13

Annex 1

PARTICIPANTES/PARTICIPANTS

Mesa Redonda sobre as Reformas da Política Brasileira sobre Água e o Papel do Banco Mundial

Roundtable on Brazil’s Water Policy Reforms

and the Role of the World Bank

Brasilia, Brasil 3-4 de março de 1999

FEDERAL 1. Alves, Adelino Gregório Geólogo DNPM-MME-Rep. ABAS tel: 55-61-312-6771 San Q01 Bloco B 2 Andar S/204 fax: 55-61-225-1955 Brasilia, DF, Brasil 2. Benavides, Vinicius Assessor Da Diretoria e-mail: vinicius@aneel.gov.br Agencia Nacional de Energia Elétricam – ANEEL tel: 55-61-312-5850 Brasil fax. 55-61-312-5615 3. Chaves, Dr. Henrique M.L. Gerente de Projeto SEPRE – P.R. e-mail: hchaves@tba.com.br SGAN 601, Lote 1 S/409 tel: 55-61- 226-3664 Brasília, DF, Brasil fax: 55-61- 226 3940 4. De Araujo, Luiz Marςal Gerente de Projetos e-mail: emarcal@mpo-gov.br Ministerio Orςamento e Gestão/SEAIN tel: 55-61-215-4818 Esplanada Min. Bloco K, Sala 561 fax: 55-61-225-4022 Brasilia, DF, Brasil 5. De Carvalho, Mr. Carlos Roberto SEAIN tel: 55-61 215-4462 Brasilia, DF, Brasil fax 55 61 225-4022 6. Freitas Filho, Humberto Leite Chefe de Divisão Ministério do Orςamento e Gestão/SEAIN e-mail: hlfilho@mpo.gov.br Esplanada Dos Ministérios Bloco K Sala 569 tel: 55-61-215-4837 Brasilia, DF, Brasil fax: 55-61-225-4022

14

7. Kettelhut, Dr. Julio Thadeu S. General Coordinator (Coordenador Geral) Department of Management of Federal Waters/SRH MMA/Secr. Rec. Hídricos SGAN e-ml: jkettelhut@alum.mit.edu Quadra 601, Lote I tel:: 55-61-317-1348 Brasilia, DF, Brasil fax: 55-61-223-5366 8. Miranda, Ricardo N. Assessor Técnico Gabinete Senador Luiz Fontes e-mail: miranda@solar.com.br SHIS QL10, Cond. 06, Casa 08 tel: 55-61-311-1376(W) 71.630-065 Brasilia, DF, Brasil 248-4323 (H) fax: 55-61-323-5097 (E) 248-4260 (H) 9. Moreira, Maria Manuela M.A. Geógrafa Consultora Ministério do Meio Ambiente dos Recursos Hídricos e da Amazônia Legal Secretaria de Recursos Hídricos tel: 55-61-225-9862/225-4297 Departamento de Gestão de Aguas Federais fax: 55-61-223-5366 SGAN Quadra 601 Lote 01, Ed. CODEVASF 4 Andar, Sala 429 Brasilia, DF, CEP 70.830-901 10. Reyes, Juan Francisco Especialista Sectorial BID – Representaςão no Brasil e-mail: JUAN R@IADB.orgl SEN Quadra 802, Conj. F Lote 39 tel: 55-61-317-4275 70.800-400 Brasilia, DF, Brasil fax: 55-61-321-3112 11. Vieira Fernandes, Mr. Fernando Augusto Assessor, Secretaria de Assuntos Internacionais, MOG SEAIN tel: 55-61 215-4462 / 215-4824 Esplanada dos Ministérios, Bloco K, Sala 548 fax: 55 61 225-4022 / 215-4713 Brasilia, DF, Brasil STATE 12. Assis, Rui Brasil Assessor Secretaria de Recursos Hidricos, Sanejamento e Obras e-m: endesthame@sp.gov.br Rua Butatã, 285, 10 Andar tel: 55-11-211-5752/212-3908 Ramal 2043 São Paulo, SP, Brasil 13. Borsoi, Dra. Zilda Head Department of Economic Research BNDES tel/fax: 55-21-240-3890 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil fax: 55-61-225-6449

15

14. Bosco Senra, Mr. João Director Instituto Mineiro de Gestão das Aguas (IGAM) Belo Horizonte, MG, Brasil fax: 55-31-337-3283 15. Canedo de Magalhães, Dr. Paulo Secretário Executivo da Baixada Fluminense Secretaria de Estado da Baixada Fluminense do Estado do Rio de Janeiro Rua Comendador Martinelli 78 casa O2 e-m:anedo@esquadro.com.br Grajau, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, tel: 55-21-203-0478/576-8691 CEP 20561-060, Brasil fax: 55-21-590-1078 16. Coelho Teixeira, Mr. Francisco José Diretor de Planejamento - (Director of Planning) COGERH R. Bento Albuquerque 1190/701 tel: 55-85-265-3377 Fortaleza , CE, Brasil fax: 55-85-257-6662 17. Cortines Peixoto, Aser Superintendente CAIXA e-m: aser.cortines@caixa.domain.con.br Av. Rio Branco 174/21 tel: 55-21-262-3479 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil fax. 55-21-262-1908 18. De Macedo Vieira, Dr. Romulo Secretário de Recursos Hídricos RN (SERHID/RN) Av. Hermes da Fonseca 1104 Petropolis/TIROL – Natal/RN SRH, Rio Grande do Norte tel: 55-84-221-0757 Natal, RN, Brasil fax: 55 84 221-0491 19. Ferreira de Olivera, Benedito Sub-Secretário SRH/CE e-mail: benedito@srh.cl.gov.br Antonio Augusto 555 tel: 55-85-231-3223 Fortaleza/CE, Brasil 20. Galizia Tunlisi, José Presidente/Pesquisador Instituto Industrial de Ecología/Instituto de Assuntos Avanςados USP e-mail: Tunlisi@zaz.com.br Rua Alfredo Lopes 17-17 tel: 55-62-715-726 Brasil fax: 55-62-715-726 21. Garjulli, Dra. Rosana Gerente Departamento Organizaςão dos Usuários CORGERH Av. Aquanambi 1760 tel: 55-85-257-6538 Fortaleza, CE, Brasil fax: 55-85–257-6662

16

22. Gosling, Dr. Claudio Jorge de Hollanda Coordenador da Câmara Técnica de Planejamento e Investimentos do CEIVAP e Coordenador da Diretoria de Recursos Hídricos da SERLA-RJ e-mail: JANDER@hidro.ufrj.br Campo de São Cristovão, 138/ 3er. Andar tel: 55-21-580-1198 / 580-0548 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil fax: 55-21-580-0348 / 590-1078 23. Guérios Bittencourt, Alceu Diretor, Coordenador Tecnico Programa Guarapiranga e-mail: cobrape@dialdata.com.br R. Capitão Antonio Rosa 406 tel: 55-11-881-8053 01443-010 São Paulo, Brasil fax: 55-11-881-8055 24. Lópes Lanari, Nora Economista BNDES e-mail: nlanari@bndes.gov.br Av. Republica do Chile, 100/804 tel: 55-21-277-6817 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil fax: 55-21-220-1342 25. Lopes Viana, Francisco Presidente COGERH Avenida Aguanambi 1770, Fatima tel:: 55-85-257-8710 Brasil fax: 55-85-257-8715 26. Minervino, Marcus Aurelius Coordenador Nacional de Projetos SRN/MMA e-mail: ucamarc@mymail.com.br Saõ Francisco e Alto Paraguay tel: 55-61-225-8819/225-0741 SGAN Quadra 601 Edif. CODEVASF fax. 55-61-224-2010 Brasil 27. Santos Araujo, Mr. Hildeberto Diretor Geral do Departamento Nacional de Obras (DNOCS) Av. Duque de Caxias 1700 tel: 55-85-281-6344 Fortaleza-Ceará, Brasil fax: 55-85-281-1037 28. Serricchio, Dr. Claudio Engenheiro Secretário do Meio Ambiente CEIVAP Prefetura Municipal de Resende Estrada do Aeroporto S/N, Santa Isabel e-mail: serichio@mandic.com.br 27.500.000 Rejende tel: 55-24-354-7792 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil fax: +55 24 354-7792 29. Vianna, Dr. Francisco President COGERH Fortaleza, CE, Brasil fax: 55-85-257-8715

17

UNIVERSITIES & PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION 30. Bermann, Célio Professor e-mail: cbermann@iee.usp.br Instituto de Eletrotécnica e Energia (IEE-USP) tel: 55 11 818-4727/818-5064 Av. Prof. Almeida Prado, 925 55 11 864-7100/818-5031 Brasil fax: 55-84-217-2916 31. Braga, Dr. Benedito President International Water Resources Association e-mail: benbraga@usp.br Professor, University of São Paulo tel: 55-11-818-5168/211-5444 Avenida Almeida Prado, 271 fax: 55 11 818-5329 São Paulo, SP, Brasil 32. Britto, Ana Lucia Professor e-m: anabritto@recnet.com.br PC.CURB UFRJ tel: 55-21-247-3490/290-2112 Rua Alberto de Campos 40/102 Ramal: 2578 Brasil fax: 55-21-286-1441

33. Duarte Campos, Mr. Jander Coordenador Técnico do PQA-RJ SEMA/SEPURB/COPPE/PNUDCT-COPP UFRJ-Cidade Universitário Laboratório de Hidrología, CEQ-21945-970 e-mail: Jander@hidro.ufij.br Caixa Postal: 68540 tel: 55-21-590-9949/590-1078 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil fax: 55-21-580-0348/590-1078

34. Kelman, Jerson Professor, UFRJ e-mail: kelman@ruralrj.com.br Rua Capitu 41, Jacarépaguá tel: 55-21-447-2070 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil fax: 55-21-447-7085 35. Leite Porto, Hélio Ricardo Professor FASE e-mail: HPORTO@Fase.org.br Rua das Palmeiras 90 tel: 286-1441/9916-4260 Botafogo, RJ, Brasil fax: 286-1209

36. Porto, Dra. Monica Professor, Universidade de São Paulo Av. Prof. Almeida Prado, 271 e-mail: mporto@usp.br C/a Universitaria São Paulo 05508-900 tel: 55-11-818-5549 São Paulo, SP, Brasil fax: 55 11 818-5423 37. Porto, Dr. Rubem Professor, Universdade de São Paulo Av. Prof. Almeida Prado, 271 e-mail: rporto@usp.br c/a Universitaria São Paulo 05508-900 tel: 55-11-818-5549 São Paulo, SP, Brasil Fax. 55 11 818-5423

18

CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS 38. Canali, Dr. Gilberto Valente President (Presidente) Brasilian Water Resources Association (ABRH) (ABRM—Associaςão Brasileira de Recursos Hídricos) e-mail: gvcanali@fastlane.com.br Rua Cap. Romualdo de Barros, 705/27 tel: 55-48-233-0759/ 88040-600 Florianopolis, SC 55-41-963-1686 Brasil fax: 55-48-234-6367 39. Lessa de Barros, Flávia Secretária Executiva Rede Brasil sobre Instituiςões Financieiras Multilaterais e-mail: rbrasil@brnet.com Venâncio 2.000 433/441 Bloco 50 tel: 55-61-321-6108/226-8093 Brasilia, DF fax: 55-61-226-8042 40. Melo, José Carlos Sócio-Diretor e-mail: cond@aptness.com.br Condominiun-Empre. Ambientais tel: 55-81-228-3581/227-6622 R. Carlos Estevão 57 - Madalena fax:: (525)-662-9043 CEP 50720-020 Recife, PE, Brasil 41. Pagnoccheschi, Bruno Secretário Executivo e-mail: bruno@ispn.org.br Instituto SPN tel: 55-61-321-8085 SGLN 202/Bloco B sobreloja fax: 55-61-321-6333 42. Tundisi, Dr. José G. Presidente/Pesquisador International Institute of Ecology (Instituto de Estudos Avanςados) Rua: Alfredo Lopes, 17-17 Sala D 05 Vila Elizabeth 13560-460 São Carlos SP, Brasil fax: 55-16- 272-6977 43. Ulhôa Tenório, Luís Gonzaga Presidente da Federaςão Nacional dos e-mail: ulhôa@ax.apc.org Urbanitários – FNU tel:: 55-21-233-1430 R. Visconde de Inhaúma 134/Sala 727 55-21-9973-3354 Rio de Janeiro, Brasil fax: 55-21-233-3516 44. Urban, Teresa Coordenadora Fórum Pro-Conservaςas da e-mail: rverde@bsi.com.br Natureza no Paraná tel: 55-41-222-9740 Rede Brasil fax: 55-41-223-4897 CONSULTANTS 45. Felmann, Dr. Fabio Consultant Av. Brigadeiro Luis Antônio 4442 tel: 55-11-887-8228 São Paulo, SP, Brasil fax: 55 11 884-2795

19

46. Lobato da Costa, Dr. Francisco José Consultor e-mail: fjlobato@nol.com.br Secretaria de Desenvolvimento Urbano tel: 55-61-321-3883 Esplanada dos Ministérios, Bloco A, 3o. Andar fax: 55-61-225-9967 Brasilia, DF, Brasil REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVES 47. Aguilar, Mr. Enrique Director General Enrique Aguilar y Asociados, S.C. Alfonso Esparza Oteo 3 144-407 e-mail: 103703.2216@compuserve.com Guadalupe Inn tel: (525) 662-9667 (office) Colonia Mexico, DF, 01020, Mexico home: (525)-595-9549 fax: (525)-662-9043 48. Anguita Salas, Mr. Pablo Coordinador General Concesiones (Construcción) Ministerio de Obras Públicas e-mail: panguita@mop.cl Morandé 59, piso 5 or e-mail: panguita@ibm.net Merced 753, 7o. piso tel: 56-2-361-3636 Santiago, Chile fax: 56-2-361-3497 49. De Viana, Mr. José Maria President HIDROCARIBE Caracas, Venezuela fax: 58-2-793-0291 50. Lascano, Mr. Martin Presidente ETOSS Callao 982-9061 fax: 54-11-4813-1866 Buenos Aires, Argentina tel: 54-11-4815-9061 RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS 51. Beekman, Gertjan B. Coordenador de Operaςões Instituto Interamericano de Cooperaςão para Agricultura (IICA)– OEA e-mail: beekman@iica.org.br SHIS, QI. 5 Conj. 9 Bloco D tel: 55-61-248-5477 71.615.090, Brasilia, DF fax: 55-61248-5807 Brasil 52. Braceras, Mr. Fidel Especialista em Projetos Agropecuârios IICA e-m: braceras@summer.com.br Avenida Alexandrina de Alencar 411 3o andar tel: 55-84-982-2819 Natal, RN, Brasil

20

53. De Macedo Soares, Dr. Helio Director for Central and South region IICA e-mail: helio@pla.net.py Asunción, Paraguay fax: 599 521 445-048 54. Kawakami Resende, Dr. Emiko Researcher (Pesquisadora) Centro de Pesquisa Agropecuaria do Pantanal e-mail: emiko@cpap.embrapa.br EMBRAPA/CPAP tel: 55-67-231-1430 Rua 21 de Setembro, 1880 fax 55-67 231-1011 79303—210, Corumbá, MS, Brasil INTERNATIONAL DONORS AND ORGANIZATIONS 55. Cerqueira, Ms. Flora Oficial de Programa e-mail: flora@undp.org.br Representative, UNDP tel: 55-61-329-2032 Brasília, DF fax: 55 61 329-2039/329-2099 56. Da Franca Ribeiro dos Anjos, Mr. Nelson Principal Water Resources Specialist of the Unit for Sustainable Development and Environment Organization of American States e-mail: ndafranca@oas.org 1889 F St. N.W. Room 340-C tel: (202) 458-3454 Washington, D.C. fax: (202) 458-3560 57. Elena, Mr. Jorge Interamerican Development Bank (IDB) Representative Brasilia, D.V., Brasil fax: 55-61-321-3112 58. Hradilek, Mr. Peter Team Leader, Bureau of Land Reclamation, U.S. Dept. of Interior e-mail: burec@brnet.com.br SGAN Q601 L1 — CODEVASF tel: 55-61-226-4536 Brasilia, DF, Brasil fax: 55-61-225-9564 59. Rangel Soares, Dr. Luis Carlos (Assessor Regional Organizaςão Mundial Da Saúde) Regional Advisor for Sector/Institutional Development Division of Health and Environment Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) e-mail: SOARESLU@PAHO.ORG 525 23rd Street, NW tel: (1) 202 974-3368 Washington, DC 20037 fax: (1) 202 974-8478 60. Schenke, Mr. Celso Coordinator of the Environmental Sector UNESCO Brasilia, DF, Brasil fax 55 61 322-4261

21

61. Schiller, Dr. Thomas Management & Consulting Services (MACS) Barenstr. 12 60136 Frankfurt/M tel: 49-69-9441/9536 Kreditanstal Für Wiederaufbau (KfW) fax: 49-69-9441-5583 Brasilia, DF, Brasil fax: 55 61 328-0049 62. Soares, Luiz Carlos R. Assessor Regional e-mail: soarelu@paho.org Organizaςão Mundial da Saúde—ONIS/OPS tel: (202) 974-3368 525 23 Street N.W., Washington, DC fax: (202) 974-8478 WORLD BANK 63. Azevedo, Luiz Gabriel Water Resources Engineer World Bank e-m: lazevedo@worldbank.org SCN Quadra 02-lote A – Ed. Corporate Financial tel: 328-1039/328-1000 Center – solo 304 fax: 329-1012 64. Briscoe, John Senior Water Advisor e-mail: JBriscoe@WorldBank.org World Bank tel: (1) 202 473-5557 1818 H Street, N.W.,Room S 3-055 fax.(1) 202 614-0678 Washington, D.C. 20433 65. Browder, Greg Water Resources Management Specialist Global Water Unit/ Environmentally Sustainable Development e-m: GBrowder@worldbank.org World Bank tel: (1) 202 473-0339 1818 H Street, N.W. Room S 3-057 fax:(1) 202 522-3306 Washington, D.C. 20433 66. Pitman, Keith Operations Evaluation Department e-m:GKeithPitman@WorldBank.org 1818-H Street, N.W. Room G7-015 tel: (1) 202 458-1412 Washington, DC, 20433 fax: (1) 202 522-3123 67. Rocha Magalhães, Antonio Senior Economist Banco Mundial/World Bank e-mail: amagalhões@worldbank.org SCN Quadra 02 lote A Ed. Corporate tel: 329-1000 Financial Center 51.304 fax: 323-1010/329-1000 Brasil 68. Scatasta, Monica Operations Evaluation Department e-m: Mscatasta@WorldBank.org 1818-H Street, N.W. Room S 3-061 tel: (202) 473-5862 World Bank fax: (202) 522-3306 Washington, DC, 20433

22

69. Simpson, Larry D. Water Resource Mgt. Consultant World Bank e-m: LSimpson@worldbank.org P.O. Box 268 tel: 970-613-1933 Loveland, CO, 80539 fax: 970-613-1943 70. Alison, Kathy Facilitator / Consultant Training Resources Group e-mail: KAlison@trg-inc.com 909 N. Washington Street, Suite 305 tel: (1) 703-548-3535 Alexandria, VA, 22314, USA fax: (1) 703-836-2415

23

Annex 2

ROUNDTABLE ON BRAZIL’S WATER POLICY REFORMS AND THE ROLE OF THE WORLD BANK

Brasilia, Brazil 3-4 March 1999

Overall Purpose of the Roundtable

To elicit key stakeholders’ views of the impact, effectiveness, and relevance of the World Bank’s water management policy and program in Brazil, as part of a global evaluation of the World Bank’s Water Management Policy.

Objectives of the Roundtable

♦ Solicit, discuss and evaluate views of key Brazilian stakeholders on the following

topic areas:

The evolution of federal and state government water policy and programs in Brazil, and the underlying causes of this evolution.

The role of the World Bank in this evolution, and lessons learned from previous

water management activities funded by the World Bank, other donors, and governments.

Future role(s) and ways to improve the World Bank’s effectiveness in supporting

effective water management in Brazil.

♦ Solicit input from key stakeholders from selected Latin American countries on ways to improve the World Bank’s effectiveness in water management in the region.

Agenda

Day 1 Wednesday, March 3, 1999 9:00 Registration / Coffee 9.30 Official Welcome: overview of the Roundtable Objectives and Agenda;

Introduction of Participants Kathy Alison, Facilitator

10.00 Overview of the World Bank’s current Water Policy and Objectives of the

Evaluation Keith Pitman, Operations Evaluation Division, WB Questions 10.30 Coffee Break

24

10.45 Evolution of Brazil’s Water Management program and the Role of the World Bank.

A Brazilian Perspective (20 minutes) Jerson Kelman, Professor, UFRJ

A World Bank Perspective (20 minutes)

John Briscoe, Senior Water Advisor, WB Clarification questions

11.45 Working Group Discussion Task 1 Kathy Alison

12:00 Working Group Discussion: Current status of Water Management in Brazil 13:00 Lunch 14:30 The Role of the World Bank in Brazil’s Water Sector John Briscoe 15:15 Working Group Discussion Task 2 / Selection of topics Kathy Alison 15:30 Working Group Discussion Session

Topics: How has the Bank helped and how can we do better? Relevance: Are we doing the right things? Effectiveness: Are we using the right tools? Do we make good use of partnerships?

Do we have the right people and organization to help? Are we using the Bank’s access outside the water sector? Are we dealing effectively with the political economy of reform?

16:15 Coffee Break 16:30 Group Discussions, continued 18:15 Plenary: Summary of Day 1 / Overview of Day 2 Kathy Alison 18:30 Adjourn 19.30 Reception 20.30 Dinner

25

Day 2 Thursday, March 4, 1999 9:00 Opening / Overview of the Day

Kathy Alison

9:15 Group Reports (each group will have 20 minutes to report their conclusions from Day 1 discussions)

10:30 Coffee 10:45 Group Reports, continued 11:45 Clarifications and Discussion of Group Reports 12:00 Identification of Major Themes and Lessons – what does this imply for the World

Bank John Briscoe / Keith Pitman 13:00 Lunch 14:30 Are the conclusions on Brazil similar (or different) for other Latin American

countries? -- Views of other Latin American representatives Martin Lazcano – Argentina Pable Anquita Solas – Chile Enrique Aquilar - Mexico 15.30 Discussion and Reactions Kathy Alison 15:45 Final Comments John Briscoe / Keith Pitman / Participants 16:00 Evaluation of Roundtable 16:15 Adjourn

26

Annex 3

GROUP REPORTS

27

MMeessaa RReeddoonnddaa ssoobbrree aass RReeffoorrmmaass ddaa PPoollííttiiccaa BBrraassiilleeiirraa ssoobbrree áágguuaa ee oo PPaappeell ddoo BBaannccoo MMuunnddiiaall BBrraassíílliiaa,, 33--44 ddee mmaarrççoo ddee 11999999 GGrruuppoo 11:: PPaarrttiicciippaanntteess

JJúúlliioo TThhaaddeeuu,, CCllááuuddiioo,, LLoobbaattoo,, RRôômmuulloo,, BBrruunnoo,, MMoonniiccaa PP..,, MMoonniiccaa SS..,, EEnnrriiqquuee AA..,, PPeetteerr,, FFiiddeell,, BBrraaggaa ((mmooddeerraaddoorr)),, HHeennrriiqquuee ((rraappppoorrtteeuurr))

PPrriinncciippaaiiss CCoonncclluussõõeess:: MMaannhhãã •• PPeerrcceeppççããoo ddoo BBaannccoo ssoobbrree aa ssiittuuaaççããoo ddooss RR..HH..’’ss ddoo BBrraassiill ccoorrrreettaa •• CCoonnsseennssoo eennttrree iiddeeaaiiss ddoo BBaannccoo ee aa ppoollííttiiccaa ddee RR..HH.. bbrraassiilleeiirraa,, aappeessaarr ddee

aallgguummaass ddiiffeerreennççaass ddee aabboorrddaaggeemm PPrriinncciippaaiiss CCoonncclluussõõeess:: MMaannhhãã ((CCoonntt..)) •• PPoossssíívveeiiss ccaauussaass ppaarraa ooss pprroobblleemmaass ddee iimmpplleemmeennttaaççããoo ddee pprroojjeettooss:: eexxtteennssããoo tteerrrriittoorriiaall,, ddiivveerrssiiddaaddee ssóócciioo--ccuullttuurraall,, eeccoonnôômmiiccaa ee aammbbiieennttaall,, ccoonnfflliittooss eennttrree ddoommíínniiooss ppoollííttiiccooss ee ffiissiiooggrrááffiiccooss,, ggeerreenncciiaammeennttoo ee aarrrraannjjoo iinnssttiittuucciioonnaall iinnaaddeeqquuaaddooss,, ddeessccoonnttiinnuuiiddaaddeess,, bbaallaannççoo oobbrraa xx ggeessttããoo ddeesspprrooppoorrcciioonnaall TTaarrddee

•• HHooww hhaass tthhee BBaannkk hheellppeedd aanndd hhooww ccaann iitt ddoo bbeetttteerr?? TTeemmaa 11:: TTaarrddee

•• IIss tthhee BBaannkk ddooiinngg tthhee rriigghhtt tthhiinnggss?? TTeemmaa 11:: TThhiinnggss?? •• DDiissttrriibbuuiiççããoo nnããoo eeqquuiittaattiivvaa ddee pprroojjeettooss ee rreeccuurrssooss ((rriigghhtt ppllaacceess)) •• BBaannccoo ddeevveerriiaa ccoonncceennttrraarr aaççõõeess eemm pprroojjeettooss ccoommpplleexxooss // ppoollêêmmiiccooss ((rriigghhtt

rriisskkss)) •• SSiisstteemmaass ddee ggeessttããoo ddeevveemm ccoonnddiicciioonnaarr oobbrraass ((rriigghhtt iissssuueess)) •• PPeeqquueennaa iinntteeggrraaççããoo eennttrree ppoollííttiiccaass ddee mmeeiioo aammbbiieennttee ee rreeccuurrssooss hhííddrriiccooss

((rriigghhtt sseeccttoorrss)) ee eennttrree ppoollííttiiccaass // aaççõõeess ddee ppeeqquueennaa ee ddee llaarrggaa eessccaallaa ((rriigghhtt ssccaalleess))

28

TTeemmaa 22:: TTaarrddee

•• IIss tthhee BBaannkk uussiinngg tthhee rriigghhtt ttoooollss?? TTeemmaa 22:: RRiigghhtt TToooollss?? •• QQuuaalliiffiiccaaççããoo // hhaabbiilliiddaaddee ddooss ttaasskk--mmaannaaggeerrss:: ffaattoorr iimmppoorrttaannttee ppaarraa oo ssuucceessssoo

ddooss pprroojjeettooss •• BBoonnss eexxeemmppllooss ddee nnoonn--llaannddiinngg ((ttrreeiinnaammeennttoo nnoo ttrraabbaallhhoo,, ssttuuddyy--ttoouurrss)) •• RReevviissããoo ddooss ccrriittéérriiooss ddee aavvaalliiaaççããoo ddee pprroojjeettooss ((mmaaiiss qquuaalliittaattiivvooss//ssiissttêêmmiiccooss)) •• AAddaappttaabbllee lleennddiinngg:: ppooddee sseerr iinntteerreessssaannttee ppaarraa aallgguunnss pprroojjeettooss mmaaiiss

aarrrriissccaaddooss // ccoommpplleexxooss ((ggeessttããoo ddee bbaacciiaass,, eettcc..)) TTeemmaa 33:: TTaarrddee

•• DDooeess tthhee BBaannkk mmaakkee ggoooodd uussee ooff ppaarrttnneerrsshhiippss?? TTeemmaa 33:: PPaarrttnneerrsshhiippss?? •• MMaaiioorr aarrttiiccuullaaççããoo ccoomm uussuuáárriiooss ddee áágguuaa •• MMaaiioorr iinntteeggrraaççããoo ccoomm aaggêênncciiaass iinntteerrnnaacciioonnaaiiss ddee ffoommeennttoo •• DDiivvuullggaaççããoo iinntteerrnnaa ddee ppaarrcceerriiaass bbeemm ssuucceeddiiddaass •• UUssoo ddee ffuunnddooss rroottaattiivvooss ppaarraa aattiinnggiirr mmaaiioorr nnúúmmeerroo ddee bbeenneeffiicciiáárriiooss TTeemmaa 66:: TTaarrddee

•• BBaannkk ddeeaalliinngg eeffffeeccttiivveellyy wwiitthh tthhee ppoolliittiiccaall eeccoonnoommyy ooff rreeffoorrmm?? TTeemmaa 66:: PPoolliittiiccaall EEccoonnoommyy?? •• DDeevvee hhaavveerr mmaaiioorr ccoooorrddeennaaççããoo eennttrree aass ppoollííttiiccaass mmaaccrroo--eeccoonnôômmiiccaa ee sseettoorriiaall •• CCrriissee aattuuaall éé aa ooppoorrttuunniiddaaddee ddee rreeppeennssaarr aass ppoollííttiiccaass ppaarraa oo sseettoorr MMeessaa RReeddoonnddaa ssoobbrree aass RReeffoorrmmaass ddaa PPoollííttiiccaa BBrraassiilleeiirraa ssoobbrree áágguuaa ee oo PPaappeell ddoo BBaannccoo MMuunnddiiaall ((GGrruuppoo 11)) •• IInniicciiaattiivvaa ddoo BBaannccoo tteemm oo rreeccoonnhheecciimmeennttoo ddooss ppaarrcceeiirrooss bbrraassiilleeiirrooss

29

Working Group # 1—written summary (Participants: Benedito Braga, Henrique Chaves, Francisco Lobato, Romulo de Macedo Vieira, Claudio Serricchio, Enrique Aguilar, Fidel Braceras, Monica Porto, Julio Thadeu

Kettelhut, Peter Hradilek, Bruno Pagnoccheshi, Martin Lascano, Monica Scatasta) I. Morning Session: Is our diagnosis right? wrong? incomplete? The group agreed that the Bank’s/OED’s assessment of the status of reforms in Brazil is overall correct, although concern was expressed about the database that was used, as (i) SAR are outdated and distant from the actual evolution of project objectives, and (ii) 590 Forms are unable to capture the actual achievements of a project. The latter was one of the most often reiterated points throughout the discussion. Some participants pointed out that good policy-making and planning requires a ‘policy for implementation’, and hence the distinction between policy and implementation in the assessment tables was too clear-cut. Among the country-specific conditions that are seen as determinants of the distance between policy definition and their implementation (and for the implementation of projects as well), the group considered the following as the most relevant:

1. Brazil’s geographical extension and socio-economic and environmental diversity. 2. The superposition of the river basin division to the administrative division of the

country. A new system is being created, but huge problems ensue from the interactions between state and federal rivers: there are no clear ways for union and states to interact on these matters

3. Brazil’s low implementation capacity and still inadequate institutional setting. 4. Brazil’s tendency to set up rules that are unattainable (example of environmental

requirements implied by the river classification required by the water law). There is a need for a more gradualist approach to reaching environmental objectives.

5. Loss of institutional memory due to lack of continuity of Brazilian decision-makers 6. Excessive concentration of Federal funds/interventions of federal agencies to a

few states who have a greater political influence, while attempts to implement reforms in smaller states lack support.

Among the issues that were seen as missing from Jerson’s and John’s presentation were:

1. A stronger focus on sewage treatment would have been welcome: the general consensus was that this should be planned at a river basin level and that this issue needed further discussion.

2. More emphasis should have been given to the Federal Government’s ‘one size fits

all’ approach to solving water and sanitation problems: federal funds are now available to utilities only if they are on a path towards privatization, but privatization

30

is not the only solution, nor the best in a number of smaller municipalities where the local utility is working satisfactorily but may at times need funds.

II. Is Bank doing the right thing? Are we investing in the right places?

1. As is the case for Federal funds, the Bank’s funds and projects are concentrated in a few powerful states. This is generally justified by saying they were the reformers, but a number of participants felt that, often, policy reform efforts or innovative approaches to project design/management in other states are simply not known or ignored.

2. The criteria which led to having only irrigation and water resources management

projects in the Northeast and only water and sanitation/water quality management projects in the Southeast are not clear. This may well be the right way to go, although there appear to be clear needs for interventions in water quality in the Northeast (corroborated by explicit requests by the water users in Ceara’) and in water resources management in the Southeast. Still, the Bank needs to make its criteria explicit.

Are we taking the right risks? Should we support riskier/more complex projects?

1. The Bank should take more risks and be involved in controversial projects, such as the Rio Sao Francisco Transposition. This does not necessarily mean that the Bank should finance the Transposition or even support its realization, but it should intervene with studies, creation of decision support systems, and other activities aimed at giving some quantitative basis for the (necessarily) political discussion and decision-making process concerning the initiative. With very little money the Bank can make a difference in clarifying the issues at stake and helping make better political decisions in highly charged situations.

2. The Bank should be less preoccupied with its image concerning participation in

dams: it should consider dams case by case. 3. The Bank should focus less on its role as a lender and provide technical support

for complex projects for which the country does not have sufficient analytical, technical, institutional capacity. On the contrary, there seems to have been a brutal reduction of technical support by Bank consultants in helping with institutional development, water pricing and other matters, while evaluation criteria are becoming stricter.

Are we addressing the right issues? Are we intervening in the right sectors or are we too water-centric?

1. Progress in the creation of management systems should condition the financing of works, as is called for by Proagua. It is not clear whether the project is being implemented as originally conceived.

31

2. There seems to be little integrations between Bank interventions in water resources, and those in other sectors. For example, the Bank is not supporting a clear integration between environmental policies and water resources management.

3. Also, there is little communication between the various sectors within the Bank, so

that little is learnt from positive, innovative experiences in other sectors, such as rural development or other natural resources management projects.

4. Finally, the Bank seems unable to address water issues in the context of the

broader issues they are linked with. For example, water and sanitation issues should be addressed in the context of an analysis of Brazil’s urbanization and regional development processes. This is not the case.

III. Is Bank Using the Right Tools?

1. The project revision/evaluation process should be drastically revised. It appears to be mostly preoccupied with process, and particularly with disbursement levels. Particularly for environmental projects, or projects with substantial institutional development components, it should be recognized that (i) their implementation takes a long time, and so do their development impacts, and (ii) a qualitative evaluation methodology should be adopted.

2. The Task Manager is a key figure that can ‘make or break’ a project – they need to

be able to speak with all levels of government and types of counterparts, need to understand the local reality. Need to avoid the existence of ‘islands’ of good TM or teams – need to build a larger group of people able to have a dialogue with the country.

3. More funds and other support should go to the soft side of projects, particularly to

studies and the collection, processing and dissemination of data and creation of decision support systems.

4. On the other hand, the Bank should avoid not following up on plans she helped

formulate. There are two types of disconnect in Bank interventions: (i) between the policy-making and planning stages and the implementation stage, as the Bank often lacks the capacity to understand HOW to reach implementation after having supported the planning stage; and (ii) between the phase up to the completion of works and the following phase, which lacks the support needed to ensure the sustainability of project impacts (to help the new organizations ‘walk with their own legs’). One proposal was to disburse the money for soft components more steadily throughout the life of a project, to have money for the post-work phase as well.

5. Bank should intervene in complex issues, but not necessarily with complex and

very large projects. Pilot projects and small interventions are welcome (more in the ‘tools’ section) and tools such as Adaptable Lending may be used to deal with the components that are otherwise difficult to finance, such as studies or the creation of management systems, and for the components whose benefits are difficult to quantify.

32

6. Non-lending interventions are very effective, in particular study tours. A proposal concerned the use of techcnical trainee programs such as the one set up by the University of Sao Paulo.

7. To ensure implementation of policies, the Bank should learn to take a more

practical and less dogmatic approach: there are political problems that the Bank needs to be flexible enough to deal with – the Bank should not try to impose the pace of reform, which is different in every country / region.

IV. Is Bank Making Good Use of Partnerships?

1. Bank should learn to work better with water users and other actors that are outside of the governmental structure (‘local’ often simply means local government to the Bank)

2. There is a need for better information dissemination ABOUT the Bank at the local

level. It is seen as a very distant entity and only as a possible source of funds. 3. There needs to better information dissemination WITHIN the Bank about

successful experiences in building partnerships with new actors. 4. There needs to be better coordination with other donors. 5. There was some unresolved tension between the perceived need to expand the

number of partners (example of consortium of municipalities in the Piracicaba river basin) involved in Bank operation, and the need to establish their relative importance (hierarchical) within each operation.

6. A proposal to finance non-governmental partners included the creation of revolving

funds with the state or municipal government, which would then fund the activities V. Is Bank Dealing Effectively with the Political Economy of Reform?

1. The Bank should coordinate better its macro-economic dialogue with the country and its sectoral interventions, to avoid the current strangling of sectoral interventions due to the requirements imposed by the macro crisis.

2. On the other hand, the Bank should be able to recognize the opportunities and

risks provided by the current crisis situation. 3. Bank should be careful about pushing privatization too fast, as a number of them

are taking place in a regulatory vacuum given that the regulation of the water law is still to be passed.

4. Some participants thought that the Bank is better positioned than most of its local

counterparts to understand the broader set of determinants of reforms in the water sector, and should use it to help policies turn into realities.

33

Annex 6

Group 2 report-out and written summary

GROUP 2 – report-out

COORDENADOR: GILBERTO CANALI RELATOR: FRANCISCO VIANA PARTICIPANTES: • Rui Brasil, Nora Lanari, Rosana Garjuli, Jander Campos, Rubem Porto, Helio Porto,

Pablo Anguitas, Luis Carlos Rangel Como esta sendo feito o Gerenciamento de Recurso Hidricos no Brasil? ABRANGÊNCIA / COMPREHENSIVE 1. A avaliação do Banco foi muito otimista 2. O sector hidrolétrico deve fazer parte dos Planos de Recursos Hidricos [R.H.] 3. Integração dos componentes meio ambiente e desenvolvimento urbano é um desafio (nos Planos de R.H.) 4. Os planos e projetos devem respeitar as realidades locais e regionais 5. A avaliação deve ser regionalizada para respeitar as peculiaridades 6. Apoio a obtenção de bases cartrograficas municipais para fomentar projetos, planos e ações PARTICIPAÇÃO 1. Os interlocutores com o Banco nem sempre são os mais respresentativos 2. A participação de usuarios e da sociedade deveria se dar em todos os momentos

(concepção, negociação, implementação, acompanhanento e avalição) 3. Criação de uma sistematica de monitoramento social na concepção e implantação

dos projetos e de seus impactos junto a população

INSTITUCIONAL/INSTITUTIONAL

1. Descontinuidade dos programas entre as fases de concepção e implantação 2. O Banco deve investir nos instrumentos de gestão antes da cobrança (planos,

monitoramentos, comites, agência)

34

3. As restricões institutionais (falta de regulamentação) estão limitando as ações na

área ambiental e econômica

ECONÔMICA / ECONOMIC 1. Os instrumentos econômicos ainda estão longe de ser implantados e de apresentar

um resultados concretos 2. O Banco deve definir criterios abrangentes e transparentes para acesso aos seus

financiamentos, compatibilizando-os com os principios de participação, descentralização e sustentabilidade

(Valorizar quem esta fazendo “O dever de casa”)

ATUAÇÃO DO BIRD Pergunta 1 – FAZ A COISA CERTA? • Atua nos setores certos, de forma desarticulada (“muitos bancos” dentro do Banco) • Deve assumir projetos mais complexos (riscos = banco de desenvolvimento) • Descontinuidade entre concepção e implementação da politica de R.H (ex: apoiar a

estruturação de agências até sua sustentabilidade) • “A Cartilha” de acompanhamento dos projetos não respeita as especificidades

regionais • Riscos ⇒ seriam menores se houvesse maior participação (usuarios e sociedade)

desde o inicio • Dinamizar formas menos burocraticas de acesso aos financialmentos do Banco Pergunta 2. USA FERRAMENTAS CERTAS? • O Banco atua como bombeiro e não como agente de prevenção • Deve ser mais impositivo em relação ao desenvolvimento institucional (PROÁGUA

FEDERAL) • Deve financiar capacitação em gestão de R.H (formação tecnica e gerencial)

incluindo intercambio de experiencias nacional e internacional (tec. CBH, AG) • Incentivar controle dos investimentos (infra-estrutura) mediante a participação da

sociedade (grupos, entidades especialização [especializadas?]) • Revisar procedimentos tendo em vista o fortalecimento do poder de regulação do

Estado • Hai preocupação excessiva com avaliação custo/ benefício, mas quando a

necessidade é evidente

35

Pergunta 3. USA BEM AS PARCERIAS? • Interlocutores tradicionais (Governo Federal e Estados) tem tendência a

centralização • Fortalecer Parcerias:

- no país ===> articulação politicas publicas - no banco ==> entre setores e departamentos - externas ==> organizações internacionais

• Fomentar parcerias universidades e Inst. de Pesquisa, financiando pesquisas essenciais para a gestão de R.H (ex: salinização de açudes)

• Fomentar abertura/acesso dos municipios na contratação de emprestimos para gestão descentralizada, participativa e sustentavel dos R.H.

Pergunta 6 – TRATA ADEQUADAMENTE AS REFORMAS? Posição Contraditoria 1. Pressiona excessivamente e prematuramente privatização do setor de água e

saneamento ><

2. Atua timidamente a implementação da Lei de Recursos Hidricos

36

Written Summary – Group 2

Morning Session: Assessment of Water Reforms in Brazil The Bank’s assessment is essentially correct. Brazil has appropriate policies, but implementation is lagging. Comprehensive: • The color should change from a green to a yellow. Only some States and important

basins have plans. The State planning approach is still top-down, stakeholders are not really involved. Plans are formulated, but not implemented. If the stakeholders are involved in the planning process, then there will be political pressure for implementation of the plan, even when administrations change. Plans are not linked to financial resources.

• Hydropower is very well-organized. People in the power sector are ready to be part of a broader water resource management system but they don’t have competent parties to deal with. The other water users are not equal to hydropower in terms of capacity and organization. Power sector followed the drafting National Water Law very closely and are ready to comply with the Law.

Institutional

• Several states and the federal government have legal frameworks in WRM, but

implementation lagging. The national water law was created from the bottom up, with NGOs, Associations, community groups and municipalities. The bureaucracy opposed the new approach to water management. The discourse and practice on implementing the water law are far apart because the bureaucracy can kill the implementation. The federal government is part of the problem, not the solution.

Water Supply and Sanitation

• The colors are too optimistic for WSS. When compared with PLANASA, the current

situation today doesn’t have an institutional framework or benchmark. There is no consensus in the sector on how to proceed.

Afternoon Session: Evaluating Bank’s Role

Question 1: Is the Bank doing the right things?

A. Sectors, Issues and Places: • Bank needs to follow-up on water quality/management planning efforts it has

supported in Southeast: Piracicaba, Iguacu, Upper Tiete, Pariaba do Sol, Belo Horizonte, etc. Follow-up support could come in the form of support for the start-up of riverbasin agencies and financing investment plans. The Bank has done this wonderfully in Ceara and the Northeast, but there does not appear to be a clear commitment or strategy for Southeast efforts.

37

• Bank should help the federal government speed up the implementation of the national water law.

• The Bank should help Brazil develop a regulatory and management framework for water services and water resource management.

B. Risk • Bank is stressing participation, decentralization, and conflict resolution. This is

necessarily risky. For example, in Paracicaba and Pariaba do Sol, there are many conflicts, yet the presence of the Bank helps. Risky and complicated areas are where the Bank can help the most.

• Bank should not let public opinion in North America and Europe unduly influence its activities, after all, the borrowing countries are the client.

C. Right Tools • Absolutely necessary to fund “soft components:” planning, management, capacity-

building, legal and regulatory support.” Conditionality for soft components, such as in ProAgua is a good strategy. In ProAgua, some states don’t want to make institutional reforms, they just want money for infrastructure. The Bank has refused to disburse the funds and this is the proper approach.

• Competitive allocation of project funds according to pre-established criteria (ProAgua and PMSS) is a good approach.

• The methodology for Bank evaluation of projects is not appropriate and unfair. The evaluation focuses too much on disbursement and physical works and does not take the qualitative aspects of institutional reforms and capacity-building into account. For example, in São Paulo and Parana, state laws needed to be changed to create a watershed management agency. This took six years to do and has a dramatic impact on the entire state, yet the Bank considers the projects unsuccessful because it took longer than expected to set up the management agencies.

• Bank should follow-up planning efforts with guaranteed financial support for the investment program.

• Bank efforts do not seem to be coordinated, and there are different factions working within the Bank. There is no global strategy for Bank support in water resource management. Bank efforts in the Northeast are not coordinated with Bank efforts in the Southeast, and there are divisions between the water supply/sanitation group and the water resource management group.

• Bank should do more, and better, sector studies in the water management field which both diagnoses the problem and presents the Bank strategy.

Partnerships: • Bank usually just has “paper partnerships” with other international agencies such as

UNDP, IDB, and JICA. Bank should work to improve these partnerships. • Bank should work to develop closer partnerships with NGOs, Associations, and

Universities. This could be done by incorporating these organizations into project design, appraisal, implementation, and evaluation.

38

Question 6: Political Economy

The group did not have adequate time to discuss this question.

39

Annex 7

Group 3 Report – out and written summary

Report - out Question: Water Resources

Evolution Of The Process In Brazil Policy, Institutional and Regulatory Framework

Advances Compulsory for Entrepreneurs to Provide Hydrological Information

Telemetry at Downstream Outlets - River Basin Committes - Decentralization - Effort to Integrate National State Local Organizations - Legal Objectives Fullfilled

Problems

- Only Bureocratic Advances - Lack of Content (Planning) - Municipalities not Prepared to Express Local Interests - Need to Regulate at Basin Level - Weak Public Policies - Lack of Finnancing at Basin Level - Privatization: Lack of Efficient Models for Regulation and Control - Need to Better Integrate Institutions - Lack of Social Control; Social Control is one of Key factors for

continuity and effectiveness. - Groundwater was not considered in the Law - Multiple Uses: Lack of Institutional Framework to Estimulate Multiple

Uses - Multiple Uses equal Complex Mannagement. - Need for Participation of Uses in the Decision Making Process. - A Balance Infrastructure/software has to be Achieved. - Availability of Information at Basin Level should be Stimulated

Example - CEIVAP - Trainning - Strenghtening of Environmental Institutions - Improving Databank Data Network

Suggestion Incentives: More Progress in Mannagement and More Investments

from the Bank PERCEPTION OF WATER AS AN ECONOMIC VALUE. IS IT

IMPROVED?

40

Question One

Are We Doing the Right Things ? Advances

- Policy of The Bank: A Positive Effect. - The Bank should Take Risks; Taking Risks Should Be a Priority. - The Bank is a Catalyzer and Inducer. - The Bank is a Facilitator of a Resources Pool (Funding). - The Culture of The Bank is Changing: More Integrative Projects

Related to Biogeophysical, Social and Economic Aspects. - Successful Project: Rio Flood Control Infrastructure, Positive Effects on Human Health

And Non Structural Measures Problems

- Evaluation of Projects: Need for More Flexibility and Capacity of Analysis

- Weak Interrelation between the Bank and Users of Projects - Need for Better Mannagement of Projects - Independent Pannels for Specific Projects - Efforts to Stimulate the Bottom up Processes are Necessary. - Interest the Public Opinion for the Acceptance of New Initiative

Question Two: Are We Using the Right Tools ?

Problems

- Large Projects; Too many Clients and Many Problems; Risk of Politization of Projects; Difficulty To Evaluate Larger Projects.

Solution

- A Gradual Advance Analysis and Further Steps Should Be Implemented.

Advances

- Learning and Innovation Projects - Adaptive Program Lending

Suggestion - Infrastructure: Need to Develop Operational Efficiency. - Need to Promote Institutional Advancement. - Pilot Projects with More Flexibility and Action. - Study Tours. - Strategic Efforts; Analytical Work. - Identification of New Opportunities - Pools for Consultation of General Public: a Possible Mechanism for

Identifying Priorities.

41

- Exploit the Several Possibilities of The Projects: Training in Environmental Education, Public Health.

- Commitment Fees as Technical Assistance

Question Three: Do We Make Good Use Of Partnerships ?

Problems

- At International Level: Low Integration Outside the U. N. System Due to Institutional and Operational Problems.

- Partnerships Should Be Used in Order to Optimize Resources. - It is Necessary to Stimulate Certain Degree of Competition Among

Agencies. Suggestion

- Collaboration of Experts: South-South, North-South. - Interchange of Specialists. - Regional Networks. - Strategy to Open Windows for Partnerships. - University/Public Sector/Private Sector/Community. - Integration of Procedures Among Agencies.

Question Five: Is Our Work In The Water Sector Too Sector-Centric ?

Problems

- Need For Better Interactions Among Sectors of The Bank. - Need To Develop Political Articulation And To Integrate Multisectorial

and Interdisciplinary Aspects. Suggestion

- Exploit Interfaces In The Projects: The Bank Should Demonstrate Capacity To Adapt To Use Interfaces.

42

Written summary of Group 3 • Broad agreement. • Substantial advances under Pro Agua in Pernambuco (including bulk water charges) • Advances are mostly “bureaucratic, not on the ground • What is missing is “content”, and this runs the risk of delegitimizing what would

otherwise be important progress on policies and legislation. • Big issue of capacity at local level (esp municipality and states) • Paradox of perfect planning and legislation, trying to account for every conceivable

nuance and possibility, with the reality that on the ground it is anarchic. • Similar expressions from many….. What does work – local cases where things are actually done and these serve as demonstration. Bank projects (Ceara, Proagua, Guarapiranga…) absolutely vital in moving to “content”. This expressed strongly with many examples – river basins with form but no content… Wild scramble for Bank money, promising anything to get it. Domestic resources have run completely dry. External resources are very important in new institutional arrangements – Piracicaba, for example, was a result of Bank project, nothing else Very strong general sense of very weak public policies (and a plea for the Bank to do more here). Especially important are metropolitan strategies and regional strategies. Water projects (urban and rural) are often the springboards for these, and they must have a view on these broader issues). (Bank projects perceived as too narrow and sectoral, in water sub-sectors and outside of the water sector…) Strong sense on the urban side that the Bank has been ideological in pushing privatization as the only solution. Pervasive sense of disarticulation between electric and water resources sectors. Complex transition, but unquestionably ANEEL is partly right in saying “there is no one on the other side of the table for us to discuss with”. Important for Bank to reinforce the policy making capacity at the center (and noted that there is no disbursement of the Federal capacity building part of Proagua.) Overriding sense – the task of “dismantling the state” has taken place. But there is no “new State” to replace it, just a vacuum. Huge need for the Bank to focus on building the new, right type of state – regulatory, capacity, public policies….. Overriding sense that the mix of “soft and hard” is about right in Bank projects. Without the hard there is little political support, and there are large infrastructure needs. Without the soft none of it would make any sense. Bank contribution: Question 1: Relevance --- right things, right issues,…..

43

“Bank brains and policies and conditionality is the single greatest contribution, and the thing that makes the Bank irreplaceable….” A necessary counterweight to the “everything by political accords” that prevails in Brazil today. IDB has not brought the same to the table in the past, but it has improved and is improving…. Tactic of supporting reformers is the right one… Perception that in urban water focus on privatization with little attention to issues of poverty and to users…. “The Bank is an inducer and catalyst for change in Brazil” Bank has great legitimacy in the country and seen as good housekeeping seal of approval in the sector. Gives it enormous influence. Some long-time clients have seen strong shift over years to “less focus on hard and more on soft” and like it. Universal support for us being involved in the difficult, risky areas…. Quite different perspectives from people intimate with the Bank and those not so. Question #2: Effectiveness -- right tools? Great frustration by our most fervent partners, with several things: • The formats of monitoring – singleminded focus on forms, disbursements. They

want us on substance, but we keep pushing on process and forms. Bank needs to find ways of doing this better. Liked Kelman’s suggestion of paying for product, not for process…

• No understanding of the collateral issues which often turn out to be the greatest contribution.

• And the straightjacket of the SAR as an inflexible document to be followed at all costs.

Bank has comparative advantage in pilot projects, because even here it deals with policy issues that others ignore. Non-lending services – analytic, study tours for decision makers very important. There is a dearth of conceptual thinking in the country. Need for Bank to have better understanding of what is happening with users, participants…. Users as missing element in three-way contract on water utilities (utility, govt/regulator/ population). Investments in basic data important. Lack of management in the Bank --- the tyranny of the Task Manager and no sense of where to go when don’t get response.

44

Question 3: Partnerships Lots of interest, internally and externally (and lots of misconceptions which can come back to haunt us….) Definition and management of expectations very important. Lots of interest in regional cooperation (a la SAMTAC but a plethora of these and need for consolidation (INBO, GWP, RIGA??) Need to invest in capacity building at all levels, from training users in local basin management, to PADCT window for water-related Science and Technology… Some operational ones (for instance with ICA) working very well. Question 5 – Are the water operations of the Bank too water-centric? All close to us perceive that we don’t do what we expect others to do. This undercuts legitimacy of what we are saying… Strong sense from all of need to be more out of our own box – with productive sectors in irrigation; across the water sector and power (very important); with urbanization processes in water supply; with Hacienda on financing issues, for example.

45

Annex 6

Group 4: Report –out and written summary

Group 4 – Report out

Agreement and Disagreement with World Bank Operations Agreement • Introduction of new ideas and policy • Promote institutional development and institutional strengthening Disagreement • The holistic approach is not yet implemented on a project level • Lack of co-ordination between different World Bank departments • Too much emphasis on financial performance • Projects are not always in line with Bank policies • Lack of knowledge of World Bank Policies 1. Are we doing the right things? • Yes,

As far as competitive projects and socially oriented projects are supported and cases to World Bank funds is handled in a transparent way

• No,

If policies are not defined together with Brazilian partners, including people that will be affected by the project

2. Are we using the right things? Yes, but there should be: • More emphasis on institutional strengthening through lower counterpart contributions

or lower interest rates • More flexibility of loan amounts according to local needs 3. Do we make good use of partnerships? Yes, but improvement is possible with respect to: • The availability of funds for NGO’s and other institution of the civil society so that

these institutions can fulfil their role properly • Co-ordination of actions with other multilateral and bilateral development agencies to

prevent contradictory actions

46

4. Do we have the right people and organisation to help? Organization • Project evaluation should not only contemplate the implementing agency but also the

beneficiaries People • The Relationship between Bank and local project staff could be improved, if the

performance of World Bank project managers would not only be evaluated by financial aspects, but also by the results of the project.

47

Group 4 – written summary Question 1:

• WB has been an important actor, but in SP there is tremendous arrogance on the WB team. The staff member does not follow the principles stated by the WB here – we should sign a petition and send it to the WB!!

• Evaluation appears to be disbursement based, not on reality. More attention needs to be paid to socio and environmental factors. And that these factors differ depending on the level of investigation. No use is made of grass roots knowledge.

• Too much attention is given by government to having a sizable portfolio rather than on the impact of individual projects. Emphasis is always on the $, and the WB seems willing to accept this.

• Too many changes of WB staff on projects, and also not enough local knowledge to be effective. Tendency to generalize to country average conditions.

• Ecological part of project do not receive institutional support even though they are acknowledged in the SAR; thus it is a Bank ritual of top down planning whatever they say. Reversion to type, despite the words!

• There is an absence of the legislative branch of government in project appraisal and evaluation process.

• M&E of project impacts is entirely neglected and only disbursement is important.

• WB attention to details on things like resettlement are excessive – Aswan like conditions for tiny little projects is stupid. Environmental demands of WB is high, even when nothing is known of the region – Bank shows great ignorance of reality.

• WB have a great deal of difficulty in adapting to differing regional conditions – 1st world prescription to 3rd world conditions - thus negotiations on projects very difficult because of differing conditions and knowledge.

• Bank is too doctrinaire e.g. on water markets even when the conditions are not appropriate.

• Bank needs to be seen taking a central role on fighting poverty. Long term strategies are missing; more vision is needed to avoid future problems; involving all levels of civil society does not appear to be of interest. It is much easier for the Bank to talk only to bureaucrats and that’s what they do. They don’t want reality to destroy orderly appraisal. Not all people have the same agenda as bureaucrats. In particular, institutional development is not pressed by the WB even when adequately funded, and it tends to only meet governments needs and does not allow for ID among beneficiaries and civil society.

48

• The Bank must make more effort to find leaders/sponsors for reform in Brazilian society.

• Projects are changed or redesigned without consultation of beneficiaries; agreements to include stakeholders overlooked once project is signed up. Beneficiaries must be consulted, not only project entities like river basin committees – we are all members of civil society. This could have tremendous advantages as it would bring local knowledge of impacts, and civil society could help the Bank evaluation more rationally than a bureaucrat.

• WB seems to have conflicting internal agendas and this gives us mixed signals about what we can do.

What’s missing (red boxes):

• Some successful sub-sector projects like Ceara but most are not because:

• Very few projects have a holistic view

• Bank wants adherence to its rules, even when irrelevant

• Bank does not go for transparency or dissemination

• Basin committees for example are disconnected from the other river basin managers (if they exist); federal needs always seem to dominate.

• Water is an ecological good, not only a technical resource.

The debate then went into a heated discussion about neo-colonialism. Some thought the demands on the WB tended in this direction and argued that Brazil should be more independent and develop its own agenda. Finding the right people was imperative. A minority felt, given the governments inability to get its act together, that there was little option but to get the WB to make noises and lead.

Afternoon Session

#1 Is the Bank doing projects in the right places?

• Ceara well chosen. But government needs to be alert to new opportunities and not driven by urban needs which is what always happens!

• Belief that the Bank is not prepared to take on new challenges and put its success rate at risk. This is complicated by the fact that most do not know what the WB has to offer. It needs to develop a deeper understanding of the views of civil society about what they see as priorities. And then it needs to develop small pilot projects to test new approaches – a major problem is that most projects are too large ($100 million+) and lose site of the beneficiaries. Starting small it could move into high risk areas and develop M&E partnerships with local society. This could create a ripple effect and lead to local ownership and co-financing of projects.

• Fabio F: don’t call the Bank a charitable institution, it is a Bank.

49

• Response from group: No, it can’t be, because repayment is never seen as an issue!!

• We can’t tell if the Bank is doing the right projects because ratings are based on disbursement, not impacts.

• WB should only invest where there is active borrower participation and demonstrated need. Ceara model.

• It is up to us to make the WB change focus after assessing risks if we see it as too concentrated in one area, or on a particular set of problems.

• Should the Bank accept a higher risk? If this is essential to meet real needs, yes. It has to fulfill social functions as well as infrastructure.

• The whole of WRM should be to find areas of conflict and resolve them.

• Yes, but for example special political interests in Brazil delayed the water law by 10 years.

• View that the Bank should set up competitive loans for which states compete, this would give states an incentive to get their act together.

• Good partnerships also foster inflow of $ – look at SP. This is contradictory as SP has set-up 63 different councils to fragment water problems – if the WB was serious about reforms it would not allow this.

• WB needs to increase breadth of portfolio to cover more risky and controversial areas like above.

• Another problem is that WB projects neglect water conservation, there is little focus on demand side regulation. The worst case is sewage projects. We treat the problems, not the causes (e.g. rural/urban poverty leading to farvelas). Same of WS. Water conservation must be built into projects.

• WB seems to have contradictory projects when other sectors are considered, no global vision e.g. trucks under WB credit and pollution (?)

• There are too many critical gatekeepers between the WB and stakeholders/beneficiaries.

• WB seems unwilling to work in partnerships. It needs to rethink its priorities and be transparent.

• TA and training are needed, not only for civil servants and government people, but also for beneficiaries. Peoples’ participation can be successful in this, e.g. PQA.

• On a higher level, the Bank should work harder to develop a the big picture and help country identify priorities. The experience of other countries would be very helpful to us, particularly below the bureaucratic level. IDB representative gave example of how they respond differently to rich and poor countries.

50

• Even in Brazil we don’t exchange ideas! We don’t need to reinvent the wheel. The Bank should facilitate interchange of information.

• Time taken to develop projects is too long (up to 4 years), politics change – thus the need for small quick pilot projects. Approval by Bank should be quicker too.

• The Bank must focus more on ID and difficult areas of public policy. It seems to avoid this. It should not seek to be popular!

Partnerships:

• NGOs have a vital role but they do not substitute for government. Bank could gain much by giving knowledge to NGOs and including them in participation. NGOs can do M&E work for Bank e.g. Parana.

WB Personnel

• WB seems subject too much to fashion e.g. participation was on the agenda a few years ago, but new TM seem less so. Surely there should be more commonality on approach among TMs who seem too independent.

• Too much staff turnover

• Loop is too incestuous: WB, GOV, WB etc - no room for others.

• $ availability generates questionable projects env vs. engineer, vs. economist

• Managerial capacity not matched to size of project. TM overlooks lack of sound counterparts – it is unfair to steal a whole department for a single WB project. Solution – scale down projects or train staff before projects begin.

END OF NOTES.

51

Annex 7

Evaluation Results

Twenty-seven Roundtable participants completed the evaluation form. The scale was one to six with six being most useful.

1. Usefulness of the Roundtable 5.3

2. Quality of the presentations 5.1

3. Usefulness of the working groups 5

4. Roundtable organization Facilitation 5.5 Logistics 5.5 Travel Arrangements 5.6 Written Comments: Question 1. How useful was the Roundtable? - Very useful for improving the results of the work being performed by the country and

by the World Bank - It was sometimes difficult to come to the point of the discussion (related to small

group sessions) - Limited depth in the discussions. - We didn’t discuss the relationship between progress of World Bank plans and

Brazilian economic interactions and problems. Question 2 How would you rank the presentations? - Open, honest and competent presentations - One or two of the presentations appeared to me rather ill prepared - those from the visiting countries. That is why I did not grade as a 6.

- Some were excellent, others not so good!

52

Question 3. How useful were the working groups? - Group 4 had excellent dynamics - Not enough time to cover all questions satisfactorily - Lack of perfection in the reports to the larger group (may not have adequately

reflected all that the group had to say). Some presentations were too diffused. - Too many people. - More time needed for the group discussions - Good format, free discussions. - I feel some dissatisfaction from the NGOs; they feel as a minority without a voice in

the group - We had too little time in these two days - I think that if we had worked in the groups using “ZOOP”? methodology we would

have reached more objective results. Question 4. How would you rate the organization of the roundtable? Facilitation

- It is very important to receive some days before the roundtable the papers and the documents and World Bank preliminary evaluations, to permit more accurate contributions.

- Perfect! - No repairs!

Logistics

- Perfect! - No Repairs!

Travel

- No repairs! Question 5. Other Comments - Great Idea. But make it three days next time. - The meeting was very important for Brazil. Although the subject discussed is out of

my field of knowledge, I have learned a great deal from what was discussed, particularly in work group 3, which was highly qualified, technically and scientifically.

53

- The states could develop this kind of activity internally, with their municipalities - The discussion in smaller groups is a good idea, particularly when we have the

opportunity to hear the opinions of the other groups. On the other hand I think the questions could be more “provocative” without the fear of raising still more questions.

- Review the topics discussed every 6 months - I think it was extremely interesting to have in the group people from different

backgrounds (including representatives of the civil society and NGOs). Congratulations!

- Suggestion: Given that the major problems are related to implementation, why not

focus on specific projects (case studies)? - I hope that the Bank Group would continue to discuss the recommendations of the

working groups. - It would be important to invite other institutions that work or will work with the World

Bank, such as SEPRE – UGP/PROAGUA 1. The Global Water Unit is part of the Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Network of the World Bank 2. OED is an independent evaluation unit reporting to the World Bank’s Executive Directors