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.