4. Strengthening governance processes and mechanisms for an integrated open government agenda in Brazil
This chapter provides recommendations to create governance processes and mechanisms that are suitable for an integrated open government approach and that put reforms targeting transparency, accountability, integrity and participation at the centre of public sector reform. It highlights the need to design an integrated co-ordination space for all policies and practices that relate to openness and suggests the creation of a National Open Government Council. It further identifies opportunities to raise levels of open government literacy across the public administration and among non-public stakeholders. The chapter also proposes the creation of Open Government Maturity Models, coupled with a clear theory of change and dedicated open government indicators to move the agenda towards outcomes and impacts. Finally, it identifies ways to make strategic use of public communications as a tool to create a holistic understanding of the concept and its associated policies and practices.
In order to foster the creation of an open government culture, governments have to establish processes and mechanisms that transform inputs (e.g. laws, policies, institutional mandates) into outputs (i.e. openness) (OECD, 2020[1]). Recognising that countries are at different stages of their open government agendas and that there are different ways for governments to pursue openness, the OECD Framework for Assessing the Openness of Governments focuses on key processes that should be led by any government that aims to promote a coherent approach to the creation of a culture of open government, including:
Building capacity and fostering open government literacy in the administration and among stakeholders;
Monitoring and evaluation of open government policies and practices;
Making strategic use of external and internal communication for open government reforms.
These processes and mechanisms reflect provisions 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Open Government (Box 4.1) and they are interlinked. Chapter 3 on the Enabling Environment for Open Government in Brazil suggested first steps for Brazil to move towards a fully integrated open government agenda, discussing the legislative, policy and institutional frameworks. The present Chapter builds on the recommendations of Chapter 3 and provides advice on ways to create governance processes and mechanisms that are suitable for an integrated open government approach and that put reforms targeting transparency, accountability, integrity and citizen and stakeholder participation at the centre of public sector reform.
The first section of the Chapter highlights the need to design an integrated co-ordination space for all policies and practices that relate to openness and suggests the creation of a National Open Government Council. The second section identifies opportunities to raise levels of open government literacy across the public administration and among non-public stakeholders, including by designing an integrated Open Government Toolkit and by creating a community of practice on open government. The third section finds that while the Government of Brazil (GoB) is collecting increasing amounts of process and output data on the implementation of open government policies and practices, little is known about the wider outcomes and impacts of open government reforms. In order to address this challenge, it proposes the creation of Open Government Maturity Models, coupled with a clear theory of change and dedicated open government indicators. The last section of the Chapter finds that more can be done to use public communications as a tool to create a holistic understanding of the concept and its associated policies and practices across the whole of government and the whole of society. The section discussed the potential benefits of the creation of a one-stop-shop Open Government Portal as a basis for an integrated open government agenda.
Provision 3
Ensure the successful operationalisation and take-up of open government strategies and initiatives by:
(i) Providing public officials with the mandate to design and implement successful open government strategies and initiatives, as well as the adequate human, financial, and technical resources, while promoting a supportive organisational culture;
(ii) Promoting open government literacy in the administration, at all levels of government, and among stakeholders.
Provision 5
Develop and implement monitoring, evaluation and learning mechanisms for open government strategies and initiatives by:
(i) Identifying institutional actors to be in charge of collecting and disseminating up-to-date and reliable information and data in an open format;
(ii) Developing comparable indicators to measure processes, outputs, outcomes, and impact in collaboration with stakeholders; and
(iii) Fostering a culture of monitoring, evaluation and learning among public officials by increasing their capacity to regularly conduct exercises for these purposes in collaboration with relevant stakeholders.
Provision 6
Actively communicate on open government strategies and initiatives, as well as on their outputs, outcomes and impacts, in order to ensure that they are well-known within and outside government, to favour their uptake, as well as to stimulate stakeholder buy-in.
Source: OECD (2017[2]), Recommendation of the Council on Open Government, OECD, Paris, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0438 (accessed 21 June 2021).
Open government policies are transversal by nature. The success of initiatives such as those focusing on increasing transparency or involving stakeholders in decision making therefore often depends on effective co-operation and co-ordination. This need for co-ordination and collaboration is further reinforced, once a country decides to pursue an integrated open government agenda that treats reforms to foster transparency, accountability and citizen/stakeholder participation as part of one coherent and holistic agenda (e.g. through an Open Government Strategy).
Policy co-ordination is the primary means to prevent fragmentation and ensure policy coherence across the whole public sector. Co-ordination is also key to ensuring that the open government agenda and other relevant national policy agendas (e.g. the digital government agenda) proceed in the same direction and contribute to common objectives. Accordingly, Provision 4 of the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Open Government (2017[2]) highlights the importance of effective horizontal and vertical co-ordination of open government policies “through the necessary institutional mechanisms (…) to ensure that they are aligned with and contribute to all relevant socioeconomic objectives” (Box 4.1).1
Co-ordination can be either formal (i.e. take place in regulated spaces of co-ordination) or informal (i.e. through ad hoc meetings, personal connections, etc.). In most countries, the beginning of the open government movement was characterized by bottom up dynamics (i.e. a “start-up approach” to open government) that often operated outside of formal spaces and relied on personal relationships rather than institutionalised frameworks. Over time, more and more OECD Member and Partner Countries have started establishing Multi-stakeholder Forums as dedicated co-ordination spaces, largely thanks to their inclusions in the OGP Participation & Co-creation standards (OGP, n.d.[3]).
This section assesses Brazil against Provision 4 of the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Open Government, analysing the functioning, composition and responsibilities of existing institutional mechanisms to co-ordinate open government policies and practices, both across government and with non-public stakeholders. It finds that while Brazil has created multiple institutional mechanisms to co-ordinate open government policies and practices, gaps remain. Accordingly, the section recommends creating a National Open Government Council for it to become the primary co-ordination space for an integrated open government agenda.
Brazil has created institutional co-ordination mechanisms in different areas of open government
Constructive dialogue between public and non-public stakeholders is at the heart of open government. Recognising that all open government policies and practices require the involvement of many relevant actors, the Government of Brazil has designed a multiplicity of Councils, Networks, Committees, etc. in different areas of open government. The most important mechanisms that have co-ordination responsibilities in the field of open government are detailed in Table 4.1 .
The OGP process is co-ordinated through two different bodies
According to data collected by the OECD, almost all countries that participate in the Open Government Partnership (OGP) have created Commissions or Steering Committees (often called “Multi-stakeholder Forum” or MSF) to enable co-ordination and constructive dialogue between public institutions and non-public stakeholders throughout the OGP action plan cycles. Data from the 2020 OECD Survey on Open Government further shows that these Forums are most commonly responsible for setting directions for the action plan process (75%), monitoring the implementation of the action plan (75%), and overseeing the co-creation process (66.7%) (Figure 4.1).
Data collected by the OECD also suggests that, while MSFs were initially set up to co-ordinate the OGP process, some of them have started taking on other responsibilities relating to different areas of open government (OECD, forthcoming[5]). For example, the Czech Republic’s Working Commission for Open Government and State Administration Transparency has a broad mandate to support integrity. As a permanent advisory body to the government and chaired by the Minister of Justice, its responsibility is to evaluate anti-corruption measures, to monitor the implementation by individual ministries and to propose measures to reduce corruption risks, including by fostering transparency of the public administration. Spain’s MSF has taken the role of facilitating collaboration between government and civil society regarding all initiatives related to open government. In particular, it serves as a forum for dialogue with civil society and fosters the exchange of good practices, among others.
Whereas most countries have established a single MSF that includes both public and non-public stakeholders, Brazil currently has two different kinds of committees that meet separately in place, namely:
1) the Interministerial Committee on Open Government (Comitê Interministerial Governo Aberto, CIGA) which is made up of federal government institutions only; and
2) the Civil Society Working Group for Advice on Open Government (Grupo de Trabalho da Sociedade Civil para Assessoramento em Governo Aberto, GT) which is composed of civil society stakeholders only.
The Interministerial Committee on Open Government is the main mechanism to co-ordinate the OGP process across the federal government
The Interministerial Committee on Open Government (CIGA) was originally created by decree in 2011 in order to enable the co-creation and implementation of Brazil’s first OGP action plan. The CIGA was initially composed of 18 federal ministers, co-ordinated by the Casa Civil (Civil House). In addition to the CIGA, the founding decree also created an Executive Group of the Interministerial Committee on Open Government (GE-CIGA) which was supposed to provide the CIGA with support in carrying out its duties. and which was composed of seven government ministries. The core objectives of the GE-CIGA were: i) to draft the proposition of the Open Government National Action Plan and submit it for consideration of the CIGA; ii) to plan, execute and coordinate the consultation processes related with the Plan; and iii) to coordinate the Plan’s implementation and execution. The CGU was the GE-CIGA’s co-ordination body and provided administrative support and the means for the execution of the group’s work.
According to information gathered during the fact-finding mission, the original CIGA only managed to have one meeting at Ministerial level and most of the substantive work was taken over by the GE-CIGA which met frequently. In order to simplify the institutional architecture and increase effectiveness, decree 10.160 from 2019 created a single government co-ordination committee. It abolished the GE-CIGA and mandated a transfer of co-ordination for the CIGA from the Casa Civil to the CGU. Furthermore, decree 10.160 no longer mandated the participation of Ministerial level representatives in the CIGA. Rather, article 5 established that “the members of the Interministerial Open Government Committee and their alternates will be appointed by the heads of the bodies they represent and appointed by the Minister of State of the Comptroller General of the Union”. The decree also streamlined the CIGA’s composition, reducing the number of participating ministries from 18 to 13 (Figure 4.2).
Source: Author’s own elaboration.
In line with practice in OECD countries (OECD, forthcoming[5]), the current CIGA includes government institutions with responsibilities for key open government policies, as well as representatives from implementing line ministries (e.g. Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Health, etc.). However, as mentioned above, unlike most Multi-Stakeholder Forums in OECD Member Countries, Brazil’s CIGA does not involve any non-public stakeholders, such as civil society organisations, academics or private sector representatives.
In terms of responsibilities, in addition to having a central role in facilitating the participation of Brazil in the OGP, the CIGA also has the mandate to “promote a culture of and knowledge about open government among federal public administration employees” (Article 4, Decree 10.160) (Box 4.2). Interviews conducted during the fact-finding missions revealed that the CIGA’s role remains largely limited to the co-ordination of the design and implementation of the OGP Action Plan and that its meetings have become less frequent and less productive over the past years.
According to article 4 of Decree 10.160 from 2019, the CIGA has the following responsibilities:
propose measures for development and implementation of the open government policy within the scope of the federal executive branch;
promote culture and knowledge about open government among federal public administration employees
propose priority actions to be implemented through national action plans on open government;
promote necessary intra-governmental articulation for joint actions implementation, exchange of experiences, transfer of technology and training, within the scope of national action plans on open government;
identify necessary research and development actions within the scope of national action plans on open government;
guide preparation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of national action plans on open government;
approve the proposals for national action plans on open government and promote intra-governmental articulation for their implementation and execution
identify necessary means for preparation, implementation and monitoring of national action plans on open government; and
evaluate results and propose changes or revisions to the national action plans on open government.
Source: Government of Brazil (2019[6]), Decreto Nº 10.160, de 9 de Dezembro de 2019: Institui a Política Nacional de Governo Aberto e o Comitê Interministerial de Governo Aberto, http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2019/decreto/D10160.htm
The Civil Society Working Group for Advice on Open Government represents civil society’s voices in the OGP process
A recommendation in the 2014 report of the OGP’s Independent Reporting Mechanism suggested that the country should involve civil society in the broadest possible way in the design, execution, monitoring and evaluation of the OGP action plans. In response to this recommendation, Brazil created the Civil Society Working Group for Open Government Advisory (Grupo de Trabalho da Sociedade Civil para Assessoramento em Governo Aberto, GT) through Resolution 1/2014 in 2014. The group is currently made up of seven non-public stakeholders, namely four civil society organizations, one non-governmental organization connected to the academia/research; one association / organisation representing the private sector; and one association/union/organisation representing workers. Participants are selected by civil society entities themselves.
The main objective of the GT is to increase civil society participation in the OGP process of Brazil. The GT is, for example, in charge of providing advice to the CIGA and of working together with CIGA to develop the methodology for co-creating the OGP action plans. According to its mandate, the GT also participates actively in the process of implementing and monitoring the commitments contained in the action plans and can suggest improvements to the process.
Civil society organisations interviewed for this Review highlighted that the GT has been a valuable space to exchange ideas and experiences between civil society stakeholders. However, interviewees also stressed that its setup as an advisory body to the CIGA bears limitations. Civil society stakeholders sometimes feel side-lined and not fully involved in key decisions relating to Brazil’s OGP process.
Brazil could consider creating a National Open Government y Council to enable an integrated open government agenda
In addition to the challenges associated with the co-ordination of the OGP process discussed above, the three implementation Chapters of this OECD Open Government Review (see Chapters 6-8) identify specific co-ordination challenges linked to the principles of transparency, accountability and citizen and stakeholder participation. For example, Chapter 6 on Citizen and Stakeholder Participation identifies a need to improve co-ordination between the Secretariat of Government, the CGU and the Casa Civil, as well as external stakeholders in making participation policy. It also notes the lack of formal co-ordination spaces in this important field of open government, following the revocation of decree that established the Government Committee on Social Participation (Comitê Governamental de Participação Social). Along similar lines, Chapter 6 on Transparency identifies a need for Brazil to further leverage the use of the existing Council for Public Transparency and Fight against Corruption to engage a wider range of stakeholders in the elaboration, implementation and monitoring of its transparency policies, as well as opportunities to expand the existing SIG Network.
In order to counter these challenges and enable the design and implementation of a Federal Open Government Strategy (see Chapter 3 on the Enabling Environment), Brazil could consider creating an Open Government Council (Conselho de Governo Aberto, COGA). The COGA would be a co-ordination mechanism that reflects the new, integrated open government approach, co-ordinating all policies and practices that fall under the realm of the concept of open government. In practical terms, the new Open Government Council could replace the existing CIGA and integrate the Open Data Infrastructure Steering Committee as sub-committees, as further described below. The new COGA could potentially also co-ordinate integrity policies and, as such, it could replace the existing Council for Public Transparency and Anti-Corruption.2
The COGA could be chaired by the CGU and the recommended Secretariat for Open Government and Integrity (see Chapter 3) and comprise senior representatives from the key institutions of the federal open government ecosystem, as well as key civil society representatives, academics, private sector representatives and trade unions. Overall, the Steering Committee would be made up of approximately 25-35 people. The CGU could function as the COGA’s secretariat, facilitating and co-ordinating its day-to-day work.
Source: Author’s own elaboration.
The COGA could meet twice a year at Ministerial level and frequently at the level of senior public officials (e.g. Secretaries, Directors). The COGA’s Ministerial meetings would serve to set the agenda and discuss progress in implementing Brazil’s open government agenda, while the more regular meetings at the level of senior public officials could have the following tasks (among others):
Ensure co-ordination and alignment between ongoing policies in the areas of transparency, accountability and citizen stakeholder participation (and, potentially, integrity – subject to the findings of the forthcoming OECD Integrity Review of Brazil);
Lead the design and implementation of the Open Government Strategy, in case Brazil decides to accept this recommendation (see Chapter 3)
Provide direction to and co-ordinating the implementation of Brazil’s Open Government Strategy;
Provide a forum for dialogue and exchange of good practices between institutions;
Lead and co-ordinate the design and implementation of the OGP Action Plans of Brazil;
Monitor and evaluate the implementation of the Open Government Strategy and of the OGP Action Plan;
Promote Brazil’s open government agenda nationally and internationally; and
Foster the creation of an open government culture in the Brazilian public sector.
The creation of an Open Government Council could be institutionalised through an update of Decree 10.160 from 2019 establishing the National Open Government Policy.
Brazil could create sub-committees of the COGA to focus on specific open government policies
The Open Government Council could have a number of sub-committees, focusing on issues relating to specific processes and substantive priority topics. The sub-committees of the COGA would allow for discussions at an expert/technical level and could be charged with translating the objectives outlined in the Federal Open Government Strategy and other relevant policies, such as the Open Data Policy (see Chapter 3) into concrete actions.
These sub-committees could actively engage the Institutional Open Government Offices Contact Points (proposed in Chapter 3), providing them with a space for policy exchange and dialogue while working on concrete agendas of relevance to their institutions. The sub-committees could also actively involve non-public stakeholders (e.g. civil society organisations, academia, private sector, unions, etc.), whenever relevant. For example, the COGA’s sub-committee on the OGP Action Plan could become the dedicated Multi-Stakeholder Forum, comprised of both public institutions and non-public stakeholders, as recommended by OGP guidelines.
Sub-committees could also be created for thematic areas (such as Access to Information; Open Government and Education; etc.) as well as for specific processes (e.g. legal changes such as the elaboration of an Open Government Law). Italy’s Open Government Forum which has six working groups for specific thematic areas of open government could provide inspiration in this regard (Box 4.3).
Italy established a Forum on Open Government in which 20 public administrations and 54 civil society organizations meet regularly. The Forum, co-ordinated by the Department of Public Administration of the Presidency of Council of Ministers, is open to any new organisation or administration, both central and local, which wants to participate in the development of open government policies or that intends to join the Open Government Partnership (OGP) process. The aim of the Forum on Open Government is to commit civil society organisations (CSOs) and public administrations to a long-term collaboration centred around co-designing the development and co-ordination process for implementing actions detailed in Italy’s OGP National Action Plan. The Minster of Public Administration attends the Forum on a regular basis every six months. The Forum has clustered the thematic areas of open government into six groups: “Transparency”, “Open Data”, “Participation”, “Accountability”, “Digital Citizenship” and “Innovation and Digital skills”. Each of these areas is the focus of a separate Working Group established by the Department of Public Administration, and all are open to Forum participants.
In this way, the Department has created a direct channel between public administrations and civil society organisations, enabling them to have regular meetings (every two to three months) and communicate online. The aim is to give the officials responsible for open government commitments (i.e. actions stipulated in the NAP) the possibility to consult with CSOs about specific questions and obtain their feedback. Additionally, CSOs can monitor the implementation of commitments and provide input and ideas on the development of new open government initiatives.
Source: Open Government Italy (n.d.[7]) Open Government Forum, http://open.gov.it/opengovernmentpartnership/open-government-forum (accessed 25 November 2021).
The creation of the recommended Open Government Council could be an opportunity to reinforce co-ordination and collaboration between levels of government and different branches of the State
In order to foster the move towards an open state and create a space that allows for dialogue and exchange of good practices between branches of power and levels of government, Brazil could also consider inviting actors from the legislature, the judiciary, independent public institutions (e.g. Ministerio Público), as well as subnational governments to become members of the COGA and include them both in the ministerial meetings and in the sub-committees (whenever relevant).
In case Brazil decides not to make public institutions outside of the federal executive branch of government members of the recommended COGA, the country could consider organising regular informal open state meetings within the framework of the COGA. It could be advisable for these open state meetings to take place at the highest possible level in order to generate the necessary buy-in for reforms. Colombia’s and Costa Rica’s Open State Committees (Box 4.4) provide interesting examples of ways to ensure political commitment for the open government agenda across branches of power and levels of government.
Costa Rica
Costa Rica’s National Commission for Open Government (CNGA) – attached to the Ministry of Communication – is institutionally highly diverse and encompassing. Consisting of 11 actors in total, it comprises representatives from 5 Ministries, 4 non-governmental organisations as well as the Judiciary and the Legislative with respectively one seat as observers. The scope of its mandate spans across governmental levels and also includes private entities which offer public service. The Comission’s responsibilities include the OGP process, but go beyond it since they refer to Open Government more broadly. In that respect, the committee proposes policies, guidelines, and strategies, promotes the culture and education of citizens, and coordinates the implementation of open government activities, among others. Its central and integrative function becomes especially clear through its responsibility to support other governmental entities in creating open government legislation, to support “exchange between various actors at the national level to promote Open Government” and “to create synergies and opportunities for cooperation”. To manage this workload, the CNGA possesses sub-committees which support its work. Initially, the corresponding decree establishes sub-committees for Transparency, Participation, Collaboration, Training and Support Systems. But the Commission can decide to change the system of sub-committees as deemed necessary.
Colombia
Members of Colombia’s Open State Committee consist of permanent and non-permanent members. Permanent members are the Secretariat for Transparency, the Administrative Department of Civil Service and the Ministry of Information and Communications Technologies. Non-permanent members are announced every two years and must consist of two public entities at national level, one public entity at sub-national level and four civil society organisations. While the selection procedure has changed over time, the 2021-2023 committee has been selected by a committee of experts and on the basis of inputs by citizens. Thus, the composition signifies a remarkable diversity of actors. Besides a balance between governmental and non-governmental actors, it also includes both national and sub-national levels. The current committee even contains an institution outside the executive power (the Council of State).
The Committee has broad and far-reaching responsibilities. It is heavily involved in the design of the action plans by defining and implementing the associated methodology, providing guidance to participating stakeholders and coordinating the drafting process. Further, it has an important role for monitoring the action plans since it follows-up on the commitments and periodically reports back to the open government community on the implementation progress. A third area of responsibility related to the development of communication strategies on the OGP process and the open government principles.
Source: Presidency of Costa Rica (2015, as amended[8]), Executive Decree No 38994, http://www.pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_texto_completo.aspx?nValor1=1&nValor2=79442; Open Government Partnership Colombia, (2021[9]), What is the Open State committee?, https://agacolombia.org/
The move towards an open government culture of governance (see Chapter 2) involves changes in individual and institutional values, beliefs, norms of conduct, and expectations (OECD, 2021[10]). Recognising that the creation of awareness, knowledge and skills play an important role in fostering a change towards an open government culture, Provision 3 of the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Open Government invites countries to promote “open government literacy3 in the administration, at all levels of government and among stakeholders” (Box 4.1).
Along these lines, the OECD Report Skills for a High Performing Civil Service (2017[11]) introduces a framework for skills needed by today’s public officials. One of the four pillars of this framework highlights that “new skills are required for public officials to effectively engage citizens, crowdsource ideas and co-create better services” (OECD, 2017, p. 9[11]). The framework explicitly recognises that public officials need dedicated resources and trainings to be able to develop an open government culture and work in partnership with civil society stakeholders.
However, the development of open government literacy is not only relevant for public officials. It also requires that citizens and non-public stakeholders are empowered, active, and engaged, and have agency and efficacy, and are able to collaborate and make informed decisions together with public institutions. The open government literacy of non-public stakeholders is strongly linked to the promotion and protection of civic space (see Chapter 5).
This section analyses efforts to foster the open government literacy of both public officials and non-public stakeholders in Brazil. It finds that – while the federal government has established numerous innovative initiatives aiming to promote open government literacy, including handbooks, trainings, videos and games – degrees of awareness, knowledge and skills on open government policies and practices across Brazil continue to differ substantially. These findings are confirmed by the results of the OECD Survey on Open Government Policies and Practices in Brazilian Public Institutions (OECD, 2021[12])according to which a large part of participating stakeholders saw the lack of specialized and well-trained public officials and of responsive and capable non-public stakeholders as a major obstacle to the harmonious implementation of open government policies in Brazil. This section proposes different ways to foster the open government literacy of public and non-public stakeholders, including through the adoption of an integrated Open Government Toolkit and the creation of a community of practice focusing on open government.
Levels of open government literacy vary widely across the Brazilian public sector and society
Results from the peer-driven OECD fact-finding missions highlight that levels of awareness, knowledge and skills on open government principles, policies and practices are unequally distributed across the Brazilian public sector and across non-public stakeholders and the wider society. While the staff of some institutions and some non-public stakeholders have an advanced degree of open government literacy, others have very little knowledge, awareness and skills. For example, Chapter 7 on Transparency finds that Brazil has skilled people working on access to information in some institutions, whereas those of other institutions are much less skilled. Similarly, levels of understanding and skills are unevenly spread between different open government policies and practices. In general terms, open data and transparency literacy seems to be higher than participation literacy. Moreover, common citizens seem to have little to no knowledge about open government policies and practices (see also the dedicated section on Public Communications in this Chapter).
The results of the OECD Public Institutions Survey (OECD, 2021[12]) confirm the findings of the fact-finding mission: 56% of respondents recognised a lack of human and financial resources and 44% of respondents saw the lack of training and guidance for civil servants among the main challenges for the implementation of their institutions’ access to information agendas. Similarly, 56% of respondents identified limited public awareness of citizens, CSOs, journalists, etc. and 32% saw the lack of training and guidance for the public among their main challenges to implement access to information provisions. The Survey shows similar results for policies and practices relating to both citizen and stakeholder participation and accountability: 38% of respondents identified a “lack of training and guidance for civil servants”, 44% saw a “lack of human and financial resources” and 44% of respondents highlighted limited public awareness among their key challenges for participation. As regards accountability, more than 70% of responding institutions identified “limited public awareness” of accountability provisions and 53% feel that there is a “lack of training and guidance for the public”.
The federal government recognises the uneven distribution of open government literacy as one of the main obstacles to the harmonious implementation of open government policies and practices. As detailed in the next sections, the CGU (and other federal government institutions) have taken a variety of initiatives – with differing levels of impact – to ensure that public officials and the wider society move towards an open government culture.
The Government of Brazil, spearheaded by the CGU, has taken important steps to promote open government literacy in recent years
The promotion of awareness, knowledge and skills on those open government policies and practices that are under its purview has been a priority of the CGU for many years and some of the initiatives that it introduced, such as the Open Government Game (Box 4.8) and the CGU’s Knowledge Base (Box 4.5), can be considered international good practices. All of Brazil’s four OGP action plans have included specific commitments targeting the public service’s skills relating to open government. For example, the fourth action plan includes a commitment to “develop collaborative actions in order to disseminate knowledge and map good governmental practices to promote subnational involvement” and a commitment to “establish, in a collaborative way, a reference model for an Open Data Policy that fosters integration, training and awareness between society and the three government levels, starting from a mapping process of social demands”.
The CGU Knowledge Base is a comprehensive repository for knowledge produced or used by the CGU. It is structured around 12 communities (e.g. “the CGU”; “academic publications”; “events”; “manuals”), each of which contains a number of sub-sections. For example, the community focusing on “the CGU” contains the organisational charts and legislation related to the creation, regimental structure and powers of the Comptroller General of the Union. It also contains ample information relating to accountability, such as the Annual Account Audit Reports, as well as documents related to the CGU’s programmes and projects. Along similar lines, the community on “manuals” brings together a wide collection of manuals, booklets, guides, step-by-step instructions and document templates prepared by the different areas of the CGU.
Source: Government of Brazil (2021[13]), Background Report prepared for the OECD Open Government Review of Brazil (unpublished working paper).
The CGU and other federal government institutions have further designed a wide range of trainings and adopted manuals and guidelines in many different areas of open government. Results from the OECD Public Institutions Survey show that these efforts have started spreading across the public sector (Figure 4.4). For example, most public institutions now either offer trainings to their staff or allow them to participate in trainings offered by the CGU or other public institutions, and many public institutions provide guidelines and producing relevant content on open government.
Open government-related skills are already included in the competency frameworks of Brazilian public officials
The vast majority of OECD countries include specific skills relating to open government in public officials’ competency frameworks. Competency frameworks are essential to ensure that public officials have the skills required to put open government principles into practice. As data from the 2020 OECD Survey on Open Government shows (OECD, 2021[4]), 20 out of the 23 OECD countries (87 %) allude to central themes of open government in these frameworks (Figure 4.5). Public values / integrity is most commonly present (86.96%), followed by communication and engagement skills (respectively 73%). Brazil is in line with OECD practice in this regard.
Different guidelines, manuals and toolkits on open government policies and strategies are available to public officials and non-public stakeholders
To raise awareness, create buy-in and build their staff’s and civil society’s open government literacy, most governments across the OECD membership have elaborated guidelines, toolkits and manuals on open government policies and practices (OECD, forthcoming). According to the results of the 2020 OECD Survey on Open Government (OECD, 2021[4]), 29 out of 31 OECD countries (94%) had guidelines on open government data, and 25 OECD countries (81%) had guidelines on citizen and stakeholder participation. Twenty OECD countries (65%) had guidelines on reactive disclosure of information, and 19 (62%) on proactive disclosure. Only eight OECD countries (26%) had guidelines that explicitly focused on the concept of open government (Figure 4.6).
As regards the open government principles of citizen and stakeholder participation, some countries, such as Lithuania and the United Kingdom, have guidelines that raise awareness of the need to target specific groups and stakeholders when relevant (see also Chapter 6 on Participation). Many countries also have guidelines on fostering the participation of specific groups of the population: out of the 28 OECD countries with guidelines on participation, 12 (43%) focus on youth and another 8 (29%) focus on people with disabilities. Respectively four OECD countries (14%) have guidelines focusing on LGBTIQ+ people, minority ethnic groups, elderly people, and women (Figure 4.7).
As visible from Figure 4.6 and Figure 4.7, Brazil is in line with OECD standards when it comes to the availability of written guidance on open government policies and practices. Table 4.2 provides a detailed overview of toolkits, manuals, and guidelines that are available in Brazil.
Data from the OECD Public Institutions Survey confirmed that most of the available written guidance materials are also used by public institutions (Figure 4.8). In particular, more than 90% of the surveyed public institutions make use of available guidelines on proactive and reactive disclosure of information and on open data. While this use of available material by public stakeholders is notable, interviews conducted during the fact-finding missions also highlighted that there is a need to streamline and harmonise. Guidelines are not always fully aligned with each other and public officials face difficulties in identifying the most relevant and up-to-date guidance material. Similarly, little is known about the use of guidelines by non-public stakeholders and citizens, as no data is gathered.
In order to address these challenges, based on Table 4.2, the CGU could conduct a thorough review of all available guidelines, toolkits, and manuals in the different fields of open government. Materials that are not up-to-date could either be updated or discarded. In a second step, as part of the recommended creation of a one-stop-shop Open Government Portal (see below), the CGU could create an easily accessible catalogue of all available guidelines for public officials and non-public stakeholders.
Source: OECD (2021[12]), OECD Survey on Open Government Policies and Practices in Brazilian Public Institutions.
Brazil could consider creating integrated Open Government Toolkits for selected audiences
As part of the move towards a fully integrated open government agenda, the CGU could also consider designing integrated Open Government Toolkits for specific audiences. For example, the CGU, in collaboration with other federal government institutions and non-public stakeholders, could develop a toolkit for public officials that explains the government’s understanding and ambitions and provides an overview of concrete initiatives that any public official can take to foster interactions with citizens and increase his or her institution’s openness. The Toolkit could also include materials and resources (digital platforms, methodologies, etc.) (Lave and Wenger, 1991[14])(Box 4.6). Similarly, the CGU could lead the development of an online Open Government Toolkit for citizens, explaining their rights and providing an overview of avenues for collaboration and interaction with public institutions’.
The OECD’s Toolkit and Case Navigator for Open Government4 provides an overview of available toolkits, manuals, and guidelines on different open government policies around the world.
Open Policy Making toolkit (United Kingdom)
Developed by the UK Cabinet Office, this toolkit provides tools and techniques for policy makers to develop user-centred policies in four stages: diagnosis, discovery, development and delivery.
OGPtoolbox (OGP)
The OGP Toolbox is a collaborative project which currently contains 263 open government cases and provides information about 1445 tools from 651 organisations. This repository of digital tools allows policy-makers to find the suitable tool for their own context and to learn from the experiences of the whole open government community.
bE-Open toolkit on open government (Council of Europe)
With a focus on Armenia, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, and Ukraine, this toolkit aims to support democracy through improved local governance. It provides information about international standards, legislation, guidelines and good practices on four themes: public ethics and accountability, prevention of corruption, transparency, and citizen participation.
Implementing Innovation: A User’s Manual for Open Government Programs (Reboot)
This manual covers an eight-phase process from concept development to implementation for building an open government programme.
Public Participation Guide by the Environmental Protection Agency (USA)
This guide offers tools for public participation and public outreach for governmental agencies. It covers situation assessment, evaluation of the right degree of participation, participation process design and participation tools. Besides, the guide also contains other topics, such as conflict resolution, as well as self-study modules for effective learning.
Freedom of Information (FOI) Essentials for Australian Government agencies and ministers
Tailored to Australian public officials, which need to take decisions on FOI, related matters, this toolkit covers everything in relation to access to information in Australia from its importance to democracy to the concrete application of the Freedom of Information Act. Each section contains links leading to more extensive information and guidance across governmental websites, such as the 12 tops for good FOI practice.
Canada’s Do-it-Yourself Open Data Toolkit
This manual provides a step-by-step guide on how to develop and implement an open data initiative. It brings together training materials, best practices, and tools. It is primarily targeted at municipalities which are inexperienced in open data but it can equally serve every organisation wishing to initiate an open data project.
OGPtoolbox (OGP)
The OGP Toolbox is a collaborative project. Currently, it contains 263 open government cases and provides information about 1445 tools from 651 organisations. This repository of digital tools illustrated by real initiatives allows policy-makers to find the suitable tool for their own context and to learn from the experiences of the whole open government community.
bE-Open toolkit on open government (Council of Europe)
With a focus on Armenia, Georgia, the Republic of Moldova, and Ukraine, this toolkit aims to support democracy through improved local governance. It provides information about international standards, legislation, guidelines and good practices on four themes: public ethics and accountability, prevention of corruption, transparency, and citizen participation.
Implementing Innovation: A User’s Manual for Open Government Programs (Reboot)
This manual covers an eight-phase process from concept development to implementation for building an open government program. It builds on experiences of an innovation unit within the Office of the Presidency of Mexico to provide actionable advice for public servants.
Source: UK Cabinet Office (2017[15]), Open Policy Making toolkit, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/open-policy-making-toolkit; US Environmental Protection Agency (n.d.[16]), Public Participation Guide, https://www.epa.gov/international-cooperation/public-participation-guide; Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (n.d.[17]), FOI Essentials for Australian Government agencies and ministers, https://www.oaic.gov.au/s/foi-essentials/; Government of Canada (2019[18]), Do-it-Yourself Open Data Toolkit, https://open.canada.ca/en/toolkit/diy; OGP (n.d.[19]), OGPtoolbox, https://ogptoolbox.org/de/; Council of Europe (n.d.[20]), bE-Open: Open Local Government, https://www.beopen-congress.eu/en/; Reboot (n.d.[21]), Implementing Innovation: A User’s Manual for Open Government Programs, https://implementinginnovation.org/manual/
The GoB offers a range of trainings on open government policies and practices
The provision of trainings, information sessions and capacity-building events is another way of ensuring that public officials and non-public stakeholders embody open government principles and increase their levels of open government literacy. According to results of the 2020 OECD Survey on Open Government (OECD, 2021[4]), most governments across the OECD propose specific trainings on different open government policies and practices to their staff. For example, twenty-six out of 34 OECD countries surveyed (81%) provide training on access to information, and 22 (69%) on open government data. Twenty of the OECD countries (63%) have training on citizen and stakeholder participation. Nine OECD countries (28%) have training on open government as an integrated concept (e.g. explaining what open government means)5. Brazil is in line with OECD practice, also offering trainings in all of these areas (Figure 4.9)
While trainings for public officials are common practice in OECD countries nowadays, preliminary data shows that governments make fewer efforts to foster the open government literacy of non-public stakeholders through trainings (Figure 4.10). Only slightly more than half of OECD countries that responded (17) provide some sort of training related to open government for non-public stakeholders. Most commonly, these trainings cover open government data as well as access to information. The remaining 15 countries did not offer trainings for non-public stakeholders.
The most important available trainings and courses on open government policies and practices in Brazil include (see also Table 4.3 for a detailed overview):
The Directorate for Transparency and Social Control of the CGU (in partnership with the Federal University of Goiás) has prepared an online training environment on different open government policies and practices. All of the courses are available for free and can be taken by both public officials and non-public stakeholders (most of them are targeting public officials though). In addition to courses focusing on the CGU’s core mandate (e.g. access to information), the catalogue includes a 20-hour course that is specifically dedicated to the concept of open government.
Since 2014, the CGU and the Ministry of Economy jointly organise annual trainings for public officials focused on the implementation of the Access to Information Law. These trainings aim to promote cooperation and exchange of knowledge and experiences among Citizen Information Services (SICs) of the Federal Executive Branch, States, Municipalities and Autonomous Social Services (see also Chapter 7).
The CGU’s “Live Ethics Program” (Etica viva) is aimed at CGU's internal public and seeks to encourage the conduct of public officials to be in line with the CGU’s own institutional values. The programme consists of events and dissemination activities that aim to ensure that each staff member is aligned with the institution’s mission of promoting transparency, improving public management and preventing and combating corruption.
Brazil’s National School for the Public Administration (ENAP) offers a range of courses on relevant subjects, including through a virtual school which includes distance trainings for both public officials and non-public stakeholders. The virtual school contains more than 250 courses, including a course on open government that is offered by the Technological University of Delft and that is certified by ENAP, once completed.
The Ouvidoria’s Continuing Education Program “Profoco” (Programa de Formação Continuada) offers different learning opportunities for those interested in ombudsman activities and accountability. While the programme primarily targets Ouvidorias and their staff, it is open to any interested stakeholder (see also Chapter 7 on Transparency).
Brazil could offer a mandatory introductory training on open government and create a single training catalogue
While the offer of trainings and courses on open government policies and practices in Brazil is impressive, interviews conducted for this OGR highlighted that more could be done to increase the trainings’ impact and transform public officials into real agents of change. Many public officials are not aware of available courses and trainings and, even if they know that trainings exist, they rarely have time to take them. In order to address these challenges, Brazil could consider including a dedicated course on open government in mandatory training requirements for all newly hired public officials to introduce them to the concept.
Brazil could further consider creating a single training catalogue that lists all trainings on open government policies and practices that are offered by different public institutions and that are available for public officials. This training catalogue could be added to the CGU’s online training environment and be included in the recommended one-stop-shop Open Government Portal (see below).
Brazil could consider creating an Open Government Community of Practice
Some countries across the OECD have started creating communities of practice on open government policies to exchange good practices and facilitate the sharing of resources and experiences (Box 4.7). A community of practice can be defined as a group of people that “share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly" (Lave and Wenger, 1991[14]).
In order to move towards the creation of a community of practice on open government, the government of Brazil could consider setting up an Open Government Network, bringing together public officials and non-public stakeholders that are interested in open government topics and / or have participated in trainings on open government policies and practices. The network could be animated by the CGU, in collaboration with the newly created open government offices / contact points (see Chapter 3), through a dedicated online space. In addition to being a platform for dialogue, learning and sharing of good practices, the open government network could provide the CGU with an effective informal co-ordination tool.
In an ideal case, the network would also involve non-public stakeholders such as civil society leaders as well as representatives from academia, the private sector, and trade unions. To foster the move towards an open state approach, Brazil could also consider inviting stakeholders from subnational governments, representatives from the judiciary as well as representatives from the legislature. The communities of practice on open government created by the United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) and the United States Federal Government provide interesting examples in this regard (Box 4.7).
US OpenGov Community of Practice
The United States Government established a series of communities of practices across the Federal Government to collaborate and share resources on different policy areas. The Open Government Community of Practice is a digital space and a network where civil servants across government can discuss about open government related initiatives and practices. The Open Government community consists of government employees and civil society members working in the field of Open Government to share best practices to promote transparency, participation, and collaboration, and advocate for opening government information. This type of communities allow for a continuous exchange of information, peer learning, it supports co-ordination and collaboration across government.
UCLG Community of Practice on Transparency and Open Government
The United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG) Community of Practice on Transparency and Open Government was created with the objectives of supporting peer-to-peer learning, networking, awareness-raising and capacity building on open government and public integrity at local level and promoting the role of local and regional governments in the development and promotion of practices of transparency, participation and accountability for the achievement of sustainable cities and territories. The Community of Practice is constituted by a group of local and regional governments, as well as experts, academics and public institutions and representatives of international city networks interested in discussing and advancing joint solutions, learning opportunities and exchange of public policies on issues of Open Government. It is co-ordinated by the Spanish Federation of Municipalities and Provinces (FEMP) with the support of the Open Government Partnership and the United Nations Human Settlement Program (UN-Habitat).
Hub of communities working on State modernisation in France
The Inter-Ministerial Directorate for Public Transformation has put in place a digital hub to install the communities of practice related to state modernisation, including open government. With more than 50 communities, the hub allows all public officials to discover and join the communities that interest them, according to a topics of interest (participation, digital services, collective intelligence, design thinking etc.) or a geographical area.
Sources: US General Services Administration (2021[22]), OpenGov Community, https://digital.gov/communities/open-gov/; United Cities and Local Governments (n.d.[23]), About the Community, https://opengov.uclg.org/en/community-practice; Interministerial Directorate of Public Sector Transformation (n.d.[24]), Public sector transformation communities, https://www.modernisation.gouv.fr/boite-outils/communautes-de-la-transformation-publique
The government of Brazil has developed innovative tools such as videos and games to foster open government literacy of non-public stakeholders
The government of Brazil has also developed a range of innovative tools to foster the open government literacy of non-public stakeholders and involve them in the open government agenda. While many of them do not explicitly focus on open government, they touch upon the open government principles in one way or another. Existing good practices in Brazil include:
The interactive Open Government Game (Jogo de Governo Aberto) aims to disseminate the concept of open government and its benefits. It allows players to discover how collaboration between government and society can achieve a more open government (Box 4.8).
“One for All and All for One” (Um por todos e todos por um! Pela ética e cidadania) is a programme for students that was developed by the CGU in partnership with the Instituto Maurício de Sousa. Structured around comic characters, the programme uses comics, videos, books, apps, etc. to inform children about practices relating to ethics, citizenship, transparency and citizen participation. In the space of two years, the programme’s videos have reached over 9 million views on YouTube ( (Government of Brazil, 2021[13])).
The Citizenship’s Game (Game da Cidadania) is a virtual game developed by the CGU. It exposes youth between 11 and 17 years to situations in which their ethics and citizenship skills are put to test. It allows users to create their own videos on the subjects discussed and compete for prizes (see also Chapter 6 on Participation).
The National Essays and Drawings contest is a competition that engage students in discussions around open government topics (changing each year). It awards prizes for the three best works in each school year. Around 800,000 students participate in the competition each year (Government of Brazil, 2021[13])
The Dialogues on Social Control (Diálogos em Controle Social) are an activity organised by the CGU to convene specialists from civil society and government organisations to discuss topics related to transparency and social control (see Chapter 6 and Chapter 7).
The CGU produced several videos on the Access to Information Law to disseminate information on this right (see Chapter 7 on Transparency). The videos present key aspects of the law, such as: where and how to request information, how to proceed in case of denied access, what can be requested, tips on how to ask and what is the Access to Information Law (Government of Brazil, 2021[13]).
The Open Government Game, designed by the Office of the Comptroller General of the Union (CGU), Fast Food Politics and the Open Government Institute (IGA), intends to show how the concept of open government can become a reality and materializes into concrete practices,
The Game was built in order to spread the principles, practices and policies associated with open government and. It seeks to demonstrate how important collaboration between government and society is to achieve a more open government. As it is a collaborative game, players need to unite to be able to form tracks composed of fundamental principles: Social Participation, Transparency and Accountability.
The game was designed for different audiences and can be used on different occasions such as trainings and awareness-building campaigns for public officials, citizens, and students. It is an open educational resource allowing any person or institution to use and reuse the game. The Game is available both in a freely downloadable physical and in a digital version (online).
Source: CGU (n.d.[25]), Jogo de Governo Aberto, https://www.gov.br/cgu/pt-br/governo-aberto/central-de-conteudos/jogo-de-governo-aberto.
The CGU could consider creating an Open Government Award
In order to stimulate more ambitious reforms and provide incentives to public officials and non-public stakeholders, the GoB could consider creating an annual Open Government Award (Prêmio de Governo Aberto, PREGA). The PREGA could be awarded to employees and non-public stakeholders (e.g. citizens, civil society organisations, academics, etc.) that have significantly enhanced the openness of the state through their actions or that have a proposal for an idea that will enhance openness (e.g. by simplifying an administrative procedure, etc.). The PREGA could be awarded by the CGU and could include recognition of good practices at the subnational level of government and in the other branches of the state. The Open Government Award of San Luis Potosí can provide inspiration to Brazil (Box 4.9).
The objective of the Open Government Award of the Government of San Luis Potosí in Mexico is to promote and recognise initiatives of civil society stakeholders and of institutions of the public administration which have allowed for more effective citizen participation, strengthened transparency and / or the government’s capacity to be accountable. Participation is open to any institution and citizen with an interest in open government, such as NGOs, Academics, and Public Administration from both State and Municipal level. Participants need to either design and submit an open government initiative or, in the case of government officials, nominate the existing public institution’s one. To support the creation of proposals, participants can rely on guiding material which outlines the requirements in detail. Proposals are collected in a dedicated award portal, before a group of experts evaluates them based on eight pre-defined criteria. The two winning proposals are not only recognised with cash prices and a framed acknowledgement signed by the Governor of State. They also have a real chance of being implemented since they are included in the Open Government Project Data Bank, which collects and promotes high-potential initiatives.
Source: Government of the State of San Luis Potosí, (2020[26]), San Luis Potosí Award for Open Government, https://www.premiosanluisgobiernoabierto.org/convocatoria/
The GoB could make use of TIME Brasil to foster open government literacy at all levels of government
Brazil’s federal nature means that the federal executive branch has to rely on soft means to convince subnational governments to adopt ambitious open government reforms. The implementation Chapters of this Review (Chapters 6-8) identify the uneven implementation of different open government policies as one of the main challenges Brazil faces in creating an open government culture across the whole country. For example, Chapter 7 on Transparency finds numerous implementation gaps in terms of both proactive and reactive disclosure of public information and data in states and municipalities.
To counter this challenge, the CGU created the TIME Brasil programme in 2019 support states and municipalities in fostering public governance in different areas. The programme contains three axes that focus on some of the most relevant open government policies:
The integrity axis aims to substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all its forms;
The transparency axis aims to develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels;
The participation axis aims to ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.
Participation in the programme is on a voluntary basis. To adhere, subnational government have to 1) conduct a self-assessment of their level of maturity on each dimension according to a matrix; 2) designate a working group to monitor implementation; and 3) sign a high-level adhesion to the programme (CGU, n.d.[27]).
The implementation Chapters of this Review (Chapters 6-8) identify different opportunities to leverage the full potential of the TIME programme, including by using it to increase the use of the Fala.BR platform (see Chapter 7). In the medium to long term, TIME could become the main entry point for capacity-building relating to all open government principles. In line with the suggested integrated open government approach, Brazil could consider explicitly branding TIME as an open government programme and include additional core open government elements, such as open government data, open budgeting and open contracting among its axes.
Given their multidimensional and cross-cutting nature, open government policies are inherently difficult to monitor and evaluate (OECD, 2019[28]). Notwithstanding this complexity, the necessity of being able to prove the positive impacts of open government reforms, including a more concrete understanding of their dynamics and effects, has made monitoring and evaluation (M&E) particularly relevant (OECD, 2019[28]). Solid M&E mechanisms can help ensure that policies are achieving their intended goals; contribute to the identification of policy design and implementation barriers; and orient policy choices by building on past experiences. M&E is also instrumental to initiating changes and communicating policy results in a timely and accessible manner (OECD, 2019[28]). Last but not least, by feeding into further policy design, M&E results can improve policy effectiveness and value for money (OECD, 2016[29]). In its consideration of the overall relevance of M&E, the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Open Government accords substantial importance to the monitoring and evaluation of open government strategies and initiatives (Box 4.10).
The creation of more solid M&E systems for open government is a challenge faced by many OECD Member and Partner countries. Data collected through the 2020 OECD Survey on Open Government suggests that – for the time being – most countries only monitor the implementation of their OGP action plans and collect limited data and evidence on the broader effects of open government initiatives (OECD, forthcoming[5]). Evaluations are still mostly conducted on an ad hoc basis, if at all.
Building upon Provision 5 of the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Open Government (OECD, 2017[2]), this section assesses Brazil’s efforts to monitor and evaluate open government strategies. It finds that Brazil has developed advanced mechanisms to monitor the implementation of different open government policies and that the monitoring system around the OGP action plan is well established. It further finds that Brazil has a relatively weak evaluation culture in the field of open government and that there is a need to develop a clearer understanding of causal effects relating to open government reforms. The section provides recommendations to assist Brazil in the creation of a monitoring and evaluation system that is suitable to an integrated open government agenda, including by proposing the development of Open Government Maturity Models and a long-term move towards outcome and impact indicators in this field.
Notwithstanding their complementarity, monitoring and evaluation are two different practices, with different dynamics and goals. Policy monitoring refers to a continuous function that uses systematic data collection on specific indicators to provide policy makers and stakeholders with information regarding the progress and achievements of an ongoing public policy initiative and/or the use of allocated funds (OECD, 2018[30]; OECD, 2016[29]). Monitoring contributes to planning and operational decision-making, as it provides evidence to measure performance and can help to raise specific questions in order to identify implementation delays or bottlenecks. It can also strengthen accountability related to the use of resources, the efficiency of internal management processes or the outputs of a given policy initiatives (OECD, 2017[31]).
Policy evaluation refers to the structured and objective assessment of the design, implementation and/or results of a future, ongoing or completed policy initiative. The aim is to determine the relevance and fulfilment of policy objectives, as well as to assess dimensions such as public policies’ efficiency, effectiveness, impact or sustainability. As such, policy evaluation refers to the process of determining the worth or significance of a policy (OECD, 2018[30]; OECD, 2016[29]). It serves three main purposes. It fosters learning by helping policy makers to understand why and how a policy was successful or not. Consequently, it contributes to strategic decision-making, by providing insights into how to improve the links between policy decisions and outcomes. Lastly, policy evaluation promotes accountability, as it provides citizens and a broad range of stakeholders – such as journalists and academics – with information on whether efforts carried out by the government, including the financial resources mobilised for them, are producing the expected results (OECD, 2017[31]). Therefore, while policy monitoring is descriptive and an important (but not exclusive) source of information that can be used within the context of an evaluation, policy evaluation is a different activity that seeks to analyse and understand cause-effect links between a policy intervention and its results.
Source: OECD (2019[28]), Open Government in Argentina, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1988ccef-en.
The CGU is responsible for monitoring the implementation of different open government policies and practices
As outline by the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Open Government, the institutionalisation of monitoring and evaluation requires the identification of dedicated “institutional actors to be in charge of collecting and disseminating up-to-date and reliable information and data in an open format”. In Brazil, the mandate of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Union includes explicit references to the institution’s role in monitoring and evaluating key open government policies and practices. In particular:
Decree 10.160 from 2019 which establishes the National Open Government Policy highlights that the General Comptroller of the Union has the responsibility to “periodically monitor and evaluate the implementation of national action plans on open government, under the guidance of the [Interministerial Open Government] Committee”;
Decree 7.724 from 2012 which regulates the law on access to information (Law 12,527 from 2011) specifies in its article 68 that the CGU is responsible for monitoring the Access to Information Law within the scope of the federal Executive Branch.
Decree 8.777 from 2016 which institutes the Federal Executive Branch's Open Data Policy establishes, in its article 10, that the CGU is responsible for its monitoring.
The CGU has made use of this mandate to create several monitoring mechanisms for those open government policies that are under its purview.
Brazil gathers ample data and information on the implementation of open government policies and practices
In Brazil, like in most OECD countries, there is currently no integrated system to monitor the openness of the federal government. However, different monitoring tools and mechanisms focusing on specific policies and practices that contribute to openness, such as access to information, open government data and public sector integrity, are available (Table 4.4).
In particular, the existing system to monitor the implementation of the transparency agenda (and the implementation of Brazil’s access to information law) is well advanced, as discussed in details in Chapter 6 on Transparency. Most notably, the Access to Information Panel presents an overview of the implementation of the access to information law in the federal executive branch. It includes data and information on the number of requests; compliance with deadlines; applicant profiles; types of responses; user satisfaction with the responses received; number of requests per institutions; etc. The Access to Information Panel also includes data on public institutions’ compliance with proactive disclosure measures. The data are extracted from the Fala-BR platform (see below). Furthermore, the CGU created the Transparent Brazil Scale (Escala Brasil Transparente, EBT) to monitor the compliance of Brazilian states and municipalities with transparency obligations. Based on the information gathered through these mechanisms, the CGU prepares weekly reports on the Federal Access to Information Law. These reports provide statistics on requests and resources.
Online panels (paineis) are also used to monitor the implementation of other open government policies and practices across the federal government. In addition to the Access to Information Panel, the CGU has created an Integrity Panel and an Open Data Panel. The Open Data Panel presents an overview of open data in the federal executive branch and serves to monitor compliance with the Open Data Policy. It also allows stakeholders to check already published databases, publication schedules. Along similar lines, the Public Integrity Panel presents an overview of public ethics in the federal executive branch. The tool, for example, allows stakeholders to access information on the implementation of the mandatory integrity programmes of federal public institutions.
While monitoring is not a primary function of the CGU’s fala.br platform, it also provides important information on reactive disclosure of information, as well as citizens’ complains, compliments, suggestions, and petitions directed at the federal government. For example, the platform allows citizens to download data on requests for access to information and the profile of applicants.
As further discussed in Chapter 6 on Participation, Brazil does currently not have an integrated system to gather data and information and monitor the implementation of the citizen and stakeholder participation agenda of Brazil. The Participa + Brasil platform only provides information about existing participatory mechanisms, including National Councils, Committees, Commissions, and Forums but data on types and number of participatory processes and their outcomes is currently not available at federal level.
The federal government could consider creating an integrated Open Government Panel
As part of an effort to create a more integrated open government ecosystem, the GoB could consider creating an Open Government Panel, as a one-stop-shop for all information and data gathered on different open government policies and practices. In addition to integrating the existing panels on access to information, open government data and integrity, the Open Government Panel could also include specific sections on participatory practices and accountability mechanisms (such as the feedback and complaint mechanisms currently available through the fala.BR platform). Ultimately, the Open Government Panel could become a source of information for the M&E efforts relating to the implementation of the Federal Open Government Strategy.
To the extent possible, the Open Government Panel could also include information about policies and practices at the subnational level (e.g. whether or not states have an open data portal; the data included; etc.) and in the other branches of the state. This could enable public institutions across the whole system to measure and compare their own performance.
Brazil has established a solid system to monitor the implementation of the OGP action plan
The monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of countries’ OGP action plans usually takes place through the OGP’s monitoring mechanisms, consisting of the independent reporting mechanism (IRM) and the self-assessment reports (Box 4.11). While these reports provide useful inputs to the OGP process, they do not (and do not aim to) allow for the monitoring and evaluation of the wider open government agenda. Both the IRM reports and the self-assessment reports only focus on elements relating to the action plan (e.g. How inclusive was the co-creation process? What is the transformative potential of the commitments? Etc.).
Self-assessment report: During the two-year National Action Plan (NAP) cycle, governments will produce yearly self-assessment reports. In order to minimise the administrative burden, the two self-assessment reports will have similar content to one another, differing primarily in terms of the time period covered. The mid-term self-assessment should focus on the development of the NAP, the consultation process, the relevance and ambitiousness of the commitments, and progress to date. The end-of-term self-assessment should focus on the results of the reforms completed in the NAP, consultation during implementation and lessons learned. The development of the self-assessment reports must include a two-week public consultation period, as stipulated in the OGP Guidelines.
Independent reporting mechanism: The Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) is a key means by which all stakeholders can track OGP progress in participating countries. The IRM produces annual independent progress reports for each country participating in the Open Government Partnership. The reports assess governments on the development and implementation of OGP Action Plans, track their progress in fulfilling open government principles, and make technical recommendations for improvements. These reports are intended to stimulate dialogue and promote accountability between member governments and citizens.
Source: OGP (n.d.[32]), “Self-Assessment Process”, www.opengovpartnership.org/how-it-works/self-assessment-process (accessed January 2019); OGP (n.d.[33]), “IRM Reports” (accessed January 2019).
In addition to the M&E activities conducted through the IRM and the mandatory self-assessment reports, Brazil has created its own system to track the implementation of the commitments included in the action plan. Each commitment coordinator has to prepare an Execution Status Report (CSR) every two months. Every three months, the CGU organises a monitoring meeting for every commitment, as well as a general meeting with all commitments coordinators (every six months). These monitoring meetings may also involve civil society stakeholders through the Civil Society’s Advisory Working Group (see above).
The CGU’s Open Government Portal serves as the main mechanism to display the information collected through the monitoring meetings and the CSRs. For each commitment, the Portal provides information on associated milestones; the percentage of execution of each milestone; commitment-related information and documents; as well as the minutes of the monitoring meetings of each commitment (see Figure 4.11 for an example).
Source: CGU (2021[34]), Governo Aberto e Clima - Monitoramento e Execução, https://www.gov.br/cgu/pt-br/governo-aberto/a-ogp/planos-de-acao/4o-plano-de-acao-brasileiro/compromisso-9-docs/governo-aberto-e-clima-monitoramento-e-execucao
While this tracking system is instrumental for the CGU to oversee the implementation of the OGP action plan, in most of the cases the information only allows users to ascertain whether or not an activity / process took place (e.g. Was the event organised?). The system does not involve systematic data collection to assess performance (e.g. by tracking the resources used to implement an activity or its results) or outcomes and impacts. Interviews conducted for this OGR confirmed that Brazil’s OGP monitoring system is currently mainly used for reporting, rather than as a tool for planning or decision-making. In addition, Brazil’s OGP monitoring system operates in isolation from wider government monitoring systems (e.g. those relating to the implementation of the PPA or the monitoring of the presidential priorities steered by Casa Civil).
Assessing the outcomes and impact of open government policies and practices is a challenge that Brazil shares with many OECD member countries
Assessing the outcomes and impacts of policies related to open government is a relatively new area of interest among policy makers and researchers and a shared challenge across OECD countries (OECD, 2019[28]). For the time being, Brazil has not conduct any holistic assessments to understand the effects that open government reforms have had on citizens’ trust in public institutions, fighting corruption, economic growth, political efficacy, etc. Evidence of impact is mostly anecdotal. For example, it is known that data provided in the Transparency Portal has served to reduce spending through government credit cards and make student financing more inclusive and effective (see Chapter 7).
Recognising that the development of robust and relevant output, outcome, and impact indicators for open government policies and practices is a complex endeavour, the government of Brazil could implement specific initiatives to gradually work towards this goal. This section presents a roadmap for Brazil to develop tools for an M&E system that is suitable for an integrated open government agenda and that will ultimately allow the government to be able to assess the impact of open government reforms.
The CGU could lead the development of open government maturity models
A maturity model is a reference instrument for assessing an entity's transition towards a given objective during a given period (OECD, forthcoming[35]). Maturity models are increasingly being developed in different areas of public governance, including in the field of open government, recognising that Open Government Maturity Models can be a useful tool to allow public institutions to assess and monitor core elements of their open government ecosystem. In particular, Open Government Maturity Models can:
Set a baseline standard of what good practices in the field of open government looks like;
Allow public institutions to assess their levels of openness at a given point in time and identify where they are situated in relation to national good practice.
Allow building a coherent and flexible trajectory towards high levels of maturity, adaptable to the situation of each public institution;
Show the stages of this progression and the necessary achievements that at each stage are useful and consolidate the passage into the subsequent stages
Allow for comparison between public institutions within a defined framework;
In order to be useful, Open Government Maturity Models need to be based on a shared understanding of what different stages of openness in a public institution look like. This implies finding an answer to the questions When can a public institution be considered fully open? What does being closed imply?. In order to be able to answer these questions, Open Government Maturity Models should be based on a clear theory of change and coupled with indicators, targets and benchmarks (see below).
The development of maturity models for open government needs to be a collaborative effort, involving both public institutions and non-public stakeholders and the models should be tested with public institutions prior to its use. In the case of Brazil, the creation of Open Government Maturity Models could go hand-in-hand with the design of the recommended Federal Open Government Strategy (the development of maturity models will be particularly relevant, in case Brazil decides to accept the recommendation to mandate the adoption of Institutional Open Government Plans, see Chapter 3). Once designed, the CGU could consider publishing the maturity results of each public institution on the Open Government Portal (see below) and the Open Government Panel (see above) in order to foster transparency and generate healthy competition.
Brazil could develop a theory of change to ultimately move towards indicators that measure outcomes and impacts of open government reforms
The creation of an integrated open government ecosystem as discussed in Chapter 3 requires the development of comparable indicators to monitor and evaluate implementation of reforms. Indicators are a key input for analytical work that informs policy recommendations and policy making (OECD, 2011[36]). In the area of public governance, input, process and output indicators usually measure activities that the public sector can control (e.g. the design and implementation of a policy), while outcome and impact indicators measure the short and long-term effects of these activities (e.g. their economic, social and political effects) (Lafortune, Gonzalez and Lonti, 2017[37]).
In Brazil, like in all OECD Member Countries, the implementation of open government reforms is today monitored mainly through the use of process and output indicators that are included in panels or associated with the milestones of OGP action plan commitments. For example, the OGP monitoring system mentioned above only assesses whether a planned meeting took place; whether a specific regulation was issued; or whether a specific platform was created. While these indicators are useful to measure activity progress, they cannot assess whether a policy initiative is delivering the expected results (OECD, 2019[28]). Moreover, these indicators are useful primarily for internal management purposes, but do not offer much added value to external stakeholders, such as citizens (Lafortune, Gonzalez and Lonti, 2017[37]; OECD, 2020[1]; OECD, 2017[38])
In order to be able to assess whether open government reforms ultimately deliver on their objectives, the government of Brazil could consider moving towards the development of dedicated outcome and impact indicators. As a first step, Brazil could consider designing a theory of change for open government initiatives. A theory of change is a “description of the cascade of cause and effect leading from an intervention to its desired effects” (OECD, 2014[39]). A theory of change not only shows the relationship between resources, activities, outputs and outcomes; it also takes into consideration environmental complexity (things that the intervention cannot control), works to highlight the different paths that might lead to change, and describes how and why a change is expected to happen (OECD, 2019[28]).
Once developed, the theory of change could be applied to all new open government initiatives and it could be integrated into the Open Government Maturity Models, discussed above. The practical use of the theory of change approach will allow Brazil to gain a deeper understanding of the effects that open government initiatives are having. Over time, the data and evidence gathered may then enable Brazil to come up with robust outcome and impact indicators. The CGU’s recommended Secretariat for Open Government could be in charge of training and assisting the different institutions in using a theory of change approach in the development of their open government initiatives.
The process to design these indicators and the theory of change could take place within the context of the design and implementation of the Federal Open Government Strategy, recommended in Chapter 3. It will require the involvement of all key public and non-public stakeholders, including the Public Policy Monitoring and Evaluation Council (CMAP), the National Statistics Office as well as academics and civil society organisations. Mexico’s experience in developing baseline indicators on open government (Box 4.12) provides an interesting example that can inspire Brazil.
Mexico’s Open Government Metrics were developed by the Centre for Economic Research and Teaching (CIDE), and were based on an initiative of the National Institute for Transparency, Access to Information and Personal Data Protection (INAI). The metrics are designed as a baseline to measure the current state of the National System of Transparency, Access to Information and Protection of Personal Data (SNT) and its open government and transparency policies. Aiming to be an “x-ray of the starting point of the open government policy of the Mexican State” at the national and subnational level, its focus goes beyond measuring the compliance with regulations, and aims to capture performance information on the outcomes of open government and transparency policies from the perspective of both government and citizens.
The metrics start with an operational definition of open government structured around two dimensions: transparency and public participation. Each dimension is approached from two perspectives: government and citizens.
The CIDE team developed an Open Government Index, consisting of measurements of transparency and participation from the perspective of both government and citizens. The construction of these indexes involved the analysis of existing regulations, a review of government websites, and user simulations, including information requests. The Metrics survey included a sample of 908 governmental bodies at the national and subnational level; 754 portals were reviewed and 3 635 requests for information were sent. The resulting Open Government Index of Mexico was 0.39 (on a scale of 0 to 1). The index showed that the transparency dimension has a much higher value (0.50) than the participation dimension (0.28).
Source: INAI (2017[40]), Resultados Edición 2017, http://eventos.inai.org.mx/metricasga/index.php/descargables (accessed 11 January 2019).
Brazil could include specific provision on M&E in the recommended Federal Open Government Strategy
If Brazil decides to adopt the recommendation to design a Federal Open Government Strategy (see Chapter 3), its implementation needs to be systematically monitored and, eventually, evaluated. Monitoring could, for example, be done through an integrated monitoring system, available on the CGU’s Open Government Portal. The system should allow public and non-public stakeholders to track strategy implementation on a day-to-day basis.
The government of Brazil could also consider establishing provisions for systematic monitoring and evaluation in the Federal Open Government Strategy itself, as it is a recurrent practice across OECD countries. The Strategy could, for example, include a specific section dedicated to monitoring, detailing institutional responsibilities, mechanism to be used, frequency of monitoring, and including a template for monitoring reports, etc. Along similar lines, the Strategy could include provisions for undertaking evaluations, including standards, templates, frequency, stakeholder engagement, evaluator profiles, and the budget for evaluations.
Lastly, the strategy could provide a mandate to the CGU to develop a specific annual M&E plan for the Federal Open Government Strategy. The Open Government Council, recommended above, could serve as an institutional platform to follow up and discuss progress on the strategic goals in a systematic manner. Meanwhile, the Secretariat for Open Government of the CGU could be responsible for ensuring the monitoring of the strategy.
Provision 6 of the OECD Recommendation of the Council on Open Government stipulates that countries should “actively communicate on open government strategies and initiatives, as well as on their outputs, outcomes and impacts, in order to ensure that they are well-known within and outside government, to favour their uptake, as well as to stimulate stakeholder buy-in” (OECD, 2017[2]). Public communication is a key lever of government that can be deployed both internally (across and within public entities) and externally (with the broader public) and serve as a tool of policy implementation and service design and delivery. It implies a two-way relationship that allows understanding, listening and responding to citizens.
Effective public communication remains one of the main challenges that OECD Member and Partner Countries face in implementing successful open government reforms (OECD, forthcoming[41]). Similarly, in Brazil, 38% of respondents to the OECD Public Institutions Survey recognised limited awareness of public officials/government bodies among their main challenges, indicating that the effectiveness of communication on open government policies and practices should be improved.
This section discusses the ways in which the government of Brazil communicates around open government reforms, both within government and with stakeholders. Recognising that public communication is a wide field, the section focuses on the use of portals and websites as communication tools. A more exhaustive analysis of internal and external communication around open government reforms can be found in the Chapter on Public Communication for better Policies and a more Open Government in Brazil which is included in the OECD Centre of Government Review of Brazil (OECD, forthcoming[42]). The present section should be read in conjunction with this Chapter.
The GoB has created a variety of websites on open government policies and practices
Websites and portals are among the most common tools used by OECD Member and Partner countries to communicate around open government reforms (OECD, 2021[43]). Most importantly, websites and portals can serve as a means to publicise relevant information and engage with a broad variety of audiences, circumventing possible time or distance constraints. Generally, one can differentiate between government-wide portals and institution or policy-specific websites. Government-wide portals centralise information and interaction channels across government. They have the advantage of facilitating the identification of the relevant websites and thereby reducing searching costs for information or services. On the other hand, institution or policy-specific portals are more easily to adapt to specific circumstances and therefore may have a better fit for the website’s objectives.
Over the past years, Brazil has established multiple portals and websites on open government policies and practices. The most important government-wide portals and websites at the level of the federal government include:
The Open Government Website, managed by the CGU, constitutes the main entry point for information about Brazil’s participation in the OGP. It displays information on the current and past OGP action plans, and provides an online tracker on commitment implementation (see above). The website also serves as an information hub on open government beyond the OGP. Users can, for example, find information on the main laws and regulations dealing with open government, as well as relevant trainings and the Open Government Game (see above).
The Fala.BR portal is an integrated Ombudsman and Access to Information Platform created by the CGU that allow citizens and stakeholders to engage with the government in multiple ways. As the main management system for reactive disclosure of information, Fala.BR allows user to file a request, get information on the treatment of their request and, if necessary, appeal a decision (see also Chapter 7). Fala.BR also functions as a tool to channel citizens’ views and inputs on government services more broadly. Citizens can for example provide their feedback on services, and lodge a formal complaint if there is alleged wrong-doing by the administration (see also Chapter 8).
The Transparency Portal, managed by the CGU, enables the public to monitor the use of public resources. Integrating 32 government databases, the accessible information includes data on spending, transfers to sub-national levels, revenues, public servants’ salaries, travels and per diems, procurement processes and contracts, benefits paid to citizens, government credit card spending, public servants expelled from the government, among others (see also Chapter 7 on Transparency). The portal uses interactive visualisations, support options, and search tools to facilitate accessibility and re-use of data. In case citizens or stakeholders identify a wrongdoing, the portal provides information for citizens to make complaints or claims against any federal body through Fala.BR Since mid-2018, the portal had an average of approx. 1.2 million monthly users.
The Open Data Portal managed by the CGU provides a centralised system for searching, accessing, sharing and using open government data (see also Chapter 7 and 9). It contains a catalogue of all datasets published by federal bodies and entities. Data is made accessible according to a standardised reference model that allow for re-usage and is machine-readable. The portal allows subnational governments and other branches of the state to catalogue their data. In July 2021, it contained 10,723 datasets.
The Participa + Brasil Portal is the main access point for all matters relating to citizen and stakeholder participation at federal level (see also Chapter 6). For example, it allows users to express their views and ideas by answering surveys from public institutions or by commenting on draft legislation in online public consultation processes. The portal also provides information about existing participatory mechanisms, the schedules of public hearings, as well as the work of the collegiate bodies.
Table 4.5 provides a broader overview of existing portals in different areas of open government, including also portals and websites created by the other branches of the state. It is important to note that these websites are further complemented by panels, such as those on Access to Information and Open Data Panel (see Table 4.4 above).
The amount of information published on the various government-wide websites and portals and the opportunities they provide for interaction and feedback are remarkable. However, as further discussed in the implementation Chapters of this Review, in some cases portals overlaps, creating confusion and unnecessary burdens in terms of accessibility. Interviews conducted for this OECD Open Government Review confirmed that citizens and stakeholders sometimes face challenges in identifying the most relevant portal for their particular need and that the complex interplay between the different portals is not always clear.
Brazil could consider creating a one-stop-shop Open Government Portal
In order to simplify the current complex architecture of websites and portals and provide better accessibility, Brazil could creating an integrated Open Government Portal as a one-stop-shop for all open government related websites. Such an initiative would not aim to delete or replace any of the existing portals, which already fulfil many important functions. Instead, it would gather all of them – semantically and structurally – under a coherent open government narrative that is aligned with an integrated open government agenda.
A one-stop-shop Open Government Portal would represent the following advantages:
Create synergies between the different existing portals in Brazil: Open government principles are deeply intertwined and, accordingly, also the information and services citizens need to access. Integrating open government in one portal provides the complete picture for stakeholders and therefore increases the effectiveness of each of the portals. Consistent structure and design across portals would additionally ease navigation for users. Further, it enables government to coordinate and reduce redundancies of website content, in turn reducing the amount of resources needed to set-up and maintain a website;
Disseminate, mainstream and communicate the concept of open government: An Open Government Portal integrates the various facets of open government. Therefore, it allows to express the conceptual understanding of open government through the content and structure of the website. This directly impacts how users see and understand open government;
Provide citizens and stakeholders with the right entry point for all policies, practices and services related to open government: Users do not longer have to search for the correct website. Independent of what they are looking for in relation to open government, they will find it on the Open Government Portal. This facilitated access to open government increases uptake of information and services. Besides, it can reduce the amount of unnecessary and redundant requests for information.
In line with objective 13 of the Digital Government Strategy 2020-2022 (see Chapter 3), the CGU is currently working to integrate the transparency, open data and ombudsman portals into the central government portal (gov.br) (Ministry of Economy[44]). Efforts to create the recommended one-stop-shop Open Government Portals should be fully aligned with these efforts. Ultimately, the Open Government Portal could become an integral part of gov.br. Box 4.13 provides the example of Canada’s holistic Open Government Portal.
The Government of Canada’s website on open government provides content about a wide range of open government topics in an easily accessible manner. The start page is divided into three sections. The first section allows users to directly search for data and information that has been disclosed either proactively or as a result of an Access to Information request. Alternatively, resources on how to request information and background material on this topic can be consulted. The second section contains four themes which structure open government content:
About Open Government: Canada’s involvement in the OGP process, open government initiatives across Canada, FAQs on open government, the Open Government Licence, and other background material:
Open data: Open government data in the open data portal, instructions on their use, helpful tools and inspirational use cases;
Open information: Information from digital government records in the open information portal, request summaries of access to information requests, grouped information on government expenditure, public procurement, regulatory plans, government service performance and others;
Open dialogue: Participation in government decision-making, principles and guidelines for engagement, consultation data, space for interaction with other actors from the open government community in the Public Engagement Community of Practice
The third section at the bottom of the page features latest news on everything related to open government.
Source: Government of Canada (n.d.[45]), Open Government website, https://open.canada.ca/en
Chapters 3 and 4 of this OECD Open Government Review assess Brazil’s governance of open government against key provisions of the 2017 OECD Recommendation of the Council on Open Government (OECD, 2017[2]) and benchmarked the country against the results of the 2020 OECD Survey on Open Government (OECD, 2021[4]). The Chapters find that Brazil has made great strides in fostering its enabling environment for open government reforms in recent years. Thanks to the adoption of ambitious initiatives such as the creation of the Transparency Portal, Brazil is today widely recognised as a leader in the open government community.
Overall, Brazil’s governance of open government is relatively mature. In order to foster institutionalisation and sustainability and ensure that governance inputs and processes actually result in increased levels of openness, the country could now take the next step and move towards a fully integrated open government ecosystem that puts the open government principles of transparency, accountability, integrity and stakeholder participation at the heart of all government actions. The creation of such an integrated ecosystem and of an open government culture in all public institutions and the wider society is an ambitious undertaking. The Chapters therefore provide recommendations that could be implemented by Brazil in the short-, medium- and long term.
Source: Author’s own elaboration.
1. Consider (co-)creating or adopting a single definition of open government that is accepted by the whole public sector and external stakeholders alike.
Consider including civic space and democracy-considerations in the single definition (or in its explanatory note) to explain how the concepts are linked and reinforce each other.
Consider using the process to design the next OGP action plan, or the process to design the recommended Federal Open Government Strategy to launch a discussion on a single definition.
2. Consider adopting an integrated Open Government Strategy for the federal executive branch (Estratégia de Governo Aberto do Poder Executivo Federal, EGA).
Include a compelling vision and measurable objectives for Brazil’s open government agenda in the Open Government Strategy.
Ensure that the Open Government Strategy covers all open government principles and fully integrates a civic space perspective.
Mandate the adoption of Institutional Open Government Programmes (Programas Institucionais de Governo Aberto, PIGA) by all public institutions and agencies to imlpement the Open Government Strategy.
Establish provisions for systematic monitoring and evaluation in the Open Government Strategy and develop a specific annual M&E plan for the Strategy.
3. Consider transforming the current Secretariat for Transparency and Prevention of Corruption into the Secretariat for Open Government and Integrity (Secretaria de Governo Aberto e Integridade, SGI).
Consider transforming he STPC’s current Directorate for Transparency and Social Control into the Directorate for Open Government (Diretoria de Governo Aberto, DGA).
Increase the human and financial resources of the Secretariat for Open Government and Integrity in order for it to be able to become the co-ordinator of the integrated open government agenda and shift towards becoming a centre of expertise on a wide range of open government issues (rather than a comptroller).
4. Consider creating dedicated Institutional Open Government Co-ordinators (Coordenadores Institucionais de Governo Aberto) in all public institutions and agencies, as a means of fostering co-ordination and translating high-level objectives into institutional realities.
5. Consider creating a compendium of all laws and regulations that relate to the open government principles in order to increase legal clarity for both citizens and public officials and identify gaps and overlaps in existing legislation.
6. Consider updating and widening Decree 10,160 from 2019 establishing the National Open Government Policy to ensure a harmonised, synergic, and coherent implementation of the provisions on the open government principles that are part of the existing legal and regulatory framework.
7. Consider creating a National Open Government Council (COGA) to co-ordinate the implementation of all policies and practices that fall under the realm of the concept of open government, including the recommended Open Government Strategy.
Give the role as chair and secretariat of the Council to the recommended Secretariat for Open Government and Integrity of the CGU.
Invite senior representatives from the key institutions of the federal open government ecosystem, as well as key civil society representatives, academics, private sector representatives and trade unions to participate in the Council.
Create sub-committees of the COGA to focus on specific thematic areas (such as Access to Information; Open Government and Education; etc.) as well as for specific processes (e.g. legal changes such as the elaboration of an Open Government Law).
Actively engage the Institutional Open Government Offices Contact Points in the sub-committees providing them with a space for policy exchange and dialogue while working on concrete agendas of relevance to their institutions.
Involve non-public stakeholders (e.g. civil society organisations, academia, private sector, unions, etc.), whenever relevant.
8. Create a dedicated Multi-stakeholder Forum to co-ordinate the OGP process as a sub-committee of the recommended National Open Government Council.
Revise the composition of both the current Interministerial Committee on Open Government (Comitê Interministerial Governo Aberto, CIGA) and of the current Civil Society Working Group for Advice on Open to form one integrated committee, comprised of both public institutions and non-public stakeholders.
9. Build capacity and foster open government literacy.
Consider designing Open Government Toolkits for specific audiences (e.g. public officials; citizens; etc.).
Consider including a dedicated course on open government in mandatory training requirements for all newly hired public officials to introduce them to the concept.
Consider creating a single training catalogue that lists all trainings on open government policies and practices that are offered by different public institutions and that are available for public officials. This training catalogue could be added to the CGU’s online training environment and be included in the recommended one-stop-shop Open Government Portal.
Move towards the creation of a community of practice on open government by setting up an Open Government Network, bringing together public officials and non-public stakeholders that are interested in open government topics and / or have participated in trainings on open government policies and practices. The network could be animated by the CGU, in collaboration with the recommended open government offices / contract points.
Consider creating an annual Open Government Award (Prêmio de Governo Aberto, PREGA) to stimulate more ambitious reforms and provide incentives to public officials and non-public stakeholders.
10. Enhance monitoring and evaluation of open government principles, policies and practices.
Consider creating an integrated Open Government Panel, as a one-stop-shop for all information and data gathered on different open government polices and practices.
Develop open government maturity models to allow public institutions and agencies to assess, monitor and compare core elements of their open government agendas.
11. Consider creating an integrated Open Government Portal (Paneil de Governo Aberto), as a one-stop-shop for all information and data gathered on different open government policies and practices.
12. Foster the move towards an Open State.
Invite all levels of government and all branches of the state to adhere to the Open Government Strategy.
Reinforce co-ordination and collaboration between levels of government and different branches of the State by inviting actors from the legislature, the judiciary, independent public institutions (e.g. Ministerio Público ), as well as subnational governments to become members of the recommended National Open Government Council.
Consider inviting stakeholders from subnational governments, representatives from the judiciary as well as representatives from the legislature to the recommended community of practice on open government.
Brand the TIME-programme as an open government programme and make it the main entry point for capacity-building relating to all open government principles by including additional core open government elements, such as open government data, open budgeting and open contracting among its axes.
References
[34] CGU (2021), Governo Aberto e Clima - Monitoramento e Execução, https://doi.org/Governo Aberto e Clima - Monitoramento e Execução.
[27] CGU (n.d.), Documents for Adhesion - TIME (Documentos para Adesão - TIME), https://www.gov.br/cgu/pt-br/assuntos/transparencia-publica/time-brasil/documentos-para-adesao (accessed on 4 August 2021).
[25] CGU (n.d.), Jogo de Governo Aberto, https://www.gov.br/cgu/pt-br/governo-aberto/central-de-conteudos/jogo-de-governo-aberto.
[20] Council of Europe (n.d.), bE-Open: Open Local Government, https://www.beopen-congress.eu/en/.
[13] Government of Brazil (2021), Background Report prepared for the OECD Open Government Review of Brazil.
[6] Government of Brazil (2019), DECRETO Nº 10.160, DE 9 DE DEZEMBRO DE 2019: Institui a Política Nacional de Governo Aberto e o Comitê Interministerial de Governo Aberto, http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2019-2022/2019/decreto/D10160.htm.
[18] Government of Canada (2019), Do-it-Yourself Open Data Toolkit, https://open.canada.ca/en/toolkit/diy.
[45] Government of Canada (n.d.), Open Government website, https://open.canada.ca/en.
[26] Government of the State of San Luis Potosí (2020), San Luis Potosi Award for Open Government, https://www.premiosanluisgobiernoabierto.org/convocatoria/.
[40] INAI (2017), Resultados Edición 2017, http://eventos.inai.org.mx/metricasga/index.php/descargables (accessed on 11 January 2019).
[24] Interministerial Directorate of Public Sector Transformation (n.d.), Public sector transformation communities, https://www.modernisation.gouv.fr/boite-outils/communautes-de-la-transformation-publique.
[14] Lave, J. and E. Wenger (1991), Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation, Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355.
[37] Malito, D., G. Umbach and N. Bhuta (eds.) (2017), Government at a glance: A dashboard approach to indicators, Palgrave Macmillan.
[44] Ministry of Economy (n.d.), A Transparent and Open Government (Um Governo Transparente e Aberto), https://www.gov.br/governodigital/pt-br/EGD2020/transparente-e-aberto (accessed on 3 August 2021).
[4] OECD (2021), 2020 OECD Survey on Open Government.
[10] OECD (2021), Government at a Glance 2021, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1c258f55-en.
[43] OECD (2021), OECD Handbook on Open Government for Peruvian Public Officials, OECD Publishing, https://www.oecd.org/gov/open-government/guia-de-la-ocde-sobre-gobierno-abierto-para-funcionarios-publicos-peruanos-2021.pdf.
[12] OECD (2021), OECD Survey on Open Government Policies and Practices in Brazilian Public Institutions.
[1] OECD (2020), A Roadmap for Assessing the Impact of Open Government Reform, WPOG Working Paper, GOVPGCOG20205.
[28] OECD (2019), Open Government in Argentina, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1988ccef-en.
[30] OECD (2018), OECD Survey on Policy Evaluation.
[31] OECD (2017), Core Skills for Public Sector Innovation, https://www.oecd.org/media/oecdorg/satellitesites/opsi/contents/files/OECD_OPSI-core_skills_for_public_sector_innovation-201704.pdf.
[2] OECD (2017), Recommendation of the Council on Open Government, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0438.
[11] OECD (2017), Skills for a High Performing Civil Service, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264280724-en.
[38] OECD (2017), Towards Open Government Indicators: Framework for the Governance of Open Government (GOOG) Index and the Checklist for Open Government Impact Indicators.
[29] OECD (2016), Open Government: The Global Context and the Way Forward, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264268104-en.
[39] OECD (2014), What is Impact Assessment?, https://doi.org/www.oecd.org/sti/inno/What-is-impactassessment-OECDImpact.pdf.
[36] OECD (2011), Quality Framework and Guidelines for OECD Statistical Activities, OECD, https://doi.org/www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=std/qfs(2011)1&doclanguage=en.
[42] OECD (forthcoming), Centre of Government Review of Brazil.
[35] OECD (forthcoming), “Moving transparency and accountability forward”, WPOG Working paper.
[5] OECD (forthcoming), Open Government: Global Report.
[41] OECD (forthcoming), Public Communication: The Global Context and the Way Forward.
[17] Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (n.d.), FOI Essentials for Australian Government agencies and ministers, https://www.oaic.gov.au/s/foi-essentials.
[3] OGP (n.d.), OGP Participation & Co-Creation Standards, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/ogp-participation-co-creation-standards/.
[19] OGP (n.d.), OGPtoolbox, https://ogptoolbox.org/de/.
[32] OGP (n.d.), Self-Assessment Process, https://doi.org/www.opengovpartnership.org/how-it-works/self-assessment-process (accessed on January 2019).
[7] Open Government Italy (n.d.), Open Government Forum, http://open.gov.it/opengovernmentpartnership/ open-government-forum (accessed on 21 November 2021).
[9] Open Government Partnership Colombia (2021), What is the Open State committee?, https://agacolombia.org/.
[8] Presidency of Costa Rica (2015, as amended), Executive Decree No 38994, http://www.pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_texto_completo.aspx?nValor1=1&nValor2=79442.
[21] Reboot (n.d.), Implementing Innovation: A User’s Manual for Open Government Programs,, https://implementinginnovation.org/manual/.
[15] UK Cabinet Office (2017), Open Policy Making toolkit, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/open-policy-making-toolkit;.
[23] United Cities and Local Governments (n.d.), About the Community, https://opengov.uclg.org/en/community-practice.
[16] US Environmental Protection Agency (n.d.), Public Participation Guide, https://www.epa.gov/international-cooperation/public-participation-guide.
[22] US General Services Administration (2021), OpenGov Community, https://digital.gov/communities/open-gov/.
Notes
← 1. Provision 4 stipulates that governments should “coordinate, through the necessary institutional mechanisms, open government strategies and initiatives - horizontally and vertically - across all levels of government to ensure that they are aligned with and contribute to all relevant socio-economic objectives.”
← 2. Integrity policies in Brazil will be analysed in the forthcoming OECD Integrity Review of Brazil.
← 3. The OECD Recommendation of the Council on Open Government (OECD, 2017) defines open government literacy as “the combination of awareness, knowledge, and skills that public officials and stakeholders require to engage successfully in open government strategies and initiatives.”
← 4. The OECD Toolkit and Case Navigator for Open Government can be found here: https://www.oecd.org/gov/open-government-toolkit-navigator.htm
← 5. Some countries do not have a centralised training catalogue, with each ministry and institution responsible for designing the training it offers its employees. These trainings would not be captured by these data.