ROMANIA Reimbursable Advisory Services Agreement on the Romania Territorial Impact Assessment (P172820) Output 1.a Report on the analysis of a local development strategy: Danube Delta Integrated Sustainable Development Strategy (2030) August 2020 (Revised) Disclaimer This report is a product of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/the World Bank. The findings, interpretation, and conclusions expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. This report does not necessarily represent the position of the European Union or the Romanian Government. Copyright Statement The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable laws. For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with the complete information to either: (i) Ministerul Lucrărilor Publice, Dezvoltării și Administrației (Str. Apolodor 17, Bucharest, Romania); or (ii) the World Bank Group Romania (Vasile Lascăr Street, No 31, Et 6, Sector 2, Bucharest, Romania). Acknowledgements This report is delivered in July 2020 under the Advisory Services Agreement on the Territorial Impact Assessment, signed between the Ministry of Public Works, Development and Administration and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development on December 9, 2012. The report has been developed under the guidance and supervision of David N. Sislen (Practice Manager, Social, Urban, Rural and Resilience, Europe and Central Asia) and Tatiana Proskuryakova (Country Manager, Romania and Hungary). The report has been prepared by a team coordinated by Dean Cira (Lead Urban Specialist) and Paul Kriss (Lead Urban Specialist) and consisting of Carli Venter (Senior Urban Development Specialist), Marcel Ionescu-Heroiu (Senior Urban Development Specialist), Debashree Poddar (Urban Specialist), Mihai Vîlnoiu (Governance Expert), Mircea Tulea (Governance Expert), Manuela Mot (Governance Expert), Cristina Zamfir (M&E Expert), Bogdan Topan (Urban Analyst) and George Moldoveanu (Information Assistant). The team would like to express its gratitude for the excellent cooperation, guidance, and timely feedback provided by the representatives of the Ministry of Public Works, Development and Administration, in particular to the Minister Ion Ștefan, State Secretary Mihail Veștea, General Director Diana Țenea, Director Liviu Băileșteanu, Head of Office Radu Necșuliu, and also Daniel Vâlceanu, Amalia Virdol, Beniamin Stoica, Georgiana Toth, Emilia Milutinovici, Alina Huzui and all local, regional and national partners that have contributed to the elaboration of this report. Particularly the IDA ITI DD is recognized for its active participation and collaboration in the project, with special thanks to Mr. Ilie Petre (President), Ms. Doina Surcel (Coordinator) and Ms. Roxana Iacob (expert PNDR, POCU, POCA). i|P a g e Contents Executive summary................................................................................................................................................. 1 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 9 1.1. Background information ....................................................................................................................... 9 1.2. Objectives and scope ............................................................................................................................ 9 1.3. Methodological approach ................................................................................................................... 10 1.4. Structure of the report ........................................................................................................................ 14 1.5. Methodological limitations ................................................................................................................. 14 2. External Coherence ...................................................................................................................................... 17 2.1. Description of the evaluation process ................................................................................................ 17 2.2. Findings ............................................................................................................................................... 17 Tulcea county integrated sustainable development strategy ...................................................................... 18 Tulcea municipality development strategy .................................................................................................. 18 Sulina local development strategy................................................................................................................ 18 Isaccea integrated local development strategy ............................................................................................ 18 Baia integrated sustainable development strategy ...................................................................................... 18 Delta Danube biosphere reserve management plan .................................................................................... 19 2.3. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 19 2.4. Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 19 3. Relevance and Internal Coherence ............................................................................................................... 21 3.1. Description of the Evaluation Process................................................................................................. 21 3.2. Findings ............................................................................................................................................... 21 3.3. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 29 3.4. Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 29 4. Financial Allocation ....................................................................................................................................... 31 4.1. Description of the Evaluation Process................................................................................................. 31 Financial Allocation for Danube Delta Strategy ............................................................................................ 31 Financial Split among Pillars and Sectors...................................................................................................... 32 4.2. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 35 4.3. Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 35 5. System of Indicators ..................................................................................................................................... 39 5.1. Description of the Evaluation Process................................................................................................. 39 5.2. Findings ............................................................................................................................................... 39 Output Indicators.......................................................................................................................................... 40 Result Indicators ........................................................................................................................................... 40 5.3. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 48 ii | P a g e 5.4. Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 48 6. Interim Results .............................................................................................................................................. 50 6.1. Description of the Evaluation Process................................................................................................. 50 6.2. Findings ............................................................................................................................................... 50 Financial progress of the strategy................................................................................................................. 50 Physical progress of the strategy .................................................................................................................. 54 Interim results and impacts .......................................................................................................................... 56 6.3. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 58 6.4. Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 58 7. Institutional Arrangements and Delivery Mechanism .................................................................................. 61 7.1. Description of the Evaluation Process................................................................................................. 61 7.2. Findings ............................................................................................................................................... 61 7.3. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 62 7.4. Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 63 8. Monitoring and Evaluation ........................................................................................................................... 65 8.1. Description of the Evaluation Process................................................................................................. 65 8.2. Findings ............................................................................................................................................... 65 Assessment of monitoring system ................................................................................................................ 65 Evaluation planning ...................................................................................................................................... 65 Reconstruction of theory of change ............................................................................................................. 66 8.3. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 68 8.4. Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 68 9. Concluding Remarks and Recommendations ............................................................................................... 75 Annex 1. Table of recommendations ............................................................................................................. 79 Annex 2. List of output and result indicators and estimated interim progress ............................................. 84 Annex 3. In-depth analysis for eight selected projects ................................................................................ 101 Annex 4. Results of the online survey .......................................................................................................... 112 Annex 5. Reconstructed theory of change .................................................................................................. 128 Annex 6. Reconstructed logical framework ................................................................................................. 129 Annex 7. External coherence of SIDDDD with six local strategies (full analyses) ........................................ 147 Annex 8. Performance Measurement System Methodology ...................................................................... 183 iii | P a g e List of Figures Figure 1 Synthetic illustration of delivery mechanism and institutional arrangements for SIDDDD ...................... 9 Figure 2 Evaluation criteria and related evaluation questions ............................................................................. 11 Figure 3 Synergies among local, regional, national and EU strategies ................................................................. 17 Figure 4 Links among vision, strategic objectives, pillars and sectors .................................................................. 21 Figure 5 Allocated amounts, by Operational Programmes (EU Funds) (EUR) ...................................................... 31 Figure 6 Contracted amounts, by Operational Programmes (EU Funds) (% out of allocated) ............................. 32 Figure 7 Share of contracted amounts, by Pillars (EU Funds + State Budget) (%) ................................................ 33 Figure 8 Contracted amounts, by Sectors (EU Funds + State Budget) (EUR) ........................................................ 34 Figure 9 Contracted amounts, by Beneficiaries (EU Funds + State Budget) (EUR) ............................................... 35 Figure 10 Level of absorption of EU Funds dedicated to ITI DD, by Operational Programmes (%) ...................... 51 Figure 11 Level of absorption of EU Funs, at ITI DD and national level, by Operational Programmes (%) .......... 51 Figure 12 Payments out of contracted eligible values, by Pillars (EU Funds + National Budget) (%) ................... 52 Figure 13 Payments out of contracted values, by Sectors (EU Funds + National Budget) (%) ............................. 53 Figure 14 Payments, by Beneficiaries (EU Funds + National Budget) (EUR) ......................................................... 53 Figure 15 Progress of output indicators, by Pillars (%) ......................................................................................... 54 Figure 16 Progress of output indicators, by Sectors (%) ....................................................................................... 55 Figure 17 Progress of result indicators, by Pillars (%) ........................................................................................... 57 Figure 18 Progress of result indicators, by Sectors (%) ........................................................................................ 57 Figure 19 Institutional arrangement for implementing SIDDDD and ITI mechanism ........................................... 62 Figure 20 Difference between “theory of change” and “logical framework” ...................................................... 66 iv | P a g e List of Tables Table 1: Data collection tools and consulted documents ..................................................................................... 11 Table 2 Objective tree .......................................................................................................................................... 22 Table 3 Summary of key needs by sectors and related contracted projects ........................................................ 24 Table 4 Suggested format for representation of financial allocation ................................................................... 36 Table 5: Suggested format for representation of financial planning .................................................................... 36 Table 6: Result Indicators - Sector A Biodiversity and eco-system management................................................. 40 Table 7: Result Indicators - Sector B Energy Efficiency ......................................................................................... 41 Table 8: Result Indicators - Sector C Climate change ........................................................................................... 41 Table 9: Result Indicators - Sector D Disaster risk management .......................................................................... 42 Table 10: Result Indicators - Sector E Pollution Emergency ................................................................................. 42 Table 11: Result Indicators - Sector F Tourism ..................................................................................................... 42 Table 12: Result Indicators - Sector G Fishery and aquaculture ........................................................................... 43 Table 13: Result Indicators - Sector H Agriculture and rural development .......................................................... 43 Table 14: Result Indicators - Sector I Transport.................................................................................................... 44 Table 15: Result Indicators - Sector J Information and communications technology .......................................... 44 Table 16: Result Indicators - Sector K Water supply and sewerage systems and integrated water management .............................................................................................................................................................................. 45 Table 17: Result Indicators - Sector L Solid waste management .......................................................................... 45 Table 18: Result Indicators - Sector M Health ...................................................................................................... 46 Table 19: Result Indicators - Sector N Education .................................................................................................. 46 Table 20: Result Indicators - Sector O Social inclusion and protection ................................................................ 46 Table 21: Result Indicators - Sector P Administrative capacity and program management ................................ 47 Table 22: Status of project implementation, by Sectors ...................................................................................... 55 Table 23: Expected results of monitoring and evaluation .................................................................................... 68 Table 24: Suggested monitoring and evaluation activities and responsible institutions ..................................... 69 Table 25: Indicative list of evaluation themes and suggested methodologies ..................................................... 70 Table 26: Indicative timeline for strategy evaluation ........................................................................................... 73 Table 27: List of Output Indicators and Interim Progress ..................................................................................... 84 Table 28 List of Result Indicators and Interim Progress ....................................................................................... 95 Table 29: Selected projects for in-depth analysis and criteria used for project selection.................................. 101 Table 30: Selected projects for in-depth analysis and sources of information for project data ........................ 101 v|P a g e Abbreviations and Acronyms ATU Administrative Territorial Unit CC Climate Change CP Cohesion Policy DD Danube Delta DDBR Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development EC European Commission EE Energy Efficiency ERDF European Regional Development Fund ESF European Social Fund ESIF European Structural and Investment Funds EU European Union GHG Greenhouse Gas ICT Information & Communication Technology IDA Inter-community Development Association IDA ITI DD Inter-community Development Association for implementation of ITI Danube Delta ISUD Integrated Sustainable Urban Development ITI Integrated Territorial Investment M&E Monitoring & Evaluation MA Managing Authority MEF Ministry of European Funds MPWDA Ministry of Public Works, Development and Administration NCRIA National Company for Road Infrastructure Administration OP Operational Programme POCA OP Administrative Capacity ROP Regional Operational Programme SIDDDD Danube Delta Integrated Sustainable Development Strategy (RO: Strategia Integrată de Dezvoltare Durabilă a Deltei Dunării) SISD Strategy for Integrated Sustainable Development SMEs Small and medium-sized enterprises vi | P a g e Executive summary Context of the Interim Evaluation In 2013, the World Bank received a request for technical assistance from what is now known as the Ministry of Public Works, Development and Public Administration (MPWDA) in Romania to provide support in the preparation of a strategy for the Danube Delta and its surrounding regions. The strategy was subsequently approved through Government Ordinance no 601/2016. To ensure the successful implementation of the Strategy for Integrated Sustainable Development in Danube Delta (SIDDDD), various instruments and institutions were also put into effect in parallel. Key among these were the Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI) mechanism and the Inter-Community Development Association for ITI Danube Delta (IDA ITI DD). Taken together, the strategy, the ITI, and the IDA ITI in the Danube Delta region laid the foundation of an integrated regional development program – the first of its kind in Romania. Five years since its inception, the strategy is nearing the end of what can be considered its first stage of implementation. The year 2020 represents a bridge between the end of the current EU programming period 2014-2020 and the beginning of the next period 2021-2027. This transition period is relevant as a large portion of the strategy is financed through the ITI mechanism and EU funds. The Managing Authorities (MA) of the Romanian Operational Programmes are due to close all financing lines for the current period, including those allocated for ITI, and prepare the new national strategies and financial allocations. In this context, the MPWDA is keen to understand the overall physical and financial progress of the implementation of the SIDDDD and opportunities for improvement in lead up towards the next programming period. The objective of this evaluation was to support the MPWDA in:  Estimating the progress and immediate effects of the Strategy in the Danube Delta Region  Providing practical recommendations for the improvement of ITI mechanism  Recommending practical processes for ex-ante and ex-post impact assessment and monitoring and evaluation of the development strategy to be used moving forward. Methodology This review can best be categorized as an implementation evaluation, focused on the progress towards achievement of objectives as well as the ongoing process of implementation. It should also be noted that the report refers to “evaluation of the strategy”, while within the context as explained the focus is really on the “evaluation of a program”, encompassing many initiatives and “child” projects towards the achievement of the strategy. As the SIDDDD is implemented mainly through EU ITI delivery mechanism, drawing financial resources from the eight Romanian Operational Programmes, the evaluation team designed a methodological approach in line with European Commission (EC) guidelines for monitoring and evaluation. The report incorporates all five evaluation criteria suggested in the EC Toolbox for Better Regulation, respectively effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU added value, with different levels of detail, determined by the limited availability of qualitative and quantitative information, and by the incipient status of project implementation. For each criterion, an evaluation question was assigned, to further explain the teams understanding regarding the scope of the analyses, and therefore better guide the analyses. The link between evaluation criteria and evaluation questions is presented in the figure below, it also guides the reader to the relevant chapters discussing each question. 1|P a g e High level findings During what is considered the first phase of implementation (the period between adoption and closing of the 2014 – 2020 programming period), the SIDDDD registered relatively low progress, especially in relation to the tight deadlines imposed for EU funded strategies. The level of absorption of EU funds is below 20% (payments out of total allocations), and the general physical progress of projects amounts to 35% (current status of output indicators, compared to baselines and interim targets). The overall progress with regards to result indicators is estimated at 42%. Most outcomes and impacts are expected to be more visible towards the end of 2023 with 80% of projects still under implementation. The large infrastructure projects, which are expected to produce significant economic impacts in Danube Delta area, are currently in an incipient status, and therefore are not yet captured in the current analyses. The low pace of implementation can be justified by the novelty of the ITI mechanisms, which required complex preparation activities - developing and approving the local Danube Delta Strategy, setting the institutional framework for the implementation of the strategy and of the ITI instrument, developing inter-institutional agreements and procedures, and promoting the strategy and the financing mechanism. Nevertheless, the beneficiaries of projects implemented through ITI mechanism are already able to perceive some important environmental and economic developments, generated by the strategy. Two thirds of respondents to the online survey appreciate that both tourists and residents are satisfied with the development of tourism in the area. Moreover, 51% of respondents to the online survey consider that implemented projects have a positive impact on the environment. While the projects implemented under the SIDDDD were monitored by different stakeholders, monitoring data were not aggregated at the level of SIDDDD. Monitoring was conducted by the Managing Authorities of the Operational Programmes, the MPWDA, and the Community Development Agency ITI DD, mainly focusing on compliance with reporting rules for EU Funded projects. In order to verify the progress towards achieving the objectives of the SIDDDD further procedures and instruments are needed, to establish clear roles and responsibilities for data monitoring and aggregation, to guide the methodological approach, to set deadlines for monitoring and reporting and to communicate the use of results. 2|P a g e The main findings against each of the evaluation criteria (contained in separate Chapters) are summarized below: External Coherence The Interim Evaluation started with the assessment of the external coherence of the Strategy ( Evaluation Question 1: “Is there a correspondence between the Strategy’s objectives and those of other interacting public actions?”). The results indicated a good coordination among the objectives set by the SIDDDD and the objectives set by the six analyzed local strategies, respectively Tulcea County Integrated Sustainable Development Strategy, Tulcea Municipality Local Strategy, Sulina Local Development Strategy, Baia Integrated Sustainable Development Strategy, Isaccea City Development Strategy and Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve. The local strategies are drafted to complement the interventions financed under the Danube Delta Strategy and to contribute to its final objectives and related targets. Relevance and Internal Coherence The evaluation team next assessed the relevance of the strategy (Evaluation Question 2: Is there a strong adequacy between the Strategy’s objectives and the socio-economic, target group needs?”) and its internal coherence (Evaluation Question 3: Is there a strong link among the Strategy’s objectives and planned interventions?). A high relevance was noted based on the relationship among identified needs and problems and the objectives of the Strategy. According to the online survey deployed by the evaluation team, the majority of beneficiaries consider that the SIDDDD has covered the needs of the institution they represent, of their locality and of the Danube Delta region. This is attributed to the participatory approach in designing the strategy and implementation documents, which involved all relevant stakeholders, including civil society. A medium internal coherence resulted from the reconstructed logic of intervention. This was mainly caused by the high level of stratification of the strategy (overarching vision, two strategic objectives, five pillars, 16 sectors, 52 sectorial specific objectives, 137 interventions and 1024 projects), but also by the limited guidelines for the implementation of the strategy, for attaining the integrated approach. In particular, for some sectors, the scope of the contracted projects seems rather limited compared to the ambitious objectives of the strategy. This is a topic to be further explored by a future impact assessment. Financial Allocation The Interim Evaluation also addressed the financial allocations of the strategy ( Evaluation Question 4: “Are the financial allocations adequate to solve the identified needs, respectively to implement the planned interventions?”). The assessment was limited by the fact that the Strategy itself does not include an overall budget for the entire implementation period, needed or available, to be split by pillars and sectors, and by sources of funds. Nevertheless, the EU and national funds allocated to contracted projects in Danube Delta, reveal a high concentration of resources towards a very limited number of sectors (in particular, transport and rural development), while other sectors have very limited financial allocations. This over-concentration could be addressed during the next programming period, with a quantification of current unfinanced needs and an active identification of possible sources of funding. System of Indicators Although the Interim Evaluation was not specifically aimed at analyzing the system of indicators ( Evaluation Question 5: “Are the result and output indicators relevant to capture the Strategy’s objectives, respectively the planned interventions?”) , this became a prerequisite for the evaluation of the physical progress of the strategy. 3|P a g e Danube Delta Strategy included a list of indicators, and while stating some measurement units and sources of data did not include indicator definitions, baselines or targets (not possible to determine during strategy drafting process). These indicators were not actively used for monitoring the implementation of the strategy at the time of this evaluation. Moreover, the majority of indicators were designed to capture only the immediate outputs; while some indicators included in the strategy required data that cannot be aggregated at territorial level. Taking into consideration the above bottlenecks, the evaluation team suggested an update of the list of indicators, with the support of Inter-Community Development Association for Integrated Territorial Investment in Danube Delta (IDA ITI DD). The updated system of indicators serves to capture the outputs and results of ongoing and completed projects, during the first phase of implementation. For most output indicators, guidelines were provided for data collection and aggregations, including definitions, computation methodology and sources of information. The team further provided support in constructing baselines and intermediate targets, starting from the list of contracted projects. However, additional result indicators are needed in order to reflect all desired changes included in the strategy, during the entire timeline of implementation. The current list of indicators does not cover all sectorial specific objectives and related interventions (in particular, objectives with no current allocation were omitted). As such, it may over-estimate the progress of the strategy, by monitoring only the specific objectives with registered progress. Interim Results The core purpose of the Interim Evaluation was to assess the effectiveness of the strategy (Evaluation Questions 6: “What is the current progress towards achieving the Strategy’s objectives and expected changes?”), based on monitoring data related to financial, output and result indicators, and on the perception of beneficiaries. The monitoring data suggest a low progress in achieving the desired results. The level of absorption of European Union funds is below 20% (payments out of total allocations), and the general physical progress of projects amounts to 36% (current status of output indicators, compared to baselines and interim targets). The low pace of implementation can be justified by the novelty of the strategy and of the Integrated Territorial Investment mechanism, which required complex preparation activities - developing and approving the local Danube Delta Strategy, setting the institutional framework for the implementation of the strategy and of the funding instrument, developing inter-institutional agreements and procedures, and promoting the strategy and the financing mechanism. Nevertheless, the beneficiaries of projects implemented in Danube Delta are already able to perceive some important environmental and economic developments, generated by the strategy. Two thirds of respondents to the online survey appreciate that both tourists and residents are satisfied with the development of tourism in the area. Moreover, 51% of respondents to the online survey consider that implemented projects have a positive impact on the environment. Some important impacts are also expected in relation to the large transport infrastructure projects, implemented by the National Company for Road Infrastructure Administration and by Tulcea Administrative Territorial Unit. However, the overall results and impacts of the strategy will be better reflected in a future impact assessment, as the outcomes of a strategy are fully visible only after the completion of projects. Institutional Arrangements and Delivery Mechanism The Evaluation Team performed a brief analysis of the institutional arrangements and delivery mechanism (Evaluation Question 7: “Are the institutional arrangement and selected delivery mechanisms appropriate to support the implementation of the Strategy?”), as this will be the scope of a separate report, to be published by the Ministry of European Funds. The preliminary analyses suggest that Romania managed to create functional institutional arrangements for the implementation of the SIDDDD. All relevant stakeholders were involved in planning, implementation and monitoring activities, ensuring compliance with the European Regulations for EU Funded strategies, while taking 4|P a g e into consideration the local needs and objectives. Given the positive feedback received from beneficiaries with regards to the activity of the IDA ITI in Danube Delta, further responsibilities could be delegated in the future to the local institution, in order to leverage the created human capacity. Beneficiaries further perceive the institutional arrangements, as well as the selected delivery mechanism (ITI DD) as having created the necessary framework for a successful implementation of the SIDDDD. Based on the online survey, the ITI mechanism has significantly contributed to making European funding more accessible, especially for local and central public authorities and for the non-governmental sector. At the level of all beneficiaries, the mechanism generated an increase in the availability share for accessing European funds, contributing significantly to the increase of entrepreneurial capacity. Monitoring and evaluation Finally, the Evaluation Team provided guidelines and instruments for developing monitoring and evaluation tools and procedures, for the next phase of implementation of Danube Delta Strategy. Recommendations for future interventions Based on the above findings, a series of recommendations were provided in order to further continue and enhance the achieved progress of SIDDDD during the programming period 2021-2027. These are detailed at the end of each chapter and aggregated here, but these can also be summarized and sorted into two broad groups of recommendations, as follows: Strategic Planning Implementation Arrangements Recommendations aimed at improving the various Recommendations aimed at improving supporting documents for the strategy (including implementation procedures and tools, including needs analysis, implementation plans, etc.) Monitoring and Evaluation Recommendation 1 – 3: Ensure coherence with new Recommendation 6: Monitor financial progress and EU programming period, updated needs analysis and implement corrective action and re-allocation where subsequent updated shorter term implementation necessary plans and other implementation documents such as project prioritization methodologies. Recommendation 4: Clearer representation of logic Recommendation 10 - 11: Implement remediation of intervention actions to address findings from root cause analysis for limited physical and financial progress Recommendation 5: Develop budget estimates for Recommendation 12 - 14: Develop a stronger remainder of strategy implementation period (ideally monitoring and evaluation function, including M&E with annual breakdowns) procedures, clearer attribution of functions, improved data sharing protocols and improved communication around an agreed evaluation plan Recommendation 7 – 9: Set additional result and output indicators and fully completed the system of indicators The detailed list of recommendations is as follows: Recommendation 1 (External coherence): Re-evaluate the external coherence with European Union, national and local strategies, at the beginning of the new programming period. This recommendation considers the fact that, for each programming period, new objectives are established at European Union level, which are then translated into the national and regional strategies. It is noted that it is unlikely that the overall SIDDDD will be updated (given cumbersome approval processes – previously 2 years), however various implementation support 5|P a g e documents such as a short or medium term action or implementation plan (annual plan or 3 -5 year plan for example), financial plans to match implementation plan or updated prioritization methodologies (action plan, financial plan, etc.) could be updated to ensure continued relevance. Recommendation 2 (Relevance): Update the needs assessment, in the context of the future impact evaluation, in order to identify the needs that have already been addressed through the first set of contracted projects and the needs that remain during the second phase of implementation. Moreover, a quantification of remaining needs would better serve for the financial planning of the strategy and for setting the final targets. Recommendation 3 (Relevance): Update the supporting implementation documents, in anticipation of a future impact assessment. The strategy should be a “living” document, highly responsive to the changing needs of the society. As noted in recommendation 1, while the regular update of the strategy document is not practical, supporting documents towards implementation (such as short- term implementation plans) could be regularly reviewed and updated to ensure relevance. Recommendations 4 (Internal coherence): Provide a clearer representation of the logic of intervention, to be used by different stakeholders and beneficiaries, in implementation and monitoring. A reconstruction of the logical framework was already performed in the context of this project. However, updates may be necessary once the final list of indicators is approved. Moreover, for the future programming period, it is also recommended to further assess the links between objectives and selected projects. Recommendation 5 (Efficiency): Strategic and implementation documents should include at least some attempt at capturing a budget for the Danube Delta Strategy. This would ideally be for the period 2016-2030, and include budget needs, budget availability, split by pillars, sectors and, where possible, by interventions. In a further best practice case, this should be further broken down into funding periods (assuming correlation with EU funding periods) and then into annual budget plans. While this seem an extensive and complex undertaking, it would represent a significant step forward in terms of planning and monitoring of financial resources and particularly create a much clearer link between needs and actual financing secured for projects. Recommendation 6 (Efficiency): Financial progress should be evaluated throughout implementation and, where needed, reallocations should be performed. Danube Delta Strategy has a long horizon and therefore budgetary adjustments may be needed, based on contextual changes (e.g. the ongoing Covid-19 crisis may generate a different prioritizations of investments), on the new needs that m ay arise, or additional financial resources identified throughout implementation. Recommendation 7 (System of indicators): Set additional result indicators, to capture all sectorial specific objectives. Result indicators should reflect the overall progress of the strategy, not only the objectives with financial allocations. The system of indicators can rely both on quantitative result indicators (to be added and monitored by IDA ITI in Danube Delta), and qualitative result indicators (to be added and assessed by the external evaluation team, in the context of future progress and impact assessments). Recommendation 8 (System of indicators): Set additional output indicators, as per need, to capture the majority of interventions. The current list of output indicators is set based on the ongoing or completed projects. Additional indicators may be required after the approval of the new financing lines, in order to capture most interventions (at least 75% of the total budget of the strategy). Although it is not recommended to have indicators in relation to each of the 137 interventions, a closer monitoring is required for interventions with high financial allocations. Recommendation 9 (System of indicators): Finalize the system of indicators (far advanced during this evaluation process) with guidelines for data collection and monitoring. For all indicators, the following information should be provided: title of the indicator; measurement unit; baseline; intermediate and final targets; source of information; definition; computation methodologies; aggregation methodologies; responsible for data collection, aggregation and reporting; deadlines for data collection, aggregation and reporting. Recommendation 10 (Effectiveness): Select and implement appropriate remediation actions to address the root causes for the limited physical progress of the strategy (as identified in this report). Remediation actions at 6|P a g e strategy level may include: advance planning of implementation mechanisms for the next programming period; technical assistance for beneficiaries, including capacity building projects; communication of funding opportunities by multiple means; increased number and capacity of human resources involved in implementing and monitoring the strategy; clear roles and procedures for monitoring the strategy. Remediation actions at project level may include closer evaluation and guidance for submitted projects and improved guidelines for beneficiaries. Recommendation 11 (Effectiveness): Identify and implement the appropriate methods for accelerating project expenditure (either at ITI, strategy or project level), while taking into consideration the challenges associated to each method. Methods at strategy level may include: overcommitment of strategy funds; additional and/ or targeted calls for project proposals; waiting (reserve) list of projects. Methods at the project level may include closer monitoring of projects’ spending and mid-term assessment of projects’ spending; decommitment of projects’ budgets with low spending level; additional allocations to already running projects. Recommendation 12 (Monitoring and evaluation function): Develop a monitoring and evaluation procedure, defining clear responsibilities for each institution involved in implementing Danube Delta Strategy. The strategy defines in general terms the responsibilities of each institution; however, a specific procedure for monitoring and evaluation would better guide the collection and aggregation of data at local level, as well as the planning and follow-up for the external evaluations. Recommendation 13 (Monitoring and evaluation function): Grant access to relevant data to all institution in charge of monitoring and evaluation. Currently, the monitoring data related to implemented projects are collected by Managing Authorities (MA), in relation to each Operational Programme. In order to assess the progress of the Danube Delta Strategy, these data should be aggregated at local level, by the strategy owners. For that purpose, the institution in charge with monitoring Danube Delta Strategy (i.e. MPWDA) should have access to financing contracts, financing requests, progress reports and any other monitoring data submitted by beneficiaries, including the progress of indicators. Recommendation 14 (Monitoring and evaluation function): Develop and communicate the evaluation plan for Danube Delta Strategy. The evaluation plan should include the following elements: indicative list of evaluations to be undertaken, their subject and rationale; methods to be used for the individual evaluations and their data requirements; provisions that data required for certain evaluations will be available or will be collected; a timetable; a strategy to ensure use and communication of evaluations; human resources involved in monitoring and evaluation; the indicative budget for implementation of the evaluation plan; and possibly a training plan. 7|P a g e Chapter 1 8|P a g e 1. Introduction 1.1. Background information In 2013, the World Bank received a request for technical assistance from what is now known as the Ministry of Public Works, Development and Public Administration (MPWDA) in Romania to provide support in the preparation of a strategy for the Danube Delta and its surrounding regions. The strategy was subsequently approved through Government Ordinance no 601/2016. To ensure the successful implementation of the Strategy for Integrated Sustainable Development in Danube Delta (SIDDDD), various instruments and institutions were also put into effect in parallel. Key among these were the Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI) mechanism and the Inter-Community Development Association for ITI Danube Delta (IDA ITI DD). The ITI delivery mechanism was set up to ensure a streamlined disbursement of European Funds in accordance with the objectives outlined by the Strategy using an integrated approach. The Association, on the other hand was established to bring together key institutions and administrative bodies relevant in the Danube Delta region and to manage the collection of projects, to promote the funding opportunities and to facilitate the access to European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) to achieve maximum development in the region. Taken together, the strategy, the ITI, and the IDA ITI in the Danube Delta region laid the foundation of an integrated regional development program – the first of its kind in Romania. Figure 1: Synthetic illustration of delivery mechanism and institutional arrangements for SIDDDD Source: Evaluators’ interpretation of SIDDDD strategic and implementation documents Five years since its inception, the strategy is nearing what can be considered its first stage of completion. The year 2020 represents a bridge between the end of the current financial programming period 2014-2020 and the beginning of the next period 2021-2027. This transition period is relevant as a large portion of the strategy is financed through the ITI mechanism and EU funds. The Managing Authorities (MA) of the Romanian Operational Programmes are due to close all financing lines for the current period, including those allocated for ITI, and prepare the new national strategies and financial allocations. In this context, the MPWDA is keen to understand the progress of the strategy and opportunities for improvement. 1.2. Objectives and scope The objective of this evaluation is to support the MPWDA in:  Estimating the progress and immediate effects of the Strategy in the Danube Delta Region  Providing practical recommendations for the improvement of ITI mechanism  Recommending practical processes and actions to improve the ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the development strategy (to be used moving forward by various roleplayers). 9|P a g e Methodological approach considered in three stages: The purpose of the planning phase was to ensure that the project is set-up correctly, to validate the methodological approach with the Contracting Authority and to coordinate the activities performed by different members of the evaluation team. Considering that the majority of the SIDDDD is implemented through EU ITI delivery mechanism, drawing financial resources from the eight Romanian Operational Programmes, the evaluation team decided to draft the methodological approach in line with European Commission (EC) guidelines for monitoring and evaluation.1 It is important to clarify the type of evaluation begin undertaken, which could usually be one of three types: design evaluation (which considers the quality of the design of the program), implementation evaluation (progress/process evaluations) or the final impact evaluation (results / impact evaluations). Although the evaluation was commissioned as part of a larger MPWDA project around impact evaluation, it is clearly too early to pronounce with any certainty on impact since implementation is only at the early stages (as will be outlined in further chapters. Given that the SIDDDD has been through an extensive design and approval process, including extensive environmental impact assessments, there would be little value in a substantive quality of design evaluation (it would not be appropriate for the World Bank to conduct such either, as contributors to the original strategy document). The review therefore can be broadly categorized as an implementation evaluation, focused on the progress towards achievement of objectives as well as the ongoing process of implementation. It should also be noted that the report refers to “evaluation of the strategy”, while within the context as explained the focus is really on the “evaluation of a program”, encompassin many initiatives and “child” projects towards the achievement of the strategy. Step 1: Defining the evaluation criteria and related evaluation questions The current report incorporates all five evaluation criteria suggested in the EC Toolbox for Better Regulation2, Tool 47, respectively effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and EU added value, with different levels of detail, determined by the limited availability of qualitative and quantitative information, and by the incipient status of project implementation. For each criterion, an evaluation question was assigned, to further explain the teams understanding regarding the scope of the analyses, and therefore better guide the analyses. The link between evaluation criteria and evaluation questions is presented in Figure 2 below. Furthermore, the figure indicates the chapters containing conclusions and recommendations in relation to each evaluation criterion, respectively each evaluation question. 1 See Evalsed resources approach: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/evaluations- guidance-documents/2013/evalsed-the-resource-for-the-evaluation-of-socio-economic-development-sourcebook-method- and-techniques 2 The better regulation toolbox contains advice on how to: apply general principles of better regulation; carry out impact assessments; identify impacts; prepare proposals, implementation and transposition; monitor the application of an intervention; carry out evaluations and fitness checks; consult stakeholders; apply methods, models, costs and benefits. (Link: https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/better-regulation-toolbox-47_en) 10 | P a g e Figure 2: Evaluation criteria and related evaluation questions Step 2: Selecting relevant data collection tools The data collection tools were continuously updated, in order to provide sufficient evidence for each criterion and subsequent evaluation question, but also to respond to the limitations imposed by the ongoing sanitary crisis. The initially planned focus groups and on-site visits were replaced by online surveys, phone-interviews and analyses of project documentation. Table 1: Data collection tools and consulted documents Data collection tools Consulted documents External coherence  Desk research  Strategic documents for the seven local strategies, including SIDDDD  Financial and monitoring data, including types and value of implemented projects, provided by IDA ITI DD and other local public institutions  Socio-economic statistic data for Danube Delta, available on INSSE webpage Relevance  Desk research  SIDDDD: strategic document, needs assessment and action plan  Online survey  Results of the online survey, regarding the perceived relevance of the strategy, based on (transmitted to all beneficiaries’ answers Beneficiaries) Internal coherence  Desk research  SIDDDD: strategic document  List and description of contracted projects, provided by IDA ITI DD Efficiency  Desk research  SIDDDD: strategic document 11 | P a g e Data collection tools Consulted documents  Financial data retrieved from strategic documents of the eight Operational Programmes, consisting of total amounts allocated to ITI DD  Financial data provided by IDA ITI DD, consisting of total amounts contracted under SIDDDD Effectiveness  Desk research  Monitoring data provided by IDA ITI DD, for output and result indicators, collected in the  Online survey context of this project (transmitted to all  Monitoring data at project level provided by IDA ITI DD, consisting of Beneficiaries)  Results of the online survey, regarding the perceived effects of the implemented  In-depth phone interventions, based on beneficiaries’ answers interviews (with  Results of the in-depth phone interviews, regarding the expected and achieved results, selected at project level Beneficiaries  Project documentation EU added value  Desk research  SIDDDD: strategic document, providing information on institutional arrangements and  Online survey delivery mechanism (transmitted to all  Results of the online survey, regarding the perceived added value of the ITI mechanism, Beneficiaries) based on beneficiaries’ answers Step 3: Drafting the methodological document After defining the scope of the project, the evaluation criteria and related questions, as well as the relevant collection tools, the evaluation team drafted the methodological document, including detailed information on the evaluation framework3, data collection strategy, project activities and timeline, expected results and methodological limitations. The methodological report was regarded as the main working tool throughout the implementation of the contract. The purpose of the second phase of project implementation was to gather enough information to provide evidence on the level of achievement, at strategy and project level, in qualitative and quantitative terms, and to identify the internal and external factors that influenced the progress of the strategy. Step 4: Collecting & analyzing strategic and implementation documents First of all, the evaluation team collected the readily available strategic and implementation documents, for SIDDDD and six other local strategies (Tulcea county, Tulcea city, Sulina city, Isaccea city, Baia commune, and Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve). These documents were used to analyze the external and internal coherence of the SIDDDD and reconstruct the theory of change and logical framework. Step 5: Collecting & analyzing financial data 3The development of an evaluation framework enables the evaluation team to understand the main stakes of the evaluation questions and to easily identify the main fields for investigation. It also allows us to identify, from the very beginning, the relevant judgment criteria and related indicators as well as related types of data necessary for carrying out the analysis and the appropriate sources of information, which guarantees the effectiveness of the data collection process. 12 | P a g e Financial data was collected with support from IDA ITI DD, to estimate the adequacy of financial allocations, the financial progress at project and strategy level, and the absorption of EU Funds. However, a series of data cleaning activities were required. The strategy did not include a financial plan; the monitoring documents did not indicate the relation among contracted projects and SIDDDD sectors and pillars; data was presented in different currencies; the split between EU Funds and National Budget was not always indicated; and total amounts were not consistent when analyzing various documents. In order to improve the accuracy of financial data, the following activities were performed by the evaluation team:  Activity 1: Assigning each contracted project to the relevant sector and pillar, based on the general description of the project. This activity enabled the aggregation of data at different levels of the Strategy.  Activity 2: Converting all eligible amounts in EUR, using an approximation of the EUR-RON exchange rate during the years 2016-2020. This activity enabled the comparison among allocated, contracted and paid amounts.  Activity 3: Requesting additional clarifications to IDA ITI DD, regarding the split of eligible values between EU Funds and National Budges. This information was needed to compute the rate of absorption of EU Funds.  Activity 4: Identifying outliers and requesting clarification to IDA ITI DD (i.e. for energy related projects, currency was not correctly indicated; for projects implemented at national level, the national allocations were mixed with ITI allocations). The final analyses are based on the updated documents provided by IDA ITI DD, with corrected financial information. Step 6: Collecting & analyzing monitoring data The evaluation team requested to MPWDA the monitoring data for SIDDDD indicators, in order to compute the physical progress at project and strategy level. However, the strategic documents did not provide baselines, targets, definitions, data collection and aggregation methodologies, or sources of information for selected indicators; and therefore, the SIDDDD indicators were never monitored. In order to address the lack of monitoring data, the evaluation team performed the following activities, with support from IDA ITI DD:  Activity 1: Analyzing the list of output and result indicators included in the SIDDDD and identifying the indicators for which historical data could be retrieved at the level of ITI DD (i.e. baselines and current values).  Activity 2: Analyzing the list of indicators included in the eight Operational Programmes and identifying the indicators relevant for monitoring the physical progress of the SIDDDD projects.  Activity 3: Collecting monitoring data (i.e. baselines and current values) from relevant institutions, and setting interim targets, based on contracted projects. Note: taking into consideration the sanitary crisis generated by Covid-19, for some indicators, data could not be retrieved within this project timeline.  Activity 4: Selecting the indicators with complete information (baselines, current values and targets), to be used for estimating the physical progress of contracted projects and the overall progress of the strategy (see Annex 2). Note: the list of indicators used in the context of this report was determined by the availability of historical data. The system of indicators should be further improved for future evaluations.  Activity 5: Providing recommendations and guidelines to IDA ITI DD for future monitoring activities. For a short-list of strategic projects, the evaluation team also requested additional project level monitoring data (i.e. financing requests and progress reports). However, MPWDA did not have access to such documents, as Beneficiaries are submitting progress reports directly to Managing Authorities. Given the short timeline of this project, and the limited institutional arrangements for exchange of project level data, documents were not retrieved in due time. Nevertheless, the evaluation team managed to find additional sources of information: project fiches and monitoring data provided by IDA ITI DD, and qualitative and quantitative information provided by Beneficiaries. 13 | P a g e Step 7: Collecting & analyzing qualitative and quantitative information from Beneficiaries An online survey (see Annex 4) was submitted to all SIDDDD Beneficiaries, in order collect information on the perceived relevancy and effectiveness of the strategy, as well as the added value of the ITI mechanism. In addition, in-depth interviews were performed for a selected number of strategic projects, with high allocation or high representativity of SIDDDD interventions (Annex 3). Step 8: Drafting the final report and disseminating project results The final phase of project implementation was aimed at drafting the Evaluation Report and disseminating the project results. 1.3. Structure of the report The Evaluation Report incorporates findings, conclusions and recommendation for the five evaluation criteria (coherence, relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, EU added value) and related evaluation questions, and is structured around seven sections, as follows:  External Coherence: assessing the consistency, complementarity, harmonization and coordination of SIDDDD with six other local strategies, namely the strategies for Tulcea county, Tulcea city, Sulina city, Isaccea city, Baia commune and Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve  Relevance and Internal Coherence: assessing the relevance of the strategy, taking into consideration the current needs, as well as the logical links among the objectives and planned interventions  Financial Allocation: assessing the split of financial resources among pillars and sectors, as well as the consistency of allocations with types of planned interventions  System of Indicators: assessing the coverage of specific sectorial objectives and interventions, by result and output indicators  Interim Results: assessing the current financial and physical progress of the strategy, as well as the outcomes perceived by beneficiaries and stakeholders  Institutional Arrangements and Delivery Mechanism: presenting the institutional organization and approach to implementation, along with identified areas of improvement  Monitoring and Evaluation Function: assessing aspects related to monitoring and evaluation, namely the existing set-up for data collection, aggregation and reporting, planning of external evaluations, follow up and communication of results. The report includes in the annexes: the table of recommendations, with suggested deadlines and responsible institutions (Annex 1), the list of output and result indicators, used for estimating the progress of the strategy (Annex 2), the in-depth analyses of eight selected projects (Annex 3), the results of the online survey, submitted to all project beneficiaries (Annex 4), the reconstruction of theory of change (Annex 5) and logical framework (Annex 6) and the analyses of six local strategies, implemented in Danube Delta (Annex 7). 1.4. Methodological limitations The local strategy was lacking some quantifiable information, to allow the proper evaluation of financial and physical progress:  Missing financial planning: the evaluation team received only the contracted amounts for the programming period 2014-2020, through ITI mechanism, and not the entire budgetary needs and allocations of the strategy.  Missing monitoring data: the evaluation team managed to collect complete information for a limited number of output and result indicators. Therefore, the current system of indicators is based on the availability of historical data, not on a sound methodological approach, to ensure the relevancy of indicators in relation to the ambitious SIDDDD strategic and sectorial specific objectives. 14 | P a g e Moreover, all project activities were conducted during the sanitary crisis generated by Covid-19. This resulted in the team conducting the large majority of the assessment through virtual means. It limited to some extent the teams’ access to various key documents and various stakeholders were not readily available to participate in interviews. 15 | P a g e Chapter 2 16 | P a g e 2. External Coherence 2.1. Description of the evaluation process This section presents the conclusions regarding the coherence of the SIDDDD with other local strategies, in terms of consistency, complementarity, harmonization and coordination. The results are based on the strategic documents and monitoring data provided by IDA ITI DD. 2.2. Findings The development of the Danube Delta area is highly influenced by the European, national, regional and local strategies. First of all, the EU Strategies are defining the general objectives and investment priorities to which all Member States commit to adhere. The EU Strategies are an important source of financing for Members States, but they also come with certain obligations - all strategies implemented by the Member States, and in particular the interventions financed through EU Funds, need to demonstrate the alignment with EU objectives. The National Strategies are then defining the national strategic approach in relation to various topics and sectors (e.g. transport, tourism, energy, etc.), which are embedded into regional strategies. In Danube Delta area, we note the existence of several Regional Strategies, which should be aligned with each other, to avoid conflicting interventions or duplication of efforts. Finally, the Local Strategies are able to respond to the immediate and specific needs of the citizens, while contributing to the regional, national and EU strategies. The interactions among the four layers of strategies - local, regional, national and EU - are illustrated in a synthetic manner in the below figure. Figure 3: Synergies among local, regional, national and EU strategies Source: Evaluators’ interpretation based on the analysis of local, regional, national and EU strategies 17 | P a g e The external coherence of SIDDDD with European and National Strategies was already addressed in the planning stage of the strategy. Therefore, in the context of this project, the evaluation team focused on the external coherence with the regional and local strategies (i.e. strategies for Tulcea county, Tulcea city, Sulina city, Isaccea city, Baia commune, and Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve), to better understand the complementarities among different interventions and identify possible conflicting objectives that undermine the overall progress. The below sections include the main conclusions, while the full analyses are presented in Annex 7. Tulcea county integrated sustainable development strategy The Tulcea county strategy is well aligned with the Delta Danube strategy. The strategic vision of the county is harmonized with the integrated strategic vision of the SIDDDD and both plans have similar strategic objectives. Most sectoral objectives from the Delta Danube strategy have been incorporated in the county plan, except a few issues like energy efficiency or fishery which are outside the purview of the county. The county projects also respond to the priority areas set by the SIDDDD. Despite some limitations regarding sectors and territorial competence, there is a good level of correlation between the two plans in terms of priority areas, and the interventions at the county level indicate that they could contribute in achieving the objectives and targets of the Delta Danube strategy. Tulcea municipality development strategy With same coverage period as the SIDDDD (2016-2030), the Tulcea city strategy has a high level of alignment (about 90 percent) with the Danube Delta document in terms of objectives, areas, and measures/interventions. The SIDDDD pillars are well reflected in the city priorities and measures. The main difference among the two documents is related to the focus area, as Tulcea is entirely urban, whereas the Delta Danube plan covers predominantly rural areas. Also, the city emphasizes less on IT&C and health issues. The local strategy is listing 240 proposals that are mostly correlated with the SIDDDD, although some go beyond the areas of interventions in the Delta Danube plan. Only half of the proposals have indicators and around a quarter received financing. The projects implemented by Tulcea with EU funds makes the city the second largest recipient of the ITI program. Sulina local development strategy The strategy of Sulina is well-correlated in terms of vision, strategic and sectoral objectives with the SIDDDD. Despite having a different structure and wording, the city strategy embraces nearly all objectives from the SIDDDD, pointing to similar values and elements. The two documents have comparable objectives - although Sulina has a different approach, as the priorities seemed to be drawn in a more straightforward and concise manner. Sulina is implementing over RON 11 million projects with ITI funds, which would support the objectives of the Delta Danube strategy. Isaccea integrated local development strategy The strategy of Isaccea is about 70 percent aligned with the SIDDDD at the level of objectives, priority areas and specific objectives. The main differences are in terms of structure, as the local plan was developed before the SIDDDD, and coverage period (the city strategy runs up to 2020). Also, compared to SIDDDD, Isaccea does not focus too much on IT&C and health sectors. But these differences did not affect the overall approach since the city strategy is quite consistent with the Delta Danube plan. Only 25 percent of the local project portfolio has been financed so far. The projects contracted by Isaccea make around 1 (one) percent of the ITI program, even though the city has 2.4 percent of the population in the SIDDDD area. Baia integrated sustainable development strategy Although Baia strategy was approved before the SIDDDD, the commune’s key development areas and measures are connected to the strategic and sectorial objectives of the Delta Danube plan . Both documents have similar strategic approach, although different structures, methodologies, details, and coverage period (Baia 18 | P a g e plan goes until 2020). 10 of the 25 local objectives are under implementation - of which three interventions with ITI/EU funds (around RON 9 million). As local projects are linked to some of the SIDDDD pillars, they could help achieve the regional sectoral objectives regarding transport and public service delivery. Delta Danube biosphere reserve management plan The Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve (DDBR) Management Plan is aligned to a very large extent with the SIDDDD, at the level of objectives, principles, and actions. The main distinctions are about the structure of the document - management plan vs. strategy - and coverage period (the DDBR plan covers a much shorter span). In addition to the plan, there is a Visiting Strategy for each of the nine sub-regions of the DDBR. Some interventions in the SIDDDD have considered the recommendations from the Visiting Strategy. The projects in the DDBR area are well correlated with the interventions from the Delta Danube Strategy. The ten activities under implementation in the DDBR account for the third largest financial share of the ITI program, after Tulcea County and Tulcea city. To ensure a better correlation, the individual zone strategies should be integrated in the implementation plan of the SIDDDD. 2.3. Conclusions Most of the analyzed local development strategies are coherent with the SIDDDD and take into consideration its vision, objectives, and priorities, but with different levels of correlation . There is a strong positioning in the case of Tulcea county and Tulcea city, a good level of alignment for Isaccea, Sulina and Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve, and an acceptable degree of correlation in the case of Baia commune. 2.4. Recommendations Recommendation 1. Re-evaluate the external consistency with EU, national, regional and local strategies, at the beginning of the new programming period. This recommendation considers the fact that, for each programming period, new objectives are established at European Union level, which are then translated into the national, regional and local strategies. It is noted that it is unlikely that the overall SIDDDD will be updated (given cumbersome approval processes – previously 2 years), however various implementation support documents such as a short or medium term action or implementation plan (annual plan or 3 -5 year plan for example), financial plans to match implementation plan or updated prioritization methodologies action plan, financial plan, etc.) could be updated to ensure continued relevance. 19 | P a g e Chapter 3 20 | P a g e 3. Relevance and Internal Coherence 3.1. Description of the Evaluation Process The analyses presented in this section are aimed at evaluating the relevance and internal coherence of the strategy, taking into consideration the needs assessment and the reconstructed logic of intervention. The results are based on information presented in the strategy, on the list of contracted projects provided by the Inter-Community Development Agency for Integrated Territorial Investment in Danube Delta (IDA ITI DD), and on an online survey submitted to all beneficiaries of the contracted projects. 3.2. Findings The Strategy for Integrated Sustainable Development in Danube Delta (SIDDDD) was designed under the coordination of the Ministry of Public Works, Development and Administration (MPWDA), in the period June 2013 - August 2016, when the final text was approved through a government decision. The process started with the Diagnostic Report, which outlined opportunities and constraints for the study area. The next step was the Vision report, which captured a forward looking ideal of where the community wants to be and what the region has the potential to be. Based on these inputs, two strategic objectives were derived, with focus on maintaining the unique natural values through an adequate management involving local communities, on one hand, and developing local green inclusive economies based on sustainable and efficient use of resources, on the other hand. As presented in the below figure, the two strategic objectives are connected to five pillars and 16 Sectors. Figure 4: Links among vision, strategic objectives, pillars and sectors Source: Reconstruction based on strategic documents 21 | P a g e The two strategic objectives are further split into 52 sectorial specific objectives, measured by result indicators, and 137 planned interventions, measured by output indicators4. The objective tree is presented in Table 2 Objective tree below. Table 2 Objective tree Strategic Objective 1: Conserve the unique environmental assets through scientifically guided environmental management, and by empowering the local communities to be proactive guardians of this unique global heritage 01 Developing of the planning and biodiversity and ecosystem management capacity (including monitoring) 02 Preserving, protecting and capitalizing the natural heritage and combating / reducing the impact of the anthropic polluting activities 03 Developing research, education and training in biodiversity and natural heritage protection fields 04 Supporting eco-friendly Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) 05 Increasing the energy efficiency of the study area in economic, residential and public buildings and public service provision fields 06 Increasing the use of renewable energy sources within the study area 07 Improving local expertise, information availability and energy efficiency awareness 08 Developing a climate friendly and resilient area by integrating climate change into local public policies and planning 09 Promoting development of a low carbon economy through targeted adaptation measures and by reducing GHG emissions 10 Developing partnerships and financing instruments in the field of climate change 11 Raising the awareness of the population and businesses on climate change 12 Reducing the vulnerability to all risks, while improving the quality of emergency services, based on national and county risk assessment, and develop and maintain an adequate response capacity 13 Assessing the main risks, elaborating risk maps for earthquakes and floods, and implementing projects to reduce these risks 14 Elaborating a County Integrated Information System for the Management of Emergency Situations as part of the National Information System for Disaster Management 15 Developing an advanced information management system for hazardous wastes which may cause a pollution spill and represents a threat to the DD 16 Reducing pollution risks and the response time by developing a prevention plan, providing adequate equipment and training of human resources 4 The list of indicators was updated in the context of this project, with support from the personnel of Inter-Community Development Agency for ITI Danube Delta, in order to allow the measurement of physical progress of the strategy and of the projects. This was necessitated due to the initial indicator list associated with the strategy containing some indicators for which data could not be aggregated at the level of Danube Delta territory. This amended draft list of indicators used in the assessment is with the IDA ITI DD for further refinement and will be subject to formal adoption or agreement between various stakeholders (including MPWDA) if it is to be used for ongoing monitoring and evaluation and future reporting purposes. 22 | P a g e Strategic Objective 2: Develop a green and inclusive local economy, based on sustainable consumption and protection, resource efficient, capitalizing on the area’s comparative advantages, supported by improved public services 17 Developing and promoting the Danube Delta as an integrated tourism destination with a rich portfolio of sustainable tourism products and services by capitalizing the natural and cultural heritage 18 Establishing a local destination management mechanism based on the active participation and ownership of local stakeholders 19 Encouraging local population to run small tourism businesses that meet quality and sustainability standards and that are economically viable 20 Correcting the ecological imbalance among predator and prey fish species and restoring environmental quality 21 Increasing the economic value of fishing and aquaculture activities 22 Increasing quality job opportunities in the fishing sector 23 Promoting the integration of agri-food producers (especially organic products) into the value-chain in order to help them benefit from the advantage of being close to external markets and from the tourism opportunities in the area 24 Supporting diversifications of agricultural and non-farm activities for job creation by encouraging active involvement of local communities 25 Promoting young farmers' access to land to enable improved revenue flows to the local population 26 Preserving, protecting, capitalizing and promoting the natural and movable and immovable cultural heritage in rural areas 27 Improving the local population / farmers' access to information regarding the possibilities of tapping Common Agricultural Policy funds -create a special agriculture extension team for the Danube Delta 28 Increasing territorial connectivity to ensure access to the markets in Tulcea, the rest of Romanian and the EU; equal connectivity for enterprises, individuals, and goods in the DD territory, taking great care to protecting the existing environmental heritage 29 Increasing accessibility in the Core DD area to support the development of tourism and fisheries, and the mobility for the residents of sparsely populated areas 30 Improving health and protecting the environment by minimizing emissions and the consumption of resources (including energy) by the transport system 31 Providing full access to broadband internet network 32 Supporting widespread private, business and public use of ICT 33 Ensuring synergies with other sectors to promote the transfer of knowledge, services and economic development 34 Providing drinking water in order to meet the quality of life standards and the economic development objectives, subject to demand, financial feasibility, and operation and maintenance constraints 35 Supporting the collection of wastewaters in a centralized manner (subject to demand, financial feasibility, and operation and maintenance constraints) and moving away from the current use of pit latrines which constitute a health hazard in prone to flood areas 36 Adopting treatment methods of centrally collected wastewater either in a conventional or a more low-cost way 37 Improving the recycling rate to achieve the corresponding EU target of 50% to which Romania is committed 38 Implementing of waste reduction, reuse and recycling in local communities, in order to assure efficient and sustainable management, resource saving, environmental protection and tourism destination development 39 Management of floating waste material 23 | P a g e 40 Increasing the capitalization degree of waste collected from households and businesses 41 Improving the access to primary health care (PHC) services based on prevention and early detection and treatment of chronic diseases 42 Supporting the effective control of epidemics, early warning and coordinated response, and risk factors surveillance 43 Improving health infrastructure for primary, secondary and tertiary health care, and the related service delivery system adjusted to modern technologies 44 Providing lifelong learning opportunities to create labor skills necessary for the 21st century economy 45 Supporting secondary and vocational education that prepare students for the global knowledge economy and for the specificities of the local economy 46 Increasing the quality of the primary education and early-education systems 47 Reducing labor related and human capital disparities among Roma people by providing improved integrated services in all dimensions and aspects of exclusion (education, health, housing, employment) 48 Improving social outcomes by making social protection programs more relevant and efficient in the Danube Delta area 49 Preserving the cultural heritage of ethnic minorities in the study area Strategic Objectives 1 and 2 50 Providing efficient and cost-effective public services 51 Improving evidence-based strategic and budgetary planning across all levels of governance in the DD region in order to support environmental and economic objectives 52 Increasing participatory decision-making in synergy with the environmental and economic objectives Source: Reconstruction based on strategic documents The Needs Assessment, performed in the planning phase of the strategy, identified measures and interventions to achieve the overarching strategic objectives and underlying sector specific objectives. The final list of projects was selected at local level, with the involvement of various stakeholders. As of March 2020, a total of 1024 projects have been contracted to solve the identified needs, with an eligible value of 970 mil EUR. Table 3 Summary of key needs by sectors and related contracted projects Identified needs Related contracted projects Number Eligible value, EUR Sector A: Biodiversity and ecosystem management 18, out of which 2 completed 44 mil EUR Physical Investment Needs: Biodiversity conservation and restoration; Hydrological modelling tools; De-silting works, and other hydrological improvements; Ecological restoration, including reforestation; Building, monitoring and information facilities; Reducing solid waste pollution in natural areas; Investments to control and reduce the nitrates pollution of waters Policy and regulatory needs: Revision to the DDBR Law; Enhancements to other laws; DDBR policy enhancements Institutional Development & Technical Assistance Needs: Monitoring and evaluation of the conservation status of species and habitats; Monitoring and modelling of sedimentation dynamics; Modernization of Info Points; Organizing information / awareness campaigns on biodiversity and environmental protection; Establishment of the International Centre for Advanced Studies for biodiversity conservation; FS and TP for projects aimed at restoring damaged natural habitats 24 | P a g e Identified needs Related contracted projects Number Eligible value, EUR Sector B: Energy efficiency (EE) and Sector C: Climate change 71, out of which 19 completed 64 mil EUR (CC) Physical Investment Needs: Investments in improving EE in public buildings, public lighting, households; EE improvements in heating, water, waste, and public transport sectors; Developing a program for promoting the use of renewable energy sources; Establishing a local climate change fund for residents, SMEs; Measures for mitigation of and adjustment to climate change Policy and regulatory needs: Developing local policies and EE monitoring, including incentives; Developing local policies and procedures to monitor GHG Institutional Development & Technical Assistance Needs: Performing energy audits of buildings; Drafting mobility plans in transport; Building planning capacity of local councils in the areas of EE and CC; Organizing public education and awareness campaigns Sector D: Disaster risk and Sector E: Pollution emergency 9, out of which 2 completed 18 mil EUR Physical Investment Needs: Developing the necessary infrastructure and purchase of boats, vehicles, to increase response time; Flood protection works; Pollution monitoring equipment Policy and regulatory needs: Elaboration of a methodology for risk assessment; Introduction of a regulation on boats monitoring; Studies related to environmental liability and pollution incident-related data sharing Institutional Development & Technical Assistance Needs: Developing an Integrated Disaster Management and Information System (IDMIS); Risk assessment for floods, earthquakes, coastal erosion and forest and reed fire; Developing contingency plans for disasters; Organizing training and public awareness actions Sector F: Tourism 195, out of which 15 completed 91 mil EUR Physical Investment Needs: Improvement of access (roads around attractions, signage, paths, docks) and services; Development of tourism infrastructure (info-kiosks, signage, resting places / panoramic views, information centers upgrading) and restoration of cultural sites; Development of accommodation infrastructure (modernization of facilities, camping areas); Workforce development (training centers for hospitality, guiding, agriculture, crafts, fishing); Facilities for attractions / visitor services; Restoration of cultural heritage; Development of cultural centers for the intangible heritage promotion and conservation; Functional reconversion of industrial sites and revitalization of urban centers, mainly in Sulina; Supporting SMEs in tourism, in terms of sustainability, quality and durability Policy and Regulatory Needs: Drafting guidelines and standards for transport, destinations, hospitality facilities and services; Ensuring safety, security and health policy frameworks for tourism; Developing policies that allow and support the development of SMEs and entrepreneurship; Destination management policies/guidelines; Ensuring links to national level policies and plans; Review of tax collection system Institutional Development & Technical Assistance Needs: Developing distinct brand for tourism and related products; Creation of transport providers association; Establishment of strengthened visitor centers and local hotel associations; Ensuring institutional collaboration with upper and lower levels (national, local); Development of destination management mechanism; Development of a system for data collection, analysis and dissemination; Design of trails, water routes etc.; Drafting guidelines for accommodations; Performing market analysis / access strategies Sector G: Fishery and Aquaculture 21, out of which 1 completed 34 mil EUR Physical Investment Needs: New fishery shelters that offer optimal conditions for temporary housing and mooring; Artificial reproduction stations; Arranging recreational / sports fishing areas; Dredging of waterways and lakes; Renaturation of agricultural polders; Fisheries Zoning; Increasing the added value and competitiveness of fishery and aquaculture Policy and Regulatory Needs: Reduce/eliminate VAT on commercial fishery (revised tax collection system); Implementing DDBRA Monitoring, Control Surveillance reform plan 25 | P a g e Identified needs Related contracted projects Number Eligible value, EUR Institutional Development & Technical Assistance Needs: Hydrology/sedimentation modelling; Fish stock assessment; Ensuring and monitoring water quality in aquaculture Sector H: Agriculture and Rural Development 557, out of which 125 completed 132 mil EUR Physical Investment Needs: Modernizing facilities for production / collection / processing / marketing of produce; Rehabilitation of irrigation infrastructure; Diversification, increasing added value and competitiveness of agricultural (including ecoagriculture) and non-agricultural activities (cane, renewable energy, traditional sectors / crafts) and supporting entrepreneurship / SMEs in these fields; Fostering consolidation and strengthening the economy of small farms; Conservation and valorization of local natural and cultural heritage, including traditions Policy and Regulatory Needs: Concession of land to young farmers; Enlarging access to vocational education; Modernizing agricultural quality control systems Institutional Development & Technical Assistance Needs: Fostering local community involvement in LEADER; . Fostering producer groups; Advisory service and training for farmers/rural workforce promotion and marketing of natural and cultural (movable and immovable) heritage, in rural areas Sector I: Transport 68, out of which 21 completed 523 mil EUR Physical Investment Needs: Rehabilitation of various county roads; Improvement of inland waterways and ports; Development of the water sports infrastructure (marine and mooring docks); Tulcea airport modernization Mobility in urban centers; Encouraging private initiatives in transport and logistics Policy and Regulatory Needs: Drafting of policies for transport concessions, including procurement processes; Drafting regulations for small businesses to transport clients Institutional Development & Technical Assistance Needs: Feasibility studies; Support for public-private partnership (PPP) transactions Sector J: Information & Communication Technology (ICT) 42, out of which 14 completed 18 mil EUR Physical Investment Needs: Modernization / expansion of ICT infrastructure across the study area; Purchase of equipment for Public Access Points to Internet (PAPIs); Support for investments made by SMEs in ICT Policy and Regulatory Needs: Open data policies; Development of local e-government services Institutional Development & Technical Assistance Needs: Facilitation of ICT use; Development of digital literacy programs; Creating an E-portal Sector K: Water Supply and Sewerage Systems and Integrated 2, out of which 0 completed 2 mil EUR Water Management Physical Investment Needs: Expansion / rehabilitation of water supply and wastewater collection and treatment systems (new or rehabilitated systems) across the study area to improve quality and efficiency of services Policy and Regulatory Needs: Review of subsidy policies Institutional Development & Technical Assistance Needs: Feasibility studies (FS) and designs of investments; Capacity building of operators; Preparation of service contracts Sector L: Solid Waste Management 2, out of which 0 completed 2 mil EUR Physical Investment Needs: Development of systems for selective handling of waste; Establishment of waste collection points and transport facilities in tourist areas; Purchase of equipment for collecting floating waste; Increasing the recovery degree of waste collected from households and businesses Policy and Regulatory Needs: Updating national and regional waste management programs; Enhancing regulation, inspection and enforcement in the sector; Drafting subsidy policies Institutional Development & Technical Assistance Needs: Institutional collaboration, and inter-city/ community cooperation; Study on financial sustainability; Waste composition studies; Development of public awareness programs 26 | P a g e Identified needs Related contracted projects Number Eligible value, EUR Sector M: Health 7, out of which 0 completed 6 mil EUR Physical Investment Needs: Rehabilitation of buildings; Purchase of lab and IT equipment; vehicles, boats for emergencies; and shelters near hospitals; Supporting infrastructure for telemedicine; Modernization of sanitary facilities in schools; Building multifunctional centers in Babadag, Sulina and Sf. Gheorghe; Improved, integrated facilities at Tulcea Emergency County Hospital; Rehabilitation of Măcin hospital building, equipment provision, and a palliative center Policy and Regulatory Needs: Review the provider payment system for primary care services in rural and remote areas; Review the legal framework for ambulatory care within the public hospitals; Linking national telemedicine policy with standards and protocols; Incentives for medical staff using the telemedicine system Institutional Development & Technical Assistance Needs: Feasibility studies and designs; Capacity improvements at local Public Health Directorate (PHD); Building diagnostic laboratories; Training of emergency response staff; Building skills in public health laboratory management; Information / education campaigns; Ambulatory services, long term care and palliative capacity development Sector N: Education 10, out of which 0 completed 16 mil EUR Physical Investment Needs: Providing access to quality primary and lower secondary education for all; Providing an increased access to Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC); Creation of virtual classrooms for remote locations (ICT investments) for distance learning; Providing increased access to technical and vocational education Policy and Regulatory Needs: Support for enrolment and retention in ECEC; Approaches to ensure qualified teachers in all locations; Approaches to bring early school leavers back to school; Incentives for participation in lifelong learning programs Institutional Development & Technical Assistance Needs: Plans for access to education; Improved school, after school programs & student counselling; Improved vocational training; Partnerships between employers and education / training providers; Support to Community Permanent Learning Centers Sector O: Social Inclusion and Protection 6, out of which 0 completed 12 mil EUR Physical Investment Needs: Development of early childhood (0-6 years) institutional infrastructure in communities with high share of Roma population; Making schools more friendly for all children; Establishment of integrative and multifunctional community centers; Urban regeneration of disadvantaged neighborhoods (integrated interventions on the access of population in these areas to education, health, housing and employment); Social and youth housing; Development of social enterprises in disadvantaged areas Policy and Regulatory Needs: Implementation of measures in the sectors of education and health, housing, employment; Community grants as part of educational intervention; Regulating housing ownership rights (cadaster) Institutional Development & Technical Assistance Needs: Involving parents in early childhood education partnerships; Implementing formal and nonformal education measures beyond school hours; Increasing participation of Roma girls at all levels of education; Developing human capital among Roma women; Information / education campaigns (civic spirit), including in development; Planning Sector P: Administrative Capacity and Program Management 16, out of which 7 completed 8 mil EUR Physical Investment Needs: Development of facilities, purchase of vehicles, office equipment Policy and Regulatory Needs: Development of subsidy policy; Promoting a strong sense of ownership on the processes and outcomes of interventions among the beneficiaries; Formulating (O&M) operating and maintenance policies; Improving overall project management capacity; Strengthening the coordination between the public institutions in biodiversity conservation and ecological reconstruction of the Danube Delta; Facilitating public access to information and public services and increasing transparency of public services (e-government); Promoting an effective and efficient implementation and monitoring/control system; Providing specific support measures relating to investments within each Operational Program 27 | P a g e Identified needs Related contracted projects Number Eligible value, EUR Institutional Development & Technical Assistance Needs: Improving household access to public services; Review of O&M requirements, responsibilities and capacity; Technical assistance support for priority administrative functions, including (but not limited to) updating/completing various territorial management instruments, such as town/village plans, urban/village data banks, cadaster and land book etc.; Technical assistance support project administration, including (but not limited to) drafting general documents, technical documents, procurement, accounting, environmental assessment; construction supervision etc. Source: Reconstruction based on strategic documents and monitoring information provided by IDA ITI DD, as of March 2020 As presented in Table 3 above, and further detailed in Chapter 4, the financial allocations among different sectors of the strategy are highly uneven; therefore an update in the needs assessment would better guide the prioritization of interventions for the second phase of implementation, by identifying the needs already tackled in the first programming period, and the areas for improvement left for the second programming period. This can be performed in the context of the future impact evaluation (n.b. at the time of this evaluation report, the majority of contracted projects are still ongoing, and their outputs and results are only partially visible). Moreover, a quantification of needs would better serve for the financial planning of the strategy and for setting the final targets. Given the high level of stratification of the strategy (vision, strategic objectives, pillars, sectors, specific sectorial objective, interventions, projects), the logical links among objectives and planned interventions, as well as the logical links between planned interventions and selected projects, are not always clear . As can be depicted from the graphical representation of the logic of intervention, included in Annex 5, for some sectorial specific objectives, the planned interventions do not seem to have a direct contribution. For example, no dedicated interventions were identified for Sectorial Objective A.4 “Supporting eco-friendly Small and Medium Enterprises” (although some of the beneficiaries are implementing eco-friendly projects). Moreover, for some interventions, the list of selected projects seems to have a limited scope when compared to the ambitious related objectives (e.g. purchase of equipment vs actual works for protecting the natural resources). These aspects can be further investigated in the context of the future impact evaluation – for example did the purchase of equipment result in actual works completed. This could be further addressed through the identification of additional projects under the specific objectives. Nevertheless, the strategy is perceived by stakeholders and beneficiaries as highly relevant for the Danube Delta development. According to the online survey deployed in the context of this project (see Annex 4), approximately two thirds of the beneficiaries consider that SIDDDD has covered to a large or very large extent the development needs of the institution of which they are part, of their locality and of the Danube Delta region. This can be related to the participatory approach in designing the strategy. The above presented objectives and related interventions are the result of continuous consultations with all stakeholders at national and local levels, including civil society. Local authorities made valuable contributions both to the needs analysis and to the identification of project pipeline. Local businesses, NGOs and civil society were invited to take part in several meetings. Based on received comments, the draft strategy was adjusted several times, and the final strategic document was submitted for public consultation in the framework of the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) procedure. 28 | P a g e 3.3. Conclusions The SIDDDD managed to set the directions for a future development of the area, establishing the higher-level vision and strategic objectives, as well as the priority sectors and related sectorial specific objectives and interventions. Projects are selected at local level, based on specific criteria, set by strategic and implementation documents. However, considering the high level of stratification of the strategy, the logical links among the needs, objectives, interventions and selected projects are not always clear. This can be further explored in the context of the future impact evaluation, after the completion of the first set of contracted projects. Nevertheless, due to the intensive participatory approach, the strategy is perceived to be highly relevant for the needs of the society. According to the online survey deployed in the context of this project, approximately two thirds of the beneficiaries consider that SIDDDD has covered to a large or very large extent the development needs of the institution of which they are part, of their locality and of the Danube Delta region. 3.4. Recommendations Recommendation 2. Update the needs assessment, in the context of a future impact evaluation. An update of the Needs Assessment would be necessary in order to identify the needs that have been already tackled through the first set of contracted projects, and the needs that remain to be addressed during the second phase of implementation. Moreover, a quantification of remaining needs would better serve for the financial planning of the strategy and for setting the final targets. Recommendation 3. Update the implementation supporting documents on a regular basis The strategy should be a “living” document, highly responsive to the changing needs of the society, which are influenced by internal and external factors (i.e. on one hand, the implemented projects within SIDDDD, and on the other hands, the interventions planned under other national and local strategies, or political, environmental, social, technological, legal and economic changes). An update of implementation documents is expected in the context of a possible future impact evaluation. As noted in recommendation 1, while the regular update of the strategy document may not be practical, supporting documents towards implementation (i.e. shorter-term implementation plans) could be regularly reviewed and updated to ensure relevance. Recommendation 4. Provide a clearer representation of the logic of intervention, to be used by different stakeholders and beneficiaries, in implementation and monitoring. A reconstruction of the logical framework was already performed in the context of this project. However, updates may be necessary once the final list of indicators is approved. Moreover, for the future programming period, it is also recommended to assess the links between objectives, interventions and selected projects. 29 | P a g e Chapter 4 30 | P a g e 4. Financial Allocation 4.1. Description of the Evaluation Process The analyses performed under this section are aimed at assessing the split of financial resources among pillars and sectors, as well as the consistency of allocations with types of planned interventions. Considering that the strategy itself does not include a budget, the analysis is based on the financial allocations set by the national operational programmes for ITI Danube Delta, and on the monitoring data provided by IDA ITI DD, consisting of eligible values of contracted projects and payments to beneficiaries, as of March 2020. It should be noted, however, that monitoring data was provided in different currencies and aggregation is based on an approximation of the exchange currency. Findings Financial Allocation for Danube Delta Strategy Danube Delta strategy identifies possible sources of financing for all planned interventions. More precisely, the strategy will receive support from all European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF), including European Maritime and Fisheries Funds (EMFF) and European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, through all of the eight Romanian Operational Programmes, by means of the ITI5 mechanism. This may be complemented by national funds or other sources of financing. The budget is set only in connection to the ITI mechanism, for 2014-2020 programming period, and amounts to EUR 1.1 billion. As can be depicted from Figure 5 below, 84% of funds come from three OPs, respectively OP Large Infrastructure (37%), Regional OP (32%) and National Rural Development Plan (15%). Lower allocations were attributed from Human Capital (5%), Competitiveness (5%), Fisheries (3%), Administrative Capacity (1%) and Technical Assistance (1%). Figure 5: Allocated amounts, by Operational Programmes (EU Funds) (EUR) LEGEND LIOP Large Infrastructure Operational Programme ROP Regional Operational Programme NRDP National Rural Development Plan OPHC Operational Programme Human Capital COP Competitiveness Operational Programme EMFF OP European Maritime and Fisheries Fund Operational Programme OPAC Operational Programme Administrative Capacity OPTA Operational Programme Technical Assistance 5 As set out in Article 36(1) of the Common Provision Regulations, ITI is a delivery mechanism which allows Member States to implement integrated strategies for a specific territory, drawing on funding from at least two different priority axes in the same or different operational programmes. ITI can combine ERDF, ESF and the Cohesion Fund, and be complemented by financial support from the EAFRD and EMFF where complementarities exist. 31 | P a g e Source: Information retrieved from strategic documents of the Operational Programmes 2014-2020 The justification for the allocated budget (i.e. computation methodology, based on identified needs, planned interventions, and standard unit costs) is not provided in any of the consulted strategic documents. As such, we cannot conclude if the allocated amounts are based on a bottom-up approach that takes into consideration the prioritization of the local needs and the phasing of the Danube Delta Strategy. As of March 2020, a total of 1,024 projects were contracted for financing, amounting to 70% of the total EU Funds allocation. As illustrated in Figure 6 below, a good pipeline was achieved for Technical Assistance, Large Infrastructure and Rural Development. On the other side, the low number of contracted projects in the area of Competitiveness, Human Capital and Administrative Capacity triggers the risk of decommitment with regards to EU Funds. Nevertheless, the programmes with low performance in terms of contracted values have a lower allocation of EU Funds; and new calls are expected to be launched by the end of this years. Figure 6: Contracted amounts, by Operational Programmes (EU Funds) (% out of allocated) LEGEND LIOP Large Infrastructure Operational Programme (97.71%) ROP Regional Operational Programme (60.53%) NRDP National Rural Development Plan (79.65%) OPHC Operational Programme Human Capital (18.82%) COP Competitiveness Operational Programme (2.23%) EMFF OP European Maritime and Fisheries Fund Operational Programme (41.17%) OPAC Operational Programme Administrative Capacity (4.27%) OPTA Operational Programme Technical Assistance (99.27%) Source: Monitoring data provided by IDA ITI DD, March 2020 Financial Split among Pillars and Sectors The SIDDDD does not provide information regarding the planned split of financial allocations among pillars, sectors and interventions. As such, the analysis is based on the total eligible value of contracted projects, as of March 2020, including EU Funds and state budget, and on the observed links among the contracted projects and the pillars and sectors of the strategy. It should be noted, however, that EU Funds were allocated only for the programming period 2014-2020, while the Danube Delta strategy has a longer horizon, towards 2030. More precisely, our analysis is limited to the current situation, and does not reflect the entire planning of the strategy. Currently, the majority of funds are directed towards Pillar 3: Improving connectivity (56%) and Pillar 2: improving the economy (26%); while lower emphasis is given to Pillar 1: Protecting the environmental and natural resource assets (13%), Pillar 4: Providing public services (4%) and Pillar 5: Promoting efficiency, accessibility and sustainability (1%) (see Figure 7 below). The focus on certain Pillars is not evidenced in Danube Delta Strategy; on the contrary, the local strategic documents emphasizes the complementarities and synergies among the five pillars: 32 | P a g e “The tourism potential will remain constrained, unless urban services (water, sanitation and garbage collection) and tourism infrastructure are improved. Services such as health and education will have to rely increasingly on virtual communication tools, as practiced in other remote locations in the world. Increasing the speed and access of ICT services will enable better provision of health services and schooling. More tourism benefits will emerge, once more attractions and services – from aquaculture, recreational fishing, and organic farming to guided tours - are developed. The natural and cultural assets of the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve are the key attractions of the region and will drive its sustainable development - restoring, protecting and enhancing these assets is therefore of utmost priority” (ISDD DD, page 86). On the other hand, the strategy does mention that identified needs cannot be solved at once, during the first phase of implementation. As such, some pillars of the strategy may be better tackled during the 2020-2030 period. Figure 7: Share of contracted amounts, by Pillars (EU Funds + State Budget) (%) LEGEND Pillar I Protecting the Environmental and Natural Resource Assets Pillar II Improving the Economy Pillar III Improving Connectivity Pillar IV Providing Public Services Pillar V Promoting Efficiency, Affordability and Sustainability Source: Monitoring data provided by IDA ITI DD, March 2020 The high concentration of resources for improving connectivity is determined by Sector I: Transport, which takes 54% of the total allocation of ITI-DD funds. This can be linked to the national Master Plan for transport, which foresee several strategic projects in Danube Delta, aimed at modernizing and developing road infrastructure, and also at building a suspension bridge over Danube. Based on the interview with the representatives of the National Company for Road Infrastructure Administration (NCRIA), the budget allocations for these projects were established directly with the Management Authority of the Operational Programme Large Infrastructure, prior to the development and approval of the Danube Delta Strategy. Nevertheless, NCRIA makes efforts to align the national plans with the local strategy, and all projects were submitted for approval to the stakeholders of the Danube Delta Strategy. As can be depicted from Figure 8 below, some sectors have little or no allocation for 2014-2020 programming period. For example, six sectors have a share of contracted eligible value below 1% out of total allocation, namely Sector C: Climate change (0.0%), Sector E: Pollution emergency (0.1%), Sector K: Water supply and sewerage systems and integrated water management (0.2%), Sector L: Solid waste management (0.3%), Sector M: Health (0.7%) and Sector P: Administrative capacity and program management (0.8%). In some cases, the local administrations managed to find other sources of funding: water and wastewater projects were financed from the central budget under the National Local Development Program (NLDP), while the City of Tulcea was able to match the money from ITI with funds from the local budget. Nevertheless, for the sectors with limited budgets, a low progress towards achieving the sector specific objectives is expected. 33 | P a g e Figure 8: Contracted amounts, by Sectors (EU Funds + State Budget) (EUR) LEGEND Sector A Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management Sector B Energy Efficiency Sector C Climate Change Sector D Disaster Risk Management Sector E Pollution Emergency Sector F Tourism Sector G Fishery and Aquaculture Sector H Agriculture and Rural Development Sector I Transport Sector J Information and Communication Technology Sector K Water Supply and Sewerage Systems and Integrated Water Management Sector L Solid Waste Management Sector M Healthcare Sector N Education Sector O Social Inclusion and Protection Sector P Administrative Capacity and Program Management Source: Monitoring data provided by IDA ITI DD, March 2020 The ABC Analysis6 of project beneficiaries shows that half of the ITI contracted amounts are linked to two beneficiaries, planning to implement projects for improving connectivity and transport infrastructure. As of March 2020, the National Company for Road Infrastructure Administration contracted two projects with a total eligible value of 359 mill. EUR (37% of total contracted values) and the Administrative Territorial Unit for Tulcea County contracted 15 projects with a total eligible value of 89 mill EUR (9% of total contracted values). Significant amounts of funds were also contracted by Administrative Territorial Unit for Constanta County (3% of total contracted values), Administration of the Danube Delta Biosphere Reservation (3% of total contracted values), Tulcea Municipality (2% of total contracted values) and Autonomous Administration “Danube Delta” Airport (2% of total contracted values). All other beneficiaries have a below 2% share of total contracted amounts. 6The ABC analysis is a type of inventory categorization method in which inventory is divided into three categories, A, B, and C, in descending value. A has the highest value items, B is lower value than A, and C has the lowest value. 34 | P a g e Figure 9: Contracted amounts, by Beneficiaries (EU Funds + State Budget) (EUR) LEGEND NCRIA National Company for Road Infrastructure Administration ATU Tulcea Administrative Territorial Unit Tulcea ATU Constanta Administrative Territorial Unit Constanta ADDBR Administration of the Danube Delta Biosphere Reservation Tulcea Municipality Tulcea Municipality Danube Delta Airport Autonomous Administration “Danube Delta” Airport Lidas S.R.L. Lidas S.R.L. Isaccea City Isaccea City NARW National Administration Romanian Waters IDA ITI DD Inter-Community Association for Integrated Territorial Investment in Danube Delta Source: Monitoring data provided by IDA ITI DD, March 2020 4.2. Conclusions Danube Delta Strategy lacks detailed planning in terms of financial allocations. Strategic documents do not mention the total budget of the strategy, needed or available, nor the allocations per pillars, sectors and interventions. Consequently, the adequacy of available resources cannot be measured. Monitoring data of contracted projects are able to reflect only the current status of contracted resources, and not the entire planning of the strategy. In order to achieve the ambitious goals of the Danube Delta Strategy by 2030, it is strongly recommended to identify the financial requirements as soon as possible, as well as the sources of financing. The majority of available EU Funds are concentrated towards improving connectivity and transport. This may be a consequence of the national strategic planning, and in particular connected to the lines of financing established in the Romanian Operational Programmes. The road projects being undertaken are also generally large in scale and just in terms of size per project will outweigh smaller projects in terms of monetary value. The owners of the local strategy are not able to redirect the EU Funds towards other sectors compared to what was planned in the national documents. However, the Danube Delta Strategy should present a planning for tackling all sectors, including those with scarce allocation of EU Funds. 4.3. Recommendations Financial planning and monitoring are key elements in delivering strategic objectives. As such the recommendations are oriented towards building a sufficiently detailed annual budget that includes adequate comparisons between actual, historical and budgeted expenditures and detailed explanations obtained for all significant variations. This is particularly important for strategies financed by means of EU Funds, which have clear deadlines and are subject to possible decommitments (for further details, see also Chapter 6, including findings on financial progress). These recommendations are made with the acknowledgement of the complexity 35 | P a g e of the ITI area under consideration, as well as the multitude of stakeholders involved in the implementation process. Recommendation 5. Strategic and implementation documents should include at least some attempt at capturing a budget for the Danube Delta Strategy. This would ideally be for the period 2016-2030, and include budget needs, budget availability, split by pillars, sectors and, where possible, by interventions. In a further best practice case, this should be further broken down into funding periods (assuming correlation with EU funding periods) and then into annual budget plans . While this seem an extensive and complex undertaking, it would represent a significant step forward in terms of planning and monitoring of financial resources and particularly create a much clearer link between needs and actual financing secured for projects. As further detailed in Chapter 6, SIDDDD had a slow progress in terms of financial spending. A proper planning and monitoring of financial resources, by years, would signal possible major deviations, including the risk of decommitment of EU Funds, and would allow for the implementation of corrective measures in due time (e.g. additional communication campaigns, technical assistance and capacity building for beneficiaries, etc.). Below are some best practice recommendations that could be applied should a stronger focus on budget planning be introduced. The budget should take into consideration: (1) the quantified needs at the beginning of implementation, (2) quantified status of needs based on the already implemented projects and possible contextual changes and (3) types of interventions completed and planned for the 2020-2030 period along with the related (4) unitary costs. The financials allocation should follow a logic of sequentially and priorities. Danube Delta Strategy has many ambitious policies to implement. The focus remains to develop the area inside Danube Delta in an integrated manner, by improving the quality of life and, at the same time, boosting the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve. Table 4 Suggested format for representation of financial allocation Pillar / Sector / Estimated Budget Justification Estimated Budget Source of Available Intervention (Needed) (RON) (Available) (RON) Budget Pillar I to be completed with to be completed with to be completed with to be completed with Out of which needed amounts for computation the allocated / the split of available Sector A implementing the methodologies for available amounts, out amounts by types of strategy’s objectives estimated budgetary of needed amounts sources Out of which and planned needs Intervention 1 interventions Estimation of unitary costs for implementing the various types of planned interventions can rely on the cost of completed projects during the first phase of implementation of Danube Delta Strategy, as well as on the available statistic data at local and national level, and at the level of Member States with similar characteristics. Moreover, the owners of the Danube Delta Strategy may draw on the experience of the Managing Authorities with regards to estimated costs for implementing eligible projects under the national Operational Programmes. The table below offers a template for the format in which financial planning could be approached: Table 5: Suggested format for representation of financial planning Pillar / Sector / Allocated Budget Payments (RON) Deviations from initial Corrective measures Intervention (RON) planning YEAR 1 Pillar I to be completed with to be completed with to be completed with to be completed, as Out of which portion of available the certified eligible the difference per need, with Sector A amounts planned to expenditure during the between allocated proposed corrective first year amounts for year 1 measures and payments 36 | P a g e Pillar / Sector / Allocated Budget Payments (RON) Deviations from initial Corrective measures Intervention (RON) planning Out of which be spent during the Out of which, national registered during year Intervention 1 first year budget 1 Out of which, national Out of which, EU budget Funds Out of which, EU Funds YEAR 2 YEAR 3 Recommendation 6. Financial progress should be evaluated throughout implementation and, where needed, reallocations should be performed. Danube Delta Strategy has a long horizon and therefore budgetary adjustment may be needed, based on contextual changes (e.g. the sanitary crisis may generate a different prioritizations of investments), new needs that may arise or additional financial resources identified throughout implementation (e.g. national and local budgets or reallocations among different ITI created in the new programming period). In particular, for EU Funds, the owners of the strategy may decide to use financial indicators, to observe the status of the total eligible expenditures, compared to the total allocations, and take corrective decisions, as per need. For that purpose, a better tracking should be performed for the available, contracted and used resources, by types of funds. The necessity for reallocation should be evaluated on an annual basis, as well as in the context of the planned interim evaluations. 37 | P a g e Chapter 5 38 | P a g e 5. System of Indicators 5.1. Description of the Evaluation Process The analyses performed under this section are aimed at assessing the coverage of specific sectorial objectives and interventions, by result and output indicators. It should be noted, however, that the list of indicators was updated in the context of this project, and the methodology for data collection and aggregation is still in a draft format. The current list of indicators is based on the completed or ongoing projects; additional indicators may be needed to cover all expected outcomes and outputs of the strategy. 5.2. Findings Danube Delta Strategy included a list of indicators, and while stating some measurement units and sources of data did not include indicator definitions, baselines or targets (not possible to determine during strategy drafting process). These indicators were not actively used for monitoring the implementation of the strategy at the time of this evaluation. Moreover, the majority of indicators were designed to capture only the immediate outputs; while some indicators included in the strategy required data that cannot be aggregated at territorial level. Taking into consideration the above bottlenecks, the evaluation team suggested an update on the list of indicators. The updated version, developed with the support of IDA ITI DD personnel, relies more heavily on the monitoring system of the Operational Programmes. As evidenced in a report published by the European Commission7, this was a decision taken by most Member States, in order to avoid doubling the monitoring activities for projects implemented with EU Funds. However, the current list of indicators can capture only the progress achieved in the current phase of implementation of the SIDDDD. The system of indicators belonging to the Operational Programmes is set for the period 2014-2020, while Danube Delta Strategy has a longer implementation horizon. The specific indicators were established five years later after the approval of the strategy, and therefore the intermediate targets were based on the contracted projects, and not necessarily on what was initially planned. Finally, given the short deadline for this evaluation, the joint efforts of the evaluation team and IDA ITI DD were channeled to capture the current progress of the projects (measured by means of output indicators), and not the entire planning (measured by means of result indicators). Therefore, the system of indicators is subject to further development and improvement, which can be performed also in the context of the future impact evaluation, in particular with regards to result indicators. Changes should be made also in the context of the new programming period, in collaboration with all stakeholders of the strategy. Beneficiaries are required to report the progress of the project based on the general rules of the Operational Programmes, but also on the specific rules for ITI area, which requires a good partnership between the owners of the Danube Delta Strategy and Managing Authorities in defining the programmes’ guidelines. 7 European Commission. (2018). Assessing the performance of integrated territorial and urban strategies. P20 Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/assessing_integrated_strategies/assessing_integrated _strategies_en.pdf 39 | P a g e Output Indicators The updated list of output indicators is highly connected to the indicators set at the level of Operational Programmes. A total of 88 output indicators were retrieved from the national programmes and 43 additional indicators were designed to capture the specificity of the area. For the programme specific indicators, the Managing Authorities have already defined the measurement units, computation and aggregation methodologies, and relevant sources of information. With regards to the 43 additional indicators, specific for ITI DD area, the computation and aggregation methodologies are still in a draft format and subject for formal approval. Although the output indicators do not cover all planned interventions, they are able to capture the general physical progress of the strategy. The lack of coverage is generated by the broadness of the strategy, which comprises 137 interventions, connected to 52 specific objective and 16 sectors. As such, defining a longer list of indicators, based on a one-to-one relation, would imply an excessive burden for the monitoring system. Result Indicators The updated list of indicators is partially able to capture the sectorial specific objectives included in the strategy.8 This was determined by the low availability of statistical data for measuring long-term results and by the limited interaction with responsible institutions, in the context of the sanitary crisis generated by COVID-19. However, additional result indicators are expected to be added by the owners of the strategy, or by the evaluation team, in the context of the future impact evaluation. The below paragraphs present the missing links in relation to each sector. The result indicators selected for Sector A “Biodiversity and eco-system management” are rather restrictive compared to the broad objectives set by the strategy. Objective A1 refers to an improved management capacity, which is not specifically measured by any indicator. Objective A2 is partially captured by result indicators; indicator IA6 measures the immediate results of the projects (i.e. built infrastructure) and not the long-term effects (i.e. the effectiveness of the newly built infrastructure). Objective A3 is aimed at improving research, education and training, while the result indicator measures only the number of permits received by researchers. Finally, the disruption pointed in Table 6 is related to the fact that interventions under this sector are not particularly designed to support the eco-friendly SMEs and therefore no indicators were set in relation to Objective A4. Table 6: Result Indicators - Sector A Biodiversity and eco-system management Specific Objectives (SO) Coverage by RI Result indicators (RI) A1. Developing of the planning and Medium  2S36 Number of Natura 2000 sites with active biodiversity and ecosystem management preservation measures capacity (including monitoring)  I.A.5 The share of economically valuable fish A2. Preserving, protecting and capitalizing the Medium  I.A.6 Number of flood protection natural heritage and combating/reducing the infrastructure objectives within the DDBR impact of the anthropic polluting activities built / rehabilitated / upgraded 8 In the tables, coverage of Results Indicators is considered Low, Medium or High, based on the following descriptions: Low relevance = the specific objective is not captured by result indicators (i.e. selected result indicators are not directly linked to the SO) Medium relevance = the specific objective is partially captured by result indicators (i.e. the result indicators are directly linked to the SO, however, they do not capture all intended changes) High relevance = the specific objective is captured by result indicators 40 | P a g e Specific Objectives (SO) Coverage by RI Result indicators (RI) A3. Developing research, education and Medium  I.A.8. Number of permits issued by DDBRA for training in biodiversity and natural heritage researchers involved in the internationally protection fields recognized diversified research program on DD's natural and cultural systems and resources A4. Supporting eco-friendly Small and Low Not available Medium Enterprises (SMEs) The result indicators selected for Sector B “Energy efficiency” are covering only one of the three specific objectives, respectively Objective B1. The use of renewable sources is not monitored, although the strategy is supporting pilot projects that promote wind, solar energy, heat pumps and biomass (Objective B2). Also, awareness could be monitored by means of social surveys (Objective B3). Table 7: Result Indicators - Sector B Energy Efficiency Specific Objectives (SO) Coverage by RI Result indicators (RI) B.1 Increasing the energy efficiency of the High  CO32 Decrease in annual primary energy study area in economic, residential and public consumption in public buildings buildings and public service provision fields  I.B.1 Number of renovated public buildings B.2 Increasing the use of renewable energy Low Not available sources within the study area B.3 Improving local expertise, information Low Not available availability and energy efficiency awareness The result indicator set for Sector C “Climate change” is highly relevant but captures only the long-term intended changes. The strategy was also aimed at creating a mandate unit in charge of addressing climate change issues (Objective C1), creating public-private partnerships (Objective C3) and raising awareness regarding the climate change (Objective C4), which are not captured by the current system of indicators. Table 8: Result Indicators - Sector C Climate change Specific Objectives (SO) Coverage by RI Result indicators (RI) C.1 Developing a climate friendly and resilient Low Not available area by integrating climate change into local public policies and planning C.2 Promoting development of a low carbon High CO34 Estimated annual decrease in greenhouse economy through targeted adaptation gases measures and by reducing GHG emissions C.3 Developing partnerships and financing Low Not available instruments in the field of climate change C.4 Raising the awareness of the population Low Not available and businesses on climate change The result indicators selected for Sector D “Disaster risk management” offer a medium coverage of specific objectives. Indicator 2S49 is able to capture the adequacy of response capacity at disasters, but additional indicators are needed to measure the effects of preventing measures (i.e. reduced number of incidents). Indicator ID1 reflects only the immediate results of the interventions (i.e. newly built infrastructure) and not the long-term effects (i.e. effectiveness of the newly built infrastructure). 41 | P a g e Table 9: Result Indicators - Sector D Disaster risk management Specific Objectives (SO) Coverage by RI Result indicators (RI) D.1 Reducing the vulnerability to all risks, Medium  2S49a Average response time to emergencies while improving the quality of emergency for firefighting and other situations services, based on national and county risk  2S49b Average response time to emergencies assessment, and develop and maintain an for providing first aid adequate response capacity D.3 Elaborating a County Integrated Medium Information System for the Management of Emergency Situations as part of the National Information System for Disaster Management D.2 Assessing the main risks, elaborating risk Medium  I.D.1 Number of inhabitants who benefit from maps for earthquakes and floods, and flood protection measures as a result of implementing projects to reduce these risks making investments in infrastructure A high coverage is ensured for Sector E “Pollution emergency”. The set of indicators is relevant for both specific objectives and captures the intended changes. Table 10: Result Indicators - Sector E Pollution Emergency Specific Objectives (SO) Coverage by RI Result indicators E.1 Developing an advanced information High  I.E.1 Number of pollution incidents in the DD management system for hazardous wastes region (annually) which may cause a pollution spill and  I.E.3 Average time to stop pollution incidents represents a threat to the DD (days) E.2 Reducing pollution risks and the response High time by developing a prevention plan, providing adequate equipment and training of human resources The result indicators selected for Sector F “Tourism” offer a medium coverage. Indicators are relevant for measuring the development of tourism in Danube Delta; however, they do not capture “sustainability”, an important aspect of Danube Delta strategy, reiterated also by specific sectorial objectives. Table 11: Result Indicators - Sector F Tourism Specific Objectives (SO) Coverage by RI Result indicators (RI) F.1 Developing and promoting the Danube Medium  II.A.1 Tourist arrivals (annually) Delta as an integrated tourism destination  II.A.2 Number of DDBR entry permits with a rich portfolio of sustainable tourism  II.A.4 Occupancy rates for authorized / official products and services by capitalizing the accommodation natural and cultural heritage  II.A.5 Average length of stay (nights) F.2 Establishing a local destination Medium  II.A.6 Share of tourist accommodation management mechanism based on the active structures open all year (%) participation and ownership of local stakeholders  II.A.8 The ratio between non-residents and residents owning land in DD F.3 Encouraging local population to run small Medium tourism businesses that meet quality and sustainability standards and that are economically viable 42 | P a g e A high coverage is ensured for Sector G “Fishery and aquaculture”. The set of indicators is relevant for all specific objectives and captures the intended changes. However, the term “quality” should be better defined by the strategy or implementing documents (n.b. reference to Objective G3). Table 12: Result Indicators - Sector G Fishery and aquaculture Specific Objectives (SO) Coverage by RI Result indicators (RI) G.1 Correcting the ecological imbalance High  II.B.2 Size of predatory fish species among predator and prey fish species and populations restoring environmental quality  II.B.3 Caras (prussian carp) population dynamics G.2 Increasing the economic value of fishing High  1.1 Variation in production value and aquaculture activities  1.2 Variation in production volume G.3 Increasing quality job opportunities in the Medium  1.7 Jobs (ENI) created in the fisheries sector fishing sector or complementary activities  1.8 Jobs (ENI) maintained in the fisheries sector or complementary activities  II.B.1 Number of fisheries jobs by specific activities (newly created through projects) The result indicators selected for Sector H “Agriculture and rural development” are rather restrictive compared to the broad objectives set by the strategy. Objective H1 is aimed at promoting the integration of local producers into the value-chain, while the selected indicators are only measuring the pre-requisites, respectively creation of adequate rural infrastructure. Objective H3 is tailored to a specific age group, which is not specifically captured by indicators. Objective H4 is monitored only through output indicators, counting the percentage of initiatives and not their actual effectiveness. Finally, Objective H5 is not captured by any indicator. Table 13: Result Indicators - Sector H Agriculture and rural development Specific Objectives (SO) Coverage by RI Result indicators (RI) H.1 Promoting the integration of agri-food Medium  II.C.3 Share of irrigation infrastructure producers (especially organic products) into rehabilitated through ITI projects out of total the value-chain in order to help them benefit viable irrigation infrastructure (%) from the advantage of being close to external  II.C.10 % of modernized communal and village markets and from the tourism opportunities infrastructure, out of which after school, in the area sports facilities, dispensary, agricultural road, forest road, modernized local roads, kindergartens, street lighting, modernized high schools and schools, parks and playgrounds, markets, bridges and footbridges, water network, sewerage network, networks for population safety H.2 Supporting diversification of agricultural Medium  II.C.8 % of farmers who have started a non- and non-farm activities for job creation by agricultural activity encouraging active involvement of local communities H.3 Promoting young farmers' access to land Medium to enable improved revenue flows to the local population 43 | P a g e Specific Objectives (SO) Coverage by RI Result indicators (RI) H.4 Preserving, protecting, capitalizing and Medium  II.C.9 % of initiatives / projects that capitalize promoting the natural and movable and on the cultural heritage of the area immovable cultural heritage in rural areas H.5 Improving the local population / farmers' Low Not available access to information regarding the possibilities of tapping Common Agricultural Policy funds - create a special agriculture extension team for the Danube Delta The result indicators selected for Sector I “Transport” offer medium coverage. Indicators are relevant for measuring connectivity and accessibility. However, the “sustainability” component is again neglected by the monitoring system (i.e. effectiveness of planned interventions in improving health and protecting the environment). Table 14: Result Indicators - Sector I Transport Specific Objectives (SO) Coverage by RI Result indicators (RI) I.1 Increasing territorial connectivity to High  2S13 Passengers boarded and disembarked in ensure access to the markets in Tulcea, the airport transport rest of Romanian and the EU; equal  III.A.1 Travel time between Tulcea and connectivity for enterprises, individuals, and Constanța goods in the DD territory, taking great care to  III.A.2 Travel time between Tulcea and Brăila protecting the existing environmental heritage  III.A.3 Travel time between Tulcea and Galați  III.A.4 Volume of goods transported by inland I.2 Increasing accessibility in the Core DD area High waterways to support the development of tourism and fisheries, and the mobility for the residents of sparsely populated areas I.3 Improving health and protecting the Low Not available environment by minimizing emissions and the consumption of resources (including energy) by the transport system The result indicators selected for Sector J “Information and communications technology” cover only part of the intended changes. More precisely, the indicators are monitoring the access to broadband internet networks (Objective J1) and the use of ICT (Objective J2). However, no indicator was selected for measuring the results of research and development (Objective J3). Table 15: Result Indicators - Sector J Information and communications technology Specific Objectives (SO) Coverage by RI Result indicators (RI) J.1 Providing full access to broadband internet High  3S8 NGA broadband coverage / availability as network a percentage of households J.2 Supporting widespread private, business High  3S14 Percentage of citizens who regularly use and public use of ICT the Internet out of total population  III.B.1 The degree of regular use of the Internet at national level 44 | P a g e Specific Objectives (SO) Coverage by RI Result indicators (RI) J.3 Ensuring synergies with other sectors to Low Not available promote the transfer of knowledge, services and economic development A high coverage is ensured for Sector K “Water supply and sewerage systems and integrated water management”. The set of indicators is relevant for all specific objectives and captures the intended changes. Table 16: Result Indicators - Sector K Water supply and sewerage systems and integrated water management Specific Objectives (SO) Coverage by RI Result indicators (RI) K.1 Providing drinking water in order to meet High IV.A.1 Share of rural population connected to the quality of life standards and the economic centralized water supply networks through ITI- development objectives, subject to demand, funded projects (%) financial feasibility, and operation and IV.A.2 Share of population in cities connected to maintenance constraints centralized water supply networks through ITI- funded projects (%) K.2 Supporting the collection of wastewaters High IV.A.3 Share of rural population connected to in a centralized manner (subject to demand, centralized sewerage networks through ITI-funded financial feasibility, and operation and projects (%) maintenance constraints) and moving away IV.A.4 Share of population in cities connected to from the current use of pit latrines which centralized sewerage networks through ITI-funded constitute a health hazard in prone to flood projects (%) areas K.3 Adopting treatment methods of centrally High IV.A.5 Share of wastewater treated according to collected wastewater either in a conventional required standards (%) in rural areas or a more low-cost way IV.A.6 Share of wastewater treated according to required standards (%) in cities The result indicators selected for Sector L “Solid waste management” provide for a medium coverage of specific objectives. More precisely, the indicators are relevant for measuring the total quantity of collected and recycled waste (Objectives L1 and L3); however, they do not measure the degree of capitalization (Objective L4). An additional indicator would be needed for monitoring the management of floating waste material (Objective L3). Table 17: Result Indicators - Sector L Solid waste management Specific Objectives (SO) Coverage by RI Result indicators (RI) L.1 Improving the recycling rate to achieve High 2S25 Amount of biodegradable waste stored the corresponding EU target of 50% to which IV.B.2 Total amount of recyclable waste recovered Romania is committed from the total quantity collected (%) L.2 Implementing of waste reduction, reuse High and recycling in local communities, in order to assure efficient and sustainable management, resource saving, environmental protection and tourism destination development L.3 Management of floating waste material Low Not available L.4 Increasing the capitalization degree of Medium IV.B.1 Total amount of household waste collected waste collected from households and and transported (tones / year) businesses 45 | P a g e A high coverage is ensured for Sector M “Health”. Indicator IV C.3. “Life expectancy at birth” is relevant for all specific objectives and captures the intended changes. On the other hand, indicator IV.C.2 “ Number of emergency units” measures only the immediate outputs of the implemented projects. Table 18: Result Indicators - Sector M Health Specific Objectives (SO) Coverage by RI Result indicators (RI) M.1 Improving the access to primary health High IV.C.2 Number of emergency units care (PHC) services based on prevention and IV.C.3 Life expectancy at birth early detection and treatment of chronic diseases M.2 Supporting the effective control of High epidemics, early warning and coordinated response, and risk factors surveillance M.3 Improving health infrastructure for High primary, secondary and tertiary health care, and the related service delivery system adjusted to modern technologies A high coverage is ensured for Sector N “Education”. The set of indicators is relevant for all specific objectives and captures the intended changes. Table 19: Result Indicators - Sector N Education Specific Objectives (SO) Coverage by RI Result indicators (RI) N.1 Providing lifelong learning opportunities High 4S201 People who get a job, including those who to create labor skills necessary for the 21st are self-employed century economy 4S6 Persons who, upon termination of N.2 Supporting secondary and vocational High participation, acquire a qualification education that prepare students for the 4S110 Certified persons as a result of the support global knowledge economy and for the provided specificities of the local economy 4S111 People who find a job as a result of the N.3 Increasing the quality of the primary High support received education and early-education systems IV.D.1 Inclusion rate in pre-school / primary / secondary / upper secondary education in rural areas IV.D.2 Inclusion rate in pre-school / primary / secondary / upper secondary education for Roma citizens IV.D.3 School dropout rate (%) IV.D.5 Number of people who benefit from support projects for training / exchange of good practices The result indicators selected Sector O “Social inclusion and protection” cover only part of the intended changes. They are highly relevant for the sector, but do not capture the expected result of sectorial objective O2, respectively to preserve the cultural heritage of ethnic minorities. Table 20: Result Indicators - Sector O Social inclusion and protection Specific Objectives (SO) Coverage by RI Result indicators (RI) O.1 Reducing labor related and human capital High disparities among Roma people by providing 46 | P a g e Specific Objectives (SO) Coverage by RI Result indicators (RI) improved integrated services in all 4S155 Persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion dimensions and aspects of exclusion from marginalized communities who acquire a (education, health, housing, employment) qualification upon participation, of which: Roma O.3 Improving social outcomes by making High 4S156 Persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion social protection programs more relevant and in marginalized communities who have a job, efficient in the Danube Delta area including those who are self-employed, upon completion IV.E.1 Number of kindergartens and other educational services for children under 6 in disadvantaged communities IV.E.2 Number of children integrated in nurseries / kindergartens in disadvantaged communities IV.E.3 Number of children integrated in the preparatory class and who participated in preschool education IV.E.4 Number of students at risk of dropping out of school at the beginning and end of the school year IV.E.5 Number of children involved in different types of complementary educational measures (after school, summer kindergartens, school tutoring, etc.) IV.E.6 Number of centers that have implemented complementary education measures in the ITI territory IV.E.7 No of school mediators employed full time in the school system O.2 Preserving the cultural heritage of ethnic Low Not available minorities in the study area The result indicators selected for Sector P “Administrative capacity and program management” cover only part of the intended changes. They are relevant for Specific Objective P1 and P3, but do not capture the expected result of Specific Objective P3, respectively to increase participatory decision-making in synergy with the environmental and economic objectives. Table 21: Result Indicators - Sector P Administrative capacity and program management Specific Objectives (SO) Coverage by RI Result indicators (RI) P.1 Providing efficient and cost-effective High 5S18 Local authorities and public institutions that public services have implemented standard mechanisms and procedures for substantiating long-term strategic P.2 Improving evidence-based strategic and High decisions and planning budgetary planning across all levels of governance in the DD region in order to 5S19 Local authorities and public institutions in support environmental and economic which unitary quality and performance objectives management systems developed through the program have been implemented according to the Action Plan for prioritizing and staging the implementation of quality management 5S20 Local authorities and public institutions in which measures to simplify procedures for citizens 47 | P a g e Specific Objectives (SO) Coverage by RI Result indicators (RI) have been implemented in accordance with the Integrated Plan for the simplification of procedures for citizens developed at national level V.A.3 Number of projects implemented within the Danube Delta ITI P.3 Increasing participatory decision-making Low Not available in synergy with the environmental and economic objectives 5.3. Conclusions The updated system of indicators serves its current purpose, that is to capture the outputs and results of ongoing and completed projects, during the current phase of implementation (corresponding to the current EU programming period). For most output indicators, the evaluation team and IDA ITI DD personnel managed to provide guidelines for data collection and aggregations, including definitions, computation methodology and sources of information. Moreover, the majority of indicators have baselines and intermediate targets, starting from the list of contracted projects. Final targets should be set after the approval of the new financing lines. However, additional result indicators are needed in order to reflect all desired changes included in the strategy, during the entire timeline of implementation. The current list of indicators does not cover all sectorial specific objectives and related interventions (in particular, objectives with no current allocation were omitted). As such, they may over-estimate the progress of the strategy, by monitoring only the specific objectives with registered progress. 5.4. Recommendations The system of indicators was already improved in the context of this project, with high support from IDA ITI DD personnel. The below recommendations are aimed at further completing the list of indicators, in order to capture the entire strategy, and providing guidance for their future monitoring. Recommendation 7. Set additional result indicators, to capture all sectorial specific objectives. Result indicators should reflect the overall progress of the strategy, not only the objectives with financial allocations. The system of indicators can rely both on quantitative result indicators (to be added and monitored by IDA ITI DD), and qualitative result indicators (to be added and assessed by the evaluation team, in the context of future progress and impact evaluations). A limited number of result indicators can be selected, one per each sector; however, in this scenario, the indicators should be carefully designed in order to capture the overarching expected changes, and not the intermediate results of interventions. Recommendation 8. Set additional output indicators, as per need, to capture the majority of interventions. The current list of output indicators is set based on the ongoing or completed projects. Additional indicators may be required after the approval of the new financing lines, in order to capture the majority of interventions (at least 75% of the total budget of the strategy). Although it is not recommended having indicators in relation to each of the 137 interventions, a closer monitoring is required for interventions with high allocations. Recommendation 9. Finalize the system of indicators with guidelines for data collection and monitoring. All indicators should include the following elements: (1) title of the indicator, (2) measurement unit, (3) baseline, (4) intermediate and final targets, (5) source of information, (6) definition, (7) computation methodologies, (8) aggregation methodologies, (9) responsible for data collection, aggregation and reporting, (10) deadlines for data reporting. 48 | P a g e Chapter 6 49 | P a g e 6. Interim Results 6.1. Description of the Evaluation Process The analyses performed under this section are aimed at depicting the current financial and physical progress of the strategy, as well as the outcomes perceived by beneficiaries and stakeholders. Considering that EU Funds are the main source of financing for Danube Delta Strategy, a high focus was placed on the deadlines for (de)commitment and absorption set by Common Provisions Regulation and Funds Specific Regulations9. The financial progress was computed at the level of strategy (payments out of total allocations) and at the level of projects (payments out of total contracted amounts). As stated throughout this report, the methodological approach for measuring the physical progress of the strategy was limited by the availability of monitoring data, respectively by the lack of baselines and targets, which should have been defined in the planning phase of the strategy. Some interim targets were selected with support from IDA ITI DD, based on the contracted projects; however, their adequacy should be checked in the context of a future ex-ante evaluation (i.e. targets should be attainable, but also ambitious to justify the spent amounts). Findings are based on the monitoring data provided by IDA ITI DD, as well as on the online survey and in-depth interviews with the beneficiaries of the strategy. 6.2. Findings Financial progress of the strategy The current budget of Danube Delta Strategy is mainly based on the financial allocations set by Operational Programmes 2014-2020, through ITI DD instrument. As further detailed in Chapter 4, the total allocation of EU Funds amounts to 1.1 billion EUR, while the contracted amounts represent 70% of total allocations, as of March 2020. In order to avoid the risk of decommitment, Romania needs to ensure the pipeline of projects for the remaining 30% of funds by the end of the year (note: the final deadline may be extended by the European Commission, in the context of sanitary crisis generated by Covid-19). Considering the tight deadlines imposed for spending EU Funds, the pace of financial progress in ITI DD area is rather slow. As presented in Figure 10 below, the level of absorption (payments out of allocations) is below 20% after the first 4 years of actual implementation. The highest levels are registered for Operational Programme Technical Assistance (40%), which ensured the functioning of the ITI mechanism; National Development Rural Plan (36%), which has the highest number of completed projects; and Large Infrastructure (19%) and Regional Operational Programme (15%), used for the implementation of large infrastructure projects. Lower progress was registered for Operational Programme Human Capital (3%), Competitiveness (1%) and Administrative Capacity (1%). 9The purpose of decommitment is to encourage financial discipline (see Recital 73 of the CPR) and to avoid situation when the EU funds are ‘frozen’ at the programmes’ accounts and are not being used for a long time. In this respect, Art. 86 and Art. 136 of the CPR define the arrangements for decommitment. In the programming period 2014-2020, it is based on the so-called N+3 rule: the annual allocation to the programme must be spent within 3 years following the year of its commitment. 50 | P a g e Figure 10: Level of absorption of EU Funds dedicated to ITI DD, by Operational Programmes (%) LEGEND LIOP Large Infrastructure Operational Programme ROP Regional Operational Programme NRDP National Rural Development Plan OPHC Operational Programme Human Capital COP Competitiveness Operational Programme EMFF OP European Maritime and Fisheries Fund Operational Programme OPAC Operational Programme Administrative Capacity OPTA Operational Programme Technical Assistance Source: Monitoring data provided by IDA ITI DD, March 2020 The level of absorption of EU Funds achieved for ITI DD is slightly lower compared to the level of absorption attained at national level (see Figure 11 below). This can be justified by the novelty of ITI instrument, which required intensive preparatory activities at the beginning of the programming period – developing and approving the local Danube Delta Strategy, setting the institutional framework for the implementation of the strategy and of the ITI instrument, developing inter-institutional agreements and procedures, promoting the strategy and the financing mechanism. The same progress variations among local and national levels were noticed also in other Member States implementing ITI funded strategies. According to Cohesion Policy (CP) data platform, in comparison to other CP projects, the implementation of operations funded under ITI and ISUD experienced substantial delays at the beginning of the 2014-2020 period (European Parliament, 201910). Figure 11: Level of absorption of EU Funs, at ITI DD and national level, by Operational Programmes (%) 10 European Parliament. (2019). Integrated Territorial Investments as an effective tool of the Cohesion Policy. P.8. Retrieved from https://www.europarl.europa.eu/cmsdata/162823/25032019_CONT_Briefing_ITI_Final.pdf 51 | P a g e LEGEND LIOP Large Infrastructure Operational Programme ROP Regional Operational Programme NRDP National Rural Development Plan OPHC Operational Programme Human Capital COP Competitiveness Operational Programme EMFF OP Fisheries Operational Programme OPAC Operational Programme Administrative Capacity OPTA Operational Programme Technical Assistance Source: Monitoring data provided by IDA ITI DD and information published on the Ministry of European Funds website, March 2020 The level of financial progress registered for contracted amounts is rather low for all pillars of the strategy. The highest levels were attained for Pillar II “Improving the Economy” (31%) and Pillar I “Protecting the Environmental and Natural Resource Assets” (26%). Lower levels were achieved for Pillar III “Improving Connectivity” (19%), Pillar V “Promoting Efficiency, Affordability and Sustainability” (18%) and Pillar IV “Providing Public Services” (17%). The low progress of projects may be linked to the long preparatory activities, aimed at obtaining the necessary documentations and permits, which postpone the actual implementation of works (based on the interviews with beneficiaries). In particular, the large infrastructural projects require additional time for planning and solving technical problems (see also the project summaries included in Annex 3). Figure 12: Payments out of contracted eligible values, by Pillars (EU Funds + National Budget) (%) LEGEND Pillar I Protecting the Environmental and Natural Resource Assets Pillar II Improving the Economy Pillar III Improving Connectivity Pillar IV Providing Public Services Pillar V Promoting Efficiency, Affordability and Sustainability Source: Monitoring data provided by IDA ITI DD, March 2020 Important variations can be observed among the sectors of the strategy, but should not be interpreted in all cases as a reflection of performance as the progress is connected to the timing of the calls, the timeline of the projects and the number of projects. For example, a high progress was achieved in spending the money committed to Sector E “Pollution Emergency”; however, this refers to only one project contracted in 2017. The low level achieved for Sector N “Education” can be explained by the fact that most projects related to this sector had a later start and are due to be completed in 2022. 52 | P a g e Figure 13: Payments out of contracted values, by Sectors (EU Funds + National Budget) (%) LEGEND Sector A Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management Sector B Energy Efficiency Sector C Climate Change Sector D Disaster Risk Management Sector E Pollution Emergency Sector F Tourism Sector G Fishery and Aquaculture Sector H Agriculture and Rural Development Sector I Transport Sector J Information and Communication Technology Sector K Water Supply and Sewerage Systems and Integrated Water Management Sector L Solid Waste Management Sector M Healthcare Sector N Education Sector O Social Inclusion and Protection Sector P Administrative Capacity and Program Management Source: Monitoring data provided by IDA ITI DD, March 2020 The analysis at beneficiary level reveal that the majority of funds (40%) were absorbed by two beneficiaries, respectively National Company for Road Infrastructure Administration (NCRIA) and Administrative Territorial Unit (ATU) for Tulcea. These are the beneficiaries with the highest committed amounts, implementing projects in the area of transport infrastructure. An above-average percent of payments was absorbed also by the General Inspectorate for Emergency Situations, Ministry of Health, IDA ITI DD and SC Agri Delta Serv SRL. All other beneficiaries have a below 1% share. Figure 14: Payments, by Beneficiaries (EU Funds + National Budget) (EUR) 53 | P a g e LEGEND NCRIA National Company for Road Infrastructure Administration ATU Tulcea Administrative Territorial Unit Tulcea Gen Insp for Emergency General Inspectorate for Emergency Situations Situations Ministry of Health Ministry of Health IDA ITI DD Inter-Community Association for Integrated Territorial Investment in Danube Delta SC Agri Delta Serv SRL SC Agri Delta Serv SRL Luncavita commune Luncavita commune Zmeica organization Isaccea City ADDBR Administration of the Danube Delta Biosphere Reservation Somova Commune Somova Commune Source: Monitoring data provided by IDA ITI DD, March 2020 Physical progress of the strategy The overall physical progress of the strategy, measured by means of output indicators, amounts to 35% towards the end of the programming period. Considering the lack of monitoring data for previous years, the pace of project implementation cannot be assessed (i.e. possible improvements in the later years). However, an acceleration is needed in order to meet the N+3 rule associated to EU Funds. More precisely, all projects should be completed, both in terms of financial and physical progress, by the end of 2023. Some variations can be observed among the five pillars of the strategy (see Figure 15 below). The highest levels of financial progress were attained by Pillar V “Promoting Efficiency, Affordability and Sustainability” (65%), Pillar III “Improving Connectivity” (36%) and Pillar I “Protecting the Environmental and Natural Resource Assets” (33%); while lower levels were registered for Pillar II “Improving the Economy“ (27%) and Pillar IV “Providing Public Services“ (13%). A closer monitoring is recommended in particular for Pilar III “Improving Connectivity”, which has the highest committed amounts and includes strategic projects in Danube Delta region. In case of significant deviations from the initial planning, the owners of the Danube Delta Strategy should decide, in close partnership with the Managing Authorities of the national Operational Programmes, the necessity of project phasing. Figure 15: Progress of output indicators, by Pillars (%) LEGEND Pillar I Protecting the Environmental and Natural Resource Assets Pillar II Improving the Economy Pillar III Improving Connectivity Pillar IV Providing Public Services Pillar V Promoting Efficiency, Affordability and Sustainability Source: Monitoring data provided by IDA ITI DD, March 2020 Similar to financial progress, significant variations can be observed with regards to physical progress among the sectors of the strategy, which should not be necessary interpreted as a reflection of performance. The 54 | P a g e progress is also linked to the timing of the launched calls, project signature and deadlines. The highest progress was achieved by Sector P “Administrative Capacity and Program Management” (65%), which ensured the implementation of the ITI mechanism. A good progress was also achieved by Sector J “Information and Communication Technology” (56%), Sector D “Disaster Risk Management” (50%), Sector E “Pollution Emergency” (50%) and Sector H “Agriculture and Rural Development” (49%). Figure 16: Progress of output indicators, by Sectors (%) LEGEND Sector A Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management Sector B Energy Efficiency Sector C Climate Change Sector D Disaster Risk Management Sector E Pollution Emergency Sector F Tourism Sector G Fishery and Aquaculture Sector H Agriculture and Rural Development Sector I Transport Sector J Information and Communication Technology Sector K Water Supply and Sewerage Systems and Integrated Water Management Sector L Solid Waste Management Sector M Healthcare Sector N Education Sector O Social Inclusion and Protection Sector P Administrative Capacity and Program Management Source: Monitoring data provided by IDA ITI DD, March 2020 The analysis of achieved physical progress, correlated to the status of projects, reveal some broken links in the logic of intervention. For example, Sector C “Climate Change” has no contracted projects, but a good progress of output indicators (31%); while Sector B “Energy Efficiency” has a good progress in terms of completed projects, but a lower progress achieved at the level of output indicators (18%). This is mainly triggered by the specific indicator I.C.2 “Number of households with a better classification of energy consumption due to the implementation of energy efficiency measures”, which was attained by the projects implemented under Sector B, but was set to measure the progress of Sector C. Table 22: Status of project implementation, by Sectors Sector Contracted Completed projects Progress of output projects (No) (% ouf of total no indicators (% out of of projects) total targets) A Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management 18 11% 16% B Energy Efficiency 71 27% 18% 55 | P a g e Sector Contracted Completed projects Progress of output projects (No) (% ouf of total no indicators (% out of of projects) total targets) C Climate Change 0 0% 31% D Disaster Risk Management 8 25% 50% E Pollution Emergency 1 0% 50% F Tourism 195 8% 20% G Fishery and Aquaculture 21 5% 13% H Agriculture and Rural Development 557 22% 49% I Transport 68 31% 16% J Information and Communication Technology 42 33% 56% K Water Supply and Sewerage Systems and 2 0% 15% Integrated Water Management L Solid Waste Management 2 0% 17% M Healthcare 7 0% 13% N Education 10 0% 19% O Social Inclusion and Protection 6 0% 1% P Administrative Capacity and Program 16 44% 65% Management Total 1024 20% 35% Source: Monitoring data provided by IDA ITI DD, March 2020 Interim results and impacts The overall progress with regards to result indicators is estimated at 42%. It should be noted, however, that computed progress may be over-estimated in relation to all pillars, by the fact that selected indicators do not capture all specific objectives included in the strategy. For further details, please consult Chapter 5, which includes analyses of the relevancy and coverage of the system of indicators. 11 80% of projects are still under implementation, and the majority of outcomes and impacts are expected to be more visible towards the end of 2023. The large infrastructure projects, which are expected to produce significant economic impacts in Danube Delta area, are currently in an incipient status, and therefore are not yet captured in the current analyses. According to NCRIA representatives, a high-quality transport infrastructure and better transport links will contribute to the regional development of Dobrogea, without disturbing the habitat of Danube Delta. For example, the suspension bridge over the Danube will help reduce travel time and vehicle operating costs, while reducing pollution. The works carried out have already led to an economic development of the area, beneficial both for inhabitants and for SMEs and micro-enterprises (for further information on selected strategic projects, see Annexure 3). The highest progress in terms of result indicators was achieved by Pillar II “Improving the Economy” (60%) , Pillar IV “Providing Public Services “(43%) and Pillar I “Protecting the Environmental and Natural Resource 11For some indicators, the progress is 100% - for example, no pollution incidents were registered in Danube Delta, in the monitored period; and therefore, the target is achieved. However, in order to maintain the good level of indicators, additional projects may be needed in the future and additional projects may be required to ensure a good level of preventive actions also for the future period. 56 | P a g e Assets” (43%), followed by Pillar III “Improving Connectivity” (34%) and Pillar V “Promoting Efficiency, Affordability and Sustainability” (29%). Figure 17: Progress of result indicators, by Pillars (%) LEGEND Pillar I Protecting the Environmental and Natural Resource Assets Pillar II Improving the Economy Pillar III Improving Connectivity Pillar IV Providing Public Services Pillar V Promoting Efficiency, Affordability and Sustainability Source: Monitoring data provided by IDA ITI DD, March 2020 The analysis at sectorial level captures significant variations: the highest progress was achieved by Sector E “Pollution Emergency” (100%) and Sector D “Disaster Risk Management” (90%), whilst the lowest progress was registered for Sector C “Climate Change” (0%) and Sector B “Energy Efficiency” (3%). Nevertheless, as stated in previous sections, the system of result indicators should be further improved, in order to provide a better image of the progress towards the strategy’s objectives. Figure 18: Progress of result indicators, by Sectors (%) LEGEND Sector A Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management Sector B Energy Efficiency Sector C Climate Change Sector D Disaster Risk Management Sector E Pollution Emergency Sector F Tourism Sector G Fishery and Aquaculture Sector H Agriculture and Rural Development Sector I Transport Sector J Information and Communication Technology 57 | P a g e LEGEND Sector K Water Supply and Sewerage Systems and Integrated Water Management Sector L Solid Waste Management Sector M Healthcare Sector N Education Sector O Social Inclusion and Protection Sector P Administrative Capacity and Program Management Source: Monitoring data provided by IDA ITI DD, March 2020 The perception of beneficiaries with regards to the results of the strategy is slightly different compared to the image captured by indicators. According to the online survey, the highest impacts were observed for tourism (Sector F) and environment and biodiversity (Sectors A, B and C); while the lowest impacts are perceived with regards to disaster risk management (Sector D), transport (Sector I) and water supply and sanitation (Sector K). For full results of the online survey, please consult Annex 4. 6.3. Conclusions During its first phase of implementation, the Strategy for Integrated Sustainable Development of Danube Delta region registered a low progress, especially in relation to the tight deadlines imposed for EU funded strategies. The level of absorption of EU funds is below 20% (payments out of total allocations), and the general physical progress of projects amounts to 35% (current status of output indicators, compared to baselines and interim targets). The low pace of implementation can be justified by the novelty of the ITI mechanisms, which required complex preparation activities - developing and approving the local Danube Delta Strategy, setting the institutional framework for the implementation of the strategy and of the ITI instrument, developing inter- institutional agreements and procedures, and promoting the strategy and the financing mechanism. Nevertheless, the beneficiaries of projects implemented through ITI mechanism are already able to perceive some important environmental and economic developments, generated by the strategy. Two thirds of respondents to the online survey appreciate that both tourists and residents are satisfied with the development of tourism in the area12. Moreover, 51% of respondents to the online survey consider that implemented projects have a positive impact on the environment. Some important impacts are also expected in relation to the large transport infrastructure projects, implemented by the National Company for Road Infrastructure Administration and by Tulcea Administrative Territorial Unit. The overall results and impacts of the strategy will be better reflected in a future impact evaluation, as the outcomes of a strategy are fully visible only after the completion of projects. The fact that beneficiary perception is more positive than actual assessed implementation is a positive indicator that future impact assessment should yield even better results, but with the caveat that progress on projects must progress towards completion within reasonable timelines. 6.4. Recommendations The below recommendations are aimed at improving the pace of financial and physical progress of the strategy, during the next programming period. Additional recommendations, for creating better premises for monitoring and evaluation, are provided in the relevant sections of this report. Recommendation 10. Select and implement appropriate remediation actions to address the root causes for the limited physical progress of the strategy (as identified in this report). Problems and remediation actions at strategy level may include (1) delays in the strategy set-up → action: advance planning of implementation mechanisms for the next programming period), (2) low quality of project 12 Noting that a perception survey, as conduced here involving project beneficiaries, is an expression of the respondent’s opinion. In the design of this project it was considered that a perception survey would complement and add to the actual quantitative analysis – demonstrated in the findings presented here. 58 | P a g e proposal → action: technical assistance for beneficiaries, including capacity building projects, (3) low inflow of project applications → action: communication of funding opportunities by multiple means (4) slow certification and processing of submitted project progress reports → action: increase the number and capacity of human resources, (5) problems in the cooperation among strategy owners → action: define clear roles and procedures for the implementations of the strategy. Problems and remediation actions at project level may include (1) unrealistic project’s spending plan → ac on: closer evaluation and guidance for submitted projects, (2) lack of previous experience in implementing EU Funded projects → ac on: improved guidelines for beneficiaries, in terms of clarity and level of details. Recommendation 11. Identify and implement the appropriate methods for accelerating project expenditure (either at ITI, strategy or project level), while taking into consideration the challenges associated to each method. Methods at strategy level may include (1) overcommitment of strategy funds → challenge: the strategy has to ensure other sources of financing should the projects use their allocated budgets as initially planned at a full capacity, (2) additional and/ or targeted calls for project proposals → challenge: these calls are usually ad-hoc and require active preparation and specific procedures, (3) waiting (reserve) list of projects → challenge: long waiting times may determine possible changes in the project idea as compared to a submitted application. Methods at the project level may include (1) close monitoring of projects’ spending and mid-term assessment of projects’ spending → challenge: additional human or financial resources required for monitoring activities, (2) decommitment of projects’ budgets with low spending level → challenge: additional procedures to be developed and followed by the strategy owners, (3) additional allocations to already running projects → challenge: this should be fully justified with supporting documents and subject to approval by the relevant parties. 59 | P a g e Chapter 7 60 | P a g e 7. Institutional Arrangements and Delivery Mechanism 7.1. Description of the Evaluation Process The analyses performed under this section are aimed at presenting the institutional organization and approach to implementation, along with identified areas of improvement, as they emerged during the evaluation of strategy progress. This subject will be further scrutinized in a separate evaluation, performed by the Ministry of European Funds. 7.2. Findings The implementation of the strategy is managed at national level by the Ministry of Public Works, Development and Administration (MPWDA), based on an inter-institutional agreement with all the other ministries involved, including the Managing Authorities of the programmes supporting ITI:  MPWDA is also the Management Authority for the OP Administrative Capacity (POCA), Regional Operational Programme (ROP) and European Territorial Cooperation Programmes.  The Ministry of European Funds (MEF) is the national coordinator of European Structural and Investment Funds 2014-2020, as well as the Management Authority for the OPs Technical Assistance, Large Infrastructure, Human Capital, and Competitiveness.  The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development is the national authority responsible for coordinating the implementation of the Common Agricultural Policy and of the Common Fisheries Policy, as well as the Management Authority for the National Rural Development Program (NRDP) and the Fisheries and Maritime Affairs OP. At local level, a new body has been created, Inter-Community Development Agency (IDA) for ITI DD. The role of IDA ITI DD is rather limited and comprises tasks related to project planning and implementation: the prioritization of the projects included in the strategy; support to potential beneficiaries to prepare funding applications; support to beneficiaries to implement/manage the projects, through management consultancy related for example to the implementation of public procurement procedures; and monitoring and periodic reporting to the MPWDA on the implementation of projects. Taking into consideration the positive feedback received by IDA ITI DD from beneficiaries, with regards to communication of funding possibilities and support granted during project planning and implementation, further responsibilities could be granted for the next programming period, in order to build on the already developed human capacity. According to EU Regulations and ITI Guidance Fiche13, the delegation of other tasks in addition to project selection is possible, and given the territorial nature of an ITI, delegation of some or most implementation tasks to an authority responsible for or closely involved in the development of the territory in question may constitute an effective approach to delivery. In this scenario, the need for additional human resources or technical assistance must be evaluated. 13 Link: https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/informat/2014/guidance_iti.pdf 61 | P a g e Figure 19: Institutional arrangement for implementing SIDDDD and ITI mechanism Source: Graphical illustration based on strategic documents According to beneficiaries perception, the above institutional arrangements, as well as the selected delivery mechanism (ITI DD) created the necessary framework for a successful implementation of the SIDDDD. Based on the online survey (for further details see Annex 4), the ITI mechanism has significantly contributed to making European funding more accessible, especially for local and central public authorities and for the non- governmental sector. At the level of all beneficiaries, the mechanism generated an increase in the availability share for accessing European funds, contributing significantly to the increase of entrepreneurial capacity. The efficiency of the ITI mechanism is also considered high. Approximately two thirds of the beneficiaries consider that the ITI mechanism has covered to a large or very large extent the development needs of the institution which they are a part of, of their locality and of the Danube Delta region. 78% of the beneficiaries considered that they achieved all or most of the projected results, and implemented projects have a high or very high sustainability. Nevertheless, for the future programming period, additional procedures and implementation tools could be created, establishing detailed roles for a strategic planning at local level (see Chapter 3 Relevance and Internal and Chapter 4 Financial Allocation) as well as for enabling the monitoring and evaluation function (see Chapter 8 Monitoring and Evaluation). 7.3. Conclusions During the programming period 2014-2020, Romania managed to create functional institutional arrangements for the implementation of Danube Delta Strategy. All relevant stakeholders were involved in planning, implementation and monitoring activities, ensuring compliance with the European Regulations for EU Funded strategies, while taking into consideration the local needs and objectives. Given the good feedback received from beneficiaries with regards to the activity of IDA ITI DD, further responsibilities could be delegated in the future to the local institution, in order to leverage on the created human capacity. 62 | P a g e Moreover, according to beneficiaries perception, the institutional arrangements, as well as the selected delivery mechanism (ITI DD) created the necessary framework for a successful implementation of the SIDDDD. Based on the online survey, the ITI mechanism has significantly contributed to making European funding more accessible, especially for local and central public authorities and for the non-governmental sector. At the level of all beneficiaries, the mechanism generated an increase in the availability share for accessing European funds, contributing significantly to the increase of entrepreneurial capacity. For the next programming period, Romania can focus on further developing procedural aspects , to have a clearer delegation of roles, with tasks and deadlines assigned in relation to all aspects of the strategy, and in particular for planning (i.e. identifying quantifiable needs and targets; setting budgetary allocations) and monitoring at national and local level (i.e. data collection and aggregation; use of results and follow-up). 7.4. Recommendations The functional institutional arrangements now in place ensures the implementation of the strategy, in line with European, national and local objectives. As mentioned in the introduction, the Ministry of European Funds are conducting a separate analysis of the institutional arrangements of the ITI mechanism. It was therefore agreed that this research team will not focus on this topic, and only presents here a high-level overview for purposes of completeness. No official recommendations are made and further improvements in the governance of Danube Delta Strategy and ITI mechanism will be dependent on the results of the analysis conducted by the Ministry of European Funds. 63 | P a g e Chapter 8 64 | P a g e 8. Monitoring and Evaluation 8.1. Description of the Evaluation Process The analyses performed under this section are aimed at assessing aspects related to monitoring (namely the existing set-up for data collection, aggregation and reporting) and evaluation (planning of external evaluations, follow up and communication of results). 8.2. Findings Assessment of monitoring system The EU requirements for monitoring the interventions financed under ITI mechanism are ensured by the Managing Authorities of the Operational Programmes. Beneficiaries are submitting progress reports, including programme and project indicators, directly to the relevant Managing Authority; and data are being aggregated by programme and by priority axis, to allow assessment of the progress made towards the objectives of the programme and therefore towards Europe2020 objectives. However, the current implementation documents do not provide for a proper monitoring and aggregation of data at the level of the SIDDDD. The strategy lacks clear procedures for monitoring and evaluation, including planned activities, responsible institutions and deadlines. The institutions in charge of monitoring the local projects and the overall strategy have partial access to project documentations (i.e. financing requests, progress reports, status of project indicators); as consequence, available information does not provide for a clear global image of the progress made towards the sectorial and strategic objectives of the strategy. And most importantly, the strategy itself does not include quantifiable baselines, targets and milestones, for financial and physical progress. In the context of this project (and while not part of the original scope), the evaluation team provided support in developing the prerequisites for a future monitoring of the strategy. More precisely, along with IDA ITI DD personnel, a system of indicators was developed, with measurement units, definitions, computation methodologies, sources of information, baselines, interim targets, deadlines and responsible for data collection and aggregation. The list of indicators is still in a draft format and would require formal approval and adoption to ensure the longer-term implementation. The evaluation team also drafted the methodological approach for the performance measurement system (presented as a separate deliverable), including recommendations and guidelines for developing a monitoring and evaluation procedure. Evaluation planning The EU requirements for evaluation and reporting on the effectiveness of ITI mechanism are captured by the evaluations planned in relation to each Operational Programme. More precisely, the evaluation performed by the Managing Authorities, with external support, will cover the entire programme, including the projects implemented in the ITI DD area. In addition, MPWDA decided to conduct, with external support, a progress evaluation at the level of Danube Delta Strategy. The current report captures the overall progress of the strategy, measured through output and results indicators, as well as its internal and external coherence, relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and EU added value, with different levels of details, determined by the available information. At the moment, no information is provided with regards to future evaluations, during the period 2020-2030. An evaluation plan would be needed, in order to ensure the complementarity among the evaluation themes planned by different stakeholders of the strategy, respectively the owners of the local strategy and the Managing Authorities of the Operational Programmes. 65 | P a g e Reconstruction of theory of change The theory of change14 is partially evidenced throughout Danube Delta Strategy. The strategic document describes the socio-economical context of the ITI DD region, and presents the vison, strategic and sectorial objectives, and planned interventions. However, the links between objectives and activities are not always evidenced; the expected medium- and long-term changes are not clearly stated; and the inputs of the strategy, respectively financial allocation and human resources, are not mentioned. In order to provide a better illustration and understanding of the strategy, the team reconstructed the theory of change (see Annex 5), as well as the logical framework (see Annex 6). The reconstructed theory of change presents the “big picture” of the strategy, including external factors and assumptions, and is particularly useful in evaluation activities, to support the identification of (1) specific evaluation questions, especially in relation to those elements of the theory of change for which there is no substantive evidence yet; (2) relevant variables that should be included in data collection; (3) expected medium and long term outcomes that can be used as markers of success; (4) aspects of implementation that should be examined; and (5) potentially relevant contextual factors that should be addressed in data collection and in analysis. On the other hand, the logical framework can be used for monitoring activities, as it explains the direct links among the elements of the strategy, and in particular between specific objectives and result indicators and between interventions and output indicators. Figure 20: Difference between “theory of change” and “logical framework” Source: Evaluators’ assessment of the two models The reconstructed theory of changes (see Annex 5) illustrates the following elements:  Engaged inputs: (1) Institutional arrangements for implementing the ITI mechanism in Danube Delta, respectively the quadripartite protocol among Ministry of Public Works, Development and Administration (MPWDA), Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD), Ministry of European Funds (MEF), and the newly created Inter-Community Development Association (IDA ITI DD); (2) Strategic planning and implementation documents, respectively the Integrated Sustainable Development Strategy for Danube Delta and related Action Plan; (3) Financial resources consisting of EU Funds committed for ITI DD, national funds and private funds, as co-financing rates; and (4) Human 14As defined by Carol Weiss, theory of change is essentially a comprehensive description and illustration of how and why a desired change is expected to happen in a particular context. It is focused in particular on mapping out or “filling in” what has been described as the “missing middle” between what a certain policy does (its activities or interventions) and how these lead to desired goals being achieved. 66 | P a g e resources involved in planning, implementation and monitoring of the strategy and of the ITI mechanism.  Evaluators’ assumptions related to adequacy of inputs (to be tested by the future evaluations): (Assumption 1) Romania managed to ensure functional institutional arrangements for the implementation of the SIDDDD and of the ITI mechanism , with clear delegated responsibilities and tasks; (Assumption 2) There is a good coordination and communication among the institutions responsible for implementing the SIDDDD and the ITI mechanism (e.g. for drafting beneficiary guidelines, launching calls, monitoring projects, etc.); (Assumption 3) The strategy is relevant and consistent, reflecting the updated societal and environmental needs of the region; (Assumption 4) There is a logical link among the objectives of the strategy and the planned interventions, respectively selected projects; (Assumption 5) Sufficient funds are allocated to all sectors of the strategy, reflecting the quantified needs and objectives; and the cost of interventions; and (Assumption 5) The human resources allocated for planning, implementing and monitoring the strategy are adequate both in terms of number and technical skills.  Planned interventions: (1) First set of planned interventions, consisting of more than 1,000 projects contracted during the programming period 2014-2020; (2) Second set of planned interventions, consisting of future projects to be contracted during the 2021-2027 programming period.  Expected outputs related to the 16 sectors of the strategy: (1) Biodiversity: normative acts & management plans, conservation and restoration works; (2 and 3) Energy efficiency and climate change: renovated residential and public buildings, energy efficient public lighting; (4 and 5) Disaster risk management and pollution emergency: prevention & intervention plans, information management system, equipment for emergency units; (6) Tourism: accommodation facilities, restored touristic objectives; (7) Fishery and aquaculture: fishery shelters and aquaculture developments; (8) Agriculture and rural development: rural infrastructure (road, public utilities, education structure), support to agricultural holdings; (9) Transport: transport infrastructure (road, naval, airport), public means of transportation (boats); (10) Information and communication technology: broadband internet, digitalized libraries, e-government systems; (11 and 12) Water supply and sewerage and waste management: wastewaters treated, citizens connected to a centralized drinking water and sewerage system, waste collected and recycled; (13, 14 and 15) Health, education and social inclusion: medical / educational / social infrastructure, medical / educational / social services, medical equipment and (6) Administrative capacity: internal procedures, certified staff, co-financed salaries.  Prerequisites for the expected outputs (to be tested by future evaluations): (Prerequisite 1) Beneficiaries are aware of the funding opportunities, mainly as result to the official communication campaigns; (Prerequisite 2) Beneficiaries are interested to implement projects with EU and National funding (i.e. the strategy is relevant; and the implementation rules are acceptable); (3) Beneficiary have the capacity to implement projects, human and financial.  Expected outcomes related to the 16 sectors of the strategy: (1) Biodiversity: restored eco-systems; (2 and 3) Energy efficiency and climate change: reduced GHS emissions; (4 and 5) Disaster risk management and pollution emergency: reduced vulnerability to disasters and pollution; (6) Tourism: increased tourism flow; (7) Fishery and aquaculture: increased aquaculture output volume and value; (8) Agriculture and rural development: increased rural GDP per capita; (9) Transport: reduced travel time and fatalities; (10) Information and communication technology: increased broadband coverage; (11 and 12) Water supply and sewerage and waste management: improved water quality and improved recycling rate; (13, 14 and 15) Health, education and social inclusion: increased access to quality healthcare / education / social services and (6) Administrative capacity: improved performance of public institutions.  Expected impacts related to strategical objectives: (1) Improved quality of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and conservation of biodiversity and (2) Improved human well-being and social equity. 67 | P a g e  External factors that may influence, positively or negatively, the expected outcomes and impacts (to be investigated by future evaluations): (1) EU, national, regional and local strategies are expected to contribute to the objectives of the SIDDDD, through implemented projects; (2) environmental and socio-economic changes may alter the relevance of the strategy and (3) the ongoing sanitary crisis generated by Covid-19 may influence the effectiveness of some interventions financed under SIDDDD, including the timely completion.  Vision as formulated within the strategy: “A living delta (an area where people live and work) with balanced support for the environment and the community; a heathy sustainable local economy – mainly based on nature and culture tourism; and with an inclusive planning process (residents, government, business)”. On the other side, the logical framework (see Annex 6) includes only the elements presented in the strategy, respectively the links among strategic objectives, pillars, sectors, specific objectives (measured by result indicators) and interventions (measured by output indicators). However, as mentioned throughout the report, the system of indicators was not formalized at the moment of this evaluation, and future updates may be required. 8.3. Conclusions The projects implemented under the SIDDDD were monitored by different stakeholders, respectively the Managing Authorities of the Operational Programmes, the Ministry of Public Works, Development and Administration, and the Community Development Agency ITI DD. Monitoring activities ensured the compliance with reporting rules for EU Funded projects. However, monitoring data were not aggregated at the level of SIDDDD, in order to verify the progress towards achieving the objectives set at local level. For this purpose, further procedures and instruments are needed, to establish clear roles and responsibilities for data monitoring and aggregation, to guide the methodological approach, to set deadlines for monitoring and reporting and to communicate the use of results. 8.4. Recommendations Recommendation 12. Develop a monitoring and evaluation procedure, defining clear responsibilities for each institution involved in implementing Danube Delta Strategy. The strategy defines in general terms the responsibilities of each institution involved in the implementation of the Danube Delta Strategy and of the ITI DD instrument. However, a specific procedure for monitoring and evaluation would better guide the collection and aggregation of data at local level, as well as the planning and follow-up for the external evaluations. The procedure should define the expected results related to monitoring and evaluation functions: purpose of monitoring and evaluation activities, responsible institutions, and expected deliverables (see Table 23 below). Table 23: Expected results of monitoring and evaluation Monitoring Evaluation Purpose Determine whether strategy and projects are Determine the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, progressing according to plan coherence, EU added value and impact of the strategy and projects Use of Take corrective actions to ensure that strategy Incorporate lessons learned in strategic planning findings and project objectives are met and decision-making process to improve future programmes Timing Continuous Selective (based on evaluation plan) Focus Outputs / activities, expected accomplishments Outcomes, impact 68 | P a g e Monitoring Evaluation Responsible MPWDA and IDA ITI DD, with the support of MPWDA and IDA ITI DD, with the support of Managing Authorities Managing Authorities and external evaluators Deliverables Quarterly and Annual Implementation Reports Evaluation Reports with findings, lessons learned and recommendations The procedure should also define the concrete actions to be taken in order to achieve the expected results for the monitoring and evaluation function (see Table 24). Table 24: Suggested monitoring and evaluation activities and responsible institutions Actions Responsibilities Develop a monitoring and evaluation MPWDA: develop, update and approve procedure IDA ITI DD: endorse MAs: endorse Develop a system of indicators, along MPWDA: develop, update and approve with quantifiable targets IDA ITI DD: endorse MAs: endorse Collect and aggregate monitoring data IDA ITI DD: collect and aggregate MAs: transmit monitoring data to IDA ITI DD, every 3 months Monitor the progress of indicators, IDA ITI DD: monitor progress and suggest remediation actions based on aggregated data MPWDA: approve remediation actions and follow-up MAs: endorse remediation actions Develop an evaluation plan MPWDA: develop, update and approve IDA ITI DD: endorse MAs: endorse Launch external evaluations, along with MPWDA: develop and approve documentation; launch and oversight corresponding documentation evaluations; approve final deliverables IDA ITI DD: endorse documentation; oversight evaluations; endorse final deliverables MAs: endorse documentation (i.e. terms of reference) Develop and monitor follow-up plans MPWDA: develop, update, approve and monitor IDA ITI DD: endorse, monitor MAs: endorse Communication of results for monitoring MPWDA: communication through different channels (e.g. internal and evaluation activities meetings, conferences, press releases) IDA ITI DD: communication through official website For the period 2021-2023, the evaluation team provided a monitoring tool, in excel version, to support the activities of IDA ITI DD, along with a set of recommended practical steps:  The output indicators must be updated in the IDA ITI DD database as soon as a project is completed by its program manager, but not later than the beginning of the evaluation period established by IDA ITI DD annually.  The outcome indicators should be updated annually by contacting the sources of these indicators in accordance with the law. It would be preferable to agree an information exchange protocols with ISU Tulcea, ISJ Tulcea and Constanța and other institutions that provide more indicators for SIDDDD. 69 | P a g e  The targets may be increased only in the event of new projects. At the end of the first planning cycle (2023), the targets of the output indicators should be 100% attained.  The non-achievement of the targets at the level of 2023 must be evidence based explained such as: lack of funding, delays due to Covid-19, project beneficiaries did not reach their targets, other well-founded causes. Recommendation 13. Grant access to relevant data to all institution in charge of monitoring and evaluation. Currently, the monitoring data related to ITI DD projects are collected by Managing Authorities, in relation to each Operational Programme. In order to assess the progress of the Danube Delta Strategy, these data should be aggregated at the level of ITI DD area, by the strategy owners. For that purpose, the institution in charge with monitoring Danube Delta Strategy should have access to financing contracts, financing requests, progress reports and any other monitoring data submitted by Beneficiaries, including the progress of indicators. Recommendation 14. Develop and communicate the evaluation plan for Danube Delta Strategy. The evaluation plan should include the following elements: (1) indicative list of evaluations to be undertaken, their subject and rationale, (2) methods to be used for the individual evaluations and their data requirements, (3) provisions that data required for certain evaluations will be available or will be collected, (4) a timetable, (5) a strategy to ensure use and communication of evaluations, (6) human resources involved, (7) the indicative budget for implementation of the plan, and possibly (8) a training plan. The table below presents an indicative list of possible evaluation themes, along with a synthetic methodological approach. The proposed methodologies are in line with EU guidelines for evaluation of EU funded strategies; and takes into account the fact that ITI DD contribution to the Specific Objectives of the Romanian Operational Programmes is already captured in the evaluations carried out by the Managing Authorities. Table 25: Indicative list of evaluation themes and suggested methodologies Evaluation Theme 1: Impact evaluation of Danube Delta Strategy, for the first phase of implementation 2016-2023 Subject and rationale The first set of contracted projects are due to be finalized in 2023. A first impact evaluation could be carried out in order to verify the overall effects of the strategy on Danube Delta region. At the same time, the evaluation can point out areas of improvement, for the second phase of the strategy implementation. Evaluation questions EQ1 Impact: What are the gross and net effects of the strategy? Are there any unexpected effects or spillovers? EQ2 Effectiveness: Have the expected effects been obtained? Have the objectives been achieved? EQ3 Efficiency: At what price have the results been achieved? EQ4 Coherence: Is there a correspondence between the intervention’s objectives and those of other interacting public actions? (Convergence to the achieved results) EQ5 Relevance: How well do the (original) objectives of the strategy (still) correspond to the needs of Danube Delta citizens? EQ6: What is the added value resulting from ITI DD mechanism? Methods to be used ESPON methodology for conducting territorial impact assessments Theory-based and counterfactual analysis Cost-benefit analysis for measuring efficiency Types of information and sources of information: Contextual data (to be collected from Eurostat, INSSE and other relevant sources) Strategic and implementation documents (to be provided by the contracting authority) 70 | P a g e Monitoring data (to be provided by the contracting authority) Financing contracts, financing requests, progress reports (to be provided by the contracting authority) Micro data at beneficiary and non-beneficiary level data (to be collected by means of online surveys, interviews and focus groups) Evaluation Theme 2: Ex-ante evaluation of Danube Delta Strategy, for the second phase of implementation Subject and rationale Based on the results of the impact evaluation, the owners of the strategy may decide to make certain amendments to the strategic or implementation documents of Danube Delta Strategy. The ex-ante evaluation can assess the impact of such changes on the internal consistency of the strategy. Moreover, the owners of the strategy need to establish the long-term targets and prepare the financial planning for the second phase of the Strategy. The ex-ante evaluation can assess the adequacy of the planned financial resources in relation to expected changes. Finally, the strategic view may change at European and national level, in the context of the EU programming period 2021-2027. The ex-ante evaluation can verify the external coherence with the objectives of the operational programmes, in particular for ITI mechanism. Evaluation questions EQ1 External consistency: Are the specific objective of Danube Delta Strategy consistent with the objectives of the Operational Programmes, respectively with the Thematic Objectives and Investments Priorities set at EU level for 2021- 2027 programming period? EQ2 Internal consistency: How is the internal consistency of strategy ensured (i.e. links among identified needs, planned interventions and expected results)? EQ3 Financial allocation: To what extent is the financial allocation consistent with the specific objectives of the strategy? EQ4 Indicators: Are the current output and results indicators relevant for the strategy? How will the output indicators contribute to results? Are the quantified target values of the indicators sufficiently ambitions and yet realistic? EQ5 Human resources and administrative capacity: To what extent are the human resources and administrative capacity adequate to implement the strategy? EQ 6 Monitoring and data collection: To what extent are the monitoring and data collection procedures adequate to perform evaluations Methods to be used To be decided by the evaluation team Types of information and sources of information: Strategic and implementation documents (to be provided by the contracting authority) Internal procedures (to be provided by the contracting authority) Evaluation Theme 3: Interim evaluation of Danube Delta Strategy, for the period 2022-2025 Subject and rationale A first interim evaluation would be necessary in an early stage of the second phase of implementation, in order to identify possible areas of improvement in the set-up of the strategy. Evaluation questions EQ1 Effectiveness: What is the observed progress towards the expected changes set by the strategy? EQ2 Physical progress: What is the physical progress of the strategy and contracted projects (result and output indicators)? In case of delays, what are the main causes and suggested remediation actions? 71 | P a g e EQ3 Financial progress: What is the financial progress of the strategy and contracted projects (payments out of allocated, respectively out of contracted amounts)? In case of delays, what are the main causes and suggested remediation actions? EQ4 Internal and external factors: What are the internal and external factors influencing the implementation of the strategy? Are there any areas of improvement to facilitate the implementation of the strategy? Methods to be used To be decided by the evaluation team Types of information and sources of information: Contextual data (to be collected from Eurostat, INSSE and other relevant sources) Strategic and implementation documents (to be provided by the contracting authority) Monitoring data (to be provided by the contracting authority) Financing contracts, financing requests, progress reports (to be provided by the contracting authority) Micro data at beneficiary and non-beneficiary level data (to be collected by means of online surveys, interviews and focus groups) Evaluation Theme 4: Interim evaluation of Danube Detta Strategy, for the period 2025-2028 Subject and rationale A second interim evaluation would be necessary towards the end of the second phase of implementation, in order to assess the progress of the strategy. Evaluation questions EQ1 Effectiveness: What is the observed progress towards the expected changes set by the strategy? EQ2 Physical progress: What is the physical progress of the strategy and contracted projects (result and output indicators)? In case of delays, what are the main causes and suggested remediation actions? EQ3 Financial progress: What is the financial progress of the strategy and contracted projects (payments out of allocated, respectively out of contracted amounts)? In case of delays, what are the main causes and suggested remediation actions? EQ4 Internal and external factors: What are the internal and external factors influencing the implementation of the strategy? Are there any areas of improvement to facilitate the implementation of the strategy? Methods to be used To be decided by the evaluation team Types of information and sources of information: Contextual data (to be collected from Eurostat, INSSE and other relevant sources) Strategic and implementation documents (to be provided by the contracting authority) Monitoring data (to be provided by the contracting authority) Financing contracts, financing requests, progress reports (to be provided by the contracting authority) Micro data at beneficiary and non-beneficiary level data (to be collected by means of online surveys, interviews and focus groups) Evaluation Theme 5: Impact evaluation of Danube Delta Strategy, for the second phase of implementation 2023-2030 Subject and rationale The second set of contracted projects are due to be finalized in 2030. A second impact evaluation could be carried out in order to verify the overall effects of the strategy on Danube Delta region. At the same time, the evaluation can assess the opportunity for a new local strategy. Evaluation questions 72 | P a g e EQ1 Impact: What are the gross and net effects of the strategy? Are there any unexpected effects or spillovers? EQ2 Effectiveness: Have the expected effects been obtained? Have the objectives been achieved? EQ3 Efficiency: At what price have the results been achieved? EQ4 Coherence: Is there a correspondence between the intervention’s objectives and those of other interacting public actions? (Convergence to the achieved results) EQ5 Relevance: How well do the (original) objectives of the strategy (still) correspond to the needs of Danube Delta citizens? EQ6: What is the added value resulting from ITI-DD mechanism? Methods to be used ESPON methodology for conducting territorial impact assessments Theory-based and counterfactual analysis Cost-benefit analysis for measuring efficiency Types of information and sources of information: Contextual data (to be collected from Eurostat, INSSE and other relevant sources) Strategic and implementation documents (to be provided by the contracting authority) Monitoring data (to be provided by the contracting authority) Financing contracts, financing requests, progress reports (to be provided by the contracting authority) Micro data at beneficiary and non-beneficiary level data (to be collected by means of online surveys, interviews and focus groups) The contracting authority should ensure the availability of necessary data, in line with the methodological approach selected for each evaluation. This may include internal procedures, planning and implementing documents at strategy and project level and monitoring data at strategy and project level, to be collected from different institutions. The table below suggest an indicative timeline for each evaluation theme. Table 26: Indicative timeline for strategy evaluation Evaluation Theme Planning the Conducting the Disseminating Evaluation Evaluation Results Evaluation Theme 1: Impact evaluation of January 2022 February 2023 – September 2022 Danube Delta Strategy, for the first phase of August 2023 implementation 2016-2023 Evaluation Theme 2: Ex-ante evaluation of January 2022 February 2024 – December 2022 Danube Delta Strategy, for the second phase of May 2023 implementation Evaluation Theme 3: Interim evaluation of January 2026 February 2026 – June 2026 Danube Delta Strategy, for the period 2022- May 2026 2025 Evaluation Theme 4: Interim evaluation of January 2028 February 2028 – June 2028 Danube Detta Strategy, for the period 2025- May 2028 2028 Evaluation Theme 5: Impact evaluation of January 2030 February 2030 – September 2023 Danube Delta Strategy, for the second phase of August 2030 implementation 2023-2030 73 | P a g e Chapter 9 74 | P a g e 9. Concluding Remarks and Recommendations The Strategy for Integrated Sustainable Development in Danube Delta (SIDDDD) managed to set the directions for a future development of the area; it established the higher-level vision and strategic objectives, as well as the priority sectors and related sectorial specific objectives and interventions. This was a particular challenge, considering the dual directions of Danube Delta development, respectively the improvement of the quality of life for citizens, while preserving the ecological assets. Both strategic and implementation documents were designed based on a participatory approach, incorporating feedback from all relevant stakeholders, public and private, including civil society, which ensured a high relevancy for the societal needs. As result, the majority of beneficiaries consider that SIDDDD has covered the needs of the institution of which they are part, of their locality and of the Danube Delta region, in general. A good external consistency was identified in relation to all analyzed local strategies (Tulcea county and Tulcea municipality, Sulina, Baia and Isaccea cities, and Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve). More precisely, the local strategies have similar objectives as SIDDDD and are expected to contribute to the overall results of the SIDDDD. In particular, the projects implemented by the Tulcea county are in line with the priority sectors of the SIDDDD, and they can support the progress towards the final targets of the SIDDDD. The financial allocations for the implementation to date (amounting to 1.1 billion EUR in current programming period) were concentrated towards a very limited number of sectors, based on the availability and eligibility of EU Funds. The strategy had allocations from all of the eight Operational Programmes, by means of the Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI); however the highest allocations were connected to the Operational Programmme Large Infrastructure (OPLI), Regional Operational Programme (ROP) and National Rural Development Plan (NRDP), which determined a high concentration of resources for transport infrastructure (Pillar III “Improving Connectivity , Sector I “Transport”) and rural development (Pillar II “Improving the Economy, Sector H “Rural Development” and Sector F “Tourism”). While the prioritization and concentration of resources are generally considered a good practice, and even a requirement when using EU Funds, the owners of the strategy should ensure that all sectors are sufficiently funded by the end of the second implementation phase. With regards to the transport infrastructure, interventions were mainly linked to the national Master Plan for transport, which foresees several strategic projects in Danube Delta, aimed at modernizing and developing road infrastructure. Based on the interview with the representatives of the National Company for Road Infrastructure Administration (NCRIA), the budget allocations for these projects were established directly with the Management Authority of the OPLI, prior to the development and approval of the Danube Delta Strategy. Nevertheless, NCRIA makes efforts to align the national plans with the local strategy, and all projects were submitted for approval to the owners of the Danube Delta Strategy. One of the largest projects under implementation in ITI Danube Delta, implemented by NCRIA, is aimed at building a suspension bridge over the Danube . A high-quality transport infrastructure, with better transport links, is expected to contribute to the regional development, without disturbing the natural habitat. The bridge will help reduce travel time and vehicle operating costs, while reducing pollution. The works carried out for the main bridge have already led to an economic development of the area, beneficial both for inhabitants and for small and medium enterprises, as well as micro-enterprises. Works are expected to be completed by the end of 2023. The Tulcea Administrative Territorial Unit is also implementing large transport infrastructure projects, aimed at rehabilitation and modernization of county roads, intersections and roads sidewalks, bicycle lanes and construction of bus stops. In the long run, these projects are expected to contribute to the development of tourism and commercial activities in the ITI Danube Delta area. In particular, one of the projects is aimed at ensuring a better access to ancient touristic objectives - Histria fortress, Danube Delta biosphere area - Gura Portiței, Mamaia de Nord resort, Vadu reservation, Corbu, Midia-Năvodari plant and Midia port. Works are expected to be completed by the end of 2022. 75 | P a g e Another strategic project in ITI Danube Delta has already led to an increased safety and security at Danube Delta Airport. The project consists in the implementation of works and in the acquisitions of equipment, aiming to ensure passengers safety and security. The planned activities provide for a new fire prevention and extinction draw; a perimeter road to facilitate access to the aircraft in the shortest time; a TVCI monitoring system, to prevent incursions inside the airport and facilitate the general monitoring of wildlife; and luggage and passenger control equipment, which is already in place and functional. Other necessary equipment will be purchased for winter. With regards to rural development, a high number of projects were designed to support the development of agricultural holdings (e.g. purchase of new modern equipment and construction works), including modernization and establishment of agrotouristic pensions. However, based on the interviews with beneficiaries, the current sanitary crisis is expected to generate some delays in implementation for the ongoing projects. The owners of the SIDDDD should seek solutions to support beneficiaries, in partnership with the Managing Authorities of the Operational Programmes (e.g. extended deadlines, additional funds dedicated to beneficiaries affected by the sanitary crisis). For the remaining sectors, lower allocations were attributed during the first programming period. Six sectors have a share of contracted eligible value below 1% out of total allocation, namely Sector C: “Climate change” (0.0%), Sector E: “Pollution emergency” (0.1%), Sector K: “Water supply and sewerage systems and integrated water management” (0.2%), Sector L: “Solid waste management” (0.3%), Sector M: “Health” (0.7%) and Sector P: “Administrative capacity and program management” (0.8%). In some cases, the local administrations managed to find other sources of funding: water and wastewater projects were financed from the central budget under the National Local Development Program (NLDP), while the City of Tulcea was able to match the money from ITI with funds from the local budget. Nevertheless, for the sectors with limited budgets, a low progress towards achieving the sector specific objectives is expected, which should be remediated during the second phase of implementation (e.g. with additional sources of funding or a better distribution of EU Funds). The pace of financial and physical progress of the strategy was rather slow during the first years of implementation, for all pillars and sectors. In particular, the level of absorption of EU Funds (payments out of allocations) is below 20% after the first 4 years of implementation. The highest levels were registered for Operational Programme Technical Assistance (40%), which ensured the functioning of the ITI mechanism; National Development Rural Plan (36%), which has the highest number of completed projects; and Large Infrastructure (19%) and Regional Operational Programme (15%), used for the implementation of large infrastructure projects. Lower progress was registered for Operational Programme Human Capital (3%), Competitiveness (1%) and Administrative Capacity (1%). Moreover, the physical progress of the strategy, measured by means of output and result indicators, is estimated at 30%, towards the first interim targets. It should be noted, however, that the strategy has lacked a proper system of indicators; and the list of indicators and associated targets were selected in the context of this project, while knowing the results of completed projects, as well as the status of ongoing projects. Nevertheless, the limited progress can be justified by the novelty of the ITI instrument, which required intensive preparatory activities at the beginning of the programming period – developing and approving the local Danube Delta Strategy, setting the institutional framework for the implementation of the strategy and of the ITI instrument, developing inter-institutional agreements and procedures, promoting the strategy and the financing mechanism. The same bottlenecks were noticed also in other Member States implementing ITI funded strategies. According to the European Commission’s CP data platform, in comparison to other Cohesion Policy projects, the implementation of operations funded under ITI and ISUD experienced substantial delays at the beginning of the 2014-2020 period. For the second implementation phase (equated to the 2021 – 2027 programming period), it is recommended to further leverage the already created institutional arrangements and local human capacity (i.e. Inter- Community Development Association) What is required could be better implementation guidelines, tools and procedures: updated needs assessment, with quantifiable targets; financial planning, with needed and available 76 | P a g e budget, split by pillars and sectors; relevant result and output indicators, with baselines, targets, sources of information, and computation methodologies; and monitoring and evaluation plans and procedures, with clear responsibilities and deadlines. As a general conclusion, the SIDDDD, as well as the ITI mechanism, created the prerequisites for a sustainable development in the Danube Delta, with the involvement of all national and local stakeholders. High efforts were made to create a functional framework, including strategic planning, institutional arrangements and implementation documents and procedures; and the interim results of the implemented projects are already well perceived by the local society. However, some areas of improvement were identified, with regards to planning and monitoring function, which can be addressed in the context of the new programming period 2021- 2027. 77 | P a g e Annexes 78 | P a g e Annex 1. Table of recommendations Completed by the Evaluation Team To be completed by the Client Recommendation Deadline Responsible Accepted (Yes / No) Justification for rejection Recommendation 1 (External coherence): Re-evaluate the external coherence 2022, after the Ministry of Public Works, with European Union, national and local strategies, at the beginning of the new approval of the Development and programming period. This recommendation considers the fact that, for each national Administration, with programming period, new objectives are established at European Union level, strategies, as support from external which are then translated into the national and regional strategies. It is noted part of the ex- evaluators (ex-ante that it is unlikely that the overall SIDDDD will be updated (given cumbersome ante evaluation evaluation) approval processes – previously 2 years), however various implementation support documents such as a short or medium term action or implementation plan (annual plan or 3 -5 year plan for example), financial plans to match implementation plan or updated prioritization methodologies action plan, financial plan, etc.) could be updated to ensure continued relevance. Recommendation 2 (Relevance): Update the needs assessment, in the context 2022, as part of Ministry of Public Works, of the future impact evaluation, in order to identify the needs that have been the impact Development and already tackled through the first set of contracted projects and the needs that evaluation Administration, with remain to be addressed during the second phase of implementation. support from external Moreover, a quantification of remaining needs would better serve for the evaluators (impact financial planning of the strategy and for setting the final targets. evaluation) Recommendation 3 (Relevance): Update the supporting implementation Continuous, as Ministry of Public Works, documents, in anticipation of a future impact assessment. The strategy should per need Development and be a “living” document, highly responsive to the changing needs of the society. Administration, with As noted in recommendation 1, while the regular update of the strategy support from relevant document is not practical, supporting documents towards implementation stakeholders (such as shorter- term implementation plans) could be regularly reviewed and Impact and interim updated to ensure relevance. evaluations can also cover this topic Recommendations 4 (Internal coherence): Provide a clearer representation of 2022, as part of Ministry of Public Works, the logic of intervention, to be used by different stakeholders and beneficiaries, the ex-ante Development and in implementation and monitoring. A reconstruction of the logical framework evaluation Administration, with 79 | P a g e Completed by the Evaluation Team To be completed by the Client Recommendation Deadline Responsible Accepted (Yes / No) Justification for rejection was already performed in the context of this project. However, updates may support from external be necessary once the final list of indicators is approved. Moreover, for the evaluators (ex-ante future programming period, it is also recommended to further assess the links evaluation) between objectives and selected projects. Recommendation 5: Strategic and implementation documents should include 2022, after the Ministry of Public Works, at least some attempt at capturing a budget for the Danube Delta Strategy. approval of the Development and This would ideally be for the period 2016-2030, and include budget needs, national Administration, with budget availability, split by pillars, sectors and, where possible, by strategies support from relevant interventions. In a further best practice case, this should be further broken stakeholders down into funding periods (assuming correlation with EU funding periods) and An ex-ante evaluation then into annual budget plans. While this seem an extensive and complex could verify the undertaking, it would represent a significant step forward in terms of planning adequacy of planned and monitoring of financial resources and particularly create a much clearer financial resources link between needs and actual financing secured for projects. Recommendation 6 (Efficiency): Financial progress should be evaluated Continuous, as Ministry of Public Works, throughout implementation and, where needed, reallocations should be per need Development and performed. Danube Delta Strategy has a long horizon and therefore Administration, with budgetary adjustments may be needed, based on contextual changes (e.g. the support from relevant ongoing Covid-19 crisis may generate a different prioritizations of stakeholders investments), on the new needs that may arise, or additional financial Impact and interim resources identified throughout implementation. evaluations can also cover this topic Recommendation 7 (System of indicators): Set additional result indicators, to 2022, as part of Ministry of Public Works, capture all sectorial specific objectives. Result indicators should reflect the the impact Development and overall progress of the strategy, not only the objectives with financial evaluation Administration, with allocations. The system of indicators can rely both on quantitative result support from external indicators (to be added and monitored by Inter-Community Development evaluators (impact Association for Integrated Territorial Investment in Danube Delta), and evaluation) qualitative result indicators (to be added and assessed by the external evaluation team, in the context of future progress and impact assessments). 80 | P a g e Completed by the Evaluation Team To be completed by the Client Recommendation Deadline Responsible Accepted (Yes / No) Justification for rejection Recommendation 8 (System of indicators): Set additional output indicators, 2022, after the Inter-Community as per need, to capture the majority of interventions. The current list of approval of the Development output indicators is set based on the ongoing or completed projects. new financing Association for Additional indicators may be required after the approval of the new financing lines and Integrated Territorial lines, in order to capture the majority of interventions (at least 75% of the selected local Investment in Danube total budget of the strategy). Although we do not recommend having projects Delta indicators in relation to each of the 137 interventions, a closer monitoring is required for interventions with high allocations. Recommendation 9 (System of indicators): Complete the system of End of 2020, for Ministry of Public Works, indicators with guidelines for data collection and monitoring. For all interim targets Development and indicators, the following information should be provided: title of the 2022 for final Administration and indicator; measurement unit; baseline; intermediate and final targets; source targets, after Inter-Community of information; definition; computation methodologies; aggregation the approval of Development methodologies; responsible for data collection, aggregation and reporting; the new Association for deadlines for data collection, aggregation and reporting. financing lines Integrated Territorial Investment in Danube Delta Recommendation 10 (Effectiveness): Select and implement appropriate 2023, after the Ministry of Public Works, remediation actions to address the root causes for the limited physical approval of the Development and progress of the strategy (as identified in this report). Remediation actions at national Administration, in strategy level may include: advance planning of implementation mechanisms strategies cooperation with for the next programming period; technical assistance for beneficiaries, Managing Authorities of including capacity building projects; communication of funding opportunities the Romanian by multiple means; increased number and capacity of human resources Operational Programmes involved in implementing and monitoring the strategy; clear roles and An ex-ante evaluation procedures for the implementations of the strategy. Remediation actions at could also verify the project level may include closer evaluation and guidance for submitted adequacy of projects and improved guidelines for beneficiaries. implementation arrangements Recommendation 11 (Effectiveness): Identify and implement the appropriate 2022, after the Ministry of Public Works, methods for accelerating project expenditure (either at ITI, strategy or project approval of the Development and 81 | P a g e Completed by the Evaluation Team To be completed by the Client Recommendation Deadline Responsible Accepted (Yes / No) Justification for rejection level), while taking into consideration the challenges associated to each national Administration, in method.Methods at strategy level may include: overcommitment of strategy strategies cooperation with funds; additional and/ or targeted calls for project proposals; waiting (reserve) Managing Authorities of list of projects. Methods at the project level may include closer monitoring of the Romanian projects’ spending and mid-term assessment of projects’ spending; Operational Programmes decommitment of projects’ budgets with low spending level; additional An ex-ante evaluation allocations to already running projects. could also verify the adequacy of implementation arrangements Recommendation 12 (Monitoring and evaluation function): Develop a 2022, as part of Ministry of Public Works, monitoring and evaluation procedure, defining clear responsibilities for each the ex-ante Development and institution involved in implementing Danube Delta Strategy. The strategy evaluation Administration, in defines in general terms the responsibilities of each institution; however, a cooperation with specific procedure for monitoring and evaluation would better guide the relevant stakeholders collection and aggregation of data at local level, as well as the planning and An ex-ante evaluation follow-up for the external evaluations. could also verify the adequacy of monitoring and evaluation function Recommendation 13 (Monitoring and evaluation function): Grant access to Continuous Ministry of Public Works, relevant data to all institution in charge of monitoring and evaluation. Development and Currently, the monitoring data related to implemented projects are collected Administration, in by Managing Authorities, in relation to each Operational Programme. In order cooperation with to assess the progress of the Danube Delta Strategy, these data should be Managing Authorities of aggregated at local level, by the strategy owners. For that purpose, the the Romanian institution in charge with monitoring Danube Delta Strategy should have Operational Programmes access to financing contracts, financing requests, progress reports and any other monitoring data submitted by beneficiaries, including the progress of indicators. 82 | P a g e Completed by the Evaluation Team To be completed by the Client Recommendation Deadline Responsible Accepted (Yes / No) Justification for rejection Recommendation 14: Develop and communicate the evaluation plan for 2022, as part of Ministry of Public Works, Danube Delta Strategy. The evaluation plan should include the following the ex-ante Development and elements: indicative list of evaluations to be undertaken, their subject and evaluation Administration, in rationale; methods to be used for the individual evaluations and their data cooperation with requirements; provisions that data required for certain evaluations will be Managing Authorities of available or will be collected; a timetable; a strategy to ensure use and the Romanian communication of evaluations; human resources involved in monitoring and Operational evaluation; the indicative budget for implementation of the evaluation plan; Programmes, and with and possibly a training plan. external support from ex-ante evaluators 83 | P a g e Annex 2. List of output and result indicators and estimated interim progress Note: The below tables include only the output and result indicators used for estimating the interim progress of the strategy, with complete information - baselines, targets and interim values. The other indicators, with no historical data available, are not presented in this annex. Output Indicators Table 27: List of Output Indicators and Interim Progress Baseline Interim Target Interim Value Progress Code Indicators MU Source (2016) (2023) (2020) (2020) Pillar I Protecting the Environmental and Natural Resource Assets 33% Sector A Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management 16% The surface of the supported habitats in order to obtain a better Beneficiaries CO23 Ha - 1,364 52 4% conservation stage / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries 2S38 Approved sets of measures / management plans / action plans Number - 4 2 50% / IDA ITI DD Number of sites / areas / species / habitats (as appropriate) benefiting Beneficiaries 2S94 Number - 27 15 56% from approved management plans / action plans / IDA ITI DD Number of Natura 2000 sites with administrator / operational Beneficiaries 2S95 Number - 10 - 0% custodian 4.1A / IDA ITI DD Number of sites / areas / species / habitats (as appropriate) benefiting Beneficiaries 2S97 Number - 12 - 0% from active conservation measures implemented / IDA ITI DD Number of Natura 2000 sites with administrator / operational Beneficiaries 2S98 Number - 12 5 42% custodian 4.1B / IDA ITI DD Active measures implemented for species X (for action plans related to Beneficiaries 2S100 Number - 15 1 7% species whose area cannot be identified exhaustively) / IDA ITI DD Private investment combined with public support for innovation or Beneficiaries CO27 EUR - 2,269,248 - 0% R&D projects / IDA ITI DD I.A.1 DDRDB Management Plan implemented Yes/No ARBDD - 1 - 0% 84 | P a g e Baseline Interim Target Interim Value Progress Code Indicators MU Source (2016) (2023) (2020) (2020) Beneficiaries I.A.2 Management Plans of other Natura 2000 sites in the ITI territory Number - 3 - 0% / IDA ITI DD Number of sets of measures and actions of the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve based on widely accepted monitoring data and Beneficiaries I.A.3 Number - 9 3 33% state of the art hydrological, sedimentation and demographic models / IDA ITI DD implemented The surface of the supported habitats in order to obtain a better Beneficiaries I.A.4 Ha - 1,363 52 4% conservation stage / IDA ITI DD Sector B Energy Efficiency 18% I.B.2 Number of renovated residential buildings Number IDA ITI - 20 11 55% Beneficiaries I.B.3 The length of the rehabilitated / extended thermal network Km - 13 - 0% / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries 1S8 Decrease in annual primary energy consumption in public lighting KWh/an - 845 - 0% / IDA ITI DD Sector C Climate Change 31% Number of interventions and investments for climate change Beneficiaries I.C.1 Number - 10 2 20% adaptation measures / IDA ITI DD Number of households with a better classification of energy Beneficiaries I.C.2 consumption due to the implementation of energy efficiency Number - 1,116 462 41% / IDA ITI DD measures Sector D Disaster Risk Management 50% Beneficiaries 2S50 Units equipped for emergencies Number - 1 1 100% / IDA ITI DD Funding application submitted for analysis and approval to the Beneficiaries 2S81 Number - 2 1 50% European Commission / Independent Evaluation Body / IDA ITI DD 85 | P a g e Baseline Interim Target Interim Value Progress Code Indicators MU Source (2016) (2023) (2020) (2020) Supporting documentation for the elaboration of the financing Beneficiaries 2S82 application (Feasibility Study, Institutional Analysis, Cost Benefit Number - 1 - 0% / IDA ITI DD Analysis, Environmental Impact Assessment, etc.) I.D.2 Number of disaster response drills (annual) Number ISU Tulcea 1 7 4 50% Hazardous waste inventory and existing information management MMAP/ANP I.D.3 Yes/No - 1 - 0% system (yes or no) M I.D.4 Number of intervention plans available Number ISU Tulcea - 2 2 100% Sector E Pollution Emergency 50% I.E.2 Number of emergency response drills (annually) Number / year ISU Tulcea 1 3 2 50% Pillar II Improving the Economy 27% Sector F Tourism 20% Increase of the expected number of visits to cultural and natural Number visits Beneficiaries CO9 - 25,865 3,959 15% heritage sites and supported attractions / year / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries 1S23 Restored cultural heritage objectives Number - 8 1 13% / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries 1S68 Public buildings built / modernized / extended Number - 4 - 0% / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries CO38 Open spaces created or rehabilitated in urban areas Square meters - 21,022 - 0% / IDA ITI DD Public or commercial buildings constructed or renovated in urban Beneficiaries CO39 Square meters - 22,090 - 0% areas / IDA ITI DD People living in small and medium sized cities where local Beneficiaries 1S67 Number - 10,052 - 0% development strategies have been implemented / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries P6B301 Number of modernized historical monuments Number - 1 - 0% / IDA ITI DD 86 | P a g e Baseline Interim Target Interim Value Progress Code Indicators MU Source (2016) (2023) (2020) (2020) Number of boats available for tourists at the main exit points and Căpitănia II.A.3 Number 31 57 57 100% nodal points (monitored routes) zonală Tulcea Number of traditional houses maintained / rehabilitated included in Beneficiaries II.A.7 Number - 20 10 50% the tourist circuit / IDA ITI DD Sector G Fishery and Aquaculture 13% Number of investments / projects in aquaculture / processing / Beneficiaries II.B.4 Number - 15 2 13% fisherman safety / IDA ITI DD Sector H Agriculture and Rural Development 49% Beneficiaries II.C.6 The area of land granted to farmers out of publicly available land Ha - 4,364 4,364 100% / IDA ITI DD Number of holdings receiving aid for investments in agricultural Beneficiaries P2A13 Number - 450 368 82% holdings / IDA ITI DD Public and private investments for food processing and marketing = Beneficiaries P3A12 EUR - 18 4 25% total project wave (euro) of total ITI agricultural investments / IDA ITI DD Number of farms receiving investment aid for food processing and Beneficiaries P3A13 EUR - 6 1 17% marketing / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries P5A13 Number of projects receiving investment aid for irrigation Number - 62 44 71% / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries P5A14 Target area (ha) for irrigation through ITI projects Ha - 8,038 2,010 25% / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries P5D11 Number of projects with investments in manure storage platforms Number - 9 4 44% / IDA ITI DD Number of holdings receiving start up aid / support for investments in Beneficiaries P6A11 Number - 7 6 86% non agricultural activities / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries P6B200 Number of projects benefiting from infrastructure investment aid Number - 53 19 36% / IDA ITI DD 87 | P a g e Baseline Interim Target Interim Value Progress Code Indicators MU Source (2016) (2023) (2020) (2020) Beneficiaries P6B201 Length of agricultural roads (m) = agricultural road Meters - 18,528 1 0% / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries P6B203 Water network length (m) Meters - 44,917 4 0% / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries P6B204 Sewer network length (m) Meters - 87,952 4 0% / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries P6B205 Length of modernized local roads (m) Meters - 161,831 11 0% / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries P6B206 Number of modernized high schools and colleges Number - 1 1 100% / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries P6B207 Number of modernized kindergartens Number - 6 1 17% / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries P6B208 Number of modernized after schools Number - 2 1 50% / IDA ITI DD Number of projects that benefit from aid for investments in the local Beneficiaries P6B300 Number - 13 5 38% cultural and natural heritage / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries P6B301 Number of modernized historical monuments Number - 1 1 100% / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries P6B302 Number of modernized cultural centers Number - 12 5 42% / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries P6B41 Number of LAGs selected Number - 5 5 100% / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries P6B42 Population targeted by the LAG Number - 130,000 130,000 100% / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries II.C.1 Number of farmers / associations with access to promotion networks Number - 122 31 25% / IDA ITI DD 88 | P a g e Baseline Interim Target Interim Value Progress Code Indicators MU Source (2016) (2023) (2020) (2020) Number of participants in education / training programs through Beneficiaries II.C.2 Number - 317 79 25% PNDR / IDA ITI DD The surface of unproductive forested land (through PNDR projects II.C.4 Ha APIA Tulcea 2 121 64 52% 2014 2020 in the ITI territory on M.8 APIA) Beneficiaries II.C.5 Number of flood protection interventions (through ITI projects) Number - 11 11 100% / IDA ITI DD Pillar III Improving Connectivity 36% Sector I Transport 16% Beneficiaries CO13 Total length of newly built roads connected to TEN T Km - 23 2 9% / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries CO14 Length of reconstructed / modernized roads connected to TEN T Km - 133 2 2% / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries 1S11 Implemented operations for public and non motorized transport Number - 1 - 0% / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries 2S17 Length of reconstructed / modernized roads connected to TEN T Number - 2 - 0% / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries 2S6 Ports located on modernized TEN T Number - 2 - 0% / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries CO13a Total length of newly built TEN T roads Km - 23 - 0% / IDA ITI DD Number of interventions on improved access to key services during Beneficiaries III.A.5 Number - 11 11 100% the winter / IDA ITI Sector J Information and Communication Technology 56% Beneficiaries CO10 New households with broadband access of at least 30 Mbps Number - 2,000 400 20% / IDA ITI DD 89 | P a g e Baseline Interim Target Interim Value Progress Code Indicators MU Source (2016) (2023) (2020) (2020) Number of uncovered localities that will be covered by the project Beneficiaries 211B1 Number - 14 2 14% implementation / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries 211B2 Number of broadband Internet access points Number - 4,339 234 5% / IDA ITI DD Number of students in preuniversity education, active users on the Beneficiaries 233B1 national learning platform, in total number of students in pre Number - 20 - 0% / IDA ITI DD university education (%) Number of preuniversity teachers, active users on the national Beneficiaries 233B2 learning platform, out of the total number of pre university teachers Number - 15 - 0% / IDA ITI DD (%) Number of digitized cultural heritage elements, uploaded on the Beneficiaries 233C1 Number - 550,000 550,000 100% platform created by the project / IDA ITI DD Number of "Digitized Cultural Heritage Elements" and provided to Beneficiaries 233C2 Number - 200,000 200,000 100% europeana.eu / IDA ITI DD Number of rare documents already digitized, and number of rare Beneficiaries 233C3 Number - 1,795 1,795 100% documents digitized by the project, uploaded on Europeana.eu / IDA ITI DD Number of objects already digitized in library collections and number Beneficiaries 233C4 of objects in library collections digitized by the project uploaded to Number - 81,525 81,525 100% / IDA ITI DD Europeana.eu Number of objects already digitized, belonging to the national heritage, in museum collections and number of objects from the Beneficiaries 233C5 Number - 116,680 116,680 100% national heritage digitized by the project, which are uploaded on / IDA ITI DD Europeana.eu Number of high school students using the internet via wireless Beneficiaries 233W1 Number - 20 13 65% campus, out of the total number of high school students (%) / IDA ITI DD Number of teachers using the internet via wireless campus, out of the Beneficiaries 233W2 Number - 15 10 67% total number of teachers (%) / IDA ITI DD 90 | P a g e Baseline Interim Target Interim Value Progress Code Indicators MU Source (2016) (2023) (2020) (2020) Number of gymnasium units that benefit from wireless equipment Beneficiaries 233W3 Number - 4,500 2,999 67% through the implementation of the project / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries 3S17 Schools using OER, WEB 2.0 in education (no of schools) Number - 18 18 100% / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries III.B.3 Number of prehospital and hospital units using telemedicine systems Number - 1 - 0% / IDA ITI DD Pillar IV Providing Public Services 13% Sector K Water Supply and Sewerage Systems and Integrated Water Management 15% Number of inhabitants connected to a centralized drinking water Beneficiaries IV.A.7 % - 112,582 28,146 25% system through ITI / IDA ITI DD Number of inhabitants connected to a centralized sewerage system Beneficiaries IV.A.8 Number - 94,815 9,482 10% through ITI / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries IV.A.9 Number of wastewater treatment plants Number - 8 1 10% / IDA ITI DD Sector L Solid Waste Management 17% Beneficiaries CO17 Additional waste recycling capacity Tons/year - 39,745 39,745 100% / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries 2S28 Closed / rehabilitated non compliant landfills Number - 2 - 0% / IDA ITI DD Total quantity deviated from storage out of the total quantity ANPM/APM IV.B.3 % - 22 - 0% collected (%) Tulcea Total quantity of household waste collected separately (dry fraction) ANPM/APM IV.B.4 Tons/year - 11,681 - 0% (tones / Tulcea Total quantity of household waste collected separately (wet fraction) ANPM/APM IV.B.5 Tons/year - 46,722 - 0% (tones / Tulcea 91 | P a g e Baseline Interim Target Interim Value Progress Code Indicators MU Source (2016) (2023) (2020) (2020) Number of inhabitants and visitors participating in educational IDA IDM IV.B.6 Number - 40,000 - 0% activities related to waste management (number of people) Tulcea Sector M Healthcare 13% Beneficiaries of medical infrastructure built / rehabilitated / Beneficiaries 1S35 modernized / extended / equipped (for community and outpatient Number - 5,000 - 0% / IDA ITI DD medical services) Medical units built / rehabilitated / modernized / extended / equipped Beneficiaries 1S36 Number - 1 - 0% (for community and outpatient medical services / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries 1S37 Emergency reception units ( tertiary level) Number - 2 1 50% / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries S77 Rehabilitated / modernized / extended / equipped County Hospital Number - 1 - 0% / IDA ITI DD Sector N Education 19% Beneficiaries 4S36 Employees who benefit from training programs Number - 326 - 0% / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries 4S17 Supported businesses Number - 36 - 0% / IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries 4S8 People receiving support Number - 490 66 13% / IDA ITI DD The capacity of childcare or education infrastructures to receive Beneficiaries CO35 Number - 175 - 0% support / IDA ITI DD The capacity of the education infrastructure that benefits from Beneficiaries 1S53 Number - 1,609 341 21% support vocational and technical education / IDA ITI DD The capacity of the education infrastructure that benefits from Beneficiaries 1S65 Number - 268 255 95% support preschool / IDA ITI DD The capacity of the education infrastructure that benefits from Beneficiaries 1S66 Number - 2,727 85 3% support school / IDA ITI DD 92 | P a g e Baseline Interim Target Interim Value Progress Code Indicators MU Source (2016) (2023) (2020) (2020) Sector O Social Inclusion and Protection 1% Supported services at the level of marginalized communities at risk of Beneficiaries 4S161 Number - 18 - 0% poverty or social exclusion / IDA ITI DD People at risk of poverty and social exclusion from marginalized Beneficiaries 4S160 Number - 1,062 37 3% communities who benefit from integrated services, of which: Roma / IDA ITI DD Marginalized communities at risk of poverty or social exclusion (of Beneficiaries 4S162 which: in rural areas) receiving support, of which: those with a Roma Number - 4 - 0% / IDA ITI DD minority population Beneficiaries (adults with disabilities) of day center infrastructure for Beneficiaries 1S42 people with disabilities, rehabilitated / modernized / extended / Number - 130 - 0% / IDA ITI DD equipped Beneficiaries (adults with disabilities) of deinstitutionalization Beneficiaries 1S43 infrastructure built / rehabilitated / modernized / extended / Number - 53 - 0% / IDA ITI DD equipped Beneficiaries IV.E.9 Number of persons who have benefited from regular property rights Number - 180 - 0% / IDA ITI DD Pillar V Promoting Efficiency, Affordability and Sustainability 65% Sector P Administrative Capacity and Program Management 65% Local public administration staff who have been certified at the end of Beneficiaries 5S23 Number - 80 80 100% their training / IDA ITI DD Public authorities and institutions supported to develop operational Beneficiaries 5S25 procedures on anti corruption preventive measures and related Number - 1 1 100% / IDA ITI DD indicators Staff from public authorities and institutions who have been certified Beneficiaries 5S26 to complete courses in the field of corruption prevention, Number - 150 150 100% / IDA ITI DD transparency, ethics and integrity 93 | P a g e Baseline Interim Target Interim Value Progress Code Indicators MU Source (2016) (2023) (2020) (2020) Quarterly reports prepared by the ITI coordinating structure approved 6S22 Number IDA ITI DD - 39 16 41% by the Ministry of European Funds Personal number in the structure coordinating the ITI, whose salaries 6S9 Number IDA ITI DD - 126 76 61% are co financed by the OPTA full time equivalent annually Number of public authorities and institutions that have implemented Beneficiaries V.A.1 unitary measures to reduce administrative burdens, to implement Number - 2 1 50% / IDA ITI DD quality and performance management systems Number of revised normative acts aimed at improving the legal and Beneficiaries V.A.2 Number - 1 - 0% institutional framework in the Danube Delta / IDA ITI DD Total progress 35% Source: Monitoring data provided by IDA ITI DD, as of May 2020; Interim Progress computed as ((Current value – Min value) / (Max value – Min value)) *100% 94 | P a g e Result Indicators Table 28 List of Result Indicators and Interim Progress Baseline Interim Target Interim Value Performance Code Indicators MU Source (2016) (2023) (2020) (2020) Pillar I Protecting the Environmental and Natural Resource Assets 43% Sector A Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management 22% 2S36 Number of Natura 2000 sites with active preservation measures Number sites MMAP - 22.0 5.0 23% Number of flood protection infrastructure objectives within the I.A.6 Number AFDJ GALATI 5.0 24.0 9.0 21% DDBR built / rehabilitated / upgraded Sector B Energy Efficiency 3% I.B.1 Number of renovated public buildings Number IDA ITI DD 7.0 50.0 10.0 7% Decrease in annual primary energy consumption in public Beneficiaries / CO32 KWh/year - 8,476,539.6 - 0% buildings IDA ITI DD Sector C Climate Change 0% Equivalent Beneficiaries / CO34 Estimated annual decrease in greenhouse gases - 1,105,740.1 - 0% tons CO2 IDA ITI DD Sector D Disaster Risk Management 90% Average response time to emergencies for firefighting and other 2S49a Minutes ISU Tulcea 20.0 15.3 15.3 100% situations 2S49b Average response time to emergencies for providing first aid Minutes ISU Tulcea 15.0 14.0 14.3 70% Number of inhabitants who benefit from flood protection I.D.1 Number AFDJ Galați 5,265.0 11,758.0 11,758.0 100% measures as a result of making investments in infrastructure Sector E Pollution Emergency 100% I.E.1 Number of pollution incidents in the DD region (annually) Number/year ISU Tulcea - - - 100% 95 | P a g e Baseline Interim Target Interim Value Performance Code Indicators MU Source (2016) (2023) (2020) (2020) Pillar II Improving the Economy 60% Sector F Tourism 73% II.A.1 Tourist arrivals (annually) Number INS 1,236,072.0 1,776,709.2 1,480,591.0 45% II.A.4 Occupancy rates for authorized / official accommodation % INS 24.7 32.5 32.5 100% Number II.A.5 Average length of stay (nights) INS 1.2 2.6 2.6 100% nights II.A.2 Number of DDBR entry permits Number ARBDD 61,925.0 424,946.0 424,946.0 100% The ratio between non residents and residents owning land in II.A.8 % ATUs 7.2 6.0 6.9 22% DD Sector G Fishery and Aquaculture 43% EUR - Beneficiaries / 1.1 Variation in production value - 4,341.0 906.0 21% thousands IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries / 1.2 Variation in production volume Tons - 1,746.4 499.0 29% IDA ITI DD Jobs (ENI) created in the fisheries sector or complementary Beneficiaries / 1.7 ENI - 89.0 12.0 13% activities IDA ITI DD II.B.2 Size of predatory fish species populations Number INCDDD 26.0 31.0 31.0 100% II.B.3 Caras (Prussian carp) population dynamics Number INCDDD 47.0 49.0 48.0 50% Sector H Agriculture and Rural Development 63% Share of irrigation infrastructure rehabilitated through ITI Beneficiaries / II.C.3 % - 7.9 1.1 14% projects out of total viable irrigation infrastructure (%) IDA ITI DD Beneficiaries / II.C.8 % of farmers who have started a non agricultural activity % - 4.9 4.9 100% IDA ITI DD 96 | P a g e Baseline Interim Target Interim Value Performance Code Indicators MU Source (2016) (2023) (2020) (2020) % of initiatives / projects that capitalize on the cultural heritage Beneficiaries / II.C.9 % - 0.0 0.0 100% of the area IDA ITI DD % of modernized communal and village infrastructure, out of which after school, sports facilities, dispensary, agricultural road, forest road, modernized local roads, kindergartens, street Beneficiaries / II.C.10 lighting, modernized high schools and schools, parks and % - 11.7 4.5 38% IDA ITI DD playgrounds, markets, bridges and footbridges, water network, sewerage network, networks for population safety Pillar III Improving Connectivity 34% Sector I Transport 22% www.distanța.r III.A.2 Travel time between Tulcea and Brăila Minutes 81.0 64.0 84.0 -18% o www.distanța.r III.A.3 Travel time between Tulcea and Galați Minutes 85.0 65.0 85.0 0% o Căpitănia III.A.4 Volume of goods transported by inland waterways Tons/year 3,083,976.2 3,313,994.2 3,275,392.0 83% zonală Tulcea Sector J Information and Communication Technology 46% NGA broadband coverage / availability as a percentage of 3S8 % ANCOM 69.5 72.3 69.5 0% households III.B.1 The degree of regular use of the Internet at national level % DESI 60.0 80.0 74.0 70% Percentage of citizens who regularly use the Internet out of total 3S14 % DESI 56.0 80.0 72.0 67% population Pillar IV Providing Public Services 43% Sector K Water Supply and Sewerage Systems and Integrated Water Management 36% 97 | P a g e Baseline Interim Target Interim Value Performance Code Indicators MU Source (2016) (2023) (2020) (2020) Share of rural population connected to centralized water supply Beneficiaries / IV.A.1 networks through ITI % - 23.6 5.9 25% IDA ITI DD funded projects (%) Share of population in cities connected to centralized water Beneficiaries / IV.A.2 supply networks through % - 16.4 1.6 10% IDA ITI DD ITI funded projects (%) Share of rural population connected to centralized sewerage Beneficiaries / IV.A.3 networks through ITI % - 8.7 0.9 10% IDA ITI DD funded projects (%) Share of population in cities connected to centralized sewerage Beneficiaries / IV.A.4 networks through ITI % - 46.3 - 0% IDA ITI DD funded projects (%) Share of wastewater treated according to required standards Beneficiaries / IV.A.5 % - 36.4 25.6 70% (%) in rural areas IDA ITI DD Share of wastewater treated according to required standards Beneficiaries / IV.A.6 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100% (%) in cities IDA ITI DD Sector L Solid Waste Management 40% 2S25 The amount of biodegradable waste stored Mil. tons/year MMAP/ANPM - 2,336.1 - 0% Total amount of household waste collected and transported ANPM/APM IV.B.1 Tons/year 57,039.0 58,403.0 58,039.0 73% (tones / year) Tulcea Total amount of recyclable waste recovered from the total ANPM/APM IV.B.2 % 4.1 20.0 11.6 48% quantity collected (%) Tulcea Sector M Healthcare 46% Beneficiaries / IV.C.2 Number of emergency units Number - 3.0 2.0 67% IDA ITI DD IV.C.3 Life expectancy at birth Years INSP 73.5 75.5 74.0 25% 98 | P a g e Baseline Interim Target Interim Value Performance Code Indicators MU Source (2016) (2023) (2020) (2020) Sector N Education 49% Beneficiaries / 4S201 People who get a job, including those who are self employed Number - 90.0 9.0 10% IDA ITI DD Persons who, upon termination of participation, acquire a Beneficiaries / 4S6 Number - 170.0 17.0 10% qualification IDA ITI DD Inclusion rate in pre school / primary / secondary / upper IV.D.2 secondary % ISJ Tulcea 2.0 2.5 2.5 100% education for Roma citizens Number of people who benefit from support projects for ISJ Tulcea + IV.D.5 training / exchange of good Number 45.0 400.0 318.0 77% Constanța practices Sector O Social Inclusion and Protection 43% Persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion from marginalized Beneficiaries / 4S155 communities who acquire a qualification upon participation, of Number - 12.0 - 0% IDA ITI DD which: Roma Persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion in marginalized communities who Beneficiaries / 4S156 Number - 166.0 - 0% have a job, including those who are self-employed, upon IDA ITI DD completion Number of kindergartens and other educational services for ISJ Tulcea + IV.E.1 children under 6 in Number 99.0 101.0 101.0 100% Constanța disadvantaged communities Number of students at risk of dropping out of school at the ISJ Tulcea + IV.E.4 Number 251.0 251.0 271.0 0% beginning and end of the school Constanța Number of children involved in different types of ISJ Tulcea + IV.E.5 complementary educational measures (after school, summer Number 130.0 3,392.0 3,392.0 100% Constanța kindergartens, school tutoring, etc.) 99 | P a g e Baseline Interim Target Interim Value Performance Code Indicators MU Source (2016) (2023) (2020) (2020) Number of centers that have implemented complementary ISJ Tulcea + IV.E.6 Number 5.0 36.0 36.0 100% education measures in the ITI territory Constanța Number of school mediators employed full time in the school ISJ Tulcea + IV.E.7 Number 5.0 5.0 5.0 0% system year Constanța Pillar V Promoting Efficiency, Affordability and Sustainability 29% Sector P Administrative Capacity and Program Management 29% Local authorities and public institutions that have implemented Beneficiaries / 5S18 standard mechanisms and procedures for substantiating long Number - 1.0 - 0% IDA ITI DD term strategic decisions and planning Local authorities and public institutions in which unitary quality and performance management systems developed through the Beneficiaries / 5S19 program have been implemented Number - 1.0 1.0 100% IDA ITI DD according to the Action Plan for prioritizing and staging the implementation of quality management Local authorities and public institutions in which measures to simplify procedures Beneficiaries / 5S20 for citizens have been implemented in accordance with the Number - 1.0 - 0% IDA ITI DD Integrated Plan for the simplification of procedures for citizens developed at national level Beneficiaries / V.A.3 Number of projects implemented within the Danube Delta ITI Number - 1,027.0 164.0 16% IDA ITI DD Total progress 42% Source: Monitoring data provided by IDA ITI DD, as of May 2020; Interim Progress computed as ((Current value – Min value) / (Max value – Min value)) *100% 100 | P a g e Annex 3. In-depth analysis for eight selected projects Methodological approach for project selection The Evaluation Team performed an in-depth analysis of eight selected project, in order to gather additional information on the financial and physical progress of strategic projects, achieved results and sustainability, factors hampering the project implementation - including the context generated by the sanitary crisis, and perceived added value of the ITI mechanism, as well as areas of improvement. Selection was made based on the following criteria: value of the project (total contracted value, from EU funds and state budget), expected impact on the ITI territory (for example, large infrastructure projects), and representativeness (high number of similar projects). The most relevant projects (see Table 29 below) were identified with the support of the Inter-Community Development Association for Integrated Territorial Investment in Danube Delta (IDA ITI DD). Table 29: Selected projects for in-depth analysis and criteria used for project selection Criteria for project selection No Selected Projects High High value High impact representativeness 1 Suspension bridge over Danube X X 2 Modernization of transport infrastructure DJ 226 X X 3 Increasing safety and security at Danube Delta Airport X X 4 Technical Assistance for IDA ITI DD X 5 Purchase of a briquetting line X 6 Establishment of an agrotouristic pension X 7 Establishment of an almond plantation X 8 Development of an agriculture holding X Sources of information for project data Data was gathered from three different sources (see Table 30 below), namely data and opinions provided by project Beneficiaries, monitoring data provided by IDA ITI DD and progress reports provided by Managing Authorities of the Romanian Operational Programmes 2014-2020. This approach took into consideration the context of the sanitary crisis, which limited the access to project data, in particular to quantitative information. Table 30: Selected projects for in-depth analysis and sources of information for project data Sources of information No Selected Projects Beneficiaries IDA ITI DD MAs 1 Suspension bridge over Danube X x 2 Modernization of transport infrastructure DJ 226 X X 3 Increasing safety and security at Danube Delta Airport X X 4 Technical Assistance for IDA ITI DD X X 5 Purchase of a briquetting line X X 6 Establishment of an agrotouristic pension X X 7 Establishment of an almond plantation X X 8 Development of an agriculture holding x X 101 | P a g e Findings Findings are presented in eight detailed and separate sections, included at the end of this annex. Please use the below links to access the information for the project of interest: Project 1: Suspension bridge over Danube Project 2: Modernization of transport infrastructure DJ 226 Project 3: Increasing safety and security at Danube Delta Airport Project 4: Technical Assistance for IDA ITI DD Project 5: Purchase of a briquetting line Project 6: Establishment of an agrotouristic pension Project 7: Establishment of an almond plantation Project 8: Development of agriculture holding Conclusions The physical and financial progress of the eight analyzed progress are in line with the initial planning. However, two of the largest infrastructure projects, aimed at improving transport connectivity in the Danube Delta (i.e. suspension bridge over Danube and modernization of the county road DJ 226) are in an incipient phase with regards to execution of works. This is mainly due to the complexity of the project, which required long preparation of technical documents. Considering the high value of the two projects and the tight deadlines with regards to the EU n+2 / n+3 rule, a close monitoring is needed in order to avoid the risk of financial corrections. The progress of the ongoing projects, as well as their sustainability, may be affected by the sanitary crisis generated by Covid-19. Depending on the nature of the project, some beneficiaries were forced to stop all activities, in compliance with decisions taken at national level. Delays in project implementation may occur also taking into consideration the impossibility to acquire raw materials. In particular, beneficiaries implementing activities in the tourist sector, may not be able to meet in due time the indicators set in the initial planning. In this case, additional support is needed on behalf of the Managing Authorities, such as updating the rules of the national Operational Programmes. Some short-term results of the projects are already visible in the ITI region – increased safety at the local airport, due to the purchased equipment; functional mechanism to implement Danube Delta Strategy, due to technical assistance; increased quality of accommodation facilities, due to the newly built infrastructure; and improved competitiveness of the micro and small enterprises, due to projects aimed at their development and modernization. Even the projects in an incipient status managed to contribute to the economic development, through procurement of services for planning and execution of works. The long-term results will be measured upon the completion of projects. The added value of the ITI mechanism is perceived differently among the interviewed beneficiaries. For individuals and small farming holdings, the main benefit of the mechanism is related to easier access to funding opportunities, by securing the EU Funds at Danube Delta region, and thus limiting the competitiveness during application process. For local stakeholders, the mechanism created a strategic approach in project selection, able to respond to the specific needs identified at local level. The largest beneficiary of the ITI funds was not significantly influenced by the newly created mechanism, as the projects were already set up according to the national strategies. Some areas of improvement with regards to the ITI mechanism were also identified during the interviews. In particular, the beneficiary guidelines should enable partnerships among Tulcea and Constanta counties, for developing larger strategic projects. Other problems encountered by beneficiaries were related to the clarity of guidelines for individual beneficiaries, high level of co-financing rates in the aviation sector, low ceilings for financing new touristic infrastructure, which bear higher costs in the Danube Delta, possible fluctuations in currency exchange rates and high level of bureaucracy. 102 | P a g e EVALUATION SUMMARIES FOR THE EIGHT SELECTED PROJECTS Project 1: Suspension bridge over Danube PROJECT IDENTIFICATION (Source: data provided by IDA ITI DD) TITLE SMIS Suspension bridge over the Danube (85% ITI DD territory) 117135 PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Source: data provided by IDA ITI DD and interview with Beneficiary) BENEFICIARY TIMELINE National Company for Road Infrastructure Administration 27th of April 2015 – 31st of December 2023 (NCRIA) (ongoing) OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME ELIGIBLE VALUE PAYMENTS Large Infrastructure 1,7 billion RON 0.4 billion RON (20.69% of eligible value) RESULTS (Source: interview with Beneficiary) OBJECTIVES AND STATUS OF ACTIVITIES The general objective of the project is to build a suspension road bridge over the Danube in Brăila area. The project also includes the construction of a main road between Braila and Jijila, with two access viaducts, and a connecting road to Macin. The financial and physical progress of the project largely follows the initial planning. Works have begun for the main bridge. RESULTS AND CONTRIBUTION TO DANUBE DELTA STRATEGY A high-quality transport infrastructure and better transport links will contribute to the regional development of Dobrogea, without disturbing the habitat of the Danube Delta. The bridge will help reduce travel time and vehicle operating costs, while reducing pollution. The works carried out for the main bridge have already led to an economic development of the area, beneficial both for inhabitants and for SMEs and micro-enterprises. SUSTENABILITY AND REPLICABILITY Given the nature of the project, a high sustainability is expected. According to the information provided by the beneficiary, the works have a warranty period of 10 years and the materials used are of the highest quality. LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Source: interview with Beneficiary) FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE SUCCESS OF THE PROJECT NCRIA is one of the largest Beneficiaries of the Operational Programme Large Infrastructure, and therefore the relation with the Managing Authority is a direct one, which allowed for a prompt response and solution to any problems identified in the planning and implementation phases. PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED DURING PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Considering the complexity of the project, the problems encountered are mainly technical, related to special works that require time for analysis and documentation, including the relocation of utilities. However, the beneficiary tries to ensure the proper implementation of the project, so as not to significantly exceed the scheduled completion deadline. OTHER COMMENTS (Source: interview with Beneficiary) CURRENT NEEDS AND SOURCE OF FINANCING NCRIA plans to build four express roads in the ITI DD area, namely (1) Brăila - Tulcea - Constanța, (2) Brăila - Focșani, (3) Brăila- Galați and (4) Brăila - Buzău. They will also be funded through the Operational Programme Large Infrastructure. ITI MECHANISM 103 | P a g e Based on an interview with NCRIA representatives, involved in the planning and implementation of this project, the local strategy for Danube Delta is considered beneficial. However, the projects implemented by CNAIR are based on the General Master Plan for Transport, and financial allocations coming from EU Funds are discussed directly with the MAs of the Romanian OPs. Therefore, the ITI mechanism is not an influencing factor in the preparation and implementation of CNAIR projects. The Master Plan was not updated upon the development of Danube Delta Strategy. Project 2: Modernization of transport infrastructure DJ 226 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION (Source: data provided by IDA ITI DD) TITLE SMIS Modernization of regional transport infrastructure on the 121195 route DJ 226 Corbu - Sacele - Istria - Mihai Viteazu PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Source: data provided by IDA ITI DD and interview with Beneficiary) BENEFICIARY TIMELINE Administrative Territorial Unit Constanta 1st of October 2016 – 30th of November 2022 (ongoing) OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME ELIGIBLE VALUE PAYMENTS Regional 107 million RON 0 RON (0% of eligible value) RESULTS (Source: interview with Beneficiary) OBJECTIVES AND STATUS OF ACTIVITIES The specific objectives of the project include the rehabilitation and modernization of the county road DJ 226 on the route Corbu-Săcele-Istria-Mihai Viteazu; intersections and roads sidewalks, bicycle lanes and construction of bus stops. Currently, the project is in the phase of awarding the contract for design, execution and technical assistance. The execution of works has not started. RESULTS AND CONTRIBUTION TO DANUBE DELTA STRATEGY The road will ensure the connection between Constanța and Tulcea, but also the access of tourists to ancient touristic objectives - Histria fortress, Danube Delta biosphere area - Gura Portiței, Mamaia de Nord resort, Vadu reservation, Corbu, Midia-Năvodari plant, Midia port. The transport will be fluidized, including for workers, from the city of Năvodari, to the localities Lumina, Corbu, Săcele, Mihai Viteazu. The project is expected to contribute in the long run to the development of tourism and commercial activities in the ITI Danube Delta area. SUSTENABILITY AND REPLICABILITY Given the nature of the project, a high sustainability and replicability is expected. The beneficiary is currently implementing a similar project for the modernization and rehabilitation of the county road DJ 226 A Cetatea Histria - DN22 / Tariverde. LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Source: interview with Beneficiary) FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE SUCCESS OF THE PROJECT Constanța County Council has a service dedicated to the preparation of European projects, with qualified staff. The guides are well written and the communication with IDA ITI DD was very good. PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED DURING PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION The problems encountered on this project were related to the cumbersome circuit for obtaining DDBRA approvals in the protected area. Moreover, the National Road Company imposed the arrangement of intersections with national roads, which are outside the cadastral boundaries. OTHER COMMENTS (Source: interview with Beneficiary) CURRENT NEEDS AND SOURCE OF FINANCING 104 | P a g e Another project underway envisage the rehabilitation of the Histria Fortress, but it has not yet been submitted. ITI MECHANISM The guidelines for ITI area should enable partnerships between Constanța County and Tulcea County. The modernization of the county road DJ 226 stops at the border with Constanta; a partnership would have allowed for the works to be carried out along the entire length of the road. Also, in the current context, generated by Covid-19, a partnership project between Constanța County and Tulcea County would be useful for emergencies. Project 3: Increasing safety and security at Danube Delta Airport PROJECT IDENTIFICATION (Source: data provided by IDA ITI DD) TITLE SMIS Increasing passenger safety and security at "Danube 123542 Delta" Airport Tulcea - ensuring passenger safety at "Danube Delta" Airport Tulcea PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Source: data provided by IDA ITI DD and interview with Beneficiary) BENEFICIARY TIMELINE Autonomous Administration “Danube Delta” Airport 1st of February 2018 – 31st of December 2023 (ongoing) OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME ELIGIBLE VALUE PAYMENTS Large Infrastructure 59 million RON 4,5 million RON (7.53% out of eligible value) RESULTS (Source: interview with Beneficiary) OBJECTIVES AND STATUS OF ACTIVITIES The project consists in the implementation of works and in the acquisitions of equipment for the Danube Delta Airport, aiming to ensure passengers safety and security. The planned activities provide for a new fire prevention and extinction draw; a perimeter road to facilitate access to the aircraft in the shortest time; a TVCI monitoring system, to prevent incursions inside the airport and facilitate the general monitoring of wildlife; and luggage and passenger control equipment, which is already in place and functional. Other necessary equipment will be purchased for winter. The beneficiary estimates that all project activities will be underway by the end of April. RESULTS AND CONTRIBUTION TO DANUBE DELTA STRATEGY This project will lead to an increased safety and security for airport passengers; and is expected to generate an increased volume of passengers transiting the airport. SUSTENABILITY AND REPLICABILITY Given the nature of the project, a high sustainability is expected. All purchased equipment is necessary for the proper functioning of the airport. LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Source: interview with Beneficiary) FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE SUCCESS OF THE PROJECT The budget allocated for interventions in Danube Delta, as well as the list of selected projects, were communicated in due time. Therefore, Beneficiaries had enough time to prepare their projects. Moreover, the Beneficiary had a very good collaboration with the MAs, which led to the solution of all problems encountered during project implementation. PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED DURING PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION The procurement procedure is very cumbersome, and the staff works under pressure to avoid making mistakes. Simpler and clearer rules are needed. Also, procedures should allow for the selection of a small number of bidders. At the moment, anyone can participate in the public procurement procedure, and the process is lengthy, especially in case of appeals. 105 | P a g e OTHER COMMENTS (Source: interview with Beneficiary) CURRENT NEEDS AND SOURCE OF FINANCING The project can be continued with additional activities to increase the safety of passengers, operators and of the airport. Security control needs to be more thorough, as the airport needs to be prepared for any situation. Other projects are considered to contribute to the reduction of pollutants, respectively the endowment of the airport with electrical equipment, using an advanced technology. ITI MECHANISM In the field of aviation, one of the major problems in accessing ITI funds is related to the percentage of co-financing. Depending on the number of passengers, the co-financing percentage can be 25% or even 50%. Aviation projects are costly, and some smaller airports cannot secure their own resources. Project 4: Technical Assistance for IDA ITI DD PROJECT IDENTIFICATION (Source: data provided by IDA ITI DD ) TITLE SMIS Technical assistance for ensuring the functioning of the ITI 116755 mechanism from the perspective of SIDDDD and of the IDA ITI Danube Delta structure at executive and partnership level PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Source: data provided by IDA ITI DD and financing contract) BENEFICIARY TIMELINE Inter-Community Development Association for Integrated 1st of January 2016 – 31st of December 2018 (completed) Territorial Investment in Danube Delta (IDA ITI DD) OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME ELIGIBLE VALUE PAYMENTS Technical Assistance 8.2 million RON 8.0 million RON (98% out of eligible value) RESULTS (Source: progress reports) OBJECTIVES AND STATUS OF ACTIVITIES The general objective of the project was to ensure the coordination, preparation, updating, implementation and monitoring of the Integrated Strategy for Sustainable Development in Danube Delta, the Action Plan and the Danube Delta ITI mechanism. Project activities included the co-financing of staff wages, purchase of equipment, help desk for ITI beneficiaries and dissemination of information. RESULTS AND CONTRIBUTION TO DANUBE DELTA STRATEGY The project ensured the proper functioning of IDA ITI DD, while supporting eligible beneficiaries to access and use the EU Structural and Investment Funds allocated under the 2014-2020 Operational Programmes and promoting the ITI mechanism and the results of its implementation at local, national and European level. SUSTENABILITY AND REPLICABILITY All results were maintained upon project completion. LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Source: progress reports) FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE SUCCESS OF THE PROJECT Not available. PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED DURING PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Not available. 106 | P a g e OTHER COMMENTS (Source: progress reports) CURRENT NEEDS AND SOURCE OF FINANCING Not available. ITI MECHANISM Not available. Project 5: Purchase of a briquetting line PROJECT IDENTIFICATION (Source: data provided by IDA ITI DD ) TITLE SMIS Diversification of the economic activity of the company S.C. 064000I0021723800019 AGRIDAS INTERCOM by purchasing a briquetting line PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Source: data provided by IDA ITI DD and interview with Beneficiary) BENEFICIARY TIMELINE S.C. AGRIDAS INTERCOM S.R.L. 21st of June 2018 – 21st of June 2020 (completed) OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME ELIGIBLE VALUE PAYMENTS NRDP 185,584 EUR 185,584 EUR (100% of eligible value) RESULTS (Source: interview with Beneficiary) OBJECTIVES AND STATUS OF ACTIVITIES The objective of the project was to create a briquetting line. The activities were successfully completed - the establishment of a straw bale shredder, the purchase of a briquetting press and of a front loader. Additional purchases were also made, from own resources. RESULTS AND CONTRIBUTION TO DANUBE DELTA STRATEGY The beneficiary has as object of activity the cultivation of cereals, and the project led to the capitalization of the straws left on the field. Two jobs have also been created in the context of this project. SUSTENABILITY AND REPLICABILITY The results of the project are expected to be sustainable on the long term, as the briquetting line is a source of income for the beneficiary. The project can be replicated by potential beneficiaries working in agriculture. In order to be profitable, the production of briquettes must be made with raw materials from own sources; collection of straws from the field can be rather expensive. LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Source: interview with Beneficiary) FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE SUCCESS OF THE PROJECT The financing lines dedicated to ITI DD facilitate the access of farmers in the area to non-reimbursable funds. The beneficiary considers that he could not have obtained funding through national programs. Also, the extensive experience of the beneficiary in the agricultural field led to the successful completion of the project. PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED DURING PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION The only problem encountered was related to the functionality of the online platform for project submission. The beneficiary was the first to submit an online application and received several error messages. The local and national authorities were not prepared to offer the needed support. OTHER COMMENTS (Source: interview with Beneficiary) CURRENT NEEDS AND SOURCE OF FINANCING 107 | P a g e The beneficiary would like to apply for other projects financed through ITI mechanism - implementing an irrigation system and opening of a bakery. ITI MECHANISM The beneficiary recommends evaluating all applications submitted in a funding call. In the event that certain applications are subsequently withdrawn, applications with a lower score should be approved. The guidelines can also be improved in terms of clarity, the use of accessible language and the provision of concrete examples. In the field of agriculture, especially in the ITI Danube Delta region, more investments are needed in irrigation. The current weather conditions do not allow to perform farming activities without access to water. Project 6: Establishment of an agrotouristic pension PROJECT IDENTIFICATION (Source: data provided by IDA ITI DD ) TITLE SMIS Agrotouristic pension Drill 062000I001172380003 PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Source: data provided by IDA ITI DD and interview with Beneficiary) BENEFICIARY TIMELINE SC Vision Delta Drill SRL 12th of October 2017 – 12th of October 2022 (ongoing) OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME ELIGIBLE VALUE PAYMENTS NRDP 70,000 EUR 49,000.00 EUR (70% out of eligible value) RESULTS (Source: interview with Beneficiary) OBJECTIVES AND STATUS ACTIVITIES The objective of the project was to build a five-room agrotouristic pension. To date, all deadlines set by the business plan and the financing agreement have been met and the construction works have been completed. However, in the context of the crisis generated by Covid-19, there may be delays in field visits for classifying the pension, and thus obtaining the functioning permit. RESULTS AND CONTRIBUTION TO DANUBE DELTA STRATEGY The project was expected to generate revenue this spring. However, given the sanitary crisis, the beneficiary does not know whether the planned turnover can be reached within the deadline (65% of the value of the first tranche of financing, within 48 months since contract signature). SUSTENABILITY AND REPLICABILITY Given the current context, the sustainability of the project cannot be estimated. Similar projects are implemented in Danube Delta area, in order to align accommodation units to a certain standard. LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Source: interview with Beneficiary) FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE SUCCESS OF THE PROJECT The beneficiary prepared part of the project documentation, including the geo study, before contract signature, with own sources of funding. This enabled him to reach deadlines. PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED DURING PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION According to the beneficiary, the staff who reviewed the application was not sufficiently informed with regards to the requirements included in the NRDP guidelines. The business plan was initially declared ineligible because the beneficiary was not domiciled in Sfântu Gheorghe. This was not an eligibility condition, and the project was approved following the appeal. OTHER COMMENTS (Source: interview with Beneficiary) 108 | P a g e CURRENT NEEDS AND SOURCE OF FINANCING The beneficiary plans to apply for photovoltaic panels and complementary activities to the agrotourism activity. ITI MECHANISM For investors outside ITI DD region, an online platform would be useful to obtain the necessary documentation and pay local fees (n.b. reference to local public institutions). Distance is not necessarily an impediment, but it extends the submission deadline. Financial allocations should also take into consideration the cost of investments in localities accessible only by water. At the moment, all beneficiaries receive the same amount of funding. Project 7: Establishment of an almond plantation PROJECT IDENTIFICATION (Source: data provided by IDA ITI DD ) TITLE SMIS Establishment of an almond plantation, land fencing, 041A00I0051723800010 construction works and well drilling for agricultural purposes in Jurilovca commune, Sălcioara locality, Tulcea county PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Source: data provided by IDA ITI DD and interview with Beneficiary) BENEFICIARY TIMELINE SC Real Nucet SRL 31st of October 2019 – 31st of October 2021 (ongoing) OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME ELIGIBLE VALUE PAYMENTS NRDP 762,417 EUR 134,701 EUR (18% out of eligible value) RESULTS (Source: interview with Beneficiary) OBJECTIVES AND STATUS ACTIVITIES The general objective of the project is to set up an almond plantation. Up to current date, the following activities were completed: preparing the land, planting the seedling and purchasing the fruit machines. The beneficiary was planning to also implement the irrigation system; however, the necessary raw materials cannot be purchased in the context of the crisis generated by Covid-19. The project also provides for the construction of a storage hall. The beneficiary is waiting for the technical approval to start the works. The equipment for conditioning, processing and packaging fruit products will be purchased as part of the following activities. RESULTS AND CONTRIBUTION TO DANUBE DELTA STRATEGY The results are expected to be visible in seven years, when the orchard is able to bear fruits. SUSTENABILITY AND REPLICABILITY Given the incipient status of the project, sustainability cannot be estimated. LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Source: interview with Beneficiary) FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE SUCCESS OF THE PROJECT Funding opportunities have been well communicated by IDA ITI DD. The consulting firm employed by the beneficiary had the necessary experience to handle all project documentation. PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED DURING PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION The beneficiary did not receive approval to purchase a higher power tractor offered by the supplier at the same price. According to the beneficiary, decisions taken by the Payment Agency for Rural Development and Fishing (AFIR) are not unitary, as similar changes were approved for other projects, implemented in other counties. OTHER COMMENTS (Source: interview with Beneficiary) 109 | P a g e CURRENT NEEDS AND SOURCE OF FINANCING At the moment, the situation generated by Covid-19 is worrying. All activities have been blocked. ITI MECHANISM The projects implemented in the ITI area have started already to produce visible social effects – new jobs were created, and the general appearance of the commune has visibly improved. Project 8: Development of agriculture holding PROJECT IDENTIFICATION (Source: data provided by IDA ITI DD ) TITLE SMIS Development of the agricultural holding Samoilă Marius 0410V0I0021723800011 Agricultura PFA PROJECT DESCRIPTION (Source: data provided by IDA ITI DD and interview with Beneficiary) BENEFICIARY TIMELINE Samoilă Marius Agricultura PFA 14th of February 2018 – 14th of February 2020 OPERATIONAL PROGRAMME ELIGIBLE VALUE PAYMENTS NRDP 277,389 EUR 274,469 EUR (99% of eligible value) RESULTS (Source: interview with Beneficiary) OBJECTIVES AND STATUS ACTIVITIES The objectives of the project were to expand and modernize the farm and purchase additional equipment. All activities have been completed according to the initial planning. RESULTS AND CONTRIBUTION TO DANUBE DELTA STRATEGY The beneficiary managed to minimize its expenses, and the works are of a better quality, due to the new equipment. SUSTENABILITY AND REPLICABILITY The project is expected to be sustainable and highly replicable, taking into consideration the high number of farmers in need of new equipment. LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Source: interview with Beneficiary) FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE SUCCESS OF THE PROJECT The ITI mechanism facilitated the access to finance for farmers in the Danube Delta area, by reducing competition. The beneficiary had extensive experience in agriculture, as well as in implementing projects with European funds. The consulting company employed by the beneficiary prepared all the project documentation and was actively involved during the implementation. PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED DURING PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Beneficiaries at times have difficulty distinguishing between staff working for MA’s and other entities such as IDA ITI DD, but were able to resolve administrative queries ultimately through a central help desk in Constanta OTHER COMMENTS (Source: interview with Beneficiary) CURRENT NEEDS AND SOURCE OF FINANCING In the Danube Delta area, projects are needed for the development of the irrigation system. ITI MECHANISM 110 | P a g e Fluctuations of the exchange rate RON-EUR can cause problems to beneficiaries implementing large projects. Bureaucracy also makes it difficult to access funds - a lot of documents are needed. 111 | P a g e Annex 4. Results of the online survey Analysis upon the opinion of the Structural and Investment European Funds beneficiaries from the ITI Danube Delta area, regarding the Territorial Integrated Investment Strategy SUMMARY For the evaluation of the Integrated Territorial Investment Strategy in the area of the Danube Delta, an opinion poll was carried out in March-April 2020 from among the beneficiaries of the financing obtained through the ITI mechanism. The survey was representative for this type of stakeholders. The study highlights that, in the perception of the beneficiaries, the ITI mechanism has significantly contributed to making European funding more accessible, especially for local and central public authorities and for the non- governmental sector. At the level of all beneficiaries, the mechanism generated an increased the availability share for accessing European funds, contributing significantly to the increase of entrepreneurial capacity. The efficiency of the ITI mechanism is high. Approximately two thirds of the beneficiaries consider that the ITI mechanism has covered to a large or very large extent the development needs of the institution which they are a part of, of their locality and of the Danube Delta region. The effectiveness of the projects is high, 78% of the beneficiaries considered that they achieved all or most of the projected results. The impact on the development of tourism is, in the perception of the beneficiaries, high. Two thirds of the beneficiaries of funding obtained through the ITI DD mechanism appreciate that both tourists and residents are satisfied with the development of tourism in the area. At the environmental level, the perceived impact is average: 51% of the interviewed beneficiaries consider that the projects they implemented had a positive impact on the environment. The perceived impact on the development of economic opportunities is average, with an average of 0.8 supported / newly created companies per implemented project and 3.8 new jobs per project. 78% of the beneficiaries responding to the opinion poll considered that the implemented projects have a high or very high sustainability. 112 | P a g e METHODOLOGY Data collection The evaluation study of the results of the Integrated Territorial Investment Strategy at the level of the beneficiaries of financing through the Operational Programs was carried out based on the opinion poll. During March-April 2020, 693 questionnaires were completed with representatives of the institutions receiving funding through the ITI mechanism. Respondents to the opinion poll were selected from two sources: 1) Register of notices of compliance with the Integrated Strategy for Sustainable Development of the Danube Delta, issued by the Agency for Intercommunity Development ITI Danube Delta and 2) MySMIS database of FESI funding beneficiaries through the ITI mechanism on March 18, 2020. The method used for applying the questionnaires was a CATI type method. The sampling was exhaustive, and all 891 unique beneficiaries were contacted at least three times with the request to answer the questionnaire. The main reasons for refusal were the lack of available time and the transfer to the consultant. The projects financed by PNDR (the National Program for Rural Development) benefited mostly from consultancy. The analysis of the beneficiaries' database showed a focus on consulting at the level of a very small number of companies. For example, the consulting company of Mrs. Ciucă Aneta prepared 77 of the financed projects, Chirilă Aurelia - 37 financed projects, the Donciu family - 25 projects (Donciu Georgiana - 16 projects, Donciu Marian - 9 projects, etc. The data collection followed both the territorial coverage - beneficiaries from 36 of the 38 localities in the ITI area were interviewed and the thematic coverage - beneficiaries of all 8 operational programs were interviewed. The resulting sample is representative of all beneficiaries of FESI funding to be obtained through the ITI mechanism, with a margin of error of +/- 2%, for a 95% confidence interval. Sample structure 94% of the beneficiaries participating in the opinion poll reside in the localities in the Danube Delta ITI area. 6% are located outside the area, predominantly in Constanța and Bucharest-Ilfov. Brăila and Galați are the counties that form a second circle of interest for financing from European funds through the ITI mechanism. Most questionnaires (15.3% of the total) were completed in Tulcea. Sarichioi, Baia, Jurilovca, Murighiol, Mihail Kogălniceanu, Niculițel, Babadag, Somova and Greci and the localities in the top number of respondents to the survey. IC Brătianu and Smârdan are the two localities, no questionnaires were completed. Given the high share of PNDR in the structure of beneficiaries, the majority of respondents to the opinion poll were authorized individuals (60%) and representatives of private companies (32%). This type of structure reflects the high level of segmentation of the agricultural activity in the ITI Danube Delta area. 6% of the questionnaires were completed by representatives of public institutions, and 3% by representatives of NGOs. 113 | P a g e The distribution of the respondents at the operational program level shows the numerical prevalence of PNDR- 524 respondents referred to projects funded by PNDR and the POR-65 (Operational Regional Programme) respondents, whereas these are the two operational programs that can be evaluated statistically, after which there were the POCU-19 (the Operational Programme for Human Capital) respondents and the POPAM-15 (Operational Program for Fishing and Maritime Affairs) respondents, whereas these last two programs allow the estimation of several trends and then the POC-8 (Operational Competitive Programme) respondents, the POIM- 7 (Operational Programme for Large Infrastructure) respondents and POCA-1 (Operational Programme for Administrative Capacity) respondents can be estimated. In the case of these last three programs the data will be analyzed from a qualitative point of view. The use of the Register of ADI Compliance Notices allowed the inclusion in the sample of a number of 21 non- beneficiaries of PNDR, respectively companies or self-employed legal persons that were positioned below the threshold of the minimum allowed score. The categories of respondents presented in the previous graph were grouped into four subcategories: - Large = public authorities that include: central, local public administrations and their subordinate institutions - Medium = public interest authorities: autonomous authorities, autonomous administrations, NGOs, cultural institutions - Small = private companies - Very small / individual = authorized individuals The significant differences between these categories of beneficiaries will be mentioned each time they occur. The project portfolio of these four categories of beneficiaries is different: large beneficiaries have projects in most operational programs except POPAM; the small ones have, for the most part, projects financed by ROP and PNDR; and the individual beneficiaries have, almost exclusively projects financed by PNDR. 114 | P a g e Questionnaire structure The questionnaire presented in the Annex has three main components:  component aimed at the general evaluation of the elements of the effects of the ITI mechanism in achieving the strategic development objectives in the Danube Delta region;  a component aimed at assessing the impact and experiences gained in a project funded by the ITI mechanism (the last completed project, or the most advanced project in terms of implementation) was taken as a benchmark;  an economic-demographic component of the beneficiary and identification of the respondent. Methodological limitations The study is burdened by two methodological limitations: 1) the volume of respondents for four of the eight operational programs is below the statistical threshold of 20 cases and 2) the level of knowledge and expertise of beneficiaries in assessing the elements of interest in evaluating the Sustainable Integrated Development Strategy of the Danube Delta is significantly different within the same category of beneficiaries. The study reflects the opinion of the beneficiaries of European funds as stakeholders in the evaluation process of DDISDS. This is not a population impact study. 115 | P a g e MAIN RESULTS Relevance of the ITI mechanism All survey participants, regardless of the Operational Program through which they were funded, stated that without the structural funds they would not have been able to achieve the objectives achieved through the projects by this date. The ITI mechanism is considered relevant by most of the beneficiaries interviewed. 58% of beneficiaries consider that the ITI mechanism has facilitated the process of accessing European funds. However, one in five beneficiaries (20%) considers that this mechanism has not significantly contributed to increasing access. There are no significant differences in the level of urban / rural residence environment. Although from a statistical point of view, we do not record a significant contingency coefficient for the entire sample, given the low number of beneficiaries for some operational programs, the correlation analysis shows that the ITI mechanism is considered more relevant by program beneficiaries, as well as operational with a small audience POC, POCA and PIM (Integrated Development Programmes). The beneficiaries of the POR also have a high level of appreciation of the contribution of the ITI mechanism in increasing the access to European funds (71% of them declare a high level of satisfaction with this mechanism). POPAM beneficiaries have a rather reserved attitude towards the ITI mechanism. 60% of POPAM beneficiaries do not consider the contribution of the ITI mechanism to the increase of the accessibility of European funds in the Danube Delta area to be significant. At the level of POCU and PNDR beneficiaries, the opinion regarding the contribution of the ITI mechanism to accessibility tends to be favorable: 53% of the POCU beneficiaries are satisfied with the efficiency of the mechanism, respectively 56% of the PNDR beneficiaries. The categories of beneficiaries with the highest levels of satisfaction with the contribution of the ITI mechanism to the accessibility of European funds are: local public administrations (72% positive assessment), central public authorities * (67% positive assessment) and NGOs (70% positive assessment). The highest degree of dissatisfaction was registered among private companies (22% dissatisfaction), institutions subordinated to local public authorities and autonomous administrations *. The positive assessment of the ITI mechanism's contribution to the accessibility of European funds in the Danube Delta was higher for beneficiaries working in areas such as: climate change*, civil society, construction, public administration, information and communication technology and significantly lower for 116 | P a g e beneficiaries working in: creative, health and pharmaceutical industries, wood industry, textiles and leather, education and energy and environment management. The ITI mechanism has created a greater openness to projects on administrative capacity development, education and culture. In terms of trends, there is also a very high appreciation of the relevance of the ITI mechanism by beneficiaries with projects in the field of climate change, disaster risk management, pollution prevention and emergency response and solid waste management. A lower level of appreciation of the ITI's contribution to accessibility is perceived by the beneficiaries of interventions in the fields of health, fisheries, transport and energy efficiency trends. The positive assessment of the role of the ITI mechanism in increasing accessibility significantly correlates with the number of projects that a beneficiary has implemented: the higher the number of projects in implementation, the more efficient the ITI mechanism is considered. Most beneficiaries (95%) implemented a single project. The beneficiaries with more than one implemented project are the local public administrations (average = 4.2 projects), the central public administrations (average = 2 projects) and the NGOs (average = 1.9 projects). The number of implemented projects increases with the increase of the institutional dimension of the beneficiary. If in the case of PFA we have on average 1.01 projects carried out so far, the average is 3.41 projects in the case of public administration and subordinated institutions. Taking into account the data presented above, we consider that the ITI mechanism is relevant both for the development of the capacity to access funds at the level of public administration and civil society and for the creation of an availability to access funds at the level of other categories of beneficiaries: 68% of total beneficiaries stated that they intend to apply in the near future for a new ITI-funded project. 66% of those who implemented a single project intend to repeat this experience in the next period. 117 | P a g e The larger the institutional size of the beneficiary, the greater the intention to implement new projects, from 66% in the case of PFA to 85% in the case of public authorities. Efficiency of the ITI mechanism The degree of maturity of the projects financed in the 2014-2020 exercise registered in the survey is of average level: 32% of the analyzed projects have been completed or are waiting for the approval of the final report, 50% are in implementation and 18% of the projects are in the approval phase. We note that the beneficiaries were asked to refer to the project with the highest level of maturity in order to obtain a consistent evaluation. This project will be labeled during this analysis as a "mature project". Among the programs with a significant number of beneficiaries and mature projects, the ROP is the most advanced, with 40% of the projects completed. The general level of project maturity recorded in this survey, 200 completed projects out of 618 approved, shows that next year the impact on the general population can be consistently assessed, and the value of the following year's result indicators is significant for impact assessment. Achieving the environmental objective is considered a priority by large institutions (public administration and subordinates) while the development of the local economy is the priority objective of small institutions (SMEs, PFA). Given the prevalence of PNDR beneficiaries in the sample, most respondents appreciate that the mature projects they implement have made a major contribution to achieving the strategic objective (SO) no. 2, respectively the development of a local ecological economy, based on consumption, protection and efficiency of resources by capitalizing the comparative advantages of the area, economy supported by public services. We mention that, in the application of the questionnaires, in the direct communication, it was observed that the beneficiaries perceive, for the most part, the two strategic objectives as disjoint: economic development vs. environment protection. Hence the relatively low share (24%) of those who appreciate that the mature project it implements addresses both objectives. 118 | P a g e Development focus (SO2) characterizes the beneficiaries of most operational programs, with the exception of POIM* and POCA*. In their case, most beneficiaries consider that mature projects address both strategic objectives. The main factors blocking the absorption of European funds through the ITI mechanism, identified at the level of the total sample were:  excessive bureaucracy15 (mentioned by 50% of respondents, in close correlation with the need to consult consultants),  delays in project evaluation, delays in repaying money16 (13%),  difficulty in securing co-financing, or in covering the costs necessary to prepare the documentation required for the financing application 17 (13%),  lack of information, difficulty communicating with representatives of managing authorities 18 (9%),  difficult eligibility criteria, which require additional coverage costs 19 (7%),  lack of consultants, their low quality, or the large sums they charge for the services provided 20 (6%),  incompetence of civil servants in control institutions, or in approval institutions 21 (6%),  multiple, successive, or non-specific endorsement 22 (5%)  corruption in management institutions, lack of transparency in the evaluation of projects, discriminatory nature of monitoring and controls 23 (3%). There are a number of differences in the hierarchy of blocking factors identified by the beneficiaries, depending on the operational program through which they were financed:  For POCU beneficiaries, bureaucracy, co-financing, restrictive eligibility criteria, incompetence of civil servants are the first positions;  Bureaucracy and communication deficit are the main bottlenecks identified by POC beneficiaries; 15The category includes: a lot of documentation that requires a lot of roads, hundreds of km to obtain the necessary papers from state institutions, the multitude of documents that respond to the information obligations in the general and specific guides; 16The category includes: the long time (up to one year) from the time the project is submitted until the signing of the contract, the period in which bank loan agreements are lost, and the validity of the submitted documents expires, requiring resumes of document submissions; delays in carrying out the financing contract, delays in reimbursement, invoking bureaucracy; 17 Egg. liquidity shortage, lack of capital, lack of co-financing, restrictive conditions in granting bank loans necessary for co- financing, difficulties in covering the amounts needed to prepare the financing application (approval, documents, consultants etc); lack of communication of local authorities with those requesting opinions, advice, information, lack of information on 18 Egg. the funding mechanism, high level of specialization required to understand the guidelines (closely correlated with bureaucracy and the need for advice), lack of concrete information, lack of a flow of information to answer frequently asked questions, lack of training in the field of communication including consultants; 19Egg. extremely restrictive qualification criteria, not adapted to the conditions and context of the Danube Delta area, the required environmental factors, much too restrictive, lack of clarity on how to award the score used in selection, acceptance for funding of projects that are not implemented of institutions headquartered in the ITI area; 20Egg. low number of consultants, lack of their skills, lack of time and communication skills so that the project is clear to the beneficiary, high costs of consultants, up to 30% of the amount requested; 21Egg. requesting different formats, issuing different formats than necessary, contradictory requests of successive control teams, ignorance of the requirements by the issuing authorities for the transmission of useful documents and quickly; 22issuance of AFIR opinions with great difficulty (PNDR) issuance of opinions from the Ministry of Culture with difficulty (POCU), DSP (issuance after a year and a half), opinions whose usefulness is not clear (eg Telekom). 119 | P a g e  For PNDR beneficiaries, the hierarchy of blocking factors coincides with the main problems identified in general;  For POPAM beneficiaries, bureaucracy, co-financing and the incompetence of civil servants are the main problems.;  The operation of MySMIS is perceived as the main blocking factor by the POCA project management;  For POIM beneficiaries, excessive bureaucracy and lack of suppliers and labor force are the main identified bottlenecks;  ROP beneficiaries consider that bureaucracy, evaluation delays, co-financing thresholds and lack of communication are the main bottlenecks. Approximately two thirds of the beneficiaries consider that the ITI mechanism has covered to a large or very large extent the development needs of the institution of which they are part, of their locality and of the Danube Delta region. (Chart 13) The beneficiaries of the four programs consistent in terms of the number of respondents (POCU, POR, PNDR, POPAM) perceive these programs as having similar contributions in covering the needs of the locality. POPAM is perceived as less satisfactory in terms of the needs of companies in the field of fisheries and aquaculture, and ROP and PNDR as the most important financing instruments for the development of the region. The level of appreciation towards POCA, POIM * and POC is high for all three areas of impact: institution, locality and region. The institutional dimension correlates with the perception of the adequacy of funds. Large beneficiaries appreciate to a greater extent than small ones that the allocation through the ITI mechanism has covered the development needs of the organization. 120 | P a g e Effectiveness of the ITI mechanism 78% of the beneficiaries responding to the opinion poll consider that they have achieved all or most of the projected results. With the exception of 3% of PNDR beneficiaries with completed projects who did not meet their project indicators, all other respondents stated that these indicators were met. 68% of PNDR beneficiaries, 69% of ROP beneficiaries, 100% of POPAM beneficiaries and 50% of POCU beneficiaries with ongoing projects state that the project indicators have been reached in the majority. The main project indicators achieved in the PNDR were: the purchase of equipment (44% of respondents mentioned this indicator as being met), the construction of premises and buildings (16%) and the purchase of land (14%). We appreciate that PNDR has significantly influenced the agricultural machinery market in the area, especially tractors and excavators of different sizes, land transactions and the construction market. The result indicators mentioned significantly in the POCU targeted the participation in training courses especially in the field of management (63% of the respondents with POCU projects mentioned this type of indicators). Equipment purchases were the indicators with the highest degree of mention in the case of POPAM projects (50% of total respondents) and ROP (59% of total respondents). With respect to procedures and processes, the beneficiaries of ITI funding mentioned as main difficulties: accessing and using the MySMIS system, preparing the award documentation and the request for reimbursement. Monitoring and ensuring the quality of the work performed is more difficult for large beneficiaries with large projects than for individual beneficiaries. Also, the dissatisfaction with the time required to reimburse the expenditure is higher in the case of public administration than in the case of private, individual beneficiaries. The main positive experiences of the beneficiaries take into account the results of the completed projects or in the process of completion, respectively the endowments, equipment and purchases made. The main negative experiences concern the above-mentioned elements: excessive bureaucracy, long duration of project approval and reimbursement of costs, implementation difficulties Positive experiences POCU-ITI comes with a great advantage and a rare opportunity for the development of the area. It's a unique opportunity for us. POC- Funding is more than welcome. The cultural sector needed a digital library and not only the sector but also at the national level. We do not have digital libraries in Romania. We now have the opportunity to develop this large- scale strategic project. PNDR- I managed to access the funds and I bought everything I needed, otherwise I would never have succeeded 121 | P a g e POR- Through this mechanism the rehabilitation of the historical monument will be realized. This is a unique opportunity because the necessary amounts cannot be obtained from the state budget. I collaborated very well with ADR Sud Est Tulcea office. Negative experiences POC- It took a long time to start this project. We were told to come up with innovative ideas, and we submitted the project in March 2016, contracted it in August 2018 and it lasted 2 years until December 2019. The innovative idea ages in 3 years. The time is very long until the guide comes out. It takes a long time for an innovative niche project. Others who move much faster also innovate. We were lucky because not many players appeared on the market, and neither did other entities that would have invested. POR- The bureaucracy was cumbersome. The analysis took a long time. We submitted the project in November 2017 and signed as late as February 2019. Our project involved some minor acquisitions, but it was simple technically. Nevertheless, things moved very hard. Most institutions do not issue the necessary documents and online papers, although the system is digitized. PNDR- When the project was verified, in August the auditor wanted to see the culture of radishes and wheat which in that month was not possible, because the wheat is already threshed and the radishes did not exist yet in August. Moreover, because I declared red radishes, cucumbers and peppers in the project, when I did the settlement I was able to use only the invoices that had solely these products. I could not include the invoices that included dill, parsley, or spinach because with APIA you can declare these crops only once a year, in the spring. I was thus able to do the settlement only in the fall. PNDR- I was asked for unnecessary opinions. For example: opinion from the Public Health Directorate, which must be submitted to the funding file. Why? I bought a truck to transport the hives, a scale and a solar wax melter. Why do I need to have a public health opinion? POCU - We did not find anywhere enough staff to guide the selected people through recruitment. There is a great lack of psychologists specializing in career guidance. POPAM- The main problems come from restrictive simplistic language and the unclear guides. But the worst thing is the interpretable provisions. They enable POPAM experts to interpret the various funding applications differently. I believe that the ITI strategy in the field of animal husbandry development was not taken into account. POR- The intermediate body has often requested completion of the submitted documents. Often these were not justified. If at the second evaluation I made the documents according to the requirements of the first evaluation, they were still not considered to be good enough. They were constantly asking for something else. Usually what they asked for at one time was not valid anymore for the next evaluation. The impact of the ITI mechanism Measuring the perception of beneficiaries on the impact of their projects (presented in the following table) highlights three areas: business development (high averages of impact for all beneficiaries of all operational programs), tourism and environment and biodiversity. Comparisons of average impact assessments, by category of beneficiaries, built according to the program through which they were funded, show that the areas with the lowest level of impact visibility are: disaster risk management, transport and water supply and sanitation. 122 | P a g e The differences in environments show that the size of the institution correlates directly with the perceived impact of the following topics: environment, energy efficiency, disaster risk management, pollution prevention and emergency response, water supply and sanitation, solid waste management, culture and, obviously, administrative capacity. The inverse correlation (the smaller the size of the beneficiary - PFA - the greater the perceived impact) is recorded in the case of agriculture and rural development. Impact on tourism 48% of the beneficiaries of European funding in the Danube Delta believe that tourists consider the quality / price ratio for services in the Danube Delta as high or very high. 49% of beneficiaries consider that tourists believe that the value for money is average. This opinion is of a general nature. There were no statistically significant differences either depending on the institution to which the interviewee belongs, or depending on the operational program through which it was funded. The perception of tourists' appreciation of the quality / price ratio is similar regardless of the size of the beneficiary. Most beneficiaries estimate that about half of the tourists who visit the Danube Delta return to the region annually (Chart 16). POPAM beneficiaries are the most optimistic, estimating that 57% of annual tourists return to the region. POIM beneficiaries consider that only 37% of tourists return. Beneficiaries of central public authorities consider that only 29% of tourists return, while beneficiaries of local public authorities, or NGOs consider 123 | P a g e that 55-56% of tourists return annually. Operators in the field of tourism and agro-tourism estimate that 57% of tourists return annually while those in construction or the environment estimate that the share of tourists returns is 40-42%. The comparison of averages between PNDR funding beneficiaries and non-PNDR beneficiaries does not show statistically significant differences24: beneficiaries consider that 54% of tourists return annually, non- beneficiaries consider that 52% of tourists do so. Therefore, the implementation of a project does not significantly change the perception of PNDR beneficiaries on the tourist flow in the area. Two thirds of the beneficiaries of funding through the ITI DD mechanism appreciate that both tourists and residents are satisfied with the development of tourism in the area. (Figure 18). Although the statistical analysis does not register a significant contingency, it is noted that the beneficiaries of POCA, POC, POIM appreciate more the degree of satisfaction of tourists coming to the area (average 86%). The lowest level of appreciation of the satisfaction of tourists coming to the area was registered among NGOs: only 40% of NGOs consider that tourists are satisfied or very satisfied, compared to the average appreciation at the sample level of 77%. The satisfaction of the inhabitants regarding the development of tourism in the area was appreciated as above average (average = 69%) by the central and local public authorities and by the representatives of the cult institutions (87%) and below average (37%) by the NGOs. and institutions subordinated to local public administrations. For an in-depth analysis of these differences it is appropriate to collect data at the level of the population as final beneficiaries. There were no statistically significant differences between beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries of funding in assessing the satisfaction of residents with the development of tourism in the area. Large institutions (public administration) have the highest level of appreciation for the satisfaction of tourists coming to the area and for the satisfaction of residents regarding the development of tourism in the area. Environmental impact Most of the beneficiaries interviewed (51%) consider that the projects they implemented had a positive impact on the environment. PNDR beneficiaries have an above average level of appreciation. 53% of them consider that the projects were beneficial for the environment because an ecological agriculture (egg. without herbicides, insecticides, sulphates), natural (egg. bee honey) was used, ecological installations were purchased (egg. solar melters, beeswax), or lightly polluting machinery (egg. 6 euro trucks). The beneficiaries of POPAM and POCU appreciate to a lesser extent the impact of the projects carried out on the environment (POPAM-33%, POCU- 32%). Types of POCU interventions perceived as beneficial for the environment: the purchase and installation of solar panels, the promotion of businesses involving the reduction of carbon emissions, such as ecotourism, the promotion of environmentally sound waste management, such as the introduction of sewerage and the 24 Semnificația diferențelor de medie conform ANOVA 124 | P a g e abandonment of makeshift rural toilets. Beneficial effects on the environment identified by POPAM beneficiaries: population growth with fish species, ecological fish farming without pollutants, increasing habitat yield through drainage works, widening of defense walls, deepening of riverbeds, acquisition of pumping stations. Types of positive environmental interventions identified by ROP beneficiaries: purchase of non- polluting equipment, development of water-sewer infrastructure, greening actions, use of biodegradable materials, purchase and use of solar installations, purchase of euro 6 equipment, construction of environmentally friendly waste platforms solid. The beneficiaries of POIM consider that the impact on the environment was a positive one through: management plans for protected areas, biodiversity conservation actions, through the ecological management of solid waste. Other actions with a positive impact on the environment mentioned by POCA and POC beneficiaries: recycling of used paper, training courses that also included an environmental component, burying fiber optics and improving urban aesthetics. Negative effects on the environment were identified only by the beneficiaries of PNDR, POPAM and POR, respectively: the use of self-pollinating plant varieties, which reduces affects the natural development of the bee population, the treatment of crops with substances that also affect bees, manure growth with the increase of tourism due to the lack of recycling platforms, grazing of goats, invasive for the environment, pollution generated by means of transport and agricultural equipment, consumption of fuel and energy from non-renewable sources. Impact on economic opportunities The economic opportunities were operationalized in two components: 1) number of supported companies / enterprises, established through the implementation of the project, other than those of the direct beneficiaries (respondents to the questionnaire) and 2) number of new jobs created as a result of the implementation of the projects. For the two components, at the level of the general sample, an average of 0.8 supported / newly created companies per implemented project and 3.8 new jobs per project were registered. However, on these two components, the differences between the beneficiaries are significant25. Most economic opportunities were developed by POCU beneficiaries (average 3.5 / project) and POIM (average 2.1 / project), and least by POC beneficiaries (average 0.3 / project). The POCU and POC projects are highlighted by the large number of newly created jobs, 39.1- POCU and 49.6- POC. PNDR projects are on the last position with 1.3 new jobs / approved project. We mention that about a third of the PNDR projects consider seasonal jobs. The sustainability of the projects financed by the ITI mechanism 91% of the interviewed beneficiaries stated that the results of the implemented projects will be made available to the target groups and the locals from the Danube Delta region. The 9% who stated that they do not know if 25 ANOVA Test, p=0.00 125 | P a g e the results will be disseminated are beneficiaries of PNDR, POCU, POIM and POR with projects that are in the beginning phase and who cannot project the results they will obtain. 78% of the beneficiaries responding to the opinion poll considered that the implemented projects have a high or very high sustainability. 90% of them state that they have already implemented specific actions in order to ensure the sustainability of the results after the completion of the project (continuation of activities for software measures and maintenance of results for hard measures / investments). There were no statistically significant differences in the assessment of sustainability, depending on the categories of operational programs through which the projects were funded. At the level of POPAM and POCU, higher shares of beneficiaries were registered who have not yet implemented actions to ensure sustainability. The perception of sustainability does not differ significantly depending on the size category of the beneficiary. 126 | P a g e CONCLUSIONS  58% of beneficiaries consider that the ITI mechanism has facilitated the process of accessing European funds  The ITI mechanism is appreciated to a greater extent by local public administrations (72% positive assessment), central public authorities * (67% positive assessment) and NGOs (70% positive assessment). The beneficiaries consider that the areas of intervention in which the ITI mechanism has contributed the most in terms of making European funds accessible are: developing administrative capacity, education, culture.  The ITI mechanism is relevant both for the development of the capacity to access funds at the level of public administration and civil society and for the creation of an availability of access to funds at the level of all categories of beneficiaries.  The efficiency of the ITI mechanism was mostly assessed from the perspective of economic development. Approximately two thirds of the beneficiaries consider that the ITI mechanism has covered to a large or very large extent the development needs of the institution of which they are part, of their locality and of the Danube Delta region.  Bureaucracy is the main bottleneck mentioned by most beneficiaries.  In the perception of the beneficiaries, the effectiveness of the projects is high. 78% of the beneficiaries responding to the opinion poll consider that they have achieved all or most of the projected results. In particular, the procurement and investment components have been completed.  At the level of procedures and processes, the beneficiaries of ITI funding mentioned as main difficulties: accessing and using the MySMIS system, preparing the award documentation and the request for reimbursement.  The impact on the development of tourism is, in the perception of the beneficiaries, medium-high. Two thirds of the beneficiaries of funding through the ITI DD mechanism appreciate that both tourists and residents are satisfied with the development of tourism in the area.  At the environmental level, the perceived impact is average: 51% of the interviewed beneficiaries consider that the projects they implemented had a positive impact on the environment. Only 2% of beneficiaries also identified negative effects on the environment.  The perceived impact on the development of economic opportunities is average, with an average of 0.8 supported / newly created companies per project implemented and 3.8 new jobs per project.  78% of the beneficiaries responding to the opinion poll appreciated that the implemented projects have a high or very high sustainability. 127 | P a g e Annex 5. Reconstructed theory of change 128 | P a g e Annex 6. Reconstructed logical framework 129 | P a g e 130 | P a g e 131 | P a g e 132 | P a g e 133 | P a g e 134 | P a g e 135 | P a g e 136 | P a g e 137 | P a g e 138 | P a g e 139 | P a g e 140 | P a g e 141 | P a g e 142 | P a g e 143 | P a g e 144 | P a g e 145 | P a g e 146 | P a g e Annex 7. External coherence of SIDDDD with six local strategies (full analyses) Comparative Analysis of Six Local Strategies with the Strategy for Integrated Sustainable Development in Danube Delta This report includes a review of six local development strategies in order to determine the external coherence of the SIDDDD. It address the evaluation question - Is there a correspondence between the Strategy’s objectives and those of other interacting public actions? The results indicated a good coordination among the objectives set by the SIDDDD and the objectives set by the six analyzed local strategies, respectively Tulcea County Integrated Sustainable Development Strategy, Tulcea Municipality Local Strategy, Sulina Local Development Strategy, Baia Integrated Sustainable Development Strategy, Isaccea City Development Strategy and Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve. The local strategies are drafted to complement the interventions financed under the Danube Delta Strategy and to contribute to its final objectives and related targets. Map 21 – Area covered by SIDDDD depicting areas for which strategies were reviewed 147 | P a g e Tulcea County Integrated Sustainable Development Strategy for 2014 – 2020 1. Overview Tulcea county is Dobrogea region, in the south-east of Romania, with the seat in Tulcea city . It is the fourth largest county by size, spread over 8,499 km2, which accounts for 3.6 percent of the total area of the country. One the six counties of the South-East Region26, Tulcea makes about a quarter of the overall surface of the region. The county is located on the Danube river, with access to the Black Sea, and it borders Ukraine, the Republic of Moldova, in addition to Constanta, Galati and Braila counties. Tulcea has nearly all landforms, including mountains, plains, delta, sea, and steppe landscapes. One third of the county area is the Danube Delta. In the south-east there are the Razim and Sinoie lagoons. The county is host to the Macin Mountains, the remains of a prehistorical mountains of over 400 million years and the oldest geological formation in the country. Tulcea has 68 protected areas, and one of them is the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve (DDBR). In addition to Tulcea city, the county has four towns (Babadag, Sulina, Isaccea, and Macin) and 46 communes comprising 133 villages. As of 2012, there are 243,336 people living in the county (an almost even rural-urban split), with a density of 29 people /km2, the smallest in the country. The small density is because one third of the county is covered by water, with 43 percent agricultural land, and 12 percent forest. Tulcea has quite a rich ethic mix with 85 percent Romanians, around 5 percent Russian Lipovans, 1.62 percent Roma, and 1.5 percent Turks and Ukrainians altogether. Like many places in Romania, over the past decades the county has experienced a decline in the population, in parallel with aging. Figure 22 - Tulcea County, Danube Delta. Source: Tulcea County Council https://www.cjtulcea.ro/sites/cjtulcea/Pages/galerie.aspx The local economy is based on extractive industry (stone quarries), agriculture (fishery and viticulture with a few popular wineries), trade and tourism. More than a quarter of the labor force is employed by the extractive sector. The unemployment rate is 5.8 percent (2014), while the average income was RON 1,506 (EUR 320) in 2016. Tulcea experienced a 9 percent economic growth between 2008 and 2011. Services account for 44 percent of the county’s gross domestic product (GDP), industry 26 The South East Region comprises six counties, namely Tulcea, Constanta, Buzau, Braila, Vrancea, and Galati. 148 | P a g e for 27 percent, agriculture for 11 percent and constructions for 9 percent. The county’s GDP was RON 5.1 billion in 2011, with EUR 4,465/capita (in 2012), which represents 0.73 percent disparity compared to the national level. The county budget was RON 487 million in 2012 (EUR 100 million). Fishery and aquaculture are the key components of the local agriculture. 32,000 fishing permits were issued in 2013, almost twice more than in the previous year. Tourism is an important local activity in its various forms - be recreational, fishing & sports hunting, eco-tourism, or scientific tourism. The county has a few wild beaches at the Black Sea and an airport nearby Tulcea city that can operate domestic and international flights. 2. Comparative Analysis The Integrated Sustainable Development Strategy of the Tulcea County (ISDSTC) for the 2014-2020 period27 was approved by the Tulcea County Council, the local authority responsible for coordinating the activities of local councils as to ensure public service delivery throughout the county. The ISDSTC aims to be a dynamic document able to adjust and respond to the economic and social environment challenges at the county, national and European level. Although it was approved before the Delta Danube strategy, the county authorities have agreed in advance to correlate the county plan with the SIDDDD and use the ITI DD for the local projects that could support the strategic and sectoral objectives of the SIDDDD. The ISDSTC is a very large document, with several chapters covering a wide range of issues. The strategy has a chapter on the priorities for the South-East region, which include expanding tourism, modernization of agriculture & fishery and urban infrastructure, and improving access and mobility. For the strategy purposes the county was split into six development regions, namely 1) Sulina-Crisan- Sfantu Gheorghe, 2) Murighiol- Babadag-Baia, 3) Turcoaia-Cerna, 4) Macin-Isaccea, 5) Topolog- Casimcea, and 6) Tulcea city. The document mentions that regions #1, 2 & 3 would receive additional financing through ITI DD. The strategy is designed based on diversifying the county economy according to areas of potential combined with regional development, in which the city of Tulcea has the greatest touristic, commercial, and industrial potential and the Turcoaia-Cerna region the largest agriculture and fishery prospective. The strategy has three main development directions and several objectives. The project portfolio of hundreds of interventions outlined over 200 pages is following the key directions and objectives. The two strategies have different territorial and period coverage. While the SIDDDD goes until 2030, the county document covers a much shorter period, up to 2020 only. The ISDSTC focuses on the entire Tulcea county, while the SIDDDD targets a limited area – only the DDBR and its neighboring areas in Tulcea, in addition to a few rural communities in Constanta county. As the county strategy focuses on most of the areas covered by the SIDDDD, this allows the county authorities to undertake efforts in line with the strategic and sectoral objectives of the latter. Both strategic visions are correlated, but employing different approaches. The SIDDDD has a special feature pertaining to specific areas, with two different angles. One angle is about striking a balance between the environment and community by focusing on nature and cultural tourism-based economy in the DDBR, while the other angle emphasizes on economic and urban development in the 27 Tulcea county development strategy availale at: https://www.cjtulcea.ro/sites/cjtulcea/Informatii/Pages/programe.aspx 149 | P a g e neighboring areas. The Danube Delta strategy’s integrated vision focuses on biodiversity, business, and economic environment in the traditional and modern sectors, while in parallel is integrating agriculture and tourism and supporting services in urban areas. By comparison, the county strategy has a broader vision that incorporates all key elements from the SIDDDD – such as European values, smart development, cohesion, and environment protection drawing from the existing potential of the six development regions. The ISDSTC has two key objectives that are integrated and correlated with the strategic objectives of the SIDDDD. The county’s first strategic objective is to develop a sustainable community that should efficiently use and manage resources in the priority areas and in those with economic potential, hence ensuring prosperity, social cohesion, and environment protection throughout the county. The second objective, which is targeting the ITI DD area, aims to preserve the environment through scientific environment management and support from local communities, while developing a sustainable, green economy and improved services drawn from the comparative advantage of the territory. More specifically, the county document tries to pose an equilibrium between the local socio- economic setting and geographical position by using the Danube Delta’s great natural resources potential. The county is seeking to develop tourism with non-pollutant and traditional activities and expand eco-tourism in the Danube Delta region by using local resources, in addition to having a qualified labor force and creating more jobs. Another target is about improving competitiveness and economy through sustainable, smart, and inclusive development, in parallel with diversifying local economy using the natural, cultural, and human heritage. Finally, access to better public services would help improve the quality of life in the county, while local actors would work together with social partners and business environment in the development process. The sectoral objectives of the county strategy are slightly different than the pillars and objectives from the SIDDDD. The county has three major development areas (as opposed to five pillars in the SIDDDD), namely, i) development of administrative and operational intervention capacity, ii) sustainable economic development, and iii) development of social sector. Each area has a few sub-sectors, with 14 priority areas in total. For example, there are two priority areas under local administration – such as development of administrative capacity and operational capacity for emergencies. Eight priorities are under economic development – e.g., improving transport infrastructure, expanding access to public services, tourism development, and diversifying local economy – and four under social sector, such as social assistance, health, and education. The sub-sectors are further split into 65 sub-priorities or indicative objectives. The two strategies have comparable priorities. The difference is about the areas of interventions – sectoral objectives in the SIDDDD vs. indicative operations in the county plan. Some of the sectoral objectives from the SIDDDD, like biodiversity, fishery, and IT&C, are not included in the strategy, as they are outside the county’s purview. Funding Sources ITI DD Funds The strategy is implemented through ITI DD funds under a few EU programs – the Large Infrastructure Operational Program (LIOP), the Regional Operational Program (ROP), the Administrative Capacity Operational Program (ACOP), and Fishery and Maritime Affairs Operational Program (FMAOP). So far, 18 projects have been approved with a total value of nearly EUR 500 million, covering all pillars from the SIDDDD. Almost three quarters of the money is spent on transport projects 150 | P a g e (Pillar 3), 17 percent cover interventions on environment and natural resources (Pillar 1), while the lowest shares are in connection to Pillar 2 (7 percent) and Pillar 1 (one percent). Figure 23. Split of ITI DD funds among pillars Split of ITI funds among Pillars Pillar 5 1 project Pillar 4 4 projects Pillar 3 5 projects Pillar 2 4 projects Pillar 1 4 projects 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% All but one projects are currently under implementation, thus their local socio-economic impact is yet to be assessed. Only one project has been finalized - a RON 40 million integrated solid waste management system. Table 31. Projects implemented under ITI DD EU Total cost Sectoral Project Program (RON) Objective /Pillar Biodiversity and Integrated Solid waste management system in Tulcea County Phase LIOP 40,740,000 eco-system II management /1 Improving energy efficiency in nursing home Sf. Nectarie in Tulcea Energy ROP 10,292,000 City efficiency/1 Energy ROP Improving building energy efficiency TBC Hospital Tulcea 17,808,000 efficiency/1 Energy ROP Building energy efficiency - Contagious diseases hospital Tulcea 17,734,000 efficiency/1 Mooring facilities for small ships and boats in Tulcea city, seafront FMAOP 2,616,000 Tourism/2 area Highlighting the historic potential by restoration and conservation of ROP 10,158,000 Tourism/2 old lighthouse in Sulina Promoting cultural values by restoration and conservation of ROP 3,165,000 Tourism/2 Panaghia Babadag House museum Highlighting the north-Dobrujan ethnographic patrimony by ROP restoration and modernization of the Ethnographic and Folk Arts 18,722,000 Tourism/2 Museum Tulcea LIOP Modernization of Tulcea port - from Mm 38+1530 - to Mm 38+800 190,162,000 Transport /3 Modernization of regional transport infrastructure on Baia-Ceamurlia ROP 18,326,000 Transport /3 de Sus route Modernization of regional transport infrastructure on Niculitel - ROP 76,417,000 Transport /3 Turda-Sarichioi route Modernization of regional transport infrastructure on Visina- ROP 40,680,000 Transport /3 Ceamurlia de Sus route Modernization of regional transport infrastructure on Enisala- ROP 31,452,000 Transport /3 Babadag-Slava Rusa route 151 | P a g e EU Total cost Sectoral Project Program (RON) Objective /Pillar Rehabilitation and functional expansion of Emergency Unit at the ROP 7,685,000 Health /4 Tulcea County Emergency Hospital ROP Modernization and expansion of Secondary School nr. 14 in Tulcea 3,177,000 Education/4 Integrated social services by de-institutionalizing adults with Inclusion and ROP disabilities and setting up daily center Mahmudia with 3 sheltered 3,024,000 social protection housing /4 Integrated social services by de-institutionalizing adults with Inclusion and ROP disabilities and setting up daily center Smardan with 3 sheltered 3,447,000 social protection housing /4 Modern administrative solutions – Development and Adm. capacity & ACOP implementation of simplified procedures and mechanisms to support 3,187,000 Progr. citizens within the Tulcea County Council management /5 TOTAL 498,792,000 County and central budget funds Between 2015 and 2019 Tulcea county implemented dozens of projects financed from different sources, other than EU funds. These interventions are aligned with the county strategy and the SIDDDD priority areas. Part of the county portfolio is financed from the county budget and the central budget through the National Local Development Plan28 and the investment program in tourism29. 27 projects30 are funded from the county budget, with a total cost of RON 1 billion31. Figure 24. Split of county funds among Pillars Split of county funds among Pillars Pillar 5 Pillar 4 Pillar 3 Pillar 2 Pillar 1 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 28 The National Local Development Plan (NLDP) is a multi-annual program funded from the state budget targeting local communities and managed by the Ministry of Public Works and Regional Development. 29Government Decision 120/2010 approving the list of investment programs and projects in tourism and funding sources and the eligibility criteria, available at: http://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/116533 30 Data from the Tulcea County Council was not available at the time of this report. 31 List of projects and budget available at: https://www.cjtulcea.ro/sites/cjtulcea/Buget/Pages/Buget-2020.aspx 152 | P a g e Table 32. Projects funded from the county budget in the ITI DD area Total cost Sectoral Objective Project (RON) /Pillar 1. Improving energy efficiency and rehabilitation the Cocos Camp 30,000,000 Energy Efficiency / 1 2. Improving energy efficiency Panait Cernea County Library 4,000,000 Energy Efficiency /1 3. Improving energy efficiency Secondary Special School no.14 Tulcea 3,932,000 Energy Efficiency /1 4. Improving energy efficiency Emergency County Hospital Tulcea 9,500,000 Energy Efficiency /1 5. Sports tourism base in the Europe Information Center Tulcea 1,900,000 Tourism /2 6. Development of leisure infrastructure in the touristic area Murighiol 32,794,000 Tourism /2 7. Development of leisure infrastructure in the touristic area Sarichioi 32,894,000 Tourism /2 8. Development of leisure infrastructure in the touristic area Sulina 32,844,000 Tourism /2 Highlighting of the ethnographic heritage North-Dobrogea by restoration 9. 18,722,000 Tourism /2 and consolidation of the Museum of Ethnography and Popular Arts Highlighting of archeological and historical heritage North-Dobrogea by 10. improving energy efficiency and rehabilitation of the History and 5,000,000 Tourism /2 Archeology Museum 11. Large basin port infrastructure Sulina Free Zone Administration 82,110,000 Transport /3 Modernization of regional transport infrastructure on Int. National Road 12. 21,870,000 Transport /3 22E Grindu Modernization of regional transport infrastructure on the Tulcea-Chilia 13. 184,960,000 Transport /3 Veche route 14. Modernization of the Psychiatric Ward of the Tulcea County Hospital 1,378,000 Transport/3 15. Rehabilitation of county road 222A Horia-Hamcearca-Nifon, km 0+000- km 28,302,000 Transport /3 16. Rehabilitation of county road 222 Ceamurlia de Sus-Sarighiol de Deal 26,349,000 Transport /3 17. Naval public transportation in the Danube Delta 221,398,000 Transport /3 18. Consolidation Emergency County Hospital Tulcea 1,200,000 Health / 4 19. Extension Emergency Unit – Emergency County Hospital Tulcea 8,255,000 Health /4 20. Memory Health Psychiatric Hospital 1,653,000 Health/ 4 Rehabilitation and modernization of in-patient infrastructure Emergency 21. 10,699,000 Health /4 County Hospital Tulcea Rehabilitation and modernization of central sterilization station and 22. 9,616,000 Health / 4 orthopedic operating room Emergency County Hospital Tulcea Rehabilitation, modernization & expansion of Emergency County Hospital 23. 236,195,000 Health/ 4 Tulcea 24. Administrative headquarters - Emergency County Hospital Tulcea 2,000,000 Health /4 Wastewater treatment plant and rehabilitation of water network 25. 2,600,000 Health / 4 Emergency County Hospital Tulcea Wastewater treatment plant and rehabilitation of water network 26. 2,965,000 Health /4 Emergency County Hospital Tulcea Rehabilitation and improving energy efficiency of the Jean Bart Cultural 27. 6,300,000 Education /4 Center and School of Folk Arts Tulcea TOTAL 1,019,436,000 153 | P a g e Two infrastructure projects improving county roads in ITI area with RON 46 million from NLDP are linked to Pillar 3 on connectivity. They focus on the rehabilitation of two sections of DN 222 (county road) – the Murighiol-Iazurile-Agighiol route (RON 21 million) and the section at Sarighiol de Deal (nearly RON 25 million), respectively. Overall, the Tulcea county has under execution more than RON 1.5 billion investments funded from EU funds (through ITI DD), county and central budget. The bulk of money (around RON 1 billion) comes from the county budget, nearly half billion RON from ITI DD and RON 46 million from the central budget. Figure 25 .Projects implemented by Tulcea County Council by funding sources 3. Conclusions The strategic vision of the Tulcea county strategy is harmonized with the integrated strategic vision of the SIDDDD, which indicates that the county can bring its contribution in achieving the objectives and targets from the Delta Danube strategy. The county plan also accommodates the strategic objectives of the SIDDDD. The two documents have similar sectoral objectives, as the ISDSTC contains most of priorities from the DD plan, with a few exceptions, like energy efficiency or fishery which are handled by other stakeholders. Overall, the county strategy incorporates most of the sectoral objectives from the SIDDDD, and despite some limitations regarding sectors and territorial competence, there is a good level of correlation between the two documents in terms of priority areas. The projects implemented by the Tulcea county are in line with the priority areas of the SIDDDD, and they can support achieving the sectoral and strategic targets of the Delta Danube plan. 154 | P a g e Tulcea Municipality Local Strategy 2016-2030 1. City Overview Tulcea is the seat of the county with the same name (the 4th largest in Romania), around 280 km east of the capital city of Bucharest and 70 km from the Black Sea. The city incorporates the Tudor Vladimirescu village. Tulcea is located on the right bank of the Danube River, in the northern part of Dobrogea region, an area known for its great renewable energy potential and a few large wind farms spread over 313 hectares. The EU Energy and Transport Institute identifies Tulcea area as one with high energy potential (1,700 kWh/m 2). There are 90,54232 people living in the city (about 41 percent of the population covered under the DDISDS) of which more than 93 percent ethnic Romanian, with the rest comprising of Lippovan Russian, Roma and Turks. The city is spread over 24,558 hectares – which is 3.3 percent of the area covered by the Danube Delta strategy - with a density of 25.1 people/square km. Forests account for 40 percent of the area, nearly a third is agricultural land, around five percent is water and construction, and the rest is degraded and unproductive land. Figure 26 - Tulcea city Photo: Manuela Mot The local economy relies on industry and tourism. The city is host to the only alumina refinery in Romania, a shipyard, and the largest refrigeration complex in the Eastern Europe. Industry employs most of the local labor force, through its various branches including ship construction and maintenance, metallurgical, processing of construction materials, textile, and food industry. The 32 National Institute of Statistics, data as of January 2015. 155 | P a g e annual city budget for 2020 is RON 238.5 million33. The average spending per city resident is RON 2,55834 (around USD 580). 2. Comparative Analysis Drafted in 2016, the Tulcea Municipality Development Strategy (TMDS) is a 318-page document of which only around 10 percent is an actual development plan, while the rest presents a diagnostic analysis with detailed descriptions of socio-economic and municipal services. The document was drafted at the same time the SIDDDD was approved, hence the city plan covers the same period 2016- 2030. The same coverage period allowed Tulcea to incorporate the strategic framework of the SIDDDD into the city strategy. In line with the European, national, regional, and local strategic framework, the city strategy is considering the domestic environment, such as natural and anthropogenic setting, the utilities/municipal service infrastructure, local development, and social capital. The document provides with a SWOT analysis, highlighting on external opportunities and challenges, and on strong and weak issues related to the domestic environment. The SWOT analysis is the basis of the city strategy. There is strong alignment between the Tulcea’s development plan and the SIDDDD. The strategic vision of the TMDS is aligned with SIDDDD the despite of the fact that it does not clearly refers to the main goal by which people should live in harmony with the nature, an aspect which is somehow indirectly included in the strategic framework. The city strategy took into consideration the coverage period (2016-2030) and the strategic framework from the SIDDDD. There is total alignment between the strategic objectives of the two documents. The city’s general objective altogether with its three specific objectives are reflected in the SIDDDD. The priority areas from the local development plan are linked to the pillars from the SIDDDD, and similarly, the local measures are being aligned with the sectorial objectives of the Delta Danube strategy. Also, the activities from the local strategy are correlated with the interventions/projects from the SIDDDD. The general objective of the TMSD incorporates the transversal principle of empowering local communities from the SIDDDD, while the specific objectives are in line with the Danube Delta’ two strategic objectives. At the same time, the eight priority areas from the city plan are included in the 16 sectorial objectives of the SIDDDD. There is some connection at the pillar level. It is the case of areas, like Administrative Capacity (aligned with Pillar 5 of the SIDDDD); Local Infrastructure and Access to Quality Public Services (in line with Pillars 3 and 5); Environment Protection and Sustainable Development (matching Pillar 1); and Economic Dynamic (corresponding to Pillar 2). Also, the priority area on energy efficiency is matching up with the similar sectoral objective from the SIDDDD. Although it is not a perfect adjustment, there is some good level of matching between the measures and areas of interventions in the city development plan with the 16 sectoral objectives of the SIDDDD. The table below provides a picture of the correlation between the sectoral objectives from the Delta Danube strategy and the measures and areas of interventions from the city plan. 33 City budget available at: https://www.primariatulcea.ro/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/BUGET-2020- MUNICIPIUL-TULCEA.pdf 34 https://salt.gov.ro/uat-159614; Exchange rate USD 1= RON 4.4 (March 2020) 156 | P a g e Table 33. Correlation between Sectoral Objectives in SIDDDD and Measures/Priority Areas in TMDS R 2. Sectoral Objective SIDDDD Measures (M)/Priority Area (PA) in TMDS Biodiversity and eco-system management M 1.1.1.1. M.1.1.2. Conservation of biodiversity and natural patrimony Energy efficiency P.A.1.3. Energy efficiency Climate change Disaster risk management Emergency situations caused by pollution Tourism P.A .2.3. Elements of territorial identity M.1.2.5. Improving leisure infrastructure Fishery and aquaculture Agriculture and rural development Transport M.1.2.1. Improving transport infrastructure and utility network Information Technology and Communications Water supply, sewage and integrated water management M.1.2.2. Improving water and wastewater infrastructure Solid waste management M1.1.1.2. Reducing the negative impact on environment Health M.2.2.2 Health Education M.2.2.1 Education Social inclusion and protection M.2.2.3 Employment Administrative capacity and program management P.A. 3.1. Administrative Capacity The only sectorial objective that is missing and which should have been considered by the city strategy is related to IT&C. There is only one activity on IT&C in connection to Administrative Capacity objective, targeting the computerization of local services. Other objectives that are not reflected in the strategy are not in the purview of the local administration. The TMDS comprises a list of 73 activities, mostly in environment protection, energy efficiency, transport, local public services, and development of administrative capacity, and they are aligned with the SIDDDD and EU programs. Only very few activities in health and social inclusions are correlated with projects under SIDDDD. The local strategy project portfolio is listing 240 interventions that are aligned with SIDDDD, while in some sector areas the city surpasses those from the Delta Danube plan. However, most interventions are rather on paper only since they do not have budgets nor have been prioritized. The city managed to get the necessary money or has identified the funding sources for a few projects only. Some specific activities should be financed from the local and state budget. The TMDS has a list of 116 output indicators by measures, but no outcome or impact indicators. The strategy has a section on Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E), laying out tools and institutions to be involved in the process, but the results are yet to be assessed. The SIDDDD’s M&E mechanism follows only a mathematical model for the territorial evaluation of the strategy’s impact and has only a list of M&E indicators which are not assigned by projects or interventions. Hence, there is only some peripheral correlation to output indicators regarding energy efficiency. But the poor design of M&E component is quite common feature to most strategies in Romania, SIDDDD included, as they lack relevant elements, such as reference values, source definitions and targets. Ten projects in Tulcea have received 105.5 million (EUR 21.6 million) under Intercommunity Development Association (IDA) ITI Danube Delta. They focus on energy efficiency, water supply & sewage, administrative capacity, education, social and tourism. Nearly half of the money helped improve infrastructure in schools and kindergartens and a quarter tackled social services. One of the key projects is the modernization of public lighting to improve energy efficiency of the system. Other 157 | P a g e interventions aim to develop leisure infrastructure along the city’s main park and lake or promote anti-corruption in the local administration. Table 34. ITI projects in Tulcea Total cost Sectoral Objective Crt. Project (RON) /Pillar SIDDDD 1. Modernization of street lighting in Tulcea 21,437,020 Energy Efficiency/1 Improving leisure and recreational conditions in Ciuperca park & lake by 2. environment protection measures for communities in FLAG Danube Delta 2,536,577 Tourism/2 area Modernization of infrastructure by educational equipment at the Delta 3. 26,636,225 Education /4 Dunarii Economic College in Tulcea Modernization of infrastructure by educational equipment at Henri 4. 26,636,225 Education /4 Coanda Technical College in Tulcea Modernization of infrastructure by educational equipment at 5. 4,591,246 Education /4 Kindergarten no.12 with extended program in Tulcea Building rehabilitation and expansion of Kindergarten no.13 with 6. 4,938,055 Education /4 extended program in Tulcea Social inclusion & 7. Re Start Neptun – integrated local development 13,035,911 protection / 4 Social inclusion & 8. Integrated services for VIITOR 13,025,371 protection /4 Adm. Capacity & Prog. 9. Developing the quality of services in the local public administration 392,860 Managament /5 Developing a culture to prevent corruption at the local public Adm. Capacity & Prog. 10. 304,690 administration level Managament /5 Total 105,575,362 Source: IDA ITI Danube Delta The ITI projects in Tulcea are linked to four of the five pillars of the SIDDDD. The financial impact of the interventions in the city account for 43.1 percent under Pillar 4 on public services, 3.1 percent under Pillar 1 on environment, 1.48 percent under Pillar 5 on energy efficiency, and 0.2 percent under Pillar 2 on economic development. The share of ITI investments in Tulcea with beneficiary the city administration is less than 2 percent of the EU program. The overall EU investments in the city in both public and private sector are much higher – EUR 90,000,000 - about 8 (eight) percent of the program. 158 | P a g e Figure 27. Financial share of projects contracted by Tulcea from total ITI projects at pillar level 43.14% 3.10% 1.97% 0.20% 0.00% 1.48% Environmental Improving the Improved Providing public Promoting Total finacial and natural economy connectivity services efficiency, impact in ADI ITI resources accessibility and DD protection sustainability When it comes to split by sectors, the projects in Tulcea account for more than three quarters of ITI- funded interventions in education, followed by social inclusion & protection (43 percent) and energy efficiency (5.67 percent), and with administrative capacity of 1.48 percent and tourism less than one percent. Figure 28. Financial impact of projects contracted by Tulcea from ITI funds at sectorial level 76.24% 43.52% 5.67% 1.97% 0.00% 0.55% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.48% Another funding source for the city is the National Local Development Program (NLDP). Tulcea is implementing five projects with money from the state budget with an overall value of RON 27,595,256 which is 26.1 percent of the city interventions through IDA ITI DD. Four projects are matching up the strategic objective of water supply, sewage, and integrated water management. 159 | P a g e Table 35. NLDP interventions in Tulcea Crt. Project Budget Rehabilitation and modernization of water network on Bacului St. and Viticulturii 1. 1,762,616 St. in Tulcea 2. Improving capacity to takeover meteoric waters in Tulcea 18,968,143 Rehabilitation and modernization of water network on Bacului St. and Viticulturii 3. 2,577,116 St. in Tulcea 4. Sewage rainwater on Alexandru cel Bun St. in Tulcea 35 2,240,105 5. Rehabilitation kindergarten no.3 at 47, Mircea Voda St. in Tulcea 2,047,274 Total 27,595,256 Source: National Local Development Program, Ministry of Public Works, Development and Administration In parallel, Tulcea is using local money to improve the city’s infrastructure. In recent years, Tulcea has undertaken serious efforts to allocate money from the local budget to implement some projects from the city strategy. The amount of local funds (RON 103 million) is matching the money contacted through ITI (RON 105 million). 20 local projects have been executed or are currently under implementation (see the project list below – Table 6). Most projects are infrastructure investments, with nearly half in roads/transport, 28 percent in water & sewage, education (12.6 percent), energy efficiency (9.6 percent), and IT&C (3 percent). It is worth to note that the share of local funds to improve local transport infrastructure (45 percent of the allocation) is close to the stake of funds allocated to roads through ITI. The smallest share, less than 1 (one) percent each is in social protection and tourism. Table 36. Investments from the local budget in Tulcea Budget Sectoral Objective /Pillar Crt. Project 2017-2019 SIDDDD (RON) 1. ITC investments in the City Hall 3,175,000 IT&C / 3 2. Updating the Development Strategy of Tulcea City 10,000 Adm. Capacity/ 5 3. Building rehabilitation 5,140,000 Education /4 4. Rehabilitation Kindergarten no.3 at 47, Mircea Voda Street 3,215,000 Education /4 5. Expenditures related to feasibility studies 4,683,000 Education /4 Video surveillance system – Touristic objective Traditional fishing 6. 150,000 Tourism /2 village Zaghen Zone lot 1 from DJ 222C Marketing services for "Promoting Tulcea city by development, 7. publishing information materials that ensure essential connection 24,000 Tourism /2 to the FLAG territory with tourists Studies for promoting local culture and historic patrimony Tulcea- 8. 50,000 Tourism /2 Odessa Interior court layout of SIBELL Early Childhood Surveillance and Inclusion & Social 9. 267,000 Education Center and setting up a playground for children Protection 35 This project is also receiving funds from the local budget. 160 | P a g e Budget Sectoral Objective /Pillar Crt. Project 2017-2019 SIDDDD (RON) Inclusion & Social 10. Acquisition building for nursing home 450,000 Protection Improving urban services, urban public infrastructure in urban zone 11. 2,925,000 Water & Sewage /4 Vest 12. Improving capacity to takeover meteoric waters in Tulcea 8,736,000 Water & Sewage /4 Rehabilitation and modernization sewage network on Bacului Street 13. 2,400,000 Water & Sewage /4 and Viticulturii Street 14. Other water and sewage projects 9,900,000 Water & Sewage /4 15. Design related expenditures 4,997,000 Water & Sewage /4 Rehabilitation, modernization and expansion of street lighting in 16. 6,975,000 Energy Efficiency /1 Tulcea, contract # 23515/2006 Modernization and remote monitoring of modules, thermal points, 17. 6,975,000 Energy Efficiency /1 CHPs and the hotwater only boiler 18. Consolidation slop in 18, Carierei Street Zone School no.3 597,000 Environment /1 19. Rehabilitation of road infrastructure 42,418,000 Transport/3 20. Studies for rehabilitation of road infrastructure 4,086,000 Transport /3 Total 103,162,000 Source: City of Tulcea Additionally, there are dozens of projects financed from the local budget in different sectors, including 14 activities in culture, six in social services, four in civic education, 20 in sports, and nine pertaining to religious affairs. Around RON 1.8 million was allocated from the local budget in the 2018-2019 period. However, some of these interventions, like those in sports, have no connection to the SIDDDD, nor to the city strategy. 3. Conclusions There is a high level of correlation (around 90 percent) between the local strategy of Tulcea and the SIDDDD at the level of objectives, areas, and measures. The only significant difference is regarding the structure of the document. A potential explanation for the structural difference could be related to the fact that Tulcea is entirely urban, with some specifics that do not interfere though with the SIDDDD. At the same time, the IT&C and health sectors are less developed in the TMDS. Also, the local strategy is listing many projects of which only half have (performance) indicators, and even fewer (a quarter) have received financing. The projects contracted so far by Tulcea account for 8.5 percent of the total financial envelope under ITI, which is the second largest after the Braila-Macin bridge, a project which takes about a third of the program. 161 | P a g e Isaccea City Development Strategy 2014-2020 1. City Overview The fourth largest locality in Tulcea County, Isaccea is located on the Danube River, around 37 km far from Tulcea city, and it is partially included in the Danube Delta Biosphere Reservation. The city incorporates two villages, Tichilești and Revărsarea, respectively, with a total population of 5,026 inhabitants36, of which about 94 percent are Romanians and the rest Roma, Ukrainians and Turkish. The city area has around 100 km2, which is 1.4 percent of the total area covered by the SIDDDD, and a low density of 15.2 people/km37. Of the total surface of 10,207 hectares, 43 percent is agricultural land, nearly a quarter forest, a third water, with the remaining constructions and degraded land. Figure 29 - Isaccea City Source: City of Isaccea, Photo by Militaru Mihaela https://www.isaccea.ro/isaccea/orasul-meu The local economy is primarily based on agriculture, with a focus on animal husbandry and fishery, with an important beluga fish farm and reproduction station on the site. Other economic sectors in Isaccea include breeding livestock, construction, trade, manufacturing industry and tourism. Isaccea is the port of entry in Romania for the Isaccea-Negru Voda pipeline linking Ukraine and Bulgaria, which brings natural gas from Russia and is supplying to Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey, and for the power transmission line through which Romania imports electricity from a power plant in the Transnistrian region of Moldova. In 2017, the city local budget was RON 10.9 million, with annual estimates of RON 13-15 million for the 2018-2020 period.38 The annual expenses per city resident is RON 3,50839. 36 2011 census; According to National Institute of Statistics, 5,335 people had residence as of January 1 st, 2014. 37 Isaccea Local Development Strategy available at https://www.isaccea.ro/strategia-de-dezvoltare-locala 38 Annual budget Isaccea City Hall available at https://www.isaccea.ro/images/2017/buget/buget2017-1.pdf 39 Data available at: https://salt.gov.ro/uat-159614 162 | P a g e 2. Comparative Analysis The Isaccea Integrated Local Development Strategy (IILDS) for the period 2014-2020 is a 96-page document of which the actual plan is laid out in only six pages. It was put together before the Danube Delta Strategy, and covers a much shorter period. Because of different timing, the IILDS does not include the strategic framework of the SIDDDD, and it covers only partially some of the issues captured by the EU-funded ITI program. Like many local development plans, the strategy begins with an assessment of the priorities at the EU, national and regional level, followed by an analysis of the local setting, such as environment, city history, local utilities, social (health, education), social assistance, cultural and tourism infrastructure. The strategy has several SWOT analyses focusing on issues like environment, health, social assistance, tourism, economic potential, industry, agriculture, education, public administration, and culture. The strategy does not have a vision or mission as such, and outlines only the areas of intervention and priorities based on the EU programs. Interestingly, the city’s strategic objective - the efficient use of human and physical resources aimed at ensuring prosperity and quality of living for city residents - is mentioned only at the very end of the document. The strategic objectives at the local level are relatively aligned with the two strategic objectives of the SIDDDD. Since the city plan covers a much shorter period (seven years as compared to a 14 year-span), this could perhaps explain the lack of comprehensive studies supporting the document. Overall, there is a good level of correlation between the IILDS and SIDDDD in terms of strategic and specific objectives. There are seven local priority areas connected to some of Delta Danube strategy pillars (environment and public services, respectively) and sectorial objectives, like agriculture, tourism, and social protection. There is one key sector, IT&C, which is missing, while other areas that are absent are not in the city’s purview. There is an action plan with 23 interventions in areas like environment, energy efficiency, transport, local public services, social inclusion, education, agriculture, and capacity development. These interventions are linked to specific EU programs and investment priorities. Figure 30. Alignment of Isaccea Strategy with the SIDDDD Although they are aligned with the SIDDDD, the interventions are more of a laundry list as they have no budget nor had been prioritized, but only linked to EU programs. So far, the city managed to get ITI funds for six projects, which is about a quarter of the city’s project portfolio. These projects cover 163 | P a g e energy efficiency, education, social development, transport, and agriculture. Most activities fall under two pillars of the SIDDDD. The financial impact of ITI projects in Isaccea account for 3.2 percent the money contracted under Pillar 2 Improving Economy and for 2 percent under Pillar 1 Environment Protection and Natural Resources. The figure below indicates that the shares related to other pillars is zero because it is difficult to split integrated projects by pillars. Overall, interventions in Isaccea total RON 55 million (EUR 11.2 million) which account for about one percent of the ITI program. Table 37. ITI projects in Isaccea Budget Sectorial Objective/ Crt. Project (RON) Pillar SIDDDD Increasing energy efficiency of public buildings – Constantin Bratescu 1. 3,693,366 Energy Efficiency /1 Highschool Increasing energy efficiency of public buildings – Constantin Brătescu 2. 10,251,163 Energy Efficiency /1 primary and secondary school 3. Improving education and social services and urban public areas 17,078,109 Urban Revival /2 4. Urban revival of Ceair area 19,337,568 Urban Revival /2 5. Fishery Shelter 1,664,254 Fishery /2 6. Improving access infrastructure to agricultural holdings in Saon area 1,870,393 Fishery /2 Total 53,894,853 Figure 31. Financial impact of ITI funded projects in Isaccea at the pillar level from the SIDDDD 3.5% 3.2% 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Environmental Improving the Improved Providing public Promoting Total finacial and natural economy connectivity services efficiency, impact in ADI ITI resources accessibility and DD protection sustainability When it comes to sectorial objectives, the projects in Isaccea under ITI focus on tourism, energy efficiency, fishery, and rural development. The local interventions in Isaccea account for eight percent of overall ITI projects in tourism, for less than 4 percent in energy efficiency, and for a little over one percent in fishery and rural development altogether. The six projects represent one percent of the overall financial envelope available under ITI/EU program. 164 | P a g e Figure 32. Financial impact of ITI funded projects in Isaccea based on sectorial objective 9.00% 7.93% 8.00% 7.00% 6.00% 5.00% 3.69% 4.00% 3.00% 2.00% 0.92% 1.01% 1.00% 0.00% 0.30% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Isaccea is implementing four NLDP projects on roads, education, and local administration, with a total funding of RON 14 million (around EUR 2.9 million). By comparison, NLDP projects make for about a quarter (26.2 percent) of the ITI projects in the city. It is worth to mention that one of NLDP projects is complementing two ITI activities. This is the project about improving infrastructure at the main education facility in the city. While the ITI money is used to increase energy efficiency in core buildings, NLDP funds help to modernize the annex /workshop area of the school. Table 38. Projects in Isaccea financed from the National Local Development Program Connection to Budget Crt. Project Sectorial Objective/ (RON) Pillar SIDDDD 1. Modernization of public roads in Isaccea 2,854,645 Transport / 2 2. Modernization of public roads in Isaccea -Phase II 9,706,850 Transport /2 Rehabilitation, modernization and endowment of annex building/ 3. 1,004,752 Education/ 4 workshop at Constantin Brătescu Highschool in Isaceea 4. Rehabilitation and modernization administrative building of Isaccea 509,671 Admin. Capacity /5 Total 14,075,918 3. Conclusions The IILDS is like 70 percent aligned with the SIDDDD at the level of objectives, priority areas and specific objectives. The difference between the two documents is more about the structure, as Isaccea has developed the plan before the SIDDDD, although this does not affect much the overall approach since the city strategy is fairly with the regional plan. However, the significant difference is that in Isaccea has dealt poorly with IT&C and health sectors, as compared to the SIDDDD. At the same time, although the city outlines 23 projects, only six (25 percent of the project portfolio) received financing. 165 | P a g e They account for only 1.01 percent of the overall ITI program, even though Isaccea has is 2.4 percent of the population in the SIDDDD area. 166 | P a g e Sulina Local Development Strategy 1. Overview The easternmost point of Romania, Sulina is located at the mouth of the Sulina branch of the Danube River, in the north-west part of the Tulcea County. Stretching along the right side of the Danube branch, it is the only city placed entirely in the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve (DDBR). Sulina is the only Romanian port city at both the Danube and the Black Sea, and the terminal port for the Pan-European Transport Corridor VII on the Danube. With no connection to the land road network, the city can only be reached by water, either on the Danube or on the Black Sea. Ports facilities built along the city seafront allow for mooring of maritime vessels and ships carrying freight and passengers. Sulina is the only city situated at the lowest average altitude in the country, at only 4 meters above sea level. As part of the largest humid areas in Europe, the city documented some of the climate records in Romania – such as the lowest level of fog, largest amount of solar radiation, most sunny days, and longest period of drought (seven consecutive months). Sulina is spread over 32,960 hectares of which 95 percent water and with only 5 percent land. A city that used to have 20,000 people a few decades ago, nowadays Sulina has only 4,071 inhabitants, as of 2016.40 In the past couple of decades the city underwent massive population decline. It is among the localities that experienced over 40 percent decrease of population between 1990 and 2011, and with the second largest decline in Tulcea county. Sulina has a rich ethnic mix - 82 percent of residents are Romanians, nearly 10 percent are Russian Lippovans, and 3 percent Ukrainians and Greeks altogether. Sulina has a free zone (around 175 hectares), a designated area in which companies are taxed very lightly or not at all to encourage economic activities. In 2000, Sulina and the surroundings were given the status of objective of national interest41, which enables restoration of local historical monuments and rehabilitation of public infrastructure and equipment. 40 Sulina Local Development Strategy available at: https://www.primaria-sulina.ro/files/SDL-Sulina_2018-2035_v1.pdf 41 Government Ordinance 125/2000 available at: http://www.cdep.ro/pls/legis/legis_pck.htp_act_text?idt=24190 167 | P a g e Figure 33 - The old lighthouse in Sulina Source: Sulina City Hall https://www.primaria-sulina.ro/farurile_orasului.html The local economy is based on fishery, besides to some agriculture and tourism . There are few fishing companies and a few firms active in manufacturing, maritime transport, telecommunications, and commerce, in addition to a shipyard which is nearly bankrupt. Over the time there has been a massive decrease in the amount of fish available in the Danube Delta, which makes access of locals to fish quite problematic and their living more and more difficult. The unemployment rate is 4.82 percent as of 2017 (according to the local strategy)42, but the actual figures could be higher. The city budget was RON 16.7 million in 2018 and RON 17.6 million in 2019.43 2. Comparative Analysis The Sulina Local Development Strategy (SLDS) was approved in 201844, and it covers a 17-year span from 2018 to 2035. It is a 240-page document of which almost three quarters is about the city profile, (demographics, utilities etc.) with a few pages on SWOT analysis, while the rest outlines the priorities and activities for the next period. The city development plan is aligned with local and regional strategies, the SIDDDD, EU and international documents. As it was approved after the SIDDD, the SLDS refers to the Delta Danube strategy. The coverage period is different though, as the local strategy stretches over a longer period (up to 2035), as opposed to the SIDDD which goes until 2030. The local strategy intends to be an integrated urban policy for the revival of Sulina. The strategic vision is to build a competitive and dynamic city based on tourism development, with additional local specific activities in agriculture and fishery, while maintaining the great multicultural feature. There are similarities between the two strategies as both seek to achieve sustainable economic development based on tourism, while considering inclusion and solidarity. There are some other correlations among 42 Sulina Local Strategy 43 Local budgets for 2018 and 2019 available at: https://www.primaria- sulina.ro/files/Hotarare118din2018_aprobare_buget_propriu_anexa1.pdf and https://www.primaria- sulina.ro/files/Hotararea158din2019_anexa1.pdf 44 Sulina Local Development Strategy available at: https://www.primaria-sulina.ro/files/SDL-Sulina_2018-2035_v1.pdf 168 | P a g e them, as both documents share some common values and priorities. Sulina wants to take advantage of its multiculturality, a community with people of different ethnicities and religions, and this is reflected accordingly in the city plan. The local strategy’s general objective is to turn Sulina into a touristic and leisure center and set a good practice for neighboring places and cities with similar features. The target of improving the quality of life through development of leisure tourism is aligned with similar objectives from the SIDDDD. But despite on emphasizing on tourism development, the local strategy does not mention specifically about preserving the natural values, which is a key feature of the SIDDDD. Anyway, the natural value element appears to be integrated into the specific objectives of the Sulina strategy. The local strategy has four objectives. They revolve around: i) turning Sulina into a touristic city that could become the regional economic engine; ii) providing optimal living conditions through easy access to public services and the natural and public heritage; iii) a connected city while preserving the unique features given by the special geographical position, and iv) environmental-friendly city. There are 19 key specific objectives that focus on issues like creating jobs in tourism, turning Sulina into a competitive tourist destination, improving public infrastructure and services, rehabilitation of local cultural and environmental heritage, supporting social inclusion, and improving energy efficiency. An important aspect is about improving connectivity and access – by local public transport, naval transport, connection to county roads, non-motorized transport, and expanding freight mobility. The two documents have some differences in terms of areas of interventions, as the sectoral objectives from the SIDDDD are not specifically mentioned in the local strategy. But despite of having a different structure and wording, the city strategy embraces nearly all 16 sectoral objectives from the SIDDDD. The main difference is in terms of approach, as the city plan seems to do a better job in consolidating the local objectives. The SLDS is listing 91 interventions that would require EUR 294 million investments. It also mentions the implementation period, potential partners, and the funding source for each activity (e.g., local, county, national budget, private sources, and EU funds), and in some cases, it even points to specific EU programs and priority axis. The Sulina strategy is implemented with different funding sources, including ITI/EU, local and central budget. Three projects are executed with EU funds under ITI DD, with a total value of EUR 11.5 million. The money comes from the Regional Operational Program (ROP) and the Fishery and Maritime Affairs Operational Program (FMAOP). The projects are linked to two pillars of the SIDDDD- two interventions are connected to Pillar 2 Improving Economy and one is linked to Pillar 4 Ensuring Public Services. More than half of ITI DD funds is used for the education project (Pillar 4.). 169 | P a g e Figure 34. Financial split among SIDDDD pillars Financial split of ITI funds among pillars 5 4 3 2 1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% The three projects correspond to SIDDDD’s sectoral objectives of tourism and education. Two activities focus on tourism (rehabilitation of the city library and renovation of the multiethnic cemetery - EUR 5.4 million) – and one on education (rehabilitation of the local high school - EUR 6. 1 million). Since projects are still under implementation, their local impact is yet to be assessed. Table 39.Projects by SIDDDD sectoral level Sectoral EU Total cost Project Objective Program (RON) /Pillar SIDDDD FMAOP Restoration of the heritage objective multiethnic cemetery 1,903,000 Tourism /2 ROP Restoration of the city library (historical monument) 3,515,000 Tourism/ 2 Rehabilitation, modernization and endowment Theoretic Jean Bart ROP 6,108,000 Education /4 Highschool Total 11,526,000 Sulina is also implementing a couple of infrastructure projects funded from the local budget that are reflected both by the local strategy and SIDDDD. These interventions fall under Pillar 3 Improving Connectivity and are linked to the sectoral objective of transport (RON 4 million). This is a significant financial effort for the city, as the cost of projects is about a quarter of the annual budget. The interventions target the modernization of few streets on the left bank of the Danube (Prospect area) and the 4th street on the right bank of the river. Sulina also benefitted from funds from the central budget through the NLDP (I + II). There are two transport projects with a total cost of RON 6.5 million that are linked to the SIDDDD pillar on connectivity. The interventions would modernize a few city roads - the 3rd street (RON 4.4 million) and 1st street – West section (RON 2.1 million).45 Additionally, the rehabilitation of the old lighthouse, one of the city’s landmarks, is under way. This is a RON 10.1 million project funded through DD ITI (from ROP), but the beneficiary is the Tulcea county. 45 https://www.mdrap.ro/lucrari-publice/pndl 170 | P a g e Overall, there are local projects with a total value of RON 32 million financed through ITI DD, local and central budget. All interventions are aligned with the city plans and the SIDDDD. More than a third of the money is EU funds under ITI DD, around 31 percent is EU money through the county, 20 percent from the NLDP, and the rest comes is local financial effort. Figure 35.Funding sources and split The strategy mentions setting up a dedicated monitoring and evaluation unit which to periodically evaluate the implementation of the action plan and monitor the execution of the strategy based on project implementation. Two intermediary evaluations should check if and how objectives were met by 2020 and the end of the 2021-2027 EU programming period, respectively, with an ex-post assessment to be conducted after 2035. There is no update on the progress or activity of this M&E unit. 3. Conclusions There is some good correlation in terms of vision, strategic and sectoral objectives between the Sulina development plan and the SIDDDD. Both strategies have harmonized visions, which would allow Sulina bring its contribution in achieving the objectives of the SIDDDD. Even though they have different design, the SLDS embraces the strategic objective of the SIDDDD. Although it is differently structured and worded, the local strategy embraces nearly all objectives from the SIDDDD, pointing to similar values and elements. The two documents have comparable objectives - although Sulina’s plan has a different approach, as the document is more concise and priorities are presented in a rather compact manner. 171 | P a g e Baia Integrated Sustainable Development Strategy 1. Overview Baia is a commune in the south-east of Tulcea county, around 60 km far from Tulcea city and partially placed in the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve. It comprises five villages - Baia (the seat of the commune), Camena, Caudagia, Ceamurlia de Sus, and Panduru. The villages are within 20 km from the seat of the commune - Camena is the farthest (19 km) and Panduru is the closest (5 km). The commune is crossed by the Tulcea-Constanta national road and is connected to the railway network. Figure 36 - Street in Baia Source: Baia City Hall https://www.primarie-comuna-baia.ro/?p=social_cultural Baia (formerly Hamangia) is known for its rich archeological sites. One of them showcases a new Middle Neolithic culture of IV-II B.C. millennial, the Hamangia Culture (named after the commune). As of 2013, Baia has 4,588 inhabitants, with a density of 24 people per km2.46 Three quarters are Romanian ethnic and a quarter Aromanians, an ethnic group living in the Balkans. The commune is spread over 19,829 hectares of which 12,000 is agricultural land. The largest village is Baia (305 hectares) and the smallest is Caugagia (46 hectares). The commune has a healthcare facility, a few schools, three kindergartens and three pharmacies. The local economy relies on agriculture with a focus on animal husbandry and crop production, in addition to trade, small industry and services, like oil manufacturing, milling, and car repairing. There is a post-harvest facility, a seed center, and a couple of slaughter houses. There are around 80 local small and medium enterprises. A local fair is organized weekly. Farmers purchased agricultural equipment with support from EU funds. Although Baia has a few cottages and good potential for fishery and hunting due to the surrounding lakes, forests and caves, local tourism is undeveloped. The commune has some good renewable energy potential. 12 wind turbines were installed by 2015 and investments for additional 200 turbines were further expected at that time. The main source of revenue to the local budget comes from permits for wind turbines. Local authorities are hopeful that 46 Baia Integrated Sustainable Development Strategy available at: http://www.paginadestart.com/comon/resurse/baia/Strategia_comunei_Baia_2015_2020.pdf 172 | P a g e unlocking the energy potential, in addition to modernization of animal husbandry, could develop the local private sector, which would bring about development and create new jobs. The estimated local budget was RON 26.6 million in 2019 and RON 20.3 million in 2020. 2. Comparative Analysis The Baia Integrated Sustainable Development Strategy (BISDS) for 2015-202047 was approved by the local council in 2015, before the SIDDDD. The coverage period is much shorter than of the Danube Delta strategy. The local strategy is a 72-page document of which a third talks about the general development context set by national and European strategies, description of the commune, while the rest outlines the SWOT analysis, priority development areas and the action plan. Baia does not have a strategic vision. In contrast, the SIDDDD has a special vision for the DDBR, the area that includes Baia – which is to develop agriculture and business environment with a network of urban centers providing services and integrate tourism into the attraction areas. The BISDS has five strategic development directions. These are: i) development and modernization of infrastructure, ii) increasing quality of life and environment protection, iii) revival of cultural and sports activities, iv) enabling conditions for private sector development, and v) improving institutional capacity. Each direction has a few specific development measures. There are 25 measures, including rehabilitation and modernization of communal streets & roads and water supply system; expansion of sewage network; modernization and endowment of schools; converting the city hall building into a healthcare center; development of parks and playgrounds; reviving traditions through cultural activities; supporting agriculture and animal husbandry; attracting entrepreneurs in tourism and agro- tourism; and training local staff to access EU funds. Each objective mentions the implementation period and potential funding sources. There is a correlation between the strategic and sectorial objectives of the SIDDDD and the development measures of Baia, although the documents have different structure and approach. Baia has 10 projects under implementation totaling RON 35 million with money from ITI DD and the central budget. Three projects of RON 9.2 million are financed by ITI DD through the National Rural Development Program (NRDP) and are linked to Pillar 4 Ensuring Public Services from the SIDDDD. Table 40. Projects funded through ITI DD Sectoral EU Total cost Project Objective Program (RON) /Pillar Local Modernization and expansion water supply and sewage in Baia NRDP 7,166,000 Infrastructure/ commune 4 Rehabilitation, modernization and endowment of cultural center in NRDP 1,260,000 Culture/ 4 Panduru village Rehabilitation, modernization and endowment of cultural center in NRDP 781,000 Culture/4 Camena village Total 9,207,000 47 Baia Integrated Sustainable Development Strategy available at: http://www.paginadestart.com/comon/resurse/baia/Strategia_comunei_Baia_2015_2020.pdf 173 | P a g e Seven projects with a total cost of RON 25.6 million are funded from the central budget through the NLDP. The interventions are aligned with the local strategy and the SIDDDD. Four activities (nearly RON 16 million) focus on modernization of village roads and are related to SIDDDF’s Pillar 3 Improving Connectivity. Three projects (around RON 10 million) are linked to Pillar 4 Ensuring Public Services, and focus on street lighting, water & sewage, and education. Figure 37. NDLP funds corresponding to SIDDDD pillars NDLP funds corresponding to SIDDDD pillars 38% 62% Pillar III Pillar IV Table 41.Projects funded by NLDP Sectoral Total cost Project Objective /Pillar (RON) SIDDDD Rehabilitation and modernization of communal road 77 Baia-Panduru km 1. 1,460,000 Transport/3 0+005 - 5+000 Modernization and rehabilitation of street infrastructure in the urban area 2. 9,454,000 Transport/3 of Ceamurlia de Sus village 3. Modernization of streets in Camena village 5,003,000 Transport/3 Rehabilitation and modernization of communal road 21, intersection 4. 764,000 Transport/3 National Road 22D – Camena km 0+600 - 3+100 5. Modernization and endowment of secondary school in Baia commune 2,058,000 Education/4 Rehabilitation and modernization of street lighting network in Baia 6. 461,000 Street lighting /4 commune 7. Expansion of water supply and sewage network in Baia commune 6,490,000 Water supply /4 Total 25,689,000 The main funding source for projects in Baia is the central budget. About three quarters of the money come from the NLDP and only a quarter is EU funds. 174 | P a g e Figure 38.Funding sources for projects in Baia Funding sources for projects in Baia 26.4% 74.6% DD ITI NLDP 3. Conclusions Although the Baia strategy was approved before the SIDDDD, the commune’s key development areas and measures are connected to the strategic and sectorial objectives of the Delta Danube plan. Both documents have similar strategic approach, although different structures, methodologies, and level of details. As local projects are connected to some of SIDDDD pillars, they can contribute to achieving the sectoral objectives pertaining to transport and public service delivery. 175 | P a g e Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Management Plan and Visiting Strategy 1. Overview of the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve A labyrinth of water and land, the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve (DDBR) is the largest European wetland and reed bed and Europe’s main water purification system. The DDBR is a protected area spread over 580,000 hectares in South East of Romania across three counties – Tulcea, Constanta, and Galați. It comprises of a few areas, including the Danube Delta itself, Saraturi-Murighiol Lake, and a small portion of the maritime zone of the Black Sea. The territory of the DDBR accounts for more than three quarters of the total area covered by the SIDDDD. More than half of the Reserve is made of water and land ecosystems of national interest and part of the UNESCO patrimony. 439,508 hectares of the total surface is land and 140,000 is water. 81% of the land in the Reserve is public property of national interest, 12.28% belongs to the counties, around 5% is under local administration and less than one percent is private. A quarter of the water area is labeled as economic zone. More than half of the Reserve is sustainable development area and nearly 40 percent are buffer zones. Around 10% is agricultural land, nearly four percent is forest, and 9 percent is part of the protected area. Figure 39 - Danube Delta Photo: Manuela Mot The DDBR comprises of 27 rural and urban territorial administrative units, such as Tudor Vladimirescu (the village part of Tulcea City), in addition to a few small cities like Isaccea, Sulina and Sfantu Gheorghe. There are 14,295 people48 living in the Reserve. The area is home to a rich mix of Romanian, Lippovan, Russian, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Turkish and Roma scattered along the Delta’s small villages and towns. Because it is made mostly of watery land, swamps, and unfavorable land for development of human settlements, the DDBR has one of the lowest densities in Romania, from as low as 1.8 people/km2 in Sfantu Gheorghe to nearly 14 people/km 2 in Sulina, with an average of 5.4 people km2. 48 Population in 2006, according to the DDBR Management Plan. 176 | P a g e The local economy in the Reserve is relying on fishery, including maritime fishery, with 27 fishery settlements spread over 40,000 hectares. Other key economic sectors are subsistence agriculture (reed harvesting), animal husbandry, hunting, wood exploitation, forestry, tourism, mineral extraction, and transportation. The Reserve’s water resources supply potable water to rural and urban localities, including Tulcea city, and to a few industrial holdings. The Reserve is managed by the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Authority (DDBRA) which has double roles as administrator of the protected area and as environment authority. 2. Comparative Analysis Although there are quite a few local strategies for the Reserve, only two of them are quite strategic, namely the DDBR Management Plan and the Visiting Strategy for the DDBR. The Management Plan is part of a comprehensive document called Management Plan and Regulations of the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve, approved by Government Decision in 2015. It is a 300-page document of which half is the actual management plan for the period 2015-2020.49 The Visiting Strategy is a 113-page document prepared in 2009, comprising strategies for each of the nine areas in the Reserve. Both plans have considered the key aspect of preserving the DDBR based on a few principles, sectorial and zonal instruments.50 Since these two plans have been drafted before the SIDDDD, this analysis is assessing whether there is any correlation between the Danube Delta strategy and the two documents about the Reserve. The DDBR has been divided into nine areas (see figure below), and each of them has its own strategy. 49 The DDBR Strategy is available at http://www.ddbra.ro/documente/admin/2015/1_ANEXA_HG_763_PARTE_I_pag_1_-_149__.pdf The document was published in the Official Journal, part I, no.762 bis on October 13, 2015. 50 The DDBR Visiting Strategy is available at http://www.ddbra.ro/media/9- %20Strategie%20de%20Vizitare(1).pdf 177 | P a g e Figure 40.Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Recreation and Tourism Zoning Source: Visiting Strategy of the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve The SIDDDD is referring to the Management Plan and other programmatic national and international documents, but it does not mention the Visiting Strategy, although this had been drafted years before. The SIDDDD’s vision has considered the boundaries set to preserve the biodiversity of the Danube Delta, recognizing that the economic activities and anthropogenic factors are the main polluters in the region. The Management Plan is based on nine principles and actions calling for a sustainable tourism development in the Danube Delta. These include an integrated monitoring system of environment (surveillance, prognosis, warning, and intervention), promoting the sustainable use of existing resources, setting up a framework to enable NGOs and communities to participate in drafting and implementing development plans, and establishing international cooperation to ensure environment protection. In addition, the strategy calls for the removal of polluters that endanger the health of people and for conservation of biodiversity and specific ecosystems to the natural bio-geographic framework. Additionally, it advocates to prevent ecological risks and damages, as well as to show precaution in decision making. Finally, perhaps one of the most important elements outlined by the strategy is “the polluter pays” principle – under which whoever is responsible for the damages caused to the environment should bear the costs associated to it. 178 | P a g e The Visiting Strategy is based on a few key concepts. They include i) zoning the nine areas and drawing individual visions and objectives for each zone; ii) using key elements to promote each zone; iii) capturing specific tourism for each zone; and iv) encouraging slow tourism together with fast tourism only for areas where this would not harm, in addition to preserving the biodiversity. Box 1. Slow tourism vs. fast tourism Slow tourism vs. fast tourism. The concept of slow tourism is based on activities performed over a longer period and using less resources, with limited impact on environment and positive economic effects on local communities. For fast tourism, which takes less time and greater amount of energy and resources, nature and local culture are merely the venue for recreational activities, and not the actual target of the touristic pursuit. For example, a four hour-trip in a wooden boat paddling along the Delta Danube will use zero fuel, as opposed to the same trip by a power boat that could require even up to 160 liters of fuel. The SIDDDD had considered most of the principles from the Visiting Strategy. The first seven principles are directly linked to Pillar 1 of the SIDDDD and its sectoral objectives and interventions. However, principles # 8 and # 9 (precaution in decision making and the polluter pays, respectively) are not explicitly included in the Delta Danube strategy, nor the elements on zoning and slow tourism from the Visiting Strategy. The visiting plan presents with a clear, operational strategy for each of the nine zones of the Reserve. Box 2. Strategy of Crișan Zone Strategy of the Crișan Zone based on slow tourism. This area attracts Romanians interested mostly in fishery, as well as international tourists looking for authentic birdwatch and local culture experiences. The strategy focuses on attracting tourists to discover the beauty of the nature and habitats in the region. The main objective is to develop an adequate infrastructure that should enable a genuine slow tourism experience, in addition to developing and promoting integrated activities. It takes into consideration a few elements, such as a directing and bringing visitors to the area and developing partnerships between public and private stakeholders. People should be encouraged to visit certain parts of the region, while pressure on habitats should be distributed through some filters regarding access and time. One way of doing this is, for example, by blocking access in some quasi-natural manner and making more difficult to get to some places or allowing access by non-motorized vehicles only. This calls for measures, like placing a ceiling for visitors for each part of the zone in partnership with the DDBR, local governments and entrepreneurs and with support from the territorial development plan, in addition to regulations to enable access routes for boats. The local partnership should help get access to finance, develop and promote local products, and advertise the region as a unique slow tourism experience to attract tourists and investors. The strategy also calls for setting up a local tourism association and provide training to local travel guides, hotel owners and boat drivers. Also, an open-air recreational center in the village should be developed and the visitor’s center should be modernized. The interventions in the SIDDDD had considered some of the recommendations from the Visiting Strategy. Among these are the establishment of a management organization for the Danube Delta destination, correlated with the development of the Danube Delta brand, and setting up a program 179 | P a g e with multiple destinations to develop products and tourist attractions. However, the SIDDDD has no direct reference to the key four principles from the Visiting Strategy, the specific zone strategies, nor the touristic products under these plans. As of now, ten projects in the DDBR have received EU funds under ITI, totaling RON 132 million (approximately EUR 27 million). All interventions are in line with the DDBR Management Plan, and focus on environment and improving administrative capacity. Table 42. ITI funded projects in the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Budget Sectoral Objective /Pillar Crt. Project (RON) SIDDDD Biodiversity and eco- 1. Review of DDBR Management Plan and regulations 43,529,702 system management/1 Improvement of the hydrological conditions in the aquatic natural habitats of the DDBR for the conservation of biodiversity and fishery Biodiversity and eco- 2. 13,037,015 resources - Lake complexes Dunavăț-Dranov, Razim-Sinoie, and system management/1 Sinoie-Istria- Nuntași Zone Biodiversity and eco- 3. Conservation of Camaorman Forest 9,283,461 system management/1 Improvement of the hydrological conditions in the aquatic natural habitats of the DDBR for the conservation of biodiversity and fishery Biodiversity and eco- 4. 35,910,901 resources - Lake Complexes Șontea-Fortuna, Matița-Merhei, system management/1 Somova-Parcheș Improvement of the hydrological conditions in the aquatic natural Biodiversity and eco- 5. habitats of the DDBR for the conservation of biodiversity and fishery 14,286,221 system management/1 resources - Lake Complexes Gorgova-Uzlina, Roșu-Puiu Measure to ensure a favorable protection and conservation status Biodiversity and eco- 6. at international level of the endangered habitats and species in the 16,129,469 system management/1 DDBR Total 132,176,901 The projects account for 19.11% under Pillar 1 (Environment and Natural Resources Protection) and 60.8% of the total interventions under the sectorial objective Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management. Overall, the six projects with the administration of the Reserve as beneficiary (DDBRA) represent 2.47% of the total financial envelope under IDA ITI DD. 180 | P a g e Figure 41.Financial impact of the DDBR projects under ITI by pillar 25.00% 19.11% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.00% 2.47% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Environmental Improving the Improved Providing public Promoting Total finacial and natural economy connectivity services efficiency, impact in ADI ITI resources accessibility and DD protection sustainability Figure 42.Financial impact of projects financed under ITI in DDBR at the sectoral objective level 70.00% 60.80% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 2.47% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% In addition, a couple of interventions have been implemented in the DDBR in recent years from other EU funds. The total funds received for these activities is EUR 427,086, which is by comparison one percent of the overall ITI interventions in the Reserve. One of them is Bridging the Danube Protected Areas towards a Danube Habitat Corridor (DANUBEparksCONNECTED), and it is financed from the Danube Transnational Program 2014-2020, Priority Axis 2 - Responsibility toward environment and culture in the Danube region. It is a campaign focusing on counteracting fragmentation of habits to preserve a cohesive ecosystem through Danube-wide strategies and activities to restore and maintain connectivity in all habitat elements, such as water, land, and air. The project was implemented between 2017 and 2019 in partnership with 25 public and private entities from ten countries for a total budget of EUR 3,085,412, of which DDBR contributed by EUR 350,000. The second activity is Life Danube Sturgeons, and it tackles the survival and recovery of sturgeons in the lower Danube region and their long-term protection against illegal fishing and trade. It is part of Priority Area 6 Biodiversity and Landscape Diversity of the EU Strategy for the Danube Region and 181 | P a g e Sturgeon 2020 program, and runs a budget of EUR 1.8 million of which the Reserve’s contribution is EUR 77,305. The DDBR is also implementing 11 projects with RON 74.3 million (EUR 15.5 million) from their own budget. The money is more than half (56.3%) of the EU funds received under ITI. These interventions are aligned with the sectorial objective from the Delta Danube strategy - Biodiversity and Eco-System Management and Eco-Tourism, respectively. By end December 2019, around a third of the money was used, as some interventions are almost complete, whereas others are at early stage of execution. Table 43.Projects financed by the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Authority Budget Project Execution at Crt. Project (RON) December 2019 (RON) 1. Development of access routes and ornithological observers in DDBR 1,889,000 59,000 Ecologic reconstruction for development of Ceamurlia fish 2. 1,685,000 48,000 development 3. Afforestation for shore consolidation 1,373,000 190,000 4. Fishing shelters 21,424, 800 10,600 Ecologic reconstruction for development of Murighiol fish 5. 6,093,000 3,521,000 development Works to prevent clogging of lakes in DDBR to maintain an optimal 6. regime according to the hydrological model channel decommissioning 3,582,800 3,547,000 in the Gorvoga-Uzlina aquatic complex Hydrological works to improve water flow in the Somova-Parcheș 7. 3,954,000 3,492,000 aquatic complex Works for the decommissioning of main fishing channels and lakes in 8. 12,328,000 11,613,000 the Danube Delta, Tulcea county - Phase II Ecological reconstruction of the Agricultural development of 9. 3,985,000 199,000 Carasuhat 10. Restoration works of the natural forest fund 1,143,000 57,000 Works to improve the hydrological conditions in the Sinoe-lstria- 11. 16,926,000 338,000 Nuntaşi area TOTAL 74,383,600 23,074,600 3. Conclusions The DDBR Management Plan is 90 percent aligned with the SIDDDD in terms of objectives, principles, and actions. The main difference is regarding the structure as one is a is a strategy which is more limited to identifying the objectives and targets, whereas the other is a management plan presenting specific activities and tasks, with roles and responsibilities. The projects from the DDBR are correlated with the interventions from the Delta Danube strategy. The projects under implementation by the DDBRA account for the third largest financial share of the ITI program, after interventions by the County Council Tulcea and those by the City of Tulcea. To ensure a better correlation in the future, the nine individual zone strategies from the Visiting Strategy should be integrated in the implementation plan of the SIDDDD. 182 | P a g e Annex 8. Performance Measurement System Methodology A methodological proposal for a performance measurement system: Danube Delta Integrated Sustainable Development Strategy (2030) Executive Summary The Ministry of Public Works, Development and Administration (MPWDA) requested technical assistance from the World Bank Group to evaluate the interim progress, effectiveness and impact of the Danube Delta Integrated Sustainable Development Strategy (SIDDDD).MPWDA, responsible for implementation oversight of the strategy, is eager to understand its overall physical and financial progress and identify opportunities for improvement for the next implementation phase. During the evaluation, the team made a number of recommendations to improve future monitoring and evaluation and produced this report to outline a methodology and support stakeholders in pursuing this improved approach. This document proposes a simple methodological approach to structure and operate performance measurement systems for entities involved in monitoring and evaluating the implementation of the SIDDDD. In the opinion of the evaluation team, the Performance Measurement System (PMS) represents a prerequisite for a functioning strategy, particularly in a complex environment with multiple stakeholders contributing to the ultimate achievement of the strategic vision. Establishing a methodology and agreeing on the standardization of approaches and interpretations is a foundation step towards a functioning system. This document proposes a 10-step methodological process to (re)design and improve the PMS for the SIDDDD in order to maximize the chances to achieve the strategic vision. It provides practical guidance to IDA ITI DD and MPWDA, the two entities involved in the monitoring and evaluation of the Delta Danube strategy implementation process, to handle this complex process aimed at modifying indicators and performance objectives. The PMS process covers a whole range of issues - from defining the object and process of the PMS, setting the performance objective and indicators, outlining methods to calculate indicators, data source and collection, to replacing or adding new indicators, comparing actual performance to the targeted ones, and handling the decision-making process. At the end of the day, this exercise should not only help strengthen the overall M&E system pertaining to the SIDDDD, but also set an example on how to measure performance in connection to other strategies /programs. 1. Introduction This report is included as an Annexure to the main deliverable (Output 1) of the Territorial Impact Assessment RAS, which is a comprehensive evaluation of the SIDDDD implementation progress. The specific output was agreed as deliverable with the MPWDA, following the identification of the absence of a coherent measurement system as a significant shortcoming. It should be emphasized that it is not found that there is a complete absence of performance measurement, but rather that the organizations involved in monitoring and evaluating of SIDDDD implementation process (MPWDA and IDA ITI DD, hereinafter referred to as the entities involved) have developed, over time, their own systems which may not yield comparable results. Measuring performance should be an ongoing, cyclical process, which improves in quality and refines methods and tools as organizations strengthen their institutional capacity, gain more and more experience, and integrates new models and working tools. A Performance Measurement System (PMS) provides the documented foundation for a permanent and consistent collection, analysis, processing, and reporting of the data on performance achieved in the process of reaching the objectives. In the case of SIDDDD, performance 183 | P a g e measurement explicitly targets strategic, pillar, sector, and project objectives, plus those of the non-refundable fund axis and Operational Programs (OP). Any changes in reviewing/redefining the strategic objectives and performance level of the SIDDDD must be approved by government decision (GD). Given the difficulty and potential long lead time this introduces, the WB team has not recommended any changes to the high-level strategic objectives or the set of high-level indicators in the strategy, but rather focused on the detailed set of indicators feeding into the strategic objectives. This does not however absolve i.e. MPWDA from not participating or providing inputs in the PMS, and the ministry is encouraged to play an active role with IDA ITI DD in refining the system over time. Ultimately supporting and adopting the system, and clarifying the role of different stakeholders will assist in improved overall progress monitoring of the implementation of SIDDDD. During the World Bank project for the evaluation of the SIDDDD in (between March and May 2020) experts from IDA ITI DD has completed the first iteration of an Excel Database used for calculating and reporting the performance indicators. The entity provided relevant feedback to improve some indicators and this should be the basis for the continuous refinement of the PMS. 2. The basics of a Performance Management System (PMS) A functional performance measurement system (PMS) requires setting and formulating the objectives of the strategy in a clear concise manner. Setting objectives can be a difficult process that should consider a few features. To this end, objectives should be: i) results-oriented ii) specific and measurable iii) achievable within a certain period of time iv) realistic in terms of time and costs, and v) mobilizing. A few simple criteria summarized as SMART (Specific, Measurable, Accessible, Relevant, and Time-bound) should be kept in mind to make sure there is consistency of the objectives. If they are not focused to bring about results, objectives are merely general goals that make it quite difficult to measure the performance. A general goal can turn into a specific objective by applying SMART criteria. For example, a general goal set as “reducing water losses in the distribution network” can become a clear objective by adding a few specifics, like “reducing water losses in the distribution network to 20 percent by 2025”. The PMS is an important instrument because it underpins the decision-making process by targeting projects, measures, and programs that can help achieve the objectives and targeted performance levels. The system is very useful especially in a dynamic external environment, as it allows ongoing adjustments to the implementation plan of the strategy51, such as activities, projects, indicators, in an informed and effective manner. Moreover, the PMS can help measure and analyze the unpredictable evolutions of the socio-economic and natural environment (like the situation regarding the COVID-19 pandemic), which requires periodic reviews of the strategic plan, objectives and sub-objectives. There are factors like experience, inter-institutional collaboration, institutional capacity, organizational culture that can impact the result, hence hinder bringing the expected outcome. The entities involved in the implementation of the strategy must develop/adjust / improve their own PMS, correlate the system with their roles and responsibilities, and follow similar methodological steps. The PMS process can be designed as a reverse loop system whose features are repetitiveness and stability (see Figure 1). This requires allocation of adequate resources for different components and tasks, including training staff, logistics, etc. 51 In SIDDDD the implementation plan is practically integrated into the strategy 184 | P a g e Figure 43 - Performance Measurement Process Object of measurement 1 Entity performing and reporting the Target / standard measurement 2 2 3 4 Entity responsible for comparing Decision-maker responsible for applying performance with the target and reporting the adjustments to reach the targets / to the decision- maker (could be the entity standards that performed the measurement) The development of the PMS is based on a few principles, namely:  Definition of results: set specific outcomes and impacts.  Description of targets: replace strategy’s vision statements with clear targets.  Measurement of progress: measure key achievements to show the progress made  Performance indicators: set relevant, simple indicators, generated at reasonable costs.  Ownership and stakeholders: involve specialists from the organization in the design and implementation of the PMS to allow a sense of ownership and improve quality of the system.  Analysis and improvement: continuously analyze and improve the performance indicators.  Easy reporting: report the results achieved under a verifiable, simple system. 3. Proposed methodological approach for the development of a PMS The PMS should be designed as a complex management tool, and not as a mere instrument to be used for collecting data related to objectives. A sophisticated, comprehensive tool PMS can operate the necessary changes to address issues or the situations of non-compliance with the standards. The PMS is a permanent, cyclical process, which improves in quality and refines methods and tools as organizations strengthen their institutional capacity, gain more and more experience, and integrates new models and working tools. The new cycle would allow restart the monitoring activities at a better quality, hence allowing for an overall better performance of the system. The PMS design can be improved and refined under a 10-step methodological process, as following: 1. Define the object and processes 2. Set performance objectives / standards 3. Set performance indicators 4. Set the method to calculate performance indicators 5. Collect data for measurement 6. Calculate the actual level of the indicators 7. Compare actual performances to targeted performances 8. Determine if and what actions are needed to achieve the strategic objective 9. Decide on changes and implementing measures 10. Review and modify the performance of objectives 185 | P a g e Figure 44 - Sequence of methodological steps of a generic PMS Start Clear definition of the object and processes specific to the performance measurement Setting performance objectives / standards Establishing performance indicators Establishing the calculation of performance indicators Collection of data necessary for the Database measurement Setting the actual level of the indicator Comparing the actual performance level with the desired one (targeted) No Yes Are corrective actions needed? Yes No New Make corrections performance objectives? Step 1. Clear definition of the object and processes specific to the PMS 186 | P a g e This step is critical as it divides responsibilities on PMS among entities involved. In addition, it helps to clarify issues about different concepts regarding the process and approach. Since the DD strategy was approved by a GD and any changes to it would require a new GD, the components of the strategy should be taken into consideration when (re)designing the PMS and defining the object and process of the system. Long-term strategies, like SIDDDD, must be updated from time to time to be able to respond to internal and external environment conditions. Changes could be incorporated into the strategy through a simplified process. For example, while the main body of the strategy - strategic objectives, pillars, areas of intervention, performance standards - should be modified by GD, the revision of the implementation plan and its components could be approved by the MPWDA, the entity responsible for developing the strategy. When defining the PMS object and process, the entities involved should have in mind a few issues. First, the parties should clarify what would the PMS measures entail and the role of each stakeholder in the institutional arrangement pertaining to this process. Second, they should identify the planning levels, such as strategic objectives, objectives at pillar level, objectives for each area of intervention, or project objectives. Finally, the entities involved will have to decide how to position themselves and in connection to other organizations that could join in the process. This depends on the type and source of data used, information processing and reporting system. Some of these issues are already clarified in the SIDDDD. Chapter VII: Monitoring and evaluation of the SIDDDD outlines the M&E system of the strategy, and indirectly the PMS. According to the strategy, the M&E should support the effective implementation of interventions and absorption of EU funds, on one hand, and assess the long-term impact and sustainable development of interventions, on the other hand. The document also says that the MPWDA and IDA ITI DD are responsible for M&E of the strategy, which again sets the basis for their role with regard to PMS. The information flow among key stakeholders in the PMS process is outlined in Figure 3 below. It shows the responsibilities with regard to measuring performance based on specific indicators at different levels of the strategic planning, in addition to the relationship between the entities involved and between them and data sources. 187 | P a g e Figure 45 – Recommended information flow amongst stakeholders in the PMS Strategic Public objectives Central Public 10 authorities, Administration Impact indicators institutions, and (MPWDA) 9 companies 8 7 Derived 4 objectives Project, sector, and pillar at pillar result indicators level Various specific databases IDA ITI DD 5 6 Derived r objectives OP, Axis, and project at sector 3 indicators level 2 Managing Authorities 1 Activity / audit reports Project objectives 1 Beneficiaries Progress and sustainability reports Action 1 As per OPs and financing contracts, beneficiaries of EU funds should prepare and submit progress and sustainability reports to the Managing Authorities (MAs) of the EU programs. The most relevant information in these comprehensive reports is about the levels targeted and achieved of input indicators (costs) and output indicators (immediate results), which can vary depending the type of project. 52 Whenever available, the reports may include information on efficiency indicators, like cost/unit of immediate results, as to allow a comparative analysis and reporting to national and international standards. There is a well-established relationship at various levels between project beneficiaries and IDA ITI DD (marked with a dash line in Figure 3). Although it was not included in the PMS information flowchart, this connection is useful for validating the data from MAs. 52 In addition to EU funds, local authorities use money from the local budget (city, county etc.) and transfers from the central budget to support investments at the local level in infrastructure (transport/roads), education, health, environment etc. that contribute achieving the SIDDDD objectives. This was highlighted in details by the comparative analysis of local development strategies to the SIDDDD (see main report). 188 | P a g e Actions 2 & 3 MAs should check the accuracy of the data in the reports from the beneficiaries and compare it to data from their own audit reports. Subsequently, they should upload the information in their database. Databases should provide easy access to information for entities involved to calculate performance indicators. Certain types of information is needed, including i) financial allocations per program, measures, etc.; ii) value of contracts completed under ITI DD; iii) name and details about projects and beneficiaries; iv) project objectives; v) performance indicators (input, efficiency, immediate results); vi) targets connected to indicators; vii) level of indicators achieved; and viii) project financial progress reports. Action 4 Beneficiaries of EU projects, such as local authorities and public companies, put in their databases information on the implementation of the DD strategy and calculation of performance indicators. The MPWDA should help reach an agreement between different local entities and IDA ITI DD in order to provide relevant information and facilitate access to data useful for the PMS. Such agreements could cover data exchange that could be of interest to IDA ITI DD, the protocol for accessing data by the IDA ITI DD or provided to respective parties, and the frequency of data exchange/provided. Such agreements not only reduce the time and resources used by IDA ITI DD in getting the data, but would also encourage cooperation among different parties. For example, some useful information on results and impact indicators is available at the Territorial Statistics Directorates. An agreement at the national level between the National Institute of Statistics (NSI) and the IDA ITI DD/MPWDA would open access to statistical indicators on specific data and information at the level of territorial administrative units (TAUs), such as cities, towns, communes etc. Perhaps such agreement could be easily reached since the NSI is mentioned in the SIDDDD as an information source for the M&E of the strategy implementation. Other relevant information could be provided by other public sector entities at both national and local level. At national level, the information could be available at MAs for OPs and service/ energy suppliers, such as Romgas, the natural gas operator, and Transelectrica, the electricity transmission system operator. At sub- national level, data could come from decentralized and deconcentrated bodies at the local/county level, like School Inspectorates, Employment Agencies, Agencies for Payments and Social Inspection, Agencies for Environmental Protection, Public Health Directorates, Directorates for Agriculture and Rural Development, Inspectorates for Emergency Situations. In addition, data can be also obtained from the Danube Delta National Research and Development Institute, the Administration of the Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve, county councils, city halls, the Tulcea Airport and the Tulcea Zonal Captaincy (managing the Tulcea port). These entities could provide relevant information to help calculate the performance indicators of the SIDDDD or identify new indicators. Actions 5, 6 and 7 Here the IDA ITI DD collects, validates, and processes the data that can help put together the indictors of the strategy, and calculates the indicators in Action 7. During Action 7, the IDA ITI DD calculates the indicators (mostly output and outcome indicators) to measure achievements by project/sector/pillar objectives, and subsequently add the level of achievement in its own Excel database. The Excel database must follow the format that has been agreed upon by IDA ITI and World Bank experts (see Annexure 1 Indicator Sheet & Annexure 4 M&E Report). Nevertheless, this model is not set in stone, and the structure could be improved and modified as needed. The Excel Database should be the basis of the M&E of the strategy implementation based on performance indicators. Actions 8 & 9 & 10 Finally, the last three points of interaction in the PMS information flowchart show the data collection by the MPWDA from available databases/sources and computing the actual levels of impact indicators. MPWDA enters in the database the figures on achievement of impact indicators, and subsequently is taken over by IDA ITI DD and put in the Excel Database. IDA ITI DD also could be responsible about data collection/validation, 189 | P a g e calculation of impact indicators and reporting figures in their own database. This would require an agreement between the MPWDA and IDA ITI DD and figuring out ways about how the ministry should validate the data and include the impact indicators in the Excel Database. In this way, the database could provide information about all indicators from the SIDDDD. Step 2. Setting the performance objectives/ standards Without setting the objective/standards, there is no point for choosing measures, deciding on actions etc. In the example of “reducing water losses in the distribution networks to 20 percent by 2025”, the performance standard is given by the maximum level of 20 percent losses. A few aspects should be taken into considerations when setting the performance objectives. Objectives/standards must be accessible, achievable with reasonable effort under normal conditions, and at low costs compared to the importance of the additional information provided by the indicator. Also, objectives should be applicable and pertinent as to match the conditions in which they will be used, ensuring that standards are flexible enough to adjust to different variations and conditions. Standards must be clear, understandable (expressed in simple terms to avoid misinterpretation), measurable (convey accurate information), and legitimate (officially approved). Finally, standards must be fair and accepted by the entities involved as a fair basis for comparison regarding the achievement of the performance target. Step 3. Establishing the performance indicators As mentioned before, performance indicators are input output, efficiency, outcome and impact indicators . The SIDDDD enabled the entities involved to use output, outcome, and impact indicators, hence the Excel Database is structured accordingly. Unlike output indicators, outcome and impact indicators raise issues. First, they require special collection procedure, such as surveys, use of specialized staff, consultation of databases, reports, and official documents. Second, they are hard to measure because they are difficult to quantify, the information may not be available, and it can take even years to generate and validate the data. In general, indicators can be affected by external, unpredictable factors, like economic crises, pandemics, natural disasters, or environmental accidents. It is difficult to link results and impact to project implementation. For example, in the DD strategy results are produced both by public and private sector beneficiaries, which can generate different impact and synergies. In addition, sometimes project implementation can reach different specific objectives, other than the desirable impact – e.g., indicators for environmental quality assessment may be affected by economic development or infrastructure/transport projects. Finally, often time, just like in SIDDDD, indicators have no baseline, which means that the progress cannot be measured. The entities involved may consider to undertake a few actions to improve SIDDDD indicators. One action as such is adjusting the list of indicators by dropping off those causing the most troubles, and instead adding new indicators. At first, a small set of indicators should be used to increase quality of the PMS and expand the list over time, in addition to using benchmarks specific to the respective sector in the absence of a baseline. Certain criteria should be considered to select or complete the list of performance indicators. This is including a few elements, namely i) validity –accuracy in measuring the results (quantity, quality, time interval); ii) relevance - in connection to the activity/project/program assessed; iii) reliability –lasting over a longer period of time; iv) simplicity – information is available and easy to collect and analyze, v) and accessibility – data is collected and evaluated at acceptable costs. While the Excel Database is the main tool for the M&E of SIDDDD progress achievements, the Indicator Sheet should be used for all performance indicators. The data in the Indicator Sheet should be constantly updated and the sheet structure modified and improved to be aligned with the Excel Database. The sheet should be filled in by IDA ITI DD staff. The Indicator Sheet helps create the so-called Catalog of Performance Indicators. In addition, by populating the sheet with information it can also help assess how indicators meet the selection criteria (described above) and how they can improve. Also, it is quite useful for the new staff to speed up the learning process on M&E. A model for the Indicator Sheet is available in Annexure 1, with instructions to 190 | P a g e complete this in Annexure 2. Annexure 3 presents the connection between the structure of the Excel Database and the Indicator Sheet. Step. 4. Establishing the calculation method for the performance indicators The calculation of performance indicators is a two-step process. First, it identifies the specific data necessary for the indicators and presenting, and second, it provides details about calculation formulas. IDA ITI DD specialists, with support from World Bank experts, have established the calculation formulas for all output and outcome indicators in the Excel Database. Step. 5. Collection of necessary data for measurement The measurement of performance indicators requires complex sources and methods for data collection. The main data sources are the own databases, database of third parties, studies, reports and any other open source information. There are a few methods used for data collection, including consultation of public databases, online studies, reports etc., receiving information from other entities based on institutional cooperation, opinion polls, field surveys conducted by ITI specialists or contractors. Data accuracy and relevance is important and must be ensured. After data is verified, it must be placed in a safe data storage. Data processing can be performed with support from IT products purchased from specialized stores/experts based on specifications, data application and programs (e.g., Microsoft Access), and spreadsheet programs (like Excel). For SIDDDD, the existing database in Excel can be a good starting point for further improvement and development. The Excel program has a few advantages. It can speed up design and implementation, incurs minimum costs, it is flexible and can structure the information based on needs, and accessible and familiar to IDA ITI DD staff. Step 6. Setting the actual level of performance indicator The actual level of each performance indicator at a given time is calculated based on the formula indicated at Step 4. The actual level of indicators can be taken from different databases available or from reports provided by various partners. IDA IITI DD could collect the data and calculate the performance level of impact indicators, with support from the MPWDA. To this end, the ministry should help verify the accuracy of data, the way the data responds to the analysis and information processing, and whether the right calculation formulas are applied. Step 7. Comparing actual performance level with targeted level This step is about reporting the actual level of indicators to targeted values (intermediate or final values) and to the reference base. This process is based on the following formulas:  Achievement of target (Current value /Target value)%  Physical progress [(Actual value- Baseline value) / Target value]% Sometimes it is useful to compare actual values to those from previous years in order to identify trends and developments that may signal some issues. Before analyzing and processing, data must be checked to make sure the figures are real, accurate, and match the needs. Step 8. Deciding whether adjustments are needed to achieve the strategic objectives The IDA ITI DD staff can decide whether to make adjustments to achieve the strategic objective of the SIDDDD. This is the time to modify or drop off some performance indicators and adopt new indicators. The information analysis based on performance indicators can help make changes and undertake some steps. Changes can be made with regard to projects, measures and processes as to maximize the likelihoods of achieving the objectives of the strategy. This is the moment to drop off some of the objectives, usually those that have already been achieved, or replace some of them with new targets. IDA ITI DD should assess the output and outcome indicators to see if such changes are needed and, if so, provide reasoning to justify the modifications. IDA should develop adequate measures to adjust the indicators. All changes must be approved by the management of IDA ITI DD, and then forwarded to the MPWDA. Step 9. Deciding on adjustments and implement the measures 191 | P a g e The decision-making process must be flexible and should allow undertake corrections to ensure that the strategic objectives will be achieved. As SIDDDD was approved by a GD, most adjustments outlined in Step 8 must be endorsed by the government through a GD. However, this is a complicated process that would take quite a long time and involve too many stakeholders. To simplify things, perhaps the MPWDA should decide about the adjustments, except for those related to performance objectives and dropping off some objectives. Step 10. Review and final changes to performance objectives The decision to modify or develop new performance objectives depends on two factors, namely how successful it has previously been in achieving the performance objectives and the changes agreed with regard to the strategic objectives. IDA ITI DD should review the performance objectives. Performance objectives can be modified or changed only by a GD, by proposals from MPWDA based on analyses, forecasts and proposals from IDA ITI DD. If the new performance objectives are not approved by a GD or other strategic planning documents (like OPs), then changes should be endorsed by the MPWDA. 4. Conclusion The development/improvement of the PMS for the SIDDDD would require buy in from both IDA ITI DD and MPWDA (taking into account their respective roles and responsibilities). A revised PMS should be underpinned by a clear methodology (as outlined here) and have access to appropriate resources to support implementation (be it human resources, IT systems, etc.) . This outlined methodology can help to expand and improve the foundational system established during the strategy review process. A well-structured, functional PMS can allow to adequately monitor and evaluate the implementation of the SIDDDD, using information from the Excel Database. Some recommended and short term next steps in the process could be:  Performance indicators to be selected based on a proposed methodology and the Catalogue of Indicators will be developed;  The database of IDA ITI DD to be completed with additional data to evaluate the implementation and performance of the SIDDDD based on output and outcome indicators; IDA staff to identify the data sources and ensure data collection using the PMS methodology.  In addition to targets for performance indicators, new reasonable targets have been identified and proposed for the period up to 2023, these should be further refined; and  The level of achievement of performance objectives should be measured by two methods used for calculating the indicators. 192 | P a g e Annexure 1 - Indicator Sheet Organization INDICATOR SHEET 1 Name of indicator: 2 Type of indicator: Input Output Efficiency Outcome Impact According According to According to According to According to IISDDD 2014 the review the review the review the review 3 Indicator coding: 4 Strategic objective 5 Pillar 6 Sector 7 Specific to SIDDDD or other strategic documents 8 Definition of indicator 9 Unit of measurement 10 Source of data /information on how to collect and validate 11 Frequency of data collection 12 Calculation formula year 13 Reference base value year 14 Target value value year 15 Actual value value Method of reporting for achieving 16 the indicator Periodicity of reporting on 17 indicator’s actual value Person responsible for name data collection, e-mail 18 including contact details phone number Comments (proposals for keeping, 19 replacing indicators, other comments) 193 | P a g e Annexure 2 - Instructions for completing the indicator sheet No. Item Filling instructions 1 Name of indicator Enter full name of indicator, as in the SIDDDD or in other planning documents. The indicators must be reviewed periodically, and should be accompanied by an updated list of indicators in use. 2 Type of indicator Enter type of indicator 3 Indicator coding As during the implementation of the SIDDDD some indicators may be dropped or new ones are used, when reviewing the indicators from # 1, the indicator code will also be revised. 4 Strategic objective Use the exact name of objective in the SIDDDD. If during implementation of the strategy, (i) there are changes regarding the objective, (ii) objectives are dropped or (iii) new objectives are approved, this section should be completed based on the “Updated List of Strategy Objectives”. Any changes to the objective will be recorded based on the name of the strategic objective (provide information on year of the review). 5 Pillar Enter name of pillar as in the SIDDDD. Any changes in the name or structure of the pillars will be handled as explained at above (#4). 6 Sector Enter name of sector as in the SIDDDD. Any changes to the name or structure of the sectors will be handled as mentioned above (#4). 7 Specific to SIDDDD or During the implementation of the strategy, the list of indicators could be other strategic completed with additional relevant indicators, specific to other strategic documents plans. Mention if the indicator is from the SIDDDD or other strategic documents (OPs, local development strategies, sectoral strategies, strategic plans of public companies, etc.). 8 Indicator definition Provide a simple definition of the indicator, referring to the expected results and its relevance to the objective. 9 Measurement unit Enter the unit of measurement – e.g., value, percentage YES/NO can be used for output indicators where Yes = 1 and NO = 0 10 Source of data and Include all sources for data collection and validation (own databases, public information and how authorities/institutions, public companies, statistical reports, opinion polls, to collect and field surveys, official relevant, credible documents). validate 11 Frequency of data Mention the frequency of data collection (quarterly, annually etc.). This collection depends on the availability of data. Add period in which the data collection and validation was performed. 12 Calculation formula Enter the calculation algorithm by which the value of the indicator is determined. 13 Reference base It is the initial value of the indicator to determine the direction and magnitude of the change in the value of the indicator. Mention the year for which the reference value of the indicator has been set. 194 | P a g e No. Item Filling instructions 14 Target value Enter the target value, either final or intermediate that is assumed by the performance objective set by the strategy. If the performance objective / target value of the indicator is not set by the strategy, stakeholders can restore to some realistic values, which will be periodically reviewed based on the evolution of the indicator. 15 Actual value The actual value is calculated according to the calculation formula, at frequencies as per section # 11 established. 16 The way of reporting The actual value of the indicators will be calculated and introduced in the on the indicator Database in Excel format. achievement 17 Frequency of Usually, the reporting is done annually, within 30 days from the collection of reporting on the data. When new relevant data to calculate the indicator is available and actual value of the validated, the indicator is recalculated and recorded in the Excel database. indicator 18 Person responsible Enter full name of person responsible for collecting, validating the data, for data collection calculating the indicator and entering the actual values in the Excel database. (add contact details) Include e-mail address and phone number. 19 Comments The responsible person must provide reason for the proposed actions (proposals for • keeping the indicator keeping/ replacing • modify the target indicators, other • dropping the indicator comments) • drop of some objectives (for example, objectives that are fully achieved and will be no longer in the next EU programming period) • proposal of other objectives • proposals for institutional arrangements to facilitate access to data and collaboration between organizations, etc. The responsible person should identify and explain the challenges encountered during this process and propose solutions to address the issued. 195 | P a g e Annexure 3 - Simplified Structure of the Excel Database Column headings should include the following: - NUMBER - PILLAR - SECTOR - RESPONSIBLE PERSON - UPDATED INDICATOR CODE - INDICATOR NAME - TYPE (ACHIEVEMENT / RESULT) - SOURCE (SIDDDD, OPs etc.) - MEASUREMENT UNIT - DEFINITION - CALCULATION FORMULA - REFERENCE VALUE FOR 2016 - TARGET VALUE FOR 2023 - DATA SOURCE - CURRENT VALUE FOR 2019 - COMMENTS - ACHIEVEMENT OF THE TARGET - PHYSICAL PROGRESS 196 | P a g e Annexure 4 - Monitoring and Evaluation Report – Proposed structure for the use of IDA ITI DD M&E Report Proposed structure for the use of IDA ITI DD I. General information  Reporting entity  Name of the strategic document  Reporting date II. Actual performance indicators  Indicator code (SIDDDD or revised) (will be generated automatically,  Indicator name  Strategic objective using the EXCEL Dedicated  Pillar Database  Sector The database structured and  Measurement unit populated with information is  Reference value realized by IDA ITI DD specialists,  Target value (intermediate and final) with the support of the World Bank  Actual value expert)  Comparison of actual performance level with: o the performance level of reference values o the performance level of target values III. Analysis, R 3. a. Indicator & process of defining the actual value of indicators explanations, comments regarding the actual and (positive aspects, problems, costs, etc., lessons learned). values and evolution of indicatorsR 4. Indicate how the indicators meet the following criteria:  Validity - The indicator allows accuracy in measuring results (quantity, quality, period of time).  Relevance –Relevant to the measured process.  Reliability –To maintain over time, regardless influences by unpredictable external factors.  Simplicity - Information is available, ready to collect and analyze.  Accessibility – Collection and analysis of information/data is possible at acceptable costs. b. Analysis and explanation of proposals related to:  Modifying of dropping off certain performance indicators.  Adopting of new performance indicators.  Changing performance objectives.  Proposed interventions based on type of projects and activities to maximize the chances to achieve the objectives of the strategy.  Dropping off objectives of the strategy (those that have been achieved achieved) or changing objectives IV. Conclusions Briefly summarize the results / problems highlighted in points II and III V. Recommendations R 5. Enter recommendations on methodological, organizational, and institutional issues. 197 | P a g e Annexure 5 - Catalogue of SIDDDD Indicators Catalogue of SIDDDD indicators Physical Achievement progress of targets # Pillar Sector Indicator (%) (%) June 2020 June 2020 Biodiversity and Number of Natura 2000 sites with active 1 Pillar I ecosystem 22.73% 22.73% conservation objectives management Biodiversity and The share of economically valuable fish species 2 Pillar I ecosystem -1.85% 96.30% populations management Biodiversity and The surface of the supported habitats in order to 3 Pillar I ecosystem 3.81% 3.81% obtain a better conservation stage management Biodiversity and Approved sets of measures / management plans / 4 Pillar I ecosystem 50% 50% action plans management Biodiversity and Number of sites /areas / species /habitats (as 5 Pillar I ecosystem appropriate) benefiting from approved 55.56% 55.56% management management plans / action plans Biodiversity and Number of Natura 2000 sites with administrator / 6 Pillar I ecosystem 0% 0% operational custodian - 4.1A management Biodiversity and Number of sites / areas / species / habitats (as 7 Pillar I ecosystem appropriate) benefiting from active conservation 0% 0% management measures implemented Biodiversity and Number of Natura 2000 sites with administrator / 8 Pillar I ecosystem 41.67% 41.67% operational custodian - 4.1B management Biodiversity and Active measures implemented for species X (for 9 Pillar I ecosystem action plans related to species whose area cannot 6.67% 6.67% management be identified exhaustively) Biodiversity and Number of new researchers in the supported 10 Pillar I ecosystem entities management Biodiversity and Number of researchers working in improved 11 Pillar I ecosystem research infrastructures management Biodiversity and Private investment combined with public support 12 Pillar I ecosystem 0% 0% for innovation or R&D projects management 198 | P a g e Physical Achievement progress of targets # Pillar Sector Indicator (%) (%) June 2020 June 2020 Biodiversity and Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Management 13 Pillar I ecosystem 0% 0% Plan implemented management Biodiversity and Management Plans of other Natura 2000 sites in 14 Pillar I ecosystem 0% 0% the ITI territory management Number of sets of measures and actions of the Biodiversity and Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve (DDBR) based on 15 Pillar I ecosystem widely accepted monitoring data and state-of- 33.33% 33.33% management the-art hydrological, sedimentation and demographic models implemented Biodiversity and The surface of the supported habitats in order to 16 Pillar I ecosystem 3.81% 3.81% obtain a better conservation stage management Biodiversity and Number of flood protection infrastructure 17 Pillar I ecosystem objectives within the DDBR built / rehabilitated / 16.67% 37.50% management upgraded Biodiversity and Number of approved normative acts that support 18 Pillar I ecosystem the conservation of the natural heritage of the management Delta Number of permits issued by DDBR Authority for Biodiversity and researchers involved in the internationally 19 Pillar I ecosystem 53.33% 53.33% recognized diversified research program on DD's management natural and cultural systems and resources 20 Pillar I Energy efficiency Number of renovated public buildings 23% 23% 21 Pillar I Energy efficiency Number of renovated residential buildings 22 Pillar I Energy efficiency Final energy consumption in the residential sector The length of the rehabilitated / extended 23 Pillar I Energy efficiency 0% 0% thermal network Decrease in annual primary energy consumption 24 Pillar I Energy efficiency 3.30% 3.30% in public buildings 199 | P a g e Physical Achievement progress of targets # Pillar Sector Indicator (%) (%) June 2020 June 2020 Decrease in annual primary energy consumption 25 Pillar I Energy efficiency 0% 0% in public lighting Estimated annual decrease in greenhouse gas 26 Pillar I Climate changes 0% 0% emissions Number of interventions and investments for 27 Pillar I Climate changes 20% 20% climate change adaptation measures Number of households with a better classification 28 Pillar I Climate changes of energy consumption due to the implementation of energy efficiency measures Disaster risk Average response time to emergency firefighting 29 Pillar I 30.72% 100% management or other situations Disaster risk Average time to respond to emergencies when 30 Pillar I 6.99% 97.90% management receiving first aid Disaster risk 31 Pillar I Units equipped for emergencies management Funding application submitted for analysis and Disaster risk 32 Pillar I approval to the European Commission / 50% 50% management Independent Evaluation Body Supporting documentation for the elaboration of Disaster risk the financing application (Feasibility Study, 33 Pillar I 0% 0% management Institutional Analysis, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Environmental Impact Assessment, etc.) Number of inhabitants who benefit from flood Disaster risk 34 Pillar I protection measures as a result of making 100% 100% management investments in infrastructure. Disaster risk 35 Pillar I Number of disaster response drills (annual) 57.14% 57.14% management Disaster risk Hazardous waste inventory and existing 36 Pillar I 0% 0% management information management system (yes or no) 200 | P a g e Physical Achievement progress of targets # Pillar Sector Indicator (%) (%) June 2020 June 2020 Disaster risk 37 Pillar I Number of intervention plans available 100% 100% management Emergency Number of pollution incidents in the DD region 38 Pillar I situations caused by (annually) pollution Emergency 39 Pillar I situations caused by Number of emergency response drills (annually) 66.67% 66.67% pollution Emergency 40 Pillar I situations caused by Average time to stop pollution incidents (days) pollution Emergency 41 Pillar I situations caused by Number of pollution prevention plans available pollution 42 Pillar II Tourism Tourist arrivals (annually) 13.76% 83.33% Occupancy rates for authorized / official 43 Pillar II Tourism 24% 100% accommodation 44 Pillar II Tourism Average length of stay (nights) 53.85% 100% Share of tourist accommodation structures open 45 Pillar II Tourism all year round (%) Increasing the expected number of visits to 46 Pillar II Tourism cultural and natural heritage sites and supported 15.31% 15.31% attractions 47 Pillar II Tourism Restored cultural heritage objectives 12.50% 12.50% 48 Pillar II Tourism Public buildings built / modernized / extended 0% 0% 201 | P a g e Physical Achievement progress of targets # Pillar Sector Indicator (%) (%) June 2020 June 2020 Open spaces created or rehabilitated in urban 49 Pillar II Tourism 0% 0% areas Public or commercial buildings constructed or 50 Pillar II Tourism 0% 0% renovated in urban areas People living in small and medium-sized cities 51 Pillar II Tourism where local development strategies have been 0% 0% implemented 52 Pillar II Tourism Number of modernized historical monuments 0% 0% 53 Pillar II Tourism Number of DDBR entry permits Number of boats available for tourists at the main 54 Pillar II Tourism exit points and nodal points (monitored routes) Number of traditional houses maintained / 55 Pillar II Tourism 50% 50% rehabilitated included in the tourist circuit The ratio between non-residents and residents 56 Pillar II Tourism 86.83% 115.17% owning land in DD Fishing and 57 Pillar II Variation in production value 20.87% 20.87% aquaculture Fishing and 58 Pillar II Variation in production volume 28.57% 28.57% aquaculture Fishing and Jobs (ENI) created in the fisheries sector or 59 Pillar II 13.48% 13.48% aquaculture complementary activities Fishing and Jobs (ENI) maintained in the fisheries sector or 60 Pillar II aquaculture complementary activities 202 | P a g e Physical Achievement progress of targets # Pillar Sector Indicator (%) (%) June 2020 June 2020 Fishing and Number of fisheries jobs by specific activities 61 Pillar II aquaculture (newly created through projects) Fishing and 62 Pillar II The size of predatory fish species populations aquaculture Fishing and 63 Pillar II Caras population dynamics aquaculture Fishing and Number of investments / projects in aquaculture 64 Pillar II 13.33% 13.33% aquaculture / processing / fisherman safety Fishing and 65 Pillar II Of which: Aquaculture 20% 20% aquaculture Fishing and 66 Pillar II Of which: Processing 0% 0% aquaculture Fishing and 67 Pillar II Of which: Fishermen's Safety 0% 0% aquaculture Share of irrigation infrastructure rehabilitated Agriculture and 68 Pillar II through ITI projects out of total viable irrigation 14.29% 14.29% rural development infrastructure (%) Agriculture and The area of land granted to farmers in publicly 69 Pillar II rural development available land Agriculture and % of farmers who have started a non-agricultural 70 Pillar II 100% 100% rural development activity Agriculture and % of initiatives / projects that capitalize on the 71 Pillar II 100% 100% rural development cultural heritage of the area Agriculture and % of modernized communal and village 72 Pillar II 38.49% 38.49% rural development infrastructure 203 | P a g e Physical Achievement progress of targets # Pillar Sector Indicator (%) (%) June 2020 June 2020 Agriculture and % of modernized communal and village 73 Pillar II 25% 25% rural development infrastructure - agricultural road Agriculture and % of modernized communal and village 74 Pillar II 10% 10% rural development infrastructure - forest road Agriculture and % of modernized communal and village 75 Pillar II 10% 10% rural development infrastructure - water network Agriculture and % of the modernized communal and village 76 Pillar II 10% 10% rural development infrastructure - sewerage network Agriculture and % of modernized communal and village 77 Pillar II 9.45% 9.45% rural development infrastructure - modernized local roads % of modernized communal and village Agriculture and 78 Pillar II infrastructure - modernized high schools and 80% 80% rural development schools Agriculture and % of modernized communal and village 79 Pillar II 16.67% 16.67% rural development infrastructure - kindergartens Agriculture and % of modernized communal and village 80 Pillar II 50% 50% rural development infrastructure - after school Agriculture and % of modernized communal and village 81 Pillar II 16.67% 16.67% rural development infrastructure - street lighting Agriculture and % of modernized communal and village 82 Pillar II 16.67% 16.67% rural development infrastructure - markets Agriculture and % of modernized communal and village 83 Pillar II 100% 100% rural development infrastructure - dispensary Agriculture and % of modernized communal and village 84 Pillar II 16.67% 16.67% rural development infrastructure - sports facilities 204 | P a g e Physical Achievement progress of targets # Pillar Sector Indicator (%) (%) June 2020 June 2020 Agriculture and % of modernized communal and village 85 Pillar II 16.67% 16.67% rural development infrastructure - parks and playgrounds Agriculture and % of modernized communal and village 86 Pillar II 16.67% 16.67% rural development infrastructure - bridges and footbridges Agriculture and % of modernized communal and village 87 Pillar II 16.67% 16.67% rural development infrastructure - networks for population safety Agriculture and No. of holdings receiving aid for investments in 88 Pillar II 81.78% 81.78% rural development agricultural holdings Share of total public and private investments for Agriculture and 89 Pillar II food processing and marketing = Total project 25% 25% rural development wave (euro) of total ITI agricultural investments Agriculture and Number of holdings receiving investment aid for 90 Pillar II 16.67% 16.67% rural development food processing and marketing Agriculture and No. of projects receiving investment aid for 91 Pillar II 70.97% 70.97% rural development irrigation Agriculture and 92 Pillar II Target area (ha) for irrigation through ITI projects 25% 25% rural development Agriculture and No. of projects with investments in manure 93 Pillar II 44.44% 44.44% rural development storage platforms Agriculture and No. of holdings receiving start-up aid / support for 94 Pillar II 85.71% 85.71% rural development investments in non-agricultural activities Agriculture and No of projects benefiting from infrastructure 95 Pillar II 35.85% 35.85% rural development investment aid Agriculture and Length of agricultural roads (m) = agricultural 96 Pillar II 0.01% 0.01% rural development road 205 | P a g e Physical Achievement progress of targets # Pillar Sector Indicator (%) (%) June 2020 June 2020 Agriculture and 97 Pillar II Forest road length (m) = forest road rural development Agriculture and 98 Pillar II Water network length (m) 0.01% 0.01% rural development Agriculture and 99 Pillar II Sewer network length (m) 0% 0% rural development Agriculture and 100 Pillar II Length of modernized local roads (m) 0.01% 0.01% rural development Agriculture and 101 Pillar II No modernized high schools and colleges 100% 100% rural development Agriculture and 102 Pillar II No modernized kindergartens 16.67% 16.67% rural development Agriculture and 103 Pillar II No modernized after-schools 50% 50% rural development Number of projects that benefit from aid for Agriculture and 104 Pillar II investments in the local cultural and natural 38.46% 38.46% rural development heritage Agriculture and 105 Pillar II No modernized historical monuments 100% 100% rural development Agriculture and 106 Pillar II Number of modernized cultural centers 41.67% 41.67% rural development Agriculture and 107 Pillar II No. of LAGs selected 100% 100% rural development Agriculture and 108 Pillar II The population targeted by the LAG 100% 100% rural development 206 | P a g e Physical Achievement progress of targets # Pillar Sector Indicator (%) (%) June 2020 June 2020 Agriculture and Number of farmers / associations with access to 109 Pillar II 25% 25% rural development promotion networks Agriculture and Number of participants in education / training 110 Pillar II 25% 25% rural development programs through PNDR The surface of unproductive forested land Agriculture and 111 Pillar II (through PNDR projects 2014-2020 in the ITI 53.07% 53.07% rural development territory on M.8 APIA) Agriculture and Number of flood protection interventions 112 Pillar II 100% 100% rural development (through ITI projects) Pillar 113 Transport Travel time between Tulcea and Constanța 100% III Pillar 114 Transport Travel time between Tulcea and Brăila 4.69% 76.19% III Pillar 115 Transport Travel time between Tulcea and Galați 0% 76.47% III Pillar Volume of goods transported by inland 116 Transport III waterways Pillar Total length of newly built roads connected to 117 Transport 8.70% 8.70% III TEN-T Pillar Length of reconstructed / modernized roads 118 Transport 1.50% 1.50% III connected to TEN-T Pillar Implemented operations for public and non- 119 Transport 0% 0% III motorized transport Pillar Passengers boarded and disembarked in airport 120 Transport 0.01% 0.01% III transport 207 | P a g e Physical Achievement progress of targets # Pillar Sector Indicator (%) (%) June 2020 June 2020 Pillar 121 Transport Modernized airports 0% 0% III Pillar 122 Transport Ports located on modernized TEN-T 0% 0% III Pillar 123 Transport Total length of newly built TEN-T roads 0% 0% III Pillar Number of interventions on improved access to 124 Transport 100% 100% III key services during the winter Pillar Number of public and private boats made 125 Transport 96.55% 103.57% III available to passengers Information and Pillar NGA broadband coverage / availability as a 126 communication 0% 96.17% III percentage of households technology Information and Pillar The degree of regular use of the Internet at 127 communication 17.50% 92.50% III national level technology Information and Pillar New households with broadband access of at 128 communication 20% 20% III least 30 Mbps technology Information and Pillar Number of uncovered localities that will be 129 communication 14.29% 14.29% III covered by the project implementation technology Information and Pillar 130 communication Number of broadband Internet access points 5.39% 5.39% III technology Number of students in pre-university education, Information and Pillar active users on the national learning platform, in 131 communication 0% 0% III total number of students in pre-university technology education (%) Information and Number of pre-university teachers, active users Pillar 132 communication on the national learning platform, out of the total 0% 0% III technology number of pre-university teachers (%) Information and Pillar Number of digitized cultural heritage elements, 133 communication 100% 100% III uploaded on the platform created by the project technology 208 | P a g e Physical Achievement progress of targets # Pillar Sector Indicator (%) (%) June 2020 June 2020 Information and Pillar Number of "Digitized Cultural Heritage Elements" 134 communication 100% 100% III and provided to Europeana.eu technology Information and Number of rare documents already digitized and Pillar 135 communication number of rare documents digitized by the 100% 100% III technology project, uploaded on Europeana.eu Number of objects already digitized in library Information and Pillar collections and number of objects in library 136 communication 100% 100% III collections digitized by project uploaded to technology Europeana.eu Number of objects already digitized, belonging to Information and the national heritage, in museum collections and Pillar 137 communication number of objects from the national heritage 100% 100% III technology digitized by the project, which are uploaded on Europeana.eu Information and Number of high school students using the internet Pillar 138 communication via wireless campus, out of the total number of 65% 65% III technology high school students (%) Information and Number of teachers using the internet via Pillar 139 communication wireless-campus, out of the total number of 66.67% 66.67% III technology teachers (%) Information and Number of gymnasium units that benefit from Pillar 140 communication wireless equipment through the implementation 66.64% 66.64% III technology of the project Information and Pillar Percentage of citizens who regularly use the 141 communication 90% 90% III Internet from the total population technology Information and Pillar Schools using OER, WEB 2.0 in education (number 142 communication 100% 100% III of schools) technology Information and Pillar Number of inhabitants using e-government 143 communication III systems technology Information and Pillar Number of prehospital and hospital units using 144 communication 0% 0% III telemedicine systems technology Information and Pillar Number of newly established public information 145 communication III access points (PAPIs) technology 209 | P a g e Physical Achievement progress of targets # Pillar Sector Indicator (%) (%) June 2020 June 2020 Water supply, Share of rural population connected to Pillar sewerage and 146 centralized water supply networks through ITI- 25% 25% IV integrated water funded projects (%) management Water supply, Share of population in cities connected to Pillar sewerage and 147 centralized water supply networks through ITI- 10% 10% IV integrated water funded projects (%) management Water supply, Share of rural population connected to Pillar sewerage and 148 centralized sewerage networks through ITI- 10% 10% IV integrated water funded projects (%) management Water supply, Share of population in cities connected to Pillar sewerage and 149 centralized sewerage networks through ITI- 0% 0% IV integrated water funded projects (%) management Water supply, Pillar sewerage and Share of wastewater treated according to 150 70.25% 70.25% IV integrated water required standards (%) in rural areas management Water supply, Pillar sewerage and Share of wastewater treated according to 151 0% 100% IV integrated water required standards (%) in cities management Water supply, Pillar sewerage and Number of inhabitants connected to a centralized 152 25% 25% IV integrated water drinking water system through ITI management Water supply, Pillar sewerage and Number of inhabitants connected to a centralized 153 10% 10% IV integrated water sewerage system through ITI management Water supply, Pillar sewerage and 154 Number of wastewater treatment plants 10% 10% IV integrated water management Pillar Waste 155 The amount of biodegradable waste stored 0% 0% IV management Pillar Waste 156 Additional waste recycling capacity 100% 100% IV management Pillar Waste 157 Closed / rehabilitated non-compliant landfills 0% 0% IV management 210 | P a g e Physical Achievement progress of targets # Pillar Sector Indicator (%) (%) June 2020 June 2020 Pillar Waste Total amount of household waste collected and 158 99.38% 99.38% IV management transported (tonnes / year) Pillar Waste Total amount of recyclable waste recovered from 159 58.21% 58.21% IV management the total quantity collected (%) Pillar Waste Total quantity deviated from storage out of the 160 0% 0% IV management total quantity collected (%) Pillar Waste Total quantity of household waste collected 161 0% 0% IV management separately (dry fraction) (tonnes / year) Pillar Waste Total quantity of household waste collected 162 0% 0% IV management separately (wet fraction) (tonnes / year) Number of inhabitants and visitors participating Pillar Waste 163 in educational activities related to waste 0% 0% IV management management (number of people) Beneficiaries of medical infrastructure built / Pillar 164 Health rehabilitated / modernized / extended / equipped 0% 0% IV (for community and outpatient medical services) Built / rehabilitated / modernized / extended / Pillar 165 Health equipped medical units (for community and 0% 0% IV outpatient medical services) Pillar 166 Health Emergency reception units (tertiary level) 50% 50% IV Pillar Rehabilitated / modernized / extended / 167 Health 0% 0% IV equipped County Hospital Pillar Number of integrated primary socio-medical care 168 Health IV centers built / rebuilt Pillar 169 Health Number of emergency units 66.67% 66.67% IV 211 | P a g e Physical Achievement progress of targets # Pillar Sector Indicator (%) (%) June 2020 June 2020 Pillar People who get a job, including those who are 170 Education 10% 10% IV self-employed Pillar Persons who, upon termination of participation, 171 Education 10% 10% IV acquire a qualification Pillar Certified persons as a result of the support 172 Education IV provided Pillar People who find a job as a result of the support 173 Education IV received Pillar Inclusion rate in pre-school / primary / secondary 174 Education -7.32% 97.62% IV / upper secondary education in rural areas Pillar Inclusion rate in pre-school / primary / secondary 175 Education 20% 100% IV / upper secondary education for Roma citizens Pillar 176 Education School dropout rate (%) -7.31% 100% IV Pillar 177 Education Employees who benefit from training programs 0% 0% IV Pillar 178 Education Supported businesses 0% 0% IV Pillar 179 Education People receiving support 13.47% 13.47% IV Pillar Employees receiving support for participation in 180 Education IV CVT (skills training / validation) Pillar The capacity of childcare or education 181 Education IV infrastructures to receive support Pillar The capacity of the education infrastructure that 182 Education IV benefits from support - preschool 212 | P a g e Physical Achievement progress of targets # Pillar Sector Indicator (%) (%) June 2020 June 2020 The capacity of the education infrastructure that Pillar 183 Education benefits from support - vocational and technical 0% 0% IV education Pillar The capacity of the education infrastructure that 184 Education 0% 0% IV benefits from support - lifelong learning Pillar The capacity of the education infrastructure that 185 Education 0% 0% IV benefits from support - preschool Pillar The capacity of the education infrastructure that 186 Education 0% 0% IV benefits from school support Pillar Number of students receiving support for 187 Education IV participation in education / vocational programs Pillar Number of people who benefit from support 188 Education 79.50% 79.50% IV projects for training / exchange of good practices Persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion from Pillar Inclusion and social marginalized communities who acquire a 189 0% 0% IV protection qualification upon termination of participation, of which: Roma Persons at risk of poverty or social exclusion in Pillar Inclusion and social marginalized communities who have a job, 190 0% 0% IV protection including those who are self-employed, on termination of membership Pillar Inclusion and social Supported services at the level of marginalized 191 0% 0% IV protection communities at risk of poverty or social exclusion Pillar Inclusion and social People belonging to vulnerable groups receiving 192 IV protection integrated services People at risk of poverty and social exclusion from Pillar Inclusion and social 193 marginalized communities who benefit from 3.48% 3.48% IV protection integrated services, of which: Roma Marginalized communities at risk of poverty or Pillar Inclusion and social social exclusion (of which: in rural areas) receiving 194 0% 0% IV protection support, of which: those with a Roma minority population Beneficiaries (adults with disabilities) of day Pillar Inclusion and social 195 center infrastructure for people with disabilities, 0% 0% IV protection rehabilitated / modernized / extended / equipped 213 | P a g e Physical Achievement progress of targets # Pillar Sector Indicator (%) (%) June 2020 June 2020 Beneficiaries (adults with disabilities) of Pillar Inclusion and social 196 deinstitutionalization infrastructure built / 0% 0% IV protection rehabilitated / modernized / extended / equipped Number of kindergartens and other educational Pillar Inclusion and social 197 services for children under age of 6 in 100% 100% IV protection disadvantaged communities Pillar Inclusion and social Number of children integrated in nurseries / 198 100% 100% IV protection kindergartens in disadvantaged communities Pillar Inclusion and social Number of children integrated in the preparatory 199 100% 100% IV protection class and who participated in preschool education Pillar Inclusion and social Number of students at risk of dropping out of 200 7.97% 92.62% IV protection school at the beginning and end of the school year Number of children involved in different types of Pillar Inclusion and social complementary educational measures (after 201 100% 100% IV protection school, summer kindergartens, school tutoring, etc.) Number of centers that have implemented Pillar Inclusion and social 202 complementary education measures in the ITI 100% 100% IV protection territory Pillar Inclusion and social Number of school mediators employed full time 203 100% 100% IV protection in the school system Pillar Inclusion and social Number of school mediators trained through 204 IV protection specific programs Pillar Inclusion and social Number of persons who have benefited from 205 0% 0% IV protection regular property rights Administrative Local authorities and public institutions that have capacity and implemented standard mechanisms and 206 Pillar V 0% 0% program procedures for substantiating long-term strategic management decisions and planning Local authorities and public institutions in which Administrative unitary quality and performance management capacity and systems developed through the program have 207 Pillar V 100% 100% program been implemented according to the Action Plan management for prioritizing and staging the implementation of quality management 214 | P a g e Physical Achievement progress of targets # Pillar Sector Indicator (%) (%) June 2020 June 2020 Local authorities and public institutions in which Administrative measures to simplify procedures for citizens have capacity and been implemented in accordance with the 208 Pillar V 0% 0% program Integrated Plan for the simplification of management procedures for citizens developed at national level Administrative Local public administration staff who have been capacity and 209 Pillar V certified at the end of their training as a 100% 100% program participant management Administrative Public authorities and institutions supported to capacity and develop operational procedures on anti- 210 Pillar V 100% 100% program corruption preventive measures and related management indicators Administrative Staff from public authorities and institutions who capacity and have been certified to complete courses in the 211 Pillar V 100% 100% program field of corruption prevention, transparency, management ethics and integrity Administrative capacity and Number of projects implemented within the 212 Pillar V 15.97% 15.97% program Danube Delta ITI management Administrative Quarterly reports prepared by the ITI capacity and 213 Pillar V coordinating structure approved by the Ministry 41.03% 41.03% program of European Funds management Administrative Number of staff in the structure coordinating the capacity and 214 Pillar V ITI, whose salaries are co-financed by the OPTA - 60.56% 60.56% program full-time equivalent annually management Administrative Number of public authorities and institutions that capacity and have implemented unitary measures to reduce 215 Pillar V 50% 50% program administrative burdens, to implement quality and management performance management systems Administrative Number of revised normative acts aimed at capacity and 216 Pillar V improving the legal and institutional framework in 0% 0% program the Danube Delta management 215 | P a g e