4.2 Institutional Framework
According to Rogers and Hall (2003), the following principles are linked
to the notion of good governance: participation, transparency, equity,
responsibility, ethics and sustainability. These principles were taken
in consideration when analyzing the institutional framework of each
selected policy. Figure 3 shows how many and which type of partner
institutions are involved in the institutional framework of policy
governance.
Figure 3 – Institutional framework of selected policies.
Federal government participation is common to all policies, since only
federal policies were analyzed, but it was often noticed the
participation of state government institutions and NGOs. The policies
that cover the largest number of institutions were PNAPO and PNRH, with
more than 100 institutions involved and a wide range of NGOs, private
sector, universities, municipal and state government organizations.
These policies also stand out for adopting participatory governance
approaches, increasing social participation and enhancing the
capillarity of policy actions. The civil society participation is
foreseen in all policies, with the exception of the Forest Code. In the
latter, an open monitoring platform was created by environmental NGOs
available to society. In general, universities participation is limited,
which weakens the interaction of policies with teaching, research and
extension institutions in achieving concrete results in rural areas. The
private sector has a smaller participation in all policies, standing out
only in PNRH and PNMA.
The Table 2 presents the scoring results for the selected policies. In
average, the results suggest that the future PNMSA shall pay more
attention and strengthen concerns on the Recovery and Prevention axis.
All policies analyzed obtained very low scores on the Recovery axis.
This gap on public actions turns out to be an opportunity to be overcome
by the PMSA. Therefore, it calls specific attention to policy designers
when formulating policy options and tools.
Concerning Prevention axis, the scores shows clearly a segregation of
two groups of policies. One with those policies that fully address
prevention, such as the PNMA and the Forest Code, and other with two
policies with less influence producing a lower score (PNMC and Proveg).
This alerts that PNMSA shall focus on avoiding failures falling short
these last policies. Monitoring axis also calls attention once five out
of seven policies reached the maximum score.
Table 2 : Scoring of selected policies with average guidelines
for each axis.
The analysis also showed that the seven policies are well aligned with
content and non-normative issues concerning the six axis, since all of
them are scored above 1,50 in average. When looking through the lens of
the axis only two (Recovery and Prevention) are below 1,71. However, as
a future line of research, we will continue to carry out an assessment
on the achievement of policy objectives; based on the implementation
rules of each policy and the recommendations found on CGU and TCU audit
reports and monitoring reports from civil society or mixed platforms.