EXCELLENCE MODEL IN PUBLIC MANAGEMENT: THE CAETÉS ECOLOGICAL STATION CASE

Abstract

The Model of Excellence in Public Management (MEGP) stands out for the results from the management of protected areas. This study aimed to analyze the applicability of this model to improve the effectiveness in management of the Pernambuco conservation units. As a reference, the Ecological Station chosen was Caetés, the first State unit deployed with a management plan and participatory management. Adapting the model to the unit management conditions and, through workshops with managers, the MEGP criteria were analyzed, the existing management practices identified and the results presented. The analysis revealed managerial gaps that interfere with the unit management and the use of the model helps to improve it, also improving outcomes for biodiversity conservation policies.

Keyword :
Protected area; Caetés Ecological Station; Management effectiveness; Excellence in public management

Resumen

El Modelo de Excelencia en Gestión Pública (MEGP) se destaca por los resultados obtenidos en gestión de áreas protegidas. Teniendo en cuenta la premisa que uno de los mayores problemas de servicio público es la gestión, proporciona parámetros para evaluación de sistemas de organización y mejora del servicio. Este estudio investiga la aplicabilidad de este modelo para mejorar la eficacia de gestión de unidades de conservación de Pernambuco. Como referencia, la estación elegida fue Caetés, desplegó por primera vez la unidad de estado con plan de manejo y gestión participativa. Adaptar el modelo a las condiciones de gestión de la unidad y, a través de talleres con los gerentes, se analizaron los criterios MEGP, identifican prácticas de manejo y resultados presentados. El análisis señaló deficiencias de gestión que interfieren con la gestión y el uso del modelo ayuda mejorar los resultados de política de conservación de biodiversidad.

Palabras clave :
Área protegida; Estación Ecológica Caetés; Eficacia de la gestión; Excelencia en la gestión pública

Resumo

O Modelo de Excelência em Gestão Pública (MEGP) destaca-se pelos resultados obtidos na gestão de unidades de conservação. Objetivou-se analisar a sua aplicabilidade para melhorar a efetividade de gestão das unidades de conservação de Pernambuco. Analisou-se como a equipe gestora da unidade desempenha seu papel, que práticas gerenciais são utilizadas na gestão da unidade de conservação, quais os resultados obtidos e como o MEGP pode ser utilizado para fomentar este processo. Sendo escolhida a Estação Ecológica de Caetés, primeira unidade estadual implantada com plano de manejo e gestão participativa. Adaptando-se o Modelo às condições de gestão da unidade e, por meio de oficinas com os gestores, foram analisados os critérios do MEGP, identificadas as práticas gerenciais existentes e os resultados apresentados. Sendo apontadas lacunas gerenciais que interferem na gestão da unidade e que a utilização do Modelo contribui para aperfeiçoá-la, melhorando os resultados para a política de conservação da biodiversidade.

Palavras-chave :
Unidade de conservação; Estação Ecológica de Caetés; Efetividade de gestão; Excelência em gestão pública

Introduction

Managerial tools developed for improving the Brazilian public management were employed herein to assess the management of Conservation Units (UCs). The Public Management Excellence Model (MEGP) was developed by the Ministry of Planning, Budget and Management, and was tested by the Amazonian Protected Areas Program (ARPA) as an alternative to establish a new management model for the conservation units in the region (MARQUES et al., 2012). Started in 2002, one of the major ARPA innovations was understanding these areas as “organizations” and, as any other institution, be it public or private, they need managerial tools to allow their operation. Considering the UCs as instrumental for this environmental public policy, the management of these areas cannot but be the object of assessment of the result-oriented public policy in the field of implementation. This approach allowed a new conception for defining strategies for managing conservation units in Brazil.

The effective implementation of the UCs is a growing demand of society and a strategic need of governments for future generations, not limited to what regards conservation of biodiversity, of the genetic collection, environmental and ecosystem services, but also before the scenarios faced due to climate change. In this sense, Pernambuco is one of the Brazilian States most vulnerable to the effects of these changes, presenting quite a peculiar situation. Over 80% of its territory is inserted in the semi-arid, where there are 135 municipalities in areas susceptible to desertification (ASD). Whereas the Agreste region and the backcountry suffer with the drought phenomenon, an erosive process of the shoreline is evidenced in the coastal region, threatening both public and private assets. In the Recife Metropolitan Region (RMR), these effects are aggravated by the average increase in the sea level, by the high population density on the coast (882 inhab./km²), by the high percentile of soil imperviousness and by the low height of the coastal area, posing great risk to the municipalities (PERNAMBUCO, 2011).

In this scenario, the conservation units show to be good alternatives to allow adaptation and mitigation of the effects of global climate change, to promote sustainable development in their surroundings and, consequently, to influence the quality of life in the near future.

The role of the government is to ensure that, once established, they have the proper means to be implemented and kept. For this, managers should be qualified to perform their roles, which does not often occur. A number of them have technical qualifications, yet they are not prepared for the managerial role. It must be understood that managing a UC requires [specific] knowledge, using administration tools and techniques besides public administration and management. As stated by Araújo et al. (2012), the perception of the historical moment and of the cultural environment of the public agencies managing UCs, which are not result-oriented or concerned about adequately serving users, increasing productivity or reducing costs for society, is fundamental for understanding the current context of these areas in Brazil.

Ecological station is a UC management category that, according to the National and State Conservation Unit Systems (SNUC and SEUC), aims to conserve nature and to conduct scientific researches; public tours are forbidden, except for educational purposes (BRASIL, 2000; PERNAMBUCO, 2009). The general goal of our research is to analyze the applicability of the Model to improve the management effectiveness of the conservation units in Pernambuco. Its object of study is the Caetés Ecological Station (Caetés ESEC), located in the municipality of Paulista, in the Recife Metropolitan Region (RMR). For this, we analyzed how the Unit management team performs its role, which managerial practices are used, what results have been derived and how the MEGP can be used to promote management processes in conservation units.

Methodological procedures

For conducting this work, bibliographic and document researches were conducted, besides the collection of primary data, using the MEGP by means of the 250-point Public Management Self-Assessment Instrument (IAGP), considered adequate for the institutions that have never performed their management self-assessment (BRASIL, 2009).

In the document research, we consulted Pernambuco Government publications, made available at the library and on official sites of the Secretariat for the Environment and Sustainability (SEMAS) and especially of the State Environment Agency (CPRH). Consultations were also held in digital publications in the portal of ICMBio, of the ARPA Program and of the Ministry for the Environment (MMA).

The 250-point IAGP, used for collecting primary data, analyzes the organizational management as from eight criteria. The first criterion, “leadership”, observes how the leader power is exerted, how social participation is encouraged and how his/her articulation and mobilization power is used to conduct programs and projects in the unit. The second criterion, “strategy and plans” verifies how the mission and vision of the future unfold in short-, medium- and long-term actions. The criterion “citizens”, observes how the institution, while accomplishing its competencies, identifies the users of its services and products, knows their needs, assessing its capacity of meeting them, acting in anticipation of them. The fourth criterion, “society”, analyzes how responsibilities are approached before society, promoting the exercise of citizenship and social control. The fifth criterion, “information and knowledge”, allows observing how information management (organization, dissemination, availability, administrative organization, etc.) is approached. The sixth criterion, “servant-collaborator”, observes work organization, the selection of people to participate in the team, their qualifications and performance, besides the quality of the internal and external work environment. The seventh criterion, “processes”, verifies how finalistic and support processes are managed, analyzed and improved. The last criterion, “results”, allows identifying the organization performance in relation to the managerial processes (criteria 1 to 7) and to the organizational results derived (BRASIL, 2009).

Each of the eight criteria underwent adjustments, once their integral use did not apply to the current management moment of the State conservation units, since none has financial-administrative autonomy and the decisions regarding budget, equipment and infrastructure maintenance, supplies, etc. are centralized in the managing entity, CPRH (CPRH, 2012). However, the core of each criterion was kept, preserving its goal.

For assessing the MEGP criteria, IAGP was applied by means of three workshops with the technical and managerial teams of the Caetés ESEC, each lasting eight hours. For recording the process, the visualization method was used, allowing for building panels for each criterion. On the first day, the goals of the research and of the work to be conducted were presented. A theoretical exposition on the conceptual elements of MEGP was also provided, contextualizing the environmental policy and management, as well as the conservation units management as a public sector attribution. The goals of each criterion and its importance were made clear aiming at the good performance of a management system. This conceptual approach was necessary for the previous understanding of the language used by MEGP and the reason for its being adopted for assessing management effectiveness in conservation units.

On the second day, the Self-Assessment of the Ecological Station management was made, started by elaborating the organizational profile. Next, the eight MEGP criteria were built one by one. Previously defined guiding questions were presented and the managerial practices regarding each criterion were identified. Lastly, results were requested in relation to the criteria citizens-users, society, servant-collaborator and finalistic processes, seeking evidences (numerical data, reports, comparatives, etc.), which could associate them to managerial practices developed in the Caetés ESEC.

For verifying the level of understanding of the team as regards management, the members were asked questions on what they understood about managing a UC, the difficulties and facilities found and what was necessary to improve the ESEC management.

After the data collection, the research was systematized, by analyzing the managerial practices listed by the Caetés ESEC team, their adequacy, or not, to their respective criterion, as well as their relation to the results presented for managing the unit and their relation to the managerial practices identified.

Characterization of the area studied

The Caetés Ecological Station (Caetés ESEC) is a State UC, located in the Northern portion of the Paulista municipality, in its rural area, in the Recife Metropolitan Region (RMR), 30 km away from the Pernambuco capital. Initially established as an Ecological Reserve (PERNAMBUCO, 1987), it was re-categorized, in 1998, as an Ecological Station (PERNAMBUCO, 1998). This category aims at preserving nature and at conducting scientific researches. Public tours are forbidden, exceptions being made for educational purposes (BRASIL, 2000; PERNAMBUCO, 2009; CPRH, 2012). Its inclusion as a RMR Ecological Reserve derives from the Pernambuco environmentalist movement and from the great mobilization of the local community that, in 1984, managed to halt the installation of the Timbó II Landfill in the area. Despite located in Paulista, the Abreu e Lima population is the one to more directly and indirectly benefit from the UC, since the area can be accessed by this municipality.

It has 157.1ha of Atlantic Forest, predominantly with characteristics of preserved forest. Its geographic coordinates (latitude and longitude) are: 7º 55’ 15’’ and 7º 56’ 30’’S; and 34º 55’ 15’’ and 34º 56’ 30’’W. The unit can be accessed by the BR101 Norte, turning into PE-18, near the Paulista Industrial District (CPRH, 2012). In its immediate surroundings are the Paulista Industrial Park and the Caetés I and II Housing Complexes, exerting strong anthropic pressure over the unit. It is a public asset and domain, having been acquired by the State in 1982, for installing the Timbó II Landfill (NEGREIROS, 2013). Despite its small extension, it plays a very significant role as regards protecting the water resources and the Atlantic Forest biome in the RMR.

The use of the land in the UC surrounding presents a significant diversity, with uses predominantly urban-residential, institutional, industrial, cattle breeding and artificial pasture, agribusiness and second-residence leisure, according to the photographs presented in Figure 1. There are also remainders of the Atlantic Forest allowing the formation of ecological aisles.

Figure 01
Aerial view of the Caetés ESEC. A - highlight for the area where the Timbó II Landfill was to be; B - highlight for the great anthropic pressure deriving from the urbanization of the surroundings (Caetés I and II Complexes) in the Abreu e Lima municipality.

Permanent environmental education activities are carried out in the Caetés ESEC, with monthly lectures and meetings for the surrounding community. Inspections are made by the Independent Environmental Policing Company (CIPOMA) from the Pernambuco Military Police and by the CPRH. Scientific research is regularly conducted, comprehending, among others, the areas concerning floristic and phytosociology, phenology, plant ecology and fauna inventories. Public tours can occur under previous appointment.

It is one of the best conserved areas of the RMR, playing important environmental functions, such as the protection of the relief and of the land against erosive processes. It is worth highlighting the role of the region for the public water supply of the RMR, considering that the geological and geomorphological characteristics of the region make it susceptible for retaining a volume of water in compatible quantity and quality for the current or future consumption of the Recife Metropolitan Region (PERNAMBUCO, 1986; CPRH, 2012).

Results and discussion

The Public Management Excellence Model

Developed by the National Public Management and Bureaucracy-Reducing Program (GESPÚBLICA), seeking to promote a continuous improvement process in the public sector, the Public Management Excellence Model (MEGP) has national coverage. It acts by means of a voluntary cooperation network, involving collaborators and organizations from the different areas of public management. Considering the premise that one of the greatest challenges of the Brazilian public sector is of managerial nature, the MEGP encompasses the necessary elements to obtain a world-class management standard. The foundation involves the five constitutional principles of Public Management (publicity, impersonality, morality, legality and efficiency) and, as pillars, the thirteen foundations of contemporary managerial excellence, highlighting systemic thinking, innovation culture, focus on citizens and social control (BRASIL, 2009). Directed to assessing and improving managerial practices, it favors “organizational learning” by the knowledge of its strong points and improvement opportunities, considering the “state-of-the-art” of each organization management. By assessing the development and performance level of managerial practices, it guides institutional planning towards organizational results, adding positive value both for public policies and for citizens (BRASIL, 2014).

According to the MEGP, the way to promote improvement in management is related to the continuous improvement process. This cycle starts from self-assessment, elaborates and validates the management improvement plan and its implementation, along with monitoring and improving the managerial practices identified as critical, providing elements to foster a new start of the cycle with a new self-assessment.

The self-assessment consists of the organizational profile and of the analysis of the eight criteria composing the model. The seven first regard managerial processes, representing planning (leadership, strategy and plans, citizens-users and society), execution, in which actions turn into objective results (servant-collaborator and processes) and the organization intelligence, which represents its capacity of correcting and improving the practices and their performance (information and knowledge). The eighth criterion (results) represents control, which assesses all the results regarding the criteria aforementioned, evidencing the management effectiveness (BRASIL, 2014).

The perception of the technical team of the Caetés Ecological Station on conservation units management

The analysis of the workshops results evidenced that, as regards the understanding about management, the issues presented by the technical team concern the management form (bureaucratic, operational, participative) and to the manager’s individual skills and competencies (emotional intelligence, responsibility, conflict management). At no time was there an association to “manage” the achievement of the results and goals stated in the management plan, or the use of management tools to meet these goals. Concerning difficulties, most of them regard managing people (team motivation and lack of acknowledgement). As regards the perception of the aspects facilitating management, the respect the technicians gained from the community (society criterion) and the fact of their liking what they do are highlighted.

This perception is presented in Figures 2 and 3, elaborated considering the number of times the theme emerged. Note that each technician could express as many opinions as desired.

Figure 02
Difficulties pointed out for managing the Caetés ESEC. Legend in order: Lack of external support; Lack of safety; Lack of capacity-building; Lack of equipment; Reduced team; Lack of motivation/acknowledgement; Lack of autonomy.

Figure 03
Aspects facilitating the Caetés ESEC management. Legend in order: UC preservation; Physical structure; Team harmony; Relationship with the community; Liking what they do.

As regards what the team considers important for the unit to improve management, the greatest relevance concerns acknowledgement of the work done (criterion servants/collaborators, managing people) and the infrastructure maintenance (physical environment in which the work is done). The expectations for improving the Caetés ESEC management are depicted in Figure 4.

Figure 04
Necessary aspects for improving the Caetés ESEC management. Legend in order: Increasing the number of technicians; Team capacity-building; Infrastructure maintenance; Greater acknowledgement; Greater autonomy; Equipment.

These results generally evidenced that the existing management concept in the Caetés ESEC team is associated to factors of “sentimental” order; a certain conflict of identity with the administrative headquarters, the CPRH, is perceived. For not counting on administrative-financial autonomy, even being responsible for managing the conservation unit, they always depend on decisions that must be taken by the managing agency. This causes bureaucratic procedures that hinder the speed of initiatives that could facilitate the conservation unit routine.

Organizational Profile of the Caetés Ecological Station

A kind of identity of the institution, the organizational profile is fundamental for understanding and for sharing institutional information. It was built based on the information contained in the Management Plan (CPRH, 2012), discussed and validated in the workshops with the managerial team of the Caetés ESEC. The relevant aspects of the profile are highlighted in Box 1.

Box 1
Organizational profile of the Caetés Ecological Station

Self-assessment of the Caetés Ecological Station following the Public Management Excellence Model criteria

The self-assessment of the “leadership” criterion showed that the manager/leader is committed to the conservation unit, motivating the team with his example of fighting and persistence to keep the management process. He acts respectfully, showing to be alert about meeting the responsibilities agreed upon. A basic notion is observed to exist on what the leadership behavior should be like; however, no investment has been detected for his formation and professionalization. As Araújo et al. (2012) says, the pillars of the organizational results depend on three factors: leadership, managerial knowledge and technical knowledge. In this respect, the self-assessment for this criterion stressed the need for investing in the leader capacity-building, providing him with instruments that favor and guide his performance.

The second criterion, “strategy and plans” allowed a reflection on what a planning system is and that simply having a management plan is not enough. An operational and tactical plan is necessary to ensure its implementation. Elaborating the strategic planning of the Caetés ESEC is essential, establishing a vision of the future and strategies, aligning them with the management goals and programs already defined. Once again the MEGP showed to be an instrument that allows identifying gaps and defining priorities for improving the managerial practices and organizational results.

The “citizens-users” criterion showed that there is not a system to identify, to analyze and to work on the expectations, or a procedure or methodology for them to manifest the citizens-users’ demands. They sometimes use the community radio to make complaints/report faults or ask for information, but this is not a routine procedure. For its not being usual to ask for suggestions or assessing the services and products offered, the perception of the technicians on this subject is a little restricted to the compatibility of the demand with the Management Plan programs. As regards the researchers, one of the groups of the unit users, when a research is concluded, a questionnaire or a dynamic is applied for assessing the conditions provided for conducting the works. When asked about the availability and about the treatment of this information, the latter were found to be filed, yet they need to be refined so as to subsidize the management. Also verified was the absence of an information database to facilitate locating and accessing the data available.

Some managerial practices were identified for the “society” criterion, such as holding monthly meetings with the community, discussing different themes of local interest. In these occasions, debates and presentations of the works and researches conducted at the ESEC are organized, always focused on building awareness on rights and duties, not solely regarding the environment, but also as a citizenship practice. Another resource is the debate in the community radio dealing with educational themes related to everyday life, for example, the rational use of water and the adequate disposal of garbage. Also promoted are solidary events (green Santa, solidary snack, donation of toys to poor children, etc.), which constitute unique moments for getting closer and involved with the local community. The society is also encouraged and guided to exert social control seeking the ESEC support to strengthen their claims and solutions to problems. In this sense, the unit has been a link between society and the CPRH for reporting environmental faults; this link is strengthened by the board. This forum is also a society instrument to forward demands to governmental bodies regarding projects designed for the region. Concerning the practices related to identifying the demands of society and how they are transformed into subsidies for public policies and plans, the technicians argue that these were incorporated to the process for elaborating the management plan. In the latter, representatives could speak out, establishing the priorities of actions for the Station and its buffer zone. As an example, they mention the increase in inspections to halt deforestation and to rescue animals caught by the community, which are sent to the ESEC and forwarded to the proper bodies.

Regarding the “information and knowledge” criterion, there are no managerial practices to identify the knowledge gaps concerning the development of new researches, the UC end-area. There is a spontaneous demand associated to the good relationship of the management with researchers from different universities and to the good treatment given to them. When the management first began, there was an intense work to disseminate the ESEC, facilitating the inclusion of the unit in the academic environments which are spaces for conducting scientific researches. A great challenge to the management is the way in which to organize and to keep the UC memory (administrative documents, meeting minutes, newspaper articles published, photographic records, researches, etc.). The technicians recognize that the documents organization is precarious, yet they are not supported or guided to act differently. There are important documents for the unit history that have not been digitized and are kept in inadequately stored folders or files. There is no administrative support to aid the organization and no technician managed to efficiently catalog the existing collection. Boxes and files are cramped, hindering fast access to information. The furniture is precarious, making the task even more difficult. Furthermore, the security and maintenance of the data are not a concern, since making a backup of the files is not required.

The self-assessment of the “servants-collaborators” criterion showed a substantial gap, being one of those obtaining the largest number of opinions expressed in the workshops. A feeling of isolation was observed towards the headquarters (“the UCs are forsaken!”) and disbelief by the technicians as regards improving the situation. There is no strategy to identify the needs for capacity-building and, when courses that could contribute to their formation are offered, technicians often fail to attend them for depending on being authorized by a managing agency. Many courses are held under the servants-collaborators’ own initiative. Bureaucracy is also presented as a hindering factor, as well as the budgetary constraints. They deem the human resource professionals ignore the routines of the conservation units, hindering the inclusion of the managers’ demands into the institutional capacity-building priorities. As regards personnel motivation and the friendly and favorable organizational environment, even though no strategy was identified, the existing motivation is associated to personal order factors (“pleasure in working with the population, knowing the importance of the work conducted for the future generations, commitment to the environmental cause, etc.”). Another reason comes from the external context, related to the acknowledgement of the work carried out at the Station on the part of society and of the users. Once again there is a manifested feeling of isolation, of lack of acknowledgement and support by the environmental agency (“the CPRH does not seem interested in knowing the work done at the units; the CPRH fails to attend most of the events held; it does not recognize the team effort, etc.”). Additionally, creativity is greatly constrained and the practices related to this criterion are not controlled by the technicians of the Caetés ESEC, increasing the feeling of helplessness to solve problems. An interesting fact is that there is no perception of the need for capacity-building for administrative or managerial issues, which would very much help the unit organization and operation. Even though the Center for the Formation of Public Servants and Employees of the State of Pernambuco (CEFOSPE) constantly offers free courses related to public management, they are considered inadequate, not directed to the conservation units issues and are therefore “uninteresting”. This corroborates the Araújo et al. (2012) thesis, which points out the predominance of the technical profile in detriment to the managing profile in the UCs, reinforcing the need for strengthening the good management tripod: leadership, technical and managerial qualifications.

The self-assessment of the “processes” criterion led to verifying that there are few procedures follow-up and systematized assessment, be it of finalistic processes, be it of support. For conducting scientific researches, the CPRH has rules for application and authorization made available in the institutional site. The application forms are filled and delivered to the headquarters of the agency, which analyzes the demand and the compatibility with the management plan, together with the unit manager, granting (or not) the authorization. To follow up the other activities, the CPRH, by means of the Conservation Units Management Unit (UGUC), demands monthly reports from the State UCs, standardizing the information required. However, the report has a quantitative focus, without prioritizing qualitative information. There are no procedures for monitoring or for assessing the management plan actions, despite its being provided in the very plan.

The seven criteria previously analyzed are related to the self-assessment of managerial practices, fundamental aspects in an excellence- and quality-oriented management system. The institutional results express the deployment of these practices in the routines, aligned with the strategies, which lead, or not, to meeting the targets and goals established, producing positive (or not) results, added (or not) by social value.

In the “results” criterion, aspects related to citizens, users, society, servants-collaborators and to the finalistic and support processes were analyzed. In the case of the Caetés ESEC, it was not possible to identify the results of the activities conducted. The existing records are not directed to accounting to society, which is especially hindered by the absence of culture and of managerial formation for using planning tools, control and dissemination. This concluding stage evidenced the managers’ surprise for having conducted significant actions and for not being able to translate the corresponding results into numbers. In fact, it was even difficult for them to express which the results of the criteria would be, because, even there being instruments for quantitative control, such as the number of people who visit the Station, the number of researches conducted, among others, these pieces of information are not organized such that they can be used for the benefit of the conservation unit.

Aiming to perceive, from the managers’ viewpoint, if what was constructed in the workshops had some utility for the conservation unit day-to-day, after concluding the self-assessment process, the managerial team was asked to assess the use of the MEGP. They were also asked to summarize in one word what most called their attention and the actions they would prioritize as from the self-assessment, in case they were to take a decision for improving the management. The opinions on the validity and applicability of the method were unanimous. They considered that, despite not aiming to analyze the management, but rather the MEGP applicability, the process provided a picture of the UC management scenario. It also allowed learning about a theme they did not know and that may improve the Caetés ESEC activities, especially as regards organization. The importance of working with numbers (quantity and quality) was perceived, along with the search for references to allow comparisons between UCs of the same category. This may mean a change in posture, building up the technicians’ self-esteem and extending the reach of other quality levels of the conservation unit management. Also positively assessed was the participative conduction, which besides fostering a collective reflection on their actuation, provided technicians with information never before obtained on management techniques. Specifically for Caetés, the need for investing in the organization and in logistics was made clear in the sense of providing the ESEC with facility of access to the existing information, organization of the collection and organization of the physical space.

The Public Management Excellence Model for assessing management effectiveness in conservation units

Araújo et al. (2012) expressly verify that a conservation unit is an “organization” with defined goals, which has to be oriented towards results for society. This means a change in paradigm and the construction of a new mentality for managing these areas. According to the author, the pillars allowing to meet goals and organizational results are understanding and using administrative tools, associated to leadership formation and to technical knowledge. Most of the times, the assessment of conservation units management associates the difficulties met to external factors, such as insufficient number of technicians, inexistence of a management plan, among others. The low effectiveness, that is, the low rate of management results, is thus out of the manager’s control, generating a feeling of helplessness and frustration, favoring the teams’ low esteem, since there is little the team can do to improve the situation.

The assessment conducted by the MEGP, by identifying not only the effects of management (results), but also the causes accounting for the measurable effects (managerial practices) encourage a pro-active behavior, making us believe that improvements continuously implemented in the managerial practices, will be able to yield gains for everyone: managers, technicians, users and society. This contributes to creative postures and to empower the team that then starts controlling its actions by means of appropriate management tools.

The existing management gaps, as well as the difficulty in perceiving concrete results in management are clearly observed after the analyses of the MEGP criteria, requiring the immediate identification of critical areas, as the Caetés technicians perceived.

It is worth recognizing that the use of the excellence model for assessing the management effectiveness of conservation units implies revising the standards currently established. Araújo et al. (2012) affirm that the use of managerial tools alone is not enough for a UC to meet its goals. There are mental and cultural standards in the public organizations that need revising. Conservation units management will be more effective when transformation occurs in the conceptions and behavior of the people working in the UCs and in the managing agency. As organizations, they suffer the influence of the institutional environment in which they are inserted and this could be observed in the Caetés ESEC. The bureaucratic difficulties, the gap between people, the lack of investments to provide a harmonic and creative work environment from the point of view of the organizational mood and of the physical maintenance of the spaces, contribute to discouragement and to the lack of an improvement perspective.

However, as stated by Paes de Paula (2007), the current public management is increasingly more directed to an entrepreneurial culture, demanding quality from the public sector and results for society. This new attitude cannot neglect the continuous formation and capacity building of servants for using managerial tools or the opening to social participation.

Policies and public management, as affirm Bursztyn and Bursztyn (2013), are associated to decision processes regarding the regular governmental actions aiming to meet determined goals and ends. Also, as expresses Souza (2006), for these goals to be met, deliberative cycles are necessary, contemplating subsequent decision, proposition, implementation and assessment processes. As warned by Martins (1997), it cannot be forgotten that, in an environment of accelerated transformations as the current ones, the State, by means of its policies, is also an agent of social transformation.

In the case of the biodiversity conservation policy, when it comes to conservation units, the place where the strategy is developed and the conduction of the public policy is the organizational structure of the State which it is connected with. The need for a new perspective regarding this structure emerges, a differentiated perspective to understand that, in the present context, the manager has to have a different role. As stated by Drucker (1996, apud OSÓRIO, 2005), the new manager has to know how to use knowledge to facilitate the continuous improvement, taking responsibility over the actions in a space where relationships, actions and negotiations are to be articulated.

Furthermore, there evidently is a management crisis characterized by the exhaustion of the traditional bureaucratic model, which needs revision and updating, as warns Torres (2013). Building a new profile of Government and of public managers is made necessary, considering the current stage of democracy and the accountability to society (OSÓRIO, 2005), besides considering that the great challenge posed to the government, at all of its levels, is of managerial order. Investments have to be made for professionalizing public servants and managers.

Conclusions

The following conclusions can be drawn from this case study:

The analysis of the applicability of the Public Management Excellence Model (MEGP) for assessing the management effectiveness of conservation units contributes to pointing to new opportunities for devising the management of these areas, as from analyzing the internal and peculiar factors of each UC.

The research points out the need for allowing the performance of managerial roles in conservation units by using managerial tools in their routines; and of transforming the ideas expressed in the management plan into effective actions, so as to obtain effective results that can be measured and presented to society. For this, the MEGP showed to be adequate and timely.

As regards the management effectiveness of conservation units, the Method evidenced the existence/inexistence of managerial practices that, if developed, can provide management with substantial qualitative improvements. Moreover, the use of MPGE may constitute a change in direction in the present state-of-the-art in management of the Pernambuco State conservation units. In this sense, by means of the Caetés ESEC self-assessment, the Model showed to be a guiding instrument towards a more effective management, highlighting the importance of investing in development, of using leadership skills along with managerial techniques by managers.

By inserting the conservation units in the result-oriented public management context, the MEGP allows the actions developed in these areas to constitute instruments for local development and sustainability, transforming them into spaces which add social value to the environmental value, in which the exercise of citizenship and of social inclusion is allied to biodiversity conservation. All of this is combined with the valorization of the people working in the UCs, as well as the community in which the UCs are inserted, the public investments and the government actions directed to them.

References

• AGÊNCIA ESTADUAL DE MEIO AMBIENTE (CPRH). Revisão do Plano de Manejo da Estação Ecológica de Caetés. Recife:CPRH, 2012.
• ARAÚJO, M. A. R.; CABRAL, R. F. B.; MARQUES, C. P. Um novo olhar sobre as unidades de conservação. In: Unidades de conservação no Brasil: o caminho da Gestão para Resultados. NEXUS (org.). São Carlos: RIMA Editora. 2012. 536p.
• BRASIL. Lei nº 9.985 de 18 de julho de 2000. Publicado no Diário Oficial da República Federativa do Brasil, Poder Executivo. Brasília, DF, 19 de julho de 2000.
• ________. Decreto nº 5.378 DE 23 de fevereiro de 2005. Publicado no Diário Oficial da República Federativa do Brasil. Poder Executivo, Brasília, DF, 24 de fevereiro de 2005.
• ________. Decreto nº 5.758, de 13 de abril de 2006. Publicado no Diário Oficial da República Federativa do Brasil, Poder Executivo. Brasília, DF, 17 de abril de 2006.
• ________. Ministério do Planejamento, Orçamento e Gestão. Secretaria de Gestão. Programa Nacional de Gestão Pública e Desburocratização (GESPÚBLICA). Prêmio Nacional da Gestão Pública - PQGF. Documento de Referência; Fórum Nacional 2008/2009 / Ministério do Planejamento, Orçamento e Gestão, Subsecretaria de Planejamento, Orçamento e Gestão. - Brasília: MP, SEGES, 2009. 56 p.
• ________. Ministério do Planejamento, Orçamento e Gestão. Secretaria de Gestão Pública. Programa GESPÚBL ICA, Instrumento para Avaliação da Gestão Pública. Brasília: MP, SEGEP, 2014. Versão 1/2014.51 p.
• BURSZTYN, M.; BURSZTYN, M. A. Fundamentos de política e gestão ambiental: caminhos para a sustentabilidade. Rio de Janeiro, 2013. 612p. ver Editora.
• MARTINS, L. Reforma da Administração Pública e cultura política no Brasil: uma visão geral. Brasília: ENAP, 1997. 61 p.
• MARQUES, C. P.; CABRAL, R. F. B.; ARAÚJO, M. A. R. Programa gestão para resultados (PGR): uma estratégia de educação continuada para a implementação da gestão de excelência em unidades de conservação participantes do Programa Áreas Protegidas da Amazônia (Arpa). In: Unidades de conservação no Brasil: o caminho da Gestão para Resultados. NEXUS (org.). São Carlos: RIMA Editora. 2012. 536p.
• NEGREIROS, E. DE B. Campo dos conflitos ambientais na Estação Ecológica de Caetés-PE. In: DA SILVA. T. A. A.; GEHLEN, V. R. F. (Orgs.) Conflitos socioambientais em Pernambuco. Recife: Fundação Joaquim Nabuco. Editora Massangana, 2013. 220 p.
• OSÓRIO, F. M. Novos rumos da gestão pública brasileira: dificuldades teóricas ou operacionais? Revista Eletrônica sobre a Reforma do Estado - RERE, Salvador, Instituto de Direito Público da Bahia, nº 1, março/abril/maio, 2005. Disponível em: <http://www.direitodoestado.com.br>. Acesso em 29 jul 2014.
  » http://www.direitodoestado.com.br
• PASCARELLI FILHO, M. A nova administração pública: profissionalização, eficiência e governança. São Paulo: DVS Editora, 2011. 102, p.
• PAES DE PAULA, A. P. Por uma nova gestão pública: limites e potencialidades da experiência contemporânea. Rio de Janeiro: Editora FGV, 2007. 204p.
• PERNAMBUCO. Lei Estadual nº 9.931 de 11 de dezembro de 1986. Publicada no Diário Oficial do Estado de Pernambuco, Poder Executivo, PE, 12 de dezembro de 1986.
• ________. Lei Estadual nº 9.989 de 13 de janeiro de 1987. Publicada no Diário Oficial do Estado de Pernambuco, Poder Executivo, PE, 14 de janeiro de 1987.
• ________. Lei nº 11.622 de 29 de dezembro de 1998. Publicada no Diário Oficial do Estado de Pernambuco, Poder Executivo, PE, 30 de dezembro de 1998.
• ________. Lei nº 13.787, de 08 de junho de 2009. Publicada no Diário Oficial do Estado de Pernambuco, Poder Executivo, PE, 9 de junho de 2009.
• ________. Plano Estadual de Mudanças Climáticas. Secretaria de Meio Ambiente e Sustentabilidade (SEMAS). Recife, 2011.
• SOUZA, C. Políticas públicas: uma revisão da literatura. Revista Sociologias. Porto Alegre, ano 8, nº 16, p. 20 - 45, jul /dez, 2006.
• ORRES, M. D. de F. Estado, democracia e administração pública no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Editora FGV, 2004. 224p. (4ª reimpressão 2013).

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  2018

History

• Received
  29 Jan 2016
• Accepted
  19 Sept 2018