Romania - Giurgiu - Razmiresti Irrigation Project

Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No. 3322 PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT ROMANIA GIURGIU-RAZMIRESTI IRRIGATION PROJECT (Loan 1082-RO) February 11, 1981 Operations Evaluation Department This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.  FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT ROMANIA GIURGIU-RAZMIRESTI IRRIGATION PROJECT (LOAN 1082-RO) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Preface ............................................................ i Basic Data Sheet ...................................................... ii Highlights ............................................................ iii PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT MEMORANDUM I. Summary .................................... .......1...... II. Main Issues .................................... ..2......2 A. General ................................... ..2...... 2 B. Procurement .......................................... 4 C. Technical Aspects .................................. 5 Annex Borrower Comments ................................7......7 PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT I. Introduction ....................... ............... 9 II. Project Implementation ................................ 12 III. Agricultural Impact ..................................... 21 IV. Economic Rate of Return .......................... ..... 25 V. Institutional Performance ...................... ...... 26 VI. Conclusions and Recommendations ......................... 29 Annexes 1-14 Map This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.  PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT ROMANIA GIURGIU-RAZMIRESTI IRRIGATION PROJECT (LOAN 1082-RO) PREFACE This is a performance audit of the Giurgiu-Razmiresti Irrigation Project in Romania for which Loan 1082 was approved in January 1975 in the sum of US$70 million. The final disbursement in respect of Loan 1082 was made on March 8, 1979. The audit report consists of an audit memorandum prepared by the Operations Evaluation Department and a Project Completion Report dated April 27, 1980 prepared by the Europe, Middle East and North Africa Regional Office on the basis of a country visit in September 1978. The audit memo- randum is based on a review of the Appraisal report (No. 530a-RO) dated January 15, 1975, the President-s Report (P-1556RO) of January 15, 1975, the Loan Agreement dated February 6, 1975 and the PCR; correspondence with the Borrower and internal Bank Memoranda on project issues as contained in rele- vant Bank files have also been consulted and Bank staff associated with the project have been interviewed. An OED mission visited Romania in October 1980. The mission held discussions with officials of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry the Bank for Agriculture and Food Industry (BAFI) and ROMAGRIMEX, the state procurement agency. A field trip to visit participating farms was undertaken. The information obtained during that mission was used to test the validity of the conclusions of the PCR and permitted discussion of procurement as well as technical aspects. A copy of the draft report was sent to the Borrower on November 21, 1980. Comments received from the Bank for Agriculture and Food Industry are reproduced in the Annex to the audit memorandum. The audit finds that the PCR covers adequately the project's salient features and the PPAM generally agrees with the conclusions. The valuable assistance provided by the Government of Romania, BAFI and ROMAGRIMEX and their staff met during the preparation of this report is gratefully acknowledged.  - ii - PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT BASIC DATA SHEET ROMANIA GIURGIU-RAZMIRESTI IRRIGATION PROJECT (LOAN 1082-RO) KEY PROJECT DATA Appraisal Actual or Item Expectation Current Estimate Total Project Cost (US$ million) 141.0 127.2 Underrun (%) - 10 Loan Amount (US$ million) 70.0 70.0 Disbursed )- 70.0 Cancelled )- Repaid to July 31, 1980 0.74 Outstanding to )- 68.11 Date for Completion of Physical Components 06/78 12/78 Proportion Completed by Appraisal Target Date (%) - 95 Proportion of Time Overrun (%) 8 Incremental Economic Rate of Return (%) 13.5 19 Cumulative Estimated and Actual Disbursements (US$ million) FY75 FY76 FY77 FY78 FY79 Estimated 3.0 40.0 59.0 70.0 - Actual - 1.304 52.459 63.213 70.0 Actual/Estimated (%) 0 3.3 89 90 - OTHER PROJECT DATA Original Actual or Item Plan Revisions Est. Actual First Mention in Files or Timetable - - 06/14/73 Negotiations 12/09/74 - 12/09/74 Board Approval 01/28/75 - 01/28/75 Credit Agreement Date 02/06/75 - 02/06/75 Effectiveness Date 05/05/75 05/05/75 Closing Date 12/31/78 06/30/79 03/08/79La Borrower Bank for Agriculture and Food Industry Fiscal Year of Borrower January 1 - December 31 Follow-on Project Name Rasova-Vederoasa Irrigation Loan Number 1247-RO Amount (US$ million) 60 Loan Agreement Date 04/28/76 MISSION DATA Month/ No. of No. of Man- Date of Item Year Days Persons Weeks Report Preparation from Borrower 06/73 - 1 - - Preappraisal 11/73 5 2 1.4 02/11/74 Appraisal 04/74 42 6 36.0 01/08/75 Supervision I 06/75 0 2 0.6 09/17/75 Special Mission (Proc.) 01/76 1 2 1.7 02/09/76 Supervision II 04/76 3 3 8.6 05/13/76 Supervision III 05/77 3 3 9.4 06/03/77 Supervision IV 03/78 2 3 4.7 03/31/78 Supervision V 03/79 3 2 6.0 03/29/79 Completion 09/79 2 2 4.3 01/17/80 61 72.7 COUNTRY EXCHANGE RATES Name of Currency Lei Year: Appraisal Year Average Exchange Rate: US$1 = Lei 20 Intervening Years Average US$1 = Lei 19 Completion Year Average US$1 = Lei 18 /a Final disbursement date.  - iii - PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT ROMANIA GIURGIU-RAZMIRESTI IRRIGATION PROJECT (LOAN 1082-RO) HIGHLIGHTS The project was the first Bank operation in the agricultural sector of Romania. The project provided irrigation to about 100,000 ha of fertile lands along the left bank of the Danube, 60 km to the southwest of Bucharest. Supplementary irrigation is required for increasing yields of cereals, sugar beets and other crops. Project implementation was highly successful and the Borrower accom- plished construction at substantial cost savings and with a marginal time overrun. Agricultural output is increasing at a much faster rate than antici- pated at apppraisal. Consequently the economic rate of return has been revised upwards to 19% compared with the appraisal estimate of 13.5%. Points of special interest are: - full government commitment decisive factor for timely comple- tion of project (PPAM paras. 10-13, PCR paras. 2.3 and 2.8- 2.11); - cost underrun due to rigid government controlled prices and cost equalization scheme (PPAM paras. 9 and 14; PCR paras. 2.4 and 2.5); - broad national industrial base combined with controlled prices rendered Romanian suppliers highly competitive (PPAM paras. 9, 14 and 20-22; PCR paras. 2.18-2.21); and - procurement consultants proved to be an inadequate substitute for more productive Bank sponsored procurement training (PPAM paras. 15. 16 and 19; PCR paras. 2.19, 5.5 and 5.7).  PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT MEMORANDUM ROMANIA GIURGIU-RAZMIRESTI IRRIGATION PROJECT (LOAN 1082-RO) I. SUMMARY 1. The Giurgiu-Razmiresti Irrigation Project was part of the Romanian Government s program to expand irrigation on the fertile plains and adjacent areas of the Danube's left bank. Lack of adequate rainfall was identified as the major constraint to increasing and diversifying agricultural production destined for local consumption as well as exports. 2. In 1973, the year preceding appraisal, agriculture accounted for about 16% of the gross domestic product, contributed 30% of total foreign exchange earnings and provided employment for 42% of the labor force. The agricultural sector is also a primary source of raw materials to the indus- trial sector. Agricultural development, it was found, was then constrained by low capital investment, instability in output and underemployment. 3. The project provided US$70 million to partly finance irrigation on about 100,000 ha of fertile lands in the Giurgiu-Razmiresti area located about 60 km. southwest of Bucharest. About 80% of the project area would be irrigated by sprinklers and the remainder by gravity furrows. Project works included the construction of a floating pumping station on a side channel of the Danube River, a main pumping station and two repumping stations, 240 km. of open concrete-lined canals; two 170-km of buried distribution pipelines; 65 pressure-pumping stations for sprinkler irrigation; 13 pressure-pumping stations for furrow irrigation; 12 lift pumping stations for drainage; 362 km of drains; and a power transmission network. The project also provided operation and maintenance equipment and supplemental agricultural machinery. Provisions were made for consultants to assist in procurement, bid evaluation and training of Romanian technicians. It was assumed that project construc- tion would be completed in 1978. 4. Total project cost including physical and price contingencies as well as interest during construction were estimated at US$141 million with a foreign exchange component of about US$43 million. The Bank loan of US$70 million would cover US$40.5 million of the project's estimated foreign ex- change cost, US$19.5 million of local cost and US$10 million of interest during construction. Pumps costing US$2.5 million had already been purchased from the USSR at the time of appraisal and were, therefore, not financed from the Bank loan. 5. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry through its subordi- nate and sister government agencies was responsible for detailed planning, supervision, construction, operation and coordination of project works. The Bank for Agriculture and Food Industry (BAFI) was responsible for funding investments and operating costs of the cooperative and state owned farms. - 2 - 6. At full development in 1985, incremental annual production of principal crops was estimated to amount to 147,000 tons cereals, 147,000 tons sugar beets, 70,000 tons vegetables, 25,000 tons fruit, 29,000 tons oil seeds and 1.2 million tons fodders. The gross value of production was expected to increase by about US$57.2 million and foreign exchange earnings (savings) would be about US$43.9 million equivalent. The project's economic rate of return was calculated at 13.5%. 7. Construction work started in August 1974, about nine months prior to loan effectiveness and progressed except for land levelling and erosion control works, in accordance with the appraised construction schedule. Water was made available to the full project area in May 1979 as originally planned and practically with only an insignificant time overrun (8%). The tight con- struction schedule was kept despite several changes of the original project design. In general, quality of project construction was good and minor deficiencies were timely corrected and are now operating satisfactorily. 8. Agricultural production has so far surpassed appraisal projections and at full development, expected in 1982, is likely to exceed forecasts sub- stantially. Prices controlled by Government have little impact on production patterns. Incomes of members of agricultural cooperatives have increased. In addition, about 3,600 jobs for farm workers have been created. 9. Due to the Government's strict control of prices, construction costs remained at the projected levels. Most contracts tendered under international bidding procedures went to Romanian suppliers - without recourse to the 15% margin allowed for domestically produced goods. As a result, total project cost - excluding the salvage value of construction equipment - reached only US$127.2 a sizeable cost underrun. The project's economic rate of return has been recalculated at 19%, up from 13.5% estimated at appraisal. II. MAIN ISSUES A. General 10. The most outstanding features of the project are the cost underrun and the completion of the major construction works within the projected time. The audit fully endorses the PCR's comments that the Borrower's planning and control of the undertaking is praiseworthy and no small achievement (PCR para. 6.2). It is also to the credit of the Bank's appraisal that construction time and costs projected proved to be most accurate. 11. Since similar accomplishments in other Bank assisted large scale irrigation projects are not too frequent, the audit mission paid special attention to analyzing project performance to see if lessons from this experi- ence could be drawn and would be replicable. - 3 - 12. Project preparation did not differ from that of similar undertakings. Specialized Government agencies had prepared a feasibility study over several years and this study supplemented by additional supporting surveys constituted the basis for the appraisal. Detailed engineering studies were initiated shortly before and after the loan became effective. In this respect the Giurgiu-Razmiresti project did not have any advantages vis a vis other projects. 13. Time savings and/or avoidance of time losses were due to several factors. First, it was agreed by the Bank that domestic contractors, the Construction Trusts would carry out the main construction works. The capaci- ties and capabilities of these trusts were well known to the Government and their performance during project implementation amply demonstrated their efficiency. Second, the centrally planned construction activities, based on more than 20 years experience succeeded in efficient project coordination - without the benefit of a coordinating committee. Third, the existence and availability of the Construction Trusts avoided any time losses due to extended "mobilization periods", a problem for private firms entering this line of business in a foreign country for the first time or without adequate previous experience in this line of construction activity. Fourth, the Borrower demonstrated his full commitment to the project. Minor delays during the first year due to unfamiliarity with ICB procedures (PCR para. 2.22) were offset by assigning additional construction forces and funds to the project to assure its timely completion. It was the Government s determi- nation to complete the project on time that proved to be the most decisive factor. A commitment which is frequently not too pronounced in other Bank assisted irrigation projects. 14. Keeping project costs in line with appraisal estimates was mainly caused by two factors. First, a strictly controlled pricing system that covers all investment costs, input prices, salaries, wages, consumer prices, etc. Expressing it in a simplified way, the system is based on a kind of national price stabilization fund which absorbs and compensates for inflated costs of required imports. The cost of this exercise is recovered through skimming off increased revenues from exports, i.e., any higher prices ob- tained in the world markets are syphoned off and Romanian exporters receive the same price for their product over several years. (Price adjustments are made only after several years, but a 1% annual allowance for inflation is tolerated). Second, Romania has a comparatively well advanced industry which was successful in bidding for project contracts, thus greatly reducing import requirements and consequently eliminating imported inflation to a large extent. The combination of absolute price controls and a relatively high level of industrialization makes replicability of the Romanian experience in other free market countries doubtful but feasible in centrally planned countries with comparable level of industrialization. -4- B. Procurement 15. The Bank insisted and the Romanian Government reluctantly agreed during negotiations to employ a consulting firm to assist in the preparation of tender documents and other procurement activities (PCR, para. 2.19). The Bank upon request by the Borrower prepared a shortlist of consulting firms. The firm chosen proved, however, to have had little if any experiencel with Bank procurement procedures and restricted itself mainly to the role of a reviewer of documents (PCR, para. 2.19). 16. The Borrower had objected to the idea of employing consultants for procurement from the onset and even now strongly resents the Bank making the consultant contract a condition of the loan. As the Romanians see it, a total of US$159,000 had to be spent on services which were actually not needed - they themselves tried their hand on preparing the necessary documents; the consultants only commented, and in one instance even wrongly when they agreed to limit bidding to two firms per country. 17. Staff explained that the project was the Bank's first in the agri- cultural sector and that in 1975 Bank procurement procedures and tendering under international competitive bidding (ICB) was still a new experience for Romania. It was also thought that ICB would be to the benefit of the Bor- rower because it was expected to lead to increased imports of "lower priced" investment goods and/or new technology. 18. The appraisal report as well as the Loan documents stipulated ICB procedures to follow the Bank's guidelines on procurement, however, the consultants' terms of reference drafted by the Bank were too general. There was no reference that ICB specification and tender documents had to conform with the Bank's procurement guidelines (Appraisal Report Annex 9, para. 9 (a)).2/ It was a special supervision mission dispatched to Romania in February 1976 that initiated measures to assure better performance by the consultants. 19. Procurement and correct ICB procedures have been of great concern to the Bank!/. However, a procurement seminar for the benefit of Romanian staff associated with industries projects was undertaken only in 1980. In the audit mission-s view such a seminar or inviting some Romanian staff to Washington for training in ICB modalities would have been less costly to the 1/ Central Projects Staff believe the consulting firm had experience, but in spite of that restricted itself mainly to the role of reviewer of documents. 2/ The Region states that the reference in the consultant's contract that documents would be "in accordance with the requirements" of the Bank was sufficient to express the intent. 3/ See also PPAR on Romania Flood Recovery, Loan 1170 under preparation. - 5 - Borrower and more effective than employing consultants as commentators. Preparation by the Bank and discussion of model tender documents and specifi- cations with the Borrower would also have been advisable in this project where specifications for earth moving, construction equipment, pumps and irrigation equipment did not pose serious problems. 20. The Bank's concern with procurement matters in the case of this and other Romanian agricultural projects raises also other questions. Numerous staff committees, working parties, and a sizeable output of papers on Romanian procurement problems have led to disproportionally high costs of project supervision. The Bank's concern for correct procedures being followed appears to have been heightened by the large share of ICB contracts won by Romanian suppliers. In the case of the Giurgiu-Razmiresti project, US$56.1 million worth of contracts out of US$58.0 million following ICB procedures were awarded to domestic suppliers. Only in one instance was the Romanian bid higher (2.09%) than the lowest but still well within the 15% preferential margin allowed for domestic manufacturers. 21. The success of domestic bidders however should not come as a sur- prise. Countries with a relatively broad industrial base - and with low wage structures are bound to win substantial contracts.-V Evidence of Romania's industrial competitiveness is a so apparent in contracts won in Bank financed projects in other countries2/ 22. The broad industrial base in Romania is, however, only one aspect contributing to successful domestic competition. The centrally planned economy with strictly regimented and controlled prices is another factor rendering Romanian goods more competitive. These two aspects may require more consideration in future projects when the scope for ICB is to be considered. C. Technical Aspects 23. The appraisal assumed considerable yield increases for all crops as a consequence of introducing irrigation. To assure these high yields it was correctly thought that fertilizer application had to be brought in line with the planted crops- nutrient consumption. Prior to the project supplies of fertilizers to participating farms were not always sufficient. In times of favorable world markets and to earn much needed foreign exchange Romania tended to export some of the fertilizer which would have been required domes- tically. There was also a difference in allocating fertilizer quantities to state farms and cooperative farms, the latter usually receiving less. 1/ Similar experience has been observed in India and Mexico. 2/ A larger share of contracts could be won by Romania if their interna- tional market promotion were improved. - 6 - 24. The adequate and equal supply of fertilizer to all farms in the project area became a matter of concern to the Bank which requested, and the Borrower agreed to sign, a side letter expressing his intent to supply minimum fertilizer quantities to each crop and in sufficient quantities without dis- crimination against cooperative farms. The fertilizer dosages listed in the side letter were based on the quantities specified in the appraisal report. 25. Fertilizer requirements, mainly nitrogen and phosphorus, are, however, incorrectly stated in the appraisal report (AR). For nitrogen supplies the AR lists the fertilizer ammonium nitrate and for phosphorus application superphosphate. In both cases no indication is given of the percentage of available nutrients of these fertilizers, the sole measure for determining the adequacy of the recommended fertilizer applications. Ammonium nitrate for instance is available with a range between 22 to 38% of available nitrogen and the superphosphate range is from 18 to 36% P205' 26. The Bank-s request and the Borrower's acceptance of the fertilizer quantities to be applied were therefore based upon faulty assumptions and th dosages recommended completely insufficient for the projected high yields.1 In the audit-s view fertilizer dosages in Bank technical reports should be specified in available nutrients and not in commercial terms. 27. The projected production increases of 147,000 tons grains, mainly maize, are substantial. The AR correctly considered the need for adequate storage to accommodate this large quantity. The availability of large scale storage complexes near Bucharest which could cope with the incremental produc- tion was indicated. However, no consideration was given to existing and/or needed on-farm drying and storage facilities. On most farms existing facili- ties are obsolete and insufficient to cope with maize harvested with moisture contents in excess of 14%. It is only now that efforts through another Bank financed project have been made to improve on-farm storage facilities.2/ 28. Losses of maize as well as of sugar beet occur due to extended harvesting periods. Harvesting machinery for both crops is in short supply. Hand labor is commonly used but this leads to production losses when the harvest has not been completed at the onset of winter in November. Inade- quate consideration was given by the Bank to assist in the provision of harvesting machinery.2/ 1/ The recommendation for maize of 240 kg/ha ammonium nitrate contains - if fertilizer with 34.5% N is applied - only 83 kg available nutrients. A maize yield of 8 tons/ha, however, extracts about 192 kg N. In other words the Bank-requested fertilizer dosage would permit a sustained yield of about 3.5 t/ha only. During project implementation fertilizer application rates were above the side letter specifications and in line with the high yields otained. 2/ The Borrower indicates (Annex, page 7) that the five-year plan 1981-85 provides for further mechanization to shorten the harvesting period and for farm storage facilities. - 7 - BORROWER' S COMMENTS Annex page 1 Y ORLD BANK4 4009,69 Distribution sjk 11622C BANAG R)QYWWD BANA(- R Mr. S. Kapur 6ANK FOR AGRICULTURE AND FOOD INDUSTRY WORLD BANK SHIR KAPUR - DIRECTOR - OPERATION DEPARTMENT REF: PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT FOR GIURGIU-RAZMIRESTI IRRIGATICN PROJECT I HAVE THE PLEASURE TO INFORM YOU THAT THE BANK FOR AGRICULTURE AND FOOD INDUSTRY (BAFI) HAS AGREED ON THE IBRD' S MISSIONS CONCLUSIONS OF THE PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT OF THE GIURGIU-RAZMIRESTI IRRIGATION PROJECT. AS FAR AS THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PRODUCTION AND OPERATION COST OF THE PROJECT IS CONCERNED I WOULD LIKE TO INFORM YOU THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NORMS OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD INDUSTRY (MAFI) THERE ARE AGENCIES N EACH JUDETZ WITHIN THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD I NDUSTRY WHO KEEP THIS KIND OF RECORDS AND WHO ARE SPECIALIZED IN IRRIGATION FIELD. APORT FROM THIS THE FARMS FROM THE PROJECT AREA SEND ANUALLY TO BAFI BRANCHES THE B4LLANCE SHEET WHICH INCLUDES THE PRODUCTION, COSTS AND FINANCIAL DATA. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXISTENT DATA IN MAFI 'S AGENCIES AND IN BAFI'S BRANCH THE LOAN OFICERS FROM THE BANK FOLLOW DURING THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT THE ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY INCLUDING THE FINANCIAL SITUATION OF AGRICULTURAL UNITS AND THE REPAYMENT OF GRANTED LOkNS. -8- Annex page 2 .TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT THE PROJECT AREA IS LOCATED IN TWO DISTRICTS (ILFOV AND TELEORMAN) , BAFI WILL KEEP IN ITS ACCOUNTS THE PRODUCTIONS, COSTS AND INCOMES OF THE PROJECT AND DATA IS AVAILABLE IN THE FOREIGN RELATION DEPARTMENT FROM BAFI. IN RELATION WITH MR. KORDIC'S COMMENTS WE WOULD LIKE TO INFORM YOU THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE FIV E YEAR PLAN 1981- 85 NECESSARY FERTILISERS WILL BE PROVIDED AND ALSO INVESTMENTS WILL BE MADE: A) FOR INCREASING THE LEVEL OF MECHANIZATION AND SHORTE R HARVESTING PERIOD, B) FOR TH E CONSTRUCTI ON OF STORAGES TO THE FARMS TO KEEP THE PRODUCTION IN GOOD CONDITION. WE APPRECIATE THE GOOD COOPERATI ON WITH THE INTERNATIONAL BANK FOR RECONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT, THE PERSONNEL OF THE MINISTRY FOR AGRICULTURE AND FOOD INDUSTRY AND THE BANK FOR AGRICULTURE AND FOOD INDUSTRY DURING APRAISAL AND PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION WHICH CIXRXIBMnEXX CONTRIBUTED SUCCESSFULLY TO THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT. MAY I TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO THANK TO MR. ALTAF HUSSAIN WHO LED THE PROJECT EVALUATION AND ALSO TO THE IBRD'S STAFF INVOLVED IN THE APRAISAL AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT FOR THE HELPFUL ASSISTANCE. REGARDS, I RUSINARU PRESIDENT 116228 BANAG ROO AORLDBANK44009o9 11622C BANAG R -9- PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT GIURGIU-RAZMIRESTI IRRIGATION PROJECT ROMANIA I. Introduction 1.1 Project Background. The Socialist Republic of Romania joined the World Bank on December 15, 1972. In March/April 1973 the first Economic Mission visited Romania and produced a report entitled "The Economy of Romania" (No. 181b-RO, dated November 21, 1973), laying the cornerstone for future lending operations. The Giurgiu-Razmiresti Irrigation was proposed to the Economic Mission for Bank financing. In June 1973 discussions were held in Romania on the selection of agricultural projects, and Government again proposed the Giurgiu-Razmiresti Irrigation Project. A summary report entitled "Technical Economic Study of Giurgiu-Razmiresti Irrigation Project" was submitted to the Bank in October 1973. The summary report was rather brief and lacked economic and technical data for project analysis. An Aide Memoire was sent to the Government indicating the major concerns together with an outline for a revised report. A pre-appraisal mission composed of Bank staff, FAO/CP and a consultant visited Romania in December 1973 to further discuss the Aide Memoire, and received assurances that the revised report would include all the necessary information and technical data to facilitate early appraisal. The pre-appraisal mission found that the data needed to appraise the project was actually available in 21 volumes of technical reports that had been prepared by the Institute for Land Reclamation Studies and Design (ISPIF) in the Romanian language. Although the revised summary report of the technical and economic study submitted to the Bank was not substantially different from the earlier report, the mission recommended that the project be appraised in the Spring of 1974; the appraisal mission was actually fielded in April/May 1974. The project was substantially completed in May 1979. 1.2 The Agriculture Sector - Resource Base. Romania has an area of 237,500 sq. km covering three distinct agroclimatic zones which influence the country's pattern of agricultural and livestock development. The Plains Zone, which stretches from the west to the east along the Danube River, and also includes the southern parts bordering with Bulgaria and southeastern parts bordering the Black Sea, form the grain belt of Romania. This zone (52% of arable land and 18% of pasture and meadow land) is endowed with fertile soils and contains water resources that have either been developed or can be economi- cally developed for irrigation. The Giurgiu-Razmiresti project area is located in this zone. The Foothills Zone, situated mainly to the north of the Plains Zone is less productive and has less intensive agricultural activity. It contains about 28% of arable land and 32% of the pasture and meadow land, most of which is held in small and fragmented farm holdings in the individual sector. The Mountain and Tableland Zone includes districts in the central and northern parts of the country*and accounts for about 20% of arable land and 50% of pasture and meadow land. - 10 - 1.3 Sector Organization. Agricultural sector in Romania is organized into social (State farms, and Agricultural Production Cooperatives) and individual units. Cooperatives hold 60% of agricultural land, while State farms own 30%, and individual holdings 10%. The existing land tenure has evolved since the 1950s and 1960s when government took major steps to collec- tivize small individual holdings. Currently about 4,400 cooperatives and about 400 State farms carry out farming operations with assistance of about 700 Stations for Agricultural Machinery (SMA). The Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry (see Chart 1) through its 39 general Directorates of Agri- culture and other specialized agencies is responsible for planning and imple- mentation of agricultural development projects. The financial intermediary for agriculture is the State owned Bank for Agriculture and Food Industry (BAFI) which is the Borrower for this project. 1.4 Role in the Economy. Agriculture continues to play an important role in the Romanian economy providing both convertible foreign exchange earnings and industrial raw materials. In 1979, agriculture accounted for 15% of national income, 20% of export earnings, and 33% of th'e labor force (compared with 74% in 1950). About 14.9 million hectares (63%) are used for agriculture, of which 65% are arable, 15% under vineyards and orchards, and the remaining 20% under pasture. Crop production accounts for about 56% of total, and livestock 44%. The major problems of Romanian agriculture are the instability of its output (due to fluctuations in rainfall, lack of drainage infrastructure and soil erosion), and low productivity. 1.5 Project Identification and Preparation. As already mentioned, this project was proposed to the Bank soon after Romania became a member of the Bank. Since Government was attaching a high priority to this project, and it had been prepared in great detail, the Bank agreed to consider it. The Bank did not participate directly in its preparation other than sending a pre- appraisal mission. 1.6 Project Objectives. Romania has a total of about 5.0 million hectares that can be economically irrigated, but in 1974 only about 1.25 million ha were equipped with irrigation facilities. In order to address the two major problems of instability of agricultural production and low produc- tivity, Government decided to embark on a large irrigation program to bring about 3.7 million ha under irrigation by 1985. Giurgiu-Razmiresti Irrigation Project was the first large project in an attempt to achieve this objective. It was also foreseen that this project would reduce under-employment in the cooperative sector, create additional employment on the State farms, and by contributing to the national economy, increase national wage rates. 1.7 Project Description. As agreed between the Borrower and the Bank, the project was to provide irrigation and drainage facilities for an area of about 100,900 hectares in the districts of 11fov and Teleorman. Project components included: (a) construction of two main pumping stations, and two repumping stations; - 11 - (b) construction of about 240 kma of lined main, secondary and tertiary canals; (c) installation of about 2,170 km of buried distribution pipelines; (d) installation of 65 pressure pumping stations to serve 65 sectors under sprinkler irrigation, each sector averaging about 1,200 ha; (e) installation of 13 pressure pumping stations to serve 13 sectors under furrow irrigation averaging -about 1,620 ha each; (f) necessary on-farm equipment for sprinkler and furrow irrigation; (g) construction of drainage facilities for about 33,600 ha including the construction of about 75 km of main drains and about 287 km of collector drains and the installation of 12 pumping stations; (h) installation of power network (transmission lines and transformers) to serve the pumping stations to be installed under the project; Ci) construction of erosion control works on 6,000 ha; (j) land leveling of about 21,000 ha; (k) supply of operation and maintenance equipment and farm machinery; and (1) training of Romanian technical personnel and other staff in the operation and maintenance facilities provided under the project. - 12 - II. Project Implementation 2.1 Pre-Negotiations and Negotiations. Being the first Bank-assisted agricultural project in Romania, pre-negotiations were held in Bucharest in October 1974; major issues raised by the Borrower at that time were: (a) interest during construction should be included in the Bank loan, and local cost financing amounting to US$20 million should be accepted; (b) the term of the Bank loan be increased from 20 to 25 years; and (c) while agreeing in principle to include consultants, the Borrower requested reducing consultant services from 120 to 60 manmonths; On the other side, the Bank insisted that plots given to members of coopera- tives for cultivation for personal benefit should be included in the area to be irrigated aAd the irrigation system should be redesigned, if necessary. During negotiations the Borrower reiterated the issues raised during pre- negotiations and further requested to reduce ICB procurement to US$50 million from US$54.7 million specified by the appraisal mission. However, it was agreed that ICB procurement would be limited to US$54 million and goods valued at US$0.7 million would be reserved for local procurement. Other agreements reached were: (a) to increase the loan amount to US$70 million (inclusive of US$10.0 million interest during construction, and US$19.5 million local cost financing); to extend the loan amortization period from 20 to 25 years, including five years grace; to limit consultants services to 60 manmonths primarily to assist in procurement; and to include the plots given to members of cooperatives in the project area. The Bank's rationale for making pro- visions in the loan for local cost financing and for interest during con- struction was merely to ease the foreign exchange burden of Romania during project implementation. The term of repayment (25 years) of Bank loan was generous compared to subsequent loans to Romania, but it was based on the repayment terms of BAFI loans to cooperatives for on-farm development. 2.2 Loan Effectiveness. The condition laid down for loan effectiveness was the approval of the agreed main technical and economic indicators by the Council of Ministers of the Socialist Republic of Romania. The decision of the Council of Ministers, approving these indicators did not specifically include in the project area about 3,200 ha of plots given to members of cooperatives, and the project cost estimate approved was substantially below the appraisal estimate. However, these two discrepencies were later clarified by the Government and the Bank was assured that the plots cultivated by the members of cooperatives would be included in the project area and that the variation in the project cost estimate was due to difference in the exchange rate used by the Romanians and had also excluded the investment cost of on-farm development and contingencies. Based on these clarifications, the Bank declared the project effective on May 5, 1975, just two days prior to the date indicated for effectiveness. - 13 - 2.3 Project Start-Up. Project construction had actually commenced in August 1974, about nine months prior to loan effectiveness, when construction camps and other preliminary works had been started. Because of the high priority that Government assigned to this project, construction of several project components was also initiated prior to loan effectivensss, although the Construction Trust entrusted with construction responsibility did not have all of the equipment required for the project. 2.4 Project Cost and Financing. The initial cost estimate, prepared by ISPIF on the basis of State-controlled prices and wages and standardized unit prices, was about US$103.0 million equivalent. This estimate was revised by the appraisal mission to US$141.0 million to reflect: (i) the impact of external prices on anticipated purchase of foreign equipment and materials required for the project; (ii) adequate allowances for administrative, techni- cal and consulting services; (iii) increased allowance for physical contingen- cies and anticipated price increases; and (iv) additional items such as farm machinery and construction equipment. Since the Romanian construction trusts were short of construction equipment, the appraisal mission included equipment costing about US$14.7 million (US$17.7 million including contingencies) in the project cost as a separate item. The foreign exchange component of the total cost was estimated at US$42.9 million. Since final designs had been prepared, physical contingencies at 7.5% were considered appropriate, although the Romanians had allowed only 4.5%. For price increases, local costs were increased by compounding at 1% per year and foreign costs were increased at 11% in 1975 and 7.5% per year thereafter. The foreign cost to be covered by the Bank loan was US$40.5 million, as US$2.4 million being the cost of main pumps to be supplied by USSR was excluded from Bank financing. In addition, the Bank loan included US$19.5 million for local cost financing and US$10.0 million for interest during construction on the Bank loan. The Government of Romania agreed to finance the balance of the total project cost. 2.5 The total actual expenditure on this project is estimated at US$127.2 million. The construction trusts involved in project implementation did not keep separate records pertaining to project implementation, and the Completion Mission had to prepare the final project cost estimate based on the data collected from various sources; this estimate is presented in Annex 1, Table 1. After excluding the salvage value of construction equipment, estima- ted at US$5.4 million, the final project cost would be about US$121.8 million. The appraisal cost estimate, with physical and price contingencies distributed to each item, is at Annex 1, Table 2. Excluding the cost of construction equipment, the total project cost at appraisal amounted to US$123.3 million. Thus Giurgiu-Razmiresti Irrigation Project was completed at a saving in cost of about US$1.5 million. The actual per hectare cost of this project works out to about US$1,260; this cost is about US$1,210 for the area served by sprinkler irrigation, and US$1,430 for furrow irrigation (Annex 1, Table 3). The major difference between the two being on account of land levelling costs. These unit costs are significantly lower than unit costs elsewhere. The main reason for this difference is the regulated prices and wages in Romania, and a force account type of construction by government-owned construction trusts. An analysis of unit costs of work obtained from DIFCA is at Annex 1, Table 4. These costs as adjusted by the Completion mission are given in Annex 1, Table 5. - 14 - The mission's final estimate of US$127.2 million is based on these adjusted unit rates. The total adjustment made to the Romanian final estimate amounts to Lei 384 million (US$19.4 million). 2.6 There were several design changes during construction; the most important being the elimination of a repumping station (SRP-3). This change resulted in a net decrease in project cost, although the canal cost in the vicinity of the repumping station increased somewhat. Unforeseen conditions met during the excavation of Cama Canal increased the excavation costs. This increase was mostly offset by a decrease in the cost of pressure pumping stations where indoor type pumps and pumphouses in the original design were replaced by outdoor type pumps. Annex 1, Table 6 compares the appraisal estimate with the actual expenditure and explains the reasons for major differences between the two estimates. 2.7 Of the final total project expenditure of US$127.2 million, the foreign exchange component is estimated at US$35.0 million or 28%. This includes the cost of the pumps purchased from USSR (estimated at about US$2.5 million). Interest and commitment charges actually financed under the loan amounted to US$11.0 million. Thus, it is estimated that the local costs actually financed under the project amounted to US$26.5 million equivalent against the original provision of US$19.5 million. 2.8 Physical Work Schedule. Work on project construction was initiated in August 1974 by the Regional construction Trust, and Enterprises for Land Reclamation Works (TCIF) with technical guidance and direction from DIFCA and ISPIF. Except for land levelling and erosion control works, the work progressed very closely in accordance with the construction schedule proposed at the time of appraisal (Chart 2). The main features of the project were completed by May 1978 to such an extent that water was delivered that year to approximately 76,000 ha of project land. The remaining features were finished, except for some minor completion work, by May 1979 and water was made available to the total project area of 100,900 ha during the 1979 cropping season. The rate at which the Construction Trust proceeded with the construction of this large project and its adherence to the originally proposed work schedule is commendable. 2.9 Operation of the project facilities during 1978 and 1979, and delivery of water through various canals, pumping stations and pipelines enabled the full scale testing of these facilities. As a result some adjust- ments were required at the pumping plants, leaking pipes and hydrants were replaced, and some sections of concrete slab lining in various canals needed repairing or replacement. Although a provision has been made in the project costs for further testing and additional repairs or replacements of canal lining and other completed factilties, during the 1980 season, it is antici- pated that such repairs or replacements will be only minor. 2.10 The Giurgiu Floating Pumping station was planned to include 26 pumping units - six main units on each of the four main floating barges and two auxiliary units on a fifth floating barge. Only the 24 main units on 4 barges have been completed and installed; in addition, pump bays and penstock - 15 - anchors for the two auxiliary pumps have been completed. It is tentatively planned to install the two auxiliary pumping units during 1980 or 1981, if the need for such units is demonstrated during the full scale trial operation period of the project; cost of these units is included in the project costs given above. Project officials expressed the opinion that, with an upstream regulatory storage being planned on the Danube, a uniform water surface elevation will be maintained at the pumping site and the pump lift will be less than 10 meters during the irrigation season. This will permit the 24 completed units to supply the total project needs. 2.11 Construction of erosion control works was intentionally delayed until observation and studies were made of the location of each project facility to determine the exact need for such work. These works are now scheduled for completion in 1980. Land leveling has been delayed by the absence of access to cropped land and some delays in reclassification of project lands, which delayed the determination of the irrigation method most suitable for such land - the sprinkler area requiring minimal leveling and furrow area requiring more earthmoving. These studies are now essentially completed and land leveling is scheduled for completion by end of 1981. 2.12 Actual annual expenditures incurred on the project so far and scheduled expenditures for 1980 and 1981 are shown in Annex 2. Actual annual expenditure, loan disbursements, and progress on irrigation service, in comparison to the appraisal estimate, are summarized in the table on next page. The scheduled expenditures provide for an estimated 175 million Lei (about US$9.7 million) for completion of project works during the last quarter of 1979, 1980 and 1981. 2.13 Quality and Performance of Project Structures. In general, the quality of construction on the project is good, and the completed facilities are operating in a satisfactory manner. Civil works were constructed to acceptable standards and installation of electrical and mechanical equipment was also completed in accordance with acceptable specifications. The larger canals were provided with a 20 zm thick concrete lining with a Rahco lining machine and the work is of high quality. The smaller canals, and some of the branch canals were lined with prefabricated concrete slabs. The slabs are lowered in place on a prepared base and the joints are mortared together. In some cases, the resulting canal section is rather uneven and settling of subgrade tends to loosen the joints and develop leaks. This type of lining although economical to install and satisfactory, will have a shorter life and a relatively higher maintenance cost than the lining placed by the machine. However had this lining been done by the Rahco machine, the cost of lining would have been higher, and its installation would have been more time consuming. The main reason for lining the smaller canals by slabs is that these canals pass through loessial soils, and in some reaches the lining will get settled as the canals are put in operation and the strata below the lining becomes wet. With slab-type lining it is much easier and economical to replace the damaged lining. PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT GIURGIU-RAZMIRESTI IRRIGATION PROJECT ROMANIA Loan 1082-RO Investment Costs, Loan Disbursements, and Physical Progress Total 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 Appraisal Estimate Total Expenditures(mil.lei)2,819.0 82.0 979.1 1,014.3 707.6 36.0 Without -Constr.Equip.(mil.lei)2,465.3 82.0 879.1 889.3 614.9 0 (mil.US$) (123.3) (4.1) (44.0) (44.5) (30.7) Final Costs Adjust.Expendit. (mil.lei) 2,706.5 169.1 446.9 1,215.9 568.7 92.1 94.6 75.6 51.0 Without Constr.Equip.(mil.lei)2,408.2 169.1 446.9 1,135.9 484.2 80.0 82.0 18.3 0 (mil.US$) (121.8) (8.5) (22.3) (56.8) (24.2) (4.4) (4.6) (1.0) - Loan Disbursements (Million US$) Appraisal Schedule (Anniuall 70.0 - 21.0 28.0 17.0 4.0 - (Cum.) . 21,G 4940 66,0 70,0 Actual Disbursements (Annual) 70.0 - - 29.4 29.9 5.8 4.9/4 (Cum.1 29,4 59,3 65,1 70t0 Progress on Irrigation Service (Ra cumulative) Appraisal Estimate (aet hal 20,115 70,582 100,800 Actual Service (,net ha)- 76.000 100,900 /1 Exchange rate: Lei 20 - US$1 until early 1978, then Lei 18 US$1 afterwards. R~ Disbursements were completed on March 8, 1979. - 17 - 2.14 All pump units installed in the project seem to be of a robust construction and operated properly during 1978 and 1979 except for the two pump units at the Ghizdaru station (SRP-1), which were procured from USSR. These pumps have rather serious leaks in the turbine covers, which are apparently caused by vibration in the drive shaft connecting the motors and the turbine pumps. The pump supplier from USSR has provided technical assistance for the adjustment and alignment correction of the pump units. Project officials expected that the problem will be resolved in a satisfactory manner prior to the 1980 working season. Future supervision missions on neighboring Bank-financed irrigation projects should ascertain the progress made in removal of these defects. 2.15 Some minor deficiencies in performance of various structures on the canals were noticed during the trial operating period, and were corrected; these facilities are now operating in a normal manner. A few of the turnout hydrants were modified with variable size valves to provide more flexibility in irrigation methods (sprinkler vs. furrow). Leaks in the pipeline network were corrected by replacement of pipe sections that were damaged or improperly installed. An estimated 2,320,000 m2 of canal lining has been installed and the remaining 240,000 m2 will be completed by early 1980. 2.16 Irrigation managers interviewed at several State and Cooperative farms expressed complete satisfaction with the performance and operation of the irrigation system. In the area served by project facilities in 1978 and 1979, irrigation water was delivered in the quantities and at the times required for optimum crop production. 2.17 Irrigation Water Supply and Efficiency. During appraisal, the net irrigation water requirement for the proposed cropping pattern was estimated to average 3,032 m3/ha, or allowing for an estimated 80% system efficiency about 3,725 m3/ha at the Danube River pumping station. During 1978, a total of 117 Mm3 of water was delivered through the Giurgiu pumping plant for testing and trial runs, and for irrigation of about 76,000 ha of project land. This amounts to an actual application of about 1,500 m3/ha. In 1979, 110 Mm3 had been delivered through the pumping plant up to the time of the mission's visit in mid September and pumping was still continuing. The irrigation season will normally run-to October 15. Because of a greater than average rainfall of about 500 mm (average about 350 mm) during the cropping season of 1979, the actual water demand was below normal. Further details on water supply, efficiency and design are presented in Annex 3. 2.18 Procurement and Procurement Problems. Although Romanian laws allow international competitive bidding for construction of irrigation works, in practice all such works are constructed by Romanian Construction Trusts. The Bank accepted that construction of project works should be undertaken by Romanian Trusts as they were quite experienced and construction through such Trusts would be economical as compared to international contractors. It was therefore agreed, during negotiations, that only permanent equipment, construc- tion equipment and materials equivalent in value to the Bank loan would be procured under the Bank's guidelines for procurement and the Bank loan would be disbursed against such procurement. - 18 - 2.19 Bank procurement procedures'and tendering under international competitive bidding (ICB) was a new experience for the Romanians. Although the Bank's guidelines for procurement had been explained during negotiations, and the Romanians had given assurances to follow these guidelines, a number of procurement problems were encountered on this project. Because of Romanians' unfamiliarity with ICB procedures they had also agreed, during negotiations, to employ a consulting firm to assist them in preparation of tender documents and other procurement actions. Contribution of the consultants to procurement actions was not up to expectations, and was limited to review of documents prepared by the Romanians. Due to ineffectiveness of the consulting service, several problems arose: first, the tender documents prepared by the Romanians and reviewed by the consultants were not in accordance with Bank guidelines; second, the Romanians decided and the consultants agreed to prequalify one or two manufacturers from a few major industrialized countries and wanted to limit ICB tendering to the firms so prequalified; and third, the Romanians issued the tender documents to "prequalified manufacturers" before these documents had been cleared by the Bank. By sending a special mission, the Bank eventually succeeded in convincing the Borrower to s-crap the concept of prequalification, to modify the documents to an acceptable standard, and to postpone bid opening dates to allow time to bidders to respond in accordance with revised documents. Total procurement under ICB procedures (estimated to cost about US$54.0 million) was arranged under 9 contract documents, and eventually 10 contracts were awarded. List of equipment actually procured through ICB is given in Annex 4, Table 1. A summary list of equipment and materials procured through ICB is at Annex 4, Table 2. 2.20 Since this was the first Bank-financed ICB procurement, pertaining to agricultural projects in Romania, a widespread interest in bidding was noticeable. Four to seven bids were received from firms domiciled in as many countries on each contract, but the lowest responsive bid in each case was from a Romanian enterprise. However, in the case of 180-hp wheel tractors and loaders, the Romanian enterprise tendering the lowest responsive bid withdrew its bid shortly after bid opening indicating that it could not supply the equipment, and this contract was awarded to a West German firm. Except for this contract (valued at US$1.9 million), the other nine contracts (valued at US$56.1 million) were awarded to the Romanian enterprises. Thus the Romanians won 97% of total procurement advertised internationally, and only 3% was won by a non-Romanian firm. At the time of appraisal, the Romanian participation had been estimated at 80%. According to the Loan Agreement, Romanian manufac- turers were also eligible for a 15% preference margin, but they won eight contracts without claiming the preference margin. In only one contract (for 10-ton tipping trucks), where a Japanese firm had tendered the lowest bid of US$1,026,000, the award was made to a Romanian firm bidding at US$1,047,500 after involving the 15% preference margin. Several supplementary orders for spare parts were also placed on the original equipment suppliers. 2.21 All equipment and materials ordered under ICB contracts were received more or less in accordance with delivery schedules established under these contracts. The equipment and machinery procured appears to be adequate and suitable for the purpose intended. The Romanian fabricated pump units are operating properly and efficiently without excessive maintenance or repair. -- 19 - The construction equipment performed well as evidenced by completion of most civil works on schedule at a reasonable cost. The farm machinery and equipment for operation and maintenance are operating satisfactorily and are adequately maintained at repair shops of SMAs. Following substantial completion of major project works, most of the construction equipment procured for the project has been transferred to the nearby Bank-financed Viisoara Irrigation Project (Loan 1509-RO) and other projects. The construction equipment, procured at about US$14.3 million, has an estimated salvage value of about US$5.4 million upon completion of the Giurgiu-Razmiresti Project. 2.22 Disbursement and Reallocation. During 1975-76, actual disbursements lagged substantially behind the original appraisal estimate. This was largely due to delays in the preparation of bid documents caused by the time taken in the selection of consultants for procurement. As soon as project procurement was contracted, disbursements accelerated; actual disbursements as compared to appraisal estimate are shown in Annex 4, Table 3, and in the table below. The loan was fully disbursed on March 8, 1979. 2.23 In March 1977 the Borrower requested Bank approval for reallocation of loan proceeds. A second request was received in July 1978. The original estimate, subsequently agreed reallocated amounts, and final disbursements are shown below by category: Original 1st 2nd Final Category Estimate Reallocation Reallocation Disbursement ---------------------US$' 000----------------------- 1. Equipment, spare parts procured under ICB 54,000 54,700 58,456 57,990 2. Equipment and materials procured under local procedures 700 850 830 829 3. Consultant services and staff training 300 300 159 159 4. Interest and other char- ges during construction 10,000 10,000 10,555 11,022 5. Unallocated 5,000 4,150 - - Total 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 2.24 There were two significant departures from the original disbursement plan: (a) the appraisal report had specified (Annex 7, Table 2) that asbestos cement pipe would be financed from the Bank loan up to a value of US$3.7 million. The contract for asbestos pipe, which was based on the full project requirement, had a total value of US$9.1 million, and while approving this award, the Bank placed a disbursement limit of US$3.7 million. Later - 20 - when savings from other contracts became apparent, and the unallocated amount of US$5.0 million became available for allocation, this restriction was removed and US$9.1 million was disbursed against this contract; (b) Category 3 included funds for training of Romanians in project-related disciplines. These funds were not utilized for training as training had been arranged by government under bilateral arrangements. Before shifting funds earmarked for training, the Bank insisted on receiving a list of Ministry of Agriculture staff who had completed training overseas in various project-related disciplines. This list was furnished to the Bank and found satisfactory. 2.25 Compliance with Loan Covenants. The Borrower fully complied with all loan covenants and with the provisions of the three side letters. Side letter 1 emphasized minimum use of fertilizers following completion of works. Actually the fertilizer amounts being used following introduction of irrigation is more than those specified in the side letter which are still considered sub-optimal. The other side letters referring to submission of Quarterly and Annual Reports and goods to be financed out of loan proceeds have been complied with satisfactorily. - 21 - III. Agricultural Impact 3.1 Crop Yields. In 1978, about 76,000 ha (75% of project area) were irrigated for the first time. By May 1979, the entire project area was equipped with irrigation facilities and during the 1979 cropping season full project area was irrigated. Actual input data, crop yields and production figures are available only for the 1978 crop season. For 1979, this data was estimated by making field visits. The yields attained so far have surpassed the appraisal projections as shown in Annex 5. The difference between yields assumed at appraisal and yields actually attained so far is largely attributed to conservative expectations of the appraisal mission as this project was the first to be appraised in the agricultural sector, and the Bank's knowledge about the performance capabilities of Romanian agriculture was rather limited at that time. The appraisal mission had assumed full development of yields in four years but the yields actually attained in the first year following irrigation are nearly equivalent to the maximum anticipated during appraisal. Farm managers are quite optimistic and foresee the yields increasing to about 10 tons per hectare for maize by 1980/81 (appraisal estimates 6.5 tons per hectare on full development). The average yields of major project crops, actually obtained from the project area irrigated in 1978, are compared with the average yields for the two districts in which the project area is located, the national average and the appraisal estimate in the table below: Appraisal Average Yield in 1978 Project Ilfov Teleorman Project Crop Estimate Area District District National -- - - tons per ha) ----------- Maize 6.5 5.8 2.9 2.9 3.2 Wheat 4.0 3.8 3.4 3.1 2.7 Soybean 2.5 2.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 Barley 4.0 4.5 4.1 3.8 3.2 In addition to irrigation, higher yields in the project area are also due to availability of better inputs including mechanization and efficient extension service which is mostly handled by well-trained agents and senior subject matter specialists. There is also clear evidence that fertilizer applications have substantially increased following introduction of irrigation. 3.2 Cropping Pattern and Intensity. The cropping pattern proposed by the appraisal mission, and the patterns actually followed during 1978 and 1979 are compared in Annex 6. It will be noted that wheat and barley, which occupied about 33% of the project area under rainfed cultivation, and which was to cover about 16% of the project area according to the cropping pattern recommended in the appraisal report, actually occupied about 30% in 1978 and 28% in 1979. This apparently indicates that the area under cereals is reducing gradually rather than abruptly. The other major differences between the two cropping patterns are: alfalfa occupying about 7% instead of about 11%: and vegetables about 3% instead of about 9% foreseen at appraisal. It will also be noted - 22 - that the cropping intensity actually achieved in 1979 was 123% as compared to 115% envisaged at appraisal. With the possibility of development of improved seeds that require shorter cropping periods, it is anticipated that the cropping intensity will actually improve further. The evolution of a cropping pattern most suited to the project area under irrigated conditions will take a few years. Cropping patterns in any area could vary marginally from year to year as these are decided collectively by the General Director of Agriculture of the concerned judet (district), the newly established agroindustrial coun- cils and the management of the concerned State and cooperative farms. It has been assumed that the cropping pattern actually followed in 1979 would prevail during the life of the project. Actual production data for 1978 and projection for 1979-2013 are presented in Annex 7. 3.3 Fertilizer Application. In Romania, there is a tendency to export fertilizer to earn foreign exchange in spite of shortages for Romanian agricul- ture. In order to ensure that following introduction of irrigation a minimum amount of fertilizers would be applied, an understanding was reached with the Borrower through a side letter. Data obtained by the completion mission indicates that the amount of fertilizers actually applied in the project area has generally exceeded those amounts that were specified in the side letter. Annex 8 gives the relevant data. 3.4 Machinery Services. Under the project, 1,490 farm tractors and 1,650 trailers were procured (Annex 4, Table 1). At the time of appraisal, it was estimated that there was one tractor for every 120 ha in the project area as against the 1974 national average of about 90 ha per tractor. After replac- ing the worn out tractors, it is estimated that now one tractor serves about 60 ha in the project area. All machinery services are now furnished by SMAs who try to serve both the State farms and cooperative farms with equal priority. A total of.5 SMAs serve the project area; each SMA is responsible for one State farm and 9 cooperative farms. Mechanization of agriculture is continuously being improved in Romania. Although the project furnished a large number of tractors, it did not provide any harvesting combines. As and when more farm machinery becomes available to SMAs productivity in the project area will further increase. 3.5 Prices. Input and output prices are controlled in Romania. Conse- quently, general price increases at the retail level in Romania over the past years average about 1% per annum. Since 1964, agricultural prices have been revised only once (in 1977). Hence, demand, supply and quality changes do not affect the market prices. In the past, input and output producer prices differ for the State and cooperative farms. State farms pay lower input prices (which partly explains higher per hectare application of tech- nical inputs) compared to the cooperative farms. However, cooperative farms are allowed somewhat higher output prices as compared to the State farms for similar quality product. Since the establishment of the agroindustrial coun- cils, which handle the procurement of all agricultural inputs collectively for the member IAS and CAP farms, the two tier input price system has been abolished. This organizational change in Romanian social sector agriculture is expected to produce a more equal allocation of fertilizers and insecticides, between the State and cooperative farms. Annex 9 lists the prevalent prices - 23 - for selected inputs, and output prices for crops produced in the project area; these are also compared with the prices assumed at appraisal. 3.6 Marketing and Markets. Marketing arrangements in the project area, as in the rest of Romania, are adequately organized. Despite a general short- age of trucks for transporting agricultural produce, delivery services in the project area are sufficient. The following four principal marketing enter- prises, specialized by type of crop, operate in the project area: (a) Central for Cereals and Industrial Crops. This Central deals with wheat, barley, maize, soybean, peas and sunflower and is responsible for collection of these crops from all State and cooperative farms, their storage, and their dis- tribution to various processing mills. In the project area, there are six permanent and three temporary collection centers for these crops; these are suitably located in relation to the project farms. Storage capacities to handle incremental production have been increased from 200,000 tons (in 1975) to 315,000 tons; during appraisal a total capacity of 350,000 tons was envisaged. This reduction is unimportant as additional capacities are planned during the Sixth Five Year Plan (1981-1985). (b) Central for Fruits and Vegetables. This Central maintains long-term contracts to supply the two canning factories in the project area. As a result of the projected increase in fruits and vegetables production, the canning factory at Giurgiu has been expanded. (c) Central for Sugar Beets. To absorb the incremental sugar beet production from the project area, the processing capacity of the Giurgiu sugar factory has been expanded from 2,000 tons per 24 hours to 4,000 tons. This expansion was not planned at the time of appraisal. (d) Central for Vineyards and Wine is responsible for purchase and processing of grapes. A large part of crop production from the project area is marketed to Ilfov and Teleorman districts. 3.7 Agricultural Employment and Income Distribution. In the project area 76% of the land is owned by cooperatives, 21% by State farms and 3% by individual producers. In the cooperative farms there are about 27,000 members, of which about 25,500 are employed on the farms. Total jobs created in the State farms number about 3,600. Despite the large number of members on the cooperative farms, there is a seasonal shortage of labor particularly during harvest. Unless the current rate of mechanization (particularly for combine harvesters) the continuing outflow of labor from the agriculture sector could affect production. Past trends indicate a reduction of the labor force in the agricultural sector: in 1950, 74% of the labor force was working in agricul- ture as compared to 33% in 1979. The structure of the labor force in the - 24 - State and cooperative farms in the project area is given in Annex 10 and the distribution of irrigated land between the two is given in Annex 11. 3.8 Capital investments and introduction of new technologies were largely concentrated on State farms in the past. In recent years, Government policy has shifted in favor of raising the productivity and income of the lagging cooperative sector. Under the Romanian system of economic management, income distribution at farm level is determined by a set of norms. Production norms for farms, measured in terms of yield per hectare, are established by experts from the Ministry of Agriculture. If target yields are achieved, workers receive remuneration equal to standard salaries. If, however, actual yields surpass the norm, small bonus payments are made, but if the yields are below the norms then a part of the salary is deducted. However minimum wages based on time worked are guaranteed by law. In the project area, production norms were adjusted upward to reflect availability of irrigation and drainage facilities, increased availability of machinery services and other inputs. In 1978, a number of State and cooperative farms exceeded the norms fixed by the Directorate of Agriculture. Preliminary estimates of yields for the 1979 crop season also indicate above norm yields. To demonstrate the project impact based on actual data, a summary income statement for a typical CAP farm (area 1,650 ha) is given below. Farm Income Farm Income With Project Without Project - -------------'000 lei-------- Gross value of output 20,966 7,939 Non-labor production costs 7,971 4,231 Total Farm Income 12,995 3,708 Deductions Project charges 1,015 - Development fund 2,989 853 Social security 1,949 556 Entertainment and emergency 260 74 Subtotal 6,213 1,483 Net Income 6,782 2,225 Incremental Net Income 4,557 - 3.9 Operation and Maintenance. Under the Directorate for Exploitation of Land Reclamation Works, the project works are operated and maintained by the regional operational unit. This unit has established four sub-units or Systems for the operation and maintenance of this project; each System is responsible for about 25,000 ha and has adequate equipment and staff for ser- vicing this area. Staff is organized into specialized teams for maintaining specific works like pumping units, canals, pipelines, etc. During the irriga- tion season, the staff operates the project facilities, and provides technical - 25 - assistance to the farm operators in irrigation scheduling. Research special- ists working with extension service visit and observe the farm operations every 3 or 4 days. They test the soil for water content, note the precipita- tion and the pan evaporation in the area and from these data determine the required rate for the irrigation, and prepare an irrigation program for the farm operators. Based on such a program for each farm, the technical staff of each System will calculate the amount of water required to be pumped during the next week, and the number of pumps required to run for the whole project. Details on the system of operation and cost estimates are described in Annex 12. IV. Economic Rates of Return 4.1 The appraisal report estimated an economic rate of return of 13.5%. This was based on an average yield of 6.5 tons per ha of maize grain (36.7% of project area). In their preparation report, the Romanians had projected an average yield of 6.8 tons per ha. For all subsequent Bank-financed irrigation projects in Romania, the average yield for maize has been assumed as 8.0 tons per ha. 4.2 The recalculated ERR is about 19%. This is based on (i) actual project costs; (ii) the cropping pattern actually followed in 1979; and (iii) crop yields as given in Annex 5, fully developed by 1981, with maize yield at 10.0 tons per ha. Annex 13 summarizes cost and benefit streams. Several factors have contributed to an ERR, which is substantially higher than that estimated at appraisal; important factors are: (i) the appraisal estimate double counted the cost of construction equipment - first by including it in the cost of works through unit rates, and secondly by including cost of equipment in the project cost. The revised cost estimate of US$121.8 million corrects this error; (ii) crop yields and their rate of development assumed at appraisal have been found to be conservative. Much higher yields are expected to develop and at a faster annual rate, and (iii) a cropping intensity of 123% has already been achieved as compared to 115% assumed at appraisal. The revised ERR calculation was based on unit values of costs and benefits in constant 1974 prices. Actual project costs were deflated by the index of international inflation for foreign components, and by domestic price index for local costs. Border prices were used for tradeable commodities using actual prices for 1978, and estimates for 1979 and thereafter based on fore- casts provided by the Bank's Commodities and Export Projections Division in constant 1974 prices. If the maize yield is assumed at a conservative figure of 8.0 tons per ha, then the revised ERR would be 16%. - 26 - V. Institutional Performance The Borrower 5.1 The Borrower (BAFI) has the prime responsibility for the development of agricultural sector in Romania. In addition to being the only source of credit for agriculture, it also acts as a fiscal agent to the Government in respect of channeling State funds for investments in agriculture, and for collection of revenues due to the State. BAFI is well organized and managed. It has a central office in Bucharest and 39 branch offices - one in each judet, and 57 sub-branches. The prime source of funds for the project was the State budget, which disbursed funds needed for the project on an annual basis to BAFI. The Bank loan directly financed the purchase of equipment and construction materials. BAFI's branches in Ilfov and Teleorman judets and its sub-branch at Giurgiu were involved in project implementation. The organiza- tion of these 3 branches and sub-branch is illustrated in Charts 3, 4 and 5. 5.2 BAFI's performance in connection with this project has been excellent. It also performed in a very satisfactory manner its role as a liaising agency between the Bank and all Government departments and other agencies. BAFI made arrangements for all supervision missions and for obtaining information from various project-related institutions. The frequent interaction between the Bank and BAFI staff gave valuable training to BAFI staff which has increased their understanding of Bank's procedures and needs. Government Departments 5.3 Government involvement in the implementation of the Giurgiu-Razmiresti Irrigation project was mainly confined to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry (MAFI), and its specialized agencies. Within MAFI, the Depart- ment of Land Reclamation and Agricultural Construction (DIFCA) was the main institution responsible for the project. All engineering and design work was carried out by the Institute for Land Reclamation Studies and Design (ISPIF) with assistance from other specialized institutes (for mapping, soil testing etc.). Performance of all these institutions was very good, and at no stage was there any indication that these institutes were not capable of handling all design or implementation problems. Project construction was handled by the Regional Construction Trust. Records of actual quantities of construction and unit costs at which these quantities were paid for were not kept systemati- cally. It seems that the work actually proceeded more or less on the basis of force account rather than a negotiated item rate contract with the Construction Trust. The supply directorate of DIFCA arranged for major construction equipment and construction materials, and the Construction Trust arranged the labor and actual implementation, with the Group for Supervising Investments (an independent group within MAFI) carrying out the quality control functions. Government should be requested to keep the project cost records in such a way that on project completion an overall project cost is available and its major components of labor, materials and equipment are also easily identifiable. - 27 - 5.4 Works relating to power lines and transformer stations were carried out by the construction trusts under the Ministry of Energy. The State owns all facilities except those that are located within the territory of cooperative farms. Operation and maintenance of completed works is entrusted to the General Directorate for Mechanization and Exploitation of Land Reclamation Works and its enterprises. The State and cooperative farms maintain the minor works that lie within their boundaries. The Ministry of Energy will maintain all electrical facilities and will be responsible to provide electrical energy in accordance with project demand. Procurement Agency - ROMAGRIMEX 5.5 The responsibility for procurement of all Bank-financed goods was entrusted by the Borrower to ROMAGRIMEX, which is a State enterprise primarily concerned with all agricultural imports and exports. Due to its unfamiliarity with the Bank's procurement procedures and in compliance with a loan covenant, ROMAGRIMEX hired a consulting firm to assist in preparation of tender docu- ments and bid evaluation and awards. Under guidance from the consulting firm, ROMAGRIMEX prepared tender documents for all nine contracts involving inter- national competitive bidding, evaluated all bids received and prepared recom- mendations for award. The tender documents prepared by ROMAGRIMEX as well as the evaluation reports produced were adequate for the purpose; these documents could have been better but no attempt was made for their improvement as time was not available. However some of the intended improvements have been carried out later for documents pertaining to subsequent Bank-financed agri- cultural projects. Despite the procurement problems discussed in para. 2.19 ROMAGRIMEX has undoubtedly broadened its familiarity with Bank's methodology and is currently handling all procurement matters for Bank assisted agricul- tural projects. Support Services 5.6 Since arrangements for supply of inputs, farm credit, agricultural research and extension were already adequate, no special provisions had been made in the project for strengthening these institutions other than a general provision for training in project-related disciplines. Even this provision was not utilized as all training necessary was arranged from other sources and the Bank loan allocated for this purpose was reallocated. Institution-Building Effects 5.7 The project, being the first irrigation project financed by the World Bank introduced officials connected with the project in various depart- ments of the Borrower and project-related Government institutions to consider- able new information and methods of cost estimation, design, construction procurement, and economic and financial analysis. Discussions and exchange of information with the appraisal and subsequent supervision missions provided DIFCA and its project-related agencies with helpful information on alternative planning and design methods used throughout the world as well as information on different types and sources of construction material, equipment and machinery. Teccnical assistance provided by'equipment suppliers was helpful in construc- tion and erection of plant equipment as well as in operation and maintenance - 28 - of these facilities. The advice and assistance rendered by the consultants financed under the project also provided helpful training to the staff of ROMAGRIMEX as well as the concerned staff in BAFI and DIFCA in the field of international procurement. Insistence by the Bank missions in obtaining detailed information on all agricultural inputs has trained the Romanian agricultural economists in preparing systematic farm budgets, which were previously unknown in Romania. Also the Bank method of preparing economic analysis is now better understood. Bank's insistence on obtaining data to monitor project's progress at regular quarterly intervals has also been helpful in instituting similar reporting requirements from all construction and farming units connected with the project. Cost Recovery 5.8 Cost of buried pipelines, on-farm sprinkler and furrow equipment, and secondary drains located within the boundaries of cooperative farms are passed on to these farms. These costs are recovered through (a) savings of these cooperatives deposited with BAFI (up to 30% of total costs), and (b) repayment of BAFI loans (up to 70% of total costs) in accordance with the terms of these loans. Cost of farm machinery and equipment is recovered through custom rates for their use. The remaining costs are recovered through direct and indirect mechanisms. The only direct mechanism is the water charge, which is levied in accordance with the following rates: (i) a fixed charge of 115 lei per ha from cooperatives, and 294 lei per ha from State farms; (ii) a water charge of 18 lei per 1000 m3 from both State farms and cooperatives; and (iii) a variable charge from both State farms and cooperatives on a per ha basis of 138 lei for cereals, 183 lei for fodder, 122 lei for vineyards and orchards, 195 lei for vegetables and 814 lei for rice. It is estimated that revenues generated by above rates would recover about 70% of actual 0&M costs from State farms, and about 50% of these costs from co- operatives. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated at Lei 124.1 million (US$6.9 million). Details are given in Annex 14. Performance of the Bank 5.9 The Bank was not involved in the preparation of this project but did have a chance to study the project before finally accepting it for appraisal as the first irrigation project in Romania. Due to general policies prevalent in Romania regarding the supply of information, and the unfamiliarity of the Romanian counterpart personnel with the appraisal procedures of the Bank, there was a reluctance on the part of the Borrower's staff and staff of other project-related institutions to supply data and information to the appraisal mission. Thus project appraisal, which had been preceeded by a brief pre- appraisal mission, took 6 weeks and was followed by a pre-negotiation mission - 29 - in Bucharest. In spite of this effort the appraisal report did not have all of the information which is normally contained in such reports, and a part of the information, on learning more about Romanian agriculture later, was found deficient. None of these factors however affected the project adversely. 5.10 Six supervision missions visited the project between Board approval in 1975 and the completion mission in 1979, averaging one mission per year. The supervision missions always found construction work progressing to schedule except for minor works of land leveling and soil erosion control, which had been intentionally delayed to outer years. These missions always rated the project's progress in category '1', i.e. no problems or minor problems. Quarterly reports were always received regularly and were reviewed by the Bank staff. 5.11 Bank performance was generally satisfactory. Bank supervision mis- sions always discussed their findings with the Deputy Minister of MAFI, who was in-charge of DIFCA, and the President of BAFI. Other than procurement (see para. 2.19) no major problems were identified. During appraisal and supervision Bank personnel gave valuable technical assistance to project officials in evaluating alternative designs, construction practices outside Romania, availability and adaptability of foreign construction equipment and machinery, procurement practices, accounting and reporting, agricultural production practices, seeds, fertilizers, etc., and project operation and maintenance practices. The Borrower expressed its appreciation at the time of the completion/supervision mission for the valuable assistance received from the Bank personnel during appraisal and supervision stages of the project, and also remarked that the project personnel was now better equipped to plan and execute future projects, and to cope with international procurement. VI. Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusions 6.1 Giurgiu-Razmiresti Irrigation project has been satisfactorily com- pleted. During 1978 and 1979 cropping seasons, the project facilities were operated; these performed satisfactorily. Production increases during 1978 (gross incremental value about US$16.0 million) and 1979 (gross incremental value about US$21.2) have demonstrated the project's value to the national economy. Crop yields actually obtained indicated that appraisal estimates were conservative; realistic estimates of fully developed yields, based on actual yields of 1978 and 1979 indicate an ERR of 19% as compared to the appraisal estimate of 13.5%. 6.2 Romanians are capable of designing and implementing large projects with speed and efficiency and without any cost overruns. Their construction planning and control, and management of farm enterprises is praise worthy as completing construction of irrigation and drainage facilities for about 100,000 ha in about 4 years, and actually extending irrigation over about 76,000 ha in 1978, and full 100,900 ha in 1979 is no small achievement. - 30 - 6.3 Romanians are capable of successfully bidding for all equipment and construction materials that are being produced in Romania to international specifications. Recommendations for BAFI 6.4 Most problems on any Bank-financed project in Romania are related to procurement under international competitive bidding procedures. In order to reduce these problems and to streamline the resolution of these problems, the following recommendations are made: (a) During appraisal, ROMAGRIMEX should be involved in all discussions on the topic of procurement between the appraisal mission, and representatives of BAFI and DIFCA; (b) when tender documents are ready for the Bank's review, they should be brought to Washington by representatives of the Borrower and ROMAGRIMEX. This practice will expedite clearance of documents by cutting unduly long mailing times, promote discussion between the two parties, assist in a better understanding of each others views and prompt finalization of documents; (c) Promptly after bid opening the ROMAGRIMEX should inform the Bank by telex submitted bid prices and mail signed minutes of bid opening; (d) the evaluation reports prepared by ROMAGRIMEX so far have been extremely brief and most often lack essential details. The quality of these reports should be substantially improved; (e) whenever it seems likely that a particular contract will be awarded to a foreign manufacturer, it takes unduly long (often one year) for the evaluation report and a recommendation for award to reach the Bank. Most often by that time other complications of expiry of bids or bid bonds arise. It is therefore strongly recommended that in each case (whether an award is recommended to a Romanian enterprise or a foreign manufacturer) recommendation for award be submitted to the Bank within the period for which the bids and bid bonds are initially valid (120 days). 6.5 It is recommended that the system of accounts followed by construc- tion trusts of MAFI or other project-related agencies of Government be reviewed with a view to ensure that separate and complete records are maintained for all work done by such agencies for a Bank-financed project. 6.6 It is recommended that a separate account should be maintained for the project area in respect of (a) water charges recovered from farm enter- prises; (b) operation and maintenance costs the project facilities; and (c) net production value from the project area. 1/ The Borrower informs that, in accordance with the norms of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry, records on production and operation costs are kept by the Ministry's agencies, specialized in irrigation. In addi- tion, the Foreign Relations Department of the Bank for Agriculture and Industry keeps account of production, costs and incomes under the project. - 31 - Recommendations for the Bank 6.7 It is recommended that the Bank should provide a new covenant in future loan agreements, which makes it obligatory for all agencies performing any work on a Bank-financed project to keep separate and proper accounts of their operations pertaining to such a project and that such agencies will furnish an annual statement of accounts to BAFI which will be used by BAFI for preparing the annual accounts for the project. 6.8 Shortcomings noted in the appraisal report for this project have already been addressed in the appraisal reports of subsequent Bank-financed irrigation projects. - 32 - COMPLETION REPORT ANNEX 1 Table 1 GIURGIU-RAZMIRESTI IRRIGATION PROJECT ROMANIA Loan 1082-RO Actual Project Costs F.E. Local Foreign Total Local Foreign Total1 Actual - million lei - -million US$ % Civil works Main pump station 85.2 3.7 88.9 4.2 0.2 4.4 4 Pressure pump station 101.9 4.4 106.3 5.1 0.2 5.3 4 Irrigation canals 422.4 69.2 491.6 21.1 3.5 24.6 14 Distribution pipelines 335.0 154.6 489.6 17.1 7.8 24.9 31 Drainage system 54.8 9.7 64.5 2.7 0.5 3.2 15 Land levelling 131.8 19.7 151.5 7.6 1.0 8.6 13 Erosion control 19.1 2.0 21.1 1.0 0.1 1.1 10 Power trans. lines 58.3 6.7 65.0 2.9 0.3 3.2 10 Subtotal 1208.5 270.0 1478.5 61.8 13.5 75.3 18 Equip. deprec. in C.W. -100.7 -89.3 -190.0 -5.0 -4.5 -9.5 - Subtotal C.W. 1107.8 180.7 1288.5 56.8 9.0 65.8 14 Equipment Main pumps & equipment 40.4 83.9 124.3 /2 2.0 4.2 6.2 67 Pressure pumps & equip. 38.7 32.9 71.6 1.9 1.7 3.6 46 Canal gates & equipment 5.8 1.0 6.8 0.2 0.1 0.3 15 Pipe valves and hydrants 37.8 6.7 44.5 1.9 0.3 2.2 15 Drainage pumps 3.7 3.2 6.9 0.2 0.1 0.3 46 Transformers & equip. 14.4 35.4 49.8 0.7 1.8 2.5 71 Construction equipment 158.3 140.0 298.3 7.9 7.0 14.9 47 O+M equip. & facility 20.3 10.6 30.9 1.0 0.5 1.5 34 Farm machinery 159.1 106.0 265.1 8.0 5.3 13.3 40 Sprinkler equipment 57.2 82.3 139.5 3.0 4.1 7.1 59 Furrow irrigation equip. 14.8 14.3 29.1 0.8 0.7 1.5 49 Subtotal equipment 550.5 516.3 1066.8 27.5 25.8 53.3 48 Land acquisition 12.9 - 12.9 0.6 - 0.6 - Admin. & general expenses Consultants - 3.2 3.2 - 0.2 0.2 100 Project organization 145.1 - 145.1 7.3 - 7.3 - Total expenditure 1816.3 700.2 2516.5 92.2 35.0 127.2 28 Salvage value of equipment -57.6 -50.7 -108.3 -2.9 -2.5 -5.4 46 PROJECT COST 1758.7 649.5 2408.2 89.3 32.5 121.8 27 Note: Discrepancies due to rounding. /1 Exchange rate: Lei 2D-US$l until early 1978 then Lei 18-US$1 on work afterwards /2 Includes 49.7 million lei for purchase of pumps from USSR. October 1979 - 33 - COMPLETION REPORT ANNEX 1 Table 2 GTRGOIU-RAZMIRESTI IRRIGATION PROJECT ROMANIA Loan 1082-RO Appraisal Cost Estimate with Distributed Physical and Price Contingencies (million le) Physical Price Item Local Foreign Total Conting. Increase Total Local F.E. Main pump stations 185.9 45.8 231.7 18.5 3.3 7.3 260.8 Pressure pump stations 201.4 59.4 260.8 20.8 3.6 9.2 294.4 Irrigation canals 306.9 16.9 323.8 35.9 5.5 7.3 372.5 Distribution pipelines 322.7 226.0 548.7 33.9 5.8 30.4 618.8 Drainage system 50.3 1.7 52.0 4.1 0.9 0.2 57.2 Land levelling 69.2 - 69.2 5.5 1.2 - 75.9 Erosion control 17.9 - 17.9 1.4 0.3 - 19.6 Power trans. system 98.5 18.0 116.5 9.3 1.8 2.5 130.1 On-farm sprinkler equip. 113.7 28.4 142.1 11.3 2.0 4.0 159.4 On-farm furrow equip. 27.9 7.0 34.9 2.8 0.5 1.0 39.2 Construction equipment 70.2 223.6 293.8 23.5 4.0 32.4 353.7 O+M equipment 6 buildings 19.9 6.6 26.5 2.1 0.4 0.9 29.9 Farm machinery 156.0 52.0 208.0 16.6 2.8 8.2 235.6 Land acquisition 19.5 - 19.5 - 0.4 - 19.9 Admin. & general expenses 130.1 6.0 136.1 12.8 2.3 0.8 152.0 Total Expenditures 1790.1 691.4 2481.5 198.5 34.8 104.2 2819.0 Less constr. equipment/1 -70.2 -223.6 -293.8 -23.5 -4.0 -32.4 -353.7 Net Project Cost 1719.9 467.8 2187.7 175.0 30.8 71.8 2465.3 US$ equivalent - million 86.0 23.4 109.4 8.8 1.5 3.6 123.3 /1 At the time of appraisal, the salvage value and depreciation of construction equipment used on civil works was not deducted from project costs as it was felt the cost estimates for civil works was unusually low and did not include the value of equipment depreciation. However, upon comple- tion of the project, the depreciated value of construction equipment has been included in the civil works costs (Table 1) and there is a remaining salvage value upon completion. Therefore, the equipment costs have been substracted from total expenditure to arrive at a net project cost for comparison with the final cost. ANNEX 1 Table 3 - 34 - COMPLETION REPORT GIURGIU-RAZMIRESTI IRRIGATION PROJECT ROMANIA Loan 1082-RO Comparative Capttal Investment Cost per Rectare Sprinkler System Furrow System (79,125 ha - 78%) (21,775 ha - 22%) Total-Cost Total Cost Unit-Cost Total Cost Total Cost Unit Cost (million lei) (US'000) (UJS$/ha) - (million lei) (US$'000) (US$/hA) Distribution facilities: On-farm mobile equip. 139.5 7,100 89.7 29.1 1,455 66.8 Distribution pipeline 426.6 21,333 269.6 107.5 5,375 246.8 Pressure pump sta. 159.9 7,995 101.0 18.0 90Q. 41.3 Total 726.0 36,428 460.3 154.6 7,730 j549 Other"facilities: Land levelling 15.0 833 10.5 136.5 7,583 348.3 Power trans. system 94.0 4,700 59.4 20-8 1,040 47.8 Other proj. facilities 1 074.0 53.702 678.7 295.6 14 779 678.7 Total 1'183.0 59,235 452.9 23!402 1,074.8 Total expenditure per ha 1,909.0 95,663 1,208.9 607.5. 31,132 1,429.7 - 35 - ANNEX I Table 4 Page 1 COMPLETION REPORT GIURGI-RAZMIRESTI IRRIGATION PROJECT ROMANIA Loan 1082-R0 Unit Price Analyses and Revisions A. Pipelines (Cost Data from ISPIF and DIFCA) Unit Price (Lei/m) (Lei/m) Item Prime Pipe /1 A.C. Pipe /2 (Ave. 600 mm)- (Ave. 200 =mr Ditch excavation 24.24 12.32 Pipe cost 383.05 58.50 Transport 39.48 4.23 Laying pipe 47.4 5.37 Pressure tests 49.88 4.22 Ditch backfill 42.03 33.22 Accessories 185.88 26.14 Total - Lei/m 773.00 144.00 Analyses of Unit Casts Primo pipelines Pipe Costs 383.05 Accessories 185.88 Pipe & Equip 568.93 lei/lm Trench Excavation 24.24 Transport 39.48 Laying pipe 47.4 Pressure testing 49.88 Trench Backfill 42.03 Civil Works 204.03 lei/lm Asbestos Cement Pipeline Pipe Costs 58.50 Accessories 26.14 Pipe & Equip 84.64 lei/la Trench Excavation 12.32 Transport 4.23 Laying pipe 5.37 Pressure testing 4.22 Trench Backfill 33.22 Civil Works 59.40 lei/la In Giurgiu-Razmiresti the average size AC pipe was about 250 am dia. Therefore a cost of 90 lei/lm was used for pipe and 81 lei/lm was usee for civil works. /I Preaast reinforced concrete pipe. /2 Asbestos-cement pipe. - 36 - ANNEX 1 Table 7 Page 2 B. EAthe"tk Coat Data from ISPIF and DIPCA) Excavation: Canals Scrapers and dragline 12 - 15 lei/m3 Bulldozers 30 - 35 " Structures 30 - 35 " Land levelling Scrapers 10 Bulldozers 20 " Compacted backfill: 30 - 35 lei/uS C. Canal Lining Rabco machine 60 - 80 lei/m2 (used - 65 lei/m2) Slab lining 50 - 60 lei/a2 (used - 55 lei/m2) D. Reinforced Concrete Price of concrete suggested at 685 lei/m3 (VS$341 is unusually low for reinforced structural concrete. It appears the reinforcing steel, shuttering, erection and finishing has not been accounted for. In nearby Cyprus, where imports are tax free and they produce their own cement, reinforced steel, etc., the price of reinforced concrete costs averaged about US$60/m3 during 1976-78. Of this, about 43% was for reinforcing steel, shuttering, haul, etc. It is considered necessary to increase the base price of concrete of 685 lei/m3 by about 520 lei/m3, to include the cost of reinforcing steel, shuttering, haul, and arection and finishing. Therefore, a total price of 1,200 lei/m3 was used for reinforced concrete. ANNEX 1 - 37 - Table 4 Page 3 E. Transmission Lines 464 km - 20 kv Cost used in Romanian estimate (13.4 million lei) is only US$1,444/km. It appears the cost of concrete anchors, poles, and conductors, have been left out. Average cost of lines of this type is US$10,000 to US$15,000 per km depending upon terrain, etc. The lowest possible cost considered by the Power Division, for flat terrain with low cost materials, would be US$7,000/km. The Giurgiu-Razmiresti cost has been adjusted to US$7,000/km. - 38 - ANNEX 1 Table 5 COMPLETIOK REPORT GIURGIU-RAZMIRESTI IRRIGATION PROJECT ROMANIA Loan 1082-RC Sumnary of Unit Price Adjustments made in Final Costs Costs in ISPIF Final,Using Adjusted Completion Report Unit Costs Amount of Items uanti Unit Cost Total Unit Cost Total Adjustment ('000) (Lei) (ail.Lei) (Lei) (ail.Lei) (mil. Lei) Main pumps station Pumps & motors L.S. 90.3 90.3 Other equip. 6 spare parts L.S. 34.0 34.0 Civil works Earthwork 700.0 m3 17.5 12.3 35 24.6 Reinf. concrete 27.5 m3 687 18.9 1200 33.0 Erection cost L.S. 9.4 9.4 Building pipes, etc. L.S. 21.9 21.9 Total 186.8 213.2 26.4 Pressure pump station Pumps & motors L.S. 44.1 44.1 Other equip. 6 spare parts L.S. 27.5 27.5 Civil works Earthwork 703.0 m3 17.5 12.3 35 24.6 Reinf. concrete 41.0 m3 685 28.1 1200 49.2 Erection cost L.S. 12.2 12.2 Building, Elec., etc. L.S. 20.3 20.3 Total 14.5 177.9 33.4 Canal system Excavation Dragline 6 scraper 11,025.0 m3 8.5 93.2 12 132.3 Bulldozers 1,415.0 m3 17.5 27.8 35 49.5 Backfill & comp. 4,940.0 m3 - - 30 148.1 Concrete lining Racbco machine 586.0 m3 64.5 37.8 64.5 37.8 Prefab. slabs 1,974.0 m3 55.0 108.6 55.0 108.6 Gates, checks, etc. L.S. 6.8 6.8 Compl. & repair L.S. 15.3 15.3 Total 289.5 498.4 208.9 Pipelines Primo pipe Cost of pipe 268.0 m3 212 56.7 330 88.5 Civil works "129 34.6 200 53.8 A-C pipe Cost of pipe 2,033.0 m3 90 182.4 90 182.4 Civil works 81 164.9 81 164.9 Bydrants & regul. L.S. 44.5 44.5 Total 483.1 534.1 51.0 Drainage system Pumps & motors L.S. 4.4 4.4 Other equip. & spare parts L.S. 2.5 2.5 Civil works Earthwork Draglines 1,500.0 a3 10 15.0 15 22.5 Bulldozers 817.0 m3 32 26.5 35 28.6 Erection costs L.S. 2.2 2.2 Buil, Elect. etc. L.S. 4.0 4.0 Reinf. concrete 6.0 a3 685 4.1 1200 7.2 Total 58.7 71.4 12.7 Transmission lines Transformers & equip. L.S. 49.8 49.8 Trans. lines 464 m 28.9 13.4 140.0 65.0 Total 63.2 114.8 51.6 - 39 - ANNEX 1 COMPLETION REPORT Table 6 GIURGIU-RAZMIRESTI IRRIGATION PROJECT ROMANIA Loan 1082-RO Analysis of Cost Changes from Appraisal Reason for Difference /1 Difference Plan Appraisal Current (+)Overrun Modi- Estimated Price Estimate Estimate (-)Below Est. fication Quantities Changes (million lei) Main Pump Stations 260.8 213.2 - 47.6 - 20.0 - 10.0 - 17.0 Pressure Pump Sta. 294.4 177.9 -116.5 - 30.0 - 20.0 - 66.5 Irrigation Canals 372.5 498.4 +125.9 + 13.0 + 12.4 +100.5 Distr. Pipelines 618.8 534.1 - 84.7 - 10.0 - 15.0 - 59.7 Drainage System 57.2 71.4 + 14.2 + 6.0 + 4.0 + 4.2/ Land Levelling 75.9 151.5 + 75.6 + 25.0 + 30.0 .+ 20.6 Erosion Control 19.6 21.1 + 1.5 - + 1.5 - Power Trans. System 130.1 114.8 - 15.3 - 5.0 - - 10.3 Sprinkler Equipment 159.4 139.5 - 19.9 - - 10.0 - 9-.9 Furrow Irrigation Equip. 39.2 29.1 - 10.1 - 5.0 - - 5.1 Construction Equip. 353.7 298.3 - 55.4 - - 20.0 - 35.4 O&M Equip. & Bldgs. 29.9 30.9 + 1.0 - + 1.0 - Farm Machinery 235.6 265.1 + 29.5 - - + 29.5 Land Acquisition 19.9 12.9 - 7.0 - - 7.0 - Admin. & Gen. Exp. Consult. & Trgg. 8.0 3.2 - 4.8 - 4.8 - - Project Organization 144.0 145.1 + 1.1 - - + 1.1 Subtotal 2,819.0 2,706.5 -112.5 - 30.8 - 33.1 -48.6 Less Deprec. & Salvage of Construction Equip. -353.7 -298.3 + 55.4 - + 20.0 + 35.4 Project Cost 2,465.3 2,408.2 - 57.1 - 30.8 - 13.1 - 13.2 /2 US$ Equiv.-millions 123.3 121.8L2 - 1.5 (54%) (23%) (23%) /1 Estimate with price and physical contingencies distributed to items. /2 Exchange Rate: Lei 20 = $1 until early 1978 and Lei 18 - $1 on expenditure afterwards. /3 In 1977 there was an upward revision of 25 to 50% in costs of equipment manufactured in Romania. National wage scales were also increased by about 18%. COMPLETION REPORT GIURGIU-RAZMIRESTI IRRIGATION PROJECT ROMANIA Loan 1082-RO Annual Expenditures (million Lei) Item CY 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 Total I ----- ----------Actual------------------ -------- Estimated------ Main Pump Stations 1.15.0 55.9 68.3 58.4 5.8 1.2 8.6 - 213.2 Pressure Pump Stations 43.8 37.6 53.9 38.2 2.5 1.9 - - 177.9 Canal System 55.0 108.0 137.2 173.3 9.1 8.0 7.8 - 498.4 Distribution Pipelines 26.6 165.0 131.4 176.9 34.2 - - - 534.1 Drainage System 5.8 29.6 19.7 16.3 - - - - 71.4 Land Levelling - - - 5.0 10.0 52.5 42.0 42.0 151.5 EoinCnrl-- - 6.0 8.4 6.7 - - 21.1 C Erosion Control Power Transmission System - 19.0 67.2 26.0 3.0 - - 114.8 Sprinkler Equipment - - 92.5 47.0 - - 139.5 Furrow Irrig. Equ*pment - - 29.1 - 29.1 Construction Equipment - - 298.3 - 298.3 O&M Equip. & Facilities - - 30.9 - 30.9 Farm Machinery - - 265.1 - 265.1 Land Acquisition 2.9 10.0 - - 12.9 Admin. & Gen. Expense 20.0 21.8 22.3 21.6 21.5 22.6 9.5 9.0 148.3 Subtotal - Expenditures 169.1 446.9 1,215.9 568.7 92.1 94.6 74.6 51.0 2,706.5 Constr. Equip. Deprec. -- -00 -63 -21 -26 -63 -10 -9. Salvage Value -- -00 -63 -21 -26 -63 -10 -9. Project Costs 169.1 446.9 1,135.9 484.2 80.0 82.0 18.3 0 2,408.2 -- -6 08 - 41 - ANNEX 3 Page 1 COMPLETION REPORT GIURGIU-RAZMIRESTI IRRIGATION PROJECT ROMANIA Loan 1082-RO A. Project Irrigation Water Delivery Capability 1. Pumping plants and conveyance systems were constructed as designed with the main pump station at Giurgiu capable of pumping 80.6 m3/sec. at an average head of 10 meters. In 1979, the 24 completed units at Giurgiu demons- trated the capability of pumping 3.3 m3/sec. each, or 79.2 m3/sec. total, under a 6 meter head. Using an average peak capacity of 80 m3/sec. (0.8 liters/sec/ha) the following supply could be made available in the peak month: 80 x 3,600 sec. x 21 hrs 1/ x 31 days = 187,488,000 m3 187,488,000 i 100,900 ha = 1,860 m3/ha (gross) 1,860 x 0.80 eff. = 1,488 m3/ha (net) 2. At the time of appraisal, it was anticipated the following cropping pattern would be the norm during the life of the project: C!rop ha (rounded) Maize 37,000 Alfalfa 12,000 Sugar beet 6,000 Soybeans 12,000 Sunflower 6,000 Wheat and barley 17,000 Other crops 11,000 Silage and green corn (Double crop- ping after wheat and barley (15,000) Total 101,000 3. During the peak month (July) this cropping pattern would theoreti- cally require an average supply of 1,000 m3/ha net in an average rainfall year. The greater project peak supply capacity (1,488 m3/ha - net) was designed to supply peak demands during the peak month with an 80% assurance in low rainfall years. 4. The completion-supervision mission visited several state and co- operative farms and gathered data on irrigation practices. In one of the 1/ Allows for operation of the pumps for 20 to 22 hrs per day to take advantage of the low off-peak electric power rates. - 42 - ANNEX 3 Page 2 higher water consuming crops (maize) the annual water supply during the 3 to 4 month growing season in 1979 was as follows: IAS (1) 2,100 m3 in 3 applications IAS (2) 3,200 m3 in 4 applications CAP (1) 2,100 m3 in 3 applications 5. The crops were irrigated by sprinkler at a rate of one application each 14 days, or about 2 applications per month, during the peak month. From 700 to 800 m3/ha were applied during each application, or a maximum supply of 1,600 m3/ha/month. Allowing for 10 to 12% on-farm losses, the monthly net crop water supply was over 1,400 m3/ha, equivalent to the net peak monthly demand at the time of appraisal. 6. With furrow irrigation, the application rate would be increased to about 1,800 m3/ha, or 900 m3/ha each application, to allow for on-farm losses of 20% and supply the net requirement of 1,400 m3/ha/month. 7. On the basis of the above, the weighted farm delivery requirement for the sprinkler service area (79,125 ha) and furrow service area (22,775 ha) would be about 1,680 m3/ha in the peak month for the highest water consuming crops (maize) alfalfa, sugar beet, soybeans and sunflower). Allowing for an 8 to 10% conveyance loss in the project facilities, a diversion capacity of about 1,850 m3/ha would be required. 8. From the operating practice and water requirement infommation gathered on the completed project it is evident that the water delivery capacity of the system is adequate to supply the peak month irrigation demand even if the majority of the area is planted to the higher water consuming crops. 9. For more detailed information on the design capacity of the system, see Giurgiu-Razmiresti Irrigation Project Mission Report by Vito F. Gioia, Consultant, dated June 3, 1974. B. Irrigation Water Supply and Efficiency 10. In the project plan, the net irrigation water requirement for the proposed project cropping pattern was estimated to average 3,032 m3/ha, or a total of 305.7 Ma3 for 100,830 ha of net project land. Allowing for the estimated 80% overall efficiency of the distribution system and on-farm irrigation, the gross annual diversion requirement would be 3,725 m.3/ha, or 375.6 Mm3 for the project. The peak monthly project gross demand (July) was estimated to be about 121.6 Mm3, or 1,200 m3/ha in an average year. In the mean low rainfall years, the gross peak monthly requirement would approach 158.4 Mm3 or 1,570 m3/ha. This monthly average in a low rainfall year is equivalent to a diversion capacity of 59.14 m3/sec. However, the design - 43 - ANNEX 3 Page 3 capacity of the pumps and distribution system was increased to 80.6 m3/sec. to provide standby capacity for pumping the daily peak demand during a 20 to 22 hour period with variable cropping patterns. The project facilities were constructed according to these designs. 11. During the 1978 season, a total of 117,000,000 m3 of water was delivered through the Giurgiu pumping plant for testing and trial runs and delivery to about 76.000 ha of project land. In 1979, 110,000,000 m3 had been delivered through the plant up to the time of the mission's visit in mid- September, and pumping was continuing. The irrigation season will normally run to Oct.15. A greater than average amount of rainfall (450 to 530 mm) was available during the 1979 irrigation season so the irrigation water demand was below normal. A total of 48.9 Mm3 (485 m3/ha average) were pumped during the peak month of July 1979, or about 40% of the average requirement for July. Since 1978 was only a partial operating year and 1979 was a higher than average rainfall year, available data are not adequate to make a fair appraisal of the water supply operated at this time. However, testing operations indicated each of the individual structures is capable of carrying its design capacity. Each of the pumps at the Giurgiu station delivered 3.3 m3/sec. under 6 meters of head (79.2 m3/sec. for the existing 24 units). 12. Electric power consumption during the 1978 and 1979 operating period averaged between 580 and 600 Kwh per 1,000 m3 of net water deliveries for all of the pumping plants. The large Ghizdaru station (average pumping head of 65 meters) alone used about 350 Kwh/1,000 m3 of net water delivery. Pumping power costs were 0.22 lei/Kwh for off-peak energy and 0.50 lei/Kwh for energy used during the peak demand hours. The average cost for energy used was 0.33 lei/Kwh. Therefore, the pumping energy cost is about 200 lei/1,000 m3. During an average year when about 3,000 m3/ha net water supply is provided, the pumping energy costs would average approximately 600 lei/ha or about US$ 33/ha. 13. During the 1978 and 1979 operating seasons, no adequate records were maintained of actual water deliveries made to the individual farms because of the testing and trial procedures where excess water was wasted in some areas and inadequate supplies were provided in others. Research at the farm level has not advanced to the point of determining actual on-farm losses under full irrigation operations. Therefore, it is not possible at this time to make an accurate estimate of conveyance losses and on-farm irrigation efficiencies. However, 0+M personnel queried felt an estimated global efficiency of 80 to 82% would be obtained when the project is in full operation. ANNEX 4 Table 1 Page 1 COMPLETION REPORT GIURGIU-RAZMIRESTI IRRIGATION PROJECT ROMANIA Loan 1082-RO Construction Equipment (Procured through ICB) Appraisal Estimate Actual Unit Total Unit Total Quantity Cost Cost Quantity Cost Cost Lei'000 Lei'000 Lei'000 Lei'000 Elevating scrapers (10-12 m3 bucket) 21 1,950 21,450 Elevating scrapers (15-20 m3 bucket) 6 3,120 18,720 Scraper with trucks (6-8 m3) 100 750 75,000 100 906.8 90,685 Excavators, telescopic (0.5 m3) 3 780 2,340 - - - Excavators with dragline 1m3 15 1,040 15,600 15 948.4 14,226 Graders (150-180 hp) 10 650 6,500 10 797.94 7,979 Cranes with tires (1GO hp) 8 780 6,240 - - - Dump trucks - 5 tons 20 90 1,800 10 157 1,570 Dump trucks - 10 tons 10 260 2,600 10 419 4,190 Turnovers - 5 tons 10 130 1,300 - - - Turnovers - 12 tons 10 430 4,300 - - - Turnovers - 17 tons 6 572 3,432 6 515 3,090 Loaders (o.8 m3 bucket) 6 208 1,248 8 2,218 Loaders (2 m3 bucket) /l 6 780 4,680 6 933.75 5,603 Bulldozers on track (6o hp) 20 143 2,860 20 302.8 6,057 Bulldozers on track (180 hp) 10 715 7,150 10 1,016.9 10,169 Bulldozers on tiers (180 hp)/l 10 1,040 10,400 25 1,163.0 29,075 Bulldozers on tiers (250-300 hp 12 1,820 21,840 - - - Sheep foot rollers - 12 tons 10 624 6,240 Cranes (150 hp) 7 80b 4,642 -7 774.7 5,423 Autocranes (150 hp) 15 300 4,500 25 906.8 22,671 /1 Foreign purchase - 45 - ANNEX 4 Table 1 Page 2 Appraisal Estimate Actual Unit Total Unit Total Quantity Cost Cost Quantity Cost Cost Lei'000 Lei'000 Lei'000 Lei'000 Compactors (10-12 tons) 3 8 260 2,080 8 207.1 1,657 Concrete batching plants (30,000 m /yr) 3 910 2,730 3 1,011.8 3,035 Concrete autotracts (concrete transit mixers) - 5-6 m 10 520 5,200 10 618.7 6,188 Cisterns (5 tons) 5 145 725 5 109 545 Cisterns (10 tons) 5 350 1,750 5 417 2,085 Trucks dozers 150 hp - - - 6 754.7 4,527 Trucks 5 tons - - - 90 133.6 12,024 3 Hydraulic excavators 0,65 m - - - 15 497.9 7,469 Spare parts-for imported machines - - 43,645 - - 4,061 Spare parts for local equipment - - - - - 39,192 /1 Subtotal 279,800 281,740 Xisc. tools 6 minor local items /2 14,000 16,600 Distributed contingencies 59,900 - Total 353,700 298,340 /1 Disbursed after 7 of -arcE 1978 with the converaton rate of 1$rl8 let. 72? Not included in Bank financing. - 46 - ANNEX 4 Table 1 Page 3 Operation and Maintenance Equipment (Procured through ICB) Appraisal Estimate Actual Unit Total Unit Total Quantity Cost Cost Quantity Cost Cost Lei'000 Lei'000 Lei'000 Lei000 Automobiles - sedan 10 78 780 10 59.4 594 Automobiles - 4 wheel drive 4 78 780 4 68.3 273 Trucks - 4 wheel drive-2 ton 4 78 312 - - - Trucks - 4 wheel drive-3 ton 4 85 340 21 93.0 1,953 Tank - trucks - 4 wheel drive - 5000 liters 3 260 780 3 109.0 327 Mobile Repair shops - 4 wheel drive 4 305 1,220- 4 445.0 1,780 Dump trucks 20 117 2,340 20 157.0 3,140 Tractors - 51 8 91 728. 8/1 26.7 Tractors - S-650 15 130 1,950 15 302.8 4,543 Tractors - S-651 10 20 200 10 302.8 3,028 Bydraulic scrapers 3 cu.m 15 65 975 15 278.6 4,179 Front end loaders - 0.4 cu.m 4 520 2*080 - - - Front end loaders - 0.5 cu.m 8 545 4,370 - - - Dredger - UPM 1 432 432 - - - Tractor drawn graders 2 117 235 2 797.9 1,596 Car trailers - double axle 13 26 338 13 30.2 393 Crane - self propelled - 4 heel drive 2 312 624 - - Canal cleaning equipment 5 91 455 5 130.68 653 Pumps - EPET 65 2 39 78 - - - Motor pumps - 12" 15 65 975 - - - Electromotors-Ave-differential type 52 13 676 - - - Concrete mixers - electric - 250 liters 3 35 105 3 47.6 143 Trucks - 8 tons - - - 10 199.6 1,996 Subtotal equipment 20,000 25,668 tisrbed coting eni'es 2 900 - Total 22,900 /2 25,668.012 /1 Reported in the Quarterly Report under Farm Machinery. 7T Excludes the cost of O&M housing. - 47 - ANNEX 4 Table 1 Farn Machinery Page 4 CProqcured tbrough ICB) Estimated Actual Unit Total Unit Total Quantity Cost Cost Quantity Cost Cost Lei'000 Lei'000 Lei'000 Lei'000 tieavy Tractors - 180 hp 40 195.0 7,800 40 492.96 19,718 Tractors - 60 hp 1,450 104.0 .15Q,800 1,451 133.74 194,057 Trailers - 5 tons 1,650 24.42 40,300 1,650 31.0 51,150 Trucks - 5 tons 70 130.0 9,100 - - /3 Spareparts - - - 163 Subtotal 208,000 265,088 /4 Distributed contingencies 27,600 - Total 235,600 265,088 /3 Included in construction equipment'list. /4 Disbursed partially after March 7, 1978 with the conversion rate of US$1 - 18 lei. - 48 - ANNEX 4 Table 2 COPLETION REPORT GIURGIU.-RAZMIRESTI :IRIGATION PROJECT * ROMANIA Loan 1082-RO Summary of Equipment and Material Procured through ICB Million Lei Million US$ Project Plant Equipment Pumps and motors 134,340.4 6.82 Valves and fittingb 45,899.5 2.29 Transformers 48,810.8 2.44 On-farm sprinkler equipment 139,309.1 6.96 On-farm furrow equipment 29,076.2 1.45 Asbestos cement pipe 182,370.0 9.12 Subtotal 579,806.0 29.08 Equipment and machinery O&M equipment (Table 1, page 3) 25,667.6 1.28 Farm machinery(Table 1, page 4) 265,088.2 13.35 Construction equipment (Table 1, page 2) 281,740.0 14.28 Subtotal 572,495.8 28.91 Total ICB procurement 1,152,301.8 57.99 - 49 - COMPLETION REPORT Annex 4 GIURGIU-RAZMIRESTI IRRIGATION PROJECT Table 3 ROMANIA Loan 1082-RO Actual and Appraisal Cumulative Disbursements by Category from June 1975 to March 197! Cat. 1 Cat. 2 Cat. 3 Cat. 4 IBFD Fiscal Year Interest and and Quarter Equipment 1/ Equipment 2/ Consultants Other Charges Total Appraisal (US$Million) June 1975 - 3.0 September 1975 U.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 0.100 7.5 December 1975 u.a. n.a. U.a. n.a. 0.500 21.0 March 1976 n.a. .a. U.a. n.a. 0.900 31.0 June 1976 - .628 .091 .585 1.304 40.0 September 1976 - .628 .091 .585 1.304 45.0 December 1976 27.632 .661 .159 .990 29.442 49.0 March 1977 40.402 .661 .159 .990 42.212 54.0 June 1977 49.088 .748 .159 2.464 52.459 59.0 September 1977 51.240 .778 .159 2.464 54.(41 63.0 December 1977 53.581 .788 .159 4.797 59.325 66.0 March 1978 54.558 .829 .159 4.797 60.343 68.0 June 1978 54.638 .829 .159 7.587 63.213 70.0 September 1978 55.74" .829 .1.59 7.587 64.319 - December 1978 56.500 .829 .159 7.587 65.075 - March 1979 57.990 .829 .159 11.022 70.O - 1/ Through ICB. 2/ Procured locally. - 50 - ANNE 5 rOMFLETION REPOPT RO0MANl A BIURGIU-RA1MIPEETT IRRIGATION PROJgC- CROF YIELNS TONS,'HA ... -- ---------------- Appraisal Projection Eiq74-1977 197 10? CP18c 108i- - (Full Development) WITH WHEAT 0.0 3.8 4.1 4.4 5.r WITH LARLEY 0.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6. 4.0 WITH MAI7E GRAIN 0.0 5.8 7.0 8.0 6.5 VITH SOYBEANS 0.0 2.0 2.3 2.6 3. 2.5 4:TH SUNFLOWER 0.0 2.3 .5 2.7 WITH FUGARBEETE 0.0 41.2 45.0 47.0 40.0 WITH P'TATOE 0.0 15.i 0.0 0.0 0.0 WITH U.IEGETABLE 0.0 17.1 21.0 23.0 25.0 . WITH ALFALFA 0.0 30.2 40.0 50.0 .60. 60.0 JT7H MAIZE SILO 0.0 25.8 30.0 35.0 £0. . 40.0 '11 ML WHEA STRAW 0.0 2.6 3.0 3.2 3.7 WITH BARLEY STRAW 0.0 3.6 4.0 4.5 WiT: CORN COI 0.0 ".5 9.0 11.0 13.0 WITH SOY STEM 0.0 2.0 :.3 2." 3.0 WITH .UNFLOWER STALL 0.0 6.1 7.0 8.0 9.0 WITH SUGAKBEET LEAVES 0.0 12.3 13.0 14.0 15.0 WITH MAIZE SILO'2NI CP0P 0.0 0.0 22.6 30.0 3 WITH PASTURE 0.0 0.0 20.0 30.0 . 45.0 WITH VINEYARDS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14-0 14.0 WITH OR HARDS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.C 4-/C Y WHEAT . 3.1 4 , C ARLEY 0.0 3.5 3.6 3. w C MAIZE GRAIK, 0.0 2.3 2.5 . . W3 S0YPEANS 0.0 0.9 1.0 W0 'D SUNFL0WER 0.0 1.9 2.0 W 'r BEANS 0.0 1.5 1.4 141 W, PCITATOE .0 1 120 1:.1 W C LINSEEP 0.0 2.0 W 0 ALFALFA . ..0 28.0 2c.0 vm NAI1E SILO 0.0 10.8 12.0 13.0 F :.* 'E : T R . 2.3 .. V/ 6 CO*N CCE. 0.0 3.0 3.5 3.8 '. L Y 30-' STE. 0. 1.0 1.. 5 11 tSU 710WE E Tä . 5, 4. 5 0..; F ASTLIFE3 C.0 -.C c. . c-; ,'INEYAF'PM 0.0. 0.0 0 i OCHAPl1 0. 0. 0.0 0. . - 51 - ANNEX 6 PROJECT COMPLETDON' RFORT GRGIU DRAZMIRMI -RRIGATION PROJECT ROMANIA Loan 1082-RO Cropping Pattern - Actual vs Appraisal Estimate Appraisal Estimate Actual Cropped Actual Cropped Cropped Peircent of Area Area in 1979 Crop Ar"t Total in 1978 in 1979 as % of Total (ha) C%) (ha) (ha) (%) Wheat 11,000 1019 16,295 20,854 20,6 Barley 5,400 5.4 6,244 7,991 7.9 Maize grain 37,000 36.7 27,260 34,888 34.6 Soybean 11,800 11.7 5,635 7,211 7.2 Sunflower 5,900 5.8 6,777 8,673 8.6 Sugarbeet 5,600 5.6 4,721 6,042 6.0 Potato - - 381 - - Vegetables 9,100 9.0 2,284 3,410 3.4 Alfalfa 11,600 11.5 5,939 7,601 7.5 Maize silo - - 602 780 0.8 Pasture 1,400 1.4 - 1,465 1.4 Vineyards 1,500 1.5 - 1,516 1.5 Orchards 500 0.5 - 469 0.5 100,800 100 76,138 100,900 100 Maize silo 15;,Ina 15 z211-7 6 23 115,900 123,976 Crop Intensity 115% 123% CtOMPl.ET I N RErnP T ROMAN JA fliliR31U-RAZmlIrESTT IRRISATION PRO.ECI1 PR POUCTinN BY CRor VE A 1974-1977 1978 1979 1980 191 1982- 201 UIJ[II WME AT 0 61921 84134 90390 10135 104-70 WT 111 I:ARLFY 0 28098 3082 43077 47071 4794, WfiM IfAIZE rRATN 0 158108 73506? 27147.4 1334"4 349~00 HITl SOYFANS 0 11770 16113 18276 21003 2161V WITil SUffirt1(14ER n 15587 211303 23038 5450 26019 WilH 1 Fl'EAP ET3 0 194505 266870 281332 298117 302100 iiilH tltATgir 0 5906 0 0 0 0 111111 9FOE T Art 0 39056 67219 76178 82909 R3250 i1H11 At raLrA 0 17935R 27752 163430 439440 45A60O 1111M MAT7E 91[l) 0 1553" 22652 26410 10310 31700 ITH1 WIIEAT tTRAIJ 0 42367 60738 65821 71621 77911 11114 RARLEY STRAW 0 22478 31265 35086 37833 38357 Will CORN CO 0 204450 302550 368512 438288 4593544 UIIH SO Y ST1M 0 11270 16113 19839 21160 21633 IiTI 91JFLOWFr RTALK 0 41340 59005 67488 76161 78057 1I,lH14 c;I0ARPI-El LEAVES 0 580ÅR 77621 83267 n9309 90A30 (iilit MAIZE SI10(2N1 CROF 0 0 0 521519 692280 807660 WT1H4 VARIORE 0 0 0 '9300 4l95.0 65y25 li 14 VNE AR. C 0 0 0 0 0 '1224 U1 bIT Hk4 nPCiHApteS 0 0 0 0 0 4271 l,f) n<Il MHFAT 0 45350 60220 62116 65474 66319 klIfl fIM) I:ARtFY 0 3917A 51915 53366 54817 55149 m i m 'i > MAIZE TIPAI9 0 44135 61055 66010 72925 ~4/.31 1'0 i(M1> SOypE.N 0 2947 4141 4572 4v97 5094 bl 0 TM1 IMIF RlfF 0 12 03 16644 17189 17672 177X4 b 'I flr f PFA N1,9 0 3465 46?5 479 5104 5183 '11 P(MT> POTATOF 0 29515 39812 41567 43245 413621 Id,It 0< M1 pr-,F (A1.F 0 637R 8202 R792 R611 P707 bi,-0 rfMT1 ALFALFA 0 137754 183680 190'94 196c08 1084 0 (j/fl 0M1 MT MAI7F S11n 1 80590 113434 1213550 54084 14'H-,0 bl '1. 0 (MI IHFA STRAW n 321R4 43162 44326 41273 45190 4/Il 1T14) t ARt-Y 1TRAU 0 31340 41756 42647 43373 4391 14, f'l 1M I rnpk II 0 57567 R426 92826 964%2 91010 w/O ") M1 SI, n-TM 0 2047 A14P 4%72 4997 5,1 M/l n(MTi K Sirl?ftuFrP '16I 1 3769 701t 57015 5.10¯7 1110 m., 0 O' - l t 1 P119 FrIFI1 LFA 0 n 1 4A 0 W H? I i MA t7r A 1 1 F 1 i 111 0 ~):Ri y,0 ordT FAS1tiPEr- 0~ 1 - 53 - ANNEX 8 PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT GIURGIU RAZMIRESTI IRRIGATION PROJECT ROMANIA Loan 1082-RO Actual and Appraisal Fertilizer Application (kgs/Ra) Actual (1978) Appraisal (Full Development) N P205 K20 N P 0 K 0 Wheat 280 320 - 270 200 - Barley 300 380 - 150 150 - Maize Grain 320 350 50 240 300 Soybeans 105 280 - 125 300 - Sunflower 246 330 100 220 400 - Sugarbeets 500 500 100 300 300 - Vegetables 135 150 175 400 400 200 Alfalfa - 250 - 200 370 - - 54 - ANNEX 9 PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT GIURGIU RAZMIRESTI IRRIGATION PROJECT ROMANIA Loan 1082-RO Economic Prices (Lei/Ton) 1978 1985 Appraisal (Actual) (Projected) Maize 936 1,566 2,100 Wheat 1,440 2,160 2,980 Soybean 3,456 3,870 4,000 Sunflower 4,698 4,662 5,140 Barley 954 1,494 2,000 Sugarbeet 420 1,118 400 Alfalfa 96 /1 96 /1 100 /1 Maize Silo 967- 967 100 Fertilizers N 5,361 10,526 n.a. P205 3,522 9,626 :Z.a. K20 2,520 4,260 n.a. /1 Financial prices. - 55 - Annex 10 Com2letion Report Giurgui-Razmiresti Irrigation Project ROMANIA Structure of CAP and LAS Labor Force Out of Number of CAP Members Which Units Total Male Female Workers CAP Baneasa 485 62 423 485 CAP Balanu 120 29 91 120 CAP Botoraga 880 289 591 844 CAP Chiriacu 1,015 259 756 1,015 CAP Cucuruzu 461 203 258 461 CAP Cetate 229 20 209 229 CAP Calugareni 196 66 130 196 CAP D. Cantemir 220 82 138 220 CAP Cernetu 1,097 361 736 1,053 CAP Daia 266 98 168 266 CAP Draganesti 2,300 758 1,542 2,207 CAP Fratesti 402 181 221 402 CAP Frasinu 165 36 129 156 CAP Giurgiu 150 60 90 150 CAP Ghizdaru 240 115 125 240 CAP Chimpati 1,747 805 942 1,747 CAP Gogosari 293 103 190 293 CAP Gurueni 718 236 482 688 CAP Hulubesti 831 351 480 361 CAP Hodivoaia 190 45 145 180 CAP zvorul 327 128 199 327 CAP Mihai Bravu 331 71 260 240 CAP Magura 1,150 378 772 1,103 CAP Malu 607 127 480 607 CAP Maipu 383 152 231 383 CAP Oinacu 440 68 372 440 CAP Oncesti 208 88 120 208 CAP Orbeasca 1,153 380 773 1,107 CAP Plopearu 230 30 200 230 CAP Putineiu 386 167 219 386 CAP Remus 188 25 163 188 CAP Razmiresti 642 211 431 616 CAP Rasuceni-Progreau 362 140 222 250 CAP Rasuceni-Flacara 246 76 170 237 CAP Staneati 576 100 476 531 CAP Stoenesti 776 170 606 726 CAP Silistea 720 237 483 690 CAP Slobozia 380 128 252 380 CAP Sohitu 465 165 301 465 CAP Tangiru 464 200 264 464 CAP Toporu 881 290 591 845 CAP Teleorman 865 284 581 829 CAP Tomulesti 397 130 267 381 CAP Uzuru 266 77 189 266 CAP Vlasir 155 52 103 155 CAP Valea-Bujorului 357 119 238 357 CAP Vien 349 142 207 349 CAP Vitanesti 1,483 488 995 1,423 Total CAP 218,011 25505 LAS Alexandria - - - 569 LAS Adunatii-Copacent - - - 800 LAS Giurgiu - - - 1,005 LAS Mihailesti - - - 598 IAS Toporu - - - 398 Other State Units - - - 250 Total 3,620 - 56 - Completion Report anex1 Giurgui-Razmiresti Irrigation Project ROMANIA Distribution of Irrigated Area Units Eprinkler Furrow Total (ha) (ha) (ha) CAP Bareasa 840 1,220 2,060 CAP Balaru 741 - 741 CAP Botorooga 114 - 114 CAP Chiriacu 3,223 1,745 4,968 CAP Cucuruzu 2,666 - 2,666 CAP Cetate 712 479 1,192 CAP Calugareri - 160 160 CAP D. Cartemir 1,386 88 1,474 CAP Cernatu 1,800 869 2,669 CAP Cain 1,391 109 1,500 CAP Dragaresti 2,137 - 2,137 CAP Fratesti 2,126 412 2,538 CAP Frasiru - 1,053 1,053 CAP Giurgiu 699 165 864 CAP Ghizdarn 603 620 1,223 CAP Ghimpati 116 - 116 CAP Gogosari 127 - 127 CAP Guruieri 1,444 - 1,444 CAP Eulubesti 460 305 765 CAP Bodivoaia 394 901 1,295 CAP Izvorul 1,268 448 1,716 CAP Mikai Bravu 1,298 - 1,298 CAP Magura 2,354 - 2,354 CAP Malu 339 - 339 CAP Naipu 1,683 - 1,683 CAP Oiracu 315 - 315 CAP Onceasti 864 240 1,104 CAP Orbeasca 324 - 324 CAP Plopsoru 1,565 555 2,120 CAP Putineiu 1,129 1,994 3,123 CAP Remus 1,035 - 1,035 CAP Razmireati 1,343 1,183 2,526 CAP Rasuceri Progrescu 1,991 - 1,991 CAP Rasuceri Flacara 1,276 - 1,276 CAP Staresti 1,118 2,287 3,405 CAP Stoeresti 1,213 928 2,141 CAP Siliatea 2,656 - 2,656 CAP Slobozia 2,093 365 2,458 CAP Schitu 1,296 - 1,296 CAP Tangiru 437 183 620 CAP Toporu 2,991 - 2,991 CAP Teleorman 2,552 614 3.166 CAP Tomulesti 1,833 590 2,423 CAP Uzuru 1,051 - 1,051 CAP V1asin 860 265 1,125 CAP Valea Bujoruui 1,306 - 1,306 CAP Vieru 1,929 - 1,929 CAP Vitaresti 2,586 2,586 Total CAP 61,684 17,778 79,462 LAS Alexandria 1,525 - 1,525 LAS Adunati-Copaceni 2,003 197 2,200 LAS Giurgiu 6,733 2,867 9,600 LAS Mikailesti 649 - 649 LAS Toporu 2,524 933 3,457 Other State Units 4,007 - 4,007 Total IAS 17_441 3,997 2 Grand Total 79,125 21,775 100L900 - 57 - ANNEX 12 Page 1 COMPLETION REPORT GIURGIU-RAZMIRESTI IRRIGATION PROJECT ROMANIA Loan 1082-RO Operation and Maintenance 1. The operation and maintenence organization operates as teams or systems with each system responsible for a 25,000 to 30,000 ha area. Four such systems cover the 100,900 ha of the Giurgiu-Razmiresti project. Each system has the equipment and staff required for O&M of the assigned project area. The staff is broken down into smaller specialized teams for specific fields of work such as pumping stations, canals, pipelines, etc. 2. There are 3 such systems in the portion of the project area located in the Ilfov Judet (District); the remaining area is located in the Teleorman Judet, and will be maintained by the 4th system. These 4 systems have a staff of 600, including 43 management personnel made up of engineers, technicians and foremen, and 557 skilled laborers, including electromechanical technicians, carpenters, welders equipment operators, etc. About one fourth of the staff is assigned to each of the 4 systems in the project area. At the time of appraisal it was proposed to have 5 systems, responsible for 20,000 to 25,000 ha each, for O&M of the project area. The O&M systems are responsible for all project facilities down to the turnout hydrants, plus soil and moisture testing on the farms and advising the farm operators on the timing and schedul- ing of irrigation. For the present this staff seems adequate, and will be increased should this be necessary in the light of actual operations. 3. During the irrigation season, the O&M staff keeps the project facilities in operation, provides technical assistance to the farm operators in irrigation scheduling, and assures water deliveries in the amount, and at the place required. During the non-irrigation season they do the necessary repair and overhaul on project pumping equipment and machinery, clean and repair canals and drains etc. 4. In the assistance provided for irrigation scheduling, the O&M hydrology officers work closely with Extension Service Research specialists, who visit and observe the farm operations every 3 or 4 days. The assigned hydrology officer tests the soil for water content, precipitation in the area and rate of evaporation and, from this, determines the evapo-transpiration rate for the particular crops since the last irrigation. He determines the time and amount of water required for the next irrigation and prepares an irrigation program for the farm operators. Using this program for the various farms, the O&M technical staff will prepare a water delivery schedule for the following week, including the number of pumps required and the amount of water to be pumped and delivered to the hydrant turnouts. Small technical teams of the O&M organization are set up to provide such a service in approximately 5,000 ha sectors of the project area and are responsible for adequate water delivery at the hydrant turnouts. - 58 - ANNEX 12 Page 2 5. O&M costs are estimated to average about 1,200 lei/ha on the project, of which about 70% was estimated for power (600 lei) and pumping plant depre- ciation (240 lei), and 30% for salaries, material, fuel, etc. Since the project was only in partial operation during 1978 and 1979, a few more years of operation will be required before this estimate can be firmed up. At the time of appraisal the annual O&M costs were estimated to be 1,500 lei/ha including 605 lei/ha for pumping energy. 6. The quality of operation and maintenance observed on the project was generally satisfactory. The maintenance on the pumps and motors was quite good but there was evidence of needed additional cleaning and painting in the lower level of some of the pump houses. Work on the canals was good but, since they are only 2 to 3 years old, little maintenance was yet required. The O&M staff said the only major problem encountered so far in operation and maintenance of the project was the lack of appropriate equipment for cleaning the larger concrete lined canals without damaging the lining. They would appreciate suggestions from future Bank supervision missions on sources of equipment designed especially for this purpose. COMPLETION REPORT ROMANIA DIUROIU-RAZMIRESTI IRRIGATION PROJECT OUICK SUMMARY ECONOMIC ANALYSIS TABLE IN 000'S LEI YEAR 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 W/O PROJ REVENUE 0 0 0 0 329610 454503 509351 565059 622260 W/O PROJ COSTS 0 0 0 0 173010 273772 280381 299029 305442 W/O PROJ NET BENEFITS 0 0 0 0 156600 190731 228970 266031 316810 WITH PROJ REVENUES 0 0 0 0 655474 990012 1287648 1563058 1750252 WITH PROJ PROD COSTS 0 0 0 0 302975 596285 611405 655687 6710A? INVESTMENT COSTS 166200 432000 938500 409800 65700 66200 14600 0 0 OIMREPL COSTS 0 0 0 0 63000 84000 84000 84000 84000 WITH PROJ NET BENEFITS -166200 -432000 -838500 -409800 223899 243527 577643 823371 995190 INCR NET BENEFITS(WITH-W -166200 -432000 -838500 -409800 67299 62796 348673 557340 678371 I U, YEAR 1983 1984 1995-1987 1909-1990 1991-1997 1998-2000 2001-2013 W/O PROJ REVENUE 629032 634002 639843 639943 639043 639843 639043 W/O PROJ COSTS 316642 330082 345342 345342 345342 345342 345342 W/O PROJ NET BENEFITS 311390 303919 294501 294501 294501 294501 294501 WITH PROJ REVENUES 1765655 1781527 1796021 1796021 1796021 1796021 1796021 WITH PROJ PROD COSTS 697754 729840 766233 766233 766233 766233 766233 INVESTMENT COSTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OSMAREPL COSTS 84000 84000 84000 133000 84000 191000 84000 WITH PROJ NET BENEFITS 983901 967687 945788 896788 945798 838788 945788 INCR NET BENEFITS(WITH-W 672512 663767 65128 602299 651288 544298 651289 THE RESULTS FOR NET STREAM WITH PROJECT ONLY(N.WITHT) NET PRESENT VALUE AT 9.0Z - 4481463. INTERNAL RATE OF REfURN * 21.5% THE RESULTS FOR THE INCREMENTAL WITH PROJECT STREAM(N.TOTALT) NET PRESENT VALUE AT 9.0% - 2454053. IHTERNAL RATE OF RETURN - 18.9% THE RESULTS FOR THE WITHOUT PROJECT tASE ARE BELOU(N.PEFORET) NET PRESENT VALUE AT 9.0% - 2027411. NO INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN EXISTS - 60 - ANNEX 14 COMPLETION REPORT GIURGIU-RAZMIRESTI IRRIGATION PROJECT ROMANIA Loan 1082-RO Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs Item Per Hectare (lei) Total-100,900 ha (Net) ('000 lei) 1. Repair and Maintenance (except those for pumping stations) 23 23359 2. Replacement costs (except those for pumping stations) 108 10,904 3. Pumping costs - repair and maintenance 176 17,728 - salary 26 2,600 - energy 602 60,783 - indirect costs 35 3,536 4. Water applying salaries 260 26,188 Total 1,230 124,098 1 BRD 11167(PCR) 一方