Document of t X,

The World Bank

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Repovt No. 3294-RO

STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT

CARACAL-TITU IRRIGATION PROJECT

ROMANIA

April 1, 1981

Regional Projects DepartmentEurope, Middle East and North AfricaAgriculture III

This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance oftheir official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

CURRENCY EQUIVALENT

Currency Unit: Leu (plural lei)1. Official RateLei 4.47 = US$1.00Leu 1.00 = US$0.22

2. Tourist RateLei 12.00 US$1.00Leu 1.00 US$0.08

3. Conversion Rate for Traded GoodsLei 15.00 = US$1.00

Leu 1.00 = US$0.07

The Official Exchange Rate of lei 4.47 per US$1 is used only for accountingpurposes. The rate used for tourist transactions is lei 12 per US$1.Beginning in January 1981, a trading rate of lei 15 per US$1 will be usedto convert the prices of all traded goods; this rate is considered repre-sentative of the average cost of convertible foreign exchange.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

1 millimeter (mm) = 0.0394 inch (in)1 centimeter (cm) = 0.3937 inch (in)1 meter (m) = 3.2808 feet (ft)

1 kilometer (km) = 0.6214 mile (mi)1 square kilometer (km2) = 0.3861 square mile (mi2)1 liter (1) = 0.2642 gallon (gal)1 liter per second (1/sec) = 0.0353 cubic foot per second (ft3/sec)1 cubic meter per second (m3/sec) = 35.3147 cubic feet per second (ft3/sec)1 atmosphere (at) = 14.2239 pounds per square inch (psi)1 kilowatt (kw) = 1.3410 horsepower (hp)I kilogram (kg) = 2.2046 pounds (lb)1 metric ton (ton) = 2,204.6225 pounds (lb)

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ABSL Above Baltic Sea LevelBAFI Bank for Agriculture and Food IndustryCAP Agricultural Production CooperativeDELIF Directorate for Exploitation of Land Reclamation WorksDGEIFCA Economic General Directorate for Land Reclamation and Agricultural

Construction, also called DIFCAIAS State Agricultural EnterpriseICA Intercooperative Economic AssociationICB International Competitive BiddingIELIF Enterprise for Exploitation of Land Reclamation WorksISPIF Institute for Land Reclamation Studies and DesignMAFI Ministry of Agriculture and Food IndustrySMA Station for Agricultural MachineryTCIF Construction Trust for Land Reclamation WorksUAC Unified Agro-industrial Council

ROMANIAN FISCAL YEAR

January 1 to December 31

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYAPPRAISAL OF

CARACAL-TITU IRRIGATION PROJECT

ROMANIA

Table of Contents Page No.

I. THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR ................................ 1

A. Natural Resources ................................ 1B. Structure, Role and Performance of Agriculture

Sector ......................................... 1C. Agricultural Development Issues .................. 3D. Development Policy and Planning Strategy ......... 4E. Development in the Irrigation Sub-sector ......... 5F. Bank Strategy and Role in Agriculture .... ........ 6

II. THE PROJECT AREA AND AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS ....... 7

A. The Project Area ................................. 7I. Location .................................... 72. Topography and Drainage ..................... 83. Climate ..................................... 94. Soils ....................................... 95. Land Classification ......................... 106. Water Resources ............................. 107. Population .................................. 108. Communications, Water Supply and

Electricity ............................... 11B. Agricultural Organizations ....................... 12

9. Agricultural Production Cooperatives andState Agricultural Enterprises .... ........ 12

10. Unified Agro-Industrial Councils andAgricultural Mechanization Stations ....... 12

III. PRESENT AND FUTURE LAND USE AND AGRICULTURALPRODUCTION .......................................... 13

A. Land Use ......................................... 131. Cropping Pattern ............................ 142. Crop Yields ................................. 173. Livestock ................................... 19

B. Agricultural Inputs .............. .. .............. 194. Mechanization ............................... 195. Labor ....................................... 206. Seeds ....................................... 207. Fertilizer .................................. 20

This report is based on the findings of an appraisal mission to Romania inOctober 1980, consisting of Messrs. Petros Aklilu, Roderic Buller, JagdishSrivastava and Frederick Wright.

This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance oftheir official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.

Table of Contents (Continued) Page No.

8. Plant Protection ............................ 219. Research .................................... 2110. Extension and Training ...................... 2211. Agricultural Credit ......................... 23

C. Marketing and Processing Facilities ...... .. ...... 2412. Marketing Channel ........................... 2413. Processing and Storage Facilities .... ....... 25

IV. THE PROJECT ........................................... 27

A. Objectives ....................................... 27B. Detailed Features ................................ 27C. Water Requirements, Availability, Quality and

Water Rights ................................... 281. Water Requirements .......................... 282. Water Availability .......................... 293. Water Quality ............................... 304. Water Rights ................................ 30

D. Status of Engineering ............................ 31E. Cost Estimates ................................... 31F. Financing Plan ................................... 32G. Procurement ...................................... 33H. Disbursements .................................... 34I. Implementation Schedule .......................... 34J. Investment Financing ............................. 35K. Cost Recovery .................................... 35L. Role of Women .................................... 36M. Environment and Health ........................... 37

V. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION .............................. ,.37

A. The Borrower ..................................... 37B. Implementing Agencies ............................ 38C. Operation and Maintenance and Supervision of

Construction ................................... 38D. Accounts and Audit ............................... 39E. Project Monitoring and Completion Report ......... 39

1. Project Monitoring and Key ProjectIndicators ................................ 39

2. Project Completion Report ................... 40

VI. BENEFITS, JUSTIFICATION AND RISKS ..................... 40

A. Project Benefits ................................. 40B. Prices and Markets ............................... 42C. Main Benefits and Beneficiaries .................. 43D. Economic Analysis ................................ 44E. Sensitivity Analysis and Risks ................... 46

VII. RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................... 47

- 111 -

Table of Contents (Continued)

ANNEXES

Annex No. Table No.

1 1 Climatological Data-Caracal2 Climatological Data-Titu

2 - Project Description

3 1 Estimated Water Requirement-Caracal2 Estimated Water Requirement-Titu

4 1 Cost Estimate-Caracal2 Cost Estimate-Titu

5 - Financing Plan

6 _ List of Equipment and Material to be ProcuredFollowing International Competitive Bidding

7 - Estimated Schedule of Disbursements

8 1 Estimated Schedule of Expenditure-Caracal2 Estimated Schedule of Expenditure-Titu

9 1 Areas Requiring Improvements of Existing Irrigationand Drainage Works - Without Project-Caracal

2 Areas Requiring Irrigation and Drainage Works -Without Project-Caracal

3 Areas Requiring Irrigation Without Other WorksPresent and Future - Without Project-Caracal

4 Areas Requiring Irrigation and Sandy SoilReclamation Works - Without Project-Caracal

5 Areas Requiring Irrigation, Drainage and OtherWorks - With Project-Caracal

6 Areas Requiring Irrigation and Sandy SoilReclamation Works - With Project

7 Areas Requiring Improvements of Existing Irrigationand Drainage Works - Without Project-Titu

8 Areas Requiring Irrigation, Open Drainage and TileDrainage Works - Without Project-Titu

9 Areas Requiring Irrigation and Open Drainage Works -

Without Project-Titu10 Areas Requiring Irrigation Without Other Works -

Without Project-Titu11 Areas Requiring Irrigation, Drainage and ]:mprovement

Works - With Project-Titu

- iv -

Table of Contents (Continued

10 - Annual Maintenance and Operation Costs andReplacement Costs

11 - Financial and Economic Input Prices

12 - Financial and Economic Output Prices

13 1 Economic Cash Flow-Caracal2 Economic Cash Flow-Titu3 Economic Cash Flow-Caracal-Titu

14 - Selected Documents and Data Available in the ProjectImplementation File

CHARTS

1. Implementation Schedule2. Organization of BAFI3. Organization of Project Implementation and Related Agencies

MAPS

Caracal - IBRD 15407Titu - IBRD 15408

APPRAISAL OF

CARACAL-TITU IRRIGATION PROJECT

ROMANIA

I. THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR

A. Natural Resources

1.01 Romania has a total land area of 23.8 million ha of which 14.9million ha is suitable for agriculture. Of the total agricultural land,65.8% is arable, 20.1% pastures, 9.4% meadowland and 4.7% vineyards andorchards. Romania can be divided into three agroclimatic zones based ontopography, soils, and other natural conditions influencing agriculturaldevelopment priorities and performance. Percentage distribution of agri-cultural land by zone is shown below.

Percent of Total

Arable Pasture & Meadowland

Zone

The Plains 53 18The Foothills 28 32The Mountain and Tableland 19 50

Total 100 100

The Plains Zone is endowed with fertile soils, located in the Western,Southern and Eastern parts of Romania. In 1980, about 3.0 million ha ofland in Romania is under irrigation, of which 82% is located in the PlainsZone. The Danube river, which forms Romania's southern boundary is theprimary source of irrigation water in the southern part of this zone. TheFoothills Zone is situated to the north of the Plains Zone and is charac-terized by shallow less productive soils. Only 18% of the total irrigatedland in Romania is located in the Foothills Zone and is irrigated by thetributaries of the Danube. The Mountain and Tableland Zone covers theNorthern and Central Districts and is predominantly pasture and meadowland.

B. Structure, Role and Performance of Agriculture Sector

1.02 Structure: Agricultural production in Romania is organized intoState farms (IASs), Agricultural Production Cooperatives (CAPs) and Indi-vidual plots. CAPs hold 60% of agricultural land, while IASs own 30% andindividuals 10%. The present land tenure has evolved since the 1950's and1960's when Government took major steps to nationalize large scale farmsand collectivize small individual holdings. Currently about 3,400 CAPs,400 IASs and numerous individual farm units carry out farming operations

2

with the assistance of about 700 Stations for Agricultural Mechanization(SMAs). In February 1979, Government announced plans for the creation ofabout 700 umbrella organizations known as Unified Agro-Industrial Councilscomprising of IASs, CAPs and SMAs.

1.03 Role; Despite its declining share in the national income (15% in1979 compared to 33% in 1960), agriculture continues to play an importantrole in the Romanian economy. In 1979 the share of agriculture in foreignexchange earnings was about 12% compared to 36% in 1960. Agricultural haspotential for output growth to generate additional foreign exchange earn-ings, while at the same time meeting the growing demand for increasedquantity of better quality agricultural products. The proposed projectwould enhance these two objectives.

1.04 In the 1980's agriculture would be expected to continue to provideadditional labor for the industrial and services sectors if the 1981-85plan targets for industrial and other non agricultural growth are to bemet. In 1960, about 65% of the active labor force was employed in agri-culture compared to 30% in 1980. This transfer of labor force was madepossible by gradual mechanization of the agricultural sector. However, therate of mechanization has been lagging far behind the rate of labor out-flow. Consequently, labor shortage is observed particularly during harvest.

1.05 Performance: Over the last two decades, Government's developmentpriority has been the growth of the industrial sector. This decision meanta restriction on the flow of investible resources, including foreignexchange, to the agricultural sector. Moreover, Government's deliberatepolicy on the development of agriculture has been to channel capital andhuman investments primarily into the State sector rather than into theCooperative sector. The rationale for putting initial emphasis on the IASswas twofold. First, the IASs tend to be located on the more fertile soils,and with the larger share of irrigated land which have shown greater growthpotential. Secondly, Government's determination to build a strong State-based socialist economy was a firm political resolution. Consequently, theIASs experienced faster rates of growth and productivity than the CAPs. Itshould be noted however, that compared to West European and U.S. agricul-tures, even the IASs are far behind in crop yields. Despite the inadequateavailability of inputs and other services and erratic climate, Romanianagriculture over the last four, 5-year plans (1960-1980) has attainedrespectable annual growth rates. In the current Five Year Plan (1976-1980)agriculture has grown at a rate of 5% per annum. Government's step toreorganize the agricultural sector in 1979 (para. 1.2) is part of an effortto streamline agricultural operations and to promote efficient utilizationof land, delivery of inputs and allocation of services. Government's newinitiative, which is now fully operational, is indicative of its recogni-tion that to achieve higher and faster agricultural growth, it must promotepartnership among State, Cooperative and individual production sectors.

- 3 -

C. Agricultural Development Issues

1.06 As Romania enters the decade of the eighties, the challenges foragricultural development are more complex compared to those of the last twodecades. This is particularly true for the irrigation sector.

1.07 The guidelines for the 1981-85 plan call for a 23% expansion (0.7million hectares) in the area under irrigation. Large scale irrigationprojects have hitherto focused on the Danube Plains, and the Danube Riverhas been the source of virtually all for water irrigation to date. As thefull irrigation development potential in the Danube Plains is now beingrealized, the tributaries of the Danube become the major focus of futureirrigation projects. Both the proposed project and the Bucsani-Buzau-Siret-Prut (BBSP) Irrigation Project for which a $75 million Bank loan wasapproved by the Executive Directors on December 23, 1980, would use tribu-taries as the primary water source for irrigation. Unlike the Danubewaters which are adequate to meet the claims for navigation, irrigationwater supply, and power, irrigation water from the tributaries have tocompete with power generation and domestic water supply and to a lesserextent with navigation, and careful basin planning to generate optimalutilization of the water resources is called for in future investmentdecisions.

1.08 Low productivity is also a major issue in Romanian agriculture.The rationing of chemical fertilizers between domestic requirements andexport targets has resulted in sub-optimal application of fertilizers.Despite the priority given to the irrigated areas, the rates of fertilizerapplication are well below requirements. While inadequacy of fertilizer isnot the only variable input for low crop yields, it is nevertheless themost critical input. With the completion of the new fertilizer plantscurrently under construction, Government expects to be able to meet exporttargets and satisfy domestic requirements.

1.09 Low intensity of mechanization and shortage of seasonal laborare other major factors for low productivity. The rate of agriculturalmechanization particularly in the cooperative sector has not kept up tocompensate for the rate of labor migration into the industrial and service

sectors. The rate of agricultural mechanization in the 1980's may beaffected by the availability of fuel, but Government strategy currentlyaims to increase farm mechanization. If agriculture continues to releaselabor to the expanding industrial and service sectors without concomitantexpansion of machinery services, the performance of agriculture is likelyto worsen. The proposed project would ensure adequate provision of agri-culture machinery in the project area.

1.10 The present cropping pattern in the different zones of Romaniarequire re-examination. The cropping mix, particularly in the Plains canbe improved to generate greater return to the investment particularly inthe irrigated areas. The Bank has been emphasizing the value of greater

specialization in crop production. It has recommended, for example,increasing substantially the area under maize in the Danube Plains, whileshifting wheat and other rainfed grain production to the foothills andmountain zones. The selection of cropping pattern in any region shouldtake into consideration the following factors: soil suitability, agronomicrotation requirements, water availability, raw material requirements forexisting and future processing plants and Government's decision forregional self-sufficiency for selected crops to minimize transport costs.However greater specialization has taken place under Bank financed projectsand would continue under the proposed project.

D. Development Policy and Planning Strategy

1.11 Romania is now on the threshold of the Sixth Five Year Plan for1981-1985. The first draft was issued in 1978, however, subsequent devel-opments in the Romanian economy in particular and the world economy atlarge dictated a more prudent set of output targets. The party Congressreviewed the draft Plan and made significant changes in view of: (a)the increasing costs of energy in the foreseeable future; and (b) non-fulfillment of planned targets during 1976-1980, especially in agriculture,due to inadequate equipment, and construction materials. Nevertheless theplanning strategy adheres to the previous Plan's (1975-1980) objectivesof: (a) raising land and labor productivity; (b) improving the diet of thepopulation by intensifying production of high value crops, meat, and dairyproducts; (c) expanding surplus production for export; (d) introduction ofcapital intensive technologies to release labor for non-farm employment;and (e) expanding irrigation and drainage facilities to minimize theeffects of weather failures. Specifically, planned investments for theagricultural sector for the period 1981-1985 include;

(a) investment of Lei 150 billion (US$10.0 billion) which represents12.7% of the total planned investment in the economy;

(b) land reclamation in the Danube delta and in the Foothills Zone foran area of about 154,000 ha, bringing the total arable land toabout 10 million ha;

(c) expansion of irrigation facilities from 3.0 million ha in 1980 toabout 3.7 million ha by 1985;

(d) provision of drainage facilities for an additional 0.8 million haand soil erosion control works to protect an additional 1.0 mil-lion ha;

(e) adding 140,000 (predominantly 80 H.P.) tractor units, 40,000self-propelled harvester units, and other farm machinery andequipment;

- 5 -

(f) raising the application rate of fertilizer (active substance) from120 kg per ha in 1980 to about 300 kg per ha in 1985 with fullcapacity operation of the new fertilizer factories;

(g) adoption of high quality seeds and adequate pesticide distribu-tion; and

(h) improvement of existing breeds of livestock and development of newones, for which 25% of planned investments in the agriculturalsector would be allocated.

1.12 The investment share of agriculture in total investment for theeconomy has increased slightly from 11.4% to 12.7% in current prices. Theannual growth rate for agriculture which is set at 4% per annum, comparedto 5-7.5% per annum for the 1976-1980 plan, is attainable. The fertilizerapplication rate has been adjusted downwards considerably to about 300 kgper ha by 1985, compared to 280 kg per ha previously planned by 1980. Theplanned rate of application, though lower than agronomic requirements, isfeasible given the desired distribution between exports and domestic use.

E. Development in the Irrigation Sub-sector

1.13 One of the principal bottlenecks of Romanian agriculture is theerratic rainfall. Of the total arable land of 9.8 million ha about 5 mil-lion ha are suitables for irrigation. In 1960, Romania had only 200,000 haof irrigated land. Government's commitment to exploit the land and waterresources is demonstrated by the rapid expansion of irrigated agriculture.In 1980 about 3.0 million ha were irrigated including small and inefficientlocal schemes. No reliable data is available to measure the efficiency ofwater use on these fragmented small schemes. However on the large schemesup to 80% irrigation efficiency has been attained. Large irrigationschemes have so far been confined to the Danube Plains where average annualrainfall is about 400 mm and varies widely from year to year. This rapidexpansion has been possible through pumping schemes from the Danube.Optimum utilization of water from the tributaries requires storage, aseries of multipurpose dams are being constructed. These storage damswhich are planned for power generation would also serve to meet irrigationrequirements.

1.14 The development approach adopted in the irrigation subsectorhitherto gave priority to provision of irrigation networks. Drainage workswere given secondary priority. Consequently, delays in farming operationsdue to excess surface water and crop losses due to a high water table havebeen substantial. The problem becomes vividly evident in spring when highsnow accumulation on the land, and snow melts augmented by rainfall, createexcess surface water causing considerable loss to autumn crops. Moreover,as a result of water logging, spring crops cannot be sown on time. The

- 6 -

Government has, therefore, decided that future development projects wouldgive first priority to removal of excess water through drainage facilities,and irrigation would be extended only when these anti-water loggingmeasures have been adopted. Drainage is also being extended to existingirrigation schemes. All previous Bank financed projects have incorporatedadequate drainage facilities.

1.15 The Government of Romania is preparing long term plans forexploiting the multipurpose potential of all its rivers, which will beimplemented in successive five year plans. The major rivers included inthe 1981-85 irrigation program are the Olt and the Arges in south-centralRomania, and the Mostistea, the Ialomita, the Buzau, and the Siret in thesouth-eastern region. The Olt and the Arges rivers basins are being devel-oped individually, through construction of multipurpose dams; whereas, theremaining rivers are proposed to be interconnected through a carrier canalemanating from the Siret, flowing across the Baragan Plain and terminatingat the Mostistea. A series of multipurpose dams are proposed in the headwaters of all these rivers, which would generate power and meet the irriga-tion and other needs of the Baragan Plain and its adjoining areas. Duringperiods of short supply in the river flows, generating stations, whichwould be reversible, would pump water from the Danube to meet irrigationrequirements. The identification and preparation of these projects whichare a part of a long term multipurpose development program, spread over anumber of river basins would require special analytical skills. The Bankhas proposed and Government has accepted an Irrigation Subsector Review inthe Spring of 1981 to assess the suitability of the program, its priori-ties, cost allocations between various purposes, and, if possible, todevise a new approach to the program through sector lending.

F. Bank Strategy and Role in Agriculture

1.16 The Bank's strategy is based on promoting efficient agriculturaldevelopment while at the same time transferring needed convertible foreignexchange to Romania and assisting with the introduction of improved produc-tion technology. In view of lower productivity in agriculture as comparedto other sectors of the economy, the Bank's lending program gives consider-able emphasis to the agricultural sector, while remaining in harmony withGovernment's plans for agricultural development. The Bank's lendingstrategy is based on the findings of various reports, including the Agri-cultural Sector Survey of October 1976 (Report No. 953a-RO), the BasicEconomic Report dated March 1978 (Report No. 1601-RO), Country EconomicMemorandum dated August 1980 (Report No. 2757-RO), a number of recentappraisal reports of 1979 and 1980.

1.17 The proposed loan would bring the Bank's total lending to Romaniato US$1,862.6 million for 30 projects. Of the 29 loans already approved,fourteen, totalling US$896.5 million, have been in agriculture. Of these

six are irrigation projects, one irrigation and agricultural developmentproject, one agricultural credit project, one agricultural component of aflood recovery project, two pig production and processing projects, onepoultry project, one orchards project and one cattle project. The agricul-

tural projects are supervised regularly a year and are progressing satis-factorily with no major problems. The first irrigation project (Giurgiu-Razmiresti, Loan 1082-RO) has been satisfactorily completed with costunderrun and higher yields growing at a faster rate than the appraisalestimates. A Project Completion Report has been issued; and an AuditReport by the Operations Evaluation Department is under preparation.

1.18 The Bank has made substantial contribution to improve the tech-nical quality of agricultural projects in Romania. In irrigation, the Bankhas set in motion the concept of preparation of alternative designs andselection of the least cost alternatives. The Bank has also convinced theRomanian designers and planners to postpone projects based on provisionalsources of water supply which were not technically the optimum solution,until such time as the waters from the northern tributaries, other than theDanube, have been developed for providing permanent water resources forirrigating these areas. Suggestions given by Bank staff have also improvedthe design of canals in loess soils, design of drainage works, maintenance,and soil reclamation. The Bank's dialogue with the Romanian authoritieshas led to an important conceptual change in the projects, i.e. inclusionof private plots allotted to members of Cooperatives, in the irrigatedareas. This mutual understanding is also reflected in the design of proj-ects in the livestock and horticulture subsectors, where technical innova-tions and institutional development have become the principal focus of Banklending.

II. THE PROJECT AREA AND AGRICULTURAL ORGANIZATIONS

A. The Project Area

Location

2.01 Caracal. The subproject area, covering 87,630 ha of gross agri-cultural land, of which 86,236 ha is net and 1,394 ha of existing projectworks, is located in the Plains zone in the Olt and Dolj Districts. It iscrossed by the 450 latitude north. The town of Caracal, which is sit-uated in the heart of the project area, is about 187 km west of Bucharest.The area lies on the west (right) bank of the Olt river, and it is the lastremaining tract of land to complete the network of irrigation systems whichare planned for the right bank for irrigation from the Olt. The Oltetriver, one of the Olt's main tributaries, establishes the project'snorthern boundary as does the Bucsani-Cioroiu irrigation system (recentlyfinanced by the Bank as part of BBSP Irrigation Project). The Olt river

- 8 -

is on the eastern border. Existing irrigation schemes form the remainingborders; namely, Iancu Jianu and Craiova systems to the west and SadovaCorabia and Terasa Corabia to the south. A small portion of the StoenestiVisina irrigation scheme touches on the southeastern corner of the sub-project area.

2.02 Titu. The subproject area, covering 42,108 ha of gross agricul-tural land of which 41,698 ha net and 410 ha of existing project works islocated in the Arges river basin of the Plains zone lies on both banks ofthe Arges river which flows in a southeasterly direction towards theDanube, passing close to the capital of Bucharest. The area lies between440 and 450 latitude north, within the Districts of Dimbovita andIlfov. The southern end of the subproject site is about 23 km northwest ofBucharest. It is bordered by the Dimbovita river to the north-east, theCiorogirla river to the south-east and the Neajlov river to the south-west.

Topography and Drainage

2.03 Caracal. Three topographical features characterize the subprojectarea, namely: (i) a relatively narrow flood plain along the Olt, Oltet andTeslui rivers approximately 80m ABSL 1/; (ii) adjoining terrace formationsbetween lOOm and 120m elevation; and (iii) an extensive flat plain orplateau from between 120m to 130m in elevation, referred to locally as theRotunda plain. The southwestern portion of this plain is unique in that itconsists of sandy dunes and interdunes, which have been partially stabil-ized by wind breaks of tree plantings. This area requires special reclama-tion measures. The subproject area is transversed from west to east bynumerous streams and associated valleys leading in the direction of the Oltriver and its tributaries. The largest year round flowing stream is theTeslui, located in the northern part of the project area. Numerous floodcontrol and storage dams, mostly of rudimentary construction, are found inthe valleys. In three of the larger valleys in the southern portion of thearea there are a number of small dams built over a decade ago. Some areantiquated and inadequate to mitigate frequent floods. Reconstruction isrequired. Ground water flow is from west to east and from north to south.In general, ground water is found within 5m in the flood plains and lowterraces and between 5m and lm in the high terraces and plateau. About 9%of the project area displays a persistent high water table requiring tiledrainage. Surface drainage is sufficiently poor in approximately 44% ofthe area, because of an impervious layer in the B horizon of the soilprofile, to necessitate either new open drainage works or improvement ofexisting ones as well as deep-plowing, sub-soiling and soil-chiselling insome instances.

2.04 Titu. The prevailing relief form is the flood plain, formed bythe major river beds of the Arges, Ciorogirla and Sabar rivers and theirtributaries, exhibiting an almost continuous slope from the north-west tothe south-east (171m - 108m, ABSL). To a lesser degree, alluvial terraces

1/ Above Baltic Sea level.

- 9 -

and transitional zones from higher plains to the predominant flood plainoccur. Another distinguishing topographical feature is the presence ofnumerous depressions formed by dead river beds and old valleys where wateraccumulates and require considerable reclamation works. t)urface waterrunoff is from north-west to south-east. Depth of ground water varies

from Om to lm in about 8% of the area, lm to 3m in 69%, from 3m to 5m in18%, and over 5m in 5% of the project area. Although the soils are deep,surface drainage is deficient in much of the area because of poor soilpermeability; and new open drainage works would be required on approx-imately 86% of the area and tile drainage on 8%.

2.05 Climate. The climatological data for the meteorological stationsof Caracal, Bucharest-Filaret and Titu, which are in the project area, aregiven in Annex 1 Tables T-l and T-2. The climate is typically continentalwith cold winters and hot summers. Average annual temperature is l0.50C.During the cropping period for summer crops, from April through October,the highest and lowest mean monthly temperatures of 22.70C and 10.90Cocur in July and October, respectively. First frost usually occurs in lateSeptember, while the last frost may occur up to late April. The meanannual rainfall is 573mm; however, it is highly variable. For example, inthe Caracal subproject area, the highest yearly precipitation of 809mm wasrecorded in 1957 and the lowest, at 335mm in 1958. The rainfall patternduring the cropping season also is highly erratic. During this period,rainfall averages less than 400mm; however, years registering less than 300mm are not uncommon, and periods of drought extending up to 60 days mayoccur. These conditions adversely affect rainfed agricultural production.Irrigation can greatly improve yields of summer grown crops. Althoughwinds are not sufficiently strong to be a constraint to sprinkler irriga-tion, the evapotranspiration in summer is high and cannot be satisfied withthe prevailing rainfall.

2.06 Soils. Deep mollisols (chernozemic), highly regarded throughoutthe world for their productivity, of medium to fine texture formed on loessdeposits cover approximately 86% of the Caracal subproject area. Alluvialsoils formed on alluvial and alluvial-pluvial deposited material consistingof sands, fine sands, silts and clays, cover about 72% of the Titu sub-project area. The remaining soils are reddish-brown podzols and to alesser extent deep sandy soils laid on an eolian relief and gleyic soilslocated in marshy, low areas of old river beds and closed depressions. Ingeneral, the physical properties of a large proportion of the soils neces-sitate some form of open drainage, mostly of a simple design to avoidexcess accumulation of surface water during periods of heavy rainfall.Less than 10% of the soils require tile drainage to lower the water table.The pH of the soil is satisfactory, ranging from a slightly acidic toslightly basic reaction. The chernozems are medium to high in mineralnutrients and although the remainiing soils are less endowed in naturalfertility, they too can be expected to respond very favorably to theapplication of fertilizers. In addition, manuring would be required as areclamation measure on the sandy soils; whereas, the normal soils have anadequate content of organic matter.

- 10 -

2.07 Land Classification. Approximately 70% of the soils are Class Iand II 1/, exhibiting either slight or no limitations for irrigated farm-ing. The remainder are also suitable but with moderate (21%) to severe(6%) limitations under present unimproved conditions. The predominantlimitation governing the soil class differentiation in the project area isdeficient drainage. The greatest requirement is for simple surface drain-age with only about 9% requiring tile drainage. In some instances sub-soiling, deep plowing and chiselling is necessary to improve aeration andwater infiltration. To a much lesser degree, coarse textured soils withhigh permeability, topography of sandy dunes and interdunes and slopegradient are other characteristics which present limitations to irrigatedfarming. Regulation of the intensity and frequency of sprinkler irriga-tion, reshaping of sandy dunes and soil erosion control measures are neces-sary to overcome the above restrictions. The soils in all classes canproduce satisfactory crop yields on a sustained basis once the ameliorativemeasures are implemented.

2.08 Water Resources. The Olt and Arges Rivers, which flow south,from the Romanian central mountains, to the Danube constitute the waterresources within the project area. The Olt drains 2.14 million hectareswhile the Arges drains 0.71 million hectares. River flows are contributedby snowmelt and rainfall excess. The flow is recorded at a number of gaug-ing stations and about 40 years discharge observations are available. Thedry weather river flow of the two rivers is fully utilized; the Olt mainlyfor irrigation and Arges mainly for towns and industrial use. Storageshave been constructed. Additional storages are under construction andplanned for future for optimum multipurpose development, holding the runoffin the wet period for use in dry periods. The available ground water isallocated to the industrial and domestic use, as it does not have largepotential to permit other uses.

2.09 Population. The total rural population in the project area isabout 212,000 of which about 78,000 (37%) constitute the active laborforce. The size of the rural population and distribution of the activelabor force is detailed below:

1/ Modified USDA classification.

- 11 -

RURAL POPULATION IN THE PROJECT AREA

Caracal Titu TOTALMale Female Total/l1 Male Female Total/l Male Female Total

Rural Population 69,904 70,320 140,224 34,622 37,508 72,130 104,526 107,828 212,354Active in Agriculture 19,634 29,329 48,963 11,570 17,262 28,852 31,204 46,591 77,795

Distribution of Active Agric. PopulationAgricultural Production Coops (CAP)

Permanent (15,708) (23,462) ( 39,170)(9,284) (13,869) (23,153)(24,992)( 37,331) ( 62,323)Seasonal ( 3,080) ( 4,600) ( 7,680)(1,827) ( 2,731) ( 4,558)( 4 907)( 7,331) ( 12,238)

Subtotal (18,788) (28,062) ( 46,850)(11,111)(16,600) (27,711)(29,899)( 44,662) ( 74,561)

State Agricultural Enterprises (IAS)Permanent (225) (335) (560) (160) (238) (398) (385) (573) (958)Seasonal (906) ( 1,354) ( 2,260) (457) (682) ( 1,139)( 1,363)( 2,036) ( 3,399)

Subtotal ( 1,131) ( 1,689) ( 2,820) (617) (920) ( 1,537)( 1,748)( 2,609) ( 4,357)

Total (19,919) (29,751) (49,670) (11,728)(17,520)(29,248)(31,647)( 47,271) ( 78,918)

/1 No. of families in Caracal is 33,806 and 18,033 in Titu.

Source: BAFI, October 1980.

The totals of the breakdown of the active labor force by CAPs and IASs andby permanent and seasonal workers exceed the active labor total becausesome of the seasonal workers are employed both in CAPs and IASs, and there-fore are counted twice. The rural population is traditionally employed inrainfed agriculture and is generally knowledgeable about agriculturalpractices. Female workers in the project area make up 60% of the totalagricultural labor force which is in line with the national average. Theexisting labor force would be adequate to meet the requirements of theproposed project.

Communications, Water Supply and Electricity

2.10 Caracal. The subproject area is well linked with the nationalroad and railway netorks. North-south and east-west national highwayscriss-cross the area close to the town of Caracal and there are an abund-ance of inter-connecting hard surfaced and all-weather roads. The existingfarm road network which is mostly ungravelled, adequately serves the needsof the area. A double-track railway disects the center of the area fromeast to west and smaller single-track lines are adequate to meet the needsfor handling agricultural products. There is adequate supply of year-roundground water. Deep wells provide piped water for the larger towns andshallow wells, from which water is hand drawn, supply the villages anddetached holdings. All towns and villages, as well as isolated coopera-tives and State farms, within the subproject area are served with electricpower from the national grid.

2.11 Titu. The Bucharest-Pitesti national highway transverses theentire length of the subproject area. The Bucharest-Piteti double electri-fied railway follows the northeastern limit of the subproject site. Thearea is crossed by numerous district and communal asphalted roads, whichprovide adequate linkage between the agricultural and industrial production

- 12 -

centers and commercial and trading centers. Water for village householdsis drawn manually from shallow open wells, built along the main villageroads or within each private holding. The larger towns are provided withpiped water supply. The area is crossed by a dense network of high powerlines to supply the agricultural production units and to satisfy theconsumption of towns and villages.

B. Agriculture Organizations

2.12 Agriculture Production Cooperatives (CAPs) and State AgriculturalEnterprises (IASs). The number of agricultural production units (CAPs andIASs) and their share of the net agricultural land in the project area areshown below;

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION UNITS IN THE PROJECT AREA

Caracal Titu TotalArea % of Area % of Area % of

Number (ha)/l Area Number (ha)/l Area Number (ha)/l Area

CAP 41 70,239 82 34 34,738 84 75 104,977 /2 83IAS 6 15,388 18 4 5,607 13 10 20,995 16Other /3 - 59 - - 1,142 3 - 1,201 1

Total 47 85,686 100 38 41,487 100 85 127,173 100

/1 Net agricultural land in the project./2 Includes 9,676 ha of private garden plots of CAP members./3 Miscellaneous other State enterprises.

2.13 The CAPs hold 83% of the total cropped land in the project area.Included in this figure are the small private plots retained by CAP membersfor their personal use, which amounts to about 9700 ha or 9% of the totalCAP land.

2.14 There are a total of nine Inter-cooperative Associations (ICAs)which are formed by several CAPs to carry out large scale factory typeproduction of livestock products and to a lesser extent vegetables. Theyhave little land and depend almost entirely on purchased feed and othermaterials.

2.15 Unified Agroindustrial Councils (UACs) and Stations for Agricul-tural Mechanization (SMAs). There are 13 Agroindustrial Councils in theCaracal and 10 in Titu subproject areas. Likewise, the same number of SMAssince the territories of the UACs coincides with those of SMAs. The over-all project total of 23 lACs comprises a total of 81 CAPs and 14 IASs. Theland of some CAPs and IASs falls within the jurisdiction of two different

- 13 -

UACs; and, therefore, are counted twice. The UACs were created in February1979 in an effort to eliminate the performance disparities between [ASs andCAPs. These councils are responsible for coordinating the planning of allagricultural activities in the area such as the introduction of new crop-ping patterns and production technology and for dispensing equal levels ofservices and inputs (mechanization, irrigation, fertilizer, seeds, plantprotection, etc.) for the CAPs and IASs in their jurisdiction. Additionalinformation concerning agriculture production organizations in Romania canbe found in numerous Bank reports 1/.

III. PRESENT AND FUTURE LAND USE AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION

A. Land Use

3.01 With the proposed irrigation, drainage and other ancillary works,the present and future land use and agricultural production in the projectarea are described in the following sections. The project works to supportfuture land use and agricultural production are described in Chapter IV.

3.02 Caracal. The present and future distribution of land in theCaracal subproject area is shown below:

Present Futureha T ha

Total Land Area 105,740 100 105,740 100Non-Agricultural Land 18,110 17.1 17,740 16.8Gross Agricultural Land 87,630 82.9 88,000 83.2Project Works Land 1,394 1.6 2,314 2.6Net Agricultural Land 86,236 98.4 85,686 97.4

Irrigated 3,500 4.1 85,686 100Non-Irrigated 82,736 95.9 0 0

The subproject covers a gross area of 105,740 ha, of which the net agri-cultural land currently is 86,236 (81.6%). Four percent of the net agri-cultural land is irrigated through widely scattered, inefficient andrudimentary local schemes. At full development, the proposed project willirrigate 85,686 ha, which represents 100% of the net agricultural landand 81% of the gross project area. Although the project reduces the non-agricultural land, it increases the area devoted to project works; the neteffect would be to reduce the net cultivable land by less than 1%. UnderRomanian law, a comparable amount of arable land taken for project worksconstruction is required to be reclaimed elsewhere.

1/ Romania Agricultural Sector Survey, October 29, 1976 Covurlui Irriga-tion Project, SAR; December 17, 1979 Bucsani-Buzau-Siret-Prut I:rriga-tion Project, SAR, November 26, 1980.

- 14 -

3.03 Titu. Land distribution in the Titu subproject area is shownbelow;

Present Futureha % ha

Total Land Area 52,392 100 52,392 100Non-Agricultural Land 8,610 16.4 8,041 15.3Isolated Areas ofAgricultural Land 1,674 3.2 1,674 3.2

Gross Agricultural Land 42,108 80.4 42,677 81.5Project Works Land 410 1.0 1,190 2.8Net Agricultural Land 41,698 99.0 41,487 97.2

Irrigated 5,293 12.7 41,487 100Non-Irrigated 36,405 87.3 0 0

The gross area of this project site is 52,392 ha, of which 41,698 ha netis cultivated. The difference between the two, in addition to non-agricultural land and works, pertains to small, odd-shaped, isolatedparcels of land between irregular borders of forests, villages and roads.Approximately 13% of the net agricultural land is presently irrigatedthrough local schemes. The proposed irrigation project would provide waterfor 41,487 ha, the total area of cultivable land.

Cropping Pattern

3.04 General. Over the past five years, with the introduction of largescale, modern irrigation systems in the Plains Zone of southern Romania,the cropping pattern reflects a gradual shift from rainfed traditionalautumn-winter cereal farming to greater emphasis on summer crops which arehighly responsive to irrigation. An analysis of eight Bank assisted irri-gation projects 1/ reveals that, on the average, the pre-project croppingpattern was composed of about 32% wheat and barley combined and a similarproportion of maize. With the projects, the percentage of winter cerealsin the cropping pattern decreased to 19% and maize increased to 44%.National and regional cropping patterns are based on studies and recommen-dations of the Institute for Planning and Land Distribution, which issubordinated to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry (MAFI). TheInstitute collaborates with ISPIF in the revision of cropping patterns forirrigation projects. Final decisions in any given area are reached collec-tively by the General Director of Agriculture of the concerned District,the newly established UACs and the management of the concerned State andcooperative farms. The projected cropping pattern comprises a range ofcrops with varying growing seasons which together cover the entire summer

1/ Based on seven Staff Appraisal Reports plus the Caracal-Titu IrrigationProject. Refer to the Project Implementation File for details.

- 15 -

period ensuring an almost continuous use of labor and farm machinery. Theprojected size of civil works would permit sufficient flexibility to meetthe demand for irrigation water in accordance with the future croppingpatterns.

3.05 Caracal. The cropping pattern for the Caracal area at present andwith the project are given below:

CROPPING PATTERN BASED ON CROPS IN THE ROTATION

Present With project Change ofArea Percent of Area Percent of Commodities

Crop ha Arable ha Arable ha %

Wheat 17,271 21.2 15,735 19.1 (1,536) (9)Barley 5,751 7.0 - - (5,751.) (100)Maize 24,628 30.2 44,498 54.0 19,870 81Soybean 3,680 4.5 4,984 6.0 1,304 35Sunflower 6,584 8.1 6,592 8.0 8 0Sugarbeet 3,787 4.6 4,826 5.9 1,039 27Potatoes 1,572 1.9 276 0.3 (1,296) (82)Vegetables /1 - - 2,354 2.9 2,354 100Alfalfa (hay) 18,370 22.5 3,138 3.8 (15,232) (83)Maize (silage,

s.c.) /2 (414) (0.5) (15,735) (19.1) 15,321 3,700Subtotal, Arable 81,643 100 82,403 100

Natural pastures 2,620 - (2,620) (100)Natural hayfields 30 - (30) (100)Sown pastures - 1,340 1,340 100Grapes 1,520 1,520 0 0Fruit /3 423 423 0 0Subtotal, OtherAgriculture 4,593 3,283

Total Agricultural 86,236 85,686

/1 Consists mainly of tomatoes and peppers./2 Second crop maize for silage./3 Consists mainly of apples and pears.

In the Romanian context, the cropping pattern excludes pastures, vineyardsand orchards, which are of a permanent nature and are not rotated withannual crops. Government's recommended cropping pattern with the projectallocated 50% of the arable land to maize and 23% to wheat. With theobjective of reducing the winter wheat in favor of additional summer maize,it was mutually agreed to fix maize at 54% and wheat at 19%. This pro-portion of maize represents the highest level attained to date in Bank-supported irrigation projects in Romania. The future area to be planted to

- 16 -

maize with the project exceeds the current area by 81%; whereas, wheat isdecreased by 9% and barley by 100%. Vegetables are introduced as a newcrop with the project and substantial increases of 35% and 27% are notedfor soybean and sugarbeet, respectively. Alfalfa area registers a markeddecrease of 83%; thereby achieving a better balanced overall croppingpattern for the with-project situation. Sunflower, grapes and fruit remainunchanged while natural pastures are eliminated and improved sown pasturesare introduced. Potatoes are reduced, being confined exclusively to thesandy area. With the inclusion of second crop maize silage, followingwheat harvest, the cropping intensity reaches 119%.

3.06 Titu. The dynamics of the cropping pattern in the Titu subprojectis presented below;

CROPPING PATTERN BASED ON CROPS IN THE ROTATION

Present With project Change ofArea Percent of Area Percent of Commodities

CrTop ha Arable ha Arable ha %

Wheat 13,720 34.3 6,123 15.0 (7,597) (55)Barley 3,648 9.1 - - (3,648) (100)Maize 13,677 34.2 20,412 50.0 6,735 49Soybean - - 3,266 8.0 3,266 100Sunflower 2,188 5.5 2,450 6.0 262 12Sugarbeet 2,313 5.8 2,859 7.0 546 24Vegetables /1 720 1.8 2,041 5.0 1,321 183Alfalfa (hay) 2,483 6.2 3,674 9.0 1,191 48Vetch (green forage) 1,224 3.0 - - (1,224) (100)Maize (silage,

f.c.) /2 62 0.1 - - (62) (100)Maize (silage,s.c.) /3 - (6,123) (15.0) 6,123 100

Subtotal, Arable 40,035 100 40,825 100

Natural pastures 979 - (979) (100)Natural hayfields 45 - (45) (100)Sown pastures - 23 23 100Grapes 363 363 0 0Fruit / 276 276 0 0Subtotal, OtherAgriculture 1,663 662

Total Agricultural 41,698 41,487

/1 Consists mainly of tomatoes and peppers./2 First crop maize for silage./3 Second crop maize for silage./4 Consists mainly of apples and pears.

The present cropping pattern contains about 10% more wheat and barley thanmaize, no soybean and an insignificant amount of vegetables. With the

project, the situation changes. The new cropping pattern eliminates barleyand vetch; establishes 15% and 50% for wheat and maize, respectively; andintroduces soybean (8%) as a new crop. The new cropping pattern results in

significant changes in land utilization compared to pre-project. The wheatarea decreases 55% and maize increases 49%. Barley, vetch and naturalpastures are deleted entirely. Vegetables, alfalfa, sugarbeet and sun-flower areas increase 183%, 48%, 24%, and 12%, respectively. With theaddition of second crop maize silage as a new crop the cropping intensityincreases to 115%.

Crop Yields

3.07 General. The project implementation schedule provides for thefirst irrigation to begin in 1984 for Titu and 1985 for Caracal sub--projects. Hence, full development of crop yields and production will notbe realized until the late 1980s. Yield targets have been establishedagainst this time frame bearing in mind the present yield levels; theoutlook for fertilizer availability, continuing inputs from the agricul-tural research institutions in improvement of crop varieties and agronomicpractices and greater mechanization of farming operations, particularlyharvesting. Present yields are assumed to remain constant in the futurewithout the project since irrigation and drainage are the primary con-straints to higher yields. With the elimination of these constraints underthe project, significant crop yield responses are expected. In thisregard, attention was focused on maize since over 50% of the arable land inthe project area is to be planted to this crop each year at full develop-ment. Government's preparation report made yield projections of lOt/hafor maize at full development. While it is conceivable that some agricul-tural production units may attain yields of lOt/ha, appraisal, based onavailable information, concluded that 8t/ha was a more realistic averageyield to be expected from the 62,000 ha of maize (excluding 4,000 ha ofsandy soil treated separately) to be planted annually on soils ranging fromClass I to Class IV. Similarly, the yield projections for wheat, soybean,sunflower and sugarbeet, which account for about 38% of the total croppedarea, were based on results from existing irrigation schemes with similargrowing conditions. In all instances, maximum yield would be attained overa period of four years based on a yearly gain of 30%, 70%, 90% and 100% ofthe incremental yield.

3.08 Caracal. Currently crop yields are low considering thegenerally good soils prevalent in the area. The yield of selected cropsunder varying conditions is presented below:

- 18 -

CROP YIELDS IN THE CARACAL PROJECT AREA

Future Caracal ResearchUnder Present Conditions With Project StationUnirrigated Irrigated /1 Irrigated Irrigated Exp. Plots

…t_____________----------- t/ha------------------------Wheat 2.5 - 3.1 4.2 5.0 7.5Maize 3.0 - 3.3 6.5 8.0 12.0Soybean 1.2 - 1.5 2.0 2.7 4.0Sunflower 1.2 - 1.8 2.2 2.9 -Sugarbeet 25.0 - 32.0 43.0 55.0 80.0

/1 Small local schemes.

With modern irrigation and drainage works coupled with other essentialinputs, as fertilizer, seeds and mechanization, which are provided in theproject, significant yield responses can be expected. Results obtained onthe Caracal Research Station, despite coming from experimental plots, areindicative of yield potentials for the area. Special mention is warrantedconcerning an area of 4,000 ha of sandy soils characterized by rollingdunes and interdunes. Because of its special characteristics, this area istreated as a separate unit. Current crop yields in the sandy area areconsiderably below those obtained in the bulk of the project area and thetarget yields at full development are approximately 20% less.

3.09 Titu. Generally, both rainfed and irrigated crop yields currentlyobtained in this project area are lower than those in the Caracal area.Typical examples are presented below;

CROP YIELDS IN THE TITU PROJECT AREA

Future FunduleaUnder Present Conditions With Project Research Station

Unirrigated Irrigated /1 Irrigated Irrigated Ex. Plots…_-----------------------…t/ha----------------------------

Wheat 2.0 - 2.7 3.1 5.0 7 - 8Maize 2.3 - 3.1 4.6 8.0 10 - 14Soybean - - 2.5 3.5 - 4.5Sunflower 1.0 - 1.4 - 2.7 3.0 - 4.5Sugarbeet 22.0 - 24.0 25.0 50.0 70.0 -90.0

/1 Small local schemes.

This is a reflection of soil which is less productive and more deficient indrainage given the present level of inputs. Based on all the crops (11) inthe cropping pattern the average projected yield is also about 4% less thanin the Caracal area. Experimental results from the Fundulea Research

- 19 -

Station; although providing an indication of yield potential in the area,must be viewed with some caution since they were obtained in small plots onsoils of better quality than are generally prevalent in the project area.

Livestock

3.10 Estimates of present and future livestock development (until 1990)in the project area are summarized below:

LIVESTOCK DEVELOPMENT IN THE PROJECT AREA

CARACAI TITU TOTALPresent Future Present Future Present Future

Type of Numbers Numbers (1990) Numbers Numbers (1990) Numbers Numbers (1990)Livestock Farms Head Farms Head Farms Head Farms Head Farms Head Farms Head

Cattle 51 75,284 53 91,570 29 16,671 29 18,365 80 91,955 82 109,935

Pigs 11 186,364 14 233,700 10 78,144 11 133,682 21 264,508 25 367,382

Sheep 27 51,262 33 55,425 12 4,339 12 7,140 39 55,601 45 62,565

Poultry 10 561,401 10 1,435,000 2 110,000 2 110,000 12 671,401 12 1,545,000

TOTAL 99 110 53 54 152 164

Source: BAFI, October 1980

Livestock is important in the project area and many of the production unitsare separate organizations with specialized personnel operating within theframework of the existing State farms and cooperatives. There are sevenlarge, relatively new Inter-cooperative Associations, concerned with pro-duction of pork, poultry meat and eggs, beef and breeding stock. Severalmore of this type are planned for the future.

B. Agricultural Inputs

3.11 Mechanization. Agricultural machinery is manufactured inRomania. Tractors are being exported to a limited extent. Production isstandardized, thus facilitating operation and maintenance at farm level.New farm equipment is developed and tested by the Institute for Agricul-tural Mechanization under auspices of MAFI in close collaboration with themanufacturers. The production program is tailored to the specific needsof large scale farming. It includes tractors from 45 to 180 h.p., self-propelled combines and harvesters and complex soil preparation and seedingequipment. Land preparation and sowing, application of fertilizer andother agricultural chemicals, small grain cereal harvesting, straw and haybaling and transport are fully mechanized. In the Districts of the projectarea, the percentage of maize mechanically harvested varies from 35% to72%. These percentages are expected to increase markedly in the next twoyears. Approximately 80% of the weeding requirement of row crops is donemechanically and only the areas inaccessible to machines are hand weeded.On the average for the project area, there is one tractor to 82 ha (12

tractors per 1,000 ha) and one cereal harvester to 325 ha (3 per 1,000

- 20 -

ha) 1/. These densities are slightly below the national average of 14tractors and 4 cereal harvesters per 1,000 ha 2/. Large scale farm opera-tions in the southern plains of Romania make use of agricultural machineryessential for timely and full achievement of production targets. Theexisting farm equipment is adequate for rainfed farming; however, addi-tional equipment would be required to meet the requirements of the proposedproject. This additional equipment is being provided under the project toimprove the density to a maximum of 25 tractors and 5 cereal harvesters per1,000 ha, depending upon the amount of worn-out equipment that the newacquisitions will replace.

3.12 Labor. Besides mechanization, manual labor is required forvarious field crops and farming operations. There are two peak periods forlabor requirement: one in May for weeding, thinning sugarbeet and trans-planting vegetables; and, the other in September-October for harvesting.The available labor force in rural areas is shared between State farms andcooperatives. Labor shortage currently is prevalent during the peakperiods. Annual labor requirements for the proposed project have beenestimated at about 2.8 million man-days. With additional provision ofharvesting machineries more than sufficient labor is available in theproject area to meet this demand.

3.13 Seeds. Improved seeds for all project crops are available inRomania and in sufficient quantities to meet project needs. Planting ratesper unit of area and seed price are fixed by MAFI. Seed development andproduction is well organized. New crop varieties, developed by theresearch scientists, are registered by a State commission only after aminimum of three years testing in uniform, comparative small plot trials.Subsequent multiplication of elite seed is entrusted to the researchstations and selected State and cooperative farms under the supervision ofa specialized State organization. In the project area there are 10 agri-cultural units specialized in seed production. Processing, testing andcertification of seed meet international standards and maize and sunflowerseeds are exported.

3.14 Fertilizer. Most fertilizer in Romania is applied as "straight"materials, containing only a single primary plant nutrient element. Use of"mixed" or compound fertilizer is less common. Several large importantfertilizer plants are located in the project area. Fertilizer requirementsand their allocation to IASs and CAPs are reviewed each year by MAFI andthe Chemical Industries Ministry. For the country as a whole a recent Bank

1/ These figures are an estimate since the territory covered by many SMAs,which provide the tractor service, lies both within and outside theproject boundaries.

2/ Source, FAO Production Yearbook.

- 21 -

analysis revealed that the current fertilizer scarcity problem is expecteato be largely eliminated by l985. This is particularly true for nitrogen(N) and phosphate (P205) while potash (K20) will probably continueto be in deticit. The average annual requirement of fertilizer tor the

entire project, expressed as available nutrients, is approximately 22,000tons of N, 14,000 tons of P205 and 6,000 tons of K20 Followingintroduction of irrigation, the project area would receive priority in

allocation of fertilizer to the recommended levels to achieve productiontargets. Assurances were obtained from Government to meet the tertilizer

requirements and to provide adequate equipment for fertilizer applicationfor the project area.

3.15 Plant Protection. Regional research and forecasting stationsunder MAFI advise CAPs and IASs on timely and appropriate plant protectionmeasures, which are carried out by the SMAs. In addition, within eachDistrict Directorate for Agriculture there is a plant protection sectionwhich deploys special equipment including planes for spraying insecticiae.The Central Institute for Plant Protection in Bucharest conducts basicresearch, long-term forecasting and new product testing; some ot which isdone on field scale basis in collaboration with IASs and CAPs. A widerange of pesticides and herbicides are usea at a satistactory rate ofapplication. Assurances were obtained during negotiations that Govern-ment would provide adequate spraying equipment tor the project area.

Agricultural Research and Extension

3.16 Research. Agricultural research in Romania is coordinatea by theAcademy of Agricultural and Forestry Sciences, and is conducted in 13institutes, 6 central stations and 41 research stations. These researchfacilities are distributed throughout the country's ecological zones and,in the aggregate, cover about 80,000 ha. They are well staffed with over1,600 scientists. The specific research needs and back-stopping for theCaracal project area would be met principally by the Caracal ResearchStation. The Station generates technology in irrigated crop production,seed improvement, land reclamation, soil management, plant protection,varietal improvement of crops and animal production, all of which isapplicable to 500,000 ha of leached chernozem soils in the region. TheBank financed BBSP Irrigation Project provides for strengthening theresearch facilities of this Station. The well established Central ResearchStation for Sandy Soils in Bechet will provide support for the sub-area of4,000 ha of sandy soils in the Caracal subproject area. Secondary inputswould be forthcoming from the Research Station at Simnic in cereals andindustrial plants and in orchards, from the Circea Research Station, bothof which are in close proximity to the project area. The prestigiousResearch Institute for Cereals and Industrial Plants at Fundulea, nearBucharest will be the main source of research input for the Titu project;although the research Station at Albota, near Pitesti, with its emphasis on

- 22 -

reddish-brown podzolic soils also has relevance to the project area.Additional support will be provided by the Research Institute for Pedologyand Agro-chemistry and the Agronomic Institute, both with headquarters inBucharest, although the latter has a pilot station on the northern fringeof the project area.

3.17 Extension and Training. Technical assistance is provided to theagricultural production units either by their own supervisory specialistsor those attached to the office of the General Directorate for Agriculturein each District. The following table indicates the total number ofspecialists that are employed in the four Districts in which the Caracaland Titu subprojects are located, and the outlook for the future (1985).Thirty-nine percent (480) of the total (1,242) presently employed areuniversity graduates. The manpower at this level is expected to increaseby 16%. At the technician or middle level an 11% increase is planned.

SPECIALISTS PROVIDING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE IN THE PROJECT AREA /1

Caracal Titu TotalPresent Future Present Future Present Future

UniversityGraduate LevelAgronomy 183 185 66 67 249 252Vet. Medicine &Animal Husbandry 98 98 22 22 120 120

Mechanical Eng. 70 73 27 29 97 102Hydrology - 24 - 12 - 36

Economics 7 20 7 25 14 45Sub-Total 358 400 122 155 480 555

Middle LevelAgronomy 191 205 38 44 229 249Vet. Medicine &Animal Husbandry 224 224 28 30 252 254

Mechanical Eng. 60 75 30 35 90 110Hydrology 2 31 2 14 4 45Economics 143 145 44 46 187 191Sub-Total 620 680 142 169 762 849

TOTAL 978 1,080 264 324 1,242 1,404

/1 Does not include research or university staff.

One of the functions of the General Directorates of Agriculture is to coor-dinate the production programs for the IASs and CAPs in accordance withtechnical guidelines received from the MAFI. In this sense, the extensionstaff has a direct say in improvement of cultural practices and the appli-cation of technology instead of simply an advisory role. Research findings

- 23 -

pass rapidly into practice and the supervisory staff of the productionunits adequately monitor their application. Training of both IAS and CAPfield staff is provided periodically by the General Directorates throughshort and medium term courses. The research stations also play an impor-tant role in training. For more specialized personnel, graduate coursesare organized during the off-season. Irrigation schemes and land reclama-tion works near the project sites provide opportunities for gainingpractical experience with works similar to those under the project.

Agricultural Credit

3.18 The Bank for Agriculture and Food Industry (BAFI) is a State-ownedcredit institution established in 1968 as the channel for and administratorof investments and operations in agriculture, irrigation and agroindus-tries, for State, cooperative, and, to a limited extent, individualproducers. BAFI's main source of funds is the short term borrowings fromthe National Bank and the State budget. BAFI has also been the Borrowerfor all Bank loans in support of agriculture and would be the Borrower forthe proposed loan. The principal responsibilities of BAFI are, to:

(a) act as fiscal agent for collection and distribution of Statebudgetary funds;

(b) provide short-term production credit;

(c) review both technical and financial aspects of investment pro-posals of State enterprises and cooperatives;

(d) provide long-term investment credit;

(e) exercise financial control over execution of investment and finan-cial plans;

(f) maintain deposit accounts for State enterprises and cooperatives;and

(g) cooperate with foreign and international organizations to financeinvestment in agriculture and agroindustries.

3.19 The Administrative Council is BAFI's policy-making body. It iscomposed of BAFI's President, Vice Presidents, Department Directors fromthe Bucharest head office and major branches, economic and agriculturalexperts, representatives of ministries and other central State agencies,and a delegate designated by the General Trade Union of Romania. Betweenthe sessions of the Administrative Council, the Executive Bureau acts asthe decision-making body. Its members are the President, Vice Presidents,three Department Directors and the trade union representative.

3.20 In addition to its headquarters in Bucharest, BAFI operatesthrough 39 district (judet) branches, 92 sub-branches and about 850 credit

- 24 -

cooperatives which serve as its agents for small-scale lending. Threeoperational departments in the head office (agroindustries, Cooperativesector, and State sector) serve enterprises of national importance(centrals, trusts, research institutions). BAFI has four existing branchesand ten sub-branches in the project area with the following staff:

BAFI Branches No. ofSubproject - Sub-branches Staff

CARACAL Olt 44- Caracal 14- Corabia 22- Draganesti Olt 17

Dolj 78- Bailesti 27- Calafat 22

TITU Dimbovita 33- Titu 19

Ilfov 183- Fundulea 14- Giurgiu 25- Oltenita 26- Urzicini 32

Total 556

The above BAFI branches and sub-branches, and the support staff that isfamiliar with other Bank financed agricultural projects are sufficient toadminister, disburse and supervise the proposed loan. The Caracal and Titusub-branches will have the primary field responsibility for supervision.

C. Marketing and Processing Facilities

Marketing Channel

3.21 Marketing of agricultural products in Romania is entrusted toState owned and operated marketing centrals established in the late 1960'sto assist MAFI in the procurement, grading, processing, storage and dis-tribution of agricultural products. Currently there are 13 Centrals whichspecialize in marketing specific commodities such as cereals, vegetablesand fruits, sugar, meat, etc. With the exception of the sugar Central,each Central has its headquarters in Bucharest and an enterprise in each ofthe country's 39 judets. The enterprises are the executing agencies of theCentrals at the District level. The transportation trusts in the DistrictDirectorate of Agriculture coordinate the transportation of farm productsto the collection centers. The Centrals bear the cost of transport. The

- 25 -

Central for sugar owns and operates 17 sugar factories responsible for col-lection, storing, processing and distributing sugarbeet.

3.22 Delivery contracts with the production enterprises are entered forperiods ranging from one to five years. These contracts would specify;(a) quantity; (b) unit price; (c) agro-technical condition of the produce;(d) place of delivery; and (e) phasing of delivery. In the case of sugar,for deliveries in excess of the contracted quantity, the sugar enterprisesmake bonus payments. However, penalties are not levied for failing tosupply the agreed quantities. The Horticulture enterprises have differentprocedures and the producers will be penalized for failing to meet thetarget deliveries and the prices will be reduced if deliveries are delayedby more than ten days. In order to encourage producers, the HorticultureCentral allows bonus payments for areas cultivated over and above theagreed land area in the initial contract. Because of labor constraints,Agricultural enterprises limit the areas under vegetable to the minimum.

3.23 The marketing enterprises operating in the Districts of the proj-ect area are presented below.

MARKETING ENTERPRISES(number)

Cereal Horticulture Sugar WineryCollec- Collec- Collec- Collec-

Enter tion Enter tion Enter tion Enter tionDistrict prise Centers prise Centers prise /1 Centers prise Centers

Olt 1 39 2 3 1 - 1 3Dolj 1 39 2 2 1 - 1 4Dimbovita 1 10 2 2 - - 1 3Ilfov 1 19 6 3 3 - 1 4

/1 Sugar factories.

Source: BAFI, October 1980.

Both the enterprises and collection centers are adequately staffed andsatisfactorily operated to handle the incremental production from the pro-posed project.

Processing and Storage Facilities

3.24 Existing processing capacities in the project area are operatingat about 80% capacity. However due to lack of raw material supply theprocessing period is very short. Hence very moderate capacity expansionsare envisaged during the sixth Five Year Plan (1981-1985). The existingand future processing capacities are given below:

- 26 -

PROCESSING CAPACITIES

Vegetable Sugar Oil seeds('000 tons/yr) (tons/24 hr) (tons/24 hr)1980 1985 1980 1985 1980 1985

Caracal 55.4 55.4 5,000 7,000 300 300Titu 56.8 58.2 8,000 8,000 300 300

It should be noted that there is a great deal of inter District transferof raw material for processing. The incremental sugarbeet output fromDimbovita area would be processed in neighboring Ilfov District. Simi-larly sunflower and soybean production would also be processed in IlfovDistrict. With higher utilization rate of existing plants and marginalcapacity expansions, adequate facilities would be available to processthe incremental output.

3.25 In the project area the primary storage requirements are forcereal. Various types of storages including modern silos and locallydesigned make-shift storages (corn lifts and corn lofts) are used inRomania. Crop loss in using the make shift storages is estimated at about3%. Present and projected cereal storage capacities in the Districts ofthe project area are shown below:

CEREAL STORAGE CAPACITIES('000 tons)

1980 1985Corn Lofts & Corn Lofts &

District Silos & Stores Corn Lifts Silos & Stores Corn Lifts

CaracalOlt 350 340 420 410Dolj 440 320 530 380TituDimbovita 113 52 125 60Ilfov 650 500 780 600

Source: BAFI, October 1980

3.26 During negotiations assurances were also obtained that Governmentwould supply the cultivators in the project area with agricultural, tech-nical and advisory services, seeds, agricultural credit, marketing facili-ties and other agricultural inputs all as required to make optimal produc-tive use of such area.

- 27 -

IV. THE PROJECT

A. Objectives

4.01 The principal objective of the project is to increase agriculturalproduction and to promote a sustained growth through provision of irriga-tion and drainage facilities and other ancillary works. The projectfurther aims at substantially improving productivity of land and labor inthe project area.

B. Detailed Features

4.02 The project area is located in two separate valleys, the Caracalsubproject being on the west bank of the lower reach of the Olt river andthe Titu subproject on the two banks of the middle reach of the Arges.Summary of proposed project works is shown below.

Item Caracal Titu

Irrigation facilities (new system) 84,500 ha 37,384 haIrrigation facilities (improvement) 3,500 ha 5,293 haSurface drainage (new system) 29,100 ha 34,347 haSurface drainage (improvement) 9,400 ha -Tile drainage 8,000 ha 3,300 haSoil erosion control 1,730 -Sandy area reclamation 4,000 ha -Flood retention dams 4 nos -Valley Improvement 55 kms -

Project Works comprise of:

Caracal Subproject

(a) an intake in the right dyke of the Draganesti dam located 5 kmsupstream of dam to feed the irrigation system for 82,000 ha (thesystem for 6,000 ha fed by an outlet from the dam);

(b) a system of open canals (128 kms) covering the entire 88,000 ha(85,686 ha net);

(c) one pumping station in the plain and six terrace repumpingstations to raise the gravity supplies from Draganesti reservoirto canals at different elevations;

(d) pressure pumping stations (41) to feed the underground irrigationpipe network;

- 28 -

(e) open drainage channels (about 500 kms) to provide surface drainageof 38,500 ha;

(f) tile drains (about 3440 kms) for subsoil drainage of 8,000 ha;

(g) terracing, grass covered outlets etc. for soil erosion control in1,730 ha;

(h) four flood retention dams to control floods from total catchmentarea of 16,275 ha;

(i) training of the streams below the flood retention dams (55 kms);and

(j) levelling sandy areas (4,000 ha) and planting wind shelter belts.

Titu Subproject

(a) a diversion structure (124 m long) on the Arges River to feed theirrigation canals on the two banks (42,677 ha);

(b) left bank canal (45.15 kms) with branch canals (52.05 kms) for anarea of 29,020 ha;

(c) right bank canal (38.35 kms) for an area of 13,657 ha;

(d) pressure pumping stations (29 nos) to feed the underground pipenetwork and 77 monofilar pumps;

(e) open drains (about 250 kms) for surface drainage of 34,347 ha;

(f) tile drains (1200 kms) for subsurface drainage in 3300 ha.

4.03 Detailed description of proposed project works is given inAnnex 2. Irrigation and drainage systems are shown in Maps IBRD No. 15407and No. 15408. Design criteria for the irrigation and drainage works areessentially similar to those used in previous Bank assisted irrigationprojects.

4.04 Equipment for application of irrigation water to the fields,operation and maintenance of irrigation systems and farm machinery are alsoprovided under the project.

C. Water Requirements, Availability, Quality and Water Rights

4.05 Water Requirements. Water requirements for the project crops havebeen estimated separately for each subproject area. The coefficients usedfor different crops and soil types have been derived from actual data on

- 29 -

water use collected for a number of years at different agriculturalresearch stations. Based on experience of similar previously completedprojects, the irrigation efficiency of the sprinkler irrigated area hasbeen estimated at 80% and for the furrow irrigated area at 70% for bothsubprojects. Since 16% of the project area is to be furrow irrigated and84% sprinkler irrigated in the Caracal subproject, an overall efficiency of78.4% has been applied to determine the gross water requirements. In thecase of Titu, with 73% furrow and 27% sprinkler irrigation, an overallefficiency of 72.7% has been used. In addition, a weighted average wascalculated for the water requirement of each crop in the Titu area based on41% of the project area coming under the influence of the Bucharest-F'ilaretmeteorological station and 59% under the Titu station. A summary of thenet and gross water requirements annually and for July, the month ofhighest demand, is presented below:

Estimated Water RequirementsJuly Annual July Annual-------m3/ha ------ -------Mm3…-------

Caracal Net 1,256 3,260 107.9 279.3Gross 1,602 4,158 137.6 356.3

Titu Net 923 2,598 38.2 107.6Gross 1,270 3,574 52.5 148.0

Irrigation requirements would be maximum in July. The system is designedto meet the July demand of 52 m3/s for Caracal and 19.25 m3/s forTitu. The details of estimated water requirements for the specificcropping pattern in each subproject are shown in Annex 3, Tables T-1 andT-2.

Water Availability

4.06 Caracal. The river Olt, in its 90 kms from the Danube, would havefive dams - Ipotesti, Draganesti, Funzaru, Rusanesti and Isbicenci, thefirst two now under construction and the construction of the other 3 tobe commenced shortly. These storages would provide navigation, temporaryflood retention above the normal reservoir level and power generationonly in the periods of surplus flow in the Olt. The turbines would bereversible to pump water from the Danube, to meet irrigation shortageson the systems planned to be irrigated from the Olt flows covering theultimate 670,000 ha. In the next 110 kms, eleven dams are existing, andtwo are under construction. These dams are essentially for power genera-tion and utilize the entire drop in the 110 kms, but the turbines permitlowering of reservoir by 2 meters only at each. Irrigation requirementscould thus be met from the storage in the upper 2 metres of the reservoirsif power generation is not to be affected. The dams also provide temporaryflood detention above the normal storage level. In the hilly region beyond200 kms, there are a few dams on the tributaries which are operated essen-tially for power generation. Other major storages are proposed in the

- 30 -

upper catchment. The National Water Council has carried out a recent studyfor the water availability for irrigation with the dams in the 200 kms ofthe Olt, subject to the constraints of meeting the industry and domesticwater requirements and not affecting power generation. The study showsthat with the utilization of most of the Draganesti storage and notlowering the upper reservoirs below minimum powerpool, it is possible toirrigate 191,000 ha with 80% availability of water. This would include66,220 ha of current irrigation from the Olt, additional 28,000 ha ofBucsani and 84,500 ha of Caracal. Water would thus be available forCaracal project as soon as the Draganesti dam is completed. Assuranceswere obtained during negotiations that the Draganesti Dam would be com-pleted by December 31, 1984 to permit timely irrigation of the Caracal sub-project. Further assurance was also obtained from Government to make suit-able arrangements for review of design, construction and operation of theDraganesti dam by independent qualified experts acceptable to the Bank.

4.07 Titu. The Arges river is the major source for meeting the indus-trial and domestic requirements of the towns of Bucharest and Pitesti.With the existing storages in the upper catchment, the river providesindustrial and domestic supplies at a constant rate of 22 m3/sec throughoutthe year, meets the irrigation requirements of 47,000 ha and power isgenerated in winter. With increasing irrigation demands, additional 7,000ha irrigation is being planned by reducing winter power generation. Twodams - Golesti and Riusor - are under construction, their completion wouldallow the industrial and domestic supply to be met up to 26.1 m3/sec andirrigation could be extended to another 44,200 ha, with 80% availability.Water would therefore be available for the Titu subproject. Assuranceswere obtained during negotiations that the Golesti and Riusor dams would becompleted by December 31, 1983 and December 31, 1984 respectively to permitcommissioning of irrigation in the Titu subproject by the scheduled dates.Similar assurance was also obtained from Government to make suitablearrangements for review of design, construction and operation of Golestiand Riusor dams by independent qualified experts acceptable to the Bank.

4.08 Water Quality. Analysis of samples of water, collected from theOlt and Arges, shows that these waters are suitable for irrigation. Mainquality indicators are:

Olt Arges

TDS (PPM) 543 320SAR 1.75 2.29PH 7.20 6.75

Water Rights

4.09 The Olt is a tributary of the Danube which forms an importantwaterway with international rights. Contribution to the Danube flow by theOlt is maximum in the spring floods when the Danube itself has high water.

- 31 -

During the irrigation season, contribution by the Olt is less than 100m3/sec for about 50% of the time. The Danube minimum flow being about 2000m3/sec, complete diversion of flow for irrigation would mean a reduction ofless than 5%, which will not affect navigation. In fact, withdrawals willbe made in future from the Danube during irrigation seasons in those yearswhen irrigation water from Olt would be inadequate to meet the needs of the670,000 ha planned to be irrigated. During negotiations, Governmentfurnished a letter of representation to the Bank, assuring that withdrawalsfrom the Olt river would not cause problems with other riparian states.

4.10 The Arges is also a tributary of the Danube. However, the Arges,becomes almost dry in the non-flood months after its water is diverted forirrigation, industrial use and drinking water supply. During floods only,Arges contributes to Danube flow which is insignificant compared to highDanube discharge. Building of storages on the Arges would only reduce theflow going down to Danube in the flood season, when the Danube itself is atbreakflow.

D. Status of Engineering

4.11 The Caracal subproject has been studied in detail. Nine alter-native layouts were considered for the irrigation system and the selectedalternative is the most appropriate and economical and is acceptable to theBank. Topographical surveys have been completed for all the canal align-ments and structures and detailed drawings completed for a few structures.Detailed design and drawings of major structures are being done and con-struction drawings are planned to be completed well ahead of commencementof their construction.

4.12 The Titu subproject detailed designs and drawings of major struc-tures are already complete. The layout adopted is acceptable to the Bank.Detailed construction drawings would be completed ahead of the commencementof construction.

E. Cost Estimates

4.13 The total project cost including physical and price contingenciesbut net of taxes and duties is estimated at lei 5,689.9 million ($379.3million), and is based on the December 1980 prices for materials and wages,which are regulated by the State. The foreign exchange component is esti-mated at lei 1,399.4 million (US$93.2 million) or 24.6% of the total cost.Physical contingencies have been provided at 7.5% since the quantities havebeen based on detailed specification drawings. Price contingencies onforeign costs are compounded annually at 9% (1981), 8.5% (1982), 7.5%(1983-5). Price contingencies for local costs are compounded at 2% per

- 32 -

year. In the past, Romania domestic prices have been increasing at lessthan one percent per annum. However, since there are indications thatthere may be minor price adjustments during project implementation, localprice contingencies have been raised to two percent per annum. Thiscorresponds to the Romanian assumption on the rise of the retail priceindex for the 1981 annual plan. Detailed cost estimates for Caracal andTitu subprojects are given in Annex 4 Tables T-1 and T-2.

CARACAL-TITU IRRIGATION PROJECT COST ESTIMATE

ForeignLocal Foreign Total Local Foreign Total Exchange

Item -----lei million----- ------US$ million---- %

CaracalIrrigation works 1,416.1 429.6 1,845.7 94.4 28.6 123.0 23Drainage works 164.4 34.8 199.2 11.0 2.3 13.3 17Miscellaneous works 223.4 40.5 263.9 14.9 2.7 17.6 16Land compensation 106.2 - 106.2 7.1 - 7.1 0Equipment 150.1 73.9 224.0 10.0 4.9 14.9 33Engineering &administration 273.8 23.8 297.6 18.2 1.6 19.8 8Base cost 2,334.0 602.6 2,936.6 155.6 40.1 195.7 21

Physical contingencies 175.0 45.2 220.2 11.7 3.0 14.7 21Price contingencies 168.0 197.8 365.8 11.2 13.2 24.4 54

Total subproject 2,677.0 845.6 3,522.6 178.5 56.3 234.8 24

TituIrrigation works 877.0 249.1 1,126.1 58.5 16.6 75.1 22Drainage works 156.0 30.9 186.9 10.4 2.1 12.5 16Miscellaneous works 51.9 9.1 61.0 3.5 0.6 4.1 15Land compensation 9.3 - 9.3 0.6 - 0.6 -Equipment 225.1 110.9 336.0 15.0 7.4 22.4 33Engineering &administration 86.3 7.5 93.8 5.8 0.5 6.3 8Base cost 1,405.6 407.5 1,813.1 93.8 27.2 120.9

Physical contingencies 105.4 30.6 136.0 7.0 2.0 9.1 22Price contingencies 102.5 115.7 218.2 6.8 7.7 15.5 50Total subproject 1,613.5 553.8 2,167.3 107.6 36.9 144.5 26

TOTAL PROJECT COST 4,290.5 1,399.4 5,689.9 286.1 93.2 379.3 25

F. Financing Plan

4.14 In accordance with Romanian law, the State will finance 100% ofthe total costs of main canals and drains, all pumping stations, drainage,and river training works. First-time levelling, ripping, and soil reclama-tion will also be State-financed, but subsequent works of this type will be

- 33

financed by the respective CAP or IAS. State funds for investment will bechannelled through BAFI or allocated through the budget to IELIF. Thecosts of buried pipeline, on-farm sprinkler and furrow equipment, and smallsecondary open drainage canals serving CAP-owned lands will be borne by theCAPs partly through BAFI loans and partly through their own contributions.Farm machinery will be financed from the State budget through allocationsto the SMAs.

4.15 The proposed bank loan of US$80 million, to be made to BAFI, willfinance about 21% of total project cost (US$379.3 million), equivalent toabout 86% of the estimated foreign exchange cost (UV$93.3 million). Withsubborrowers' contribution of 3% and BAFI loans of 8% of total projectcosts, the remaining 68% will be financed by the Government. Governmenthas agreed in principle to pursue cofinancing for about US$100.0 million.Since cofinancing has been obtained for 3 agriculture Drojects, theprospects for cofinancing on this loan are good. The proposed Bank loanwould be made for a term of 15 years, including 3 years grace. The Govern-ment of Romania would bear the foreign exchange risk. A summary financingplan which includes physical and price contingencies is shown in Annex 5.

G. Procurement

4.16 Equipment and materials would be procured under the proposedloan. During negotiations it was agreed that items costing US$80 millionincluding contingencies would be procured following international advertis-ing and competitive bidding in accordance with the "Guidelines for Procure-ment under World Bank loans and IDA Credits - March 1977." Romanian manu-facturers would be allowed a preference of 15% or the applicable customsduty, whichever is lower. The application of preference has affected sofar the outcome of bidding on previous irrigation projects in a few cases,and is not expected to significantly affect the result of bidding on theproposed project. It is expected that foreign suppliers would win con-tracts for about 5% of ICB procurement, mobile concrete pumps, truckcranes, and canal trimming and lining machines) estimated to cost aboutUS$4.0 million. Other items to be procured through international competi-tive bidding (about US$76.0 million) are available domestically and, basedon experience with previous Bank-financed irrigation projects, it isexpected that the Romanian manufacturers would be successful in bidding forthose items. The list of equipment to be procured under ICB is given inAnnex 6. The remaining equipment and materials, all domestically produced,would be procured under Romanian procedures and would not be eligible fordisbursements under the proposed Bank loan. The Banik would not financeconstruction works under the project. The work would be carried out by theRomanian Constructions Trusts, which are experienced and familiar withlocal conditions, methods and regulations. This practice has been accept-able to the Bank for the previous Bank-financed projects because due to the

- 34 -

regulated wages and prices of materials, the Romanian construction costsare likely to be less than those which might be bid by internationalcontractors.

H. Disbursements

4.17 The proposed Bank loan of US$80 million would be disbursed net oftaxes over five years as follows:

Equipment, materials and spare 100% of foreign expendituresparts for irrigation works or 100% of local expenditures(US$80.0 million) ex-factory.

4.18 Disbursement applications would be supported by standard documen-tation. Schedule of disbursements is estimated as follows and a detailedschedule by Bank fiscal year and quarter is given in Annex 7, Table T-1.

ESTIMATED DISBURSEMENT SCHEDULE

FY 82 FY 83 FY 84 FY 85 FY 86…------------------US$ million -------------…

Annual 2.0 22.0 21.0 21.0 14.0Cumulative 2.0 24.0 45.0 66.0 80.0

I. Implementation Schedule

4.19 The project works would be completed in 4 years (1982 to 1985) inaccordance with the implementation schedule (Chart 1). Irrigation wouldcommence in 1984 and would cover the entire area by 1987. An estimatedschedule of expenditure is given in Annex 8, Tables T-1 and T-2 and issummarized below:

Calendar Year 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987-----------------(US$ million)---------------

Yearly estimated expenditure 27.8 120.4 175.3 55.7 -

Cumulative expenditure 27.8 148.2 323.5 379.2 -

-------------------------ha------------------

Yearly development ofirrigation and drainage - - 20,000 47,187 38,300 21,686

Cumulative development - - 20,000 67,187 105,487 127,173

- 35 -

J. Investment Financing

4.20 IAS investments are primarily financed by State budget (channelledthrough IELIF for irrigation schemes). BAFI credits are only used forsmall scale investments. Interest rates on BAFI investment loans to IAS'sare 2% during construction and 4% thereafter with a penalty interest rateof 6% for delayed payments. The maximum repayment period for IAS loans is

10 years.

4.21 Investments by CAPs are primarily financed through BAFI creditswhich may finance up to 95% of projects costs, depending on the financialstrength of the CAP. The average BAFI loan is about 25-30% of investments

by CAPs. CAPs use their own resources (Development Fund) when possible tocover proposed investments. Interest rates on BAFI investment loans toCAPs are 3% with a penalty rate of 6%. Repayment periods for CAP invest-ment loans depend on the type of investment and range between 8 and 25years.

K. Cost Recovery

4.22 BAFI Loans. Direct BAFI loans are only made to CAPs amounting tolei 480 millionTU_S$32.0 million) or 8% of the project cost. These loanswould be recovered in accordance with standard on-lending terms derivedfrom established amortization practices. For on-farm buried pipelines, theloans would be for 25 years including 5 years of grace, and for on-farmirrigation equipment, 12 years including 3 years of grace. The interestrate would be 3% including interest during construction with penalty rate

for payment of up to 6%.

4.23 Budgetary Allocations. The balance of the project cost isfinanced through budgetary allocation to IELIF and SMA and CAPs contribu-tion. Most of the investment expenditures in IAS will be recoveredindirectly through the compulsory portion of net income paid into Deprecia-tion Fund. Costs are also recovered indirectly from CAPs through the com-pulsory portions of net incomes allocated to the Development Fund. BothFunds are compulsory savings mechanisms under which funds are set aside forfuture investments. The cost of farm machinery would be recovered by theState through unit rates paid by IASs and CAPs to SNMAs for mechanicalservices which cover the SMA contributions to the Depreciation Fund.

4.24 The annual O&M costs for the whole project are estimated at aboutlei 131 million (US$8.7 million) or an average of lei 1,030 per ha. Thepresent value of investments, O&M, and replacement costs discounted over40 years at 9% is about lei 4700.0 million (US$313.0 million). O&Mmaintenance costs are recovered directly by IELIF through water charges ofthree types levied on all CAPs and IASs using irrigation water. These are:

- 36 -

(a) a variable charge ot lei 18 (US$1.20) per 1,000 m3 levied on thevolume of water used. This would yield an income ot lei 9.1 mil-lion p.a.;

(b) a fixed annual charge per ha on the basis ot crops grown. Theestimated recovery from this charge would be about lei 18.1 mil-lion; and

(c) a fixed charge per ha levied on the basis ot type ot irrigationmethod used. The return from this levey would be lei 17.3 million.

These direct water charges would yield an annual revenue of about lei 44.5million (US$3.0 million) beginning with year 7 (1987), at full implementa-tion of the project. The present value of this recovery over an assumedproject life of 40 years in constant prices and at a discount rate of 9% isestimated at about lei 321.5 million (US$21.4 million). The resulting costrecovery would amount to about 7% of the total project costs (Investment,replacement, operation and maintenance) discounted at 9%. Indirectrecovery from the incremental net income payments to the State in the formof taxes and required contributions to development funds annually would beabout lei 178.2 million (US$11.9 million). The present value of thesepayments at a discount rate ot 9% is estimated at lei 1208.5 million(US$80.6 million). These indirect recovery costs would cover 26% of totalproject costs. The direct and indirect recovery ot costs would equal 33%of total project costs. In addition, the substantial protits (estimated atUS$260.0 million) made by the State trom the purchase ot tradeable commodi-ties at administered low farmgate prices and subsequent export at higherworld prices to the economy resulting from incremental project output wouldcontribute further towards the project's cost recovery and with theirinclusion, the total recovery would exceed 100%.

L. Role of Women

4.25 The proposed Caracal-Titu Irrigation Project does not have aspecific component to address women in development. In Romania, access toequal educational opportunity is universal irrespective of sex. Hencewomen are taking active part in all spheres of economic activity and manyskilled occupations have women representation. In 1978 full-time employedwomen accounted for about 14% of total agricultural labor force. In theproject area, the share of women workers (including seasonal workers) rangefrom 59% in Dimbovita District to 67% in Olt. In the agricultural enter-prises of the project area, women professionals account for about 30% otthe high level positions. The number of women senior staff is shown below.

- 37 -

NUMBER OF WOMEN SENIOR STAFF IN AGRICULTURE (1980)

Olt Dolj Dimbovita Ilfov

Farm Managers 10 16 12 5Chief Engineers 3 11 8 24Chief Accountants 7 63 25 35Percent of Agriculture Labor Force 67 66 59 65

Source: BAFI, October, 1980.

4.26 With increasing mechanization of agriculture (particularly combineharvesters) the physical burden on women engaged in manual harvesting wouldbe alleviated substantially. In addition, the provision of irrigationfacilities to individually owned plots would increase family income andimprove consumption diet.

M. Environment and Health

4.27 The project area is free of endemic diseases like malaria andbilharzia. The project would neither adversely affect the environment northe public health. The environment would be improved in the Caracal areathrough reclamation of sandy soils and control of soil erosion. Drainagemeasures and improving the valleys for efficient drainage would promotehealthier conditions. The construction of water retention and conveyancestructures would not provide mosquito breeding as the supplies would keepfluctuating.

V. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

A. The Borrower

5.01 BAFI would be the borrower under the guarantee of the SocialistRepublic of Romania. BAFI has the prime responsibility for financing thedevelopment of the agricultural sector. BAFI already has adequate legal,financial and administrative power to discharge its responsibilities effec-tively (para. 3.18). BAFI is the borrower for all Bank loans to the agri-cultural sector.

- 38 -

B. Implementing Agencies

5.02 MAFI has the overall responsibility for planning, designing, con-struction, supervision, operation and maintenance of all irrigation, drain-age and soil erosion control works. MAFI and its affiliate agencies havebeen the executing agencies for all Bank assisted agricultural projects andperform satisfactorily. Organizational chart of MAFI and related projectimplementing agencies is presented in Chart III.

5.03 Economic General Directorate for Land Reclamation and AgriculturalConstruction (DGEIFCA). The responsibility for planning, design and con-struction of project works would rest with DGEIFCA, which is headed by aDeputy Minister, and is organized into the following four directorates:

(a) Technical, Investment and Cooperation Directorate. ISPIF, whichis under this directorate, would be responsible for the planningand design of the project.

(b) Construction and Land Development Directorate. ConstructionTrusts for Land Reclamation Works (TCIF), belonging to thisdirectorate and their regional branches would undertake projectconstruction;

(c) Planning and Finance Directorate; and

(d) Supply Directorate.

All the above units of DGEIFCA are adequately staffed and have good pastexperience in carrying out similar works.

5.04 Foreign Trade State Enterprise for Cooperation, Engineering,Import and Export for Agriculture and Food Industry (Romagrimex) would beresponsible for procurement to be arranged under the project as under theprevious Bank assisted agricultural projects.

5.05 The Ministry of Electrical Energy, through its subordinate enter-prises and their units, is responsible for construction, operation andmaintenance of power transmission facilities, and for supplying energy tothe project area.

5.06 Assurances were obtained from Government that MAFI and its affili-ate agencies and the Ministry of Electrical Energy would carry out theconstruction, operation and maintenance of project works diligently andefficiently.

C. Operation and Maintenance and Supervision of Construction

5.07 The irrigation, drainage and soil erosion control works, to beconstructed under the project would be operated and maintained by the

- 39 -

Directorate for Exploitation of Land Reclamation Works (DELIF) which isheaded by a Deputy Minister of MAFI and has the responsibility for opera-tion and maintenance of all completed irrigation projects. DELIF has 17operational units, called Enterprise for Exploitation of Land Resources(IELIFs) which are based on districts. Each IELIF has several sub-units,known as Systems; each System maintains an area of up to 40,000 ha of irri-gated land. Two new systems would be set up for the Caracal subproject andone system for the Titu subproject. The new systems would be adequatelystaffed by trained technicians and supervisors. Equipment for operationand maintenance (Annex 6) to be furnished by the Project would be handedover to the IELIF in the two districts of Olt and Ilfov. The power supplyworks would be maintained by the Ministry of Energy. The on-farm portableequipment would be maintained by the farm entities, and the farm machinerywould be maintained by the established Agroindustrial Councils.

D. Accounts and Audit

Audit and Control System

5.08 To support its highly centralized decision-making process, Romaniahas an elaborate control and audit system designed to keep the manager ofthe economy advised on the progress of, and deviation from, planned activi-ties. This control system has three major objectives: (i) to auditaccounts to ensure accurate financing status; (ii) to determine thatresources are being used in accordance with national plans; and (iii) torecommend desirable changes in resource use.

5.09 The system is organized like a pyramid. At the top is the Courtof Superior Control, while at the bottom are accountants who check andapprove routine transactions at the enterpise level. The numerous organi-zations perform either "Internal Control" or "External Control". Thesecontrols can further be divided into two broad categories: the preliminarycontrol which covers day-to-day transactions; and the posterior controlwhich resembles annual audits. Thus an enterprise, during a period ofone year, is inspected by: (i) its own chief accounts officer; (ii) theinternal controller, who reports both to the general manager of the Centraland Minister concerned; (iii) controllers from the Ministry of Finance whoreport to the Ministry of Finance; and (iv) inspectors from the Court ofSuperior Control. Assurances were obtained during negotiations that areport on project account and annual financial statements of BAFI, auditedby the Ministry of Finance would be submitted to the Bank annually withinsix months of the Romanian fiscal year.

E. Project Monitoring and Completion Report

5.10 Project Monitoring and Key Project Indicators. BAFI would beresponsible for submitting through quarterly and annual reports to the

- 40 -

Bank, the information necessary to measure systematically project executionagainst the proposed implementation schedule, and project performance aftercompletion of construction against project benefits foreseen duringappraisal. The reports would be similar to those currently submitted foron-going projects and would include data on the progress of construction ofall physical facilities under various project components, development ofirrigation, drainage, soil erosion control areas and other works, progressin the procurement of equipment and materials, and data on project expendi-tures. Agricultural data indicating the areas reclaimed, drained andbrought under irrigation, cropping patterns adopted, level of inputsapplied and yields attained would be submitted annually. The details offormat in which the above information would be supplied to the Bank werediscussed during negotiations and assurances were sought on their timelyprovision.

5.11 Project Completion Report. Promptly after completion of the proj-ect but no later than June 30, 1986, BAFI would prepare and furnish to theBank a report on the execution and initial operation of the project, itscosts and the benefits derived and to be derived from it, the performanceby the Bank and BAFI of their respective obligations under the proposedloan. The detailed contents of the report were discussed during nego-tiations and assurance were obtained on its timely preparation duringnegotiations.

VI. BENEFITS, JUSTIFICATION AND RISKS

A. Project Benefits

6.01 The proposed Caracal-Titu Irrigation Project accounts for about17% of the planned incremental area to be irrigated in the sixth Five YearPlan (1981-1985). It would transform presently rainfed lands into highlyproductive agricultural zone. At full development, in 1990, crop andby-products output with and without project situation are summarized below:

- 41 -

Cropped Area ProductionPresent and Future Present and FutureFuture with- with Future with- with

Crop out Project Project out Project Project Incremental---------(ha)--------- -------------(000 tonsT----

Wheat 30,991 21,858 80.3 108.4 28.1Barley 9,399 - 27.7 - (27.7)

Maize 38,305 64,910 129.8 517.2 387.4Soybean 3,680 8,250 5.2 21.5 16.3Sunflower 8,772 9,042 11.6 25.4 13.8Sugarbeet 6,100 7,685 163.3 407.2 243.9Potatoes 1,572 276 21.8 5.5 (16.3)Vegetables /1 720 4,395 7.1 114.6 107.5Vetch (green

forage) 1,224 - 17.7 - (17.7)Alfalfa (hay) 20,853 6,812 104.5 71.2 (33.3)Maize (silage,

f.c.) /2 62 - 2.0 - (2.0)

Maize (silage,s.c.) /3 (414) (21,858) 12.4 736.1 723.7

Natural pastures 3,599 - 27.0 - (27.0)

Natural hayfields 75 - 0.2 - (0.2)

Sown pastures - 1,363 - 54.5 54.5

Vineyards 1,883 1,883 7.7 15.1 7.4Orchards /4 699 699 2.1 4.2 2.1Total 127,934 127,173 620.4 2,080.9 1,460.5

Gross Value Crops(lei Million) /5 490.8 1,303.1 812.3

Gross ValueBy-Products(lei Million) 31.5 88.6 57.1

Total Gross Value(lei Million) 522.3 1,391.7 869.4

/1 Consists mainly of tomatoes and peppers./2 First crop maize for silage./3 Second crop maize for silage./4 Consists mainly of apples and pears./5 At official 1980 domestic farmgate prices.

6.02 Under the Caracal subproject, provision is made for valley train-ing works and small flood retention dams. These works would mitigateannual flood damages estimated at lei 10 million (US$0.7 million). Thebenefits from these works are included in the economic analysis.

- 42 -

B. Prices and Markets

Pricing Structure

6.03 Because of the nature of economic management in Romania, thepricing system plays a much less important role than it does in marketeconomies. Prices are fixed by Government and rarely vary in response tochanges in demand and supply. They only vary according to quality ofproducts and in some instances according to delivery date. Prices may alsovary by zone but are common within each zone. Domestic prices reflectsubsidized input prices including low cost of labor and fuel. Presentprices have not changed significantly over a period of about fifteenyears. Some upward revision occurred in 1977/78 which coincided with therevaluation of the lei from 20 to 18 vis-a-vis the U.S. dollar. Governmenthas also announced further revaluation of the lei to 15 from January 1,1981.

6.04 Despite the new measures taken to reorganize the agriculturalunits (para. 1.2), Romania still maintains two tier pricing system for IASsand CAPs. IASs pay lower input prices than CAPs and get lower outputprices than CAPs. Domestic prices of vegetables, potatoes, fruits, sugar-beet and grapes are fixed by grades and dates of delivery. They varybetween a maximum for early delivery and superior quality and a minimumfor later delivery and poor quality but cannot exceed or undercut theselimits. IASs are required to deliver all their products to the Statemarketing enterprises or their sub-units. CAPs, however, make theirdeliveries based on contracts signed with the marketing agencies at thebeginning of each cropping season. The contracting quantities are estab-lished after subtracting food and feed needs for human and livestock con-sumption, ensuring seed requirements and setting aside payments in kind formembers and the SMA.

Markets

6.05 The incremental production of cereals, vegetables, fruits andlivestock feed crops would be destined for the growing domestic markets,augment export volumes and substitute for current imports.

6.06 Cereals. At full development, maize production would increaseby 298% and wheat by 35%. These output gains are attributable to yieldimprovements of maize and wheat and expansion of maize lands (paras 3.4,3.5 and 3.6). Romania has generally been a surplus producer of wheat andmaize generating total exports of 0.7 million tons in 1978. With thegrowing livestock development program in the 1980's, the project would helpmeet domestic requirements including substitutes for high priced feedconcentrate imports and continue to generate exportable surpluses. BAFI'sprojection of maize output in 1985 is about 15 million tons. Assuming that80% (12 million tons) would be available for animal feed and an estimated10 million tons would be required for domestic livestock development, the

- 43 -

balance of 2 million tons could be exported. World Bank's projection ofworld maize export in 1985 is about 68 million tons of which Romania couldaccount for 2 million tons or 3% of total exports. Romania's share of

maize exports would probably increase to about 5% in 1990 when most of thelarge scale irrigation project would be fully operated. Romania has amplemarket opportunities both in W. Europe and COMECON countries particularlythe Soviet Union.

6.07 Oilseeds. Under the proposed cropping pattern, soybean and sun-flower would constitute 13.6% of the total crop land compared to 9.7% underpresent situation. Romania is deficient in protein source crops which isaffecting livestock productivity. Feed conversion ratio of poultry iscurrently well below international standards on account of low protein feedcontent. The incremental production from the proposed project wouldi sub-stitute for major import requirements and save foreign exchange. By 1985Romania would still import 20-25% (same as 1979 share) of its protein mealsupply.

6.08 Sugarbeet. The incremental output of sugarbeet of about 244,000tons equivalent to 32,000 tons of sugar would be consumed domestically.Present level of per capita consumption of sugar is about 28 kg andexpected to increase to 34 kg in 1985. The per capita consumption Levelwould still be below the current consumption levels in other East Europeancountries. Romania is a net importer of sugar.

6.09 Fruits and Vegetables. The areas under orchards and vineyardswould remain constant. Higher output levels would be attained throughannual replantings, provision of irrigation and fertilizer and herbicideapplications. Output of both orchards and vineyards would double from thepresent levels. The incremental production would be marketed in the urbancenters of the project area. Annual Romanian exports of vegetables isestimated at about 200,000 tons mainly to neighboring East European coun-tries. Of the total vegetable production in Romania, 60% is processed, 35%is consumed fresh and about 5% is exported fresh. The vegetable outputfrom the proposed project would account for less than 2% of total Romanianproduction. Per capita consumption of fresh vegetables is estimated at 160kg in 1980 and planned to reach 200 kg in 1985.

6.10 Fodder Crops. At present there are 152 livestock farms in theproject area (para. 2.8). By 1990 the number of farms is expected toreach 164 with modernized facilities. The incremental output of alfalfapastures, vetch and hay would be consumed in the project area.

C. Main Benefits and Beneficiaries

6.11 Benefits. The proposed project would boost agricultural produc-tion through intensive and more efficient utilization of land, water andother factors of production. At full development, i.e. in 1990, the directnet incremental financial benefits from the agricultural activities is

- 44 -

estimated at US$41.9 million annually. The net return per hectare of agri-cultural land would increase from US$62 without the project to US$329 withfull operation of the project. Detailed tables on net returns for theCaracal and Titu subprojects are presented in Annex 9, Tables T-1 to T-ll.In addition, the project would also mitigate flood damages estimated atabout lei 10 million per year. Moreover, presently underemployed agricul-tural workers would be fully employed complimented by adequate machineryservices. The annual labor requirement in the project area at full devel-opment is estimated at 2.8 million man-days. During project implementa-tion, about 5,000 temporary and 1200 permanent jobs would also be created.

6.12 Beneficiaries. An estimated 78,000 CAP members and IAS employeeswould beneift from the proposed project. Workers' remuneration in thesocialized agricultural sector is based on a set of salary norms estab-lished nationally. Bonus payments are made when planned production targetsare surpassed. With the provision of irrigation and drainage facilities,the production targets in the project area would be revised upward. How-ever, the incomes of the project area agricultural workers would only beraised through a national income policy. Nevertheless production fromprivate plots assigned to individual CAP members would raise their incomelevel appreciably.

D. Economic Analysis

6.13 The economic rate of return of the project to the economy ofRomania is estimated at 20%. The net present values of benefits discountedat 9% over 40 years would rise from US$341.7 million without project toUS$692.9 million with project. A summary of ERRs and NPVs for Caracal andTitu subprojects and the whole project is presented below.

Subproject ERR NPV(%) (US$ million)

Caracal 20.3 247.1Titu 18.3 104.1Total Project 19.5 351.2

6.14 The assumptions underlying the estimated economic rates of returnare:

(a) Investment Costs. Total project cost is estimated based on unitrates prevailing in December 1980. For the purpose of the eco-nomic analysis the investment cost stream has been adjusted toreflect the real resource cost incurred by the economy. From thefinancial project cost, the following items have been excluded:(i) price contingencies - as the analysis is in constant 1980prices and it is assumed that expected investment costs would riseat the same rate as international inflation; (ii) cost of farmmachinery - since the cost of machinery services is included in

- 45 -

the production cost stream; and (iii) land compensation - theproduction foregone from the areas taken by project works reflectsthe cost of compensation. The economic cost of the proposedproject also includes the cost of the storage dams attributable toirrigation. The respective costs allocated to irrigation havebeen approved by Government. The Draganesti dam on the Olt riverwould cost lei 1170 million and lei 293 million (25%) is costed tothe proposed Caracal subproject. Similarly, both Golesti andRiusor dams on the Arges river are multipurpose including irriga-tion. Hence future expenditures to be incurred for the completion

of the dams have been prorated among different users. Estimatedcost of the two dams is lei 1447 million and lei 220 milliorn (15%)is allocated to irrigation. Expenditures incurred to date wouldalso be considered as sunk costs.

(b) Operation, Maintenance and Replacement Costs. At full operationof project works annual O&M costs of pumping stations, storagedams irrigation and drainage systems and power costs are estimatedat lei 1,065 (US$71) and lei 966 (US$64) per ha for Caracal andTitu subprojects respectively. The weighted average O&M cost forthe project is lei 1,035 or US$69 per ha. The Titu subprojectrequires minimal pumping. Replacement costs have also beenprovided every ten years for on-farm equipments and every twentyyears for pumps. Breakdown of O&M and replacement costs is givenin Annex 10.

(c) Project Execution. Project works for the two subprojects would

commence in 1982 and Caracal would be completed in 1985 and Tituin 1984. Since the Draganesti dam is scheduled for completion in1984 the first irrigation on parts of the Caracal subproject areawould start in 1985. In the Titu subproject the Golesti dam willbe completed in 1983 and Riusor dam would be commissioned in 1984and 50% of the subproject area would be irrigated in 1984. In1981 preparation for project sites would be initiated. Landdevelopment and phasing of project works are presented in Chart I.

(d) Agricultural Practices. The cropping pattern recommended andyield projections and supporting agricultural inputs are discussedin Chapter III.

(e) Input Prices. Based on Bank's Commodity Price Forecasts, farmgateprices of traded inputs have been derived. Romania being a netexporter of nitrogen and phosphate fertilizers, export parityprices are applicable. However, Romania is net importer ofpotassium fertilizers, and import parity price has been derived.All other inputs including labor are valued at the prevailingdomestic market prices. List of input prices is presented inAnnex 11.

(f) Output Prices. The proposed cropping pattern has a range ofproducts expected to augment current exports, substitute for

imports and incease non-tradeable commodities. The tradeable

- 46 -

commodities would account for over 85% of the agriculturalbenefits. While maize, wheat and orchards are valued at exportparity, sugarbeet, soybeans, and sunflower, prices are based onimport parity equivalents adjusted for transport and handlingcharges. The price projections are based on Bank's CommodityPrice Forecasts in constant 1980 prices. The non-tradeables viz.fodder are valued at the established domestic prices. Financialand economic output prices are given in Annex 12.

6.15 The economic cash flows for Caracal, Titu and the whole projectare presented in Annex 13, Tables T-1, T-2 and T-3. Although the Caracalsubproject has similar project design as Bucsani subproject (BBSP Irriga-tion VII) located north of Caracal, the estimated ERR is slightly lowerthan for Bucsani. The major difference which explains this variation isthe timing of project execution and development. In the case of Bucsaniland development commences a year after project work begins. However, inthe case of Caracal because of the schedule of Draganesti's dam completion,water will not be available before the fourth year of the project. Simi-larly, the Titu subproject on the Golesti and Riusor dams can only startgenerating benefits in the third year of the project construction period.The ERR difference between Caracal and Titu can be attributed largely tochanges in the future cropping pattern (paras. 3.4 and 3.5) and proportionof present area under irrigation. In the Caracal subproject only 4% of thepresent area is irrigated compared to 14% in Titu (which would depress theincremental benefits).

Sensitivity Analysis and Risks

6.16 Sensitivity tests were conducted to observe the project'sresilience to possible changes in selected variables. The sensitivityanalysis indices signify the percentage changes from the appraisal valuesto generate ERR of 9%. These results are shown below.

Sensitivity Analysis IndicesAppraisal SwitchingValue ValueIndex Index % Change

1. Investment Costs 100 260 1602. Cost of Storage Dams 100 1,633 1,5333. Operation and Maintenance Cost 100 662 5624. Without Project Yields 100 163 635. With Project Yields 100 75 -256. Maize Yield with Project 100 51 -497. Input Prices 100 270 1708. Output Prices 100 60 -409. Incremental Mechanization Cost 100 996 89610. Incremental Labor Cost 100 827 72711. Incremental Fertilizer Cost 100 536 43612. Total Incremental Production Cost 100 270 17013. Total Incremental Benefit 100 60 -4014. Phasing of Land Development 100 200 100

- 47 -

6.17 The risks for the proposed project are minimal. The only vari-ables of significance are the output prices and the with project yields.Historically, output prices of crops under the project have not shown 40%fall in real terms. Similarly the chances for with project yields to drop

by 25% are remote. For example, maize yields would have to stop at themaximum of 4 tons per ha. There are evidences to suggest in Romania thataverage maize yields on presently irrigated lands have surpassed 8 tons perha. It is also interesting to note that even if the phasing of landdevelopment takes 8 years instead of 4, the project would still be eco-nomically viable. In an unlikely event of four years delay of construc-tion, of the storage dams, the proposed project would have an economic rateof return of 13% which is acceptable. The probabilities for any of theabove circumstances are very small in view of the results attained i~nongoing irrigation schemes. The technical package recommended for cropcultivation is widely known in Romania and have been adopted successfully.Neither cost overrun nor implementation delay have been experienced in Bankassisted irrigation projects.

VII. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.01 Assurances were obtained from Government of Romania that:

(a) Government would make suitable arrangements in providing adequatefertilizer and equipment for application of biocides andfertilizer in the project area (para. 3.14 and 3.15);

(b) Government would supply the cultivators in the project area withagricultural, technical and advisory services, seeds, agriculturalcredit, marketing facilities and other agricultural inputs all asrequired to make optimal productive use of such area (para. 3.26).

(c) Draganesti dam on the Olt river currently under construction bythe Ministry of Power would be completed by December 31, 1984 topermit timely irrigation of Caracal subproject (para. 4.06);

(d) Golesti and Riusor dams on the Arges river under construction bythe National Water Council would be completed by December 31, 1983and December 31, 1984 respectively to permit timely irrigation ofTitu subproject (para. 4.07);

(e) Government would make suitable arrangements for review of design,construction and operation of those dams on the Olt and Argesrivers through independent qualified experts acceptable to theBank (paras. 4.06 and 4.07);

(f) a letter of representation assuring the Bank that withdrawals fromthe Olt river would not cause problems with other riparian states(para. 4.09);

- 48 -

(g) procurement of equipment and materials listed in Annex 6, esti-mated to cost US$80 million would be arranged following inter-national competitive bidding in accordance with the Bank'sGuidelines (para. 4.16);

(h) a report on project accounts and annual financial statements ofBAFI audited by the Ministry of Finance would be submitted to theBank annually within six months of the close of the RomanianFiscal Year (para. 5.09);

(i) necessary data and information would be furnished to the Bank,through periodic quarterly reports, to measure project implementa-tion and performance against scheduled targets (para. 5.10);

(j) promptly after project completion but not later than June 30, 1986BAFI would prepare and furnish to the Bank a project completionreport (para. 5.11);

(k) the flood diversion channels from the tributary of Dimbovita toArges intercepting Sabar would be completed no later than December31, 1982 (Annex 2, para. 14),

7.02 With the above agreements, the proposed project is suitable for aBank loan of US$80 million to the Bank for Agriculture and Food Industry,with the guarantee of the Socialist Republc of Romania for a term of 15years including three years of grace.

- 49 -

ANNEX 1Table T-1

APPRAISAL OF

CARACAL-TITU IRRIGATION PROJECT

ROMANIA

CARACAL

Climatological Data/l

Average Average Ave. Relative Ave. Wind Ave.SunshineCaracal Station Temperature Rainfall Humidity Velocity Hours

oC mm r m/sec hr

January -2.6 43.0 89.7 2.6 65

February -0.1 38.7 85.6 2.9 91

March 4.7 39.0 77.5 3.4 147

April 11.9 46.4 68.3 3.2 188

May 17.0 64.4 68.4 2.9 251

June 20.7 73.4 66.7 2.5 280

July 22.7 53.8 62.1 2.4 309

August 22.2 44.1 62.6 2.3 296

September 17.9 30.5 67.3 2.2 239

October 10.9 40.8 76.8 2.4 177

November 5.6 50.5 87.1 2.6 87

December 0.3 /2 47.1 90.7 2.0 64

Total Annual 571.7 2,194

Cropping Season /3 353.4 1,740

/1 Based on 33 years from 1945-1977, except average temperature for months of October,November and December which is average of 32 years (1946-1977), and sunshine hoursbased on 21 years (1957-1977)

/2 Average annual temperature is 10.90C

/3 April through October

- 50 -

ANNEX 1Table T-2

APPRAISAL OF

CARACAL-TITU IRRIGATION PROJECT

ROMANIA

TITU

Climatological Data/l

Bucharest-Filaret Temperature Average Ave. Relative Ave. Wind Ave. Sun-Station Maximum Minimum Average Rainfall Humidity Velocity shine hours

- - - - --°C ---- n--- mm / mtsec hr

January 4.2 -10.3 -2.8 38.5 85 2.2 67

February 4.1 -9,8 -0.7 31.5 81 2.3 93

March 9.3 -1.2 5.0 36.2 71 2.4 150

April 15.4 7.5 11.4 44.3 61 2.4 203

May 20.2 12.0 16.9 64.0 60 2.0 246

June 23.0 18.6 20.6 91.8 60 1.5 263

July 25.7 20,1 22.9 57.7 56 1.4 325

August 25.9 19.6 22.3 51.9 55 1.5 312

September 21.2 14.6 18.1 36.3 60 1.5 252

October 17.0 7.0 11.9 42.4 71 1.8 172

November 10.6 -0.6 5.3 45.6 81 2.0 74

December 4.4 -5.7 0.0 /2 39.7 86 2.0 70

Total Annual 579.9 2,227

Cropping Season (April through October) 388.4 1,773

Titu Station

January 1.8 -8.5 -3.2 32.8 76 n.a. n.a.

February 3.1 -9.0 -1.2 30.8 74 n.a. n.a.

March 7.7 -1.2 4.1 33.7 65 n.a. n.a.

April 12.3 7.2 10.5 45.1 61 n.a. n.a.

May 19.3 13.3 16.0 62.7 62 n.a. n.a.

June 20.1 17.8 19.6 85.1 64 n.a. n.a.

July 23.5 20.1 21.7 62.9 62 n.a. n.a.

August 23.4 19.3 20.9 41.8 59 n.a. n.a.

September 19.1 13.8 16.9 44.9 62 n.a. n.a.

October 13.4 7.2 11.1 43.6 70 n.a. n.a.

November 7.1 0.9 4.7 46.4 78 n.a. n.a.

December 3.7 -6.2 -0.4 /3 36.7 77 n.a. n.a.

Total Annual 566.5

Cropping Season (April through October) 386.1

/1 Based on 33 years from 1945-1977/2 Average annual temperature is 10.90C/3 Average annual temperature is 10.10 C

- 51 - ANNEX 2Page 1

APPRAISAL OF

CARACAL-IITU IRRIGATION PROJECT

ROMANIA

Project Description

A. Caracal

1. Draganesti Dam on the River Olt. Development ot the water

resources of the Olt basin has been plannea by a series ot dams. TheDraganesti is one of these dams, currently under construction at 59 kmstrom the Danube. The design ot the dam (13.5 metres high) meets thestandard design criteria. Assurances were obtained during negotiationsthat the design of this dam shall be examined by an incependent agency. whoshall also inspect the dam during construction to assure proper control onspecifications as well as monitor the dam satety after completion. Thespillway and dykes are safe for 1 in 1,000 year tlood. The dyke section isconcrete facea gravel fill with concrete cut-ott extending to rock. Thespillway and power house are conventional structures, founded on rock. Thecaracal subproject woula depend on its water supply trom the Draganestistorage; the reservoir providing the head to supply water to the systemintakes and the storea water meeting the irrigation shortages in the yearsof low Olt flow. The cost of this dam, allocated tor irrigation, willtheretore be considered in the economic analysis ot the project. The damis scheduled for completion in 1984 and assurances were sought duringnegotiations that timely completion will be achieved.

2. Intakes for Irrigation System. The main intake ot the conduittype (4 of 2.4 m x 2.5 m), would be located in the right cyke ot theDraganesti dam at 5 km upstream of the dam. It has been designed to pass adischarge ot 48.5 m3/sec in the main canal CAL, with the reservoir at thelowest level of 77 m. To save on pumping costs, the intake would allowthe canal water level to rise, tor higher reservoir elevations; the levelnot exceeding 82.5 m, which is the dominant level for the reservoir, themaximum being 84.5 m. This intake shall teed the system for 82,000 ha.The intake for the system for the remaining 6,000 ha would be an outlet inthe Draganesti dam, designed to pass 3.5 m /sec, and controlled by 1,200mm diameter butterfly valves. The cost ot the outlet is not chargea toCaracal project, and forms a part of the Draganesti dam cost debitable toirrigation.

- 52 - ANNEX 2

Page 2

3. System of Open Canals and Pump Stations. The CAL, 6,900 m long,would carry the supplies from the intake to the pumping station, at the toeof the terrace. It would have high banks to allow water level variationfrom 76.5 m to 82.5 m. Direct irrigation from the canal would be 4,200 hain the plains. The pumping station SPAI would raise the supply from 76.5 mto 97 m into two canals CDI (6 m3/sec) and CAT (41 m3/sec). CDI,18,385 m long, with the repumping stations SRP4, SRP5 and SRP6 would coverthe area (about 7,400 ha) between the Oltet and Teslui rivers, extending toelevation 142 m. CAT would skirt around the terrace at elevation 97 m for6,785 metres, where 40 m3/sec would be pumped up to elevation 133.5 m.The canal would then follow the contour for 11,870 meters and would feedthe canals CD2, CD3, CD4, CD5, CD6, CD7 and CD8, covering an area of 44,800ha. Water of canal CD2 would be pumped up to 144.7 m by SRP2 for an areaof 12,100 ha and CD4 supplies would be raised to 154.2 m by SRP3 for anarea of 13,500 ha. The canal CD9 would get its supplies from the damintake. The total length of all the open canals would be 128 km. All thecanals would be concrete lined, and both cast in situ and precast slabswould be used. The canal longitudinal slopes would vary from 0.08 to 0.12per thousand. Operation of the canals would be automated by constant down-stream level type regulating structures, and the canals would be used forstorage to balance the continuous pumping with 20 or 22 hour irrigation.About 100 structures would be provided on the canal system. These wouldinclude escape weirs at suitable locations to control the occasional flowin excess of canal storage.

4. Pressure Pumping Stations and Irrigation Equipment. Forty-onepressure pumping stations would pump the canal supplies into buried pipenetwork for feeding the sprinkler and furrow irrigation equipment. Thenetwork shall cover the currently irrigated areas also, since no networkexists in these areas and irrigation is practised through surface pipes orditches. Diesel pumps, currently in use in these areas, are in poor shapeand shall not be usable. Main and secondary pipes would be in presetressedconcrete. The A.C. or PVC distribution pipes would be spaced 800 m apartand would be 1,260 to 2,000 m long. Hydrants would be located on thedistribution pipes at 72 m spacing. The sprinkler irrigation would be donefor 22 hours per day in an area of 74,000 ha, where ground water level isbelow 2m. Three types of sprinklers would be used: manually shifted for65% area, longitudinally drawn for 26%, and self-moving for 9%. Thesprinklers would be spaced on the laterals at 18m to supply water to anarea of 18 m x 24 m. Furrow irrigation would be done for 20 hours per day,in 14,000 ha, where ground water is 5 to 10 m deep and ground slopes are 3to 10%. The furrow lengths would be about 200 m and distance betweenfurrows 0.8 m. The furrow equipment would be of aluminium and flexiblebutyl rubber of 150 mm diameter supplying water to 16 to 20 furrows fromone hydrant.

5. On one distribution pipe 3 to 5 sprinkler installations or 2 to 3furrow equipment would usually operate. For small areas, irrigation wouldbe done by the use of monofilar pumps. The entire system would have 1,673

- 53 - ANNEX 2Page 3

km of pipe network, 48 pressure pumping stations having vertical pumpingunits, 130 monofilar asynchronous pumps, 972 longitudinally drawnsprinklers, 280 self-moving, 2,519 manually moved and 434 furrow equip-ment. In addition, sprinklers currently in use in the irrigated areas,shall continue being used.

6. Surface Drainage Network. The surface drainage network isdesigned for 0.75 1/s/ha which corresponds to run-off from 5% probabilityrainfall, but the works on the drainage channels are designed for 1.121/s/ha which corresponds to 1% probability of rain. The drains would bespaced at 400 m and 600 m depending on topography. These would out[allinto natural drainage channels, which would be improved to carry the flowup to the Olt. Drainage system would be new in 29,100 ha, where eightseparate systems would drain from 1,500 to 5,900 ha. Total length of thesedrainage channels would be about 500 kms. The existing drainage channels,about 250 kms. in length in 9,400 ha, would be improved in section.

7. Tile Drainage. Tile drainage would be provided in 8,000 ha tolower the ground water level. Ceramic tiles 700 mm diameter laid in gravelenvelope at about 1.5 m depth and slope 1.5 to 2 per thousand, would formthe suction drains at a spacing of 20-40 m and 150-200 m long; thecollector drains would be 100-200 mm diameter. The collector drains wouldhave inspection chambers every 100 m. The system is designed for 0.61/s/ha, which will prevent ground water rising above 1.2 m.

8. Soil Erosion Control Works. Soil erosion controls works would becarried out in 1,730 ha, concentrated between the Teslui and Oltet rivers.The works would mainly comprise making terraces, intercepting channels attoe of slopes and check dams in gulleys besides pasture fertilization andgrass covered outlets.

9. Flood Detention Dams and Valley Training. Four flood detentiondams are proposed one each in Rotunda and Polovincle valleys and two inCrusov valley. These dams would be earth structures with toe filters.Similar 12 dams are already existing in other valleys within the projectarea and have performed well. The four proposed dams would also beutilized for fish culture and the outlets from the dams would have controlvalves to maintain a minimum pool. The upstream face of the dam would haveconcrete facing up to the fish pool level. The capacity of the dams isfixed for no overflow for a flood of probability 1% and freeboard ofminimum 50 cms on a flood of probability 0.3%. The routed flow from any ofthese dams is less than 10.5 m3/sec for 1% probability and less than 23M 3/sec for 0.3% probability.

10. The Polovincle joins the Rotunda at a short distance below thedam. The Rotunda and the Crusov flow down to the Olt. The valleys betweenthe flood detention dams and the Olt would be trained for carrying the flowof 1% probability within the banks. En route these valleys are crossed by

- 54 - ANNEX 2Page 4

a railway line, a national highway and the main irrigation canal forStoenesti-Visina system. These crossings would be reconstructed to passthe discharges corresponding to 0.3% probability.

11. Reclaiming Sandy Areas. About 4,000 ha of the project area hassand dunes. This is an extension of the sandy stretches in the Sadova-Corabia irrigation project, where about 37,000 ha have been successfully

reclaimed. Similar measures involving levelling of sand dunes andprotection by shelter belts would be adopted for these 4,000 ha also.

B. Titu

12. Golesti and Riusor Dam. Two dams-Golesti and Riusor are now underconstruction, providing 102 million m3 storage capacity, to augment thewater supply for industry and drinking water as well as provide additionalirrigation. The Titu Project is dependent on the releases from Golesti andRiusor to meet the irrigation requirements. The cost of these two dams,attributable to irrigation, shall therefore be considered in the economiccosts of Titu sub-project. The Golesti dam is 21.75 m high. The concretespillway structure and power station are founded on rock. The dykes 7.6 kmlong have concrete faced gravel section, with cut-off to rock. The Riusoris a 101.5 m high concrete dam. Both the dams have been designed to meetthe universally accepted design criteria. Assurances shall, however, beobtained during negotiations that the design of these dams shall be exam-ined by independent experts who shall also inspect the dam during construc-tion to assure proper control on specifications as well as monitor the damsafety after completion. Golesti dam is scheduled for completion in 1983and Riusor in 1984. Assurances shall be obtained during negotiations thatthe timely construction of these dams will be achieved.

13. Diversion Structure on the Arges. A concrete diversion structure124 m long, having dykes on both sides about 4 km long, would divert theriver supplies to the left canal intake, where an ejector would remove thesediment. The sediment free water would be fed into the left bank andright bank canals. The water for the latter would pass through the ductsin the diversion structure floor. The diversion structure has beendesigned for 1% probability flood (1,150 m3/sec) for energy dissipation andfor 0.1% probability flood (3,170 m3/sec) for clearances and safety ofdykes.

14. Left Bank Canal System. The left bank canal system would cover29,020 ha. Its main canal, discharge 13.10 m3/sec, would run close tothe northern boundary with length 45.15 kms. At 4.8 km of this canal, anofftake, discharge 4.60 m3/sec, would feed the Sabar stream, which wouldbe improved in a length of 52.05 kms, to serve as a branch canal irrigating10,590 ha. The Sabar flow from the upper catchment is being intercepted by

- 55 A ANNEX 2Page 5

a cross cut, diverting the flood water of the tributaries of Dimbovita tothe Arges for protection of Bucharest town from Dimbovita floods. Onlylimited drainage from adjacent areas would thus be reaching Sabar, whichwill have the dual function of a canal and a drain. Assurances would beobtained that these flood diversion channels (cross cuts) would be com-pleted by December 31, 1982.

15. Right Bank Canal System. The right bank canal system would irri-gate 13,657 ha. The main canal, without branch canals, would run along themiddle of the area for 38.35 kms. The canal would run for nearly half ofits length close to the Pitesti-Bucharest National Highway.

16. Pressure Pumping Stations and Irrigation System. Twenty-ninepressure pumping stations having vertical pumps would pump water from thecanals into buried pipe network for sprinkler and furrow irrigation. Forsmall areas, asynchronous monofilar pumps would be used. The network wouldcover currently irrigated areas. All these areas have no permanent irriga-tion system and surface pipes and ditches are used. The introduction ofthe network shall assure supplies in these areas and the use of old dieselpumps shall be discontinued. The network would provide hydrants at 72 mspacing, antennae spacing being 800 m. The furrows would be 50 to 200 mlong, spaced 70 cms, and would be fed by 150 mm diameter aluminium equip-ment. The furrow irrigation would be done 22 hours per day. The sprinklerpattern would be 18 m x 24 m and three types of sprinkler equipment wouldbe used - hand moved, longitudinally drawn, and self moving. Furrowirrigation shall be practised in 15,404 ha and sprinkler irrigation in26,083 ha. The area under furrow irrigation in one year would be sprinklerirrigated the next year. The current irrigation is mostly furrow. Thesprinklers, wherever used shall continue to be utilized.

17. Open Surface Drains. Surface drains would be constructed in34,747 ha to carry away rain excess. The layout is based on 5% proba-bility rainfall in 72 hour period, the hydro-modulus being 0.83 1/s/ha.Drains, spaced from 300 m to 500 m, outfall into the nearest natural dainor irrigation canal, the latter performing a dual function.

18. Tile Drains. Ceramic tiles 70 mm dia., with gravel envelope and150-200 metres long, would be placed at a spacing of 35 m and minimum 1.40m deep to provide suction drainage in an area of 3,300 ha, which has highwater level. The collector drains would be 150 to 200 mm diameter. Thedrainage system is designed for a discharge of 0.60 1/s/ha.

A2PPAISAL OF

CABACAL-rITU IRIWGATION P03ET

CARACAL

STIM4ATEI WATER BF NT4U /1

Zeatlwted WaterRecruireeatat

One ha One ha orCrop Area April My JeJse A t Septembero±Crop prroJet area Juy /2 A_nu_l

Wheat and Matie (silege, e.c.) 15,735 18.4 190 571 301 772 1,230 645 3,709 682 12.2 58.4!let2e 44,498 51.9 180 412 1,453 1,049 3,094 1,606 64.7 137.7Soybean 4,984 5.8 102 546 1,222 352 2,222 129 6.1 11.S=nflower 6,592 7.7 460 945 1,392 2,797 215 9.2 18.4Sugerbeet 4,826 5.6 620 1,392 1,016 327 3,355 188 6.7 16.2Vegetablea 2,354 2.7 24 593 678 1,132 1,484 887 4,798 130 2.7 11.3Alfalfa (hay) 3,138 3.7 310 641 730 1.099 1,461 864 5,105 189 3.5 16.0Potatoes 276 0.3 385 535 1,050 450 2,420 7 0.3 0.79en P-eture 1,340 1.6 310 641 730 1,099 1,461 864 5,105 82 1.5 6.8Grapes 1,520 , 1.8 500 870 1,370 27 0.8 2.1

Froit 423 0.5 500 870 1,370 7 0.2 0.6

Total 85,686 too

Net sater requlrement 52 291 467 1,256 987 207 3,260 107.9 279.3Gross water requiremeent /3 66 371 596 1,602 1,259 264 4,158 137.6 356.3

A Based o- 80% probebility and with groupd water oupply

/2 Month of highest requirmuent

/3 Overall efficiency 78.4%

APPRAISAL OF

CAOAL..TI. IRRIGATION PROJECT

IACMA

TITU

1ETIMATED WATER RENtQUEMENT /1

Eatla,ted WlaterOne ho OflC ha 0! Requlre ment

one h. One h. OrArea April May June July Au.ugt September oe crop -rJ-ect srea July /2 Annual

Crop h a - - - - -- - _ - - - - - - - - - - - m3/ha - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - -

Bu=hareot-Fil.ret Station (o1w)Wheat 6,123 14.8 400 7S0 1,10 170 7.0Maize 20,412 49.2 550 1,080 1,100 P,730 1,?46 22.0 55.7Soybean 3,266 7.9 400 730 720 1,850 14f 2.4 6.oSunflower 2,450 5.9 550 1,090 1,640 97 2.7 4.0Sugarbeet 2,859 6.9 1,100 1,080 1,100 3,280 22' 3.1 9.6Vegetables 2,061 6.9 400 740 1,080 750 400 3,370 165 2.2 6.9Alfalfa (hay) 3,674 8.9 740 1,640 1,100 770 4,050 360 S. 14.9Sown pa.ture 23 0.1 800 1,200 1,200 6so 3,650 4 0.1Grapes 363 0.9 715 76S 1,690 15 0.3 0.5Prult 276 0.6 746 745 1,490 q 0.2 0.4Maize (silage, s.c.) (6,123) (14.8) 580 1,110 580 2,270 33r 3.6 13.9

Total 41,487 100.0

Net Water Requireent 59 162 039 1,006 928 170 7,871 41.8 118.8Gross Water Requirement /3 81 223 7b1 1,384 1,276 241 9,3L0 07.5 163.4

Titu St.tion (59%)Wheat 6,123 14.8 400 730 1,110 1f7 6.9Maize 20,11? 49,? 1,030 1,060 , 090 1,0?P 21.0 42.7Soybean 3,266 7.9 390 7S0 350 1,490 118 1.1 b.9Sunflower 2,450 0.9 550 1,060 1,5so 34 2.S 3.9Sugarbeet 2,R59 6.9 530 1,100 1,100 2,730 188 3A1 7.PVegetebles 2,041 6.9 400 710 1,020 730 600o ,?60 1lf 2.1 6.7Alfalfa (hay) 3,674 8.9 710 680 1,410 760 R,S60 317 2.5 10.1Sown pasture 23 0.1 f00 800 1,400 760 0,Sf0 L 0,1Grapes 363 0.9 400 Loo I. 0.1Fruit 276 0.6 400 1oo 2 0.1Maize (silage, S.c.) (r.123) (14.8) 560 1,070 970 ?,?00 3?6 3.1 13.5

Total 41,487 100.0

Net Water Requirement 59 1S8 227 966 924 1'2 2,LoR 3S.7 q0.8Groaa W.ter Requirement /3 81 217 312 1,191 1,271 207 3,31" b9.1 137.3

Summary (Weighted Average)Water Requirement

Net 59 060 355 Q23 Q?Pf 1. .0 cp.' 107.;:Gross /3 81 220 488 1,270 1,274 238 ,. 97.0 lb".0

/1 B-sed on 80% probability and rith ground water supply/8 Month of highest requirement/8 Overall- e!flctency 72.7%

APPRAISAL OF

CARACAL-TITU IRRIGATION PROJECT

ROMANIA

Caracal - Cost Estimate

Foreign

Item Local Foreign Total Local Foreign Total Exchange---------- Lei Million ---------- ---------- US$ Million ----- -- %

Irrigation WorksIntakes 35.3 9.9 45.2 2.3 0.7 3.0 22

Canals 462.2 122.9 585.1 30.8 8.2 39.0 21

Main pumping stations 99.2 26.4 125.6 6.6 1.8 8.4 21

Pressure pumping stations 152.9 40.7 193.6 10.2 2.7 12.9 21

Underground pipe network 385.2 108.6 493.8 25.7 7.2 32.9 22

Land levelling 103.5 15.5 119.0 6.9 1.0 7.9 13

On-farm equipment 114.9 54.1 169.0 7.7 3.6 11.3 32

Power supply and transformers 62.9 51.5 114.4 4.2 3.4 7.6 45

Subtotal 1,416.1 1F-9 1,845.7 94.4 I27 123.0 23

Drainage WorksSurface drains 103.8 19.8 123.6 6.9 1.3 8.2 16 m

Tile drains 59.7 14.9 74.6 4.0 1.0 5.0 20 1

Hydrogeological wells 0.9 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.01 0.11 13

Subtotal 16. 34.8 199.2 11.0 2.3 13.3 17

Miscellaneous WorksMaintenance buildings etc. 3.7 0.5 4.2 0.25 0.04 0.° 13

Soil erosion control 17.0 2.5 19.5 1.1 0.2 1.3 13Sand reclamation 38.3 5.7 44.0 2.6 0.4 3.0 13

Flood detention dams 36.1 10.2 46.3 2.4 0.7 3.1 22

Valley training 36.2 5.4 41.6 2.4 0.4 2.8 13

Other works 92.1 16.2 108.3 6.1 1.0 7.1 15

Subtotal 223.' 4°.5 263.9 14.T W7 17.6 16

Land Compensation 106.2 - 106.2 7.1 7.1 -

EquipmentOperation and maintenance 24.8 12.2 37.0 1.6 0.8 2.4 33

Farm machinery 125.3 61.7 187.1 8.4 4.1 12.5 33

Subtotal 150.1 73.9 224.1 10.0 9 33

Engineering and Administration 273.8 23.8 297.6 18.2 1.6 1q.8 8

Base cost 2,333.0 602.6 2,936.5 155.6 40.1 199.7 21

ContingenciesPhysical contingencies 175.0 45.2 220.2 11.6 3.0 14.7 21

Price contingencies 168.0 197.8 365.8 11.2 13.2 24.4Subtotal 30 3.0 586.7 0 T227 4 39.1 4 1

Total 2,677.0 845.6 3,522.f 178.9 56.3 234.8 24

APPRAISAL OF

CARACAL-TITU IRRIGATION PROJECT

ROMANIA

Titu - Cost Estimate

ForeignLocal Foreign Total Local Foreign Total Exchange---------- Lei Million ---------- ---------- tJS$ Million ----------

Irrigation WorksDiversion structure 285.2 80.4 365.6 19.0 5.4 24.4 22Canals 173.3 46.1 219.4 11.5 3.1 14.6 21Pressure pumping stations 63.0 16.8 79.8 4.2 1.1 5.3 21Underground pipe network 144.8 40.8 185.6 9.7 2.7 12.4 22Land levelling 128.5 19.2 147.7 8.6 1.3 9.9 13On-farm equipment 61.5 28.9 go.4 4.1 1.9 6.o 32Power supply and transformers 20.7 16.9 37.6 1.4 1.1 2.5 45

Subtotal o77.0 249.1 1,126.1 5575.1 22

Drainage WorksSurface drains 122.4 23.3 145.7 8.16 1.6 9.7 16 1Tile drains 25.8 6.5 32.3 1.7 o.4 2.1 19Land shaping 6.9 1.0 7.9 0.5 0.1 0 .6 13Hydrogeological wells 0.9 0.1 1.0 0.1 0.01 0.11 13

Subtotal 156.0 30.9 lO.iC 2.1 12.5 16

Miscellaneous WorksOperation structures 2.1 0.3 2.4 0.2 0,02 0.2 13Other works 49.8 8.8 58.6 3.3 o.6 3.9 15

Subtotal 51.9 9.1 7IT7 3.i7. o.-I 15

Land Compensation 9.3 - 9.3 o.6 o.6 15

BEuipmentOperation and maintenance 15.2 7.5 22.7 1.0 0.5 1.5 33Farm machinery 209. 103.4 313.3 14.0 6.9 20.9 33

Subtotal 225.1 9336 o 15.0 v 22.4 33

Engineering and Administration 86.3 7.5 93.8 5.8 0.5 6.3 8

Base cost 1,405.6 407.5 1,813.1 93.8 27.1 120,9 22

ContingenciesPhysical contingencies 105.4 30.6 136.0 7.0 2.0 (1.1 22Price contingencies 102.5 115.7 218.2 6.8 7.7 15.- 5O

Subtotal 307.9 147.3 354.2 13,8 9.7 I.tn 39

Total 1,613.5 553.8 2,167.3 107.6 36.9 144.5 2fL

ti' 4.

APPRAISAL OF

CARACAL-TITU IRRIGATION PROJECT

ROMANIA

Financing Plan(Lei '000)

CAPTotal Budgetary Allocations/i BAFI/l Own

Subproject (Disbursed thru BAFI) IELIF SMA Loan Funds

CaracalInvestment cost 3,281.4 2,891.4 - 292.7 97.3Agricultural machinery 196.0 - 196.0 - -O & M equipment 45.2 45.2 - __ _

Subtotal 3,522.6 2,936.6 196.0 292.7 97.3 0

TituInvestment cost 1,810.1 1,559.4 - 187.0 63.7Agricultural machinery 329.0 - 329.0 - -0 & M equipment 28.2 28.2 - - -

Subtotal 2,167.3 1,587.6 329.0 187.0 63.7

TOTAL 5,689.9 4,524.2 525.0 479.7 161.0

Percentage Share (%) 100 80 9 8 3

/1 Including IBRD loan and co-financing

- 61 - ANNEX 6Page 1

APPRAISAL OF

CARACAL-TITU IRRIGATION PROJECT

ROMANIA

List of Equipment and Materials to be ProcuredFollowing International Competitive Bidding

Estimated CostNumber Unit Total…-- lei '000 ---

A. Construction EquipmentCrawler Dozer 180 H.p. 10 900 9.000

Hydraulic Dragline 1 m3 50 1,600 80,000Truck Crane 25 to 45 ton 10 2,040 20,400Truck Crane 16 ton 10 1,100 11,000Tower Crane 40 tf. 3 850 2,550Batch Plant 36 m3 /hr. 8 700 5,600Mobile Concrete Pump 60 m3/hr. 6 1,300 7,800Canal Trimming and Lining Machine 2 23,000 46,000/1Truck Lorry 8 ton 100 500 50,000Tank Truck 10 450 4,500Mobile Laboratory 50 330 1.6,500Mobile Workshop 30 950 28,500

Lu;J. Lal 281,850Spare Parts @ 10% 28,187

Total 310,037

B. Pumping Equipment L.S. 160,000

C. Electrical Equipment L.S. 20,000

D. Equipment for Operation and MaintenanceHydraulic Dragline 10 1,600 16,000Hydraulic Excavator Telescopic arm 5 1,500 7,500Front-end Loader 0.8 m3 20 400 8,000Motorgrader 5 1,400 7,000Crawler Dozer 80 H.P. 20 300 6,000Wheel Tractor 180 H.P. 8 600 4,800Wheel Tractor 65 H.P. 20 200 4,000Trailers 5 ton 40 110 4,400Trailers Ln torn L 500 2,000

Total 59,700

/1 Could be used for other equipment/machinery, sugject to verificationof availability of adequate number of lining machines.

-62 - ANNEX 6Page 2

+a= 'Iacrune.6rAgricultural Tractor 45 E.P. I;0 120 18,000Agricultural Tractor 80 E.P. 1,253 230 288,190Agricultural Tractor 180 H.P. 150 573 85,950Cereal Combine 110 351 38,610Maize Combine 170 410 69,700

Total 500,450

F. MaterialsAsbestos Cement Pipes and Cement L.S. 150,000

Grand Total 1,200,000

- 63 -ANNEX 7

APPRAISAL OF

CARACAL-TITU IRRIGATION PROJECT

ROMANIA

Estimated Schedule of Disbursements

Cumulative OutstandingIBRD Fiscal Year Disbursement Disbursement Balanceand Quarter During Quarter During Quarter During Quarter

…------------------US$ million----------------------

1982

March 31, 1982 - - 80.0June 30, 1982 2.0 2.0 78.0

1983September 30, 1982 3.0 5.0 75.0December 31, 1982 5.0 10.0 70.0March 31, 1983 6.0 16.0 64.0June 30, 1983 8.0 24.0 56.0

1984September 30, 1983 3.0 27.0 53.0December 31, 1983 4.0 31.0 49.0March 30, 1984 6.0 37.0 43.0June 30, 1984 8.0 45.0 35.0

1985September 30, 1984 3.0 48.0 32.0December 31, 1984 4.0 52.0 28.0March 31, 1985 6.0 58.0 22.0June 30, 1985 8.0 66.0 14.0

1986September 30, 1985 3.0 69.0 11.0December 31, 1985 3.0 72.0 8.0March 30, 1986 4.0 76.0 4.0June 30, 1986 4.0 80.0

Project Completion Date - December 31, 1985

Loan Closing Date - June 30, 1986

APPRAISAL OF

CARACAL-TITU IRRIGATION PROJECT

ROMANIA

Caracal - Estimated Schedule of Expenditure

Estimated Cost 1982 1983 1984 1985

Item Total Foreign Total Foreign Total Foreign Total Foreign Total Foreign

----------------------_-_----------------- Lei Million ---------------------------------------------

Irrigation WorksIntakes 45.2 9.9 30.0 6.6 10.2 2.2 5.0 1.1 -

Canals 585.1 122.9 50.0 10.5 230.0 48.3 220.0 46.2 85.1 17.9

Main pumping stations 125.6 26.4 10.0 2.1 64.8 13.6 50.8 10.7 - -Pressure pumping stations 193.6 40.7 - - 70.6 14.9 90.0 18.9 33.0 6.9

Underground pipe network 493.8 108.6 - - 101.1 22.2 244.8 53.9 147.9 32.5

Land levelling 119.0 15.5 - - 40.0 5.2 60.o 7.8 19.0 2.5

On-farm equipment 169.0 54.1 - - 20.0 6.4 109.0 34.9 40.o 12.8

Power supply and transformers 114.4 51.5 - - 54.o 24.3 60.4 27.2 -

Subtotal 1,7845.7 g o. o 19.2 590.7 37.1 200.7 325.2.

Drainage WorksSurface drains 123.6 19.8 - - 20.0 3.2 20.0 3.2 83.6 13.4 1

Tile drains 74.6 14.9 - - 18.0 3.6 18.0 3.6 38.6 7.7 aHydrogeological wells 1.0 0.1 - - 1.0 0.1 - - - -

Subtotal 199.2 34. - - 39.0 68.9 0 17 22.2 21.1

Miscellaneous WorksMaintenance buildings, etc. 4.2 0.5 - - 4.2 0.5 - - - -

Soil erosion control 19.5 2.5 - - 3.6 0.5 3.6 0.5 12.3 1.5

Sand reclamation 44.o 5.7 - 22.0 2.9 22.0 2.8 - -

Flood detention dams 46.3 10.2 - - 23.0 5.0 23.3 5.2 _

Valley training 41.6 5.4 - - 20.0 2.6 21.6 2.8 -

Other works 108.3 16.2 - - 60.0 9.0 21.5 3.2 26.8 4.o

Subtotal '40.5 - 2-. 5 .0 T5 39.1 5.5

Land Compensation 106.2 - - 16.2 - 45.0 - 45.0 -

EquipmentOperation and maintenance 37.0 12.2 - - 25.0 8.3 12.0 3.9

Farm machinery 187.0 61.7 -77.0 25.4 65.0 21.5 45.0 14.8

Subtotal 224.0 73.-9 77077.0 25.4 90.0 57.0

Engineering and Administration 297.6 23.8 10.0 0.8 87.0 7.0 113.0 9.0 87.6 7.0

Base cost 2,936.6 602.6 100.0 20.0 942.7 196.9 1,218.0 260.9 65,8 124.9

ContingenciesPhysical contingencies 220.2 45.2 7.5 1.5 70.7 14.8 91.4 19.6 50.6 9.3

Price contingencies 365.8 197.8 5.6 3.0 88.8 48.7 161.7 89.7 109.7 56.4Subtotal 5 243.o 13.1 7 159.5 6T_5 253.1 109.3 160.3 65.7

TOTAL PROJECT COST 3,522.6 845.6 113.1 24.5 1 260.4 1,471.1 370.1 836.1 190.6

APPRAISAL OF

CARACAL-TITU IRRIGATION PROJECT

ROMANIA

Titu - Estimated Schedule of Expenditure

Estimated Cost 1982 1983 1984Item Total Foreign Total Foreign Total Foreign Total Foreign

----------------------------------- Lei Million…-------…-_-______________________

Irrigation WorksDiversion Structure 365.6 80.4 130.0 28.6 150.0 35.2 75.6 16.6Canals 219.4 46.1 20.0 4.2 50.0 10.5 149.4 31.4'?ressure pumping stations 79.8 16.8 15.0 3.2 20.0 4.2 44.8 9.4Underground pipe network 185.6 40.8 10.0 2.2 50.0 11.0 125.6 27.6Land levelling 147.7 19.2 - - - - 147.7 19.2On-farm equipment 90.4 28.9 - - - - 90.4 28.9Power supply and transformer 37.6 16.9 13.6 6.1 13.2 5.9 10.8 4.9

Subtotal 1,126.1 271 T 44.3 293.2 66o 3 138.0

Drainage WorksSurface drains 145.7 23.3 40.0 6.4 70.0 11.2 35.7 5.7

Tile drains 32.3 6.5 5.0 1.0 8.0 1.5 19.3 4.0Land shaping 7.9 1.0 1.5 0.2 2.5 0.3 3.9 0.5 1Hydrogeological walls 1.0 0.1 1.0 0.1 - - - -

Subtotal 1 .9 30.9 47.5 7.7 . 13.0 10.2

Miscellaneous WorksOperation structures 2.4 0.3 2.4 0.3 _ - - -

Other works 58.6 8.8 16.6 2.5 20.0 3.0 22.0 3Subtotal 1.0 I. 2 20.0

Land compensation 9.3 - - - 9.3 - - -

EquipmentOperation and maintenance 22.7 7.5 - - 12.0 4.0 10.7 3.5'arm machinery 313.3 103.4 - - 160.0 52.8 153.3 50.6

Subtotal 337.7 110.9 - - 172.0 56.8 54.1

Engineering and Administration 93- 8 7-5 1.1 1 2.0 2.0 55.0 4.4

Base Cost 12813.1 407.5 268.9 55.9 600.0 141.6 944.2 210.0

ContingenciesPhysical contingency 136.n 30.6 20.2 4.2 45.o 10.6 70.8 15.8Price contingency 218.2 115.7 15.3 8.4 59.6 35.0 143.3 72.3

Subtotal 354.72 1J 35.5 12.6 14 45.6 2*17T1 1T

TOTAL PROJECT COST 2,167.3 553.8 304.4 68.5 704.6 187.2 1,158.3 298.1 T A

APPRAISAL OF

CARACAL-TITU IRRIGATION PROJECT

ROMANIA

CARACAL

Areas Requiring Improvements of Existing Irrigationand Drainage Works - Without Project

Percent of To,tal Price Per Value Production Net ReturnCrop and By-Product Area Arable Agric. Yield Production Ton of Production Costs Net Return Per Crop(ha) (t/ha) (ton) (lei) (lei/ha) (lei/ha) (Iei/ha) (000 lei)

Wheat 414 12.0 12.0 4.2 1,739 1,280 5,376 3,585 1,791 74iMaize 1,656 48.o 48.o 6.5 10,764 1,065 6,923 3,871 3,052 5,054Soybean 552 16.0 16.0 2.0 1,104 3,425 6,850 3,687 3,163 1,746 1Sunflower 138 4.o 4.o 2.2 304 2,030 4,466 3,030 1,436 198 lSugarbeet 69 2.0 2.0 43.0 2,967 350 27,950 8,615 19,335 1,334Alfalfa (hay) 621 18.0 18.0 8.0 4,968 495 3,960 3,195 765 475Maize (silage, s.c.) (414) (12.0) (12.0) 30.0 12,420 80 2,400 2,242 158 65Subtotal, Arable 3,450 100.0 1777o

Wheat Straw (414) 2.9 1,201 121 368 - 368 152Maize Stover (1,656) 8.5 14,076 100 850 - 850 1,407Soybean Vines (552) 2.0 1,104 120 240 - 240 132Sunflower Stems (138) 6.6 911 40 264 - 204 36Sugarbeet Tops (69) 12.9 890 50 645 - 645 45Total 3T5

H D0I-.t

APPRAISAL OF

CARACAL-TITU IRRIGATION PROJECT

ROMANIA

CARACAL

Areas Requiring Irrigation and DrainageWorks - Without Project

Percent of Total Price Per Value Production Net ReturnCrop and By-Product Area Arable Agric. Yield Production Ton of Production Costs Net Return Per Cro

(ha) T7ha) (ton)l (lei/ha) (lei/ha) (lei/ha) (O000 le

Wheat 10,068 20.7 19.6 2.5 25,170 1,280 3,200 2,641 559 5,628Barley 4,864 10.0 9.5 2.7 13,133 1,025 2,768 2,486 282 1,372Maize 14,105 29.0 27.4 3.0 42,315 1,065 3,195 2,424 771 10,875Soybean 1,946 4.0 3.8 1.2 2,335 3,425 4,11o 3,000 1,110 2,160Sunflower 4,377 9.0 8.5 1.2 5,252 2,030 2,436 2,297 139 608Sugarbeet 1,945 4.0 3.8 25.0 48,625 350 8,750 6,582 2,168 4,217Potatoes 972 2.0 1.9 15.0 14,530 900 13,500 9,300 4,200 4,082Alfalfa (hay) 10 360 21.3 20.2 4.o 41,440 495 1,980 2,213 -233 -2,414Subtotal, Arable 48,637 100.0

Natural Pastures 1,620 3.2 6.5 10,530 110 715 84 631 1,022Natural Hlayfields 20 0.0 1.5 30 110 165 707 -542 -11Vineyards 885 1.7 3.8 3,363 3,900 14,820 16,496 -1,676 -1,483Orchards 246 0.5 2.9 713 2,400 6,960 7,157 -197 -48Subtotal,Other Agric. 2,771

Total Agric. 51,408 100.0

Wheat Straw (10,068) 1.8 18,122 127 229 - 22,) 2,305Barley Straw (4,864) 2.2 10,701 127 279 - 279 1,357Maize Stover (14,105) 3.9 55,010 100 390 - 390 5,501Soybean Vines (1,946) 1.2 2,335 120 144 - 144 280Sunflower Stems (4,377) 3.6 15,757 40 144 - 144 630Sugarbeet Tops (1 945) 7.5 14,588 50 375 - 375 729

Total _____l 3,2

APPRAISAL OF

CARACAL-TITU IRRIGATION PROJECT

ROMANIA

CARACAL

Areas Requiring Irrigation Without Other Works

Present and Future - Without Project

Percent of Total Price Per Value Production Net Return

Crop and By-Product Area Arable Agric. Yield Production Ton of Production Costs Net Return Per Crop(ha) (t/ha) (ton) (lei) (Lei/ha) (liiha) (Lei/ha) ('OOO ei)

Wheat 4,589 18.0 i6.8 3.1 14,226 1,280 3,968 2,926 1,042 4,782Barley 887 3.5 3.2 3.3 2,927 1,025 3,383 2,692 691 613Maize 8,o67 31.6 29.5 4.1 33,075 1,065 4,367 2,962 1,405 11,334Soybean 1,182 4.6 4.3 1.5 1,773 3,425 5,138 3,169 1,969 2,327Sunflower 1,669 6.5 6.1 1.8 3,004 2,030 3,654 2,629 1,025 1,711Sugarbeet 1,773 6.9 6.5 32.0 56,736 350 11,200 7,117 4,083 7,239 X

Alfalfa (hay) 7,389 28.9 27.0 6.o 44,334 495 2,970 2,540 430 3,177Subtotal, Arable 255 100.0

Natural Pastures 1,000 3.7 10.0 10,000 110 1,100 550 550 550Natural Hayfields 10 0.0 3.0 30 110 330 1,207 -877 -8,770Vineyards 635 2.3 5.0 3,175 3,900 19,500 16,848 2,652 1,684Orchards 177 o.6 3.5 620 2,400 8,400 7,356 1,044 185

Subtotal,Other Agric. 1,822

Total Agric. 27,378 100.0

Wheat Straw (4,589) 2.2 10,096 127 279 - 279 1,280Barley Straw (887) 2.6 2,306 l 127 330 - 330 293Maize Stover (8,067) 5.3 4 2,755 .100 530 - 530 4,276Soybean Vines (1,182) 1.5 1,773 120 180 - 180 213Sunflower Stems (1,669) 5.4 9,013 40 216 - 216 361Sugarbeet Tops (1,773) 9.6 17,021 50 480 - 480 851

Total 27,373

la

APPRAISAL OF

CARACAL-TITU IRRIGATION PROJECT

ROMANIA

CARACAL

Areas Requiring Irrigation and Sandy SoilReclamation Works - Without Project

Percent of Total Price Per Value Production Net ReturnCrop and By-Product Area Arable Agric. Yield Production Ton of Production Costs Net Return Per Crop

Tha) (t/ha) (ton) (lei) (lei/ha) (lei/ha) FIe1/he) ('000 lei)

Wheat 2,200 55.0 55.0 1.8 3,960 1,280 2,304 2,414 -110 -242Maize 800 20.0 20.0 1.7 1,360 1,065 1,811 2,o68 -257 -206Sunflower 400 10.0 10.0 0.8 320 2,030 1,624 2,184 -560 -224Potatoes 600 15.0 15.0 12.0 7,200 900 10,800 9,110 1,690 1,014Subtotal, Arable 4,000 100.0 100.0

Wheat Straw (2,200) 1.3 2,860 127 165 - 165 363Maize Stover (800) 2.2 1,760 100 220 _ 220 176Sunflower Stems (400) 1.1 440 40 44 - 44 18

Total X 0o9

51

APPRAISAL OF

CARACAL-TITU IRRIGATION PROJECT

ROMANIA

CARACAL

Areas Requiring Irrigation, Drainageand Other Works - With Project

Percent of Total Price Per Value Production Net Return

Crop and By-Product Area Arable . Yield Production Ton of Production Costs Net Return Per Crop(ha) 't/ha) -ci (lei/ha) (Tei/ha) lei/ha) ('000 lei)

Wheat 14,908 19.0 18.2 5.0 74,540 1,280 6,400 3,845 2,555 38,090Maize 42,370 54.o 51.8 8.0 338,960 1,065 8,520 4,649 3,871 164,014Soybean 4,708 6.o 5.8 2.7 12,712 3,425 9,248 4,141 5,107 ~ 24,043Sunflower 6,277 8.0 7.7 2.9 18,203 2,030 5,887 3,227 2,660 16,697Sugarbeet 4,708 6.0 5.8 55.0 258,940 350 19,250 9,471 9,779 46,o40Vegetables 2,354 3.0 2.9 27.0 63,558 1,500 4o,500 26,574 13,926 32,782Alfalfa (hay) 3,138 4.0 3.8 11.0 34,518 495 5,445 3,402 2,o43 6,411Maize (silage s.c ) (14 908) (19.0) (18.2) 35.0 521,780 80 2,800 2,511 289 4,308

Subtotal, Arable 7e,1T 10.0

Sown Pasture 1,340 1.6 40.0 53,600 110 4,400 1,249 3,151 4,222Vineyards 1,520 1.9 8.0 12,160 3,900 31,200 19,922 11,278 17,143Orchards 423 0.5 6.o 2,538 2,400 14,400 11,808 2,592 1,o96

Subtotal,Other Agric. 3,283

Total Agric. 81,746 100.0

Wheat Straw (14,908) 3.5 52,178 127 445 - 445 6,634Maize Stover (42,370) 10.4 440,648 100 1,040 - 1,040 44,o65Soybean Vines ( 4,708) 2.7 12,712 120 324 - 324 1,525Sunflower Stems ( 6,277) 8.7 54,610 40 348 - 348 2,184Sugarbeet Tops ( 4 708) 16.5 77,682 50 825 - 825 3 884

Total ______ 413,113

APPRAISAL OF

CARACAL-TITU IRRIGATION PROJECT

ROMANIA

CARACAL

Areas Requiring Irrigation and Sandy SoilReclamation Works - With Project

Percent of Total Price Per Value Production Net ReturnCroi and By-Product Area Arable Agric. Yield Production Ton of Production Costs Net Return Per Cro

ha) (t/ha) (ton) tat7e (lei/ha) (lei/ha) (lei/ha\ ('000 lei

Wheat 827 21.0 21.0 4.o 3,308 1,280 5,120 3,506 1,614 1,335Maize 2,128 54.o 54.o 7.0 14,896 1,065 7,455 3,990 3,465 7,374Soybean 276 7.0 7.0 2.0 552 3,425 6,850 3,687 3,163 873Sunflower 315 8.0 8.0 2.0 630 2,030 4,o60 2,849 1,211 381Sugarbeet 118 3.0 3.0 45.0 5,310 350 15,750 8,725 7,025 829Potatoes 276 7.0 7.0 20.0 5,520 goo 18,000 11,655 6,345 1,751

Subtotal, Arable 3,940 100-0 f7j.(

Wheat Straw (827) 2.8 2,316 127 356 - 356 294Maize Stover (2,128) 9.1 19,365 100 g9o - g9o 1,936SOybean Vines (276) 2.0 552 120 240 - 240 66Sunflower Stems (315) 6.o 1,890 40 240 - 240 76Sugarbeet Tops (118) 13.5 1,593 50 675 - 675 80

Total 3,940

O'

APPRAISAL OF

CARACAL-TITU IRRIGATION PROJECT

ROMANIA

TITU

Areas Requiring Improvements of Existing Irrigationand Drainage Works - Without Project

Percent of Total Price Per Value of Production Net ReturnCrop and By-Product Area Arable Agric. Yield Production Ton Production Costs Net Return Per Crop

(h at 7(t/ha) (ton) (lei) (iei/ha) (Lei/ha) (Lei/ha) ('000 lei

Wheat 1,768 33.4 33.4 3.1 5,481 1,280 3,968 2,836 1,132 2,001Maize 1,657 31.3 31.3 4.6 7,622 1,065 4,899 3,284 1,615 2,676Sugarbeet 228 4.3 4.3 25.0 5,700 350 8,750 6,582 2,168 494Vegetables 720 13.6 13.6 9.8 7,056 1,500 14,700 13,582 1,118 805Alfalfa (hay) 920 17.4 17.4 6.1 5,612 495 3,020 2,555 465 428Subtotal, Arable S,293 LO.O io00.0

Wheat Straw (1,768) 2.2 3,890 127 279 - 279 493Maize Stover (1,657) 6.0 9,942 100 600 _ 600 994Sugarbeet Tops (228) 7.5 1,710 50 375 - 375 86

Total 5,293 7977

-40

APPRAISAL OF

CARACAL-TITU IRRIGATION PROJECT

ROMANIA

TITU

Areas Requiring Irrigation, Open Drainageand Tile Drainage Works - Without Project

Percent of Total Price Per Value of Production Net ReturnCrop and By-Product Area Arable Agric. Yield Production Ton Production Costs Net Return Per Cro

(ha) (t/ha) (ton) (lei) (lei/ha) (lei/ha) (lei/ha) ('O lei)

Wheat 963 34.4 30.1 2.0 1,926 1,280 2,560 2,479 81 78Barley 294 10.5 9.2 2.7 794 1,025 2,768 2,486 282 83Maize 968 34.6 30.3 2.3 2,226 1,065 2,450 2,252 198 192Sunflower 176 6.3 5.5 1.0 176 2,030 2,030 2,240 -210 -37Sugarbeet 168 6.o 5.3 22.0 3,696 350 7,700 6,417 1,283 216Alfalfa (hay) 126 4.5 3.9 4.5 567 495 2,228 2,289 -61 -8Vetch (green forage) 42 1.5 1.3 12.5 525 110 1,375 1,778 -403 -17Maize (silage,f.c.) 62 2.2 1.9 32.0 1,984 80 2,560 3,308 -748 -46Subtotal, Arable 2,799 o00.0

Natural Pastures 400 12.5 6.0 2,400 110 660 84 576 230Subtotal,Other Agric. 400

Total Agric. 3,199 100.0

Wheat Straw (963) 1.4 1,348 127 178 - 178 171Barley Straw (294) 2.2 647 127 279 - 279 82Maize Stover (968) 3.0 2,904 100 300 - 300 290Sunflower Stems (176) 3.0 528 40 120 - 120 21Sugarbeet Tops (168) 6.6 1,109 50 330 - 330 55

Total 3,199 10

APPRAISAL OF

CARACAL-TITU IRRIGATION PROJECT

ROMANIA

TITU

Areas Requiring Irrigation and OpenDrainage Works - Without Project

Percent of Total Price Per Value of Production Net ReturnCrop and By-Product Area Arable Agric. Yield Production Ton Production Costs Net Return Per Crop

(ha) (t7h-a (t-o n) (lei) 7!WTh-T7 (lei/ha ) (lei/ha) 710i5Ylei)

Wheat 9,150 34.4 33.6 2.5 22,875 1,280 3,200 2,641 559 5,115Barley 2,793 10.5 10.3 3.2 8,938 1,025 3,280 2,658 622 1,737Maize 9,203 34.6 33.8 2.9 26,703 1,065 3,089 2,399 690 6,350Sunflower 1,675 6.3 6.2 1.2 2,010 2,030 2,436 2,297 139 233Sugarbeet 1,596 6.o 5.9 23.7 37,825 350 8,295 6,510 1,785 2,849 1Alfalfa (hay) 1,197 4.5 4.4 5.2 6,224 495 2,574 2,412 162 194 _Vetch (green forage) 984 3.7 3.6 14.4 14,170 110 1,584 1,812 -228 -224 >Subtotal, Arable 26,59O lo.o

Natural Pastures 579 2.1 7.1 4,111 110 781 550 231 134Natural Hayfields 45 0.2 1.5 68 110 165 707 -542 -24Subtotal,Other Agric. 624

Total Agric. 27,222 100.0

Wheat Straw (9,150) 1.8 16,470 127 229 - 229 2,095Barley Straw (2,793) 2.6 7,262 127 330 - 330 922Maize Stover (9,203) 3.8 34,971 100 380 - 380 3,497Sunflower Stems (1,675) 3.6 6,030 40 144 - 144 241Sugarbeet Tops (1,596) 7.1 11,332 50 355 - 355 567

Total

El

APPRAISAL OF

CARACAL-TITU IRRIGATION PROJECT

ROMANIA

TITU

Areas Requiring Irrigation WithoutOther Works - Without Project

Percent of Total Price Per Value of Production Net ReturnCrop and By-Product Area Arable Agric. Yield Production Ton Production Costs Net Return Per CroP

(ha) (t/ha) (ton) (lei) (lei/ha) (lei/ha) (ici/ha) (T000 ei7

Wheat 1,839 34.4 30.7 2.7 4,965 1,280 3,456 2,707 749 1,377Barley 561 10.5 9.4 3.3 1,851 1,025 3,383 2,692 691 388Maize 1,849 34.6 30.9 3.1 5,732 1,065 3,302 2,449 853 1,577Sunflower 337 6.3 5.6 1.4 472 2,030 2,842 2,353 489 165Sugarbeet 321 6.o 5.4 24.2 7,768 350 8,470 6,538 1,932 620Alfalfa (hay) 240 4.5 4.0 5.8 1,392 495 2,871 2,510 361 87Vetch (green forage) 198 3.7 3.3 15.0 2,970 110 1,650 1,835 -185 -37Subtotal, Arable 5,3 5 100.0

Vineyards 363 6.1 3.3 1,198 3,900 12,870 16,304 -3,434 -1,247Orchards 276 4.6 2.9 800 2,400 6,960 6,843 117 32

Subtotal,Other Agric. 639

Total Agric. 5,984 100.0

Wheat Straw (1,839) 1.9 3,494 127 241 - 241 443Barley Straw (561) 2.6 1,459 127 330 - 330 185Maize Stover (1,849) 4.o 7,396 100 400 - 400 740Sunflower Stems (337) 4.2 1,415 40 168 - 168 57Sugarbeet Tops (321) 7.3 2,343 50 365 - 365 117

Total 5,9____ 4 5

APPRAISAL OF

CARACAL-TITU IRRIGATION PROJECT

ROMANIA

TITU

Areas Requiring Irrigation, Drainage andImprovement Works - with Project

Percent of Total Price Per Value of Production Net ReturnCrop and By-Product Area Arable Agric. Yield Production Ton Production Costs Net Return Per Cro

(ha) T/ha) (ton) (lei) (lei/ha) (lei/ha) (lei/ha) ('000 lei)

Wheat 6,123 15.0 14.8 5.0 30,615 1,280 6,400 3,845 2,555 15,644Maize 20,412 50.0 49.2 8.0 163,296 1,065 8,520 4,649 3,871 79,015Soybean 3,266 8.0 7.9 2.5 8,165 3,425 8,563 4,028 4,535 14,811Sunflower 2,450 6.0 5.9 2.7 6,615 2,030 5,481 3,170 2,311 5,662Sugarbeet 2,859 7.0 6.9 50.0 142,950 350 17,500 9,286 8,214 23,484Vegetables 2,041 5.0 4.9 25.0 51,025 1,500 37,500 26,146 11,354 23,174Alfalfa (hay) 3,674 9.0 8.9 10.0 36,740 495 4,950 3,660 1,284 4,717 0

Maize (silage, s.c. )(6 123) (15.0) (14.8) 35.0 214,305 80 2,800 2,511 289 1,770Subtotal, Arable ic ,*5 100.0

Sown Pastures 23 0.1 40.0 920 110 4,400 1,249 3,151 72Vineyards 363 0.9 8.0 2,904 3,900 31,200 19,922 11,278 4,094Orchards 276 0.7 6.0 1,656 2,400 14,400 11,808 2,592 715Subtotal,Other Agric. 662

Total Agric. 41,487 100.0

Wheat Straw (6,123) 3.5 21,431 127 445 - 445 2,725Maize Stover (20,412) 10.4 212,285 100 1,040 - 1,040 21,228Soybean Vines (3,266) 2.5 8,165 120 300 - 300 980Sunflower Stems (2,450) 8.1 19,845 40 324 - 324 794Sugarbeet Tops (2 859) 15.0 42,885 50 750 - 750 2 144

Total _

o101

- 77 -

ANNEX 10

APPRAISAL OF

CARACAL-TITU IRRIGATION PROJECT

ROMANIA

Annual Maintenance and Operation Costsand Replacement Costs

(Lei Million)

SubproiectCaracal Titu Total

Storage Dams 2.9 2.2 5.1

Irrigation & Drainage System 40.0 25.7 65.7

Pumping Stations 13.7 6.0 19.7

Power Costs 34.6 6.2 40.8

Total Annual 91.2 40.1 131.3

Replacement-every 10 yrs. 169.0 90.4 259.4

Replacement-every 20 yrs. 115.7 55.8 171.5

- 78 - ANNEX 11

APPRAISAL OF

CARACAL-TITU IRRIGATION PROJECT

ROMANIA

Financial and Economic Input Prices

Input Unit Financial Economic--------- (lei/ton)-

SeedWheat ton 2,136 2,136Barley " 1,520 1,520Maize (grain) " 3,133 3,133Maize (silage) " 2,840 2,840Sunflower " 12,400 12,400Soya 8,530 8,530

Sugarbeet 32,670 32,670Potatoes 1,050 1,050

Alfalfa (hay) " 10,850 10,850Pastures (sown)Vineyards piece 4,083 4,083Orchards " 8,200 8,200

Fertilizer (ton active substance)N ton 2,405 5,552-7,844/1P205 " 2,940 6,137-7,215/1Ki20 2,200 3,785-4,135/1

Plant ProtectionHerbicidesDiclordonsodic ton 21,300 21,300

PesticidesDitritox concentrate ton 14,600 14,600Dinotan " 37,100 37,100Nitrox 6,710 6,710Heclotox 1,220 1,220Lindan Gama Hexaclor " 95,400 95,400Lindatox 3% 4,320 4,320Lindatox 20% 25,050 25,050Detoxanselmic exp. 100% 20,700 20,700Detox 25% 7,000 7,000Pinetox 10% 6,300 6,300Sulf. pulhere fungicide 1,830 1,830Sulf. musabil " 4,950 4,950

Labor day 75 75

/1 For 1981 and 1990

- 79 -

ANNEX 12

APPRAISAL OF

CARACAL-TITU IRRIGATION PROJECT

ROMANIA

Financial and Economic Output Prices

(Lei/Ton)

OUTPUTFinancial Economic

Crops CAP IAS Weighted Average 1981 1990Wheat 1,370 1,000 1,280 3,420 3,747/1Barley 1,100 800 1,025 2,293 2,780/1Maize 1,150 800 .1,065 2,483 3,018/1Sunflower 1,150 800 2,030 6,840 7,260/1Soybean 3,600 2,900 3,425 5,686 6,796/1Sugarbeet 350 350 350 483 695/1Potatoes 900 900 900 900 900Vegetables 1,500 1,500 1,500 3,960 3,960/2

Alfalfa (hay) 500 470 495 495 495Pastures (naturaland sown) 110 110 110 110 110

Vineyards 3,900 3,900 3,900 3,900 3,900Orchards 2,400 2,400 2,400 4,926 4,926/3Vetch (green) 110 110 110 110 110Maize (silage) 80 80 80 80 80Natural Hayfields 110 110 110 110 110

By-productsWheat Straw 140 90 127 127 127Barley Straw 140 90 127 127 127Maize Stalk 120 40 100 100 100Soya Stem 120 40 120 120 120Sunflower Stalk 120 40 40 40 40Sugarbeet Tops 120 40 50 50 50

/1 Based on IBRD's Price Prospect for Major Primary Commodities, January 1980.

/2 Export parity price based on projections in "Fruit and Vegetable Exports fromthe Mediterranean Area to the EEC," World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 321,March 1979.

/3 Based on estimates made in SAR for Orchards Project, Romania, May 1980.

APPRAISAt OF

CARACAL-lITO IRRIGATION PROJECT

ROMIANIA

CARACAL

ECONOMIC CASH( FLOV

(000 LE":

YEAR 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 198 1988 I98 1990-1994 1995 1996-2004 2005 2006 2014 2015 2016-2020

INVESTItENT COSTS

-IRRIGATION HORKS - 107500 920200 1 199400 636500----STORAGE DAM 30000 63000 63000 87000 50008 0 --- -

REPLACEMENT - - - -- - - - - - 168960 - 284660 - 168960 -

OPER. I tiAINT. - -- 181 75547 91221 91221 91221 91221 91221 91221 91221 91221 91221 91221

SUBTOTAL 30000 170500 983200 1286400 705310 75547 91221 91221 91221 91221 260181 91221 375801 91221 260181 9121-1

BENEFITS

-W~ITH PROJECT ---- 391879 1115159 1712958 196298 2076482 2112939 2112939 2112939 2112939 2112939 2112939 2112939 -WITHOUIT PROJECT --- 226699 568938 761505 764426 767347 770253 770253 770253 770253 770253 770253 770253 -4LOOD CONTROL ---- 3000 7500 10000 10000 10000 10000O 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

-INCREMENTAL BENEFITS ---- 168180 553721 961453 1208556 1319135 1352687 1352687 1352687 1352687 1352687 1352687 1352687

PRODUCTION COSTS

-WITH PROJECT - 135212 364149 529144 577413 599433 606630 606630 606630 606630 606630 606630 60663

-WITHOUT PROJECT - -92011 230534 308056 308732 309409 310086 310086 310086 310086 310086 310086 310086

INCREMENTAL PROD. COST - - - 43201 133615 221080 268681 290024 296544 296544 296544 296544 296544 296544 296544

INCR. NET BENEFITS -10000 -170500 -983200 -1286400 -580331 344560 649144 848654 937890 964922 795962 964922 680262 964922 795962 964922

THE RESULTS FOR THE PROJECT ARE:NET PRESENT VALUE AT 9.01 = 3706955519.INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN = 20.3%

CD ~

APPRAISAL OF

CARACAL-TITO IRRIGATION PROJECT

RONANIA

TITU

ECOONOfIC CASH FLOW

(000 LEI)

YEAR 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990-1994 1995 1996-2004 2005 2006-2014 2015 2016-2020

INVESTMENT COSTS

-IRRIGATION WORKS - 289068 475700 861700--- -------

-STORAGE BAM 34850 48683 46646 15999 - - -- --

REPLACEMENT - - - - - - - - - - 90368 - 136187 - 90368 -

OPER. I MAINT, . 8960 40100 40100 40100 40100 40100 40000 40100 40100 40100 40100 40100 40100

SUBTOTAL 34850 337751 522346 886659 40100 40100 40100 40100 40100 40100 130468 40100 176287 40100 130468 40100

BENEFITS

-WITH PROJECT - -- 297255 712100 885488 974847 1007692 1012031 1016370 1016370 1016370 1016370 1016370 1016370 1016370-WITHOUT PROJECT --- 193267 390023 390916 391809 392701 393594 - 394475 394475 394475 394475 394-475 394475 394475 -FLOOD CO NTROL -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

-INCREMENTAL BENEFITS --- 103988 322084 494572 583038 614990 618437 621895 621895 621895 621895 620895 621895 621895

PRODUCTION COSTS

-WITH PROJECT - - 109998 246339 281657 299862 306557 307446 308337 308337 300337 308337 308337 308337 308337-WITHOUT PROJECT --- 70605 143369 143695 144021 144347 144673 145000 145000 145000 145000 145000 145000 145000

INCREMENTAL PROD. COST -- 39394 102971 137963 155842 162210 162773 163337 163337 163337 163337 163337 163337 163337

INCR, NET BENEFITS -34850 -337751 -522346 -822064 179014 316509 387096 412680 415564 418458 328090 418458 2B2271 418458 328090 418458

THE RESULTS FOR THE PROJECT ARE:NET PRESENT VALUE AT 9.0% 1561019578.INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN = 18.32

I-.3

APPRAISAL OF

CARACAL-TITU IRRIGATION PROJECT

RONANIA

CARACAL+TITU

ECONOHIC CASH FLOW

(000 LEI)

YEAR 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990-1994 1995 1996-2004 2005 2006-2014 2015 2016 2020

INVESTMENT COSTS

-IRRIGATION WORKS - 396568 1395900 2061100 636500 - - - - - -

-STORAGE BAN 64850 111683 109646 102999 50000 - - - - - - - - -

REPLACEMENT - - - - - - - - - 259328 - 420847 - 259328 -OPER. I MAITN. - - - 8960 58910 115647 131321 131321 131321 131321 131321 131321 131321 131321 131321 131321

SUBTOTAL 64850 508251 1505546 2173059 745410 115647 131321 131321 131321 131321 390649 131321 552168 131321 390649 131321

BENEFITS

-WITH PROJECT - - - 297255 1103986 2000647 2687805 2970674 3088513 3129310 3129310 3129310 3129310 3129310 3129310 3129310-WITHOUT PROJECT - - 193267 616722 959854 1153313 1157127 1160941 1164728 1164728 1164728 1164728 1164728 1164728 1164728 7-FLOOD CONTROL - - - - 3000 7500 10000 10000 00000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

-INCREMENTAL BENEFITS - - - 103998 490264 1048293 1544491 1823547 1937572 1974582 1974582 1974562 1974582 1974582 1974582 1974582

PRODUCTION COSTS

-WITH PROJECT - - - 109998 381551 645807 829006 883970 906878 914966 914966 914966 914966 914966 914966 ?14966-WITHOUT PROJECT - - 70605 235379 374229 452076 453079 454082 455085 455085 455085 455085 455085 455085 455085

INCREMENTAL PROD. COST - - - 39394 146172 271577 376930 430891 452797 459801 459801 4598 45981 459881 459881 459881

INCR. NET BENEFITS -64850 -508251 -1505546 -2108464 -401318 661069 1036240 1261334 1353454 1383380 1124052 1383380 962533 1383380 1124052 1383380

THE RESULTS FOR THE PROJECT ARE:NET PRESENT VALUE AT 9.07 = 5267975097.INTERNAL RATE OF RETURN = 19.sx

- 83 -

ANNEX 14

APPRAISAL OF

CARACAL-TITU IRRIGATION PROJECT

ROMANIA

Selected Documents and Data Available inthe Project Implementation File

A. Sector and Subsector Reports and Studies

A.1 Romania: The Industrialization of an Agrarian Economy underSocialist Planning, in 4 vols., World Bank ReportNo. 1601-RO, March 31, 1978.

A.2 Romania: Country Economic Memorandum, World Bank ReportNo. 2757-RO, August 20, 1980.

A.3 Romania: Agricultural Sector Survey, World Bank ReportNo. 953a-RO, October 26, 1976.

B. Project Related Reports and Studies

B.1 Romania: Staff Appraisal Report - Bucsani-Buzau-Siret-PrutIrrigation Project, World Bank Report No. 3152-RO,November 26, 1980.

B.2 Romania: Project Preparation Reports on Caracal and TituSubprojects. General Directorate for Land Reclamationand Agricultural Construction, Ministry of Agricultureand Food Industry, May and July 1980 in 4 vols.

C. Project Related Reports

C.1 The Project AreaC.2 Present and Future Land Use and Agricultural ProductionC.3 The ProjectC.4 Cost EstimatesC.5 Water AvailabilityC.6 Bank for Agriculture and Food IndustryC.7 Economic Analysis

APPRAISAL OF

CARACAL - TITU IRRIGATION PROJECT

ROMANIA

Implementation Schedule

TERD FISCAL YEAR 1982 1983 1988| 1980 iq8( 1987

ROMANTAN FISCAL YEAR AND CALENDAR YEAR 1981 1982 1283 1984 19?5 1986 1987

CARACA L

Irrigation Works (6) _ 32 85 100

Drainage Works (M) 20 40 100

Miseellaneous Works (N) 50 85 100

Engineering and Administration(%) 0

Development of Irrigation (I.A) 26.o00 66,000 88,000

TT 12

Irrigation Works (%) 12 55 100

Drainage Works (M) 25 70 100

Miscellaneous Works (%) °30 60 100

Engineering and Administration (%)

Development of Irrigation (HA) 21,000 82,677 '2,C)77 82,t77

.. . === ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ M~~~~~~~~~~-

APPRAISAL OF

CARACAL-TITU IRRIGATION PROJECT

ROMANIA

ORGANIZATION CHART

BANK FOR AGRICULTURE AND FOOD INDUSTRY

Admrinistrative Council

_ I President |

Vice-President Vice-President

Credit and Finance Coordination,Credit and Finance Credit and Finance ofteArcl pcia StuIesAcutn n Administration, Organizaiton

of State Agricul- of Food and of the Agricul- pecia Studies Accounting and PesAfis , Prsonnel,

tural Entreprises Agro-industries tural Cooperative External Relationsuditing External Relations Training

World Bank - 20959 0

APPRAISAL OFCARACAL-TITU IRRIGATION PROJECT

ROMANIAOrganization of Project ImpIamentation and Related Agencire

AC~0Ao0y0I G: ... . .co roco So;oo AOO I o G 000 _

Ae d1mv 0f AEricullur0 | 00 Cc

and Mor.j,ro 000,0,0 0,, 000 0' OooOoooooOI Roo0'000000C00000oooooo 0,oOhOOo 0,00S0, of |0oog 8000 0o00o0~0ooOo0 A,o0Min0N-0,oooooo,oo01 ,03 30080|0D 0 c | M,ooao,ooOoOO .ocooo,oooCoopoooo 00 | |0= - 00 0 0 E 5 08oo.,oo 1 0 ;;;;,EP

Distcice _ sxehes tof Land RF lamstion L nd R Flxm*tiom l00 ROoOOOo 03oo0.oootooo OS,0OTclO,0m4

0 i0o0 50 00 S 05o00oo00o

(39 id Nun b3rl Works ITCIFI Studios and Design | R#san b |C O,o,io..0005 00000,0,,, SAM SOS.Oj

u .tTt ,5t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~S)&S >cT SEIM RC)MAA NIA HUN. sARYt -

,i' a 's:-s->- >;-, >1--Aq '' CARACAL-TITU IRRIGATION PROJECT ; '

1i' X 9 ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CARACAL ROMANIA{

- H'Z __r

A i :0fS:,0S, 1 .9 u -- 3 M., >~~~~~~~~~~~C

:XX;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~T_ - F [S

t. IRRIGATION XVITH tXISTINCs Sl~~d.JRAEDIN;.-- '-----t-- ---- _ | b ruoeEs nai

s---IRRIGATION -RfTTH NEXIT SUJRFACE DPRAINS .? w5 r,_, '. ~ ~ )dnt -~~- .PetE,

-RIATO WE HSUR WFACE DRAINS / f'p 7' E2 .'v Z ,5 ,!nmt )u

EXISTING STRIATtONS T< U;. -,?3- oo-' _ YICET

ES STNGCLLECO DRAINAGSRADN t -- 1t e ,V;NE . IM RFACE DRASINGSUPC DRISWIHTL DAN A-A-= _- J T-lt -' '

-=PROPOSED DETENTION DAMS d .}2 W* . .-4EXISTING DETENTION DAMS JS?,I / ' 5 } eN

i SOILL EROSION WORKS _ ~~ 1 71-?fVS/-AbRdti

r FOREST T sCsfEs\~-~s.x\ S- NW.r SANDY AREAS IT' E/s1 un

t '~JUDET EOUNDARY -T--T--y- - ''",,.. Q_-

-j ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IBRD 15aDB

iShS ' - '> Coo"C° ' \ '1'i ' K ' + - . -i<S f - .> 9 -

ROMAN IA

'00*00, o ! 'a ( e ' _CARACAL-TITU IRRIGATION PROJECTTio 7 Me,o,, ~~~~~~~~T ITU

\ = ' 4 W.,; 12M-%~~~~~rw Z;~

/ ' A& ~~~~~~~~~S. 5-i," 1) ?,-<\.?s

J ........ o fdw e_/ i - < .,\ !' X J100

M.~,

IRRIGATION AREAS) 1

A. Y Ac'N '

9! \> \l F I e rr 2'tn ~~~~SPRINkIER RRIGvATtON N-X B :<99 2 __'. ,, r , t . , Lxistmetftrvo!rFEJ'ROW RRIGATI()N ( >)j,5SMi _-<*, , ,_

iC'i\--t; \ ant m E - ~~~~EXISTIN IRRIGATION /\/>- /

IRR1 \ l ~ IGATIONDomIRRIGATON CANALSAREASx 1: \ | OP~~~~~~~~DEEN DRAINAGE CANALS fi\ g \,C8i>

|utur ;,,gos, O Po 51ATIONS NCF A /IATIi

8, w , ' \ * '~~~~~~ANT(ON HFACQUARTERS | FOV ''- 4 5 S R

/ . t¢CtIAPEST ~~~~~~~~~ ~~ JUDET BOUNDARY HUNGAYSTM. t\:

.+' ' / ¶'' '' \' e ./ EzA '

.~~~~~ I ,C _ 'o

BUCHAREST sy5f~~EIATONCAAL

4f~~~~~~~~~~~~~OE 8008CNL

DiAL~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~V~. C