Reports

Brazil Mid-Term Report 2016-2018 (Year 1)

Country : Brazil
Dates Under Review : 2016-2017
Report publication year : 2018
Researcher : Fabro Steibel

Overview - Brazil Mid-Term Report 2016-2018 (Year 1)

The third action plan involved greater collaboration with a broader diversity of actors, both during the development and implementation of the plan. The main challenge going forward is making more ambitious OGP commitments that achieve significant changes in government practices.

Process 

The government and civil society organizations co-led the development of the action plan through a collaborative process. The public was able to prioritize themes through online polling and discuss proposals directly with government at co-creation workshops. During the plan’s implementation, the government hosted monitoring meetings that included discussions with the Civil Society Working Group on each commitment.

Civil Society Influence

Level of Input by Stakeholders

During Action Plan Development
Y1
No Consultation
Inform
Consult
Involve
Collaborate
During Action Plan Implementation
Y2
No Consultation
Inform
Consult
Involve
Collaborate
Who was involved? 
Civil Society Involvement
Beyond "governance" civil society X
Mostly "governance" civil society
No/little civil society
Narrow / little government consultation Primarily agencies that serve other agencies Significant involvement of line ministries and agencies
Government Involvement
▲ The Judiciary and Legislature are implementing OGP commitments for the first time. A variety of federal ministries, independent agencies, and subnational governments also participated in the OGP process. There were new actors on the civil society side as well, most notably private companies.
OGP Co-Creation Requirements Followed 

Commitment Performance 

At the midterm, most of the commitments in the third plan were at a preliminary stage of implementation. While two of the commitments are potentially transformative, most commitments (10) have a more minor potential impact.

Commitment Completion 

Current Plan
Year 1: 0%
2013-2016
Year 1: 60%
Year 2: 65%
2012-2013
Year 1: 78%

Commitment Ambition 

Current Plan
Year 1: 13%
2013-2016
Year 1: 6%

Starred commitments 

Current Plan
Year 1: 6%
2013-2016
Year 1: 2%

IRM Recommendations 

1. Redesign the consultation methodology to incentivize government and civil society to reach more ambitious commitments.
2. Address key public agenda topics, such as political party financing and anti-corruption efforts.
3. Further engage the private sector in the implementation of commitments, to expand open business models and private sector interest in promoting open government principles.
4. Involve other areas of the government, such as the Public Prosecutor's Office, the subnational government of São Paulo, and legislative houses that have institutionalized open government mechanisms.
5. Establish a transition plan for OGP to ensure the sustainability of activities after the general elections.

Commitments Overview

Commitment Title Well-designed (Year 1)* Complete (Year 1) Overview
1. Open federal government data
No
No
This commitment aims to better align government-provided data with citizen-demanded data through two pilot experiments, which were pending at the midterm.
2. Public resource transparency
No
No
While the government began mapping data on public resources and held preliminary discussions to promote transparency initiatives, implementation was limited.
3. Effective access to information policy
No
No
This commitment aims to reform the rules used to justify denial of information requests. The government developed a methodology to evaluate current practices, as well as an internal legal analysis.
4. Neutral access to information policy
No
No
In light of evidence of discrimination in responding to information requests, the government and civil society completed two preliminary studies on safeguarding the identity of requesters.
5. Effective social participation mechanisms
No
No
This commitment focuses on consolidating and integrating existing participation mechanisms rather than directly improving them. Implementation was limited at the midterm.
6. Digital education resources ** Yes Yes The government developed a participatory network and draft methodology for curating digital education resources. However, the platform to release these resources was pending at the midterm. 
7. Open data for health
No
No
The commitment aims to proactively release access to information requests related to health from the previous four years. However, the implementation of the commitment is at a preliminary stage.
8. Torture prevention in prison system Yes
No
This commitment seeks to produce, organize, and release data that can reduce abuses in the penitenciary system. While the government took preliminary steps, such as publishing a call for proposals, the development and launch of the information system is pending.
9. Innovation spaces for public service management
No
No
The government held trainings on best practices in innovation, and held a multi-stakeholder Innovation Network Meeting. The IRM recommends moving beyond raising awareness of best practices to connecting key actors and implementing initiatives.
10. Evaluate and streamline public services
No
No
The government aims to create a platform with civil society to evaluate public service delivery, but the platform will focus on government performance and not feedback from end users.
11. Legislative transparency and open innovation
No
No
This commitment seeks to promote open government innovation in the legislative branch of government. Implementation so far is limited to mapping eligible materials for an information repository.
12. Open government in states and municipalities
No
No
This commitment looks to promote greater transparency at the subnational level by raising awareness of best practices. During the first year of the plan, publicly available results of implementation were still pending.
13. Transpar-ency and innovation in the judiciary
No
No
This commitment seeks to establish electronic judicial proceedings. While the commitment has seen substantial implementation, the IRM recommends prioritizing not only improved internal efficiency, but also greater access to information.
14. Participation in federal planning cycle
No
No
The commitment aims to improve and consolidate social participation in the Plurennial Plan. The government developed the draft monitoring methodology in partnership with civil society and began developing digital monitoring tools.
15. Environ-mental transparency
No
No
While environmental transparency is an important issue in Brazil, this commitment involves preliminary steps, such as improving an open data plan, hosting an event, and establishing a monitoring group.
16. Participatory culture management
No
No
The government implemented the National System of Information and Indicators on Culture in 37 percent of states and 23 cities, but other activities – such as trainings – were only partly implemented.
* Commitment is evaluated by the IRM as specific, relevant, and has a transformative potential impact.
** Commitment meets the criteria (above) for a well-designed commitment and is substantially or fully complete.

IRM Report - Brazil Mid-Term Report 2016-2018 (Year 1)


I. Introduction 
VIEW MORE

The Open Government Partnership (OGP) is an international multi-stakeholder initiative that aims to secure concrete commitments from governments to their citizenry to promote transparency, empower citizens, fight corruption, and harness new technologies to strengthen governance. OGP provides an international forum for dialogue and sharing among governments, civil society organizations, and the private sector, all of which contribute to a common pursuit of open government.

Brazil was one of the eight cofounding countries of OGP in 2011. The country began its formal participation in the initiative on 15 September 2011, when the Brazilian government declared its intention to participate.[1] Brazil also hosted the first OGP Global Summit in Brasilia in 2012.

In order to participate in OGP, governments must exhibit a demonstrated commitment to open government by meeting a set of (minimum) performance criteria. Objective, third-party indicators are used to determine the extent of country progress on each of the criteria: fiscal transparency, public official’s asset disclosure, citizen engagement, and access to information. See Section VII: Eligibility Requirements for more details.

All OGP-participating governments develop OGP action plans that elaborate concrete commitments with the aim of changing practice beyond the status quo over a two-year period. The commitments may build on existing efforts, identify new steps to complete ongoing reforms, or initiate action in an entirely new area.

Brazil developed its third national action plan from January 2016 to October 2016.[2] The official implementation period for the action plan is 1 December 2016 through 30 June 2018. This year one report covers the action plan development process and the first year of implementation, from December 2016 to June 2017. Beginning in 2015, the IRM started publishing end-of-term reports on the final status of progress at the end of the action plan’s two-year period. Any activities or progress occurring after the first year of implementation (June 2017) will be assessed in the end-of-term report. The government published its self-assessment in September 2017.[3]

In order to meet OGP requirements, the Independent Reporting Mechanism (IRM) of OGP has partnered with Fabro Steibel, an independent researcher, who carried out this evaluation of the development and implementation of Brazil's third action plan. To gather the voices of multiple stakeholders, the IRM researcher participated in some of the official monitoring meetings, hosted a survey, and held online interviews with government and civil society members. The IRM aims to inform ongoing dialogue around the development and implementation of future commitments. Methods and sources are detailed in Section VI of this report (Methodology and Sources).

[1] Open Government Partnership, Declaracao de Governo Aberto, September 2011, http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/central-de-conteudo/documentos/arquivos/declaracao-governo-aberto.pdf.

[2] “Get to Know the Final Version of the 3rd National Action Plan in the Partnership for Open Government,” Brazil Federal Government, last modified 21 March 2017, https://goo.gl/hKUjyg.

[3] “Returns—Intermediate Self Report,” Brazil Federal Government, last modified 22 September 2017, https://goo.gl/VU5rML.


II. Context 
VIEW MORE

The third action plan was developed through a collaborative process between government and civil society organizations (CSOs). This constitutes a major improvement from the process for the second action plan, in which many CSOs lost confidence. The third action plan’s themes, commitments, and milestones reflect this collaborative process co-led by government and civil society. This cooperation also led to collaboration during the implementation phase of the national action plan. Other highlights of the process include advances in connecting to other branches of government (legislative and judiciary, for example) and other federal entities (such as the local initiative at the City of São Paulo). The final version of the action plan includes 16 commitments that fall under four axes: structuring themes, protection of rights, innovation improvement of public services, and movement toward an open state.

2.1 Background

Major changes occurred in the political environment during the final year of the second action plan and the consultation phase of the third action plan. The process of impeaching President Dilma Rousseff began in late 2015 and continued throughout 2016. Rousseff was removed from office on 31 August 2016, after which her vice president, Michel Temer, succeeded to the presidency.

Temer's presidency led to a sequence of leadership and policy changes at the Office of the Comptroller-General of the Union, which coordinates the OGP process. The changes led to delays in the co-creation phase of the third plan. Temer's presidency also changed the office’s regulatory framework. He rebranded the institution as the Ministry of Transparency, Oversight, and Comptroller-General and decreased the number of cities and agencies audited. Temer’s decision brought criticism from civil society organizations that participated in the consultation phase, such as Transparency International.[4] Another point of criticism is that the institution was previously connected directly to the presidency but is now a ministry at the same level of the hierarchy as the institutions it is meant to audit.[5]

Temer’s presidency also weathered major corruption scandals, including an August 2017 congressional vote to allow criminal charges against the president for corruption.[6] Temer became the country’s first sitting head of state to be formally charged with a crime. The criminal investigation could lead at least 190 of the 513 deputies, and 42 of the 81 voting senators, to face criminal processes at Brazil’s supreme court.[7] The president's approval rating also reached its lowest historical level in June 2017, at 5 percent.[8]

Among the several corruption scandals and investigations that took place during the action-plan period, Operation Car Wash (Lava Jato[9]) stands at the forefront. Carried out by the Federal Police, the Judiciary, and the Federal Prosecution Service, the operation has exposed systemic corruption involving political party financing and company executives.

Operation Car Wash was responsible for the arrest of major political figures (such as the 2015–16 president of the Chamber of Deputies, Eduardo Cunha). It also led to the arrests of top private-sector executives (such as Marcelo Odebrecht, chief executive officer of Odebrecht, and Joesley and Wesley Batista of JBS[10]). As a consequence, large demonstrations have taken place on several occasions, with participants marching for or against sitting politicians and expressing their dissatisfaction with the corruption scandals.[11] The level of trust in politicians has dropped drastically, reaching the lowest levels since redemocratization.[12]

The economic recession, the worst in Brazil’s recent history, constitutes another important factor in the national context. According to World Bank data,[13] gross domestic product in 2016 regressed to 2009 levels, and a 10-year decline in poverty ceased, as poverty levels regressed to 2012 levels. President Temer addressed the economy as a key issue, prioritizing economic growth and control of public spending.[14] At the same time, the level of trust in the private sector decreased.[15]

These events have nonetheless not affected key international indexes related to open government. Brazil’s Freedom House score, for example, declined only two points from 2016 to 2017.[16] Brazil’s Open Data Barometer score, on the other hand, increased from 2015 to 2016 in three of four indexes (Government Policies, Government Action, Citizens and Civil Rights). The country’s score saw a decrease in the Entrepreneurs and Business index.[17] Brazil’s standing slightly declined in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index.[18] However, there are signs of growing integrity and transparency in the private sector.[19]

2.2 Scope of Action Plan in Relation to National Context

Civil society organizations (CSOs) perceived the second action plan as having a weak methodology marked by centralized decision-making and little ongoing collaboration with CSOs.

The process for developing the third action plan followed a different path. To develop the list of commitments included in this third plan, government and civil society partnered on each aspect of the decision-making process. They worked together on developing opportunities for collaboration and identifying preferred solutions. The process also included other branches of the government and different levels of federated entities. The parties began by identifying themes. Then, government and civil society alternately led the prioritization process. As such, the 16 commitments included in this action plan better reflect the country's own understanding of open government priorities, challenges, and opportunities.

The commitments are also organized in major open government themes that cover a diverse range of sectors and topics. The "structuring themes" axis (commitments 1-5 and 14), for example, refers to crosscutting actions related to open government. It includes commitments that aim to improve access-to-information policy in the federal government and maximize social participation on the budget plan, among others. The "protection of rights" axis (commitments 6-8 and 15-16) includes five commitments that aim to address citizens’ rights in areas such as education, health, the penitentiary system, and culture. Lastly, under the "innovation and improvement of public service" axis (commitments 9-10) and “towards and open state” axis (commitments 11-13), the focus is to promote the culture of innovation in open government in the non-executive agencies and federated entities.

The commitments also cover various levels of government. The "towards an open state" axis aims to promote open government activities outside the federal and executive levels by including three commitments involving other branches and levels of government. For example, the lower house of Congress aims to develop a repository for Open Parliament institutionalization (commitment 11). The government seeks to foster open government experiences in states and municipalities (commitment 12). The Judiciary aims to deploy electronic judicial proceedings at the electoral court (commitment 13).

It should be noted that all of the commitments are related to OGP values and address important open government challenges in the country. However, none of them directly address issues of political party financing or public-private-sector corruption. Nonetheless, it is important to mention that these issues were not prioritized by civil society or the government during the public voting phase of this action plan’s development. This process is described in greater detail in the next section of the report.

[4] Deutsche Welle, “How the Temer government dehydrated the Ministry of Transparency,” Carta, 30 June, 2017, https://www.cartacapital.com.br/politica/como-o-governo-temer-desidratou-o-ministerio-da-transparencia.

[5] Comments provided to the IRM researcher via e-mail by Article 19 during the pre-publication review of this report, 24 April 2018.

[6] “Chamber Freezes Temer and Bar Complaint by Janot,” El Pais, 3 August 2017,  https://brasil.elpais.com/brasil/2017/08/02/politica/1501673588_289747.html.

[7] Luiz Ruffato, “Meanwhile, in Brazil,” El Pais, 2 August 2017, https://goo.gl/1npXgM.

[8] “Michel Temer Approval Falls to 5% and Reaches the Worst Index in History,” Globo.com, 27 July 2017, https://goo.gl/UUkiV1.

[9] “Lava Jato Case,” Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office, http://www.mpf.mp.br/para-o-cidadao/caso-lava-jato/.

[10] Jonathan Watts, “Operation Car Wash: Is This the Biggest Corruption Scandal in History?” The Guardian, 1 June 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/01/brazil-operation-car-wash-is-this-the-biggest-corruption-scandal-in-history.

[11] “Brazil: Profile,” Freedom in the World 2017, Freedom House, https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2017/brazil.

[12] Jamil Chad, “Brazilian Is the One Who Relies Less on Politics, Says World Research,” Estadao, 11 May 2016, http://politica.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,brasileiro-e-quem-menos-confia-em-politico--diz-pesquisa-mundial,10000050380.

[13] “Brazil,” Data, The World Bank, https://data.worldbank.org/country/Brazil.

[14] Paula Adamo Idoeta, “What the Economy Says about the First Year of Government Fear,” BBC Brazil, 11 May 2017, http://www.bbc.com/portuguese/brasil-39813073.

[15] Ludmilla Souza, “The Perception of Worsening of the Economy among Traders,” Agencia Brasil, 17 January 2018, http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/economia/noticia/2018-01/cai-percepcao-de-piora-da-economia-entre-comerciantes.

[16] Brazil: Profile,” Freedom in the World 2017, Freedom House.

[17] “Brazil,” Country Detail, Open Data Barometer, World Wide Web Foundation, https://opendatabarometer.org/4thedition/detail-country/?_year=2016&indicator=ODB&detail=BRA.

[18] “Corruption Perceptions Index 2017,” Surveys, Transparency International, 21 February 2018, https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2017.

[19] “Transparencia em Relatorios Corporativos,” Transparencia Internacional Brasil,  http://transparenciacorporativa.org.br/trac2018/.


III. Leadership and Multistakeholder Process 
VIEW MORE

The consultation process was collaborative and participatory. The Executive Group of the Interministerial Committee on Open Government and the Civil Society Working Group led the process, with advance notice of consultations and awareness-raising activities. The consultations were in-depth and included regular multi-stakeholder engagement, with some delays and trust challenges due to the overall political environment. The self-assessment process included periodic meetings with government and civil society, and was well documented online.

3.1 Leadership

This subsection describes the OGP leadership and institutional context for OGP in Brazil. Table 3.1 summarizes this structure while the narrative section (below) provides additional detail.

 

Table 3.1: OGP Leadership

1. Structure

Yes

No

Is there a clearly designated Point of Contact for OGP (individual)?

X[20]

 

 

Shared

Single

Is there a single lead agency on OGP efforts?

 

X[21]

 

Yes

No

Is the head of government leading the OGP initiative?

X

 

2. Legal Mandate

Yes

No

Is the government’s commitment to OGP established through an official, publicly released mandate?

X[22]

 

Is the government’s commitment to OGP established through a legally binding mandate?

X

 

3. Continuity and Instability

Yes

No

Was there a change in the organization(s) leading or involved with the OGP initiatives during the action plan implementation cycle?

 

X

Was there a change in the executive leader during the duration of the OGP action plan cycle?

X

 

 

In Brazil, the Interministerial Committee on Open Government (CIGA), which is led by the Ministry of Transparency, Oversight, and Comptroller-General, oversees OGP activities. The CIGA was established by a presidential decree in September 2011. A decision-making body comprising 18 ministries, the CIGA is led by the president’s office, which occupies one of the seats. The Executive Group of the CIGA (GE-CIGA) comprises seven government institutions.[23] The GE-CIGA holds responsibility for drafting and submitting the national action plan for CIGA approval, carrying out consultations, and monitoring the implementation of the plan.

Both CIGA and GE-CIGA have legal power to enforce policy changes in other institutions within the government. The federal government allocated a staff to the GE-CIGA to oversee the implementation of the action plan. The government also dedicated a byline in the federal government’s budget for OGP-related activities, as part of allocations for the Ministry of Transparency, Oversight, and Comptroller-General and its secretary of transparency and corruption prevention. Career public servant Otávio Castro Neves, director of the Transparency and Social Control Division, leads this work.

An informal Working Group for Civil Society was established for the consultation phase of the second action plan, but it stopped its activities during the plan's implementation phase, mostly due to dissatisfaction with the list of approved commitments. In late 2015, a formal Civil Society Working Group (CS-WG) was established. The CS-WG consists of seven organizations elected by peers through a public call. The group participated during the consultation and implementation phases of the third action plan. While the CS-WG plays a consultative role (acting under no binding decision-making procedures within the CIGA or in a broader sense), it was agreed at the time of its establishment that an overhaul to the CIGA would be discussed in parallel.[24] Nonetheless, the collaborative process ensured that GE-CIGA worked directly with the CS-WG to develop the action plan.

Finally, it is important to note that Brazil is a highly federalized system, meaning that the national government has few “sticks” to compel subnational governments. Nonetheless, progress on the commitments involving subnational governments shows that the national and subnational governments can successfully coordinate when they so desire.

3.2 Co-Creation of the Action Plan

This subsection describes the process how the government collaborated with nongovernmental organizations to develop the action plan. Note that the available list of participating institutions in Table 3.2 below is cumulative, because all participants from Phase 1 (prioritization of themes and subthemes) were invited to participate in Phase 2 (commitment formulation workshop). The phases of the plan’s development are described in Figure 3.1 further below. The only commitment that was not carried out in two stages, and did not include civil society in its formulation, was commitment 13. This was due to the late acceptance of a Judiciary institution to join the plan.[25]

 

Table 3.2 Participation in OGP by Government Institutions

How did institutions participate?

Ministries, Departments, and Agencies

Legislative

Judiciary (including quasi-judicial agencies)

Other (including constitutional independent or autonomous bodies)

Subnational Governments

Consult: These institutions observed or were invited to observe the action plan but may not be responsible for commitments in the action plan.

22[26]

4[27]

0[28]

15[29]

8[30]

Propose: These institutions proposed commitments for inclusion in the action plan.

22

4

1

15

8

Implement:  These institutions are responsible for implementing commitments in the action plan whether or not they proposed the commitments.

22

4

1

15

8

 

In Brazil, the development of the action plan was based on a structured methodology[31] that involved collaboration between government and civil society, as described further below. The Ministry of Transparency, Oversight, and Comptroller-General designed the methodology, and approved and updated it in partnership with the Civil Society Working Group (CS-WG). The consultation process occurred in three phases.

During the first stage, the CS-WG and the Executive Group of the Interministerial Committee on Open Government (GE-CIGA) defined a set of overall themes (“structuring themes”).[32] Afterward, two groups (one led by the government and the other led by civil society) identified a list of themes that were later used to establish co-creation workshops.

 

Figure 3.1 Co-creation Process

 

../../../../../../Desktop/Screen%20Shot%202017-09-23%20at%2

On the government side, internal meetings (at least one for each commitment) revolved around five themes: public service assessment; open data and information governance on health; open government for culture; the streamlining of public services; and prevention of mean, inhumane, or humiliating treatment in the penitentiary system. As illustrated in Table 3.2, there was broad participation within the government. Meeting participants included ministries from the executive branch, legislative bodies, the Judiciary, and subnational institutions. In its internal discussions, the government highlighted the need to combine OGP commitments with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The United Nations’ new agenda on development, known as the 2030 Agenda, set the SDGs.

Civil society hosted a public consultation through the Participa.br website,[33] which was open to everyone. There, the public suggested themes of importance, which were organized by the CS-WG. In the next consulting phase, the issues were displayed for public polling to determine the final civil society proposals. This second round of consultation received 678 online votes on the various themes. The following five themes were prioritized: mechanisms for citizen participation, transparency of public funds, the fostering of open government in states and municipalities, innovation and open government in education, and open data for and active transparency on environmental issues.

The 10 themes, together with the three structuring themes and an Open Parliament proposal, were used to ignite co-creation workshops funded by the government. All meetings were documented and posted online afterward, including pictures and topics discussed.[34] Each workshop aimed to have equal representation from government and civil society. Each was led by a coordinator and a vice coordinator, one from each sector. According to the government report, between April and October of 2016, 27 co-creation workshops were carried out.

GE-CIGA invitations and CS-WG email lists promoted civil society engagement. One hundred five people attended the co-creation workshops. Out of those, 48 represented the government (federal, state, and municipal levels), and 57 represented civil society (including academia and the private sector—e.g., Microsoft). The minutes of each workshop were promptly made available for consultation online (including images of visual props used for design thinking[35]). Fifty-one civil society organizations participated in both consultation phases and were invited to participate in the implementation phase (a list of participants who engaged on each commitment is listed online).[36]

The use of Participa.br and the civil society prioritization process seemed effective in expanding the diversity of organizations involved in OGP. In the second action plan, for example, no civil society representatives with an interest in the environment participated in the process. This was different in the development of the third action plan. Another improvement involved the participation of private-sector representatives, such as those from Microsoft.

Neide de Sordi, a member of the CS-WG, mentioned that the consultation phase had constructive meetings, noting the engagement of previous and new government institutions. Government representatives also spoke favorably of the consultation phase. One government representative (Augusto Herrmann, commitment 1) was supportive yet also critical. In his point of view, the action plan should promote milestones that allocate resources to better implement activities.

The Brazilian government followed all requirements for consultation during the development, implementation, and review of the OGP action plan, as summarized in Table 3.3 below. The consultation methodology and rules were published online at the beginning of the process, and meetings were hosted online as much as possible. Out of the 16 commitments, only one, involving the Judiciary, was not developed with the collaboration of civil society members. The government unilaterally included this particular commitment, which was already in the judiciary’s workplan at the time, at a later stage of the process (after the consultation phase but before the plan was presented to the public). The government justified the decision by pointing out the benefit of including, even at a late stage, the Judiciary branch in the action plan for the first time. 

 

Table 3.3: National OGP Process

Key Steps Followed:  7 of 7

Before

1. Timeline Process & Availability

2. Advance Notice

Timeline and process available online prior to consultation

Yes

No

Advance notice of consultation

Yes

No

X

 

X

 

3. Awareness Raising

4. Multiple Channels

Government carried out awareness-raising activities

Yes

No

4a. Online consultations:     

Yes

No

X

 

X

 

4b. In-person consultations:

Yes

No

X

 

5. Documentation & Feedback

Summary of comments provided

Yes

No

X

 

During

6. Regular Multi-Stakeholder Forum

6a. Did a forum exist?

Yes

No

6b. Did it meet regularly?          

Yes

No

X

 

X

 

After

7. Government Self-Assessment Report

7a. Annual self-assessment report published?        

Yes

No

7b. Report available in English and administrative language?

Yes

No

X

 

X

 

7c. Two-week public comment period on report?

Yes

No

7d. Report responds to key IRM recommendations?

Yes

No

X

 

X

 

                 

 

Table 3.4: Level of Public Influence

The IRM has adapted the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) “Spectrum of Participation” to apply to OGP.[37] This spectrum shows the potential level of public influence on the contents of the action plan. In the spirit of OGP, most countries should aspire for “collaborative.”

 

Level of public input
During development of action plan
During implementation of action plan
Empower

The government handed decision-making power to members of the public.

 

 

Collaborate

There was iterative dialogue AND the public helped set the agenda.

4

4

Involve

The government gave feedback on how public inputs were considered.

 

 

Consult

The public could give inputs.

 

 

Inform

The government provided the public with information on the action plan.

 

 

No Consultation

No consultation

 

 

 

3.3 Consultation During Implementation

As part of their participation in OGP, governments commit to identify a forum to enable regular multi-stakeholder consultation on OGP implementation. This can be an existing entity or a new one. This section summarizes that information.

During implementation, the government also employed a detailed methodology.[38] Follow-up meetings included both the government and the CS-WG. As of the writing of this report, meetings were hosted in February and July 2017 to discuss all commitments. These meetings were livestreamed, and all those involved in the consultation phase were invited in advance by email. Minutes were published online afterward, for consultation.[39]

While meetings are livestreamed, the host usually provides the physical address of the government institution site, for those who want to meet in person. The host gives 4-6 months’ advance notice about meetings. The IRM researcher attended five of these meetings and observed that they follow a pre-organized agenda. At the meetings, civil society and government discuss the implementation of commitments. (There are at least two rapporteurs appointed: one from a civil society organization [CSO] and one from the government.) They engage in constructive criticism and organize joint efforts.

The IRM researcher attended 10 of the monitoring meetings through video-conference. The exchange of ideas appeared intense but always cordial. In some cases, CSO representatives pushed government officials for more impactful efforts. The government representatives welcomed this and vice versa, such as when a government official asked CSO representatives during the meeting to engage more in a milestone’s development.

3.4 Self-Assessment

The OGP Articles of Governance require that participating countries publish a self-assessment report three months after the end of the first year of implementation. The self-assessment report must be made available for public comments for a two-week period. This section assesses compliance with these requirements and the quality of the report.

The Brazilian government organized its self-assessment report by commitment. It based the report on the regular consultation meetings (also organized by commitment) and on the bimonthly Execution Status Reports (ESR), which are accessible online, and include all documents and minutes referring to each commitment under the subsection titled “Compromissos”.[40] The report was also based on an August 2017 in-person general event. Transmitted online, the August event featured government representatives reporting on their OGP commitment implementation progress.[41]

The Ministry of Transparency, Oversight, and Comptroller-General compiled relevant information and published the self-assessment report for public comments on Participa.br on 15 August 2017.[42] The report received five comments, all from the same author, who participates in the Civil Society Working Group and attends the regular implementation meetings.[43] In spite of the low number of comments, civil society organizations and members of the public were able to participate in the monitoring process through the regular implementation meetings, perhaps a more effective channel for participation. However, it is still a challenge to connect with civil society members outside of those who belong to the Civil Society Working Group, or who are already in contact with the open government agencies in the country.

The quality of the self-assessment report is high. The report includes the government’s assessment of progress for each commitment and milestone. In addition, the government provides a general description of commitment results, which often cites meeting minutes and documents that provide evidence. The government also reports on challenges to and delays in implementation, and the next steps for implementation.

3.5 Response to Previous IRM Recommendations

The IRM now reports on how the government followed up on key recommendations issued in the previous IRM progress report. The analysis below documents whether the government addressed the IRM recommendations in its self-assessment report and whether the government incorporated the recommendations into the process of the current action plan.

 

Table 3.5: Previous IRM Report Key Recommendations

Recommendation
Addressed in the self-assessment report?
Integrated into the action plan?

1

Mechanism for social participation in the governance of OGP in Brazil

Yes

Yes

2

Articulation with other branches of government

Yes

Yes

3

Articulation with federal entities

Yes

Yes

4

Inclusion of the commitments with transformative or moderate potential impact that were not implemented

Yes

Yes

5

Inclusion of commitments on the national priorities

Yes

Yes

 

Of the five recommendations, the government addressed all proposals in its self-assessment report and integrated all of them into the next action plan.

Recommendation 1 aimed to amplify recognition and involvement of civil society organizations. The introduction of the Civil Society Working Group, the collaboration mechanism adopted during the consultation phase, and the regular OGP website updates demonstrate an effort to improve the diversity of civil society organizations following OGP activities.

Recommendations 2 and 3 aimed to expand the role of participating government institutions beyond the federal executive branch. The third national action plan included representatives from other government branches (e.g., federal, legislative, and judiciary) and executive representatives from states and cities (e.g., the mayor of São Paulo).

Recommendations 4 and 5 were indirectly addressed. The close collaboration between several government and civil society organizations shows an effort to promote commitments with milestones that have more potential impact and address national priorities.

 

[20] “Open Government Partnership,” Brazil Federal Government, http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/.

[21] “Open Government Interministerial Committee,” Open Government Partnership, Brazil Federal Government, 11 December 2014, http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/no-brasil/comite-interministerial.

[22] “Decree of 15 September 2011,” President of the Republic, Civil House, Sub-Office for Legal Affairs, http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2011/dsn/dsn13117.htm.

[23] Ministry of Transparency, Oversight, and Comptroller-General of Brazil; chief of staff of the Presidency of the Republic; government secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic; Ministry of Finance; Ministry of Planning, Development, and Management; Ministry of Foreign Relations; and Ministry of Justice and Citizenship.

[24] Comments provided to the IRM researcher via e-mail by Article 19 during the pre-publication review of this report, 24 April 2018.

[25] “Step Elaboration of Commitments,” Open Government Partnership, Brazil Federal Government, last modified 24 February 2017, http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/noticias/2017/monitoramento/3o-plano-de-acao-brasileiro/tansparencia-judiciario/copy_of_priorizacao-dos-desafios.

[26] Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior; Departamento de Monitoramento e Fiscalização do Sistema Carcerário e do Sistema de Execução de Medidas Socioeducativas do Conselho Nacional de Justiça; Departamento Penitenciário Nacional; Fundo Nacional de Desenvolvimento da Educação (FNDE); Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE); Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento (MAPA) - Secretaria-executiva/diretor de programa; Secretaria Especial de Agricultura Familiar e do Desenvolvimento Agrário da Casa Civil da Presidência da República (formerly the Ministério do Desenvolvimento Agrário); Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovação e Comunicações; Ministério da Cultura; Ministério da Educação; Ministério da Indústria, Comércio Exterior e Serviços (MDIC); Ministério da Justiça e Cidadania; Ministério da Planejamento, Desenvolvimento e Gestão; Ministério da Saúde; Ministério da Transparência e Controladoria-Geral da União (formerly the Ouvidoria-Geral da União/CGU); Ministério das Mulheres, da Igualdade Racial e dos Direitos Humanos; Ministério do Planejamento, Desenvolvimento e Gestão; Ministério do Turismo; Secretaria de Articulação Institucional e Cidadania Ambiental (SAIC) do Ministério Meio Ambiente; Secretaria-Executiva (SECEX) do Ministério do Meio Ambiente;  Secretaria de Governo; Serviço Florestal Brasileiro.

[27] Câmara dos Deputados, Interlegis, Laboratório Hacker, and Senado Federal.

[28] Tribunal Superior Eleitoral (later phases only).

[29] Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações (ANATEL); Banco Central do Brasil; Comissão Mista de Reavaliação de Informações; Escola Nacional de Administração Pública (ENAP); Instituto Brasileiro de Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis (IBAMA); Instituto Brasileiro de Museus (IBRAM); Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBIO) - presidente interino; Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais Anísio Teixeira (INEP); Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada; Instituto Federal de Educação; Instituto Nacional de Colonização e Reforma Agrária; Mecanismo Nacional de Prevenção e Combate à Tortura; Ministério Público Federal; Universidade de Brasília; Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.

[30] State and federal district level (executive): Governo do Distrito Federal, Governo do Estado do Mato Grosso. Municipal level (executive): Ouvidoria-Geral da Defensoria Pública de São Paulo, Conselho das Ouvidorias de Defensorias Públicas, Prefeitura de São Paulo, Prefeitura de Fortaleza. Legislative, state level: Câmara Municipal de São Paulo and Assembleia Legislativa de Minas Gerais.

[31] Parceria para Governo Aberto Brasil, Metodologia do 3 Plano de Acao Nacional do Brasil,  http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/central-de-conteudo/documentos/metodologia-diagramada.pdf.

[32] See, for example, commitment 1. “Open Data Workshops,” Open Government Partnership, Brazil Federal Government, last modified 24 February 2017,  http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/noticias/2017/monitoramento/3o-plano-de-acao-brasileiro/dados-abertos/Oficinas-dados-abertos.

[33] “3rd Plan of Action—Propose Themes for Formulation of Open Government Actions,” Participa.br, 17 December 2017, http://www.participa.br/governoaberto/noticias-da-ogp/3o-plano-de-acao-proponha-temas-para-formulacao-de-acoes-de-governo-aberto.

[34] “Open Data Workshops,” Open Government Partnership, Brazil Federal Government.  

[35] “Monitoring and Execution of the 3rd Brazilian Action Plan,” Open Government Partnership, Brazil Federal Government, 18 December 2014, http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/noticias/2017/monitoramento/3o-plano-de-acao-brasileiro.

[36] Agenda Pública, Artigo 19, Associação Brasileira de Jornalismo Investigativo, Associação Brasileira de Linfoma e Leucemia, Associação Brasileira de Saúde Coletiva, Associação de Juízes pela Democracia, Associação para Prevenção da Tortura, Bruna Santos (Universidade Columbia), Casa das Redes, Cidades Democráticas, Centro de Inovação para Educação Básica Brasileira, Coalizão Brasil Clima, Floresta e Agricultura, COLAB/USP, Colegiado Setorial Música, Educadigital, EOKOE, FGV - DAPP, Fundação Getúlio Vargas, GPOPAI/COLAB-USP, GT Sociedade Civil, Imaflora (Coordenação), Imazon, INESC, Inesc (GT), Infoamazônia, Instituto Brasileiro de Planejamento e Tributação, Instituto de Defesa do Consumidor, Instituto de Estudos Socioeconômicos, Instituto de Fiscalização e Controle, Instituto Natura, MariaLab, Meu Município, Microsoft, Nossa São Paulo, Observatório do Código Florestal, Observatório Social de Brasília, Observatório Social do Brasil, ONG THYDÊWÁ - Potyra Te Tupinambá - mensagens da terra, Open Knowledge Brasil, Pastoral Carcerária, Proteste, Reclame Aqui, Rede Nossa São Paulo, Rede pela Transparência e Participação Social, Rede Social Brasileira por Cidades Justas e Sustentáveis (Instituto Soma Brasil), Rede Urbana de Ações Socioculturais, Rodas da Paz, SEDUC Fortaleza, Transparência Brasil, Transparência Internacional, and Veduca.

[37] International Association for Public Participation, IAP2’s Public Participation Spectrum, 2014, http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.iap2.org/resource/resmgr/foundations_course/IAP2_P2_Spectrum_FINAL.pdf.

[38] “Execution and Monitoring Meetings,” Open Government Partnership, Brazil Federal Government, last modified, 12 March 2011, http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/noticias/2017/monitoramento/3o-plano-de-acao-brasileiro/dados-abertos/reuniao_meio%20ambiente.

[39] See, for example, Ministerio da Transparencia, Fiscalizacao e Controladoria-Geral da Uniao, Relatorio de Status de Execucao de Compromisso, http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/central-de-conteudo/documentos/2017-20-abril-rse_1.pdf.

[40] “Monitoring and Execution of the 3rd Brazilian Action Plan, Open Government Partnership, Brazil Federal Government. http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/noticias/2017/monitoramento/3o-plano-de-acao-brasileiro

[41] Ministerio da Transparencia, “2 Reuniao Geral de Coordenadores de Compromisso de 3 Plano de Acao Nacional,” YouTube, 9 August 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ypli3EJ6MU&feature=youtu.be.

[42] “Public Consultation—Intermediate Report of Self-Assessment 3rd Plan of Action,” Participa.br, 15 August 2017, http://www.participa.br/governoaberto/noticias-da-ogp/consulta-publica-relatorio-intermediario-de-autoavaliacao-3o-plano-de-acao.

[43] “Devolutiva—Intermediate Report of Self-Assessment 3rd Plan of Action,” Participa.br, 22 September 2017, http://www.participa.br/governoaberto/noticias-da-ogp/devolutiva-relatorio-intermediario-de-autoavaliacao-3o-plano-de-acao.


IV. Commitments 
VIEW MORE

At the midterm, most of the commitments in Brazil’s third action plan are in a preliminary stage of implementation. Specifically, 13 of 16 commitments have limited completion and are behind schedule. As for ambition, two of the commitments are potentially transformative, whereas 10 commitments have a minor potential impact.

All OGP-participating governments develop OGP action plans that include concrete commitments over a two-year period. Governments begin their OGP action plans by sharing existing efforts related to open government, including specific strategies and ongoing programs.

Commitments should be appropriate to each country’s unique circumstances and challenges. OGP commitments should also be relevant to OGP values laid out in the OGP Articles of Governance and Open Government Declaration signed by all OGP-participating countries.[44]

What Makes a Good Commitment?

Recognizing that achieving open government commitments often involves a multiyear process, governments should attach time frames and benchmarks to their commitments that indicate what is to be accomplished each year, whenever possible. This report details each of the commitments the country included in its action plan and analyzes the first year of their implementation.

The indicators used by the IRM to evaluate commitments are as follows:

·       Specificity: This variable assesses the level of specificity and measurability of each commitment. The options are:

o   High: Commitment language provides clear, verifiable activities and measurable deliverables for achievement of the commitment’s objective.

o   Medium: Commitment language describes activity that is objectively verifiable and includes deliverables, but these deliverables are not clearly measurable or relevant to the achievement of the commitment’s objective.

o   Low: Commitment language describes activity that can be construed as verifiable but requires some interpretation on the part of the reader to identify what the activity sets out to do and determine what the deliverables would be.

o   None: Commitment language contains no measurable activity, deliverables, or milestones.

·       Relevance: This variable evaluates the commitment’s relevance to OGP values. Based on a close reading of the commitment text as stated in the action plan, the guiding questions to determine the relevance are:

o   Access to Information: Will the government disclose more information or improve the quality of the information disclosed to the public?

o   Civic Participation: Will the government create or improve opportunities or capabilities for the public to inform or influence decisions?

o   Public Accountability: Will the government create or improve opportunities to hold officials answerable for their actions?

o   Technology & Innovation for Transparency and Accountability: Will technological innovation be used in conjunction with one of the other three OGP values to advance either transparency or accountability?[45]

·       Potential impact: This variable assesses the potential impact of the commitment, if completed as written. The IRM researcher uses the text from the action plan to:

o   Identify the social, economic, political, or environmental problem;

o   Establish the status quo at the outset of the action plan; and

o   Assess the degree to which the commitment, if implemented, would impact performance and tackle the problem.

Starred commitments are considered exemplary OGP commitments. In order to receive a star, a commitment must meet several criteria:

·       Starred commitments will have “medium” or “high” specificity. A commitment must lay out clearly defined activities and steps to make a judgement about its potential impact.

·       The commitment’s language should make clear its relevance to opening government. Specifically, it must relate to at least one of the OGP values of Access to Information, Civic Participation, or Public Accountability.

·       The commitment would have a "transformative" potential impact if completely implemented.[46]

·       The government must make significant progress on this commitment during the action plan implementation period, receiving an assessment of "substantial" or "complete" implementation.

Based on these criteria, Brazil’s action plan contained 1 starred commitment, namely:

·       Commitment 6. Establish a new model for assessing, purchasing, fostering and distributing Digital Educational Resources (RED), in the context of digital culture

Finally, the tables in this section present an excerpt of the wealth of data the IRM collects during its progress reporting process. For the full dataset for Brazil and all OGP-participating countries, see the OGP Explorer.[47]

General Overview of the Commitments

The action plan includes four axes of commitments: the structuring of crosscutting themes, protection of rights, innovation and improvement of public services, and movement toward an open state (i.e., involving nonfederal executive actors). The text of the commitments in the sections that follow are copied directly from the official action plan. The timelines for implementation, milestones, and responsible and supporting institutions are all drawn from the text of the action plan as well.

In terms of implementation, 13 of 16 commitments have limited progress and are behind schedule, according to the timelines established in the action plan. Three commitments have substantial completion and are on time. As for design, 10 of the 16 commitments have a minor potential impact. Four have a moderate potential impact, and two are potentially transformative. As mentioned earlier, all of the commitments are relevant to OGP values of open government. For more details, please see the individual commitment sections that follow.

[44] Open Government Partnership: Articles of Governance, June 2012 (updated March 2014 and April 2015), https://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/attachments/OGP_Articles-Gov_Apr-21-2015.pdf.

[46] The International Expert Panel changed this criterion in 2015. For more information, see “IRM to Raise the Bar for Model Commitments in OGP,” Open Government Partnership, 6 May 2015, http://www.opengovpartnership.org/node/5919.  

[47] “Welcome to the OGP Explorer,” Open Government Partnership, http://bit.ly/1Rm3Ufq.


V. General Recommendations 
VIEW MORE

Looking ahead, it is important that Brazil’s next action plan include more ambitious commitments that address key issues of corruption. In addition, greater involvement of the private sector, nonfederal branches of government, and subnational entities in the OGP process would expand the reach of open government.

 

This section aims to inform the development of the next action plan and guide the completion of the current action plan. It is divided into two sections: 1) the civil society and government priorities identified while elaborating this report and 2) the recommendations of the IRM.

5.1 Stakeholder Priorities

The stakeholder priorities for the current action plan focused on access to information, civic participation, and the use of innovation and technology. In this sense, many commitments in the action plan combined different open government approaches, particularly through the collaborative aspects of co-creation and co-implementation of most commitments.

The comments from interviewed stakeholders and from the monitoring sessions suggest that civil society participants support the progress made on open government. There is, however, a desire to achieve more ambitious outcomes and greater impact. These aspirations include addressing more relevant public issues, such as political party finance transparency and corruption. Government and civil society did not prioritize these topics in the consultation phase. Still, these are major national issues that have received much attention and debate from movements and organizations outside of the OGP process.[218]

5.2 IRM Recommendations

Brazil’s second action plan had 52 commitments, only one of which was starred. The current action plan has 16 commitments. Again, only one commitment is starred (commitment 6). All commitments are specific and relevant to OGP values, but only two commitments have a transformative potential impact (commitments 6 and 8). Therefore, the main general recommendation for the next action plan is to include more ambitious commitments.

The consultation process of the current action plan represented a drastic improvement over the previous one. Civil society abandoned the OGP process during the implementation phase of the second action plan. In the current plan, civil society participated in both the consultation and implementation phases. This participation is attributed to, according to the interviews, the clear communication of procedures and the collaborative mechanisms of participation in all phases of action plan development.

Nonetheless, several interviewees argued that the consultation phase was too short to reach proper consensus and that there is a need to focus on more ambitious milestones. The process was perceived as highly constructive, but not necessarily efficient in addressing major open government challenges with transformative reforms. As a result, another general recommendation involves reconsidering the consultation process. The strongest aspects of the process should be preserved, including the collaborative decision-making process and the transparency of the process. The weakest aspects, such as the short time to reach final conclusions and need for more information to drive decision-making, could be strengthened.

In terms of content, it is noteworthy that the action plan did not address key aspects of public debate, such as political party financing and public-private-sector corruption scandals. However, the action plan did include several other important topics that are usually not highlighted in public debate. These issues include open educational resources, penitentiary system data, and environmental data. This shows that the process adopted during the consultation phase prioritized topics offered by those participating in the process. The list of issues also demonstrates that the working groups were able to achieve consensus.

In terms of representativeness, the third action plan included diverse regional actors, institutions from other branches of government, and private sector representatives. A diverse group is largely expected for such a process. However, there is overrepresentation of federal executive government institutions and traditional civil society organizations. This indicates the need to further increase the diversity of involved actors in the next action plan.

The private sector, for example, can work as a consultation partner, but it should also collaborate on implementation. The presence of civic tools companies (such as WeGov) and tech companies (such as Microsoft) suggests that there is interest in following OGP activities. The government could, however, expand the participation of the private sector in thematic areas, such as the environment and service delivery. One member from civil society (Alexandre Gomes, independent expert), coming from the private sector, complained about the few opportunities for companies (from major companies to small startups) to participate in the OGP process. On the other hand, the government noted that CGU made a major effort to involve the private sector in the development of this action plan, highlighting the participation of new actors such as Microsoft. Moreover, the government cited the challenge of sustaining participation during implementation, given that some actors do not continue to engage in the process after participating in the co-creation workshops.[219]

Increasing the role of civil society participation is nonetheless even more relevant, due to the core position they have in OGP. Major civil society organizations (CSOs) previously engaged in OGP in Brazil, such as Article 19 and Open Knowledge Foundation, are key partners in the action plan process. Government agencies involved also brought in new CSO partners, such as the Open Educational Resources network.

Balancing the role of federal executive agencies in the OGP process also remains a challenge. While executive agencies are in a better position to promote a whole-of-government transformation, the OGP process would benefit from increasing the diversity of actors and points of view. The third action plan represents a more balanced representation of the government. However, given that São Paulo participates in the OGP Local Program, and other government branches (e.g., legislative) have expressed interest in open government, there is likely room to include a variety of other government agencies in the process.

Lastly, with the general elections in Brazil scheduled for October 2018, it will be important to develop a transition plan for OGP activities. The co-creation process of the fourth action plan will most likely conclude prior to the elections. Consequently, the government should prepare concrete measures for ensuring that the resulting commitments—and the OGP process more broadly—are sustained. Such measures could include setting up meetings between the Civil Society Working Group and incoming administration officials. The government could also reserve opportunities for the incoming administration to co-create new commitments next year. Regardless of the specific mechanisms employed, there should be a plan for ensuring the continuity of the OGP process, which the government agrees is an important objective.[220]

 

Table 5.1: Five Key Recommendations

 

1

Redesign the consultation methodology to incentivize government and civil society to reach more ambitious commitments.

2

Address key public agenda topics, such as political party financing and anti-corruption efforts.

3

Further engage the private sector in the implementation of commitments, to expand open business models and private sector interest in promoting open government principles.

4

Involve other areas of the government, such as the Public Prosecutor's Office, the subnational government of São Paulo, and legislative houses that have institutionalized open government mechanisms.

5

Establish a transition plan for OGP to ensure the sustainability of activities after the general elections.

[218] See https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/brazils-new-political-movements for a list of new political movements and organizations in Brazil that are focusing on political and campaign reform, as well as anti-corruption efforts.

[219] The government provided these comments during the pre-publication review of this report, 24 April 2018.

[220] During the pre-publication review of this report, the government noted that it has made strong efforts to establish open government as a policy of the State, rather than of a particular administration. The comments were received on 24 April 2018. The IRM researcher closely followed the OGP process and acknowledges the efforts made by both civil society and government to institutionalize the process.


VI. Methodology and Sources 
VIEW MORE

IRM reports are written by researchers based in each OGP-participating country. All IRM reports undergo a process of quality control to ensure that the highest standards of research and due diligence have been applied.

Analysis of progress on OGP action plans is a combination of interviews, desk research, and feedback from nongovernmental stakeholder meetings. The IRM report builds on the findings of the government’s own self-assessment report and any other assessments of progress put out by civil society, the private sector, or international organizations.

Each IRM researcher carries out stakeholder meetings to ensure an accurate portrayal of events. Given budgetary and calendar constraints, the IRM cannot consult all interested or affected parties. Consequently, the IRM strives for methodological transparency and therefore, where possible, makes public the process of stakeholder engagement in research (detailed later in this section.) Some contexts require anonymity of interviewees and the IRM reviews the right to remove personal identifying information of these participants. Due to the necessary limitations of the method, the IRM strongly encourages commentary on public drafts of each report.

Each report undergoes a four-step review and quality-control process:

1.     Staff review: IRM staff reviews the report for grammar, readability, content, and adherence to IRM methodology.

2.     International Experts Panel (IEP) review: IEP reviews the content of the report for rigorous evidence to support findings, evaluates the extent to which the action plan applies OGP values, and provides technical recommendations for improving the implementation of commitments and realization of OGP values through the action plan as a whole. (See below for IEP membership.)

3.     Prepublication review: Government and select civil society organizations are invited to provide comments on content of the draft IRM report.

4.     Public comment period: The public is invited to provide comments on the content of the draft IRM report.

This review process, including the procedure for incorporating comments received, is outlined in greater detail in Section III of the Procedures Manual.[221]

Interviews and Focus Groups

Each IRM researcher is required to hold at least one public information-gathering event. Researchers strive to make a genuine effort to invite stakeholders outside of the “usual suspects” already participating in existing processes. Supplementary means may be needed to gather the inputs of stakeholders in a more meaningful way (e.g. online surveys, written responses, follow-up interviews). Additionally, researchers perform specific interviews with responsible agencies when the commitments require more information than is provided in the self-assessment or is accessible online.

The IRM researcher in Brazil participated in the kick-off meeting of the consultation phase. During this meeting, the IRM method was presented to the thematic working groups. The IRM researcher also participated in five commitment monitoring sessions (held online). The IRM researcher invited 193 participants (124 from government and 69 from civil society) from 111 institutions to participate in two data collection opportunities. These included an online survey (answered by 21 people) and in-depth online interviews (11 conducted).

 

Responses to online survey (N=21)

Commitment

Interviewee

I

Augusto Herrmann Batista (Gov., Ministry of Planning, Development, and Management)

1

Carmela Zigoni (CSO, Institution for Socioeconomic Studies [INESC])

2

Grazielle David (CSO, INESC)

3 and 4

Joara Marchezini (CSO, Article 19)

3 and 4

Marcelo de Brito Vidal (Gov., Ministry of Transparency, Oversight, and Comptroller-General)

3 and 4

Marina Iemini Atoji (CSO, ABRAJI)

3 and 4

Humberto Mesquita (Gov., Brazilian Forest Service)

5

Jailton Almeida (Gov., National Secretary for Social Articulation, SNAS)

6

Tel Amiel (CSO, Unicamp)

6

Jorge Machado (CSO, Colab)

6

Marlicia Amaral (Gov., Ministry of Education, MEC)

7

Bárbara Paes (CSO, Article 19)

10

Ronan Damasco (CSO, Microsoft)

11

Cristiano Ferri (Gov., LabHacker)

12

Telma Tanno (Gov., Secretariat of Government)

14

Neide de Sordi (CSO, Open Knowledge Brazil)

15

Dário Cardoso (CSO, Imazon)

15

Joara Marchezini (CSO, Article 19)

15

Ana Valdiones (CSO, Instituto Centro de Vida)

16

Neide de Sordi (CSO, Open Knowledge Brazil)

16

Sebastian Gerlic (CSO, Thydewa)

 

In-depth interview responses (N=11)

Commitment

Interviewee

I

Alexandre Gomes (CSO, open data expert)

I

Augusto Herrmann Batista (Gov., Ministry of Planning, Development, and Management)

2

Otávio Neves (Gov., Ministry of Transparency, Oversight, and Comptroller-General [CGU])

2

Victor Pimenta (Gov., Ministry of Justice)

3 and 4

Marcelo de Brito Vidal (Gov., CGU)

5

Jailton Almeida (Gov., National Secretary for Social Articulation, SNAS)

8

Neide de Sordi (CSO, Open Knowledge Brazil)

8

Victor Pimenta (Gov., Ministry of Justice)

12

Adenísio de Souza (Gov., CGU)

14

Neide de Sordi (CSO, Open Knowledge Brazil)

16

Neide de Sordi (CSO, Open Knowledge Brazil)

 

About the Independent Reporting Mechanism

The IRM is a key means by which government, civil society, and the private sector can track government development and implementation of OGP action plans on an annual basis. The design of research and quality control of such reports is carried out by the International Experts Panel, comprised of experts in transparency, participation, accountability, and social science research methods.

The current membership of the International Experts Panel is

·       César Cruz-Rubio

·       Mary Francoli

·       Brendan Halloran

·       Jeff Lovitt

·       Fredline M’Cormack-Hale

·       Showers Mawowa

·       Juanita Olaya

·       Quentin Reed

·       Rick Snell

·       Jean-Patrick Villeneuve

A small staff based in Washington, DC, shepherds reports through the IRM process in close coordination with the researchers. Questions and comments about this report can be directed to the staff at irm@opengovpartnership.org


[1] Open Government Partnership, Declaracao de Governo Aberto, September 2011, http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/central-de-conteudo/documentos/arquivos/declaracao-governo-aberto.pdf.

[2] “Get to Know the Final Version of the 3rd National Action Plan in the Partnership for Open Government,” Brazil Federal Government, last modified 21 March 2017, https://goo.gl/hKUjyg.

[3] “Returns—Intermediate Self Report,” Brazil Federal Government, last modified 22 September 2017, https://goo.gl/VU5rML.

 

[4] Deutsche Welle, “How the Temer government dehydrated the Ministry of Transparency,” Carta, 30 June, 2017, https://www.cartacapital.com.br/politica/como-o-governo-temer-desidratou-o-ministerio-da-transparencia.

[5] Comments provided to the IRM researcher via e-mail by Article 19 during the pre-publication review of this report, 24 April 2018.

[6] “Chamber Freezes Temer and Bar Complaint by Janot,” El Pais, 3 August 2017,  https://brasil.elpais.com/brasil/2017/08/02/politica/1501673588_289747.html.

[7] Luiz Ruffato, “Meanwhile, in Brazil,” El Pais, 2 August 2017, https://goo.gl/1npXgM.

[8] “Michel Temer Approval Falls to 5% and Reaches the Worst Index in History,” Globo.com, 27 July 2017, https://goo.gl/UUkiV1.

[9] “Lava Jato Case,” Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office, http://www.mpf.mp.br/para-o-cidadao/caso-lava-jato/.

[10] Jonathan Watts, “Operation Car Wash: Is This the Biggest Corruption Scandal in History?” The Guardian, 1 June 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/01/brazil-operation-car-wash-is-this-the-biggest-corruption-scandal-in-history.

[11] “Brazil: Profile,” Freedom in the World 2017, Freedom House, https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2017/brazil.

[12] Jamil Chad, “Brazilian Is the One Who Relies Less on Politics, Says World Research,” Estadao, 11 May 2016, http://politica.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,brasileiro-e-quem-menos-confia-em-politico--diz-pesquisa-mundial,10000050380.

[13] “Brazil,” Data, The World Bank, https://data.worldbank.org/country/Brazil.

[14] Paula Adamo Idoeta, “What the Economy Says about the First Year of Government Fear,” BBC Brazil, 11 May 2017, http://www.bbc.com/portuguese/brasil-39813073.

[15] Ludmilla Souza, “The Perception of Worsening of the Economy among Traders,” Agencia Brasil, 17 January 2018, http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/economia/noticia/2018-01/cai-percepcao-de-piora-da-economia-entre-comerciantes.

[16] Brazil: Profile,” Freedom in the World 2017, Freedom House.

[17] “Brazil,” Country Detail, Open Data Barometer, World Wide Web Foundation, https://opendatabarometer.org/4thedition/detail-country/?_year=2016&indicator=ODB&detail=BRA.

[18] “Corruption Perceptions Index 2017,” Surveys, Transparency International, 21 February 2018, https://www.transparency.org/news/feature/corruption_perceptions_index_2017.

[19] “Transparencia em Relatorios Corporativos,” Transparencia Internacional Brasil,  http://transparenciacorporativa.org.br/trac2018/.

[20] “Open Government Partnership,” Brazil Federal Government, http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/.

[21] “Open Government Interministerial Committee,” Open Government Partnership, Brazil Federal Government, 11 December 2014, http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/no-brasil/comite-interministerial.

[22] “Decree of 15 September 2011,” President of the Republic, Civil House, Sub-Office for Legal Affairs, http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2011-2014/2011/dsn/dsn13117.htm.

[23] Ministry of Transparency, Oversight, and Comptroller-General of Brazil; chief of staff of the Presidency of the Republic; government secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic; Ministry of Finance; Ministry of Planning, Development, and Management; Ministry of Foreign Relations; and Ministry of Justice and Citizenship.

[24] Comments provided to the IRM researcher via e-mail by Article 19 during the pre-publication review of this report, 24 April 2018.

[25] “Step Elaboration of Commitments,” Open Government Partnership, Brazil Federal Government, last modified 24 February 2017, http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/noticias/2017/monitoramento/3o-plano-de-acao-brasileiro/tansparencia-judiciario/copy_of_priorizacao-dos-desafios.

[26] Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior; Departamento de Monitoramento e Fiscalização do Sistema Carcerário e do Sistema de Execução de Medidas Socioeducativas do Conselho Nacional de Justiça; Departamento Penitenciário Nacional; Fundo Nacional de Desenvolvimento da Educação (FNDE); Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais (INPE); Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento (MAPA) - Secretaria-executiva/diretor de programa; Secretaria Especial de Agricultura Familiar e do Desenvolvimento Agrário da Casa Civil da Presidência da República (formerly the Ministério do Desenvolvimento Agrário); Ministério da Ciência, Tecnologia, Inovação e Comunicações; Ministério da Cultura; Ministério da Educação; Ministério da Indústria, Comércio Exterior e Serviços (MDIC); Ministério da Justiça e Cidadania; Ministério da Planejamento, Desenvolvimento e Gestão; Ministério da Saúde; Ministério da Transparência e Controladoria-Geral da União (formerly the Ouvidoria-Geral da União/CGU); Ministério das Mulheres, da Igualdade Racial e dos Direitos Humanos; Ministério do Planejamento, Desenvolvimento e Gestão; Ministério do Turismo; Secretaria de Articulação Institucional e Cidadania Ambiental (SAIC) do Ministério Meio Ambiente; Secretaria-Executiva (SECEX) do Ministério do Meio Ambiente;  Secretaria de Governo; Serviço Florestal Brasileiro.

[27] Câmara dos Deputados, Interlegis, Laboratório Hacker, and Senado Federal.

[28] Tribunal Superior Eleitoral (later phases only).

[29] Agência Nacional de Telecomunicações (ANATEL); Banco Central do Brasil; Comissão Mista de Reavaliação de Informações; Escola Nacional de Administração Pública (ENAP); Instituto Brasileiro de Meio Ambiente e dos Recursos Naturais Renováveis (IBAMA); Instituto Brasileiro de Museus (IBRAM); Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade (ICMBIO) - presidente interino; Instituto Nacional de Estudos e Pesquisas Educacionais Anísio Teixeira (INEP); Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada; Instituto Federal de Educação; Instituto Nacional de Colonização e Reforma Agrária; Mecanismo Nacional de Prevenção e Combate à Tortura; Ministério Público Federal; Universidade de Brasília; Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais.

[30] State and federal district level (executive): Governo do Distrito Federal, Governo do Estado do Mato Grosso. Municipal level (executive): Ouvidoria-Geral da Defensoria Pública de São Paulo, Conselho das Ouvidorias de Defensorias Públicas, Prefeitura de São Paulo, Prefeitura de Fortaleza. Legislative, state level: Câmara Municipal de São Paulo and Assembleia Legislativa de Minas Gerais.

[31] Parceria para Governo Aberto Brasil, Metodologia do 3 Plano de Acao Nacional do Brasil,  http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/central-de-conteudo/documentos/metodologia-diagramada.pdf.

[32] See, for example, commitment 1. “Open Data Workshops,” Open Government Partnership, Brazil Federal Government, last modified 24 February 2017,  http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/noticias/2017/monitoramento/3o-plano-de-acao-brasileiro/dados-abertos/Oficinas-dados-abertos.

[33] “3rd Plan of Action—Propose Themes for Formulation of Open Government Actions,” Participa.br, 17 December 2017, http://www.participa.br/governoaberto/noticias-da-ogp/3o-plano-de-acao-proponha-temas-para-formulacao-de-acoes-de-governo-aberto.

[34] “Open Data Workshops,” Open Government Partnership, Brazil Federal Government.  

[35] “Monitoring and Execution of the 3rd Brazilian Action Plan,” Open Government Partnership, Brazil Federal Government, 18 December 2014, http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/noticias/2017/monitoramento/3o-plano-de-acao-brasileiro.

[36] Agenda Pública, Artigo 19, Associação Brasileira de Jornalismo Investigativo, Associação Brasileira de Linfoma e Leucemia, Associação Brasileira de Saúde Coletiva, Associação de Juízes pela Democracia, Associação para Prevenção da Tortura, Bruna Santos (Universidade Columbia), Casa das Redes, Cidades Democráticas, Centro de Inovação para Educação Básica Brasileira, Coalizão Brasil Clima, Floresta e Agricultura, COLAB/USP, Colegiado Setorial Música, Educadigital, EOKOE, FGV - DAPP, Fundação Getúlio Vargas, GPOPAI/COLAB-USP, GT Sociedade Civil, Imaflora (Coordenação), Imazon, INESC, Inesc (GT), Infoamazônia, Instituto Brasileiro de Planejamento e Tributação, Instituto de Defesa do Consumidor, Instituto de Estudos Socioeconômicos, Instituto de Fiscalização e Controle, Instituto Natura, MariaLab, Meu Município, Microsoft, Nossa São Paulo, Observatório do Código Florestal, Observatório Social de Brasília, Observatório Social do Brasil, ONG THYDÊWÁ - Potyra Te Tupinambá - mensagens da terra, Open Knowledge Brasil, Pastoral Carcerária, Proteste, Reclame Aqui, Rede Nossa São Paulo, Rede pela Transparência e Participação Social, Rede Social Brasileira por Cidades Justas e Sustentáveis (Instituto Soma Brasil), Rede Urbana de Ações Socioculturais, Rodas da Paz, SEDUC Fortaleza, Transparência Brasil, Transparência Internacional, and Veduca.

[37] International Association for Public Participation, IAP2’s Public Participation Spectrum, 2014, http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.iap2.org/resource/resmgr/foundations_course/IAP2_P2_Spectrum_FINAL.pdf.

[38] “Execution and Monitoring Meetings,” Open Government Partnership, Brazil Federal Government, last modified, 12 March 2011, http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/noticias/2017/monitoramento/3o-plano-de-acao-brasileiro/dados-abertos/reuniao_meio%20ambiente.

[39] See, for example, Ministerio da Transparencia, Fiscalizacao e Controladoria-Geral da Uniao, Relatorio de Status de Execucao de Compromisso, http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/central-de-conteudo/documentos/2017-20-abril-rse_1.pdf.

[40] “Monitoring and Execution of the 3rd Brazilian Action Plan, Open Government Partnership, Brazil Federal Government. http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/noticias/2017/monitoramento/3o-plano-de-acao-brasileiro

[41] Ministerio da Transparencia, “2 Reuniao Geral de Coordenadores de Compromisso de 3 Plano de Acao Nacional,” YouTube, 9 August 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ypli3EJ6MU&feature=youtu.be.

[42] “Public Consultation—Intermediate Report of Self-Assessment 3rd Plan of Action,” Participa.br, 15 August 2017, http://www.participa.br/governoaberto/noticias-da-ogp/consulta-publica-relatorio-intermediario-de-autoavaliacao-3o-plano-de-acao.

[43] “Devolutiva—Intermediate Report of Self-Assessment 3rd Plan of Action,” Participa.br, 22 September 2017, http://www.participa.br/governoaberto/noticias-da-ogp/devolutiva-relatorio-intermediario-de-autoavaliacao-3o-plano-de-acao.

[44] Open Government Partnership: Articles of Governance, June 2012 (updated March 2014 and April 2015), https://www.opengovpartnership.org/sites/default/files/attachments/OGP_Articles-Gov_Apr-21-2015.pdf.

[46] The International Expert Panel changed this criterion in 2015. For more information, see “IRM to Raise the Bar for Model Commitments in OGP,” Open Government Partnership, 6 May 2015, http://www.opengovpartnership.org/node/5919.  

[47] “Welcome to the OGP Explorer,” Open Government Partnership, http://bit.ly/1Rm3Ufq.

[48] Elza Maria Albuquerque and Natalia Mazotte, “Look at the Problem and Measure the Impact: Key Findings at the Meeting of the Latin American Open Data Community,” Open Knowledge Brasil, 1 September 2017, https://br.okfn.org/2017/09/01/olhe-o-problema-e-meca-o-impacto-principais-achados-no-encontro-da-comunidade-latino-americana-de-dados-abertos/.

[49] Elza Maria Albuquerque and Thiago Avila, “What Will We Do with the 40 Trillion Gigabytes of Data Available in 2020?” Open Knowledge Brasil, 29 September 2017, https://br.okfn.org/2017/09/29/o-que-faremos-com-os-40-trilhoes-de-gigabytes-de-dados-disponiveis-em-2020/.

[50] Ministerio da Transparencia, Fiscalizacao e Controladoria-Geral da Uniao, Relatorio de Status de Execucao de Compromisso, http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/central-de-conteudo/documentos/2017-30-agosto-rse_1.pdf.

[51] “Questionario para Directionar os Esforcos do Governo Federal na Abertura de Dados,” Google Groups, 3 August 2017, https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/inda-br/NnwFPtVFVjQ/I7KvDSysDQAJ.

[52] “Ministerio do Planejamento, Desenvolvimento e Gestao,” Google Drive, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yId6y8n8AyVhYSKd1SqwRzNGXPqkJHqSDV1yikA0-do/edit.

[53] “Ministerio do Planejamento, Desenvolvimento e Gestao,” Google Drive.

[54] Mariana Damaceno, “Government Launches Active Transparency Index,” Undersecretariat of Disclosure, last modified 9 December 2015, https://www.agenciabrasilia.df.gov.br/2015/12/09/governo-lanca-indice-de-transparencia-ativa/.

[55] Carolina Pimentel, “Less Than 2% of Municipalities Have a Maximum Grade in Transparency, Says CGU,” Da Agencia Brasil, last modified 20 November 2015, http://www.ebc.com.br/noticias/2015/11/menos-de-2-dos-municipios-tem-nota-maxima-em-transparencia-aponta-cgu.

[56] The full list of council members is available online on the CGU website: http://www.cgu.gov.br/assuntos/transparencia-publica/conselho-da-transparencia/composicao 

[57] Ministerio da Transparencia, Fiscalizacao e Controladoria-Geral da Uniao, Relatorio de Status de Execucao de Compromisso, http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/central-de-conteudo/documentos/2017-31-agosto-rse_2.pdf.

[58] “Pubic Consultation: Transparency Council,” Open Government Partnership, Brazil Federal Government, http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/noticias/2017/consulta-publica-conselho-de-transparencia/view.

[59] “Consulta Pública: Minuta de Decreto de Reformulação do Conselho de Transparência Pública e Combate à Corrupcão,” Participa.br, 22 September 2017, http://www.participa.br/governoaberto/noticias-da-ogp/consulta-publica-minuta-de-decreto-de-reformulacao-do-conselho-de-transparencia-publica-e-combate-a-corrupcao#comments_list

[60] “Feature Datasets,” Dados.gov.br, http://dados.gov.br/.

[61] “About the Portal—Legislation,” Portal de Transparencia, Ministerio da Transparencia e Controladoria-Geral da Uniao, http://www.transparencia.gov.br/sobre/Legislacao.asp.

[62] Gregory Michener and Irene Niskier, “Law of Access to Information 5 Years Ago with Advances and Limitations,” Folha de S. Paulo, 30 September 2017,  http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/2017/09/1923133-lei-de-acesso-a-informacao-faz-5-anos-com-avancos-e-limitacoes.shtml.

[63] Open Government Partnership, Memoria de Reuniao—Compromissos 3 e 4, http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/central-de-conteudo/documentos/memoria_reuniao_02ago2017.pdf.

[64] Guia para Publicação do Rol de Informações Classificadas e Desclassificadas e de Relatórios Estatísticos sobre a Lei de Acesso a Informação, http://www.acessoainformacao.gov.br/lai-para-sic/sic-apoio-orientacoes/guias-e-orientacoes/guia-informacoes-classificadas-versao-3.pdf.

[65] A representative from Article 19 confirmed this to the IRM researcher.

[66] Gregory Michener and Karina Rodrigues, “Who Wants to Know? Assessing Discrimination in Transparency and Freedom of Information Regimes” (paper presentation, 4th Global Conference on Transparency Studies, Lugano, Switzerland, 4­–6 June 2015), https://goo.gl/75phhG.

[67] “Working Paper: From Opacity to Transparency? Evaluation the 5 Years of the Law on Access to Brazilian Information,” Programa de Transparencia Publica, http://transparencia.ebape.fgv.br/working-paper-opacidade-transparencia-avaliando-5-anos-lei-de-acesso-informacao-brasileira.

[68] Isabela Vieira, “Law on Access to Information ‘Caught Up,’ Experts Say,” Agencia Brasil, 21 August 2014, http://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/direitos-humanos/noticia/2014-08/lei-de-acesso-informacao-pegou-avaliam-especialistas.

[69] Rafael Antonio Braem Velasco, “Who Wants to Know? A Field Experiment to Assess Discrimination in Freedom of Information Regimes,” FGV Digital Repository, December 2016,   http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/handle/10438/18220.

[70] Article 19, Leis de Acesso a Informacao: Dilemas da Implementacao,https://monitorando.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/estudos-em-liberdade-de-informaccca7acc83o-1-web.pdf.

[71] “Study Shows That States and Municipalities Are Poor in Access to Information,” FGV, 22 May 2017, https://portal.fgv.br/noticias/estudo-mostra-estados-e-municipios-deixam-desejar-acesso-informacao.

[72] Luiz Fernando Toledo, “Gestão Doria age para dificultar a Lei de Acesso à Informação,” Estadão, 8 November 2017, http://sao-paulo.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,gestao-doria-dificulta-acesso-a-dados-e-viola-lei-de-acesso-a-informacao,70002075921

[73] See SEI_CGU-0322492 – Nota Técnica (Nota Técnica) and Parecer n. 0166/2017/CONJURCGU/ CGU/AGU.

[74] “Identification of the Applicant Is a Barrier to Access to Information,” FGV, 25 April 2017, http://portal.fgv.br/noticias/identificacao-solicitante-e-barreira-acesso-informacao-aponta-estudo-ebape.

[75] “Article 19 Launches Reporto n Jurisprudence of the Law of Access to Information,” Agencia Patricia Galvao, 18 August 2017, http://agenciapatriciagalvao.org.br/agenda/artigo-19-lanca-relatorio-sobre-jurisprudencia-da-lei-de-acesso-informacao-sp-28092017/.

[76] Mariana Timoteo da Costa, “Abraji and Transparency Brazil Launch Site Giving Access to Public Information,” Globo.com, 13 March 2017, https://oglobo.globo.com/brasil/abraji-transparencia-brasil-lancam-site-que-da-acesso-informacoes-publicas-21050129.

[77] “Online Deliberation in Brazil between Initiatives of Digital Democracy and Social Networks of Conversation,” Repositório Institucional, Universidade Federal de Bahia, https://repositorio.ufba.br/ri/handle/ri/19267.

[78] Carlos Affonso Souza, “Notes on the Creation and Impacts of Brazil’s Internet Bill of Rights,” The Theory and Practice of Legislation 5, no. 1 (2017): 73­–94, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/20508840.2016.1264677.

[79] Aline Camogo, “Engajamento, Participação e Transparência como Meios para Alancar a Democracia Digital: O Potencial do Uso da Internet,” Comunicação—Reflexões, Experiências, Ensino 11, no. 11 (2016): 77–89, http://ojs.up.com.br/index.php/comunicacao/article/view/537.

[81] Online Deliberation in Brazil between Initiatives of Digital Democracy and Social Networks of Conversation.”

[82] “Execution and Monitoring Meetings,” Open Government Partnership, Brazil Federal Government, last modified 13 April 2018, http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/noticias/2017/monitoramento/3o-plano-de-acao-brasileiro/participacao/reuniao_meio%20ambiente.

[85] “Government Debates New Culture of Services, Social Participation and Public Transparency,” Open Government Partnership, Brazil Federal Government, http://www.planejamento.gov.br/noticias/ultimas-noticias/governo-debate-nova-cultura-de-servicos-participacao-social-e-transparencia-publica.

[86] Urna de Cristal: Portal de Gobierno Abierto de Colombia, http://www.urnadecristal.gov.co/.

[87] “Brazil End-of-Term Report 2013–2016,” Open Government Partnership, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/documents/brazil-end-of-term-report-2013-2016.

[89] Produção de Recursos Educacionais Abertos com Foco na Disseminação do Conhecimento: Uma Proposta de Framework, 2015, https://repositorio.ufsc.br/bitstream/handle/123456789/135513/334502.pdf?sequence=1.

[90] Center for Educational Research and Innovation, Giving Knowledge for Free: The Emergence of Open Educational Resources, 2007, https://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/38654317.pdf.

[91] “Common Questions,” Recursos Educacionais Abertos, http://www.rea.net.br/site/faq/#a2.

[92] Instituto EducaDigital, “Sergio Branco—Direitos Autorais e Recursos Educacionais Abertos,” YouTube, 8 September 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNQWjhu51qQ.

[93] Edmea Santos and Elena Maria Mallmann, “Dossier: Open Educational Resources,” Em Foco 5, no. 1 (2017),   http://eademfoco.cecierj.edu.br/index.php/Revista/article/view/616.

[94] “Na OER book on OER,” Recursos Educacionais Abertos, http://www.rea.net.br/site/livro-rea/.

[95] “Map REA Brasil,” Recursos Educacionais Abertos, http://www.rea.net.br/site/mapa-rea/.

[96] “REMAR,” Annals of the Workshops of the Brazilian Congresso of Informatics in Education, http://www.br-ie.org/pub/index.php/wcbie/article/view/7396/5192.

[97] “Tecnologias da Informação em Educação,” Centro de Investigação em Didática e Tecnologia na Formação de Formadores, http://revistas.ua.pt/index.php/ID/article/view/5074/4459.

[98] Mappings,” Recursos Educacionais Abertos, http://www.rea.net.br/site/mapeamentos/

[99] Organização das Nações Unidas para a Educação a Ciência e a Cultura, Diretrizes para Recursos Educacionais Abertos (REA) No Ensino Superior, 2015, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002328/232852por.pdf.

[100] Martin Weller, Bea de Los Arcos, Rob Farrow, Beck Pitt, and Patrick McAndrew, “The Impact of OER on Teaching and Learning Practice,” Open Praxis 7, no. 4 (October-December 2015): 351–361, http://oro.open.ac.uk/44963/1/227-1106-2-PB-3.pdf.

[101] “Common Questions,” Recursos Educacionais Abertos.

[102] See “Details on the Open Innovation in Education Study,” Open Government Partnership, Brazil Federal Government, last modified 5 December 2016, http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/noticias/2016/centro-de-inovacao-para-a-educacao-brasileira-lanca-estudo-sobre-inovacao-aberta-em-educacao-em-parceria-com-o-instituto-educadigital.

[103] Centro de Inovação para a Educação Brasileira, CIEB Technical Notes: Guidelines for Selection and Evaluation of Digital Content and Resources, http://www.cieb.net.br/cieb-notas-tecnicas-orientacoes-para-selecao-e-avaliacao-de-conteudos-e-recursos-digitais/.

[104] Ministerio da Transparencia, Fiscalizacao e Controladoria-Geral da Uniao, Relatorio de Status de Execucao de Compromisso, http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/central-de-conteudo/documentos/2017-18-agosto-rse_6.pdf.

[105] Priscila Gonsales, “2nd REA World Congress: Plano of Action Towards the 4th ODS,” Iniciativa Educação Aberta, http://aberta.org.br/2o-congresso-mundial-de-rea-plano-de-acao-rumo-ao-4o-ods/

[106] Centro de Inovação para a Educação Brasileira, Advances the Construction of the New Platform of Digital Educational Resources of the MEC, http://www.cieb.net.br/avanca-a-construcao-da-nova-plataforma-de-recursos-educacionais-digitais-do-mec/.

[107] Ministerio da Transparencia, Fiscalizacao e Controladoria-Geral da Uniao, Relatorio de Status de Execucao de Compromisso.

[108] “US Begin to Adopt Books with Free Content to Cut Costs in Higher Education,” Porvir, 19 April 2017, http://porvir.org/eua-comecam-adotar-livros-conteudo-livre-para-cortar-custos-ensino-superior/.

[109] “Free and Legal Sharing for Better Learning,” Current Affairs, Correio, http://pt.unesco.org/courier/julho-setembro-2017/compartilhamento-livre-e-legal-uma-melhor-aprendizagem.

[110] Mara Denize Mazzardo, Ana Maria Ferreira Nobre, and Elena maria Mallmann, “Open Educational Resources: Free Access to Knowledge?” Em Foco, 30 April 2017, http://eademfoco.cecierj.edu.br/index.php/Revista/article/viewFile/446/228.

[111] “Public Policy Experiences for OER,” Iniciativa Educação Aberta, http://aberta.org.br/experiencias-de-politica-publica-para-rea/.

[112] TV Morena, “Fraud in Bids Have Caused Losses of at Least R $670 Thousand in Paranhos, Says PF de MS,” Globo.com 5 March 2017, https://g1.globo.com/mato-grosso-do-sul/noticia/pf-aponta-que-fraudes-em-licitacoes-causaram-prejuizo-de-pelo-menos-r-670-mil-em-paranhos-ms.ghtml.

[113] Home page, Open Contracting Partnership, https://www.open-contracting.org/.

[114] “New Seal of Fiocruz Evaluates Quality of Health Sites,” Government of Brazil, 1 June 2017, http://www.brasil.gov.br/saude/2016/12/novo-selo-da-fiocruz-avalia-qualidade-de-sites-da-saude.

[115] Claudia Collucci, “Access to Health Data Grows, and the Public Network Remains Inefficient,” Folha de S.Paulo, 30 March 2017, http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/seminariosfolha/2017/03/1870822-acesso-a-dados-da-saude-cresce-e-a-rede-publica-segue-ineficiente.shtml.

[116] Eokoe, “Live: ‘Dados Abertos sobre a Saude,” YouTube, 1 June 2017,  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txev8kQ3lt0.

[117] Open Government Partnership, Memoria de Reuniao—Compromisso 07,”  http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/central-de-conteudo/documentos/memoria-saude-20-02-17.pdf.

[118] Open Government Partnership, Memoria de Reuniao—Compromisso 07,”  http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/central-de-conteudo/documentos/memoria-saude-27-07-2017.pdf.

[120] Ministerio da Transparencia, Fiscalizacao e Controladoria-Geral da Uniao, Relatorio de Status de Execucao de Compromisso, http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/central-de-conteudo/documentos/2017-30-agosto-rse_7.pdf

[121] “BIS. Bulleting of the Institute of Health,” Saude Portal de Revistas—SES, August 2010, http://periodicos.ses.sp.bvs.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1518-18122010000200009&lng=pt&nrm=iso.

[122] Jose Mauricio Arruti, “Public Policies for Quilombos: A Test of Conjuncture from the Example of Health,” Contexto Quilombola 3, no. 11 (July 2008),  http://www.koinonia.org.br/tpdigital/detalhes.asp?cod_artigo=208&cod_boletim=12&tipo=Artigo.

[123] Ministério da Saude, Plano dados Abertos para o Ministério da Saude, http://sage.saude.gov.br/sistemas/apresentacoes/plano_de_dados_abertos_do_ms.pdf.

[124] “Os números do cárcere,” Conectas Direitos Humanos, 5 February 2016

[126] Johnnatan Reges Viana, “A Crise do Sistema Carcerário Brasileiro,” Ámbito Jurídico 15, no. 104 (2012), http://bit.ly/2rQ0T5n.

[127] Luis Barrucho and Luciana Barros, “5 Problemas Crônicos Das Prisões Brasileiras – e como Estão Sendo Solucionados ao Redor do Mundo,” BBC, 9 January 2017, http://www.bbc.com/portuguese/brasil-38537789.

[128] “Entenda a Crise no Sistema Prisional Brasileiro,” EBC Agências, 24 January 2017, http://www.ebc.com.br/especiais/entenda-crise-no-sistema-prisional-brasileiro. 

[129] “Sistema Carcerário é Doente e Mata, diz Rogério Nascimento, do CNJ,” National Justice Council, 17 August 2017, http://bit.ly/2BBIBV8.

[130] Rafael Custódio and Vivian Calderoni, “Penas e Mortes no Sistema Prisional Brasileiro,” Criminal Justice Network Newsletter no. 8 (January 2016), http://bit.ly/2Gtedjv.

[131] Samira Bueno, “Transparência para Transformar,” Criminal Justice Network Newsletter no. 8 (January 2016), http://bit.ly/2Gtedjv.

[132] Raquel da Cruz Lima, Anderson Lobo da Fonseca, and Felipe Eduardo Lazaro Braga, “O Silêncio Eloquente sobre as Mulheres no Levantamento Nacional de Informações Penitenciárias,” Criminal Justice Network Newsletter no. 8 (January 2016), http://bit.ly/2Gtedjv.

[133] “Falta Transparência em Custos do Sistema Carcerário no Brasil,” University of São Paulo Newspaper, 18 July 2016, https://jornal.usp.br/ciencias/falta-transparencia-em-custos-do-sistema-carcerario-no-brasil/.

[134] Open Government Partnership, Memoria de Reuniao—Compromisso 8,  http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/central-de-conteudo/documentos/memoria_reuniao_31jul2017.pdf.

[135] “Depen Launches Public Call Notice for Innovation and Data Entry in Prison Inspections,” Ministry of Justice, Brazil Federal Government, http://www.justica.gov.br/seus-direitos/politica-penal/noticias-depen/depen-lanca-edital-de-chamamento-publico-para-inovacao-e-abertura-de-dados-nas-inspecoes-prisionais-1.

[137] “Fellowship OEA de Gobierno Abierto en las Americas,” Organizacion de Los Estados Americanos, https://www.oas.org/es/sap/dgpe/opengovfellowship/.

[138] “Meet the Network,” MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Opening Governance, http://www.opening-governance.org/#the-context.

[139] “Civil Society,” Open Government Partnership, https://www.opengovpartnership.org/resources/civil-society

[142] “The Rules of the Game,” InovaGov, https://redeinovagov.blogspot.com.br/p/blog-page_29.html.

[147] Ministerio da Transparencia, Fiscalizacao e Controladoria-Geral da Uniao, Relatorio de Status de Execucao de Compromisso, http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/central-de-conteudo/documentos/2017-28-agosto-rse_9.pdf.

[148] Home page, International Budget Partnership, https://www.internationalbudget.org/.

[149] Ministério do Planejamento, Orçamento e Gestão, Indicadores e Métricas para Avaliação de e-Services,” October 2007, https://www.governoeletronico.gov.br/documentos-e-arquivos/LivroFina_04102007.pdf.

[150] Gustavo Herminio Salati Marcondes de Moraes and Fernando de Souza Meirelles, “User’s Perspective of Electronic Government Adoption in Brazil,” Journal of Technology Management and Innovation 12, no. 12 (2017),  http://www.scielo.cl/scielo.php?pid=S0718-27242017000200001&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en.

[151] Elise Sueli Pereira Goncalves and Andrea Thalhofer Ricciardi, Plataforma de Servicos Publicos, IX Congresso Consad de Gestao Publica, 8–10 June 2016, http://consad.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Painel-32-02.pdf.

[152] “Digital Citizenship,” Brazil Federal Government, http://www.planejamento.gov.br/cidadaniadigital.

[153] “Census of Public Services,” Ministry of Planning, Development, and Management, http://www.planejamento.gov.br/cidadaniadigital/censo-de-servicos-publicos.

[154] Ministerio da Transparencia, Fiscalizacao e Controladoria-Geral da Uniao, Relatorio de Status de Execucao de Compromisso, http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/central-de-conteudo/documentos/2017-28-agosto-rse_10.pdf.

[155]  Ministerio da Transparencia, Fiscalizacao e Controladoria-Geral da Uniao, Relatorio de Status de Execucao de Compromisso.

[156] Cristiane Sinimbu Sanchez and Patricia Zeni Marchiori, “Popular Participation in the Context of Open Government Initiatives: A Systematic Review of the Literature,” Brazilian Journal of Public and International Policies 2, no. 2(2017), http://periodicos.ufpb.br/ojs2/index.php/rppi/article/view/34564.

[157] Julie Simon, Theo Bass, Victoria Boelman, and Geogg Mulgan, Digital Democracy: The Tools Transforming Political Engagement, Nesta, February 2017, http://www.nesta.org.uk/sites/default/files/digital_democracy.pdf.

[159] “Senado lança Índice de Transparência do Legislativo,” Open Government Partnership, Brazil Federal Government, 28 December 2015, http://bit.ly/2GyLCcG.

[160] Julia Affonso, Fausto Macedo, and Mateus Coutinho, “Confidence in the Judiciary Is Only 29% of the Population, Says FGV,” Estadao, 28 October 2016, http://politica.estadao.com.br/blogs/fausto-macedo/confianca-no-judiciario-e-de-apenas-29-da-populacao-diz-fgv/.

[161] Hacker Laboratory—Chamber of Deputies, Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/LabHackerCD.

[162] LabHacker Chamber of Deputies, YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/user/LabHackerCD/videos.

[163] Ministerio da Transparencia, Fiscalizacao e Controladoria-Geral da Uniao, Relatorio de Status de Execucao de Compromisso, http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/central-de-conteudo/documentos/2017-29-agosto-rse_11.pdf.

[164] According to the government, the thread created to discuss the project was formerly available at: https://discourse.interlegis.leg.br/.../marco-1.../15. In addition, the government noted that the pad with the open parliament content repository was formerly available at: http://pad.w3c.br/p/Parlamento_Aberto. This information was provided by the government in a comment during the pre-publication review of this report, 24 April 2018.

[165] The government provided the link to a google document with relevant information during the pre-publication review of this report, 24 April 2018.  

[166] In particular, see: PRC 229/2017 – New form of civic participation in legislative work (https://goo.gl/XYbqsX); PRC 235/2017 – Special procedure for the processing of bills by popular initiative (https://goo.gl/yVvEkK); PRC 217/2017 – Institutionalizes civic participation in the legislative process of the Chamber of Deputies (https://goo.gl/eM7JbU); PL 7574/2017 – Establishes a new legal framework for the exercise of direct popular sovereignty.  

[167] Beth Noveck, Gabriella Capone, and Victoria Alsina, “Re-Imagining Lawmaking,” Legislature 2.0: CrowdLaw and the Future of Lawmaking, GovLab, 14 November 2017, http://thegovlab.org/legislature-2-0/.

[168] Home page, Ministry of Transparency and Comptroller General of the Union, http://www.cgu.gov.br/assuntos/transparencia-publica/escala-brasil-transparente.

[170] “Most Capitals Go Poorly on Transparency Assessment,” Article 19, 25 September 2015, http://artigo19.org/blog/2015/09/25/maioria-das-capitais-vai-mal-em-avaliacao-de-transparencia/.

[172] “Electoral Justice Joins the PC,” Conselho Nacional de Justica, 7 July 2012, http://cnj.jus.br/noticias/cnj/58943-justica-eleitoral-adere-ao-pje.

[173] “Campaign of the CNJ Announces Advantages of the PJe,” TRT2 São Paulo, last modified 20 February 2015, http://www.trtsp.jus.br/indice-de-noticias-ultimas-noticias/19117-campanha-do-cnj-divulga-vantagens-do-pje.

[175] Ibid.

[176] “Electoral Justice Joins the PC.”

[178] “Judges of the TRE-CE Court Are Aware of the States of Implementation,” Tribunal Regional Eleitoral, 21 February 2017, http://www.tre-ce.jus.br/imprensa/noticias-tre-ce/2017/Fevereiro/juizes-da-corte-do-tre-ce-tomam-conhecimento-das-etapas-de-implantacao-do-pje.

[179] “PJe Electronic Judicial Process,” Open Courses, Educacao Corporativa do TSE, https://educacao.tse.jus.br/course/index.php?categoryid=81.

[180] “PJE,” TRT13, https://www.trt13.jus.br/pje.

[181] Ministerio da Transparencia, Fiscalizacao e Controladoria-Geral da Uniao, Relatorio de Status de Execucao de Compromisso, http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/central-de-conteudo/documentos/2017-30-agosto-rse_13.pdf.

[183] “Digital Certification Is Future of Public Services, but Still Expensive in Brazil,” Folha de S.Paulo, 7 October 2017, http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/colunas/ronaldolemos/2017/07/1899775-certificacao-digital-e-futuro-de-servicos-publicos-mas-ainda-e-cara-no-brasil.shtml.

[184] Pedor Canario, “In 2017, Public Confidence in Justice and MP decreased, Says FGV Study,” Consultor Juridico, 25 August 2017, https://www.conjur.com.br/2017-ago-25/2017-confianca-judiciario-mp-diminuiu-estudo.

[185] Janaina Penalva, “CNJ Debates 10 Years Ago Salaries above the Ceiling,” Jota, 9 February 2017, https://jota.info/artigos/cnj-debate-ha-10-anos-salarios-acima-do-teto-02092017.

[187] “Dilma Sanctioned Pluriannual Plan from 2016 to 2019 with Vetoes,” Agencia Brasil, 14 January 2016, http://congressoemfoco.uol.com.br/noticias/dilma-sanciona-plano-plurianual-de-2016-a-2019-com-vetos/.

[188] “PPA 2016–2019: Resumption of Social Participation?” INESC, 3 March 2015, http://www.inesc.org.br/noticias/noticias-do-inesc/2015/marco/ppa-2016-2019-retomada-da-participacao-social.

[189] Ministerio da Transparencia, Fiscalizacao e Controladoria-Geral da Uniao, Relatorio de Status de Execucao de Compromisso, http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/central-de-conteudo/documentos/2017-31-agosto-rse_14.pdf.

[192] Ibid.

[193] Ministerio da Transparencia, Fiscalizacao e Controladoria-Geral da Uniao, Relatorio de Status de Execucao de Compromisso.

[194] “Open Budget Survey 2017, Brazil,” International Budget Partnership, http://bit.ly/2BIDoe7.

[195] Portal Brasil, “Governo divulga dados do cadastro de imóveis rurais,” 29 November 2016, http://www.brasil.gov.br/meio-ambiente/2016/11/governo-divulga-dados-do-cadastro-de-imoveis-rurais

[196] Bruno Calixto, “Why Environmental Data Such as the Rural Environmental Registry Should Be Public,” EPOCA, 1 October 2017, http://epoca.globo.com/ciencia-e-meio-ambiente/blog-do-planeta/noticia/2017/01/por-que-dados-ambientais-como-o-cadastro-ambiental-rural-devem-ser-publicos.html.

[197] Phillippe Watanabe, “Rural Environmental Registry Does Not Prevent De-registration or Encourages Restoration,” Folha de S.Paulo, 3 July 2017, http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/ambiente/2017/07/1898079-cadastro-de-propriedade-rural-nao-impede-desmate-nem-incentiva-restauro.shtml.

[198] “Open Data Plan,” Ministry of Environment, http://www.mma.gov.br/plano-de-dados-abertos.

[200] Ministerio da Transparencia, Fiscalizacao e Controladoria-Geral da Uniao, Relatorio de Status de Execucao de Compromisso, http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/central-de-conteudo/documentos/2017-17-ago-rse_15.pdf

[201] G1 AC and Rio Branco, “Without Issuance of DOF, Businessmen Complain of Problems in the Transportation of Wood in the AC,” Globo.com, 18 July 2017, https://g1.globo.com/ac/acre/noticia/sem-emissao-de-dof-empresarios-reclamam-de-problemas-para-transporte-de-madeira-no-ac.ghtml.

[202] Miguel Oliveira, “Ibama Crosses Data on Illegal Deforestation with GTA to Discover Meat Route to Refrigerators in Para,” Journal of the State of Tapajos 14, no. 3338 (24 March 2017), http://www.oestadonet.com.br/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=11613:ibama-cruza-dados-de-desmatamento-ilegal-com-gta-para-descobrir-rota-de-carne-ate-frigorificos-no-para&Itemid=88.

[203] Marina Gomes de Oliveira Polo, “Government, Civil Society and the Challenges in the Publication of Open Data: The Case of the Database of the National Program of Support to Culture in Brazil,” Instituto Universitario de Lisboa, https://repositorio.iscte-iul.pt/handle/10071/10999.

[204] “PF Deflagra Operação para Investigar Desvio de R$ 180 mi na Lei Rouanet,” Folha de S.Paulo, 29 June 2016, http://bit.ly/2EuJZMk.

[205] “Transparency: MinC Launches Open Data Plan Portal,” Representação Regional Nordeste, 1 June 2017, http://culturadigital.br/mincnordeste/2017/06/01/transparencia-minc-lanca-portal-plano-de-dados-abertos/.

[206] Fabio Vasconcellos, “É preciso promover cultura dos dados abertos, diz pesquisadora,” O Globo, 1 December 2014, http://blogs.oglobo.globo.com/na-base-dos-dados/post/e-preciso-promover-cultura-dos-dados-abertos-diz-pesquisadora-555695.html

[207] “New Rules Make Law Rouanet More Transparent and Accessible,” Government of Brazil,  http://www.brasil.gov.br/cultura/2017/03/novas-regras-tornam-lei-rouanet-mais-transparente-e-acessivel.

[208] “Culture—The Investment Map,” Desafios do Desenvolvimento, 3 January 2005, http://www.ipea.gov.br/desafios/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=873:reportagens-materias&Itemid=39.

[209] Ministerio da Transparencia, Fiscalizacao e Controladoria-Geral da Uniao, Relatorio de Status de Execucao de Compromisso, http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/central-de-conteudo/documentos/2017-30-agosto-rse_16.pdf.

[210] Priscila Dorneles, “Treinamento e Formação de Gestores do Mapas Culturais,” SNIIC, 3 January 2017, http://bit.ly/2BO024U.

[211] Médice Bruno Duraes Soares, “Gestores e Desenvolvedores de Mapas se Reúnem,” SNIIC, 12 May 2017, http://bit.ly/2nyEdRW.

[212] “Prácticas Culturais e as Novas Tecnologias: Desafios para Produção de Indicadores,” SESC São Paulo Education and Research Center, 19 April 2017, http://bit.ly/2BOh6I0.

[213] Ministerio da Transparencia, Fiscalizacao e Controladoria-Geral da Uniao, Relatorio de Status de Execucao de Compromisso.

[214] Comparisons of a web archive of the site on 29 December 2016 (http://bit.ly/2FDibVh) and on 6 June 2017 (http://bit.ly/2DP5arh) reveal that the functionality of the site did not change.

[215] Priscila Dorneles, “IV Meeting of the SNIIC Commission and I WG Working Glossary of Culture,” SNIIC, 24 February 2016, http://sniic.cultura.gov.br/2016/02/24/iv-reuniao-da-comissao-do-sniic-e-i-oficina-do-gt-glossario-da-cultura/.

[216] Priscila Dorneles, “Meeting of Developers of the ‘Cultural Maps,’” 25 July 2016, http://sniic.cultura.gov.br/2016/07/25/encontro-de-desenvolvedores-do-mapas-culturais/.

[217] “Challenge Prioritization Stage,” Open Government Partnership, Brazil Federal Government, last modified 24 February 2017, http://www.governoaberto.cgu.gov.br/noticias/2017/monitoramento/3o-plano-de-acao-brasileiro/cultura/priorizacao-dos-desafios.

[218] See https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/brazils-new-political-movements for a list of new political movements and organizations in Brazil that are focusing on political and campaign reform, as well as anti-corruption efforts.

[219] The government provided these comments during the pre-publication review of this report, 24 April 2018.