![\"\"](\"https:\/\/revistapesquisa.fapesp.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/036-041_tcu_2880-2-1140-2.jpg\")
Pedro Fran\u00e7a \/ Ag\u00eancia Senado<\/span><\/a> A public hearing organized by the Senate CCT to discuss national broadband policy in 2017Pedro Fran\u00e7a \/ Ag\u00eancia Senado<\/span><\/p><\/div>\n R&D spending had also increased as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP): from 1.04% to 1.24% in the report period. The report also highlighted how 16 sectoral funds created in the late 1990s had helped to fund ST&I programs in several fields.<\/p>\n These funds formed what would become a new funding model for the sector. \u201cThis is an innovative mechanism designed to strengthen Brazil\u2019s ST&I capabilities,\u201d says physicist Ildeu de Castro Moreira, president of the Brazilian Society for the Advancement of Science (SBPC). The funds are linked to the National Fund for Scientific and Technological Development (FNDCT) and were originally intended, says Moreira, to provide a stable supply of research funding managed within a participatory, multistakeholder model. The TCU report indicates underfunding was not a problem in previous decades\u2014the biggest issue was the lack of policy guidance on the use of those funds. \u201cBut now,\u201d Moreira explains, \u201cnot only is a plan of action lacking, but 90% of FNDCT funding has been frozen [placed in a contingency reserve] and repurposed to pay off public debt, which undermines any long-term, strategic planning.\u201d As a result, these and other innovation programs have failed to deliver expected results. The court auditors warn that Brazil is lagging other countries when it comes to innovation. This is clearly reflected in the country\u2019s position in the Global Innovation Index (GII), an annual ranking published by Cornell University in partnership with Institut Europ\u00e9en d’Administration des Affaires (INSEAD), in France, and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), in Switzerland. In the period 2016\u20132017 Brazil ranked 69th<\/sup> out of 127 countries; in 2019 it ranked 66th<\/sup> out of 126.<\/p>\n The main culprit identified in the auditors\u2019 report is that Federal innovation incentive programs in recent decades have been highly fragmented and poorly coordinated. The TCU identified a total of 76 Federal initiatives in the last 20 years, all implemented without long-term coordination. For example, during the report period the MCTIC launched three different national plans of action and strategies to develop an innovation ecosystem in Brazil. However, according to the report, the ministry itself recognizes it failed to create mechanisms to coordinate and align these initiatives together. In other words, the Brazilian government has funded a large number of programs in recent decades without any kind of cross-program integration.<\/p>\n Asked to comment, the BNDES, one of the organizations mentioned in the TCU report, stated through its press office that it recognizes the importance of coordination among the different public and private actors in the national innovation ecosystem, and has signed cooperation agreements with several institutions engaged in innovation support. \u201cBNDES has often worked in collaboration with FINEP, such as in developing the Inova Empresa program.\u201d The development bank also cited its role in discussing and developing public policies to foster innovation, working with government ministries and agencies. FINEP declined to comment on the report.<\/p>\n According to the TCU, one of the consequences of inadequate strategic coordination has been incoherent and ineffective government spending. This has been exacerbated by the absence of adequate performance metrics and the inaction of the National Council for Science and Technology (CCT). Created in 1996, the CCT was meant to serve as an advisory body to the President in formulating and implementing policies for scientific and technological development. The TCU report found, however, that the CCT is poorly structured and understaffed, its meetings have been sparse, and its leadership in policy-making and priority-setting has been lacking.<\/p>\n The CCT held 13 plenary meetings and 112 subject-matter committee meetings from 2004 to 2019<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Ildeu Moreira notes that CCT meetings have become increasingly sporadic since 2012\u2014in all, 13 plenary meetings and 112 subject-matter committee meetings were held from 2004 to 2019. \u201cOnly two were during Michel Temer\u2019s entire term [2016\u20132018],\u201d he says. \u201cA meeting scheduled for November last year under the current administration was postponed to a later date. We have continued to stress the importance of these meetings and of an active CCT.\u201d He also notes that recent meetings have been less than productive. \u201cThere has been little effort by the government to listen to suggestions from different organizations and sectors, discuss issues in depth, and work together to build medium- and long-term policies.\u201d<\/p>\n Luiz Davidovich, chairman of the Brazilian Academy of Science (ABC), says the council, like many of its counterparts elsewhere in the world, was created directly in response to demand from the scientific community. \u201cThe CCT was established with a mandate to assist the President in creating long-term public ST&I policies and coordinating the innovation policies that are in place or under development,\u201d he says. \u201cHowever,\u201d he notes, \u201cthe CCT is far from exercising the leadership that other scientific advisory bodies around the world do.\u201d<\/p>\n > Boost research in support of innovation Innovation policies and programs in many countries are largely led by offices that are directly under the president or prime minister and are therefore able to influence the ST&I agenda, explains economist Fernanda De Negri of IPEA, who has done research about Brazil’s difficulties in producing and benefiting from innovation. \u201cThese offices are able to coordinate ST&I strategies across industry, academia, and broader society.\u201d The US was one of the first countries to create an office to advise the President and coordinate ST&I activities across agencies and with the private sector. The UK, which ranked 4th<\/sup> on the 2018 Global Innovation Index, created the position of chief scientist\u2014a personal adviser to the prime minister and their cabinet on ST&I topics\u2014in the 1960s. Like the UK, Australia also has a chief scientist tasked with offering expert advice to its prime minister.<\/p>\n In 2015 the government of S\u00e3o Paulo, acting on a proposal submitted by FAPESP, announced the creation of chief scientist positions in each of the state departments. Their role is to make science-based recommendations on solutions to challenges facing departments (see<\/em> Pesquisa FAPESP issue no. 236<\/em><\/a>). More recently, in September 2019, the Cear\u00e1 Foundation for Scientific and Technological Development Support (FUNCAP) launched a Chief Scientist program as a way to promote closer collaboration between academia and public managers. Teams of researchers, led by a chief scientist, will work at state-level departments and strategic agencies to develop scientific and technological solutions for the improvement of government services (see<\/em> Pesquisa FAPESP issue no. 274<\/em><\/a>).<\/p>\n In Brazil, explains Davidovich, the President or his\/her designated representative is responsible for calling meetings and forming subject-matter CCT committees to implement national programs and decide on budget allocations according to established goals. \u201cIn the Brazilian system, Congress sets a ceiling for government spending and can also, in theory, repurpose funds in the Federal Government\u2019s proposed budget, although in practice it changes things very little and leaves decisions on appropriations to the Executive Branch,\u201d he explains. \u201cST&I policies need to be very clearly articulated if funding is to be applied effectively. Hence the importance of the Federal Government implementing a well-informed and coordinated national ST&I plan. If the CCT functioned as it ought to, it could play an important role in this regard.\u201d<\/p>\n The system is different in countries like the US. There, Federal S&T spending is informed by assessments by government departments, such as Defense, Energy, and Health. The US has no dedicated S&T department, so ST&I budget appropriations are instead decided by congressional committees, which play a key role in distributing federal funding to different areas of ST&I (see<\/em> Pesquisa FAPESP issue no. 261<\/em><\/a>). These negotiations allow representatives from different agencies to defend their budget in Congress.<\/p>\n While the audit court\u2019s report pinpoints many of the roadblocks to developing a strong innovation ecosystem in Brazil, it should not be taken as a final verdict. For De Negri, although the report does raise important issues, Brazil\u2019s low levels of innovation also stem from structural factors that were not addressed in the audit, ranging from the low quality of basic education to the lack of an economic environment lending itself to innovation. \u201cIt will take more than an innovation policy to tackle these issues,\u201d she says. \u201cWithout a comprehensive ST&I policy that sets long-term priorities and guidelines and engages different sectors, government programs to foster innovation will remain a patchwork of discrete initiatives.\u201d<\/p>\n\n <\/picture>\n
\nA policy under public consultation outlines six goals to be met by 2030 to advance Brazil\u2019s innovation agenda<\/em><\/p>\n
\n> Disseminate a culture of innovation and an entrepreneurial mindset
\n> Provide funding for innovation
\n> Expand Brazil\u2019s talent pool for innovation
\n> Develop markets for innovative products and services
\n> Perfect and disseminate legal frameworks fostering an innovative environment<\/div>\n