Permanence

-Will Consortia capable of providing continuity of service besides PNRS requirements or by changes of Mayors in each election, or having self-sufficiency resources for services maintenance?

-As a voluntary form of regional arrangement, municipalities can enter or exit the Consortia where they want, which may impact on Consortia’s management and planning.

-Small municipalities that get Federal’s resources to build landfills often fail to keep them and the area returned to a dumpsite. Is Consortia able to change this issue?

-Joining of municipalities also means the connection of political parties, Party ideas and different political interests, it can impact Consortia implementation and permanence.

-What is the state role in SWM process? How states can contribute to the services maintenance, such as institutional, legal and financial support?

-Resources and revenue for its self-sufficiency should be proved, particularly if there are landfills.

-The political discontinuity of Municipal Administrations at every change of government and Party political interests were pointed out as one of the challenges on half of the 29 Consortia.

The role of the federal and state governments and the consequences for the permanence and efficiency of PNRS if the municipalities do not have their support may be questioned. Data from the 29 Consortia, 19 Inter-municipal and 10 between state and municipalities, cannot say each one has more probability to continue. However, the data found that when the state is a member of the Consortia, they benefited from state’s technical, financial, institutional and regulatory support. Because of that and the lack of capability indicates when the municipalities are by themselves, the Consortia between states and municipalities deserves further studies to evaluate their efficiency and permanence.