4. In which ways is the initiative creative and innovative?
|
The ultimate goal of ensuring effective social participation in national planning and budgeting was established by the President of the Republic herself. It was left to the technical teams of MPOG and SGPR develop the institutional design that would meet the expectations of government and society.
The spreading of the discussions on the new plan was made by the inclusion of the subject on the agenda of the councils, when MPOG and SGPR teams discussed the preparation of PPA in 22 councils, which in turn fostered the debate among citizens in general.
In 1st FI, on 24 and 25 May 2011, representatives of the MPOG and SGPR exposed the new format of the plan and a draft proposal. The 300 society representatives were divided into groups by topic and by region, and could present its recommendations to government planning, intersectorally and articulately, taking into account what had been discussed by their councils and organizations.
After a specific analysis of the proposals, the 2nd FI, on October 13, 2011, the same organizations were called to discuss the government's response to what had been proposed. The session was carried through in videoconference with state capitals and simultaneously broadcast via internet. In this meeting was presented the idea of Transversal Agendas (AT), a thematic selection and compilation of elements of the PPA, as a transparency instrument for identification and monitoring of government actions aimed at specific groups.
To strengthen the link between planning and budgeting, the MPOG promoted an overhaul of the structure of planning and budgetary laws and developed an integrated computer system for planning and budget, with information freely accessible. The SGPR, in turn, promoted dialogue with councils and civil society entities, especially those that showed the biggest concerns with the new format, putting together the main criticisms received.
With the goal of information equity, comprehension difficulties presented by the participants were faced by the teams of SGPR and MPOG through the elaboration of informative materials in accessible language, as well as conducting preparatory courses, as the course about "Basics Notions on Planning, Budget and Participation", held on 7 and 8 November 2012.
Next, there was the institutionalization of the Forum as a permanent place for monitoring the national planning, during the 3rd FI, on 7 to 9 November 2012, when the pact was made that the Forum would carry out the monitoring the AT of PPA. So, in 2013, for the first time in history, the Brazilian federal government developed specific participative processes of public consultation, mediated by internet, about annual federal budgetary guidelines (LDO) and annual budgetary law (LOA), following the pacts from FI. Finally, the 4th FI, on 2 September 2013, brought the first official federal report for each one of the AT, starting the participative monitoring of public planning and budgeting by society.
MAIN CHRONOLOGY
-2011:
24-25 May - 1st INTERCOUNCIL FORUM: presentation of proposals by society.
13 October - 2nd INTERCOUNCIL FORUM: responses to the proposals.
-2012:
18 January - enacted Law no. 12.593, establishing the PPA 2012-2015.
7-9 November - 3rd INTERCOUNCIL FORUM: proposed participatory monitoring of PPA.
19 December - edited Decree n. 7866, mentioning social participation in the management of the PPA.
-2013:
February-June – Workgroup composed by members of FI is assembled and presents, for the first time ever, social contributions to federal budgetary guidelines (LDO) and annual budget law (LOA).
9 July – first PUBLIC HEARING on federal budgeting.
2 September - 4th INTERCOUNCIL FORUM: first report on planning and budget implementation submitted for social analysis.
24 December - enacted Law no. 12.919, establishing the LDO 2014 (first elaborated with social participation).
|
|
5. Who implemented the initiative and what is the size of the population affected by this initiative?
|
The Intercouncil Forum (FI) was a joint and horizontal initiative of the General Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic (SGPR) and the Ministry of Planning, Budget and Management (MPOG), involving the national councils of several areas of the federal government.
Under the MPOG, the initiative is part of a broader effort to revise the methodology of public planning, reinforcing the culture of planning and a national project of development based on human rights, backed by an integrated planning and budgeting information system. Under the SGPR, the effort is part of the overall strategy of strengthening social participation as a human right, a policy of state and a governmental method, backed by a Social Participation National Policy.
National councils, related to different areas of public policy, formed the basic structure upon which relied the Forum. Each of the councils has promoted discussion about public planning among its members and thus acted as a diffuser point for all organizations and movements represented there. Council representatives, chosen solely from its non-governmental members, have attended to the Forum and have been responsible for coordination between discussions on national FI and on their origin collegiate.
Another key allegiance was the participation of social organizations and movements invited to join the FI. They have promoted an increase in the diversity of opinions within the Forum, to broaden representation and allow the inclusion of minority or vulnerable groups. With the participation of these entities, the historical accumulation from non-governmental initiatives to participation in planning and budgeting can be respected, considered and integrated into the current proposals.
STAFF – Civil Servants
COORDINATORS: Daniel Avelino (SGPR); Leopoldo Vieira (MPOG). SUPPORTERS - SGPR: Gilberto Carvalho (Minister); Paulo Maldos (Secretary); Pedro Pontual (Director). MPOG: Miriam Belchior (Minister); Esther Bemerguy (Secretary); José Roberto Júnior (Secretary).
|
6. How was the strategy implemented and what resources were mobilized?
|
Talking about financial resources, the FI shows relatively low cost compared with other similar initiatives. Full organization of the 1st FI totaled less than R$ 200,000.00, plus costs of air transport and publications. The 2nd FI, which did not involve air transportantion of participants, had almost all their expenses absorbed by routine activities of the agencies. In turn, the 3rd and 4th FI expenses involved not much more than publications, air tickets and personal expenses refunds for participants. Coordinating bodies of the Forum (SGPR and MPOG) mobilized its own ordinary budgets, in which had already been forecast activities such as promoting social participation and development of PPA.
While financial costs would be low, mobilization of human resources was quite intense. All the work of organizing the Forum, including social communication and dialogue with participants, was conducted by teams of SGPR and MPOG. Consolidation and analysis of the proposals from society, as well as the preparation of government own proposals, involved an intense intellectual work from those public servants.
Technical resources came from the agencies themselves or from partners. Institutional design of the Intercouncil Forum was conceived entirely based on the expertise of teams of MPOG and SGPR, considering Presidential guidelines and previous experiences, relying on huge amount of knowledge provided by successful cases of participatory budgeting in municipal level. Strategies for information spreading have been prepared under the guidance of governmental advisory organs of communication. The online live broadcast of the events was made possible through partnerships with public institutions like Interlegis, (from Federal Senate) and SERPRO. ENAP collaborated in mediating the 1st FI and developing formative activities for 3rd FI. Information systems to be used for monitoring the PPA will be those already developed and maintained by MPOG and SGPR.
It is highly important to mention that the mobilization of resources by SGPR and MPOG was accompanied by an effort from all organizations and entities involved to encourage debate and participation, which also involves some costs. Organizing discussion sessions, developing its own publications, displacement of representatives for preparatory discussions and various forms of communication and dissemination are some examples of actions taken by the participants directly, by its own expenses.
|
|
7. Who were the stakeholders involved in the design of the initiative and in its implementation?
|
First, Intercouncil Forum promoted a conjugation of government and social expectations about public planning and budgeting. The space created for dialogue in the PPA 2012-2015 and occupied by the society is a solid and permanent basis for thinking about social participation in all the coming national plans. For the first time ever, there is a popular monitoring of all actions of the federal government at once, in a perspective of national development.
Second, the numbers involved are impressive. The PPA 2012-2015 encompasses all areas of activity of the federal government, including the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary branches, direct (ministries and secretariats) and indirect (foundations, institutes and public companies) public administration. This represents R$ 5.5 trillion (~ U.S. $ 2.7 trillion) of public investment, of which R$ 2.5 trillion (45.5%) are for the social area. Of these, 55% are for shares of social security, benefiting about 100 million Brazilians, and 12% for health, offered to the entire population. In other areas there was also emphasis on social investments: from the R$ 1.1 trillion planned for the area of infrastructure, for example, 57.7% are for improving housing and electricity.
Third, the FI starts in Brazil the experience of social participation of second level. It sets its basis on the extensive range of existing channels of social participation, articulating its actors around national and intersectoral themes, promoting synergy and networking on a scale previously nonexistent. At the same time, strengthens each one of these channels individually, to enhance its powers concerning public planning and budgeting through a direct dialogue with the federal competent agencies, as there was not before.
Fourth, it has shown that public interest and governmental planning could be more convergent than it was thought. In the 1st FI more than 800 recommendations had been received, which were synthesized in 600 proposals for government planning as a whole. Of these, there were a total of 97% of convergence (77% complete and 20% partial) between what was proposed by society and which was latter submitted to National Congress as government planning for the next four years.
Fifth, the choice of the Transversal Agendas (AT) as the main focus of monitoring has revealed itself as a powerful outcome in information about equity. The AT unveils the governmental actions under the perspective of nine specific social groups: children and teenagers; youth; elderly; women; racial and ethnical groups; indigenous people; LGBT; disabled; and street dwellers.
|
|
8. What were the most successful outputs and why was the initiative effective?
|
The Intercouncil Forum (FI) can be seen at the same time as an agent that promotes the monitoring of public planning and budgeting and as a governmental initiative itself worth being monitored. About the former, much has been discussed above, but it is important to emphasize that all activities of FI are part of the official system of management of PPA, sharing the same data and the same procedures established in behalf of organs that promote political control of public accounts. All of this is supported by an all-new Integrated System of Planning and Budgeting (SIOP), with a friendly public interface in internet (siop.gov.br) for raw data access.
As an initiative itself, the FI is submitted to monitoring and evaluation of both government (internal) and society (external). Internally, the strategy is constantly discussed and revised by thematic meetings of MPOG and SGPR during each phase of planning and budgeting. Collective evaluation is also gathered among national councils periodically. Externally, each activity promoted by the FI is concluded by a step of self-assessment, in which the methodology itself is put in debate. This way, part of the proposal presented by society and responded by government is directed to the implementation of FI. There is also an internet platform (participa.br), developed by SGPR entirely in free software, that will host most of the activities of the FI and promote a comprehensive register of opinions issued. Recently, the outcomes of FI made it be confirmed as a specific commitment in Brazilian Second Action Plan in Open Government Partnership.
Finally, it is important to highlight that as a governmental initiative, the FI is part of the PPA, as a specific goal about social participation in public planning. Therefore, all its activities are monitored through the system established in Presidential Decree n. 7866, valid for all federal government. Its data are part of the reports submitted to evaluation by National Congress and, in an evident metalinguistics, by society itself in FI.
|
|
9. What were the main obstacles encountered and how were they overcome?
|
The biggest challenge was trust-building. In spite of well-succeeded local initiatives, there was not an expressive history of social participation in federal planning and budgeting. Experiences with previous PPAs were important, but also generated a lot of criticism by participants. Working groups were created and interrupted without continuity in the process. There was no guarantee that society would use the newly created channel of participation.
This situation was faced, in the first place, with an intense dialogue, before and after each one of the Forums, with the involved actors. This served to dispel the doubts and incorporate the criticisms presented. Moreover, the specific government response was crucial. The 2nd FI was called less than five months after the first meeting, showing the results of the analysis of each of the proposals, indicating the items of the plane in which they were incorporated or the reasons why they were not. Finally, it was important to transform the Forum into a continuous process. The calls to the 2nd and 3rd Forums assured the participants that the government was willing to maintain dialogue, recognizing the importance of society participation not only in drafting the plan, but also in monitoring what was agreed upon. Right after the renowned protests that toke the streets in Brazil, the documents presented in 4th FI put that pact into work and showed, in practice, how a participatory monitoring could be developed. Far beyond the specific discussions about public planning and budgeting, the official reports for each one of the nine Transversal Agendas were widely received by the public as a quintessential tool of information for advocacy and political action in behalf of social minorities. In terms of trust-building, government and society are not the same as they were three years ago.
|