The January 2000 review draft was presented to stakeholders in the Tucuruí region for comment and feedback.

The second Stakeholder Meetings for the Tucuruí study consisted of two meetings, each of two days, in two locations.

The first meeting was at Tucuruí with the participation of 35-40 community members from the Tucuruí area. Seven case study team members were in attendance, along with four of the six consultative group members - Sadi Baron of MAB, Raimundinho of CEAP, Henri Acselrad of UFRJ, Osmar Vieira of Eletronorte and WCD forum member Birgit Zinmerle of WEED, Germany.

The meeting was hosted by CEAP, a local NGO and MAB-affiliate, and afforded the communities an opportunity to digest and discuss the report (and the project) with the case study team, as well as prepare them for the exercises in the next meeting. A journalist from the local paper attended the second day.

The second 2-day meeting was at Belem with representatives from Electronorte and ANEEL (regulatory body), ALBRAS, ENGEVIX, state agencies as well as academics, primarily from social science disciplines. Community members attending from Tucuruí were joined by a number of community members from the downstream area. One journalist attended the meeting and two writers for the Belem papers stopped by for interviews. WCD commissioner Medha Patkar joined the meetings in Belem for the full two days. Marcos Freitas of ANEEL brought the strength of the consultative group to 5 (Prof Tundisi was out of the country and could not attend). The overall turnout was about 40 people, and the meetings went on until 7:30 P.M. both days.

In the first day of the meeting the report was presented and critiqued in plenary, followed by working groups on distributional issues. A meeting of the communities with the WCD team was held in the evening where concerns on Phase II of the project were aired and the potential role of the report in this regard clarified. The consultative group met that night as well in order to finalize the timetable/process for completion of the study. On the second day, working groups and plenaries were held on lessons learned and development effectiveness. The lessons were generally agreed to and a number of new lessons were added by the group to be appended, along with those from the Tucuruí meeting, in the final report. The results of the development effectiveness questionnaire are summarized below. Apart from convergence on the lack of participation by negatively affected people and the poor distributional results of the project the responses tended to be bipolar reflecting divergent views between Eletronorte/industry and the communities/academics on most of the criteria and the overall effectiveness of the project.

Although sections of the the draft version of the report and the Tucuruí project as a whole came in for heavy criticism from community representatives and academics the general mood of the meetings was positive and constructive in terms of process. Throughout the process the consultative group was instrumental in adaptively managing the agenda and formulating a follow up process with the study team and WCD.

Given that the circulation draft was still fairly rough the consultative group and the WCD agreed to a limited follow-up process to ensure acceptance of the final report.