementation. OGP’s Inde....

Among the noteworthy commitments highlighted in the IRM Design Report (3, 6, 8, and 11), Commitment 6 achieved minor results. The development of the Renova Transparency Portal successfully disclosed information on the Mariana Dam disaster reparation process.[4] By 2021, BRL19.6 billion reais (approximately USD3.7 billion) were accounted for in the portal. Nevertheless, within the IRM evaluation period, the portal was less successful in strengthening public accountability measures through active public participationGiving citizens opportunities to provide input into government decision-making leads to more effective governance, improved public service delivery, and more equitable outcomes. Technical specificatio... in monitoring and evaluating the progress of the reparation efforts. Commitment 8 on land transparency was affected by the overall political context on land tenure rights and the various normative instruments being introduced to reduce political participation and public oversight. Furthermore, the milestones that were reported as completed focused more on completing activities (e.g., meetings, documents with demands) than actually improving the land management system.

Commitments 3 and 11 achieved major results. Commitment 3, related to the development of open science, made scientific production data available and enabled greater public oversight of scientific information. Commitment 11 increased transparency and access to information at state and municipal levels. These successful commitments benefited from a set of milestones that were more focused and ambitious and active participation and collaboration from stakeholders. Commitment 7, while not highlighted in the Design Report, achieved a major impact as initially expected. This commitment advanced mechanisms of transparency and social monitoring of the legislative process. However, it lacked a structured and active form of civil participation both in its design and implementation.

To further enhance open government in Brazil, it is crucial to address the gaps in transparency, accountability, and citizen engagement. This may require moving from knowledge sharing and dissemination to more active adoption and operationalization of best practices. Additionally, the political context and normative changes limited civic participation, which should be a priority to correct in future plans, especially in areas that have been eroded, such as climate and land tenure. Moreover, many of the commitments developed online portals and tools that need to have an ongoing component of capacity building and citizen engagement. A model to follow is the Time Brazil Program, which actively trains and provides resources to public managers and citizens and accompanies the Fala.Br platform of Commitment 11.

[1] For more information, see “IRM Refresh,” Open Government Partnership, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/process/accountability/about-the-irm/irm-refresh.

[2] Comptroller-General of the Union, pre-publication comments. 20 March 2024. The reported number was validated as realistic by the IRM review of each commitment with a training action component. Moreover, many of the training actions were conducted online which tends to facilitate larger dissemination.

[3] “Painel Monitoramento de Dados Abertos,” [Open Data Monitoring Dashboard], Comptroller-General of the Union, https://centralpaineis.cgu.gov.br/visualizar/dadosabertos; “CGU divulga resultado da 2ª edição da Escala Brasil Transparente – Avaliação 360°,” [CGU publishes results of the 2nd edition of the Transparent Brazil Scale – 360° Assessment], Comptroller-General of the Union, 15 March 2021, https://www.gov.br/cgu/pt-br/assuntos/noticias/2021/03/cgu-divulga-resultado-da-2a-edicao-da-escala-brasil-transparente-avaliacao-360deg; Comptroller-General of the Union, pre-publication comments, 5 April 2024.

[4] The linked portal is the actual version. Evaluation was done based on the portal’s 2021 version. See Commitment 6 for more information.