Romania - Irrigation and Agricultural Development Projects

Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No. 5386 PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT ROMANIA - RASOVA-VEDEROASA IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (LOAN 1247-RO) AND IALOMITA-CALMATUI IRRIGATION PROJECT (LOAN 1368-RO) December 28, 1984 Operations Evaluation Department This document has a restricted distributio and may be used by recipients only I the performance of their *Ilicial daties. Its contents may not otherwbe be disclosed wlthout World Bank authorisation. ABBREVIATIONS BAFI - Bank for Agriculture and Food Industry CAP - Agricultural Production Cooperative CELIF - Central for Exploitation of Land Reclamation Works DGAFI - General Directorate for Agriculture and Food Industry DGEIFCA - Economic General Directorate for Land Reclamation and Agricultural Construction DIFCA - Department of Land Reclamation and Agricultural Construction GSI - Group for Supervising Investments IAS - State Agricultural Enterprise TEELIF - Enterprise for Execution and Exploitation of Land Reclamation Works IELIF - Enterprise for Exploitation of Land Reclamation Works IPSCAIA - Institute for Projects and Studies for Construction in Agriculture and Food Industry ISPIF - Institute for Studies and Design of Land Reclamation MAFI - Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry PS - Pumping Station ROMAGRIMEX - Romanian Foreign Trade Company for Agriculture SMA - Agricultural Mechanization Enterprise TCIF - Construction Trust for Land Reclamation Works FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT RCKANIA - RASOVA-VEDEROASA IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (LOAN 1247-RO) AND IALOKITA-CAIKATUI IRRIGATION PROJECT (LOAN 1368-RO) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Preface ............................................................ i Basic Data Sheets .................................................. iii Highlights ............. ........................................... iv PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT MEHDRANDUM I. PROJECT SUMMARY ........................ .......... 1 A. Rasova-Vederoasa Irrigation and Agricultural Development Project ..................... 1 B. Ialomita-Calmatui Irrigation Project ............... 3 II. AUDIT FINDINGS ................... ..... ......... 4 A. General -............ ............. ................. 4 B. Problems and Constraints ... 5........................5 Annex 1 - The Projects' Energy Implications . .........11........11 Annex 2 - Comments Received from the Borrower ...1.......7...17 Rasova-Vederoasa Irrigation and Agricultural Development Project I. Introduction ........ . ......................... 23 II. Project Processing ..................... ... 25 III. Project Implementation ........... ................ 27 IV. Agricultural Impact ...................................... 32 V. Economic Analysis - ....... -- ...... o ................... 35 VI. Institutional Performance ..................... .......... 37 VII. Conclusions and Recommendations ........................... 41 Annexes 1-11 This document has a restricted distribution and my be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. Table of Contents (cont'd.) Page No. Ialomita-Calmatui Irrigation Project I. Introduction ............................................. 77 II. Project Processing ....................................... 79 III. Project Implementation ................................... 82 IV. Agricultural Impact ...................................... 88 V. Economic Imnact .......................................... 93 VI. Institutional Performance ................................ 95 VII. Conclusions and Recommendations .......................... 98 Annexes 1-5 Maps IBRD No. 11880 (PCR) IBRD No. 12267 (PCR) PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT ROMANIA - RASOVA-VEDEROASA IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (LOAN 1247-RO) AND IALOMITA-CALMATUI IRRIGATION PROJECT (LOAN 1368-RO) PREFACE This is a performance audit of the Rasova-Vederoasa Irrigation and Agricultural Development Project and the Ialomita-Calmatui Irrigation Project in Romania. Loan 1247-RO in the amount of US$60.0 million was approved in April 1976 for the Rasova-Vederoasa Irrigation and Agricultural Project. This loan was closed as scheduled on June 30, 1981. It was fully disbursed; final disbursement took place on June 29, 1981. Loan 1368-RO for the Ialomita-Calmatul Irrigation Project, also in the amount of US$60.0 million, was approved in February 1977 and closed, fully disbursed, on June 30, 1982; final disbursement was on March 29, 1982. The audit report consists of an audit memorandum prepared by the Operations Evaluation Department (OED) and two project completion reports (PCRs), both dated June 26, 1984. The PCRs, which were based on earlier drafts submitted by the Borrower's Bank for Agriculture and Food Industry, were prepared by the Bank's Europe, Middle East and North Africa Regional Office. The audit of these two projects has been combined because of the similarity of the investments and of the problems and constraints encountered during implementation. An OED mission visited the RasonvVederoasa project area in May 1984. The mission held disussions with officials of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry, the Bank for Agriculture and Food Industry, and with staff in the field. The information obtained during the mission was used to test the validity of the analysis and conclusions of the PCRs. The audit memorandum is based on these discussions, on interviews with Bank staff associated with the projects, and on a review of the PCRs; the Staff Appraisal Report (No. 1112-RO) dated March 29, 1976, the President's Report (No. P-1809-RO) dated April 7, 1976 and the Loan Agreement of April 28, 1976 for the Rasova-Vederoasa Irrigation and Agricultural Development Project; the Staff Appraisal Report (No. 1228-RO) dated January 10, 1977, the President's Report (No. P-1986-RO) dated February 2, 1977 and the Loan Agreement of March 2, 1977 for the Ialomita-Calmatui Irrigation Project; correspondence with the Borrower; and internal Bank memoranda on project issues as contained in relevant Bank files. A copy of the draft report was sent to the Borrower on Sep- tember 18, 1984. Comments received from the Bank for Agriculture and Food Industry are in Annex 2 and have been taken into account in finalizing the report. - ii - The audit finds the PCRs comprehensive and accurate with respect to the projects' principal achievements and shortcomings and has no reason to question their conclusions. The audit memorandum deals with the Rasova- Vederoasa project's agricultural production components and with the projects' overall economic viability, and comments on the relationship between project loan disbursement and physical progress during implementation. The valuable assistance provided by the Government of Romania is gratefully acknowledged. - Ili - PROJECT PERFOMA"CE AUDIT REPORT ROMANIA - RASOVA-VEDEROASA IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (LOAN 1247-10) BASIC DATA SHEET KEY PROJECT DATA Appraisal Actual or Actual as X of Item Estimate Estimated Actual Appraisal Estimate Total Project Costs (USS million) 130.5 153.8 118 Loan Amount (USS million) 60.0 60.0 100 Date Board Approval - 04/27/76 - Loan Agreement Date - 04/28/76 - Date Effectiveness 07/27/76 11/03/76 200 /a Date Physical Components Completed 12/80 12/82 144 ra Proportion Then Completed (2) 100 81 81 Closing Date 06/30/81 06/30181 100 /a Economic Rare of Return (2) 17 12 71 Institutional Performance - Good - Agronomic Performance - Satisfactory - Number of Direct Beneficiaries (1984) n.a. 26,400 CUMULATIVE DISBURSEHENTS FT77 FT78 FY79 Fr80 FY81 Appraisal Estimate (USS million) 5.2 33.7 48.9 56.1 60.0 Actual (USS million) 1.3 11.1 37.5 51.7 60.0 Actual as 2 of E*timate 25 33 77 92 100 Date of final disbursement Jne 29, 1981 MISSION DATA Date No. of Mandays Specializations Performance Types of (mo./yr.) Persons in Field Represented/b Rating/c Trend/d Problems/e Preparation 02/75 2 6 B.C Appraisal 06/75 5 105 Sub-toral 111 Supervision 1 05/77 3 12 C 1 2 Supervision 2 03/78 3 6 C 1 2 T Supervision 3 02/79 2 8 A,C I I Supervision 4 07/79 3 12 A.B.C 1 I . - Supervision 5 05/80 2 8 B,C 1 2 Supervision 6 04/81 2 8 B,C 1 2 F Supervision 7 05/52 2 2 B.C 2 2 F Supervision 8 11/82 2 2 C(2) 1 2 F Supervision 9 06/83 2 2 C(2) 1 1 Sub-total 60 Completion 09/83 2 10 ,C - - Tocal 181 OTHER PROJECT DATA Borrower Bank for Agriculture and Food Industry (AI) Executing Agency Bank for Agriculture and Food Industry (BAPI) Fiscal Year of Borrover January I to December 31 Name of Currency (Abbreviation) lei (Lei) Currency Exchange Rate: Appraisal Year Average: USS1.00 - Let 20.0 Intervening Years Average: US$1.00 - Let 16.8 Completion Year Average: USS1.00 - Let 17.5 Follow-on Project Name Islomita CalUatui Irr. Loan Number 1368-RO Loan Amount (USS million) 60.0 Date of Board Approval 02/17/77 /a Calculated in terms of months from date of Board approval. 7 A - Agriculturist; B - Economist; C - Irrigation engineer. 7F 1 - Problem-free or minor problem; 2 - Moderate problems; and 3 - Major problems. 7d- 1 - Improving; 2 - Stationary; and 3 - Deteriorating. 7 T - Technical; and F - Financial. - iv - PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT ROMANIA - IALONITA-CALMATUI IRRIGAITON PROJECT (LOAN 1368-R0) BASIC DATA SHEET KET PROJECT DATA Appraisal Actual or Actual as Z of Item Estimate Estimated Actual Appraisal Estimate Total Project Costs (US$ million) 195.0 209.4 107 Loan Amount (USS million) 60.0 60.0 100 Date Board Approval - 02/17/77 - Loan Agreement Date - 03/02/77 - Date Effectiveness 06/02/77 06/23/77 120 /a nate Physical Components Completed 12/81 12/85 183 T Proportion Then Completed (2) 100 100 - Closing Date 06/30/82 06/30/82 100 /n Economic Rate of Return (Z) 16 16 88 Institutional Performance - Good Agronomic Performance Good CUMULATIVE DISBURSEKEHTS FY78 FT79 P180 FT81 FY82 Appraisal Estimate (USS million) 22.0 44.0 53.0 57.6 60.0 Actual (USS million) 8.5 24.0 44.9 57.0 60.0 Actual as Z of Estimate 38.6 54.5 84.7 99.0 100 Date of Final Disbursement March 29. 1982 MISSION DATA Date No. of Mondays Specializations Performance Types of (no./yr.) Persons In Field/b Represented/c Rating/d Treadle Problem/f Identification Without Bank particiation Preparation Uithout Bank participation Appraisal 04/76 4 80 A.B,D,D Sub-total Supervision 1 03/78 3 33 B,D.D 1 1 Supervision 2 03/79 2 42 A,D 1 1 Supervision 3 07/79 3 114 A.B.D 1 1 - Supervision 4 07180 1 7 D1 1 - Supervision 5 05/81 2 24 A.D 1 2 F.T Supervision 6 05/82 2 26 B,D 2 3 F,T Supervision 7 11/82 2 28 D,D 2 2 F.T Supervision 8 05/83 2 26 D,D 2 1 F Supervison 9 10/83 2 24 C,D 1 2 Sub-total 324 Total 404 OTBER PROJECT DATA Borrower Bank for Agriculture and Food Industry (BAFI) Executing Agency Bank for Agriculture and Food Industry (BAFI) Fiscal Tear of Borrower January 1 to Decembev 31 Name of Currency (Abbreviation) Lei (Lei) Currency Exchange Rate: Appraisal Tear Average: USS1.00 - Lei 20.0 Intervening Tears Average: USS1.00 * Ii 18.3 Completion Tear Average: US$1.00 - Let 21.0 Follow-on Projects IA: Name Vilsoars % rigation Mostistes Calmatu Irrigation Loan Number 1509-Pf- 1670-R0 Loan Amount (USS million) 6. 1 70.0 Date of Board appL.C- 01/12/78 03/20/79 /a Calculated in terma of months from date of Board approval. Tb Concurrent with supervision of other ongoing projects. A - Agriculturist; B - Economist; C - Financial Analyst; D - Inspection Engineer. T 1 - Problem-free or minor problems; 2 - Moderate problems; and 3 - Major problems. Te 1 - Improving; 2 - Stationary; and 3 - Dteriorating. 77 F - Financial, and T - Technical. 7& Three additional irrigation projects not listed (Loans 1795-R0. 1938-30 and 1971-R0) were approved on 01/22/80. 12/23/80 and 04121/81. respectively; the combined loan amount of these three projects was US$265.0 million. -v - PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT REPORT ROMANIA - RASOVA-VEDEROASA IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (LOAN 1247-RO) AND IALOMITA-CALMATUI IRRIGATION PROJECT (LOAN 1368-RO) HIGHLIGHTS The two projects were the fourth and fifth loan, respectively, for the agricultural sector in Romania and the second and third in a series of eight loans made between 1974 and 1981 for the development of the irrigation and drainage subsector. The eight loans, totalling US$545 million, were advanced to irrigate an approximate area of 1.1 million ha. The Rasova-Vederoasa Project covers an area of 65,400 ha and was the first loan to combine irrigation infrastructure and credit under a single regional development project. In addition to increasing and stabilizing crop production in the newly irrigated area, other project objectives included: milk and beef production; construction of a feed mill with 140,000 tons annual capacity; importation of breeding stock for the dairy herd; increased drinking water supply to 17 villages; and expansion of annual grain storage facilities by 44,000 tons. The project got off to a rapid start in the last quarter of 1976 but slowed down sharply by 1980, due primarily to insuffi- icient budget allocations and the overcommitment of Romania's construction industry. As a result, implementation of the irrigation component required six years rather than the four years expected at appraisal. The feed mill and silo components were delayed three years as was the importation of dairy herd stock. The cost of the Rasova-Vederoasa project was 18% higher than anticipated at the time of appraisal due almost exclusively to the increase in cost of the irrigation component, namely, the distribution pipeline and land levelling. As a result, design adjustments had to be made during project implementation to minimize cost overruns. Initially, 34,000 ha were to be levelled but when costs proved prohibitive, the Bank concurred with Romania's decision to convert to a sprinkler system (Loan 1247-RO PCR, para. 3.02). Despite delays and design alterations, the project accomplished its objectives. Incomes of 26,400 cooperative farm members increased by 70% between 1978 and 1981. The entire planned area of 65,400 ha for irrigation was completed. However, the overall estimated economic rate of return (ERR) is 12% compared with 17% estimated at appraisal. The lower ERR is mainly due to lower international grain prices, and the high cost of energy in Romania. - vi - The Ialomita-Calmatui project covers a gross area of 148,500 ha and includes surface drainage on 82,000 ha, tile drainage on 15,000 ha, desalini- zation of 2,700 ha and irrigation of a net area of about 140,000 ha. The main project objectives were to increase and stabilize crop production in the newly irrigated area. Project construction got off to a rapid start in 1977 but slowed down in 1980 due partly to technical difficulties but mostly because of Romania's financial problems at that time. As a result, project implementation will require ten years rather than the six years expected at appraisal (Loan 1368-RO PCR para. 3.02). Consequently, full development benefits will not be reached until 1988 instead of 1986 as was anticipated at appraisal. The estimated final cost of the project is US$209.4 million which represents an overrun of 7.4% in dollar terms over appraisal estimates. Despite delays, the Ialomita-Calmatui project satisfactorily accom- plished its objectives. The entire planned areas for irrigation, drainage, and desalinization have been or will shortly be completed. The project's re-estimated rate of return is 14%, compared with the appraisal estimate of 16%. The return could have been higher, had the project benefitted from ade- quate supplies of necessary inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides/her- bicides. Despite input shortages, production increased in line with apprais- al estimates (Loan 1368-RO PCR, para. 5.02). Other points of interest and lessons learned are: - Romania's economic difficulties affected the timely implementation of these and other irrigation projects (Loan 1247-RO PCR, para. 7.02; Loan 1368-RO PCR, para. 1.04); - several of the Borrower's procurement procedures were modified dur- ing implementation of the Rasova-Vederoasa project in order to attract more foreign bidders (Loan 1247-RO PCR, paras. 3.18-3.21 and 7.04); - status of engineering at appraisal was adequate for the Ialomita- Calmatui project and this, along with stable construction costs, resulted in actual costs being close to the appraisal estimate (loan 1368-RO PCR, paras. 3.01 and 7.02); - monitoring and evaluation of agricultural production needs to be more comprehensive, both for yearly analysis and decision making, as well as for post evaluation review (Loan 1247-RO PCR, paras. 3.22 and 7.06; Loan 1368-RO PCR, paras. 3.19 and 7.07); - direct and indirect sources of funds, i.e., user fees and general prices and taxes, have been used for cost recovery (Loan 1247-RO PCR, paras. 2.04 and 6.07; Loan 1368-RO PCR, para. 4.15); - under the Government's initiative, significant organizational changes took place in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Indus- try, which P.re likely to be beneficial to project implementation, operation and maintenance (PPAM, para. 18; Loan 1247-RO PCR, paras. 6.02-6.04; Loan 1368-RO PCR, paras. 6.01-6.03); - vii - - Bank supervisions should have paid more attention to agricultural production aspects (PPAM, paras. 20-24; Loan 1247-RO PCR, para. 6.09; Loan 1368-RO PCR, para. 6.06); - uncertainties surrounding the projects' economic viability, especi- ally aspects related to the cost of energy, warrant a thorough analysis of the economics of the type of irrigated agriculture sup- ported by the projects (PPAM, paras. 26-27); and - loan disbursements were not linked to physical progress in imple- mentation (PPAM, para. 28; Loan 1247-RO PCR, paras. 6.10 and 7.05; Loan 1368-RO PCR, paras. 3.18 and 7.06). - 1 - PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT MEMORANDUM ROMANIA - RASOVA-VEDEROASA IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (LOAN 1247-RO) AND IALOMITA-CALMATUI IRRIGATION PROJECT (LOAN 1368-RO) I. PROJECT SUMMARY 1/ 1. Inadequate and fluctuating rainfall is a major limiting factor to Romania's agricultural production. To alleviate this constraint, Bank agricultural lending to that country has accorded high priority to providing irrigation infrastructure. Eight loans totalling US$545.0 million were approved for this purpose during the period 1974-81. A. Rasova-Vederoasa Irrigation and Agricultural Development Project 2. This project, located in one of the lowest rainfall zones in south- eastern Romania, was the second in the series of Bank-supported irrigation projects. It was identified and prepared by the Government. Appraisal took place in 1975, and a loan (1247-RO) in the amount of US$60.0 million was approved in April 1976. The loan became effective in November 1976, about three months later than expected, and was closed as scheduled in June 1981. 3. The objectives of the project were to raise agricultural production and improve farm incomes in an irrigated area of about 65,000 ha in Constanza district, and to provide drinking water to 17 rural communities. The Danube river was to serve as the source of irrigation water. General improvements included irrigation works, land levelling, soil erosion works, and provision of on-farm sprinkler and furrow equipment and of farm machinery and implements. In addition, a special effort focussed on developing milk, beef and horticultural production by establishing 11 dairy units, two beef fattening units, one feed mill, 450 ha of vineyards and 350 ha of orchards. The project was estimated to cost US$130.5 million and was expected to be implemented over a four-year period. 4. Implementation of the project was largely successful. Irrigation infrastructure, consisting of pumping stations, a canal and pipe distribution network, and a sprinkler system, was constructed or improved, and some levelling undertaken, to benefit the whole 65,000 ha target area. Soil erosion control work was completed for about 7,000 ha, and farm machinery and implements were provided as expected. The planned vineyard, orchard, and a 44,000 t grain silo were established. The livestock component, including the dairy farms, beef fattening units and a feed mill, also was implemented. The targets for rural water supply were met. No major procurement problems were encountered. 1/ Adapted from the PCRs. - 2 - 5. The project was modified in part, largely for financial reasons, as in the course of implementation Government reallocated available fu'ds for this, as well as all other on-going projects. With the reduced annual provi- sion of local funds, the implementation period had to be extended if the ori- ginal physical construction targets were to be achieved. This extension slipped the project into a period of greater inflation, exerting pressure on project costs. The cost of land levelling was particularly affected. As a counter measure, the area to be levelled was reduced to under 3,000 ha from the target of 13,000 ha, and the proposed furrow irrigation on the remaining area was replaced by cheaper sprinkler irrigation. Generally, the irrigation component suffered the least delays, and the dairying component, with the exception of the importation of dairy herd stock, was completed nearly on time. However, the vineyard, orchard and beef fattening components were delayed by about a year, the rural water supply component by about two years, and construction of the feed mill and grain silo by over three years. Actual project costs totalled US$153.8 million; the cost overrun was 18% in US dollar terms and 5% in terms of local currency. The main factor contributing to the cost overrun was the sharp increase in unit costs of asbestos cement pipes and of land levelling. Moderate increases in the cost of some other portions of the project were to some extent offset by savings in the purchase of dairy stock and in some livestock-related construction work. 6. The project is expected to have a significant impact on produc- tion. Field crop yields, at full development to be reached in 1986, are now expected to exceed appraisal estimates by an average of about 8%; actual yields achieved in 1982 already averaged close to 92% of the original full development targets. The targets for cropped area and cropping intensity, i.e., about 75,000 ha and 118%, respectively, already have been achieved. The production of the vineyard and orchard has exceeded appraisal expecta- tions. The performance of the dairy enterprises has not been as good, how- ever, due to insufficient feed supplies and excessive death rates. Farm machinery services supported under the project have been operating satisfac- torily. 7. This project contained no major institution-building features. However, it contributed to consolidating the coordination and implementation procedures of the Government agencies involved in the irrigation subsector. The agencies coacerned with the implementation of the project and with the provision of support services are well organized and have performed satisfac- torily. 8. The project has significantly raised the incomes of about 26,400 people belonging to state farms and cooperative enterprises. However, the satisfactory physical performance of the project has been more than offset by adverse economic factors, including the project's cost overrun, the high cost of the energy needed to operate the irrigation system, and lower interna- tional grain prices. Consequently, the economic rate of return re-estimated at audit has dropped to 12% from 17% calculated at appraisal. - 3 - B. Ialomita-Calmatui Irrigation Project 9. This was the third in the series of Bank-supported irrigation proj- ects in Romania. Identification and preparation was undertaken by the Borrower without Bank participation. The project was appraised in 1976. The loan (1368-RO) in the amount of US$60.0 million was approved in February 1977 and became effective in June 1977. It was fully disbursed by Karch 1982 and closed as scheduled in June 1982. 10. The main objective of the project was to increase agricultural pro- duction and productivity by shifting a gross area of 148,500 ha from rainfed cultivation to irrigation. The source of water was the Danube river. The project's irrigation works included pumping stations, a main canal, a system of secondary and tertiary distribution canals, pressure pipelines, on-farm sprinkler irrigation networks, furrow irrigation networks, and land levell- ing. Drainage works included open drainage canals, drainage pumping stations, tile drainage systems, and minor reclamation of saline soils and drainage of shallow depressions. Furthermore, the project provided for electrical transmission lines, soil erosion control works, groundvater obser- vation wells, maintenance facilities, and the relocation of roads and bridges and of forest boundaries. 11. Implementation of the project was successful. A total of 289 irri- gation pumping stations were constructed, 78 more than anticipated. The 364 km of canals and 2,583 km of pressure pipelines actually constructed were 12% and 7%, respectively, shorter than appraised; land levelling (32,598 ha) was 19% short of the original target. Nevertheless, on-farm furrow equipment was installed for 36,750 ha as expected, and the on-farm sprinkler equipment for the 105,900 ha provided slightly exceeded the target. Tile drainage covered 12,000 ha (14,400 ha target), drainage canals totalled 241 km (311 km target), and installed drainage pumping stations numbered 25 (23 target). Land reclamation covered 5,150 ha and soil erosion control 6,100 ha, as expected. However, slope corrections were undertaken on less than 10% (7,878 ha) of the target area. Relocation of forest boundaries was not undertaken. Other miscellaneous works were executed as per appraisal estimate. 12. Implementation started in 1976 and progressed well until early 1979, when technical difficulties encountered in the constructxon of a re-'umping station and portions of the main canal began to slow construction progress. Further serious delays occurred between late 1980 and 1982 as a result of reduced budgetary allocations and shortages of fuel, construction equipment and materials.2/ In late 1982 Government reinstated adequate bud- getary funds despite continuing overall economic difficulties in the country and implementation again reached a satisfactory pace. Final completion of 2/ The Borrower's comments in thiz respect are in Annex 2 (point 1). the project is not expected before 1985, however. This four-year completion delay is about equally attributable to the technical and financial difficul- ties. ICB procurement under the project was completed it June 1979 despite a series of long delays between bid opening and award of contracts. Estimated actual project costs of US$209.4 million exceed appraisal estimates by about 7%, although there was no cost overrun in local currency terms. Considerable disagreement between the Borrower and the Bank about the project's direct and indirect foreign exchange content, which had surfaced at the appraisal stage, could not be resolved and is still reflected in the PCR (Loan 1368-RO PCR, para. 3.12). 13. The overall agricultural impact of the project is projected to slightly exceed appraisal estimates. The total cropped area, at full devel- opment in 1988, is expected to reach about 156,000 ha, representing a crop- ping intensity of 112%. The cropping pattern is dominated by grains, with maize and wheat accounting for 57% of the cropped area; fodder crops, i.e, alfalfa, maize for silage and pasture, occupy 21%. Crop yields at full development are expected to meet or exceed appraisal targets. With an esti- mated incremental production of over 410,000 tons, maize is likely to contri- bute about two-thirds of the project's gross incremental benefits. 14. Similar to the Rasova-Vederoasa project (para. 7), this project was not expected to accomplish institutional changes. However, there was an expansion in local training capacity to serve the needs of irrigated agricul- ture. Moreover, a recent reorganization of parts of the Ministry of Agricul- ture and Food Industry is likely to benefit this project along with the coun- try's other irrigation schemes through more effective systems operation and maintenance. Romania's system of cost recovery through direct and indirect means was unaffected by this project. Water charges will cover about 29% of operation and maintenance costs. 15. The project has benefitted the local economy through improvement of the employment and incomes situation. The project's re-estimated economic rate of return is 14% compared with 16% estimated at appraisal. II. AUDIT FINDINGS A. General 16. Romania has a well developed irrigation subsector, both in terms of area covered as well as the level of technology applied. Currently, the country has about 2.4 million ha under irrigation; tentative plans are to increase this area to 5.5 million ha by 1990. When Bank financing of irriga- tion investments was initiated in 1974, the irrigated area was under 1.2 mil- lion ha, and the eight irrigation loans subsequently approved by the Bank were to benefit an area of 1.1 million ha. In some parts of the tradition- ally irrigated Danube plains, the systems in operation are among the most advanced found anywhere in Europe. Local expertise in irrigation engineering in the various Government agencies is of high caliber, and all planning and design is undertaken by local staff. - 5 - 17. The two projects under review provided irrigation for about 204,000 ha. While this amounts to only 8Z of the country's total irrigated area and to only about 18Z of the irrigated area in the Districts of Constanza, Ialomita and Braila, it represents a significant technical achievement. The systems, including the floating pumping stations on the Danube, the canals, secondary pumping stations and subsurface pressure pipe distributors required extensive civil works and equipment engineering. Design changes in the Rasova-Vederoasa project, resulting from an initial miscalculation, reduced the area to be levelled from the proposed 13,000 ha to 3,000 ha and substi- tuted sprinkler irrigation for the originally planned furrow irrigation. Substantial technical difficulties had to be overcome in the construction of the floating pumping station and the Spirt-Haret re-pumping station, as well as the main canal, under the Ialomita-Calmatui project. Project authorities successfully coped with complications arising from design changes and pro- blems affecting construction. 18. Concurrent with completion of project works, the national Enter- prise for Execution and Exploitation of Land Reclamation Works (IEELIF) was reorganized, a step expected to improve operation and maintenance of the irrigation systems (Loan 1247-RO PCR, para. 6.06; Loan 1368-RO PCR, paras. 4.12 and 4.14). IEELIF has established sub-units throughout the respective Districts. Working closely with farm enterprise managers within their unit boundaries, IEELIF staff are implementing an advanced water management system. On the basis of existing soil moisture and estimated evapotranspira- tion on the one hand and calculated specific crop water requirements on .he other, they compute appropriate water application rates for each field on a weekly basis. Government and Bank staff consider the system to be operating satisfactorily. An important secondary objective currently pursued by IEELIF is to improve energy efficiency in operating irrigation systems. 19. The performance of the Rasova-Vederoasa project has been less even with respect to irrigation-based crop and livestock production. This aspect, and other factors common to both projects, could adversely affect the proj- ects' economic results as the rates of return are very sensitive to rela- tively minor changes in yields, costs and prices. These issues are high- lighted in the following sections. B. Problems and Constraints 20. The Projects' Agricultural Production Components. The Rasova- Vederoasa project included the establishment of an orchard, the expansion of a vineyard, the establishment of two beef-fattening units and of 11 dairy units, and the distribution of dairy heifers to selected existing farms. The Ialomita-Calmatui project did not provide direct support for any such com- ponent. Production of field crops was intensified in all newly irrigated areas, but either project provided only financing for farm machinery to this end. 21. In the audit's view, some of the production components in the Rasova-Vederoasa project have not been operating as well as the irrigation component, in part because these components have been relatively neglected by Bank supervision staff. Bank records show that only two supervision missions included an agronomist but never a livestock expert, not even for the com- pletion mission. Consequently, available information on these components is inadequate and unreliable. The record is somewhat better for the Ialomita- Calmatui project, especially considering that financing was not provided for such components in that project; three supervision missions during the period 1979-81 included an agriculturist, and the completion mission included a part-time agronomist. 22. In the Rasova-Vederoasa project area, the audit mission found the Chirnogeni vineyard to be well established and relatively problem free to date. The orchard in Medgidia however, while well established, has been encountering problems. The orchard comprises 203 ha of peaches, 130 ha of apricots and 17 ha of sweet checries. Problems there are related to the apricots which have suffered serious frost damage already twice, and which this year have experienced extensive dropping of fruit during the first month after blossoming due to unknown causes. The possibility exists that the specific, exposed location is not well suited for apricots, although the wider surrounding area has been known for its apricot production for many years. The orchard is well cared for, with up to 16 chemical applications per year and engagement of local and expatriate consultants. However, no Bank supervision staff ever visited the orchard. 23. The most serious shortcomings in the Rosova-Vederoasa project are experienced in the dairy component. The herd visited by the audit mission was in poor condition as a result of inadequate feedin;;. There is a general protein feed shortage in the country.3/ and the local roughage feed base also has not yet been fully developed. The audit mission's visit coincided with the end of a hunger period resulting from a three-week delay of spring growth after unusually cold April temperatures, but it was obvious that winter feeding as such was inadequate. Cursory roadside inspection showed that the condition of project cattle was similar to the condition of cattle in general in Constanza District. A major cause of poor performance is rela- tively inexperienced management. Until about 30 years ago, Constanza District was largely unirrigated, and the arid land was used predominantly for extensive sheep grazing. Commercial cattle production, and especially dairying, have been introduced relatively recently. This historic perspec- tive is a significant factor in the lagging achievements. For this reason, and since over US$9.1 million of loan funds were used for the purchase of dairy cattle, the audit feels that special supervision coverage of this com- ponent would have been warranted. One possible approach would have been to jointly supervise the cattle components of this project with the ongoing Livestock IV (Cattle) Project (Loan 1937-RO). The failure to adequately focus on all components assumes added importance since the project was the first attempt to combine the irrigation and credit approaches in Bank lending in Romania, and the outcome represents valuable experience with this type of lending. 3/ The protein feed shortage is more extensively discussed in the PPAR for the Romania Pig Production and Processing Project (Loan 1479-RO), OED Report No. 5282, dated October 9, 1984. - 7 - 24. The PCRs state that it would have been useful to have more agricul- tural Bank staff input during the last 2-3 years of project implementation (Loan 1247-RO PCR, para. 6.09; Loan 1368-RO PCR, para. 6.06). The audit goes further and regards the inadequate coverage of agricultrual production during supervision a major shortcoming on the part of the Bank. 25. The Project's Economic Viability. The PCRs show a re-estimated economic rate of return (ERR) of 13% for the Rasova-Vederoasa project and 14% for the Ialonita-Calmatui project. However, Romania is in an economic maize surplus situation, and maize has to be priced at export parity and not at import parity as was done in the PCRs (Loan 1247-RO PCR, para. 5.05; Loan 1368-RO PCR, para. 5.08).4/ Assuming that all maize produced under these projects is of prime quality and no reductions on account of quality are war- ranted, the re-calculated ERRs (after rounding) are 12% for the Rasova- Vederoasa project and 14% for the Ialomita-Calmatui project. 26. While the above ERRs would be satisfactory, they are sensitive to cost and yield changes. The audit feels the economic risks, especially for the Rasova-Vederoasa project, are substantial for the following reasons: (a) investment costs were high by Romanian standards; for example, the average irrigation cost per hectare of the Rasova-Vederoasa system exceeded that of the Giurgiu-Razairesti system by over 40% and that of the Ialomita-Calmatui system by 13%. However, if drainage costs are included, the combined cost in lalomita- Calmatui exceeded comparable levels in Rasova- Vederoasa by 37% and in Giurgiu-Razmiresti by 76%; (b) the current cropping patterns of largely low-to-medium value crops (wheat, maize and alfalfa account for 76-80% of the projects' cropped area) with expected sustainable cropping intensities of only 112-115% represent marginal conditions for irrigated agricul- tural production; (c) projected maize yields of 10 t/ha in Rasova-Vederoasa are considered optimistic by some agronomists. While 13 t/ha have been achieved under research conditions, it is questionable whether an average of 10 t/ha can be achieved on 32,000 ha under project area field con- ditions and perpetually sustained from 1986 onwards. Bank staff have assessed the potential under the Ialomita-Calmatui project at only 9 t/ha, based on a 4/ A price profile and projection for maize is included in the PPAR for the Romania Pig Production and Processing Project (Loan 1479-RO), Annex 2, Tables 4 and 8, OED Report No. 5282, dated October 9, 1984. - 8 - sampling of crop responses achieved to date ir the project area and available data on fertilizer usage;5 (d) fertilizer applications rates under some of the Bank- financed projects, including Ialomita-Calmatui (Loan 1368-RO PCR, para. 4.05), have remained suboptimal. Inadequate future fertilizer allocations could jeopar- dize the achievement of yield targets for crops in the project areas; (e) the uncertain feed supply situation and existing management constraints render the proje-ted returns on livestock ittqestments in Rasova-Vederoasa highly con- jectural; and (f) there is uncertainty concerning the economic cost of energy.6/ As the audit points out in Annex 1, the questions concerning energy pricing are complex. There is also the real possibility of rising energy costs in Romania due to external factors which would shift the terms of trade against irrigated crop pro- duction. With energy accounting for a significant share of the irrigation systems' operating and main- tenance costs, its cost is a crucial determinant of the projects' overall economic viability.! 5/ Bank staff advise that they have not altered the Borrower's yield estimate of 10t/ha for maize in Rasova-Vederoasa because, while both project areas have fertile, dark-brown chernozem soils, they differ with respect to land capability classification. For Rasova, 88% of the area is categorized as Class I with only 12% in Class III, whereas, for Ialomita, less than one-half of the area falls in Class I, with the remainder in Class 1I (40%) and Class III (12%). The higher proportion of non-Class I land in the Ialomita compared to Rasova project area means that in lalomita more of the land has limitations for crop production because of slopes, erosion, poor drainage, and salt accumula- tion. These limitations are likely to impose constraints on achieving the full maize yield potential, even though the project aims to correct these adverse land-soil characteristics. 6/ See the Borrower's comments in Annex 2 (point 3). 7/ There is a questionably large difference in the PCRs' respective estimates of energy requirements for the two projects: while 70-80% of the operating and maintenance costs are accounted for by energy in the Rasova-Vederoasa project, the comparable share in the Ialomita-Calmatui project is estimated at only about 46%, even though the latter requires drainage pumps which the former does not. The weighted average lift is 36 m for pumping stations in Rasova-Vederoasa compared to 11 m for irrigation pumping stations and 9 m for drainage pumping stations in Ialomita-Calmatui; this difference explains part, but probably not all of the difference in energy requirements. 27. Sustainability of project benefits is thus most affected by factors related to cropping intensity and yields, and by the cost and efficient use of electric energy. In the audit's view, the risk factors associated with the economic performance of these projects warrant a thorough analysis of the economics of irrigated agriculture in all areas in the country where condi- tions are similar to those prevailing under the projects. Possible Bank participation in the potentially very large future investments in irrigation in Romania should be guided by the outcome of this analysis. 28. Loan Disbursement and Project Completion. The final disbursement of loan proceeds for the Rasova-Vederoasa project was made on June 29, 1981, and the loan was closed on June 30, 1981 as expected. However, completion of project works was delayed from the originally expected date of December 1980 to early 1983. The Borrower financed project expenditures subsequent to the Closing Date from its own resources. The Bank continued to supervise the project after the Closing Date, and the PCR was prepared after physical proj- ect completion. Ex post, this can be considered to have been a satisfactory arrangement. The final disbursement of loan proceeds for the Ialomita- Calmatui project was made on March 29, 1982, and this loan was also closed on schedule, i.e., June 30, 1982. ICB procurement was completed as early as June 1979. However, completion of project works is estimated to have been delayed from December 1981 to December 1985, or by four years. Residual financing after loan closing is being provided by the Borrower. The Bank continued supervising the project until over a year after the Closing Date, but the PCR was completed more than one and one-half years prior to the esti- mated date of final completion. The audit wishes to draw attention to the observations in the PCRs (Loan 1247-RO PCR, paras. 6.10 and 7.05; Loan 1368-RO PCR, paras, 3.18 and 7.06) and to alert the Bank to the risks inherent in project financing arrangements where disbursements are not linked to physical progress in implementation. Financing of imports or equipment purchases unrelated to specific progress criteria and non-participation in the financing of civil works construction are a prime example of such delink- ing. The discrepancy between loan disbursement and physical progress, while already showing an alarming trend between these two projects, is even more pronounced in the ongoing irrigation projects for which the respective loans are expected to be disbursed long before project completion, and in some cases far ahead of the Closing Date. A review of these and similar other cases seems in order, especially in view of the general experience that adequate provision of project funds and project supervision become more dif- ficult once loan funds are exhausted. c- † s AÞre - 11- Annex 1 Page 1 PROJECT PERFORMANCE AUDIT MEMORANDUM ROMANIA - RASOVA-VEDEROASA IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (LOAN 1247-RO) AND IALOMITA-CALHATUI IRRIGATION PROJECT (LOAN 1368-RO) THE PROJECTS' ENERGY IMPLICATIONS 1. The audit is concerned about the economic cost of energy and its effect on the projects' economic viability. More specifically, the concern relates to the difficulty of assessing the economic cost of energy in the Romanian economic context. While methodological difficulties extend to the projects overall, energy is singled out here because of its ovscriding signi- ficance for operating many of Romania's irrigation systems. The following discussion focusses primarily on the Rasova-Vederoasa project. 2. The PCR for the Rasova-Vederoasa project estiaates the project's annual energy requirements at full development at 211 Gigawatt hours (GWh)1/ of electricity. Priced at Lei 0.54/kWh, the annual cost of electric power would amount to Lei 113.9 million (Loan 1247-RO PCR, Annex 12). There is no major argument about the level of power consumption, although the projected level of 211 GWh is less than the likely actual level of 244 GWh reached in 1983, and a convincing argument is not at hand as to why future consumption would average so much less than the 1983 level. The main focus of concern is :n the economic cost of electric power. The assumed cost of Lei 0.54/kWh is between the base power rate in 1983 of Lei 0.45/kWh and the peak power rate of Lei 0.95/kWh; and somewhat lower than the average of Lei 0.64/kWh actually charged to the O&M service.2! 1/ 1 Gigawatt hour = 1 million kilowatt hours. 2/ For the Ialomita-Calmatui project, electric power consumption in 1982 was assumed at completion to have been 239 GWh, i.e., identical to the appraisal estimate. The energy price for pumping irrigation water was Lei 0.41/kWh during non-peak hours and Lei 1.12/kWh during peak hours (maximally two hours in the morning and evening, respectively). However, since under a special energy saving program peak-hour consumption reportedly was drastically reduced, the minimum price of Lei 0.41/kWh was allowed for the total electricity consumed. With that price, the annual cost of power amounted to Lei 98.0 million (i.e., not Lei 72.9 million as reported in Annex 3, Table 6 of the PCR, which was exclusive of power consumed by the floating pumping stations). A comparison shows that the annual cost of electric power per cropped hectare averaged Lei 1,500 in Rasova-Vederoasa but only Lei 628 in Ialomita-Calmatui. - 12 - Annex 1 Page 2 3. Bank staff have based their cost estimate of power under the proj- ects on the assumption that energy requirements for irrigation will take advantage of the portion of installed power capacity which is idle during the months when irrigation is needed (April-September). The average incremental cost of off-peak electricity for the Rasova-Vederoasa project (pumping is to occur at night) is therefore taken to be the cost of the required lignite fuel, transmission losses (6%) and the- incremental operation and maintenance costs for generation, transmission and distribution as follows:3/ 1979 1983 US/kWh USTJkWh Operation and maintenance 0.22 0.26 (inflated to 1983) Fuel 0.90 1.40 (Hungarian price for lignite) Transmission & losses 0.14 0.18 (inflated to 1983) Marginal cost of distribution .51 0.74 Total 1.77 2.58 Exchange rate (17 lei/US$) (21 lei/US$) lei/kwh 0.30 0.54 However, it is interesting to put the estimate of 2.58 US4/kWh into perspec- tive by noting a few comparisons. For example, the assumed component cost of lignite of 1.40 US4/kWh appears low, as long-run marginal costs (LRMC) for lignite production in Turkey have recently been estimated around 4-5 USV/ kWh. Recent World Bank estimates of LRMC of electricity in Hungary indicate that the lowest level in that country - for night time residential use - was 3.70 US/kWh, while the average for all uses was 5.50 US4/kWh; these levels are 43% and 113%, respectively, higher than the cost applied in the PCR for the Rasova-Vederoasa project. Even more striking, these levels are 90% and 182%, respectively, higher than the cost of 1.95 USf/kWh (Lei 0.41/kWh - see footnote two) applied in the PCR for the Ialomita-Calmatui project. 4. Romania is a high energy consumer. The country's ratio of primary energy consumption to GRP is about twice as high as in Western countries, and higher than in other Eastern European countries. The main reason is the high share of industry in GNP and the energy intensive structure of industrial production. Romania is a net importer of energy. However, with efforts underway to shed load since 1980, energy consumption has remained virtually 3/ The argument, that "since the irrigation project uses off-peak power, distributed through the grid during off-peak periods, no capital costs for power have to be accounted for the power consumed in the project" was developed at appraisal and again used in the preparation of the PCR. - 13 - Annex 1 Page 3 stagnant since 1981, and the share of net energy imports has been steadily declining from about 18% of total energy consumption in 1980 to about 10% in 1983. In contrast, the electric power trade balance has been positive, with exports exceeding imports at least since 1972, but the surplus has been steadily eroding. 5. The two main dimensions related, in this case, to the Rasova- Vederoasa project's energy question are first, whether off-peak rates are appropriate for energy used in irrigation, and second, what the economic cost of production of electricity is in Romania. The audit suggests that the use of off-peak rates should be reviewed on the following grounds: (a) Seasonal or daily energy use profile projections (say for 1990) are neither available for the country as a whole, nor for the irrigation subsector or the projects. Th. Rasova-Vederoasa project uses a monthly average of 35 GWh during the six-month period April-September, but the monthly distribution is heavily skewed with the peak occurring in July. The peak requirements for irrigation need to be comared with the electricity produced by base load stations.-/ (b) Having been established, the project cannot be seen as a marginal energy user, but rather as an integral component of the national irrigation system, which covers about 2.4 million ha. Within that system, the project is an extre- mely heavy energy user. Its use of 3,300-3,800 kWh per irrigated hectare is far above the roughly 1,900 kWh/ha under the Giurgiu-Razmiresti project, and incomparably higher than the national systems' average, which is not immediately known but which can be inferred from the fol- lowing computation. At the level of 3,300 kWh/ha, it would take 7,920 GWh to irrigate the total of 2.4 million ha. Yet the estimated electricity consumption for the whole agriculture sector in 1980, including irrigation, was only 3,100 GWh. Hence, the PCR estimate of 211 GWh per year represents a disproportionate share in energy consumption within the irrigation subsector. The project accounts for under 3% of the country's irrigated area, yet in 1983 consumed 6-7% of the electricity allocated to the entire agriculture sector, and an undetermined, much higher percentage of the whole irrigation subsector. It should further be noted that electricity meets only a portion of the project's energy requirements, since the 4/ Bank staff estimate that lignite-fired base generation load is approximately 77% of summer peak demand and that the off-peak summer maximum load is about 20% of the summer peak, but that estimate should be verified, taking into account any plants down for routine maintenance. -14 - Annex 1 Page 4 heavily mechanized agricultural and livestock operations related to this project consume significant additional quantities of energy, primarily during summer time. 6. To determine the economic cost of electricity in Romania is a pro- blem.5/ Major stumbling blocks are the cost of production and the currency exchange rate. Current production inputs consist of imported and local raw materials, and the official exchange rate and domestic prices do not reflect relative scarcities of foreign exchange and of factors of production.6! Unable to determine a shadow exchange rate, Bank appraisal missions have applied the official commercial rate, which customarily was higher (i.e., valued local currency lower) than the average for all export and import rates. Only about 20% of electric energy production in 1980 was from hydro sources. Thermal sources, i.e., coal, oil and gas, thus are the main basis of electricity generation, and imports of all of these are necessary to aug- ment local production. Current policy is to shift generation away from the use of oil and gas, and to increase the use of local lignite. The share of lignite-based electricity is planned to increase from 26% in 1980 to 44% in 1985. Since oil and gas are highly tradeable energy resources in contrast to the barely tradeable low-grade lignite, it is crucial at what exchange rate the respective border prices are converted into local currency prices. International prices of high-grade coal and oil are projected to increase around 27-30% in real terms between 1980 and 1995, thus automatically raising the economic cost of peak load electricity production significantly more than that of base load production. 7. The above summary illustrates the complexity of energy pricing in general and how questionable the approach used in the evaluation of irrigation projects is in this context. Producer prices for electricity in Romania rose from Lei 0.30/kwh in 1980 to Lei 0.95/kWh in 1983, i.e., much more rapidly than prices in general. But it is not known what relationship there is between the financial price of Lei 0.95/kWh and the economic cost of producing one kWh. Concerning off-peak pricing, it would have to be estab- lished what slack in generating capacity remains throughout the season - and 5/ Bank staff comment that, for project evaluation purposes, electricity is treated essentially as a non-traded commodity and that "the economic cost of electricity is therefore computed on the basis of the long-run marginal costs of generation, transmission, and distribution. Ideally, such costs should be computed by systems planning models which assess a range of expansion options before identifying the least-cost (from an economic viewpoint) technically viable expansion program to meet a sustained increase in demand. The future cost of supplying electricity can be differentiated by consumer category and by period (seasons, time of day, etc.). While the principles of long-run marginal costs are clear for Romania, paucity of data prevents a detailed analysis." 6/ Some streamlining was achieved, however, by a recent exchange rate reform which brought the number of exchange rates from 33 in 1980 (18 for exports and 15 for imports) to one uniform rate in mid-1983. - 15- Annex 1 Page 5 during the day - when the country's national irrigation system is fully operating. In the audit's view, it is essential to probe into the economic cost of electricity generation and to determine the precise range between the base load and peak load of the national power system from which irrigation is drawing electric power. This information ought to be developed before further energy-intensive irrigation investments are considered. It is clear that the reviewed projects' economic performance is very sensitive to the real cost of operating the irrigation system,7/ and it is deemed possible that the economic viability of future investments in more marginal schemes could be jeopardized on grounds of high energy use and cost. 7/ Assuming an electricity cost of Lei 0.95/kWh (a rate which conceivably could be less than the true economic cost of electricity) instead of Lei 0.54/kwh would reduce the economic rate of return for the two projects by about two percentage points. /4% ~ BANK FOR AGRICULTURF - 17 Anx 2 AND FOOD INDUSTRY Page 1 Annex 2 - Comments Received from the Borrower Yukinori Watanabe Director Operations Evaluation Department Dear Sir, Re: Project performance audit rejorts for "Rasova Vederoasa Irrigation and Agricultural Development Project" and "Ialomita CglmX-ui Irri- gation Project" and your letter of September 18. 1984 I have the pleasure to inform you that we agree with the Completion Reports and the Project performance audit reports prepared by the Bank. Mention must be made of the fact that a good cooperation existed between the specialists of the Bank, BAPI and MAFI, both during the project appraisal and implementation, Considering the large size of these projects and their technical complexity, the exchange of views between the specialists on both sides made it possible to overcome the various problems vhich appeared during project implementation. The lessons learned from these projects are very valuable to us at preseat, when we are involved in a large land reclamation program and to the Bank,when financing other projects of similar size. Here are our comments on some important issues analysed in the above mentioned reports: 1 Paragraphs 5 and 12 to the Project performance audit report - fund allocation We do not consider that there was a "Government finan- cial crisis" which delayed the project implementation. On the contrary there were years when the funds allocated remained unutilized. The main reason of the delays were some technical difficulties which appeared when preparing the implementation details which extended the original imple- mentation period. One must take into account that these projects were implemented on large areas (14o,ooo ha of irrigation, 97,ooo ha of drai- nage and 2,7oo ha of salted soils improvement works torlalomita-CAlmAtui Project and 65,4oo ha of irrigation under Rasova-Vederoasa Project) and it is logical that when the feasebility study was implemented there were still details which were not Known entirely. Annex 2 Page 2 - 18 - In our opinion in the Para.3.o4 and 3.o5 of the Completion Report on Ialomita-Clallui. Project the problem of the shortage of funds is exaggerated and unreasonably generalized to the other on goig projects. In YAping with our planning procedures the targets, establi- shed in the Five Year Plans are detailed and revised with each Annual Plan. On this ocasion, the tasks could be slightly altered in Keeping with the results obtained in the previous years and with the unforseen events during the project implementation* There are cases when the targets established initially can't be totally implemented but steps are taken to make up for the gap in the following years. Thus, funds are realloca- ted among projects with a view to ensure the best use of the funds earmarked at the Department level.We would like to mention that according to our regulations the plan targets may be overfulfilled; in this case, extra-funds are allocated from a special reserve fund of the Government. 2. Para.5 and 12 to the Project Performance Audit Report - Cost overruns The actual cost of Rasova-Vederoasa Irrigation and Agricultural Development Project in local currency is 5% above the appraisal estimate, which is considered reasonable by IBRD in para.3.12 to Completion Report. In our opinion, it is unrealistic to comment on an 18% overrun in dollars since it is obvious that this figure is a result of the change in the exchange rate leu/$ and not of an increase in the actual investment cost. A similar situation appears in the para.3.12 to the Project Completion Report of Ialomita-Cllmllui Irrigation Project where the cost overrun in local currency is o.6% while in dollars reaches 7%. We insist on making such comparisons in local currency since the majority of the expenditures incurred by the project were in local currency. 3. Para.26 point f - the economic cost of energy.MAFI and BAFI are permanently focussing on the energy.consumtion in the irrigation projects. The two projects are located in areas with fertile soils were there is a potential for high yields under irrigation. During the Project preparation several alternatives were considered, Taking into account the existing topographical conditions and the only source of water which is the Danube, the mast economic and energy saving alterative was choseo-When operating these projects a special concern is given to an- optimum lavel of energy consumption in order to avoid the waste of energy. Given the fertile soils and the advanced technology used, there is a tremendous potential for high yields which mokes up easily for the high energy cost. This was testified by the results obtained in the research stations located in all the irrigation systems as well as by several state and cooperative units which hAve excedeed theproduc- tion estimates from the feasability studies. Our main concern is now to generalize these good results so that all farms in the area obtain constantly high yields. At the same time, the agricultural research makes experiments to create new varieties of high productivity, new cropping patterns, highly productive agricultural machines and to generalize the self propelled irrigation equipment. Under these circumstances,the projects 'results will be less sensible to Variations in yields, power cost and output prices. Annex 2 - 19 - Page 3 4. Para.7.o5 and 7.o8 to the Completion Reports of the Ranva-Vedeirnana Tr-rigation and A 1rin1tral DnvelnpmPnt Projet anrid Ta1nmita-C1m5Zni Tirrigation Proleet regpentively Project performance monitoring is very well organized under the General Directorate for Agriculture and Food Industry at the dis- trict level which have separate divisious concerned with crops, and livestock production, investment, planning and finance. The specialists within these Directorates would give technical and economic assistance to the agricultural units, monitor their activity, analyse their possible constraints, makes suggestions as to their solution. They receive periodically information on the areas under crop or the areas harvested, fertilizers applied the existing fleet of tractors and machinery and annually, information on the actual expenditures. This information is also submitted to the Bankibr Agri- culture and Food Industry and to the Statistical offices at the district level. At the central level MAFI reviews this information in aggregated form and steps are being taken or recommandations are made for the problems which fell under the competence of other ministries, This infor- mational system is permanently improved and has proved to be efficient, In Keeping with the usual procedure, we Kindly ask you to inform the Board of Directors about our point of view, -Po- }ø''e - 21 - ROMANIA RASOVA-VEDEROASA IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (IDAN 124 7-RO) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT June 26, 1984 Regional Projects Department Europe, Middle East and North Africa Agriculture III ーマ夕一 ゾイ毎ノい介Jン多4ん - 23 - ROMANIA PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT RASOVA-VEDEROASA IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (Loan 1247-RO) Project Ccatpletion Report 1. INTRODUCTION 1.01 Agriculture in the Economy. Agriculture continues to play an important role in the economy providing both convertible foreign exchange earnings and industrial raw materials. Some 65% of Romania's total area is made up of agricultural land with 9.7 million ha of cropland, 4.5 million ha under permanent pastures, and 0.8 million ha of vineyards and orchards. In 1982, crop production accounted for 56% of total agricultural production and livestock for 44%. The 1976-1980 Socio-Economic Plan of Romania envisaged ambitious growth for the agriculture sector with a projected annual average growth rate of 5.1-7.6%. in reality, however, the growth rate for that period reached only 4.8%. The highest production shortfall was in soybeans with only 54% of the target being achieved, followed by cereals where 84% of the plan target was attained. 1.02 Foreign Trade. Agriculture's share in total export earnings declined from 16% in 1975 to 12% in 1981. Although agriculture's contribution to Romania's balance of payments has been declining, over 50% of the products exported earn convertible currency for the country. The sector has also maintained a foreign trade surplus since 1977. Agriculture has the potential to meet rising domestic consumption recuirements and produce an exportable surplus, however it has been seriously hindered by large fluctuations in rainfall, lack of drainage infrastructure, soil erosion, and low productivity. Tn recent years the country has been plagued by droughts and has had to depend heavily on the area already under irrigation. 1.03 Sector Organization. The agriculture sector is organized primarily into two tenure categories, Cooperatives for Agricultural Production (C&Ps), and State Agricultural Farms UAS). The cooperatives hold 60Z of agricultural land, the state farms own 30 %, while the remaining 10% are individual holdings mostly located in remote mountainous areas. The 3,784 CAPs operate an average farm size of 2,100 ha of agricultural land, which evolved from the collectivization drive in the 1950s. Although the CAPA are legally independent entities, ultimate investment and production decisions are made by the office of the District General Directorate of Agriculture and Food Industry (DGAFI) which represents the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry (KAFI) at the district level. The CAPs rely on their own resources and borrowings from the Bank for Agriculture and Food Industry (BAFI) to finance new investments and operating costs. There are 365 IASs in Romania operating an average farm size of 5,500 ha of agricultural land. Investment decisions and annual budgetary allocations are made by the State Farm Department in MAH through DGAFI. Net revenues from the state farm sector are directly transferred to the national treasury. - 24 - 1.04 Land Reclamation Investment. Bank assisted irrigation projects accounted for 28% of the total investment allocated for land reclamation during the five year plan period 1976-1980 and 62% for the 1981-1985 period, as shown below: Land Reclamation Investment - Lei billion- Bank-assisted projects 1976-1980 1981-1985 Giurgui-Razmiresti 2.41 0 Rasova-Vederoasa 1.51 .34 Ialomita-Calmatui 1.85 1.04 Viisoara .67 1.17 Mostistea-Calmatui .22 3.33 Covurlui .86 5.01 BBSP .88 2.64 Caracal-Titu 0 2.94 Subtotal 8.40 16.47 Other 22.0 10.03 Total 30.4 26.5 The large increase in the Bank assisted share from 28% to 62% is indicative of the changes in Romania's economic situation during this time, and the increasing emphasis the Government placed on completing these projects. The implementation of most of the projects spans two five-year plans representing different objectives. As the 1976-1980 Plan came to a close, the era of liberal investments in infrastructure projects, in particular irrigation, also came to an end. By 1980, the current account of the balance of payments in convertible currencies deteriorated to a deficit of US$ 2.4 billion, eaual to about 4% of GNP. The 1981-1985 Plan therefore reflects the financial difficulties of the country by restraining growth and investments and slowing down completion of the land reclamation and other infrastructure projects undertaken during the preceding Plan. By 1983, the balance of payments situation had improved dramatically. The current account showed a surplus of US$ 870 million in convertible currencies, and the implementation of the ambitious irrigation program was progressing satisfactorily. Preliminary projections for the 1986-1990 Plan envisage investments of Lei 100 billion (US$4.7 billion) in land reclamation. This increased investment (roughly three times the level in 1981-1985) is expected to result in an area under irrigation of 5.5 million ha by 1990 compared to 2.4 million ha at the end of 1983. 1.05 Bank Involvement in Agriculture and the Irrigation Subsector. The Rasova-Vederoasa irrigation and Agricultural Development Project was the fourth loan made by the Bank in the agricultural sector. The Bank's strategy has been based on promoting efficient agricultural development by providing foreign exchange for infrastructure projects and by meeting the need for - 25 - on-farm development through credit. The Rasova-Vederoasa project included both infrastructure and credit components to support a variety of agricultural activities (para 2.06). After this Project, the Bank emphasized single purpose loans, either for infrastructure or credit i.e. livestock, or orchards. Tho follow-on projects, lalomita-Calmatui Irrigation was a single-purpose loan for irrigation and land reclamation infrastructure. 1.06 Between 1974 and 1981 the Bank made a series of eight loans for the development of irrigated agriculture totalling US$545 million, which covered an area of 1.1 million ha. The Bank's involvement in these projects contributed significantly to the advancement of Romania's production technology. The Rasova-Vederoasa Project introduced several important concepts: preparation of alternative designs; selection of least cost alternatives; and improved design of canals in loess soils. Suggestions given by Bank staff during Supervision of the Ialomita-Calmatui project helped to improve the design of drainage works, maintenance, and soil reclamation and desalinization. In later projects, the Bank also convinced Romanian planners to postpone projects based on provisional sources of water supply which were not the optimum technical solutions. II. PROJECT PROCESSING 2.01 Project Identification and Preparation. BAFI (Bank for Agriculture and Food Industry) and MAFI (Ministry for Agriculture and Food Industry) identified this project, as a priority, since it was located in a low rainfall area and was important for the food production of the region and country. The feasibility study was prepared in 1974 by the Institute of Studies and Design for Agricultural Construction (ISPIF) under direct supervision of MAFI and BAFI. The report was submitted to the World Bank in December 1975. It included the following components: irrigation of 65,000 ha; livestock components; development of vineyards and orchards; two grain silos, one feed mill and pre-mix feed plant; improved drinking water to 17 villages; asphalting 80 km of service roads; and agro-industry processing facilities. (Total cost of this project, as estimated by the Romanians, amounted to US$132.5 million.) Because of the high professional level of Romania's specialists and their experience, the need for Bank assistance during project preparation was minimal. A preparation mission visited Romania from February 2-6, 1975 to discuss project scope, preparation and appraisal timing. 2.02 Appraisal. Based on the preparation report, an appraisal mission visited Romania in June 1975. Following appraisal, several components were excluded from the project as economically nonviable: the sugarbeet and vegetable canning factories; sheep fattening farm; non-irrigated pasture; the pre-mix feed plant; imported sheep for stock breeding; and one of the two grain silos. 2.03 Negotiations and Effectiveness. The main issues discussed during and prior to negotiations were procurement and cost recovery. The procurement issue revolved mainly around safeguards to ensure that Romanian suppliers for eauipment to be procured under ICB vould be treated e4ually with foreign suppliers. It was agreed that: (i) the prices to be auoted by Romanian enterprises and Romanian transportation tariffs to be charged to suppliers - 26 - would be set in accordance with law No. 19 of 1971 which established the basis for such charges and (ii) the conversion rat- to be used for comparing Romanian and foreign bids for the procurement of goods and services for the project would be US$l = Lei 20 and would be noted in bid documents. The Bank's negotiators wanted the minutes of negotiations to reflect the Bank's understanding that the foreign trade price for eauipment anuoted by Romanian suppliers for any item would be eaual to or greater than the domestic price. The Romanians declined to include this clarification in the minutes because it was discriminatory to Romanian suppliers even though they stated it was accurate. Thereafter, it was agreed that the Romanian delegation would provide a detailed statement of how the prices would apply in case of participation of Romanian suppliers in ICB. The reauested detailed statement was received in telex rorm and, although not fully satisfactory, it was accepted with the understanding that the Bank's position for further operations would be based upon the procurement experience of other Bank financed projects in Romania. 2.04 The cost recovery issue was raised at several occasions by Bank staff who were reviewing the appraisal team's work. Prior to negotiations technical staff felt that the water charges to be levied by the project should be higher than the country's rather low water charges which covered only a part of O&M costs. At negotiations the Bank did not recuire a cost recovery clause in the loan documents because under existing Romanian procedures most of the project costs would be recovered through indirect mechanisms (para 6.07), and because the centralized system of government has control over the system and irrigation scheduling. Moreover, no such clause was included in the previous irrigation loan under the Giurgiu-Razmiresti Project (Loan 1086-RO). 2.05 The Board approved the loan on April 26, 1976, and it became effective on November 3, 1976 after a four month delay to allow for legislative processing. 2.06 Project Description and Objectives. The project assisted in building the necessary infrastructure to deliver water from the Danube river to the fields while supporting the development of livestock, orchards, vineyards, and provision of water to rural communities. The main objectives of the project were: (a) to increase and stabilize crop production in an area of 65,400 ha through irrigation works, on-farm sprinkler and furrow enuipment, land levelling, soil erosion control works, and farm machinery and implements; (b) to develop milk, beef, and horticultural production in the project area by establishing 11 dairy units (imported Holstein heifers for breeding stock), 2 beef fattening units, one feed mill, 450 ha of vineyards and 350 ha of orchards; and one 44,000 ton grain silo; (c) to increase the income of project beneficiaries whose per capita income was estimated at US$190 which was below the income level for the poverty target group; and - 27 - (d) to provide drinking water to 17 rural communities. These objectives were in line with Bank objectives and focussed on agriculture, which was the least productive sector of Romania's economy. Consequently, Bank lending strategy gave considerable emphasis to the agricultural sector, while enhancing the Government's plans for agricultural development and the reduction of rural poverty. III. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 3.01 Project Start-up. The loan became effective on November 3, 1976, and physical implementation began soon thereafter. The Department of Land Reclamation and Agricultural Construction (DIFCA) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry (MAFI) was responsible for implementation of the irrigation component. The regional Construction Trust for Land Reclamation (TCIF) carried out actual construction. Start-up was reported as satisfactory. 3.02 Physical Work. The actual design of the project had to be altered during the course of implementation. At appraisal, land levelling was to be carried out on an area of 34,000 ha, the cost of which later proved prohibitive. As a result, the Bank concurred with the decision to convert to sprinkler irrigation and to limit land levelling to an area of 2,000-3,000 ha. This solution was a fraction of the cost of land levelling while still achieving the same irrigated area as planned at appraisal. 3.03 After a significant portion of the project had been completed the physical works program fell behind schedule in 1980 due to reduced budget allocations and inadequate physical resources. The Bank became aware of this in 1981, and expressed its concern to the Government that budget allotments for the project were insufficient. Planned and actual implementation periods of the project components have been as follows; Appraisal Actual Farm machinery and O&M equipment '78-'80 '79-'80 Agricultural component Vineyard '76-'79 '79-'80 Orchard '77-'78 '79-'80 Silo '77-'79 '77-'82 Livestock component Dairy farms '76-'80 '76-'80 Supply heifers '77-'80 '78-'79 Beef fattening '77-'79 '78-'80 Feedmill '76-'78 '76-'81 Rural water supply '76-'79 '76-'81 - 28 - 3.04 Quality and Performance of Project Structures. The ouality of construction of the project works is adeauate, and the completed facilities are operating in a satisfactory manner. Although poorly finished in some categories, civil works appeared to be constructed according to acceptable standards as concerns structural safety. The sprinkler and gravity hose irrigation systems are reported to be performing satisfactorily. 3.05 The main shortcomings are: (i) the rough finishing on reinforced concrete of the pumping stations and other project structures due to bad aligning of its framework, and (ii) poor alignment of the prefabricated concrete tiles for the smaller canals. The finishing of the reinforced concrete compares unfavorably with concrete structures (barrages, bridges) built by construction trusts of other Ministries. Poor work has been brought to the attention of MAFI by several supervision missions. Uneven alignment of the precast concrete tiles of the smaller canals is partly due to uneven settlements of the natural subbase: a loess-type soil which subsides when wet. Uneven canal surface lining will not affect the discharge capacity of the canals significantly. 3.06 During implementation a problem was presented to the Bank regarding the appropriate timing for the lining of canals in areas with loess-type soil. The Bank hired consultants to address the soil problem and TCIF has followed their advice which was to let the soils settle before lining. Therefore the lining of the large canals in the loess soils will be put in place in 1984 and 1985 after the subbase soil has settled. 3.07 Irrigation Water Supply and Efficiency. The Rasova-Vederoasa irrigation system has been operating since 1979. In 1983 the full project area was irrigated as can be seen in the following table: Distribution of Irrigated Area Irrigated Area Year ('000 ha) 1979 23.3 1980 24.8 1981 52.5 1982 57.1 1983 65.4 1984 65.4 1985 65.4 1986 65.4 The cropping pattern and water demand anticipated at appraisal are expected to materialize at full development in 1986. The design of the system and the carrying capacities are flexible enough to accommodate some changes in the long run, if needed. The Danube river is a reliable source of water, both in terms of cuantity of flow and anuality. There should be no problems regarding water availability and supply capacity. The Rasova-Vederoasa system is adenuately ecuipped for meeting present and future irrigation needs despite some differences in operation conditions when compared to those assumed during appraisal (Annex 3). Available extra capacity due to higher efficiency and - 29 - lower net crop reauirements will be partly used to reduce pumping during hours of the day with peak electricity consumption. 3.08 Project Cost. The total project cost was estimated at appraisal to be Lei 2,610 million (US$130.5 million) including contingencies out of which Lei 834 million (US$41.7 million) was direct and indirect foreign exchange. By project completion in 1985 the actual cost is expected to be Lei 2,746.2 million (US$153.8 million) with a cost overrun of Lei 136.8 million (5.2%) over the appraisal estimate in Lei terms and US$23.3 million (18%) cost overrun in dollar terms. The difference between the two is mainly accounted for in Romania's revaluation of the Lei vis-a-via the US$. Annex 1, Tables 1-5 show the actual project costs for the various project components and those of the appraisal estimates. 3.09 Cost Overrun The cost overrun was almost exclusively due to the increase in cost of the irrigation component by Lei 166.2 million which in turn was partly compensated by savings in the livestock component of Lei 45.6 million. Cost overruns in the agricultural and the rural water supply components were small (Lei 16.2 million) (Annex 1, Table 3). The main cost overruns in the irrigation component occurred in the distribution pipelines (Lei 150.7 million) and land levelling (Lei 105.8 million) again partly offset by savings in the cost of pumping stations and the main canal system (Annex 1, Table 4). For the distribution pipelines, the increased cost was due to the increased unit cost for asbestos. The price of the asbestos cement pipes (1,110 km), which were purchased under ICB, amounted to Lei 212 million, which was more than double that of the appraisal estimate. Land levelling costs rose because the topography was much more difficult to level than anticipated at the time of appraisal. Additional cost overruns were avoidld by reducing the area to be irrigated by gravity from 34,000 ha to 23,000 ha. 3.10 For the other project components, changes in unit costs were less significant. In the case of Baneasa Grain Silo, the cost overruia was Lei 10.3 million (19%), which was due to the increase in the cost of raw material, eauipment and labor. In contrast with this, the Negru Voda Feed Mill and Silo had cost savings of Lei 10.4 million as compared to the appraisal estimate, since the construction was completed before 1980 and was not influenced by the price increases which took place thereafter. The dairy units ane imported heifers component was implemented with a saving of Lei 37.6 million. This was due to the import of heifers at a lower cost than originally estin%ted and savings in the construction of barns. The follqving table shows a detailed breakdown of this component: Appraisal Actual Difference (Lei million) Construction 196.5 169.6 - 26.9 Imported heifers 219.1 81.5 -137.6 Heifers--first and second generation from the imported heifers - 44.4 + 44.4 Locally purchased heifers from outside the project area - 82.5 + 82.5 Total 415.6 378.0 - -7.6 - 30 - 3.11 Construction of works was implemented at savings sinca the CAPs used locally procured materials and local labor, which were cheaper than the material offered by the contractor. At the same time in several CAPs, barns have been modernized and converted to barns for the young stock at a very low cost. In the Rural Water Supply component, the overrun is Lei 7.8 million (44.3%), due to the unanticipated complexity of the works. 3.12 As a general conclusion regarding the investment cost, the implementation of such an integrated project at a total investment cost of Lei 2.74 billion with an overrun of only Lei 0.14 billion (5%) is considered reasonable. The cost overrun affected only the local component and resulted primarily from increases of the unit prices of asbestos cement pipes and from the auantity and hectare cost of land levelling. Until 1980 inflation was contained under 2% in Romania, during which time 81% of project investments were made. 3.13 The foreign costs (direct and indirect) of the project ($41.7 million) represent 28% of the value of the project compared to an estimated 32% at appraisal. The foreign costs at completion were $0.6 million (1.5%) higher than those estimated at appraisal. The assumptions made during appraisal on foreign exchange costs for different project works, supplies and services appear to be still valid. Three similar and more recent irrigation projects, the Covurlui, BBSP and Caracal-Titu projects, respectively appraised in 1979-1980, show foreign exchange costs lie within the range of 22-30%. 3.14 Project Financing. According to the appraisal report, the IBRD loan of $60.0 million was to finaece the full foreign exchange component of US$41.7 million (32% of total project cost); US$7.5 million of local cost, which was eauivalent to about 6% of total cost and US$10.8 million of interest durinv construction on the Bank loan. This financing package was similar to that for Giurgiu-Razmiresti Irrigation Project. The remainder of the local cost of US$81.3 million ecuivalent (62% of total project cost) would be met by the State budget (38%), BAFI loans (23%), and CAP contributions (1%). There were some modifications made during project implementation. As the following table indicates, BAFI's contribution increased by 12%, the State budget by 10 percent and the CAP's modest contribution by 146%. Source of financing Appraisal Actual Difference % --------------- Lei million -------------- IBRD loan 984 902 -82 -8 State budget 996 1,099 +102 +10 BAFI credits 600 671 +71 +12 CAP's contribution 30 74 +44 +146 Sub-total 2,616 2,746 +136 5 Interest and cormnitments 216 175 -41 -19 Total 2,826 2,921 +95 +3 - 31 - The financing of cost overrun of Lei 95 million was mainly covered from the State budget and from BAFI credits. A detailed breakdown of the financing of foreign and local costs by source is presented in Annex 2, Table 2. 3.16 Disbursements. Actual disbursements never lagged more than nine months behind the appraisal estimate. The lag was partly caused by the fact that the project did not become effective until six months after the signing of the loan agreentent due to the Council of Ministers' late approval of the irrigation subcomponent of the project. Actual disbursements as compared to appraisal estimates are shown in Annex 4. The loan was fully disbursed on June 29, 1981. 3.17 The Borrower reouested reallocation of loan proceeds on two occasions, May 29, 1980 and March 3, 1981, and the Bank agreed on both occasions. On May 29, 1980, US$ 2 million was moved from Category 5, "Unallocated" to Category 1, "Eauipment, Materials and Spare Parts". On March 3, 1981, the unused funds in Category 2, "Imported Dairy Cows" and Category 4 "Interest and other charges on the Loan" totalling US$2.75 million were reallocated to Category 1. 3.18 Procurement. The responsibility for procurement for all Bank-financed goods was entrusted by BAFI to Romagrimex which is a state enterprise concerned with all agricultural imports and exports. Construction of all civil works was to be carried out by Romanian Construction Trusts which were experienced and familiar with local conditions, methods, and regulations and were fully competent. Also, due to the regulated wages and prices of materials, Romanian construction costs were likely to be less than those which may have been bid by internatio-al contractors. Therefore, the Bank did not finance construction of works. It agreed to finance only the following eauipment and materials from an agreed list that would be processed as a result of ICB: (i) construction eauipment needed for construction of the irrigation component; (ii) permanent eauipment such as pump units and gates for the main irrigation and distribution system; and (iii) O&M eauipment; 3.19 According to the original Loan Agreement,the loan proceeds would finance 100% of the estimated cost for the above categories ecual to US$28.7 million plus contingencies. In addition, in-calf heife:s estimated to cost US$11.0 million would be procured abroad after seeking price nuotations from suitable suppliers in at least three countriez. Loan proceeds also would finance 25% of the BAFI loans for on-farm development eaual to US$7.5 million plus contingencies. 3.20 Actual ICB procurement amounted to US$32.5 million, of which contracts for US$5.5 million were awarded to two foreign suppliers for construction eauipment. The in-calf heifers were obtained from eight - 32 - foreign suppliers for US9.15 million. The total value of supplied goods by foreign firms was US$14.65 million or about 24% of the total loan amount. Although no major procurement problems occurred, a number of issues were resolved during project implementation including (i) the recuirement that bids be submitted up to several days before bid opening which discouraged foreign bidders to be present at bid opening; (ii) the recuirement that the bid bond be submitted separately at a fixed percentage of the total bid price before bid opening which would allow Romagrimex to know the bid price without opening the bids; (iii) the provision in the Romanian regulations that allowed negotiations between Romagrimex and bidders after bid opening in order to determine the best technological offer; and (iv) giving consideration in evaluating the bids on the basis of the participation of local firms in the manufacture of components or sub-assemblies. Bidding documents were eventually modified to correct these above procedures (para 7.04). 3.21 As expected during appraisal, sufficiently large eauipment packages were put together for tendering so that waiving ICB rules for small orders, under the loan agreement's threshold of US$0.2 million, never had to be applied. Eouipment and materials procured under ICB were received essentially in accordance with project needs and occasional late deliveries affected implementation to a minor extent. Delays were due mainly to the Borrower's late ordering. Romanian fabricated permanent project eauipment are operating properly and efficiently without excessive maintenance or repair. No complaints have been recorded on the performance of the construction eauipment or the farm machinery. 3.22 Compliance with Loan Covenants and Progress Reporting. The Borrower has complied with the Loan Covenants. BAFI has regularly submitted auarterly progress reports in accordance with the format agreed upon during the negotiations. Certain improvements in progress reporting need to be considered. At present, the total actual expenditure on the project is mentioned as of the end of the reporting period, but no breakdown of the components of these expenditures was provided, which would have improved the auality of reported information. During supervision, a limited amount of agricultural production data was made available, however, more comprehensive data of this type would have enhanced the monitoring and yearly evaluation of the project's impact on agricultural development. IV. Agricultural Impact 4.01 Crop Yields. Crop yields before the project were very low, because the crops, which were solely dependent on rainfall, were being grown in the lowest rainfall area of Romania. The project site receives 433 mm of rainfall annually, but only 235 mm falls during the growing season (April-September), which is insufficient to meet crop moisture reanuirements (Annex 6, Table 1). Irrigation, along with the related response to increased use of fertilizer, had a great impact on - 33 - crop yields. For exzmple, crop yields in 1982 compared to pre-project, were 200% higher tor maize, 110% for sugarbeet, 100% for sunflower and 95% for wheat. At full development in 1986, the increase is expected to reach 335% for maire, 180% for sugarbeet, 150% for sunflower and 140% for wheat, based on MAFI's estimates. These increases appear to be attainable based on actual performance achieved to date in the project. 4.02 The CAPs and IASs had the organization and initiative to very effectively exploit the project irrigation infrastructure as soon as it was completed. The project provided them with: (i) complete irrigation systems, including all on-farm works; (ii) advice and assistance on irrigation methods by the O&M service; (iii) technical assistance on agricultural production from a well organized and operated research station, which had years of experience with similar projects in the region; and (iv) an increased supply of fertilizers and other inputs. 4.03 Cropping Pattern and Intensity. The expected cropping pattern at full development and the patterns actually followed in the first years of irrigation (1982 and 1983) are compared to the pre-project situation in Annex 6, Table 2. Due to irrigation, the cropping pattern was modified to bring under production a greater proportion of higher value summer crops thereby making more efficient use of the land. This cropping pattern makes better use of water resources and is consistently followed in all the irrigation projects. The modification in cro_iping pattern is achieved mainly by reducing the area planted to winter cereals, wheat and baxiey, and increasing the area planted to maize, sugarbeet, sunflower, soybean, vegetables and fodder crops. By 1983, the cropping pattern had already reached the patterr expected at full development in 1986. For example, wheat and barely, which represented 54% of the total cropped area before the project, was reduced to 20%, and maize was increased from 24% to about 50%. A second crop of maize for silage, which follows the wheat harvest, was increased from 7% to 19%, thereby increasing the cropping intensity to 119%. 4.04 Horticulture and Livestock Components. The newly established vineyard (450 ha) consists of both table and wine grapes, whereas, the appraisal considered only wine grapes. At full development in 1986, table grapes are expected to yield 15 t/ha and wine grapes 12 t/ha. By 1982, all grapes gave an average yield of 10 t/ha. Also by 1982, the average yield of the newly established orchards (350 ha) was 9.0 t/ha compared to 9.5 t/ha expected at full development. 4.05 Several aspects of production from the livestock component are summarized in the following table: - 34 - Livestock Component Unit Appraisal Estimate Actual: 1982 Milk mil. liters 1/ 29.0 27.0 Cows and heifers per unit for market head 1,527 1,570 Baby beef per unit for fattening head 3,200 3,200 I/ Average annual production from the total of 11 units. Milk production, as reported by MAFI, is below the appraisal estimate. The main reason can be attributed to lower milk yields per cow, due to insufficient supply of ouality roughage and concentrates. MAFT reported that the birth rate parameters were close to appraisal estimates, but that death rates were greater, particularly for calves. An effort was made to place the imported heifers on those farms with good veterinary services. 4.06 Fertilizer. During appraisal it was foreseen that no special measures would be recuired to assure a proper supply of inputs as adeouate arrangements existed within MAFI to supply seeds, fertilizers and pesticides to the CAPs and IASs in the project area. It was estimated that at full production fertili7er recuirements would reach 18,600 tons of ammonium nitrate (33.5%N), 20,200 tons of triple superphosphate (46% P205), and 1,000 tons of muriate of potash (60% K20), based on an irrigated crop area of 76,000 ha. This is ecuivalent to a total of about 16,000 tons of available nutrients or about 210 kg/ha. Data provided by the Ministry (Annex 6, Table 3) indicate that in 1983, some 15,800 tons of available nutrients have been used, for about the same area and cropping pattern. At full production in 1986, it is estimated that about 20,000 tons of available nutrients would be used under the same conditions (265 kg/ha). This increase over the appraisal estimate is due to the greater use of potash, and higher fertilizer application rates for those crops on which the full development yields were increased over appraisal estimates. 4.07 Machinery Services. Farm machinery was provided by the project to meet incremental project needs and to replace worn out ecuipment of the nine State Agricultural Mechanization Enterprises (SMA) serving the area. BAFT provided supplemental project funds in order to accelerate renewal of mechaniration in the SMAs which service the project area and to cover increased eouipment prices. Wheat sowing and harvesting as well as maize sowing have been 100% mechanized. By 1985 maize harvesting would also be fully mechanized. In 1982, a tractor density of one tractor per 67 ha of cultivated land had been reached, as compared to one per 220 ha in 1960. The 1982 tractor density is considered adeauate for the needs of the project. The farm machinery which has been financed by the project, on the basis of 25 - 35 - percent disbursements of the loan against locally purchased items, is given in Annex 6, Table 4. 4.08 Prices. Input and output prices are controlled in Romania. Between 1964 and 1980 prices were revised only once, in 1977. During this period there was a two-tier pricing system, whereby IASs paid somewhat lower prices for inputs and received lower output prices than did the CAPs (Annex 7, Tables 1 and 2). In 1981, Romania embarked on major price reforms which abolished the two tier pricing system in order to bring domestic prices closer to world prices. Producer prices were increased by 12% and 10%, in 1981 and 1982. Premiums of 10-50% can be added to the new contractual prices depending on the per hectare yield of the crops produced on the farm which delivers the produce. The above changes are expected to allow for more eauitable earnings between the IASs and CAPs, and provide on-farm incentives for more efficient production and higher yields. 4.09 Marketing and Markets. Marketing arrangements in the project area, as in the rest of Romania, are adeauately organized. Despite a general shortage of trucks for transporting agricultural produce, delivery services in the project area are sufficient. The following four principal marketing enterprises, 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 TASs and CAPs, their storage, and their distribution to various processing mills. In the project area, there are six permanent and three temporary collection centers for these crops, which are suitably located near the project farms. (b) Central for Fruits and Vegetables. This organization maintains long-term contracts to supply the two canning factories in the project area. As a result of the projected increase in fruit and vegetable production, the canning factory at Giurgiu has been expanded. (c) Central for Sugar Beets. This central is responsible for purchase and processing of sugarbeets. (d) central for Vineyards and Wine. This central is responsible for purchase and processing of grapes. V. ECONOMIC IMPACT 5.01 Project Beneficiaries. The direct and indirect beneficiaries of the project are summarized in Annex 8, Table 1. The project has raised the incomes of about 26,400 people belonging to IASs, CAPs or CAP Associations. The most noticeable impact has been in the case of CAP members' income levels. A comparison of the situation in 1978 and 1983 indicates that the average annual income from farm and non-farm sources per active CAP member has increased from Lei 15,000 to Lei 25,440, a 70% - 36 - increase in 5 years. In the case of IAS members, the increase has been 25% during the same time period. This is due to the fact that state farm members are salaried government employees and therefore are subject to standard salary adjustment policies. In the case of CAPs, however, the incomes are dependent, to a large extent, on the farmers' productivity. In addition to restraining upward salary adjustment for IAS employees, the Government has also abolished the two-tier pricing system (See para 4.08) in 1981, which together have helped to reduce income disparities between workers on IASs and CAPs. 5.02 Incremental Production. At full development in 1986, the total volume of agricultural production is expected to increase six fold over the future without the project situation (Annex 8, Table 2). The analysis assumes that crop production would continue in the future without the project, at the same levels of crop yield as pre-project, with only a minor modification in cropping pattern reflecting slightly more maize, soybean and alfalfa hay and less wheat than at pre-project. This is a reasonable assumption since soil moisture is the principal factor which limits crop yield and response to fertilizer in the project area. The most significant increases in production are expected from maize, sugarbeet and second crop maize silage, reflecting the shift in the cropping pattern towards these crops compared to the without project situation. 5.03 Benefits. The cropping pattern in the project produces a range of tradeable and non-tradeablt products. The tradeable outputs, mostly grains and meat, either supplement current exports or substitute for imports. The non-tradeable outputs are mainly vegetables and animal fodder. The total incremental benefit of the project is estimated at Lei 1340 million (US$63.8 million) and the net benefit at Lei 578 million (US$ 27.5 million) at full development in 1986. 5.04 Economic Evaluation. The economic rate of return (ERR) has been recalculated taking into account the actual results since the implementation of the project. Revised estimates have been used for later years (1984-1988) based on the past 5 years' experience. Full crop production is expected in 1986 as compared to the appraisal estimate of 1984. The auantifiable benefits are from total project production, and auantified costs include: (i) capital investment; (ii) operation and maintenance costs; (iii) crop operating costs; and (iv) eauipment replacement costs (once every 20 years). 5.05 All input and output prices have been evaluated in constant 1983 local currency values (Annex 9, Table 1). The local costs have been adjusted by a domestic price index based on local inflation of 1.5% from 1978-1980 and 3.0% from 1981-1983. Foreign costs have been adjusted by the World Bank's international inflation estimates. The projections of future commodity prices have been based on World Bank forecasts (January 1984) and expressed in constant 1983 values. Wheat is valued at export parity while maize, soybeans, sugarbeet, and sunflower are based on import parity eouivalents and are adjusted for transport and handling - 37 - charges. For non-tradeable commodities the conversion factors remain as they were at the time of appraisal, 1.00. The project components were evaluated over the same project life period as used at appraisal. 5.06 The economic rate of return (ERR) for the whole project has been re-estimated at 13%, as compared to 17% at the time of appraisal. The economic costs and benefits have been summarized in Annex 9, Table 2. The reduction in the rate of return is mainly attributed to lower international commodity prices of meat and grains, especially maize which had a ninefold production increase from the preproject situation and accounted for 30% of total with project output. A small cost overrun of 5% in Lei terms and higher O&M costs because of rising energy costs have also adversely affected the ERR. The two year delay in full production has not adversely affected the ERR, because both the appraisal and actual conditions show that full production capacity is reached about one and a half years after the investment is made. The economic rate of return for the irrigation component (including orchards and vineyards) has been computed at 13%. The ERR for the dairy units, beef fattening units and feedmill ar-i 19%, 14% and 10%, respectively. An analysis of the switching values indicates that incremental project benefits would have to increase by 15% or the costs to decrease by 12% if the project were to yield an ERR of 17%, the rate of return obtained at appraisal. VI. [NSTITUTIONAL PERFORMANCE 6.01 Institutional Design and Performance. BAFI, the Borrower, has the prime responsibility for financing the development of the agricultural sector in Romania and is responsible for coordinating all project related activities with other ministries, departments, and district-level enterprises. It is also in charge of monitoring the financial, agricultural, and physical aspects of the project's implementation and reporting this information to the Bank. BAFI branch offices are responsible for processing loans for on-farm development, i.e. small irrigation eauipment, barns, sheds and short-term credit for input needs. BAFI's performance in carrying out the above tasks was fully satisfactory. Although BAFI did report some agricultural data for one CAP and one IAS on two occasions during project implementation, more comprehensive farm data needs to be compiled and reported to the Bank in order to better monitor and evaluate the project's agricultural and economic impact. 6.02 The Ministry for Agriculture and Food Industry's Department for Land Reclamation and Agricultural Construction (DIFCA) was responsible for project implementation and supervision of physical works. Until July 1980, DIFCA, under its own Deputy Minister of MAFI, comprised three sub-units: (i) Institute for Land Reclamation Studies and Design (ISPIF) (ii) Group for Supervising Investments (GSI) (iii) Directorate for Construction and Land Reclamation Works - 38 - In 1980 the Group for Supervising Construction Investments (GSI) was merged with the Central for Exploitation of Land Reclamation Works (CELIF), which was headed by a separate Deputy Minister of HAFI with responsibility for operation and maintenance of all completed irrigation systems. The organizational structure changed again in 1981 when the CELIF and DIFCA were merged, forming what is called General Economic Directorate for Land Reclamation and Agricultural Construction (DGEIFCA, Annex 10). Changes were also introduced at the regional and district level agencies, by consolidating a series of responsibilities and vesting them into one enterprise, the IEELIF (Enterprise for Execution and Exploitation of Land Reclamation Works) resulting in an organizational decentralization. Prior to 1983, there were six Construction Trusts for Land Reclamation Works (TCIFs) and 17 Enterprises for Exploitation (IELIFs) covering several districts. Each district also had a local organization for the execution of small land reclamation works and agricultural construction for IASs and CAPs. These enterprises were merged together in July 1983 to form one enterprise for land reclamation construction works and operation/maintenance for each district (IEELIF) (Annex 10). It was felt that decentralization and consolidation would ensure more efficient utilization of staff and resources, better management of land reclamation works, and improved operation and maintenance due to the active involvement of the operation unit in the construction phase of project implementation. Each district enterprise -- IEELIF (formerly TCTF/IELIF) -- reports to the General Directorate for Agriculture and Food Industry (DGAFI) of the respective district. Only technical advice or specific technical instructions are given by DGEIFCA, Bucharest. 6.03 It is still difficult to assess the effectiveness of the above organizational changes given that they have only recently taken place. However, it seems that there were some managerial or coordination problems contributing to project delays, which possibly could have been alleviated by the new organizational arrangement. The fact that the Supervision Unit (GSI) was separate from the design unit until 1981 may have contributed to the cases of deficiencies in nuality of works, especially uneven finishing of concrete works and canal linings. Now t:tat they are part of the execution and operation enterprise (IEELIF), awareness of anuality control should significantly improve. In addition, because the enterprise which will operate and maintain the system will be involved at an earlier stage of its development, actual implementation efficiency should also improve. 6.04 Operation and Maintenance. As a result of the recent re-organization under which the construction and O&M responsibilities are together in one well organized unit, it seems that coordination between the construction stage and the eventual operation of the systems is improving. The completed works are operated and maintained by the respective district-based Enterprise for Execution and Exploitation of Land Reclamation Works (IEELIF), the same enterprise responsible also for construction (Annex 10). The Director of the IEELIF reports to the General Directorate of Agriculture and Food Industry of the respective district and receives technical assistance, whenever needed, from the - 39 - General Economic Directorate for Land Reclamation and Agricultural Construction (DGEIFCA) in Bucharest. Each IEELIF has a series of sections. The O&M section consists of several sub-units, called "systems", each responsible for all O&M functions over an area of some 30,000-35,000 ha. These sub-units are well established, well organized and have adeouate technical staff and eouipment for carrying out their responsibilities. The IEELIFs have elaborate plans and timetables for routine maintenance works and inspections, most of them to be completed before the start of a new cropping season. They also have well euipped workshops and nualified engineers, mechanics and electricians. 6.05 The electrical transmission lines and installations executed under the project for the pumping stations are operated and maintained by the regional organization of the Ministry of Electrical Energy. The on-farm irrigation enuipment, be it sprinkling or furrow, is operated and maintained by the respective CAPs or IASs. The mechanical eauipment procured for 0&M is under the responsibility of the respective "system" or the regional IEELIF. The Agricultural Machinery Stations (SMAs) are responsible for the farm machinery, renting it to the IASs or CAPs, and for major maintenance jobs. Operation and routine maintenance of this eauipment is done by the renters. 6.06 In addition to their O&M responsibilities, each IEELIF has an irrigation water scheduling unit, an effective and useful institution at the field level. Each such unit covers an area of about 30,000 ha and employs several agronomists, soil-water-plant specialists and soil moisture laboratory staff, who advise farmers on appropriate water applications, monitor actual water use, and prepare detailed weekly water distribution schedules. Soil moisture is monitored on a weekly basis during the cropping season, by samples collected at various depths, from a well-determined grid of sampling points which are fairly representative for the area's soil profiles and types, as well as the crops grown on the adjacent lands. Comparisons with the respective soil moistures from the previous week are made, and the resulting projected water needs for the forthcoming week are discussed in detail every Friday night with the "system's" agricultural council, the local farmers' pa-Lticipatory body. After the weekly irrigation plans are approved by che farming unit representatives, these are considered as mandatory for each CAP and IAS and are strictly adhered to. The main objective of this program is to assure high yields and efficient water use, without adverse effects on the sub-surface drainage conditions. Having both the water distribution responsibility and the irrigation water scheduling advisory function in one unit ensures that water is properly and eauitably shared by every agricultural production unit. O&M services rendered by the IEELIFs are considered as fully satisfactory. 6.07 Cost Recovery. The cost recovery arrangements have not changed since the completion of the first Bank-financed irrigation project, Giurgiu-Razmiresti. Cost of on-farm sprinkler and furrow eouipment and land levelling works are financed by BAFI loans to the farms and are recovered through repayment of the loans. Cost of farm machinery and implements are recovered through rental rates set for their use. The - 40 - remaining costs are recovered through both direct and indirect mechanisms. The only direct mechanism, the water charge, is levied in accordance with the following rates: (i) a fixed annual charge of Lei 115 pir ha from cooperatives and Lei 294 from State farms; (ii) a water charge of Lei 18 per 1000 m3; (iii) a charge per crop hectare of Lei 138 for cereals, Lei 183 for alfalfa, Lei 195 for vegetables, and Lei 122 for vineyards and orchards. The annual revenues generated by the above rates were estimated by BAFI to be Lei 48 million at full development as compared to estimated annual O&M costs for the project of Lei 206 million (details are given in Annex 11). Indirect sources of funds are generated through: (i) part of the net earnings of the IASs; (ii) the differential between the prices of direct and indirect exports originating from the incremental production and the generally lower farmgate prices; and (iii) various funds and taxes deducted from the net income of CAPs and TASs. 6.08 Support Services. Agriculture in the project area is supervised by the office of the General Directorate for Agriculture and Food Industry of MAFI in the Districts of Rasova and Vederoasa. The directors of the IASs and CAPs in each of these Districts submit their annual production program to these Directorates, who in turn "harmonize" and co-ordinate the production programs of the IASs and CAPs in accordance with guidelines received from MAFI. In addition, the General Directorates serve an important advisory function to the production units through their own specialists working in collaboration with the specialists from the production units. Arrangements for supply of available inputs, farm credit (BAFI), agricultural research and extension are very well organized by these offices and for the most part adeauately meet farm needs. 6.09 Performance of the Bank. In the project completion report of BAFI, the Bank's contribution to the project was appreciated in: (i) its assistance during appraisal in limiting the dimensions of the project components which all have been implemented with unchanged capacities; and (ii) advice of supervision missions to BAFI and MAFI on implementation schedules, appropriate design changes, and ouality of work, procurement practices, accounting and reporting and O&M practices. Bank personnel provided valuable assistance to project officials in evaluating alternative designs, availability and adaptability of foreign construction ecuipment and construction practices on loess type soils. Generally, there was a reasonable mix of professional skills on the missions (Basic Data Sheet). In retrospect, it would have been useful to have had more input from an agriculturalist during the last two-three years of project implementation as the area actually under irrigation began to expand. - 41 - Greater input from an agriculturalist would also have enabled more thorough monitoring/evaluating of the agricultural (particularly dairy and livestock) component. Bank staff enjoyed full cooperation from Romanian counterparts, both in Bucharest, as well as in the field, and succeeded to maintain a constructive and fruitful dialogue at the various central and local BAFI and MAFI levels. By and large, supervision reports fairly reflect the progress of execution and the issues encountered. Advice given and comments made by Bank missions were usually welcome and useful, especially during the discussions held in May and November 1982 concerning ways to overcome budgetary cutbacks caused by the financial difficulties that Romania experienced and to accelerate project implementation which was suffering from a serious delay. BAFI's completion report also mentions the acceptance of the constructive technical observations made by Bank staff on work ouality and pace of implementation. 6.10 Bank performance on procurement was consistent with its guidelines and operational policies. Bank staff alerted the Borrower and its executing agencies on procurement related problems in a timely manner. The Bank did not include, under the reporting reauirements, a reauest for information on the actual expenditures by major work items, so that progress could be measured in financial terms and compared to the schedule of expenditures as contemplated at appraisal. This would have been a valuable yardstick for measuring actual progress. Also, the Bank did not establish any linkage between actual project implementation or expenditures and disbursements, or at least a format for reporting these data for follow-up and comparison with targets proposed at appraisal. Bank disbursements were generally timely but there were some delays. These payment delays have been referred to in BAFI's telexes (7 in 1979) and in discussions with supervision missions/reports. The Bank's payments were within the normal processing period of four to six weeks, with the exception of cases where documents were not complete. VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7.01 The Rasova-Vederoasa Project has been satisfactorily completed and BAFI has done a good job of coordinating and supervising project implementation. In 1979, 35% of the project area was completed and cropped. The project reached full development targets for area and cropping intensity in 1983. Production is expected to reacl: Lei 1340 million in gross incremental value at full production. Present yields have reached appraisal estimates while expected yields at full production (1986) indicate an ERR of 13% as compared to the appraisal estimate of 17%. The reduction in economic profitability of the project is caused by: (i) relatively lower prices of internationally nuoted commodities such as grains, sugar and meat; (ii) a cost overrun of 5% in Lei for the cost of project construction; and (iii) higher O&M costs because of energy costs which increased due to the second oil crisis (1978-79). The two year delay in reaching full production has not affected the project economic rate of return. The cooperatives and - 42 - state farms had the organization and incentive to use production opportunities created by the irrigation infrastructure immediately with the above-mentioned achievement in productive area, cropping intensity and yields. Thus, project success was also due to provision of: (i) complete irrigation systems including all on-farm works; (ii) adeauate extension advice from the Irrigation O&M Service and a well-run research station near the area; and (iii) an adeauate supply of fertilizers and other inputs for newly irrigated lands. The cost overrun was almost exclusively due to the increase in cost of two construction items of the irrigation component. Asbestos cement pipes which were purchased under ICB doubled in price; and land levelling, which even though reduced, was needed over 3,000 ha and at a much higher cost per hectare due to underestimated topographical difficulties. Savings in other irrigation categories and project components kept the overall project cost overrun to 5% in Lei of the appraised estimate. 7.02 The delays in implementation have been mainly caused by constraints which are extraneous to the project. An initial delay of about six months was caused by the late approval of the Government Council of the project. From 1980 on, funding for the project was restricted as part of the Government's policy of austerity measures in response to the world's economic crisis. However, up to 1980 project related problems caused it to slip from an initial completion target of 1978 to 1981. No additional construction resources were provided in order to make up for lost time due to technical and financial problems. Lessons Learned 7.03 Perhaps the most important lesson learned from this project is a recognition of the need for annual area development targets and corresponding financial budget allocations for each project under implementation. This program would then be monitored by BAFI and Bank Supervision Missions, whereby actual progress would be compared to the annual plan and the appraisal estimates. Romanian decision-makers should freauently and realistically review the feasibility of achieving the yearly targets on incorporating new lands under irrigation and take the appropriate steps to overcome possible delays or other shortcomings at the earliest opportunity. Unfortunately, most of the yearly forecasts proved to be too ambitious and unrealistic. On the other hand, the "systems" institution, its dedicated professional staff and the assistance provided by GDAFI must be credited as one of the important factors for achieving increased crop production. The O&M institution, together with its irrigation water scheduling service, is indeed an achievement of the MAFI, especially since it is active in the field at the very early stages of project implementation. 7.04 The lesson learned in procurement related issues was that a number of procedures needed to be tightened and modified to assure active participation by foreign bidders and ecual treatment of all bidders during evaluation of bids. As a result, BAFI and Romagrimex - 43 - have modified the bidding documents used in ICB for the procurement of goods under Bank financed projects to have: (i) bid submission and opening on the same day; (ii) a system establishing bid bond values for bids which precludes Romagrimex from determining the bid price before bid opening; and (iii) deletion of evaluation criteria that could affect selection of responsive bids unfairly. 7.05 On progress reporting, the Bank should request more detailed information on actual progress made, both in physical and financial terms, on a quarterly or semi-annual basis. The correlation between expenditures, construction and procurement schedules should be analyzed by comparing actual performance to appraisal estimates. Progress reports should also include a descriptive section on the main events that occurred during the reporting period, achievements or shortfalls that are not or cannot be properly expressed in the tables, and how these might affect, positively or adversely, the project's objectives or viability. Also, some thought should perhaps be given to the usefulness of creating a linkage between progress in implementation and disbursements. 7.06 Agricultural reporting of crop production, costs, and revenues needs to be improved._/The objective should be to increase production economically and not just to maximize output. Closer monitoring of agricultural data would: - create awareness of the need for confirming yield projections against actual results; - provide the means for analyzing causes of lower than expected yields in order to make necessary adjustments for the following year's production cycle; - improve input supply decisions; and - provide feedback to the research institutes and extension service. To accomplish the above, BAFI staff should work more closely with the staff of the Directorate General of Agriculture and Food Industry in the respective districts in compiling agricultural production information. The Bank should request that more data on agricultural production be compiled by BAFI on the remaining projects under supervision, and be made available to Bank missions for review and comment. 1/ The borrower contends that relevant data are collected and submitted to BAFI. See Annex 2, point 4. However, better use could be made of this information in the economic analysis of past investments and for planning future investments. Doc. 1916Z ANNEX I TabLe I I'R)JCT COMPLETION REPORT RONANIA RASOVA-VEDEROASA IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPHEKNT PROJECT (LOAN 1247-RO) (LOAN 1247-RO) Actual Project Costs Iocal Foreign Total Local Forj&n TotalL F.F. Actual --------- millUon Lei --------- - - iTllion US$ 1. rrignation Component Civil works, const-uction 1,306.9 496.6 1,803.5 73.5 27.9 101.4 28 Farm machinery and 06 eqiipment 86.8 37.2 124.0 4.8 2.1 6.9 30 4 Engineering & administration 162.0 0 162.0 9.0 0 9.0 0 aSh-totAl 1,5,55.7 533.8 2,089.5 87.3 30.0 117.3 26 II. Agricultural Component Vineyards 31.2 5.1 36.3 1.9 0.3 2.2 12 Orchards 16.7 2.7 19.4 1.0 0.1 1.1 12 Milo 38.8 25,8 64.6 3.5 0.5 4.0 11 Huh-total 86.7 33.6 120.3 6.4 0.9 7.3 12 (11. Liveoaxck Component airy nits 199.0 15.0 214.0 10.9 0.8 11.7 7 Ieifare 0.0 164.0 164.0 0 9.1 9.1 100 neof fattening units 18.3 7.8 26.1 1.2 0.3 1.5 17 Faed mill plant & silo 64.5 42.4 106.9 4.6 1.0 5,6 18 Soh-total 308.4 209.6 511.0 16.7 11.2 27.9 40 IV. Rural Water Supply Component cTvi works 21.3 4.1 25.4 1.1 0.2 1.3 16 V. Total Expenditure 1,972.t 774.1 2,746.2 t1.5 42.3 153.8 28 /1 Rxchango ratet Let 20 * US$1 until Dec. 1917, 1i1 18 a US$1 from 1978 to 1980, Lni 15 a US$1 from 1981 to 1982, and Let 1.5m u1 in 1983 and beyond. Dot!. 1956z ANNeX L Table2 PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT HOMANIA RASOVA-VEDEROASA IRRICATION AND AGRIClF4TURAI, DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (LOAN L247-R0) (lOAN 1247-RO) Appraisal Cost Estimates with Dintrihuted Phystal and Price Contingencies (million Iai) Lei Million US$ Million 1. Irrigation Component Local Foreign Total Local Foreign Total Civil works, construction and execution 1,169.9 466.5 1,636.4 58.5 23.3 81.8 Farm machinery and O&H equipment 99.2 42.5 141.7 4.9 2.1 7.0 Engineering and administration 145.2 - 145.2 7.3 - 7.3 Sub-total 1,414.3 509.0 1.923.3 70.7 25.5 96.2 II. Agricultural Component Vineyards 33.8 4.8 38.6 1.7 0.2 1.9 Orchards 16.8 2.2 19.0 0.8 0.1 0.9 sito 48.2 6.1 54.3 2.4 0.3 2.7 Sub-total 98.8 13.1 111.9 4.9 0.6 5.5 [1. Livestock Cmponent Dairy units 120.4 11.4 131.8 6.0 0.6 6.6 Hifers - 283.8 283.8 - 14.2 14.2 nee fattening units 21.9 1.8 73.7 1.1 0.1 1.2 Feed mitt plant & silo 105.5 11.8 117.3 5,3 0.6 5.9 Hith-totaL 247.8 310.8 566.6 12.4 15.5 27.9 IV. Rural Water Supply Component Civl works 14.8 2.8 17.6 0.8 0.1 0.9 V. Project Total 1,775.7 831.7 2,609.4 88,8 41.? 130.5 Doc. 1q56 ANNEX I PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT ROMANIA RASOVA-VIDEROASA IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURAL DKVBLOPEHNT PROJECT (WAN 1247-10) (LOAN 1247-10) Analysis of Cost Changes from Appraisal letimate Difference Reason for Difference Appraisal Current (+) Overrun Estimated rice Estimate Ll lstigate ( Below get. 2uantitiee %,Ansee -------------- -------- Million Lei ----------------------------- 1. Irrigation Comyoent Civil works, construction and execution, ensineering 1,781.6 1,965.5 4183.9 471.6 +112.3 Farm machinery and DEN L2 141.7 124.0 -17.7 -17.7 25.0 Sub-total 1,923.3 2,089.5 4166.2 +$3.9 +112.3 I It. Agricultural Component 0. 0% Vineyards 38.6 36.3 -2.3 -1.1 -1.2 Orchards 19.0 19.4 40.4 40.2 40.2 Silo 54.3 64.6 410.3 441 +6.2 Sub-total 111.9 120.3 +8.4 +3.2 +5.2 III. Livestock component Dairy unito 131.6 21410 482.2 +32.9 *49.3 Itlters , 283.8 164.0 -119.8 - 189.6 neof fattening units 23.7 26.1 +2.4 +0.2 +2.2 Feed mill plant & silo 117.3 106.9 -10.4 -4.2 *.2 Sub-total 556.6 511.0 -45.6 +28.9 -74.5 IV, Rural Water Supply Component " Civil works 17.6 25.4 47.8 - +7.6 V. Tntal Cost 2,609.4 2,746.2 4136.8 486.0 450.8 UN$ quivalent - millions /3 130.5 153.8 +23.3 #3.7 +1.7 (172) (35Z) /1 Appraisal estimate Is with price and physical contingencies distributed to various components. /2 Pro,ject-financed equipment for SNAs. /3 Fxchnnoto rates La 20 * US$1 until December 1977, Lei 18 a US$1 from 1978 to 1980, Leti IS US$1 frnm 1981 to 1982, .ini I.al 17.5 * US$1 in 1983 and beyond. ANNEK I Tabln 4 PROJpE.T COMPLETION REPOKT ROKANIA RASOVA-VEDEROASA IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPHENT PROJECT (LOAN 1247-RO) 0L)AN 1247-R0) Analysis of Cost Changes from Appraisal -etimate Irrigation Component Appraisal Estimate Current Estimate Including Excluding Including Including Engineering & Excluding Contingencies Cnitingencies Engineering Miscellaneous Engineering Overrun ------------------------------Lei million ------------------------------ X Irrigntion Works 1. Kiin pwnping stations 246.6 215.2 263.5 273.8 248.9 -13 2. Pr-suire pumping stations 121.0 140.0 124.6 129.5 117.7 -16 1. 11owor supply 51.9 62.3 67.0 69.6 63.3 +2 4. C.I Iq 387.2 447.8 453.6 459.2 417.4 -7 5. fiqtrihution pipelinea 408.0 471.9 659.0 685.0 622.6 +33 1 6. on-nirm equipment 149.0 172.3 164.9 171.4 171.3 1) 7. Land levelling 26.2 30.3 144.0 149.7 136.1 450 R. Sail arnsion control 10.8 12.5 12.7 13.2 12.0 -4 9. Niq('01allpous - - 76.2 - - - 10. I.iwt compensation 12.2 14.1 - 14.1 14.1 0 ,btntal 1,414.9 1,616.4 1,965.5 1,965.5 1,803.5 +11 rquipmont Fatrn minhinery 100.0 116.0 i00,0L 100.0 1000 - Operatinn nid maintenance 22.0 25.1 24.0 24.0 24.0 -6 .ub1t otal1 122.0 141.7 )24.0 124.0 124.0 - Englnwrinp and Administration - 145.2 - - 162.0 +11 Piyqir-1l 124.7 - - -- Prir 136.2 - - - - - Shtotni 260.9 - - ToTAL, 1,923.3 1,V21.3 2,089.5 2,089.5 2,089.5 *9 /1 Fn,ighworing and iadministration'l0% of cnii4tritioo cost items 1-5 ant 7-9. 77 F'q,iptnpnt financed by Project. - 48 - Doc.1729Z ANNEX I Table .5 PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT ROMANIA RASOVA-VEDEROASA IRRIATION AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (mAN 1247-an) Appraisal and Actual Project Costs (Lei Million) Appraisal Estimate Current Estimace Total 2 Foreign Total z Foreign Irrigation Works Main pumping station 285.2 40 114.2 248.9 40 99.6 Pressure pumping station 140.0 40 56.0 117.7 40 47.1 Power supply 62.3 45 23.9 633 45 28.5 Canals and structures 447.8 13 58.2 417.4 13 54.3 Distribution pipelines 471.9 33 155.8 622.6 33 205.5 On-farm equipment 172.3 29 500 171.3 29 49.7 Land levelling 30.3 8 2.4 136.1 8 10.9 Soil erosion control 12.5 8 1.0 12.0 8 1.0 Land compensation 14.1 - - 14.1 - - Subtotal 1,636.4 28 466.5 1,803.5 28 496.6 Equipment Farm machinery 116.0 30 34.8 100.0 30 30.0 0&M 25.7 30 7.7 24.0 30 7.2 SubtotaL 141.7 30 42.5 124.0 30 37.2 Engineering and Administration 145.2 - - 162.0 - - Total Irrigation Component 1,923.3 26 509.0 2,089.5 26 533.8 Agricultural Component 111.9 12 13.1 120.3 12 14.4 Livestock Component 556.6 55 308.8 511.0 55 281.1 Rural Water Supply Component 17.6 16 2.8 25.4 16 4.1 2,609.4 32 833.7 2,746.2 30 833.4 Doc. 1956Z - 49 - ANNEX 1 Table 6 PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT ROMANIA RASOVA-VEDEROASA IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (LOAN 1247-RO) Comparative Capital Investment Cost per Hectare Giurgiu-Razmiresti 1/ Rasova-Vederoasa System 100,900 ha 65,000 ha Total Total Lei million Per Ha Lei Lei million Per Ha Lei Main Irrigation System Main pumping stations 220.1 2,180 248.9 3,830 Main canals and structures 569.8 5,640 417.4 6,420 Subtotal 789.9 7,820 666.3 10,250 Distribution Systems Pressure pumping stations 292.7 2,900 181.0 2,780 Power pipelines 534.1 5,290 622.6 9,580 Subtotal 826.8 8,190 803.6 12,360 On-farm Systems Sprinkler 139.5 (1,750) 107.0 (2,550) Gravity hose 29.1 (1,380) 64.4 (2,800) Land levelling 151.5 (72200) 136.1 (5,920) Subtotal 320.1 3,170 307.5 4,730 Total 1,936.8 19,180 1,777.3 27,340 /1 During construction average rate of USDollar for Giurgiu Razmiresti Project Lei 20, for Rasova-Vederoasa Project Lei 18. Doc. 1)SQ, ANNEX 2 Table I PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT ROMANIA RASOVA-VEDEROASA IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (LOAN 1247-R0) (LOAN 1247-RO) Annual Expenditures (million Lei) Projoct Actual ------------------------- Actual Schedule of Expenditures -------------------------- Compon,ts Cost 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Irrigntion Civil works, construction 1,803.5 339.0 359.6 412.3 272.3 147.0 100.2 - 173.1 - Farm mwchinery and 0,9M equipment 124.0 - - - 71.0 53.0 - - - - - Enpinnering and naministration 162.0 - 30.4 32.3 37.0 24.5 13.2 9.0 - 15.6 - 0 Sub-total 2,089.5 - 369.4 391.9 520.3 349.8 160.2 109.2 - 188.7 - Apriculturnl Component Vineyard 36.3 - - - 8.6 20.1 1.6 3.4 2.4 - - Orchard 19.4 - - - 8.7 1.5 2.2 1.2 1.5 1.4 0.9 Sin 64.6 1.1 1.0 3.9 6.0 9.3 18.2 25.1 - - - Sub-total 120.3 1.1 1.0 3.9 23.3 32.9 22.0 29.7 4.1 1.4 0.9 Livestnek Component Dairy inits 214.0 25.9 q,q 69.2 38.9 68.9 1.2 - - - - 11oi fors 164.0 - 77.0 87.0 - - - - - nenr rattening inite 26.1 - - 7.0 13.9 5.2 - - - - - Pndmill plant 83.7 24.7 26.R 24.3 7.9 - - - - - - Silo 23.2 6.9 7.4 6.7 2.2 - Sib-total 511.0 57.5 44.1 184.2 149.9 74.1 1.2 - - - - Hural Ynter Supply Componeit 25.4 9.6 8.4 3.0 0.7 1.9 1.8 - Grand Total 2,746.2 68.2 422.9 583.0 694.2 458.7 185.2 138.9 4.1 196.1 - Doc. 1956Z ANNEX 2 Table 2 ROMANIA RASOVA-VEDEROASA IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (LOAN 1247-RO) COMPLETION REPORT Project Financini (US$ million) Local Costs Foreign Costs Source of Financing Appreitd ctUSI Difference Appraised Actual Differe-ace IBRD loan 7.5 7.8 + 0.3 41.7 42.3 + 0.6 State budget 49.8 62.3 +12.5 - - - BAFI credits 30.0 37.3 + 7.3 - - - CAP's contribution 1.5 4.1 2 1.6 - - - LA Total 88.8 111.5 +22.7 41.7 42.3 440.6 .-/l」·I! - Z드 - Doc. 1956Z - 53 - ANNEX 3 ROMANIA RASOVA-VEDEROASA IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (LOAN 1247-ROY COMPLETION REPORT Water Delivery and Efficiency 1. The project irrigation system started irrigating crops in 1979 when one-third of the 3rea was planted. The cropped area increased to the full project area in 1983 and included 18 percent of double cropping. The system performed well and apparently supplied enough water for the crops to attain higher yields 2 years earlier than planned at the time of appraisal. Moreover, the system was working in 1983 under the following constraints M a dry year, particularly at the end of spring, (ii) the main canals were still unlined resulting in high seepage losses (40%), and (iii) initial operating problems due to breakdowns which are common just after completion of construction. 2. In 1983 supplied water quantities have been less (310 million m3) than estimated during appraisal (460 million m3) for a dry year. Reasons for the reduced recuirements are that losses between intake and crop are less than estimated (902 losses) as well as net consumptive use of the crops which on average amounted to 2700 m3/ha as compared to the estimated 3650 m3/ha. Coasiderable amounts of energy are required for lifting the water to an equivalent height of 223 m which is required at full development. Revised comsumptive use data from the O&M service in the Constanza province have been used to calculate water quantities which need to be pumped by intake, repumping and pressure stations. 3. Assuming an on-farm efficiency of 85 percent at the pressure stations (average size area 1700 ha) and a conveyance efficiency of 90 percent for the main canal system, and based on experience with other similar projects in Romania, average net c.u. needs would be 3200 m3/crop ha. Requirements at pressure stations would be 3750 m3/crop ha and at intake 4200 m3/ha. Peak requirements in 1982 (0.53 1/s/ha) and in 1983 0.45 l/s/ha have been well below the systems capacity of 0.75 I/s/ha but would leave a reasonable margin of supply over demand. All irrigation would follow the same 20 hours shift which the O&M services generally follow in order to reduce consumption of energy during peak hours. Applying the revised c.u. data of the O&M service, maximum requirements at the pressure stations would occur in the last 10-days of July and would amount to 644 m3/ha or 0.725 1/s/ha (Table 1). ANNEX 3 TabTeIT ROMANIA RASUVA-VEDEROASA IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (LOAN 1247-RO) COMPLHTION REPORT Water Requirements at Pressure Pumping Stations (in a /ha) Crop Requirements for 10-day Periods April May June July August September October Total Wheat and barley 800 800 450 ! 450 2500 Haize grain 800 400 400 800 400 3200 Sugar beet 400 400 1 400 400 400 400 400 400 1 400 400 400 400 200 i 5000 Sunflower 400 400 400 400 400 400 2400 Soybean ! 400 400 400 400 400 400 3 400 400 400 400 4000 Alfalfa 400 400 400 400 4 ) 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 5600 Other crops 400 400 400 400 400 400 ! 400 2800 Maise silage $ a a 800 400 400 1400 2000 Note: Data 06M Service Constansa Average Future Watee Requirement. per Hectare at SSP ! Weighted Crop Requirement % Equipped Area Requirement July 21-31 IIII C * r !heat and barley 2500 19 475 - ! Maize grain 3200 50 1600 . 400 !Sugar beet 5000 6 300 28 'Sunflower 2400 7 L68 - Soybean ! 4000 5 200 J 20 Wfalfa 5600 10 560 40 'Other crops 2800 3 ! 84 ! 12 !Maize sllage 2000 18 360 144 Total 118 3747 ! 644 * * * * * Doc. 1956Z - 55 - ANNEX 4 Table 1 ROMANIA RASOVA-VEDEROASA IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (LOAN 1247-RO) COMPLETION REPORT Actual and Appraisal Cumulative Disbursements IBRD Fiscal Year Cumulative Disbursement and Quarter at End of Quarter Estimated Actual ----- US$ million --- 1976/1977 Sep. 30, 1976 - Dec. 31, 1976 0.6 0.2 Mar. 31, 1977 1.6 0.4 Jun. 30, 1977 5.2 0.9 1977/1978 Sep. 30, 1977 9.0 1.5 Dec. 31, 1977 15.9 2.0 Mar. 31, 1978 24.3 6.3 Jun. 30, 1978 33.7 11.2 1978/1979 Sep. 30, 1978 38.1 18.2 Dec. 31, 1978 41.7 27.3 Mar. 31, 1979 46.3 34.3 Jun. 30, 1979 48.9 36.0 1979/1980 Sep. 30, 1979 50.6 43.0 Dec. 31, 1979 52.2 46.3 Mar. 31, 1980 54.3 49.0 Jun. 30, 1980 56.4 49.6 1980/1981 Sep. 30, 1980 58.2 55.5 Dec. 31, 1980 60.0 58.5 Mar. 31, 1981 60.0 59.2 Jun. 30, 1981 60.0 60.0 Doc. 1956Z - 56 - ANNEX 5 Table 1 ROMANIA RASOVA-VEDEROASA IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (LOAN 1247-RO) COMPLETION REPORT Construction Equipment Procured through ICB Value of Contract Bidding Document and (in Lei) Type of Equipment Equipment Spare Parts Date Supplier Bidding document No. 1 238,629,160 11/77 Industrial-export Pumping equipment Romania Bidding document No. 2 107,935,935 11/77 Arpimex On-farm furrow Romania equipment Bidding document No. 3 87,257,305 1/78 Industrial-export On-farm sprinkler Romania equipment Bidding document No. 4 212,318,000 11/77 Vitrocim Asbestos cement pipe Romania Bidding document No. 5 47,126,180 7/77 Electroexport Electrical equipment Romania Bidding document No. 6 9,6067,340 6/78 Autoexport Transport vehicles Romania Bidding document No. 7 2,199,360 3/78 Universal Tractor Farms tractors Romania Bidding document No. 8 57,258,400 8/78 Mecanoexport Construction equipment Romania Bidding document No. 9 22,899,000 8/77 Universal Tractor Tractors and dozers Romania Bidding document No. 10 1,592,180 7/77 Mecanoexport Work slope equipment Romania Bidding document No. 11 1,842,400 8/78 Electronum Electrical equipment Romania Motorized scraper and 37,026,356 9,115,380 1/78 Blackwood-Hodge spare parts (T1,136,475) (6279,800) U.K. Canal lining 51,230,800 9/78 Rahco equipment ($2,603,276) + ($73,933) U.S.A. - 57 - D=. 1956Z pma ANNEX 5 RAOW-JR m U W M A MM . DEVE ir A C Table 2 (IMN 124-I) auy of Eaim~t and m teial Pxccused 1hmsf' ICB PoYisio. in the Appisal Repmrt Atul Procurd Etiffated Eura..r,d Atua Actual _Iten Q=atity ~ti C=s 1~ UYa V=t ant nait c 1T~l Cmst 1. Pe-nugr emai nt for vka n.p, motor arni anft8ry e.uipn.nr for muin and preome p&mpir« sttian - - 300,000 545 Nb. - 238,629.2 mgterial for 20 kv-p~r lin« ad transfoæfer sub.taticm - - u0.O ame.r ..n~ - 47,126.2 Sbtota ("'0 li) - - 320,=0 - - 285,755.4 Subcotal ('000 ) - - 16,0M - - 2. C~ntruction M'terials Aøbesta cemt - - 1,000 1113 lam - 212.300.0 On-farm p~rtable pipe ad emaiment - - I5D,OM - - 195,20.0 sabtctal ~ '000 Lei) - - 250,0o - 407,500.0 Subtotal ('000 $) - - 12,OM - - 3. Cbantructin Equipmen Caml criung and 1inirg ~im 2 20,000 40,000 2 25,615.4 51,230.8 De-mterirg Eailpnt 6 ~ata 1,0 9,600 6 4ta '.35.3 2,611.8 .Motor raperj, 11.0 m3 15 1,600 24,000 15 2,814.1 42,212.0 Wheel dur, 11.0 M3 20 800 16,000 20 1,251.1 22,520.0 Draglim, 1.0 m3 3 1,000 3,W0 3 "t6.0 2,538.0 ~tar gefder, 180 HP 4 950 3,800 4 850.0 3,400.0 Mbile crae, 25 t 2 1,800 3,600 2 1,970.0 3,90.0 m~bile crane, 12 tn. 10 800 8,0 13 1,210.0 15,730.0 ?bile truck cran, 12 tn 3 900 2,7W0 MDbile truck crae, 8 n 3 400 1,200 3 816.0 2,448.0 Teuc aixer 25 600 15,000 25 631.1 15,777.5 Døp truck, 17 tones 10 500 5,000 10 574.0 5,740.0 Betchirg plant 2 1,050 2,100 2 1,012.0 2,C24.0 Spare parts 1,00.0 Subyezal ('0O Lei) 134,0= 171,772.2 «&wrer.q1 (Innn ki 6. 7() - 58 - Doc. 1956Z ANNEX 6 Table 1 ROMANIA RASOVA-VEDEROASA IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (LOAN 1247-RO) COMPLETION REPORT Crop Yields - Comparison between Pre-project and with the Project Pre-Project At Full Development Actual Situation /1 Appraisal /2 MAFI 13 1982 1983 /4 ---------------------------Wh)---------- Wheat 2.1 4.5 5.0 4.1 4.3 Maize 2.3 8.0 10.0 7.1 7.6 Barley 2.1 4.5 5.0 3.9 4.2 Sunflower 1.2 2.5 3.0 2.4 2.4 Soybean 1.0 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 Sugar beet 17.8 50.0 50.0 37.8 46.8 Potato 8.0 16.0 16.0 13.6 14.8 Vegetables 10.0 20.0 25.0 21.9 23.2 Alfalfa hay 3.4 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 Maize silage 17.0 35.0 35.0 34.0 35.0 Grape 5.8 12.0 12.0 /5 10.0 10.0 Fruit 4.0 9.3 9.5 9.0 9.5 11 The yields represent those obtained under rainfed conditions existing at the time of appraisal. /2 The yields represent the situation when full development was originally expected to take place in 1984. /3 The yields represent the situation when full development is now expected to take place in 1986, based on revised estimates by MAFI. /' The yield figures for 1983 are preliminary estimates provided to the mission by MAFI. /5 Yield for wine grapes is estimated at 12 t/ha and that of table grapes is 15 t/ha. O0c. 1956% ANNEX 6 ROMANIA RASOVA-VIDBROASA IRRICATION AN) ARiUL'URAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (LOAd 1247-RO) COMPLETION REPORI Cropping Pattern - Actual vs. Appreinal Estimate Pre-project Appraisal Estimate Actual Cropped Area Estimated Cropped Area Situation Cropped Area It Percent of in 1982 1983 /2 in 1986 /3 (1)0 tha ) ( h)7 7 T Ga (M (ha) (2) wheat 29,58n 50.7 11,400 18.0 11,326 20.3 11,860 18.5 11,525 18.0 Noise 14,070 24.1 31,700 50.1 26,983 48.3 31,517 49.3 32,015 50.0 Berley 1,99n 3.4 800 1.1 1.998 3.6 1,228 1.9 832 1.3 Sunflower 8,080 13.8 4,600 7.2 4,036 7.2 4,591 7.2 4,675 7.3 Roybean 1,200 2.1 2,900 4.6 3,466 6.2 3,071 4.8 2,945 4.6 Sigar beet It($ 0.2 3,800 6.0 2,156 3.9 3,588 5.6 3,843 6.0 Potato 10o 0.2 900 1.4 857 1.5 973 1.5 896 1.4 Vegetablen 401) 0.7 900 1.4 805 1.4 973 1.5 396 1.4 Alfal(a k1y 2,101) 3.9 6.300 10.0 ALM 7.6 6.223 9.7 6,403 10.0 Total 58,331) /4 100.0 63,300 100.0 55,853 100.0 64,030 100.0 64,030 100.0 Waine situ,900 /5 7.0 11.30018.0 1h 22.0 12J67 19.0 11.525 18.0 64,231 /6 74.600 /7 em10 ZAM19 75,555 Croppini Intensity 107 118 122 119.0 118 /1 11e apprai-al -stimite of the cropped area represents the sitiitinn in 1984, tLe year full development. vai originally expected to take place. 711de cropped area figires for 1983 are-preliminary estimates provided by MAPI to the mision. 7 The year full develnpmont (a now expected to take place. 74 Total alsn includeq 500 ha of linseed and tobacco (0.9%). 75 Of which aholit 4,500 hn was second crop matae fow siage. 76 In addition there were 320 he of orchards and 250 ha of vineyards. 77 In addition thero trwe 670 ha of orchards and 700 ha of vineynrols. Doc. 1956Z - 60 - ANNEX 6 Table -3 ROMANIA RASOVA-VEDEROASA IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (LOAN 1247-RO) COMPLETION REPORT Fert;lizer Use /1 Active Substance Tnt) N P205 K20 Total 1979 1,625 1,260 165 3,050 1980 2,700 1,593 562 4,855 1981 5,618 3,262 954 9,834 1982 7,436 4,134 1,499 13,069 1983 9,178 4,988 1,626 15,792 1984 9,708 5,097 1,919 16,724 1985 9,906 5,169 1,929 17,004 1986 1,1087 5,651 3,208 19,946 /1 The fertilizer use from 1979-1983 are based on actual project use. Figures for 1984-1986 and beyond are projections. Doc. 1956Z - 61 - ANNEX 6 Table 4 ROMANIA RASOVA-VEDEROASA IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (LOAN 1247-RO) COKPLETION REPORT List of Farm Machinery and Implements Estimated Item Quantity Total Cost ('000 Lei) Tractors in 45-80 hp range 232 28,900 Plough, tractor mounted 98 900 Harrow 72 300 Cultivator 132 2,900 Land leveller 26 900 Seed drill and seeder 151 5,200 Fertilizer distributor 40 1,400 Crop sprayer and duster 76 3,100 Combine harvester 156 19,500 Orchard sprayer 24 1,000 Maize harvester 237 14,900 Windrower 4 300 Baler for hay and straw 37 6,000 Tractor trailer 302 10,000 Tanker trailer (for fuel) 27 1,900 Field vehicle 3,000 Total ('000 Lei) 99,300 Doc. 1956Z -62 - ANNEX 7 Table 1 ROMANIA RASOVA-VEDEROASA IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (LOAN 1247-RO) COMPLETION REPORT Contractual Prices for Agricultural Commodities 1 Showing Two-Tier Pricing System (Lei/ton) Cereals CAP IAS Wheat 1,370 1,000 Barley 1,100 800 Two-row barley 1,500 900 Maize 1,150 800 Sunflower seed 1,850-2,030 1,850-2,030 Sugar beet 300 300 Soybeans 3,600 2,900 Fruits Apricots 1,600-4,050 1,600-4,050 Peaches 1,600-3,750 1,600-3,750 Table grapes 2,550-5,200 2,550-5,200 Animal Products Young stock up to 3 yrs - 341-400 kg. l.w. 10,250-13,250 10,250-13,250 - over 400 kg. 1. v. 11,000-14,350 11,000-14,250 Calves up to 50 kg. l.w. 18,000-20,000 18,000-20,000 Cattle, l.w. 6,500-10,000 6,500-10,000 Cow milk, 1. 1,850 1,850 1l These prices were in effect from 1977 to 1981. Doc. 1956Z - 63 - ANNEX 7 Table =e ROMANIA RASOVA-VEDEROASA IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (LOAN 1247-RO) COMPLETION REPORT Contractual Prices for Agricultural Commodities Since 1982 Unit Contract Price Premium Delivery ----------- Lei ----- - ha Wheat tons 1500 150-400 0.5-5 grain " 1270 250-650 1.0-6.0 Barley 1500 240-700 1.0-5.0 Sunflower 2680 500-800 1.0-2.5 Soya bean 3250 350-500 1.0-2.0 Sugar beet " 345 150-250 22.0-34.0 Tomato Super 1900 1st quality 1700 100-300 18.0-25.7 2nd quality 1500 Potato 1st quality 1000 100-150 10.0-20.0 2nd quality 800 Fruits Sweet cherries 1st quality " 5800 700-900 1.8-3.0 2nd quality 3700 Apricots 1st quality 4850 500-700 2.5-3.5 2nd quality " 3100 Peaches 1st quality 3800 300-500 6.0-10.0 2nd quality 2600 Table grapes 2750-4000 300-550 4.0-9.5 Wine grapes 2320-3000 Cattle kg live wt. 11.23 14.80 + 31.8 Pigs 10.91 14.50 + 32.9 Sheep 11.27 14.20 + 26.0 Poultry 12.87 14.00 8.8 Dairy cow milk liter 2.06 2.80 + 35.9 Sheep milk " 4.16 5.23 + 25.7 T)oc. 1956Z ANNEX 8 Table I ROMANIA RASOVA-VEDEROASA IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPHENT PROJECT (LOAN 1247-RO) COMPLETION REPORT Project Reneficiaries - 1978 ------------------- ------------------1983 ----------------- No. of Average Annual Income No. of Average Annual Income Unite Population Per Active Person Li Units Population Per Active Person (Lel) (LeI) Parm Non-farm Farm Non-tarm Direct * eneficliries Stati fI'rms 6 2,550 24,000 - 6 3,600 30.000 - at CAP 30 22,500 12,000 3,000 29 18,000 20,400 5,040 CAP Asqnciations (AV) - - - - 3 300 21,600 - Indirect enefic[aries Hired ltabor by IAS 6 3,750 15,000 - 6 4,500 30,000 - /I An Active person is defined as one who works fultimo for at least 200 days In a calendar year. Doc. 1956Z - 65 - ANNEX 8 Table 2 ROMANIA RASOVA-VEDEROASA IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (LOAN 1247-RO) COMPLETION REPORT Volume of Agricultural Production Future Future without Project with Project /1 Incremental ------'0000 tons------ '000 tons (Z) Wheat 52.1 57.6 5.5 10 Maize 36.3 320.2 283.9 782 Barley 4.4 3.7 (0.7) (16) Sunflower 8.0 14.0 6.0 75 Soybean 4.5 7.4 2.9 64 Sugarbeet 16.0 192.2 176.2 1,100 Potato - 14.3 14.3 100 Vegetables - 22.4 22.4 100 Alfalfa hay 17.3 66.4 49.1 284 Maize silage /2 18.0 403.4 385.4 2,140 Fruits 1.3 3.3 2.0 154 Grapes 1.5 6.1 4.6 306 Total 159.4 1,111.0 951.6 597 /1 At full development in 1986. 72 Second crop. Doc. 1956Z - 66 - ANNEX 8 ROMANIA RASOVA-VEDEROASA IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (LOAN 1247-RO) COMPLETION REPORT Total Annual Production by Crop 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986-2015 ------------------------'000 tons------------------------ Wheat 26.8 19.8 44.4 4-5.0 51.0 52.1 51.9 57.6 Maize 32.8 62.0 135.0 191.8 239.3 248.9 256.1 320.2 Barley 2.3 2.3 5.2 :.9 5.1 5.6 3.7 3.7 Sunflower 3.8 3.9 7.5 9.7 11.1 11.3 11.7 14.0 Soybean 1.9 5.2 4.8 8.3 7.3 7.3 7.4 7.4 Sugar beet 21.2 16.9 83.8 81.4 168.0 178.0 192.2 192.2 Potato 1.9 3.3 9.1 11.7 14.4 14.8 14.3 14.3 Vegetables 3.5 6.2 19.0 17.6 22.6 23.2 22.4 22.4 Doc. 1956Z - 67 - ANNEX 9 Table 1 ROMANIA RASOVA-VEDEROASA IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (LOAN 1247-RO) COMPLETION REPORT Economic Prices (Coastant 1983 Leifton) 1976 1980 1985 1990 Wheat 4644 3516 3081 3567 Maize 3777 2588 2709 2940 Barley 3138 2065 2175 2383 Soybean 7435 5666 5635 6550 Sunflower 7642 6833 7705 7747 Sugarbeet 922 1387 529 777 Potato /1 900 900 900 900 Vegetables 1l 1450 1450 1450 1450 Alfalfa (hay) /1 500 500 500 500 Maize silage /1 12C 120 120 120 Fruits 3200 3200 3200 3200 Grapes 2600 2600 2600 2600 Milk (Lei/1000 1) 2000 2000 26C0 2600 Cattle (600 kg live wt) 8000 8000 860 8600 Calves (60 kg live wt) 900 900 1100 1100 Calves (300 kg live Vt) 4000 4000 4400 4400 Urea 5987 7070 6025 8895 TSP 5908 6775 5981 7486 Potash 4578 5187 4485 5085 /1 The prices indicated are financial prices. .I.: PI - a - a - O- 1 :.. - ii £. E. . 23. .,s. Rar se s . Is..x: [e be9! 3.-3£ rr ....... k te E . a .... j- 3 - . . . . .2 -E 21 1 ig ag . 5.... * : r : . ..... s * 22. * . : ' j*a ze a . .....T- _6 X K 89 ...... a -~ i E sE ; - : 3 jf. -3 :*: re as . .. . . as 8 . . . . 1 aa 6 XHNNV :9 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART ANNEX 10 National Level 5Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry Cuneral Economic Directorate for Land Re,laaation and AjriculLural Conutructiun i (;EIFCA) - uputy minister Depucy Cueral Directorm Technical and Construction Plnning, FInancing Operation and HaRntenance invustments Dirtort Directorate Iand Procurumunt Advisory_1DirectoraC0e /1 One of Chu four Directorates which comprise the Minidtry for AgrLculture and F00d Industry (MAFI) DistricLe Level Directoc Pffur-so-n-nel Enterprise tor Execution and Exploitation FOYnTRnng1 Offic.e of Land RuLlamagion Works /2 1Office U.puty Directors Investaunt OperdLlul and Supply Construccion C0 OaincunaI.u rvic _Service "Systms"Construction Sit /2 Each of the 41 Districts has a complex organization IEE1LF responsible for constructiono surveying, opurJtLon and uiLntenancu and control of inveanaitc. Adminiscrscively. the IEELIF reportis tu the Director General iur Agricultural Affaith DGAFI i each Oiutrict. Profedatonal or tuchniial iusues are refurred cu UIUFCA, bucharot. - 70 - ANNEX 11 ROMANIA RASOVA-VEDEROASA IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (LOAN 1247-RO) COMPLETION REPORT Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs 1. Operation and maintenance of the irrigation system which was fully commissioned during the 1983 irrigation season has been provided by five units of the Agro Industrial Council. The units are: Hectare Micro Voda (excluding systems outside project) 5,000 Baraganci 15,800 Comana 11,000 Prebeni 10,800 Independenzia 22,000 64,600 2. The total staff strength used for the five units is 571, of which 33 are engineers and technicians, 417 pump attendants and 112 canal operators. The lined, as well as the temporarily or permanently (from intake to SRP2) unlined canals, were found upon inspection to be relatively free of weeds. Ongoing maintenance work involved remedying installation shortcomings such as leaking joints in delivery pipes at the floating intake station, pump axles with excessive wear, and realigning precast concrete tiles of lined canals. 3. Pumped water quantities are measured by recocding daily the hours each pump unit has worked and multiplying it with the pump's design capacity. O&M Costs 4. Organization and financing of the project's five O6M units is coordinated from the provincial headquarters in Constanza, which also administers O&M expenditures for the judet. 5. In 1982 in the Constanza judet, 342,000 ha were commissioned and the cost of operation and maintenance amounted to Lei 621 million or Lei 1816 per hectare. It includes amortization of O&M equipment and the supply of electric - 71 - power, which was 56% of the cost. Excluding the energy cost part, which is directly related to pumping height which varies from 90 m to 167 m (Rasova-Vederoasa Project) and excluding amortization of O&M equipment, the O&M cost of irrigation projects in the Constanza judet amounts to Lei 486.5 per hectare. Required energy and related costs 6. The relation between quantities, lift and pressure of the pumped water quantities and consumed electric energy, using a pump efficiency of 75 percent which is based on O&M service experience is consistent with measured water quantities and the electric power used for the Rasova-Vederoasa project in 1982 and 1983 for the whole judet, for which data were available. The left canal from the Danube river to the main canal system is 167 m and the pressure required for the sprinkler and gravity irrigation is estimated to be 60 m. See Table 2. For recalculating average future energy requirements, the O&M service's requirements at the pressure pumping stations have been used, with the project crop pattern requiring on average 3750 m3 per hectare which would correspond with 4200 m3 per hectare being required at the intake. Energy requirements would be 211 million kwh which at an average cost of Lei 0.54/kwh would cost Lei 113.9 million annually. 7. In Table 1 of this annex 0&M costs for the Rasova-Vederoasa project have been summarized. They would amount to Lei 2,266 per hectare or Lei 145 million annually. The energy part constitutes 70 percent of total expenditures. 8. In the BAFI Completion Report, Annex 4, Table 3, O&M costs have been assumed to be: Water charges paid by users Lei 48.0 million Balance O&M costs to be paid by State Lei 94.0 million Total Lei 142.0 million - 72 - ANNEX 11 Table 1 ROMANIA RASOVA-VEDEROASA IRRIGATION AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (WAN 1247-RO) COMPLETION REPORT Operation and Maintenance Costs uxn =11l2on Lex'- Total Per Ha (million Lei) (Lei) 1. Constanza 1982, area 342,000 hal. Materials 26.4 77.1 Labor 81.2 237.3 Equipment 8.9 25.9 Electric energy, base power at L 0.45/kwh 240.3 702.5 Electric energy, peak power at L 0.95/kwh 110.1 322.0 Miscellaneous 27.1 79.1 Depreciation 104.2 305.0 General 22.8 67.0 Total 621.0 1,815.9 O&M 486.5 2. Rasova, 64,000 ha Materials 77.1 Labor 237.3 Equipment 25.9 Energy, 211 M kwh at L 0.54/kwh 113.9 1,779.2 Miscellanous 79.1 General 67.0 Total 145.1 6,383.9 BAFI Report, Annex 4, Table 3 - Project Costs 2,266.5 Water charges (O&M) paid by users 48.0 Water charges paid by State 194.0 Per equipped ha 2,218.8 /1 Data from IEELIF. /2 The price used is the economic marginal cost of power, re-estimated based on the methodology presented in Bank Memorandum of March 6 and May 8, 1979. ANN48X 11 ROHANIA RASOVA-VCDEROASA IRRICATION AND AGRICULTURAL DEVsLoPHEN? PROJVCT (LOAN 1247-HO) COMPLETION RKPORT 0 Energy Requirements (in mtilon kwh) Equipped 1 Pumped Quantities 1 Height I Energy Area ! (3/ls) ( (m) I (million kwh) ! ! Intake IPS : SP#SPP SPP 3 PSPP :.SPP Total I) RaNova Vederoass 1982 55,000 4,310 2,670 167 60 148 33 181 Measured 183 it) Ranova Vederosen 1983 64,000 3,860 2,310 167 60 ISO 31 182 April-September Henstired 186 iii) Rasova Vederoass 1983 64,000 4,990 1,910 167 60 193 42 235 Neasured & estimated 244 iv) Constansa 1982 342,000 A) Karasu 192,1100 3,500 3,100 90 10 225 22 247 b) sinvie 47,000 3,100 2,800 120 60 65 29 94 c) Topalu 19,100 3,100 2,R00 160 60 35 12 47 41) 11irsova 28,100 3,100 2,8110 160 60 52 17 69 n) Ramova '82 181 Total 638 Heasured 650 Rasova-Vederoses Project - Estimated Knergy Requirements Note: Tho economic cost of producing off-peak power during summer, in similar enuntries (Yugoslavia) with similar energy resources conditians, is natimated to be $0.03-0.04/kwh. The average cost of Let 0.64/kwh charged to the 06 service lies in this range, and, if somewhat lover than the average, the higher cost of the average would be offset hy the roquired energy ti an average year to he 5-10% lower than dry year an what energy consumption has been based. V s « - 75 - ROMANIA IALOMITA-CALMATUI IRRIGATION PROJECT (LOAN 1368-RO) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT June 26. 1984 Regional Projects Department Europe, Middle East and North Africa Agriculture III sa, - 77 - ROMANIA IALOMITA-CALMATUI IRRIGATION PROJECT (LOAN 1368-RO) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT I. INTRODUCTION 1.01 Agriculture in the Economy. Agriculture continues to play an important role in the economy providing both convertible foreign exchange earnings and industrial raw materials. Some 65% of Romania's total area is made up of agricultural land with 9.7 million ha of cropland, 4.5 million ha under permanent pastures, and 0.8 million ha of vineyards and orchards. In 1982, crop production accounted for 56Z of total agricultural production and livestock for 44%. The 1976-1980 Socio-Economic Plan of Romania envisaged ambitious growth for the agriculture sector with a projected annual average growth rate of 5.1-7.6%. In reality, however, the growth rate for that period reached only 4.8%. The highest production shortfall was in soybeans with only 54% of the target being achieved, followed by cereals where 84% of the plan target was attained. 1.02 Foreign Trade. Agriculture's share in total export earnings declined from 16% in 1975 to 12% in 1981. Although agriculture's contribution to Romania's balance of payments has been declining, over 50% of the products exported earn convertible currency for the country. The sector has also maintained a foreign trade surplus since 1977. Agriculture has the potential to meet rising domestin consumption requirements and produce an exportable surplus; however, it has been seriously hindered by large fluctuations in rainfall, lack of drainage infrastructure, soil erosion, and low productivity. In recent years the country has been plagued by droughts and has had to depend heavily on the area already under irrigation. 1.03 Sector Organization. The agricultural sector is organized primarily into two tenure categories, Cooperatives for Agricultural Production (CAPs), and State Agricultural Forms (IAS). The cooperatives hold 60% of agricultural land, the state farms own 30%, while the remaining 10% are individual holdings mostly located in remote mountainous areas. The 3,784 CAPs, which evolved from the collectivization drive in the 1950s, operate an average farm size of 2,100 ha of agricultural land. Although the CAPs are legally independent entities, ultimate investment and production decisions are made by the office of the District General Directorate of Agriculture and Food Industry (DGAFI) which represents the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry (MAFI) at the district level. The CAPs rely on their own resources and borrowings from the Bank for Agriculture and Food Industry (BAFI) to finance new investments and operating costs. There are 365 IASs in Romania operating an average farm size of 5,500 ha of agricultural land. Investment decisions and annual budgetary allocations are made by the State Farm Department in MAFI through DGAFI. Net revenues from the state farm sector are directly transferred to the national treasury. - 78 - 1.04 Land Reclamation Investment. Bank assisted irrigation projects accounted for 28% of the total investment allocated for land reclamation during the five year plan period 1976-1980 and 62% for the 1981-1985 period, as shown below: Land Reclamation Investment - Lei billion- Bank-assisted projects 1976-1980 1981-1985 Giurgui-Razmiresti 2.41 0 Rasova-Vederoasa 1.51 .34 lalomita-Calmatui 1.85 1.04 Viisoara .67 1.17 Mostistea-Calmatui .22 3.33 Covurlui .86 5.01 BBSP .88 2.64 Caracal-Titu 0 2.94 Subtotal 8.40 16.47 Other 22.00 10.03 Total /1 30.40 26.5 !l See Annex 1 for the detailed breakdown of total agricultural investment. The large increase in the Bank assisted share from 28% to 62% is indicative of the changes in Romania's economiz situation during this time, and the increasing emphasis the Government placed on completing these projects. The implementation of most of the projects spans two five-year plans representing different objectives. As the 1976-1980 Plan came to a close, the era of liberal investments in infrastructure projects, in particular irrigation, also came to an end. By 1980, the current account of the balance of payments in convertible currencies had deteriorated to a deficit of US$ 2.4 billion, eaual to about 4% of GNP. The 1981-1985 Plan therefore reflects the financial difficulties of the country by restraining growth and investments and slowing down completion of the land reclamation and other infrastructure projects undertaken during the preceding Plan. By 1983, the balance of payments situation had improved dramatically, as the current account showed a surplus of US$ 870 million in convertible currencies. With larger budgetary allocations, the implementation of the ambitious irrigation program was progressing satisfactorily. Preliminary projections for the 1986-1990 Plan envisage investments of Lei 100 billion (USt 4.7 billion) in land reclamation. This increased investment (roughly three times the level in 1981-1985) is expected to result in an area under irrigation of 5.5 million ha by 1990 compared to 2.4 million ha at the end of 1983. I - 79 - 1.05 Bank's Involvement in Agriculture and the Irrigation Subsector. The lalomita-Calmatui Irrigation Project was the fifth loan made by the Bank in the agricultural sector. This loan of US$ 60 million brought agricultural lending in Romania to US$260 millicn by 1976, which amounted to half the Bank's total commitments to Romania at that time. The Bank's strategy has been based on promoting efficient agricultural development by providing foreign exchange for infrastructure projects and by meeting the need for on-farm development through credit. Several earlier loans included both infrastructure and credit components, i.e. Sadova Corabia (Loan 1083-RO), Flood Recovery (Loan 1169-RO), and Rasova-Vederoasa Irrigation and Agricultural Development (Loan 1247-RO). After the Rasova-Vederoasa Project, the Bank focussed its loans more on a single purpose, either infrastructure loans or credit loans for a particular type of farming activity, i.e. livestock, or orchards. The Ialomita-Calmatui Irrigation Project was a single-purpose loan for irrigation and land reclamation infrastructure. 1.06 Between 1974 and 1981 the Bank made a series of eight loans for the development of irrigated agriculture totalling US$545 million and covering an area of 1.1 million ha. The Bank's involvement in these projects contributed significantly to the advancement of Romania's irrigation technology. The Rasova-Vederoasa Project introduced several important concepts: preparation of alternative designs; selection of least cost alternatives; and improved design of canals in loess soils. Suggestions given by Bank staff during supervision of the Talomita-Calmatui project helped to improve the design of drainage works, maintenance, and soil reclamation and desalinization. In later projects, the Bank also influenced Romanian planners to postpone projects based on provisional sources of water supply which were not the optimum technical solutions. II. PROJECT PROCESSING 2.01 Background. The Talomita-Calmatui Project is located about 120 km northeast of Bucharest and is within the administrative jurisdiction of the Ialomita and Braila Districts. It is bounded by the Ialomita river in the south and the Calmatui river in the north; in the east the Danube river is about 10 km away and in the vest the area extends to a line between the villages Ruvine and Jugureanu (see attached map 12267). The area covers 148,500 ha of relatively flat lands, and lies above the Danube flood plain at an elevation ranging between 20 to 55 m. Slopes are in general less than 2%; however, about 8,000 ha have larger slopes where soil erosion is evident. Some 82,350 ha needed stormwater surface drainage and 14,400 ha needed subsurface (tile) drainage. In addition, a series of minor works such as reclamation of saline lands, drainage and improvement of depressions, soil erosion control, land levelling, relocation of communications, and slope correction works, were needed to enable a more effective use of project lands. The climate is characteri7ed by hot summers and cold winters. Average monthly maximum temperatures during the cropping season range between 260C and 34.8*C; the minimum ranges between -2.20C and 10.80C. Although the average annual rainfall is about 550 mm, only 380 mm occurs during the cropping season. Rainfall could often be as low as 150 mm during that season with very long dry periods occurring every third or fourth year. Droughts, extending over 60 days, have been experienced in 7 out of 41 years. - 80 - 2.02 In early 1976, the project area population totalled about 190,000 inhabitants, 58,000 of whom were employed in the agricultural sector (95% of the economically active population). The project area is well linked with national roads and railway systems, all villages are accessible by asphalt roads, all are served with electricity; however, domestic water supply is still derived manually from a large number of shallow open wells. Braila (pop. 170,000), a large industrial town with the largest harbor on the Danube, is located about 50 km to the north of the project area, and Slobozia (pop. 25,000), the capital of the lalomita District is located on its southern boundary. The area is endowed with very fertile soils, dark brown Chernozems with good water retention capacities and low to moderate permeabilities. Some 88% of the soils are highly suitable for irrigation. Only 1,550 ha were under irrigation in 1976 from Talomita river supplies, the remaining 135,300 ha were under rainfed cultivation. The two rivers adjacent to the project area, the Talomita and the Calmatui, are insufficient to cater for the water needs of the lands and also have pollution problems. Groundwater, which is at shallow depths, is of rather low auality and auantitatively inadeauate to irrigate such large areas. 2.03 Project Objectives. The main objective of the project was to increase agricultural production and productivity by shifting an area of 148,500 ha (gross) from rainfed cultivation to irrigation. This was to be done by providing all the irrigation infrastructure needed, as well as surface and subsurface drainage, soil erosion control works, reclamation of saline soils and some land levelling. The project also provided for additional farm machinery reauired to intensify agricultural production, as well as mechanical eauipment for operation and maintenance of project works. Actual works were to be executed on only 142,650 ha (gross) of the project area, the rentaining 5,900 ha, which is the tot.3l area of farmers' individual plots, were left for incorporation at a later stage. 2.04 Identification, Preparation, and Appraisal. The project was identified by NAFT in eariv 1971, within the framework of a study on the development of the national irrigation subsector. Actual project preparation started in 1973, with a series of basic studies, and lasted until early 1976. Most of the engineering work was done by MAFI's Institute for Studies and Designs of Land Reclamation (ISPIF), in close cooperation with specialist. of the National Water Council, the Ministry of Electrical Energy, Power Lines Construction Trusts, Construction Trusts for Land Reclamation Works (TCIF) and Regional Enteprises for Operation and Maintenance (IELIF). MAFI, through its Department for Land Reclamation and Agricultural Construction (DIFCA) was responsible for overall coordination of project preparation. At the preparation stage, some advice was provided by Bank staff to the Romanian counterparts during supervision of the two earlier irrigation projects, Giurgiu-Razmiresti and Rasova-Vederoasa. however, because of the high professional level of Romania's specialists and their experience, the need for Bank assistance during project preparation was minimal, and no preparation mission was sent to the field prior to appraisal. The project as proposed by the Romanian Government for Bank review and appraisal included infrastructure - 81 - and agricultural credit components similar to the components which made up the Rasova-Vederoasa Project. I/ The technology adopted for the project is the same as for previous irrigation projects, which is considered appropriate. It appears from the files that in the case of the Talomita-Calmatui Project, the Bank was facing certain constraints which limited the amount of funds available to Romania for the project. Therefore, prior to the appraisal mission, Bank staff were aware that the mission would need to limit the project scope to better accommodate the Bank's project lending limitations. 2.05 The appraisal mission visited Romania in early April 1976, after receiving a two-part preparation report in February 1976. Upon its return, the project scope/foreign exchange cost and loan amount were discussed at the issues/decision meetings. Regarding project scope, the mission recommended that all agricultural development components be excluded, except for farm machinery, so as to focus solely on irrigation and primary production. The team initially estimated the foreign exchange costs (direct and indirect) to be between 13-23% of total project costs, and the appraisal analysis showed the estimated foreign exchange cost to be 23% (paras 2.08 and 3.11). 2.06 Project Description. As a result of mission recommendations, the project consisted of three main components, namely: irrigation works, drainage works, and a series of miscellaneous supplementary works. The irrigation component was designed to include: (i) a main floating pumping station on the Danube, which was to serve as the main water source; (ii) the Spiru Haret and another six fixed re-pumping stations; (iii) a main canal, 38 km long; (iv) a system of secondary and tertiary distribution canals, concrete lined, totalling 376 km, including various structures such as bridges, flow regulators, drops, siphons, escape weirs, etc.; (v) 115 pressure pumping stations; (vi) 2,763 km of pressure pipelines consisting of prestressed, precast, reinforced concrete pipes and asbestos-cement pipes; (vii) on-farm sprinkler irrigation networks to serve an area of 103,600 ha; (viii) on-farm furrow irrigation networks to serve 36,750 ha; and (ix) land levelling, on about 40,000 ha, most of it to serve the lands assigned for furrow irrigation. The drainage works were to include: (i) 311 km of open drainage canals; (ii) 23 drainage pumping stations, electrically operated; (iii) tile drainage systems on about 14,400 ha; (iv) reclamation of 2,650 ha of saline soils; and (v) drainage of 2,500 ha of shallow depressions. Under "miscellaneous warkt" the project includes: electrical transmission lines and installaticas for the pumping stations, correction of slopes, soil erosion 1/ Project components in addition to irrigation infrastructure originally proposed by MAFI included: livestock facilities (US$18.7 million); storage and processing (US$ 20.0 million); asphalt farm roads (US$ 8.8 million); vineyards and pastures (US$ 6.9 million); rural water supply (US$ 0.3 million); farm machinery (US$ 6.2 million); for a total of US$61 million. - 82 - control works (on about 6,100 ha), relocation of roads ind bridges, construction of some 400 observation wells to monitor groundwater levels, relocation of forest boundaries and construction of facilities needed for routine operation and maintenance of project systems. Details on volumes of works actually executed, as compared to estimates made at appraisal, are shown in Annex 2, Table 4. In addition, the project included the acauisition of agricultural farm machinery, as well as mechanical ecuipment for O&M, according to lists agreed upon during negotiations. Project costs were estimated at Lei 3,900.0 million (US$195.0 mil.), including physical and price contingencies. 2.07 Negotiations and Effectiveness. The invitation to BAFT for negotiations of a proposed loan of US$55 million was sent on September 24, 1976. The negotiations began on November 15, 1976 and were completed on December 6, 1976. The negotiations focused primarily on the loan amount and its lending terms. Other issues included revised schedule for project implementation, procurement issues and the international waters riparian rights. 2.08 Regarding lending terms, che Romanian delegdtion reluctantly accepted the newly established policy whereby the loan would be for 15 years including three and a half years grace as compared to earlier projects where the terms were 25 years repayment with five years grace. Also the Bank discontinued its policy of financing local costs in Romania beginning with this loan. The policy decisions were taken in order to be consistent with Bank policy for other middle income countries. The total project cost, foreign exchange component (particularly indirect foreign exchange costs) and the lesulting loan amount were discussed at considerable length prior to negotiations (at the issues and decision meetings) and during negotiations (the Romanian delegation argued that total project costs were $15 million higher and indirect foreign costs US$ 9 million higher chan the appraisal estimate). The Romanian delegation was however, unable to provide adeouate evidence that such an upward revision in project costs was warranted (para 3.11 on Project Cost). The loan amount was eventually increased to US$ 60 million as a result of changes in the implementation period, which increased the sum allocated for interest during construction from US$ 10.4 million to US$ 15.4 million). 2.09 The Board approved the loan on February 17, 1977, and it became effective on June 23, 1977. The deadline for fulfilling the effectiveness conditions had to be extended by one month so as to enable the Borrower to comply with the renuired Romanian legislative procedures. TIT. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 3.01 Start-up. Activities directly related to project implementation had already begun in the second half of 1976. Most of the detailed designs and many construction drawings were completed by the time of appraisal. Actual construction started in early 1977 and execution was divided between two Construction Trusts for Land Reclamation (TCIF), one based in Bucharest and the other in Galati. Start-up was reported as satisfactory. - 83 - 3.02 Physical Implementation. By March 1978, construction of the main floating pumping station and the Spiru Haret pumping station, as well as the start of surface drainage and land levelling works, were proceeding satisfactorily, and quality of work was reported as very good. Also, efforts were underway, at that time, to complete a series of distribution canals, piped networks and pressure pumping stations so as to enable irrigation of some 30,000 ha in May 1978, by temporary water pumping arrangements from the Danube. The authorities even suggested that the project might be completed by the end of May 1980, 19 months ahead of schedule, a target which later turned out to be impossible to achieve. On procurement, almost all contracts for equipment and materials were awarded by March 1978, except for ten tile laying machines and two canal trimming and lining machines. 3.03 In March 1979, first indications of possible delays started to appear. Technical difficulties were encountered in the construction of the Spiru Haret re-pumping station, particularly during the sinking of the concrete caissons, and also possible delays in the completion of the main floating pumping station on the Danube became evident. Overall progress was reported to have reached some 30% compared to 40% estimated at appraisal; the area ready for irrigation was only 9,112 ha compar-d to the envisaged 24,900 ha. However, no delays were reported on procurement, or on availability of final designs and construction drawings. Later in 1979, it appeared that work on surface drainage and sub-surface tiles, as well as land levelling was behind schedule. However, progress on distribution canals was reported as good and even ahead of schedule. Construction on the two main pumping stations (the floating and Spiru Haret) started to gain momentum, although technical difficulties still persisted. Difficulties were also encountered in the construction of the first 7 km of the main canal because of the sandy profile at the bottom of the canal, high groundwater levels and uplift pressures. Cleaning and smoothing of the canal bottom and slopes and the placing of concrete lining proved difficult. 3.04 By July 1980, the situation had improved, especially in the construction of the main pumping stations, which still were the bottleneck for enabling a si:;..:ficant increase of the areas under irrigation. Sigiificant progress was reported in the execution of the drainage pumping stations. Some delays were, however, stil. experi-..,ced in laying the tiles because of standing crops. The a.ea ui: crigation, ..nly 25,000 ha, was expected to be increased to 60,000 ha by the and of 1980. For 1981 an additional area of 40,000 ha was expected L: '-- completed so as to enable its irrigaticn during the cropping season of 1982. The quality of work was good except for the canal lining, both by precast slabs and also by the lining machine. A Bank supervision mission, in July 1980, recommended that action be taken to remedy this deficiency. Later on, in 1980 and 1981, the rate of progress slowed down, partly due to shortages oC construction equipment and partly because of reduced budgetary allocations. Overall delay in project completion was estimated at 7 months, and by May 1981, it became clear that the delay would be at least 12 months, i.e. completion only by end of December 1982. 3.05 Although no technical difficulties were reported after 1981 the rate of progress in 1982 continued to be slow. Overall progress by May was estimated to be only 7b% of the appraisal estimate, mainly due to insuffici-nt 'udgetary allocations but also because of shortages of fuel and construction - 84 - materials. A similar situation existed in other on-going irrigation projects, and it became urgent to revise the implementation schedules of che remaining works and formulate the budgetary plan for project completion within a realistic timeframe. 1/ The gravity of the situation and its implications were recognized by both BAFI and RAFI. Consequently, they requested the Government to revise its priorities and budgetary allocations included in their 1981-1985 Plan. A coordinated effort was made by the Government, as a result of the Bank's discussions with BAFI and MAFI, and in November 1982 the Government reconfirmed to the Bank the high -riority it attached to this and other on-going Bank-financed projects. The budgetary allocations were reinstated at their previous levels and beyond, in order to make up for the lost time. Nevertheless, it was clear that, at best, completion of the irrigation systems would not be possible before end of 1983, i.e. a delay of two years, and that a series of drainage and other works would be completed onlL, by the end of 1985 resulting in a four year delay of project completion. Updated tables on the increased budgetary allocations were officially submitted to the Bank with the understanding that no cutbacks were to be made in the future. In hindsight, it is now clear that the financing difficulties the Government experienced in 1981-82 were one of the main factors contributing to the postponement of the completion date. The technical difficulties experienced during construction also contributed to the overall delay in project completion by an estimated two years, without any relation to the budgetary constraints. 3.06 In 1983, budgetary provisions were adequate as a result of the Government's decision to redress past shorccomings, and implementation regained momentui. The area ready for irrigation by the end of 1983, 72,000 ha, was planned to be increased by an additional 30,000 ha in the 1984 cropping season, leaving some 18,000 ha of waterlogged lands to be brought under irrigation after completion of drainage and land reclamation works, by end of 1985. The accelerated pace of construction continued throughout 1983. In fact, expendirures during 1983 exceeded the original budgetary allocation. By the end of 1983, BAFI reported that an additional area of 32,000 ha was read, for irrigation in 1984 (2,000 ha more than planned); surface drainage was virtua.'.1y completed; however, only 1,641 ha of tile drainage systems were completed, or 11% of the required total. 3.07 The following table compares the actual area coming under irrigation each year to the appraisal estimates; Ne- Land Area Coming Under Irrigation Estimated Actual at or Appraisal Reestimated ---------------'000 ha------------- 1979 22.7 9.0 1980 71.9 21.0 1981 106.8 57.8 1982 140.4 64.9 1983 140.4 72.0 1984 140.4 104.0 1985 140.4 138.9 1986 140.4 138.9 1/ See the Borrower's comments in Annex 2, para 1. - 85 - 3.08 Most of the major works have now been completed, except land levelling, tile drainage, reclamation of some saline and problematic waterlogged lands, completion of various structures, and relocation of communications. There are also a few works still to be completed in canals, pumping stations and minor surface drainage related works; however, neither technical difficulties nor budgetary constraints are foreseen. There might, however, be some savings in the tile drainage program, depending on the conclusions of the on-going hydrological observations. Quality of work was in general good, except for some minor deficiencies detected during implementation and subseouently corrected. 3.09 Irrigation Water Demand, Supply and Quality. It is still expected that the cropping pattern and water demand anticipated at appraisal will materialize at full development in 1988. Nevertheless, the design of the system and the carrying capacities of its canals and pipelities are flexible enough to accommodate some changes in the long run, if needed. Also, the basic water conveyance networks for the furrow irrigated areas were designed as dual-purpose systems, to better serve crop rotation needs and to provide more flexibility. This means that an area irrigated during one cropping season (or part of it) by furrows could easily be shifted to sprinkler irrigation whenever needed. On the other hand, one may expect some savings in water consumption as a result of improved irrigation efficiencies and the close monitoring system of actual water use. It is therefore believed that the demand side of the project's "water balance" is reasonable and well-based. 3.10 On the supply side, the Danube river is a reliable source of water, both in terms of ouantity of flow and ouality. There should be no problems regarding water availability and supply capacity. In addition, MAFI specialists have indicated that in the long run there would be a possibility to benefit from an interconnection between the project and a new system for diverting some of the Siret river waters to the Baragan plains, which is envisaged for construction in the late 1990's. This would enable transfer of water surpluses from the Siret river to the Ialomita-Calmatui area at a suitable elevation, resulting in significant savings in energy costs needed at present for pumping the water from the Danube. 3.11 Project Costs. The total project cost was estimated at appraisal to be Lei 3,900 million (US$195.0 million eauivalent), including physical and price contingencies. The direct and indirect foreigi exchange cost was estimated by the appraisal team at Lei 892.0 million (US$ 44.6 million), or 23% of total cost. This was the appraisal team's judgment after having reviewed the data on foreign exchange components of representative items of expenditures, as submitted at the time by BAF. The auestion of foreign exchange component percentages for the various expenditure items under the project had been discussed with BAFI representatives during the appraisal process, and the final appraisal estimates were eventually agreed upon during loan negotiations. In response to auestions raised during Board presentation, the staff reaffirmed that a consistent methodology for estimating project foreign exchange costs had been followed. - 86 - 3.12 BAFI's completion report estimates that actual foreign exchange costs were US$ 82.3 million compared to the appraisal teams estimate of US$ 44.6 million (Annex 2, Table 1). However, BAFI did not provide the completion mission with any data to substantiate such a large increase over the amount criginallv estimated at the time of appraisal. Of BAFI's estimated US$ 82.3 million only USt 7.7 million were actual direct foreign ex=hange costs with the remaining USt 74.6 million as indirect foreign exchange costs. This issue recalls the discussion which took place during negotiations (para 2.08) regarding the methodology for calculating these costs. A comparison was made of estimated foreign exchange costs for similar work items between the Talomita-Calmatui project and the four subsequent irrigation projects in Romania. The result shows that the more recent estimates are consistent with those used in this project. In the absence of any new information, the assumptions made during appraisal on foreign exchange costs for different project works appear to remain valid. 3.13 Actual project costs are now expected to amount to Lei 3,875 million (US9 209.41 million, Annex 2, Table 1). A comparative analysis between the estimates at appraisal and actual costs is shown in Annex 2, Tables 2 and 3, which also include a series of comments explaining, in detail, cost overruns and underruns. This table should be read in conjunction with Annex 2, Table 4 which compares actual quantities of works with those estimated at appraisal. The changes introduced during project implementation are reasonable. Increases in some items were off-set by savings on other items. All in all, actual expenditures, in terms of Lei, were less than estimated at appraisal, although only by a verv small margin (0.6%), while expfditures in dollar terms were 7% higher than appraisal estimates due to the revaluation of the Lei vis-a-vis the US dollar. 3.14 Project Financing. According to the Appraisal Report, the Bank loan of US$60 million was to finance: (a) the full foreign exchange component (1_1S$44.6 million) which was estimatad at 23% of project cost, and (b) the estimated interest and other charges on the loan during the construction period (USt !5.4 million). The remaining local cost of US$150.4 million (77% of total project cost) was to be met by the State budget (56%). BAFI loans (15%) and CAP contriiitions (6%). As can be seen in Annex 2, Table 6, several modifications occurred during implementation. As a result of the re-estimated local/foreign costc, the respective financing contributions of the State Budgat and CAPs were lower than anticipated for local costs. BAFI loans actually increased by US$ 1.2 million for local cost financing in order to make up for the lower than anticipated investment funds available to CAPs. The foreign exciange cost increase was covered by an additional allocation from the State Budget and by a reallocation of Bank loan proceeds of US$ 4.5 million from estimated interest and other charges during construction to construction eQuipment. 3.15 Disbursements. Actial disbursements compared to appraisal estimates are shown in Annex 2, Table 7. During the first three years of project implementation, actual disbursements lagged about one year behind the appraisal estimate. This was partly due to delays in project effectiveness and in some cases delayed award of contracts (para 3.18). The Loan was fully disbursed by March 29, 1982. One reallocation of loan proceeds was made at the Borrower's reaest, when in May 1978, US$ 4.5 million was moved from Category 2 - Interest and Other Charges tc the Category 1 - Construction Ean ipmen t. - 87 - 3.16 Procurement. The loa was intended c- Finance only procurement of ecuipment and materials eouivalent in cost to the estimated foreign exchange costs of the project, following Bank's Guidelines for ICB. No civil works or other expenditure items were to be financed under the loan, except interest during construction and other charges on the loan. The agency within the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry directly dealing with procurement is Romagrimex, its foreign trade enterprise. Overall responsibility and supervision rests, however, with the Borrower. According to BAFI's records total procurement under ICB procedures amounted to Lei 1,467.5 million, out of which Lei 881.0 million were financed by the Bank (US$49.1 million eauivalent). Award of all contracts under ICB was completed in November 1978; the last contract was signed in June 1979. Of the total procurement amount financed by the Bank of Lei 881.0 million, contracts for about Lei 140.2 million (15.9%) were awarded to foreign suppliers, compared to 14.4% estimated at appraisal. 3.17 A series of long delays between bid opening and award of contracts was reported during the procurement process for ten tile laying machines, 20 motor scrapers and two canal lining machines. The Bank sent several reminders to the Borrower renuesting that the recommendations for contract award be expedited. In the case of the tile laying machines, originally, in March 1977, only one firm had presented an offer and several months after bid opening two other firms sent in ouotations at lower prices than the original bid. In October 1977, Romagrimex proposed that the procurement procedure for these machines be changed to international shopping instead of ICB. The Bank, however, did not agree and suggested instead that the bid be cancelled and that new bids be invited. Three new bids were received and opened on November 19, 1977. Final recommendation for contract award was received only on September 18, 1978, after a series of reminders sent by the Bank. In the case of canal lining machines, Romagrimex reauested the Bank's concurrence for re-bidding, since only one bid had been received and the bidder did not agree to several clauses in the original contract drz;ft on which the Romanian authorities insisted. The Bank agreed. On the contract for motor scrapers it took the Borrower nine months to decide on the award, in spite of their recommendation to award it to the lowest evaluated bidder. The Bank's concern r!garding long Government delays in the procurement process was conveyed to Romagrimex and the Borrower's representatives on several occasions during discussions, both in Washington and in Bucharest, during supervision mission visits, as well as in a series of telexes. The Bank also received, on several occasions, enouiries from Executive Directors on procurement related matt2rs and enouiries or complaints from bidders on apparent irregularities in the bidding process. The Bank, however, after careful examination of these complaints, found them unjustified. 3.18 Timing of Procurement, Deliveries, and Coordination. The lists of eouipment ane materials for procurement under the project (shown in Annex 7 of the Appraisal Report) were not directly linked to a specific timetable, nor closely coordinated with the construction schedule. Such a timetable, to be updated from time to time could have been a useful tool during project implementation for follow up on the timing of deliveries of eauipment and materials so as to reach optimal synchronization between physical implementation needs on the one hand, and the timely availability of those goods, on the other. This is important in order to avoid too early or too - 88 - late deliveries, which would be incompatible with the principle of efficient and economic execution of a project. Such timetables cculd also be used at project completion for a retrospective analysis of actual performance so that the lessons learned from such analysis could be taken into consideration in future projects. 3.19 Compliance with Loan Covenants and Progress Reporting. The Borrower has complied with the Loan Covenants. BAFI has regularly submitted nuarterly progress reports in accordance with the format agreed upon during the negotiations. On a graph included in these reports the total actual expenditure on the project is mentioned as of the end of the reporting period, but no breakdown of the components of these expenditures was provided which would have improved the cuality of reported information. During supervision, a limited amount of agricultural production data was made available, in accordance with the Side Letter Annex B, Tables 1 and 2 of the Loan Agreement, however more comprehensive data of this type would have enhanced the monitoring and yearly evaluation of the project's impact on agricultural development (para 7.08). IV. AGRICULTURAL IMPACT 4.01 Land Use, Cropping Pattern and Yields. The net cultivable area will increase by about 4,000 ha, from 135,000 ha to 139,000 ha, due to reclamation of saline soils, and the inclusion of newly drained land, which previously was unsuitable for agriculture. Appraisal had estimated a net cultivable area of 140,300 ha accruing from the project at full development, because appraisal assumed that the project would also finance rehabilitation of existing irrigation works on about 1,500 ha, which in actual practice was not recuired. The phasing of the cultivable land (appraisal estimates vs. actual) coming under irrigation from 1979 to 1988 is shown in Annex 3, Table 1. The cropping pattern is gradually changing in accordance with the appraisal estimate, in which the proportion of maize, sugarbeet, and soybean is increasing and that of wheat and sunflower is decreasing (Annex 3, Table 4). By 1983, maize occupied about 41% of the cropped area compared to 38% pre-project; whereas, wheat declined from 23% to 20%. Also, vegetables have been introduced as a new crop, and maize for silage (a second crop following the wheat harvest) has increased markedly. As a consecuence of this double crop, the cropping intensity reach2d 107% in 1983, and is expected to attain 112% in 1988. By 1988, the cropping pattern will parallel that envisioned by the appraisal. 4.02 Crop yields before the project without irrigation were very low in comparison to the estimates at full developent in 1988 with irrigation, as shown in Annex 3, Table 3. The project authorities increased the projected yields at full development by an average of 20% over appraisal estimates for wheat (from 4.5 t/ha to 5 t/ha), maize (from 8 t/ha to 10 t/ha), sugarbeet (from 50 t/ha to 60 t/ha), sunflower (from 2.5 t/ha to 3 t/ha), and alfalfa hay (from 10 t/ha to 12 t/ha). Baied on crop responses achieved to date in this project and other on-going irrigation projects with similar soils, and the fertilizer rates that MAFI recommends to achieve the respective yield levels, the completion mission accepted the revised full development yields of 5.0 t/ha for wheat, 3.0 t/ha for sunflower and 12 t/ha for alfalfa, but concluded that 9.0 t/ha for maize and 50 t/ha for sugarbeet were more realistic targets by full project development. The appraisal's estimates have been adjusted accordingly for calculating the volume of crop production at full development. - 89 - 4.03 The appraisal estimated that full development crop yields would be obtained from any given area under irrigation, four years following commencement of irrigation at the rate of 30%, 70%, 90% and 100% of the total yield increment for each respective crop. In actuality, based on a sample covering about 30Z of the project area for the major crops grown under irrigation for four years, the yield increments for wheat and sunflower were 90% of the target, and for sugarbeet. maize and soybean, the yields were 80%, 78% and 67% of the projected yields (Annex 3, Table 2). A combination of factors may explain these results. Firstly, these are the three main crops under which the planted area is increasing each year. Therefore, many IASs and CAPs are growing these crops for the first time with little oz no previous experience, particularly for sugarbeet and soybean. Secondly, during the early years of project implementation one would expect a slower build-up of yield because most crops grown under irrigation for the first or even second time would be planted on land which previously had never been irrigated. Conversely, from 1983 onward yields can be expected to increase more repiA!y, assuming adequate levels of fertilizer are used, since each year as morc land is irrigated, any given crop, which is planted for the first or second time under irrigation, will likely be planted on land which previously had been irrigated for several years under different crops in the rotation. In this way, the residual effect of improved soil conditions due to improved cultural practices and fertilization accompanying irrigation will benefit succeeding crops. Thirdly, specifically in the case of soybeans, foliar disease infection adversely affected yields in three out of four years. Finally, there is evidence suggesting that less fertilizer was used than recommended (para 4.05). Considering the 10 year period between irrigation start-up and full development of total crop production in 1988, it is reasonable to assume that the full yield increment for any given crop would be realized in four years, on the average. 4.04 Changes in Agricultural Practices. The increased use of fertilizer on irrigated crops is the principal key to increased crop yields. The planned total requirement for available plant nutrients at full project development, which is two and one half times the amount used prior to the project, will be 22,000 tons of nitrogen (N), 13,000 tons of available phosphate (P205), and 7,000 tons of potash (K20), based on the fertilizer rates for each crop that are recommended by MAFI (Annex 3, Table 5). This represents an average for all crops of 273 kg/ha of avai ;ble nutrients. The appraisal estimated that about 80,000 tons total of amonium nitrate (33.5% N) and triple superphosphate (46% P205), and 1,700 tons of muriate of potash (60% K20) would be required at full development, which is equivalent to 250 kg/ha of available nutrients, assuming 40,000 tons each of ammonium nitrate and triple superphosphate. The planned requirement exceeds the appraisal estimate due to the greater use of potash and the higher fertilizer rates for wheat and maize to achieve yields of 5 t/ha and 9 t/ha, respectively. For example, to obtain a maize yield of 9 t/ha, the fertilizer rates in kg/ha are 210 N, 100 P205, and 80 K20, which are considered adequate to achieve this yield level for maize. - 90 - 4.05 An analysis of the data from the sample area referred to in para 4.03 suggests that, between 1979 and 1982, an annual average of 10% less fertilizer was used than recommended, which represents about 14 kgfha less of available nutrients on the average for all crops. This could have contributed, in part, to the slower build-up of yields as mentioned earlier. It is extremely important that the required levels of fertilizer are applied in order to achieve the project's benefits. 4.06 The project area is served by six Stations for Agricultural Mechanization (SMA), which provide machinery inputs for the CAPs and the IASs on a rental basis. They also provide major repair services. Prior to the project there was one tractor to eL-zry 80 ha and one combine to every 325 ha of cultivable land, respectively, which was a reasonable density for rainfed farming, but inadequate for the demands of irrigated agriculture. There was an insignificant number of maize grain harvesters. The project provided additional agricultural machinery, so that the ratio has improved to one tracter to every 65 ha and one combine to every 200 ha of cultivable land. The density of maize harvesters is still low at I to 500 ha. 4.07 A wide range of insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, and pre-emergence weed killers are used on all crops -- the largest doses being applied to sugarbeet, vineyards, and orchards. The use of these chemicals is increasing, and by full project development the total requirement will be about 4,200 tons of solid material and 465,000 liters of liquid products. Although periodic shortages of plant protection materials have occurred, they have not been a serious constraint to yields, except for soybeans, which were adversely affected by disease in 1980 through 1982 due to an insufficient supply of fungicide. 4.08 The supply of quality seed of well adapted crop varieties is adequate to serve the needs of the project area, largely through the services of the Braila and Marculesti Agricultural Research Stations, which are located on the fringe of the project area. 4.09 Prices. Input and output prices are controlled in Romania. Between 1964 and 1980 prices were revised only once, in 1977. During this period there was a two-tier pricing system, whereby IASs paid somewhat lower prices for inputs and received lower output prices than did the CAPs. (Annex 4, Tables 1-3). In 1981, Romania embarked on major price reforms which abolished the two tier pricing system in order to bring domestic prices closer to world prices. Producer prices were increased by 12% and 10%, in 1981 and 1982. Premiums of 10-50% can be added to the new contractual prices depending on the per hectare yield of the crops produced on the farm which delivers the produce. The above changes are expected to allow for more equitable earnings between the IASs and CAPs, as well as provide on-farm incentives for more efficient production and higher yields. 4.10 Marketing and Markets. As throughout all of Romania, the project output is marketed by State controlled and operated agencies known as Centrals. Each Central collects, handles, processes and distributes a specific commodity. Production plans are closely coordinated with commodity demand and use, and the purchase and distribution of commodities by the Centrals are assured through annual contracts with the production units. The - 91 - Central for Cereals and Industrial Crops operates two district enterprises (Braila and Ialomita) with 24 permanent collection centers and 20 temporary mobile units, which service the project area. In 1984, the storage capacity for cereals reached one million tons, as compared to 700,000 tons in 1978. By 1990 it will increase to 1.2 million tons. Within the project area, the Sugar Central has 13 collection centers and three sugar factories with a total annual capacity of 150,000 tons of sugar (about 1.15 million tons of sugarbeet). One of these factories was recently completed to handle the incremental output from the project. Likewise, the Sunflower Oil Central has three oil extraction factories with an expanded total annual capacity of 120,000 tons of crude oil (about 600,000 tons of oilseeds) for both sunflower and soybean, which is 50% greater than in 1978. The General Directorate for Horticulture operates 13 collection centers and currently handles 103,000 tons of vegetables and fruits annually (a 25% increase over 1978), of which close to 50% is processed in four canneries. By 1990, this Directorate will have facilities to handle 140,000 tons annually of vegetables and fruits. In addition, it operates 21 collection centers for grapes and two wineries producing 30 million liters of wine annually, which is 75% greater capacity than in 1978. This will increase to 44 million liters by 1990. 4.11 The project would increase the production of cereals by about 450,000 tons, soybeans by 25,000 tons, sugarbeet by 255,000 tons, vegetables by 65,000 tons, fruits (including grapes) by 15,000 tons and fodder (including maize silage) by 700,000 tons. The storage and processing facilities described in the preceding paragraph are more than adequate to handle the incremental production from the project. These incremental outputs are destined primarily for internal consumption, as envisioned at appraisal; and there are no apparent problems with regard to marketing. The project's output of maize silage, alfalfa hay and part of the crop by-products would help sustain the growing livestock population in the region (para 5.06). 4.12 Operation and Maintenance. As a result of the recent re-organization (see organization chart, Annex 5, Table 1) under which the construction and O&M respoosibilities are together in one well organized unit, it seems that coordination between the construction stage and the eventual operation of the systems is improving. The completed works are operated and maintained by the respective district-based Enterprise for Execution and Exploitation of Land Reclamation Works (IEELIF), the same enterprise responsible also for construction. The Director of the IEELIF reports to the Director General of Agriculture -nd Food Industry (DGAFI) of the respective district and receives technical assistance, whenever needed, from the General Economic Directorate for Land Reclamation and Agricultural Construction (DGEIFCA) in Bucharest. Each IEELIF has a series of sections. The O&M section consists of several sub-units, called "systems", each responsible for all O&M functions over an area of some 30,000-35,000 ha. These sub-units are well established, well organized and have adequate technical staff and equipment for carrying out their responsibilities. The Ialomita District IEELIF already has seven systems in place, and the Braila District IEELIF has ten such systems, nine of them dealing directly with water distribution and 0&M of project facilities, whereas the tenth is responsible for operating and maintaining the larger facilities only, to deliver the water to other systems and to the adjacent IEELIFs. The IEELIFs have elaborate plans and timetables for routine maintenance works and inspections, most of them to be completed before the start of a new cropping season. They also have well equipped workshops and qualified engineers, mechanics and electricians. - 92 - 4.13 The electrical transmission lines and installations executed under the project for the pumping stations are operated and maintained by the regional organization of the Ministry of Electrical Energy. The on-farm irrigation eauipment, be it sprinkling or furrow, is operated and maintained by the respective CAPs or IASs. The mechanical eauipment procured for O&M is under the responsibility of the respective "system" or the regional IEELIF. The Agricultural Machinery Stations (SMAs) are resportible for the farm machinery, renting it to the TASs or CAPs, and for major maintenance jobs (see para 4.06). Operation and routine maintenance of this eouipment is done by the renters. 4.14 In addition to their O&M responsibilities, each IEELIF has an irrigation water scheduling unit, an effective and useful institution at the field level. Each such unit covers an area of about 30,000 ha and employs several agronomists, soil-water-plant specialists and soil moisture laboratory staff, who advise farmers on appropriate water applications, monitor actual water use, and prepare detailed weekly water distribution schedules. Soil moisture is monitored on a weekly basis during the cropping season, by samples collected at vari as depths, from a well-determined grid of sampling points which are fairly representative for the area's soil profiles and types, as well as the crops grown on the adjacent lands. Comparisons with the respective soil moistures from the previous week are being made, and the resulting projected water needs for the forthcoming week are discussed in detail every Friday night with the "system's" agricultural council the local farmers' participatory body. After the weekly irrigation plans are approved by the farming unit representatives, these are considered as mandatory for each CAP and IAS and are strictly adhered to. The main objective of this program is to assure high yields and efficient water use, without adverse effects on the sub-surface drainage conditions. Having both the water distribution responsibility and the irrigation water scheduling advisory function in one unit ensures that water is properly and ecuitably shared by every agricultural production unit. O&M services rendered by the IEELIFs are considered as fully satisfactory. 4.15 Cost Recovery. Cost recovery arrangements in Romania have not changed since the completion of the first Bank-financed irrigation project, Giurgiu-Razmiresti (Loan 1082-RO). The cost of on-farm sprinkler and furrow eauipment and minor land levelling works are financed by BAFI loans and are recovered through loan repayment. Cost recovery of farm machinery is through the rental rates set by the SMAs. Operation and maintenance costs of the irrigation system, as reported by MAFI, are shown in Annex 3, Table 6. These costs are recovered from two sources: water charges levied on and collected from farmers, and Government budgetary allocations. There is a system of nominal water charges in force, consisting of three components: (i) an annual fixed charge per ha, at present Lei 115 for CAP and Lei 294 for IAS; (ii) a direct water charge, levied on actual water consumption, of 18 Lei per 1,000 m3; and (iii) an additional charge, per cropped hectare, of Lei 138 for grains, Lei 122 for vineyards and orchards and Lei 195 for vegetables. It is understood that these are subject to revisions from time to time. At present, according to the above-mentioned table, revenues from water charges cover only 26.3% of total O&M costs; this percentage is expected to increase to 28.8% at full development. The Government provides all the additional funds needed to cover O&M costs through indirect sources. Indirect sources of funds are generated through: (i) part of the net earnings of the IASs; - 93 - (ii) the differential between the prices of direct and indirect exports originating from the incremental production and the generally lower faragate prices; and (iii) various funds and taxes deducted from the net income of CAPs and IASs. The adeouacy of recovery costs was discussed at the issues and decision meetings, and the Bank agreed to accept cost recovery based on both direct and indirect sources for this and all other Bank financed irrigation projects in Romania. V. ECONOMIC IMPACT 5.01 During the period of project implementation, agricultural activities in the Districts of Ialomita and Braila have been substantially transformed. Between 1979 and 1983, 85% of formerly rainfed land has been irrigated, and by 1985 the entire area of agricultural land in both districts (718,000 ha) will be under irrigation. Such changes have had profound effects on agricultural production, employment, incomes, local institutions, schools, and commercial activities. 5.02 Incremental Production. At full development in 1988, the total volume of agricultural production is expected to increase by 214% above the pre-project situation, compared to 210% estimated by appraisal (Annex 4, Table 5). The slight difference is due to the upward adjustment of crop yields for wheat, maize, sugarbeet, sunflower and alfalfa hay as explained in para 4.02. By the end of the 1983 cropping season, the total volume of agricultural production already had increased by 124%. The most significant increases, which reflect the changes in cropping pattern compared to the pre-project situation, are recorded for maize, sugarbeet, soybean, vegetables, alfalfa hay, fruit, pasture and maize silage. As was assumed by the appraisal team, the current analysis also assumes that the volume of production in the future, without the project, would remain the same as before the project. This is a reasonable assumption since soil moisture is the principal factor which limits crop yield, cropping pattern and response to fertilizer in the project area. Without irrigation, agricultural development can be expected to remain static. Moreover, MAFI assigns the lowest priority to the allocation of inputs for rainfed agriculture in the plains region, where the project area is situated. 5.03 Employment. The project is fully meeting appraisal expectations of reducing underemployment and increasing labor productivity by helping to make farming a more desirable livelihood. Romanian agricultural production, as in other semi-industrialized countries, has been hindered by an insufficient work force due to urban migration and aging of the rural population. Greater mechanization under the project has reduced the number of unskilled workers needed in the area. At the same time higher skilled jobs have been created as a result of these investments in order to provide the technical expertise necessary for more scientific agricultural production. 5.04 Incomes. Annex 4, Table 6 compares some of the changes in employment and incomes for semi-skilled workers on IASs and CAPs between 1978 and 1984. Annual incomes for workers on IASs (estimated active population of 2,150) have increased from 24,000 lei to 30,000 lei (25%) and the incomes of workers on CAPs (estimated active population of 46000) have gone from 12,000 lei a year to 20-25,000 lei per person (70% increase). In addition to restraining upward - 94 - salary adjustment for IAS employees, the Government has also abolished the two-tier pricing system (see para 4.09) in 1981, which together have helped reduce income disparities between workers on TASs and CAPs. Over the same period annual incomes for higher skilled and technical staff more than doubled from 26,000 lei to 54,000 lei. 5.05 Education and Institution Building. The Director Generals for Agriculture in the two districts have established new programs and courses in the local high schools to train skilled agricultural workers. Two specialized institutes for the operation of irrigation systems have been established as well as five technical schools to provide training in more modern methods of agricultural production. Some units within IEELIF have been strengthened with staff (agronomists) who monitor changes in water level on a weekly basis throughout the two districts. Salinization and soil nutrient levels are also closely monitored and reported to the farms concerned. The research institutes in the region are employing additional staff to study use of herbicides/pesticides, and to produce better varieties of seeds and seedlings for the farms in the districts. 5.05 Commercial Activities. The cropping pattern in the project produces a range of tradeable and non-tradeable products. The tradeable outputs, mostly grains, either supplement current exports or substitute for imports. Grains account for 30% of the total incremental project benefits. The non tradeable outputs are mainly vegetables and animal fodder, the latter of which has contributed to an expansion in livestock production in the project area as can be seen in the table below: Livestock Development in Project Area (Head '000) Increase 1978 1989 /1 (%) Pigs 1,031 1,700 65 Poultry 3,145 5,000 60 Cattle 270 370 40 Sheep 889 1,380 55 /1 Projected at full development. In addition, grain storage capacities expanded by 34% between 1979 and 1984 and an additional 21% increase is anticipated for 1988. Other processing facilities for sugarbeet, oilseed, and vegetables and fruits are increasing capacities as well (paras 4.10 and 4.11). 5.07 Economic Evaluation. The economic rate of return (ERR) of the project has been recalculated taking into account the actual events which took place since the implementation of the project. Revised estimates have been used for later years (1984-1988) based on the past 5 years' experience. Full crop production is expected in 1988 as compared to the appraisal estimate of 1986. The cuantifiable benefits are from total project production, and ouantified costs include: (i) capital investment; (ii) operation and maintenance costs; (iii) crop operating costs; and (iv) eouipment replacement costs (once every 15 years). - 95 - 5.08 All input and output prices have been evaluated in constant 1984 local currency values (Annex 4, Table 4). The local costs have been adjusted by a domestic price index based on local inflation of 1.5% from 1978-1980 and 3.0% from 1981-1983. Foreign costs have been adjusted by the World Bank's international inflation estimates. The projections of future commodity prices have been based on World Bank forecasts (January 1984) and expressed in constant 1984 values. Wheat is valued at export parity while maize, soybeans, sugarbeet, and sunflower are based on import parity eauivalents and are adjusted for transport and handling charges. For non-tradeable commodities the conversion factors remain as they were at the time of appraisal, 1.00. 5.09 The ERR of the project is re-estimated at 14% compared to 16% at the time of appraisal. The four year delay of project completion has not adversely affected the ERR, because both the appraisal and actual conditions show that full production capacity is reached about one and a half years after the average investment is made. Analysis of switching values indicates that the following changes would need to occur to bring the ERR to 12% (the estimated opportunity cost of capital): incremental benefits -21%, crop production costs +122%, operation and maintenance costs +103%. (Annex 4, Tables 7-9). VI. INSTITUTIONAL PERFORMANCE 6.01 Institutional Design and Performance. BAFI, the Borrower, has the prime responsibility for financing the development of the agricultural sector in Romania and is responsible for coordinating all project related activities with other ministries, departments, and district-level enterprises. It is also in charge of monitoring the financial, agricultural and physical aspects of the project's implementation and reporting this information to the Bank. BAFI branch offices are responsible for processing loans for on-farm development, i.e. small irrigation ecuipment, barns, sheds and short-term credit for input needs. BAFI's performance in coordinating project implementation was fully satisfactory. Regarding loans for on-farm development and short-term credit, BAFI was only able to meet some 75% of the annual credit demand for 1982 and 1983 in the Braila and Ialomita Districts. The shortfall was due to lower investment funds allocated from the State budget as a result of the overall tight financial situation in Romania. Finally, although BAFI did report some agricultural data for one CAP and one IAS on two occasions during project implementation, more comprehensive farm data needs to be compiled and reported to the Bank in order to better monitor and evaluate the project's agricultural and economic impact. 6.02 Actual project implementation and supervision of physical work, was the responsibility of the Ministry for Agriculture and Food Industry's Department for Land Reclamation and Agricultural Construction (DIFCA). Until July 1980, DIFCA, under its own Deputy Minister of MAFI, comprised three sub-units: i) Institute for Land Reclamation Studies and Design (ISPIF) (ii) Group for Supervising Investments (GSI) (iii) Directorate for Construction and Land Reclamation Works - 96 - In 1980 the Group for Supervising Construction Investments (GSI) was merged with the Central for Exploitation of Land Reclamation works (CELIF), which was headed by a separate Deputy Minister of MAFI with responsibility for operation and maintenance of all completed irrigation systems. The organizational structure changed again in 1981 when the CELIF and DIFCA were merged, forming what is called General Economic Directorate for Land Reclamation and Agricultural Construction (DGEIFCA, Annex 5, Table 1). Changes were also introduced at the regional and district level agencies, by consolidating a series of responsibilities and vesting them into one enterprise, the IEELIF (Enterprise for Execution and Exploitation of Land Reclamation Works). Prior to 1983, there were six Construction Trusts for Land Reclamation Works (TCIFs) and 17 Enterprises for Exploitation (IELIFs) covering several districts. Each district also had a local organization for the execution of small land reclamation works and agricultural construction for IASs and CAPs. These enterprises were merged together in July 1983 to form one enterprise for land reclamation construction works and operation/maintenance for each district (IEELIF) (Annex 5, Table 1). It was felt that decentralization and consolidation would ensure more efficient utilization of staff and resources, better management of land reclamation works, and improved operation and maintenance due to the active involvement of the operation unit in the construction phase of project implementation. Each district enterprise -- IEELIF (formerly TCIF/IELIF) -- reports to the Director General for Agriculture and Food Industry (DGAFI) of the respective district. Only technical advice or specific technical instructions are given by DGEIFCA, Bucharest. 6.03 It is still difficult to assess the effectiveness of the above organizational changes given that they have only recently taken place. However, it seems that there were some managerial or co-ordination problems contributing to project delays, which possibly could have been alleviated by the new organizational arrangement. The fact that the Supervision Unit (GSI) was separate from the design unit until 1981 may have contributed to the cases of deficiencies in quality of works, especially uneven finishing of concrete works and canal linings (para 3.04). Now that they are part of the execution and operation enterprise (IEELIF), awareness of quality control should significantly improve. In addition, because the enterprise which will operate and maintain the system will be involved at an earlier stage of its development, actual implementation efficiency should also improve. 6.04 Support Services. Agriculture in the project area is supervised by the office of the General Directorate for Agriculture of MAFI in the Districts of Braila and Ialomita. The directors of the IASs and CAPs in each of these Districts submit their annual production programs to these Directorates, who in turn "harmonize" and coordinate the production programs of the IASs and CAPs, in accordance with guidelines received from MAFI. In addition, the General Directorates serve an important advisory function to the production units through their own specialists working in collaboration with the specialists from the production units. Currently, there is a total of 4,903 specialists employed in the two Districts in which the project area is located, of which 1,712 are university graduate level and 3,191 are middle level (Annex 5, Table 2) These specialists, in the fields of agronomy, horticulture, veterinary medicine and animal husbandry, mechanical engineering, economics, and other miscellaneous fields, have an effective input by providing technical assistance to the production units. Training of - 97 - both IAS and CAP field staff is provided periodically by the General Directorates through short and medium term courses. The research stations also play an important role in training. For more specialized personnel, higher level courses are organized during the off-season. Through these various training programs, the staff of the IASs and CAPs are kept abreast of advances in production technology. 6.05 Two agriculture research stations, Braila and Marculesti, whose activities are coordinated by the Academy of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences, are located close to the project area. They are instrumental in generating technology in irrigated crop production, seed improvement, land reclamation and water use, soil management, plant protection, and varietal improvement of crops. Research findings are effectively applied at the field level through linkage with the advisory specialists in the General Directorates and the production units. In addition each IEELIF has approximately 10 water management units, which advise the production units on appropriate water applications and monitor water use throughout the district according to established distribution schedules (para 4.14 on O&M). 6.06 Performance of the Bank. Continuity and frequency of supervision was reasonable during the first three years of implementation. Later, when financial difficulties started to affect project execution, supervision became more frequent. Generally, there was a reasonable mix of professional skills on the missions (Annex 6, Table 2). In retrospect, it would have been useful to have more agricultural input from an agronomist during the last 2-3 years of project implementation as the area actually under irrigation began to expand. Bank staff enjoyed full cooperation from Romanian counterparts, both in Bucharest, as well as in the field, and succeeded in maintaining a constructive and fruitful dialogue at the various central and local BAFI and MAFI levels. By and large, supervision reports fairly reflect the progress of execution and the issues encountered. Advice given and comments made by Bank missions were usually welcome and useful, especially during the discussions held in May and November 1982 concerning ways to overcome budgetary cutbacks caused by the financial difficulties that Romania experienced and to accelerate project implementation which was suffering a serious delay. BAFI's completion report -':o mentions the acceptance of the constructive technical observations made by Bank staff on work ouality and pace of implementation. 6.07 Bank performance on procurement was consistent with its Guidelines and operational policies. Bank staff alerted the Borrower and its executing agencies to procurement related problems in a timely manner. The technical assistance provided by Bank staff for the procurement of motor scrapers and canal lining machines proved to be useful, and the prompt and efficient use of this equipment was a decisive factor in the successful completion of the respective works. 6.08 However, the Bank did not include, under the reporting requirements, a request for information on the actual expenditures by major work items, so that progress could be measured in financial terms and compared to the schedule of expenditures as contemplated at appraisal. This would have been a valuable yardstick for measuring actual progress. Also, the Bank did not establish any linkage between actual project implementation or expenditures and disbursements, or at least a format for reporting these data for follow-up and comparison with targets proposed at appraisal. - 98 - 6.09 In May 1978, the Borrower reauested a reallocation of funds from Category 2 - Tnterest and Other Charges to Category I - Construction Eouipment under Schedule 1 of the Loan Agreement. The Bank responded promptly and agreed to amend the above-mentioned document as reauested. However, the Borrower mentioned, during PCR discussions, that there were several delays in disbursements processing, although these did not adversely affect the continuation of project financing and implementation. Usually, the Bank's payments were within the normal processing period of four to six weeks. VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Overview 7.01 The Project is, by and large, expected to achieve its objectives as set out at appraisal in 1976, in spite of the technical difficulties encountered during construction, the budgetary difficulties and the longer than estimated implementation period. In Romania, this project is considered as one of the very successful irrigation projects and a model for future development of the irrigation sub-sector. The 14% ERR reflects the fact that, in view of the frecuent severe drought conditions prevailing in this part of the country, irrigation is justified and cost effective, especially since the area is endowed with an abundance of excellent fertile soils. Coordination among the various institutions, both between and within BAFI and MAFI, proved to be good; execution was well organized and O&M agencies adeauately staffed, eauipped and well coordinated with local agricultural production units and district authorities. 7.02 Proiect cost estimates proved to be realistic, basically because most final detailed designs were available at the time of appraisal and also because of the relative stability of construction prices. The only departures from the original plan were some minor changes in the design of a series of distribution networks due to a temporary shortage of prestressed concrete pipes. Project concept and design proved to be appropriate and realistic. The design took into account the longer term plans for the transfer of water from the Siret river to the Baragan plains, a project that during water abundant and average years would provide Siret water to some 70% of the Ialomita-Calmatui project area as a less expensive and viable alternative to pumping water from the Danube. The resulting savings in energy costs could be auite significant. It is also understood that the hydraulic capacity of the major conduits is flexible enough tu increase water supply if substantial changes in the cropping pattern towards higher water consuming crops should occur. Lessons Learned 7.03 There is still room for improvements in the construction scheduling and implementation follow-up. It would be advisable to routinely review existing construction schedules, procurement timetables, and budgetary allocations to determine whether these are commensurate with the availability of eauipment, materials or specialized works (para 3.18). It is difficult to determine, in retrospect, whether the serious technical difficulties encountered during the construction of the Spiru Haret re-pumping station and the first seven kilometers of the main canal could have been completely avoided, thus saving two years of delay (para 3.03). - 99 - 7.04 Implementation of such a complex project is not an easy task; however, more efforts are needed for a much earlier start of land levelling works, tile drainage, and saline soils reclamation. The importance of land levelling for furrow irrigation cannot be over-emphasized, and in view of the fact that this type of work can be done only during a very limited time period of the year, due to scheduling conflicts with crops in the field, much more equipment and manpower should be concentrated to cope with such a constraint; this can be done only within the framework of a well scheduled crash program. The execution of the tile drainage systems is behind schedule, however, in most cases it is a pre-requisite for reclamation of saline lands and this needs to be expedited in order to incorporate these unproductive lands under irrigation as early as possible. 7.05 Romanian decision-makers should frequently and realistically review the feasibility of achieving the yearly targets on incorporating new lands under irrigation and take the appropriate steps to overcome possible delays or other shortcomings at the earliest opportunity. Unfortunately, most of the forecasts proved to be too ambitious and unrealistic. On the other hand, the "systems" institution, its dedicated professional staff and the assistance provided by DGAFI must be credited as one of the important factors for achieving increased crop production. The 06M institution (IEELIF), together with its irrigation water scheduling service, is indeed an achievement of KAFI, especially since it is active in the field at the very early stages of project implementation. 7.06 On progress reporting, the Bank should request more detailed information on actual progress made, both in physical and financial terms, on a quarterly or semi-annual basis. The correlation between expenditures, construction and procurement schedules should be analyzed by comparing actual performance to appraisal estimates. Progress reports should also include a descriptive section on the main events that occurred during the reporting period, achievements or shortfalls that are not or cannot be properly expressed in the tables, and how these might affect, positively or adversely, the project's objectives or viability. Also, some thought should perhaps be given to the usefulness of creating a linkage between progress in implementation and disbursements (para 3.18). 7.07 MAFI has highly qualified professional staff and experts and an effective institutional set-up to implement and manage such large scale projects. However, further thought needs to be given to upgrading design standards (at the conceptual stage), technical specifications, quality control of concrete finishing and plasterwork, anti-corrosion fighting, and closer supervision during construction with the objective to increase as much as possible the life expectancy of the facilities and installations and significantly reduce repair and maintenance costs. These issues deserve due consideration by MAFI, in view of the massive investments usually involved in this type of project. 7.08 Agricultural reporting of crop production, costs, and revenues needs to be improved. 1/ The objective should be to increase production economically and not just to maximize output. Closer monitoring of agricultural data would: 1/ The borrower contends that relevant data are collected and submitted to BAFI. See Annex 2 point 4. However, better use could be made of this information in the economic analysis of past investments and for planning future in7estments. - 100 - - create awareness of the need for confirming yield projections against actual results; - provide the means for analyzing causes of lower than expected yields in order to make necessary adjustments for the following year's production cycle; - affect and improve input supply decisions; and - provide feedback to the research institutes and extension service. To accomplish the above, BAFI staff should work more closely with the staff of the Directorate General of Agriculture in the respective districts in compiling agricultural production information. The Bank should request that more data on agricultural production be compiled by BAFI on the remaining projects under supervision, and be made available to Bank missions for review and comment. - 101- ANNEX 1 ROMANIA Ialomita-Calmatui Irrigation Project (Loan 1368-RO) Project Completion Report Investment in Agriculture (Billion Lei) Z % of total of total 1976-1980 Investment 1981-1985 Investment Land Reclamation 30.4 18.6 26.5 14.7 Irrigation 17.1 10.7 Drainage 2.8 6.8 Soil Erosion Control 3.8 2.7 Other 6.7 6.3 Kechanization 33.9 20.6 54.0 30.0 Livestock 51.3 31.6 50.0 27.8 Crops and Storage 12.1 7.4 14.5 8.1 Food Processing 30.5 18.6 31.4 17.4 Other 6.0 3.6 3.6 2.0 Total 164.2 100.0 180.0 100.0 Total Investment 931.9 1500 Agriculture (Z) of Total Investment 17% 12% -102- (LOM 13(6~) FR9~am vomiw Prnl Proj=et 0m. by Ys (in atlIina l. cue jrices) -1btals 1976 1977 197 1979 MW 18 1IM 1im m9S 18"536 Eh~a Itl . laing and Repad ig Seaio - 34.90 69.00 127.90 83.30 32.30 30.35 12.07 15.80 0.25 162.27 263.60 405.87 2. Presure aeing S-a. - 20.10 36.00 .6.10 50.10 48.L0 48.05 25.13 27.20- 1.22 121.00 181.60 32.60 3. Po~e Sply Uacks - 8.00 19.00 19.00 21.00 30.00 30.00 00 12.59 64.29 119.30 la.59 4. Canals 4 Struc~ - 16.80 113.24 177.26 170.20 113.00 Sh.00 74.80 69.70 4AM 6660 277.00 923AO 5. 9ad pipelines (Distrihin) - 11.00 132.00 183.0 118.00 66.60 44.36 51.89 2.00 0,1^ 498.90 213.80 712.70 6. tmd teelling - 11.00 16.50 13.00 6.00 7.60 7.00 140 0.50 68.10 93.M 39.30 133.10 7. On-fam sprinkler trrig. Aip. - 22.00 86.50 54.20 26M 27.30 27.81 - - - 121.31 121.30 72.61 8. Ob m brw irrig.Emip. 10.00 S4 20.00 _ 1.50 1.15 36.39 24.26 60.65 Sub-~tt - 356. 472.24 63.50 4.W 334.10 261.57 215.29 126.70 88.52 1.Wr.36 1,220.16 2,%6.52 DRUM@G wamS 9. Cana 4 Suructu~es - 71.00 35.00 20.00 19.00 10.3 10.Or 4.70 - 0.70 119.50 51.20 170.70 10. Drai~ge P~qpimg Staio - 9.00 9.00 8.00 8.00 6.00 5.00 3.00 2.00 5.30 22.0 33.20 55.30 11. Tile Or~inag - - 12.00 12.00 15.00 8.00 5.00 5.00 20.00 29.00 32.90 73.10 106.0 12. Salinc soils P&Clfitin - - 2.00 4.00 2.00 1.00 6.50 2.00 2.50 29.0 37.70 11.90 49.60 13. P4eclt..i of Depresmia~ - - - 0.50 1.0 L30 LO 0.70 1.S 2.00 5.60 2.40 80 sb-tal - 80.00 58.00 4.50 45.00 26.60 27.50 15.40 26.00 66.60 217.80 171.0 399.60 14. Sope 0artection - - - 0.50 2.00 1.40 1.10 0.60 0./.0 0.90 4.90 2.00 6.90 15. Soil Ermsifn o - 0.50 4.00 6.00 3.50 5.00 1.00 0.40 - 0.20 15.70 4.90 20.60 16. Rel~esi~ of rmaie.eioe - - - - 2.00 3.90 - - - 8.90 5.90 8.90 14.W 17. Facilities for 0 = - - 1.00 1.00 3.00 5.00 - - - 1.80 10.00 1.80 11.0 18. Osser~tion Wells - - 030 0.50 0.20 0 1.00 sital - 0.50 5.30 8.00 10.70 15.30 2.10 LOD 0.40 11.0 37.50 17.60 55.10 19. P4M Cafe ~r - 7.00 5.00 3.00 3.50 - - - - 6.A0 24.90 - 24.90 20. MCDERC & AIISIvr~ 45.00 32.00 8.6 - - - - - - 27.00 112.46 - 112.46 21. MMEER DSrs - 22.00 2.00 - - - - - 232 125.00 123.92 27.40 151.32 22. Fam - - - - 145.09 - - - - - 74.02 71.07 Wm5.09 23. =et é - - - __-_ 32.50 - - 3- - _16.8 15.92 Su-tt_l - _177.59 - - - - - 90.60 86.99 177.59 IA. 45.00 49830 551.00 686.00 717.59 376.00 291.17 231.09 1532.2 325.32 2.351.54 1.523.95 3.875.49 Rate of MxdG~se lilis 20 20 20 20 18 15 15 17.50 21 21 Eauiv. in USt 2.25 2t.92 27.55 34.30 39.87 25.07 19.41 13.24 7.31 15.49 127.07 82.3U 209.41 /1 hasi on Ba rs estie. il fi + en i 4 Aj Annex 2 Table 3 ROKANIA IAtoMTA-CAMUI IMIcATl PRnc (Loan 1368-RO) PROJECT COMPLErl EPORT Analysis of Cost Chages from Appraisal Estimates (in million Lel) Current Overrun Appraisal Estimate Estimate I excluding with distri- contingencies bated physical L price contin- gencies A. IRRIGATION URS 1. Main Pumping Stations 316.0 356.2 405.9 + 14.0 11 2. Pressure Pumping Stations 298.0 335.7 302.6 - 9.9 72 3. Poer Supply works 116.8 130.7 183.6 + 40.5 1 4. Canals and Structures 722.0 813.3 923.4 + 13.5 Ti 5. Land levelling 230.0 253.4 133.1 - 47.5 7s 6. Buried Pipelines 694.0 781.9 712.7 - 8.9 T6 7. On-farm sprinkler equipment 158.0 178.0 242.6 + 36.3 TT 8. On-farm furrow equipment 56.0 63.0 60.7 - 3.7 7s Sub-total 2,590.0 2,912.2 2,964.6 + 1.8 B. DRAINAGE WDRKS 9. Canals and Structures 190.0 214.0 170.0 - 20.2 /9 10. Drainage Pumping Stations 50.0 56.3 55.3 - 1.8 11. Tile Drainage 136.0 153.4 106.0 - 30.9 110 12. Saline Soils Reclamation 4.0 4.5 49.6 +1.002.2 13. Reclamation of Depressions 14.0 15.7 8.0 - 49.0 111 Sub-total 394.0 463.9 389.6 - 12.2 C. MISCELLANEDUS UDRKS 14. Slope Corrections 12.0 13.1 6.9 - 47.3 112 15. Soil Erosion Control 18.0 19.7 20.6 + 4.6 7I- 16. Relocation of Caumunications 14.0 15.3 14.8 - 3.3 T14 17. Facilities for 0&M 6.0 6.5 11.8 + 81.5 7ff 18. Observation Wells 1.0 1.0 1.0 - 19. Relocation of Forest Boundaries 9.0 9.7 - - 116 Sub-total 60.0 65.3 55.1 - 15.6 20. D. LAND COMPENSATION 20.0 21.0 24.9 + 18.6 21. E. ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATION 240.0 264.4 112.5 - 57.5 22. F. OTBER COSTS - - 151.3 - G. EQUIPME 23. Farm achinery 144.0 158.5 145.09 - 8.5 24. O&M Equipment 32.0 34.7 32.50 - 6.3 Sub-total 176.0 193.2 177.59 - 8.1 H. CONTINGENCIES 25. Physical contingencies 240.0 - - - 26. Price contingencies 180.0 - - - Sub-total 420.0 - - - ToMAL 3,900.0 3,900.0 3,875.59 - 0.6 - 105 - Comments /1 The overrun is a result of: (i) increase in costs of equipment (approx. 10%); (ii) difficulties encountered during foundation works (excavations for lowering caissons); and (iii) addition of two repumping stations. /2 Reduction in costs due to improved technical solution and savings in the number of pressure pumping stations needed. /3 Cost increases of electrical cables and other equipment as well as a significant increase in scope of works (112 additional "monofilar" pumping stations needed also transformers and connection to the power supply networks). 14 Overrun due to higher costs of fuel and difficulties during construction because of temporary excessive soil humidity. 15 Area for land levelling has been reduced by 7,402 ha and reduction in volumes of earthworks per ha. /6 Quantity of distribution conduits reduced: (i) as a result of introducing more "monofilar" pumping stations; and (ii) re-design of farming plots. /7 Irrigated area increased by 2,250 ha; higher costs of sprinkling equipment. /8 Original estimate of volume of works proved to be over-estimated. /9 Secondary canals (of questionable efficiency) reduced by 70 km as a result of revised designs. /10 Area with sub-surface drainage reduced by 2,400 ha; in several areas spacing between drains increased to 40 m. /1 Volume of works reduced as a result of detailed studies in the field. /12 Area requiring slopes correction reduced by 72,122 ha. /13 Overrun is a result of increase in volume of works and higher costs of fuel. /14 Reduction in extent of works. /15 Beneficiaries requested that additional workshops and storehouses for O&M be constructed. /16 Any changes in forest boundaries have been revoked. - 106 - Annex 2 Table 4 ROMANIA IALOMITZA-CALMATZUI IRRIGATION PROJECT (LOAN 1368-RO) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Comparison of Work Quantities (Actually executed vs. appraisal estimates) Actually Estimated Difference Unit executed at Appraisal % A. IRRIGATION WORKS 1. Floating Pumping Station No. 1 1 - 2. Main Pumping Stations No. 11 7 + 57.1 3. Pressure Pumping Stations No. 77 + 200 115 + 88 - 33.0/+ 127.3 4. Power Supply Lines km 183 240 - 23.8 5. Canals & Structures km 38 + 326 38 + 376 - /-13.3 6. Distribution Networks km 2,583 2,763 - 6.5 7. Land Levelling ha 32,598 40,000 - 18.5 8. On-farm sprinkling equipm. ha 105,900 103,650 + 2.2 9. On-farm furrow equipm. ha 36,750 36,750 - B. DRAINAGE WORKS 10. Canals & Structures km 241 311 - 22.5 11. Drainage Pumping Stations No. 25 23 + 8.7 12. Tile Drainage ha 12,000 14,400 - 16.7 13. Saline Soils Reclamation ha 2,650 2,650 - 14. Depressions Reclamation ha 2,500 2,500 C. MISCELLANEOUS WORKS 15. Slopes Corrections ha 7,878 80,000 - 90.2 16. Soil Erosion Control ha 6,100 6,100 - 17. Relocation of Communications km 83 83 - 18. Observation Wells No. 400 400 - 19. Relocation of forest boundaries ha - 2,650 - 20. 0&M facilities No. 19 n.a. - - 107 - Annex 2 Tagle 5 ROMANIA IALONITZA-CALMATZUI IRRIGATION PROJECT (LOAN 1368-RO) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Comparative Capital.Investment Costs per Hectare (in Lei) Giurgin- Rasova- Ialomitza- Razimiresti Vederoasa Calmatzui System System System 100,900 ha 65,000 ha 142,650 ha Main Irrigation System Main Pumping Stations 2,180 3,830 3,301 Main Canals & Structures 5,640 6,420 7,509 Sub-total 7,820 10,250 10,810 Distribution System Pressure Pumping Stations 2,900 2,780 2,460 Power Supply Works 1,213 n.a. 1,493 Distribution Networks 5 290 9,580 5 795 Sub-total 9,403 12,960 9,548 On-farm Systems Land Levelling 6,682 5,920 4,736 1/ Sprinkler Irrig. Equipment 1,750 2,550 2,658 2/ Furrow Irrig. Equipment 1,380 2,800 1,914 3/ Total Irrigation Works 19,180 27,340 24,107 Surface Drainage Works Drainage Canals & Structures n.a. n.. 2,405 Drainage Pumping Stations n.a. n.a. 780 Sub-total 2,125 n.a. 3,185 4/ Tile Drainage n.a. n.a. 10,246 5/ 1/ For 32,598 ha only 2/ For 105,900 ha / For 36,750 ha 4/ For 82,350 ha 3/ For 12,000 ha - 108 - ANNEX 2 Table 6 ROMANIA IALOMITA-CALMATUI IRRIGATION PROJECT (LOAN 1368-RO) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Project Financing (US$ million) Local Costs Foreign Costs /1 Source of Financing Appraised Actual Difference Appraised Actual Difference IBRD Loan - - - 44.6 49.1 + 4.5 State Budget 109.8 93.9 -15.9 - 33.2 +33.2 BAFI Credits 28.5 29.7 +1.2 - - - CAPs Contribution 12.1 3.5 -8.6 Subtotal 150.4 127.1 -23.3 44.6 82.3 +37.7 IBRD Loan for interest & other 15.4 10.9 - 4.5 TOTAL 150.4 127.1 -23.3 60.0 93.2 +33.2 /1 Based on Borrower's estimate. - 109 - ANNEX 2 Table 7 ROMANIA Ialomita-Calmatui Irrigation Project (Loan 1368-RO) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Actual and Appraisal Cumulative Disbursements IBRD Fiscal Year Cumulative Disbursement Actual Disbursed and Quarter at end of Quarter Compared to Estimated Actual Appraisal Estimate US$ million (W) 1977/1978 Sep. 30, 1977 2.3 - - Dec. 31, 1977 5.0 2.8 56 Mar. 31, 1978 13.0 5.5 42 Jun. 30, 1978 22.0 8.5 39 1978/1979 Sep. 30, 1978 27.0 9.7 36 Dec. 31, 1978 32.0 13.3 42 Mar. 31, 1979 37.0 21.1 57 Jun. 30, 1979 44.0 24.0 54 1979/1980 Sep. 30, 1979 50.0 29.2 58 Dec. 31, 1979 51.0 31.7 62 Mar. 31, 1980 52.0 40.2 77 Jun. 30, 1980 53.0 44.9 85 1980/1981 Sep. 30, 1980 54.0 47.3 88 Dec. 31, 1980 55.2 51.4 93 Mar. 31, 1981 56.4 54.4 96 Jun. 30, 1981 57.6 57.0 99 1981/82 Sep. 30, 1981 58.8 57.2 97 Dec. 31, 1981 60.0 59.9 99 Mar. 31, 1982 - 60.0 100 5156Z - 110 - ANNEX 3 Table 1 ROMANIA IALOMITA-CALMATUI IRRIGATION PROJECT (LOAN 1368-RO) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Cumulative Cropped Area Under Irrigation-A Area Area Where Reclaimed Newly Irrigation from Irrigated Is Modernized/2 Saline Land /3 Total Year APR Actual APR Actual APR Actual APR Actual -----------------------(I a---t'0 U 1979 22.7 9.0 - - 22.7 9.0 1980 71.9 21.0 - - - - 71.9 21.0 1981 105.9 57.8 0.9 - - - 106.8 57.8 1982 136.1 64.9 1.5 - - - 137.6 64.9 1983 136.1 72.0 1.5 - - - 137.6 72.0 1984 136.1 103.5 1.5 - 0.1 - 137.7 103.5 1985 136.1 136.3 1.5 - 1.2 2.6 138.8 138.9 1986 136.1 136.3 1.5 - 2.7 2.6 140.3 138.9 1987 136.1 136.3 1.5 2.7 2.6 140.3 138.9 1988 136.1 136.3 1.5 - 2.7 2.6 140.3 138.9 Some figures reflect slight discrepancies due to rounding. /1 Excludes double cropping of maize for silage. 7 Although appraisal assumed the project would finance modernization of existing irrigation works on about 1,500 ha, in actual practice this was not required; consequently, the project did not finance modernization, nor have these existing systems benefited from the project's infrastructure. /3 These areas are those which start yielding benefits following completion of leaching operations. 5156Z - 111 - - ANNEX 3 ROMANIA Table 2 IALOMITA-CALMATUI IRRIGATION PROJECT (LOAN 1368-RO) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Yield of Major Crops Pre-project Actual /1 Revised Estimate at Situation 1980 1981 1982 1983 /2 Full Development Wheat 2.3 3.0 3.5 4.1 4.5 5.0 Maize 3.5 4.4 5.0 6.1 7.0 9.0 Sugarbeet 28.0 -/3 26.0 31.0 40.0 50.0 Soybean 1.5 1.7 0.9/4 -/3 2.0 3.0 Sunflower 1.6 2.3 2.1 2.5 2.7 3.0 /1 Based on a sample covering about 30% of the project area. /2 Figures represent conservative preliminary tabulations prepared by the mission based on data provided by BAFI/MAFI. /3 No data available. /4 Based on 25% of the sample area. Crop severely affected by disease. ANNEX 3 5156Z Table 3 - 112 - ROMANIA IALOMITA-CALMATUI IRRIGATION PROJECT (LOAN 1368-RO) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Estimates of Crop Yields at Full Development Appraisal BAFI/MAFI Completion Mission -----------------ton/ha --------------- Wheat 4.5 5.0 5.0 Maize 8.0 10.0 9.0 Sugarbeet 50.0 60.0 50.0 Soybean 3.0 3.0 3.0 Sunflower 2.5 3.0 3.0 Potato 25.0 25.0 25.0 Vegetables 25.0 25.0 25.0 Alfalfa hay 10.0 12.0 12.0 Fruit 8.0 8.0 8.0 Grape 12.0 12.0 12.0 Pasture /1 20.0 20.0 20.0 Maize silage /2 35.0 35.0 35.0 /1 Green matter. /2 Double crop. ANNEX 3 51562 Table 4 IAWMITA-CAIMUI IRRIATION PR(OJT (UMN 1368-0) PRsUr 00ERl0N REMR Qopping Pattern: Pre-project and Estimated at Full Project Delopment Pre-Froject Actual Area Appraisal Estimate /1 Pevised Estimated Area /2 Area 1982 1983 Area 1988 ha %ha % ha T ha Z ha . Wheat 31,610 23.4 27,801 20.1 27,169 19.6 21,980 15.6 21,247 15.3 Mhize 51,840 38.5 54,575 39.4 56,427 40.8 66,820 47.6 66,400 47.8 Sugarbeet 6,050 4.5 6,240 4.5 8,624 6.2 8,730 6.z 7,967 5.7 Sybean 6,470 4.8 8,708 6.3 6,020 4.4 12,550 8.9 11,952 8.6 Sunflower 17,870 13.3 13,176 9.5 12,435 9.0 5,710 4.1 7,967 5.7 Ebtato 2,210 1.6 5,765 4.2 4,716 3.4 1,300 1.0 1,328 1.0 i Vegetables - - 1,098 0.8 1,239 0.9 2,600 1.9 2,656 1.9 Alfalfa hay 12,810 9.5 12,255 8.9 13,242 9.6 14,830 10.6 13,281 9.6 aisze green chop - - 2,839 2.1 2,643 1.9 - - - - Fruit 380 0.3 383 0.2 383 0.3 350 0.2 484 0.3 Grape 2,650 2.0 2,650 1.9 2,650 1.9 2,650 1.9 2,750 2.0 Pasture 2890 2.1 2,887 2.1 2,887 2.1 2,970 2.1 28 2.1 Subtotal 134,780 100.0 138,377 100.0 138,435 100.0 140,400 100.0 138,897 100.0 Mkize silage /3 (2,060) (1.5) (9,376) (6.8) (10,033) (7.3) (13,940) (9.9) (16,998) (12.2) Ibtal 136,840 101.5 147,753 106.8 148,468 107.3 154,340 109.9 155,895 112.2 Cropping intensity 101 107 107 110 112 /1 At full project development in 1986. T2 At revised full project development in 1988. 7 Double crop, - 114 - ANNEX 3 Table 5 ROMANIA IALOMITA-CALATUI IRRIGATION PROJECT (LDAN 1368-RO) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Fertilizer Use (available plant nutrient basis) Pre-project At Full Development All Crops Maize Only All Crops Maize Only N Total in tons 7,441 2,458 22,649 13,674 Cropped area /1 137,873 49,158 155,895 65,112 Kg/ha 54 50 145 210 P205 Total in tons 7,096 2,458 12,753 6,511 Cropped area /1 137,873 49,158 155,895 65,112 Kg/ha 51 50 82 100 K20 Total in tons 1,649 0 7,234 5,209 Cropped area /1 137,873 0 155,895 65,112 Kg/ha 12 0 46 80 Total kg,ha 117 100 273 390 Fertilizer Rates at Full Yield DevelopmeAt /2 (available plant nutrient basis) N P205 K20 Total Crop --gh Wheat 120 80 0 200 Maize 210 100 80 390 Sugarbeet 150 80 40 270 Soybean 45 75 0 120 Sunflower 80 80 40 200 Potato 320 320 180 820 Vegetables 85 85 150 320 Alfalfa hay 40 60 0 100 Fruit 70 55 50 175 Grape 80 120 150 350 Pasture 150 50 50 250 Maize silage 100 0 0 100 Average 145 82 46 273 /1 Figure includes double crop maize. 7E Based on MAFI recommendations. 。1-&1・．-，】！(―・―姿―:.,----,--------,.-,-,-,---,- J 司HJdHJ - U6 - ANNEX 4 Tabl e I R13MANIA JALOMITA-.CALMATUI IRRIGATION PROJECT (LOAN 1368-RO) COMPLETION REPORT Input Prices A (Lei/too) Item 1978-1981 1982 - present Seed Wheat 2,100 2,480 Maize 3,000 3,400 Sugarbeet 14,150 14,150 Soybean 6,150 6,150 Sunflower 19,790 19,790 Potatoe 1,920 2,170 Al fal fa 40,200 40,200 Seedlings Fruit 6.67 7.20 (lei/seedling) Fertilizer N 2,650 4,500 F 2 0 5 3,550 5,560 K20 2,200 3,100 Labor /2 Ubskilled (lei/day) 60 80-100 Skilled (lei/month) 2,700 3,200-4,500 Excluding machinery services. T2- Plus possible bonuses. These figures are based on IAS employees. CAP workers tend to earn 15-20Z less. - 117 - ANNEX 4 ID241,5Z/P6/5/14/84 Table 2 ROMANIA lalomita-Calmatui Irrigation Project (1368-R0) COMPLETION REPORT Contractual Prices for Agricultural Commodities 11 Showing Two-Tier Pricing System (Lei/tou) Cereals CAP IAS Wheat 1,370 1,000 Barley 1,100 800 Two-row barley 1,500 900 Maize 1,150 800 Sunflower seed 1,850-2,030 1,850-2,030 Sugar beet 300 300 Soybeans 3,600 2,900 Fruits Apricots 1,600-4,050 1,600-4,050 Peaches 1,600-3,750 1,600-3,750 Table grapes 2,550-5,200 2,550-5,200 Vegetables Tomatoes 1,400 1,400 Green Pepper 220 2,200 Animal Products Young stock up to 3 yrs - 341-400 kg. l.v. 10,250-13,250 10,250-13,150 - over 400 kg. 1. v. 11,000-14,350 11,000-14,250 Calves up to 50 kg. I.w. 18,000-20,000 18,000-20,000 Cattle, 1.v. 6,500-10,000 6,500-10,000 Cow milk, 1. 1,850 1,850 /I These prices were in effect from 1977 to 1981. ANNEX 4 - 118 - Table 3 ROMANIA Ialomita-Calmattui Irrigation Project (LOAN 1368-RO) COMPLETION REPORT Contractual Prices for Agricultural Commodities 1982 - Present Unit Contract Price Premium 1 Lei Wheat tons 1500 150-400 grain [ L270 250-650 Sunflower " 2680 500-800 Soya bean " 3250 350-500 Sugar beet " 345 150-250 Tomato Super " 1900 ) 1st quality to 1700 ) 100-300 2nd quality " 1500 ) Green Pepper 2950 ) 100-300 Potato 1st quality 1000 ) 100-150 2nd quality 800 ) Fruits Sweet cherries 1st quality 5800 ) 700-900 2nd quality 3700 ) Apricots 1st quality 4850 ) 500-700 2nd quality " 3100 ) Peaches 1st quality " 3800 ) 300-500 2nd quality " 2600 ) Table grapes 2750-4000 300-350 Wine grapes " 2320-3000 Cattle kg live vt. 11.23 14.80 Pigs " 10.91 .14.50 Sheep " 11.27 14.20 Poultry " 12.87 14.00 Dairy cow milk liter 2.60-21 .50-1.10 Sheep milk (7% " 5.00 .15-1.00 butter fat content 1/ Premiums came into affect January 1983 and the amount of the premium depends on the yield/ha of the farm delivering the produce. If the farm had a higher yield it will receive a higher premium on the same quantity of produce sold to the state marketing agencies. 2/ Based on 3.5% butterfat content. - 119 - ANNEX 4 Table 4 ROMANIA IALOMITA-CALMATUI IRRIGATION PROJECT (LOAN 1368-RO) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Economic Farmgate Prices (Constant 1984 lei/ton) 1976 1980 1985 1990 Appraisal / Wheat 4,797 3,632 3,182 3,685 2,640 Maize 3,902 2,673 2,798 3,037 1,840 Soybean 7,680 5,853 5,821 6,766 4,300 Sunflower 7,894 7,058 7,959 8,002 5,100 Sugarbeet 952 1,432 546 802 420 Potato 1/ 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,100 Vegetables 1/ 1,850 1,850 1,850 1,850 2,600 Grapes 1/ 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,400 Fruit 1/ 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 2,000 Alfalfa Hay 1! 500 500 500 500 500 Green Matter 1/ 110 110 110 110 100 Maize Silage 1/ 110 110 110 110 120 Pasture 1/ 110 110 110 110 60 Urea 6,184 7,303 6,224 9,188 N/A TSP 6,103 6,999 6,178 7,733 N/A Potash 4,729 5,358 4,633 5,253 N/A I/ The prices indicated are financial prices. 2/ Annex 1, Table 1 of SAR - 120 - ANNEX 4 Table 5 ROMANIA IALOMITA-CALMATUI IRRIGATION PROJECT (LOAN 1368-RO) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Volume of Agricultural Production Pre-Project and Future Future with without Project Project 1 Incremental - - '000 tons ('000 tons) (Z) Wheat 69.32 106.24 36.92 53 Maize 169.32 579.60 410.28 242 Sugarbeet 144.76 398.35 253.59 175 Soybean 9.71 35.86 26.15 269 Sunflower 27.23 23.90 (3.33) (12) Potato 64.70 33.20 (31.50) (49) Vegetables - 66.38 66.38 Alfalfa hay 59.67 159.37 99.70 167 Maize green chop 92.32. - (92.32) Fruit 1.53 3.87 2.34 153 Grape 18.55 33.00 14.45 78 Pasture 8.67 57.30 48.63 560 Maize silage /2 - 594.93 594.93 Total 665.77 2,091.99 1,426.22 214 /1 At full development in 1988. 7 Double crop. ANNEX 4 Table-6 ROKANIA lalosita-Ca1matul Irri-AitonProJect (Loan 1368-RO) ProJect Completion Report ProJect Beneficiaries Average Annual Averane Annual income per Active Person Vf Income per Active Person No. of Population CIeO No of Population rP) Unit@ 1978 Farm Non-farm Units 1984 Farm Non-farm Direct Beneficiariea State Farms 5 1,500 24,000 - 5 1,250 30,000 - CAP 54 41,000 12,000 3,000 54 40,500 20,400 5,040 CAP Associations (ABI) 8 N/A 8 800 27,600 An active person is defined as one who works full time at least 200 days in a calendar year; semi-skilled qualifications. I ROHANHjA RrNFFIli 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 19Rn 191 197 19R1 1984 1985 19RA 19R7 1988 19A9 1990 1991 1997 1993-2014 TnTLs ulTHouT PRo3Er.i UHEAT 332.25 242.74 239.RR 271.19 4?N.qA 77R.4? 700.50 779,14 7in,55 22R.47 14.2? 15.94 171.14 75%.Al 254,92 25A.3N 75A.35 7%4,9 2?51.78 9844.51 MAIZE 464.45 5.1,77 4R4.49 496.74 453.01 471.51 149.05 449.Rt 4R9.74 474,00 4A.74 W.4Ri 517.48 57.7 514.71 512.4R 515,98 %15.9R 5I5.99 2077,03 RONAS 74.49 82.41 67.7 67.87 5A.74 49.22 43.41 41,57 51.74 5R.55 A1.5 A7.4A A4.74 A5.A7 A4,IA AN.A7 A5.A7 r,.A7 A5.A7 75A3.9A RIIINFUER 214.92 239.9, 218.01 21A.61 19713 8Im.38 707.54 7A.A 773.A4 21A.AI 71A.R9 717.17 717.45 717.45 710.98 7n.9A 210.9R 71f,98 210,9A 4R0.R3 qURFFT 137.57 RO.75 AM.,t 71.7A 707.R4 97.7 40.J8 47.R9 A4.R4 AR.,3 97.?4 101.1 117.15 115 .14 119,4 I14.44 114.44 I1A.A4 I1A.A4 4159.01 PnTATO 74.41 74.4t 74,41 74.4 74.4 74,4% 74.4% 74.41 14.41 14.41 74,41 14.41 14.41 74.4j 74.41 74.41 74.41 74.41 74.41 7974,?n VEGETABLE. - - . - - - - - . . . - - - - 0 nn ALFALFA MAY 2.99 2.98 2.9R 2.9R 7.9R 7.98 9.91 2.99 .9A 7.9R 7.9» 7.9R 2.98 .9R ?.98 ?.98 2,9R 7.9R 2.9R 119.14 GREEN MATTER 10.15 10.15 to.1% 10.1% 10.15 10.15 10.15 10.15 10. i 10.1 1.15 10.15 10.1 10.15 10.1 10.15 10.15 io.1% 10.15 464.19 PASTURE 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 i.9N 0.95 0.95 4.95 0.9% 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 f.91 0.9 f.9 15.9 0.9% 8.1% UTWEYARD 4.45 4.4% 4.45 4.45 4,45 4.45 4.45 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.4% 4.45 4.45 4.45 4,45 4.4% 4.4% 4,45 4.4% 178,08 ORCHARP 0.49 0,49 0,49 0.49 0.49 0.49 h.49 0.49 0,49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0,49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0,49 0.49 19.61 Total Uithout Proj#ct 1#neftts 1517.32 1271,01 1144.50 1217.ø7 127.74 1075.19 949.12 t0A807 1144.90 1159.74 1103.?5 1140.69 1171,42 1Ø75.5 1754.07 1755.55 1759.m5 17N7.A7 17A0.4 497A4.91 MITH PRD.FT MIHAT 332.25 742.74 239.RR 7A.39 779.75 ¶1 ..A 74A.R4 M7.RI 2RW,44 317.A5 70A.90 71R.77 7A.7A 391.77 390.AR 397.RI 397.I7 190.AR 395.07 14019.91 MAIZE A82.70 544.14 497.45 5WA.54 499.51 5A7.3A 57A.97 791.71 940,29 1144.34 137.5A 1503.7A 1597.AR IROR,11 17A0.26 17q4.27 17AA.74 17AA,74 I7AA.74 5R950.71 efflEAmS 74,46 62.3R A7.R5 A7.4R 60.50 A7.70 67.46 R7.44 110.91 175.12 199.3A 219.99 738.4R 47.A1 741.5 7.AI 47.A 1 747,Al ,74.A R4A3.70 RUNFLOER 213.63 , 3.51 71A.70 711.33 1R7.90 IAI.9 17A.59 ARR.13 149.92 154.01 171,77 I80.R7 190.22 190.8 1RN.17 15.17 tR15.17 IN,17 IAN.17 74A1.1 R1GAREET 137.71 RI.R3 A7.7 73.03 7?A.7R 170,4R 59.90 77.A4 I24.A3 19R.79 731.10 275.44 0R.07 31A.AN .1A.RS 3M0.97 370.97 370.97 30.97 10430.79 POTATO 74.38 74.38 74.38 7A.14 RR.RA 91.4R 95.78 RI.8 7R,?0 75.52 77.73 3R.R 3A.IR I8.IR 38.18 IR.1 IR.18 3R.1R 3A.IR 7001.7% WOMEIL - - - 7.94 43.9 4A.4A 5A.5 R4.Rf 117.90 11,77 1,.50 122.79 177.79 1777.9 177.79 177.79 177.79 177.79 4012.41 ALFALFA MAY 2.99 2.99 2.98 3.10 7.nn 4.34 4.18 4.90 5.79 5.5A 4.01 A.A 7.94 7.97 7.97 797 7.97 7.97 7.97 275.03 IEN MATTER t0.1 10.1R 10.R f1.4 9.Ró 9.77 A.R3 A.31 4,73 - - - - - - - - - 77.02 mAilE SilEAVF - - - 3.82 R.A9 25.7R 31.04 37.4A 4A.AA AR.Rt 60.R4 A1.35 A5.74 45.44 A5.44 45.44 AN44 A5.44 A5,44 7173,A PASIIK 0,95 0,95 0.95 0.95 1.1 N .31 3.45 3.57 5,07 5.75 A.0 A.30 A.30 A.30 A.30 4,30 A.30 4,30 A.30 713.A9 UINYARD 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.45 4.51 4.75 5.84 5.A5 .43 7.1% 7.71 7.92 7.92 7.92 7.92 7.97 7.92 7.97 7.92 ?89.55 (RCOARD 0.49 0,49 0,49 0.49 0.50 0.60 0,74 0.73 0,RR 1.71 1.74 1.74 t.74 1.74 1.74 1.74 1.74 1.74 1,74 4.R7 Total ith Projert Rønøfit 1534.19 1714.07 1178.39 1253.77 1323,70 1350.A3 1371.37 IAIA.71 1879,77 22PA.31 ?418,10 7444.40 74n.79 3200.09 3144.30 3141.73 3157.71 3155.51 3159.90 108757.93 IWREMENTAL REWFITR Intal inr,ewtel P.raøflts 1A.R7 13.05 11. 9 35.95 94.9A 75.44 372.bA 531.14 737,87 1177.07 1314.M8 503.70 1449.37 1974.53 1R90,3 1R90.1 1R9R.AA 1R97.90 1R99.42 589RR.07 a*suz3w sag8888saft*888383z3zz3gør3sge83885-338 3Z831. 33.:38tze3egniram395-33396888"Ones388888e338SE 38n33g3ncz 333sagen3-- 3388832838*980 33sgneto3wGa8833a8a389938630 aeageaga .. exf===asa assasas setsa.ne nnam ags&».a an as ses. .sa ess sas ssa sea .... DesR.mu ...aa s* Ri m 9898 8888.63Ra..6 .4269..98. 699.s 6ss .9sa 8ese =.. ••. •... ....... .s.... ...4.8 66'08M U'lu vi'utz Pt i Ut'lto t'LM #'*,b tu'bt örnt Ivm ge%'t kotmt 401£44 to'mo, Tyllu 4'bM (' % '6k cr'oy Ib 'by% Itl kv6lm W%¥ "U9w U'b sIWj IvfMNL jefl ;1b03 WILM.lMJN n .- ..... . ..... - UU'.u U'LI .U'.. VU. .9'... .t'..t U.'.tt WI'.Y UU'LUV UU'. 6.. .J L..I.S*.U. IU'lkE ¿'06 4t'6(9'64'y LtWt «¿•99 (('996 (('9U6 tI'99 ('itb (('1U65 96 S ItLL «kC'6w (L'Wt8 L8'aLt 90'g¥ LL'%Y UY'(%Y VY'L (U'L4% n'åsMVU 'n 18J63 - aUJ au@ MibU IMIIbL ZLIIM CLIM LV'Två ath'te-Kt 4 MUl CL'Uqh tt'Uva t6t¥ - p» tt. t'dö CL'två Ibkv ICL¥ cm-ko tt'96# VI'6 IM UUl b'LY '6 WI'CAV qv'cés 40161, « Yr' al t 6 öml0m 18 -åu 1M3 ~1 åhlinxl ÖVShtk ÖVbwI Wl' 61.SLI 61.5a tu,va tv,va ~'9 IållY. I91CYL brobl OCKL I'lYn uhlm9 yr'l 4n'%I ml8'; IvmTvl Y tvId m i%1 £vw%I TIG yvm0 svåå 10 löl1 IWI01 it'bIb V'tL W'IWI W'ta WtLt 0CM*I bib6t IL'W LQ'V U'LUL 16'1 9 v'4lh (t' t V 6t 01 '6Y 611,4 t4'14 ky'lgg 16'W%e 6a'lff V'I40 t VC I t 'luv6 klI'I 1VM 'Vly *uJ imudd 'IMA (IVI b'Olc6aM alm blyf W åmyn åmlt ffn lywo Göly'. al%b 6u1i 611 tU 6ö' h mi bel8% åmly 6f'l% ÖNIV5 6818% GulV 6u'ff 6o'm ÖN'¥ 6M'nM 689lm flu, blli åf . M t M WI4U14 åh'tV 11'UI I,'QSS Ii'U lkUs PLUS liUt ('1; 1I'0i i'i 'Vlm Wt'ILI 0U'1¢I 91'814 tM'M; CLN'WW W' vLt tu'lt v6'g6 ålbil 46Ui, v l'is Y tC it 1'66 163 1W3f WUa .............. .............................................. ................................................................. .................................................... -.................... b UIUL TOMAM9tl5( tu IIRL.tMI våt; um.kö&B L461 (tål 164 otm; öm; Wmå; omt mlt va4 t U tutm k Mm m$ 1 1 ~ (6 & #Lk 9., 41(6 StLO ................................................................................ ....... ................................................................ ................................................... .............. 14U4 NlU1W1TJM 111191fifJ-91W19I 91I*WUU- iALmITA.-ruiu fttM PfIOWIf tfif rOfi MIA Ilr Killinnel 1975 1976 9977 197 1979 1900 191 197 INI 1"94 I9M 1994 n? 17 199 99 1990 1991 1992 9911994-199 1994 1997.2011 2091 711-1014 TIym rm CmIs • • • 6.13 5.71 65.72 91.41 91.57 12.9% 73A.44 21.91 90.52 31.47 117.11 ,117.41 117.13 117.11 117.91 117.11 117.R1 117.01 317.13 317.93 117.91 9ttm.79 FfRIltIN (01t • • • • - 17.rf 21.17 11.10 59.17 94.9 114.71 151.51 704.41 79.01 24.59 77.50 1110. 21. 11.KR 214.m 714.M 714.91 714.m 234.M 7015.00 It 0 N CaII - - - 14.00 57.00 81.00 121.00 79.00 . 4 . MA. 204.00 704.00 wA.00 70A.00 MA.00 704,00 70A.m0 70å.80 704.00 4.M0 1946.00 6f,00 1940.00 204.00 10444.44 I STWIII ffi .00 403.00 634.0 779,00 7M4.70 400.00 304.00 219.00 I1.00 139.00 • . • . • • • . • - 411.70 Intil tnrental (N0s 5..00 461.00 654.00 R9.13 849.41 U4.51 SV.0 497.82 11,77 #5.77 OA.AA AMa.04 7M7.07 741,94 7.47 71.1 754.49 7.94 75.40 15.70 2492.70 754.70 2492.70 75.70 11R0.99 I1~41141 ~f#Ilq ta!e Incrntal sn G I I 9A.7 11.05 II.9 XI.9 94.94 27%.44 11.64 5.1.14 711907 t177.07 IXI4J 950.70 9AA9.17 194.M 10.73 I990.1n I9m.AA 1A97.90 R99.42 9999.47 999.47 1199.47 9999.47 199.4? 1^90.67 Yn1al Incrmntal Mt enfits -.1.13 -59.95 -447.11 .?R1.19 -54.45 -291.07 -144.74 11.17 999.10 75.15 7.11.9 95.A7 947.15 1199.47 1t19.1 91.1% 1144.17 1147.05 1944.02 1140.77 -591.7 1148.7n .9 1140.72 77147.01 .684UG. t444* Gsatss .asa a s sa...A as . ana., sna n 4. ... ann.a . =*=*==5 *&s5e53 ~.6. &ucna.. 38888. a ...... aaa saa asa 8 8maaa Internal Rts ni I 1ttn t ni 9 mwas N.-0aitIK 14.15! * 8 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART National Level Ministr of Agriculture and Food Industr General Economic Directorate for Land Reclamation and Agricultural Construction /1 (DGEIFCA) Deputy Minister Deputy General Directorj Technical and onstruction Planning, Financing Operation and Maintenance Investments Directorate Directorate and Procurement Advisory Directorate /1 One of the four Directorates which comprise the Ministry for Agriculture and Food Industry (HAFI) District Level Director Personnel Enterprise for Execution and Exploitation FPla-nnin-g Office jof Land Reclamation Works /2 1Offie (IEELIP) Deputy Directors w{n Investment Operation and SupplyConstruction Construction Office Maintenance Service Service Equipment "Systems" Construction Sites /2 Each of the 41 Districts has a complex organization IKELIF responsible for construction, surveying, operation and maintenance and control of investments. Administratively, the IEELIF reports to the Director General for Agricultural Affairs (DCAFI) in each District. Professional or technical issues are referred to DCIFCA, Bucharest. -126 - ANEX 5 ROMANIA Table 2 IALOMITA-CALMATUI IRRIGATION PROJECT (LOAN 1368-RO) PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT Specialists Providing Technical Assistance in the Project Area /1 University Middle Graduate Level Level Total Agronomy 681 567 1,248 Horticulture 179 157 336 Vet. Medicine and Animal Husbandry 462 445 907 Mechanical Eng. 181 246 427 Economics 117 1,138 1,255 Other 92 638 730 Total 1,712 3,191 4,903 /1 Does not include research or university staff. Talmita-a<ältuir atin Project (136840) (~Sr0ON RMr . IUeN RATDC rkte of 1/ Omupliae Ep- Insti- 9uper- Eptpertise of Type Die- Anti- With Maae- Procue Ferfönee ected Rate tution vision Mission of b~ue- Eåtimted cipated loan Project ment ment of 0 u- Report- Bn of Bil- Report Mebrs Status Thd Probs amnt Csta O letion ~nemnts Fin~nes Perföane og tata ir fit Retun di 04/78 Igineer 1 1 N/d/ N/R WR N/R /R N/R N/R N/R N.R N/R N/R NIR N/R 04/79 Eigineer Agriculturalist 1 1, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 08/79 Ekineer 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Agriculturaligt Fomist(YP) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 08/80 Eginmer 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 05/81 figineer Agriculturalist 1 2 - 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 06/82 Ehginer En st 2 3 p 1 1 3 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 12/82 fhgineer lgineer 2 2 F 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 07/83 E~ineer Ehginner 2 1 p 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 02/84 igineer Fkonmist 1 2 m,j 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 04/84 PCR Mission EhgIneer p Econimåst agra mt (parttme) 1/ Problems: F- iawcial; W Ma ~aeet; ' ~ ilal; Pm Political; On Odler !/ It Eported 鰓 扭 仁 IIIRD 12267(PCR) juw 19e4 SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF ROMANJA IALOMITA-CALMÅTUI IRRIGATION PROJECT ra Omb 7, -SPE lc spilu 25 ez pof~ 6c p 19 d- .1m .031. el ch~ 9~ de Sus 'SPE 24 t7 I 1% 01 vala 14 J:t> ,:3 -15PE4 40 104 c ExlwIN DAM 41 SPE j /11, göm ~ Cr DOUNDARIES LAM Dan CONTOURS IN WIETENS 0 NAIN PUMPING STATION$ I SPA-SRPA) ROAOS PRESSLIRF PUMPING STATIONS ( l- 1121 RJULROADS gum ORAINAGC P~ IYG ST.AT9ONS ISPEI VI I.LAGES, IRRIGATION ~ EM ~ET BOUNDARIES, DRAINAGE SYSTEM RrVERS AREA TO DE PROVIDED WITH SURFACE ~ES DRAINAGE 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 AREA TO SE PROVIDED WITH TILE DRAJ~E KILOMETERS SALINE AIREA TO BE RECLAIMED M BE PROVIDED W1TH TBILE DRAfNAGE