Document of The World Bank Report No: ICR00003177 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (IBRD-48750) ON A LOAN IN THE AMOUNT OF EUR 47.7 MILLION (US$ 65 MILLION EQUIVALENT) TO ROMANIA FOR A COMPLEMENTING EU SUPPORT FOR AGRICULTURAL RESTRUCTURING PROJECT (CESAR) March 5, 2015 Agriculture Global Practice Europe and Central Asia Region CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective January 29, 2015) Currency Unit = New Romanian Lei (RON) EUR 1 = RON 4.44 US$ 1 = RON 3.93 EUR1 = US$ 1.13 FISCAL YEAR January 1 – December 31 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ANCA National Agency for Agricultural Consultancy ANCPI National Agency for Cadastre and Land Registration APIA Agency for Payments and Interventions in Agriculture APDRP Paying Agency for Rural Development and Fishery CA Control area CAP Common Agriculture Policy CESAR Complementing EU Support for Agricultural Restructuring Project CNDP Complimentary National Direct Payment CPS Country Partnership Strategy DO Development Objective EC European Commission ECA Europe and Central Asia EIRR Economic Internal Rate of Return EU European Union FDP Forest Development Project FMR Financial Management Report GCP National General Cadaster Program GCLR General Cadaster and Land Registration Project GFC Global Financial Crisis GNSS Global Navigation Satellite System GOR Government of Romania IAO Integrated Agriculture Offices IBRD International Bank for Reconstruction and Development ICR Implementation Completion and Results Report IO Intermediate Outcome IP Implementation Progress ISM Implementation Support Mission LFA Least Favored Area MAKIS Modernizing Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems MARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MPF Ministry of Public Finance NPV Net Present Value NRDP National Rural Development Program NSP National Strategic Plan for Rural Development OCPI County Offices for Cadaster and Land Registration OJCA County (Judet) Offices for Agricultural Consultancy PA Project area PAD Project Appraisal Document PDO Project Development Objective PMU Project Management Unit PSC Project Steering Committee QEA Quality at Entry QER Quality Enhancement Review ii QSA Quality of Supervision RFP Rural Finance Project SAPARD Special Accession Program for Agriculture and Rural Development SAPS Single Area Payment Scheme SEA Strategic Environment Assessment SEG Socio-economic Guidance SEGP Socio-economic Guidance Provider(s) SO Standard Output SPS Single Payment Scheme UAA Utilizable Agricultural Area UAT Administrative territorial unit Vice-President Laura Tuck Senior Director Juergen Voegele Country Director Mamta Murthi Practice Manager Dina Umali-Deininger Project Team Leader Gabriel Ionita ICR Team Leader Gabriel Ionita ICR Main Author Garry A. Smith iii ROMANIA Complementing EU Support for Agricultural Restructuring Project (CESAR) CONTENTS A. BASIC INFORMATION .......................................................................................................................................... V B. KEY DATES ........................................................................................................................................................ V C. RATINGS SUMMARY............................................................................................................................................ V D. SECTOR AND THEME CODES ................................................................................................................................. VI E. BANK STAFF ...................................................................................................................................................... VI F. RESULTS FRAMEWORK ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................... VI G. RATINGS OF PROJECT PERFORMANCE IN ISRS .......................................................................................................... XI H. RESTRUCTURING (IF ANY) ................................................................................................................................... XII I. DISBURSEMENT PROFILE ..................................................................................................................................... XII 1. PROJECT CONTEXT, DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES AND DESIGN...................................................................................... 1 1.1 Context at Appraisal ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Original Project Development Objectives and Key Indicators (as approved) ......................................... 2 1.3 Revised PDO (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators, and reasons/justification ..................................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Main Beneficiaries .................................................................................................................................. 2 1.5 Original Components .............................................................................................................................. 3 1.6 Revised Components .............................................................................................................................. 4 1.7 Other significant changes ....................................................................................................................... 4 2. KEY FACTORS AFFECTING IMPLEMENTATION AND OUTCOMES ..................................................................................... 5 2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry................................................................................... 5 Assessment of the Project Preparation ........................................................................................................ 5 2.2 Implementation ...................................................................................................................................... 7 2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization ......................................... 9 2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance ................................................................................................... 10 2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase ............................................................................................... 10 3. ASSESSMENT OF OUTCOMES .............................................................................................................................. 11 3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation ......................................................................... 11 3.2 Achievement of Project Development Objectives ................................................................................. 12 3.3 Efficiency............................................................................................................................................... 13 3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating ............................................................................................... 15 3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts ............................................................................ 15 3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops ....................................... 17 4. ASSESSMENT OF RISK TO DEVELOPMENT OUTCOME ................................................................................................ 17 5. ASSESSMENT OF BANK AND BORROWER PERFORMANCE .......................................................................................... 18 5.1 Bank Performance ................................................................................................................................ 18 5.2 Borrower Performance ......................................................................................................................... 18 6. LESSONS LEARNED ............................................................................................................................................ 20 ANNEX 1. PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCING ............................................................................................................... 22 (a) Project Cost by Component (in USD Million equivalent) ....................................................................... 22 (b) Financing ............................................................................................................................................... 22 ANNEX 2. OUTPUTS BY COMPONENT ....................................................................................................................... 23 ANNEX 3. ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 34 ANNEX 4. BANK LENDING AND IMPLEMENTATION SUPPORT/SUPERVISION PROCESSES ...................................................... 39 (a) Task Team members ............................................................................................................................. 39 (b) Staff Time and Cost ............................................................................................................................... 40 ANNEX 5. BENEFICIARY SURVEY RESULTS .................................................................................................................. 41 ANNEX 6. STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP REPORT AND RESULTS ........................................................................................ 42 ANNEX 7. SUMMARY OF BORROWER'S ICR AND/OR COMMENTS ON DRAFT ICR ............................................................. 43 ANNEX 8. COMMENTS OF COFINANCIERS AND OTHER PARTNERS/STAKEHOLDERS ............................................................ 45 ANNEX 9. LIST OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ............................................................................................................ 46 MAP.................................................................................................................................................................. 47 iv Data Sheet A. Basic Information Complementing EU Support for Agricultural Country: Romania Project Name: Restructuring Project (CESAR) Project ID: P100638 L/C/TF Number(s): IBRD-48750 ICR Date: 11/04/2014 ICR Type: Core ICR Lending Instrument: SIL Borrower: ROMANIA Original Total USD 65.00M Disbursed Amount: USD 23.94M Commitment: Revised Amount: USD 24.51M Environmental Category: B Implementing Agencies: Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) National Agency for Cadaster and Land Registration (ANCPI) Co-financiers and Other External Partners: None B. Key Dates Revised / Actual Process Date Process Original Date Date(s) Concept Review: 05/24/2006 Effectiveness: 05/26/2008 03/09/2009 03/14/2011 Appraisal: 01/26/2007 Restructuring(s): 06/26/2013 05/26/2014 Mid-term Approval: 11/27/2007 10/01/2011 10/10/2011 Review: Closing: 06/30/2013 09/30/2014 C. Ratings Summary C.1 Performance Rating by ICR Outcomes: Moderately Unsatisfactory Risk to Development Outcome: Moderate Bank Performance: Moderately Satisfactory Borrower Performance: Moderately Unsatisfactory C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance (by ICR) Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings Quality at Entry: Moderately Unsatisfactory Government: Unsatisfactory Quality of Implementing Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory Supervision: Agency/Agencies: Overall Bank Overall Borrower Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory Performance: Performance: v C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators Implementation QAG Assessments Indicators Rating Performance (if any) Potential Problem Quality at Entry project at any time No None (QEA): (Yes/No): Problem project at any Quality of Yes None time (Yes/No): Supervision (QSA): DO rating before Moderately Closing/Inactive status: Unsatisfactory D. Sector and Theme Codes Original Actual Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing) Central government administration 20 20 General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector 68 70 Sub-national government administration 12 10 Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing) Land administration and management 14 14 Other rural development 14 14 Rural markets 29 29 Rural policies and institutions 29 29 Rural services and infrastructure 14 14 E. Bank Staff Positions At ICR At Approval Vice President: Laura Tuck Shigeo Katsu Country Director: Mamta Murthi Anand K. Seth Practice Manager/Manager: Dina Umali-Deininger Juergen Voegele Project Team Leader: Gabriel Ionita Holger A. Kray ICR Team Leader: Gabriel Ionita ICR Primary Author: Garry A. Smith Bozena Lipej F. Results Framework Analysis Project Development Objective (PDO), from Project Appraisal Document (PAD) The objective of this project is to facilitate market-based farm restructuring through enhancing the ability of farmers, farm family members, and farm workers to manage their assets and income. vi Revised Project Development Objective (PDO) (as approved by original approving authority) The PDO was not revised. (a) PDO Indicator(s) Original Target Actual Value Formally Values (from Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Revised Target approval Completion or Values documents) Target Years Percentage increase in land transactions in project areas (16 counties/50 communes) Indicator 49.2% 1 0 20% 15% 52.5% 2 Date achieved 30-June 2013 A land transaction is defined as a land sale. The comparison is between the Comment number of land sales registered during the baseline year (2008) with the number registered during the reporting year. Percentage of agriculture land registered in the National Farm Registry in project area Indicator 85% 70% 60% 73% (Year 5) (Year 4) Date achieved 31 Dec 2011 Comment The target was achieved prior to the commencement of Component 2 SEG activities and did not rise appreciably with SEG implementation. Percentage of agriculture population in project areas evaluating SEGP services as being useful Indicator 70% 70% 0 82% (Year 5) (Year 4) Date achieved 31 May 2014 Comment Survey of 504 SEGP beneficiaries. No analysis of how SEG information/plans were used. 1 Figure refers to June 30, 2013 (CESAR Component 1 end). 2 Figure refers to September 30, 2014 (CESAR project end) vii (b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s) Original Target Actual Value Formally Values (from Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Revised Target approval Completion or Values documents) Target Years Hectares of rural land in the project areas registered in the Land Book (cadastre services)3 Indicator 57,049 ha1 0 1.27 million ha 0.7 million ha 177,795 ha2 Date achieved Partially achieved Comment While the indicator target was not achieved, a nationally scalable methodology for systematic registration was developed and is being implemented in 50 communes by retrained staff. An area of 425,000 hectares is expected to be registered by end-2015. Land books digitalized as percent of number of communes in project counties Indicator 67.2%1 0 100% 100% 71.2%2 Date achieved Partially achieved Comment This result relates to the 91 communes originally targeted under CESAR. Registration cost (fees) as percent of property value in project areas Indicator 0.15% for natural 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% persons1,2 Date achieved Achieved Comment Fees are defined by an administrative act established by ANCPI. Average time (days) needed to complete registration of transaction/transfer in project area Indicator 16.81 21 15 15 16.32 Date achieved Partially achieved The ANCPI PMU monitors the number of days it takes to complete the request in the system, but the decision is delivered to the client after Comment 21 days pursuant an administrative act established by ANCPI. The project area should have been the UATs with systematic registration activities, but the County Offices for Cadaster and Land Registration (OCPIs) only collects this information at the county level Percentage of land owners in project communes where land surveys were completed participating in consultations 75%1 Indicator 0 At least 50% At least 50% 75%2 Date achieved 30-June 2013 Figures are based on the OCPI reporting from the systematic registration Comment public display participation; % of the total number of inhabitants of the relevant UATs was monitored. No information is available on the number of land owners participated in systematic registration public displays. 3 Systematic registration only viii Original Target Actual Value Formally Values (from Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Revised Target approval Completion or Values documents) Target Years Percentage of land owners satisfied with the process of title registration and parcels identification/ demarcation/ delimitation as being fair Indicator 0 75% 75% No data available Date achieved Not available Comment ANCPI did not implement the survey due to the slow program implementation and lack of funding upon completion of Component 1 Average time (days) to produce certified copy of title (Land Book extract) Indicator 2 1 2 1.71,2 Date achieved 30-June 2013 Comment In practice, the client receives the certified copy of the title in two days. Percent increase of land owners participation in formal lease Indicator 0 20% 15% No data available Date achieved Not available Comment ANCPI did not implement the survey due to the slow program implementation and lack of funding upon completion of Component 1 Percent increase in area subject to lease Indicator 0 30% 20% No data available Date achieved Not available Comment ANCPI did not implement the survey due to the slow program implementation and lack of funding upon completion of Component 1 Law on cadastre and registration amended Indicator 0 PY3 PY2 Yes Date achieved 30-June 2013 Comment Law No. 7/1996 was amended several times. The law will be completely rewritten in the near future, based on CESAR experience. Guarantee Fund established Indicator 0 PY2 0 Dropped Date achieved Dropped during project restructuring in March 2011 Comment ANCPI Legal charter reviewed Indicator 0 PY1 0 Dropped Date achieved Comment Dropped during project restructuring in March 2011 ANCPI long-term strategic plan and first business plan developed Indicator 0 PY1 PY4 No Date achieved Not achieved Comment Implementation was delayed and cancelled upon Component 1 closure. ix Original Target Actual Value Formally Values (from Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Revised Target approval Completion or Values documents) Target Years Land consolidation policy note discussed in the Steering Committee Indicator 0 PY4 PY4 No Date achieved Not achieved Comment Implementation was delayed and cancelled upon Component 1 closure. Percentage of agricultural population (i.e. farmers, family farms and farm workers) with access to SEG in project area Indicator 0 90% 75% >75% Date achieved 31-May 2014 Comment This indicator measures the percentage of rural households informed about SEG services in the project area. Number of guidance services/offices by region/county Indicator 0 30 15 22 Date achieved 30-June 2013 Comment At end-project there were 21 offices for guidance services in the 16 project counties including 6 in Mureș county, 2 in Suceava county, and one in each of the other 14 counties. Number of bidders per contract Indicator 0 4 3 3 Date achieved 30-June 2013 Comment No comment Handbook of SEG based on EU best practice developed Indicator 0 PY1 PY2 Yes Date achieved 30-June 2011 Comment The handbook was completed in three stages, with volumes finalized in January, March, and June 2011. Number of trained and graduated (certified) advisors Indicator 0 300 80 275 Date achieved Comment Three training sessions have been organized for SEGP employees and third parties. Eighty five employees from SEGP and 190 employees from third parties have been certified. Number of individuals assisted in project areas (SEG services) Indicator 0 25,000 9,000 25,600 Date achieved 31-May-2014 Comment This is the number of persons that have participated in the SEGP public information meetings Number of individual guidance plans elaborated by advisors with beneficiaries in project years Indicator 0 25,000 4,500 13,000 Date achieved 31-May 2014 Comment This is the number of individual plans developed by counselors together with beneficiaries from the project area. Percentage of eligible agriculture population in project areas accessing support programs. Indicator 0 75% 60% 98.8% x Original Target Actual Value Formally Values (from Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Revised Target approval Completion or Values documents) Target Years Date achieved 31-May 2014 Comment At the end of 2013, 464,880 farmers in the project area were registered in the National Farm Registry, of which 459,213 received support through direct payments (direct area payments and least favored area payments). This target, however, was surpassed before SEGP services commenced. Integrated Agriculture Offices set and equipped Indicator 0 0 4 10 Date achieved 30-Sept 2014 Comment These offices, staffed with APIA and APDRP personnel, will provide information to farmers concerning the NPRD 2014-2020. These offices were provided with office equipment and vehicles by the CESAR project. G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs Actual Date ISR No. DO IP Disbursements Archived (EUR millions) 1 02/06/2008 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.00 2 05/23/2008 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.00 3 12/29/2008 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 0.00 4 05/12/2009 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Unsatisfactory 0.00 Moderately 5 10/27/2009 Moderately Unsatisfactory 0.00 Unsatisfactory Moderately 6 05/11/2010 Moderately Unsatisfactory 0.00 Unsatisfactory Moderately 7 12/30/2010 Moderately Satisfactory 0.00 Unsatisfactory 8 05/11/2011 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 0.32 9 11/20/2011 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 1.73 Moderately 10 06/07/2012 Moderately Unsatisfactory 7.94 Unsatisfactory Moderately 11 08/07/2012 Moderately Unsatisfactory 8.22 Unsatisfactory Moderately 12 12/28/2012 Moderately Unsatisfactory 12.72 Unsatisfactory Moderately 13 06/25/2013 Unsatisfactory 13.81 Unsatisfactory 14 08/17/2013 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 15.64 15 02/21/2014 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 15.64 16 07/07/2014 Moderately Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 20.42 Moderately 17 09/30/2014 Moderately Unsatisfactory 23.94 Unsatisfactory xi H. Restructuring (if any) Board ISR Ratings at Amount Disbursed Restructuring Reason for Restructuring Approved Restructuring at Restructuring in Date(s) & Key Changes Made PDO Change DO IP EUR millions Revision of activities and 03/14/2011 N MU MS 0.00 PDO indicators 06/26/2013 N MU U 13.81 Extension of closing date 05/26/2014 MS MS 20.42 Extension of closing date I. Disbursement Profile xii 1. Project Context, Development Objectives and Design 1.1 Context at Appraisal Romania acceded to the European Union (EU) in January 2007. While providing access to one of the strongest single markets and to one of the most competitive and dynamic economic and political entities globally, EU membership neither guaranteed a priori successful economic integration, nor did it protect Romanian entrepreneurs from strong competitors on European markets. This was particularly relevant to the agricultural sector. Under the Common Agriculture Policy (CAP)4, increased budgetary transfers expected from EU and national public funds were estimated at about EUR 2.8 billion (US$ 3.8 billion equivalent) annually over the period 2007-2013. Benefits were also expected to accrue from the more stable and predictable agricultural regulatory and market environment, together with Romania’s access to more than 500 million EU consumers, subject to farmer capacity to adapt to the CAP environment. At project design, Romania’s agriculture sector exhibited an extreme dichotomy in farm size, including 3.9 million farm holdings, of which about 2.8 million holdings were under 1 ha (35% of utilizable agricultural area (UAA)), 1 million semi- subsistence holdings between 1-10 ha (20% of UAA), 60,000 farms between 10-100 ha (10% of UAA) and 12,000 farms over 100 ha (34% of UAA). The subsistence farmers represented a substantial economically and socially vulnerable farm population segment unable to effectively utilize market opportunities and available EU and domestic support in order to sustainably manage their income and their assets. The lack of effective socio-economic guidance services to help them better manage their assets and income, contributed to the subsistence farmers’ constraints. . In Romania in 2007, property titles had been issued for 95% of the total restituted agricultural land and 37% of the total forestry land, however, only 9% of real estate properties in rural areas (in total about 40 million parcels, of which 32 million are in rural areas and 8 millions in urban zones) were registered, a situation that significantly affected country economic performance. Completion of land and property reform was considered to be a necessary precursor to the development of a land market and access to credit. The initial rapid land restitution process under Law no. l8/1991 led to ownership titles being issued to many beneficiaries, but was encumbered, in terms of land market development, by land parcel plans being, on average, only 30% accurate by location and/or dimension, underscoring the need for accurate real estate measurement and registration. The project was designed to respond to the aforementioned issues and to fully complement the Government of Romania’s (GOR) draft Post-Accession Strategy for 2007-2013, the overall National General Cadaster Program (GCP) of Romania, and the National Strategic Plan for Rural Development (2007-2013) (NSP). The project was included in the Bank’s 2007-09 Country Partnership Strategy (CPS). 4 The CAP subsidies include: • Pillar 1 support measures, mainly in the form of direct payments provided by the EU under the Single Area Payment Scheme (SAPS) and the complementary national direct payments (CNDPs), primarily for crop and livestock production; and Pillar 2 EU financed support for measures defined in the National Rural Development Program (NRDP) 2007-2013. 1 The provision of effective guidance services to the agricultural population and the completion of land reform through systematic registration of property titles were identified by the GOR, the EC and the Bank as the most important challenges to enhancing the agriculture sector's limited absorption capacity for the substantial financial resources allocated to agricultural policy through joint EC and national budgetary efforts. Consequently, the Bank’s CPS for 2007-09 recognized the need for supporting "a shift of agricultural policy towards completing the land reform process by securing land tenure, and promoting efficiency and competitiveness", the latter being particularly important for farms in the small and medium size category. The project would build on investments made and institutions/procedures established under previous and ongoing Bank-supported projects, specifically the General Cadaster and Land Registration (GCLR - closed in mid-2006) and the then ongoing Modernizing Agricultural Knowledge and Information Systems (MAKIS) project. The project was also planned to ensure maximum complementarity with the ongoing Bank-supported Forest Development Project (FDP) and Rural Finance Project (RFP). 1.2 Original Project Development Objectives and Key Indicators (as approved) The PDO was “to facilitate market-based farm restructuring through enhancing the ability of farmers, farm family members, and farm workers to manage their assets and income”. Key PDO outcomes included (i) the improvement of land property rights security and an enhanced functioning of rural land markets; and (ii) the more effective delivery of socio- economic guidance (SEG) services to the agricultural population, enabling improved absorption of the national and EU CAP support programs. The progress toward achieving the main outcomes was measured using the following key performance indicators (from PAD Results Framework): (i) percentage increase in land transactions in project areas; (ii) percentage of agricultural land registered in the National Farm Registry; and (iii) percentage of agricultural population in project areas evaluating the SEG services as being useful. 1.3 Revised PDO (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators, and reasons/justification Although the PDO remained unchanged, as an outcome of the March 2011 restructuring resulting from a 15 month effectiveness delay, two of the three end-of-project PDO level indicators were reduced, and all three were rescheduled to reflect the reduced time available for project completion. 1.4 Main Beneficiaries The primary target group were middle-sized and small-scale Romanian farmers with the potential to become market-oriented and commercial through: (i) completing the property title registration of land assets in rural areas to improve the security of land property rights and reduce transaction costs on rural land markets; and (ii) guidance on the sustainable management of income and assets and the absorption of available national and EU support programs. Institutional beneficiaries included:  the National Agency of Cadaster and Property Registration (ANCPI), including its 42 county-based Offices of Cadaster and Property Registration (OCPIs) and 132 local land book offices, through the establishment of a process for systematic cadaster registration and improvements in the associated legal and institutional framework; 2  the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD), through establishment of its Integrated Agriculture Offices (IAO)s and the technical support for preparation of selected parts of the NRDP 2014-2020; and  Private SEG service providers, from certification in SEG provision. 1.5 Original Components Component 1: Land Administration. This component has two sub-components: 1. Land Delimitation and Title Registration: Completion of property rights determination and registration of land assets in rural areas through: (a) parcel delimitation and surveys; (b) legal services for title registration in the offices of ANCPI; (c) digital conversion of legal and cadastral documents and maps; and (d) an upgrade and complete roll-out of the existing IT system for registration and cadastre. 2. Institutional Strengthening: (a) Designing and implementation of improvements in the legal and institutional framework of ANCPI in order to improve service delivery for ANCPI as well as the private sector. (b) Streamlining the procedure and training for OCPIs in order to strengthen OCPIs’ institutional capacity. (c) Upgrading some OCPIs offices with small civil works, IT and other equipment and furniture. (d) Preparation and implementation of the public awareness campaign that will precede and accompany the field work. Component 2: Socio-Economic Guidance Services to the Agricultural Population. This component has two sub-components: 1. Capacity Building for Providers of Socio-Economic Guidance Services: Facilitating the ability of the agricultural population to sustainably manage its income and assets under consideration of national and EU-supported programs, encompassing: (a) the identification and development of independent regional socioeconomic guidance service (SEG) providers; (b) an assessment of the current supply and demand for advisory services to the agricultural population in the project regions; (c) the elaboration and regular update of a Handbook on Socio-Economic Advice which is to serve as a work and case reference guide for SEGP agents; and (d) comprehensive training to both the SEGPs contracted for future provision of SEG and the interested third party providers of advice and guidance to the agricultural sector. 2. Providing Socio-Economic Guidance Services to the Agricultural Population: Provision of goods and services for: (a) the carrying out of outreach and community information activities and elaboration of guidance materials to their beneficiaries; and (b) the establishment of informational networks between SEGPs and other providers of advisory services to the agricultural sector. Component 3: Policy, Strategy and Management: This component has three sub-components: 1. Project Management: Support to ANCPI and MADR in connection with project coordination and administration, implementation, procurement, financial management, reporting, monitoring and evaluation. 2. Technical Assistance: Provision of consulting services related to the development of an Information System for Agricultural and Forestry (SIAS). 3. Strategy, Policy, Legal, and Institutional Studies: Preparation of studies in areas such as, but not limited to: (a) analysis and review of land consolidation, and rural physical planning; (b) proposed approaches to facilitating the functioning of rural land markets; (c) strategic options available in moving from the Single Area Payment Scheme (SAPS) 3 to the EU mainstream Single Payment Scheme (SPS) in 2012, and; (d) development of the legal framework for approved strategies and policies. 1.6 Revised Components The project was restructured in March 2011 resulting in significant revisions in all three project components. Under Component 1, the construction of regional archiving centers was cancelled, the area for systematic registration was halved and the scope of Land Book conversion was reduced together with the level of land transactions and of land owner satisfaction with the systematic registration process. Under Component 2, the targeted beneficiaries of SEG services was reduced by 65%, along with the reduction of targets for Farm Registry enrolment, access to SEG advice and the number of certified SEG agents. Under Component 3, the ANCPI Guarantee Fund, legal charter review and other strategy, policy, legal and institutional studies were cancelled, the completion of the ANCPI long-term strategic plan and first business plan and the Land consolidation policy note were delayed and a new activity for the establishment of MARD-IAOs was introduced. The targets relating to the revised components are provided in the Project Data Sheet. 1.7 Other significant changes The project was restructured thrice during its life: (a) Restructuring of March 14, 2011 and Cancelation of April 12, 2011: Following a 15 month delay in project effectiveness, and the “moderately unsatisfactory” project performance ratings for both progress toward achievement of PDO and overall implementation progress (IP) by both the October 2009 and April 2010 project Implementation Support Missions, the project was restructured on March 14, 2011 leading to (i) a revision in activities under all three project components, including modification of the intermediate outcome targets; (ii) changes in some PDO indicator targets, and (iii) a cancelation of EUR 4.3 million. (b) First Closing Date Extension of June 26, 2013 (Level 2 restructuring): The closing date was extended from June 30, 2013 to June 30, 2014, but only for components 2 and 3. This was because of the uneven progress of the project components: while the lack of the GOR’s commitment to provide adequate financing Component 1 (Land Administration) made unlikely meeting its objectives, the GOR expressed a strong interest in continuation of the on-going activities under Component 2 (SEG for rural population) and Component 3 (Policy, Strategy and Management) and sufficient funds were allocated to these for the entire year 2013. The implementation of Component 1 was slow in 2012 and stopped in 2013 in absence of adequate financing provided. Since the loan closing date for financing Component 1 was not extended, a number of changes to Schedule 1 of the Loan Agreement and to the Results Framework were required. However, since the extension of the closing date was becoming time critical, this was not done. These changes included: (a) clarification regarding the digital conversion which only involves the Land Book as opposed to other legal of cadastral documents and maps; (b) delete activities to provide OCPIs with IT and other equipment and furniture; and (c) include social monitoring as a required activity to precede and accompany field work as well as a definition for such social monitoring. Also, the target for systematic registration was to be reduced from 91 communes to 50 communes. An amount of EUR 25.3 million was estimated to remain unused under Component 1 after the June 30, 2013 closing date for the component. It could have been canceled from the Loan but the Borrower did not request the cancelation. 4 (c) Cancellation of November 19, 2013: EUR 25.3 million, the undisbursed portion of the Loan relating to component 1, was canceled. (d) Second Closing Date Extension of May 26, 2014 (Level 2 restructuring): The closing date was extended from June 30, 2014 to September 30, 2014 to allow the implementing agency to review and submit the final deliverables under all consultant contracts to MARD for approval. These procedures were to allow the PMU to make as many final payments under the ongoing contracts as possible up to the revised closing date. 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes 2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry Assessment of the Project Preparation At the project preparation phase, the ANCPI and the GOR considered securing property rights as a critical component of economic development and social stability. The foreseen benefit was legal security of tenure based on precise legal checking of documents and data, but also included the leverage of CAP funds allocation in support of market-based farm restructuring, improved competitiveness and effective rural development. A thorough review of institutional, legal and administrative frameworks was undertaken, and experience in other countries contributed to the analysis. Based on earlier Special Accession Program for Agriculture and Rural Development (SAPARD) experience, agriculture sector preparedness to exploit CAP opportunities was clearly restricted, particularly among the economically and socially vulnerable small/subsistence farm population. ANCPI was already implementing several initiatives that supported the proposed project including the roll-out of an IT system to all planned project counties and pilot projects for data conversion of land books and cadaster documents. It had also conducted two systematic registration pilot projects which, ultimately, proved to be too small for a reliable forecast for the project, necessitating further piloting. An internal reorganization was planned to fully merge the cadaster and land book departments and focus on customer service. Within MARD, the National Agency for Agricultural Consultancy (ANCA) was seen to be technically oriented and having insufficient staff to address smallholder farmer SEG needs. Similarly, the Bank financed MAKIS project and the MARD’s two Paying Agencies were assessed as ill-fitted to meet this task. GOR was in the planning stage for establishing a system of non-government, farmer-managed Chambers of Agriculture, as modelled in Austria, France, Slovenia and Bavaria, but the concept was embryonic and did not provide a sufficiently robust platform for the proposed SEG approach. Assessment of the Project Design Component 1 design was straightforward and effectively reflected the ANCPI’s and GOR’s approach to pilot a comprehensive and complete one-by one registration of individual parcels, including field measurement. In the absence of previous significant systematic cadaster experience, however, estimates of time, human resources and, to a lesser degree, funds needed for systematic registration, were very indicative. Although the project proposed a pilot systematic registration program, Component 1 design would have benefitted from a broader perspective of land administration improvements at the national level and a strategic orientation towards achieving a functioning land administration system for the country in a reasonable period of time of 10 or 20 years. The design process also underestimated the adequacy of the supporting legal framework. Arguably, a much larger and longer-term national approach could have been justified. 5 Component 2 was designed to address the perceived absence of any suitable institutional framework for delivering SEG services (e.g. credit, inheritance and asset transfer, marketing, social security and farm management) to potentially smallholder farmers with a view to their better accessing CAP measures and/or planning/engaging in market-led farm restructuring. The proposed SEG approach, while relevant, was inadequately elaborated in the PAD and, consequently, poorly understood by both MARD and project management, delaying implementation. The PAD, furthermore incorrectly assumed that property title “without boundaries of the parcel identified through cadastre survey” would be ineligible for CAP payments (see PAD, para. 7 and Annex 2 for details). During the design process, the focus of Component 2 activities shifted from “farm restructuring facilitation services” at project conception to “SEG services” at design. The rationale for this transition was obfuscated by both the inadequate definition of those services in the PAD and the inexplicit inter-linkages between the project components in the design document. Both these matters, along with the potential impact of sporadic registration, were raised by the Quality Enhancement Review (QER). The Component 2 design process would have also benefitted from a richer understanding of: (i) subsistence farmer income (agricultural, off-farm employment, pension and remittances) and its likely impact on farmer readiness for farm restructuring and/or investment in agricultural growth and competitiveness; and (ii) possible farming exit strategies. Component 3 design was relevant and in line with GOR’s objective to develop strategies for farm restructuring, accelerate EU integration, and address policy issues related to Components 1 and 2. The design of the Component 3 in the fields of policy and strategy, however, lacked strategic orientation towards achieving: (i) a sustainable and fit-for-purpose land administration system for the country5; and (ii) the sustainable delivery of SEG services. While the inter-institutional linkages between Components 1 and 2 could have been better systematised, the project structure was simple and the impact area, once finalized in October 2009, was well targeted and appropriately distributed nationally to maximise learning impacts. The ANCPI had a clear capacity and commitment to implement Component 1, though not at the rate anticipated in the project design. MARD, initially, had an arms-length relationship with Component 2, which was managed by a contracted PMU, with field delivery through contracted companies. With the ANCPI self-financing at project design and the MARD about to access EU CAP funding, which was expected to sustainably finance Component 2 post-project, the financing arrangement was rational. The unpredictable advent of the global financial crisis in 2009 dramatically altered this environment and led to new financial arrangements for the implementation of projects financed by foreign loans (Gov. Ordinance 64/2009) for which implementation regulation preparation was very late, further delaying GOR project processing and parliamentary approval. Assessment of Quality at Entry The project was not subject to a Quality Assurance Group review and there was no other independent assessment of the project quality at entry. Adequacy of GOR’s commitment The ANCPI was intricately involved in the design of Component 1 and strongly committed to its achievement. There seems to have been less commitment on the part of MARD for Component 2, in part due to the lack of understanding of role of the SEGP, but also possibly due the ministry’s massive commitment at that time to completing arrangements for EU 5 Some elements e.g. a land consolidation strategy and respective legal framework have been designed. 6 integration. That the project did not contribute to the MARD plan of establishing a system of Chambers of Agriculture, which could, potentially, have sustainably delivered SEG services, may have been a contributing factor. Assessment of risks The PAD identified a broad set of potential financial, institutional and political risks and incorporated reasonable, corresponding, mitigations measures. Overall, the project risks, after mitigation measures, were rated as moderate and, in most instances, this proved to be a realistic assessment. The management of financial and corruption risks appears to have been effective. The potential risk of limited GOR budget allocation for project components was initially assessed as “high”, and then as “significant” after mitigation through a specific clause in the Loan Agreement. This risk, however, was realized during project implementation, significantly affecting project outcomes. As a result of funding and time constraints, Component 1 and, partially, Component 3 outcomes were reduced at project restructuring in March 2011, and Component 1 was closed on June 30, 2013. This delayed project benefits by up to two years. Component 2 also suffered from sporadic funding shortfalls that delayed and partially curtailed SEG service provider contracts. The underlying cause of GOR’s financial shortfall, but not the withholding of the ANCPI budget in 2013, was the global financial crisis. The role of Law no. 7/1996 in minimizing the risk of land title disputes going to court was discussed under the critical risks component of the PAD, but not included in the table summarizing the risk ratings of the project. What was not discussed and ultimately materialized during project implementation was the risk of technical deficiencies in Law no. 7/1996 delaying project implementation. 2.2 Implementation Loan effectiveness was initially delayed by 15 months due to: (i) administrative difficulties encountered by the GOR in its transition of externally financed projects to the provisions of Emergency Ordinance 64/2007 on Public Debt6 (entered into force on January 1, 2009), (ii) the delayed approval of the draft law on the ratification of the Loan Agreement and (iii) frequent changes in ANCPI and MARD governance and ministerial leadership. Subsequently, and despite ANCPI preparatory work during the interim period, implementation moved slowly using national budget resources, with a gap of 16 months between loan effectiveness and the first disbursement of just 1% of project funding. The slow project startup implementation was due to: (i) the complex nature of systematic registration which was almost completely new to Romania 7 and shortcomings in the legal framework, notably the key law underpinning systematic registration (Law 7/1996); (ii) the lack of pre-identified communes in the PAD8, exposing the final selection to political involvement9; and (iii) the inadequate understanding of the SEG concept, which delayed the preparation of supporting manuals and training programs. Social change in Romania has also moved forward more rapidly than anticipated at project 6 Based on IMF and World Bank recommendations for an effective institutional and legislative frame work for public debt management. 7 Under the GCP, systematic registration was piloted in two communes. 8 10 Judets (counties) were identified in Annex 4 of the PAD. Of those, 8 were eventually part of the 16 Judets involved in Component 1 implementation. 9 it took the ANCPI and MARD more than one year to reach an agreement on the final list of communes for project implementation 7 design, including improved pensions and health care and increased labor migration 10 and remittance payments, particularly to rural areas. At the same time, the uptake of EU CAP support has accelerated post-2010, as compared to the earlier SAPARD program,11 as MARD improved its Farm Registry management and payment systems and the rural credit guarantee fund extended its reach. Accumulated delays in project implementation and the shortage of national budgetary funds necessitated the March 14, 2011 project restructuring. In addition to the disruptive national context, the restructuring was also delayed by the prevailing World Bank policy that did not support the restructuring of project rated Unsatisfactory, preferring closure and fund reallocation. On June 26, 2013 the project was again restructured following GOR failure to meet a Bank request for formal commitment and solid proof of further financing. Component 1 was closed, and the closing date was extended for the remaining two components. EUR 25.3 million of project funding was also subsequently cancelled. In May 2014, the loan Closing Date was extended by three months to enable proper review and acceptance of the consultant deliverables and completion of the Agency for Payments and Interventions in Agriculture (APIA) training. The project closed on September 30, 2014. Project implementation by component is detailed in Annex 2. In summary, under Component 1, the pilot phase contracts in systematic registration covering 19 UATs in 13 counties were signed on February 18, 2011, almost two years after the project effectiveness. Subsequently, ANCPI’s continuing shortage of budget funding led to the reduced roll out of the second round of UATs for systematic registration, from an additional 72 to 31 UATs in 15 counties, for which contracts were signed on May 31, 2012. While the performance of the systematic registration contractors improved over time, they could not achieve the initially planned 13 months period for completing systematic registration in a UAT. Nonetheless, they have delivered systematic registration at an impressively low average cost of EUR 26 per parcel. In 2013, ANCPI received only EUR 0.34 million of a requested EUR 8.9 million budget allocation for completing the on-going contracts, leading to the temporary suspension of systematic registration contracts on March 25, 2013. Following loan closure in June 2013, implementation of systematic registration resumed, as ANCPI management reached agreement with all contractors to continue their field-work in anticipation of future payment. Despite the challenges, the ANCPI, together with the OCPIs, has demonstrated a high level of commitment and support to the project objectives with capable and dedicated staff at the central, county and local levels. Therefore, although at loan closure systematic registration was completed in six communes, it is expected that systematic registration will be completed in all 50 project UATs by end-2015. The project’s systematic registration process has also, uniquely for Bank-supported land administration projects in the Europe and Central Asia (ECA) region, pioneered methodologies for addressing the needs of vulnerable groups in systematic registration, particularly for Roma people. In one of the three completed UATs (commune Crizbav), for example, 198 Roma families received property deeds for the land they possess. Under Component 2, following an initial beneficiary needs assessment completed in September 2010 and the finalization of the SEG manual in June 2011, the first contracts for SEG service provision were awarded between May and September 2011, with field activities 10 Romania was among the countries which generated the largest increase in international migrants – 4.8 percent between 2010 and 2013 11 Only 29.22% of the 2006 SAPARD allocation was committed before the SAPARD program, the predecessor to the EU CAP support, closed in 2009. 8 launched in the counties of Suceava, Alba, Dolj, Olt, Timiş, Bihor, Argeş, Dâmboviţa, Braşov, Călăraşi, Mureş, Galaţi, Harghita and Cluj in the third quarter of 2011 . GOR regulations required that these contracts be re-tendered annually, leading to unfortunate delays, with new contracts being awarded in the first quarter of 2013 and the third-round contracts in November 2013. While all Component 2 revised indicators were achieved, the quality of those achievements were diminished by: (i) the late implementation of the SEGP, by which time most farmers had already registered for CAP Pillar I benefits and the majority of the available CAP Pillar II financing had been committed; and (ii) the late delivery of SEGP training, in November 2012 and May 2013, only midway through implementation. Component 3, which was stripped of its policy outcomes in the March 2011 project restructuring, supported the equipping of ten IAO offices, three targeted studies in support of the NPDR 2014-2020, and two studies that underpinned ANCPI’s approach to systematic registration. These investments have been found to be valuable for ongoing ANCPI institutional strengthening and MARD rural development planning and implementation. At project design, cooperation between the ANCPI and the MARD was not sufficiently contextual, connected and practical, but more formal and administrative. The institutions primarily managed their components without a joint approach or sharing of best practices with a view to the synergistic achievement of the PDO. Despite having complementary activities in 31 UATs (of the 50 contracted), there seems to have been little effort toward coordinated work that could bring benefits to farmers as the final beneficiaries. This might be exemplified by Component 1’s notable attention to vulnerable groups, particularly Roma people; however, the Roma people were not targeted by SEG service providers, despite their needs being well referenced in the NRDP 2007-2013. The results achieved at commune level do not demonstrate potentially synergistic impacts of Components 1 and 2 due to the small number of registered properties at the end of the project. 2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization Design: The M&E system of the project comprised a combination of process monitoring, ad- hoc and ex-ante assessments, and impact evaluation. To assess the performance and impact of the project, three surveys were planned: pre-project (baseline), mid-term, and end-of-the project, but these were not included in the project budget and were only partially implemented. Project outcome monitoring was also challenged by the PDO outcome indicators that did not, cumulatively, measure the expected PDO impact. At Intermediate Outcome (IO) level, there were too many indicators, a considerable number of which were outputs, not outcomes, with none referenced against comparable change in non- project areas. More useful indicators could have been built around the changes resulting from those outputs including: (i) the level of investment secured through mortgages on registered land, their impact on land consolidation and the rate of return on those investments; (ii) the value of CAP grants secured by SEG service recipients and the rate of return on those investments; or (iii) an assessment of farmers acceptance and utilization of SEG plans. Implementation: The ANCPI had an M&E system in place under the previous Bank financed GCP finalized in 2006, which was expanded to accommodate most project indicators, building off 2008 baseline data. Three intermediate outcome indicators were not monitored primarily due to the lack of funds for additional surveys, and four indicators were not covered because of the absence of project activities (guarantee fund, ANCPI legal charter, long term strategic and first year business plan, land consolidation policy). The MARD-PMU constructed an M&E system at project inception and incorporated results provided by SEG contractors, although with a significant lag in their database entry. The MARD also had the Farm Registry database 9 that recorded the allocation of MARD and EU CAP subsidies. Quarterly reports were prepared throughout the project period to a good quality standard, based on project indicators. The ANCPI database covered all 42 counties in Romania as did the MARD Farm Registry database, however, there was no attempt to designate non-project control points with M&E start-up. In April 2013 the Bank ISM recommended that the project results framework be revised both in terms of the content and the targets in order to ensure that the measurements fitted realistically with the respective objectives. Some indicators were agreed to be dropped due to their poor relevance and some adapted or changed. A clear methodological guidance on all PAD framework indicators was prepared and annexed to the Aide Memoire, but was not implemented by either PMU. An ANCPI-implemented social survey was conducted in 2008 before project effectiveness, providing baseline input. The follow-up social survey planned for 2013 was cancelled due to lack of Component 1 funds. MARD contracted an independent impact assessment of Component 2 outcomes and beneficiary perspectives in the second quarter of 2014. Following a review of the draft report by the ICR Team, the analysis was extended with Bank funding to compare results within communes between project and non-project impact areas. Utilization: The M&E data enabled assessment of project progress and provided a basis for planning improvements to the project implementation; however, the slow rate of project implementation limited data availability and there was no mid-term social or customer survey to inform project management. Only Component 2 undertook a beneficiary/impact assessment at end-project. To be sustainable, the ANCPI M&E system, built off their IT database, will require mainstreaming of the M&E specialist functions into the ANCPI organizational structure and recalibration of key indicators to meet the agency’s vision and mission. The MARD M&E system was project-based and has ceased at project completion. 2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance The involuntary resettlement safeguard was not triggered because: (1) there was no land acquisition for the minor works during the project as they all took place on public property; and (ii) the safeguard did not apply with respect to protected areas given that there was no change in ownership or access to such areas (since titles had already been granted). The cancellation of civil works under the project eliminated any need for site-specific environmental screening. While the ownership of forest land was registered, the project did not engage in any forest sector activities or interventions that would impact significantly on forested areas. Bank specialists on procurement, financial management, social development and environment participated regularly in supervision missions, providing advice and guidance to PMUs staff on compliance with Bank policies and procedures applicable. 2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase ANCPI opted to finance the post-project completion of project systematic registration contracts through the state budget. The project has enabled the preparation of a National Program for Systematic Registration, including a participatory systematic registration process as evidenced by the request in 2013 from more than 100 mayors to finance systematic registration in their UATs. By June 2014, 33 UATs outside the project area had obtained ANCPI’s approval/protocols to contract self-funded systematic registration, and 21 contracts with the private sector were signed and activities initiated in 16 locations. On a larger scale, the ANCPI is preparing a comprehensive plan for systematic registration in rural areas using an anticipated EUR 250 million grant of EU Structural Funds, which can be considered to be a direct result of the institutional strengthening of the ANCPI during the project. This plan includes a 10 significant scaling up of the management capacity in the ANCPI and the OCPIs and capacity building in the private sector. The first step of the program is the tendering of about 150 UATs (communes). The EU financed “Real Estate – Basis for National and EU Policies” Reimbursable Advisory Services to strengthen the ANCPI’s capacity, which is closely linked to the CESAR project. For Component 2, the SEG approach has proven less sustainable. The MARD is not seeking its continuation; however, the SEG service providers’ skills will be available to rural communities through other channels. This partially reflects a change in MARD’s agriculture development strategy, which, under the NRDP 2014-2020, focuses on a much smaller coterie of about 130,000 commercial smallholder and large scale farms. It is anticipated that new non-government, farmer managed county-based Chambers of Agriculture and IAOs, the latter composed of representatives of Paying Agencies, will facilitate farmers' access to information about EU funding mechanisms and measures. To date the Chamber of Agriculture approach remains largely untested. The IAOs will function as a cooperation platform between farmers, groups, advisory suppliers, paying agencies and local authorities. 3. Assessment of Outcomes 3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation The Project objectives and design remained relevant across the Project life and are consistent with current development priorities. The Bank CPS for Romania for the period 2014–2017 (April 28, 2014) identifies the importance of property rights in Romania. Less than 50% of real estate rights are registered in the cadaster, and only 15% of real estate records are verified and registered in digital form in the eTerra system. This lack of reliable real estate rights information affects infrastructure, economic growth, social development and environmental actions and constrains farmers’ ability to access credit and utilize some EU CAP funds. The provision of SEG services as planned under the project, is less relevant with respect to the original target beneficiaries because GOR’s target farmer audience consists now in commercialized smallholder and large Romania farms and no longer the primarily subsistence farmers that were the focus of the project. While the technical and economic advice as provided under the NDRP 2014-2020 continues to be important, the need for SEG services for this group will be different from that planned under the project. Project objectives are also consistent with future GOR objectives as detailed in the ANCPI development strategy, the Romania NRDP 2014-2020, Romania’s draft Partnership Agreement for the 2014-2020 programming period and for meeting the country’s ex-ante conditionality for that programming period. Concerning project design, while the implementation of systematic registration through private sector providers has, despite a challenging project implementation process, proven to be appropriate and sustainable, the implementation of the SEGP has not been continued by MARD, which has adopted a new arrangement involving County Chambers of Agriculture and the IAOs, which, although untested, may provide a more sustainable institutional framework. Finally, in terms of implementation performance, the arrangements supported by the project, which were extensively disrupted by GOR’s response to the global financial crisis 12 and frequent changes in governance and ministerial leadership13, have yielded positive results in 12 Notable including the Unitary Pay Law, which was prepared under World Bank and IMF guidance. 13 The MARD had six different ministers over the project life, while the ANCPI went through three changes in governance structure. 11 terms of the development of a process for systematic registration that is clearly impacting on land transactions, which underpins farm restructuring. The implementation performance of SEG services, however, is ambiguous as PDO/IO indicators primarily provide a measure of SEG outputs, not outcomes and the delivery mechanism has not been sustained by MARD. The knowledge gained by SEG service providers will, nonetheless, contribute to the NRDP 2014- 2020 EUR2.1 billion program for support to public and private advisory services, farm management and farm relief services. 3.2 Achievement of Project Development Objectives The PDO aimed to “facilitate” farm restructuring, an outcome that, given its abstractness, is difficult to measure. This was further constrained by the use of PDO and IO indicators that primarily measured outputs, not outcomes and did not, cumulatively, measure the expected PDO impact. Indicators that actually measure restructuring – farm consolidation, rate of uptake and return to CAP grants, land mortgaging for productive investment, etc. would have provided a more realistic assessment of project impact. Analysis of PDO achievement was further exacerbated by the lack of project beneficiary/social surveys to measure outcomes and other social indicators. Under project Components 1 and 3, the ANCPI developed an affordable and scalable methodology for national systematic registration and established a supporting legal framework that, based on CESAR experience, will drive the development of a comprehensive law on land registration, expected to be promulgated in 2015. The ANCPI, OCPIs, city hall representatives and the private sector were also extensively trained and gained experiences to carry out systematic registration on a larger scale. In terms of the key Component 1 indicator, the revised target of registering 0.7 million hectares of rural land in the Land Book in the project areas was not achieved. By June 30, 2013, the registered land in systematic registration amounted to 57,049 hectares, rising at June 30, 2014 to 177,795 hectares, representing just 25% of the revised target. By end-2015, with the completion of systematic registration in 50 project UATs, an area of 425,000 hectares is expected to be registered. While the ANCPI, for a variety of reasons, some well beyond its control, fell well short of achieving the targeted 0.7 million ha of systematically registered land, it has trained staff and developed an affordable, scalable methodology for national systematic registration. In the six UATs where systematic registration has been completed, the impact on extravillan land transactions has been dramatic, as detailed in Table 1 below. In addition to a massive increase in land transactions immediately following systematic registration, the level of annual transactions in the three communes completed in 2012 have been, on average, 3,433% higher post systematic registration when compared to the three years preceding its completion. While the project did not prove a causal link between systematic registration and land transactions, the consistency of the results suggest little other alternative. The associated rise in property tax income has significantly strengthened commune revenue. Some optimizations of technical, legal and controlling processes still needs to be introduced and the ANCPI and OCPIs staffing rationalized while special attention should to be paid to: (i) improving the flow of information to community members and their representatives; (ii) better sensitizing the contractors about the particular needs of vulnerable groups, particularly Roma people; and (iii) improved social monitoring arrangements. 12 Table 1. Extravillan land transactions in communes with completed systematic land registration Finalized 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 mid-2014 Judet Communa CALARASI Nana Dec-13 38 34 24 55 133 1,545* GALATI Valea Marului Dec-13 1 15 16 22 36 2,498* MURES Saschiz Nov-12 0 11 17 694* 118 220 OLT Iancu Jianu Oct-12 4 6 16 1,580* 124 41 OLT Valea Mare July-12 14 13 22 3,629* 415 126 TELEORMAN Mârzanesti Dec-13 0 4 10 4 3 5,197* *Year in which systematic registration was completed Under Component 2, a MARD commissioned post-project independent assessment compared results between project and non-project counties and found positive results for the relevant Component 2 PDO and IO indicators. The SEG services, however, were only delivered to some communes within each project county. A separate, Bank-financed study of differences between project and non-project communes within project counties also showed universally positive Component 2 results, though less than those reported in the independent MARD assessment. In both studies, however, most project area differences were ≤5% and the studies lacked any statistical analysis. More rapid than expected social change in rural Romania and increased MARD efficiency in Pillar I and Pillar II delivery may have contributed to a reduced SEGP impact. The assessment of Component 2 achievements is compounded by two other factors (i) the lack of a clear causal relationship between most Component 2 indicators and “market- based farm restructuring”, or the sub-objective of “improved delivery of guidance services”; and (ii) the delay in mounting SEG service delivery, which only commenced in the 3rd quarter of 2011 and did not influence CAP Pillar II allocations before 2012, by which time funding for the two Measures most important for smallholder farmers was largely exhausted. The main measurable benefit from the SEG services, therefore, related to farmer registration of land use in the farm registry for direct area payments and Least Favored Area (LFA) payments, (which fell toward project-end) with some benefit from Measure 141 access (support to semi- subsistence farms). These outcomes were well below the estimated Component 2 benefits incorporated in the financial and economic analysis at project design. Component 3, which was stripped of its policy outcomes in the March 2013 project restructuring, has had no independent assessment of its results, however, both ANCPI and MARD reported substantial benefit from Component 3 activities. 3.3 Efficiency Economic Impact The Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) has been calculated, employing the same methodology as applied at project design and using the estimated systematic registration area of 50 UATs that will be brought into the cadaster by end-2015 under the on-going project initiated contracts now being financed by the ANCPI. It would be unrealistic to only calculate the economic benefit of systematic registration carried out in the period to June 30, 2013, because the works were delayed by exceptional circumstances during the project and are continuing to be carried out by contractors under ANCPI technical and financial support. The EIRR on the cadastre and registration activities is estimated to be 7% (30 year horizon) and 10% (20 year horizon). The Net Present Values (NPV) at an 8% discount rate are estimated to 13 be EUR 209,295 over a 30 year horizon and EUR 179,105 over a 20 year horizon. (See Annex 3 for details) Efficiency Improvements: The average time required to register a land transaction in Romania was recorded as 21 days in 2008 – 2010, 15 days in 2011, 15.8 days in 2012, 16.4 days in 2013, and 16.2 days in 2014. The average time needed to register a transaction in the project counties, including relevant communes with the systematic registration, was 21 days in 2008 – 2010, 15.5 days in 2011, 16.1 days in 2012, 16.8 days in 2013, and to 16.3 days in 2014. The differences between project and non-project areas are small and probably not statistically significant. In practice, the client can expect land transactions to be processed in 21 days, as required by the order of the ANCPI Director General. In Romania, the average time to technically produce a certified copy of the title (Land Book extract) was changed from 2 days in 2008 – 2010 to 1.7 days in 2011 - 2014. In practice, the client receives the certified copy of the title in two days. These efficiency gains in transaction registration and certificate issuance will improve when the electronic register (eTerra) is optimized and more systematic and sporadic data is registered. The total number of registered properties recorded in Romania in 42 counties in the ANCPI’s eTerra register increased from 1,678,839 properties (including the land and apartments) covering the area of 854,197 ha on December 31, 2009, to 6,774,994 properties, covering the area of 4,725,632 ha on June 30, 2014. The majority of registrations, which now covers 17% of the total number of properties, and 20% of the total area of Romania, was recorded in the process of sporadic registration, the rest coming from the conversion of old land books and a small number from systematic registration. The increase of registered extravillan rural areas in the country grew from 207,671 properties covering the area of 470,366 ha on December 31, 2009, to 1,520,335 properties covering 3,023,369 ha on June 30, 2014, being 5% of registered rural properties and 15% of the total of rural area. The extravillan rural land registered in the six finalized project communes increased from 2,105 ha to 21,673 ha. Mortgage Market Impact: Nationally, there has been a significant increase in the number of mortgages registered against extravillan rural land between end-2009 and mid-2014, from 27,633 to 81,269 mortgages, representing a 194% increase. The change in extravillan mortgages in the six project communes with a completed systematic registration has been from 37 at end-2009 to 349 by mid-2014, representing an 843% increase. It is evident, that the project supported systematic registration has significantly facilitated a more functional mortgage market. Financial Impact At appraisal, the financial benefits were approximated through the estimated incremental farm revenues attributable both to enhanced CAP eligibility resulting from land property registration and to the provision of SEG to the agricultural population. The key measures selected included: (i) direct payments (Single Area Payments - SAPS - and Complementary National Direct Payments - CNDP); (ii) Measure 112: establishment of young farmers, (iii) Measure 141: restructuring of semi-subsistence farms; and (iv) compensatory payments in LFAs. While the project clearly had the potential to support the uptake of these measures in project counties, it begs the question of the project financial benefit given that these payments were likely to be expended irrespective of the project SEG services input. In reality, that was the case. The project was also designed on the incorrect premise of “enhanced CAP eligibility resulting from land property registration” (see Annex 2). It is difficult to attribute any significant financial benefit to the project (see Annex 3 for details). There will be little post-project flow-on of SEG benefits to CESAR-targeted smallholders under the NRDP 2014-2020 due to the significantly higher economic entry requirements set for the new CAP Pillar II measures. 14 3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating The Project's Component 1 overall outcome is rated Moderately Unsatisfactory. The rating is justified because, while the project outcome indicators and IO indicators were achieved in only three out of twelve cases, the project, through on-going GOR funding will achieve a significant result by end-2015 and the resulting experience and improved legislation has established the process of national systematic registration and paved the way for its more effective roll-out. The project remains relevant for Romania. It has already had a positive impact on providing security of titles and is enhancing the transparency of land markets. The project resulted in increased land transactions in selected communes and in improved service delivery to customers. The Project’s Component 2 overall outcome is rated Moderately Satisfactory. The rating is justified because PDO and IO target indicators have been met, and in some cases exceeded, however, they: (i) were primarily output rather than outcome measurements and tell little about farm restructuring or the resulting economic impacts on the target beneficiaries; (ii) were delivered two years later than planned, causing a significant loss of opportunity for the targeted beneficiaries; and (iii) they were not delivered through a sustainable mechanism. The Project Component 3 overall outcome is rated Satisfactory. The revised indicators were all achieved. The overall Project is rated as Moderately Unsatisfactory. The three PDO outcome indicators were achieved, however, they are not considered to be an adequate measure of the achievement of the PDO. At IO level, 12 of the 21 indicators were achieved, including 3 of the 12 indicators for Component 1 and all of the eight indicators for Component 2, plus the one indicator for Component 3. Here again, however, the sum of the indicators is not an adequate measure of the achievement of the two project sub-objectives, with many of the indicators measuring outputs, not outcomes and frequently lacking a causal relationship with the PDO. The project did create an institutional and procedural foundation for the national systematic registration of rural assets and for enhanced rural development in Romania, but fell short of achieving its key outcome for real estate systematic registration (even with its continuation, post project with government funding) and did not develop a sustainable system for the delivery of SEG services. The two main project components, furthermore, lacked the necessary synergies and coordination arrangements to ensure that, collectively, they catalyzed farm restructuring in Romania. 3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts (a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development As reported in the Bank CPS, agriculture in Romania accounts for only 5 percent of GDP but affects a large proportion of the population since 45% of the total lives in rural areas, one of the highest percentages within the EU, and generates 28% of total employment, compared to only 3% in the EU15 and 12.1% in the EU-N12. Romania also has the lowest farm labor productivity and highest incidence of rural poverty (over 70%) and the largest gap in living and social standards between rural and urban areas in the EU. Structural weaknesses have prevented capital investments and the adoption of modern techniques necessary to boost productivity and improve competitiveness, thus keeping the sector well below its export potential. About 95% of rural land titles are not registered in the land book, often resulting in sub-optimal land use, including the inability to sell or use the asset as collateral. Women, who have the right of land ownership under Romanian law, are at risk of being less informed about that right and therefore, of being marginalized. Daily life patterns and interactions might differ between the 15 men and the women, and especially single women and widows might have difficulties in participating in registration process if they are scheduled without adequate consideration of their time commitments. Systematic registration, including well planned public displays that meet vulnerable and disadvantaged group’s specific needs, provides equitable rights to all landowners. Pending the implementation of the project, only those citizens capable of paying for notarial fees and a sporadic cadastral survey were registering their ownership. Issues arose when these landowners claimed more land than existed, de facto, marginalizing the poorer landowners who did not have the funds to register. The project’s systematic registration process enabled such “informal” owners to formally record their actual property rights in the cadastre and the Land Book. In order to ensure inclusion of vulnerable and disadvantaged people in the systematic registration process, the project endeavored to understand the social environment and to closely monitor the participation of vulnerable groups over the course of the registration process (persons with disability, illiterates, Roma, minorities, elderly people, and single women/widows). This was met through significant planning and training program, including field team training to ensure they were proactive in data collection and in problem solving in the field, including legal issues, and a strong public awareness campaign. Lessons learned have been carried forward into the ANCPI’s systematic registration platform, in particular, concerning Roma people. The Roma are present in almost every rural village. The land that they have occupied and built houses on is, in general, the public land and local authorities have generally tolerated this situation but have not taken any initiatives towards the regularization of the situation. In some cases the municipalities solved the lack of property deeds by approving the issuance of property titles, based on the restitution laws. Systematic registration has provided a solution to formalize these cases (e.g. the Roma village Cutus in Crizbav commune in the Brasov County). In the 50 project UATs it was estimated that 16,000 Roma people (representing almost 3,000 Roma families) would benefit from the registration of properties they possess. By June 30 2013, the project had assisted 7,978 disadvantaged people with land registration issues. The ANCPI has recently established good working relations with the National Agency for Roma. Component 2 provided a particular challenge with respect to poverty reduction. The main target group for SEG services was made of relatively poor subsistence farmers, farm families and farm workers, with the objective of enhancing their ability to manage their assets and income, including through accessing national and EU CAP support measures. In reality, a significant proportion of the SEG service provider effort focused on support to accessing national and EU CAP subsidies, which was also the measure of success of this component in the project’s financial and economic analysis. This approach was developed largely in the absence of analysis of the importance of agricultural production and income in the household economy of targeted families. This challenge was exacerbated by the relatively few measures available to support subsistence farmers (primarily Measures 112 and 141) and the limited funding available within those measures. For many project-targeted farmers, agriculture production, including home consumption, was not their primary source of income. This is the reality across many former socialist economies in Eastern Europe, where pensions, remittances and off-farm employment play a more significant role in the smallholder household economy than agriculture. When the difficulty for smallholder farmers to raise capital to pre-finance CAP measures and the relatively high educational requirements for eligibility are added to this equation, the constraints to the project SEG approach are evident. Under the NRDP 2014-2020, the GOR has recognized these issues and focused resources on about 130,000 commercial farmers and those on the cusp of achieving commercial viability. Social, rather than agricultural 16 measures are likely to be a more effective and better targeted mechanism for supporting poor rural Romanian households in the future. (b) Institutional Change/Strengthening The institutional strengthening of the ANCPI, which experienced a disruptive governance and financing process over the project life, was an important outcome of the project. The training and technical support provided has strengthened ANCPI institutionally, resulting in shortened average time for transaction registration, shortened average time to produce land book extract and strong public support for the process of systematic registration. The long-term development of the agency requires a stable environment for its operations. Unfortunately, the same impact was not realized within the MARD, which had an uncompetitive salary structure and was operating under a staff “freeze” at project inception. Consequently, Component 2 was managed by an existent, contracted PMU with field services delivered by private contractors, resulting in a project process that provided little institutional capacity building, except were the private service providers delivered training directly to MARD staff, as was the case with cost/benefit analysis training for Paying Agency for Rural Development and Fishery (APDRP) staff and the staff of the APIA on the CAP changes. The MARD has not incorporated the SEG approach and experience into the NRDP 2014-2020. The clear lesson is that investment programs must fully integrated into ministry/agency development strategies and methodologies and evolve with them over time. 3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops See Annex 5 for details. 4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome Rating: Moderate Design weaknesses including the overestimation of ANCPI capacity to manage large scale systematic registration and underestimation of the associated legal/legislative constraints, together with insufficient analysis of rural subsistence household economies and a misalignment of the PDO and component activities threatened the Development Outcome from the outset. Fortunately, much of this risk has been avoided during implementation through the commitment of the management teams, field staff and private contractors and effective Bank supervision. The ANCPI is now a stronger institution with a clear vision, a degree of financial independence, a workable methodology for wide-scale systematic registration and the likelihood of EUR 250 million of EU Structural Funds financing. Conversely the SEG approach developed under the project is not being continued by MARD, although some elements of the approach will, undoubtedly, be incorporated into future extension and rural development strategies. The 275 project certified SEG providers will also use some of their acquired skills to support future agriculture intensification and diversification in Romania. The NRDP 2014-2020 takes a sharply different route than that of the project in that it focuses on the approximately 130,000 Romanian farmers with a Standard Output14 > EUR 8,000, who it regards as having the “potential to be market oriented”. 14 The standard output (SO) of a farm is the average monetary value of the agricultural output at farm-gate price, in EUR. It excludes direct payments and the production costs. The average SO of Romanian farms is EUR 2,700. 17 5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance 5.1 Bank Performance (a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry Rating: Moderately Unsatisfactory The project design process put in place a realistic investment platform to facilitate farm restructuring, but was over ambitious in terms of its expectations concerning the pace of systematic registration implementation and overly optimistic with respect to the “ownership” and expected uptake of the SEGP. The Bank design team underestimated the risk posed by the changeable political environment in Romania, the lack of funding and the potentially of an uncommitted GOR. These issues were amplified by the lack of synergies and linkages between the two project components. The Bank design team could not have predicted the impact of the GFC, which seriously disrupted project start-up. (b) Quality of Supervision Rating: Moderately Satisfactory The Bank supervision team was composed of highly respected, knowledgeable and capable specialists with varied experiences in the ECA region and elsewhere, who worked in close collaboration with the Romanian counterparts, building a very strong partnership with national partners. While recognizing some design constraints and insufficient proactivity at project start-up, the supporting Bank team played a key role during Component 1 implementation, in guiding the GOR and the ANCPI on fundamental issues of establishing the administration system in the country and in best practices with respect to systematic registration. Supervision was less effective in guiding the SEGP process, particularly in early implementation when a deeper understanding of its nature was required and the possibility of its alignment with MARD’s planned Chambers of Agriculture should have been more thoroughly explored. Fiduciary and safeguards aspects were well supervised. Procurement issues were promptly and competently attended to, with annual procurement plans used as a basis for tracking developments. Project financing and disbursement was effectively supervised. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance Rating: Moderately Satisfactory Despite the project being rated moderately unsatisfactory and recognizing the aforementioned design and start-up constraints, the Bank exhibited a strong level of commitment, flexibility and partnership during project implementation and, in so doing, created a foundation for future market-based farm restructuring in Romania. 5.2 Borrower Performance (a) Government Performance Rating: Unsatisfactory The delayed approval of the project and subsequent slow project start-up were a significant constraint to project effectiveness. As a result, the opportunity to align land registration and SEG with the introduction of CAP payments was lost. While the global financial crisis clearly constrained the Romanian budget, subsequent delays in project financing were shortsighted and highly disruptive, as was the changing governance of the ANCPI and the high turnover of ministers responsible for both managing agencies. The MPF and sequential parent institutions to the ANCPI, the Ministry of Administration and Interior, the Ministry of Rural Development and Tourism, the General Secretary of the Government (under the Chancellery of the Prime Minister) and finally the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration were 18 disengaged from project activities and insufficiently aware of their economic and financial importance. The MARD ownership of the SEGP process also appears to be questionable, with little initial ministry support for the concept and the slow establishment (Sept. 2009) of the supporting project Steering Committee (PSC). While ANCPI staff commitment remained strong throughout the project life and MARD commitment improved over time, these institutions operated largely independently, reducing opportunity for the synergistic achievement of the PDO. The decision by the management of the General Secretariat of the Government, in 2013, not to release available budget for the completion of the project systematic registration contracts, which led to the Bank closure of that component, set back the systematic registration process by two years. (b) Implementing Agency or Agencies Performance Rating: Moderately Satisfactory Following a late project start-up, the ANCPI played a central role in Component 1 achievements. It maintained a strong commitment to the output targets and to the broader developmental objective despite a very disruptive institutional framework including several changes in governance, deteriorating employment conditions, policy failures and frequent budget constraints. Despite this unfavorable environment, the agency succeeded in putting in place the process for national systematic registration. While most targets were not achieved, the ANCPI, through the project, has created a sound base for the scaling up the systematic registration of real estate. The MARD was somewhat detached from SEG implementation under Component 2, which appears misaligned with the Ministry’s long-term vision for agricultural advisory service delivery in Romania. It was considerably more engaged in Component 3 programs to develop the IAOs and support the preparation of the NRDP 2014-2020. The decision by MARD not to integrate the SEG approach into the NRDP 2014-2020, despite the Program’s strong investment in various advisory services, is emblematic of the SEG ownership issue. Despite these constraints, the MARD PMU showed a strong commitment to the achievement of the project outcomes and was successful in meeting all its indicator targets. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance Rating: Moderately Unsatisfactory The ANCPI and MARD PMUs, showing commendable commitment in the face of financing and institutional constraints, were able to make significant progress in: (i) laying the foundation for a sustainable and scalable systematic registration process; and (ii) implementing the SEG, including achieving almost all associated targets; and (iii) successfully completing Component 3 activities. The GOR performance, the MARD’s detached approach to the project and the limited ANCPI-MARD interaction, however, over-whelmed the performance of ANCPI and MARD PMU seriously degraded project outcomes and contributed significantly to the Borrower’s rating. 19 6. Lessons Learned The main lessons learned from this project are: The PDO should be clearly articulated. As observed by one QER reviewer, the project design carried the characteristics of a “village/rural land registration project with SEG services rather than a farm restructuring project”. The PDO statement must define the expected impact and outcomes respectively, use strong action verbs (e.g. operationalize or complete rather than facilitate) and not be obscured by the inclusion of statements of the means of their achievement. Indicators at PDO level must be measurable outcomes, not outputs, and, additively, clearly quantify the impact/outcome achievement. This requires accurate and timely project M&E, the implementation of which should be closely monitored and reported during implementation supervision. A sound policy environment is a necessary condition for effective farm restructuring. Land administration and consolidation policy needs to be comprehensive and joined-up (enabling horizontal information flows, between Ministries as well as vertically, within any Ministry to and from lower- and higher-level authorities) so that it is consistent between agencies and Ministries. Effective public displays are critical to efficient systematic registration. Initial systematic registration can contain significant errors that are addressed through the public display of the cadastre plan and legal data, which to be effective, require: (i) plans that are easily viewable, on a scale that land owners can comprehend and including digital orthophoto overlays; (ii) male and female land owners are directly invited to attend at socially convenient times; and (iii) the necessary persons required to resolve registration issues are available to liaise with land owners. Participation should be monitored and measures undertaken if the attendance is below expectations. Effective private sector surveying requires strong local knowledge. While the expertise of foreign companies can make a valuable management and quality control contribution to systematic registration, that expertise must be blended with sufficient local knowledge to facilitate efficient local operations, field work, interpret data, provide legal opinion and support dispute resolution. Systematic registration must be linked to affordable and accessible legal services. Effective legal services are crucial to achieving market outcomes from systematic registration. The legal fraternity should be an integral part of the planning and implementation of systematic registration including the development of rational and implementable real estate transfer and succession regulations and fees. Private sector competence and capacity to deliver project outcomes, where required, should be evaluated in the design process and systems established for contract delivery to be efficiently and effectively monitored and quality controlled, preferably through timely, automated web- based systems that provide early “flags” of professional or quantitative delivery issues. Systems of publicly financed rural advisory services must be tailored to specific country, institutional and beneficiary environments. While there is no panacea for achieving effective, sustainable public extension outcomes, the most successful systems have a high level of beneficiary governance, clearly understand the socio-economic environment and target public good outcomes. Where extension benefits are primarily private, beneficiary contribution sharpens the relevance and efficiency of the service. 20 GOR’s development policy should be thoroughly evaluated within the design process (e.g. the establishment of Agricultural Chambers) and, in the absence of compellingly negative consequences, supported in ways that will help achieve project outcomes; A detailed analysis of the legislative, institutional framework and socio-economic environment is important for effective project design and implementation. Vulnerable groups must be identified and effectively targeted within the project design process for their rights to be effectively addressed/protected. Market-based strategies must be built off a detailed understanding of household economies. If legislation needs to be amended to enable project implementation, the impact of potential delays in its promulgation must be factored into project design and associated risk management. Memorandum of Understanding facilitate inter-agency cooperation. The MoU between implementing agencies managing disparate but inter-connected components and between those agencies and key project actors including local and regional self-government, non- governmental organizations (NGO) and state institutions facilitate synchronous implementation should be negotiated in the design process; 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners (a) Borrower/implementing agencies (b) Cofinanciers Not applicable (c) Other partners and stakeholders Not applicable 21 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing (a) Project Cost by Component (in USD Million equivalent) Appraisal Actual/Latest Percentage of Components Estimate Estimate Appraisal (EUR millions) (EUR millions) Comp. 1: Land Admin. 34.01 8.50 25% Comp. 2: Socio-economic guidance 7.76 7.58 98% Comp. 3: Policy, strategy, management. 4.45 2.87 43% Total Baseline Cost 46.22 18.95 41% Physical Contingencies 2.09 0.00 0.00 Price Contingencies 3.05 0.00 0.00 Total Project Costs 51.36 18.95 37% Front-end fee PPF 0.00 0.00 .00 Front-end fee IBRD 0.00 0.00 .00 Total Financing Required 51.36 18.95 37% (b) Financing Appraisal Actual/Latest Type of Estimate Estimate Percentage of Source of Funds Cofinancing (EUR (USD Appraisal millions) millions) Borrower 3.70 0.95 26% International Bank for Reconstruction 47.70 18.01 38% and Development 22 Annex 2. Outputs by Component COMPONENT 1 - LAND ADMINISTRATION The project’s overarching objective was to facilitate market-based farm restructuring, including assisting the GOR in completing the property title registration of land assets in rural areas to improve the security of land property rights and the functioning of rural land markets. Component 1 involved systematically registering property titles and, where needed, adjudicating non-issued titles in selected UATs (communes) in selected judets (counties), and standardizing the processes for mass registration. It included the capacity building required for each step of the process of completing rural land records, proven procedural manuals, and trained professionals both in the public and private sectors. It also provided support to the ANCPI whose local offices received and registered the titles. During the project effectiveness delay, the ANCPI has completed a pilot systematic registration in Stefan Voda, the rollout of the new IT system in ten counties included in the project, completed the social assessment of vulnerable groups in pilot communes, and begun work on technical specifications, a work procedures manual and other preparation activities. All the ANCPI preparatory work, however, was delayed and technical specifications and bidding documents were not ready to start tendering when the project became effective. The delays in effectiveness, and the uncertainty regarding the future of the project in the context of the restructuring of the Bank country portfolio, have contributed to delays in systematic registration. A.1 Land Delimitation and Title Registration The Land Delimitation and Title Registration subcomponent supported parcel delimitation and surveys, legal services for registration in the offices of ANCPI, digital conversion of legal and cadastral documents and maps, and an upgrade and complete rollout of the existing IT system for registration and cadastre. Since communes planned for the systematic registration process were not listed in the PAD, which also lacked detailed selection criteria, the selection of communes was influenced by GOR good will and was politically dependent. It took the ANCPI more than one year to reach an agreement with the GOR on the final list of communes for the systematic registration. Piloting and roll-out of the systematic registration of immovable properties in 50 UATs Pilot works in 19 UATs started in 2011 and the roll-out of the reduced number of planned UATS, down from 72 to 31 due to financial constraints, started in 2012. The area of the 50 selected UATs was about 425,000 hectares, which is below the initially planned 1.27 million of hectares of rural land and the restructured target of 700,000 hectares. The estimated number of properties was 622,000 and the population in the 50 UATs was about 231,000. The pilot and roll-out of systematic registration works were designed to:  execute technical documents for the systematic registration (a cadastral register of the immovable properties, an alphabetic index of real rights titulars, possessors and other holders, a cadastral plan);  interview all land rights holders and collect documents; and  open land books as a result of the identification of immovable property holders and the registration of correlative immovable rights. In the preparation phase for the social monitoring, a Local Environment Analysis (LEA) was conducted to identify vulnerable groups and their specific challenges. Other relevant information concerning land ownership and use was also collected for each of the UATs in 23 order to help identify additional social issues that warrant monitoring during the course of the project. The management of systematic registration contracts was carried out by the ANCPI and OCPI’s employees, who were also responsible for quality control of works. A manual for systematic registration was prepared at the end of 2012, which provided valuable professional guidance throughout the process for the ANCPI, OCPIs and the contractors and will serve as a base for the future systematic registration roll-out. ANCPI was recording, based on information provided by the OCPIs, the number of people that visited public displays and were checking the data. The indicator was about the percentage of land owners in project communes participating in consultations when land surveys were completed and the target was set to at least 50%. It was reported that at the end of June 2013 67.2% of inhabitants visited public displays and at the end of June 2014 71.2% which is a good result, but there is no measurement of the number of owners among the inhabitants. The systematic registration process has been designed to complete systematic registration in one UAT in thirteen months. In practice, however, it has taken much longer for all of the contractors. Some of the delays have been due to factors such as the need for the contractors to develop efficient procedures to complete the work and because of the pilot nature of the systematic registration for the first lot of contracts. The biggest delay was introduced in the first quarter of 2013 when all GOR funding for systematic registration stopped. All contracts were then reactivated by the ANCPI before the end-2013, and were again suspended in July 2014 due to a legal claim on the ANCPI budget. The ANCPI is expecting, with the normalization of the financial environment, that all four contracts for the remaining13 UATs will be completed by end-2015. By the end June 2013 the systematic registration was finalized in three pilot UATs (Valea Mare, Iancu Jianu, and Saschiz) for about 28.000 properties representing 57,049 hectares of rural land. An additional three pilot UATs were finalized by December 31, 2013 (Marzanesti, Nana and Valea Marului) covering about 35,000 registered properties. In summary, 177,795 hectares of rural land was registered (the target was 0,7 million of hectares). No more UATs have been completely finalized and delivered to the ANCPI in the period January 1, 2014 - September 30 2014. In all six finalized UATs in five counties a solution for registering the possession, lease or ownership rights of the Roma population were found, which, for Romania is a positive result in terms of rural Roma inclusion. Specific vulnerable groups were also registered. No social surveys were carried out during or at the end of the project. Registration statistics for Romania The total number of registered properties recorded in Romania in 42 counties in the ANCPI’s eTerra register increased from 1,678,839 properties (including the land and apartments) covering the area of 854,197 h on December 31, 2009, to 5,704,132 properties, covering the area of 4,019,472 ha on June 30, 2013 and finally to 6,774,994 properties, covering an area of 4,725,632 ha on June 30, 2014. The majority of these registrations were recorded in the process of sporadic registration, the rest coming from the conversion of old land books and a small number from systematic registration. Based on the estimation that there are about 40 million properties in Romania, the registration currently covers 17% of the total number of properties, and 20% of the total area of Romania. The increase of registered extravillan rural areas in the country grew from 207,671 properties covering the area of 470,366 ha on December 31, 2009, to 1,184,181 properties, covering 24 2,551,033 ha on June 30, 2013, to 1,520,335 properties covering 3,023,369 ha on June 30, 2014. Based on the estimation that about 32 million properties and 85% of the total area of the country is rural, the current status (June 30, 2014) of registered rural areas corresponds to 5% of registered rural properties and 15% of the total of rural area. The increase in extravillan rural land registered between 2009 and 2013, in the majority sporadically, represents a 442% increase nationally, however, in the six finalized project communes the increase has been from 2,105 ha to 21,673 ha, a rise of 929%, as you would expect with systematic registration. Conversion of Land Books Digital data from the existing 740,374 paper land books were produced in 2012 for - the OCPIs Argeş, Dâmboviţa, Galaţi, Olt and Teleorman for the quantity of 540,608 land books (around 2,700,000 scanned pages) and - the OCPI branch office Braşov for the quantity of 199,766 land books (around 2,000,000 scanned pages). All works were quality controlled and were successfully finished. The indicator was targeted to scan 100% of land books in project communes, which what was not achieved and was also not monitored correctly. The systematic registration was carried out in 50 UATs and the monitoring of scanning was performed in 91 UATs. A.2 Institutional Strengthening The Institutional Strengthening subcomponent supported the ANCPI’s institutional development with a view to improving service delivery for the agency as well as the private sector. This subcomponent also supported the design and implementation of improvements to the legal and institutional framework of the ANCPI, including technical assistance to streamline procedures and training for OCPIs. In 2011 and 2012 the administration of the ROMPOS (Romanian position determination system, CORS) was supported by permanent GNSS stations and specialized software to enable complete the system throughout the country to provide location based services. Some OCPI offices were expected to be upgraded with small civil works, IT, and other equipment and furniture, but were not because of the project restructuring in March 2011. Support was planned to be extended for the preparation of a public awareness campaign to precede and accompany the field work. Cadaster and land registretion law The project prepared significant changes to the cadaster and land registration law (Law 7/1996) and supporting regulations to streamline the systematic registration process, clarify responsibilities for various activities undertaken as part of systematic registration, and to simplify the registration of possession. These revisions were promulgated in 2010 and 2012. The performance of the systematic registration contractors improved due to the law revisions and the experience gained from on-going work. Further legal reform of the cadaster and land registration lawn is needed and a comprehensive review of the law is on-going, based largely on CESAR experience, with a revised law expected to be promulgated in 2015. Public Awareness Campaign (PAC) The Project had a comprehensive PAC (December 2011 – suspension in March 2013) that pursued four objectives: (i) inform the public at the national level about Component 1 of the 25 project; (ii) improve the understanding of the services offered by the ANCPI and the benefits of systematic registration at the national level; (iii) convince local authorities to participate in the process of systematic registration in the project area; and (iv) encourage the participation of the local population in the UATs included in the project area. The PAC impacts at the local level were significant and could be observed in the levels of participation in the systematic registration process and through the social monitoring. The impact of the campaign at the national level was less certain. Training for systematic registration An extensive training and capacity building program on systematic registration has been carried out in 2011 and 2012. The areas of training and number of the trainees were the following:  Social communication and mediation (2 courses) – 196 persons  Communication and conflict mediation – 40 persons  Contractors preparation of interview records – 79 persons  IBM Desktop CADGEN (2 courses) – 70 persons  IBM WEB CADGEN application - 46 persons  eTerra application for data validation - 45 persons  CESAR systematic registration roll-out process – 40 persons  CESAR systematic registration roll-out – public information for contractors – 31 persons  Training of trainers – 75 persons. In summary, 634 persons received training in 9 different courses which was a substantial achievement in capacity building for the ANCPI, OCPIs, private sector and municipalities. No training was organized for notaries, realtors or banks. Social monitoring of systematic registration Social monitoring to evaluate the participation of vulnerable groups in the systematic registration process was carried out for 1.5 years for the 19 pilot UATs and for four months for the 31 roll-out UATs, following which contracts were terminated due to Component 1suspension. The purpose of this monitoring was also to understand the social environment, to assess the protection of vulnerable groups during the work of systematic registration in the pilot and roll-out areas and to provide recommendations to improve the systematic registration process. 26 B. COMPONENT 2 – SOCIO-ECONOMIC GUIDANCE SERVICES TO THE AGRICULTURAL POPULATION B.1 Capacity Building for Providers of Socio Economic Guidance Services The activities planned to be supported under this component include15:  Capacity Building for Providers of Socio-Economic Guidance Services, through technical assistance for (i) identification and development of independent regional socio-economic guidance service providers (SEGPs), (ii) assessment of the current supply and demand for advisory services to the agricultural population in the project regions, (iii) elaboration and regular update of a Handbook on Socio-Economic Advice which is to serve as a work and case reference guide for SEGPs, (iv) comprehensive training to both the SEGPs contracted for future provision of socio-economic guidance and the interested third party providers of advice and guidance to the agricultural sector, and (v) improving the service delivery in rural areas through scaling up the Integrated Agricultural Offices concept piloted under the MAKIS project.  Providing Socio-Economic Guidance Services to the Agricultural Population, through the provision of goods and services for (i) the carrying out of outreach and community information activities and elaboration of guidance materials to their beneficiaries, and (ii) the establishment of informational networks between SEGPs and other providers of advisory services to the agricultural sector B.1.1 Assessment of the current supply and demand for socio-economic guidance services in the project regions. The ToRs were prepared in mid-2008, however, the consultancy was delayed until loan effectiveness. The contract was advertised in late 2009, awarded in April 2010 and completed in September 2010. This critical assessment provided a baseline of types and quantities of advisory service needs in the project regions, where the demand for agronomic application and socio-economic guidance services differ as a function of region-specific agricultural and socio- economic characteristics, as well as of current supply of public and private service provision. The assessed regional parameters were used throughout project implementation and served to guide the delineation and definition of socio-economic guidance service provision in the various regions of Romania. B.1.2 Elaboration of the handbook on socio-economic guidance. The ToRs were completed in early 2010 and the bid announced on April 10, 2010. The contract was awarded in May 2010 and the handbook was completed in three stages (volumes finalized in January, March, and June 2011). The handbook is structured into three self-standing volumes: 15 The project design also partially justified the systematic cadaster on the basis that “property titles do not constitute legal proof of ownership which would satisfy CAP paying agencies and commercial banks. For that, titles must be registered in the registry (land book) system, following unequivocally the boundaries of the parcel identified through cadastre survey”. This was misleading, as cadaster registration was only required for CAP Pillar II measures involving physical construction (e.g. animal stables) and then, only for the land on which the construction occurred, not the whole farm area. This requirement rarely related to CAP measures targeted under Component 2. In most instances, eligibility for measures required possession of the land title and, in some cases, succession documentation. For Pillar I subsides the agricultural land must have a Property Title and be registered in the Farm Registry: cadaster registration was not required. 27  Volume I outlines out the fundamentals of a problem-oriented and systematic approach to socio-economic guidance;  Volume II discusses the Romanian and European frameworks for socio-economic guidance, and contains background material to illustrate and supplement the volume one by means of practical and concrete examples from EU countries and Romania, with materials for trainers.  Volume III gathers background material and practical and concrete examples, including the important legal regulations and support programs. It also presents and describes in detail the main tools and instruments employed by socio-economic guidance providers Although the Bank team reminded the PIU of the need to ensure regular updates of this handbook, particularly Volume II containing the application of socio-economic guidance principles in the light of actual sector policies and challenges, this occurred only once after the first round of SEG service delivery. B.1.3 Services for training the providers of Socio-Economic Guidance Services TORs were approved on August 15, 2011 and an invitation for submission of letters of interest was published on September 5, 2011. Due to receipt of a limited number of expressions of interest (three), the Bank supervision team encouraged MARD to approach and communicate the invitation for expressions of interest to other potentially qualified contractors. The training services were eventually contracted and delivered in November 2012. B.2 Provision of Socio Economic Guidance Services to the Agricultural Population. At preparation stage, the project was envisaged to finance the establishment of one out of three key types of advisory services in integration with other existing service providers16. However, the passage of the Law on Decentralization of Selected Institutions under the Sub-Ordination of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forests, and Rural Development through the Reorganization of Agricultural Directorates for Agriculture and Rural Development and Setting-up of Agricultural Chambers in September 2010 initiated a dismantling of the ANCA and its network. During its first visit with the Minister of Agriculture in March 2010, the Bank supervision team was informed about his interest in revisiting the institutional delivery mechanism for Component 2 with a view to assigning the responsibility for provision of SEG services to the newly established Agricultural Chambers. Following an initial appraisal of this request, the mission communicated to the Minister of Agriculture during the mission wrap-up meeting that:  provision of socio-economic guidance services through Agricultural Chambers could be technically feasible and contribute to the institutional strengthening of these institutions, but;  further, operational and legal clarification would be required regarding the recent establishment of the Agricultural Chamber through the “Law on Decentralization of Selected Institutions under the Sub-Ordination of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forests, and Rural Development through the Reorganization of Agricultural Directorates for Agriculture and Rural Development and Setting-up of Agricultural Chambers.” This Law has detached the ANCA from the OJCAs and instead incorporated them under the county councils. The ICR team understands that the main operational (financial as well 16 The three key elements of the advisory service sector are: (a) Agronomic Advice, envisaged to be provided by the (former) ANCA; (b) Funding Application and Statutory Advice, provided by the respective two Agricultural Paying Agencies (APIA, APDRP); and (c) Socio- Economic Advice, to be provided by SEGPs funded under the CESAR project. 28 as functional) provisions for these chambers have not yet been fully defined, and that this would occur through a forthcoming revision of the Law on Agricultural Chambers. The Bank team noted that a potential revision of the service delivery mechanism under Component 2 could then be assessed/appraised based on the new legislation and that this revision would require a second order restructuring of the project. It appears, thereafter, that this matter was not further pursued by the Bank or MARD. The delivery of SEG services commenced with 14 out of the15 SEGPs selected and contracted on one year contracts between May and September 2011, and activities launched in the counties of Suceava, Alba, Dolj, Olt, Timiş, Bihor, Argeş, Dâmboviţa, Braşov, Călăraşi, Mureş, Galaţi, Harghita and Cluj in the third quarter of 2011. SEGPs were required to; (i) design and propose a methodology for delivering socio-economic guidance including public and individual meetings with project final beneficiaries in the implementation area; (ii) establish informational networks between SEGPs and other providers of various advisory services to farmers (farmers and producers associations, agronomic- technical advisors, agro-processors, input providers, banks, etc.), organization of information events to enhance their familiarity with the particularities of regional agricultural business processes etc.; and (iii) deliver socio-economic guidance to individual beneficiaries among the local agricultural population. The training of the service providers, however, did not occur until November 2012, after the award of the second round of tenders for SEG service provision. A second training round was held in May 2013, In the meantime, based on their own understanding of the scope of SEG services and in the absence of initial training, the SEG service providers did their best to respond to farmers’ demands, in particular, to meet the need of the farming population for NRDP application and agronomic advice, therein frequently deviating from the project concept of providing guidance on pertinent socio-economic needs, which the SEG service providers did not perceive to be a core activity under their current Terms of Reference. The SEG service providers also did not actively link their advisory services with the results of the land registration activities. The second round of SEGP contracts were awarded to 15 contractors in the first quarter of 2013 to provide SEG services in 45 communes across 15 counties. The third round of contracts was signed on November 18, 2013 and included the provision of information on the new Common Agriculture Policy adopted by EC in December 2013, as reflected in the new National Rural Development Program (NRDP), to be finalized in February 2014. Third round contractors were given 5 days training in the SEG process. In total the SEGPs provided guidance services to 25,600 farmers against a target of 9,000 and 14,400 guidance plans against a target of 4,500. There is no record of the farmer’s use of these plans for either household socio-economic restructuring or Pillar I and Pillar II subsidy applications. The SEG service delivery only commenced in the 3rd quarter of 2011 and did not influence CAP allocations before 2012, reducing the opportunity for the project to influence access to CAP grants, particularly because financing for Measure 112 – support to young farmers – was virtually exhausted by end-2011 and ceased at end-2012, while, under the funding for Measure 141 – support to semi-subsistence farms - only 29% of the total funding remained to be disbursed in 2012 and funding ceased thereafter. The main measurable benefit from the SEG services, therefore, related to farmer registration in the farm registry for direct area payments and Least Favored Area (LFA) payments, with some benefit from Measure 141 access. The independent assessment determined that the revised PDO targets for the registration of land in the Farm Registry and the level of beneficiary satisfaction with SEG services were met. 29 At the IO level, a Socio-economic guidance handbook was prepared before the first round of SEG services contract, albeit well behind schedule, while the associated training occurred only after the award of the second round of service contracts in 2013. By project completion there appears to have been no benefit in respect to project area farmers accessing Measure 112, but some benefits in terms of access to Measure 141, area payments and LFA payments, though much less than projected at design. The number of persons accessing the guidance services (25,600 against a target of 9,000) and the number of individuals provided guidance plans (14,400 against a target of 4,500) clearly exceeded project expectations, however, there is no measure of the focus or quality of those interactions. Overall, the affirmative farmer response to SEG services indicates the need for better farmer access to both technical and economic advice, which is specifically targeted under the NDRP 2014-2020, however, the target farmer audience has now changed, away from the primarily subsistence farmers that were the focus of the project, toward the approximately 130,000 commercialized smallholder and large Romania farms. The SEGP has developed and regularly update a training manual and certified 275 public and private sector advisors for delivery of SEG advisory services, including APIA and APDRP staff. While the project did not quantify the impact of this capacity building, thus knowledge base will undoubtedly facilitate farm restructuring into the future, using NRDP 2014 – 2020 resources (Measures 1, 2 and 16) as detailed below. . The MARD, however, is not seeking new contracts with private sector service providers for SEG delivery. This may reflect a change in their agriculture development strategy, which, under the NRDP 2014-2020, focuses on a much smaller coterie of about 130,000 commercial farmers, rather than the much larger subsistence farmer community. There is, however, provision to develop knowledge and innovation under the NRDP 2014 -2020 through measures for knowledge transfer and information actions (M1), advisory services (M2) and cooperation (M16). Vocational training and public and private advisory services will support the restructuring and modernization of farms in order to increase competitiveness and productivity, diversification of economic activities in rural areas and the organization of agri-food chains. Under M16, interactions between researchers, farmers, forest holders and processors will be encouraged and operational groups established to develop innovative pilot projects supporting new products, practices, processes and technologies in the agricultural, agri-food and forestry sectors. Targeted funding includes EUR50.5 million for M1, EUR 2.1 billion for M2, and EUR 28 million for M16. It is anticipated that the slowly emerging non-government, farmer-managed Judet Chambers of Agriculture, and the recently established IAO, the latter composed of representatives of Paying Agencies, will facilitate farmers' access to information about EU funding mechanisms and measures. Under CESAR, ten IAOs were established in the Judets of Alba, Arges, Constanta, Dolj, Hunedoara, Iasi, Maramures, Olt, Satu Mare and Timis. In addition, the IAOs will function as a cooperation platform between farmers, groups, advisory suppliers, paying agencies and local authorities, a task that was previously assigned to SEG service providers. The National Rural Development Network (NRDN), including its regional offices, will also operate as important centres of information for local actors, complementing the aforementioned other sources. To date the Chamber of Agriculture approach remains largely untested. Elections for Chamber boards have been held in some Judets, but no farmer services are yet offered. While the Chamber system is a proven approach in other EU countries and regions, including France, Austria, Slovenia and Bavaria, it has failed more recently in Croatia, and is challenging to implement in locations with low social capital and high farmer “individuality”, which is common in Romania. 30 C. COMPONENT 3 – POLICY, STRATEGY AND MANAGEMENT The main objective of the component was to assist the GOR in improving its capacity to develop strategies associated with farm sector restructuring, as well as with the EU integration, and pertaining to the policy fields supported under Components 1 and 2. With the project restructuring completed in March 2011, originally envisaged activities on “Strategy, Policy, Legal, and Institutional Studies” development were deleted. C.1 Project management The project management subcomponent was expected to provide support for project coordination and administration, procurement, financial management, reporting, and evaluation and, in addition, to provide funds to purchase additional equipment, together with salaries and operating costs over the project's lifetime for the PMU teams designated by the ANCPI and MARD. Funds were planned to be provided for contracting consultant services on the basis of need. The ANCPI PMU staff members for procurement, finance, monitoring and evaluation, training and administration were hired at the start of the project. Procurement, project management and financial specialists attended specialized Bank courses for them to be able to coordinate and operate in accordance with the required procedures. PMU staff members were successfully carrying out their tasks and fulfilling their obligations during the course of the project. Their activities were guided by the project Operational Manual in which responsibilities, processes and procedures were clearly defined and explained. Of the 15 previously employed professionals in the PMU, only 8 positions remained (director, financial specialist, procurement specialist, cadaster specialist – 2 positions, land book specialist – 2 positions, monitoring and evaluation specialist). The MARD PMU evolved from the MARKIS PMU, with the PMU initially responsible for both projects, however, it was not until December 2008 that the Ministerial Order was issued assigning the implementation responsibilities for the project to the existing MAKIS project PMU. This was compounded by a new legal framework set up by Ordinance 64 on Public Debt Management (entering into force on January 1, 2009), which cancelled the right to have PMU staff paid higher fees and aligned them to the salary scale of civil servants. For staff performing project-related functions in MARD, a contract renewal was required with the staff being hired either as civil servants, or as consultants. Additional technical specialists and a procurement officer were recruited to support the project. Every year an Audit of the Special Purpose Financial Statements of the project was carried out by an independent auditor. C.2 Technical Assistance This subcomponent was dropped at the March 2011 project restructuring. C.3 Strategy, Policy, Legal, and Institutional Studies The Strategy, Policy, Legal and Institutional Studies subcomponent was expected to support finance strategy studies in areas such as, but not limited to, (i) analysis and review of land consolidation strategies, and rural physical planning; (ii) proposed approaches to facilitating the functioning of rural land markets (incl. reduction of transaction costs); (iii) strategic options available in moving from SAPS to the EU mainstream SPS support scheme in 2012; as well as, (iv) recommendations to establish the legal framework for approved strategies and policies. This subcomponent was expected to finance the consultant services to carry out the above mentioned studies and analyses, and to provide advice on any legislative changes required. 31 C.3.1 Comparative Study: ANCPI versus similar institutions in Europe The main objective of the study was to review the current position of the ANCPI, to compare it with equivalent organizations elsewhere in Europe, and to identify options for future development. The report was finalized on November 26, 2010. C.3.2 Strategic plan for quick systematic registration of agricultural land The main objective of the report was to identify solutions to speed up procedures for agricultural land registration and to evaluate the costs of implementing these procedures quickly, taking international experience into account. The report was finalized on June 30, 2011. C.3.3 National Register for Street Nomenclature in accordance with INSPIRE The objective of the consultancy was to continue steps initiated by the ANCPI for the strengthening of the administrative capacity of local public administrations, and as the complementary measure to develop an Action plan for creating, implementing and updating the National Electronic Register of Street Nomenclature (RENNS). The contract was signed on December 26, 2011. The Consultant successfully finalized the contract. C.3.4 Enhance MARD’s administrative capacity The project did not progress in providing the expected support to enhance MARD’s administrative capacity, in complementarity with the technical assistance the Bank provide under the four separate RAS contracts signed with MARD that commenced in mid-November 2012. C.3.5 Studies supporting the preparation of the NRDP 2014-2020 Studies were contracted in for the:  Elaboration of a study on favorability of local conditions in various regions of Romania for fruits growing and restructuring / renewal of orchards: this study was designed to increase the technical and economic competitiveness of the fruit producing sector through its reform and modernization.  Defining the concept of small farm and family farm under the Romania-specific conditions: the study consist in elaborating a set of 20 standard projects for farms development;  Elaboration of template documentation for standard projects for investment in small farms: the main objective of the study was to identify and define the small farms and family farms at national level, considering the geographical differences and field of activity, and to determine the optimal efficient size of such farms. The studies were very satisfactorily completed and delivered to MARD in May-June 2014. The preparation of the Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) for the agriculture and rural development sector strategy has been dropped after the correspondence between MARD and the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change revealed that such an assessment is not needed for the sector strategy 32 C.3.6 Scaling-up of Integrated Agriculture offices At project restructuring, project funding was designated for the scaling up of the IAO concept piloted by MADR under the Bank-funded MAKIS project. Based on impact assessments carried out during the pilot phase, it was expected that this scaling up of the IAO concept would contribute to the enhanced availability and effectiveness of the advisory services and reduce the transaction costs for farm/families in interacting with the agricultural and rural development administration. The implementation of the strategic vision for extension of the IAOs network, approved by MARD in late 2012, started with the issue of the MARD Ministerial Order which nominated the locations of the new IAOs in the counties Alba, Arges, Constanta, Dolj, Hunedoara, Iasi, Maramures, Olt, Satu Mare, Timis. The IAOs were established in the APIA buildings where staff are deployed from APIA and APDRP; two staff from each agency. The first package of office equipment was delivered to APIA for further distribution to IAOs in early 2014 and a second package in August 2014. The vehicles procured through a separate contract were delivered in June, 2014. C.3.7 Training of Paying Agency staff The project provided two rounds of training courses for the staff of the APDRP on cost-benefit analysis and its use in implementation of PNDR. The training programs based on the SEGP manuals. The courses were well received and MARD management requested equivalent training courses for the staff of the APIA 33 Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis Economic Impact The EIRR has been calculated using the same methodology as was applied at appraisal. For Component 1, the estimated registered land area of the 50 UATs that will be brought into the cadastre by the end of 2015 has been used. It would be unrealistic to only calculate the economic benefit of systematic registration carried out in the period to June 30, 2013, because the works were delayed by exceptional circumstances during the project and are continuing to be carried out by same contractors under ANCPI technical and financial support. The analysis in the PAD foresaw that the project would reduce transaction costs on rural land markets by undertaking rural cadastre work over a large area, resulting in economies of scale that would constitute a significant economic benefit. The PAD forecasts the minimum economic benefits of the project at about US$ 138 million (equal to about EUR 108 million) for the estimated area of 1.07 million hectares of rural land in systematic registration, stemming from the reduction in land transaction costs. The calculation in the PAD is based on the estimation that the cost of systematic registration of one hectare of rural land is, on average, US$ 15 (equal to about EUR 12) and that sporadic registration of one hectare of extravillan rural land outside the Bucharest city area costs the owner on average US$ 144 (equal to about EUR 112)17. The project is projected to reduce transaction costs on rural land markets by an estimated EUR90/ha, from EUR112/ha through sporadic registration, to EUR22/ha through systematic registration. It is estimated that this saving will be achieved over an area of 424,981 ha, constituting a net economic benefit of EUR 38.25 million. This will be achieved at a cost to the project and ANCPI budgets of EUR 15.57 million for the execution of cadastre services. Assuming that this economic benefit would be distributed evenly over a period of 20 to 30 years, as properties are gradually transacted, and taking into account the 7% administrative cost of the ANCPI PMU, the EIRR on the cadastre and registration activities is estimated to be 7% (30 year horizon) and 10% (20 year horizon). The economic and fiscal analysis in the PAD is simplified and does not include the calculation of the Net Present Value (NPV). The project’s NPV at an 8% discount rate is estimated to be EUR -209,295 over a 30 year horizon and EUR 179,105 over a 20 year horizon. See Table 1 below for details. It was projected in the PAD that the percentage increase in land transactions in the project areas will be 20%, which was exceeded already in 2012 by an outcome of 28.9% compared to the baseline values in 2008. The indicator was monitored at the county level and not at the level of the respective commune with systematic registration, due to information technology issues in the past years. At end-2013, against a 2008 base, there was a 56.3% increase in land transactions in counties with project communes. That is a good result taking into account the fact that in the second half of 2012 there were only three communes with the finalized systematic registration. The results at the county level demonstrate increasing land market 17 For information: in Romania, the rural or urban land is classed as intravillan, land used for urban settlement and a range of other uses, including commercial, business, industrial, etc., and extravillan, land that is used for agriculture, forestry, pasture etc. 34 activity, independent of the fact that systematic registration was not yet completed. An even more intensive transfer of ownership rights would be expected if more areas were registered. Efficiency Improvements: The average time required to register a land transaction in Romania was recorded as 21 days in 2008 – 2010, 15 days in 2011, 15.8 days in 2012, 16.4 days in 2013, and 16.2 days in 2014. The average time needed to register a transaction in the project counties, including relevant communes with the systematic registration, was 21 days in 2008 – 2010, 15.5 days in 2011, 16.1 days in 2012, 16.8 days in 2013, and to 16.3 days in 2014. In practice, the client can expect a land transaction to be processed in 21 days, as required by the order of the ANCPI Director General. In Romania, the average time to technically produce a certified copy of the title (land book extract) was changed from 2 days in 2008 – 2010 to 1.7 days in 2011 - 2014. In practice, the client receives the certified copy of the title in two days. These efficiency gains in transaction registration and certificate issuance show good progress and will further improve when the electronic register (eTerra) is optimized and more systematic and sporadic data is registered. The total number of registered properties recorded in Romania in 42 counties in the ANCPI’s eTerra register increased from 1,678,839 properties (including the land and apartments) covering the area of 854,197 ha on December 31, 2009, to, to 5,704,132 properties, covering the area of 4,019,472 hectares on June 30, 2013, to finally 6,774,994 properties, covering the area of 4,725,632 ha on June 30, 2014. The majority of registrations, which now covers 17% of the total number of properties, and 20% of the total area of Romania, was recorded in the process of sporadic registration, the rest coming from the conversion of old land books and a small number from systematic registration. The increase of registered extravillan rural areas in the country grew from 207,671 properties covering the area of 470,366 ha on December 31, 2009, to 1,184,181 properties, covering the area of 2,551,033 hectares on June 30, 2013, and to 1,520,335 properties covering 3,023,369 ha on June 30, 2014, being 5% of registered rural properties and 15% of the total of rural area. There was a significant increase in extravillan rural land registered, in the majority sporadically, by mid-2013 as compared to January 2010 (470,366 hectares compared to 2,551,033 hectares representing a 442% increase), however the change in the six finalized project communes has been from 2,105 hectares to 21,673 hectares, a rise of 929%, as you would expect with systematic registration. The project finalized systematic registration works in three communes by June 30, 2013 and by June 30, 2014 three more communes were registered, collectively contributing less than 1% of the aforementioned national results. Mortgage Market Impact: A functioning real estate mortgage market benefits the economy through greater access to capital to fund other economic activities. Nationally, there has been a significant increase in the number of mortgages registered against extravillan rural land between end-2009 and mid-2014, from 27,633 mortgages to 81,269 mortgages, representing a 194% increase. The change in extravillan mortgages in the six project communes with a completed systematic registration has been from 37 at end-2009 to 349 by mid-2014, representing an 843% increase. It is evident, that the project supported systematic registration has significantly facilitated a more functional mortgage market. Financial Impact At appraisal, the financial benefits were approximated through the estimated incremental farm revenues attributable both to enhanced CAP eligibility resulting from land property registration and to the provision of socio-economic guidance to the agricultural population. The key measures selected included: (i) direct payments (Single Area Payments - SAPS - and Complementary National Direct Payments - CNDP); (ii) Measure 112: establishment of young 35 farmers, (iii) Measure 141: restructuring of semi-subsistence farms; and (iv) compensatory payments in LFAs. While the project clearly had the potential to support the uptake of these measures in project counties, it begs the question of the national financial benefit given that these payments were likely to be expended irrespective of the project SEG services input. In reality, that was the case. The project was also designed on the false premise of “enhanced CAP eligibility resulting from land property registration” (see section 2.1). It is difficult to attribute any significant financial benefit to the project. The SEG service contractors only impacted on CAP allocations between 2012 and mid-2014. By start-2012, only 6.2% of Measure 112 funding and 28.8% of Measure 141 funding remained unexpended, with both programs terminating at end-2012 following full disbursement of funds. Most farmers likely to apply for SAPS or LFA payments had already registered for these payments in the Farm Registry by end 2011. A comparison of the uptake of the aforementioned 4 measures in the project communes and a comparable group of non-project communes in the same County showed that: (i) the area of land recorded in the farm registry in project communes fell by 5.2% between 2012-2014, while in comparable non-project communes it declined slightly more (- 7.3%); (ii) only five farmers in project communes received Measure 112 grants in 2012, against one in the non-project communes; and (iii) the uptake of Measure 141 grants was significantly higher in the non-project communes, possibly because project communes had reached a cap on payments under this measure pre-2012. There will be limited post-project flow-on of SEG benefits to CESAR-targeted smallholders under the NRDP 2014-2020 due to the significantly higher economic entry requirements for the new CAP Pillar II measures. The financial return on the investment is highly negative, with losses in all years through to year 20. The NPV at an 8% discount rate is estimated to be EUR -7.0 million over a 20 year horizon. See Table 2 below for details. 36 Table 1. Estimated CESAR Economic Rate of Return at Project Completion Unit Total Registered Area (2015) hectare 424,981 Registered Area (end-2014) 42,816 Registered Area (end-2013) 23,008 Land registration cost with project €/hectare 22 Land registraion cost - sporadic registration €/hectare 112 Saving in land registration €/hectare 90 Reduced land registration costs (2015 onwards) € 38,248,290 Reduced land registration costs (2014) € 3,853,440 Reduced land registration costs (2013) € 2,070,720 Nett benefit (end-2015) € 38,248,290 2,010 2,011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 Project benefit stream (20 years) € 0 0 0 0 103,536 192,672 1,912,415 1,912,415 1,912,415 1,912,415 1,912,415 1,912,415 1,912,415 1,912,415 1,912,415 1,912,415 1,912,415 1,912,415 1,912,415 1,912,415 1,912,415 1,912,415 1,912,415 1,912,415 Project benefit stream (30 years) € 0 0 0 0 69,024 128,448 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 CESAR costs € -300,000 -1,103,777 -5,490,205 -1,649,529 ANCPI costs € -650,471 -500,000 -5,880,000 ANCPI PMU costs 7% -21,000 -77,264 -384,314 -115,467 Total land administration and systematic land registration costs -321,000 -1,181,041 -5,874,519 -2,415,467 -500,000 -5,880,000 Net benefit (20 year horizon) (est. 8% cost of capital) 8% -€ 307,918 -321,000 -1,181,041 -5,874,519 -2,415,467 -396,464 -5,687,328 1,912,415 1,912,415 1,912,415 1,912,415 1,912,415 1,912,415 1,912,415 1,912,415 1,912,415 1,912,415 1,912,415 1,912,415 1,912,415 1,912,415 1,912,415 1,912,415 1,912,415 1,912,415 Net benefit (30 year horizon) (est. 8% cost of capital) 8% -€ 2,787,595 -321,000 -1,181,041 -5,874,519 -2,415,467 -430,976 -5,751,552 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 1,274,943 ERR (20 year horizon) 9% ERR (30 year horizon) 7% 37 Table 2. Estimated CESAR Financial Rate of Return at Project Completion Soutces of financial benefit Difference between Project and Control Communes Measure Unit 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Direct income support payments Registered area in Project communes (Farm Registry) hectare 191,725 193,768 189,780 percentage difference with non-project communes percent 0 1.50% 2.30% 1.70% Benefit from project support hectare 0 2876 4457 3226 Payment per hectare Euro 0 155 160 160 Net benefit in project area Euro 0 444,783 713,824 516,750 Less-favored areas (LFA) payments. Registered area in Project communes (Farm Registry) hectare 36,259 36,645 35,891 percentage difference with non-project communes percent 0 1.50% 0.70% 1.70% Benefit from project support hectare 0 544 257 610 Payment per hectare Euro 0 107 107 107 Net benefit in project area Euro 0 58,195 27,447 65,286 112 Setting up of young farmers 4 additional in Project area 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 Payment per year (Euro) 6000 24000 141 Restructuring of semi-subsistence farms No incremental benefit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Farm Restructuring Project Interest Rate Calculation Euro Millions Year 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 Principal Euro 207,059 211,201 215,425 219,733 224,128 228,610 233,182 237,846 242,603 247,455 252,404 257,452 262,601 267,853 273,210 278,675 284,248 Interest Euro - 16,800 58,800 126,000 168,000 163,859 159,635 155,326 150,932 146,449 141,877 137,213 132,456 127,604 122,655 117,607 112,458 107,206 101,849 96,385 90,811 CAP Measures 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 1. SAP/CNDP Euro - 444,782.8 713,823.9 516,750.1 2. LFA Euro - 58,195.4 27,447.3 65,285.7 3. Young Farmers Euro - 24,000.0 - - 4. Semi-subsistance farmers Euro - - - - Total CAP Measures - 526,978.3 741,271.1 582,035.8 - - - Project Cost Investment Costs Component 2) Euro 840,000 2,100,000 3,360,000 2,100,000 Interest Payments Euro 16,800 58,800 126,000 207,059 211,200.5 215,424.5 219,733.0 224,127.7 228,610.3 233,182.5 237,846.1 242,603.0 247,455.1 252,404.2 257,452.3 262,601.3 267,853.3 273,210.4 278,674.6 284,248.1 Total project cost Euro 840,000 2,116,800 3,418,800 2,226,000 207,059 211,201 215,425 219,733 224,128 228,610 233,182 237,846 242,603 247,455 252,404 257,452 262,601 267,853 273,210 278,675 284,248 Total Incremental Net Benefit Euro -840,000 -1,589,822 -2,677,529 -1,643,964 -207,059 -211,201 -215,425 -219,733 -224,128 -228,610 -233,182 -237,846 -242,603 -247,455 -252,404 -257,452 -262,601 -267,853 -273,210 -278,675 -284,248 IRR #NUM! NPV (20 year horizon) (Euro) (est. 8% cost of capital) € -6,994,830 38 Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes (a) Task Team members Responsibility/ Names Title Unit Specialty Lending Nadia Badea Operations Officer ECSTR Nicholay Chistyakov Senior Finance Officer CTRLN Bogdan Constantin Senior Financial Management ECSO3 Constantinescu Specialist Lynn C. Holstein Lead Land Administration Specialist ECSSD Gabriel Ionita Senior Agricultural Spec. ECSAR Irina L. Kichigina Chief Counsel LEGLE Vladislav Krasikov Senior Procurement Specialist EASR1 Holger A. Kray Lead Agriculture Economist LCSAR Cora Melania Shaw Senior Agriculture Economist ECSEN Victoria Stanley Senior Rural Development Specialist LCSAR Hiwote Tadesse Operations Analyst ECSEG Mika-Peteri Torhonen Senior Land Policy Specialist GSURR Supervision/ICR Nurul Alam Senior Procurement Specialist ECSO2 Kosuke Anan Social Development Specialist ECSSD Nadia Badea Operations Officer ECSTR Anthony Burns Consultant Bogdan Constantin Sr. Financial Management Specialist ECSO3 Constantinescu Ruxandra Costache Counsel LEGAM Ruxandra Maria Floroiu Senior Environmental Engineer EASER Asa Margareta G. Hoglund Agricultural Specialist AES Giertz Ana Maria Ihora Temporary ECSTR Vladislav Krasikov Senior Procurement Specialist EASR1 Holger A. Kray Lead Agriculture Economist ECSAR Anthony Lamb Consultant Keith W. McLean Lead Social Development Specialist WBISG Lucian Bucur Pop Senior Economist SASSP Irina Ramniceanu Senior Agriculture Economist ECSAR Victoria Stanley Senior Rural Development Specialist LCSAR Mika-Peteri Torhonen Senior Land Policy Specialist GSURR 39 (b) Staff Time and Cost Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only) Stage of Project Cycle USD Thousands (including No. of staff weeks travel and consultant costs) Lending FY06 112.16 FY07 269.67 FY08 80.33 Total: 462.16 Supervision/ICR FY06 0.00 FY07 0.00 FY08 32.65 FY09 119.78 FY10 149.05 FY11 128.04 FY12 88.94 FY13 118.12 FY14 60.41 FY15 28.83 Total: 725.16 40 Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results In April-May 2014 the MARD commissioned an independent survey of SEG service beneficiaries. The survey compared information provided in face-to-face interviews of 504 SEG beneficiaries in the 15 project counties (identified by SEG Service Providers) and 331 farmers in 9 comparable non-project counties, the latter being farmers identified by their related city-halls as meeting the requirements for accessing Measure 112 or 141 programs. While a genuine effort was made to compare comparable communities, the provision of the project farmer shortlist by the SEG Service Providers presents a risk of bias through Service Provider selection of more successful SEG beneficiaries. The randomized selection of SEG beneficiaries from the project M&E database would have removed this potential bias. Similarly, the use of city hall office to identify interviewees in the Control area could lead to a greater proportion with off- farm household income linked to municipal employment. No statistical analysis was applied to the survey information. The survey showed the following key results:  Although a higher proportion of young farmers in the Control area (33%) reported a higher income level in 2012 as compared to 2013 than in the project area (28%), the young farmers from the project area presented a more positive perspective of their income in 2013, compared to 2012, both compared to those of the same age from the Control area, as well as to those over 40 years of age from the project area;  Just 21% of the farmers in the project area and 30% for the Control area stated that agriculture formed the only source of household income;  Between 2011-14, more farmers in the Control area (29%) had purchased land than in the project area (23%) while an equivalent percentage had purchased new farm machinery (PA-29%; CA-30%);  In the project Area only 22% of the surveyed farmers did not submit a payment request on any of the direct payment measures, while only 11% of farmers in the Control area had not submitted a request, however, a higher percentage of young farmers in the project area submitted subsidy applications.  The was no significant difference between project and Control areas in terms of knowledge of CAP Measures with 24% in the project area and 25% in the Control area having no knowledge;  There was no significant difference between the project and Control areas in terms of knowledge of registration of land in the Farm registry with 70.6% of land registered in the project area and 69.4% in the Control area;  67% of those who received SEG consider it to be useful (59%) or highly useful (9%), with little variation across age groups. Forty nine percent of SEG beneficiaries had also received information on CAP measures from other service providers. Overall, there were not large differences between the project and Control area responses, nor was there a consistent trend of more positive results in the project area 41 Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results There was no project stakeholder workshop 42 Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR The ANCPI PMU and MARD PMU prepared separate ICRs for Component 1 and Component 2 respectively. Both ICRs addressed aspects of Component 3. These ICRs were amalgamated into a single Borrower ICR for the CESAR project. The ANCPI report summarized the history of the project including loan signature on 28 December 2007, loan effectiveness on 9 March, 2009, Subsidiary Loan Agreement signature on 19 June, 2009, the establishment of the PSC on 2 December, 2009 and the approval of the ANCPI PIM on 6 March, 2011. The initial project value was EUR 51.4 million, of which EUR 47.7 was from an IBRD loan and EUR 3.7 million was from GOR/ANCPI co-financing. The project was restructured in March 2011 with the IBRD loan reduced by EUR 4.4 million to EUR 43.4 million with an associated fall in the total area proposed for systematic registration from 1.2 million ha to 0.7 million ha and the cessation of civil works and policy studies. Initial project activities included training programs for staff at ANCPI, and participating OCPIs and mayoral offices and the procurement GNSS stations. In total, 647 staff were training across 15 training areas over the project life. The initial contracts for systematic registration, covering 19 UATs in 13 counties, valued at EUR3.5 million were signed with 4 suppliers in February 2011. The second contract for 31 UATs in 15 counties, valued at EUR 6.1 million, was signed with 4 companies in May 2012. At the end of Component 1 activities in end-June 2013, the systematic registration had been technically completed in 6 UATs. Following project closure, the registration work was continued with ANCPI financing and, by end-September 2014, the work in one additional UAT had been technically completed. All systematic registration in the remaining 43 UATs is scheduled for completion by end-2015. A public awareness program, delayed because of a 2010 Prime Minister ban on publicity contracts, was initiated in December 2011. The program included staff training, national and local TV and radio presentations, a national press conference and the development of a multi-media information package. Component 1 activities also included a consultant contract to monitor the social impact of and assess the participation of vulnerable groups in the systematic registration process. Funding constraints limited the consultancy delivery, but in that process, 198 Roma families in UAT Crizbav, Cutus village have received property deeds for the land they possess (about 11.3 ha) and 138 Roma people were registered as owners based on property titles previously issued (Valea Mare, Iancu Jianu, Saschiz and Marzanesti UATs). Component 3 ANCPI activities included (i) the development of a strategic plan for quick systematic registration of agricultural land; (ii) the development of an action plan on the creation and implementation of a national register of street nomenclature for Romania in accordance with EU INSPIRE Directive; and (iii) a comparative study between the ANCPI and similar institutions in Europe. Constraints to Component 1 implementation included (i) the slow legislative process to ratify the Loan Agreement; (ii) the transfer of the ANCPI across 3 ministries/agencies over the project life; (iii) severe cuts in ANCPI staff salary and extensive staff redundancy following the 2010 Unitary Pay Law; (iv) Prime Minister Memorandum no 5/1119/18.02.2010 freezing publicity contracts, resulting in a 9 months delay in the National Campaign for Public Awareness; (v) the need for two extensive amendments to Law no 7/1996; and (vi) budget constraints in 2013, leading to the suspension of systematic registration contracts and the Bank decision to close Component 1 at end- June 2013. 43 Reported key project benefits include: (i) the free registration of property in the project area and associated increased capacity of land owners to sell, buy, rent or mortgage land for economic gain; (ii) the establishment of an inventory of public and private land assets, leading to improved land utilization, increased land tax revenue and improved infrastructure planning; (iii) the development of economic activities including agri- tourism, land and crop insurance, a growing real-estate market and reduced land-related civil litigation; (iv) the development of a Draft strategy for Sporadic and Systematic Registration of Properties; and (v) preparation of the proposal for accessing EU Structural Funds for systematic registration in rural areas. Key lessons learned by the ANCPI included: (i) effective cooperation between the institutions involved in the systematic registration is the key for the success; (ii) the need to ensure the land rights of socially disadvantaged people/groups; (iii) the importance of well-organized public display of survey data and associated dispute resolution; and (iv) the necessity of an effective methodology for OCPI quality control of contracted surveyors field data. MARD prepared an independent project Impact Evaluation, included a beneficiary survey (see Annex 5). The impact assessment was based on a comparison of the 15 Counties in which project SEG services were delivered and 9 non-project counties matched on their socio-economic similarity with the project area. While the matching of project and non-project counties was done with considerable precision, there was no attempt to determine the statistical accuracy of the results. More importantly, the SEG services were only delivered in about 450 communes or about 50% of the total communes in the 15 Component 2 project counties, so measuring whole county results was not a true measure of project impact. The assessment also extracted information from the MARD CESAR M&E database. Key findings in the report include:  over 27,000 counselling meetings with over 14,000 participants across 1000 events 18  printed materials and media products: over 200 announcements, 1,500 posters, 15 web pages, 7,000 promotional folders, 22,000 brochures and leaflets  No incremental benefit achieved by Measure 112 – Establishment of Young Farmers - can be attributed to the project;  The incremental benefits of the project on Measure 141 – Support to Semi- subsistence Farmers - is valued at EUR 22,97 million;  The incremental benefits from direct payments per area attributable to the project amount to EUR 6.05 million  The incremental benefits from payments for the least favorite areas (LFAs) attributable to the project amounted to EUR 4.2 million Given that the aforementioned benefits are derived from the whole county and not just project communes in the county, they were not used for the estimation of ICR benefits. Instead, the results of a Bank-financed comparison of comparable project and non- project communes within project counties, which showed a much smaller project impact, were applied to the ICR financial and economic analysis. 18 The number of participants is lower than the number of direct meetings because many beneficiaries participated at more than one counselling session 44 Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders There were no Cofinanciers or other Partners/Stakeholders 45 Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents 1. World Bank Country Partnership Strategy for Romania for the Period 2014- 2017, April 28, 2014 2. Complementing EU Support for Agricultural Restructuring (CESAR) Projectt – Project Appraisal Document, October 3, 2007 3. Fifteen CESAR Project Implementation Supervision Mission Aide Memoires between April 2008 and September 2014 4. Sixteen CESAR Implementation Supervision Reports between June 2008 and September 2014 5. Romania CESAR Revised Performance and Monitoring Indicators, March 14, 2007 6. MARD CESAR Project Impact Evaluation, September, 2014 7. ANCPI Implementation Completion and Results Report, Loan Agreement No. 4875 RO, October, 2014 46 Map 47