Argentina - Model Court Development Project

Document of The World Bank Report No: 17459-AR PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT ONA PROPOSED LOAN IN THE AMOUNT OF US$5 MILLION TO THE REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA FOR A MODEL COURT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT March 4, 1998 Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Argentina, Chile Uruguay Country Managing Unit Latin America and Caribbean Region  CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective March 1998) Currency Unit = Argentina Peso (Arg$) Arg$1 = US$1 US$1 =$lArg FISCAL YEAR January 1 -December 31 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS, ADR = Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms CAS Country Assistance Strategy Cabinet- = Chief of Cabinet Office DGI = Tax Administrati6n Office IDB = Inter American Development Bank IDF = Institutional Development Fund NGO = Non-Governmental Organization PCU Project Coordination Unit Vice President: Shahid Javed Burki Country Manager/Director: Myrna Alexander Sector Manager/Director: Guillermo Perry Task Team Leader/Task Manager: Maria Dakolias  ARGENTINA Model Court Development Project CONTENTS A. Project Development Objective 1. Project development objective and key performance indicators B. Strategic Context 1. Sector-related CAS goal supported by the project 2. Main sector issues and Government strategy 3. Sector issues to be addressed by the project and strategic choices C. Project Description Summary 1. Project components 2. Key policy and institutional reforms supported by the project 3. Benefits and target population 4. Institutional and implementation arrangements D. Project Rationale 1. Project alternatives considered and reasons for rejection 2. Major related projects financed by the Bank and/or other development agencies 3. Lessons learned and reflected in proposed project design 4. Indications of borrower commitment and ownership 5. Value added of Bank support in this project E. Summary Project Analyses 1. Economic 2. Financial 3. Technical 4. Institutional 5. Social 6. Environmental assessment 7. Participatory approach F. Sustainability and Risks 1. Sustainability 2. Critical risks 3. Possible controversial aspects  G. Main Loan Conditions 1. Effectiveness Conditions 2. Other H. Readiness for Implementation L. Compliance with Bank Policies Annexes Annex 1. Project Design Summary Annex 2. Detailed Project Description Annex 3. Estimated Project Costs Annex 4. Cost-Benefit Analysis Summary Annex 5. Procurement and Disbursement Arrangements Table A. Project Costs by Procurement Arrangements Table Al. Consultant Selection Arrangements Table B. Thresholds for Procurement Methods and Prior Review Table C. Allocation of Loan Proceeds Annex 6. Project Processing Budget and Schedule Annex 7. Documents in Project File Annex 8. Statement of Loans and Credits Annex 9. Country at a Glance MAP IBRD 29348 Argentina  Argentina Model Court Development Project Project Appraisal Document Latin America and Caribbean Region Argentina, Chile and Uruguay Date: March 3, 1998 Task Team Leader/Task Manager: Maria Dakolias Country Manager/Director: Myrna Alexander Sector Manager/Director: Guillermo Perry Project ID: 50713 Sector: Judicial Program Objective Category: Poverty Reduction and Economic management Lending Instrument: Learning and Innovation Loan Program of Targeted Intervention: [ ] Yes [X ] No Project Financing Data [X] Loan [ ] Credit Other [Specify] For Loans/Credits/Others: Amount (US$m/SDRm): US$5 million Proposed terms: [ ] Multicurrency I X l Single Currency US Dollar Grace period (years): 5 [ ] Standard Variable j Fixed [ X I LIBOR-based: Years to maturity: 15 Commitment fee: 0.75% Service charge: 0% Financing plan (US$5m): Source Local Foreign Total Government 1.0 .8 1.8 IBRD .5 4.5 5.0 1.5 5.3 6.8 Borrower: Republic of Argentina Responsible agency: Supreme Court Estimated disbursements (Bank FY/US$M): 1998 1999 2000 2001 Annual 0.3 1.8 2.0 0.9 Cumulative 0.3 2.1 4.1 5.0 Nature of underlying financing: US Dollar Single Currency Loan Terms of financing: Principal amount (US$) 5 million Final maturity May 15, 2013 Amortization 5 years grace, 15 years maturity, level repayments of principal profile Project implementation period: three years Expected effectiveness date: 5/1998 Expected closing date: 11/2001 OSD PAD Form: July 30, 1997  Page 2 A: Project Development Objective 1. Project development objective and key performance indicators (see Annex J): The Project's objective is to identify, establish and evaluate conditions which would support the realization of judicial administrative reform and eventually form part of an overall legal reform program. This will be done by developing and implementing a model court program in twelve Federal First Instance Courts with the possibility of five additional courts. The model court project will address some of the systemic problems experienced by the judiciary--focusing on the main problems, and experimenting with new methodologies, demonstrating that they can assist in the reform, and providing motivation for further reform. Specifically, the model courts will seek to separate the judicial from the administrative responsibilities of the judges and court personnel thereby by freeing time for the judges for their primary duties, create teams of judicial employees, decentralize functions and establish reliable statistics in order to track performance and manage resource allocation. In order to learn from the model courts, the project will track the improvements in efficiency, public and judicial support for the reforms, and public confidence in the judicial process. Performance Indicators: A. The number of cases pending will decrease by 15% every year B. Clearance rate will increase by 20% every year' C. Duration of a typical case,juicio executivo (from filing until the decision stage and then from the decision until the enforcement stage) will decrease D. Increase of percentage of judgments written with information technology as a proxy for the use of modern technology E. Increase in trust in the judiciary and satisfaction by the public in the service provided by the judiciary F. Index of management performance based upon a self-audit (to be developed) B: Strategic Context 1. Sector-related Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) goal supported by the project (see Annex 1): The Model Court Project would support the Bank's assistance strategy for judicial reform. CAS document number: CAS Progress Report No. R-98-36. Date of latest CAS discussion: March 17, 1998. 2. Main sector issues and Government strategy: Government Strategy: Judicial reform is high on the current government's agenda as the Menem administration moves into the second half of its term. A National Judicial Reform Program has been developed and includes a broad spectrum of activities many of which were identified under an IDF-grant (see below). The activities are divided into four categories: Delay reduction; human resources, judicial efficiency and effectiveness, and access to justice. The complete program includes IThe resolved cases is computed by considering the actual resolved/filed (R//F) rate as a percentage.  Page 3 reviewing the role of the lawyers, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, small claims courts, revision of the jurisdiction of various courts, legislative changes, oral proceedings in civil, commercial and national labor cases, strengthening of the judicial administration, incentives for judges, strengthening of the Ministry of Justice, improving the infornation systems for the different institutions, case management systems, public registries, supporting the investigative powers to the Public Ministry for criminal/corruption cases, improving methods of serving prison times, judicial infrastructure, equipment and training. This broad National Program includes many facets that are important for overall reform. While the program is still in its early stages of implementation and more time is needed to develop all of the aspects, a number of steps have already been taken. For example, oral hearings have been introduced, thereby creating more openness in judicial proceedings. A Judicial Council was created under the constitutional reform, and a recent corresponding law was passed by Congress. A new law, mandating mediation for all civil cases in Federal Courts, has been implemented in Buenos Aires with great success. In addition, the Government has made tax collection and anti- corruption a high priority. Reforms of the Supreme Court are a vital part of the judicial reform process. Among other things, the Court has established a new administration office in the court with offices for Information Systems, Infrastructure, Notifications, Finance, Human Resources, and Management. These offices are headed by the General Administration Secretary which has improved the information available and the ability to plan for future needs. The current budget of the Judiciary representing 1.43% of the National Budget allows for the majority to be spent on human resources (95% of the budget is allocated to salaries). There are currently 17,000 employees and 700 contracted employees. National awareness of the need for judicial reform has been informed by a Judicial Sector Review financed by an IDF Grant which was to develop a policy dialogue on reforms with the government. The review focused on identifying the priority areas for reform which included: court administration, legal education, judicial training, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, and access to justice. The Judicial Sector Review studied the Federal Judicial System in depth and was undertaken by the Ministry of Justice with a group of national and international consultants who worked closely with court-appointed personnel. The review's final conclusions and main findings were discussed during a conference in December 1994. The Judicial Reform Conference was organized to disseminate the conclusions and it was attended by members of the legal community, which included representatives of the Supreme Court and lower courts, Ministry of Justice, lawyers, academics and the public. The Conference concluded that the areas identified in the Report were indeed the priority areas for reform. The review highlighted that one of the main issues facing the sector is the total centralization of court administration: the lower courts are not involved in developing administrative norms, a lack of communication on administrative matters among trial courts and between the Supreme Court and the trial courts. Each court receives the same staff regardless of any other factors. The Federal Courts have a ratio of judges to personnel which is 1:32 and this approach results in the misallocation of resources. The court system is adequately funded, though there are insufficient funds for capital funding. The buildings whether rented or owned are not designed as  Page 4 courthouses and some have been closed because of danger of collapse. Case management is driven more by adding personnel to the courts to address the problem of the increase in filing as opposed to developing techniques to reduce delay. Personnel in the judiciary do not receive any prior training before taking their positions and since there are no operational guidelines in the courts new employees learn about their work through informal training. The study also recommended improved dissemination of information and education programs for the public on laws and the procedures of the courts. The issues facing Argentina are not dissimilar to the situation faced in many other Latin American countries which struggle to satisfy the demand for dispositions in civil jurisdictions. In Argentina, the number of pending cases reached an important level in 1993 and the Federal District's National Courts of First Instance are the most overburdened. A diagnostic of the situation found that there are several factors which affect the procedural time to dispose of a case: the number of case filings, case management, resources allocated for court personnel and the complexity of the case all have an effect on the time to dispose of a case. It was also found that an increase in budget resources was not proven to be a significant factor. 3. Sector issues to be addressed by the project and strategic choices: The previous review and the government's national program form the basis for proceeding with judicial reform in Argentina. However, the program is a very complex one, involving a number of interested parties, including the Courts, the legal profession, productive enterprises, the Ministry of Justice, Legislature and civil society. While the desired goal is clear, the solution is not and there are many features of the program which need to be tried and tested before they can be implemented more broadly. In light of this, the government and the Bank have agreed to a phased strategy to address the issues, build up experience on particular elements and sequence the implementation of particular actions only when there are proven results demonstrating the reform's effectiveness. This phased approach, while still retaining the comprehensive framework for the complete program, should allow for the appropriate degree of learning and innovation that such a program needs. After careful review of the literature on judicial reform, a number of strategic choices were made. In designing the project, the first choice was to separate court administration from the program's other aspects. This choice was based on the consideration that court administration is an essential ingredient of the reform program and a preliminary pre-requisite for success of any judicial reform program irrespective of its strategy and content. The second reason is that regardless of any eventual change in the legal framework and other procedural aspects which could evolve from the implementation of the National Judicial Reform program, improved judicial administrative is an essential ingredient of the reform program. Improvements in case management, information systems, personnel management are basic essentials for reform. Thus, trying and testing these reforms are necessary, albeit not sufficient and have to be in place either concurrently or in anticipation of broader legal and judicial reforms. The second strategic choice was on the extent of the administrative reform program. Given the generally weak administrative capacity of the court system, a small model court operation was selected over a larger, more traditional operation. This strategy directed us towards a select  Page 5 number of courts which have demonstrated commitment to undertaking the reforms and which demonstrate an array of court functions. Thus, the model court will develop and refine methodologies for improving the administration of justice within possibly seventeen Federal Courts. The proposed model court operation addresses key administrative issues at the court level. These include designing different administrative techniques to improve the court system, analyzing the procedures required, introducing management systems, training judges and personnel in these areas, and dissemination and evaluation of model courts. Each model court will test and evaluate different measures that can later be expanded over the entire system. The model court will be designed for the administration of cases. In addition, the model court project will emphasize decentralization and stakeholder participation by including progress and dissemination workshops throughout project implementation. In order to test these in different settings, courts were selected with different characteristics. The ones initially selected are the Federal Courts in Mar del Plata and Resistencia as well as the new Social Security Courts2 in Buenos Aires and up to five other possible court. These courts represent three different types of Federal First Instance Courts: Mar del Plata is a multijurisdictional court which receives civil, commercial and labor cases; Resistencia is also multijurisdictional and receives civil, commercial, labor, and criminal cases; and the Social Security Courts is a more specialized court which receives all kinds of tax and social security cases. In addition, the Social Security Courts in Buenos Aires is less than a year old and is therefore open to changes. All these courts have very heavy caseloads and include a large number of tax cases which provides a more efficient way to monitor progress in delay reduction using the tax authority's (DGI) statistics. Also, improving the handling and disposition of tax cases will clearly have a very positive effect on government revenues and reducing evasion. The caseloads in the courts of Mar del Plata and Resistencia and the Social Security Courts include a significant proportion of tax cases (ejecuciones fiscales). For this reason, the model court will pay particular attention to the reduction of tax cases. C: Project Description Summary 1. Project components (see Annex 2 for a detailed description and Annex 3 for a detailed cost breakdown): The project is a model court operation and will have three main components as follows: Court Management: The administration of the courts and the case management will be a priority in the courts. This component will include the following subcomponents: Judicial Administration and Case Backlog Reduction. Judicial Administration: This will include a group of activities that will develop policies, the strategy and the internal indicators for the project. These activities will be coordinated by the 2 The Social Security Court is made up of ten juzgados.  Page 6 Supreme Court, and the individual judges involved 'in the project. The subcomponent will also include the organization of the courts. The judges spend much of their time on administrative matters, thus curtailing their ability to concentrate on substantive judicial matters. As a first step, the model courts will adopt a definition of what is administrative versus judicial. A new organizational structure will be implemented in each model court, attempting to utilize the existing personnel in the most efficient manner. In addition, the model court will evaluate the number and profile of the personnel needed in each court. A diagnostic study will also be done to review the organizational issues and factors related to efficiency and effectiveness. Casebacklog Reduction: A program to reduce delay will be developed jointly by judges and administrators. This will include a diagnosis and elimination of inactive cases according to the laws and a diagnostic study of the possible causes of delay: case management practices, steps from filing to disposition, case distribution among judges, control mechanisms, sanctions, system of redistributing cases and, system of experts used in the cases. Model court s will be developed to improve caseflow management. This will include developing court performance standards that each court could use to evaluate their own progress. Since the proceedings are almost exclusively in writing, records management is very important to the efficiency of the system (in active cases, there can be a daily filing of paper or response from the judge which is added to the file). Currently there are loose standards on maintaining records. Records management will be included and will consist of: guidelines for the management of records, procedures for case intake registers, registers of final decisions, development of standards for case storage, guidelines for maintaining security system to control access to cases. Information Systems will be included to complement these efforts: the project will implement case management techniques together with information technology to enhance efficiency. In order to enhance the implementation of this component, DGI will also make some necessary adjustments in the way its lawyers file and follow tax cases. Skills Development for Judges and Court Personnel: Education Policy: This component will include the development of a training and education policy for the judiciary. Judges: The model court project will also train judges in areas addressed by the project. A specific needs assessment will be done for each model court in order to tailor the programs as needed. This would focus on developing an understanding of leadership, the importance of delegation, and the management of change. Court personnel will also be trained in the new administrative and case management techniques, information technology, records management, the development of forms, development of a budget, human resources, mnotivating personnel, collection and reporting of information of cases. Although the training activities will be geared towards those participating in the model courts they will be offered to members in the pertaining jurisdictions. Dissemination and Evaluation: This component will include dissemination of the process of development of the model courts to others in the judiciary as well as the progress and results of the project. Judicial Information Centers: This component will also include establishing information centers in the courts in order to better serve the public: providing information on the court process, requirements, case status and receiving comments/suggestions and if possible complaints about the process or about personnel. User Opinion Surveys: Surveys will be conducted of the users in the model courts to also evaluate the success of providing better service to the public. Model Court Dissemination: Seminars will be held and working groups will be  Page 7 formed to review the design of the model courts, the different stages of progress, and the results. These forums will be for not only the judiciary but also the users, bar associations, business associations and law schools. There will be periodic review of whether the model courts are promoting better access to justice. In addition, instruments to disseminate information about the different phases of the project and the evaluations will be developed for the judiciary as well as the users. External Evaluation: In addition, the model courts will be externally evaluated at different stages of the testing process as well as at the end of the project and these evaluations will be discussed with the participants as well as other parties interested in the judiciary. This evaluation will also include proposals for reforming the procedural codes associated with the juicio ejecutivo (which is also the type of process used in many taxes cases) if needed. Component Category Cost Incl. % of Bank- % of Contingencies Total financing Bank- _________________ _ LiS$M) _ (US$M) financing Court Management Institution Building! 3.70 53.2 3.20 89.6 Other Skills Development Institution Building! 1.00 14.4 0.80 80.0 Other Dissemination and Institution Building/ 1.40 20.1 0.50 35.7 Evaluation Other General Project Administration 0.85 12.2 0.50 58.8 Administration Total 6.95 100 5.00 34.9 2. Key policy and institutional reforms supported by the project: Institutional reform is central to this operation. As seen in most Latin American Courts, one of the first reforms needed is to separate the judicial from the administrative functions. This is essential in order to give the judges more time for judicial decision- making. Although a larger reform effort is needed in Argentina, the model court approach will allow further reform to be successfully thought out and planned in parallel. The proposed project will develop each court's ability to develop proposals for reform and develop the capacity of the courts to implement reform. This process will assist the courts to develop a new organization structure, decentralization process, and performance standards. The evaluation and working groups established will assist the judiciary and specifically, the Appeals Courts (Camaras) in carrying out their supervision responsibilities. A training policy will also be developed during the project which is essential for the support of future institutional reforms. In addition, these model courts will facilitate the development of future reforms by putting in place a change process management in the judiciary. However, the project will not attempt to revise any laws since legal reform will be dealt with under the national program. 3. Benefits and target population: The model court project focuses on only a small share of the judicial system represented by up to seventeen Federal Courts. However, the proposed project would develop, test and evaluate measures that could be replicated across the country, if successful. It will also provide the benefit of a sound analysis of project alternatives by the judiciary, the executive, legal associations and the users of the court for future judicial reform that could take place with widespread support.  Page 8 The model court project would strengthen the capacity of the Judiciary to provide efficient and effective dispute resolution. The model courts will yield reforms which could benefit all Federal Courts. The model courts would provide significant benefit through the careful study and evaluation of methodologies for the effective and efficient resolution of disputes nation-wide. The model court studies and results should result in actions and programs which will be transferable. The beneficiaries of these reforms include the judiciary itself, the executive branch, and the general public. It is expected that with improved court and case management and training that the time it takes for cases to go through the system would decrease, percentage of cases disposed as a proportion of the number of filings in each court would increase and the cost to process each case would decrease. With these reforms it is also expected that the incentives for greater efficiency and effectiveness would be increased. 4. Institutional and implementation arrangements: The implementation will be done by the selected Courts themselves. The Project Coordination Unit (PCU) in the Supreme Court will provide project specific support with a qualified implementation team within the judiciary. This unit will be directed by a Project Manager with qualifications and experience satisfactory to the Bank who will be appointed by the Supreme Court through the Administrator of the Court. Due to the limited capacity in implementing projects of the Supreme Court, a procurement agency may provide support to the PCU on procurement issues. Policy guidance and oversight will be provided by an coordinating commission which includes representatives from the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Justice, and the Chief of Cabinet Office (hereinafter referred to as Cabinet). Monitoring and evaluation arrangements: Monitoring and evaluation will be done by the PCU. Individual courts will also monitor their progress and build on data that will be collected by the courts. The PCU will prepare and submit to the Bank semi-annual reports on the progress of project implementation. D: Project Rationale 1. Project alternatives considered and reasons for rejection: A bottom up approach has been chosen for this project by starting from the first instance level courts. A strategic choice has been made because the maximum value added would be in the lower courts where there is the most case congestion. In addition, it was agreed that instead of a larger operation a model court approach would be used to reduce the risk. As a result, a model court approach was agreed on to focus on basic priority areas of case processing. Since the judiciary has had little experience with implementing projects and since it was important to learn what will and will not work, it was agreed that a model court approach would allow a learning process for both issues.  Page 9 2. Major related projects financed by the Bank and/or other development agencies (completed, ongoing and planned): Sector issue Project Latest Supervision (Form 590) Ratings (Bank-financed projects only) Implementation Development Progress (IP) Objective (DO) Bank-financed Judicial Reform / Ministry of Justice Planned for FY 99 Other development agencies IDB A small project of US$10.5 million for strengthening of National Treasury Prosecutor's Office, Public Prosecutor's Office and Public Defender's Office with a focus on administrative and case management, evaluation of mediation program, development of crime prevention policies, computerization of the penitentiary system, creation of the Institute for the Improvement of Provincial Justice, and consolidating all current national legislation. Approved Dec. 1997. IP/DO Ratings: HS (Highly Satisfactory), S (Satisfactory), U (Unsatisfactory), HU (Highly Unsatisfactory) 3. Lessons learned and reflected in the project design: Judicial Reform: The Bank has relatively limited experience in the area of legal and judicial reform. There have been, however, several legal and judicial reform initiatives in countries including Venezuela, Bolivia, China, Ecuador, and the Russian Federation. The lessons learned in the course of preparation of these projects have underscored the importance of ownership and commitment at the highest level of government and of counterpart commitment.  Page 10 The preparation of the Bolivia project demonstrated the importance of consensus building within the judiciary, whereas that of the Ecuador project showed the importance of consensus building within the judicial and executive branches. Recent Bank experience generally suggests that the following are pre-requisites for project success: (i) sound implementation arrangements that are fully agreed to by all counterparts; (ii) establishment of a clear set of priorities among the various reform objectives; and (iii) avoidance of over-ambitious and unattainable goals (legal and judicial reform is a slow and long-term process). The present proposal accounts for these points by: (i) focusing on a small model court program; (ii) establishing a highly-skilled Project Coordination Unit with previous public sector reform experience; (iii) establishing a coordinating commission to guide the reforms; and (iv) designing self-contained project components. While the Bank recognizes the paramount importance of judicial independence it also recognizes the need for coordination among the different branches of government in the process of judicial reform. Such coordination should be established on the basis of procedures which do not diminish or encroach upon the independence of the judiciary. In this project, there will be a coordinating commission which will be composed of the Supreme Court, Ministry of Justice, and the Cabinet in order to ensure consistency, accuracy and consensus in the reforms. In the Bank's experience participation is an important element of the success of the reforms and will be brought to bear through user surveys during the model court project. General: A strong and well-prepared project management team must be organized as part of project preparation so that the project can begin implementation at the time of effectiveness. Standardization of project documents and training during the project preparation and evaluation process facilitates the procurement of goods and services, and adequate financing of project preparation improves the quality of project at the time of effectiveness. Project performance can be greatly improved through adequate funding of project preparation, and design, through adequate testing and refinement of concepts and methodologies to be used in the implementation of the national program. Monitoring and evaluation systems are essential management and planning tools. This system should be designed as part of the preparation of the project and should be in place at the outset of the project. 4. Indications of borrower commitment and ownership: The Supreme Court have approved the preparation of the model court project. Moreover, in order to ensure ownership among the participants, the selected courts have voluntary indicated their strong enthusiasm to be included. There has been close coordination among the Judiciary, Ministry of Justice, and the Cabinet for the model court project as seen with the creation of the coordinating commission as well as cooperating on the broader national program. In addition, the Government's letter of intent to the IMF for the Extend Funding Facility includes as a benchmark this model court project as well the establishment of the Judicial Council and strengthening of the Public Defender's Office. 5. Value added of Bank support in this project: With the overall work of the Bank in public administration reform and the IDF-supported review of the judiciary in Argentina, the Government considers that the Bank has a comparative advantage to assist in this area. Currently, there is momentum in Argentina for making changes in the judicial system. However, outside help is important to support these reforms. The Bank's  Page 1 1 participation is critical in initiating and supporting a complex modernization effort involving wide-ranging organizational and procedural changes, institutional building, management skills and tools, and administrative training. E: Summary Project Analysis (Detailed assessments are in the project file, see Annex 8) 1. Economic (supported by Annex 4): [ X] Cost-Benefit Analysis: See attached description [ ] Cost Effectiveness Analysis: The project will test ways to be able to measure the cost-benefit of judicial reform. Preliminary estimates indicate that improvements to the handling of tax cases has an extremely high rate of return. Methods will be developed under the model court project to assess the returns of other types of cases. 2. Financial: The budget revenues allocated to the judiciary in Argentina could be increased particularly, as it regards to non-salary expenses. The model court project will test ways to do this. More generally, the cost of modernizing the model courts is reasonable and could be easily replicated. 3. Technical: There are proven methods to improve court administration. Technologies for management and data gathering have been evaluated to be viable and appropriate for creating model courts. 4. Institutional: a. Executing agencies: The courts have never been involved in an externally financed operation. Thus, their institutional capacity for implementing projects is untested and the model court projects relies on the receptiveness of the selected courts. The first instance level courts are highly motivated, have adequate knowledge of the problems and have the ability to manage the project and the change process. Working groups will be developed to monitor and motivate the rest of the judiciary in the reform process. The Supreme Court is considered to be the appropriate executing agency via its PCU with specialized staff in the PCU and possibly a procurement agency. b. Project management: The PCU will be headed by a project manager who is acceptable to the Bank. In order to ensure the success of the project it is preferable that this person has comparative knowledge of judicial administration systems and previous experience with international institutions. This will be important since the Supreme Court has limited institutional capacity and experience in implementation of a projects.  Page 12 5. Social: There is a growing awareness in Argentina of the need for judicial reform. This project responds to such need. 6. Environmental assessment: Environmental Category [ ] A [ ] B [X] C 7. Participatory approach [key stakeholders, how involved, and what they have influenced; if participatory approach not used, describe why not applicable]: a. Primary beneficiaries and other affected groups: The judiciary has been at the center of the preparation; The Ministry of Justice and the Office of the Cabinet in the Presidency have contributed to the preparation process. The participatory process will continue throughout the model court project by means of the coordinating commission. Interested institutions will also participate in working groups with the model courts. b. Other key stakeholders: Lawyers, business associations, and the users have been part of the process to date through the follow up of the IDF review and this will continue in the seminar and workshops planned throughout the project. Although the preparation of the model court project only included the different agencies (Judiciary, Ministry of Justice, the Cabinet), there has been widespread public debate on the need for reform. Press articles, speeches by Government Officials, and seminars have been common. In addition, there will be continued promotion of public participation through the use of the LIL and the dissemination and evaluation process. F: Sustainability and Risks I Sustainability: Measures developed under this project will contribute to the sustainability of the judicial reform process. It is expected that the results will be used in a follow up operation. The intent is to build on the results and lessons learned to develop judicial processes that create a more efficient and effective process of dispute resolution.  Page 13 2. Critical Risks (reflecting assumptions in the fourth column of Annex 1): Risk Risk Rating Risk Minimization Measure Annex I, cell "from Outputs to Objective" possibility that the model courts do not Moderate Careful design of the produce expected results. components and intensive monitoring and measurement of the outputs of the model courts by qualified personnel combined with careful selection of qualified consultants and implementation team for the project. This should ensure that the outputs of the model court project meet the objectives. Annex 1, cell "from Components to Outputs" the environment is complicated by Substantial the risk will be offset by strong interested parties who are not involved in support for both the project and the project or exogenous factors the concepts by the present administration and the judiciary capacity of the Judiciary is low to Moderate and by careful analysis of the implement and degree of freedom to change legal, judicial and political personnel is difficult which increases ramifications of the concepts in unpredictability of outcomes advance of their implementation. the model courts have been chosen on a voluntary basis and because the judges are committed to reform. Overall Risk Rating Moderate I Risk Rating - H (High Risk), S (Substantial Risk), M (Modest Risk), N (Negligible or Low Risk) 3. Possible Controversial Aspects: The creation of the Judicial Council recently may potentially give rise to problems with project execution. G: Main Loan Conditions 1. Effectiveness Conditions: None 2. Other [classify according to covenant types used in the Legal Agreements.]: Project manager: The selection of a project manager acceptable to the Bank will be a condition of effectiveness.  Page 14 Operational Manual: An operation manual will be adopted as a condition of effectiveness. H. Readiness for Implementation [ ] The engineering design documents for the first year's activities are complete and ready for the start of project implementation. [X ] Not applicable. [X ] The procurement documents for the first year's activities are complete and ready for the start of project implementation. ( X] The Project Implementation Plan has been appraised and found to be realistic and of satisfactory quality. [ ] The following items are lacking and are discussed under loan conditions (Section G): I. Compliance with Bank Policies [X] This project complies with all applicable Bank policies. [ ] =TS,k *i L dwa W -G ~n ,, _ =-=~~~~AWJ4  Annex 1 Project Design Summary Argentina: Judicial Reform Model Court Development Project Narrative Summary Key Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Critical Assumptions Indicators Sector-related CAS Goal: reforms in judiciary (Goal to Bank Mission) Judicial Reform to related to efficiency and judicial reform fails to have improve the private sector effectiveness through the expected development growth and public sector court management, impact modernization training and user participation Project Development (Objective to Goal) Objective: Agreed management evaluation of the model Assumptions: broad support launch judicial reform process following courts through surveys within the government and process by building acceptable norms and and data civil society for judicial improved court and case decreasing the backlog reform management and efficient and increasing efficiency use of human resources and effectiveness. Outputs: (Outputs to Objective) demonstration of selected Increase the % of tax Monitoring by PCU and Supreme Court and model courts which build cases resolved each model court through Camaras encourage free support for reform and use of reliable statistics, experimentation create model behavior establish reliable case working groups, and (establishing team inventory and case qualified consultants risk: inadaptability by management and tracking systems current court personnel to separating judicial and reform initiatives administrative functions) Project Components/Sub- Inputs: (budget for each (Components to Outputs) components: (see Annex 2 component) Bank and consultant Assumption: model courts for project description) supervision part of the design and agree Court Management US$3.5m progress reports to implement Training US mid-term review Risks: weak institutional independent evaluation capacity of judiciary to US$1.25 implement project components; resistance by Dissemination and court personnel to Evaluation implement changes  Annex 2 Judicial Reform Model Court Development Project Project Description 1. Court Management: The total cost of this component is approximately US$3.7 million. Under this component, the court system of the seventeen model courts will reviewed in terms of their organization, court and case management During the first six months there will be a series of studies and designs that will prepare the piloting stage. Consultant teams in accordance with the procurement plan which will work with each court in carrying-out the studies and developing the model court detailed design through a participatory process. Each of the selected courts will finalize its model court design and present it to the Coordinating commission for its information. The representative of the Supreme Court will be responsible for assuring good communication of designs to the Supreme Court as a whole. These designs must fulfill the following basic requirements: they can be completed within two years, can be easily replicable, they include elements from the subcomponents (Court Organization, Case Management and Delay Reduction Program, Records Management, and Archive System as described below), and seek to achieve the objectives of the project. Each design will include the indicators for each model court, the evaluation and monitoring process, an implementation plan, implications of the design on human resources and training needs to adapt the current staff to their new responsibilities. Then the cOurts will implement the new designs. The above activities can be grouped into the following subcomponents: A. Judicial Administration (US$2. million) The first subcomponent, Administration Strategy, will consist of development of administration policies and strategies between the different levels of the judiciary (ex. Supreme Court, Camaras and the first instance level judges) that are involved in the model court project. In addition, a strategy for communication and cooperation will be developed among the model court participants. This will include developing overall strategies, flexible alternatives, and uniform indicators will be developed to compare each court's performance. Each court participating in the project will adopt administration methods, priorities of work, concept of quality, team organization, work criteria for each staff person in terms of planning, monitoring and statistical control for the implementation of the reforms. Court Organization: Although some options have been discussed, the management plan for the selected courts will be finalized. Altematives that are efficient and flexible will be reviewed for the organizational structure of the courts. This new structure will develop administrative and jurisdictional functions, assignment of responsibilities and distribution of personnel. This will take into account the cultural organization of the courts, In addition, a study on the organizational factors that lead to incentives for inefficiency and transparency will also be included and the change process will take into account the results of this study. This will include the judicial norns that are relevant to management as well as the budget and finance for each court. Baseline data studies and analysis on human  resources, organizational factors contributing to ine'tficiency and physical space assessment will be done. In addition a study on the current cost of operating the courts and the costs to the litigants will also be done. Case Management procedures will be designed with procedures that incorporate operational standards and statistics that will verify and control the changes being implemented. Baseline data studies and analysis will be done on the current state of the court including statistics, archives, information systems, and procedural process. Case management reforms could include the introduction of new types of working teams to manage the process, notices to the parties, sanctions for the parties, and statistical reports. Case management will include developing methods for judges to control the movement of the cases, improve information provided by the court to the lawyers during the case process, defining the responsibilities for the steps in the process, developing a system of statistics and management reports, defining standards for the completion of each step in the legal process, either fixed by law, rule or standard, developing techniques to assure timely submission of documents and appearances of witnesses, and developing a system of equitable distribution of cases among the judges. A statistical system will be designed and implemented in the courts. This will form the basis of a general framework for the court management and administration that will be tested and evaluated. (US$1.1 million) A Study will be carried out to design the information system and the programming of new software. An additional US$1.4 million will be spent progressively procuring computers and software to support the new organization, test the new prototypes and transfer old data to new system. Training will be conducted for new systems. Together with the consulting firm each court will analyze its particular challenges and collaborate with the teams created to design a model for themselves. B. Case Backlog Reduction (US$1. 0 million) This subcomponent's main objective is to develop a permanent solution to reduce the number of pending cases within the selected courts. A program will be developed through an initial diagnosis and inventory of cases to undertake and identify efficient methods of processing delayed cases, thereby reducing the overall congestion within the courts. The program to purge inactive case files will be implemented. This delay reduction program will also concentrate the judge's time and effort in the active and pending cases. The result of the model courts will be a development of standards of caseflow management which will include timing requirements from filing to disposition for the different case types and this may result in a recommendation for legal reform. This means that all cases are disposed in a manner that is just, assure the quality of the process, ensure that all citizens have equal access to the legal process, and that each step in the legal process is completed on time. A system of records management will be designed and implemented to complement the tracking system. In addition, an archive system will be designed and implemented to ensure safety of the files. A new method of establishing the registry of cases will be developed and implemented. Forms will also be developed in order to better manage the cases. This program will be complemented with a computer system that enables the courts to follow and track the case process.(US$1,000,000) In addition, some goods and small works will be procured (US$200,000) to remodel the courts to adapt to the changes to be made as well as the purchase of office equipment. Together with the consulting firm each court will analyze its particular challenges and collaborate with the teams created to design a model for themselves.  2. Skills Development (US$1.0 million) The skills development component will seek to improve the skill levels within the court system for both judges and court personnel in court administration and case management. National Training Policy Study: The first subcomponent will develop a education policy for the judiciary which includes general strategies and pedagogy. This will also include the identification of training needs at the national level (estimated at US$350,000). Training: Another US$550,000 will be spent on the actual training of judges and other court personnel in the following areas which are most relevant to implementing successful model courts: judges- new case management techniques, and developing an understanding of leadership, the importance of delegation, and the management of change. court personnel will also be trained in the new administrative and case management techniques, information technology, records management, the development of forms, development of a budget, human resources, motivating personnel, collection and reporting of information of cases. Although the training activities will be geared towards those participating in the model court project they will be offered to additional judges and personnel in the pertaining jurisdictions. Training Evaluation: Finally a training evaluation (US$100,000) will be carried out to study the relevancy of the training for both judges and court personnel, and its replicability for the rest of the nation's courts. 3. Evaluation and Dissemination (US$1.25 million) This component will be comprised of outreach activities, and a number of reviews to evaluate the results of the model courts. Judicial information centers will be created in the model courts to provide information on the court process, requirements, case status and receiving complaints about the process or about personnel. For the establishment of judicial information centers (US$350,000), approximately US$200,000 will be spent on the center design and operation in each of the model courts, with another US$150,000 to be spent on goods (e.g., office furniture and equipment) and small works to make the centers functional. Another subcomponent, the user opinion surveys (US$300,000), will be conducted among the actual users of the courts. These evaluations will be designed and be carried out during the life of the project and will provide important indicators of user satisfaction with the courts. Model Court dissemination subcomponent (US$450,000) will help disseminate the objectives of the reform project to both the public and to the courts themselves through workshops and seminars. The results of the user evaluations will also be presented to both audiences. Seminars will be held and working groups will be formed to review the design of the model courts, the different stages of progress, and the results. These forums will be for not only the judiciary but also the users, bar associations, business associations, consumer associations, and law schools specific to each community affected by the model court experience. In addition, instruments (ex. publications etc.) to disseminate information about the different phases of the project and the evaluations will be developed for the judiciary as well as the users. Finally, a project evaluation subcomponent (US$300,000) will be undertaken near the end of the program. This evaluation study will build on the data collected in both the user surveys and the public dissemination subcomponents. Its primary function is to identify the project's main measures developed, and evaluate this model court project's replicability in otfier provinces. Seminars will be  held to discuss the results of this evaluation with the participants as well as other interested parties in the judiciary and the community. The results will be used to begin to develop policies for the judiciary and make adjustments to the designs from the lessons learned in order to replicate elsewhere. This evaluation will also include a review of the procedural codes associated with the juicio ejecutivo (which is also the type of process used in many taxes cases) and propose reforms. The final evaluation will be reviewed by the Coordinating commission in its effort to adopt reforms, expand them to other courts, and consider the effects on the broader program of judicial reform. General Project Administration (US$850,000) In addition, a project manager would be hired for three years plus a technical officer would be hired for the duration of the project. The PCU will form working groups with other interested institutions to improve the processing of cases presented to courts.  Annex 3 Argentina Model Court Development Project Estimated Project Costs Case Management 135.0 3,565.0 3,700.0 96% Judicial Administration 0.0 2,500.0 2,500.0 100% Backlog Delay Reduction 135.0 1,065.0 1,200.0 89% Training 100.0 900.0 1,000.0 90% Identification & Formulation of Education Policy 0.0 350.0 350.0 100% Training Activities 100.0 450.0 550.0 82% Training Evaluation 0.0 100.0 100.0 100% Evaluation and Dissemination 150.0 1,250.0 1,400.0 100% Public Information Center 150.0 200.0 350.0 57% Public Opinion Survey 0.0 300.0 300.0 100% Model Court Dissemination 0.0 450.0 450.0 100% Project Evaluation 0.0 300.0 300.0 100% General Project Administration 500.0 350.0 850.0 41% Total Project Costs 735.0 6,065.0 6,950.0 89%  Annex 4 Judicial Reform Model Court project Cost Benefits Analysis Summary (Currency: US Dollars/ Unit: US Dollars/ Base Year: 1997) As part of the project evaluation options for cost benefit and cost effectiveness analysis will be considered. For example, such an analysis could consider the revenue received by DGI through improved efficiency and the execution of collateral decisions. Preliminary analysis shows that there is an extremely high return for DGI from improved efficiency in the courts. This evaluation process of costs and benefits will also assess alternatives in assessing judicial reforms.  Annex 5 Procurement and Disbursement Arrangements Procurement The PCU would be responsible for assuring that procurement is done in accordance with Bank guidelines. Civil works and Goods would be procured through contracts in accordance with Bank's Guidelines Procurement under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits (January 1995, as revised January and August 1996 and September 1997). International Competitive Bidding (ICB) would use the Bank issued Standard Bidding Documents for the procurement of works and goods. While no NCB is envisioned for financing under the project, it may become necessary during project implementation to contract goods and works under NCB. Any NCB to be contracted and financed under the Project would follow the Bank's Procurement Guidelines. Recruitment of consultants' services (consulting firms or individuals consultants) for technical studies, training and audits would be carried out in accordance with the Guidelines on Selection and Employment of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers (January 1997). Bank Consultants Standard Documents would be used for the contracting of consultants. All of these documents will be included in the Project Manual. Contracts for goods expected to cost US$350,000 or more (to account for approximately US$1.4 million) would be awarded on the basis of ICB procedures in accordance with Bank guidelines. Contracts for goods expected to cost less than US$350,000 (approximately US$400,000 ), would be carried out through shopping involving at least three price quotations; Contracts for works (approximately US$100,000) would be carried out through procedures for small works. Consultant services, expected to cost approximately US$5.0 million. Consultant contracts to be awarded on a Quality and Cost Basis will account for US$4.1 million. Approximately US$100,000 will be awarded to consultants on a Least-Cost basis. Finally the remaining US$800,000 of the consultants will be selected individually. These arrangements are summarized in Tables A and C. To ensure that the agreed procurement procedures are properly carried out, the PCU and the Bank would review ex-ante all procurement procedures, documents, bid evaluations and contract awards for ICB procurement of goods and works during the entire project implementation period and the first two contracts per year for NCB for goods and works and limited prior review for all shopping contracts. In addition, the PIU would review ex-ante the procedures for all other procurement of goods, works and consulting services. The Bank would review ex-ante all terms of reference for consulting assignments (regardless of their estimated cost). However, the Bank would review ex-ante those contracts in which: (i) individual consultants to be hired for assignments with contract amounts more than US$50,000 or (ii) consulting firms to be hired for assignments with contract amounts more than US$100,000. In all other cases, the Bank would review ex-ante all documents of each contract. Prior Bank and PIU review of procurement procedures of work, goods and consulting services is summarized in Table B. Table C presents the consultant selection arrangement for the project.  Table A: Project Costs by Procurement Arrangements (US$ thousand, December 1997) Procurement Method Components ICB Other 1/ N.B.F. 2/ Total Cost Works 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 (50.0) (50.0) Goods 1,400.0 400.0 0.0 1,800.0 (1,000.0) (100.0) (1,100.0) Consulting Services 0.0 Judicial Administration 1,100.0 1,100.0 (1,100.0) (1,100.0) Case Backlog Reduction 1,065.0 1,065.0 (1,000.0) (1,000.0) Training 900.0 900.0 (700.0) (700.0) Project Evaluation 1,150.0 1,150.0 (700.0) (700.0) General Project Administration 350.0 500.0 850.0 ____ ____ ___ ____ ____ ___ ____ _ _ (350.0) (350.0) TOTAL 1,400.0 5,065.0 500.0 6,965.0 (1,000.0) (4,000.0) 0.0 (5,000.0) Figures in parentheses are the amounts to be financed by the Bank 1/ Includes shopping and consultants. 2/ Not Bank financed. Table B: Thresholds for Procurement Methods and Prior Review Description Type of Procurement Prior PIU Review Prior Bank Review Contract Limit Limit Value __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _(US$1,000) CIVIL WORKS Price Quotations All limited review <350 GOODS ICB All All >350 Shopping All limited review <350 CONSULTING SERVICES * Firms All None <100 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______ ______ A ll > 100 * Individuals All None <50 I___ __ _ __ __ _ ____All >50  Table C: Consultant Selection Arrangements (in US$ million) Consultant Category QCBS LCS I Total Costs A. Firms 4.1 0.1 | 4.2| B. Individuals 0.8 0.8 Total 4.1 0.1 0.8 5 Note: QCBS = Quality and Cost-Based Selection LCS = Least Cost Selection I = Individual Consultants Disbursement To withdraw the proceeds of the proposed Bank loan, the following categories and disbursement percentages are proposed: Loan Allocated % of (Expressed in Expenditures Category Dollars) to be Financed (1) Civil works 50,000 85% (2) Goods 1,100,000 100% of foreign expen- ditures and 85% of local expenditures (3) Consultant services, 2,350,000 100% procurement agent fees, audits and training (4) Unallocated 1,500,000 TOTAL 5,000,000 A Special Account in US dollars, and with an authorized allocation of US$500,000, would be established by the Borrower. All disbursements against contracts for less than US$350,000 for works, for less than US$350,000 for goods and services, for less than US$100,000 for consultant firms, and for less than US$50,000 for individual consultants, would be made on the basis of certified Statements of Expenditure (SOEs). The documentation for SOEs would not be sent to the Bank but would be retained by the PIU and made available for inspection by Bank staff. All other disbursements would be made against standard documentation. Retroactive financing for expenditures incurred after December 1, 1997 (but not earlier than 12 months before loan signing) in an amount not to exceed US$500,000 (10% of the Loan amount) is recommended.  III. Accounts and Audits Account: The PCU will maintain identified accounts of the project in accordance with internationally accepted accounting procedures. The accounts will show expenditures for each project component, subdivided by expenditures financed by the borrower and the Bank. An audit of the financial status of the program would take place once a year for the PCU components. Audits: Project audits would be carried out by an independent auditor acceptable to the Bank. The audit reports would be sent to the Bank not more than six months after the end of the calendar year. The report would include, inter alia, specific opinions on: (a) sources of proceeds and their use; (b) SOEs; and (c) implementation of contracting clauses, including the application of eligibility criteria, and compliance with procurement procedures and other financing conditions included in the project manual. The Special Account would also be similarly audited.  Annex 6 Judicial Reform Model Court Project Project Processing Budget and Schedule A. Project Budget (US$90,000) Planned Actual (At final PCD stage) B. Project Schedule Planned Actual (At final PCD stage) Time taken to prepare the project (months) First Bank mission (identification) 9/1997 6/1997 Appraisal mission departure 12/1/1997 12/1/1997 Negotiations 12/9/1997 03/03/1998 Planned Date of Effectiveness 4/1/1998 //19 Prepared by: Supreme Court Preparation assistance: Canadian Trust Funds Bank staff who worked on the project included: Name Specialty Aldo Espinosa Administration Neil Gold Training Javier Said Economic Analysis Beth Dabak Procurement and Costing Tom Kane Tax Litigation  Annex 7 Judicial Reform Model Court project Documents in the Project File* A. Project Implementation Plan B. Bank Staff Assessments Tax case assessment C. Other The complete IDF study *Including electronic files.  Annex 8 Statement of Loans and Credits  MOP Schedule D Generated: March 11, 1998 Status of Bank Group Operations in Argentina IBRD Loans and IDA Credits in the Operations Portfolio Difference Between expected Original Amount in US$ Millions and actual Loan or Fiscal ___ disbursements a/ Project ID Credit Year Borrower Purpose No. IBRD IDA Cancellations Undisbursed Orig Frm Rev'd Number of Closed Loans/credits: 54 Active Loans AR-PE-51693 IBRD42190 1998 GOVERNMENT P.RFM(SALTA) 75.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 AR-PE-51694 IBRD42200 1998 GOVERNMENT P.RFM(S.JUAN) 50.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 10.00 0.00 AR-PE-51695 IBRD42180 1998 GOVERNMENT P.RFM(R.NEGRO) 75.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 AR-PE-55477 IBRD42820 1998 GOVT OF ARGENTINA MINING TA 39.50 0.00 0.00 39.50 0.00 0.00 AR-PE-55935 IBRD42730 1998 GOVERNMENT EL NINO EMERGENCY 42.00 0.00 0.00 42.00 0.00 0.00 AM-PE-6006 IBRD42210 1998 MIN. OF ECONOMY P.RFM(TUCUMAN) 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 55.00 0.00 AR-PE-6041 IBRD42120 1998 GOVERNMENT SMALL FARMER DV. 75.00 0.00 0.00 75.00 0.00 0.00 AR-PE-6050 IBRD42810 1998 REP OF ARGENTINA POLLUTION MGT. 18.00 0.00 0.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 AR-PE-39584 IBRD41630 1997 GOVT OF ARGENTINA B.A.URB.TSP 200.00 0.00 0.00 200.00 13.34 0.00 AR-PE-40808 IBRD40850 1997 GOA N.FOREST/PROTC 19.50 0.00 0.00 19.02 -.25 0.00 AR-PE-43418 IBRD41680 1997 REPUBLIC OF ARG AIDS PREV.6STD CTRL 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.24 1.49 0.00 AR-PE-46821 IBRD41310 1997 GOVT.OF ARG PENSION TA 20.00 0.00 0.00 16.71 -.10 0.00 AR-PE-49268 IBRD41950 1997 ARGENTINE REPUBLIC SOC.PROTECT.2 200.00 0.00 0.00 79.38 -62.29 0.00 AR-PE-5980 IBRD40930 1997 GOVT OF ARGENTINA PROV ROADS 300.00 0.00 0.00 300.00 27.67 0.00 AR-PE-6010 IBRD41500 1997 GOA PROV AG DEVT I 125.00 0.00 0.00 125.00 4.55 0.00 AR-PE-6052 IBRD41170 1997 GOVT OF ARGENTINA FLOOD PROTECTION 200.00 0.00 0.00 199.65 4.65 0.00 AR-PE-6059 IBRD41640 1997 ARGENTINE REPUBLIC MTL.CHD.NTH.2 100.00 0.00 0.00 97.44 -.56 0.00 AR-PE-34091 IBRD39210 1996 REP OF ARGENTINA HIGHER ED REFORM 165.00 0.00 0.00 140.20 72.38 34.21 AR-PE-35495 IBRD39570 1996 SEC.OF SOC.DEVIT (OFFICE SOCIAL PROTECTION 152.00 0.00 0.00 7.35 7.35 0.00 AR-PE-37049 IBRD39580 1996 GOVT OF ARGENTINA PUB.INV.STRENGTHG 16.00 0.00 0.00 15.50 6.67 0.00 AR-PE-38883 IBRD39600 1996 REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA ENT.EXPORT DV. 38.50 0.00 0.00 31.13 29.04 1.04 AR-PE-40904 IBRD39260 1996 REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA BANK REFORM 500.00 0.00 0.00 166.00 166.00 0.00 AR-PE-40909 IBRD40030 1996 REP. OF ARGENTINA H. INSURANCE REFORM 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 58.33 0.00 AR-PE-45687 IBRD40040 1996 REP. OF ARGRNTINA H.INSURANCE TA 25.00 0.00 0.00 12.22 .51 0.00 AR-PE-6030 IBRD39310 1996 REPUB OF ARGENTINA PROVCL HLTH SCTR DEV 101.40 0.00 0.00 92.98 34.36 0.00 AR-PE-6040 IBRD39480 1996 GOVERNMENT FORESTRY/DV 16.00 0.00 0.00 13.70 .31 0.00 AR-PE-6055 IBRD39270 1996 GOVT. OF ARGENTINA MINING SCTR DEVT 30.00 0.00 0.00 12.33 -4.39 0.00 AR-PE-6057 IBRD39710 1996 GOV'T OF ARGENTINA SECNDARY ED 2 115.50 0.00 0.00 112.50 39.65 -3.00 AR-PE-5992 IBRD37940 1995 GOVT OF ARGENTINA INA SECONDARY ED I 190.00 0.00 0.00 159.29 114.93 0.00 AR-PE-6018 IBRD38770 1995 ARGENTINE REPUBLIC PROV DEVT II 225.00 0.00 0.00 206.96 17.95 0.00 AR-PE-6060 IBRD38600 1995 GOVT OF ARGENTINA MUNIC DEVT II 210.00 0.00 0.00 190.06 -6.01 0.00 AR-PE-6025 IBRD36430 1994 GOVT OF ARGENTINA INA MTNAL CHILD HLTH & N 100.00 0.00 0.00 30.26 16.95 0.00 AR-PE-6062 IBRD37100 1994 MIN OF ECONOMY CAPITAL MKT TA 8.50 0.00 0.00 3.80 3.79 0.00 AR-PE-6003 IBRD36110 1993 GOVT OF ARGENTINA INA RD MAINT & REHAB SCT 340.00 0.00 0.00 114.65 94.56 0.00 AR-PE-6036 IBRD35200 1993 GOVERNMENT YACYRETA II 300.00 0.00 0.00 1.66 1.65 0.00 AR-PE-6051 IBRD35210 1993 ARGENTINA FLOOD REHABILITATION 170.00 0.00 0.00 3.18 3.16 0.00 AR-PE-6034 IBRD34600 1992 GOVERNMENT TAX ADMIN II 20.00 0.00 0.00 .12 .11 0.00 AR-PE-5977 IBRD32810 1991 ARGENTINE REPUBLIC WTR SUPPLY II 100.00 0.00 0.00 61.99 62.00 0.00 AR-PE-6005 IBRD32800 1991 REPUBLIC OF ARGENTINA PROVINC DEV PROJ 200.00 0.00 0.00 30.25 30.23 0.00 AR-PE-6009 IBRD32970 1991 GOVT OF ARGENTINA INA AG SERVCES&INST DEV 33.50 0.00 0.00 2.64 2.12 1.74 AR-PE-5968 IBRD28540 1987 SEGBA SEGBA V 276.00 0.00 0.00 67.07 67.06 0.00 Total 5,086.40 0.00 0.00 3,031.78 872.21 33.99 Generated by the Operations Information System (OIS) Page I  MOP Schedule D Generated: March 11, 1998 Active Loans Closed Loans Total Total Disbursed (IBRD and IDA): 2,054.63 7,021.56 9,076.19 of which has been repaid: 202.47 3,012.04 3,214.51 Total now held by IBRD and IDA: 4,883.93 4,009.53 8,893.46 Amount sold : 0.00 12.79 12.79 Of which repaid : 0.00 12.79 12.79 Total Undisbursed : 3,031.78 0.00 3,031.78 a. Intended disbursements to date minus actual disbursements to date as projected at appraisal. b. Rating of 1-4: see OD 13.05. Annex D2. Preparation of Implementation Summary (Form 590). Following the FY94 Annual Review of Portfolio performance (ARPP), a letter based system will be used (HS - highly Satisfactory, S - satisfactory, U - unsatisfactory, HU - highly unsatisfactory): see proposed Improvements in Project and Portfolio Performance Rating Methodology (SecM94-901), August 23, 1994. Note: Disbursement data is updated at the end of the first week of the month. Generated by the Operations Infornation System (OIS) Page 2  MOP Schedule D Argentina STATEMENT OF IFC's Committed and Disbursed Portfolio As of 3 1-Jan-98 (In US Dollar Millions) Committed Disbursed IFC IFC FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic Loan Equity Quasi Partic 1960/95/97 Acindar 37.50 0.00 25.00 65.56 12.50 0.00 25.00 15.56 1977/84/86/88/94/96 Alpargatas 24.23 6.05 6.37 89.29 19.23 6.05 6.37 75.79 1978/81/86/87/91/93/96 Minetti 10.00 0.00 10.00 30.00 10.00 0.00 10.00 30.00 1987 BGN-TBR .14 0.00 0.00 0.00 .14 0.00 0.00 0.00 1987/89 BGN-Bolland .18 0.00 0.00 0.00 .18 0.00 0.00 0.00 1987/89 BGN-Flichman .13 0.00 0.00 0.00 .13 0.00 0.00 0.00 1987/89/90/96/97 Terminal 6 19.19 0.00 0.00 18.42 13.54 0.00 0.00 11.07 1987/92 BRLP 8.51 0.00 0.00 .58 .97 0.00 0.00 .58 1988/93 Bunge y Born 3.19 0.00 0.00 24.06 3.19 0.00 0.00 24.06 1989 BGN-Algodonera .22 0.00 0.00 0.00 .22 0.00 0.00 0.00 1989 BGN-Ferrum .67 0.00 0.00 0.00 .67 0.00 0.00 0.00 1989 BGN-FRIGOTOBA .10 0.00 0.00 0.00 .10 0.00 0.00 0.00 1989 BGN-Interpack .20 0.00 0.00 0.00 .20 0.00 0.00 0.00 1989 BGN-Parafina .50 0.00 0.00 0.00 .50 0.00 0.00 0.00 1989 BGN-Willmor .55 0.00 0.00 0.00 .55 0.00 0.00 0.00 1989 ROB-COMESI .19 0.00 0.00 0.00 .19 0.00 0.00 0.00 1989 ROB-Fracchia .07 0.00 0.00 0.00 .07 0.00 0.00 0.00 1989 ROB-INTA .19 0.00 0.00 0.00 .19 0.00 0.00 0.00 1989/96 Banco Frances 41.02 0.00 0.00 .27 5.33 0.00 0.00 .27 1990 CIP 0.00 .08 0.00 0.00 0.00 .08 0.00 0.00 1990/94 Petroken 19.39 0.00 5.00 3.65 19.39 0.00 5.00 3.65 1991 BCA 1.32 0.00 0.00 1.69 1.32 0.00 0.00 1.69 1991 ROB-Guilford .07 0.00 0.00 0.00 .07 0.00 0.00 0.00 1991 ROB-Longvie .23 0.00 0.00 0.00 .23 0.00 0.00 0.00 1992 FEPSA 7.50 0.00 0.00 7.33 7.50 0.00 0.00 7.33 1992 Oleaginosa Oeste 6.11 0.00 5.00 8.71 6.11 0.00 5.00 8.71 1992 Rioplatense 5.33 1.00 0.00 1.67 5.33 1.00 0.00 1.67 1992 San Jorge 0.00 27.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1992/93/96 MalteriaPampa 12.39 0.00 1.00 10.56 12.39 0.00 1.00 10.56 1992/95 Bridas 38.11 0.00 0.00 63.93 38.11 0.00 0.00 63.93 1993 Argentina Equity 0.00 2.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.93 0.00 0.00 1993 Nuevo Central 6.25 3.00 0.00 10.00 6.25 3.00 0.00 10.00 1993 Yacylec 8.25 5.04 0.00 27.55 8.25 5.04 0.00 27.55 1993/94 Molinos 0.00 5.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.55 0.00 0.00 1994 Aceitera General 13.75 10.00 0.00 0.00 13.75 10.00 0.00 0.00 1994 BGN 12.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 12.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 1994 LBAR 0.00 1.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 .64 0.00 0.00 1994 LBAV 0.00 3.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.62 0.00 0.00 1994 Quilmes 11.07 0.00 0.00 8.75 11.07 0.00 0.00 8.75 1994/95 EDENOR 17.88 0.00 15.00 77.42 17.88 0.00 15.00 77.42 1994/95/96 Aguas 73.59 7.00 0.00 239.61 73.59 7.00 0.00 239.61 1994/95/97 La Maxima 0.00 14.39 4.00 0.00 0.00 12.12 3.96 0.00 1995 Banco Roberts 0.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 1995 CEPA 11.67 0.00 0.00 3.00 11.67 0.00 0.00 3.00 Generated by the Operations Information System (OIS) on March 17,1998  MOP Schedule D Committed Disbursed IFC IFC FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic Loan Equity Quasi Partic 1995 Kleppe/Caldero 5.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 1995 Mastellone 35.71 0.00 0.00 28.00 35.71 0.00 0.00 28.00 1995 Nahuelsat 30.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 1995 SanCor 18.75 0.00 20.00 24.00 18.75 0.00 20.00 24.00 1995 Socma 20.84 0.00 0.00 50.00 20.84 0.00 0.00 50.00 1995 SIDECO 0.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 1995 Terminales Port. 9.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1995 Tower Fund 0.00 15.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.68 0.00 0.00 1995 Tower Fund Mgr 0.00 .14 0.00 0.00 0.00 .04 0.00 0.00 1996 Banco Galicia 30.00 0.00 0.00 200.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 200.00 1996 Bansud 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 1996 Brahma- ARG 18.50 0.00 0.00 33.00 18.50 0.00 0.00 33.00 1996 CAPSA 12.00 0.00 5.00 33.00 12.00 0.00 5.00 33.00 1996 Grunbaum 7.50 0.00 2.00 5.00 7.50 0.00 2.00 5.00 1996 MBA 0.00 .16 0.00 0.00 0.00 .16 0.00 0.00 1996 Neuquen Basin 0.00 26.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 19.92 0.00 0.00 1996 Refisan 20.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 20.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 1996 Transconor 25.00 0.00 20.00 210.00 25.00 0.00 20.00 210.00 1996 Zanon 14.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 14.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 1997 FRIAR 10.00 0.00 2.50 7.00 10.00 0.00 2.50 7.00 1997 Guipeba 15.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 1997 Milkaut 10.00 0.00 10.00 5.00 10.00 0.00 10.00 5.00 1997 T61 10.00 0.00 5.00 30.00 6.00 0.00 5.00 18.00 1997 Vicentin 25.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 1998 FAID 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .41 0.00 0.00 Total Portfolio: 733.63 156.26 169.87 1,357.05 630.65 104.24 169.83 1,274.20 Approvals Pending Commitment Loan Equity Quasi Partic 1996 AGUAS III - INC 15.00 0.00 0.00 75.00 1997 ARGIE MAE 0.00 .40 0.00 65.00 1998 AYG .45 0.00 0.00 0.00 1997 BANCO DEL SUQUIA 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 1998 F.V. S.A. 12.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 1993 FEPSA (II) 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 1997 KLEPPE II 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1998 PATAGONIA 5.00 0.00 1.00 5.00 1997 ROBERTS NOA CL 30.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1997 TGN II BLINC 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 Total Pending Commitment: 68.45 .40 15.00 159.00 Generated by the Operations Infornation System (OIS) on March 17, 1998  Annex 9 Country at a Glance . .  Argentina at a glance 8/28/97 Latin Upper- POVERTY andWSOCIAL America middle- Argentina &Carib. Incomer Development dlamond' Population mid-1 996 (millions) 35,1 486 479 GNP per capita 19986 US$) 8,410 3,710 4,540 Life expectancy GNP 1996 (billions 08t ;S 295.0 1,799 2,173 Average annual growth, 1MO-M6 Population (%/) 1.3 1.7 1.6 GNP G Labor force (5): 2.0 2.3 1.8 p Gross per pnmary Most recent estimate (latest year available since 1989) capita enrollment Poverty: theadcount index (5 of populfation) 26 Urban'population (%oftotalpopulation) 88 74 73 Life expectancy at birth (years) 73 69 69 Infant mortality (per 1,000 live births) 22 37 35 Access to safe water Child malnutrition (% of children under 5) Access to safe water (% of population) 64 80 86 Illiteracy (%f of population age 15+) 4 13 13 Gross primary enrollment f% of school-age population) 111 110 107 Argentina Male _ Upper-middle-income group Female KEY ECONOMIC RATIOS and LONG-TERM TRENDS 1975 1985 1995 1996 Economic ratios* GDP (billions US$) 52.4 88.4 280.8 300.5 Gross domestic investmentUGDP 29.4 17.6 18.3 18.5 Exports of goods and services/GDP 5.8 11.7 8.5 9.0 Openness of economy Grossdomesticsavings/GDP 29.3 23.1 18.4 18.1 Gross national savings/GDP 28.4 16.6 17.5 17.2 Current account balance/GDP -2.5 -1.1 -0.9 -1.3 Interest payments/GDP 0.9 5 0 2.1 2.3 Savings Investment Total debUGDP 14.7 57.6 32.0 33.2 Total debt service/exports 44.7 60.1 47.4 46.7 Present value of debtGDP .. .. 29.5 Present value of debUexports .. .. 332. Indebtedness 1975-85 1986-96 1995 1996 1997-05 (average annual growth) Argentina GDP 0.6 2.9 -4.6 4.4 5 0 GNP per capita -1.8 2.0 -6.4 2.8 39 Upper-middle-income group Exports of goods and services 5.1 7.6 26.4 7.4 8.0 STRUCTURE of the ECONOMY 1975 1985 1995 1996 (% of GDP) Growth rates of output and Investment I%) Agriculture 6.6 7.6 7.4 7.1 40 Industry 50.1 39.3 36.0 36.2 30 Manufacturing 38.2 29.7 ..0 Services 43.3 53.1 56.6 56.7 0 .10 91 92 93 94 9 Private consumption 58.1 .. 72.3 73.3 -20 General government consumption 12.6 .. 9.4 8.5 Imports of goods and services 6.0 6.3 8.5 9.3 -GDI GDP 1975-85 1986-96 1995 1996 (average annual growth) Growth rates of exports and Imports (%) Agriculture 1.6 1.5 2.3 0.3 80 Industry -1.5 2.7 -8.5 4.9 Manufacturing -1.6 0.9 Services 2.2 3.3 -3.0 4.6 40 20 Private consumption .. .. -8.6 5.7 General govemment consumption .. .. -6.6 -5.4 o < >o l ' 9 9 Gross domesticinvestment -3.5 5.7 -11.9 5.4 -20 Imports of goods and services 2.4 14.5 -14.0 10.0 Gross national product -0.3 3.4 -5.1 4.0 Exports - Iports Note: 1996 data are preliminary estimates. Figures in italics are for years other than those specified. The diamonds show four key indicators in the country (in bold) compared with its income-group average. If data are missing, the diamond will be incomplete.  Argentina PRICES and GOVERNMENT FINANCE 1975 1985 1995 1996 Domestic prices Inflation (#) (% change) Asco Consumer prices 182.6 672.3 3.4 0.1 . Implicit GDP deflator 198.2 618.2 4.5 2.5 2,000 Government finance 1,0 (% of GDP) o _ Current revenue .. .. 16.7 16.5 91 92 93 94 95 96 Current budget balance .. .. -0.2 -1.1 GDPdef. ---CPI Overall surplus/deficit .. .. -1.1 -2.4 TRADE 1975 1985 1995 1996 (millions US$) Export and Import levels (mill. USS) Total exports (fob) 2,961 8,396 20,964 23,774 25o000 Food .. .. 1,969 2,203 Meat 1,582 1,955 20.000 Manufactures . .. 10,836 12,004 15.0oo Total imports (cit) 3,947 3,814 20,120 23,733 1 n1 Food Fuel and energy 0 84 S. Capital goods 4,746 5,647 S Export price index (1987=100) .. .. 118 124 go 91 92 93 94 95 96 Import price index (1987=100) r 115 120 Terms of trade (1987=100) .. .. 102 103 nExporta aImports BALANCE of PAYMENTS 1975 1985 1995 1996 (millions USS) Current account balance to GDP ratio (%) Exports of goods and services 3,498 10,039 23,889 27,076 2 Imports of goods and services 4,324 5,285 23,826 27,900 T Resource balance -826 4,754 63 -824 Net income -466 -5,706 -2,941 -3,523 | o Netcurrenttransfers 6 0 432 334 90 91 92 93 94 9 96 Cu,- nt account balance, I2 before official capital transfers -1,286 -952 -2,446 -4,013 Financing items (net) 208 2,200 2,515 231 Changes in net reserves 1,078 -1,248 -89 3,782 -4 Memo: Reserves including gold (mill. US$) 848 4,703 15,992 19,774 C ..nversion rate (local/US$) 3.7E-10 6.OE-05 1.0 1.0 EXTERNAL DEBT and RESOURCE FLOWS 1975 1985 1995 1996 (millions US$) Compostion of total debt, 1995 (mill. USS) Total debt outstanding and disbursed 7,723 50,946 89,719 99,701 IBRD 341 700 4,913 5,372 G A IDA 0 0 0 0 10170 4913 C 6131 Total debt service 1,603 6,209 9,732 14,529 D IBRD 43 114 565 608 4473 IDA 0 0 0 0 E Composition of net resource flows 11709 Official grants 0 6 36 .. Official creditors 59 217 1,411 Private creditors -111 2,350 5,674 .. Foreign direct investment 0 919 1,319 F Portfolio equity 0 0 211 | 52323 World Bank program Commitments 0 0 2,272 946 A - IBRD E - Bilateral Disbursements 19 144 941 1,077 B - IDA D - Other multilateral F - Private Principal repayments 17 68 259 282 C - IMF G - Short-term Net flows 1 75 682 795 __1 Interest payments 26 46 306 326 Net transfers -25 30 376 469 Development Economics 8128/97  MAP SECTION  IBRD 29348 \710 60o' 56O' ;O~ i 'I B O l l V I A ! 20'- BOLIVIA~ : - --- sl ! L~~I- PARAGUAY I :: S 3: -s a, d ' O -; 9 _E B R A Z I Lc -Salto / - ) ,