The Concentration of Infrastructure Services in the

Transcription

THE CONCENTRATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES IN THE
DIFFERENT GOVERNMENT LEVELS IN BRAZIL AND THE PARTICIPATION
OF PRIVATE SECTOR1
Maurício Serrão Piccinini2
1. Introduction
Brazil is currently undergoing a number of reforms specifically oriented
to put it back on the track of sustained economic growth and to make it
competitive in international markets. Of particular significance in this regard
are reforms to create conditions to attract private effort to engage in the
recovery of efficiency and expansion of infrastructure facilities, a vital step to
encourage new investments in industrial sectors and to reduce the “Brazil
cost3” with a resulting boost to both employment rates and social well-being.
The government’s shrinking ability to invest experienced over the past few
years as a result of the public finance crisis has caused the Administration to
open up a number of infrastructure segments to private exploitation.
However, infrastructure privatization goes beyond the sale of assets. It
involves concession of various public services to private enterprises at the
federal as well as state and local levels, the two latter equally responsible both
for providing infrastructure services either directly or indirectly and for their
regulation. The targets of privatization (sale or concession) vary depending on
government level and from industry to industry, involving sizable figures.
Ultimately, infrastructure privatization requires a new regulatory framework
defining clear operating rules for the private companies involved and a new
concession-plus-funding model in response to the new roles to be taken on by
both the private sector and the government as well as the heavy investment
needs of the target segments, which will demand a diversified funding mix. All of
this will call for a certain measure of retraining within government spheres. They
have to be prepared to perform their new functions in a privatized environment,
particularly the less developed states and municipalities.
This article discusses private participation in the infrastructure sector and
how the latter is allocated among the different government levels. Section 2
below reviews the backdrop of structural reforms where infrastructure
privatization is taking place and the need to consider transferring the assets and
management of such services, as well as defining a new regulatory model and
1
This work is an updated version of the article published in
Revista do BNDES, n. 6, December 1996, pp. 79-113, Rio de Janeiro.
2
Ph.D., manager of the Economic Department, in the Planning Area of BNDES.
The author thanks Armando Castelar Pinheiro for the important suggestions to the
elaboration of this article and the Infrastructure Area of BNDES for the supplied information.
3
Additional cost of producing in Brazil due to high taxes, interest rates and labour costs
and to the low quality of infrastructure services in comparison with international standards.
1
a new funding model into a single product. The third section outlines
privatization targets in the several infrastructure segments, trying to provide a
comprehensive picture of their current allocation within public spheres and
investment requirements. Section four presents the conclusions of this review,
arguing that successful privatization of the many infrastructure segments will
hinge on a fully prepared and well trained public service.
2. Structural Reforms and Infrastructure Privatization
Resuming sustained economic growth in Brazil and joining international
markets in a competitive way have entailed a number of structural reforms by
the government. To modernize and integrate the Brazilian economy to the rest
of the world, the reform drive began in the late ‘80s and were stepped up in the
‘90s. On the one hand, competition among companies was stimulated by lifting
some protection afforded to industries then shielded against the pressures of
competition and by using the market as a mechanism for orienting resource
allocation. On the other hand, government intervention was gradually
withdrawn. These policies were put into practice via trade liberalization,
deregulation and privatization.
Trade liberalization occurred by degrees. The government has been
reducing the protection extended to domestic manufacturers since 1988. In
addition to changes in the rates introduced between 1988 and 1989, bringing
down average import duties from 51% to 35%, most non-tariff barriers were
phased out by 1990. In 1992 the ban on certain computer goods imports was
lifted and a program to gradually reduce duties by 1995 was activated. On the
export end, the process begun in the mid-80s stepped up after 1990. Several
subsidies were eliminated and incentives drastically slashed on average from
3.1% of GDP between 1981 and 1984 to 1.3% between 1990 and 1991, despite
the substantial rise in exports during those periods.
In 1990 the government launched the National Deregulation Program to
expose to competition markets formerly protected. It had two basic guidelines:
one to eliminate redundant legislation and trim down red tape, i.e. rules and
regulations; and a second directed at stimulating competition and consumer
protection.
Among the many initiatives taken between 1990 and 1992, a vital move
was the repeal of 113,768 decrees out of the 123,370 then in force,
unburdening a variety of bureaucratic procedures. In addition and to strengthen
the 1962 antitrust law, two new laws were enacted respectively in 1991 and
1994: Law 8,158 drafted with the clear purpose of stimulating domestic
competition and advance trade liberalization, and Law 8,884 consolidating the
free competition protection legislation. The consumer protection act – Law
8,078 -- came into effect in 1991, while regulations hindering competition in the
insurance industry were partially abolished. Deregulation also affected areas
such as fuel distribution and steel transportation, where entry barriers were
lifted. Competition among ports was encouraged via partial deregulation of dock
2
worker hiring practices and allowing companies operating their own to move
third party cargo.
Last but certainly not least, the constitutional reforms performed in 1995
easing government monopolies in industries where financial constraints had
limited public investment. Federal and state monopolies were broken in sectors
such as piped gas distribution, coastal and inland navigation,
telecommunications and oil. The most-favored status extended to small
domestic-capital Brazilian companies to the detriment of foreign equity
companies was eliminated, while the legal definition of Brazilian company was
expanded to allow foreign companies of any size located in Brazil the right to
exploit, either by concession or permit, services then limited to governmentowned or private Brazilian companies of domestic capital only. Mining and
hydro power developments were also opened to foreign enterprises.4
Laws 8,987 (the Concession Law) and 9,074 were also enacted in 1995
setting up a strong regulatory framework for concession of public utilities. On
08.21.96 a constitutional amendment approved by Congress on 06.19.96 was
promulgated breaking the state monopoly in the reinsurance business, held
since 1939 by the Brazilian Reinsurance Institute (IRB).5 This measure will help
provide coverage for the several classes of liabilities inherent in the
development of project finance for major infrastructure initiatives and which
have constituted a barrier to the participation of private capital in such
undertakings.
Although these actions are expected to have a significant impact on
infrastructure sectors such as energy, telecommunications, transport (rail, road
and other public modalities), basic sanitation and water supply where the highly
concentrated markets made up of legal monopolies are not exposed to
competition from imports or threatened by new market entrants, there is still
much to be done, particularly regarding the latest constitutional reforms
requiring specific regulation.
The privatization effort started in 1981 when the Special Privatization
Commission was empowered has completed its industrial stage and currently
faces the challenge of tackling the mining and infrastructure sectors.
Along 1981/89, the federal government sold 38 companies, transferred
another 18 to state administrations, merged 10 government-owned companies
with other federal institutions, shut down four companies and leased one. Most
of those initiatives involved reprivatization of small low income companies in the
main funded by the government itself. Since 1990, the Brazilian Privatization
Program (PND) gained a new momentum with inclusion of some large size and
4
See Piccinini and Triches (1995) for a more detailed discussion about constitutional
reforms.
5
The constitutional amendment passed by Congress changes item II of article 192 of the
Federal Constituition and will be regulated by a statutory law. The Brazilian insurance industry
comprises approximately 140 companies whose net worth protected by IRB tops US$ 6 billion,
with technical reserve of nearly US$ 7 billion [O Globo (20.06.96)].
3
solid GOEs (government-owned enterprises). Foreign investors were invited to
participate then, albeit to a limited extent. Between 1991 and 1994 thirty-three
GOEs were sold generating US$ 8.232 billion in proceeds, while US$ 395.5
million were collected from the sale of minority equity stakes. The currency most
often used during this phase were domestic debt papers.
In 1995, the government created a National Privatization Council (CND) to
oversee the PND. Some key actions were taken that year to speed up the
privatization process, including the sale of all remaining industrial GOEs,
inclusion of leading competitive companies in the PND, e.g. Companhia Vale do
Rio Doce (CVRD) of the mining industry, and the start of a new cycle where the
program was extended to the infrastructure sector. Some initiatives are already
under way in this area. Under the PND and up to December 1996, Escelsa and
and Light were sold in the electric power sector, while five of the six regional
systems into which Rede Ferroviária Federal S.A. (RFFSA) split up were sold:
the Mideastern, Western, Southeastern, Teresa Cristina and Southern
railroads. Escelsa brought in US$ 399.9 million and Light sold for US$ 2,270.9
million. The chief privatization currencies used were securitized federal debt
papers (US$ 705.2 million), Agrarian Debt Bonds (US$ 208.7 million) and cash
(US$ 1,756.1 million). RFFSA’s Mideastern line sold for US$ 316.1 million to a
joint venture of several Brazilian companies and one foreign partner (Railtex,
United States); the Western line went to foreign investors (Noel Group, United
States) for US$ 63.4 million; the Southeastern sold for US$ 888.9 million; the
Teresa Cristina line sold for US$ 18.5 million and Southern sold for US$216.6
million, the last three to diferent pools of Brazilian. Sales proceeds for all five
were in cash, part as a down payment and the remainder in installments. The
CND has scheduled the last RFFSA railroad line to be sold by mid-1997.
Furthermore, at the state level, the electricity distribution company of the State
of Rio de Janeiro (Cerj) was sold for US$ 587.4 million; CRT, the
telecommunication company of the State of Rio Grande do Sul sold for US$
655.6 million and Ferroeste, a railroad company of the State of Paraná sold for
US$ 24.9 million. Furthermore, CVRD was recently sold to a joint venture of
Brazilian companies, pension and investment funds and a foreign bank (Nations
Bank, from USA). The privatization proceeds amounted to about US$ 3.2 billion
and were in cash, corresponding to 41.73% of the company’s voting capital and
about 27% of its total capital.
Another major initiative occurred in transportation under the National
Roads Department’s (DNER) Federal Highways Concession Program
(Procrofe). Its initial stage has been completed with the privatization of RioNiterói Bridge and Presidente Dutra (Rio-São Paulo), Rio-Petrópolis-Juiz de
Fora, Rio-Teresópolis-Além Paraíba and Osório-Porto Alegre-Guaíba Access
highways. As indicated in the Appendix (Table A.1), 856 km of roads were
turned to private concerns for recovery, management and exploitation (through
toll charges), involving investments of around US$ 956.4 million, US$ 370
million of which funded by the BNDES. Procrofe has a target 17,869 km to hand
over in the form of concessions to private operators by the year 2000. As shown
in Table A.2, 7,708 km out of this total are more attractive and will become full
concessions, i. e. including proper repaving, operation, maintenance, expansion
4
(where required), and exploitation. The estimated total investiment for these
roads reachs about US$ 1,76 billion. Other 4,755 km will be refurbished and
given in concession by DNER to private operators, while 5,406 km will be
transferred initially to the states pursuant to Law 9,2776 of 05.10.96, which can
then grant exploitation of their sections to private initiative.7
Aside from those initiatives, Resolution CND 15/96 of 06.27.96 added to
the PND for sale by 1997 eleven power systems, including hydroelectric and
thermal power plants owned by Eletronorte, Eletrosul, Furnas and Chesf, as
well as the independent Manaus and Boa Vista systems. In addition, 31 ports
(including Rio de Janeiro and Santos) have been selected for inclusion in the
privatization agenda.8 On 08.29.96, Decree 1,990 added to the PND eight
government-controlled companies that manage maritime and river ports, to wit:
Companhias Docas of the states of Rio de Janeiro, Bahia, Ceará, São Paulo,
Pará, Maranhão, Rio Grande do Norte, and Espírito Santo.
Privatization involves both the actual transfer of assets and private
concession of services formerly handled entirely by the government, now
replaced by private companies in their management, i.e. provision, revamping
and expansion of public utilities. Therefore, infrastructure becomes a major
challenge in the Brazilian privatization drive due to its wide scope and the
magnitude of investments needed in the sector.9 Thus public utility concession
and completion of unfinished public works10 have become part of the country’s
current privatization effort.
Privatization in the area of infrastructure has to work around two basic
guidelines:
a) First, the sale of assets and definition of a regulatory backbone and a
new funding model must be construed as a single product. After the recent
constitutional reforms it is vital to develop a legal framework to regulate the
actions of private operators providing public utility services. Priority must be
given to technological improvements and higher technical and allocative
efficiency, setting out the rights and obligations of both companies and
consumers and defining the venue to settle possible legal disputes. This legal
framework must define further the new role of the government as concession
6
Law 9,277 regulates the transfer of federal roads to the states, the Federal District and
counties, or to consortia set up by them to manage and exploit (by charging a toll to be
channeled to improvements and expansions) for a period of 25 years or less renewable for the
same length of time. Article 4 of this law allows all three government levels to grant concession
for private exploitation of roads.
7
See Piccinini and Nascimento (1996) for a more detailed discussion of Procrofe.
8
See Table A.3 of the Appendix for further details. Nuclear thermal power plants will not
be privatize but rather transferred by Furnas to Nuclen, a government-owned nuclear energy
company.
9
See Ministry of Planning and Budgeting (1995), which has forecast investments of R$
85 billion in this area for 1996/99.
10
For example, the government hopes to attract private equity to complete 16 hydro
power plants where construction has been interrupted for lack of funds. Required investments
amount to US$ 6.4 billion for completion of developments planned to generate a total 5,882 MW
(about 10% of the total domestic capacity).
5
grantor and enforcer of regulations. Defining the rules to govern this sector’s
activities is crucial not only to provide clear signals and eliminate uncertainties
for private investors, but also to set an accurate value for the government
property yet to be sold.
Of the R$ 85 billion in investments slated by the government Pluriannual
Investment Plan (PPA) for infrastructure along 1996/99, roughly R$ 30.1 billion
are expected to come from private initiative. This amount may rise considerably,
however, as the sale of assets proceeds and a significant share of the
scheduled public investments shifts to the private sector. Therefore, considering
the massive amounts involved both in the sale of assets and required
investments, as well as the typically long maturation and return horizons,
infrastructure privatization should be undertaken in tandem with a new funding
model attractive to private players. Furthermore, given the positive externalities
of investments in infrastructure, the government must set conditions to
encourage the private sector to invest at optimum levels from the social
standpoint by providing financial facilities for the proper make-up of muchneeded equity.
These reasons together require the development of a new model offering
solutions for a broader funding mix involving other sources in addition to the
BNDES, as well as adoption project finance techniques both to spread the risk
and design new means to provide guarantees, insurance and securitization of
income. Such a model might have the BNDES as its core articulator since the
Bank is the only long-term funding agency in the country and has deployed
some project finance actions in the area of infrastructure. Add to this the Bank’s
ability to leverage counterpart funds to its own budget apportioned to
infrastructure.11
b) Second, privatizing infrastructure involves the lower government
spheres. On the one hand, because a sizable portion of the assets are held by
states and municipalities, and on the other because several activities are either
performed or regulated by them. Furthermore, the shortage of revenues to
cover investments required for maintenance, revamping and expansion has
caused state and local utilities to account for major public budget imbalances.
During 1989/94, they recorded an average deficit equal to 0.8% of GDP, higher
than the 0.7% deficit shown by all government-owned enterprises together.
Infrastructure services made up most of that deficit. Privatization in its broadest
sense, as indicated above, will contribute significantly to balance the accounts
of states and local governments.
Another point to consider is the efficiency of infrastructure services
supplied by the states in bringing down the “Brazil cost” at the regional level,
with a direct impact on the competitiveness of local industries and on
employment. As the economy stabilizes, foreign companies show a strong and
11
The BNDES budget for fiscal 1997 – R$ 13 billion (about US$ 13.8 billion) – has
earmarked R$ 4.4 billion (approximately US$ 4.7 billion) for infrastructure. If this were to equal a
20% share of the project funding mix, this amount would leverage a total investment of
approximately R$ 22 billion (about US$ 23.3 billion).
6
growing interest in coming to Brazil. Attracting these new long-term investments
to the different states hinges basically on the quality and breadth of the local
infrastructure facilities. This stresses the importance of synergy among the
many infrastructure services for regional development.
It is vital, however, for state and local governments to be prepared to
perform the new functions required by an environment of privatized
infrastructure services - an issue discussed later in this article. The experience
in this area is still recent and centers mostly in the federal sphere.
3. The Targets of Privatization
If the privatization of infrastructure means that the government will transfer
into private hands the provision of public services, then its scope is necessarily
quite broad. Under this assumption, the goal of privatization includes both the
transfer of services currently supplied by GOEs – involving sale of assets or just
transferring the management of existing assets or activities (e.g., leasing the
Rio-Niterói Bridge) – and pubic concessions to private operators to provide new
services. Either way, all three levels of government are involved - federal, state
and local - and the extent to which the targets of privatization are concentrated
in any of those levels varies according to sector, as shown in Table 1.
The public utilities in the areas of energy, telecommunications and transportation are clearly more heavily concentrated at federal and state levels, while
water supply, basic sanitation and garbage collection – typically local in nature –
are often provided by the state via concessions granted by the municipality, if
not by the latter directly.
Table 2 shows how the feasibility of having such services provided by
private concerns varies depending on the infrastructure segment involved.
Which means that even if private companies take on the more attractive
sectors, the government must still provide services in some of the less attractive
ones, such as country road systems.
7
TABLE 1
Current Standing of the Several Stakeholders in the
Provision of Infrastructure Services in Brazil
Infrastructure Services
Federal
1. Electricity
Hydro Power Generation
Thermal Power Generation
Transmission
Distribution
2. Gas Distribution
3. Telecommunications
Local telephony: Basic Telephony/Data
Transmission
Long Distance: Basic Telephony/Data Transmission
Cellular Telephony
Satellites
Value-added (Paging, Trunking, etc.)
Subscription TV
Radio and Television
4. Freight Haulage
Railroads
Primary and secondary Roads
Ports
Riverways
Airports
5. Mass Transit Systems
Railroads
Subway
Urban Buses
Riverways
Urban Road Systems
6. Water Supply and Basic Sanitation
7. Waste Collection
Stakeholder Standing
State
Local
High
High
High
Low
Medium
High
Medium
Medium
High
High
High
Low
High
High
High
Low
Low
Low
Low
Medium
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
High
High
High
Low
Low
Low
High
Low
Low
Low
Medium
Low
Low
Low
Low
High
High
High
Low
Low
High
High
High
High
Private
Medium
High
Low
Low
Medium
Low
Low
Low
High
Medium
High
High
Low
Low
Low
8
TABLE 2
The Feasibility of Having Public Utility Services Provided by Private
Concerns
Infrastructure Services
Local services
Long distance and value-added
2. Energy
Thermal generation
Transmission
Distribution
Gas Production, transmission
3. Transportation
Railbed and stations
Rail freight and passenger
services
Urban bus
Urban rail
Rural roads
Primary and secondary roads
Urban roads
Port and airport facilities
Port and airport services c
4. Water
Urban piped network
Nonpiped systems
5. Sanitation
Piped sewerage and treatment
Condominial sewerage
On-site disposal
6. Waste
Collection
Sanitary disposal
Potential
for
competitiona
Characteristics
of goods or
service
Potential for
cost recovery
from user
charges
Public
service
obligations
(equity
concerns)
Environmental
externalities
Marketability
indexb
Medium
High
Private
Private
High
High
Medium
Few
Low
Low
2.6
3.0
High
Low
Medium
High
Private
Club
Private
Private
High
High
High
High
Few
Few
Many
Few
High
Low
Low
Low
2.6
2.4
2.4
3.0
Low
High
Club
Private
High
High
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
2.0
2.6
High
High
Low
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
Medium
Medium
Many
Medium
Many
Few
Few
Medium
Medium
High
Low
High
2.4
2.4
1.0
2.4
1.8
Low
High
Private
Private
Public
Club
Common
property
Club
Private
High
High
Few
Few
High
High
2.0
2.6
Medium
High
Private
Private
High
High
Many
Medium
High
High
2.0
2.4
Low
Medium
High
Club
Club
Private
Medium
High
High
Few
Medium
Medium
High
High
High
1.8
2.0
2.4
High
Medium
Private
Common
Property
Medium
Medium
Few
Few
Low
High
2.8
2.0
Source: World Bank (1994, p. 115).
A
Due to either absence of scale economies or sunk costs, or existence of service substitutes.
Marketability index is average of ratiings across each row.
c
Including cargo handling, shipping and airlines.
B
9
3.1. Electricity Services
The targets of privatization in the electricity sector are chiefly concentrated
at federal and state levels, amounting to book assets of approximately US$ 100
billion. The mean annual investment needs are estimated at US$ 6 billion to
cover the consumer market both in terms of generation expansion through new
concessions, and for the counterpart rehabilitation and expansion of transmission and distribution facilities.12
The generation plant capacity in Brazil totals 55,512 MW, including the
Brazilian share in Itaipu (6,300 MW) – which will not be privatized – and 142
plants rated at 10 MW or more, 103 of which hydroelectric and 39 thermal
power units. Roughly 96% of the total generation is water powered. The vast
majority is owned by the federal and state governments with only minor local
participation. Most of the 62 power utilities are government-owned and operate
in the generation, transmission and distribution segments. At state level, the
biggest generators are Cesp (São Paulo), Cemig (Minas Gerais) and Copel
(Paraná).
Public thermal power utilities are also heavily in the hands of the federal
and state governments. They are found in remote areas, unconnected to the
main grid, especially in the northern and northeastern regions, while in the
southern and southeastern regions of the country they are used as seasonal
backup or for operation during peak hours. The role played by private suppliers
in generation is negligible at best and with few exceptions they consist of small
hydro power units and co-generators.13
For the most part, transmission lines are owned by federal utilities and
state concessionaires. Private operators play a modest role, lately enlarged by
the privatization of Escelsa, Light and Cerj. The distribution grid is mainly
handled by state concessionaires. The private sector has an even smaller share
of the distribution segment, although there are some large-scale utilities like
Escelsa, power distributor in the State of Espírito Santo privatized by the federal
government in 1995, Light and Cerj privatized in 1996 and covering the State of
Rio de Janeiro, and Celtins, distributor for the State of Tocantins. Some smaller
private utilities operate in São Paulo and southern Minas Gerais. Local
governments hold an insignificant share of the electric power market.
Transfer of electric power supply to private utilities will be made through
the sale of federal and state assets as well as via federal concessions.
Operationally speaking, however, the sale of federal power generators will be
conditional on settling the liabilities of state distributors, preferably by selling
them to private investors.
12
Energy losses by concessionaires are high, both business-wise due to a lack of meters
and theft, and for technical reasons, i.e. system inefficiency (particularly in distribution).
According to information supplied by Eletrobrás, mean losses in this segment in 1995 totaled
15.7%, but some utilities recorded very heavy losses exceeding 25%.
13
Some exceptions are the private self-producing Juba I and II hydro power plants
located in the State of Mato Grosso and owned by the Itamarati Group, with a total power output
of 84 MW. They are both in operation and were built with BNDES funding.
10
In addition, the status of independent power producer and self-producer,
granted by Law 9,074/95 and regulated by Decree 2,003 of 09.10.96, is a new
opportunity for private concerns as it allows the generation of electricity for selfconsumption or sale to power utilities, major consumers or consumer groups.14
To do so, they will be given access to transmission and distribution by paying a
transport fee.
3.2. Piped Gas Distribution
The distribution of piped gas is currently handled by state utilities and
partnership with private companies is allowed. However, it is widespread only in
Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, where CEG and Comgas respectively own large
distribution systems in both metropolitan areas to supply the residential, industrial and services segments. The governments of those two states have full
control over the utilities. Piped distribution is still negligible in other states of the
federation and is handled by companies set up recently combining public and
private equity. The current trend is to turn them over entirely to private owners.
The federal government is still strong there, but solely geared to supplying the
industrial segment through Petrobrás.
Private investors may gain a greater share of that market via the sale of
assets (particularly in CEG and Comgas), partnerships with the new state
utilities, new concessions granted by states or partnerships with Petrobrás.
The private sector is expected to contribute significantly in construction
and operation of gas pipelines. The government’s Master Plan (Brazil in Action
Program)15 issued in August 1996 contains two high priority projects for the next
two years in this area: the Bolivia-Brazil gas line to be built and operated by a
joint venture between Petrobrás (or its subsidiary Petrofértil), holding 51% of the
equity, and a pool of Brazilian and foreign private investors who will initially hold
49% of equity;16 and the Urucu natural gas development located in the Amazon
with total investments estimated at R$ 788 million. This will probably be another
partnership between Petrobrás and the private sector.17
14
In the latter case, Law 9,074/95 requires authorization by the local concessionaire.
The Master Plan has scheduled investments totaling R$ 54.3 billion over the next
couple of years for high priority projects. Of that amount, R$ 27.6 billion are for infrastructure,
with an estimated R$ 10.9 billion in private funds. See Tables A.4a and A.4b of the Appendix for
further details.
16
The private equity mix will be as follows: 25% from the British Gas, Tenneco and BHP
(BTB) joint venture, 20% from the joint venture between the Bolivian YPFB and American
Enron, and 4% from private Brazilian companies. The gas line construction budget is estimated
at US$ 1.885 billion, and private participation may become majority ownership once the
regulations breaking state monopoly in the sector are in force.
17
The original design involves a gas pipeline extending approximately 250 km from the
Urucu River to the gas liquefying plant to be built next to the Coari River and close to the
Amazon River. The gas liquefied by cryogenics will be carried by barges to Manaus and other
municipalities and industrial consumers alongside the Amazon river, where it will be processed
and utilized in thermal power geration instead of oil by-products.
15
11
3.3. Telecommunications
In telecommunications, basic telephone services and local data transmission are handled for the most part by the federal government acting through the
Telebrás System, and to a lesser extent by four independent companies: the
privately owned Cia. Telefônica do Brasil Central (CTBC), Serviços de
Comunicações Telefônicas (Sercomtel) run by the city of Londrina in the state
of Paraná, and Centrais Telefônicas de Ribeirão Preto (Ceterp) operated by the
city of Ribeirão Preto (São Paulo). The Telebrás System owns approximately
90% of all existing telephones and consists of a holding company – Telebrás –,
27 state utilities, one city utility (CTMR) in Pelotas (state of Rio Grande do Sul),
and Embratel. The federal government holds 24% of the Telebrás equity and
56% of its voting stock. Telebrás in turn owns over 70% of the equity of each
state utility, CTMR and Embratel.
Massive investments are needed in the telecommunications industry,
according to government estimates shown in the Program to Rehabilitate and
Expand the Telecommunications and Postal System (Paste) announced in
November 1995. They are required both to revamp and enlarge the existing
systems to meet a huge pent-up demand. According to Paste, individual fixed
telephone services will grow from the 13.1 million units in operation at year-end
1994 to 24.7 million by late 1999 (of which three million slated for the low
income population) and to 40 million in 2003. The current coverage of rural
areas will triple along 1994/98 from 230 thousand accesses in 1994 to 700
thousand in 1998. The number of public phones will more than double between
1994 and 1999, going from 366.6 thousand units in 1994 to 800 thousand by
1999 and 1,650 in 2003. Mobile cellular telephony will expand significantly both
within the Telebrás System companies (band A) and through private providers
(band B) as the industry opens up by reason of special regulations passed in
1996. It is estimated that the number of accesses in operation will jump from
nearly 800 thousand in 1994 to 9.6 million in 1999 and 17.2 million by 2003.
The program also includes other investments to replace all analog networks
over the next five years, to proceed with the installation of long distance optic
fiber systems begun in 1992, to lay international optic fiber submarine cables,
and to launch additional communications satellites. The total investment figure
required to achieve all Paste goals through 2003 comes to R$ 75 billion (about
US$ 83.3 billion).18 An estimated R$ 37.5 billion (US$ 41.6 billion) are
apportioned to the first five years, i.e. ut to 1999. These investments will be
partialy borne by private companies as the industry becomes increasingly
deregulated.
At present, all basic long distance telephone and data transmission and
satellite services are provided by Embratel. Local telephony (basic, data
transmission and cellular) is supplied for the most part by the Telebrás System’s
state utilities and to a lesser degree by independent companies, including one
privately owned utility as indicated before. The first private efforts to operate
18
Table A.5 of the Appendix sums up investments in Paste.
12
satellite services began recently. The value added segment,19 now starting to
burgeon in Brazil, is exploited by the private sector utilizing the public networks
as a platform and carrier for their applications. Subscription TV, a growing
segment, is also entirely run by private companies. Radio and television
broadcasting are virtually unexplored by the government; they are heavily in the
hands of private broadcasters.
Private participation in this industry is expected to grow considerably both
through the sale of assets as the Telebrás System utilities are privatized, and
via concessions for provision of new services. This growth, however, will not
occur until the sector is restructured and Congress passes the regulations
developed by the Executive Branch.
3.4. Freight Transportation
3.4.1. Railroads
Most of the freight hauled moves on railroads operated by the private
companies which replaced the former GOE Rede Ferroviária Federal S.A.
(RFFSA), and by Cia. Vale do Rio Doce (CVRD), which was recently privatized.
CVRD controls the Vitória-Minas Railroad (EFVM) and Carajás Railroad (EFC),
which connects the port of Itaqui to Serra Norte where the Carajás
Development is located. States have a smaller though significant share of this
market held by Ferrovia Paulista S.A. (Fepasa), controlled by the São Paulo
state government. Only Fepasa provide public transportation, while EFVM and
EFC are solely ore carriers.20
Before its privatization, RFFSA exploited 22 thousand kilometers of
railroads and carried 40 billion tons/ useful kilometer a year (TKU), grossing
US$ 800 million annually. Studies made by the company in 1995 indicated a
demand of 69 billion TKU over the following five years requiring investments in
the order of US$ 736 million for the trunk lines alone. The area outlined by the
Rio de Janeiro-São Paulo-Belo Horizonte triangle accounted for approximately
68% of all cargo carried, although in length it equaled less than 10% of
RFFSA’s network.
The participation of private companies in this sector has increased
substantially as RFFSA is privatized. As indicated before, the federal railroad
has recently transferred to private owners its Mideastern, Western,
Southeastern, Tereza Cristina and Southern lines. The following railroads are
also owned by private companies: Amapá Railroad (EFA) owned by the
manganese mining company Icomi, which allows local passenger transportation
on its trains; Trombetas Railroad (EFT) owned by Mineração Rio do Norte,
19
Value added services involve special networks including, among others, voice mail
and fax, teleconferencing, series 900 services, paging, trunking, access providers to Internet,
etc.
20
Though to a lesser extent, EFVM also carries grain from the cerrados farming area.
13
which hauls bauxite from the company’s mine to the Trombetas River harbor;
Ferronorte, under construction by the Itamarati Group, to connect the states of
São Paulo and Mato Grosso; and a few proprietary rail terminals owned chiefly
by mining and steel companies. Ferroeste, which cuts across the State of
Paraná, was started by a private company but ran into troubles and was taken
over by the state government.
3.4.2. Roads
The vast majority of the paved Brazilian roads in terms of kilometers is
managed by the states, to which part of the federal road system is currently
being transferred. Investments for their recovery will be made with IBRD funds
before they are handed over in proper condition for traffic. A few states have
already begun their own privatization programs, e.g.: Santa Catarina has
privatized highway SC-401 connecting Florianópolis-Canasvieiras (Linha Azul)
with BNDES funding; São Paulo is in the process of privatizing the AnhangüeraBandeirantes highway, the first in a rather ambitious state program; and Rio de
Janeiro successfully privatized RJ-124, which connects with the lake-side
resorts.
Cities are minor players in the freight transport segment. They oversee
feeder roads mostly and these are not likely targets for privatization due to their
poor economic prospects.
The low rate of private participation in the roads segment recorded in the
recent past tends to increase thanks to the privatization effort through state and
federal concessions. As indicated previously, Procrofe has completed its first
phase. It has leased the management of approximately 856 km of federal roads
to private operators who are expected to take another 17,869 km of roads in the
coming years. Nevertheless, a yet significant number of federal roads will
remain under government control via the DNER. Their low traffic rate does not
render them attractive to private investors.
3.4.3. Ports
The federal and state governments own most of the Brazilian port
facilities. Generally speaking, the main southern ports belong to the federal
sphere and operate under concession to the states. Among them are some of
the leading harbours in the country: Paranaguá, in Paraná (third largest
Brazilian government-run port); Rio Grande and Porto Alegre, both in Rio Grande do Sul; and São Francisco do Sul, in Santa Catarina. The biggest public
ports elsewhere in the country are managed by the federal government through
several agencies (the harbor companies), the most important ones being
Santos, Rio de Janeiro/Sepetiba21 and Vitória. There are also large-scale bulk
cargo ports proprietary to major GOEs like Petrobrás. Private initiative is a
21
The port of Sepetiba is one of the investment projects of
Brazil in Action Program and is still under construction.
14
minor player in this sector, again with proprietary port facilities - like the terminal
of Minerações Brasileiras Reunidas (MBR) in Sepetiba (Rio de Janeiro), and
Alunorte’s at Vila do Conde (Pará) - and with private terminals operating in
public ports (e.g. Paranaguá and Santos). According to the federal government,
investments scheduled for the sector amount to nearly US$ 1 billion over the
next four years, US$ 500 million of which for infrastructure works and the rest
for equipment and superstructure works. As indicated above, private
participation will rise substantially as the harbor companies are privatized and
31 ports move to private owners. Besides, CVRD’s ports were put into private
hands as the company was privatized.
3.4.4. Waterways
The waterways segment infrastructure is heavily concentrated in the
federal and state governments, the latter acting as operators on behalf of the
former. The placing of buoys, clearing and construction of canals, gates and
terminals have been in charge of the federal government, sometimes with the
assistance of states, particularly São Paulo and Rio Grande do Sul. São Paulo
plays a key role with its Tietê-Paraná waterway extending all the way to Minas
Gerais, Goiás, Mato Grosso do Sul and Paraná and equipped with multimodal
terminals. The vast majority of vessels are privately owned. GOEs are
predominant only in some locations, e.g. Enasa carries passengers and cargo
in the Amazon, while SNBP and Franave carry cargo respectively in the River
Plate Basin and along the São Francisco River.
Private participation is expected to increase in response to the
government’s plans to step up investments in waterways and the priority given
to intermodal integration along newly designed regional development
backbones. The governmental Master Plan mentioned above includes
waterways on the Madeira, São Francisco and Tocantins-Araguaia Rivers, as
well as completion of the Tietê-Paraná Waterway.
3.4.5. Airports
There are approximately 60 airports in operation throughout the country
equipped to accommodate jet aircraft. A little over 20% can receive wide body
airplanes like the Airbus and Boeing 747.
Airports are mostly under federal management. States play a secondary
role and local governments participate only to a minor extent. The Brazilian
Aeronautical Code states that public airports may be built, maintained and
exploited by private companies via concessions or permits and regulated by the
aeronautical authorities. At present, the private role in airport infrastructure, in
some airports, is limited to a few airline maintenance hangars and office
buildings. The trend is to encourage greater private participation in the joint
management and operation of airports and cargo terminals.
3.5. Mass Transit Systems
15
As far as mass transit systems are concerned, control over the rail
segment which was entirely held by the federal government is now being
transferred to the states, as stipulated in the Federal Constitution. This has
already been done in the two main Brazilian states: the assets of Cia. Brasileira
de Transportes Urbanos (CBTU) were handed over in São Paulo to Cia. Paulista de Trens Metropolitanos (CPTM), and in Rio de Janeiro to Flumitrens.
Subway systems are entirely run by states and the Federal District. City
bus systems are largely run by private concerns, with few companies owned by
local governments. States play a very negligible role in this segment and the
trend is to privatize what they do operate.
Passenger transport on waterways is not widespread in Brazil and only a
handful of companies operate in the sector. In the northern region, waterways
are equipped with infrastructure provided by the government but private boats
handle most of the traffic, with some government participation through the
previously-mentioned Enasa. Rio de Janeiro, however, has a stronger
government presence in the ferry system operating across Guanabara Bay Conerj, soon to be privatized.
City roads and streets (including superstructure) are managed almost
entirely by local governments, except for the Rio-Niterói Bridge. As part of
federal highway BR-101, its operation and maintenance have recently been put
into private hands.
3.6. Water Supply and Basic Sanitation
In Brazil, basic sanitation services fall under the responsibility of city and
township governments, which as a rule adopt one of three different policy
practices.
They may grant concession to state basic sanitation utilities to provide
those services for a period running anywhere from 25 to 50 years. At present
there are 27 such companies covering nearly 78% of the total urban population,
roughly 64% served with sewerage systems. This total includes 4,753 (64%) of
the 7,327 localities where full water supply systems are available, and 686
(44%) of the 1,544 localities connected to sewerage systems. The 27 state
companies grossed US$ 3.7 billion in 1992.
A second practice is to have those services under direct and independent
management of water and sewerage departments or similar agencies. There
are 1,008 municipalities independently supplying the needs of 2,024 (28%) of
the 7,327 localities served by water supply systems, and 583 (38%) of the
1,544 equipped with sewerage systems.
A third common practice is to have counties handle the provision of
services also directly by way of local agencies, but here with the technical and
16
managerial assistance of the Ministry of Health’s National Health Foundation.
The number of municipalities running their water systems in this fashion was
284 in 1993, serving 625 localities with piped water and 185 with sewerage
systems.
There is very scant private participation in these. Some portions of the
sanitation systems may be outsourced (usually production, treatment and
distribution, in the case of water supply). The trend is to increase this private
share in the segment since several municipalities do not intend to renew
concessions granted to state companies as they expire. Others are either taking
over or terminating those concessions in order to transfer such services to
private providers.
There have been major initiatives in this area. As shown in Table A.6 of
the Appendix, both Brazilian and foreign private companies are setting up and
preparing to operate water and basic sanitation services in some cities: in the
State of São Paulo, two sewage treatment stations in Ribeirão Preto (total
investment US$ 43.7 million), three sewage treatment stations in Itu (total
investment US$ 18 million), one sewage treatment station in Jundiaí (US$ 28.1
million) and other in Jahu (US$ 6.5 million); in the State of Rio de Janeiro, water
supply and sewage treatment in several municipalities in the lake-side resorts
(total investment US$ 285.3 million); and in the state of Paraná, water supply
and sewage treatment in Paranaguá (US$ 10.8 million). Besides, the private
sector is expected to invest in the metropolitan region of the city of São Paulo
through concession to build and operate water supply (about US$ 252 million).
The government estimates the funds needed to cover supply deficits in
both segments at U$ 21 billion, U$ 6 billion for water supply and US$ 15 billion
for sewerage systems. The forecast mean annual investment required to meet
the urban population growth rate over the next 15 years is roughly US$ 880
million (US$ 390 million for water supply and US$ 490 million sewage
systems).22
3.7. Waste Collection
Waste collection, treatment and disposal are also under local
responsibility. They are mostly handled by city governments directly, and to a
lesser degree by private companies either through concession or outsourcing of
some portions of the service. Only 72 of the over 4 thousand providers are
private, and a full 85% of them are involved solely in waste collection, while the
vast majority of investments in facilities and equipment are made by
governments. Recycling is still a new industry in Brazil and accounts for barely
5% of the total waste collected.
22
One conclusion ensuring from the seminar “Funding Local Infrastructure,” cosponsored by BNDES/ABDE and held on 07.16.96 at the BNDES, was that the water supply
segment will demand substantial investments to recover the efficiency distribution systems.
Mean losses for those systems are estimated at 50%, resulting in a 45% loss of gross sales for
water utilities.
17
Approximately 63% of all Brazilian homes are served by waste collection
companies, while the rate for urban is higher at 80%. The number of
concessions held by private concerns for provision of these services is
expected to rise.
4. Final Comments
As discussed above, infrastructure privatization targets are found at all
government levels and the extent to which they are allocated to one or another
varies from industry to industry. Generally speaking, massive investments are
needed in all such segments. Privatization in its broadest sense, however, will
require a special effort from the public administration in preparation for its new
role.
For the infrastructure privatization initiatives to succeed, public service
must develop the required capabilities particularly at the lower government
spheres where there is a shortage of staff trained in the new skills. Although the
federal government is the most qualified, this expertise has not trickled down to
state and local levels. Experience in privatization has been built mostly by the
BNDES and dates back to the eighties when the program effectively began. On
the other hand, the granting of public utility concessions to private initiative is a
recent experience held chiefly by the federal agencies involved. Transferring
this expertise to states and local governments is crucial for the forthcoming
privatization stage to succeed and the BNDES would be instrumental in
providing an interaction among all players concerned. Regarding states in
particular, there has been a growing need to design some joint action policies to
address the advances made by the BNDES to state governments on account of
eventual revenues from the sale of their companies. Such advances are
extended by the Bank through its Program to Stimulate State-Level
Privatization (Pepe), which has a revolving fund totaling R$ 1.3 billion and
operates in tandem with the Program to Assist States on Fiscal Restructuring
and Adjustment.23 The latter was launched by the federal government in
December 1995 to bail out states in financial trouble as well as to help them
recover their investment capabilities in socially-oriented areas such as
sanitation and mass transit systems.
BNDES has monitored the progress of infrastructure reforms very carefully
and has tried to adapt its facilities and procedures to the new standard
practices. Two major initiatives were taken recently by the Bank with this
purpose in mind: the Privatization Area now provides support to state and local
government efforts to privatize, and the Infrastructure Development Area, which
funds investment projects in this sector, has made sweeping changes in its
organization that have led to some interesting financing transactions to the
benefit of private initiative.
23
Instituted by Vote 162/95 and supplemented by Votes 175/95 and 122/96 of the
National Monetary Council.
18
Aside from the routine management and performance of the National
Privatization Program, the Privatization Area has implemented the first
initiatives under the Pepe facility. The support extended by BNDES to states
contemplates delivery of funds in the form of advances on account of the future
privatization of their utilities and assistance to their privatization programs. This
focuses particularly on activities such as project identification, feasibility studies,
and design of funding arrangements for their development. The Bank further
coordinates initiatives proposed and articulates partnerships between public
and private parties. As shown in Table A.7 of the Appendix, by April 1997
twelve states had signed agreements for financial advancement operations and
technical assistance, while others were negotiating with the Bank under the
Pepe and had secured authorization from their legislative bodies to embark on
privatization programs.24
The success of these activities hinges on the close cooperation between
the Bank and state and local agencies in charge of actually carrying out the
privatization programs, which demands an upgrade of skills for all states and
local staff, particularly in the less developed units of government. Managing
such programs and setting up the related financial arrangements, as discussed
below, will require special expertise to design a funding model patterned after
current project finance techniques to set up a viable funding mix that will include
BNDES resources. In addition to that, familiarity with successful international
examples in this area is especially important for a better understanding of which
factors may cause the success or failure of such operations. Furthermore,
states and counties must train qualified staff to perform the much-needed
institutional restructuring of the infrastructure areas under their responsibility.
This includes development of specific regulations to define their new role in
oversight, concession granting and enforcement of the rules to govern new
private entrants.
The BNDES’ Infrastructure Project Area was reorganized in late 1995 to
accommodate the heavy demand for financing expected to result from the
reforms set in motion by the government, considering the massive private
investment needs of this sector already discussed. The three area departments
previously in charge of all infrastructure segments were broken down into seven
sections that now focus on specific target sectors.25 They are handling a
considering number of projects involving private participation, as shown in Table
A.6 of the Appendix. Total investments slated for those projects (with
completion schedules running up to five years) in last April amounted to about
24
Preliminary conditions set by the BNDES for funding support is that the state have a
structural adjustment program, authorization from the State Legislature to sell assets, and a firm
sale schedule.
25
The new departments are: Electric Power Operating Department (Deene), Logistics
Operating Department (Delog), Navigation Operating Department (Denav), Ports and
Waterways Operating Department (Dport), Operating Department for Sanitation and Other
Infrastructure Developments (Desan), Operating Department for Telecommunications and Other
Sources of Energy (Detel), and Mass Transit Operating Department (Detru). Four additional
management sections were set up for sectoral studies. Their mission is to propose action
guidelines and to provide technical support to the different operating departments.
19
US$ 14.8 billion, including funding already signed for, projects under analysis,
funding requests pre-approved, applications under consideration (before preapproval), and prospective projects (in negotiation for consideration). This
amount may jump to US$ 20 billion if one takes into account the US$ 5 billion
foreseen to be privately invested in cellular telephone in the coming years. Total
BNDES financing on operations already signed for, under analysis and with
other status through April 1997 was US$ 5.3 billion. This amount means an
increase of about 300% of April 1996 figure, and will increase substantially as
other developments have heir funding arrangements defined.
The Infrastructure Area has also employed project finance techniques to
develop and operationalize its new model of infrastructure funding.
To effectively meet the expected wave of new investments in
infrastructure with the assistance of private players, it becomes critical to
develop a new funding model, as discussed before. To a large extent, their
success and that of public utility concessions to private providers, particularly
from the standpoint of consumers, is contingent on the capabilities and skills of
state and local staffs. In other words, implementing a funded concession
scheme and promoting reform at state and local levels will demand much
capacity building at both civil service spheres. In addition to providing specific
skills, training must also include, as indicated, the transfer of expertise gained
by the federal government. Particular attention should be given to expert knowhow required during the transition to the new regulatory and funding practices.
This need is already felt in the initiatives in progress involving private partners.
The expertise acquired lately by the BNDES in financing infrastructure
projects through alliances with private investors at the state and local levels has
shown that many project development and monitoring bottlenecks could be
resolved more easily if the knowledge gap found among state and local staffs
were diminished. This need for capacity building with the BNDES’ assistance
has an impact both on the project analysis stage - resulting in delays in setting
up the funding arrangement - as well as during actual implementation and
operation of the undertaking. The capability gap may result further in imperfect
concessions and in flawed relations with concessionaires, where the conceding
power may even be captured by the new concessionaires with harmful effects
for the end consumers26.
It must be emphasized, however, that some states like São Paulo and Rio
de Janeiro already have a measure of expertise in this regard and have made
significant strides in designing their own privatization programs.
Last but not least, at the federal level and additional to the efforts currently
under way in the various Ministries under their own reform programs to include
capability building in the regulatory agencies, the staffs of conceding powers
especially must be encouraged to disseminate any expertise that might facilitate
26
In fact, BNDES is designing a program to support capacity
building in the basic sanitation sector.
20
the design of tender documents for public utility concession in line with the new
project finance model.
21
Appendix
TABLE A.1
Phase One of Procrofe
Total
Investment
(US$
Million)
BNDES
Funding
(US$
Million)
0.74
69.2
36.0
25
9.02
526.8
168.0
179.7
25
5.41
255.0
127.0
144.4
25
7.87 b
67.4
29.0
Osório–Porto
Alegre–Guaíba
Access
112.3
20
1.06
38.0
10.0
Total
856.4
-
-
956.4
370.0
Works
Extension
(km)
Time
(years)
13.2
20
Rio de
Janeiro–São
Paulo
406.8
Rio de
Janeiro–
Petrópolis–Juiz
de Fora
Rio de
Janeiro–
Teresópolis–
Além Paraíba
Rio–Niterói
Bridge
Toll
Ratea
(US$)
Public
Tender
Status
Winning
Concessionaire
Concession
Started
on
06.01.95
Concession
Started
on
03.01.96
Concession
Started
on
03.01.96
Concession
Started
on
03.22.96
To be
Contracted
-
Andrade
Gutierrez &
Camargo
Corrêa
Andrade
Gutierrez &
Camargo
Corrêa
Construtora
Norberto
Odebrecht
OAS/
Carioca
Engenharia/
EIT/Queiroz
Galvão
Triunfo/EIT
-
Sources: Ministry of Transportation/DNER and BNDES.
US$1.00 = R$1.06 (30 April 1997).
a
Current rates for passenger cars for the sections in operation are: Rio-Niterói Bridge,
R$1.20; Rio de Janeiro-São Paulo, R$ 2.86; Rio de Janeiro-Petrópolis-Juiz de Fora, R$ 7.14;
Rio de Janeiro-Teresópolis, R$ 3.96 and Teresópolis-Rio de Janeiro, R$ 2.77 (the
Teresópolis-Além Paraíba section will not charge a toll until the fourth concession year).
b
The toll in the Além Paraíba-Rio de Janeiro direction will be R$ 7.38.
22
TABLE A.2
Phase Two of PROCROFE
Federal Roads Selected for Full Concession
Road
Section
BR-101/RN
BR-101/PE
BR-010/PA
BR-101/ PB
BR-116/BA
BR-153/SP
BR-101/RJ
PB/RN Border – Natal
PE/PB Border–PE/AL Border
Belém–Castanhal
PE/PB Border–PB/RN Border
Feira de Santana – BA/MG Border
MG/SP Border–SP/PR Border
Presidente Costa e Silva Bridge – RJ/ES
Border
BR-040/MG
Entr. BR-135 (Curvêlo)–Belo Triunfo
(Juiz de Fora)
BR-393/RJ
MG/RJ Border (Além Paraíba)–Entr. BR-116
(Presidente Dutra)
BR-116/MG
Entr. Itanhomi–MG/RJ Border (Além Paraíba)
BR-060/153/DF/GO Brasília–Goiânia–GO/MG Border
BR-267/MS
Entr. BR-267 (Nova Alvorada)–MS/SP Border
BR-163/MT
MT/MS Border–Cuiabá
BR-262/MG/ES
João Monlevade–Entr. BR-101 (Vitória)
BR-163/MG
MT/MS Border–Campo Grande
BR-163/MS
Campo Grande–Dourados
BR-153/PR
SP/PR Border–Entr. BR-272 (A) (Japira)
BR-262/381/MG
Belo Horizonte–João Monlevade–Governador
Valadares Loop
BR-101/ES
BA/ES Border–ES/RJ Border
BR-116/MG
BA/MG–Ent. P./Itanhomi
BR-116/PR/SC
Curitiba–SC/RS Border
BR-153/GO
Anápolis–GO/TO
BR-050/GO/MG
Cristalina–Uberaba–MG/SP Border
BR-101/AL
PE/AL–AL/SE Border
BR-101/SE
AL/SE–SE/BA Border
BR-232
Recife–Caruaru
Subtotal (1)
Estimated
Extension Investment
(US$1,000.00)
(km)
89
37,953’
213
57,898
66
60,065
129
29,797
535
348
44,587
322
55,317
337
257,955
192
27,952
395
385
249
323
378
383
220
105
301
63,385
135,254
29,553
27,046
38,130
25,190
138,848
224,881
460
423
406
436
427
251
206
129
84,542
40,070
49,230
57,208
190,063
34,711
30,581
18,042
7,708
1,758,248
Source: Ministry of Transportation/DNER.
Notes:
PB = State of Paraíba, RN = State of Rio Grande do Norte, PE =
State of Pernambuco, AL = State of Alagoas, BA = State of Bahia, MG =
State of Minas Gerais, SP = State of São Paulo, PR = State of Paraná,
RJ = State of Rio de Janeiro, ES = State of Espírito Santo, GO = State
of Goiás, MT = State of Mato Grosso, MS = State of Mato do Grosso do
Sul, RS = State of Rio Grande do Sul, TO = State of Tocantins, SE =
State of Sergipe.
23
Federal Roads Selected for Conservation Concessions
Road
BR-101/BA
BR-365/MG
BR-040/DF/GO/MG
BR-230/PB
BR-262/MG
BR-116/CE
BR-101/BA
BR-153/MG
BR-070/MT
BR-153/TO
BR- 343/PI
BR-407/324/BA
BR-282/SC
BR-476/PR
BR-135/MA
Section
Ent. BR-324 (Humildes)-BA/ES Border
Montes Claros-Monte Alegre de Minas
Brasília-Cristalina-Curvêlo
Campina Grande-João Pessoa
Ent. BR 262/BR 381 (Betim) - Uberaba
Fortaleza-Russas
SE/BA Border - Ent. BR 324 (Humildes)
GO/MG Border - MG/SP Border
Cuiabá-Cáceres
GO/TO Border - Gurupi
Piripiri - Teresina
PE/BA Border - Ent. BR 116 (B) Feira de Santana
Ent. BR 101 (B) Palhoça - Ent. BR 475 (B) Lages
Ent. BR 116 (B) Curitiba - União da Vitória
São Luís - Ent. BR 316 (A) Caxuxa
Subtotal (2)
Extension
(km)
789
685
589
148
443
161
166
246
205
116
187
390
187
219
224
4,755
24
Federal Roads Transfered to States for Concessions
Road
Section
Extension
(km)
2,842.5
640.6
161.1
349.6
613.3
67.0
126.0
446.1
86.3
58.9
60.5
135.9
97.2
BR-116/RS
BR-293/RS
BR-392/RS
BR-290/RS
BR-285/RS
BR-285/RS
BR-386/RS
BR-287/RS
BR-471/RS
BR-158/RS
BR-153/RS
BR-158/RS
State of Rio Grande do Sul (Subtotal)
SC/RS Border - Jaguarão
Pelotas - Bagé
Rio Grande - Santa Maria
Eldorado do Sul (Ent. BR-116) - Uruguaiana
Vacaria - Lagoa Vermelha
Passo Fundo - Pannambí (Ent. BR-158)
RS/SC (Iraí) Border - Ent. BR-116 (Canoas)
Santa Maria - São Vicente
Santa Cruz - Ent. BR-290
Santa Maria - Julio de Castilho
Ent. BR-290 - Bagé
Rosario (Ent. BR-290) - Santana do Livramento
BR-280/SC
BR-470/SC
State of Santa Catarina (Subtotal)
Porto de São Francisco - Mafra
RS/SC Border - Navegantes
BR-369/PR
BR-369/PR
BR-376/PR
BR-376/PR
BR-158/PR
BR-373/PR
BR-277/PR
BR-277/PR
State of Paraná (Subtotal)
Ent. BR-153 (PR/SP Border) - Ent. PR-546
Ent. BR-158 (A) C.Mourão-Ent. BR-277/467
Ent. BR-369(A) Apucarana - Ent. BR-277(A)
PR/SP/MT Border-Ent. BR-369(A) Jandaia do Sul
Ent.PR-317/465(A) - Ent. BR-272/369 (A)
Ent.BR-487(A) Ponta Grossa - Ent. BR-376 (B)
Brasil/Paraguai Border - Curitiba
Ent. BR-116/476 Curitiba - Paranaguá
BR-324/BA
State of Bahia (Subtotal)
Salvador - Feira de Santana
113.6
113.6
BR-060/GO
State of Goiás (Subtotal)
Goiânia - Acreúna
153.0
153.0
Subtotal (3)
519.6
164.3
355.3
1,777.3
251.7
169.9
316.2
185.5
15.9
112.7
636.9
88.5
5,406.0
Summary
Program
Federal Roads Selected for Full Concessions
Federal Roads Selected for Conservation Concessions
Federal Roads Transfered to States for Concessions
Total
Extension
(km)
7,708.0
4,755.0
5,406.0
17,869.0
25
TABLE A.3
Eletrobrás System Assets Included in the PND on 06.27.96
Assets
1. Independent Manaus system including Balbina Hydro Power Plant,
thermal power units and connected transmission system
2. Independent Boa Vista system including thermal power units
3. Coaracy Nunes Hydro Power Plant & Amapá thermal power units
4. Samuel Hydro Power Plant and Rondônia & Acre Thermal Plants
5. Boa Esperança Hydro Power Plant
6. Funil Hydro Power Plant and Pedras Hydro Power Plant
7. Camaçari and Bongi Thermal Power Plants
8. Funil Hydro Power Plant
9. Santa Cruz and Roberto Silveira Thermal Power Plants
10. Passo Fundo Hydro Power Plant
11. Alegrete Thermal Power Plants
Source: Resolution CND 15/96 of 06.27.96.
a
Under Eletrosul management.
Ownership
Eletronorte
Eletronorte
Eletronorte
Eletronorte
Chesf
Chesf
Chesf
Furnas
Furnas
Eletrosul
Federal governmenta
Ports Selected for Inclusion in the PND
State of the Federation
Alagoas
Amapá
Amazonas
Bahia
Ceará
Espírito Santo
Mato Grosso
Mato Grosso do Sul
Pará
Paraíba
Pernambuco
Rio Grande do Norte
Rio Grande do Sul
Rio de Janeiro
Rondônia
Santa Catarina
São Paulo
Source: Jornal do Brasil (06.28.96).
Port
Maceió
Macapá
Manaus
Aratu
Ilhéus
Salvador
Fortaleza
Vitória
Barra do Riacho
Cáceres
Corumbá
Ladário
Belém
Óbidos
Santarém
Vila do Conde
Cabedelo
Recife
Areia Branca
Natal
Estrela
Itaqui
Angra dos Reis
Forno
Niterói
Rio de Janeiro
Sepetiba
Port Velho
Laguna
Itajaí
Santos
26
TABLE A.4a
Federal Master Plan: Brazil in Action - Summary
(In R$ Million)
PROJECTS
AMOUNT
Total Scheduled for 1997/98
through 1998
Othera
Total
Private
4,608.8
3,429.0
1,154.8
Electric Power
1,474.0
1,299.0
783.0
516.0
Natural Gas
3,134.8
2,130.0
371.8
1,758.2
33,087.8
16,618.0
8,045.0
8,573.0
8,123.5
4,640.8
1,726.0
2,914.8
3,529.0
1,783.8
82.0
1,701.8
317.4
235.6
Ports
2,701.4
1,928.4
1,144.0
784.4
Railroads
1,575.7
693.0
500.0
193.0
4.Basic Sanitation
2,944.4
2,944.4
Subtotal Infrastructure
48,754.5
27,632.2
10,925.8
16,706.4
5. Other
30,270.0
26,727.5
1,840.9
24,886.6
Total
79,034.5
54,359.7
12,766.7
41,593.0
1. Energy
3. Transportation
Roads
Waterways
-
-
2,274.2
235.6
2,944.4
a
Other includes outside funds from the federal, state and local governments and
miscellaneous other sources.
27
TABLE A.4a
FEDERAL MASTER PLAN “BRAZIL IN ACTION” - PROJECTS
(In R$ Million)
Projects
Amount
Total
Infrastructure
1. Energy
Electric Power
1. Tucuruí Transmission Line
2. Completion of Xingó
3. Ancillary Transmission System at
Xingó
4. Power System Interconnection
Natural Gas
5. Natural Gas from Urucu
6. Bolivia/Brazil Gas Line
7. Paste - Telecommunications
8. Rio de Janeiro Teleport
3. Transportation
Roads
9. Paving of BR-174
10.Recovery of BR-364/163
11.Road Decentralization and
Recovery
12.Duplication of Fernão Dias
13.Mercosur Highway
Duplication of São PauloFlorianópolis
Duplication of Florianópolis-Osório
Waterways
14. Madeira River Waterway
15. São Francisco River Waterway
16. Tocantins-Araguaia Waterway
Waterway (phase 1)
Paving of BR-153
North-South Railroad
17. Completion of Tietê-Paraná
Waterway
Ports
18. Suape
19. Pecém
20. Revamping of the Port of
Sepetiba
21. Revamping of the Port of Santos
Revamping
Terminal expansion
Railroads
22. Unaí-Pirapora Railroad Line
23. Ferronorte
Railroad
Agents
Private
Schedule
Other
3,429.0
1,299.0
226.0
120.0
215.0
1,154.8
783.0
215.0
2,274.2
516.0
226.0
120.0
-
738.0
2,130.0
788.0
568.0
371.8
190.0
170.0
1,758.2
598.0
1,342.0
16,618.0
16,130.0
488.0
181.8
8,045.0
7,785.0
260.0
1,160.2
8,573.0
8,345.0
228.0
4,640.8
1,783.8
127.0
1,726.0
82.0
-
2,914.8
1,701.8
127.0
53.0
550.3
-
53.0
550.3
453.8
-
453.8
599.7
82.0
517.7
519.7
82.0
437.7
1999
1999
80.0
80.0
1999
60.0
-
1,928.4
113.0
199.2
311.9
235.6
15.6
2.0
158.0
235.6
15.6
2.0
158.0
Eletronorte-Celpa
Chesf
Chesf
Eletrobrás
1998
1998
-
Petrobrás-EletrobrásPrivate
Petrobrás-Private
1998
Telebrás-Private
Telebrás-Rio de Janeiro
City Gov.-Private
1999
-
DNER/MT-States of
Amazonas and Roraima
DNER/MT
DNER/MT
1998
DNER/MT-States of São
Paulo and Minas Gerais
DNER/MT
1999
1998
1999
60.0
Ahita/MT
DNER/MT
Valec/MT
MT-Cesp
1999
1997
1999
1999
1999
1999
1998
1,144.0
144.0
784.4
113.0
199.2
167.9
State of Pernambuco
State of Ceará
MT-Private
1999
1998
1998
1,304.3
1,000.0
304.3
1,000.0
304.3
1,000.0
-
304.3
Private-CDSP-Fed.Gov.
Private
CDSP-Fed. Gov.
1998
1998
1998
693.0
250.0
443.0
500.0
250.0
250.0
193.0
193.0
1998
1998
250.0
250.0
-
CVRD
MT-Private-State of São
Paulo
Private
50.0
40.0
68.0
50.0
40.0
68.0
Ahimor/MT
Franava/MT
-
28
1998
Road-Railroad Bridge
4. Basic Sanitation
24. Pró-Saneamento
25. PASS and PASS/BID
26. Pró-Água
Subtotal Infrastructure (1)
5. Other
27. New Irrigation Model
28. Prodetur
193.0
-
193.0
2,944.4
1,725.0
-
2,944.4
1,725.0
939.7
279.7
27,632.2
939.7
279.7
10,925.8 16,706.4
2,043.2
201.0
1,002.0
-
1,041.2
201.0
29. Land Reform
5,352.0
-
5,352.0
30. Pronaf
31. Reforsus
2,650.0
426.8
-
2,650.0
426.8
32.Reduction of Child Mortality Rate
1,956.0
-
1,956.0
33.Teacher Improvement
823.0
-
823.0
34. Resources Centralized by
Schools
35. Remote Education
36. Habitar-Brazil
308.0
-
308.0
72.0
557.6
-
37. Letter of Credit
2,967.0
289.0
38. Pró-Moradia (Housing)
1,652.0
-
39. Pró-Emprego (Jobs)
4,748.9
549.9
1,794.9
1,811.6
357.7
420.7
364.0
299.0
119.7
70.4
60.8
MT-State of São Paulo
1998
MPO/States/Cities/
Companies
MPO/States/Cities
MMA/SRH-States-Cities
1998
MMA/SRH/BID/IBRD
BID/BNB/Infraero/States/
BNDES
Merf/Incra/States/
Cities
MMA/SDR
MS/States/Cities/
BNDES/BB/BID
MS/States/Cities/
councils
MEC/FNDE/States/
Cities
MEC/FNDE
1998
1999
72.0
MEC/FNDE/SEED
557.6 MPO/Sepurb/CEF/States/C
ities
2,678.0
Agentes
Financeiros/Cohab’s/CEF
1,652.0
States/Cities/
Agentes Financeiros
4,199.0
BNDES/FAT/States/
Cities/Private
Infrastructure for Competitiveness
Mass Transit Systems
Revitalization of Industrial Zones
Infrastructure for Tourism
Sanitation
40. Occupational Education
41. Small Business Credit
42. PROGER
Subtotal (2)
580.0
234.0
2,156.0
26,727.5
580.0
234.0
- 2,156.0
1,840.9 24,886.6
Total (1)+(2)
54,359.7
12,766.7 41,593.0
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
1999
1998
1998
1998
1998
1998
-
1,495.9
1,811.6
238.0
350.3
303.2
MTb/Codefat/States
BNDES/States
MTb/FAT/BB/BNB/Finep
-
1999
1999
Source: Planning and Evaluation Secretariat, Ministry of Planning and Budget.
29
TABLE A.5
Summary of Investments Under the Paste Program for the
Telecommunications System - 1995/99
(In R$ Billion of April 1995)
PROGRAM
SUBTOTAL
2000/03
TOTAL
10.86
5.43
0.54
4.89
7.09
0.90
1.90
1.60
2.07
0.24
0.38
15.23
5.43
6.18
0.48
0.60
2.06
0.48
2.57
0.66
0.11
0.22
0.88
0.59
0.11
1.85
21.09
8.18
6.04
6.87
13.75
1.75
3.58
3.11
3.96
0.19
0.41
0.75
29.56
9.97
12.95
0.97
2.17
2.55
0.95
7.09
1.77
0.23
0.47
2.55
1.71
0.36
3.57
0.79
0.85
1.64
0.17
0.93
1.00
1.93
8.10
8.23
37.46
37.60
75.06
8.99
9.13
41.58
41.73
83.31
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
1.47
0.23
1.24
0.96
0.13
0.24
0.25
0.23
0.05
0.02
0.04
2.25
0.80
0.97
0.08
0.25
0.07
0.08
0.34
0.11
0.01
0.02
0.10
0.08
0.02
0.24
1.89
0.27
1.53
0.09
1.24
0.16
0.32
0.28
0.29
0.06
0.03
0.10
3.47
0.92
2.04
0.08
0.27
0.08
0.08
0.92
0.23
0.02
0.05
0.35
0.22
0.05
0.32
2.16
0.45
1.35
0.36
1.41
0.18
0.35
0.31
0.37
0.08
0.04
0.08
2.95
0.93
1.44
0.09
0.30
0.10
0.09
1.15
0.29
0.04
0.06
0.42
0.28
0.06
0.36
2.27
0.72
0.92
0.63
1.47
0.18
0.37
0.33
0.48
0.04
0.07
2.80
0.87
1.27
0.11
0.34
0.11
0.10
1.17
0.26
0.03
0.07
0.44
0.30
0.07
0.39
2.44
1.08
0.46
0.90
1.58
0.20
0.40
0.34
0.52
0.04
0.08
2.86
1.02
1.05
0.13
0.41
0.13
0.12
0.94
0.22
0.02
0.05
0.36
0.24
0.05
0.41
(1995/99)
10.23
2.75
5.50
1.98
6.66
0.85
1.68
1.51
1.89
0.19
0.17
0.37
14.33
4.54
6.77
0.49
1.57
0.49
0.47
4.52
1.11
0.12
0.25
1.67
1.12
0.25
1.72
0.06
0.09
0.20
0.20
0.24
0.18
0.23
0.16
0.19
In R$ Billion
5.26
7.84
8.03
In US$ BillionB
5.84
8.70
8.91
Access Networks
Optic Fiber
Conventional
Local Wireless
Interconnection Networks
Local Optical
Intra-State Optical
Intra-State Radio
Domestic Optical
Domestic Radio
International Optical
Satellite
Basic Networks
Fixed Telephone
Mobile Phone
Narrow Band Data
Narrow Band ISDNa
Broad Bank ISDNa
Subscription TV
Special Networks
Public Voice & Fax Messaging
Public Message Handling
Series 900 Service
Satellite
Paging
Trunking
Integrated Operations and
Support Systems
Integrated Operations
Management Network
Infrastructure for
Telecommunications Networks
TOTAL
Source: Ministry of Communications (1995).
A
Integrated Service Digital Network.
B
R$1.00 = US$0.901 (15 April 1997).
30
TABLE A.6
Main Private Infrastructure Projects at BNDES
NAME
PROJECTS
Energy
Serra da Mesa
Completion of 1,293 MW
Hydro Power Plant
ltá
Completion of 1,450 MW
Hydro Power Plant
TOTAL
INVESTMENTa
(US$ Million)
BNDES
FUNDING
(US$ Million)
6,738.1
3,015.9
861.0
580.0
Signed
948.0
169.6
Bridge Loan/
Signed
Pre-Approved
298.8
lgarapava
Guilman Amorin
Salto Caxias
STATUS
Construction of 210 MW
Hydro Power Plant
257.2
65.1
20.1
Signed
Under Analysis
Self-Producing Hydro Power Plant
128.6
82.3
Signed
Construction of 1,240 MW
Hydro Power Plant
859.3
149.2
Bridge Loan/
Signed
In Perspective
224.6
Machadinho
Construction of 1,140 MW
Hydro Power Plant
Cubatão
Hydro Power Plant
63.1
48.6
Pre-Approved
Cataguases
Energy efficiency improvements
33.3
21.6
Signed
Escelsa
Energy efficiency improvements
and network expansion
154.7
116.0
Jacuí
Coal-fired Plant
Bolivia/Brazil
Gas Pipeline
Construction of 1,902 Mile
Gas Pipeline
Urucu Natural
Gas
Uruguaiana
555.9
242.0
308.0
159.6
Pre-Approved
Pre-Approved
In Perspective
1,885.0b
384.0
380.0
Signed (Pipes)
In Perspective
(TCO)
Distribution of natural gas and
thermal generation in the
Amazon region
450.0
Undefined
In Perspective
Thermal Power Plant
(Argentinian natural gas)
300.0
Undefined
In Perspective
31
Transportation
6,825.2
1,942.2
1,061.3
396.2
Signed
Ferronorte
Construction of 400 km Railroad
Linha Azul
Construction of FlorianópolisCanasvieiras Road
26.6
17.3
Signed
ltapemirim
Cargo Terminal
69.7
38.1
Signed
Ponte Rio-Niterói Recovery and Modernization of
Bridge
69.2
36.0
Signed
Rio-São Paulo
(Dutra)
Recovery and Modernization of
Highway
526.8
168.0
Signed
Rio-PetrópolisJuiz de Fora
Highway
255.0
127.0
Signed
Rio-TeresópolisAlém Paraíba
Highway
67.4
29.0
Signed
Osório-Porto
Alegre
Highway
38.0
10.0
Application
AnhangüeraBandeirantes
Highway
400.0
Undefined
Linha Amarela
Construction of Urban Expressway
333.6
10.8
Signed
Rodovia dos
Lagos (RJ-124)
Expansion and Modernization
69.2
13.0
Pre-Approved
Sul/Atlântico
Railway
Recovery and Modernization
(Southern railroad)
207.0
São Paulo
Subway
Expansion (Line n. 4)
lnepar
Construction of Substation in
the São Paulo Subway
Centro-Atlantica
Modernization of the
Mideastern Railway
Hermasa
Boats for the Madeira Riverway
Jonasa
Boats for Belém-Manaus Riverway
Navtur
Construction of a turism class ship for
Belém-Manaus Riverway
Sao Bernardo
Bertolini
75.0
1,524.0
242.8
25.2
16.4
288.5
Undefined
In Perspective
Application
In Perspective
Conclusion
In Perspective
28.5
24.5
24.5
20.8
Signed
Pre-Approved
8.7
7.4
In Perspective
7.3
5.2
In Perspective
Boats for riverway
(cargo and passengers)
17.5
14.8
Pre-Approved
Boats for riverway
(cargo and passengers)
13.0
11.0
Pre-Approved
32
CNA
Boats for riverway (cargo)
Porto de Santos
Expansion and modernization
Libra
Modernization of Pier n. 37
at Port of Santos
21.4
5.2
Under Analysis
Construction of a terminal for
containers and vehicles at Santos
97.2
77.5
Pre-Approved
Boats for the Paraguai/Paraná
Riverway
11.5
9.6
Signed
Construction of a terminal
at Paranaguá Port
19.3
5.3
Pre-Approved
Navbel
Boats for Araguaia Riverway
Boats for Tietê-Paraná Riverway
12.3
11.4
8.6
9.7
Signed
Pre-Approved
Metalnave
Towboats for riverways
37.2
31.6
Pre-Approved
Telecommunicationsc
632.5
65.5
Rio de Janeiro
Telecommunications Center
480.0
Undefined
Iridium
Construction of a gateway and two
aerials for Cosigua (steel company)
72.5
25.5
Pre-Approved
Expansion of basic and cellular
telephone in Ribeirao Preto
80.0
40.0
In Perspective
644.5
258.0
Nobara
Flunave
Fospar
CETERP
Basic Sanitation
19.2
9.8
1,524.9
15.4
7.7
508.3
Signed
Pre-Approved
Pre-Approved
Application
ltu
Basic Sanitation
18.0
11.9
Signed
Ribeirão Preto
Basic Sanitation
43.7
29.3
Signed
Jundiaí
Basic Sanitation
28.1
18.3
Signed
Jahu
Basic Sanitation
6.5
4.2
Pre-Approved
Região
dos Lagos
Basic Sanitation and Water Supply
285.3
99.8
Application
10.8
6.3
Pre-Approved
252.1
88.2
In Perspective
14,840.3
5,281.6
Paranaguá
Water Supply and
Basic Sanitation
Sao Paulo
(Juquia/Juquitiba) Water Supply
Total
US$1.00 = R$1.06 (30 April 1997).
Source: BNDES Infrastructure Area.
a
Updated in april 1997.
b
This amount involves investments of about US$ 1.4 billion in Brazil and US$ 0.4 billion in
Bolivia. Another US$ 2 bilion are earmarked for construction of electric power generation
plants and adaptation of industrial units for use of natural gas.
33
c
This amount can significantly increase if one includes US$ 5 billion foreseen to be privately
invested in cellular telephone in the coming years.
TABLE A.7
Operations of the Program to Stimulate State-Level Privatization (Pepe)
Through April 1997
State
Amount
Operation
(US$ Million)
Target
Minas Gerais
408.7
Future Sale of
Cemig Stock
Rio Grande
141.5
Future Privatizado Sul
tion of CRT
235.8
Future Privatization of CEEE
Paraná
379.1
Future Sale of
Copel Stock
Rio de
230.2
Future PrivatizaJaneiro
tion of Cerj
Bahia
118.9
Future Privatization of Coelba
Mato Grosso
48.1
Future Privatization of Cemat
Mato Grosso
do Sul
Sergipe
33.0
Future Privatization of Enersul
45.6
Future Privatization of Energipe
Rio Grande
18.9
Future Privatizado Norte
tion of Cosern
Piauí
18.9
Future Privatization of Cepisa
Rondônia
12.2
Future Privatization of Ceron
Espírito
108.5
Future PrivatizaSanto
tion of Cesan
Total
1,799.4
US$1.00 = R$1.06 (30 April 1997).
Source: BNDES.
Procedure
Subscription by BNDESPAR of MGI debentures
convertible to Cemig stock
Subscription by BNDESPAR of Cadip debentures
convertible to CRT stock
Funding advance by BNDES on account of eventual
privatization of CEEE
Subscription by BNDESPAR of Paraná Investimentos
S.A. debentures convertible to Copel stock
privatization of Cerj
Subscription by BNDESPAR of stock convertible
debentures
Funding advance by BNDES on account of sale of
Cemat stock held by the government, purchase of
Eletrobrás assets and subscription by BNDESPAR of
convertible debentures issued by Cemat
privatization of Enersul
privatization of Energipe
privatization of Cosern
privatization of Cepisa
privatization of Ceron
privatization of Cesan (Sanitation company).
-
34
Bibliography
BNDES, Aide-mémoire do workshop sobre lei das concessões. Rio de Janeiro:
BNDES, 1995, mimeo.
DELOITTE, T. T. & ENEFER CONSULTORIA, PROJETOS LTDA, Relatório conclusivo
de avaliação econômico-financeira da Malha Sudeste da Rede Ferroviária Federal RFFSA. Serviço A, Contrato PND/CN-01/94-A, BNDES.
DNER, Programa de Concessão de Rodovias Federais, Diretoria de Concessões
Rodoviárias, março/1997, Brasília, D.F., mimeo.
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, Programa de Recuperação e Ampliação do
Sistema de Telecomunicações e do Sistema Postal - Paste. Brasília, D. F., 1995.
MINISTRY OF PLANNING AND BUDGET, Plano plurianual 1996-1999, sumário
executivo. Brasília, D. F., 1995.
NASCIMENTO, C. A., A política de concorrência no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: BNDES,
1996, mimeo (Nota Técnica AP/Depec, 06/96).
PICCININI, M. S., NASCIMENTO, C. A., Programa de Concessão de Rodovias
Federais - Procrofe. Rio de Janeiro: BNDES, 1996, mimeo (Nota Técnica AP/Depec,
16/96).
PICCININI, M. S., TRICHES, D., A reforma da ordem econômica da Constituição
Federal. Rio de Janeiro: BNDES, 1995, mimeo (Nota Técnica AP/Depec, 09/95).
PINHEIRO, A. C., Retrospectiva e perspectivas para a economia brasileira: uma
análise setorial. Rio de Janeiro: BNDES, 1995 (Texto para Discussão, 28).
__________, The Brazilian economy in the nineties: retrospect and policy
challenges. Rio de Janeiro: BNDES, 1996a, mimeo.
__________, A privatização no governo FH. Rio de Janeiro: BNDES, 1996b,
mimeo.
PORTUGAL FILHO, M. O programa federal de desregulamentação do governo
brasileiro. Paper presented at the International Seminar on Deregulation. Brasília, D.
F., 3-5 Aug. 1992.
PRESIDÊNCIA DA REPÚBLICA, Concessões de serviços públicos no Brasil. Brasília,
D. F.: Secretaria de Assuntos Estratégicos (SAE), 1995.
WALD, A., MORAES, L. R., WALD, A. M., O direito de parceria e a nova lei de
concessões. São Paulo: Editora Revista dos Tribunais, 1996.
WORLD BANK, World development report - infrastructure for development, 1994.
35

The Concentration of Infrastructure Services in the

Transcription

Similar documents

Rio

LSN : Seed : Favela chic: Artists give slums a brighter

Brochure - Music Celebrations

Togo-Presse (Togo): Thermal Power Station of Lomé

Press Release

OTIS ART and DESIGN TOURS 17-26 May

New record and geographic distribution of Hylodes phyllodes Heyer

Portfolio - Fondazione Antonio Ratti

BANCO NACIONAL DE DESENVOLVIMENTO ECONÔMICO E