	PROPOSED RESEARCH THEORY			STUDY RESULTS
Criteria Evaluation	Expected results/objectives of the Public Consortia for SWM	Obstacles faced to achieve the objectives	Recommendation on how to evaluate the criteria	Study Results-29 Public Consortia for SWM
Equity	-Ensure that the shared management of services provided by consortia benefit or compensate those living in more vulnerable situations, such as those living near to dumpsites and landfills, in poor or risk locations that do not have waste collection and live with, susceptible to diseases, adverse scenic impact and reduced welfare. -Ensure that the provision of solid waste services is of similar quality to all members of the Consortia municipalities. -Include the general population affected in the process, as the surrounding community of waste transfer sites and landfills and the recycling cooperatives.	-Political interests, economic and institutional imbalance of municipalities can interfere in the negotiations between the Consortia members. -The legal representative of the Consortia is the Chief Executive; in the case of Inter-Municipal Consortia, the Mayor of the municipalities, which may have opposite political interests regarding the Party of each member. -Difficulty in defining the location of the landfill seat because the impacts to its municipality are higher.	-Determine if with the formation of the Consortia, the provision of SWM service in the municipalities was expanded in poor or risk locations and if the impacts to the surrounding communities of waste transfer stations and landfills were measured and compensated. -Assess whether the environment policy is favorable to the creation of the Consortia and if Consortia goals will overcome political interests. -Determine environmental, economic and social studies, as well as the land use occupation, documents of proof of land ownership and environmental licenses for the installation of the landfill.	-The final disposal is the main objective and, therefore, building landfills. However, with the answers obtained it was not possible to assess the difference in the provision of services between the municipalities receiving the landfill and the other Consortia’s members. In addition, there were a low proportion of territorial studies; land use occupation and distance between the municipalities. This may make it impossible to plan the construction of regional and shared landfills. -The lack of Plans makes more difficult the comparing parameters to determine whether the provision of SWM services was expanded and if the impacts were measured in municipalities with Consortia, it is necessary to evaluate the provision of service with and without the Consortia. -The inclusion of affected parts was considered low attesting in the first phase, consultation to affected parts was below 30%. Per the questions asked, it was not possible to evaluate the relationship and inclusion of waste pickers in the Consortia.
Efficiency	-It is expected the improvement of service provided, minimizing costs and the shared management of environmental and social issues involved. -Prove that the individual municipal costs of SWM service provided services decreased with integration into a Public Consortia.	-Consortia are indicated in the PNRS and have prioritized access to resources, justified by the standard of scale, which would lead to efficiency-in theory. In this context, Consortia for SWM appears, a priori, as a second-best solution. However, their application	-Determine the implementation of the first phase steps, which may indicate that other local and institutional characteristics determine the efficiency or not of the Consortia, such as: landfill location and distance from waste transfer stations; management capacity and planning of the	-The lack of financial resources was identified as one of the predominant incentive for creating Consortia. This lack of resources supports the hypothesis that the priority access to the Federal’s resources or incentives instituted by the Federal Government guaranteed by