Agreement for Advisory Services on assistance to the Romanian Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration on Harmonizing State and EU Funded Projects in Regions Dated May 27, 2014 Component 1: Coordination of Strategies and Programs for EU and State-Funded Investments in Romania’s Infrastructure - Final Report - March 27, 2015 Project co-financed from the European Regional Development Fund through the Operational Programme Technical Assistance (OPTA) 2007-2013 2 This report was prepared by a core team comprised of Sebastian Burduja, Marcel Ionescu-Heroiu, Manuela Moț, Ciprian Moldovan, Raularian Rusu, Titus Man, Florian Gaman, Rado Piontek, and Maria-Magdalena Manea. The report benefited from thoughtful comments by peer reviewers Keith McLean, Victor Giosan, Cătălin Păuna, and Valentina Rădoi. The report and corresponding missions have been made possible by the administrative support provided by Adina Vințan, Alexandra Călin, and Cristina Zirimis. The team would like to thank Elisabeth Huybens and Jean-François Marteau for the advice, support, and guidance provided continuously in the process of developing this report. The team is also grateful for the excellent collaboration with the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration counterparts, who provided timely feedback and offered strong support throughout. The team thanks a number of other institutions that provided critical data for the purpose of this analysis: the Romanian National Institute of Statistics; the Ministry of European Funds; the Managing Authorities for the Regional Operational Programme, the Environment Operational Programme, and the Transport Operational Programme; county and local authorities. Special thanks also go to all the key actors who participated in interviews at the national, regional, and local level. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views and position of the Executive Directors of the World Bank, the European Union, or the Government of Romania. 2 Table of Contents List of Figures ............................................................................................................................iv List of Tables .............................................................................................................................vi List of Acronyms ....................................................................................................................... vii Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................14 Context ................................................................................................................................15 Objective and Scope ..............................................................................................................19 Audiences ............................................................................................................................23 Methodology and Report Structure ..........................................................................................23 Chapter 1: The Theoretical Framework........................................................................................30 1.1 What Is Coordination? ......................................................................................................30 1.2 Main Coordination Mechanisms .........................................................................................32 1.3 Why Coordinate Public Investments? ..................................................................................34 1.4 Common Obstacles to Coordination ....................................................................................36 1.5 Potential Risks of “Over -Coordination” ................................................................................38 Chapter 2: Investment Programs Managed by the General Directorate for Regional Development and Infrastructure...........................................................................................................................40 The National Local Development Program (PNDL) ......................................................................40 2.1 The PNDL Project Cycle .....................................................................................................41 2.2 PNDL 2014 Portfolio Assessment ........................................................................................48 2.2.1 By Size ......................................................................................................................49 2.2.2 By Sector...................................................................................................................51 2.2.3 By Implementation Status (Ongoing vs. New Investments) ...............................................53 2.2.4 By Geographic Location...............................................................................................55 Analysis of Other Investment Programs Managed by DG RDI........................................................57 The Thermal Rehabilitation Program.....................................................................................57 The Program for Development of Social Housing ....................................................................58 The Program for Developing Housing for Evacuated Persons ....................................................58 Chapter 3: Key Infrastructure Sectors in Romania ........................................................................60 3.1 Roads .............................................................................................................................60 3.1.1 Sector Structure.........................................................................................................63 3.1.2 Strategies and Plans....................................................................................................66 3.1.3 Investment Programs..................................................................................................70 3.2 Water and Wastewater .....................................................................................................76 3.2.1 Sector Structure.........................................................................................................79 3.2.2 Strategies and Plans....................................................................................................85 3.2.3 Investment Programs..................................................................................................88 3.3 Social Infrastructure..........................................................................................................96 3.3.1 Sector Structure.........................................................................................................96 i 3.3.2 Strategies and Plans.................................................................................................. 101 3.3.3 Investment Programs................................................................................................ 103 Chapter 4: Diagnostic of Coordination Mechanisms for Infrastructure Investments in Romania ....... 120 4.1 Intra-Sectoral Coordination.............................................................................................. 120 4.1.1 Vertical Coordination of Strategies and Plans ............................................................... 121 4.1.2 Horizontal Coordination of Investment Programs.......................................................... 129 4.2 Inter-Sectoral Coordination.............................................................................................. 140 4.2.1 National Level.......................................................................................................... 141 4.2.2 Regional level .......................................................................................................... 154 4.2.3 Local level ............................................................................................................... 157 4.3 Diagnostic Conclusions .................................................................................................... 163 Chapter 5: Targeted Strategies and Specific Action Steps for Enhanced Coordination of Infrastr ucture Investments ........................................................................................................................... 166 5.1 Enabling Environment ..................................................................................................... 168 5.1.1 Trust ...................................................................................................................... 168 5.1.2 Accountability.......................................................................................................... 168 5.1.3 Capacity.................................................................................................................. 169 5.1.4 Information systems ................................................................................................. 171 5.2 Intra-Sectoral Coordination.............................................................................................. 175 5.2.1 Vertical Coordination of Strategies and Plans ............................................................... 175 5.2.2 Horizontal Coordination of Investment Programs.......................................................... 176 5.3 Inter-Sectoral Coordination.............................................................................................. 187 5.3.1 National Level.......................................................................................................... 187 5.3.2 Regional Level.......................................................................................................... 197 5.3.3 Local Level............................................................................................................... 198 Chapter 6: Summary of Targeted Strategies and Specific Action Steps........................................... 200 Annex A: Detailed Sector Assessments ..................................................................................... 202 Roads ................................................................................................................................ 202 Key Players...................................................................................................................... 202 Legal Framework ............................................................................................................. 211 Strategies and Plans ......................................................................................................... 215 Water and Wastewater ........................................................................................................ 224 Key Players...................................................................................................................... 224 Legal Framework ............................................................................................................. 236 Strategies and Plans ......................................................................................................... 245 Social Infrastructure............................................................................................................. 257 Key Players...................................................................................................................... 257 Legal Framework ............................................................................................................. 266 Strategies and Plans ......................................................................................................... 280 Annex B: Case Studies of Coordination Mechanisms ................................................................... 284 Annex C: Review of County Development Strategies................................................................... 291 ii Annex D: Simplified Prioritization Criteria (GEO 88/2013)............................................................ 417 Annex E: List of Interviewed Stakeholders ................................................................................. 419 Annex F: The Polish Experience with Territorial Contracts ........................................................... 422 iii List of Figures Figure 1. Investment priorities differ across leading and lagging areas in Romania ........... 16 Figure 2. There is a "cascade" of strategies and plans for local infrastructure development ........................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 3. Scope of current assessment ...................................................................... 21 Figure 4. This report follows a logical structure: overview, diagnostic, recommendations . 24 Figure 5. Types of coordination at a glance ................................................................ 31 Figure 6. Examples of vertical and horizontal coordination mechanisms ......................... 34 Figure 7. The difficulty of coordination depends on the value of the proposed investment 36 Figure 8. OECD Member States perceptions regarding coordination of public investments 38 Figure 9. PNDL 2014 - distribution of projects by 2014 budgetary allocation ................... 50 Figure 10. PNDL 2014 allocations have focused mostly on roads and water/wastewater .. 52 Figure 11. Average PNDL budgetary allocation by sector, 2014 ..................................... 52 Figure 12. The PNDL has continued to fund numerous new projects across most sectors (number of projects, 2014) ...................................................................................... 54 Figure 13. PNDL 2014 – total number of projects by county.......................................... 56 Figure 14. PNDL 2014 – total budgetary allocations by county ...................................... 56 Figure 15. Romania has an underdeveloped road infrastructure network ....................... 61 Figure 16. The PATN proposes a large network of highways and expressways ................. 61 Figure 17. The road network’s length varies greatly across Romanian counties ............... 62 Figure 18. Most of the ROP 2007-2013 financed county roads connect to the TEN-T ........ 71 Figure 19. The SOP Transport has contracted projects across various regions in Romania . 73 Figure 20. Localities across Romania have contracted PNDR funds for communal roads ... 75 Figure 21. Utilizable water resources per capita vary significantly across river basins ....... 76 Figure 22. Access to water supply is especially deficient in Eastern and Southern Romania77 Figure 23. Data on access to sanitation also show deficiencies in Eastern and Southern Romania ............................................................................................................... 78 Figure 24. SOP Environment allocations of funds across regions.................................... 89 Figure 25. Share of SOP Environment allocations vs. total investment needs in the water and sanitation sector .............................................................................................. 90 Figure 26. County-level total value of PNDR projects (2007-2013) ................................. 91 Figure 27. Share of PNDR 2007-2013 financing for water and wastewater projects as a percentage of total investment needs by county ........................................................ 92 Figure 28. The Environment Fund has fewer projects than the other investment programs ........................................................................................................................... 93 Figure 29. Value of PNDL water and sanitation investments in 2014, by county ............... 95 Figure 30. Share of PNDL 2014 financing for water and wastewater projects as a percentage of total investment needs by county ......................................................................... 95 Figure 31. The ROP 2007-2013 has contracted educational infrastructure projects in all regions ............................................................................................................... 107 Figure 32. The ROP 2007-2013 has financed 209 social services projects in Romania...... 109 Figure 33. Map with healthcare projects developed under ROP 2007-2013................... 111 Figure 34. ROP 2007-2013 cultural patrimony projects .............................................. 112 Figure 35. The key dimensions of intra-sectoral coordination ..................................... 121 Figure 36. Major road network proposed in the Transport Master Plan ........................ 122 Figure 37. Sequence of transport planning ............................................................... 123 iv Figure 38. There is sometimes a weak correlation between PNDL County Road Investments and the PATN ...................................................................................................... 124 Figure 39. Total investment needs (water and wastewater) at the level of each county .. 126 Figure 40. There is little coordination of PNDL and ROP County Road Investments......... 132 Figure 41. Coordination of PNDL and PNDR Communal Road Investments .................... 132 Figure 42. Data on total funding vs. needs (through 2037) show large gaps in most counties (thousands of EUR)............................................................................................... 134 Figure 43. PNDL & PNDR complementarity of water projects (up) and sanitation projects (down) ............................................................................................................... 136 Figure 44. Environment Fund and PNDL complementarity of water (up) and sanitation projects (down) ................................................................................................... 137 Figure 45. The key dimensions of inter-sectoral coordination...................................... 141 Figure 46. The current structure for 2014-2020 programming of EU structural funds in Romania ............................................................................................................. 156 Figure 47. There has been some inter-sectoral project coordination within the PNDR .... 160 Figure 48. Inter-sector Project Coordination within PNDL........................................... 160 Figure 49. Coordination of PNDL road investments with PNDR water and wastewater investments ........................................................................................................ 161 Figure 50. Coordination of PNDR road investments with PNDL water and wastewater investments ........................................................................................................ 162 Figure 51. Water pipes inserted along a rehabilitated road......................................... 163 Figure 52. The what, the how, and the why of public infrastructure coordination in Romania ......................................................................................................................... 167 Figure 53. Interactive map for ROP 2007-2013 investments (example of Mușatești, Argeș) ......................................................................................................................... 171 Figure 54. The database on school units in Romania offers detailed information for each unit .................................................................................................................... 172 Figure 55. Good practice example of integrated infrastructure investments database .... 174 Figure 56. Proposed PNDL Monitoring Framework .................................................... 193 Figure 57. “Division of labor” between an MA and an IB of an investment program ....... 196 Figure 58. Summary of targeted strategies and specific action steps for enhancing intra - sectoral coordination............................................................................................ 200 Figure 59. Summary of targeted strategies and specific action steps for enhancing inter- sectoral coordination............................................................................................ 201 v List of Tables Table 1. Investment needs vs. supply of EU funds (2014-2020) ..................................... 17 Table 2. Each chapter of the report relies on all available sources ................................. 26 Table 3. PNDL 2014 – budget allocations (March-November 2014) ................................ 49 Table 4. PNDL project portfolio by size categories* ..................................................... 50 Table 5. PNDL allocation by sector, 2014 ................................................................... 51 Table 6.PNDL portfolio by sector and investment status (ongoing vs. new), 2014 ............ 53 Table 7. The length of major road infrastructure proposed in the Transport Master Plan is smaller than what was previously proposed in the PATN ........................................... 122 Table 8. PNDL and ROP County Roads Commitments................................................. 130 Table 9. PNDL and PNDR Communal Road Commitments........................................... 133 Table 10. Snapshot of investment programs and relevant intervention areas in roads, water and wastewater, and social infrastructure ............................................................... 143 Table 11. Proposed PNDL General Process Indicators ................................................ 189 Table 12. County Councils have competences in the social infrastructure sector............ 282 Table 13. Administrative competences of local councils ............................................. 283 vi List of Acronyms ANRSC National Authority for Regulating Public Utility Community Services CLLD Community-Led Local Development CNADNR National Highways and National Roads Company DG RDI Directorate General for Regional Development and Infrastructure EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development EC European Commission EF Environment Fund EIB European Investment Bank EU European Union GOR Government of Romania IDA Intercommunity Development Associations ITI Integrated Territorial Investments MARD Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development MECC Ministry of Environment and Climate Change MoH Ministry of Health MPF Ministry of Public Finance MRDPA Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration NARW National Administration Romanian Waters NIC National Investment Company OP Operational Programme PNDI National Program for Infrastructure Development PNDL National Local Development Program PNDR National Rural Development Programme RBMP River Basin Management Plan RDA Regional Development Agency RDP Regional Development Plan RO Regional Water Operator ROP Regional Operational Programme SU Strategy Unit TAU Territorial Administrative Unit UN United Nations UNDP United Nations Development Program UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe vii 1 Executive Summary 1. There is no shortage of challenges for Romania today: developmen t needs remain high, while funding for infrastructure projects continues to be in short supply, even with the emergence of dedicated EU and state-budget investment programs. If the vision is an accelerated path to full convergence with the EU, it becomes of paramount importance to “do more with less” when deploying limited funding available for public investments. This would require fulfilling a dual desideratum: first, minimize duplication and inefficiencies across infrastructure projects; second, encourage integrated interventions that reinforce and bolster each other’s impact. In this context, the coordination of infrastructure strategies, investment programs, and projects, at both intra - sectoral and inter-sectoral levels, promises to be an effective way to promote Romania’s sustainable and inclusive development. 2. This report provides a diagnostic and a set of recommendations for the coordination of infrastructure investments in three main sectors in Romania: roads; water and wastewater; and social infrastructure (education, health, culture, and sports). The proposals formulated are targeted primarily at the main client of this work, the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration (MRDPA) and specifically at the Directorate General for Regional Development and Infrastructure (DG RDI), which manages the most important state-budget-funded program for local infrastructure investments – the National Local Development Program (PNDL). Other key stakeholders include the Center of Government (CoG), the Ministry of Public Finances, the Ministry of European Funds, other central authorities in charge of EU and/or state-funded investment programs, Regional Development Agencies, and county and local councils. While customized for the PNDL, the recommendations that follow can be replicated across all state-budget-funded investment programs. 3. If the overarching goal of this work is to offer solutions for enhancing coordination, the first key question to answer is: why coordinate? Coordination refers to the capacity of different stakeholders to work together for achieving specific goals. There are two reasons to coordinate public infrastructure interventions: to reduce costs and to increase benefits. In resource-constrained environments, it has become vital to deliver the most impact possible with the least funds. For example, if two or more authorities are implementing investment programs that have the same goals and target the same beneficiaries, they are likely duplicating their efforts and missing out on cost-saving opportunities through consolidation of operations. The same goes for beneficiaries who, for a variety of reasons, choose to finance their infrastructure projects through more expensive funding sources (e.g., state budget funds instead of EU structural funds). By the same token, lack of coordination implies failure to leverage synergies across different investments. If a new school or hospital gets built, the road connecting to it should also be rehabilitated. If a county finances a particular county road, the neighboring authorities may want to consider financing a county road that connects to that investment. In some cases, it may make better sense to connect to the next commune’s water and sanitation network than to build a new system from scratch. The examples could go on and on, but the simple point is that coordination makes the whole greater than the sum of the parts. 2 4. In truth, the need to coordinate is inescapable in many ways – both vertically (across administrative levels) and horizontally (across sectors and/or across jurisdictions). Regarding the former dimension, very few local governments have the capacity to support the investments they need entirely from their own funds, especially in countries that have not decentralized fully. Based on prudent capital expenditure margins, more than three in four communes in Romania can only afford to rehabilitate one road and one school during the 2014-2020 programing cycle. 1 Local government units simply do not have the financial and human resources needed to address the basic infrastructure needs of local communities, so other actors need to intervene to fill the gaps – regional authorities (in countries where regions have formal administrative powers, which is not yet the case in Romania), the national government (through a variety of state-budget-funded programs), or supranational authorities like the European Union. As for horizontal coordination, very few investments depend on a single sector: roads cross railroads and power lines, wastewater treatment plants influence the quality of water bodies, schools and hospitals function well only if there is sufficient demand for their services and hence proper connectivity with people in surrounding areas, etc. The simple but important point is that proper coordination of public investments is a must in any policy context. 5. This is not to say that coordination is a given – quite the contrary – and, ultimately, there is only so much that central authorities can do to ensure it at lower administrative levels without affecting the principle of subsidiarity. Coordination is challenging, time consuming, and may require institutions giving up individual decision- making power in favor of a collective forum of stakeholders. At the same time, counties, cities, towns, and communes across Romania have their own mandates, carry out their own attributions, and deliver their own services to constituents. Subsidiarity ensures that decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizens. Particularly for smaller value projects that local authorities can cover from their own budgets, it may not be possible for the national government to influence how such investments are designed and implemented. Even in the case of the PNDL and other similar programs, central-level stakeholders are in fact financing functions and services that are in the local domain. It is thus hard for higher-level strategies to translate directly into local and county projects. They cannot be imposed; instead, special conditions and incentives are needed to make the perceived benefits of coordination exceed the costs. 6. At the same time, to paraphrase a local saying, Romania is too poor to afford not to coordinate properly. With resources flowing from the central government and from the EU, rather than from own resources through local taxation, there has been a tendency to overinvest and invest sub-optimally into objectives that do not always generate the appropriate economic returns (“cathedrals in the desert”). In Romania, over 80% of the capital spending in the public sector is done by local authorities (including through EU funds and central government transfers). There is little coordination across ministries: each key ministry appears to have its own “investment program,” usually resembling simple earmarked transfers for capital investments from the central to the local level. The MRDPA manages the bulk of funding for supporting local-level investments. For its part, the 1See report corresponding to Component 2 of the current World Bank engagement with the MRDPA: “Improved Prioritization Criteria for PNDL Projects,” World Bank, 2015 3 Ministry of Finance has its own role to play in managing fiscal risks and ensuring that expenses committed to through various investment instruments can indeed be afforded under national budget constraints. 7. This report presents multiple instruments for promoting coordination: dedicated platforms, harmonization of investment programs (design, financing criteria, producers), and knowledge sharing of good practices at the local level. Dedicated platforms for coordination include bodies specifically created for this purpose (e.g., inter-ministerial committees) and usually require action from the Center of Government. The harmonization of investment instruments, particularly across EU and state-funded sources, depends on each Managing Authority (i.e., line ministry) responsible for program design and implementation – including the MRDPA for the PNDL. Last but not least, as suggested earlier, much of the coordination efforts need to be undertaken at and by the local/county level. The central government can help disseminate good practices across local authorities. Overview of the current repor t’s approach to the coordination of public investments IMPACT: ACCELERATE ROMANIA’S SUSTAINABLE AND INCLUSIVE DEVELOPMENT So what? OUTCOME: “DO MORE WITH LESS” Why? OUTPUT: DESIGN & IMPLEMENT To what effect? HARMONIZED INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS COORDINATION MECHANISMS PROCESS: INTRA-SECTORAL INTER-SECTORAL How can coordination • Vertically: across administrative levels • At national, regional, and local levels happen? • Horizontally: across investment programs • At the level of strategies, programs, and (EU- and state-budget- funded) projects ENABLING ENVIRONMENT CORE PRINCIPLES: TRUST ACCOUNTABILITY CAPACITY INFORMATION What is needed Can we work Who is responsible? Do we have the time? Do we have the for coordination together? Do we have the infrastructure? to work? people? Diagnostic 8. There is broad consensus – in policy circles and beyond – that there are major gaps in the coordination of public infrastructure investments in Romania, at all levels. Perhaps the most often cited examples refer to the inefficient sequencing of investments, whereby a newly rehabilitated road is damaged by subsequent public works related to the rehabilitation of utility networks. Such situations often result in media articles and public outrage regarding the inefficient spending of taxpayer money. In effect, this simple example is indicative of the broader challenge of coordination faced by public authorities in 4 Romania, across all phases of an investment’s cycle: from the development of a s trategy to the design of an investment program to the financing, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of individual infrastructure projects. 9. First, the cross-sectoral and sectoral strategies that should guide the allocation of scarce public resources often demonstrate room for improvement. Coordination challenges often originate in the large number of existing sectoral and cross-sectoral strategies, with overlapping and unclear objectives. There are no clear standards for developing such documents. Strategies are not easily accessible, so they are hard to refer to and correlate with, and typically remain broad wish lists, without specifying: clear priorities, budgets, implementation timeline and action steps, and M&E indicators. There is no institution explicitly mandated to review all available strategies and decide how they “fit” together and what their policy and budgetary implications are. Equally important, there are no M&E procedures for the strategies developed to decide on whether they are needed, whether they are appropriate, and whether their goals are fulfilled. 10. Second, state-budget-funded investment programs like the PNDL are not always properly designed, and a systematic effort to coordinate intervention areas is lacking. Typically, state-funded programs have no strategic document at their foundation and they are not guided by a clear operational framework. Much of the poor coordination, duplication, and inefficiency can be traced back to the failure to clearly demarcate and synergize types of interventions between and among EU and state-funded investments. In addition, procedures are more lax under state-budget programs than those applicable to EU funds (e.g., simpler applications, largely based on technical documentation only; quicker disbursement of funds; fewer monitoring visits and audits; etc.). This generates the risk of crowding out structural instruments, while Romania remains last in EU funds’ absorption (52.59% at the end of January 2015, with less than one year to go to spend the balance). 2 11. Third, the prioritization of state-budget-funded projects relies on financing criteria that remain vague, subjective, and opaque, and project selection is much less rigorous than under EU structural funds. There is usually no clear algorithm for deciding among a variety of proposed investments. Moreover, state-budget-funded programs operate on annual budgets, so there is a lot of instability and priorities may shift from year to year, which discourages larger and more strategic investment programs. Instead, what happens in practice is that there is a significant and ever-growing portfolio of new and ongoing investment projects, in various phases. Without a defined budget for a multiannual implementation period and without a list of investments that, once selected, are guaranteed funding until completion, prioritization is essentially impossible. 12. Fourth, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) mechanisms at the level of state- funded programs and projects are rudimentary. There is no systematic tracking of basic key indicators of a program’s performance (number of completed projects, value of ongoing projects vs. annual budgetary allocation, number of new projects, etc.) or, if such data exist, they are not made public. No impact assessments are carried out, so it is 2 See http://www.fonduri-ue.ro/ 5 impossible to determine if state-budget-funded projects are reaching their objectives or if they need to be adjusted in terms of design and/or implementation procedures. 13. On top of everything, the overall environment in Romania is no t particularly conducive to coordination, for a myriad of reasons. There is no solid history of collaboration among public institutions. Coordination happens on an ad-hoc basis, if at all, and there are few formal requirements for public actors to consult with each other and work together to accomplish common goals. The infrastructure for sharing information and collaborating efficiently and effectively (e.g., modern and interoperable IT platforms) is largely missing, which means that coordination takes time. At the same time, public employees are poorly paid; particularly those involved in the design and implementation of infrastructure projects are very busy with operational tasks and various emergencies. This leaves even less time for coordination efforts. Fostering an Enabling Environment for Coordination 14. There are four core principles of an enabling environment for effective coordination of infrastructure investments: trust; accountability; capacity; and information systems. These cross-themes influence the quality of the process of coordination for all the dimensions discussed in this report: across administrative levels; across players/programs; across sectors; across phases of a cycle of investment strategies/ programs/projects.  Trust: o Coordination ultimately always occurs between people – not between amorphous institutions or sectors. This is why building a culture of collaboration is quintessential for instilling coordination in the DNA of any organization. A key corollary is the need to reduce turnover of critical staff and consolidate capacity. o The MRDPA should: i) organize special training programs for staff on how to enhance collaboration; and (ii) collect and disseminate good practices from around the country regarding internal (within an organization, across various units) and external (across organizations) coordination.  Accountability : o Coordination should be included in the list of formal responsibilities corresponding to each authority in charge of designing and implementing public infrastructure investments. This would trickle down all the way to the Bylaws and the required individual staff competencies and performance matrix (“fișa postului”). o As the line ministry in charge of public administration, the MRDPA should spearhead the “coordination agenda” for Romania’s public sector and hold local authorities and other institutions accountable for their efforts.  Capacity : o Who will do the challenging work of coordinating across departments/ institutions/sectors/administrative levels? This is not a task that can be outsourced, but one that requires active involvement from insiders (experienced staff who knows the system and can navigate it across institutional and jurisdictional lines). 6 o Particularly in the context of low-paid positions in Romania’s public administration, with monthly wages of around EUR 400 or lower, such specialists are very hard to come by and tend to be in very high demand. o The MRDPA’s role would be to lead the effort to enhance public authorities’ ability to manage human capital, reward/sanction employees, and raise salaries to competitive levels. This would help ensure lower turnover of critical staff and allow them to dedicate time to coordination.  Information systems : o Effective coordination also depends on comprehensive, timely, and accurate information flows among all stakeholders involved. Information is power and one cannot manage what one does not measure. o Romania has not yet aligned databases across public institutions. Even units within the same ministry sometimes use incompatible systems. o The MRDPA’s role would be to develop (in-house or through outsourcing) a common database of public infrastructure investments in Romania to facilitate real-time information sharing and coordination. Targeted Strategies and Action Steps for Enhanced Coordination of Strategies and Plans 15. The first step is to develop, refine, and approve a set of coordinated strategies underpinning investment programs to ensure proper demarcation of intervention areas. The MRDPA cannot directly lead this effort, but it can support the Center of Government (the Prime Minister’s Chancellery) – which sometimes maintains a relatively weak role vis- à-vis line ministries – to supervise the development of strategies and their implementation through a dedicated Strategy Unit (SU). The SU would be under the Prime Minister’s direct coordination. Building on current legislation (Government Decisions 870/2006 and 775/2005), it would rationalize the number of strategies and adopt a set of common standards for their development. The SU would also monitor how these strategies translate into investment programs and further into projects. In particular, the unit would ensure that investment programs are properly designed, with clear synergies among them, following the example of EU funds. The SU would also play the main M&E role with respect to the performance of investment programs, tracking key data like annual project completion ratio, annual increase in ongoing investments, etc. The Prime Minister would thus be able to recommend data-driven adjustments to current investment programs and, as needed, their expansion/merger/termination, in line with their performance. Targeted Strategies and Action Steps for Enhanced Coordination of Investment Programs 16. Most coordination opportunities arise in the harmonization of frameworks and procedures applicable to EU and state-funded investment programs. The former have introduced a variety of new tools in the Romanian context (e.g., strategic and integrated planning, rigorous public procurement, monitoring and evaluation of performance, etc.) and have generated a true shift in the mindset of public sector staff. From hundreds of interviews with local, regional, and central authorities, conducted since 2012 as part of the World Bank’s technical assistance for Romania’s regional development, one conclusion holds true at all levels: staff working on EU programs are more motivated, more creative, and more rigorous in the design and implementation of public infrastructure investments. 7 Romania therefore faces a great opportunity to leverage the learnings from the implementation of EU funds and replicate them in state-budget-funded programs. 17. Indeed, EU-funded programmes have a much better track record than state- funded programs, despite low overall absorption rates. As a point of comparison, in 1994, the Romanian Government launched the National Program for the Modernization of National Roads and Construction of Highways. The Program proposed the modernization of 11,300 km of national roads in 15 phases, by 2014. However, in the 20 years since its start, only 20% of the planned length was completed, and only 3 of the 15 phases were closed. A similar experience was registered with the Priority Program for the Development of Highways, or the various state-budget-funded programs started over the years to finance infrastructure investments at the local level. By contrast, the management of EU funds has improved over the past few years (as did the absorption rates), and instruments like the Regional Operational Programme (ROP), managed by the MRDPA, have been good performers even when benchmarked against similar programs in other Member States. 3 18. The suboptimal performance of state-budget-funded programs can be improved through a number of key elements adapted from EU-financed interventions, with the caveat that proposed measures should factor in capacity constraints. Indeed, the capacity to process applications and oversee projects is much lower in departments responsible for state-budget-funded programs versus Managing Authorities of EU structural funds (fewer staff, lower wages, etc.). Compared to the ROP, for instance, a program like the PNDL is characterized by a larger portfolio of smaller investments, on average – as shown in chapter 2 – which calls for simpler yet equally rigorous procedures throughout the project cycle. Equally important, previous assessments of EU funds, including by the World Bank, 4 have noted the signs of excessive bureaucratization in how the Romanian Government implements EU regulations, so it is important to adopt only the elements that work well. 19. The following action steps are defined primarily in relation to the PNDL in this report, but effectively apply to all state-budget-funded programs, including other programs managed by DG RDI:  Anchor the PNDL in a rigorous and stable strategic framework over a longer programming cycle. To ensure that limited public funds are deployed to achieve the largest possible impact, it is important to strategize, plan, and identify clear priorities. Ideally, the programming period would be the same as for EU funds (seven years plus two-three years for finalization of investments). This will not only enable the possibility to finance more impactful projects, but it will also foster better coordination and harmonization of all programs – i.e., operational programs financing similar investments could draw on a joint strategy and would look to contribute toward the same goals. Once the strategic framework is agreed upon, the next step is to develop the operational document for state-funded programs – i.e., the Applicant Guide. This would explain the overall rules for implementing the program (e.g., the PNDL), offering in-depth descriptions of investment axes and eligible types of interventions, eligible 3 See the two reports produced under “ROP 2.0: MA-IB Collaboration and Beneficiary Support for the ROP 2014-2020,” World Bank, 2014 4 See the reports on “ROP 2.0: MA-IB Coordination and Beneficiary Support,” World Bank, 2014 8 expenditures, eligibility criteria (types of beneficiaries), and evaluation and selection criteria.  Adopt multi-year budgeting to enable more strategic investments and finance new investments only when funds required by ongoing projects are fully covered. Without multi-year budgets, there is little predictability for beneficiaries (their projects may receive funding this year and none the next), there is a tendency to finance smaller and less impactful projects (investments financed through PNDL 2014 were on average three times smaller than similar projects financed through ROP 2007-2013 and PNDR 2007-2013), and it is hard to do proper strategic planning (yearly investment programs can only finance the projects submitted for financing for that particular year). Especially for a program like the PNDL, which now has a portfolio of nearly 4,000 projects (significantly larger than only a year ago), it is important to decide what budget can be expected year-on-year to finish (at least some of) the projects started. Multiple steps are required, including: rationalization of current portfolio; setting a budgetary baseline covering annual costs of all ongoing projects remaining in the portfolio; and allocation of funds for new investments only when/if excess resources exist – not just for the first year, but for future years’ baseline as well.  Set a clear, fixed implementation timeline for completing projects . Beneficiaries of EU funds know that they have a clear deadline by which they have to use funds, i.e., they risk losing those funds if they do not complete the investment in due time. Under state- budget-funded programs there is no time restriction and many investments, even small ones, are continued for years on end, drawing funds from a limited pool to keep the investment going, often at a minimum effort level. Countless construction sites linger around Romania, without a push to complete such works before approving new ones.  Harmonize eligibility and selection criteria. Beneficiaries of EU funds operate within a procedural framework that is clearly defined at the beginning of a program and stays relatively constant over the full programming period. In the case of state-budget- funded programs, rules are often unclear and, when they do exist, they change every year or even more frequently. This leaves room for interpretation and ad-hoc implementation, reducing predictability and transparency for program applicants and beneficiaries, for their service providers (e.g., contractors of infrastructure works), for the Ministry of Public Finances that needs to budget according to the money spent in a given year, etc. The eligibility of investments should be decided based on what can and should be covered along with EU funds – either to contribute to the same goals in sectors where needs are too high to rely only on structural instruments (the “equivalency” approach) or to fill gaps left unaddressed by EU funds (th e “complementarity” approach). T here should also be transparent, fair, and rigorously enforced selection criteria, along with harmonized contracting for all applicants.  Direct interested applicants to EU financing first, but build a pipeline of proposals that can be channeled to either EU or state-budget funds . If a proposed project can be eligible for EU funding (i.e., in sectors where the “equivalency” approach holds), the MRDPA and other ministries managing state-budget-funded investments should first direct applicants to EU grants (i.e., the cheaper financing). This may be a question of awareness-raising or it may require a hard constraint to only accept an application if it proves that it is either ineligible for EU funds or that it is “eligible but not financeable” 9 (because of EU funds running out under certain axes/intervention areas). In any case, the harmonization of rules and procedures will ensure that investments in the pipeline may be eligible for either EU funds or the state budget, which would help boost absorption of all available financing sources. The next final report focused specifically on prioritization criteria (due August 27, 2015) will elaborate on instruments for channeling projects to different instruments, drawing from draft/final programming and implementation documents for EU funds for 2014-2020. 5  Implement stronger M&E mechanisms at the program level. First, the PNDL and other state-budget-funded programs should set performance indicators for the entire program (e.g., number of projects, total beneficiaries, absorption rates, etc.) and for each sector (length of rehabilitated roads, number of additional people with access to water and sanitation, etc.). Second, to enable the monitoring process to run smoothly, a Monitoring Committee should be established, including both staff of the MRDPA and representatives of the beneficiaries (e.g., one representative per county). Monitoring should also rely on Intermediate Bodies (County Councils, Regional Development Agencies, or another institution of choice) and on local communities themselves.  Enforce stronger monitoring at the project level. Proper monitoring is the first step in enabling the MRDPA to correct issues promptly as they develop during the project implementation phase. For its part, the MRDPA should continue to have the overall program monitoring role, with specific project monitoring visits scheduled based on a defined methodology (e.g., as mentioned earlier, larger/more complex projects should be more carefully scrutinized). Also, the MRDPA should rely on a set of independent auditors and/or on more formal Intermediate Bodies for this task. There are two main options for fulfilling the IB role: County Councils or Regional Development Agencies (see section 5.3.1. for a discussion of pros and cons of the two scenarios).  Harmonized post-implementation procedures. The first step in establishing a proper M&E system for the post-implementation phase is to define and agree on a set of performance indicators for each financed project. At a minimum, chosen indicators should abide by the “SMART” set of criteria: specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-oriented. There is also a need to continue monitoring visits in the field for a number of years after the completion of the investment. Again, this can be done with the support of independent auditors and/or IBs. Last but not least, the MRDPA should leverage the experience of beneficiaries who successfully complete PNDL projects and involve them in dedicated knowledge-sharing mechanisms. Targeted Strategies and Action Steps for Enhanced Coordination of Investment Projects 20. At the level of projects, the key to effective coordination lies with the main beneficiary of an investment grant – i.e., the county/local authority. For all the aforementioned reasons, however, subnational governments lack the capacity to properly coordinate investments’ planning, implementation, and M&E. The MRDPA should also promote a set of good practices for local-level coordination, collected from authorities 5 As of February 2015, there are no approved operational programmes for 2014-2020. Moreover, there are no publicly available Applicant Guides for EU-funded programs (including eligibility and selection criteria for various interventions) 10 around the country. For example, some mayors can propose to their local council a sequenced, calculated approach to needed infrastructure investments – i.e., making sure that they first invest in underground networks of utilities and only then move on to road rehabilitation. Consultations with public service providers (electricity, gas, water, wastewater, etc.) are equally critical to ensure that investment plans are fully correlated. 21. In addition to capacity building and knowledge sharing activities, the MRDPA can also encourage improved coordination across jurisdictions through specific conditionalities/incentives. One idea worth exploring further is to specifically encourage project proposals that involve multiple local authorities for added impact. This could be done through explicit eligibility criteria or by awarding bonus points to such initiatives in the evaluation process. Some legislative amendments are also needed to facilitate such arrangements and simplify the current framework applicable to associations of local governments (e.g., these entities should be considered public institutions; they should have the power of credit holder; etc.). This would be in line with the EU’s approach – for instance, through the Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI) and the Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) instruments – as well as with the Regional Operational Programme 2014-2020, which has asked multiple counties to come together in each development region and submit county road projects jointly. Conclusions 22. In sum, enhancing the coordination of public investments in Romania will require both an enabling environment and targeted measures for harmonizing strategies, investment programs, and projects. In addition to the recommendations summarized above for the MRDPA specifically, positive results will also depend on supporting and strengthening a number of existing mechanisms for the coordination of public infrastructure investments. These include: (i) at the national level, the coordination committees set up through the Partnership Agreement, the aforementioned SU under the Prime Minister’s Office, and the Unit for Evaluating Public Investments (UEIP) under the Ministry of Finance; (ii) at the regional level, Regional Development Councils (RDCs) and Regional Development Agencies (RDAs); (iii) at the local level, integrated planning instruments (i.e., Integrated Urban Development Plans – PIDUs), which were first introduced for the 2007-2013 programming period and, despite some gaps (reviewed in a 2013 World Bank report on the topic), remain a step in the right direction. 23. The following two tables summarize the targeted strategies and specific action steps proposed for enhancing intra- and inter-sectoral coordination. In some cases, the adoption of proposed measures depends primarily on the MRDPA; in other cases, the involvement of other institutional stakeholders will be required. By adopting these proposals, two key objectives will be fulfilled by strengthening the coordination of strategies and plans for public investments: (i) state-budget-funded investments, including those managed by DG RDI, will better complement and buttress infrastructure investments made with EU funds, as well as other infrastructure investments made with public or private funds; and (ii) investments managed by DG RDI will help attain the objectives established by the regional operational program for the 2014-2020 programming period. 11 Summary of targeted strategies and specific action steps for enhancing intra-sectoral coordination Solutions for enhanced Other key actors Level Main challenges MRDPA role coordination  Poor quality of sectoral strategies  Adopt and enforce standards  Support SU under PM  Center of for strategy development, Government approval, and M&E (CoG)  Public Policy Units in line Vertical ministries across admin  Projects that do not take sectoral  Improve eligibility and selection  Revamp PNDL criteria for evaluation  Other line levels strategies into account still receive criteria for state-budget-funded and selection of investments ministries funding programs like the PNDL and the implementing Environment Fund state-funded programs  Ministry of Public Finance  State-budget-funded investment  Rethink types of interventions  Redesign the PNDL to complement  CoG programs are not designed to be financed by state-budget-funded other funds in each sector  Ministry of complementary with each other and programs to complement EU- European Funds Horizontal with EU structural instruments funded investments across  There is a risk of state-budget funds  Direct state-budget funds’  Support PNDL applicants early on by  Other Managing programs crowding out EU structural applicants eligible for EU funding to directing them to optimal sources of Authorities instruments the optimal operational program funding & help boost EU-funds  RDAs (as absorption intermediary bodies) Summary of targeted strategies and specific action steps for enhancing inter-sectoral coordination Solutions for enhanced Level Main challenges MRDPA role Other key actors coordination  Poor quality of national strategies  Adopt and enforce standards for  Support SU under PM  Center of Gov’t  Lack of political process for prioritizing strategy development, approval,  Reflect national cross-sector priorities in (General across sectors and M&E (same as above) PNDL allocations Secretariat,  Lack of accountability for implementing  Review investment programs and Chancellery) strategies decide on potential  Min. of Finance adjustment/continuation  Public Policy Units in line ministries  Significant discrepancies in the  Harmonize procedures across  Bring PNDL up to standards of EU funds  Min. of procedures applicable to state-budget- state-budget-funded and EU- (to the extent that capacity allows it) for European Funds National funded vs. EU-funded investments funded programs for the entire the entire cycle (planning,  Other line  The former lack transparency, cycle (planning, implementation, implementation, and post- ministries predictability, and rigor in selecting and post-implementation) implementation) implementing interventions  Participate actively and regularly in EU funds Coordination Committees set-up through the Partnership Agreement  Major infrastructure projects lack inter-  Strengthen national-level  Support UEIP within MPF  Center of Gov’t sectoral prioritization and coordination mechanisms for coordinating and  Ministry of prioritizing major infrastructure Finance projects  Regional planning is hindered by the lack  Support current institutions like  Support RDAs and RDCs  RDAs Regional of formal administrative status for RDAs and RDCs with tools for  Disseminate best practices  RDCs Romania’s regions regional coordination  Associations  Subnational governments have weak  Consolidate capacity of local  Collect and publish set of guidelines for  RDAs capacity to apply good practices in authorities across entire coordinating investments at local level  Min. of coordination of planning, investment cycle  Support integrated planning efforts, European Funds Local implementation, and M&E of their  Incentivize joint projects including through PIDUs infrastructure investments  Reward joint projects in the PNDL evaluation/scoring process 13 Introduction 24. The Government of Romania (GOR) has asked the World Bank to support its efforts to harmonize and optimize public investments financed by the European Union and from the state budget. The objectives of this work are to encourage synergies, deliver stronger impact, and promote Romania's sustainable and inclusive growth. At this point in Romania’s development, basic infrastructure needs far exceed available funds, which makes it critically important to prioritize and coordinate investments to maximize impact. This engagement is a follow-up to the World Bank’s Regional Development Program in Romania, implemented between November 2012 and March 2014, and continues to be based on the January 2012 Memorandum of Understanding on Partnership and Support in the Implementation of EU Structural and Cohesion Funds in Romania and Modernization of Public Administration. This work includes the following four components:  Component 1 – Assistance with the coordination of strategies and plans for EU and state-funded investments in infrastructure;  Component 2 – Advisory services related to the existing portfolio of investment projects in MRDPA, including their optimal prioritization and preparation of potential EU-funded investments for the 2014-2020 programming period;  Component 3 – Assistance with improving the use of efficient designs and technologies in investments managed by the MRDPA;  Component 4 – Assistance with the design of a Housing and Infrastructure Development Strategy. 25. The first component mentioned above further includes two sets of reports, as follows: a. Analysis of infrastructure investment strategies, including ways to improve their coordination and correlation; b. Prioritization strategy for state-budget-funded projects, based on selection criteria harmonized with those used for EU-funded projects. The current final report corresponds to the former sub-component (in italics) on the harmonization of infrastructure investment strategies, with a strong focus on the three sectors that are of particular importance for regional development in Romania: roads (at local and county level); water and wastewater; and social infrastructure. The assessment covers the full cycle – i.e., from defining an investment program through project selection, implementation and post-implementation. At every stage, the main theme explored relates to the need for a harmonized approach and for enhanced coordination to deliver stronger impact through infrastructure investments. The other report prepared under this component goes one step further in proposing very specific prioritization and selection criteria and procedures. 26. To understand current synergies and overlaps within and across sectors, this report assesses investment strategies and programs, as well as institutional mechanisms involved in the formulation, approval, and coordination of infrastructure projects. In 14 accordance with the agreement between the MRDPA and the World Bank, the following are covered: (i) state-funded interventions carried out under the supervision of the Directorate General for Regional Development and Infrastructure (DG RDI) under the MRDPA, primarily through the National Local Development Program (PNDL) since 2012 and other programs (before 2012); (ii) state-budget-funded interventions carried out by other ministries (e.g., the Environment Fund under the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change); and (iii) EU-funded instruments supporting infrastructure investments in relevant sectors, most notably the Regional Operational Programme (ROP) 2007-2013 and 2014- 2020, the National Rural Development Programme (PNDR) 2007-2013 and 2014-2020, and the Sectoral Operational Programme Environment (SOP Environment) 2007-2013 and the Large Infrastructure Operational Programme (LI OP) 2014-2020. 27. Based on this comprehensive assessment, this final report includes recommendations for harmonizing investments in the MRDPA portfolio (mainly under the PNDL) with other interventions financed from the state budget and from EU funds. The main topic is the effective coordination of infrastructure investments at the local, regional, and national level through enhanced policy, institutional, and financial mechanisms. In addition, the proposed targeted strategies and specific action steps put forth in this report provide answers to two critical, interrelated questions:  How can DG RDI’s investments – i.e., the PNDL – complement and buttress EU- funded investments and other public/private interventions?  How can DG RDI’s investments – i.e., the PNDL – help attain the objectives established by the 2014-2020 ROP? Context 28. Romania today displays a complex picture of great hopes and remarkable development potential, in the context of persistent challenges in many vital sectors. It is beyond any doubt that the country still has a long way to go in terms of providing its citizens – all citizens, including the poor and the marginalized – the infrastructure and public services they need to share and add to the benefits of development. Examples of gaps abound and are hard to miss (e.g., deficient transport infrastructure, lack of access to water and sanitation in certain rural areas, governance challenges, etc.), particularly in comparison to the situation in other EU Member States. But it is also true that Romania has taken important steps toward sustainable and inclusive growth. Positive results, particularly in large urban centers – with Bucharest surpassing cities like Madrid, Lisbon, and Athens in terms of GDP per capita (PPP) – confirm Romania’s growth potential, provided that citizens become truly enabled to seek and reach opportunities. 29. The World Bank’s 2013 “Competitive Cities” report argues that the key to unlocking Romania’s growth potential involves interventions customized to the needs of leading and lagging areas. The first priority is to invest in improved connectivity and accessibility (both within leading areas and between leading and lagging regions), enabling people to take advantage of opportunities in Romania and abroad. Second, particularly in lagging areas, the government should invest in functioning institutions that ensure basic living standards for communities – essentially, the same start in life for all citizens 15 (including running water, sewage, electricity, good schooling, effective land and housing markets, healthcare, etc.). Finally, marginalized communities require targeted efforts to address the specific obstacles they face (e.g., discrimination, exclusion, etc.). The chart below is a snapshot of recommended types of interventions for leading and lagging areas. Figure 1. Investment priorities differ across leading and lagging areas in Romania Shorten the distance to large markets globally by improving infrastructure and International encouraging cross-border flows of people, capital, and ideas Intervention level Improve connections between leading and lagging areas within Romania to enable Regional efficient concentration of resources and spillover effects Improve connective Foster good institutions infrastructure between cities (basic services infrastructure, & surrounding areas Local education, health, land markets, etc.) Promote quality-of-life investments Design and implement targeted measures for marginalized groups Lagging Leading Area Area Level of economic development Source: Competitive Cities (World Bank, 2013) 30. The basic condition for addressing Romania’s development needs – required, though not sufficient – is access to financial resources for critical investments. In particular, infrastructure projects like roads and water and sewage networks are typically very costly and complex, putting a significant strain on local, county, and national budgets. Because of strict targets with respect to annual budget deficits, Romania does not have much leeway to significantly expand infrastructure development programs from its own budget sources. In this context, non-reimbursable funds from the European Union (EU), amounting to around EUR 40 billion for the 2014-2020 programming period, are an essential source of investment money. But past experience suggest that Romania faces significant constraints that have limited its capacity to absorb such funds, for a variety of reasons: incomplete alignment with EU legislation and best practices, particularly in the area of public procurement; lack of resources for co-financing and running costs of EU- 16 funded projects; local public authorities’ weak capacity to prepare, implement, monitor, and evaluate complex interventions; heavy bureaucracy and excessive audits, etc. 6 As of January 31, 2015, Romania’s absorption rate – despite significant progress made in 2013 and 2014 – remained the lowest in the EU at 51.87%. 31. The need for infrastructure investments in Romania is considerable and the corresponding costs far exceed what EU funds alone can cover, even if the government was successful at driving the absorption close to 100%. For example, in 2012, 34,000 km of county and communal roads were made of gravel or stone and required modernization, at a cost of around EUR 6-12 billion. Moreover, around 21,000 km of county and communal roads may require rehabilitation, at an estimated cost of around EUR 3.5-5-7 billion. As a point of comparison, only EUR 0.87 billion were allocated for the modernization/ rehabilitation/extension of county and urban roads under the ROP 2007-2013. Furthermore, by 2018, around EUR 20 billion need to be invested in the water and wastewater infrastructure to increase the share of Romanians with access to such infrastructure to at least 70% (from 52% in 2004), in li ne with Romania’s commitments made through the EU Accession Agreement upon joining in 2007. However, only around EUR 3.3 billion have been allocated for such investments under the SOP Environment 2007- 2013. 32. Looking ahead to 2014-2020, allocations from the EU continue to fill only part of the financing gap. As the following table shows, to address all needs in the county and communal roads, water and wastewater, and social infrastructure sectors, Romania would need to contribute over EUR 30 billion through 2020 in addition to available EU funds. This is a huge burden for the national budget. Table 1. Investment needs vs. supply of EU funds (2014-2020) Proposed EU Priority Sector Investment Need* allocations for Funding Gap 2014-2020** County Roads € 3,412,193,664 € 946,808,511 € 2,465,385,153 Communal Roads € 4,728,319,110 € 440,236,880 € 4,288,082,230 Water & Wastewater € 23,804,837,000 € 3,014,236,880 € 20,790,600,120 Social Infrastructure € 3,705,110,000 € 522,370,000 € 3,182,7 40,000 TOTAL € 35,650,459,774 € 4,923,652,271 € 30,726,807,503 *Investment needs are calculated based on the World Bank methodology for each of the sectors. For details, see the final report on “Improving Prioritization Criteria for PNDL Projects,” World Bank, 2015 **Allocations proposed in the draft programmatic documents for the ROP, PNDR, and OP Large Infrastructure 6 For a more complete review of challenges faced by beneficiaries of EU funds, see “ROP 2.0: MA-IB Collaboration and Communication and Beneficiary Support for the Regional Operational Programme, 2014-2020,” World Bank, 2013 17 33. While the causes for current challenges may be complex, the overall message is simple: Romania still faces great development needs and has limited financial resources, making value for money a principle of paramount importance for its public investments. Put differently, the government should pursue an agenda focused on maximizing impact for the given funding available for investment programs, from the EU and/or from the state budget. In this endeavor, it is critical to ensure that investment funding is allocated based on clear, fair, and effective selection criteria and goes toward interventions that are designed and implemented in a coordinated fashion. If such principles and procedures are typically upheld in the disbursement of EU funds, including through the Regional Operational Programme (ROP), 7 state-budget-funded interventions have shown weaknesses in this respect in the past. 34. This is where the issue of coordination of public investments comes into play, as an essential ingredient to maximizing the development impact of every leu, euro, or dollar spent on infrastructure. For one, lack of coordination means that EU and state- budget-funded investment programs overlap and often “compete” for the same pool of beneficiaries. This issue is not new to the current Romanian context. The 2011 World Bank Functional Review of Romania’s regional development sector recommended that programs funded 100% from the state budget “[should] avoid duplication with EU -supported [interventions].”8 Moreover, to preserve a fair competitive setting, similar investment programs should have similar implementation rules. In practice, however, state-budget- funded programs are much less strict than EU structural instruments, as described in the example below. Box 1. The PNDI showed clear gaps in coordination with EU funds The now-defunct National Program for Infrastructure Development (PNDI) , a EUR 4 billion program supported by the GOR, could have effectively crowded out EU-funded structural instruments like the ROP, OP Environment, and the National Rural Development Programme (PNDR). First, the PNDI targeted similar types of infrastructure investments (e.g., county roads, water and sewage networks, etc.). Second, it lacked rigorous and transparent selection processes, and staff in the then Ministry of Regional Development and Tourism (MRDT) became quickly overwhelmed with funding requests and technical documentations (e.g., prefeasibility and feasibility studies, detailed technical designs, etc.) submitted by public beneficiaries from across the country. There was no system for the independent assessment of projects (unlike the requirement to have external evaluators of EU-funded projects) and a programming document defining eligibility and selection criteria was completely lacking (unlike the extensive programming documents corresponding to EU-funds, which are prepared by different OPs and approved by the European Commission). In the absence of clear selection criteria and prioritization measures, the state-budget-funded PNDI project portfolio expanded quickly. The change in government of July 2012 brought the PNDI to a complete halt, in recognition of the multiple issues that were plaguing the program. 35. Other signs of current lack of coordination include inefficient planning of investments , along with the public authorities’ inability to break silos and work together . 7 See World Bank’s 2014 report on “ROP Project Selection Models” 8 “Functional Review of Regional Development and Tourism,” World Bank, 2011, p. xvi 18 Indeed, it is a rare occurrence for public authorities to proactively collaborate in designing and implementing joint projects or investments that reinforce each other ’s impact (e.g., rehabilitating roads that connect multiple counties). 9 Even at the level of a single authority, coordination for proper sequencing of investments proves to be deficient: a newly modernized road, for instance, is sometimes damaged when a water supply and/or sanitation network is developed for that same community. The next chapter further details such examples; in short, the dual objectives of reducing waste and boosting synergies across investment projects highlight the need to design and adopt effective coordination mechanisms. Objective and Scope 36. The objective of this engagement is to support the strategic coordination of infrastructure strategies and investment projects financed by the EU and by the state budget in regions, counties, and municipalities. This hopes to contribute to ensuring a coherent, integrated, and impactful approach to public investment management, and to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of spending EU and state-budget funds for the 2014-2020 programming period. This report provides recommendations for aligning the preparation and implementation processes applicable to non-EU-funded infrastructure investments implemented or monitored by the MRDPA to the ones supported by different EU-funded operational programs. This activity also contributes to harmonize these processes with the ones used by other ministries and national agencies, which in the long run can also contribute to maximizing absorption of EU funds: if investments follow the same rules, a pipeline of projects can be created with state budget funding and then transferred to EU-funded programs, as needed/as feasible. To the full extent possible, this methodology will be distributed to all relevant stakeholders. 37. The task of evaluating all aspects of coordination of infrastructure works in Romania is daunting. There are many different potential angles to this endeavor: by sector; by administrative level; by strategy/plan, investment program, and/or individual project ; by phase (planning, implementation, and post-implementation); by type (policy, financial, technical, etc.). The following paragraphs tackle the critical task of properly scoping the current assignment as to remain within time and resource constraints and to contribute with meaningful and actionable recommendations. Most proposals therefore address actions that the MRDPA can take on directly as part of its mandate. 38. As such, there are a number of important caveats and limitations to the current report. Romania has a very large number of strategies adopted in recent years, which is part of the coordination challenge. Some of them are required by the EU, others are promoted by line ministries, and others are initiated by lower administrative levels. The purpose is not to provide an in-depth evaluation of each strategy, which goes far beyond the scope of this work, but rather to take a few critical strategies and understand their main goals and whether they are somehow connected further to policy priorities, funding, and specific projects. In addition, the report reviews infrastructure investment programs 9 One positive example is the attempt by counties in the West region to submit a joint proposal under the ROP 2007-2013 for rehabilitating county roads that connected multiple jurisdictions. Such situations remain rare at the level of the entire country. 19 financed from the state budget by the MRDPA and by other ministries, and also structural instruments supported by the EU (e.g., the Regional Operational Programme, OP Large Infrastructure, the National Rural Development Program - PNDR, etc.). Again, this report is not meant to provide an exhaustive assessment of all such programs (in fact, for structural instruments in particular, a series of in-depth studies are required by the EU and many of them are available publicly). Instead, the current assessment seeks to unveil the linkages, overlaps, and synergies among different financing instruments and recommend ways for improving their coordination. Soft investment strategies and programs are not covered by this report. 39. All in all, the scope of this work focuses on strategies, investment programs, and projects in the three in three sectors targeted by the PNDL: roads, water supply, wastewater, and social infrastructure. For these key areas, the current study covers relevant and available sectoral and cross-sectoral strategies, at all levels (supranational, national, regional, and local). Moreover, this assessment explores the institutional mechanisms that shape different stages of an infrastructure project, from planning through implementation and post-implementation monitoring and evaluation (M&E). The first figure below summarizes the linkages between different levels covered in this report, while the second figure defines what is within and beyond scope for the current work. Figure 2. There is a "cascade" of strategies and plans for local infrastructure development Supranational EU-level strategies (Europe 2020) Level National National Romania-EU Government Territorial Sustainable Partnership Program 2013- Development Development Agreement 2016 Strategy Strategy National Sectoral Strategies for Local Infrastructure Development Level (e.g., Transport Master Plan, Danube River Basin Management Plan, Health Strategy, etc.) EU-funded investment programs (e.g., ROP, State-budget-funded investment programs PNDR, OP Environment, OP Large Infrastructure, (e.g., PNDL, Environment Fund, etc.) etc.) Sectoral strategies Regional Regional County Development Spatial Plans (e.g., W&WW Level Development Plans Strategies Master Plans) Local Local Development Sectoral strategies (e.g., for General Urban Plans Level Strategies public utilities) 20 Figure 3. Scope of current assessment Within scope • Strategies and plans guiding infrastructure investments • Supranational (EU 2020) • National (National Territorial Development Strategy, Government Program, National Sustainable Development Strategy, etc.) • Regional (Regional Development Plans, Regional Spatial Plans, County Development Strategies, County Spatial Plans, Regional Water and Wastewater Master Plans, etc.) • Local (Local Development Strategies, General Urban Plans) • Investment programs for hard infrastructure development • State-budget-funded (PNDL, Environment Fund) • EU-funded (ROP, PNDR, OP Environment/ OP Large Infrastructure) Beyond scope • Strategies that are outdated or not applicable • Strategies or plans for specific regions/counties/ localities • Strategies for soft measures (cross-sectoral and sectoral) • “Soft” investment programs (e.g., Operational Programme Human Capital, Operational Programme Administrative Capacity, etc.) • Specific projects financed by local/county authorities • ITI, CLLD • Horizontal coordination across jurisdictions 40. A number of related World Bank reports are cited throughout this study given close linkages and the need to focus the current assessment on value-add areas. If a particular topic has been covered by another recent analysis, this final report references it and presents its recommendations in brief. It is important to place the current report in the context of the current broader current engagement with the MRDPA, with the following relevant deliverables:  Component 1 – Assistance with the coordination of strategies and plans for EU and state-funded investments in infrastructure; o The other final report on PNDL prioritization criteria, due at the end of August 2015, discusses program and project-level mechanisms to prioritize investments. It includes recommendations on adopting evaluation and selection criteria that will encourage coordination in the three sectors (roads, water and wastewater, and water and sanitation) by defining lists of priority projects to both sort through the current portfolio and evaluate new proposals.  Component 2 – Advisory services related to the existing portfolio of investment projects in MRDPA, including their optimal prioritization and preparation of potential EU-funded investments for the 2014-2020 programming period; o The final report on “Prioritization Criteria for Improved PNDL Projects,” submitted on December 26, 2014, reviewed the full PNDL selection model and proposed improvements. By ensuring similar procedures across state- 21 budget and EU-funds, coordination is implicitly enhanced and projects prepared for national funding can potentially be transferred into the EU pipeline, if eligible. o The final report on the PNDL portfolio, due at the end of August 2015, will include a number of specific recommendations to improve proposals, along with the evaluation and selection procedures. Again, this would lead to a more coordinated process across state-budget-financed and EU-funded investment programs.  Component 3 – Assistance with improving the use of efficient designs and technologies in investments managed by the MRDPA; o This final report, due at the end of June 2015, will suggest improved technologies that may also help with the coordination of projects during the implementation phase. 41. In addition, a set of related assessments referenced by this report and highly relevant to the topic of infrastructure investments’ coordination include the following:  ROP 2.0: MA-IB Collaboration and Communication and Beneficiary Support Mechanisms for the Regional Operational Programme, 2014-2020 (World Bank, 2014) includes two reports that discuss the regional framework for planning and implementing public infrastructure investments, particularly through the Regional Operational Programme (ROP). The reports include an assessment of Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and offer recommendations for support mechanisms to local and county-level applicants and beneficiaries of EU funds, including assistance for improved coordination of investments.  Enhanced Spatial Planning (World Bank, 2013) evaluates the spatial planning framework in Romania and recommends solutions for enhancing coordination among lower and higher-level plans.  Strategic IDPs Assessment (World Bank, 2013) is an in-depth review of 2007-2013 Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) in growth poles around Romania. IDPs are key tools for facilitating integrated planning at the level of localities. The study summarizes current gaps and proposes measures for improving the quality of such documents, and also assesses the role of Growth Pole Coordinators.  Harmonizing Strategic Planning and Budgetary Programming in Romania (2015) reviews the national framework for developing, approving, and implementing strategies. The study is related to the potential establishment of a Strategy Unit (SU) at the Center of Government in Romania, a key proposal for ensuring coordination among strategies.  World Bank reports on CLLD and ITI Danube Delta make a number of recommendations for facilitating integrated planning and project implementation through these two new instruments promoted by the EU for 2014-2020.  Last but not least, the team working on the current engagement has coordinated closely with the World Bank team involved in the advisory services for the Ministry of Public Finance regarding public investment management . The two projects are 22 fully complementary and have been developed in close coordination between the two task teams. Audiences 42. The primary audience of the current report includes the staff of the Directorate General for Regional Development and Infrastructure (DG RDI) within the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration (MRDPA). Other key stakeholders who will benefit from this assessment include the following:  At the national level: o Ministries and agencies in charge of planning and implementing state- budget-funded interventions; o Managing Authorities and Intermediate Bodies of EU-funded programs;  At the regional level: Regional Development Agencies, which are in charge of regional-level planning and coordination, and could effectively play the role of liaison between the national and the county/local level;  At the county and local level: public authorities who prepare projects and submit applications to EU- and state-funded programs.  Finally, the European Commission (EC) may benefit from this study’s findings and replicate the recommendations in other Member States. The issue of effective coordination of infrastructure investments supported from different sources is present in other Member States too, as evidenced by the introduction of the community-led local development (CLLD) and integrated territorial investments (ITI) instruments for the 2014-2020 programming period, which are precisely meant to enable integrated projects with multi-fund financing. Methodology and Report Structure 43. Following this introduction, Chapter 1 defines the theoretical framework for assessing the coordination of public infrastructure investments in Romania. The specialized literature on this complex topic is relatively limited, despite the growing importance of the subject. This report adapts to the Romanian context the framework proposed by the OECD report on “Investing Together: Working Effectively across Levels of Government,” arguably the most comprehensive resource currently available on the issue of coordinating public infrastructure investments. The same chapter also reviews the available literature to summarize the benefits, common obstacles, and risks related to the coordination of public investments. 23 Figure 4. This report follows a logical structure: overview, diagnostic, recommendations Sector Overview Diagnostic Recommendations Overall system of public Enhanced coordination Current coordination mechanisms infrastructure investments mechanisms • Key players • Intra-sectoral coordination • Cross themes (enabling • Vertical (of strategies and environment) • Legal framework and plans) for: roads; water and • Trust vertical/horizontal institutional wastewater; and social • Accountability governance Infrastructure • Capacity • Information systems • Strategies • Horizontal (of investment • EU-level programs) for: roads; water • National level and wastewater; and social • Coordination Mechanisms • Sub-national level infrastructure • Intra-sectoral • Vertical • Investment programs • Inter-sectoral coordination • Horizontal • EU-funded • National level • State-budget-funded, • Regional level • Inter-sectoral including the PNDL (PNDL • Local level • National covered separately under • Regional Chapter 2) • Local Chapters 2 & 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 44. In accordance with the Advisory Services Agreement, Chapter 2 assesses the main types of investments managed by the MRDA through the Directorate General for Regional Development and Infrastructure (DG RDI) in particular. The analysis in part one of Chapter 2 describes the key phases of the project cycle and further focuses on the 2014 portfolio of projects under the National Local Development Program (PNDL), reviewing their split by: size, sector, implementation status (ongoing vs. new), and geographic location. The key point in assessing the PNDL is two-fold: (i) the program has expanded significantly with a number of new projects, requiring over 15 years to complete all investments currently in the portfolio (assuming no new ones enter the pipeline in that interval); and (ii) there are significant opportunities to improve coordination between the PNDL and other investment programs, particularly EU-funded instruments, both in terms of strategic programming and with respect to adopting harmonized implementation procedures. In addition, the PNDL is also the program that the MRDPA, as the main audience of this report, can adjust directly and make the most immediate improvements to the status quo. For all such reasons, the first part of Chapter II is dedicated to an in-depth review of the PNDL. The second part includes a brief analysis of other investment programs implemented by DG RDI: the program for thermal rehabilitation of apartment buildings; the program for social housing development; and the program for housing for people evacuated from nationalized homes. 45. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the roads, water and wastewater, and social infrastructure sectors in Romania, covering the following: key players, legal framework, 24 strategies, and investment programs. This chapter also includes an analysis of infrastructure investments implemented from the state budget by other ministries and/or national agencies. The methodology is similar to the one used to summarize the World Bank’s 2010-2011 functional reviews, including for the regional development sector. Much like the chapter preceding it, this analysis is primarily descriptive and meant to offer background information regarding the current framework governing infrastructure investments in Romania (i.e., who is doing what and with what funds). 46. In line with the Advisory Services Agreement, the team has chosen to focus on the same main sectors as the ones targeted by the MRDPA through the state-budget- funded PNDL. A large collection of materials was reviewed, from legislation to strategies (cross-sectoral and sectoral), extensive documentation of investment programs, etc. Part of the analysis entails an overview of what has already been done in the 2007-2013 programming period and attempts to determine to what extent investments have been properly coordinated. For example, the National Rural Development Program (PNDR) has financed water and wastewater investments that were not already covered under the SOP Environment 2007-2013. Similarly, the Regional Operational Programme 2007-2013 has financed Category A cultural heritage sites in rural areas, while the PNDR 2007-2013 has focused on Category B sites. Such coordination, however, does not apply to all operational programs and it is usually missing in the case of state-budget-funded programs. Observations from this desk review were supplemented field interviews with stakeholders at the central, regional, and local levels. 47. Chapter 4 builds on the overview provided in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 to conduct a full diagnostic of current mechanisms for coordinating public investments in Romania , in two parts: intra-sectoral and inter-sectoral coordination. Intra-sectoral coordination further discusses: (i) vertical coordination (across levels of government) of strategies and plans in the three sectors (roads, water and wastewater, and social infrastructure); and (ii) horizontal coordination across investment programs (managed by different units/ministries) – again, for each of the three aforementioned sectors. The second part, covering the inter-sectoral dimension, is divided into three sections, corresponding to the administrative levels where institutional mechanisms may exist or may need to be created to encourage coordination: national level, regional level, and county/local level. Under each of these, this report further covers: strategies and plans; investment programs; and infrastructure projects. The following is a sample of the critical questions asked as part of the Chapter 4 diagnostic:  How does coordination happen in the current Romanian context, within and across sectors?  What are the positive examples of coordination? How can they be replicated?  What are the main challenges to effective coordination – across administrative levels (vertically), across different actors and investment programs (horizontally), and across different phases (strategies, investment programs, and projects)?  What are the main strategies and plans and how do they fit together? How closely do various actors collaborate in the planning process? 25  Are objectives and eligible investments properly and effectively correlated across investment programs?  Who is accountable for (lack of) coordination?  What are the differences between the national, regional, and local levels as far as coordination mechanisms go?  Are investments properly and logically sequenced?  What are the main monitoring and evaluation (M&E) tools?  How are lessons learned collected, reviewed, and disseminated? 48. Chapter 5 includes a list of targeted strategies and specific action steps for improving the coordination of state-budget-funded and EU-funded investments. To keep the scope of the analysis manageable and to ensure that suggestions made are actionable, the report focuses primarily on: areas where significant gaps are observed; and measures that fall under the direct purview of the MRDPA. The chapter first discusses four fundamental conditions for coordination (the enabling environment) and then presents a set of recommendations for coordination mechanisms within and across sectors, mirroring the structure of the diagnostic, as presented above. 49. Chapter 6 provides a snapshot of the main targeted strategies and specific action steps for enhanced intra and inter-sectoral coordination. By adopting these proposals, two key objectives will be fulfilled by strengthening the coordination of strategies and plans for public investments: (i) state-budget-funded investments, including those managed by DG RDI, will better complement and buttress infrastructure investments made with EU funds, as well as other infrastructure investments made with public or private funds; and (ii) investments managed by DG RDI will help attain the objectives established by the regional operational program for the 2014-2020 programming period. 50. This final report is the result of an extensive research and analytical effort, involving a large variety of key sources and tools. In addition to public sources for all the strategic documents cited, the team has relied extensively on data provided by the MRDPA regarding the PNDL portfolio in 2014. Five missions were also organized in Romania at the national, regional, and local levels, involving interviews with key stakeholders that shape the coordination of public infrastructure investments. The following table summarizes the main sources of information leveraged under each chapter of this current study: Table 2. Each chapter of the report relies on all available sources Chapter Main Sources & Analytical Tools I. Theoretical Framework  Literature review  OECD typology for coordination of investments II. Investment Programs Managed by  Desk review of core legislative framework the General Directorate for Regional (Government Emergency Ordinance 28/2013, Development and Infrastructure MRDPA Ministry Order 1851/2013, etc.) 26 Chapter Main Sources & Analytical Tools  Quantitative analyses of data provided by the MRDPA regarding the 2014 portfolio of PNDL projects (initial portfolio and end-of-year portfolio. Note: Database is not fully complete. Some information (e.g., completion %) is missing for some projects.  Analysis of other investment programs implemented by DG RDI: the program for thermal rehabilitation of apartment buildings; the program for social housing development; and the program for housing for people evacuated from nationalized homes III. Overview of Key Infrastructure  Desk review of strategic documents at all levels Sectors (e.g., EU 2020 Strategy, Governing Program 2013- 2016, National Territorial Development Strategy, Regional Master Plans for Water and Wastewater, Local/County Development Strategies, etc.)  Desk review of legal framework governing each key sector (roads, water and wastewater, and social infrastructure)  Desk review of investment programs (programmatic documents), validated and/or adjusted through field interviews o EU-funded for 2007-2013 and for 2014- 2020 (in draft form, as of February 2015) o State-budget-funded (to the extent programmatic documents were available) IV. Diagnostic of Public Investments  Desk review of key documents (see sources under Coordination Mechanisms Chapter III)  Field interviews with: o National-level authorities that manage/oversee investment programs: the MRDPA, the Ministry of European Funds, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development o Regional-level institutions that have a role in coordinating investments (Regional 27 Chapter Main Sources & Analytical Tools Development Agencies for South Muntenia and Bucharest-Ilfov) o County and local-level authorities that design, implement, and coordinate public infrastructure projects V. Targeted Strategies and Specific  Desk review of key documents (see sources under Action Steps for Enhancing the Chapter III) Coordination of Public Infrastructure  Field interviews (same list as under Chapter IV) Investments  Case studies of international best practices VI. Summary of Targeted Strategies and Specific Action Steps 51. There are two caveats to the sources presented above. First, EU-funded operational programs for 2014-2020 are still in draft form at the time of this report’s writing. Until they are formally approved by the EU and then supplemented with Applicant Guides, including actual eligibility and selection criteria for each investment axis, key conditions may still change, including with respect to how these instruments coordinate with one another and with state-budget funds. Second, despite an extensive effort, some pieces of information were not successfully retrieved – particularly with respect to investment programs financed 100% from the state budget. In this regard, there is very little public information available (with the exception of PNDL), and some managers of infrastructure departments in central ministries were not available for interviews. To the extent possible, such gaps will be filled by the submission of the final report for Component 1 (due August 27, 2015). 52. Before going further, it is important to remember that this assessment comes at a particularly critical time: Romania is finalizing the framework that will guide how the country will spend EUR 40 billion through 2022. The following chapters therefore have the potential to contribute substantially to achieving greater impact through infrastructure projects, provided that MRDPA leadership and other key stakeholders in Romania engage deeply with this complex analysis, internalize it, and operationalize it. In that endeavor, two fundamental premises are that: (i) Romania’s development needs are much greater than available resources (as noted earlier); and (ii) enhanced coordination is critical to reduce inefficiencies, finalize optimal investments (and cut off unfeasible projects), and truly deliver sustainable and inclusive growth. 28 Chapter 1: The Theoretical Framework 53. The coordination of public investments has become a popular desideratum, particularly in recent years. Both scholars and policymakers agree that it is a good idea, for many reasons: cost efficiencies, enhanced impact, standardized monitoring & evaluation (M&E), etc. It is thus no surprise that the need to coordinate investments features prominently in a number of key strategies. A 2013 OECD report on this issue argues that “substantial coordination is necessary, and it is critical that subnational governments have the capacity to work collaboratively in designing and implementing investment projects.” 10 In the case of Romania, the EC Partnership Agreement (PA) for 2014-2020, which draws the overall directions for how available structural funds will be channeled over the next seven years, specifically notes: “The complementarities identified among ESI Funds require effective coordination during the planning and implementation of the ESI Funds in order to avoid the overlaps between actions.” 11 54. In general, however, the concept of coordination remains broadly stated and insufficiently anchored in specific goals and actions steps for public investments. Several important questions come to mind: What is coordination after all? Who is responsible for coordinating with whom? What does coordination require? What are the benefits and what are the costs? The current report cannot possibly address all these issues, so the purpose of the current chapter is to narrow the scope of this assessment to the issues that are truly critical for Romania at this point in its development, particularly with respect to the linkages between EU and state-budget programs and investments. 1.1 What Is Coordination? 55. Broadly speaking, coordination refers to the capacity of different stakeholders to work together for achieving specific goals. Coordination is never an end in of itself, but rather a means for reaching a specific purpose: in the context of this analysis, the aim is to design and implement projects that deliver maximum impact on Romania’s sustainable and inclusive development. As noted in the previous chapter, the focus is on basic infrastructure investments – roads, water and wastewater, and social infrastructure – that can create the conditions for all people to reach their productive potential and hence generate economic growth. 12 56. There are three core dimensions to coordination: vertical (across levels of government), horizontal (across different units at the same administrative level), and functional (across various phases). This typology can be further explained as follows:  Vertical coordination covers the relationships among the national, regional, and local administrative levels. At a minimum, each level needs to know what the 10 “Investing Together: Working Effectively across Levels of Government,” OECD, 2013, p. 13 11 See the “Partnership Agreement (PA) for Romania, 2014 -2020,” p. 207 12 For the full theoretical argument regarding the components of economic growth (people and productivity), see “Competitive Cities: Reshaping Romania’s Economic Geography,” World Bank, 2013. 30 others are doing or intend to do in terms of planned public investments. For example, the national level decides to build a highway that passes through a particular region, county, and commune; each of these actors should be informed and, ideally, actively engaged at each step.  Horizontal coordination includes relationships among actors at the same level – for the purposes of the current work, this includes coordination among investment programs managed by different units within a Ministry (e.g., the National Local Development Program and the Regional Operational Programme) or across Ministries. There is also horizontal coordination across jurisdictions, when two or more subnational authorities come together to design and implement investments. This second subtype is not a main focus on the current report, as it has been addressed in a range of other rec ent reports, particularly on “Enhanced Spatial Planning” and “Growth Poles: The Next Phase” (World Bank, 2013 ).  Functional coordination refers to the specific mechanisms required at each stage of a cycle: i.e., from planning through implementation (execution) and post- implementation. There is a cascade of planning steps that shape an investment, from national to sectoral strategies and to specific designs of investment programs. Further, the implementation phase involves the approval, financing, and completion of infrastructure projects. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) procedures help assess program and project performance and also enable the collection and dissemination of lessons learned. It goes without saying that coordination mechanisms vary greatly at each step in the process. Figure 5. Types of coordination at a glance Vertical Coordination National Level (among levels) Regional Level Local Level State-Budget- EU-Funded Funded Investment Investment Programs Programs Plan Implement Horizontal Coordination (among actors/programs) Monitor & Evaluate Functional Coordination (among phases) 31 The specialized literature and some policy circles may also consider other types of coordination, including transversal coordination (i.e., when a public education department in, say, a Ministry works together with a health unit under the purview of a local authority). For the sake of simplicity, this report only covers only the three aforementioned types. 1.2 Main Coordination Mechanisms 57. There is a long menu of coordination mechanisms deployed in countries around the world, and it is safe to say that there is no perfect recipe to be replicated in Romania. The following sections present various examples from established practices in OECD countries. 13 This is only a preview for subsequent chapters; recommendations of which types of mechanisms Romania could improve or adopt are only made in the final chapter. 58. There are three main types of coordination mechanisms across levels of government – i.e., vertically:  Dedicated platforms: These are institutional structures, formal or informal, that explicitly target coordination and bring together multiple stakeholders from the national, regional, and local levels. Dedicated platforms include not only bodies/committees/organizations that have coordination at the core of their mission, but also specific events that share the same purpose of enabling coordination (fora, conferences, online competition of ideas).  Co-financing mechanisms: Used widely for both EU-funded and state-funded programs, these tools ensure that multiple stakeholders have a stake in particular infrastructure projects. The presumption is that if a local authority contributes some of its own funds toward the completion of an investment, it will more likely coordinate with higher-level funders – be it the national government or the EU. Such requirements may also encourage subnational authorities to work with the private sector to fill the financing gap and coordinate actions in the completion of joint projects.  Conditionalities: These include clear eligibility and/or scoring criteria applied to certain funding sources (i.e., investment programs). A common requirement is for a proposed (local) project to be included in a (higher-level) local/regional development strategy. In the water and wastewater sector, for instance, EU funds prioritize investments that are included in the Master Plans. This ensures that high- level policy goals are adopted by lower-level authorities and reflected in the projects they put forth. There is of course a tension between hard top-down conditionalities and the subsidiarity principle of allowing local governments to address the needs on the ground they are presumed to know best. But there is still value in ensuring that local investments contribute to national and regional-level objectives set by the government. This is why consultations are critical in designing investment programs, so that investment programs’ conditionalities reflect a mix of bottom-up inputs and top-down priorities. 13 See “Investing Together: Working Effectively across Levels of Government,” OECD, 2013 32 59. As for horizontal coordination across sectors , this typically happens through the following mechanisms:  Dedicated platforms: Similar to the concept under vertical coordination, these platforms can focus on multiple sectors. Obviously, the more sectors are covered, the more complicated coordination becomes. Many cross-sectoral bodies, including in Romania (e.g., the Interinstitutional Committee for the Partnership Agreement – CIAP) split into sector-based working groups. Such instruments are particularly useful for programming purposes, with the mission of ensuring complementarity of investments. There are also inter-ministerial committees for approving and coordination interventions.  Conditionalities: As for vertical coordination, some investment programs are designed, ex-ante, to encourage integrated projects across multiple sectors. In Romania, the National Rural Development Programme 2007-2013 funded many proposals that included both water and sanitation systems and road rehabilitation. The new EU instruments on Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI) and Community-Led Local Development (CCLD) are dedicated coordination instruments meant to encourage complementarities across sectors. 14  Local-level procedures and practices: At the project level, most of the coordination efforts need to happen under the leadership of the main “beneficiary” of investment funding – i.e., a local or county council in Romania. Different authorities have experienced with various coordination practices, some ad hoc (practices) and others systematic (procedures). An example is the mayor of a major city in the middle of Romania who brought around the table all providers of public utility services (gas, electricity, water, sewage, district heating) and established with a two year lead time a common program sequencing investments. Such practices and procedures can help avoid inefficiencies resulting from, say, utility providers damaging a newly rehabilitated road to work on their distribution networks. 60. While it is not a key focus area for the current work, horizontal coordination across jurisdictions can also rely on specific coordination mechanisms. These include: conditionalities (e.g., investment programs rewarding projects submitted in partnership between multiple authorities, fiscal incentives for coordination and/or merger of local government units, etc.); and legal provisions (e.g., easiness of joining and/or merging into a single association/unit). 61. Last but not least, there is one instrument worth exploring in the future; it brings together both vertical and horizontal coordination – i.e., territorial contracts between national and subnational authorities. Different countries have different names for this: contracts, agreements, pacts, etc. This is not to be confused with contracts for individual projects between, say, a Ministry serving as the Managing Authority of an EU-Funded program and a local authority as beneficiary of the grant. Territorial contracts involve stakeholders from public, private, and nonprofit sectors, usually at a regional level. They include a vision for that particular territory, with goals, activities (projects), and 14Because there are already existing World Bank studies regarding both instruments and their applicability in Romania, this report does not cover ITI or CLLD in depth. 33 performance (output, outcome, and impact) indicators. They can be purely transactional, driving financial allocations through a series of positive incentives and/or sanctions (e.g., the Netherlands); or relational, trust-based. Most importantly, territorial contracts have the potential to account for both state-budget and EU funds, setting priority projects and “dividing them up” between financing sources of various kinds. Annex F presents the Polish experience with territorial contracts. Figure 6. Examples of vertical and horizontal coordination mechanisms Vertical Coordination Horizontal Coordination …across levels of government …across sectors and/or jurisdictions Dedicated platforms Dedicated platforms (explicit mandate to coordinate) (explicit mandate to coordinate) Conditionalities Conditionalities (positive incentives/negative sanctions) (positive incentives/negative sanctions) Co-financing mechanisms Local-level procedures Territorial contracts* (single instrument for both vertical and horizontal coordination) * Territorial contracts are beyond the scope of the current report, though they may be worth exploring as part of the upcoming August 27 final report. See Annex F. Note: Adapted based on “Investing Together: Working Effectively across Levels of Government,” OECD, 2013 1.3 Why Coordinate Public Investments? 62. There are two reasons for which governments should put coordination at the core of their efforts to achieve complementarity in infrastructure investments: to reduce costs and to increase benefits. In resource-constrained environments, particularly after the financial crisis, it has become vital to deliver the most impact possible with the least funds available. Especially when it comes to infrastructure projects, costs tend to run high – and, often times, much higher than what the typical tools estimate (e.g., cost-benefit analyses). 15 For example, if two or more different authorities are implementing investment 15 See Bent Flyvberg, “Survival of the Unfittest: Why the Worst Infrastructure G ets Built and What We Can Do about It,” Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Volume 25, Issue 3, pp. 344- 367. 34 programs that have the same goals and target the same beneficiaries, it is likely that they are duplicating their efforts and, hence, missing out on cost-saving opportunities through consolidation of operations. The same goes for beneficiaries who, for a variety of reasons, choose to finance their infrastructure projects through more expensive funding sources (e.g., state budget funds instead of EU structural funds). 63. By the same token, lack of coordination implies failure to leverage synergies across different investments . For instance, if a new school or hospital gets built, the road connecting to it should also be rehabilitated. If a county finances a particular county road, the neighboring authorities may want to consider financing a county road that connects to that investment. In some cases, it may make better sense to connect to the next commune’s water and sanitation network than to build a new syste m from scratch. Another common situation refers to utility companies destroying a newly paved road to put in or replace different underground networks. The examples could go on and on, but the simple point is that coordination makes the whole greater than the sum of the parts. Put differently, any government that seeks to do more with less should strongly consider placing coordination of public investments front and center on its policy agenda. 64. The need to coordinate is inescapable in many ways – vertically and horizontally . Regarding the former dimension, very few local governments have the capacity to support the investments they need entirely from their own funds, especially in countries that have not decentralized fully. Based on prudent capital expenditure margins, more than three in four communes in Romania can only afford to rehabilitate one road and one school. 16 Local government units (LGUs) simply do not have the financial and human resources needed to fulfill the basic infrastructure needs of local communities, so other actors needs to intervene to fill the gap – regional authorities (in countries where regions have formal administrative powers, which is not yet the case in Romania), the national government (through a variety of state-budget-funded programs), or supranational authorities like the European Union. As for horizontal coordination, very few investments depend on a single sector: roads cross railroads and power lines, wastewater treatment plants influence the quality of water bodies, schools and hospitals function well only if there is sufficient demand for their services and hence proper connectivity with people in surrounding areas, etc. The simple but important point is that proper coordination of public investments is a must in any policy context. 65. This is not to say that coordination is a given – quite the contrary. Coordination is challenging, time consuming, and potentially frustrating. In economic terms, coordination implies transaction costs so, ceteris paribus, the beneficiary of a particular investment will choose to coordinate only when the perceived benefits will exceed the costs. The figure below makes precisely this point: the larger (and the more important) an investment (as a percentage of the beneficiary’s budget), the more its successful completion will depend on others, so the more necessary it will be to coordinate across administrative levels (vertically) and across sectors (horizontally). It is also true that coordination is not always possible. For example, when the value of a proposed investment is small and can be fully 16 See report corresponding to Component 2 of the current World Bank engagement with the MRDPA: “Improved Prioritization Criteria for PNDL Projects,” World Bank, 2015 35 covered from a local government’s budget, higher administrative levels may have no options to incentivize coordination. For all other situations, however, the achievable goal for the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration and the Government of Romania is, therefore, to push to the left the upward sloping curve represented in the figure, i.e., making it easier for stakeholders to coordinate with one another (regardless of the value of the proposed investment). Figure 7. The difficulty of coordination depends on the value of the proposed investment • Benefits of coordination exceed the costs • Large investments (as % of budget) may not happen w/o higher-level funding High • High interdependencies likely • EU funds more competitive than state-budget- funds Point of indifference Need to (benefits=costs) coordinate • Costs of coordination exceed the benefits • Small investments (as % of budget) may be financed from own sources • Low interdependencies likely • State-budget funds more “competitive” than EU funds Low Small Large Value of proposed investment as % of beneficiary’s own budget 1.4 Common Obstacles to Coordination 66. If coordination was an easy task, everyone would be doing it perfectly; in practice, there are many obstacles to effective coordination . By definition, coordination involves multiple different actors, each with its own agenda and interests. There are often silos within the same public authorities or even within sub-units of that authority, let alone across public institutions or across public/private/nonprofit stakeholders. A review of the literature, corroborated with insights from interviews and field visits, leads to the following list of typical challenges to effective coordination, which will further inform the subsequent analysis in Romania. There are four main interrelated gaps to consider:  (1) Lack of trust : It is important to remember that coordination always occurs between people – not between amorphous institutions or sectors. This is why building a culture of collaboration is quintessential for instilling coordination as a purpose of individual and collective relationships. But public sector institutions are often dominated by mistrust, particularly in a context where every change in government leads to massive turnover not just at the top leadership level, but also at the technical level. Trust is hard to build and equally easy to erode. 36  (2) Lack of accountability: Coordination is more likely to happen when it is part of an explicit mandate for an organization and for its staff. In the words of one expert interviewed, “to coordinate, one must first aim to coordinate . ” If nobody is accountable for lack of coordination and its results (e.g., inefficient investments, failed project implementation, etc.), it is not surprising that there is no significant progress toward improved collaboration. Box. 1. Coordination is likely to fail in the absence of real trust and ownership Government Decision (GD) 750/2005 aimed to substitute more than 100 inter-ministerial committees and working groups – organized on ad-hoc basis for specific, narrow issues – with a coherent system of a limited number of permanent inter-ministerial councils (e.g., for Administration, Civil Service, Decentralization, and Local Communities; Strategic Planning; Regional Development, Territorial Planning, and Tourism, etc.). The structure was to enable coordination among coalition partners (usually in Romania there are multiple governing parties) and mirrored some of the EU-level bodies. The main motivation at the time was precisely to encourage coordination, stability, and predictability of policies. For all its good intentions, GD 750/2005 ultimately failed, as the newly established councils did not function properly. The reasons are complex, but have to do in large part with a lack of trust and ownership of individual ministries (the members sitting on the permanent councils). Traditionally, ministers and their representatives have preferred to maintain decision authority over certain legal acts and policy proposals, and hence do not wholeheartedly enter in a process of coordination and collective decision-making. To this day, ad-hoc committees in Romania continue to abound, though they do not typically produce substantial results. Even when different ministries agree to sit at the same table, a committee’s endorsement is never sufficient; each ministry has to issue its own endorsement of particular policies/projects (e.g., Inter-Ministerial Committee on investment projects over RON 30 million, established thr ough GD 150/2010).  (3) Lack of capacity: This is a typical issue for many subnational authorities and goes hand in hand with lack of funding. The personnel is usually understaffed, underpaid, and overworked. Their work plan is dominated by urgent priorities like managing projects, responding to citizen requests, producing local development strategies and other key, time-sensitive documents, answering to audits, etc. Even where “coordination” is explicitly part of the mandate, staff can easily put it aside as a non-urgent priority; chances are that it never gets done under these circumstances, hence the need to have adequate human capital management policies.  (4) Lack of information: The local level does not always know what the priorities are for the regional/national levels and vice versa. Information flows are weak, ad-hoc, or nonexistent. Authorities at different levels inform each other only when required to, usually late in the project cycle: for instance, a local council may inform a ministry of its plans only when it requires a permit for an investment that is ready to be implemented; by the same token, a national ministry may not properly engage or inform lower-level actors regarding its policy priorities and investment program. Information is also vital for effective M&E systems. As the old saying goes, one cannot manage what one does not measure. 37 In truth, such issues are not singular to Romania, as reflected in the figure below, which summarizes the results of an OECD survey on public investment governance in 22 member countries. As the next chapters show, however, the magnitude of the issue of lack of coordination and its consequences are particularly noteworthy in the Romanian context . This is ultimately the primary motivation for this in-depth report on coordination of public infrastructure investments. Figure 8. OECD Member States perceptions regarding coordination of public investments Source: “Investing Together: Working Effectively across Levels of Government,” OECD, 2013 1.5 Potential Risks of “Over-Coordination” 67. “Over-coordination” may be preferable to too litt le coordination, but there are still some risks to this scenario, which policymakers should keep in mind before moving forward with an aggressive “coordination agenda .” First, a strong push toward more coordination may lead to excessive bureaucratization in the absence of clearly defined goals and procedures. A common example is the establishment of committees on various topics of interest, involving a variety of stakeholders (different ministries, local/regional/national actors, etc.). In theory, such instruments can serve as an optimal forum for ensuring collaboration and exchanges of ideas. In practice, however, they often lack: a clear mandate, sufficient resources, and consistency over time. Usually one authority is tasked with ensuring the secretariat for such bodies, though this additional responsibility does not come with additional resources. The staff of the secretariat takes on the new role halfheartedly, which then translates into poorly prepared meeting agendas, insufficient follow-up, etc. Under such conditions, participants to meetings – if such meetings do happen somewhat regularly and if participants actually attend – may quickly come to believe that they are not using their time efficiently. They start delegating to lower levels and, eventually, the committees lose their core raison d’etre . Such outcomes are particularly likely in environments where there is no real sense of ownership behind coordination efforts – i.e., they may be pursued halfheartedly to show that some “coordination” is happening, but in reality there is not much substance to the process. 38 68. Challenges also arise when a system is over-engineered to favor coordination. A typical scenario involves an investment program managed by the national or regional level, targeting local authorities. To encourage integrated planning, the program includes special incentives (e.g., bonus points) for proposing projects that reinforce each other. For example, one mayor submits for consideration a water supply project along with the rehabilitation of the main roads in the commune. The proposal gets selected and receives financing, but when it comes to implementation the two projects cannot be properly correlated. Suppose the water project gets delayed at the public procurement phase, but the road is ready for implementation. The mayor is then faced with a tough choice: postpone the road project (and lose risking financing for it) until the water project is ready; or rehabilitate the road and later damage it when putting in the water supply pipes. 17 Similarly, an investment program may wish to encourage local authorities to submit joint proposals, but the supporting legislation may still have gaps that make implementation difficult (e.g., lead beneficiary vs. partner obligations, audit and control procedures, etc.). 69. In a famous book on public administration, “Extreme Government Makeover,” Ken Miller uses the metaphor of an old house with a rusted, twisted, leaky system of pipes. The “house” is a generic government agency, with a “plumbing system” that may have once been functional but now can no longer properly circulate incoming water (people’s requests for different services). The more twisted the pipes, the longer the water has to flow through them, the more people have to wait for government services, as opposed to submitting their request through a simple, straight-shooting pipe. As Miller puts it, pipes get kinked up by multiple rounds of specialization, reorganizations, cost- cutting, outsourcing, and the general fear of responsibility – “and now they’re so twisted and slow, it makes a silly straw look efficient.” 18 The solution is neither blocking the water from entering the pipes, nor having people wait for “deliverables” longer and longer. The solution is to straighten the pipes so that more water flows through as quickly and efficiently as possible. As they design coordination mechanisms, policymakers need to keep in mind the risk of adding pipes or twisting existing ones, slowing down even further the design and implementation of infrastructure projects in Romania. 70. The aforementioned challenges are valid and real, but the key point is that they have to more to do with the absence of an enabling environment than with coordination itself. Again, ceteris paribus, coordination is inherently positive and desirable. But when forced upon a policy context that misses any or all of the four key elements listed above – capacity, information, procedures, and purpose – it may very well backfire and actually undermine the ability of public institutions to properly plan and implement infrastructure projects. 17 Such situations have actually occurred in Romania under the National Rural Development Program (PNDR), as explained in later chapters 18 Ken Miller, “Extreme Government Makeover,” p. 17 39 Chapter 2: Investment Programs Managed by the General Directorate for Regional Development and Infrastructure This chapter reviews the main investment programs managed by the General Directorate for Regional Development and Infrastructure (DG RDI). The assessment focuses primarily on the National Local Development Program (PNDL). The other programs managed by the MRDPA are discussed in more detail under Component 4 of the current technical assistance program: “Assisting in Housing and Infrastructure Development Strategy.” The National Local Development Program (PNDL) 71. In the endeavor to enhance the coordination of public infrastructure projects in Romania, the National Local Development Program (PNDL) plays a critical role. The PNDL is currently the largest source of state-budget investment financing for local and county authorities’ infrastructure projects. Given that few subnational actors have sufficient own resources to fully finance their basic needs – with the possible exception of Bucharest and other major cities – local/county decision-makers that pursue infrastructure projects are left with the choice of applying for EU funds or state-budget funds (primarily the PNDL, although a few other separate programs like the Environment Fund continue to exist). It is important to recognize from the beginning that the two sources of funding have very different characteristics and show significant coordination gaps. This chapter provides an analysis of the PNDL and the main types of investments carried out by the program. 19 72. In April 2013, the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration (MRDPA) initiated the National Local Development Program (PNDL) and, to this end, promoted Government Emergency Ordinance (GEO) 28/2013. Along with its formal justification (“notă de fundamentare”) and the Methodological Norms for its application (Ministry Order 1851/2013), this act sets the PNDL’s design and implementation framework. The Directorate General for Regional Development and Infrastructure (DG RDI) within the MRDPA was tasked with managing the program. 73. The need for improved coordination was at the core of the government’s motivation for establishing the PNDL, which brought together under the MRDPA’s single management three investment programs that had operated independently in the past:  The infrastructure program based on Government Decision (GD) 577/1997 targeted the modernization of communal roads and connecting villages to water supply, sanitation systems, and electric and phone networks. Before its integration under PNDL, this program was managed by the MRDPA (formerly the MRDT) through the Public Works Directorate. County councils played a main role by centralizing 19 Part of this analysis is also included in the intermediary and final reports for Component 2 of this technical assistance with the MRDPA. It is featured here as background to the issue of coordination among state-budget (PNDL) and EU funds. 40 funding requests from all potential beneficiaries in the county and communicating them to the MRDPA.  The Rural Infrastructure Development Program, based on Government Ordinance (GO) 7/2006, also aimed at the “development and modernization of Romania’s rural areas, […] by connecting them to roads and water and waste water networks.”20 In its initial form, this program was managed by a Commission, presided by the Prime Minister and bringing together representatives of 6 ministries, the Prime Minister’s Chancellery, and the Association of Romanian Communes. The Ministry of Transport was responsible for monitoring the program’s implementation.  Multiannual Priority Programs for Water and the Environment, based on GO 40/2006, defined specific intervention sectors in certain geographical areas (for example, “water and wastewater infrastructure for the Criș river basin, Vaslui County, and the municipality of Ploiești”). 21 Other projects targeted varied interventions, from increasing the safety of river dams to developing an integrated IT system for the environment sector and the sustainable development of the Danube Delta biosphere. 22 As noted by the government, this change was intended “to enable a more efficient use of public funds through an integrated implementation of infrastructure development programs in rural and urban are as.”23 Indeed, it makes sense that central government programs with the same target intervention areas would be merged under a single design and implementation unit – i.e., the MRDPA. As emphasized publicly by the MRDPA, the PNDL was never meant as a successor to the now-closed PNDI, which was based on a financing scheme whereby contractors would finance the cost of the project and get reimbursed upon completion. Still, PNDL norms make it possible that other projects previously started receive financing to finish the required works, provided that such investments are aligned with PNDL priorities and eligibility rules. 2.1 The PNDL Project Cycle 74. To begin with, there is no formal strategy specific to the PNDL. At the time of its launch, the PNDL was an importa nt expression of the new cabinet’s commitment to the development of rural infrastructure, as reflected in the 2013-2016 Governing Program (as approved by Parliament through decision 45/2012). For example, one of the key objectives for Romania’s regional development is defined as the financing of a basic package of services for rural areas, including roads, drinking water, sanitation, social infrastructure etc., “for achieving [at least] minimum standards of living.” 24 The same document further 20 See Article 3 of GO 7/2006 21 See Article 2, letter (c) of GO 40/2006 22 Moreover, GEO 28/2013 establishing the PNDL also dismantled the “Program for the Rehabilitation and Upgrade of 10,000km of County and Local Roads.” The reason mentioned by the formal justification note is that the program had not received funding a nd thus had not financed any investment projects since its establishment in 2010. 23 See the formal justification note to GEO 28/2013 24 See 2013-2016 Governing Program, Chapter 10 on “Development and Administration” 41 emphasizes the need to prioritize public infrastructure projects to contribute to Romania’s sustainable, balanced development. 25 Other than these broad commitments, there are no defined policy priorities and objectives for the PNDL. The program’s strategic framework is broad enough to accommodate a variety of projects, without hard constraints around what to finance and in what proportion. 75. The PNDL focuses primarily on roads, water, and sewage projects, but other types of investments (e.g., social infrastructure, cultural sites, sports centers, etc.) can also be eligible for financing . Article 7 in the GEO describes the list of intervention areas (similar to “axes” of EU-funded programs):  Water supply systems and drinking water treatment plant;  Sewage systems (networks) and wastewater treatment plant;  Education units (kindergartens, primary and secondary schools, high schools, etc.);  Healthcare units in rural areas (clinics, pharmacies, etc.);  Public roads (i.e., county roads, local interest roads, commune roads and/or public roads within localities);  Bridges, culverts, and/or footbridges;  Local cultural facilities, such as libraries, museums, multi-functional cultural centers, and theaters;  Landfills;  Public, commercial markets, fairs, cattle fairs, as applicable;  Sports facilities; and  Headquarters of local public authorities and other subordinated public institutions. 26 The types of eligible works include construction of new infrastructure, as well as extension, rehabilitation, and upgrading of existing infrastructure. Essentially, through such broad conditions, the PNDL is able to cover the MRDPA’s entire vast portfolio of projects – both previously-financed interventions (at various stages of completion) and brand new investments, by all types of local public beneficiaries (from local councils in communes and cities to county councils). 76. Based on the budget allocation among ministries, as agreed at the government level and approved by Parliament, the MRDPA establishes the PNDL’s total annual budget. Next, the MRDPA allocates sums for each county, sub-program, and specific areas of intervention, based on a Ministerial Order. The criteria for allocating sums across counties are described in Annex 2 to the PNDL Methodological Norms. 27 In short, the three main types of criteria that shape the allocation of PNDL funds from the national to the county level are based on ongoing (unfinished) projects (number and funding needs), demographic data (county population and surface area), and financial capacity. 77. While the PNDL norms include some indicators to decide on the funding allocation for each county, the methodology shows much room for improvement. For 25 Ibid. 26 The last category (i.e., headquarters of public institutions) was introduced through GEO 30/2014 27 See Box 2 42 one, the law is not clear which of the three main criteria are factored into the funding allocation, merely noting that “at least one of [them] should be considered.” 28 Second, there are no defined weights for individual criteria or for sub-criteria within the main categories (e.g., number of ongoing projects vs. their funding needs). Third, it is unclear how certain indicators would be measured in practice, particularly the administrative- territorial units’ capacity to co-finance investment projects. One proxy that could be used would be non-earmarked revenues as a share of total revenues, 29 in the absence of clear commitments (e.g., local/county council decisions to co-finance particular investments). Finally, other potentially relevant indicators are missing. For example, the PNDL does not seem to take into account a county’s development level, measured as GDP per capita (as used for the Regional Operational Programme in deciding the split across Romania’s eight planning regions). 78. It is worth highlighting that final decisions regarding the PNDL’s allocation of funding belong entirely to the MRDPA. In this process, it is presumed that the Ministry makes use of county-level data, provided either directly by county/local authorities or by other central bodies (e.g., the Ministry of Finance). Once it makes a decision on the anticipated funding allocation, the MRDPA communicates it to county councils. Based on these expectations, county councils further interact with local authorities to begin making a list of investments that may be financed through the PNDL. Based on data available at this point, it is unclear whether at this stage the MRDPA decides only on the funding allocation per county or goes beyond that. Article 8 of GEO 28/2013 implies the latter: specifically, “the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration shall prepare and approve by order of the Minister of Regional Development and Public Administration the distribution of the amounts intended to the Program, per counties, per each sub-program, and per specific areas of intervention.” 30 It is equally unclear if the MRDPA pre-selects investment projects to be included in the PNDL, as implied by Article 9 (3), as opposed to putting together the list of investments based on inputs from local and county authorities, as implied by Article 9 (4) and by the Methodological Norms. 79. In any case, at the beginning of 2014, the funding allocation was roughly equivalent across counties – around EUR 5 to EUR 5.7 million. On the one hand, this demonstrates the MRPDA’s commitment to making the PNDL funds available to authorities in all parts of Romania. On the other hand, the outcome may suggest that there is no clear prioritization of investments based on counties’ different characteristics. By contrast, the ROP 2007-2013 and 2014-2020 (in draft form, as of August 2014), for example, made specific commitments to less developed areas, allocating significantly larger shares of funding particularly to the North-East, South-East, and South Regions. 28 Methodological Norms for applying GEO 28/2013, MRDPA Minister Order 1851/2013 29 For a detailed explanation of this methodology, see the 2014 World Bank report on “Identificatio n of Project Selection Models for the Regional Operational Programme 2014-2020” 30 See GEO 28/2013 43 Box 2. Allocation criteria for the PNDL budget “For the balanced distribution of funds to counties, at least one of the following indicators should be considered: (1) Weight of number of ongoing investment projects for each county, based on:  The number of ongoing investment projects for each county as a share of total ongoing investments at the national level;  The funding needs for completing the investment projects started and not completed as a share of the total funding needs for completing the investment projects started and not completed at national level. (2) Demographic and administrative-territorial data of counties, considering:  The weight of the number of administrative-territorial units in the county as a share of the total number of administrative-territorial units at the national level;  The weight of the county population as a percentage of the total population of the country;  The weight of the county area as a percentage of the total area of the country. (3) Administrative-territorial units’ financial capacity , considering the share of units’ capacity to participate with funds from the local budget for achieving investment objectives.” Source: PNDL Methodological Norms (MRDPA Minister Order 1851/2013) 80. Once the MRDPA decides on the indicative PNDL funding allocation for each county, county councils put together the list of projects proposed at the county and local level – both new and ongoing/unfinished investments. 31 To this end, local authorities submit their proposals to county councils or, “in justified circumstances,” directly to the MRDPA, as recently mandated by Article 3 of GEO 30/2014 and MRDPA Minister Order 919/2014. It is unclear what situation would qualify as “justified.” The PNDL Methodological Norms include a clear template for project proposals, which applies to both new and ongoing investments. 32 This asks for: the name of the project; the name of the applicant/local authority; the location of the project; main physical characteristics; total value of the investment; total value of eligible costs to be financed from the PNDL; data regarding the design contract (contract ID number, value, etc.); and, for ongoing investments, the data regarding the construction works, the percentage of the project completed to date, and the deadline for project completion. 81. Next, county councils have 15 days to send to the MRDPA the list of proposed investments, based on Annex 3 of the PNDL Methodological Norms. Essentially, this is a table listing the projects proposed for financing through the program in a particular year, divided up by new and ongoing investments, and further by sub-program (i.e., “the modernization of the Romanian village,” “urban regeneration of municipalities and towns,” and “county-level infrastructure”). The list of proposed investments has to be accompanied 31 See Article 9 (4). 32 See Annex 2 of the PNDL Methodological Norms. 44 by a justification note explaining how each county council decided to prioritize projects submitted by local authorities. 82. Under the current PNDL framework, county councils prioritize project proposals from local authorities within their jurisdiction based on four possible criteria, out of which “at least one should be used”:  Signing date of the goods/work/service contract, as applicable;  Physical status (% complete);  Population benefitting from the investment; and  Local budget’s percentage of co-financing. 83. As with the PNDL’s criteria for allocating funds between counties, the current prioritization criteria for selecting interventions within counties are broad and ambiguous. This means that county councils have significant leverage to decide how to prioritize investments in their jurisdiction. In their current form, the methodological norms do not require county councils to use all four criteria, but merely to choose one out of the four listed above. This may mean that a county could decide solely based on the number of beneficiaries, while another could only look at the signing date of the contract. At the same time, it is unclear how a particular criterion should be deployed: for example, would a project with an older signing date take precedence over a newer one, or the other way around? Also, how should a local authority measure the population benefitting from a specific investment, say a local road that connects to a national road? It could be just the population of a commune or the population of a much larger area (e.g., within 20, 40, or even 60 minutes of the locality). Additionally, there are no defined weights among criteria. Interviews with county council representatives revealed that there is no standard approach to how investments are selected and prioritized. 84. These findings suggest that there are significant opportunities to enhance transparency and rigor by aligning PNDL procedures and criteria with those applicable to EU-funded programs. Otherwise, there is a significant risk of crowding out EU investments, as potential beneficiaries will choose the PNDL for its more “flexible” framework. A t a minimum, the government should make sure that the same rules and procedures apply to all PNDL applicants and that financing criteria are inclusively designed, transparently communicated, and consistently adhered to. 85. Based on the lists received from county councils across Romania, the MRDPA makes the final selection of projects that receive PNDL funding in a given year. Once again, the methodological norms do not define a clear, transparent selection process. The final selection is to be based on the proposals received from county councils, as well as on “[the Ministry’s] own data and specialized assessments.” 33 It is unclear what data are deployed in such evaluations. The same document notes that the selection is done exclusively by the MRDPA if county councils do not abide by the 15-day timeline or if they fail to prioritize investments based on at least one of the four criteria specified in the law. The finalized list of interventions is approved through the MRDPA’s Minister Order, 33 PNDL Methodological Norms, Article 9 (8). 45 including an annex with the full set of projects (for each of them, the annex simply notes the name of the administrative-territorial unit, the name of the project, and the sum channeled from the state budget). 86. There are slightly different requirements for applicants with ongoing vs. new projects. For the former, local authorities need to send to the MRDPA the documents that show the project’s current phase of completion, the updated value of remaining expenses to be incurrent for the finalization of the intervention, and public procurement contracts that have been signed previously, including addenda, if any. Upon verification of such documents, the process can move forward to the contracting phase. 87. For new investment projects, beneficiaries are required to submit to the MRDPA the corresponding technical documentation. In most cases, this refers to feasibility studies for new interventions or the documentation for approving intervention works (DALI 34 ) for existing infrastructure. Feasibility studies and DALIs are not eligible for reimbursement through the PNDL and have to have been developed through the applicant’s own resources, in accordance with the regulations set by GD 28/2008. GEO 28/2013 also notes that the documentation must prove that the proposed projects abide by the applicable cost standards. However, cost standards are provided only for county roads, communal roads, and for water projects. No cost standards are provided for wastewater projects, as these are considered to require quite different technical solutions from case to case. 35 88. It is worth noting that local authorities who seek to access PNDL funds do not submit formal applications that are comparable to the complex documents required by EU-funded programs. The bulk of an “application” is the technical documentation corresponding to the proposed project – i.e., the feasibility study and/or the detailed technical design. In field interviews, PNDL beneficiaries express satisfaction with the current system’s simplicity and relatively quick processing of applications. In effect, under the current system, requiring a formal form with categories similar to those included in applications for EU funds – e.g., “project relevance for strategic objectives,” “economic impact,” “technical features,” “social/environmental impact,” etc. – would not add much value. This is because the actual prioritization and, essentially, the “preselection” of projects happen at the level of county councils. The MRDPA only verifies that submitted proposals are in accordance with a set of criteria – it is more of an eligibility check than a thorough technical and financial evaluation. This is not to say that the technical-economic data related to the project is not assessed by MRDPA evaluators, but only that projects that make it thus far generally go through contracting. Even if a proposal initially fails the check, MRDPA staff recommends the necessary improvements to beneficiaries, enabling projects to move to the next phases (pending the successful resolution of suggested changes). 89. Recently, changes were introduced to the PNDL’s methodological norms to increase the efficiency of assessing and approving new project proposals. Until June 2014, 34 “Documentație de Avizare a Lucrărilor de I nterventii” (Documentation for the Approval of Intervention Works). 35 In practice, MRDPA technical staff use a simple rule of thumb for benchmarking sanitation projects, namely that they should not exceed 1.5 times the cost of equivalent water projects. 46 the technical documentation would be first assessed by DG RDI within the MRDPA and then sent to the Ministry’s Technical-Economic Council (TEC). Without the TEC’s formal approval, projects would not be eligible for financing. Citing the low capacity of the TEC to assess proposals and the long delays incurred in the process, the MRDPA eliminated this step through Ministry Order 1851/2013. Currently, new projects pre-approved for financing through the PNDL only go through an assessment by the technical unit of the DG RDI, which primarily evaluates the following:  whether the technical documentation is complete and in accordance with GD 28/2008;  whether the applicant’s folder includes the local/county council’s decision for approving the project’s technical-economic indicators and for ensuring the required co-financing;  whether the expenditures are properly presented and do not exceed current cost standards. 90. Once the contract between the MRDPA and local authorities is signed, actual project implementation can commence. The exact stages will depend on whether the project is new or ongoing. In the former case, the beneficiary of PNDL funds will have to organize public procurement procedures, in line with the applicable legislation (OUG 34/2006). In some cases, these procedures take a long time – due to challenges in court, lack of offers, or other reasons specific to each project – which may aggravate the risk of not using up the funds allocated for a particular year. This is because the PNDL is not a multi-annual program like an EU-funded instrument, which creates inherent incentives for applicants to submit for consideration smaller, easier projects that can be carried out in 1-2 years. If the project is ongoing and construction work has already begun in a previous year (through the PNDL or a different program), depending on a case-by-case basis, the beneficiary may continue previous engagement with service providers and contractors. 91. Payments and reimbursements are critical factors for a smooth, successful implementation. Based on the methodological norms (Articles 16-17), beneficiaries submit reimbursement requests first to county councils, which then submit a consolidated request for each county to the MRDPA. This system was then changed to allow beneficiaries to request funds directly from the MRDPA, essentially simplifying the process by eliminating a step. Some county councils report, however, that local city halls sometimes fail to send them a copy of reimbursement requests sent to the Ministry, thus requiring repeated requests to keep them in the loop. According to county council staff interviewed, they want to remain involved to be able to coordinate and monitor the implementation process in their respective jurisdiction, as required by the PNDL implementation norms. Once it approves the requests received, the Ministry channels the funds – within the set annual limits and based on the proofs/documents receive d (“situații de lucrări”) – directly to beneficiaries. Finally, beneficiaries send back to the MRDPA the proof of payment of service providers (i.e., showing that the funds received were used for the intended purpose). 92. In addition, beneficiaries are responsible for monitoring work progress and reporting updates to county councils and the MRDPA. The flow of reports is similar to the initial one presented above for financing requests: local beneficiaries send all documents 47 corresponding to PNDL investments to county councils; every quarter, county councils send to the MRDPA a consolidated update on the progress of construction works. Upon request, beneficiaries are required to send to the MRDPA any document related to the financed project. For its part, the MRDPA is responsible for the monitoring and controlling the program’s implementation. In this capacity, the Ministry can appoint representatives who, together with counterparts from the State Inspectorate for Constructions, verify the accuracy of reported data and compare it to the reality on the ground. 93. The current legal framework includes no details on requirements for the post - implementation phase – i.e., tracking the project’s evolution upon completion. At least based on the methodological norms, once the actual works are finished, the beneficiary sends a copy of the completion report to the Ministry. If and when the warranty period expires, the local authority again sends a copy of the formula documentation (“procesul verbal de recepție final”) to the MRDPA. Beyond that, the two key post-implementation functions for ay investment program – i.e., ex-post monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and knowledge sharing – appear to be missing at this point in the PNDL’s evolution. Put differently, there is no formal process for evaluating the impact of completed investments and there are no institutionalized efforts for communicating good practices among past, current, and future beneficiaries of PNDL funds. This is not surprising for a young program like the PNDL; still, going forward, it would be important to set-up ex-post mechanisms to ensure the continuous improvement of the instrument. Subsequent chapters provide more in-depth suggestions for monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, including through performance and impact indicators. 2.2 PNDL 2014 Portfolio Assessment 94. The PNDL budget allocation in 2014 was substantial, transforming the program (established only recently, in early 2013) into the main state-budget-financed source of investment for local infrastructure. The total budget of PNDL in 2014 was RON 2.3 billion (or about EURO 530 million). For 2013, the program was initially allocated RON 492.94 million. 36 The final data for the 2015 PNDL budget is not yet available at the time of writing this intermediate report, though in 2013 the PNDL budget for 2015 was forecasted at a lower level than in 2014 (only RON 800 million). 37 The final report will include a more complete analysis of these year-on-year variations, including updated 2015 data. 95. Moreover, it has not been uncommon to increase significantly the original budget allocation for PNDL over the course of one year, as savings are realized in other parts of the national budget. This happened in 2013 and again in 2014. In fact, in 2014 there were 3 substantial supplementary PNDL allocations added to the original base, despite the fact that Romanian legislation only permits two such changes. The third one represented 43% of the total 2014 allocation, while the initial one represented 32% of the final budget as per the end of 2014. These figures indicate that most of the projects are not following the standard 36 See http://cursdeguvernare.ro/misterele-bugetului-1-2014-anul-in-care-fondurile-europene-sunt- inlocuite-cu-bani-de-la-buget.html 37 Ibid. 48 application process via the county councils but are rather submitted directly to the MRDPA all year long. 96. The scale and timing of the three budgetary adjustments are worth noting with some concern – they are substantial and have occurred including late in the fiscal year. Such changes aggravate unpredictability and demonstrate weaknesses in budgetary planning, with a variation between the initial and final allocation of over 200%. There are also concerns regarding the type of projects targeted by substantial reallocations of the budget as late as October/November 2014, when construction works tend to come to a halt due to unfavorable weather: (i) projects that are just then getting started and receive financing for initial technical documentation, hence aggravating the problem of an ever- growing project portfolio with unfinished construction sites all across the country; and (ii) projects that had incurred arrears that need to be paid off, which may create a moral hazard issue and encourage future beneficiaries of state-budget investment financing to postpone payments until the central government intervenes. Table 3. PNDL 2014 – budget allocations (March-November 2014) Allocation Date Allocation (RON) % total Initial March 2014 750,360,763 32% Supplement #1 July 2014 586,219,346 25% Supplement #2 September 2014 Supplement #3 October/ Nov. 2014 1,008,297,275 43% Total: 2,344,877,344 Data source: MRDPA 2.2.1 By Size 97. The PNDL, as the main state-budget-funded program managed by the MRDPA finances primarily small and lower-middle-sized investments. Following the methodology used in the 2014 World Bank report on “Project Selection Models” and using the Ministry of Finance’s definition for large projects, PNDL projects were sub -divided in the following categories: large projects (more than RON 100 million); upper-middle-sized projects (RON 30 – 100 million); small/lower-middle-sized projects (RON 1.5 – 30 million); and very small projects (less than RON 1.5 million). Very small projects (less than RON 1.5 million) constitute 2.5% of the PNDL portfolio, while small/lower-middle sized projects represent the bulk of projects, with an average value of around RON 6 million (~EUR 1.4 million). Both very small and lower-middle sized projects fall under the category of “small projects” according to the GEO 88/2013, i.e., they are under the threshold of RON 30 million. 49 Table 4. PNDL project portfolio by size categories* Number of Average value Total value % of total projects of project of projects contracted (RON) (in RON) projects Small Projects (<1.5 mln RON) 494 875,000 0.43 bln 2.5% Medium-Sized Projects (1.5 - 100 mln RON) 2,533 6,460,000 16.4 bln 94% Lower-middle-sized projects (1.5 – 30 mln RON) 2,501 6,000,000 15 bln 86% Upper-middle-sized projects (30 – 100 mln RON) 32 44,000,000 1.4bln 8% Large Projects (>100 mln RON) 4 133,000,000 0.53 bln 3.5% TOTAL 3,031 5,700,000 17.4 bln 100% Data source: PNDL Database of Projects (MRDPA, 2014) *Note: Only those projects were considered for which a total project value was available in the MRDP A database. The total number of projects under consideration by PNDL is 3,952 (as of 12/2014) Figure 9. PNDL 2014 - distribution of projects by 2014 budgetary allocation Data source: PNDL Database of Projects (MRDPA, 2014) 98. In 2014, most PNDL projects received relatively small allocations – on average, close to RON 600,000. 47% were allocated under RON 300,000 and very few (4.5%) received above RON 2 million. This result highlights the large difference in budgetary allocations for projects financed by the PNDL. The highest allocation for an individual project was RON 15 million, which went to modernizing a county road in Vrancea, DJ 205 D. MRDPA data show that this particular county road is at the 35% completion level and has a very large total value (RON 165 million). At the very other end of the spectrum, the Țepu Commune in Galați County received only RON 2,436 to finish up the sewage system, which 50 had been financed under PNDL in 2013 as well; in other words, it was nearly complete and required only a very small last payment. 2.2.2 By Sector 99. The MRDPA provided the World Bank team with a database comprising the key characteristics of all projects included in the PNDL for financing as of late November 2014 . Roads (county and communal) represent by far the largest sector financed through PNLD in 2014, accounting for over 55% of the total program budget, followed by water and wastewater (with over 22% and 16%, respectively). The table and figure below summarize the PNDL’s allocation by sector for 2014, emphasizing that the core priorities have indeed been aligned to the broader objective of the program – as also stated in the 2013-2016 Governing Program – namely the creation of a package of basic infrastructure for localities around Romania (primarily in terms of roads, water, and sanitation). Table 5. PNDL allocation by sector, 2014 % of PNDL 2014 Sector Number of projects Amount (RON) budget Roads 2058 1,307,207,209 55.75% Water 860 517,292,048 22.06% Sewage 527 336,587,069 14.35% Education 195 63,927,597 2.73% Bridges 145 60,884,001 2.60% Cultural 40 17,073,222 0.73% City Halls 57 16,083,087 0.69% Markets 19 13,128,019 0.56% Sport Facilities 33 8,517,931 0.36% Piping 16 2,736,355 0.12% Landfill 1 940,846 0.04% Tourism 1 500,000 0.02% Total 3,952 2,344,877,384 100% Data source: MRDPA database for PNDL 2014 51 Figure 10. PNDL 2014 allocations have focused mostly on roads and water/wastewater 60,884,001 17,073,222 63,927,597 Roads Water Sewage Education 336,587,069 Bridges Cultural 1,307,207,209 City Halls 517,292,048 Markets Sport Facilities Piping Landfill Tourism Data source: MRDPA database for PNDL 2014 Figure 11. Average PNDL budgetary allocation by sector, 2014 Data source: MRDPA (2014) 52 2.2.3 By Implementation Status (Ongoing vs. New Investments) 100. Budgetary allocations among new and ongoing investments suggest that the concerning tendency to begin numerous new works before completing ongoing ones has continued in 2014. Indeed, the number of new projects is slightly higher than the number of ongoing projects receiving PNDL allocations in 2014 (53% of the investments financed are new). Ongoing projects received only 65% of the budget allocation. This is relatively low given the typically large financial requirements of projects during the implementation phase compared to the startup phase, which usually includes financing the detailed technical design and possibly a limited first stage of works. However, the pattern is not homogenous across sectors as can be seen in the table below. 101. This is indicative of one of the main issues with the current PNDL: in the absence of clear and rigorous selection and prioritization criteria (not only for new projects, but also for selection among ongoing and new projects), the project portfolio has continued to expand. New projects enter the pipeline, while ongoing investments continue to advance at a very slow pace due to lack of resources, facing the risk of degradation and higher costs than initially estimated. The MRDPA and county-level authorities have repeatedly stated that Romania should prioritize the completion of ongoing works, as opposed to starting new ones. The number and value of ongoing projects are supposed to factor into the MRDPA’s funding allocation across counties, while the projects’ percentage completion rate is among the four possible criteria for prioritizing projects within a county (though as the previous section noted the application of such criteria remains vague and subjective). In practice, however, the PNDL has continued to finance new investments (over 2,100 projects have been started over the course of 2014), despite the very large portfolio of ongoing projects. This situation risks creating an ever-growing backlog, and decision- makers must strongly consider solutions for more impactful and efficient allocation of funding. Table 6.PNDL portfolio by sector and investment status (ongoing vs. new), 2014 Total Ongoing Investments New Investments Allocation Total PNDL 2014 Number Sector Number Allocation Number Allocation of % of % of Projects of PNDL 2014 of PNDL 2014 (RON) Total Total Projects (RON) Projects (RON) Roads 730 727,188,590 55.6% 1328 580,018,619 44.4% 2058 1,307,207,209 Water 613 440,960,656 85.2% 247 76,331,392 14.8% 860 517,292,048 Sewage 305 268,164,078 79.7% 222 68,422,991 20.3% 527 336,587,069 Education 75 31,410,299 49.1% 120 32,517,298 50.9% 195 63,927,597 Bridges 77 43,973,859 72.2% 68 16,910,142 27.8% 145 60,884,001 Cultural 9 8,997,011 52.7% 31 8,076,211 47.3% 40 17,073,222 City Halls 15 7,471,334 46.5% 42 8,611,752 53.5% 57 16,083,087 Markets 2 2,932,528 22.3% 17 10,195,491 77.7% 19 13,128,019 53 Total Ongoing Investments New Investments Allocation Total PNDL 2014 Number Sector Number Allocation Number Allocation of % of % of Projects of PNDL 2014 of PNDL 2014 (RON) Total Total Projects (RON) Projects (RON) Sport 21 5,298,632 62.2% 12 3,219,299 37.8% 33 8,517,931 Facilities Piping 2 337,000 12.3% 14 2,399,355 87.7% 16 2,736,355 Landfill - - - 1 940,846 100% 1 940,846 Tourism 1 500,000 100% - - - 1 500,000 Total 1,850 1,537,233,988 2,102 807,643,396 3,952 2,344,877,384 Data source: MRDPA database for PNDL 2014 Figure 12. The PNDL has continued to fund numerous new projects across most sectors (number of projects, 2014) 2000 1500 1328 New 1000 Ongoing 247 500 222 730 613 305 120 68 75 77 0 Cultural Markets Roads Bridges Sewage Sport Facilities Piping Landfill Education Water City Halls Tourism Data source: MRDPA database for PNDL 2014 54 102. A simple calculation goes a long way to show that it is vital to apply much more rigor in the management of the PNDL portfolio going forward. Importantly, the total value of the 3,952 PNDL projects (both new and ongoing) is roughly RON 22 billion (or EUR 5 billion). Assuming that the annual budget that PNDL will have at its disposal is similar to the allocation received at the beginning of 2014 (i.e., around RON 1.5 billion in total, including funds to pay for expenditures incurred during the previous year), at least 15 years will be needed to finish the nearly 4,000 projects with financing contracts under the PNDL (or about 10 years if the 2014 budget including all supplementary allocations was taken as a basis). Obviously, this is neither an efficient, nor a realistic implementation timeline, yet there is no clear evidence that the Government intends to “freeze” or at least slow down the financing of new investments. Moreover, anecdotal evidence suggests that the 3,952 figure does not even include all ongoing projects previously financed by the MRDPA, so the number of ongoing investments is likely to be even higher. 103. Moreover, of the ongoing projects, at least 1,188 (those for which data was available) had a completion rate of less than 1%. In essence, this means that the large majority of ongoing projects can also be considered to be de facto new projects, because they had a very low completion rate. This can obviously create huge backlogs further down the road. 2.2.4 By Geographic Location 104. The 2014 PNDL allocation for counties averages RON 57 million (roughly EUR 12.7 million), but there is variation across different areas of the country. The maps below show such differences in terms of the number and, respectively, value of projects by county. The smallest financial allocation went to Alba County (RON 32.6 million, or 1.39% of the total PNDL budget), while Olt County received the highest allocation (RON 91 million, or 3.91% of the total PNDL budget), nearly three times as high. It is true that Alba’s GDP/capita is 5,900 EUR/inhabitant, compared to 3,700 EUR/inhabitant for Olt, though this in of itself does not justify allocating three times as much in funds for Olt. Despite such extreme examples, the vast majority of county allocations (73%) are between 2-3% of the total PNDL allocation for each county in total (i.e., including both new and ongoing investments). 105. Interestingly, there are significant differences across counties in the types of projects they decided to finance, with some clearly expressing a preference for completing ongoing investments as a matter of good practice. For instance, Vaslui County received RON 50.4 million, investing RON 48.6 million in ongoing projects; similarly, Vâlcea County received RON 78.7 million, of which RON 75.4 million (96%) went to ongoing investments. By contrast, the counties with the largest shares of funds spent on completely new projects include: Galați (75% of total funds allocated to new projects), Caraș-Severin (68%), Alba (68%), Satu Mare (66%), and Tulcea (59%). 55 Figure 13. PNDL 2014 – total number of projects by county Data source: MRDPA PNDL database (2014) Figure 14. PNDL 2014 – total budgetary allocations by county Data source: MRDPA PNDL database (2014) 56 Analysis of Other Investment Programs Managed by DG RDI 106. The General Directorate for Regional Development and Infrastructure (DG RDI) manages three other investment programs, in addition to the PNDL: 1) thermal rehabilitation of apartment buildings; 2) social housing; and 3) housing for people evacuated from nationalized housing. These three programs will be analyzed briefly in this section. A more detailed assessment is included in Component 4 of the current technical assistance program: “Assisting in Housing and Infrastructure Development Strategy.” The Thermal Rehabilitation Program 107. The National Multiannual Program for Enhancing the Energy Efficiency of Apartment Buildings (implemented according to GEO 18/2008) is one of the most successful public investment programs in Romania. Before this program started, there had been very few initiatives for rehabilitating apartment buildings in Romania, particularly those dating from the communist era. Once the program was launched, however, thermal rehabilitation efforts grew exponentially. The 2011 Census revealed that 22% of the total number of 8.7 million apartments had been rehabilitated. Moreover, a large part of these had been done with private funding. Of a total of 1.9 million thermally rehabilitated apartments, only roughly 110,000 had been rehabilitated with funds from the state budget through DG RDI (see table below). This means that the program has had a large multiplying effect, mobilizing private sector resources in an area where its previous involvement had been minimal. Allocated Rem aining No. of No. of Total funds No. of No. of Tim e- funds/ paym ents at financed finalized from the financed finalized line program / the end of apt. apartm ent state budget apartm ents apt. tim eline the year buildings buildings 1 2009 160,000,000.00 158,992,134.08 1,007,865.92 881 35,898 291 8,984 2 2010 150,000,000.00 149,482,000.10 517,999.90 828 38,101 502 22,390 3 2011 137,500,000.00 136,027,141.00 1,472,859.00 833 35,568 521 18,878 4 2012 18,530,000.00 18,529,999.93 0.07 120 5,262 61 2,285 5 2013 14,000,000.00 12,282,535.12 1,717,464.88 150 5,562 75 2,184 6 2014 58,000,000.00 33,539,480.85 24,460,519.15 168 7,940 77 3,948 7 2015 50,000,000.00 5,509,436.91 44,490,563.09 84 2,736 5 239 TOTAL 588,030,000.00 514,362,727.99 73,667,272.01 3,064 131,067 1,532 58,908 108. The program’s key objective is to improve the energy efficienc y of housing built between 1950 and 1990. The program wants to reduce heat consumption to under 100 Kwh/m2 , taking into account the fact that current consumption in buildings that have not been rehabilitated is between 180-240 Kwh/m2 . The financing of these projects is according to a financial scheme that has proven to be very efficient: - 50% of the funds come from the state budget, within the limits of the annual allocations in the budget of the MRDPA; - 30% of the funds are from local budgets and/or other legal sources; - 20% of the funds are contributed by the re sidents’ associations and/or other legal sources. Under special circumstances (for social expenditures), local authorities could cover, within the annual budgets approved, the co-financing share of the residents’ associations. 57 The Program for Development of Social Housing 109. The Program for Development of Social Housing intervenes where real estate markets do not function properly, as mandated by Law 114/1996. The program targets people in need, as defined by current legislation, to facilitate their access to a dwelling – either to own or to rent. Promoting, implementing, and co-financing investment projects fall under the mandate of local public authorities. The allocation of social housing units is done by local councils, based on specific requests and based on specialized assessments by a social commission. To get access to social housing, families and individuals must have an average monthly income (for the last 12 months) that is lower than the average monthly income. The nominal rent is subsidized by the local budget and the maximum level of the rent for social housing cannot exceed 10% of the family’s average monthly income. Social housing units can be designated in both new buildings and in rehabilitated buildings, but they cannot be sold, as they are part of the public domain of the jurisdiction where they are located. About 4,300 social housing units have been built through this program between 2001 and 2014. The budget allocated for this type of investments exceeds RON 180 million for the same time period. The Program for Developing Housing for Evacuated Persons 110. The program for social housing development for people who used to live in nationalized homes (according to GEO 74/2007 and GEO 68/2006) also plays a key role in a real estate market that has been heavily shaped by the retrocession process after 1989. The aim of the program is to develop social housing for evacuated former renters of these properties. The fund for housing for evacuated persons is managed by the local council in those territorial administrative units where such beneficiaries reside and where they make specific requests for such housing (these persons have to fulfill, cumulatively, the requirements set by art. 1, paragraph (3), from GEO 74/2007): - they have a net monthly income, for the past 12 months, at least 20% lower than the average monthly income determined annually by Government Decision, as warranted by article 8, paragraph 2 in the Housing Law 114/1996, republished, with subsequent adjustments and additions; - they are disabled persons or retirees. The social housing units belong to the public domain and cannot be sold. They can be designated as such in new buildings or in rehabilitated existing buildings. The program is approved annually and the budgetary allocations by the MRDPA are done according to the requests sent by local public authorities. 58 Chapter 3: Key Infrastructure Sectors in Romania 111. As noted in the introduction to this report, this chapter is primarily meant to provide a detailed background into the three main sectors that the PNDL targets: roads (county and local); water and wastewater; and social infrastructure . The following sections are primarily descriptive, but serve to anchor the analysis that follows in chapters 4 and 5, covering: an overview of each sector; main players and key legislation; strategies and plans; and major investment programs funded by the EU or by the central government. 3.1 Roads 112. Roads – and connective infrastructure generally – are crucial for ensuring people’s access to opportunitie s and represent critical investments for Romania’s inclusive and sustainable development. As outlined in the draft National Territorial Development Strategy and in the World Bank’s report on Competitive Cities: Reshaping the Economic Geography of Romania, roads in particular are vital for a country’s future development. Connective infrastructure enables one crucial desideratum: it eases people’s access to places of opportunity, i.e., cities (in most countries). Cities benefit from economies of scale and scope and are the places where most of the jobs are located, where centers of culture can thrive, where higher education institutions and health-care units can operate and perform properly, where art is generated and enjoyed. The bigger the city, the more opportunities it usually offers. Consequently, the better these cities are connected to their hinterland, the more people in peri-urban areas have access to these opportunities. Moreover, the firms in the city have easier access to a larger labor pool. Connective infrastructure also enables the formation of functional urban areas, a key objective of EU’s regional development policy. 113. Romania has a poor endowment of roads infrastructure. As the graph below indicates, it has one of the lowest road densities of any country in Europe and, within the EU, Romania ranked last in terms of the overall quality of the roads infrastructure. 38 In fact, when compared to its actual development level, Romania seems to require a road density double the current number. Deficiencies are encountered for all types of road infrastructure: highways, national roads, and county and communal roads. In 2012, out of a network of 84,000 km, only around 0.6% represented motorways, with 20% national roads and around 80% county and communal roads. 114. The highway network in Romania is underdeveloped and far from what Romania’s economy could sustain. With 635 kilometers of highway completed in August 2014, Romania had a highway density of around 31 kilometers for 1,000,000 people. By comparison, Hungary had a highway density of 137 per 1,000,000 people, while Portugal had a highway density of 249. The second figure below highlights the proposed network of highways for Romania, as laid out in the National Spatial Plan (Planul de Amenajare al Teritoriului National). The total proposed highway network comprises 3,896 KM, while the proposed expressway network totals 4,851 km. 38 See Global Competitiveness Report 2012-2013 60 Figure 15. Romania has an underdeveloped road infrastructure network Data Sources: WDI and CIA Factbook Note: Road density is measured as kilometer of road per 100 km 2 of land area; GDP per Capita is taken at purchasing power parity (PPP) in current international $US; data are collected for years between 2000 and 2006. Figure 16. The PATN proposes a large network of highways and expressways Source: Planul de Amenajare a Teritoriului Național (PATN) 61 115. The county and communal road network is generally in poor condition and requires extensive upgrade and maintenance work. In 2012, around 34,000 km of county and communal roads (55% of all county and communal roads) were made of gravel or earth and required modernization. The costs required to modernize these roads are somewhere between EUR 6 and 12 billion, according to the standard costs for county and communal roads modernization used by the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration (MRDPA). In addition, many county and communal roads require rehabilitation. Around 21,000 km of county and communal roads had only a light cover and only 12,000 were completely modernized. The map below indicates the counties with the highest number of county and communal roads in need of modernization. Figure 17 . The road network’s length varies greatly across Romanian counties 116. The Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration has acknowledged the need for investments in connective infrastructure and has prioritized the allocation of funds in this area. For the 2014 fiscal year, the MRDPA has strategically focused through the PNDL only on investments in county and communal roads and water and wastewater infrastructure (although the range of investments that the MRDPA could undertake through the PNDL is much wider). This way, limited resources can be used both to achieve EU acquis targets in the water and wastewater sector and, more broadly, to reach key development targets for Romania. 117. In order for PNDL investments to deliver maximum developmental impact, it is critical to ensure proper coordination with other road development programs in Romania. With this in mind, the following section will provide an overview of the sector, describing key players and the legal framework in force, the result of norms at various levels (supra-national, national, and subnational). The second sub-section further looks at 62 the design of strategies in the transport sector, assessing key steps in the elaboration of key planning documents, stakeholders, and coordination mechanisms, particularly across different sources of financing (i.e., state-budget vs. EU funds). 3.1.1 Sector Structure Key Players Level Key Players  The European Union o The EU is not only the largest outside funder of transport infrastructure in Romania, but it also shapes policy in the sector. o Romania will continue to be able to access EU Funds for the 2014-2020 programming period for investments in the TEN-T network, which includes the Core Network (roads considered to be the most important nodes and links of the TEN-T) and the Comprehensive Network (a basic multi -modal network that lays out all the transport modes).  The World Bank o Since the 1990s, the World Bank has financed over 1,100 km of national roads, road rehabilitation work and development of several city bypasses, in addition to smaller-scale roads in rural areas. o The national road segments financed by the Bank are part of the TEN-T Core and Comprehensive Networks, and several road links are now slated to be upgraded Supranational with EU funds.  The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) o Over the past couple of decades the EBRD has co-financed several road rehabilitation and municipal infrastructure projects, in addition to development of new objectives, such as Pitesti and the Constanta bypasses. o The three-year strategy for Romania approved in 2012 has a strong component on development of transport infrastructure.  The European Investment Bank (EIB) o The EIB helps the Romanian Government with the co-financing of several TEN-T investments through the SOP Transport 2007-2013, including bypasses, national roads, and sections of highways. o The financing provided by the bank to Romania in recent years for transport and telecommunications sector amounts to EUR 1 billion.  Ministry of Transport (MoT) o The Ministry of Transport has been the key national level player in the field of transport, and is also responsible for elaborating policies regarding the transport sector. The MoT was the Managing Authority for the EU-funded 2007-2013 Operational Program Transport. National  National Company for Highways and National Roads (CNADNR) o The National Company for Highways and National Roads (CNADNR), an entity under the Ministry of Transport, is managing most of the roads investments in Romania. CNADNR is responsible for both road development/rehabilitation/ 63 Level Key Players modernization and for road upkeep and maintenance work, and invests in the development of highways, expressways, bypasses, the modernization of national roads, and the rehabilitation of bridges. o As a direct beneficiary of EU funds, CNADNR is in charge of development of TEN-T network and the modernization of national roads and development of bypasses.  Ministry of European Funds (MEF) o The MEF elaborates the Partnership Agreement with the EU that covers, among other things, priorities in the transport sector (including road development). o The MEF will serve as the Managing Authority for the Operational Programme Large Infrastructure (LIOP) 2014-2020. The main beneficiary of LIOP will be the CNADNR.  Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration (MRDPA) o The MRDPA develops county and communal road projects both from the state budget and with EU funds. Regarding the former, it coordinates the National Local Development Program (PNDL) through which it provides grants to county councils and local authorities in towns and communes. As for EU-funded instruments, the MRDPA is the Managing Authority for the Regional Operational Programme through which Romania has contracted subnational road development projects with a total value of EUR 1.4 billion during the 2007-2013 programming period. o The Ministry also oversees the development of road projects financed through a number of EU-funded Territorial Cooperation programs.  Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) o The MARD finances communal road development projects through its EU-funded National Rural Development Programme (PNDR) that focuses primarily on small projects in rural areas. The PNDR is described separately later on.  Ministry of Public Finance o The Ministry assesses major public investment programs, including transport infrastructure, in order to make sure that such investments are done within expenditure limits and fall within given selection and prioritization criteria (see GEO 88/2013).  Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) o RDAs are public purpose non-governmental organizations that also serve as intermediate bodies for EU-funded programs – primarily for the Regional Operational Programme (ROP). o Although RDAs do not actually take on road investment projects, they play a key role at the planning level – they develop the regional development plans (RDPs), which summarize a region’s development strategy for a programming period. Subnational  County Councils o The largest subnational administrative units in the country (41 units plus the capital city), county councils are responsible for planning, managing, and financing of county roads. o They can finance county road investment projects from their own funds, from state-budget programs, with the help of EU funds, or from loans provided by 64 Level Key Players private banks or IFIs.  Local authorities o All investments developed at the local level are done by local authorities – municipalities, towns, or communes. o Subject to size and development level, some local authorities are more capable than others in generating their own funds for road development/rehabilitation/ modernization. Legal Framework Level Legal Framework  European Structural and Investment (ESI) Regulations 2014-2020 o Thematic Objective 7 focuses on “promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructure.” o The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) allows the following type of road investments: (a) development of the Comprehensive TEN-T Network; (b) development of secondary and tertiary connections to the TEN-T Network, including multi-modal nodes; (c) devel opment and improvement of environmentally-friendly and low-carbon transport systems; (d) development and rehabilitation of the railway system; (e) improving energy efficiency and security Supranational of supply. o The CF allows for the following type of road investments: (a) development of the TEN-T (with a focus on the Core TEN-T); (b) development and improvement of environmentally-friendly and low-carbon transport; (c) development and rehabilitation of comprehensive high quality and interoperable railway system. o The European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) promotes social inclusion, poverty reduction, and economic development in rural areas, allowing, among others, investments in communal road development/rehabilitation/ upgrade.  National Spatial Plan o All road investments in Romania have to take into consideration the National Spatial Plan, a document that sets out the network of highways and expressways to be developed in the coming years. The Plan is mandatory. o The proposed TEN-T Network for Romania (both the Core Network and the Comprehensive Network) has been incorporated in the blueprint provided by the Plan. The document has to be considered also with regard to national roads, National county roads, communal roads, as to ensure that new road developments are spatially coordinated with the proposed network of highways and expressways. o The Plan needs to be adopted to take into consideration the new General Transport Master Plan.  Legislation approving major investment programs o Government Decision 947/1990 approving the National Program for the 65 Level Legal Framework Modernization of National Roads and Construction of Highways. o Government Ordinance 16/1999 approving the Priority Program for the Development of Highways - including București-Pitești and București -Constanța . o Law 1/2002 approving Ordinance 16/1999 and for the completion of proposed highways and expressways (including Bucuresti-Fetești -Cernavodă and Bucuresti - Ploieș ti).  Cost standards for different types of roads used by CNADNR o Different cost standards have been set for road investment projects and are aimed at providing guidance for such projects under various geographic conditions 3.1.2 Strategies and Plans Level Strategies and Plans  Europe 2020 o The strategy is the framework document that sets out EU priorities for the 2014- 2020 programming period and lays the foundation for how EU Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund will be used. o With its three priorities resting on smart, sustainable, and inclusive gr owth, the strategy’s main five targets focus on employment, research & development, climate change and energy sustainability, education, and fighting poverty and social exclusion. o Although transport connectivity is not part of the strategy, the document di scusses connectivity briefly under “Other tools for growth and jobs,” where it indicates that a deepening of the single market requires that bottlenecks to cross- border activity and insufficiently interconnected networks must be addressed.  TEN-T Policy Supranational o The Trans-European Network, commonly known as TEN-T, is based on the subsidiarity principle, according to which Member States are responsible for developing and maintaining infrastructure, with or without collaboration with the private sector. o It focuses more on rehabilitation and upgrade of existing roads, and it has a dual - layer structure, namely the Core Network, which is of strategic importance for EU- wide connectivity, and a Comprehensive Network, which ensures the accessibility and connectivity of all the regions in the EU. o Eligible road infrastructure projects include high-quality roads (such as highways, expressways, and conventional strategic roads), parking and rest areas, and connections between different modes of transport. o High-quality roads of crossing and interchanges can be funded through EU funds, thus allowing coordination of investments in the TEN-T network and the national/subnational road network. o Development of the network should focus on: (a) modal integration; (b) 66 Level Strategies and Plans interoperability; and (c) a coordinated development of infrastructure (with a focus on cross-border sections and bottlenecks).  European Union Strategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR) o The Strategy is an EU cooperation mechanism for the 14 EU and non-EU countries that belong to the Ri ver Danube’s basin, aimed at promoting economic and social development by enforcing and implementing EU policies and legislation. o The EUSDR aims to complete the existing TEN-T rail and road priority projects crossing the Danube Region in order to improve mobility and multimodality in the region by setting up a Joint Platform to coordinate the work as to accelerate the implementation of the projects. o The Action Plan outlines activities covering the strategy’s four main priorities: a) connecting the Danube region; b) protecting the environment in the region; c) building prosperity; and d) strengthening the Danube region. o In Romania, the strategy is implemented by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with support from the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration and the Ministry of European Funds. o Romania coordinates the activities for inland waterway transport and management of environmental risks. The strategy mentions the construction of two new bridges over the Danube between Romania and Bulgaria, which would link Bechet to Oriahovo and Călăraşi to Silistra. o Other actions include interventions focusing on sustainable metropolitan transport systems through river-bus connections between urban centers along the Danube River and public transport lines, small crossings, and bridges in order to improve regional and local cross-border infrastructure and access to rural areas.  The General Transport Master Plan (GTMP) o The Plan sets the main directions for developing the transport sector in Romania with regard to major highways and national roads, rail, and maritime infrastructure. After a lengthy process, it was published in draft form in late 2014 and approved through a Government Memorandum in early March 2015. At the time of writing this report (early March), the GTMP does not have final EC approval. o Main targets are as follows:  Road transportation: 1,300 kilometers of highways, worth 13.7 billion euros; express roads — 925 kilometers, 9.9 billion euros; trans -regional roads — 2,870 kilometers, 1.6 billion euros, and trans -European roads — 343 National kilometers, 190 million euros.  Rail: Rebuilding 2,800 kilometers of railway and electrification of 489 kilometers.  Maritime: 3 billion euros are going to be invested in the Constanta, Galati, Drobeta Turnu Severin, and other harbors.  Also, by 2020, Romania plans to have seven international airports upgraded.  The Governing Program 2013-2016 o The key priorities in the Transport sector outlined in the program pertain to highways and county and communal roads. o The program identifies six critical links for highway development, including 67 Level Strategies and Plans completion of the A1 and A3 Highways. The Large Infrastructure Projects Section sets a different set of priorities for large road investments (e.g., the Comarnic - Brașov Highway). o Modernization of county roads should be a priority in order to improve accessibility to the national and European road network. o The document is less explicit when it comes to priorities for the development of other types of road infrastructure.  The National Territorial Development Strategy (SDTR) 2035 (draft) o The SDTR 2035 is based on three concepts (Concentration, Connection, and Cooperation) as the driving forces for the urbanization process by promoting better access to and between urban centers and by increasing regional flows. o The first key objective of the strategy is the development of an efficient and diversified transport network, capable of managing the growing movement of people and goods within and outside Romania. The main priorities include integration into the EU’s highway network, the completion of the A1 and A3 Highways, in addition to improving connections to București. o At the local and regional level, the strategy proposes improved transport connections between the country’s main urban centers and their hinterland.  The National Sustainable Development Strategy (NSDS) 2013-2020-2030 o The NSDS is one of the country’s long -term development strategies, aimed at linking Romania to a new philosophy of development, more in-tune with EU principles and with global best-practices on sustainable development. o Sustainable Transport is one of the key objectives of the strategy, i.e., to improve the transport network and adjust it to economic, social, and environmental needs, while reducing negative economic, social, and environmental externalities. o The strategy also targets modernization of the road infrastructure in order to reduce traffic accidents, improve traffic flows, and diminish pollution in cities.  The Romanian EU Partnership Agreement (PA) 2014-2020 o A document approved by the European Commission, the PA is perhaps one of the most important planning documents in Romania with regard to actua l investments, charting out how EUR 40 billion in EU grants will be spent between 2014 and 2020. o The PA identifies the lack of proper transport infrastructure as one of the major development challenges in Romania. Key priorities with regard to transport sector include the completion of the missing links of the Rhine-Danube Corridor, development of additional major transport links of the TEN-T Comprehensive network and improvement of the secondary and tertiary connections to TEN-T.  Regional Development Plans (RDPs) o RDPs are prepared by the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), with the purpose of guiding investments at regional and county/local level. These include projects financed under the Regional Operational Programme, but RDPs also cover Subnational needs beyond the ROP. Importantly, RDPs are not binding planning documents (their implementation depends on each county/local authority). o All RDPs include objectives related to the development and rehabilitation of transport infrastructure. 68 Level Strategies and Plans  Regional Spatial Plans o The Regional Spatial Plans ( Plan de Amenajare al Teritoriului Zonal – PATZ) are binding documents for lower-level spatial plans and they are prepared either at the national or at the subnational level. o Such plans make a number of recommendations for new infrastructure needs, thus a clear claim on the territory in the region is made, which will then influence territorial decisions taken at a lower level.  County Development Strategies o Prepared by county councils, County Development Strategies include proposals for investments in county road infrastructure with a list of road development projects. However, the projects included in such strategies are not prioritized – they are primarily a laundry list of desired investments, sometimes with potential sources of funding mentioned. o For development strategies to be effective they should be linked to clear operational programs and to reliable sources of funding, thus the documents should set clear priorities coupled with specific funding sources.  County Spatial Plans o County spatial plans ( Planuri de Amenajare a Teritoriului Județean - PATJ) are normative documents that lay down development restrictions and guidelines, as well as the territorial interventions to be pursued within a given time period. o The Plans must be correlated with national and regional level spatial plans and strategies. Most county spatial plans simply include the new proposals for national road links, and proposals for the modernization/rehabilitation of county and local roads.  Local Development Strategies o Many localities prepare development strategies. Such documents not only lay down key issues that a local administration should tackle, but are needed as a precondition to access certain funding sources (e.g., in the case of the ROP). o Often times, these strategies include projects that focus on the rehabilitation/ modernization of the existent transport infrastructure and can include proposals for new infrastructure or for the extension of existing networks.  General Urban Plans o General Urban Plans (Planuri Urbanistice Generale – PUG) are the key tools used by local authorities to direct spatial interventions, providing development restrictions and guidelines, in addition to laying down the infrastructure developments proposed for completion within the timeline covered by the document (usually 10 years). 69 3.1.3 Investment Programs The Regional Operational Programme (ROP) 2014-202039 118. Road infrastructure is tackled under Priority Axis 6 designed to improve infrastructure of regional importance in order to increase access to roads connecting to the TEN-T network. The goal is to enhance accessibility of rural and urban areas located in the proximity of the TEN-T network through modernization of the county roads by increasing promotion of sustainable transport systems and removal of bottlenecks within major infrastructure networks. The EUR 957 million Romania will receive from the EU under this axis targets development and modernization of the regional transport network. The development of the secondary transport network will help increase inter- and intra- regional cooperation and will add to the competitiveness of enterprises and the labor force. 119. The main investment priority focuses on stimulating regional mobility through connection to secondary and tertiary nodes of the TEN-T, including multimodal nodes. To this end, the types of actions supported by the ROP include a wide range of investments: modernization of county road network allowing direct or indirect connection to the TEN-T network; construction of new segments of county roads to connect to highways and expressways; development and modernization of bypasses holding the status of county roads; and construction of roundabouts aimed at increasing traffic safety. In addition, the ROP will support the construction/modernization/rehabilitation of passages and road nodes as to ensure connectivity of county roads to TEN-T highways, development of pedestrian flyovers, in addition to construction or modernization of public transport stops on county road routes. Other investments focus on improving traffic and road safety (including pedestrian routes and bike lanes). 120. The transport infrastructure investments developed under the ROP will increase the mobility of people and goods, ensuring better and rapid access to health, social services, and education providers in large and small cities . At the same time, the development of a sustainable transport system network will contribute to enhancing the transport capacity on the TEN-T by reducing travel time and stimulating alternative routes for transport of both passengers and goods. Proposals to be taken into consideration should correlate with other relevant important documents (such as the strategic projects as part of the Regional Development Plans, the General Transport Master Plan, the EU Strategy for the Danube Region, etc.). It is unclear how and to what extent this correlation will be evaluated and rewarded as part of the financing proposal evaluation process. The Regional Operational Programme (ROP) 2007-2013 121. The stated objective of the ROP 2007-2013 relates to Romania’s regional development. The ROP programmatic document notes that the program’s aim is “supporting the economic, social, territorially balanced and sustainable development of the Romanian Regions, according to their specific needs and resources, focusing on urban 39 This is based on the January 2015 draft of the ROP 2014 -2020 70 growth poles, improving the business environment and basic infrastructure in order to make the Romanian Regions, especially the ones lagging behind, more attractive places t o live, visit, invest in, and work.” 40 To achieve these objectives, the ROP 2007-2013 was organized around five priority axes, while at the same time acknowledging that it would not be able to achieve these objectives alone, but would require the complementary inputs of other investment programs, of key targeted policies, and of the private sector. Of particular interest to this study is Axis 2: Improvement of regional and local transport infrastructure. 122. The ROP 2007-2013 Priority Axis 2 aims to “increase t he accessibility of the Regions and the mobility of population, goods, and services, in order to foster sustainable economic development.” 41 Around 150 projects have been contracted under this axis, for a total value of over EUR 1.4 billion, with much of this going to the rehabilitation of county roads. One of the key stated aims of this axis is to improve connectivity to the TEN-T Network and to reduce the incidence of road accidents. These stated aims have in turn informed the elaboration of the evaluation and selection grid for this axis and have also impacted the way county roads have been rehabilitated. As the map below indicates, the large majority of ROP 2007-2013 county road projects connect to the TEN-T. Figure 18. Most of the ROP 2007-2013 financed county roads connect to the TEN-T 40 See ROP programmatic document for 2007-2013 41 Ibid. 71 Data source: ROP (MRDPA, 2014) The Large Infrastructure Operational Programme (LIOP) 2014-202042 123. The LIOP 2014-2020 is a new operational program that tackles two major development-related challenges in Romania, namely infrastructure and resources. The program is designed to bring its contribution to fulfill the overall goal of reducing economic and social development disparities between Romania and EU Member States. Priority Axis 1 of the LIOP promotes sustainable transport systems and removal of bottlenecks around major infrastructure networks by increasing mobility through development and expansion of the TEN-T road network. The EU support for this axis amounts to a total of EUR 3.4 billion through the Cohesion Fund (CF), of which EUR 1.59 billion is allocated for road infrastructure. The money will finance works for roads segments that have been initiated under the 2007-2013 programming period, as well as those that are included in the General Transport Master Plan (approved in early March 2015). The development of such roads will increase mobility by reducing the travel time along the TEN-T network for passengers and goods not only within Romania and but also between the country and different regions in Europe, with the ultimate goal of boosting economic competitiveness. 124. The instrument aims to ensure connectivity primarily between cities over 125,000 people and the border. To this end, the program will support construction and modernization of highways, expressways and national roads along the TEN-T network. The TEN-T network in Romania eligible for funding includes a number of segments, among which are Timișoara -Drobeta Turnu Severin-Calafat; Bucureşti-Ploiești-Bacău-Suceava to the border with Ukraine, and Sebeş-Turda-Târgu Mureş-Târgu Neamț-Iaşi-to the border with the Republic of Moldova. One of the major objectives to be financed under the 2014- 2020 programming period is the completion of Nădlac-Constanța highway, crossing the country from West to East. 125. Development of road infrastructure is also eligible under the Priority Axis 2 aimed at developing an efficient and sustainable multimodal transport system along the TEN-T network. The overall EU money available under this priority axis amounts to EUR 1.7 billion. Among other things, the axis focuses on the development of a single European multimodal transport space through investments in the TEN-T corridors with the aim of connecting main urban centers and secondary nodes to the EU-designated network. Investments are provided through the European Regional Development Fund to complement those designated to increase mobility of road infrastructure through the Cohesion Fund, with the three-fold goals of ensuring high road standards, enhancing road safety, and significantly reducing the travel time. Investments tackle modernization and development of roads belonging to the TEN-T network, including construction of related bypasses. Eligible proposals include multi-phase projects that have already been initiated under the 2007-2013 Transport Operational Program, projects included in the list of priorities of the General Transport Master Plan, and new projects that should begin after 2019. Another priority investment area under this axis supports improvement of regional connectivity by linking poorly connected areas to the TEN-T network, hence linking people 42 This is based version 1.0 of the draft programmatic document 72 living in these regions (e.g., North-East and North-West of the country) to opportunity centers. To this end, priority should be given to projects that have been already started under the 2007-2013 programming period with regard to development and modernization of the road network. The Sectoral Operational Program Transport 2007-2013 126. SOP-Transport 2007-2013 aims to help with the development of large transport infrastructure in Romania and thus promote sustainable growth, competitiveness, and employment. The SOP-T 2007-2013 is designed around four priority axes, of which Axis 1 – Modernization and Development of the TEN-T Network and Axis 2 – Modernization and Development of the National Road Network are of particular importance for the purposes of this report. These two axes are also the ones that have received the most generous funding – around 96% of the total EUR 5.4 billion allocation. The development of the highway network totaled a budget (including non-eligible costs) of around EUR 3.9 billion; the rehabilitation of the national road network and the development of new bypasses totaled around EUR 1.4 billion. Figure 19. The SOP Transport has contracted projects across various regions in Romania Data source: OP Transport 73 The National Rural Development Programme (PNDR) 2014-202043 127. In terms of road infrastructure, the program will support proposals tackling development, expansion, and modernization of rural roads of local interest. Local authorities can apply to develop and modernize their communal and local roads, as well as the streets within rural localities. Priority should be given to roads linking to the main roads and other transportation ways, providing access to economic operators, tourism areas, social infrastructure developments, and to other investments funded from EU money. Again, it is unclear how this intended correlation with other EU investments will be factored into the evaluation grid – final details are pending until the PNDR Applicant Guide will be published later in 2015. Together with water supply and sanitation systems, a good road infrastructure is crucial for the rural community as it should allow people to reach out to opportunities, education facilities, health and social services, thus enhancing overall their living conditions. 128. Currently, the road infrastructure in rural areas is still underdeveloped and hinders economic development and employment. In 2011 less than half of the communal roads were paved and almost one-third of the transport network in rural areas was made up of dirt roads that hardly can be used during rainfalls. The support provided by the NRDP for development of roads in rural communities will contribute to the decrease of social and economic inequalities in rural areas. At the same time, a good local road infrastructure is crucial to economic development; it can enable the development of businesses in the respective communities, opening the way for a competitive rural economy by fostering entrepreneurship and innovation. The National Rural Development Programme (PNDR) 2007-2013 129. The PNDR 2007-2013 set out objectives for each of its four major priority axes. Among these, the stated aim of Axis 3 is to “encourage the diversification of the rural economy and, through this and otherwise, to improve the quality of life in the rural environment.”44 The programmatic document also indicates, for example, that only half of the communes in Romania had access to the road network in 2004. Moreover, 25% of communes could not use the road network during unfavorable weather. 130. Axis 3 of the PNDR 2007-2013 targets three key objectives, each with a subset of specific goals and measures. Of relevance to this report is the stated Strategic Objective to “increase the attractiveness of rural areas.” 45 The Specific Objectives listed under this Strategic Objective include: “Creating and modernizing the basic physical infrastructure in rural areas”; “Improvement of the quality of the social, natural, and economic environment in the rural areas”; “Protection and conservation of the rural cultural and natural heritage”; and “Creation, improvement, and diversification of tourism facilities and attractions.” The following Specific Measures are listed under these Specific Objectives: Measure 322: “Village renewal and development, improvement of basic services for the economy and rural population, conservation and upgrading the rural heritage”; Measure 313: 43 This is based on the July 2014 version of the programmatic document 44 See PNDR programmatic document 45 Ibid. 74 “Encouraging tourism activities.” Of these, it is Measure 322 that is of particular interest to this work. For the 2007-2013 programming period, PNDR allocated EUR 1.6 billion for Measure 322. The map below highlights the localities that have contracted PNDR 2007- 2013 funds for communal roads development. Figure 20. Localities across Romania have contracted PNDR funds for communal roads Data source: PNDR State-Budget-Funded Programs 131. There are a number of programmatic documents that guide road development projects in Romania. Three major road development programs have been started by the Government of Romania. In 1990, the Government launched the National Program for the Modernization of National Roads and Construction of Highways. The Prog ram started in 1994, initially with financing from the World Bank and the state-budget, and subsequently with financing from the EBRD and from EU pre-accession funds. The Program proposed the modernization of 11,300 km of national roads in 15 phases, from 1994 through 2014. Only 20% of the planned length was actually completed by August 2014, and only the first 3 of the 15 phases were closed. Phases IV, V, and VI are now under implementation. In 1999, the Government started the Priority Program for the Development of Highways, which was extended in 2002. It is not fully clear how the decisions to finance the identified road links were taken. There are no specific policy documents backing these investment programs. For its part, the MRDPA finances through the PNDL county roads and communal roads at the subnational level. This program was discussed in more detail under Chapter 2. 75 3.2 Water and Wastewater 132. Water and wastewater investments are crucial for ensuring people’s access to opportunities and make a funda mental contribution to Romania’s sustainable and inclusive development. Recognizing the importance of this sector and seeking to accelerate its development, the EU has proposed tight deadlines for improving Member States’ water and sanitation infrastructure. Starting from the premise that individual productivity is the bedrock of economic growth, governments around the world should make every possible effort to ensure the same start in life for their citizens, empowering them to maximize the impact of their productive pursuits. In plain terms, people should not have to worry about fulfilling fundamental needs like running water and adequate sanitation. But in many parts of Romania communities continue to lack basic local infrastructure, forcing people to spend precious time and resources to access nearby water sources or sanitation facilities. The repercussions are multifold and can contribute to reinforcing the vicious cycle of poverty by taking time away from academic and professional activities and placing communities without water and wastewater infrastructure at a disadvantage compared to others across Romania. 133. Romania’s water sector has several key characteristics. Based on the World Bank’s “Integrated Water Resources Rapid Assessment,” the average wate r availability in Romania is roughly 2000 cubic meters per capita per year – above the threshold generally defined for water stress (1700 cubic meter per capita per year), but much lower than the average value for Europe (roughly 4500 cubic meters per capita per year). 46 In addition to significant capital investment needs, Romania needs to carefully manage the water sector to ensure resource conservation and sustainability. Water demand is segmented as follows: industry (67%), agriculture (18%), and municipal (18%). Total demand figures show a marked decrease from 20 BCM/year in 1990 to only 6.5 BCM in 2012, for a variety of causes (lower industrial activity, reduction in irrigation system use, increases in efficiency, etc.). Water availability also varies across river basins, with the lowest levels in the Dobrogea-Litoral area, as shown in the figure below. As for water quality, only 59% of the 3,399 bodies of water met the EU standards in 2009. 47 It is proposed to increase this share to 65% by 2015. Figure 21. Utilizable water resources per capita vary significantly across river basins Source: National Institute of Hydrology and Water Management, 2011 46 “Integrated Water Resources Rapid Assessment,” World Bank, January 2014 47 Ibid. 76 134. Data on water and wastewater infrastructure from the last Census in 2011 reveals multiple insights. First, there are still significant discrepancies persist across regions and counties, with the East and the South – with the obvious exception of the capital of Bucharest – clearly less developed than other regions in terms of both water supply and sanitation systems. Second, even the most developed counties in Romania (e.g., Ilfov, Cluj, Timiș etc.) continue to show gaps, so interventions cannot simply focus only on the poorest counties. Third, the mapping of water and wastewater infrastructure endowment shows the polarization of development: areas around Bucharest and the seven growth poles (i.e., Ploiești, Brașov, Craiova, Timișoara, Cluj-Napoca, Iași, and Constanța), key engines of Romania’s economy, typically have superior access to basic services. 48 This makes sense from a technical perspective, as it is easier to first expand the existing network from urban centers to neighboring peri-urban and rural areas, even if not always the most cost effective solution (in terms of costs, sustainability, and environmental results). The same typically holds from an affordability perspective, as people around large, dynamic cities are more likely to be able to cover the monthly cost of connecting their households to water and sanitation networks. Figure 22. Access to water supply is especially deficient in Eastern and Southern Romania Data Source: National Institute of Statistics (2011) 48 The maps based on the 2011 Census data show darker areas, corresponding to better access to water and wastewater infrastructure, around main cities 77 Figure 23. Data on access to sanitation also show deficiencies in Eastern and Southern Romania Data Source: National Institute of Statistics 135. Above all, the data clearly show that Romania still has huge needs with respect to water and wastewater infrastructure. Just to conform to EU requirements in this sector, described in more detail below, the required funds exceed EUR 12.6 billion. 49 When considering the total need for ensuring full coverage for both water and wastewater services, the numbers are even higher. Based on data gathered from county-level Master Plans drafted for the 2007- 2013 programming period, the total need for investments is estimated at EUR 31.1 billion, with EUR 12.8 billion for water supply and EUR 18.3 billion for sanitation. This is based on adding up all the investment costs estimated for each area covered by a regional operator, as reflected in the corresponding Master Plans. These sums are very large – and some would say unaffordable – in comparison to the country’s capacity to support such investments – for example, addressing the full need of EUR 31 billion would be equivalent t o roughly 22% of the Romania’s annual GDP. 50 136. In full recognition of the critical importance of local infrastructure, both the European Union and the Government have prioritized interventions in water and wastewater systems to address the pressing needs and ensure that Romania fulfills EU acquis requirements. Pre- accession EU-funded programs like ISPA and PHARE have supported local authorities in creating regional operators responsible for implementing projects in the water sector. The Operational 49 Large Infrastructure Operational Programme, June 2014 version, p. 19-20 50 Eurostat data for Romania (2013) 78 Programme (OP) for Environment 2007-2013 included a specific axis for supporting such investments – Axis 1 for “Expansion and modernization of water supply and sanitation systems” – with a budget of EUR 3.3 billion (including the national-level contribution) and 88.16% co- financing from the EU. 51 For the 2014-2020 programming period, investments in water and sanitation infrastructure will be continued under the Large Infrastructure OP (LIOP), which aims to channel an additional EUR 5.5 billion (including the state budget co-financing) to the environment sector, averaging about EUR 110-120 million per county. The proposed allocation of LIOP 2014-2020 EU grants for water and wastewater infrastructure is around EUR 2 billion, which is far from covering all needs and from fulfilling (on its own) the EU acquis requirements on time. For its part, the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration (MRDPA) has managed different state-budget-funded programs to support water and wastewater projects – before 2012 through the now-defunct National Program for Infrastructure Development (PNDI) and currently through the National Local Development Program (PNDL). Preliminary observations suggest that investments in the water and wastewater sector are not fully aligned across different financing sources, missing out on synergies and rendering suboptimal outcomes. If the status quo persists, Romania risks missing the targets set by EU- level legislation and incurring even greater delays in enabling all Romanians basic access to essential services like drinking water and sanitation. 137. Keeping in mind the high stakes involved, the current chapter provides a review of the water and wastewater sector on three core dimensions: (1) structure; (2) strategic planning; and (3) implementation and post-implementation. The first sub-section provides an overview of the sector, describing key players and the legal framework in force, the result of norms at various levels (supra-national, national, and subnational). The second sub-section further looks at the design of strategies in the water and wastewater sector, assessing key steps in the elaboration of key planning documents, stakeholders, and coordination mechanisms, particularly across different sources of financing (i.e., state-budget vs. EU funds). Finally, the third section assesses the implementation and post-implementation of water and wastewater projects, exploring in greater depth the question of harmonizing processes, procedures, and timelines for enhanced impact, proper monitoring and evaluation (M&E), and consistent knowledge sharing. 3.2.1 Sector Structure 138. The system of water and wastewater investments in Romania features multiple levels, including supra-national, national, and subnational stakeholders. The next sub-sections review the main players and the core legal framework that shape the evolution of Romania’s water and wastewater sector. This is not a comprehensive stakeholder mapping, nor is it a full review of the environment sector, concentrating instead on water and wastewater because such types of investments are included under the PNDL. 51See OP Environment 2007-2013 programmatic document, p. 99-100. Document is available at: http://www.posmediu.ro/upload/pages/POS%20Mediu_RO_29%2003%202013_final.pdf 79 Key Players Level Key Players  The European Union o The EU fulfills three key functions in the sector: setting policy directions, developing legally binding instruments, and supporting financing investments in the water and sanitation systems of Member States. The Directorate General Environment leads EU policies in the water and wastewater sector. o Water and sanitation projects are funded through the Cohesion Fund and the ERDF. For the 2007-2013 programming period, the EU has financed water and sanitation projects in Romania through the OP Environment and through the PNDR. For 2014 - 2020, it will finance such investments through the OP Large Infrastructure and through the PNDR.  The World Bank o The World Bank has invested in rural communities’ water and sanitation systems through the Social Inclusion Project, via in the Romanian Social Development Fund (RSDF). The RSDF has financed roads primarily, but also 15 water supply projects (worth a total of USD 1.64 million) and 6 sanitation projects (worth a total of USD Supranational 719,000). o Also, the Romania Integrated Nutrient Pollution Control Project has invested in 70 other localities, across the whole country, although it has only financed was tewater projects only in a handful of localities.  Other International Financial Institutions o Only in 2012, the EBRD signed projects in six Romanian counties, totaling close to EUR 70 million. o Similarly, the EIB has supported projects in the Cluj and Săla j Counties, with the explicit aim of helping Romania achieve the targets set through the acquis communautaire. The EIB has taken on a broad mandate in supporting investments in the entire water cycle, from water resources and supply, to wastewater collecti on, treatment and disposal, coastal erosion, and flood control and protection. o Last not but least, the Development Bank of the Council of Europe has also financed similar interventions, covering the rehabilitation of water and sewage systems in 17 communities across Romania in 2009  Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MECC) o The MECC oversees the water and sanitation sector from the perspective of environmental regulation, and is responsible for elaborating national policies in the environmental sector, including specific regulations and necessary measures for implementing the National Sustainable Development Strategy. o The Ministry supervises directly several key players in the sector (e.g., the National National Administration Romanian Waters) and has served as the Managing Authority for the Operational Programme Environment 2007-2013. In 2015, this role is fulfilled by the Ministry of European Funds.  The National Administration Romanian Waters o The Administration is the water management body in Romania, designed to protect 80 Level Key Players and promote the sustainable use of water resources . o It is the only authorized operator of water resources, both surface and underground waters, and of related infrastructure (such as dams, channels , etc.).  Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration (MRDPA) o An important player in financing investments in the water and wastewater infrastructure, the MRDPA is the central authority responsible for coordinating, monitoring, and planning of the public utility servi ces, as it develops relevant national strategies, approves and coordinates allocation of government resources, and evaluates performance indicators. o The MRDPA is in charge with the coordination of infrastructure investment programs in the sector, regardless of the source of financing. o The Ministry’s main infrastructure development program is the National Local Development Program, which has taken over previous investments in water and wastewater investments in rural areas.  The National Authority for Regulating Public Utility Community Services (ANRSC) o The Authority is subordinated to the MRDPA and is responsible for the proper delivery of public services, including water and sanitation. o The ANRSC proposes the framework for setting tariffs and fees related to public services delivery, grants licenses to operators, develops methodologies and performance indicators, and monitors the delivery of public utility services.  Intercommunity Development Associations (IDAs) o IDAs are non-profit organizations that bring together local authorities interested in delivering services jointly and/or seeking to undertake common investment projects. o IDAs on water & sanitation have specific purposes including establishing, financing, exploiting, and managing jointly the water and wastewater services for members and completing public investment projects. o IDAs are the legal owners of Regional Operators ( see below).  Regional Operators (ROs) o ROs are commercial entities comprising several shareholders (public authorities at the city/commune/county level) established as a part of the “regionalization process,” with the aim of creating more powerful and accountable entities that can Subnational design and implement investment projects and also deliver better services. o There are 42 regional water operators in Romania, covering 90% of the country. Most ROs serve the territory of a single county, but there are exceptions to this rule. Most localities have ceded the operation of their water and wastewater systems to the ROs. o ROs charge single tariffs over the entire area they serve (the same tariff applies to urban and rural communities).  County Councils o County councils can play a critical role at the county level, not just as shareholders of the ROs and members of the IDAs, but also as key decision-makers and funders of hard infrastructure investments. o Under the PNDL, they help prioritize proposals from the local level and send them to 81 Level Key Players the MDRPA, monitor the approved PNDL projects, and even co-finance (whenever they choose to do so) water/sanitation projects for communes.  De-concentrated institutions o De-concentrated institutions are regional/county-level branches of national bodies (e.g., the County Environment Protection Agencies). o These regional entities subordinated to the central government are responsible for the coordination, development and monitoring of regional action plans for environmental protection, and some of them act as Intermediate Bodies for the EU- funded programs (e.g., the Regional Environment Protection Agency for the OP Environment OP).  Local authorities o Their main responsibilities is to deliver public services to citizens in their respective communities, act as beneficiaries of investments, apply for public or EU funds, and implement and manage the projects. o Most local authorities cede operation and maintenance (along with corresponding revenues) to the ROs, but by law they maintain ownership over the utility networks. Legal Framework Level Legal Framework  The Drinking Water Directive o The Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EEC) aims “to protect human health from adverse effects of any contamination of water intended for human consumption by ensuring that it is wholesome and clean”. o Member states must monitor at least 48 parameters for distribution systems that serve more than 50 people or supply more than 10 cubic meters per day, as well as for all water supplied as part of an economic activity. o In the case of Romania, as noted in the country’s EU Accession Treaty, the derogations for achieving the Directive’s targets are as follows:  Agglomerations with less than 10,000 inhabitants Supranational — Oxidisability: December 31, 2010 (EU) — Ammonium, nitrates, turbidity, aluminums, iron, lead, cadmium, and pesticides: December 31, 2015  Agglomerations with 10,000-100,000 inhabitants — Oxidisability and turbidity: December 31, 2010 — Ammonium, nitrates, aluminum, iron, lead, cadmium, pesticides, and manganese: December 31, 2015  Agglomerations with more than 100,000 inhabitants — Oxidisability, ammonium, aluminum, pesticides, iron, and manganese: December 31, 2010 82 Level Legal Framework  The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive o The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) seeks to “protect the environment from urban wastewater discharges and discharges from certain industrial sectors.” o It requires collection and treatment of wastewater in all agglomerations over 2,000 population equivalent (p.e.), secondary treatment of all discharges from agglomerations of over 2,000 p.e., and more advanced treatment for those over 10,000 p.e. in sensitive areas and their catchments. o Romania has the second-highest investment needs in urban water treatment systems, only surpassed by Poland, which covers, nonetheless, a larger area. The total sum needed to fully implement the directive in Romania exceeds EUR 10 billion. o Article 3: All agglomerations over 2,000 p.e. provided with collecting systems for urban wastewater  By December 31, 2013: compliance for all agglomerations larger than 10,000 p.e.  Min. overall population equivalent rates: By December 31, 2010: 61%; By December 31, 2013: 69%; By December 31, 2015: 80% o Article 4 & Article 5(2):  All agglomerations over 2,000 p.e. provided with secondary treatment before discharge of urban wastewater entering collecting systems.  All agglomerations of more than 10,000 p.e. provided with stringent (tertiary) treatment of urban wastewater entering collecting systems before discharge into sensitive areas.  Min. overall population equivalent rates: By December 31, 2010: 51%; By December 31, 2013: 61%; By December 31, 2015: 77% o As of 2011, only 57% of Romanian households were connected to public water supply and only 42% were connected to wastewater treatment plants (lowest and second-lowest figures, respectively, among all Member States). This means that Romania has already failed on reaching the intermediate target of 61% connection rate for urban wastewater treatment by the end of 2010 and it is bound to miss 2018 targets too  The Water Framework Directive o The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) establishes an integrated framework “for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters, and groundwater .” It seeks to achieve good ecological status for all water bodies in the EU. The specific aims of the Directive are multi -fold: to prevent further deterioration; to promote sustainable water use; to progressively reduce discharges as well as the pollution of ground water; and to mitigate effects of floods and droughts. o Member states are required to identify individual river basins (article 3) and assign them to districts and corresponding competent authorities for the management of such districts. Member states also need to present for each river basin a programme of measures and a river basin management plan. o Romania must reach good state for 60% of the surface waters, groundwater, and 83 Level Legal Framework protected areas by December 2015, with a possible derogation until 2017.  Transposition of the EU directives into the Romanian legislation o Romania had adopted the EU provisions with regard to the EU main legislation under Law 458/2005 on the quality of the drinking water and Government Decision 188/2002 (corresponding to Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 91/271/EEC).  Legal provisions on functioning of the water and sanitation sector o Law 215/2001 on Public Administration mandates local public authorities to manage the provision of public services to residents, including public utility community services, such as water supply. o Law 51/2006 for community services of public utility defines how such services operate, including with regard to operators, users, financing.  Law 241 on water and wastewater services o It lays out a comprehensive framework for the establishment, functioning, monitoring, and control of the water sector. o Main aspects: principles of service provision, performance indicators, investment programs, management and operations of the systems to responsibilities of operators and of local authorities, users’ rights and obligations, and financing. o On investments specifically: Deliberative bodies at the local level (i.e., Local Councils) approve investment strategies and programs, in accordance with “local urban and National territorial development plans, development programs of the respective territorial administrative unit, and international commitments in the area of environmental protection.” o On management of operations: There are two options available to local public authorities: direct (self) or delegated management. The choice is based on a detailed study and public consultations that take into account l ocal needs, size and characteristics of localities, the status of existing water and sanitation systems, local capacity to finance the operation and expansion of the infrastructure.  Order 65/2007 of the President of the ANRSC describing the tariffs for water and sanitation services o Sets the tariffs in pursuit of three main objectives: financial viability of operator, user rights (including affordability), and environmental protection.  Legal provisions corresponding to the infrastructure works on water ne twork o These provisions comprise a number of legal regulations including Law 107/1996 on Water, Government Decision 352/2005 regarding wastewater discharges, and Government Decision 974/2004 regarding supervision, inspection, and monitoring of water quality.  Local authorities implement the national legislation through the local council decisions.  Local authorities cannot deviate from the provisions set by the central level, though they do have some leeway in how they apply them. To cite an earl ier example, they could Subnational chose to run their own operator, without delegating this service to an IDA-contracted company. They can also influence level of tariffs and are responsible for major local capital investments. 84 3.2.2 Strategies and Plans Level Strategies and Plans o Compared to other sectors where synergies between Member States are critical (e.g., connective infrastructure), there is less need for the EU to have an active role in shaping and coordinating Member States ’ investments in water and sanitation infrastructure. As such, there is no grand strategy at the EU level to cover this sector. The Europe 2020 Strategy does not include a specific focus on water and sanitation Supranational among its key priorities and main targets. (EU) o The only flagship initiative that refers to this sector is “Resource-Efficient Europe,” though this deals more with water quality and less with actual infrastructure projects.  The Romania – EU Partnership Agreement 2014-2020 o The document notes that gaps in water and wastewater infrastructure are one of the main challenges to Romania’s growth. The water and wastewater infrastructure is discussed under the Thematic Objective 6 on preserving and protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency. o The full implementation of the Water Framework Directive requires an additional €4.236 billion for improving drinking water quality and €8.378 billion for wastewater collection and treatment o According to the agreement, prioritization of investments will be done based on updated versions of Regional Master Plans in the water sector, while financing gaps should be filled by national budget funds “[following] the same procedures, indicators, and rules applied in the frame of European Structural and Investment Funds.”  The National Sustainable Development Strategy (NSDS) 2013-2020-2030 o The NSDS is Romania’s main strategic document in the environment sector. o The strategy outlines the national goals to “reduce the gap compared to other EU National Member States with respect to environment-related infrastructure, in terms of both quantity and quality, by developing efficient public services”. o The document explicitly correlates with EU policies and draws from EU-level directives and targets, although it does not prioritize investments nor suggests specific funding streams.  The Governing Program 2013-2016 o Investments in water and sanitation infrastructure needs are one of the priorities in the short and medium run. o The focus should stay on finalizing the investment projects for water supply, sewage, and water treatment plants, thus improving people’s quality of life. o The program also emphasizes the need to finish infrastructure projects that have been started in the past, based on clear priorities and consultations with beneficiaries. o Previewing the National Program for Local Development, the program is calling for “financing a minimum package of required public investments [in rural areas],” which would include water and sanitation systems. 85 Level Strategies and Plans  The National Territorial Development Strategy (SDTR) 2035 (draft ) o The strategy calls for critical investments to be made with regard to the delivery of basic public services to enable similar living standards all across Romania, and for prioritization of investments in the networks’ expansio n around main cities. o Cities have a polarizing effect: peri -urban areas around București, Timișoara, Cluj, Constanța, and Sibiu enjoy markedly better access to water and sanitation services compared to areas that are more distant from urban centers. This suggests that new investments around the main cities should be prioritized. o Investment projects should take into account operations and maintenance costs, especially regarding wastewater systems in rural areas. o Investments in water and sanitation should be done both in urban and rural areas in order to make them equally attractive, thus setting ambitious targets. The SDTR proposes ambitious targets to be reached in the next 7 years: 100% of residents in urban areas and 70% of residents in rural areas connected to water supply systems; 75% of all residents connect to sanitation systems.  Regional Development Plans (RDPs) o The RDPs present lists of potential investments in the water and sanitation sector for each county, including estimated total budgets. o The Plans also feature some indicative targets to be reached by the end of the 2014- 2020 programming period with regard to water connections and sanitation systems. o What such documents usually lack is a correlation of project lists and available budgets from various sources, and they typically focus only on EU-funded instruments, with no or few references to state-budget funds.  River Basin Management Plans o The River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) are documents prepared at the level of each river basin, with the aim of “balanced management and protection of water resources in order to reach the proper status for both surface and underground waters.” These are part of Romania’s EU Member State requirements. o The territory of Romania is part of the wider Danube River Basin Management Plan that includes 11 sub-plans. The National River Basin Management Plan (NRBMP) Subnational includes a synthesis of these 11 sub-plans, covering a wide range of topics, like surface and underground water and lists of priority measures/actions. o The NRBMP is useful for the prioritization of investments in urban wastewater treatment that should take into account the current water quality status of different water bodies and the main pressures identified through each NRBMP. o The NRBMP also provides list of measures/investments needed to abide by EU and national legislation. o The national and subnational NRBMPs make direct references to Master Plans for water and wastewater infrastructure investments.  Regional Master Plans for Water and Waste Water o Regional Master Plans (MPs) are the most important documents for determining investment priorities in the water and sanitation sector at the county and local level financed, at least for projects financed by EU structural funds. The aim of the MPs is to propose an integrated long-term development strategy for water and wastewater infrastructure, in a defined area covered by a Regional Operator, including cost 86 Level Strategies and Plans estimates for investments required as part of Romania’s EU commitments. In essence, each MP puts forth a list of priority investments, selected based on clear criteria and prioritized for different periods of time (e.g., through 2015, 2016-2018, and after 2018). o Each area covered by a Regional Operator has developed a MP for the Extension and Rehabilitation of Water and Wastewater Infrastructure. The MPs for 2014-2020 are in the process of getting updated (as of February 2015). o As far as selection and prioritization criteria go, MPs generally give precedence to projects that can be completed within specific timelines (e.g., by 2015 or 2018), which fit Romania’s broader EU acquis commitments. Beyond that, each MP includes a specific set of criteria, without a fully standardized approach. Some MPs leave these criteria at a broad level, merely indicating that they include institutional, technical, and impact indicators, while others present detailed scoring grids (e.g., Brăila, Constanța, Ialomița, Ilfov, etc.). See Annex A for a detailed example of a scoring grid. o Another key element is the definition of areas and clusters by each MP, ensuring that water and sanitation services respectively can be delivered efficiently, at the lowest possible operational costs. For example, each MP considers some of these criteria in defining agglomerations: distance between a particular locality and existing networks; characteristics of the terrain and maximum levels of underground waters; risks of flooding; distance to major access roads/networks and other localities; the required and maximum capacity of treatment plants; other criteria (e.g., cost and availability of the land, feasibility of centralized vs. decentralized treatment, demographic projections, population density, etc.).  Local-Level General Urban Plans & Development Strategies o Both types of documents often make references to planned water and sanitation infrastructure investments. o There are two main challenges with such documents. First, they do not typically include financing sources and available budgets. As such, they remain wish lists with desirable projects, without any connection to a locality’s actual resources for bringing these from the concept phase through project design and implementation. Second, sometimes such documents fail to correlate with other key documents in the sector, especially the regional master plans for water and wastewater. This can create overlaps and inefficiencies, leading to the financing of projects that are not among the agreed priorities.  Local-Level Strategies for Development of Public Services o GD 246/2006 approved the National Strategy for Accelerating the Development of Public Services, including a corresponding multi -annual implementation plan. o Subsequently, such documents were developed at all levels, without a full understanding of the purpose they would serve. Some local authorities have invested real time and effort into such strategies, while others have not. The value add of these strategies and their correlation with higher-level documents remain questionable. 87 3.2.3 Investment Programs 139. There are three main investment programs that currently finance water and sanitation infrastructure projects. Two of them are EU-funded: SOP Environment 2007-2013 / OP Large Infrastructure 2014-2020 and the National Rural Development Programme (PNDR) 2007-2013 and 2014-2020. The third key program for financing water and wastewater investments is the PNDL, which is entirely funded from the state budget and was covered under the previous chapter. The current sub-section focuses on the strategic directions of these instruments (i.e., the thinking behind them). The Large Infrastructure Operational Programme (LIOP) 2014-202052 140. Priority Axis 3 of the LIOP focuses on water and sanitation infrastructure under the development of environment infrastructure necessary for an efficient management of resources . Under this axis, Romania will receive over EUR 2.5 billion for projects on water and wastewater in order to meet the EU acquis as to increase access of people to water supply and enhance the level of wastewater collection and treatment. To this end, investments under the 2014-2020 programming period should enable Romania to provide wastewater collection and treatment services to agglomerations larger than 2,000 people equivalent (p.e.) and drinking water to localities over 50 people . Main eligible investments cover development and rehabilitation of sewage networks for agglomerations larger than 2,000 p.e. (with priority to those over 10,000 p.e.), rehabilitation and construction of wastewater treatment plants, expanding on the existing water networks, and development of centralized water systems in urban and rural localities. 141. Priority under LIOP should be given to proposals that made it to the lists of projects included in the updated Regional Water and Wastewater Master Plans. Beneficiaries of the LIOP funds are the Local Development Associations through the Regional Operators (ROs). In order to meet the EU targets with regard to localities between 2,000 and 10,000 inhabitants in rural areas, the investments through the LIOP will be complemented with EU money through the National Rural Development Program (PNDR). The Sectoral Operational Programme (SOP) Environment 2007-2013 142. The overall objective of SOP Environment 2007-2013 is to protect and improve the quality of the environment and the standards of living in Romania, in pursuit of full compliance with the environment acquis. 53 The total budget of the programme is €5.3 billion, which Romania needs to spend by the end of 2015. Under the programme’s six specific objectives, the first one listed targets the improvement of water and wastewater infrastructure in most urban areas by 2015 and the establishment of regional structures for the management of water/sanitation services. Accordingly, the programme was implemented based on six priority axes and Axis 1 is for projects related to the expansion and modernization of water and sanitation systems. More specifically, there are six sub-objectives under Axis 1: ensuring water and wastewater services, at reasonable tariffs; ensuring adequate quality of drinking water; improving quality of water streams; improving sludge management; and the creation of 52 This is based on version 1.0 of the draft programmatic document 53 See “SOP Environment 2007 -2013” (Romanian version), p. 6 88 innovative and efficient water management structures (i.e., through the “regionalization” of water services and the formation/consolidation of new Regional Operators). 143. Axis 1 is fully financed from the Cohesion Fund, at a total budget of €3.1 5 billion, of which the EU contributes 88.16% of the funds. This is by far the largest axis under SOP Environment, with nearly 60% of the total allocation, which is justified in the programmatic document by referencing Romania’s significant financing needs in the water and wastewater sector, along with the country’s clear commitments set in the EU Accession Agreement. Figure 24. SOP Environment allocations of funds across regions Data Source: Managing Authority of SOP Environment 144. The allocations vary by region, as the first map above shows, with comparatively higher sums allocated for projects in the northeast and west of the country, along with some of the larger areas like Constanța/Ialomița and Cluj -Sălaj. The allocation is not always consistent with the total funding need (shown in the map below), though this does not necessarily reflect an inadequate prioritization of investments. For instance, it may be that certain counties have more needs concentrated in smaller towns and communes, which were not prioritized for the 2007-2013 programming period. As the SOP Environment specifically notes, it makes sense to first complete larger projects, for two main reasons: (1) to make progress toward reaching targets set through the water and wastewater EU directives; and (2) to address the urgent development needs of large communities, based on a long-term strategy. SOP Environment further encouraged local authorities to join forces and enable economies of scale in the delivery of public services by conditioning grants on the formation of Intercommunity Development Associations (IDAs) and on the delegation of the management of services to Regional Operators (ROs). 145. Even so, the aggregate numbers tell a nuanced story: there is still a sig nificant funding gap in the water and wastewater sector. The next figure below highlights the fact that SOP 89 Environment 2007-2013 was only able to cover a relatively small proportion of total needs (per the county-level Master Plans). The situation is particularly worrisome in counties like Suceava, Mureș, Argeș, Teleorman, and Giurgiu, where the EU -funded instrument was only able to cover up to 15% of the total investment needs. The gap remains to be financed from other sources (e.g., PNDR, PNDL, etc.). Figure 25. Share of SOP Environment allocations vs. total investment needs in the water and sanitation sector Data Sources: Managing Authority of SOP Environment & Regional Master Plans The National Rural Development Programme (PNDR) 2014-202054 146. The PNDR shall invest in proposals targeting water supply and wastewater networks for localities between 2,000 and 10,000 p.e. Priority will be given to proposals complementing investments funded through the Large Infrastructure Operational Programme (LOIP). Money can also be available to projects in localities below 2,000 p.e. only after Romania had met the EU requirements in the water sector . Beneficiaries of both road and water infrastructure interventions can be communes – on their own or in partnership through Intercommunity Development Associations (IDAs). Eligible water proposals must be included in the updated Water and Wastewater Master Plans. Interventions in water and sanitation infrastructure will support the upgrading of drinking water quality in rural areas, as well as the reduction of pollution triggered by the bio-degradable organic loads from rural communities. The National Rural Development Programme (PNDR) 2007-2013 147. The PNDR targets rural areas across Romania and includes financing for the provision of basic infrastructure – including in the water and sanitation sector. The programmatic 54 This is based on the July 2014 version of the programme 90 document points to the pressing need to invest in such services in rural areas; for example, in 2004, only 33% and 10% of residents in rural areas had access to water supply and sanitation systems, respectively. 55 The PNDR included Axis 3 for “improving quality of life in rural areas and the diversification of rural economy,” with sub-axis (“priority measure”) 322 focusing specifically on the development of villages and improvement of basic public services. The programmatic document lists all eligible interventions (e.g., development of water supply and sanitation systems, etc.), along with clear eligibility criteria. Interestingly, one criterion refers to the need for local authorities (project beneficiaries) to present the list of signatures of residents from the community, expressing their commitment to connect to the new networks upon completion of the investments. 56 In terms of quantitative indicators, the PNDR 2007-2013 sought to develop 6,317 kilometers of water supply pipes (4,738km of new works and 1,579km of expansion/modernization works) and 5,053 kilometers of sewage pipes (4,043km of new works and 1,011km of expansion/modernization works). 57 148. In terms of budgets, the PNDR totals €10 billion for the 2007 -2013 programming period, with an average co-financing rate (across axes) of 80.5%. For priority measure 322, the total funding available has been €1.72 billion, roughly 17% of the PNDR budget. The two maps below confirm that: (a) the value of PNDR investments in water and wastewater is typically small, with most counties receiving a total of under €15 million; and (b) the % contribution of PNDR to fulfilling the total investment needs is relatively minor, with the vast majority of counties financing under 5% of their total needs through this instrument, between 2007-2013. Figure 26. County-level total value of PNDR projects (2007-2013) 55 See “National Rural Development Programme” (Romanian version), p. 53 56 Ibid., p. 361 57 Ibid., p. 370 91 Figure 27. Share of PNDR 2007-2013 financing for water and wastewater projects as a percentage of total investment needs by county Data Source: PNDR 2007-2013; Regional Master Plans in the Water and Wastewater Sector 149. In addition, PNDR Axis 4 (LEADER) financed some smaller local development projects, with a maximum public co-financing of EUR 200,000. The LEADER approach seeks to empower communities to set their own priorities using bottom-up mechanisms. Local Action Groups (LAGs) were established across Romania for this precise purpose, with each LAG appointing a Project Selection Committee, including its own selection framework – i.e., LAGs are not required to take onboard the criteria defined for the axis, but can set their own mechanisms for deciding on projects that would receive financing. Due to the cap on the maximum investment and possibly because of individual preferences at the level of each community, few water and sanitation projects received financing under the PNDR’s LEADER axis, including a water project in Buzău County and a sanitation project in Sibiu County. More localities chose to spend the funds on roads (e.g., in Alba, Dâmbovița, Galați, Maramureș, Vrancea, etc.) and other types of projects (e.g., cultural, sports-oriented, etc.). The Regional Operational Programme (ROP) 2007-2013 150. In addition to the EU-funded instruments reviewed above, the ROP 2007-2013 also financed water and wastewater works under Axis 1 for the sustainable development of Romanian cities. This axis was not specifically dedicated to water/sanitation investments, but it financed a list of priority projects, as decided by local authorities in their Integrated Urban Development Plan (IUDP). In other words, some cities could rehabilitate certain streets and also replace the water supply and sewage networks (e.g., the municipalities of Bacău and Onești in the NE Region), while others focused on a completely different set of projects, depending on the respective needs at the level of local communities. Because of such variation on a case by case basis and because there are no centralized data on this issue, it is particularly challenging to 92 estimate how much funds went toward ROP-funded water and sanitation investments. For the purposes of the current report, however, it suffices to note that only localities with more than 10,000 residents were eligible to receive ROP 2007-2013 funding under Axis 1, which somewhat limits – implicitly – overlaps with other MRDPA-managed instruments like the PNDL (focused on rural areas primarily). State-Budget-Funded Programs 151. The Environment Fund collects revenues from a range of related taxes (e.g., the “environment tax”) and has its own investment pipeline. The EF was established through GEO 196/2005 and is managed by an Authority, under the coordination of the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change. In practice, the MRDPA currently supervises EF investments, which can also help coordinate PNDL and EF interventions going forward. According to Article 1 of GEO 196/2005, the EF aims to support environmental protection projects and is entirely self- financed from various taxes, including on hazardous substances and other goods (oil and related products, alcohol, wood, etc.). The same ordinance defines the list of potential eligible project categories, including “the protection of water resources and water and wastewater treatment plants for local communities.” 58 The EF implements a number of investment programs, such as on awareness raising for environmental protection, support for renewable sources, modern heating systems, improvements in the quality of the environment (e.g., through green areas), subsidies for the purchase of newer vehicles, and the program for the protection of water sources, integrated water supply systems, treatment plants, and sewage. Figure 28. The Environment Fund has fewer projects than the other investment programs Data Source: Environment Fund (2014) 58 See GEO 196/2005, Article 13 93 152. At the end of 2013, the EF had 179 ongoing water and sanitation projects worth nearly RON 1 billion (as total contracted value), of which only RON 126 million had been expensed that year. 59 This was by far the largest category of projects in the Fund’s 2013 budget – both as a share of the total contracted value (65%) and as a share of expensed funds (48%). Some of the projects started under the EF have been submitted for financing under the SOP Environment, to be financed from the savings done on the ongoing SOP projects. The Applicant Guide for the EF details a number of other useful facts:  The total maximum financing for a project is up to 95% of eligible costs;  The sum dedicated to a project can range between RON 4 million and RON 15 million, depending on the type of project (e.g., extension vs. new development, etc.) and depending on the size of the respective community (i.e., under 3.000 residents, 3.000- 10.000, 10.000-20.000, and above 20.000);  There is a detailed scoring grid and there are corresponding criteria, including the following main categories: the cost benefit analysis, the feasibi lity study, the project’s relevance, project type, level of financing for other similar projects, size of locality, own contribution to project costs (5-25%, with more points for a higher level of co-financing).  Each criterion has a number of maximum possible points. If two projects earn the exact same number of points, then the selection criterion is first-in-first-out (FIFO).  After each evaluation round, the list of approved projects is published on the EF Authority’s website, including the score obtained by each applicant. Importantly, the evaluation commission is internal, operating under the EF Authority. 60  In recent years, it appears that EF investments have been constrained by the lack of funding. Field interviews with the Fund’s management have revea led that they have addressed such issues by preparing and submitting projects to be financed under OP Environment. Going forward, the hope is that the EF will operate on a multi-annual budget. 153. Last but not least, as reviewed in the previous chapter, the PNDL finances an important number of water and sanitation investments. The 2014 allocation of PNDL funds for such projects varied across counties, as shown in the map below. As in the case of PNDR, the fact that these are mostly smaller projects, targeted at rural communities, implies that the total contribution of the PNDL to addressing the total needs of the sector is quite small. The only outlier may be Gorj County, where at least 30% of the total needs were covered through PNDL- financed investments in 2014. 59 See EF Annual Implementation Report, available at http://afm.ro/informatii_publice_raport_anual_utilizare.php 60 See EF Applicant Guide available at http://www.afm.ro/main/programe/program_protectie_ape_uzate/arhiva/ordin1450_2010- ghid.pdf 94 Figure 29. Value of PNDL water and sanitation investments in 2014, by county Data Source: MRDPA Figure 30. Share of PNDL 2014 financing for water and wastewater projects as a percentage of total investment needs by county Data Source: MRDPA; Regional Master Plans in the Water and Wastewater Sector 95 3.3 Social Infrastructure 154. Social infrastructure is crucial for addressing people’s needs for health care, education, cultural, and youth/sporting activities. Therefore, governments should invest in social infrastructure facilities to enable people’s access to proper schools, hospitals, cultural centers, sport facilities, etc. This is important not only as a basic right to a decent living, but also as a way of boosting individual productivity and, by implication, achieving sustainable and inclusive growth. As argued in the 2013 World Bank Competitive Cities report, people can maximize their productive potential if they are healthy, well-educated and trained for fulfilling labor market demands. At the same time, they also benefit from a high quality of life, which depends on fulfilling more sophisticated needs through cultural activities and leisure. 155. In rural areas in Romania, there are still many communities with poor or no access to proper social infrastructure. People may sometimes need to travel for long distances to get to the nearest doctor and receive the medical treatment they need. This is a serious problem especially for the elderly and low-income, marginalized, and/or vulnerable groups, for whom traveling to the nearest medical facility and pharmacy can be very challenging. As not all villages and communes in Romania have their own schools, sometimes students must travel several kilometers by foot to get the education they need. Getting to school is even more difficult during the cold season or in areas like the Danube Delta, where accessibility is very low. Although in recent years the government has made substantial financial efforts to purchase school buses that transport students from rural areas to the nearest schools, these vehicles cannot fully cover the transport needs for all. 156. Not all education and healthcare facilities are in good shape and many of these facilities need rehabilitation or serious consolidation work. Many schools, especially in rural areas, have not been rehabilitated since they were built during the communist era and, therefore, may pose serious safety risks. Local governments and the central public ministries should join efforts to improve the state of social infrastructure to ensure comfortable environments with all that is required to address people’s needs (e.g., computers for schools, basic medical equipment, etc.). Last but not least, investments in cultural centers in rural areas are also needed to provide the community with places where people can enjoy activities at the local level, without having to travel to far off places. 3.3.1 Sector Structure 157. The social infrastructure sector has a number of players at the supranational, national, and subnational level. The section below presents the main stakeholders that play a role in designing and managing social infrastructure investments, along with the main applicable legislation. Key Players Level Key Players  The European Union Supranational o The EU has several key policies and financing mechanisms for health, education, and culture, providing financial support for the development of social 96 Level Key Players infrastructure. o The European Commission, the executive arm of the EU, is responsible for shaping specific policies for different sectors through the directorate generals. o Part of the money for Romania comes from the European Regional Development Fund through the Regional Development Program, aimed at covering investments in social infrastructure, such as educational units and healthcare facilities. o The proposal for the 2014-2020 programming period seeks to support health infrastructure that fosters transformational changes in the health system.  The World Bank o The World Bank has provided USD 250 million loan to Romania to improve the health sector infrastructure to enhance the access, quality, and efficiency of public health services in the country. o The money will be used for the rationalization of healthcare delivery by strengthening key hospitals to become the backbone of regional networks.  The European Investment Bank (EIB) o Over the course of time, the bank had developed, with co-finance from other IFIs and the Romanian Government, a number of school rehabilitation programs, covering thousands of pre-university facilities across the country. o Currently, the EIB is co-financing the rehabilitation and furnishing of over 1,300 schools in the country, with a total investment worth EUR 343.3 million.  The Council of Europe Development Bank o The bank is implementing the rehabilitation of 750 kindergartens, and is co - financing the rehabilitation of 1,330 schools across Romania.  Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration (MRDPA) o The MRDPA is the managing authority for the Regional Operational Programme and the coordinator of the Local National Development Program (PNDL). o The ROP targets the education, health, and culture sectors by supporting development of relevant infrastructure. o PNDL supports the improvement, rehabilitation, expansion, and development of social infrastructure, particularly in rural areas. o See Annex for detailed data.  Ministry of Health National o The Ministry of Health is responsible for the national healthcare policies and infrastructure in Romania. o It is responsible for the implementation of the National Strategy for Health for the period 2014-2020 and its related Action Plan, a document that includes activities aimed at improving the healthcare infrastructure at the local and regional level.  Ministry of Education o The Ministry of Education designs and applies strategy and policies for education, establishing the objectives of the education system, and setting the targets for all education profiles. 97 Level Key Players o The Ministry is responsible for the implementation of education infrastructure programs financed through various funding sources.  Ministry of Youth and Sports o The Ministry of Youth and Sports’ main objective is to apply and implement the strategies and programs with regard to sports and youth matters. o The Ministry develops and implements projects related to the rehabilitation and expansion of students’ cultural and leisure centers.  Ministry of Culture o The Ministry of Culture is responsible for designing and implementing the national strategies and policies in the cultural sector, for protecting the cultural heritage and for developing, restoring, and equipping the cultural infrastructure of prime national importance.  The National Investment Company o An entity under the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration, the National Investment Company is in charge with a number of national investment programs, including for sports and social infrastructure (such as development and rehabilitation of sports halls, cultural centers, higher-education units, and healthcare facilities in rural areas). o So far, 45 cultural centers have been developed or rehabilitated under this program. Between 2002 and 2014, the NIC has funded the construction of 1,040 new sports facilities across the country and has rehabilitated 45 sports facilities built before the year 2000.  The National Institute of Patrimony o The National Institute of Patrimony under the Ministry of Culture manages the funds targeting the restoration and conservation work of historical monuments under the National Restoration of Historical Monuments Program. o With support from the cultural county departments and other specialized bodies, the Institute prepares the inventory of historical monuments. Also, the Institute designs projects aimed at exploiting the historical monuments and their adjacent areas through the promotion of cultural tourism.  County Councils o County authorities are responsible for social infrastructure works performed to the facilities that belong under the county. o They are solely responsible for the social infrastructure that makes up the public and private domain of the county, for county hospitals, and for specialized social assistance services for the elderly and for children with special needs . Subnational  Local authorities o Local authorities are responsible for investments in the social infrastructure for the facilities that belong to them (primary schools, healthcare and social assistance facilities, and local cultural centers is performed with funds from the local budget). 98 Legal Framework Level Legal Framework  UN o Universal Declaration of Human Rights tackles the right to health and education, but like other international documents it refers mainly to policies and only Supranational indirectly to social infrastructure. o International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights recognizes people’s rights to get access to health care and education.  Law no. 196/2006 on decentralization o With respect to social infrastructure, local public administration authorities have exclusive competencies over: the administration of the public and private domain of the commune or city; the administration of the cultural institutions of local interest; administration of public medical units of local interest; primary social assistance services for the protection of children and for the elderly; and primary and specialized social assistance services for the victims of family violence. o Local public authorities share competencies with the central level in areas related to social infrastructure that require both a national and local approach. These areas include: building social housing and housing for young people; state pre- university education (except for the education of students with special needs); medical and social assistance services for individuals with social problems; and primary social assistance services for persons with disabilities. o As for the authorities at the county level, they also have exclusive competencies with respect to social infrastructure: the administration of cultural institutions of county interest; the administration of public medical units of county interest; primary and specialized social assistance services for the victims of family violence; and specialized social assistance services for the elderly. o County-level public administration authorities also share competencies with central public authorities in the area of social infrastructure: state education for National students with special needs; medical and social assistance services for individuals with social problems; primary and specialized social assistance services for child protection; and specialized social assistance services for persons with disabilities.  Law 500/2002 on public finances o Defines capital expenditure as the share of the public spending intended for the financing of investment objectives/projects and of other investment categories. o Under investment programs, capital expenditures are grouped into three clusters: continued investment objectives, new investment objectives, and other capital expenditures. o Any public investment program will include only the investment objectives/ projects/categories that can be financed entirely within the expenditure limits set by the expenditure framework and/or the fiscal-budgetary strategy (approved by Law no. 69/2010)  Law 273/2006 on local public finances o According to this law, expenses for public investments and other capital expenditures financed from local public funds have to be integrated in the budget proposals of territorial-administrative units on the basis of their own investment programs. 99 Level Legal Framework o The main credit release authorities for local budgets are responsible for elaborating public investment programs annually, setting priorities in the distribution of amounts per each objective included in the investment pr ogram, and monitoring these projects. o The main credit release authorities are also responsible with monitoring investment projects. If a project cannot be implemented according to the budgetary projections for objective reasons, the main credit release authorities may propose to the deliberative authorities the redistribution of funds among the projects included in the investment program.  Order no.983/2005 of the Minister of Public Finance for the approval of the methodological norms regarding the evaluation and selection criteria for public investment objectives o This legal provision sets the norms for evaluating and selecting investment objectives financed in full or in part from public (state or local) budgets.  Law 1/2011 (The National Education Law) o The law treats separately the pre-university education and the university education, including in terms of infrastructure. o The land and facilities of the pre-university education belong to the local public domain and are administered by the local councils, whereas those for students with special needs and educational assistance county centers are managed by the county authorities. o With respect to state or private universities, they have their own patrimony, which they can freely manage within the limits set by the law.  Law 95/2006 on the health system reform o The law states that public hospitals are entirely financed from their own income and operate on the basis of the financial autonomy principle. o The income earned by medical units can be invested in infrastructure and medical equipment, upon covering their operational expenditures. o The funds received by public hospitals managed by local governments from the state and local budgets can cover investments for building new hospitals or for completing unfinished ones. o Local public hospitals may receive funds from the state budget and from the Ministry of Health to complete health infrastructure investments.  Order 512/2014 approving the Methodology for elaborating the public investments program of the Ministry of Health and for allocating funds for capital expenditures to the MoH units o This legal provision establishes specific procedures for developing the Ministry of Health’s (MoH) public investments program for allocation of funds for capital expenditure toward public units attached to the MoH. o The MoH centralizes all investment projects and other capital expenditures that fulfill the necessary prerequisites for entering in the investments program. Still, the approval of investment projects, notwithstanding thei r value, does not automatically ensure the financing of capital expenditures. o This approval only represents the condition for them to be integrated in the 100 Level Legal Framework annual investments programs and therefore to be annexed to the budgets of the Ministry of Health, which have to be approved by annual budgetary laws.  Government Decision 90/2010 o The Ministry of Culture is responsible for protecting the national cultural patrimony (material and immaterial), including through developing, restoring, and endowing the cultural infrastructure according to cultural needs. o Annex 2 of GD 90/2010 lists the units that operate under the subordination of the Ministry of Culture and are financed entirely from the state budget: county departments for culture and national patrimony, the National Preservation and Promotion Center of Traditional Culture, and the State Secretariat for Cults. o There are as well central-level specialized bodies and national interest cultural institutions that are financed both from their own revenues and through subsidies from the state budget. They are the following: the national museums, the national theatres, the national operas, philharmonic, and choir, national art centers, the National Patrimony Institute, the National Institute for Cultural Research a nd Training, etc.  Government Decision 11/2013 on the reorganization and functioning of the Ministry of Youth and Sports o The Ministry develops and implements the plan for the rehabilitation and expansion of leisure and cultural houses. o Annex 2 to the Government Decision 11/2013 includes the units that function in the subordination of the Ministry of Youth and Sports and mentions their sources of funding: own income and subsidies from the state budget. 3.3.2 Strategies and Plans Level Strategies and Plans  Europe 2020 Strategy o Romania is committed to the main two goals of the strategy with regard to the education sector, namely reducing early school leaving below 10% and at least 40% of 30-40 year-olds completing third level education. o Although the document does not include special provisions for social infrastructure, strategic infrastructure investments can help achieve these targets. Supranational  Investing in Health Strategy o According to this document prepared in 2013, investments in the health sector play an important role in achieving the objectives of smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth from the Europe 2020 strategy. o The EU makes the case for efficient spending in health, calling on Member States to invest in programs for people’s health as a wa y of reducing economic and social inequalities and fighting social exclusion.  The Governing Program 2013-2016 National o In the education sector, the focus is on the modernization of pre-university 101 Level Strategies and Plans education infrastructure, whereas in the case of health the focal point should be on overhauling and modernizing the existing system (by investing in regional hospitals). In the case of cultural heritage, the focus is on a number of key objectives, such as the Dacian fortresses in the Orăștie Mountains, or the network of ethnographic museums. o Each Romanian village should benefit from a minimum package of investments, including: health clinic, pharmacy, library, and cultural center.  The National Territorial Development Strategy (SDTR) 2035 (draft) o The strategy discusses the need to provide basic infrastructure to improve the quality of life in rural areas. o The proposed performance indicators discuss details pertaining to social infrastructure. o The strategy proposes the identification of rural localities with a polar ization potential in regions that lack an urban center with the aim of prioritizing strategic investments and improving their connectivity to surrounding areas.  The Romania-EU Partnership Agreement 2014-2020 o The document makes a distinct mention of the need to invest in social infrastructure, particularly with regard to rural small-scale infrastructure. It is also considered that social services and related infrastructure do not meet the needs of the population, affecting economic development potential. Moreover, cultural infrastructure, which is critical for preserving local identity, is deficient. o It also acknowledges that small-scale infrastructure plays a key role in improving the quality of life in rural areas and in making them more attractive.  The National Health Strategy for 2014-2020 o The strategy’s main goal is to reform the healthcare system in Romania and its related infrastructure in order to offer good and efficient healthcare services. o The document provides a number of measures aimed at improving health infrastructure at the national, regional, and local level. Such measures include rationalization and transformation of local healthcare facilities and converting them into ambulatory care units, development of community care services, rehabilitation and establishment of primary care facilities, and building three new regional hospitals. o No further details are provided on the prioritization of infras tructure projects in the sector, their proposed timeline, or financing sources.  The Strategy on education and professional training for 2014-2020 (draft) o One of the main aspects related to educational infrastructure is the development and modernization of pre-university educational facilities in order to diminish disparities in the sector and to improve access to education. o The document calls for the development of school camps and transport facilities for students to improve access to education in poor regions. o Eventually, development of education-related infrastructure should help promote equal access to quality education, reduce the early dropout phenomena (particularly among Roma), improve tertiary education, boost access to quality education, and provide life-long training. 102 Level Strategies and Plans o No further details are provided on the prioritization of infrastructure projects in the sector, their proposed timeline, or financing sources.  The Sectoral Strategy on Culture and Cultural Patrimony for 2014-2020 o The strategy outlines a series of measures aimed at extending access to historical monuments and development of integrated management plans for the cultural objectives capable of generating economic development. o Priority should be given to the rehabilitation of the objectives that had made it to the list of cultural patrimony objectives of Classes A and B. By 2020, at least 10% of the historical monuments of national importance (Class A) should be restored. o No further details are provided on the prioritization of such projects, their timeline, or financing sources.  Strategy for sports for 2013-2030 (draft) o The strategy emphasizes the need to improve the overall sports infrastructure in Romania. o Among the measures recommended are the rehabilitation of the sports camps that belong to the Ministry of Youth and Sports, the development of sports infrastructure for schools, and rehabilitation of the National Sports Complexes. No further details are provided on the prioritization of such projects, their timeline, or financing sources.  County Development Strategies o County development strategies include the rehabilitation/development of social infrastructure (e.g., county hospitals, centers for children with special needs, etc.) that the counties are responsible for. Subnational  Local Development Strategies o In the case of larger localities, usually local development strategies mention that they can carry out the rehabilitation/modernization/development work of social infrastructure, while smaller localities remain for the most part dependent on transfers from the central government and on national investment programs. 3.3.3 Investment Programs 158. As for the other sectors, structural funds from the European Union are one of the most important funding sources for investments in social infrastructure in Romania . During the 2007-2013 programming period, the EU has provided funds to improve and modernize education, healthcare, and social services facilities in both rural and urban areas, as well as for works targeting the cultural heritage of the country. 103 The Regional Operational Programme 2014-202061 159. Priority Axis 8 of the ROP 2014-2020 tackles health and social infrastructure, benefitting from EUR 425.5 million in EU non-reimbursable financial support. The main priority of this axis is promotion of investments focusing on national, regional, and local development as to increase life expectancy through enhancing access to medical and social services and better the quality of such services provided, thus reducing inequalities regarding health condition. The ROP is furthering social inclusion through access to a number of social, cultural, and recreational services, while shifting from institutionalized to community-operated services (in line with broader international commitments and trends). 160. Investments pertaining to health infrastructure eligible for funding under the ROP 2014-2020 target a number of activities. These include rehabilitation/modernization/ expansion/endowment of community care centers, of ambulatories (including those deriving from the reorganization or rationalization of small, inefficient hospitals), and of county hospitals and their Emergency Care Units. In addition, construction and endowment of regional hospitals will be also eligible for financing. Other projects eligible for EU funds are the rehabilitation/modernization/expansion /endowment of social service infrastructure such as daycare centers and ambulatory centers for neurological recovery, in addition to construction/ rehabilitation/modernization of family-type houses, apartments, and protected houses. 161. The investments pertaining to the ambulatory care infrastructure should lead the way toward the development of a medical center network that should be able to provide primary care, especially in rural areas. As for regional hospitals, these new medical facilities should be a stepping stone to the development of a national strategic regional hospital network that should ultimately take over major cases requiring complex medical intervention and special medical care. This should be able to ensure uniform coverage of high quality medical services throughout the country by giving access to people from all regions to high-standard medical services, focusing mainly on economically deprived areas (such as the North East and South West regions) and in places with a large number of people are vulnerable to poverty and social exclusion (like in the North West). 162. Investments in social infrastructure services will stimulate and support the transition from social services provided under the institutionalized system (residential social centers) to those provided within the community. The construction of new family houses and other protected facilities will not only provide better services to people, but should also create a more friendly environment, in line with the needs of beneficiaries (especially women, children, Roma, etc.). 163. In addition, Romania will receive under Priority Axis 5EUR 276.59 million for the conservation, protection, and leveraging of sustainable cultural patrimony. The ROP will finance objectives belonging to the UNESCO patrimony, national patrimony (regardless of location, be rural or urban), and cultural patrimony from rural areas. Such investments will target a number of activities, from restoration, consolidation, protection and conservation of historical monuments, to restoration, protection, conservation and development of interior paintings, frescos and of external mural paintings, and plastic restoration and remodeling of 61 This is based on the January 2015 draft version of the programmatic document 104 facades. In addition, eligible proposals include endowment with heating or fire prevention installations and with equipment needed to exhibit and protect the patrimony. 164. The education infrastructure is mainly tackled under Priority Axis 10 on Education infrastructure with allocated EU funds of EUR 255.32 million. The investments are aimed to provide education, training, and professional training in order to receive competencies and life cycle through development of education and training infrastructures, with the main objective of increasing active participation in the educational system. The main types of investments focus on the construction/rehabilitation/modernization/expansion/endowment of daycares, kindergartens, and mandatory education (grades 1 through 8), in addition to professional and technical/technological high schools. Priority will be given to areas where school enrollment is below the country average or the dropout rate is higher than the county/national level. Development and rehabilitation of education infrastructure and endowment of school facilities, along with proper sanitation conditions, should help contain the early dropout phenomenon. 165. Education infrastructure is also tackled under ROP’s Priority Axis 4 (Support for Sustainable Urban Development), with an overall funding of EUR 1.17 billion. This includes similar infrastructure investments as under Axis 10 (see above). The Regional Operational Programme 2007-2013 166. The ROP 2007-2013 has been a key player for putting into practice the very important task of improving education and healthcare infrastructure. Under Priority Axis 3 – Improvement of social infrastructure, the ROP was designed to positively influence the quality of the health, educational, social, and public safety for emergency situation services provided to the population. This axis intended to set the ground for better access to essential services by contributing to the achievement of the EU objectives with regard to economic and social cohesion. Essentially, the ROP’s main goal was to address the poor and underdeveloped social infrastructure in Romania, and provide support for facilitating better access for people living in rural and urban areas to health care and social services. 167. The money allocated under this priority axis amounted to EUR 657.5 million, of which EUR 558.9 was provided from the European Regional Development Fund, while the rest was co-financed from national resources. The money was directed to investments aimed at improving the quality of social infrastructure related services and upgrading them to European standards, with the final outcome of bettering the health of the population, its education and qualification level, as well as its participation to the labor market. The axis is structured on four components, namely education, health services, social services, and infrastructure for emergency situations. The analysis below focuses on the first three components. 168. The ROP targeted educational facilities under key intervention area 3.4 “Rehabilitation, modernization, development , and equipping of pre-university, university education, and continuous vocational training infrastructure.” The aim has been to increase the educational capacity in rural and urban areas as to create a direct link to the labor market and respond to actual needs and fulfill some of the objectives outlined in Law 84/1995 on 105 education (i.e., on improving and strengthening the education process throughout the country by supporting investments in the physical endowment of schools). 169. The poor state of schools has required major investments in buildings and school furniture. In the mid-2000s, only 28% of schools in rural areas were in adequate condition. 62 Overall, more than two-thirds of the primary education units in Romania needed rehabilitation work, with the highest demand in the North-East region (over 90%) and the lowest in the Bucharest - Ilfov area (“only” 33%). In 2004, according to the Ministry of Education, of the total 14,841 schools in the country, 11,137 education units needed rehabilitation work. At that time, analyses indicated that half of the schools in Romania did not have the necessary furniture and laboratory equipment. The situation was even worse in the rural areas, where education infrastructure was far below standards, affecting the quality of education and the health conditions of students and teachers. 170. In this context, EU funds came in at the right time to address these issues and strengthen the primary education infrastructure in the country . The project selection process under the ROP gave priority to proposals that were in line with the general objective of enhancing the quality of education and development of human capital by reducing dropout rates among marginalized communities (such as Roma, students in rural areas, and students with special needs), as well as by integrating activities pertaining to the educational process (e.g., teaching, practice, social activities, leisure, etc.). To this end, eligible projects could include rehabilitation, modernization, and equipping educational infrastructure from pre-university and university education, development of pre-university campuses, and rehabilitation, modernization, and equipping of centers for continuous professional training. 171. EU funds also targeted the development of campuses for technical and professional education, concentrating in one place all buildings needed to carry out the educ ational process. Other proposals to be considered were related to modernization, expansion, and consolidation of buildings for compulsory education and special schools, construction/ modernization/expansion of technical and professional education campus buildings, endowment with teaching equipment, modernization/expansion of buildings from pre- university education campuses (teaching facilities, dorms, etc.), as well as Continuous Professional Training Centers. 172. Romania received EUR 284.9 million for education infrastructure projects. Of this, EUR 242.1 million came from the EU, while the rest was a contribution from the local and national budget. Such projects financed by the ROP could be of minimum RON 500,000 and maximum RON 67 million. As of May 2014, a number of 248 educational infrastructure projects were completed, with an overall value of RON 1.9 billion (equivalent of EUR 452.2 million), which would make for an average value of EUR 1.8 million per project. The beneficiaries were local public authorities (city halls, county councils) from rural and urban areas. 62 See the 2007-2013 ROP Programmatic Document 106 Figure 31. The ROP 2007-2013 has contracted educational infrastructure projects in all regions Data Source: ROP 2007-2013 173. Most local authorities have implemented projects amounting up to RON 25 million per county, including some smaller schools in rural localities. More than one third of the counties developed projects with an overall amount ranging from RON 25 million to RON 50 million per county. Only four municipalities - Arad, Iași, București, and Dâmbovița - managed to implement projects whose total value exceeded RON 50 million. Dolj is the only county in Romania where the overall value of projects exceeded RON 100 million, with most of the funds concentrated in the county capital of Craiova. 174. The ROP has also helped tackle the need for new pre-university school campuses, and such facilities were developed to provide access to students, especially for those living in rural areas, to education and training. Ten pre-university campuses have been financed, in addition to four university campuses. Other projects targeted the rehabilitation and modernization of schools in rural and urban areas, such as the education facility in Sotonga, Dâmbovița County (RON 6.2 million), the schools in Valea Popii and Drăghici villages belonging to Mihăiești commune in Argeș County (RON 3.7 million), and the rehabilitation and equipping of the Unirea National College in Focșani, Vrancea County (RON 6.2 million). Other projects targeted the 107 thermal rehabilitation of school buildings, as in the case of School 19 in Pitesti, Argeş County (RON 19.7 million) and the Mihai Eminescu School in Zalău, Sălaj County (RON 4.3 million). 175. The same Priority Axis 3 of the ROP also finances social services facilities. The Area of Intervention 3.2 “Rehabilitation/modernization/development and endowment of social services infrastructure” was designed to address the poor social services in Romania, with the primary objective to improve the system throughout the country and set up minimum quality standards for the residential social centers. 176. The social services infrastructure in the country is poor and in many regions it remains underdeveloped. There are areas with no social services centers or, if facilities do exist, they are usually ill-equipped. Often times, potential beneficiaries, especially those belonging to disadvantaged groups, must travel for long distances to find a center. Social services infrastructure in Romania requires significant rehabilitation and modernization work, in addition to endowment of buildings where such services are delivered. The 2004 National Strategy for Social Services set the ground to better satisfy the needs of disadvantaged groups by bringing in the local level as the main actor to sort out the problems of vulnerable social groups in each community. In order to achieve a better inclusion of the disadvantaged groups, the strategy called for investments in hard infrastructure (buildings). 177. In particular, the ROP supports the development of multifunctional social centers that cover a wide span of services for people in difficulty, helping solve their specific problems (material, financial, cultural, legal, medical, etc.) temporarily or permanently. In addition, the ROP has continued investments in existing residential centers that could be used as long-term housing. The projects funded through the ROP have sought to develop the social services infrastructure and related endowment for new leisure, education, social integration/reintegration. 178. According to the applicant’s guide, the overall value of projects funded under this area of intervention is EUR 99,506,701, of which EUR 84,580,694 comes in the form of structural funds and EUR 14,926,007 comes from the national and local budgets. The value for each project can vary between RON 350,000 and RON 3.5 million (between EUR 100,000 and EUR 1 million). Eligible projects include the modernization/expansion of multifunctional social centers, and the rehabilitation, modernization, and endowment of residential social centers. Other eligible activities considered under the ROP are the modernization/expansion of social centers (residential, dining halls, bathrooms, etc.), the modernization/expansion of buildings to develop new facilities, the modernization of general utilities related to the buildings, the development/ modernization of access areas for people with disabilities, equipping new workshop facilities within social centers, etc. As of May 204, 209 social services projects were covered under ROP, with an overall amount of RON 625 million (EUR 142 million). This would make for an average allocation of EUR 680,000 per project. 179. Most of the counties have implemented projects with an overall amount not exceeding RON 5 million . There are 10 counties where the total amount of projects is between RON 10 million and RON 25 million. The largest investments developed under the ROP include the modernization of the Center for Integration by Occupational Therapy i n Urlați, Prahova 108 County (RON 3.6 million), the Sf. Panciu Residential Center for Elderly in Panciu, Vrancea County (nearly RON 4 million), the modernization of Casa Soarelui Social Services Center in Târgoviște, Dâmbovița County (RON 3.8 million), the Soc ial Center for Children Aripi de Lumina in Craiova, Dolj County (RON 3.6 million), and the rehabilitation and expansion of the “Sfântul Andrei” Elderly Home Care Center in Alba Iulia (RON 3.9 million). A large number of projects were implemented in rural areas. Among such projects were the multifunctional social services center in Popești, Vrancea County (RON 1.2 million), the medical -social services center in Codăești, Vaslui County (RON 3.7 million), the multifunctional social services center in Jupănești , Gorj County (RON 1.3 million), and the Center for medical and social assistance in Mogoșești, Giurgiu County (RON 3.6 million). Figure 32. The ROP 2007-2013 has financed 209 social services projects in Romania Data Source: ROP 2007-2013 180. The ROP 2007-2013 also has allocated important amounts for the rehabilitation/ modernization of health infrastructure. Within Priority Axis 3, the area of intervention 3.1 Rehabilitation, modernization and equipping of the health services’ inf rastructure is seeks to improve the medical facilities in Romania and provide people with better healthcare services. 109 181. With poor hospital infrastructure and lack of performant equipment in many regions in the country, access to healthcare facilities is often challenging, as people must travel long distances to get medical consultation and receive medical care. While the cost of health care services outside the social insurance system had continuously increased, the quality of medical service provided under social assistance system had deteriorated. The deterioration of both hard and soft social infrastructure over the course of time had hindered access of people to quality health services, and made it even more difficult for those living in rural areas. Besides, most of the hospital structure in Romania is relatively old, between 50 and 100 years old, requiring rehabilitation work. The Law for the reform in the health sector was set to tackle some of these problems. 182. The main objective of the ROP in terms of healthcare infrastructure has been to help Romania fulfill the main objectives of the national health policies. These are focusing toward increasing the overall efficiency of the system and medical care in the country by achieving better quality healthcare assistance along with a balanced territorial distribution of such services. To this end, the ROP provided support for rehabilitation, modernization and equipping the county hospitals as well as the outpatient hospitals and ambulatory care facilities. 183. Eligible projects under this area of intervention included a large number of activities . They ranged from rehabilitation/modernization of county hospitals, rehabilitation/ modernization, development and endowment of ambulatory healthcare facilities and of hospital and ambulatory buildings, to development and modernization of access areas for people with disabilities in hospitals and outpatients units, and purchasing of equipment for medical units. The project selection takes into consideration the fact that new medical services should be made available to a large number of patients, which subsequently should lead to the reduction in the number of beneficiaries that often times are redirected to other healthcare units due to lack of capacity or medical endowment. The applicants should prove how the project should support reducing the time for checking the patient and getting the right diagnostic and/or treatment. 184. The minimum value of the project under the area of intervention 3.1 could be of RON 700,000, with a maximum of RON 85,000,000 (between EUR 200,000 and EUR 25 million). 93 projects in rural and urban areas have been implemented under the ROP 2007-2013, including 15 county hospitals in Vaslui, Buzau, Tulcea, Vrancea, Dâmboviţa, Ialomiţa, Teleorman, Gorj, Vâlcea, Maramureş, Satu Mare, Sălaj, Covasna, Ilfov/ Bucuresti. By May 2014, the total money spent for healthcare units under ROP amounted to RON 1.4 billion (EUR 319 million), with an average of EUR 3.4 million per project. 185. Eight counties have developed large projects, between RON 50 million and RON 100 million each. Some of these projects included the rehabilitation, modernization and equipping of the county hospital in Ilfov County / Bucuresti (nearly RON 88 million), and the rehabilitation and modernization of the county emergency hospitals in Craiova, Dolj County (RON 83.4 million), Targoviste, Dimbovita County (RON 83.1 million), Ramnicu Valcea, Valcea County (RON 73 million), and Baia Mare, Maramures County (RON 70.6 million). 110 186. ROP was intended not only for large projects, but also for smaller-scale activities. Among such projects covered by ROP are the modernization of a block from the ambulatory clinic of the municipal hospital in Oradea (RON 4.4 million), equipping the ambulatory facility of the lung diseases hospital in Braila (RON 2.9 million), the rehabilitation and modernization of the hydrotherapy unit within the physical recovery hospital in Cluj-Napoca (RON 5.8 million), and the modernization and equipping of the ambulatory care unit in Abrud, Alba County (RON 1.9 million). Figure 33. Map with healthcare projects developed under ROP 2007-2013 Source: MRDPA 187. Finally, preserving the cultural patrimony can contribute to the attractiveness of a region; this was tackled by Priority Axis 5 – Sustainable development and promotion of tourism. Under the area of intervention 5.1 Restoration and sustainable valorization of cultural heritage, by setting up and modernizing the related infrastructure, has sought to capitalize the cultural heritage and natural resources with significant tourism potential as to better the level and quality of tourist infrastructure, both in terms of leisure and accommodation. This is expected to boost the attractiveness of regions, which should translate into local development and jobs. 111 188. During the 2007-2013 programming period, the ROP funds have been channeled to projects covering the sites belonging to UNESCO, national, cultural, and urban patrimony . The projects targeted under this area of intervention cover restoration, consolidation, rehabilitation and protection of monuments and architectural infrastructure that are part of the national and universal heritage, as well as of representative monuments for the local cultural patrimony in rural and urban area, in accordance with Law 442/2001 on the protection of historical monuments. Figure 34. ROP 2007-2013 cultural patrimony projects Source: MRDPA 189. Restoration of the cultural heritage projects has aimed to increase the number of tourists, extend the tourist season, and turn tourism and culture into stimulating elements for economic development. Beneficiaries could be local public administration units, central government bodies, cult institutions, non-profit organizations, territorial-administrative units partnering with NGOs, etc. The value of the project could vary between RON 1.7 million and RON 85 million. A number of 93 such projects have been developed under the ROP 2007-2013 with a total value of RON 1.9 billion (EUR 436 million), with an average value of EUR 4.6 million per project. 112 190. ROP has funded both large and small projects. Some of the largest projects included the restoration and consolidation of the Patriarchal Palace in Bucharest (RON 84.9 million), the rehabilitation of the historical center of Câmpulung togeth er with the Krețulescu Park Complex (RON 64 million), and the restoration and consolidation of the Capidava Fortress Archeological site in Topalu, Constanta County (RON 74.2 million). Some of the smaller projects comprised the rehabilitation of exhibiting places at the Olt County Museum in Slatina (RON 4.5 million), restoration and painting of indoor frescos from the Sfântul Dumitru church in Potlogi, Dâmboviţa County (RON 1.7 million), and the rehabilitation of the historical building “Casa Argintarului” and creation of the German Center in Bistrița, Bistrița Năsăud County (RON 2.4 million). The National Rural Development Programme (PNDR) 2014-202063 191. The investments in education infrastructure cover a wide range of activities aimed at improving education in rural areas. Education in rural areas is very challenging as many communities lack the necessary and appropriate infrastructure, especially with regard to ante- pre-school and pre-school facilities. For example, in 2011 only one percent of the nurseries in Romania were located in rural areas, and only 7.4% of the kindergartens in 2012 were registered in rural communities. The interventions funded through the PNDR include development, modernization, and endowment of schools, kindergartens, nurseries, after-schools, and expansion of secondary agricultural schools. Leasing or purchasing of school vehicles for providing transportation of students to schools can be also eligible. The main beneficiaries of investments in education sector are communes, in addition to non-profit organizations (NGOs) for projects related to kindergartens and after-schools. 192. The PNDR investments in health infrastructure will support improved access of people to medical services in rural communities. The number of medical clinics in Romania has decreased in recent years both in terms of units and human resources, with a negative impact especially in rural areas. While at the national level the number of clinics diminished by 16% between 2005 and 2011, in rural communities the percentage is much higher, with almost 39% over the same period of time. The 2011 figures indicate that there was one doctor providing medical services to 1,722 patients in rural areas, a number that is almost seven times higher than in urban communities. Investments under the PNDR will help build and modernize the healthcare facilities in rural communities. Over the next seven years, the program will provide funds for the development and upgrading of medical clinics and community care centers in rural areas. The main beneficiaries of health infrastructure investments will be the local authorities (communes). Investments in healthcare facilities will enable people to get medical attention in their communities, and thus will contribute to the improvement of overall living conditions in rural areas. 193. The sub-measure tackling protection of cultural heritage focuses on local cultural objectives. Such projects should have a good impact on local tourism and boost local businesses. Preservation of local heritage and traditions should make rural regions more attractive to tourists. Eligible investments target restoration and preservation of local cultural heritage objectives of class B (comprising historical monuments representative for the local 63 This is based on the July 2014 version of the programmatic document 113 cultural heritage) and monastic settlements, in addition to improving access to these sites. In the case of class B objectives, priority is given to interventions in rural localities with tourism development potential. Beneficiaries of cultural heritage investments can be communes and their related IDAs, cult entities, as well as individuals and private entities in charge with the management of cultural objectives. Upon completion, these objectives must be included in the tourist circuit. Projects of up to half a million Euros that do not generate are fully funded by the EU, while proposals up to EUR 20 million pertaining to protection of the cultural heritage site that will generate income require 15% co-financing from the beneficiaries. The National Rural Development Programme (PNDR) 2007-2013 194. The PNDR 2007-2013 has financed social infrastructure investments . The strategic objective of the PNDR is to provide support to communes and villages in Romania as to increase attractiveness of rural areas by improving the quality of life in rural places, diversifying the rural local economy, promoting knowledge, and improving human potential. The two specific objectives of the axis cover the creation, improvement and diversification of tourism facilities and attraction, on one hand, and the creation and modernization of the rural basic physical infrastructure, on the other hand. 195. Social infrastructure is tackled under Measure 322 “ Village renewal and development, improvement of basic services for the economy and rural population and upgrading the r ural heritage”. This measure has focused primarily on development of rural enterprises based on local natural resources, tourism, village renewal and environmental initiatives with the main target of adding to the on-farm measures and providing suitable jobs for people living in the country side. 196. Activities targeting social infrastructure in rural areas could not be funded under PNDR as independent projects . These activities had to be part of integrated projects that, in addition to development/rehabilitation/expansion of basic infrastructure (such as roads, water, sewage), could have a component aimed at improving living conditions by providing better access to social services, education etc. in their communities. 197. The total value of the 802 projects developed under PNDR 2007-2013 Measure 322 amount to EUR 2.2 billion, of which 80% are EU grants, and 20% central budget contribution The financial support could make up to 100% of the total eligible expenses for public utility projects that do not generate profit, but it could not be more than EUR 2.5 million per integrated project having the local council as the beneficiary. The public financial support could go as high as EUR 6 million for an integrated project implemented by an IDA (partnership of rural authorities). In the case of projects expected to generate profit the financial support has been a maximum of 70%. The minimum value of the project funded under measure 322 is EUR 5,000. Beneficiaries of projects dealing with social infrastructure can be local public authorities (communes), intercommunity development associations, non-profit organizations, cultural establishments, cult institutions, and individuals and legal entities that own or administer cultural patrimony objectives of local interest. 114 198. Eligible activities with regard to social infrastructure focus on social services, education, and cultural aspects, including cultural and natural patrimony. In terms of social services and education, the program covers activities such as the establishment /development and endowment of social services infrastructure and care centers for children, elderly and/or people with special needs, and building and endowment of new kindergartens. It is important to note that the establishment of the new social services infrastructure is possible only in areas where such infrastructure is missing. At the same time, according to the PNDR applicant’s guide, a new kindergarten can be built even if the commune/village already has such a facility, but the existing building cannot be expanded. 199. One of the components of Measure 322 focuses on investments in cultural centers and other types of local cultural facilities. Projects under this measure can cover renovation, modernization, expansion and/or endowment of cultural houses (except for establishments that had received funds or are about to become recipients of the national priority program for the development of headquarter for cultural establishment, as per Law 143/2007), cultural centers, and centers for conservation and promotion of traditional cultural. 200. Other projects focus on infrastructure related to different types of cultural facilities. Such projects may cover renovation, modernization and endowment of cultural establishments, including the first-time acquisition of books, audio materials, folk costumes, traditional musical instruments that should promote the cultural patrimony, as well as purchasing of hardware and software equipment. The list eligible activities regarding cultural patrimony are restoration, consolidation, conservation, and protection of the objectives of cultural and natural patrimony of local interest in rural areas. 201. In 2007-2013, the PNDR has dealt specifically with Class B patrimony in rural areas , while the ROP has financed Class A patrimony all over the country. Priority is being given to projects developed in rural communities that had never benefited from EU funds and in rural localities from regions with a high degree of poverty. State-Budget-Funded Programs Education 202. While local authorities own and remain responsible for the rehabilitation/ modernization/construction of educational facilities, the Ministry of Education still undertook investments projects in such infrastructure in recent years. Some of these programs have been executed with loans from International Financial Institutions and with co-financing from the Romanian Government. Since 2009, and 2015 the Ministry of Education has run a large program covering predominantly the pre-university education infrastructure. The program covers the rehabilitation of 1,336 schools and high schools throughout the country, and of 16 student dorms. The overall value of the program amounts to EUR 343.3 million, of which EUR 131 million comes from the European Investment Bank and EUR 43.5 million from the Council of Europe Development Bank (CEDB). The Romanian Government’s contribution is nearly EUR 169 million. Although the contract was signed in 2002, the program began only three years later, as the 115 government did not have the necessary money to cover its share. So far, 1,264 facilities have been rehabilitated, and funding is still pending to cover works to the remaining schools. 203. “Early Education Reform” is another program targeting education infrastructure with co-financing from the state budget. The program focuses on investing EUR 105 million in pre- school education infrastructure. It is developed with EUR 66.8 million from the CEDB and EUR 38.2 million from the national budget, and covers rehabilitation, consolidation, modernization, and furniture endowment of 750 kindergartens between 2009 and 2016. The overall objective is to improve the pre-school education infrastructure throughout the country and increase the quality of education by ensuring appropriate teaching materials. As of now, rehabilitation works were completed in only 168 kindergartens. It is expected that this program could make a difference for more than 50,000 pre-school kids. Again, delays are caused by lack of funding allocated by the Romanian Government – in the annual budget of the Ministry of Education – despite the fact that the international loans are secured for a limited timeline. The situation is not singular to 2015 and has happened repeatedly in the past. 204. Investments in educational infrastructure have been also supported by the World Bank (WB). The WB joined efforts with the Romanian Government to improve overall condition of schools in rural areas. The “Project for Rural Education” was developed between 2003 and 2009 with USD 90 million from the WB and co-financing from the Romanian Government and local communities. The project included rehabilitation and modernization of over 1,000 schools in rural communities in order to enable students to get access to better education, thus helping them improve their performances and increase the graduation rate. The program proved to be successful and achieved good results, and was given as an example of best practices among the WB projects developed in Europe-Central Asia region. In recent years, anecdotal evidence speaks of rehabilitated schools that have been forced to close down in the meantime because of declining student population. 205. Another project financed with support from the WB was the “Early Inclusive Education Program,” developed as part of the Social Inclusion Program (S IP). The program was executed by the Ministry of Education between 2007 and 2011, and it amounted to EUR 7.8 million, of which EUR 1.7 million was provided from the state budget. The money was used for the rehabilitation and equipping of 50 kindergartens in economically and socially deprived communities, including majority Roma, in addition to building 20 new pre-school facilities. The project also included the construction of 10 “kindergartens in family” type units in Roma communities, as well as the development of eight centers where parents could learn about early education. The project is aimed at increasing access to early education for children between ages 3 to 6 and at developing educational opportunities for those up to three years old from poor communities. 206. Interventions were also undertaken with regard to university education infrastructure. 49 universities across the country benefited between 2009 and 2011 of financial support from the state and local budgets to complete a number works intended to improve educational facilities for students in the university campuses. They included primarily rehabilitation, modernization, and endowment of university facilities, including halls, dorms, and sports halls, and works aimed at improving the public utility services (water, sanitation, heating, etc.). 116 207. Beginning in 2015, the Ministry of Education will receive part of the money collected through the gambling tax. The Government Emergency Ordinance 92/2014 regarding certain fiscal changes made some revisions pertaining to the allocation of the funds collected in connection to gambling activities (including licensing). According to these changes effective 2015, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Youth and Sports will receive 2% each from the gambling tax, while 1% would go to the National Restoration Program. In the past, the program tackling the restoration of historical monuments used to receive 3.5% of the tax, while 1.5% would go to the Cinematography Fund. Health 208. Law 95/2006 on health sector reform enables the Ministry of Health (MoH) to provide funding for infrastructure development of public healthcare facilities managed by local and county authorities . The MoH should have a minimum financial contribution of 3% for work interventions and 5% for equipment. The rest of the money should come from the local budgets. Over the course of time, the funding requested by the local authorities exceeded the financial capacity of the MoH. Most of the time, the Ministry is asked to provide the bulk of the funds for a particular investment, as the local government complains that it does not have the money to complete the intervention. Nevertheless, some local authorities have been able to contribute with up to half of the funds needed for various projects. 209. The health tax, commonly known as the vice tax, was introduced in 2006 and was specifically levied on cigarettes and alcohol in order to mitigate excessive smoking and drinking. When it was enforced in 2006, the vice tax was set at 20 euro-cents per pack of cigarettes and EUR 200 per hectoliter of refined alcohol. The money collected through the tax was aimed at funding the health sector, including development and modernization of health infrastructure. Between 2006 and 2012, approximately RON 7.5 billion was collected through the vice tax, with an estimate of RON 1.3 billion per year. 210. The money was used to support, among other things, purchasing of ambulances and equipment for primary care practitioners, but also preparation of feasibility studies for the construction of 15 new county hospitals. Between 2006 and 2014, nearly RON 4 billion was spent to support national healthcare programs, including RON 600 billion for medical equipment and RON 400 million for hospital infrastructure repairs. It is estimated that the money collected through the vice tax would account for approximately 10% of the annual public spending in the health sector. 211. In addition to state funds, the health sector receives support from International Financial Institutions. The World Bank (WB) is providing a loan of USD 250 million as part of a USD 338 million program called “Improving Health System Quality and Efficiency , ” which aims to enhance the access to, quality, and efficiency of health public services in Romania. The WB financial assistance is aimed at supporting the healthcare service delivery network through strengthening the hospitals’ systems and services, increasing outpatient medical care services, improving primary healthcare services at the community level, and enhancing governance across the healthcare system. The program is managed by the MoH and it should be completed by 2020. The money from the WB will be primarily used for the rationalization of hospitals by strengthening key healthcare facilities that should become the backbone of national and regional health networks. The loan is to cover a wide range of activities, such as: feasibility studies and detailed 117 technical designs; rehabilitation works of hospitals, ambulatory centers, emergency departments, intensive-care units, palliative care units, and burn centers; and endowment of such facilities with modern medical equipment. The WB program will support interventions listed in the Action Plan in connection to the Strategy in the Health Sector 2014-2020, such as modernization of infrastructure for diagnostic and treatment ambulatory centers (EUR 24.4 million) and modernization of radio-therapy and oncology services infrastructure (EUR 40 million). The WB funds will also contribute to the development and rationalization of hospitals at the national and regional level, an ambitious program covered from several funding sources, including the EU (through the ROP), the national budget, and the Romanian-Swiss Cooperation Program. Cultural Patrimony 212. The most important state-funded program pertaining to the rehabilitation of the non- mobile cultural patrimony in Romania is the National Restoration Program (NRP). The program is managed by the National Patrimony Institute with public funds from the Ministry of Culture and Cultural Pat rimony. The program’s investment priorities focus on restoration and conservation or historical monuments included in the National Registry of Historical Monuments. Between 2007 and 2012, more than RON 200 million was allocated for the rehabilitation of over 1,100 historical monuments of national importance (Class A). By 2012, only 86 historical monuments were completely rehabilitated, as most of the time restoration works have incurred delays and, as in other sectors, there are consistent fund shortages. Recently, as noted above, the percentage of the money collected through the gambling tax channeled to the NRP went down from 3.5% to only 1%. 213. State-funded interventions related to cultural infrastructure have also been promoted under the programs managed by the National Investment Company (NIC). In recent years, the NIC developed interventions aimed at improving cultural life in urban and rural communities, increasing people’s access to cultural activities, and diversifying the cultural offering in their respective communities. The program has focused on rehabilitation, modernization, and endowment of cultural settlements in rural and small-scale urban communities, as well as on construction of new facilities and completion of existing works. 45 such cultural facilities have been completed so far. 214. The Ministry of Culture has also deployed some loans to fund key interventions. The Council of Europe Development Bank has provided funding for investments in the rehabilitation of cultural heritage in Romania in 2006, which also represented the most ambitious program in this field, with 20 major projects undertaken. A total budget of around EUR 350 million was allocated for this task. All of these investments were carried out in urban areas and targeted primarily large and important cultural heritage sites. The Ministry has also started a EUR 16.5 million program with EEA (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway) grant funding. Sports 215. A number of public investment programs targeting the sports infrastructure have been previously financed by MRDPA through the NIC. One such program was dedicated to building new sports halls and facilities in rural and urban areas. The program completed 1,040 sports halls between 2002 and 2014, in addition to the rehabilitation of 45 sports facilities that had been built 118 before 2000. Other state-funded programs considered the construction of sports complexes and swimming pools. 11 swimming pools have been finalized between 2009 and 2014. 216. “The Maintenance, Functioning and Development of Sports Equipment” program managed by the Ministry of Youth and Sports (MYS) aims to ensure optimal conditions for training activities and sports competitions, with a priority for national and Olympic teams. The interventions include maintenance and modernization of the sports infrastructure and development of sports facilities in urban and rural area. An agreement signed in early 2015 between the MRDPA and the MYS laid down the upcoming investments in the sports infrastructure. To this end, the MRDPA will finance a number of projects included in the list of priorities established by the MYS. The MDRPA will provide funding for the development of 34 sports facilities to be completed by the end of 2015. These include 28 sports halls, four swimming pools for training, and two sports complexes in rural and urban areas. In addition, the MDRPA will ensure the necessary funding to build by the end of 2016 a number of sports facilities for professional athletes – i.e., five sports complexes, six multifunctional sports halls, four water-polo swimming pools, four Olympic-size swimming pools, and an artificial skating rink. It is expected that the MYS could use additional money to fund sports and youth infrastructure once it will get 2% of the money collected in connection to the gambling tax, starting in 2015. It is estimated that the gambling tax will bring an additional EUR 14 million to the Ministry’s budget. 119 Chapter 4: Diagnostic of Coordination Mechanisms for Infrastructure Investments in Romania 217. There is a broad consensus in Romania – in policy circles and beyond – that there are significant gaps in the coordination of public infrastructure investments, at all levels. The 2014-2020 Partnership Agreement between Romania and the EU openly recognizes that “there are clear deficiencies in coordination between ministries and entities that coordinate intra- sectoral responsibilities, institutional overlapping in terms of competencies and attributions, inefficient use of resources, [and] fragmented administration with too many expensive structures.”64 The PA also emphasizes one of the main conclusions reached in the World Bank’s 2011 functional review regarding the risks of lack of coordination: “The implementation of the operational programmes in 2007-2013 experienced situations when in parallel with the EU funded schemes the Romanian Government run similar grant schemes with more favorable or less demanding procedures competing in an counterproductive way, e.g. Environment Fund Administration which managed schemes for water inf rastructure […].” For its part, the Governing Program 2013-2016 also mentions repeatedly the need to coordinate among different institutions, particularly in the implementation of EU funds. 65 218. In practice, however, gaps in the coordination of public investments are highly visible. Perhaps the most often cited examples refer to the inefficient sequencing of investments, whereby a newly rehabilitated road is damaged by subsequent public works related to the rehabilitation of utility networks (gas lines, water and sewage pipes, etc.). Such situations often result in media articles and public outrage regarding the inefficient spending of taxpayer money. But who is really responsible for such suboptimal outcomes? In effect, this simple example is indicative of a broader challenge of coordination faced by public authorities in Romania, across all phases of an investment’s cycle: from the development of a strategy to the design of an investment program to the financing, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of individual infrastructure projects. At the same time, the need to coordinate has never been greater, considering the demands for new and improved infrastructure and the significant gap between what the government could finance and actual needs on the ground. 4.1 Intra-Sectoral Coordination This section reviews current intra-sectoral coordination mechanisms. First, it evaluates vertical coordination (across levels of government) of strategies and plans in the three sectors of interest (roads, water and wastewater, and social infrastructure). Second, it assesses horizontal coordination across investment programs (managed by different units/ministries) – again, for each of the three aforementioned sectors. The following figure summarizes the main dimensions of intra-sectoral coordination. 64 Romania-EU Partnership Agreement (English version), p. 132 65 Governing Program 2013-2016, p. 75-77 120 Figure 35. The key dimensions of intra-sectoral coordination INTRA-SECTORAL COORDINATION VERTICAL COORDINATION OF HORIZONTAL COORDINATION OF STRATEGIES AND PLANS INVESTMENT PROGRAMS NATIONAL STATE REGIONAL EU BUDGET FUNDS FUNDS LOCAL 4.1.1 Vertical Coordination of Strategies and Plans 219. For this particular work, a key focus is on the coordination of strategies and plans (i.e., the strategic planning part), as agreed in the advisory services agreement between the Bank and the MRDPA. The figure below depicts the interrelations between strategies at various levels – variants of this were featured under each of the sector reviews in Chapter 3. Roads 220. The guiding document for investments in the road sector is the National Spatial Plan (Planul de Amenajare al Teritoriului Național – PATN). The PATN includes new major road links (highways and expressways) considered for financing in future years. Figure 15 includes the proposed network as it was developed in the 2006 version of the PATN. This has been the major guiding document in the transport sector in Romania and it has also influenced the way TEN-T corridors (both core and comprehensive segments) have been chosen. Basically, the TEN-T network follows the PATN. The PATN is, however, a living document and should be updated when new information becomes available. 221. In October 2014, a draft version of the General Transport Master Plan (GTMP) was finally made available for public debate. This was followed on February 10, 2015 by a synthesis presentation, with a few key updates. Since the document’s final form is not yet public, it is not discussed in more detail here and will be covered in the final report on prioritization criteria for PNDL (also under Component 1 and due on August 27, 2015). However, it is important to note 121 that the proposal made by the draft GTMP for the major road network in Romania differs substantially from what is proposed in the PATN. For one, the length of the highway and the expressway network is significantly reduced, as shown in the table below. The GTMP looks at current traffic data and projected future demand, while at the same time taking cost of construction into consideration. It was thus considered that many of the highway and expressway links proposed in the PATN are not justified given the estimated cost of construction and projected traffic data. Thus, road links that were previously proposed as highways in the PATN have been downgraded to expressways or even transregional roads in the draft Master Plan. Several PATN proposed expressways suffered the same fate and now appear as downgraded to transregional roads or eurotrans roads. Table 7. The length of major road infrastructure proposed in the Transport Master Plan is smaller than what was previously proposed in the PATN Type of major road infrastructure PATN GTMP Highway 3,896 Km 1,300 Km Expressway 4,751 Km 1,826 Km TransRegional and EuroTrans 0 Km 3,217 Km Data Sources: Romania PATN; Press Statement, Romanian Government (February 25, 2015) 66 Figure 36. Major road network proposed in the Transport Master Plan Source: Romania General Transport Master Plan Synthesis (February 2015) 222. Moreover, the GTMP has put forth a slightly modified road network. Some new road links have been proposed, such as the expressway linking Ploiești to Târgoviște and the A1 66See http://www.mt.ro/web14/spatiul-media/comunicate-de-presa/750-master-planul-general-de- transport-aprobat-de-guvern 122 highway. Other road links were proposed on a different course, such as the road linking Brașov to Miercurea Ciuc. The proposals made in the GTMP now warrant a revision and update of the Transport Section of the PATN. Obviously, one will have to wait until the final version of the Master Plan is completed and approved (including by the EC), but it is clear that these two documents cannot exist in parallel in the current form, as they propose different major road networks. 223. In fact, the National Spatial Plan should have originally been designed with such a Master Plan at its foundation. As indicated in the figure below, for a variety of historical and institutional reasons, the sequence of planning in the transport sector was in many respects inverted, which has now led to intense debates. For example, the Pitești -Sibiu road link is part of the TEN-T Core Network, and it should normally have highway status. However, in the GTMP presented in October 2014 this segment was envisaged as an expressway, with a preference for Brașov-Sibiu as a highway; this was changed in the January 2015 synthesis presentation of the GTMP, where the Piteșt i-Sibiu segment was again features as a highway. While the Transport Master Plan should have provided the planned network for the National Spatial Plan, which in turn would have influenced the choice of the TEN-T corridors in Romania, in practice the normative proposal in the PATN and the TEN-T proposal have influenced the draft Master Plan proposal, and may influence the final version of that document. Obviously, this is not the ideal course of action. It is hoped that once the GTMP is fully approved and the PATN is adapted accordingly, future iterations will continue in the logical and predictable sequence. Figure 37. Sequence of transport planning 224. At a lower level, investments in county and communal roads should take the PATN and the TEN-T into consideration, though data show that this happens only when there are special incentives to do so. For example, although most county development strategies mention the PATN, there is little actual coordination with this normative document. Annex C provides a thorough review of all county strategies in Romania. Since only 17% of the highways and 0% of the expressways proposed in the PATN have actually been finalized, there is not much to coordinate with and, as recently shown by the process of developing the GTMP, key aspects of the road network (type of roads, preferred routes, etc.) can still change significantly. When it comes to actual investments, a look at the map below indicates that there is little de facto coordination between the PATN and county road investments done through the National Local Development Program (PNDL). In fact, with a few exceptions (e.g., the counties of Teleorman, Arad, Bihor, and Satu Mare) there seems to be no real strategic thinking in the way PNDL county road investments have been selected; more commonly, these investments have financed short 123 road links that have been rehabilitated where the need was assessed to be largest or based on other unknown criteria. Figure 38. There is sometimes a weak correlation between PNDL County Road Investments and the PATN Data Source: MRDPA 225. The story is very different when it comes to investments in county roads done from EU funds – specifically, from the Regional Operational Programme (ROP) 2007-2013. Clearer rules, stricter regulations, and better defined evaluation and selection criteria apply in this case, and, as was shown in Figure 17, a large majority of ROP-funded county roads (between 2007 and 2013) connect to the TEN-T Network. More precisely, the ROP’s technical and financial evaluation grid – included in the Applicant Guide – rewarded projects connecting to the TEN-T with 6 points (maximum) versus 3 or fewer points for other projects. This helped motivate potential beneficiaries to select for rehabilitation roads connecting to the TEN-T network. This is an example of direct targeting of investments in an attempt to achieve a higher impact with limited funds, while at the same time coordinating lower-level investments with higher-level investments. 226. Going even lower to the local level, there is anecdotal evidence of coordination gaps between key communal and corresponding county roads. Communal roads play a critical role in Romania by linking multiple villages within a commune. In an optimal scenario, the mayor of a commune should coordinate with the county authorities to see if and when the county road 124 passing through the commune (through its core center) will be rehabilitated, and further ensure that related communal roads linking the other villages to the core are also rehabilitated. Otherwise, the mayor may rehabilitate the communal roads through own funds or through programs like the PNDL, but if the main county road that connects the commune to other larger urban centers in the area is in bad shape the connectivity of the locality will remain poor. Put differently, in such a scenario, the mayor should probably hold off on investing in the communal roads and allocate money to other priorities until the county road is rehabilitated. Water and Wastewater 227. Compared to the roads sector, there is – by design – a more limited need to ensure vertical coordination of water/sanitation investment strategies, i.e., from the national level down to the regional, county, and local level. As such, there is no normative “national plan” for such investments. The document that comes closest to this is the National Management Plan for the Danube River Basin, which is essentially a synthesis of the 11 sub-plans for Romania’s main river basins. As described earlier, these plans were developed as part of Romania’s commitments under the EU Water Framework Directive and cover a range of topics, focusing on the general characteristics and trends in the quality and quantity of different types of water. 228. When it comes to the development of water and sanitation infrastructure, the guiding documents that should ensure coordination in the sector are the Water and Wastewater Master Plans . As noted in the previous chapter (under the water and wastewater section), the River Basin Plans actually coordinate with and cite the Master Plans. The latter were developed for the 2007-2013 programming period by each Regional Operator and are currently getting updated to reflect priorities for 2014-2020. Each Master Plan estimates total investment needs at the level of each covered area (typically, a county), and draws up investment plans through and beyond 2018, the deadline for fulfilling the commitments included in Romania’s EU Accession Treaty. Essentially, each Master Plan features a full list of investments and prioritizes them ex-ante, top-down, based on a set of criteria. As the map below shows, investment needs vary across different counties in Romania, with Suceava, Iași, and Prahova requiring a lot more funds than counties like Mehedinți, Călărași, or Tulcea. The funds go toward both rehabilitation of existing networks and new projects for expanding current coverage of water and sanitation services. 229. In an ideal scenario, the Water and Wastewater Master Plans would be sufficient to ensure efficient coordination of strategies and plans in the sector. After all, they prioritize in a top-down manner all needed investments; all one has to do is see how much funding is available and support the projects one by one, gradually covering the full list from whatever sources are available. There are several challenges in practice, however, based on data obtained during field interviews and based on other recent observations. For example, some stakeholders question the validity of analyses included in the Master Plans. Mayors of some communes that were “left out” of the list of localities eligible for financing through 2018 argue that there are cheaper technical solutions (e.g., modular systems) that would be appropriate for their communities and financially sustainable even in the medium-to-long run. Perhaps as a result of such pressures, some counties are now redefining their Water and Wastewater Master Plans to include all localities (even remote ones) in various clusters/agglomerations. It is unclear whether such amendments will stand in the final versions of the plans for 2014-2020. Moreover, state-budget- 125 funded investment programs did not adopt inclusion in the Master Plan as a hard eligibility requirement; particularly communes that were not eligible for EU funds submitted projects and received funding, even though they were not considered a priority in the Master Plans. This clearly undermines coordination and, ultimately, the role of the Master Plans as the ultimate reference for what needs to be done in the sector – and in what timeframe. Figure 39. Total investment needs (water and wastewater) at the level of each county Data Source: Water and Wastewater Master Plans, Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Social Infrastructure 230. This is perhaps the sector that poses the greatest challenges when it comes to ensuring effective vertical coordination, for multiple reasons. Several iterations of decentralization and local public administration laws gave subnational authorities (local and county councils) formal ownership over most social infrastructure physical assets in their respective jurisdictions, with a few exceptions deemed “of national importance” (university hospitals, the most prominent cultural monuments, public universities, etc.). The review of county-level development strategies (see Annex C) suggests that sectoral strategies are rarely cited by these lower-level planning documents. The conclusion likely holds for development strategies at the level of localities. 231. The straightforward insight is that each “owner” of social infrastructure coordinates its own efforts in this regard, primarily through a corresponding local or county development strategy. Investments in this infrastructure are driven primarily by needs on the ground and local/county political preferences – ideally, the two are aligned – and less by national-level strategies and their priorities. It is good that sector-wide visions exist (primarily as a EU pre- 126 requirement) and the strategies reviewed are generally stronger than the average in Romania. They get into specific priorities and actions, and some (e.g., in health) even note financing sources potentially available. Despite such strengths, there is only so much that the national level can do to influence infrastructure investment decisions regarding assets that belong to local/county authorities. The next section on coordination of investment programs elaborates this point. For now, it suffices to note that there is room for improved vertical coordination in the social infrastructure sectors. 232. The following sections present an overall picture of vertical coordination mechanisms in social infrastructure, focusing on strategies available for the health, education, culture, and sports sectors. The diagnostic is primarily descriptive and limited to whatever data were made available as part of the desk review and interview processes. Each of the four sectors is complex and would merit a more in-depth treatment, but for the purposes of this report it suffices to restate the aforementioned conclusion that vertical coordination of social infrastructure investments shows significant room for improvement. Health 233. First, for the health sector, the main goal of the National Health Strategy for the 2014- 2020 programming period is to reform the healthcare system in Romania and the related infrastructure in order to offer good and efficient healthcare services. This can be achieved by developing new services in the form of community care services that should respond to the needs of vulnerable communities, strengthen the primary care, ambulatory care, and elderly care facilities, and invest in e-health technologies, infrastructure, and human resources. The Strategy is supported by an Action Plan that outlines a number of measures and interventions for each of the priority areas. 234. One of the main priorities is the rationalization and transformation of local healthcare facilities from large and small-scale urban areas by converting them into ambulatory care facilities or adult day care centers in order to cater for chronically ill patients . After rehabilitation, some of these facilities would be taken over by local authorities. Another area of intervention deals with the rationalization and development of hospitals at the national and regional level by diminishing the number of buildings and integrating them into new or rehabilitated units within new regional hospitals. New buildings in connection to existing regional hospitals in areas that lack such medical services should be developed and equipped. In addition, a number of healthcare facilities that act like regional hospitals will be modernized and equipped throughout the country. Non-performing hospitals should be transformed into multifunctional ambulatory centers or into hospitals designed for long-time recovery. Special attention will be given for the upgrading of the emergency care units within the county hospitals. 235. The strategy also aims to increase the quality of healthcare services provided in ambulatory systems. To this end, interventions should focus on community care, primary care, and special ambulatory care facilities. The investments target new construction of ambulatory care centers or rehabilitation of the existing ones as to enable the gradual establishment of community health services centers at the national level. In addition, the action plan refers to the modernization and endowment of existing ambulatory care facilities for diagnostic and treatment. 127 236. The Action Plan mentions the actors responsible for the interventions and the funding sources – this is already an improvement compared to most strategies in Romania, which remain at the level of broadly stated desiderata. Investments should be covered from various resources, such as the national budget, EU funds, financial support from the Norwegian and Swiss governments, and the World Bank. For example, the activities related to the rationalization and transformation of hospitals should be covered from EU funds, national and local budgets; the construction of three new regional hospitals with the overall cost of EUR 450 million should be covered from EU funds, the World Bank, and the Romanian-Swiss Cooperation Fund. Others mention the exact source of EU funding – it is the case of the investments related to primary care services, which requires EUR 125 million through the Regional Operational Programme for building, rehabilitation, and endowment of facilities. Education 237. The 2013 draft of the Strategy on education and professional training fo r 2014-2020 has a chapter on the development of educational infrastructure and professional training. The main goal in this respect is to diminish the existing disparities among pre-university educational facilities (such as old, improper buildings, lack of sanitation). To this end, development of education-related infrastructure should help enable equal access to education and reduce the early dropout phenomenon, improve tertiary education, enable access to quality education, and provide life-long training. At the same time, the document highlights the need to modernize and develop new school infrastructure and higher-education facilities, especially in rural areas, as well as to provide access to required amenities (e.g., labs, workshops) in order to enhance the quality of education and professional training. The development of education infrastructure should contribute to three main achievements by 2020: the school dropout rate should go down by 11.3%, participation to tertiary education of people age 30 to 40 should go up by 26.7%, and involvement in life-long training should be increased by 10%. Culture 238. The Sectoral Strategy on Culture and Cultural Patrimony for the period 2014-2020 highlights steps to be taken regarding non-mobile patrimony (historical monuments). One of the targets in this respect is to improve and extend access to historical monuments and develop integrated management plans for those objectives capable of generating economic growth (by introducing them into tourist circuits). According to the strategy, priority should be given to the rehabilitation of Class A monuments by national authorities and of patrimony objectives of Class B by local authorities. Class A includes monuments of national importance that are managed directly by the Ministry of Culture, whereas Class B comprises monuments of local importance under the local authorities. Monuments included in Class B should be part of social-economical integrated programs. There are close to 30,000 historical monuments in Romania included in the list of historical monuments, of which nearly 7,000 are of national importance and the rest belong to Class B. 239. Priority for restoration and conservation of works should be correlated with a number of factors . These include the significance of the historical monument for the respective community, its potential economic development and tourist potential, and, not in the least, the available transport infrastructure to this cultural objective. These are encouraging signs of 128 attempts to coordinate – not only within the culture sector, but also across sectors. In the next few years, the Ministry of Culture and National Patrimony plans to start off pilot projects to establish integrated spatial plans that should incorporate cultural aspects and management plans for historical monuments. By 2020, at least 10% of the historical monuments in the country that made it to the Class A list should be restored and should have their own management plans. 240. However, the strategy emphasizes the shortfalls of the 2007-2013 programming period, when EU funds dedicated for growth poles tackled more the restoration and rehabilitation of historical buildings, rather than urban regeneration interventions. For example, the rehabilitation of the old city in Bistrița was actu ally the only genuine urban regeneration project funded under the Regional Operational Program in the North-West region. The strategy claims that there is still a lack of understanding at the level of local authorities on the development potential of historical monuments. The document also draws attention on the local governments’ poor knowledge of the EU programs that are not dealing directly with the cultural sector. Sports 241. The draft strategy in the sports sector was prepared in 2013 for the EU-Romania Partnership Agreement, and it refers to a few actions to be considered with regard to the sports infrastructure. The strategy emphasizes on the overall need to improve the sports infrastructure in Romania. Thus, the document focuses on the rehabilitation of the sports camps that belong to the Ministry of Youth and Sports and the development of sports infrastructure for schools. At the same time, other measures target the rehabilitation of existing National Sports Complexes and enhancing the number of such facilities. Changes in the future regarding the sports sector should tackle the legal framework with regard to the private-public partnership. This should enable additional funding sources for building and improving new sports facilities in order to improve the activities and performances of athletes in the country. The strategy also notes that sports camps of local interests should be transferred to the local and county authorities, and a decentralization project to this effect is currently pending. 4.1.2 Horizontal Coordination of Investment Programs Roads 242. At the national level, horizontal coordination across investment programs is facilitated by the fact that all major road investments (highways, expressways, and major roads) are managed by the CNADNR, with funds from the national budget and from SOP Transport. Although some of the key decisions on how investments will be prioritized are made by different entities (i.e., by the General Government Secretariat through its Department for Infrastructure Projects or by the Managing Authority for Large Infrastructure for 2014-2020), the de facto “beneficiary” of allocated funds for major road infrastructure is still the CNADNR. Thus, the Company can ensure that investments in rehabilitation/upgrade of major roads are properly coordinated with planned investments in major highways and expressways. This is a typical example of institutional “centralization, ” whereby coordination is made easier by the fact that a single actor handles an investment program. On a similar note, the CNADNR also manages the 129 operation and maintenance of all highways and national roads, which again makes it easier to coordinate based on annual and multiannual action plans. 243. At a lower level, for county roads, investments appear harder to coordinate in practice, although the two major programs focusing on such types of investments – the EU- funded ROP and the state-budget-funded PNDL – are both managed by the MRDPA. What would coordination involve exactly? Within a county, rehabilitation of county roads should prioritize investments based on some clear priorities, ensuring above all that they are useful and that they connect point A to point B, where A and B should be localities of some significance (e.g., with higher urban mass, hence requiring improved connectivity). At a more sophisticated level, coordination can also involve multiple counties working together in planning road investments – i.e., rehabilitating road segments that connect with each other, thereby ensuring truly regional impact, in the context of Romania still lacking administrative regions. 244. In general, projects financed under the PNDL have very different characteristics compared to ROP-financed investments. The main cause is related to the discrepant time horizons of the two programs: the ROP follows the EU programming cycle of seven years, plus an additional 2-3 years for finalizing implementation; the PNDL is an annual program, with priorities and funding possibly shifting from one year to the next. The main implication is tha t PNDL applicants submit for consideration smaller projects that they can realistically finish in a few years or less. This means shorter road segments (under the PNDL) that are, by definition, less strategic than longer, more expensive interventions (under the ROP). As the table below indicates, the average value of an ROP project was almost 3 times larger than that of a PNDL investment. Thus, the investments done by county councils on county roads with ROP funds follow a different pattern than investments done with PNDL funds. Table 8. PNDL and ROP County Roads Commitments Number of projects Value of Projects Average Project Value PNDL 2014 122 € 482,844,533 € 3,957,742 ROP 2007-2013 142 € 1,407,141,416 € 9,909,447 Data Source: MRDPA 245. Similar observations hold as far as inter-jurisdictional coordination is concerned, with the ROP faring much better than the PNDL, particularly going forward . Given the compressed timing, it is no wonder that PNDL beneficiaries rush to submit projects on their own, even though Intercommunity Development Associations (IDAs) – partnerships among multiple local/county authorities – are also eligible for funding under the program. Even outside the de jure framework of a partnership, there is little de facto coordination among counties when it comes to PNDL projects, as can be seen from Figure 39 below. The situation is different when it comes to the ROP 2007-2013 and even more different when compared to the ROP 2014-2020. Regarding the former, Axis 2 dedicated to county roads selected projects based on the First-In- First-Out (FIFO) rule, which placed at a disadvantage larger, more strategic, cross-county projects. 67 Even so, some counties were able to coordinate their investments in county roads, 67There is a well-known example in the West Development Region of a road connecting multiple counties that did not make the funding cut because it required longer preparation time. For an in-depth discussion 130 particularly in the South-West, South, and North-East. Moreover, under the 2014-2020 ROP, “projects completed in partnership among two/more counties will be financed with priority.” 68 246. Indeed, the ROP 2014-2020 (still in draft form as of late February 2015) features several innovations for incentivizing coordination. By defining from this early stage in the programming process an explicit goal to prioritize truly regional investments, the MRDPA – through the Managing Authority of the ROP (MA ROP) – has mobilized lower-level stakeholders to plan investments jointly. Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), public utility NGOs that serve as Intermediate Bodies for the ROP, and Regional Development Councils, which bring together local and county authorities in each development region, are already working on proposals for truly regional road projects for 2014-2020. There are positive signals that county authorities have agreed several cross-county projects to fund in each region under the ROP. The programmatic document also specifically notes among the list of general principles for selecting projects “the level of coordination with investments completed from other financing sources (LIOP, PNDR, and PNDL).”69 Importantly, the ROP programmatic document specifically mentions the PNDL; it remains to be seen in the Applicant Guides (to be finalized later in 2015) how this principle will be factored into evaluation and selection criteria. The point is that, once again, conditionality proves that it can work to facilitate coordination. 247. As for the current portfolio of ROP and PNDL projects, data deployed by the Bank team show that there is indeed little coordination among the two programs ( see first map below). Also, as indicated earlier, ROP-funded roads have a strong focus on improving access to the TEN-T Network, while PNDL-funded county roads do not seem to follow a clear pattern and the decision on what to finance is left at the discretion of county councils. There are some counties where an evident effort was made to coordinate PNDL and ROP investments (e.g., the counties of Arad and Satu Mare), where parts of the same road or parts of a larger network have been financed from both the ROP and the PNDL. In other parts of the country, however, such good practices were not followed, which is a direct consequence of the lack of formal mechanisms and conditions for enabling this harmonization of investments. 248. At an even lower level, several communes have undertaken investments in communal roads with both PNDL and PNDR funds. The second map below indicates that there are many communes that have tapped both sources of funding to cover investment needs (represented in red). Overall, it is also evident that the PNDL is a premier funding source for communal roads rehabilitation/upgrade, with investments all over the country and wider coverage than the PNDR. This confirms qualitative data regarding differences between the two programs: again, it is generally much harder to obtain EU funds, so few communes – especially among small localities, with little capacity – manage to succeed in this endeavor. of project selection models and criteria, see an earlier report prepared for the MRDPA: “Identification of Project Selection Models,” World Bank, 2014. 68 See January 2015 version of the programmatic document Regional Operational Programme 2014-2020 , MRDPA, 2015, p. 136 69 Ibid. 131 Figure 40. There is little coordination of PNDL and ROP County Road Investments Data Source: MRDPA Figure 41. Coordination of PNDL and PNDR Communal Road Investments Data Source: MRDPA; PNDR 2007-2013 132 249. Interestingly, localities in some counties seem to have a preference for PNDL or PNDR, while in other counties there seems to be little appetite for either. For example, the counties of Hunedoara, Argeș, and Suceava seem to prefer PNDR funds. In Giurgiu, Călărași, or Brăila, there seems to be a bigger appetite for PNDL funds. Some counties, like Bacău, Sălaj, Satu Mare, Maramureș, Bihor, Arad, or Cluj, have been pro-active in accessing both PNDL and PNDR funds, with most of their localities having at least a communal road under works. It is worth mentioning that, to a large extent, the way PNDL funds are distributed to localities (within and across counties) depends on how county councils prioritize projects and on the MRDPA’s final decision. 250. A key observation is that PNDL is the more accessible source of financing for authorities in rural areas looking to invest in communal roads, and the program’s characteristics pose fewer problems for such projects than for county roads. Indeed, communal road investments are usually small and can be completed relatively quickly, making the PNDL a good candidate for such funding requests. Put differently, when the targeted intervention is small, the PNDL appears to have a competitive edge over the PNDR. Data show that the PNDL has financed more communal road projects, with an average value of those interventions significantly smaller than that of PNDR investments. Table 9. PNDL and PNDR Communal Road Commitments Number of projects Value of Projects Average Project Value PNDL 2014 1,070 € 474,602,430 € 443,554 PNDR 2007-2013 643 € 840,856,174* € 1,307,707.89* *Note: Value estimated, given that under Measure 322, PNDR finances primarily i ntegrated projects Data Source: MRDPA; PNDR 251. While the discussion above has compared EU and state-budget instruments, it is worth noting that coordination among EU programs only is much clearer, better defined, and followed in practice. The programmatic documents reviewed (in draft form, as of early March 2015) have entire sections dedicated to coordination and define ex-ante what each instrument will focus on, minimizing overlaps to the full extent possible. Specifically, road infrastructure financed under the PNDR is supplemented by the two other OPs (Large Infrastructure Operational Programme and the Regional Operational Programme). PNDR investments should link up to: county roads rehabilitated and/or modernized through the ROP (county roads that connect directly or indirectly to the TEN-T network, on the one hand; and to LIOP-funded national roads under the Cohesion Fund (CF), on the other hand. As the LIOP programmatic document notes, the program’s road infrastructure proposals will coordinate with the priorities established under the General Transport Master Plan and also with activities funded under the Regional Operational Programme and the PNDR. Similarly, the ROP points out the need to correlate with the two other instruments. At this point in the process, without having the final Applicant Guides for each program and axis, it is difficult to envision how each fund will coordinate with the others. For example, they may each reward projects that describe in the financing proposal how they benefit and integrate with other EU-funded investments. The final mechanism remains to be seen later in 2015, but the programmatic documents provide sufficient reason for hope, as does the 2007-2013 experience. 133 Water and Wastewater 252. In the water and wastewater sector, horizontal coordination across different funding programs (EU and state-budget funded) is also important to avoid overlaps and leverage synergies through economies of scale. At a basic level, it is easy to understand that expanding a water supply or sanitation system to neighboring localities can be much cheaper – and more sustainable in the long run, due to scale economies – than building separate networks for each locality. In fact, county-level Master Plans for the water and wastewater sector have drawn agglomerations and clusters precisely to encourage integrated planning and implementation of investments. If all investments programs followed these documents and the prioritization they propose, coordination opportunities would be maximized. 253. But coordination is particularly challenging in this sector because multiple programs are involved. On the EU side, there are the OP Large Infrastructure 2014-2020 (and OP Environment 2007-2013) and the PNDR; on the state budget side, there are the PNDL (and its predecessors) and the Environment Fund, which essentially target the same types of investments, and also overlap with the aforementioned EU instruments. What is clear is that Romania’s water and sanitation sector has huge needs that could not be covered by any single investment program (assuming that current budgets would be maintained). Even adding up all major sources – i.e., OP Environment, PNDR, PNDL, and the Environment Fund – there are still significant gaps between total needs and available funds. The gap is largest in the counties of Suceava, Iași, Mureș, Bacău, Brașov, Prahova, and Argeș, while Gorj and the Târnave area have already addressed most of their investment needs (see map below). Figure 42. Data on total funding vs. needs (through 2037) show large gaps in most counties (thousands of EUR) Data Source: Master Plans for Water and Wastewater 2007-2013; Operational Programs (OP Environment, PNDR, PNDL, and Environment Fund) 134 254. As for roads, when it comes to EU-funded instruments only, proper coordination and a harmonized approach with other investment programmes are part of their stated and required objectives – this has been true even for the previous programming period. Before these programmes are approved by the European Commission, they have to show that they are complementary in nature and do not duplicate investments. For 2007-2013, SOP Environment focused on large investments, primarily in urban areas, while the PNDR took on comparatively smaller projects, only in rural areas. The criterion was simple enough: SOP Environment covered localities with over 10,000 residents, while PNDR took on the rest, with a few exceptions (SOP Environment did target a few rural communities related to the main investments in urban areas). Similarly, tourist resorts rehabilitated with ROP funds through integrated projects – that included the modernization of water/sanitation networks – have been identified ex-ante to avoid duplication with other EU-funded programs. 255. For 2014-2020, coordination across LIOP and PNDR appears somewhat more challenging than previously, as they both target localities between 2,000 and 10,000 p.e. for wastewater investments. The programmatic documents for LIOP and for PNDR acknowledge this potential issue and note several measures to address it: (i) the Water and Wastewater Master Plans and their lists of priorities will help draw the line between these two programs, with LIOP taking on larger projects in primarily urban areas and the PNDR serving rural areas; (ii) a coordination mechanism among these two OPs would be enforced through a protocol signed between their respective Management Authorities (it is unclear at this point what the protocol would involve); and finally (iii) PNDR may finance investments under 2,000 p.e., but only after Romania has met its EU commitments in the sector. Similar to the 2007-2013 arrangement, the beneficiaries of the LIOP will be the Regional Operators (ROs), whereas in the case of the PNDR the beneficiaries will be local authorities that should ultimately cede operation of their water/sanitation systems to the ROs. The LIOP programmatic document also calls for an integrated management system for investments in the water and sanitation sector to be established with support from the ROs. The ROs should also be involved in the early stages of the project – such as preparation and approval of the technical documentation, including for PNDR beneficiaries. 256. The coordination of investments between EU and state-budget-funded programs, and between different state-budget-funded programs, has been much harder and often nonexistent. At the level of programs, there are no conditions/criteria for enabling proper harmonization. The Environment Fund has been open to all types of interventions, with a fairly generous upper threshold, thereby possibly competing with SOP Environment and certainly with the PNDR. Similarly, there are no mechanisms to ensure that the PNDL focuses on investments complementary to EU-funded projects. The maps below identify overlaps between PNDL and PNDR interventions in the water and wastewater sector and, respectively, between the PNDL and the Environment Fund. 135 Figure 43. PNDL & PNDR complementarity of water projects (up) and sanitation projects (down) Data Source: MRDPA; PNDR 2007-2013 136 Figure 44. Environment Fund and PNDL complementarity of water (up) and sanitation projects (down) Data Source: MRDPA; Environment Fund (2014) 257. Without data at the level of villages it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions from these maps, since multiple villages can be part of the same territorial administrative unit (i.e., the commune). For example, overlaps could indicate duplication of funding or, quite the contrary, complementarity of investments – e.g., PNDR funding for one village and the 137 expansion of the intervention with PNDR funds to the next village, under the same jurisdiction of a commune. Qualitative data from field interviews reveal, however, that there are some localities that have applied and received funding from multiple state-budget-funded programs, though seem to be rare exceptions (and have been explicitly forbidden under EU funded programs, whereby an applicant formally declares that it did not benefit from another financing for a particular intervention). Technical solutions can also vary from case to case; a good designer may propose expansion of a PNDR system with PNDL funding in one commune, while in another a mayor may obtain financing for building a wastewater treatment plant to serve a single village (of under 2,000 p.e.). 258. As far as the correlation of EF projects and other similar investments goes, there are no specific guidelines to determine optimal financing sources for particular project proposals . Put differently, there are no institutionalized mechanisms for ensuring that there are no overlaps and that a project eligible for EU funds is first submitted to an EU-funded instrument like OP Environment/ OP Large Infrastructure or PNDR. It also appears that investments of any size are eligible under the EF, even localities with over 20.000 people (though in the scoring grid the largest number of points is granted to localities with fewer than 3.000 people). Moreover, there is only one specific mention of Regional Master Plans in the Water and Wastewater in the evaluation and selection grid, with projects conforming to the predefined strategy eligible to receive a maximum score of 5 points under the “project relevance” category. This is clearly not an absolute requirement – i.e., even investments that are not included in the Master Plans can be eligible for financing from the EF. 259. The crux of the issue – not just for the EF, but for the entire sector – relates to the accuracy and use of priority lists defined in the Regional Water and Wastewater Master Plans. If these were properly developed and fully respected in practice, investment needs would be covered one by one, from whatever funding source possible, in the set order of priority. But less rigid rules under the PNDL and the Environment Fund have allowed certain local authorities to obtain funds ahead of higher-priority localities. Why was this possible? One line of argument expressed in interviews at the local level is that Master Plans were not properly developed; certain draft versions prepared for 2014-2020, with some counties vastly expanding clusters to include all or nearly all localities, raises concerns regarding the accuracy of these analyses. If one allows that the assessment behind the Master Plans is flawed, then it may make sense to not always follow the priority order established therein. Another line of argument is that small localities that can afford water/wastewater systems but are not eligible for EU funds (i.e., they are under the threshold of 50 people and 2,000 p.e. respectively) should not have to wait until their turn is up many years down the line. Political pressures also come into play and there are certainly some mayors of smaller communes who successfully attract state-budget funding for their projects despite questionable feasibility in the long run. 260. In practice, there are plenty of examples of unsustainable investments in water and wastewater, precisely because of this issue of lack of coordination. In one commune in the West region, the mayor applied for PNDL financing and completed a wastewater treatment plant for a village of fewer than 700 people that was lacking industrial activity. Now the system is at risk of breaking down due to underuse (i.e., there is simply not enough demand for the service, which makes the systems run under capacity, at high cost and at high risk of needing repairs). Not only are there not enough people in some of these communities, but connection 138 rates are often below expectations – residents are simply not used to paying for water and sanitation services, so they either do not connect or choose to disconnect after the first few bills come in. Sector experts note that there are technical solutions for small localities, but clearly these are not adopted everywhere. 261. If local authorities had proper information about costs and benefits, they may think twice about investments that can become unsustainable. Even if they do finally receive the funds to complete an investment, they then have to operate the service because Regional Operators will often refuse to take over unprofitable systems. This can put a heavy burden on the local budget, which is usually insufficient anyway, particularly in smaller rural localities. The next chapter offers some recommendations for how suboptimal, unsustainable investments can be avoided in the future. Social Infrastructure 262. The same pattern as for the other two sectors holds in this case: correlation among EU funds happens at the programming phase, while state-budget-funds likely show severe gaps in coordination. Regarding the former, complementarities also emerge from the different sources of EU funding (i.e., ERDF vs. ESF vs. EARDF). For health infrastructure, investments under the PNDR go hand in hand with proposals under the ERDF tackling construction, rehabilitation, and modernization of health services infrastructure in rural areas (such as outpatient and integrated intervention center). They also supplement projects pertaining to development of human capital aimed at improving the capacity of the health system funded through the ESF. For education, PNDR projects targeting modernization and endowment of secondary education institutions with an agricultural profile and development of early childhood and preschool facilities are complemented by investments through the ROP in urban early-childhood and university education infrastructure, urban and rural preschool and school facilities, and vocational schools in urban and rural areas (except for dedicated agricultural profile facilities in rural areas). Finally, the cultural heritage projects in rural areas under the PNDR are correlated with investments under the ROP (financed from the ERDF). The ROP-funded projects target the UNESCO heritage, national heritage monuments of national importance in rural and urban areas (Class A), and cultural heritage monuments of local importance in urban areas (Class B). The ROP covers only cultural heritage monuments of local importance in rural areas (Class B). 263. With respect to state-budget-funded programs, publicly available information is very sparse and there is no evidence that they are coordinating their actions amongst each other or with EU structural instruments. It is unclear what criteria justify the selection of particular investments through state-budget-funded programs, whether targeted projects are eligible for EU funds and applicants have first tried to attract grant funding, or whether there is a clear strategy underpinning all these instruments. While it is logical and expected for central-level ministries to want to supplement from their annual budgets the insufficient local/county allocations for investments in social infrastructure, the entire process should be transparent, fair, predictable, and effectively coordinated with similar investment programs. 264. All in all, as noted under the previous section on vertical coordination, the social infrastructure sector poses special challenges, primarily related to the ownership status and relatively smaller size of investments. Local and county authorities own most of the social 139 infrastructure in their respective jurisdiction. Under the law, they can in principle invest whatever resources they have and can attract for assets they seek to develop or rehabilitate, without formally coordinating with higher-level sectoral strategies for health, education, culture, and youth and sports. Particularly in larger cities with more generous shares of own revenues in their budgets, such social infrastructure does often get rehabilitated/developed only with local/county funding. In such instances, there is nothing stopping a subnational government from carrying out a planned investment, even if it may not correlate with higher-level goals. In theory, the situation changes when the financing has to come from an EU fund or from a national program. Particularly for structural instruments, investments need to abide by certain criteria. A simple example concerns the rehabilitation of a school in a commune with very few children left (Romania’s negative de mographic trends are well known, so this is based on a true story). The mayor may be free to do it on her own budget, but not if she wants to attract EU grants or central-level financing – in that case, conditionalities should apply to ensure proper coordination. 4.2 Inter-Sectoral Coordination 265. In principle, effective inter-sectoral coordination is much harder to achieve than intra- sectoral coordination. The main task at hand is not duplication of funding, since by definition this particular type of coordination involves multiple players or a single player (e.g., a City Hall) and multiple investment programs across different sectors. The desirable outcome is to: (i) ensure that a project in one area does not impede the development of a project in another area (e.g., delays in rehabilitating a road hinder access to a newly built regional hospital); and (ii) design projects in an integrated manner so that investments enhance each other’s impact (e.g., a medieval monastery is rehabilitated, a new tourist information center is built nearby, the road connecting them is modernized, and there is also a new wastewater system for nearby inns to accommodate tourists). If stakeholders within a single sector do not communicate much, despite sharing the same goals and interests, and sometimes even the same headquarters, it is that much harder to promote collaboration across sectors, where opportunities to collaborate are, by default, harder and more limited. 266. This section explores the current status and mechanisms of inter-sectoral coordination of infrastructure works in Romania, at three levels: national, regional, and county/local. The national level cross-sectoral coordination would need to happen at the Center of Government – in Romania’s case, through the General Secre tariat of the Government (SGG). At the next level, Regional Development Agencies are responsible for developing Regional Development Plans (RDPs), which are supposed to guide development within a particular region. Last but not least, most of the coordination of actual infrastructure projects needs to happen at the local level – i.e., through county and local councils. These actors have visibility into what is happening in their jurisdiction, they know the actual needs on the ground, and they can deploy mechanisms to fulfill such needs. It is both easier and harder to coordinate at the local level: easier because there is a single entity that manages the various investments across sectors; and harder because local authorities often lack the capacity for effectively coordinating projects in their portfolio and, moreover, still depend on higher-level authorities for various approvals. The figure below summarizes the main dimensions of this approach, and the next sections discuss each of these levels in depth. 140 Figure 45. The key dimensions of inter-sectoral coordination INTER-SECTORAL COORDINATION NATIONAL REGIONAL LOCAL LEVEL LEVEL LEVEL STRATEGIES AND PLANS INVESTMENT PROGRAMS INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS 4.2.1 National Level Strategies and Plans 267. With respect to national-level strategies in different sectors, there is no systematic effort to coordinate them in terms of objectives or action steps, and there are no common standards for developing and implementing them. In principle, the National Spatial Plan (PATN) – managed by the MRDPA – should ensure territorial coordination at a basic level, though some of its sections are still pending, including on education and rural development, while others appear to be outdated (e.g., on water, which dates from 1997). 70 The deeper issue is that there are too many national sectoral and cross-sectoral strategies in Romania, without clear links between them. In fact, there is no centralized inventory of all strategies available, their status (e.g., drafted, approved, outdated, etc.), or their practical applicability. Such documents also usually lack clear priorities, and policy and cost implications, so it is hard to decide on budgetary allocations across sectors or to develop lists of projects to be financed within a given time horizon (usually one year, given Romania’s annual budgetary framework). Such documents remain at the level of wish lists and continuity from one government to the next is quite rare, 70See http://www.mdrt.ro/dezvoltare-teritoriala/amenajarea-teritoriului/amenajarea-teritoriului-in- context-national/-4697 141 unless the set goals are part of Romania’s international commitments. At the same time, coordination is particularly challenging because there are both EU and national-level requirements, and these may not always align properly. 268. A 2015 report prepared for the Chancellery of the Prime Minister of Romania provides an informative diagnostic of the current framework for establishing cross-sectoral priorities. 71 The key instrument should be the Fiscal and Budgetary Strategy, which covers three years and serves to describe the government’s policy priorities. But this too remains an instrument with serious gaps in terms of its practical use, largely because the inputs that go into it are not properly collected, assessed, and prioritized. In the words of the aforementioned report, “[there is] an absence of a political decision-making process to reconcile the multiplicity of policy demands from high-level strategies and EU-driven commitments.”72 While policy demands are many from all sectors, actual costing of such needs is very rare. The Ministry of Finance is thus in a position of surveying ministries every year regarding their investment needs and other funds they may require, but there is no transparent, consultative process for deciding which sectors and investment projects are a priority. 269. For all the reasons covered above, Romania currently lacks mechanisms to ensure the national-level coordination of investment strategies across different sectors. There is no institution explicitly mandated to review all available strategies and decide how they “fit” together and what their policy and budgetary implications are. Equally important, there are no monitoring and evaluation procedures for the strategies developed to decide on whether they are needed, whether they are appropriate, and whether their goals are fulfilled. This is partly because there is no independent actor explicitly assigned to do this and held accountable for it. That said, even if someone was put in charge with monitoring and evaluating strategies, it would be an impossible task in the absence of strategies with clear targets and performance indicators, and effective data reporting – otherwise, how would one measure what cannot and is not measured? The next chapter proposes some measures to address these gaps, though it should be noted that many of these proposals hinge on action by the Center of Government. The MRDPA can only do so much to promote nation-wide, cross-sectoral coordination. Investment Programs 270. The following table summarizes the main priority axes and eligible investments under each of the key EU and state-budget-funded programs reviewed as part of this final report. Two straightforward conclusions can be drawn by looking at this snapshot: (1) EU funds are defined in a complementary manner, with a conscious effort to coordinate interventions; (2) state-budget-funded programs make no attempt to coordinate among themselves and with other EU instruments, but rather finance a long list of investments, causing significant overlaps with other programs. As noted in the previous chapter, this creates a competitive dynamic among funds, with state-budget-funded instruments typically crowding out EU investments because they finance the same types of interventions under more flexible rules and monitoring. 71 See G. Evans, C. Todor, and M. Vilnoiu, “Harmonizing Strategic P lanning and Budgetary Programming in Romania,” World Bank, January 2015 72 Ibid., p. 9 142 Table 10. Snapshot of investment programs and relevant intervention areas in roads, water and wastewater, and social infrastructure Invest- ments Water and Wastewater Transport Infrastructure and Other Urban and Rural Infrastructure Social Infrastructure Development Infrastructure Programs ROP ROP Priority Investment 3.2 ROP Priority Investment 8.1 Promotion of energy efficiency strategies, especially in Investments in social and health infrastructure to urban areas, including promotion of sustainable urban reduce inequalities with regard to health condition of mobility, and relevant measures for mitigating the changes people and to promote social inclusion by improving  Purchasing of efficient rolling stock, including electrical access to social, cultural, and recreation services, and ecological vehicles, including pilot projects for and transition from institutionalized services to implementing public transport projects in urban areas. community care services  Electric public transport routes.  Integrated socio-medical community care centers  Development of infrastructure for electric (in urban/rural areas). transportation.  Infrastructure for ambulatory care centers,  Modernization/rehabilitation of depots for public including those that are developed as a result of transport and related technical infrastructure. reorganization and rationalization of small,  Dedicated lanes for public transport. inefficient hospitals.  Improvement of public transport stations, including  Emergency care units. development of new inter-modal terminals.  Endowment of emergency county hospitals.  Development of bike networks and related technical  Development/ endowment of emergency regional infrastructure (such as docking stations). hospitals.  Development of pedestrian networks, including  Social services infrastructure de service without reducing traffic in certain areas. residential component (day care centers, etc.).  Development of video monitoring systems for traffic  Family type housing and apartments, protected management. housing.  E-ticketing and parking.  Road infrastructure (public transport corridors) to increase traffic safety (development of bike lanes and pedestrian networks, whenever possible).  Development of park and ride facilities.  Development of sustainable urban mobility plans for 143 Invest- ments Water and Wastewater Transport Infrastructure and Other Urban and Rural Infrastructure Social Infrastructure Development Infrastructure Programs projects funded through ROP 2014-2020. ROP Priority Investment 10.1  Shelterbelts and large trees alignments (with high Investments in education and training, including retention capacity of CO2). professional training and long-life training by  By-passes in medium and small-sized cities (that are not development of educational and training part of major transport infrastructure networks) to infrastructure (in urban/rural areas) deviate the cars and heavy traffic.  Pre-preschool infrastructure (nurseries).  Preschool education infrastructure ROP Priority Investment 4.2 (kindergartens). Development of activities for improving urban  Primary and secondary education infrastructure environment, city revival, regeneration and de- (schools grades I through VIII). contamination of industrial disused land, reducing air  Professional and technical schools/ technological pollution, and promoting measures aimed at reducing high-schools. noise  University education infrastructure.  Urban areas – green areas, abandoned/unused land, plazas, pedestrian areas, non-modernized streets, ROP Priority Investment 9.1 including rehabilitation and modernization of public CLLD (in urban areas) utility services etc.  Investments in housing infrastructure - development/rehabilitation/modernization of social housing ROP Priority Investment 6.1  Investments in health and social services Stimulating regional mobility through connection of infrastructure - medical-social integrated secondary and tertiary nodes to TEN-T infrastructure community services centers.  Modernization of county roads that ensures  Investments in educational infrastructure - pre- connectivity, directly (county roads that are directly university education facilities (nurseries, linked to) or indirectly (linked to the network via a kindergartens, primary and secondary schools). modernized national road) to the TEN-T network,  Investments in degraded urban space of the development of new county road segments to connect respective deprived community: to highways or expressways.  Buildings for school, social, community, 144 Invest- ments Water and Wastewater Transport Infrastructure and Other Urban and Rural Infrastructure Social Infrastructure Development Infrastructure Programs  By-passes that hold the status as county roads to be cultural, entertainment activities, and part of the respective county road, development of sports. roundabouts and other elements to increase traffic  Urban public spaces (non-modernized safety. streets, including  Passages/road nodes to connect directly to TEN-T rehabilitation/modernization of public highways and county roads, and development of utility services, green areas, pedestrian pedestrian bridges. networks etc.).  Public transport stops for routes located on county  Development/ equipping infrastructure of roads. insertion local social economic  Investments aimed at increasing safety for pedes trians enterprises. (pedestrian networks and bike lanes, wherever possible), including vertical signaling with photovoltaic ROP Priority Investment 5.1 charging for pedestrians. Conservation, protection, promotion, and  Shelterbelts and protection walls, additional development of cultural patrimony (in urban/rural investments for protection of roads against bad areas) weather conditions  Restoration, consolidation, protection and conservation of historical monuments.  Restoration, protection, conservation and execution of indoor painting, frescos, and mural external painting.  Restoration and remodeling of facades.  Indoor endowment (equipment and installations for heat/cooling, fire safety etc.).  Endowment for exhibiting and protecting the mobile and non-mobile cultural patrimony.  Marketing and tourism promotion of the restored cultural patrimony objectives. 145 Invest- ments Water and Wastewater Transport Infrastructure and Other Urban and Rural Infrastructure Social Infrastructure Development Infrastructure Programs PNDL  Works to public roads that have been classified as  Water supply networks and  Medical facilities in rural areas - medical clinics, county roads, roads of local interest, communal roads, water treatment plants. pharmacies and/or other medical facilities where and/or public roads within localities.  Sewage networks and medical clinics and/or pharmacies are located,  Bridges and pedestrian bridges. wastewater treatment. development of new constructions for medical  Public plazas, markets, fairs, etc. clinics and/or pharmacies.  Headquarters of local public administrations and of  Pre-university education facilities: kindergartens, institutions that are under the local public authorities primary and secondary schools, high-schools, national colleges, professional high-schools etc.  Cultural objectives of local interest, libraries, museums, multifunctional cultural centers, theaters (in rural areas).  Sports halls. PNDR PNDR Sub-measure 7.2 Investments for development and PNDR Sub-measure 7.2 PNDR Sub-measure 7.2 Investments for development modernization of small-scale basic infrastructure Investments for development and modernization of small-scale basic infrastructure  Development, extension and improvement of local and modernization of small-  Investments related to medical services - interest road network in rural areas. scale basic infrastructure development and/or modernization of rural  Development, expansion medical dispensaries in rural areas. and improvement of the  Investments in development, modernization or public water network in expansion of educational infrastructure in rural rural areas. areas:  Development, expansion  Development and modernization and improvement of the (including endowment of kindergartens public sewage network in and nurseries. rural areas.  Development and modernization (including endowment) of after-schools.  Expansion and modernization of agricultural profile high-schools. 146 Invest- ments Water and Wastewater Transport Infrastructure and Other Urban and Rural Infrastructure Social Infrastructure Development Infrastructure Programs PNDR Sub-measure 7.6. Investments associated with protection of cultural patrimony  Restoration, conservation and ensuring access (to) of the cultural patrimony of local interest (Class B) in rural areas.  Restoration, conservation and ensuring access (to) of monastic settlements in rural areas. LIOP LIOP 07 - Promotion of sustainable transport and cutting LIOP 06 - Conservation and out bottlenecks from the major infrastructure network environment protection, and transport systems efficient use of resources  7a - investments in TEN-T to support a single European  6ii - Investments in the multimodal transport system. water sector in order to  OS2.1 – Increasing mobility through development meet the EU acquis with of road transport system along the TEN-T network. regard to environment and  7b - Stimulating regional mobility by connecting to respond to the needs secondary and tertiary nodes to the TEN-T network, identified by those EU including the multimodal nodes. states that exceed such  OS2.2 - Increasing regional access through requirements. connecting areas with less accessibility to the TEN-  OS3.2 - Increasing the T road infrastructure. waste water collection  7c - Development and improvement of environmentally and treatment level in friendly and low greenhouse gas emission transport urban areas, as well as systems, including interior waterways and maritime the degree of providing transport system, ports, multimodal connections, and drinking water to the airports in order to promote sustainable mobility at the population. regional and local level.  OS2.3 - Increasing regional mobility through  6e - Activities aimed at sustainable development of airports. improving urban  OS2.4 - Increasing attractiveness of intermodal environment, city revival, 147 Invest- ments Water and Wastewater Transport Infrastructure and Other Urban and Rural Infrastructure Social Infrastructure Development Infrastructure Programs transport for using sustainable transport modes regeneration and  OS2.5 - Increasing safety and security for all decontamination of disused transport modes and reducing the impact of industrial land, reducing air transport on the environment. pollution, and promoting  OS2.6 - Improving traffic flow at the border measures aimed art customs - points of entry. diminishing noise.  7d - Development and rehabilitation of full, high-quality and inter-operable railway systems and promotion of measures aimed at reducing noise.  OS2.7 - Increasing sustainability and quality of railway transport through modernization of network and services. Environ.  Bike network development program  Program for improving the Fund  National program for improving the environment environment afforestation through development of green areas in localities of degraded agricultural land, ecological reconstruction and sustainable management of the forests.  Program regarding protection of water sources, integrated water supply systems, water treatment plants, waste water treatment plants and sewage.  Program regarding recovery of historically contaminated sites. 148 271. Before focusing on the current gaps between EU and state-funded programs, it is useful to first review what works well: i.e., the key elements that ensure a coordinated planning and implementation process among EU structural instruments only :  A purposeful focus on coordination from the beginning: The EC has recognized from the start that it needs to ensure complementarity among funds and integrated investments. o Explicit requirements: Each Member State is required to explain how it will ensure complementarities across structural funds. Specifically, each Partnership Agreement (PA) has a dedicated section on the topic of coordination. The Romanian PA clearly notes: “The complementarities identified among European Structural and Investment Funds require an effective coordination during the planning and implementation of the ESI Funds in order to avoid the overlaps between actions.”73 o Dedicated instruments: One way to accomplish coordination in the 2014-2020 programming period was to devise two instruments that would essentially give potential beneficiaries the necessary tools to ensure coordination on their own. The Integrated Territorial Investment (ITI) and the Community-Led Local Development (CLLD) tools allow local authorities and other eligible actors to design their own integrated interventions from the beginning, drawing from multiple sources of EU funding to fulfill their projects’ objectives.  A predictable and stable timeline : The seven year programming cycle (e.g., 2007-2013, 2014-2020) maintains the same strategic objectives, planning documents, and implementation procedures throughout. Even if political power alternates between different parties within that timeframe, no changes occur to the EU operational programmes, once these are agreed in the beginning between a national government and the EC.  A common legal and procedural framework: This is ensured by the Common Provisions Regulation No. 1303/2013, which describes how to all 5 European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) are to be designed, implemented, and monitored and evaluated. Common regulations were adopted in order to: establish a clear link with the Europe 2020 strategy (i.e., ensure coordination between the overall strategy and the financing instruments designed to accomplish it); improve coordination; ensure consistent implementation; and make access to the funds as straightforward as possible for those who may benefit from them. 74  Systems to ensure information flows: Partly due to the need to report consistently and periodically to the EC regarding the results of ESIF implementation, there is a functional system for collecting and reviewing information on projects at all phases (applied, approved/selected, contracted, implemented, and completed). The database for all EU- funded interventions in Romania is the Single Management Information System (SMIS). SMIS includes a set of six subsystems: programming (information of NSRF); project 73 Romania-EU Partnership Agreement, p. 209 74 See http://ec.europa.eu/contracts_grants/funds_en.htm 149 management (main data on projects, including contracts); monitoring (progress against targets); audit and control (main audit findings and reports); and funds flow management (payment forecast, project revenues, etc.). The much expected upgrade to mySMIS, which will allow direct user (applicant/beneficiary) inputs, is slated to be introduced for the 2014-2020 programming period. 75  Institutional mechanisms for coordination: o The planning of the 2014-2020 programming period was done in a joint manner through the Interinstitutional Committee for the Partnership Agreement (CIAP). The CIPA brought together all stakeholders involved in the ESIF framework in Romania: public authorities at all levels, intermediate bodies (including Regional Development Agencies), civil society groups, and private sector representatives. o As for the implementation phase, there are clear coordination mechanisms set through the Romania-EU Partnership Agreement. The document notes: “Based on the lessons learned in 2007-2013 and the new challenges raised by the ESI Funds architecture in Romania, a coordination mechanism with structures on three levels (strategic committee, thematic inter-institutional, operational), will be set up in order to ensure the coherence of the interventions, complementarities and synergies in the programming and implementation stages.” 76 These mechanisms are not operational as of February 2015, but they are set to begin functioning as soon as the operational programs are set up and approved. o The first level is the Management of the Partnership Agreement Steering Committee (MPASC), including all line ministries responsible for ESIF implementation. The MPASC will meet twice a year during the 2014-2020 programming period and it is supposed to ensure the coordination of ESIF programs. The PA does note that the MPASC “will have a key role in ensuring the coherence with other Union’s policy instruments and [at] the same time with the Romanian national investments programs.” 77 Unlike in the Polish PA, 78 there are no further details on what such coordination should or could entail. o The second level includes five thematic steering sub-committees (TSC), under the coordination of the Ministry of European Funds (Directorate General for Analysis, Programming, and Evaluation) – including one for “Developing modern infrastructure for growth and jobs.” This would likely cover all three main sectors discussed in this report, i.e., roads, water and wastewater, and 75 There are also a number of shortcomings to the SMIS system, including lack of automated reporting, lack of continuous updating and assistance, misalignment with some MA requirements, etc. For an extensive discussion of these gaps, see the report on “ROP 2.0: MA-IB Collaboration for the Regional Operational Programme, 2014-2 020,” World Bank, 2014. 76 Ibid., p. 168 77 Ibid., p. 218 78 See the next chapter for an in-depth discussion of coordination instruments established by the Government of Poland for the 2014-2020 programming period, for both EU and national programs 150 social infrastructure. The TSC would include line ministries, Managing Authorities, Ministry of Public Finance and IFI representatives, etc. These would meet twice per year and operate through a secretary under the Ministry of European Funds. Among their tasks is precisely to: “ensure complementarity and [an] integrated approach among ESI funds […] [and] ensure coherence with other EU and national instruments.”79 This sub- committee would further report to the MPASC. As of February 2015, the MEF is in the process of drafting the TSC’s bylaw s. o The third level includes four functional working groups, also under the MEF, on various specific areas of interest: operations (including simplification, data exchange, public procurement, etc.); performance assessment; territorial coherence, including European territorial cooperation; and new approaches (including ITI, CLLD, etc.). o On a different but related note, coordination of EU-funded instruments is also enabled by Intermediate Bodies specifically appointed to provide a link between program applicants and beneficiaries (e.g., local authorities) and central-level Managing Authorities. In the case of the Regional Operational Programme, Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) have performed well as IBs, often ensuring coordination by getting applicants/beneficiaries to talk to each other and design/implement projects in an integrated manner. The World Bank report on “ROP 2.0: MA-IB Collaboration and Communication for the ROP 2014-2020” discusses in depth the advantages of relying on RDAs as IBs. For example, RDAs are public utility NGOs with much more flexible human capital policies, which allow them to recruit and retain talent more easily. IBs allow Managing Authorities to focus on really critical, strategic tasks by taking on the burden of more mundane operational activities. In short, coordination among EU-funded programs, although far from perfect, has a number of ley strengths: it is clearly defined as an objective; benefits from relatively effective information flows; relies on common procedures; and leverages institutional fora for collaboration. 272. Very few, if any, of such good practices are present when it comes to national programs funded 100% from the state budget. There is no conscious effort to coordinate such interventions, which is evident from the way they are planned through implementation and post-implementation. There are no standards for how to develop an infrastructure investment program. In the past, ministries have taken the liberty to propose such instruments through more or less elaborate government ordinances, some with criteria for allocating funding, and others without. Compared to EU-funded instruments:  There is no mandate to coordinate across infrastructure projects, in none of the national cross-sectoral strategies (e.g., Governing Program, the Territorial Development Strategy, the Fiscal Budgetary Strategy, etc.).  The programming and implementation timeline is annual. There is a high level of unpredictability from one year to the next. Usually the list of financed projects is 79 Ibid. (emphasis added) 151 adopted every year through a Minister’s order, as in the case of the PNDL. Priorities may change without warning along with political changes.  There are no common procedures across programs for approving, selecting, and implementing projects. There are no monitoring and evaluation systems, and there is no independent stakeholder charged with looking at how these programs are performing.  There are no IT systems for collecting, reviewing, and reporting information of state- budget-funded investments. Each ministry has its own database and, even within a single ministry units do not have interoperable systems. This is the case with the PNDL and the ROP, managed by two different Directorate Generals in the MRDPA. There is no systematic data exchange between the two programs, despite the fact that they both finance county roads and social infrastructure.  There are no formal institutional mechanisms for ensuring coordination across investment programs, and there are no “intermediate bodies” for such instruments to ensure enhanced support for applicants/beneficiaries. Infrastructure Projects 273. Established through GD 150/2010, the Inter-Ministerial Committee for Approval of Public Works of National Interest and Housing is responsible for analyzing and approving the technical documentations for public investments larger than RON 30 million. The committee comprises representatives from several ministries, including the MRDPA, Public Finances, Transportation, and Economy. The head of the committee is the Minister of Regional Development and Public Administration (MRDPA), while vice-presidents are the ministers of Transportation and of Public Finances. The secretariat sits with the MDRPA. The committee meets every month or whenever necessary. In 2014, it went through 27 proposals, most of them submitted by local authorities. 274. The committee assesses the projects whose “beneficiaries ” are the central government, county, and local authorities, and is interested primarily in whether a proposal is “complete” – i.e., it performs primarily a basic conformity and eligibility check. Projects may include new investments, works in connection to existing investments, and interventions that have already been approved by the Government or by local authorities with new technical- economic indicators. The analysis is performed by consulting a number of documents, including feasibility studies, the projects’ presentation, the design, the general estimate, the list of economic indicators, the approval from the authority responsible for the implementation of the project, and the memorandum for financing, if applicable. Sometimes the committee may require additional documents and clarifications. The applicant may respond to clarifications and keep bringing additional documents until the committee eventually gets all information needed in order to sit down and approve the project. Usually, the project analysis takes two business days. The committee has never actually rejected a project proposal. 275. It is important to note that the role of the committee is inherently limited by two factors: its low capacity; and the relatively advanced stage of the projects presented. The committee does not have any permanent, full-time staff members; it “shares” the time of technical experts with the ministries that hire them. It does not have the capacity to assess the 152 substance of technical documentations submitted – for example, to question the results of a cost-benefit analysis would require a lot of time and resources. Similarly, the committee could not ensure the policy-level coordination of proposed projects, i.e., to check whether they are in line with certain strategies, whether they may be financed through different funding sources, such as EU money, or how they could complement each other. Even if the committee had the required capacity for a full technical and financial evaluation, by the time the projects are submitted, it is in many ways too late to make substantial changes to them. The committee is the last decision-level body before the projects are approved by the Government and move to implementation. All projects that reach the committee’s desk have been already endorsed by the authorities responsible for the implementation, and more importantly, they have already been assigned the necessary funding. Where the committee adds value is in bringing together various ministries and enabling them to cooperate in issuing permits and in sharing information about proposed investments. For instance, a road may require joint action by the MRDPA, the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Finance, etc. 276. Last but not least, the committee does not have a clearly defined, independent role and mandate beyond its members’ individual decisions. Put differently, the committee’s endorsement is required for all investment projects over RON 30 million, but this does not substitute individual endorsements by each of the ministries represented on the committee. This is a typical example of organizations unwilling to give up decision-making power in favor of a collective body, which is not singular to the Romanian case, but points to the challenges of making coordination work in the absence of a solid foundation based on trust and ownership among different public institutions. 277. Recognizing the need to engage more substantially in evaluating large public projects, the Romanian Government promoted GEO 88/2013 regarding the prioritization of major investments (of over 100 million RON).80 This legal provision established within the Ministry of Public Finance a new Unit for Evaluating Public Investments (Unitatea de Evaluare a Invest ițiilor Publice – UEIP), responsible for assessing annual proposals for major investments by line ministries. According to GEO 88/2013, the unit should act like a secretariat for the MFP in prioritizing public investments larger than RON 100 million. The unit is responsible for assessing the pre-feasibility studies or background notes corresponding to the projects in order to analyze their suitability. If the proposal passes this preliminary evaluation, then the authorities responsible for the implementation of the project can move to the feasibility study. In practice, pre-feasibility studies are rarely used, while background notes tend to be superficial and poorly argued (there are no standard forms and they usually justify why the feasibility study is needed, rather than the investment itself). 278. After the feasibility study is approved, the ministries must evaluate the project with regard to its relevance, its economic, social, environmental impact, and credible management engagements. The evaluation is sent to the UEIP for the final assessment. However, the unit cannot perform a proper evaluation as it does not receive the full cost-benefit analysis, but only the final result of such analyses – obviously, all submitted projects pass the test. As a result, the unit current cannot actually decide on investment priorities, as its role is more to confirm the list of priorities prepared by the ministries and main release credit authorities. The unit should 80 See GEO 88/2013 and Government Decision 225/2014 (application norms) 153 provide inputs and finalize a cross-sectoral list of priority investments, which should be approved through a formal memorandum. The idea behind this is that the list would provide more stability and predictability from year to year regarding the government’s top infrastructure objectives. In practice, however, there is nothing stopping ministries from submitting markedly different lists of priorities every year. Again, the UEIP cannot – and probably should not – intervene in sectoral prioritization of projects, but its task of combining priorities into a single list, based on the set of agreed criteria, becomes less effective if sectoral lists received from line ministries can change every year. 279. Equally important, it is unclear what happens to new vs. ongoing projects featured on the priority lists (i.e., can/should a new project enter the list before an ongoing project previously identified as a priority is completed?). It is important that the priorities remain the same for a certain period of time and not change every year. For example, if a project was tagged as a priority investment, it should remain as such until its implementation is completed. To this end, the UEIP should have the leverage to approve new proposals sent by the ministries only after existing investments are carried out. If implementation of existing investments is still pending, then the unit should reject proposals for new interventions, within budgetary constraints. Otherwise, Romania will continue to accumulate a very significant backlog of ongoing investments, many of them in the very early phases of development and, given budget limitations, with very slim chances of being completed in a reasonable timeline. 280. To conclude, the UEIP has faced significant challenges since its establishment. If it had stronger capacity and if the legislation was made clearer, the unit could truly play a critical role in the coordination of national-level (major) investments. In this context, “coordination” refers primarily to: prioritizing investments based on a set of criteria; 81 and proper sequencing of these priority investments, including ensuring that commitments are followed through every year and from year to year. Beyond this, the UEIP should not be expected to coordinate the projects at the level of policies – i.e., decide to finance a major research center and the road connecting it to Bucharest. This would exceed both the capacity and the mandate of the unit. Indeed, it makes sense for the prioritization exercise to be carried out by each line ministry (with support from the UEIP in validating the order of priorities based on applying the criteria in GEO 88/2013 and GD 225/2104), and the cross-sectoral prioritization to be done at the level of the Center of Government (Prime Minister’s Chancellery), in line with the high-level political commitments. 4.2.2 Regional level 281. As noted before, Romania does not have formal administrative regions, which severely limits opportunities for coordination at the regional level, i.e., across counties. Romania’s current eight regions are for planning and statistical purposes only, so various workarounds have had to be found to deliver truly regional impact. The aforementioned example of the Regional Operational Programme 2014-2020 asking potential beneficiaries (counties) to design and apply with road projects that are regional in scope is a telling one. But what are the current regional mechanisms that could lie at the foundation of improved coordination? Do they fulfil their current mission and could they do more? 81 See Annex D 154 282. In principle, two positive things can happen at the regional level when it comes to coordination of infrastructure investments. First, a coherent and inclusive planning process can bring stakeholders at the same table and help them design and implement joint projects, i.e., across multiple jurisdictions. This is easier said than done, particularly when it comes to the level of communes, which are many and hard to coordinate. Second, regional institutions can serve as applicant/beneficiary support mechanisms, including for deciding on which projects are appropriate for which funds (e.g., ROP vs. PNDL, PNDR vs. PNDL, etc.), and generally serving as de facto and/or de jure Intermediate Bodies for various EU and state-budget-funded investment programs. 283. Regional Development Agencies (RDAs). 82 Law 151/1998 granted RDAs non-profit, public-utility status as regional technical bodies in charge of territorial programming. Specifically, RDAs are responsible for developing Regional Development Plans (RDPs) and also serve as Intermediate Bodies (IBs) for the Regional Operational Programme (ROP). The following sections discuss the two attributes separately:  Strategic planning function: As for the preparation of the 2007-2013 programming period, there are eight Regional Committees for Elaborating the RDPs (RCRs). They maintain consultative roles and are coordinated by the region’s respective RDA, bringing together a wide range of stakeholders, including key future beneficiaries. As before, each RCR and RDP draws from the work of several working groups (WGs) at the level of each region. RDAs organize debates and consultations on RDPs, request inputs from local authorities, and often elaborate very strong regional documents. But, again, because the regional level is missing in Romania’s administrative structure RDPs remain toothless documents: there are no special sanctions for failing to accomplish their goals, and there are no special rewards for fulfilling them. Additionally, as the 2013 World Bank report on Enhanced Spatial Planning points out: “The RDPs are insular in their approach, as they are specifically designed for the accession of structural funds. Even when the plans themselves go beyond the scope of what can be funded through the ROP there is no administrative tier that could take such regional projects on.” 83 Moreover, part of an RDA’s budget is supplied by local authorities in its region, so there is little leverage that an Agency can exert over local/county councils. To ensure proper coordination, the RDPs would obviously need to cover both EU and state-budget-funded programs and rely on a viable mechanism for holding stakeholders accountable for the progress toward the implementation of RDPs. 82 This topic was addressed in the 2014 World Bank report on the “ROP 2.0: MA -IB Collaboration and Communication for the Regional Operational Programme, 2014 -2020” 83 See “Enhanced Spatial Planning,” World Bank, 2013, p. 66 155 Figure 46. The current structure for 2014-2020 programming of EU structural funds in Romania  Investment program design and implementation: The RDAs have fulfilled the role of Intermediate Bodies (IBs) for the ROP based on a contract with the MA ROP since 2007, and they are bound to continue serving in this capacity at least through 2020. As such, they play a key role in both the planning of the ROP and in its implementation. The World Bank report “ROP 2.0: MA-IB Collaboration and Communication for the Regional Operational Programme 2014-2020” includes an in-depth analyses of RDA functions, particularly in relationship to supporting program applicants and beneficiaries. RDAs also help out with the administrative conformity and eligibility check of ROP projects, as well as with monitoring and evaluating the program’s progress and results. If RDAs can try to help coordinate ROP investments, they are powerless with respect to state- budget-funded programs like the PNDL. Another shortcoming is that they focus mainly on urban settlements and do not have a strong presence in rural areas targeted by programs like the PNDL. 284. Regional Development Councils (RDCs). RDCs function as a partnership between authorities at different levels within a region (county, city, communes). The RDC’s mandate, as defined by law 315/2004, 84 covers precisely the coordination of regional development policies and programs, both those funded from EU sources and those financed through the state budget. In relation to the ROP, the RDC of each region oversees the RDA’s activities, making sure that all counties within a region receive a fair and equal treatment. The RDC funds parts of RDAs’ budgets through the county budgets. Its membership includes the presidents of counties in each region and three representatives of local administrations in the county (one for each level of local councils – municipalities or major cities, towns, and communes). The RDC is led by a president and vice-president, positions that rotate among counties in a particular region, and its secretariat is provided by the RDA. 84 See “Monitorul Oficial nr. 577 din 29.06.2004” 156 285. The other significant player at the regional level was the Regional Committee for Strategic Evaluation and Correlation (RCSEC), which had a key role in prioritizing investment projects to be financed through the ROP. The RCSEC was established through Government Decision 764/2007 and was mandated: (a) to assess how proposed projects fulfilled needs at the regional level; and (b) to prioritize strategic projects at the level of the eight development regions. The RCSEC membership included four representatives of each county in a particular region, two from the local public administration and two from civil society organizations in the socio-economic sphere. In principle, the RCSEC had an important mission in terms of aligning ROP investments with regional needs, but in practice this system generated significant delays and a range of other issues (e.g., lack of transparency regarding prioritization criteria; potential conflict of interest between local authorities as RCSEC members and potential ROP beneficiaries; duplication of evaluation criteria, etc.). 85 As a result, Government Decision 1383/2008 revised the RCSEC’s role, limiting its attributions to recommendations and purely consultative opinions on regional investments. Based on field research observations, the RCSEC has stopped functioning de facto, as its decisions no longer have an impact on decisions related to ROP investments. 4.2.3 Local level 286. When it comes to infrastructure investments in roads, water and wastewater, and social infrastructure, most of the required coordination efforts need to happen at the local level – in county councils and town halls across Romania. This is because these are the institutions that plan, implement, and complete public investments for the benefits of their communities. It is at the local level where one finds the highest infrastructure density and, as such, the highest need for inter-sectoral coordination. County and local councils must therefore bear the burden of coordinating infrastructure projects both within their own institution and with other stakeholders. The challenge is both easier and harder than for other levels: easier, because there is often a single applicant/beneficiary/implementing entity – i.e., the county council for counties and the local council for cities, towns, and communes; harder, because this level struggles with specific capacity limitations at the level of human resources required for effective coordination. Strategies and Plans 287. With respect to strategies and plans, local authorities have a number of tools at their disposal to ensure an integrated process. First, the key document for territorial coordination is the General Urban Plan (PUG), defined in Law 350/2001 on Spatial and Urban Planning. Article 44 of this act notes that “Planning documents transpose at the level of urban and ru ral localities the proposals contained in national, regional, and county spatial plans.” 86 In other words, this local-level plan needs to coordinate closely with higher-level plans and reflect their priorities. Territorial coordination is indeed critical to avoid spatial conflicts when projects are implemented. For example, in Cluj, plans were made for the extension of the Regional Airport runway (to be implemented by the County Council) and for developing a northern bypass for the 85 For a range of concerns expressed by the EC regarding the role of RCSECs, see, for instance, http://www.fonduri-ue.ro/res/filepicker_users/cd25a597fd- 62/Documente_Suport/Rapoarte/1_Rapoarte_POR/16.07/4_Minuta_CMPOR_%2027_oct_2008.pdf 86 See Law 350/2001 157 city (to be implemented by CNADNR). Unfortunately, the two plans were not properly coordinated and authorities found themselves in a situation where the proposed bypass was running through the airport extension. The World Bank report on Enhanced Spatial Planning cautions that “the correlation between plans is made hard because of poor sequencing (i.e., lower- level plans are drafted before higher-level ones), because of the difficulty of referencing higher-level plans (county spatial plans in particular tend to include a long list of data and information, which are often irrelevant), and because of the variation in quality of different plans.”87 It is beyond the scope of this report to discuss the correlation of plans among local, county, regional, and national levels; this was the topic of the aforementioned World Bank report, which includes a number of key recommendations on how to improve the status quo. 288. In parallel, county and local authorities author development strategies for their communities, oriented to assessing needs and proposing projects to address them. The Bank team has completed an extensive analysis of county-level strategies for all counties in Romania; the results are synthesized in Annex C and include a description of coordination mechanisms stipulated by each county authority. In general, the following observations hold in reference to county development strategies:  There is no clear single standard for developing such documents, which means that some counties’ strategies are lacking key sections (in the case of Car aș Severin, the strategy lacks a list of proposed projects, indicative budget, an action plan with a timeline, etc.).  There is no set list of documents that these county strategies should take into account. Some of them correlate only with Europe 2020; ot hers (as in Argeș or in Bistrița Năsăud) draw from a much wider set of strategic documents.  There is no standard approach regarding the list of projects included, sources of financing, and the monitoring and evaluation of the strategies’ implementation. So me counties define new bodies (Working Groups) to monitor and coordinate actions defined in the strategy, while others make no mention of such mechanisms.  Most strategies include long lists of projects without any anchoring in realistic budget limitations and without a discussion of potential financing sources. Without budgets it is hard to prioritize, and without prioritization it is hard to coordinate. 289. The main gaps encountered at the level of county strategies are also present in local development strategies for cities, towns, and communes, though there are also a number of good practices. For example, the Cluj-Napoca development strategy focuses predominantly on integrated development, particularly with respect to infrastructure for transport and public utilities. The Satu Mare strategy explicitly notes which projects should coordinate with other interventions. 88 The Ploiesti development strategy for 2007-2025 features three integrated projects, including a detailed timeline that shows when each intervention would be implemented. 89 The development strategy for Piatra Neamț also features some integrated interventions, including a project to increase quality of life in the Dărmănești neighborhood by 87 See “Enhanced Spatial Planning,” World Bank, 2013, p. xiii 88 See the list of projects included in the “Satu Mare Development Strategy 2015 -2025,” p. 44 -55 89 See the section on graficul de implementare a proiectelor in “Ploiesti Development Strategy 2007-2025” 158 rehabilitating water and wastewater networks and modernizing public spaces (roads, sidewalks, bike paths, etc.). Such good practice examples remain exceptions, unfortunately, in a context dominated by local development strategies lacking clearly defined objectives, projects, timelines, budgets and financing sources, and especially a prioritization of planned investments. 290. Finally, there are also Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) developed by certain localities that have attracted EU funds during the 2007-2013 programming cycle. The idea behind IDPs is precisely that cities face complex challenges that often require integrated solutions and close coordination among a variety of sectors and even among jurisdictions (i.e., core cities and neighboring localities within metropolitan areas). As such, designing projects as part of integrated whole – rather than as disparate interventions – can help deliver a more significant impact. It is not always entirely clear how IDPs correlate with local development strategies, and in some cases the two documents appear to be duplicative. Most IDPs appear to have been developed solely to fulfill requirements for accessing EU funds and, as in the case of development strategies, they do not include extensive data on budgetary constraints and priority projects. A 2013 World Bank report on “Strategic IDPs Assessment” features a number of detailed recommendations for improving these documents, including: (i) better sectoral integration of projects as well as integration at territorial level; (ii) better use of evidence; (iii) adoption of best practices in sustainable urban development; (iv) monitoring and evaluation mechanisms; and (v) common guidelines and methodologies. Investment Programs 291. The PNDR 2007-2013, through Measure 322, encouraged integrated projects, offering both a higher score and more funding to such investments. Thus, the vast majority of projects submitted for funding under Measure 322 include at least two types of investments, often more. For example, 159 out of a total of 802 projects include roads, water, wastewater, a nd social infrastructure. The rest are permutations of these four types of investments. There are only 77 projects that focus only on a single sector – all of these are road development projects. Out of 623 PNDR road projects, 311 also included a water and/or wastewater project. Of these 311 projects, 204 were integrated projects that included all three types of investments. As the map below indicates, localities in some counties (e.g., Caraș-Severin, Vaslui, Neamț, Bistrița - Năsăud) have been more proactive in obtaining funding for integrated PNDR projects. 292. In the case of the PNDL, since there is no higher score offered for integrated projects, such interventions are rare. Although the number of projects financed under PNDL is 3 times higher than the number of projects financed under PNDR (around 2,400 as opposed to around 800), there are relatively few integrated projects. Moreover, there are even fewer projects that cover roads, water, and wastewater investments. The vast majority of integrated investments are roads-water projects. 293. It is worth noting, however, that the Managing Authority for the PNDR will likely not use the integrated approach for the 2014-2020 Programming Period. An analysis of the programme’s performance has revealed that the implementat ion of integrated projects has been much delayed by cumbersome public procurement procedures and the need to sequence investments. Thus, road rehabilitation work could not start until the water and/or wastewater 159 project was finished. This meant, however, that delays in the implementation of the water/wastewater project would translate into delays for the roads project. Figure 47. There has been some inter-sectoral project coordination within the PNDR Data Source: PNDR 2007-2013 Figure 48. Inter-sector Project Coordination within PNDL Data Source: MDRAP 160 294. With respect to the coordination between programs, there is no purposeful attempt for joint planning between the PNDL and PNDR. For one, the former makes no provisions for coordination with other operational programs. As the maps below show, there are relatively few localities where road projects under one program were doubled by water and/or wastewater projects under the other program. 295. Neither PNDL nor PNDR make a specific mention for cross-program/cross-sectoral coordination. As such, there are few instances where integrated projects have been started with allocations from multiple funds. Even where there seems to be an overlap, it is not clear whether projects are in fact coordinated (e.g., water and wastewater funded from one program, and the rehabilitation of the road funded from another program), or they represent investments done within a commune but in different villages. Given that the PNDR provides the opportunity for an integrated approach, it is more likely that there are few overlaps and actual coordination exists between PNDL and PNDR. It is also true that in practice such harmonization efforts happen purely on an ad-hoc basis, as there are no institutional mechanisms for identifying and leveraging synergies across programs and across sectors. Figure 49. Coordination of PNDL road investments with PNDR water and wastewater investments Data Source: MRDAP 161 Figure 50. Coordination of PNDR road investments with PNDL water and wastewater investments Data Source: MRDAP 296. One may hypothesize about indirect coordination between PNDL and PNDR given the relatively few overlaps. More specifically, one could say that one program fulfills needs that the other program did not manage to cover. In fact, interviews with beneficiaries of both programs indicate that local authorities are quite astute at accessing different pots of money, although some seem to have a preference for PNDL, while others choose the PNDR. PNDL requires less bureaucracy and funds are transferred much faster, but projects implemented under this program are usually smaller than PNDR projects because funding is only guaranteed for one year at a time. Conversely, local authorities can implement larger and more complex projects under PNDR, which comes with predictable year-to-year funding, but they have to go through more cumbersome bureaucratic procedures. Also, beneficiaries have indicated that PNDR reimbursements of expenses may sometimes take a long time. Infrastructure Projects 297. Individual projects offer many opportunities for coordination, with two goals in mind: (i) avoid inefficient overlaps resulting from sequence of investments (e.g., roads rebuilt before water/wastewater networks); and (ii) leverage synergies across projects. Achieving the latter goal will depend on conditions specific to each situation at hand. In general, if the planning and strategic documents are properly developed, local authorities that have the best interests of communities at heart will pursue interventions that reinforce and augment each other’s impact. As for the first aforementioned goal – avoiding overlaps and properly sequencing investments – local authorities again hold the key to proper coordination. According to the law, the Mayor requests the development of technical-economic documentation (i.e., pre-feasibility and 162 feasibility studies) and also endorses the Zoning Permit and the Building Permit. In other words, the Mayor does control to a great extent the timing of various planned investments. 298. Interviews with PNDL and PNDR beneficiaries also indicate that local authorities make a concerted effort aimed at inter-sectoral coordination. For example, they noted that they postponed the rehabilitation/modernization of communal roads until the water/wastewater projects were finished. When road investments where finished first, local authorities usually left enough room on the sides of the road for water and/or wastewater pipes (see image below). The next chapter will present a summary of good practices in the coordination of investment projects at the local level. Figure 51. Water pipes inserted along a rehabilitated road 4.3 Diagnostic Conclusions 299. The current framework for coordinating infrastructure strategies, investment programs, and projects in Romania is complex and features both strong points and gaps. Before moving on to the next chapter on recommendations, it is useful to review the main conclusions of this extensive diagnostic:  Intra-Sectoral Coordination o Vertical coordination across administrative levels:  In general, the system for developing strategies with the involvement of players at different levels (national, regional, and county/local) is functional. There are finalized national strategies in most of the sectors reviewed, and only in a few cases they are still pending. These strategies are usually coordinated with supranational priorities. 163  Higher-level strategies do not always transpose goals effectively into local/county projects, particularly in the roads and water/ wastewater sector. This is because: (i) strategies are not clear enough, they keep changing, or they are not yet finalized; and/or (ii) authorities who develop projects do not take higher-level strategies into account, but they still receive national funding (usually not EU funding) for their projects. o Horizontal coordination across sectoral investment programs:  Particularly in sectors where there are many financing sources, there tend to be overlaps and inefficiencies in the way state-budget-funded investment programs target interventions. This can create negative competitive dynamics among investment programs, and state-budget funds may crowd out EU financing.  By contrast, EU structural funds are designed to be complementary – an explicit requirement monitored by the EC.  Inter-Sectoral Coordination o National level:  Strategies: There is no systematic effort to coordinate strategies in terms of objectives or action steps, and there are no common standards for developing and implementing them. There is no institution explicitly mandated to review all available strategies and decide how they “fit” together and what their policy and budgetary implications are. Equally important, there are no monitoring and evaluation procedures for the strategies developed to decide on whether they are needed, whether they are appropriate, and whether their goals are fulfilled.  Investment programs: There are significant discrepancies in the procedures applicable to state-budget-funded vs. EU-funded investment programs, across the entire project cycle. State-budget-funded programs lack transparency, predictability, and rigor in selecting interventions.  Projects: Emerging national mechanisms for the coordination of large projects are starting to function, but require strengthening (e.g., Evaluation Unit within Ministry of Public Finance). o Regional level:  Romania does not have formal administrative regions.  Given their currently limited role, Regional Development Agencies and Regional Development Councils perform well in terms of regional planning and coordination of investments.  The effective planning for the ROP 2014-2020 (including strategic road projects across counties) is a testimony to the fact that properly 164 designed investment programs can leverage regional institutions for enhanced coordination of infrastructure investments. o Local level:  The bulk of the coordination effort across sectors happens at the local level. Here the main gap is related to the capacity of subnational governments to apply good practices in planning, implementing, and monitoring and evaluating their infrastructure investments. There are examples of positive coordination across the country, but there is no systematic effort to collect and disseminate lessons learned.  Strategies: Spatial planning can be enhanced at the local level to ensure proper territorial coordination. Integrated Urban Development Plans (PIDUs) have been a positive development over 2007-2013. Some development strategies are very well developed, others less so; common standards are lacking.  Investment Programs: Quantitative data do not reveal clear trends. Qualitative data from field visits suggests that local authorities do try to coordinate, ad hoc, across different financing sources. Few have strategic plans for leveraging specific funds for specific projects.  Infrastructure Projects: Experiences with project-level coordination across sectors vary greatly. Some local authorities have developed their own procedures for ensuring a proper sequence of investments. 165 Chapter 5: Targeted Strategies and Specific Action Steps for Enhanced Coordination of Infrastructure Investments 300. Taking into account the diagnostic above, this fin al chapter proposes a series of targeted strategies and specific action steps for enhancing intra- and inter-sectoral coordination of public infrastructure investments in Romania. In this endeavor, a basic principle is “first, do no harm.” Over -engineered coordination measures entail the risks described in the final section of Chapter 1, including excessive bureaucratization and an added burden on beneficiaries, with no real value add. This is why this chapter prioritizes recommendations that do not alter the current system substantially, but hold potential for enhancing coordination. In a few instances, new mechanisms are proposed, with the cautionary note that before they are launched they need to be thoroughly assessed. Related World Bank work is referenced whenever possible and Annex B includes a collection of useful case studies from 5 other EU Member States (Italy, Germany, Poland, Spain, and Sweden). 301. Before presenting the list of specific recommendations for improving the status quo, it is useful to consider a scenario that involves a more significant departure from the current framework: the consolidation of (most) budget-funded programs into EU structural funds. This would be a relatively quick “fix” to current lack of coordination, particularly noticeable in the discrepant approaches and procedures of EU vs. state-budget-funded programs. Specifically, investment programs that are 100% financed from the state budget would redirect all funding through EU-funded instruments. Romania’s overall contribution to structural instruments would increase and co-financing rates will go up, but more projects would be covered by the EU-funds framework. 90 This is not to say that the Romanian government would need to cut down its current level of funding. But by choosing this “consolidation option” the government would leverage a financing mechanism that is for the most part carefully planned, well-coordinated, and rigorously implemented, monitored, and evaluated. The example of Poland is often cited as featuring effective coordination, particularly in the implementation of EU funds. Indeed, the country chose to channel the vast majority of its resources through EU structural instruments, including for roads, water and wastewater, and social infrastructure. 302. The downside to following the Polish example and incorporating state-budget programs under EU instruments would be that the government would then focus almost entirely on EU-level policy priorities and corresponding proportions of funding allocations. Consolidation would achieve coordination and even complementarity through the specific mechanisms designed for EU funds (as shown earlier, programmatic documents describe how instruments correlate with one another). This would come with a price, however, namely the diminished ability of the Romanian government to fill in, as needed, the gaps resulting from how EU funds address infrastructure needs. 91 Also, it is unclear what would happen with all the investments that have been started under programs like the PNDL and cannot continue with EU 90 This may require amendments to the Partnership Agreement. Exact implications need to be further explored, though in principle there is nothing stopping a member state from channeling more of its own funds through EU-funded instruments 91 In Romania, many local public authorities suggest in interviews that basic infrastructure needs should take priority and receive even more funding than currently (compared to soft interventions). 166 funding because they do not fit eligibility and/or selection criteria. Because this scenario, while seemingly simple, is practically unlikely, this report will not dwell on it further beyond noting it as an option for enhancing coordination. In the long term, when this possibility becomes feasible and desirable in the context of ever-deeper European integration, “consolidation” of investment programs under the EU ESIF framework would be a natural step forward toward better and simpler coordination. 303. In the meantime, state-budget-funded programs have a critical role to play and can truly contribute to Romania’s sustainable and inclusive growth, provided they are properly coordinated with each other and with EU funds. In fact, the recent World Bank report on “Improved Criteria for PNDL Projects,” developed under Component 2 of the current engagement with the MRDPA, offers a simple answer to the question of whether a program like the PNDL should exist: “yes.” As noted in the introduction to this report, Romania faces huge needs in basic infrastructure, and the gaps cannot possibly be fulfilled only by EU funds – both because they are insufficient and because they do not cover the wide range of infrastructure needs at the local level. This chapter refers to the PNDL specifically most of the time, though the same conclusions may generally apply to other state-budget-funded investment programs. Whether in the driver’s seat or as an active supporter, the MRDPA can and should spearhead the coordination of public infrastructure investments, both within and across sectors. The figure below summarizes “the what,” “the how,” and “the why” of coordinating public infrastructure investments in Romania. Figure 52. The what, the how, and the why of public infrastructure coordination in Romania IMPACT: ACCELERATE ROMANIA’S SUSTAINABLE AND INCLUSIVE DEVELOPMENT So what? OUTCOME: “DO MORE WITH LESS” Why? OUTPUT: DESIGN & IMPLEMENT To what effect? HARMONIZED INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS COORDINATION MECHANISMS PROCESS: INTRA-SECTORAL INTER-SECTORAL How can coordination • Vertically: across administrative levels • At national, regional, and local levels happen? • Horizontally: across investment programs • At the level of strategies, programs, and (EU- and state-budget- funded) projects ENABLING ENVIRONMENT CORE PRINCIPLES: TRUST ACCOUNTABILITY CAPACITY INFORMATION What is needed Can we work Who is responsible? Do we have the time? Do we have the for coordination together? Do we have the infrastructure? to work? people? 167 5.1 Enabling Environment 304. There are four core principles of an enabling environment for effective coordination of infrastructure investments: trust; accountability; capacity; and information sys tems. These cross-themes influence the quality of the process of coordination for all the dimensions of coordination (across administrative levels; across players/programs; across sectors; across phases of strategies/investment programs/projects). 5.1.1 Trust 305. A basic precondition to effective coordination is to establish and develop a trust-based relationship in the first place. It is important to remember that coordination ultimately always occurs between people – not between amorphous institutions or sectors. This is why building a culture of collaboration is quintessential for instilling coordination in the DNA of any organization. A corollary is the need to reduce turnover of critical staff ( see also below the sub- section on “capacity”). To facilitate these processes and as the leader of the public administration policy framework in Romania, the MRDPA can spearhead an outreach effort to other public institutions at national and subnational levels in Romania with the dual goals of: (i) organizing special training programs for staff on how to enhance collaboration; and (ii) collecting and disseminating good practices from around the country regarding internal (within an organization, across various units) and external (across organizations) coordination. There are significant EU funds available for 2014-2020 precisely for such purposes (i.e., the Administrative Capacity Operational Programme, technical assistance funding). In the medium-to-long term, the MRDPA could build its own internal “coordination taskforce,” essentially training trainers who could then go and assist other public agencies in their efforts to encourage and enhance collaboration among staff. Building trust-based relationships will require a change in culture across the Romanian public sector, which will surely take time and patience. But without this solid foundation, it is unlikely that coordination efforts will be sustainable and effective. 5.1.2 Accountability 306. Coordination of public investments occurs more easily when a sense of accountability is present among the stakeholders involved. A key step to facilitating enhanced coordination is to establish this as a clear objective, as follows:  Coordination with other authorities should be included in the list of legal responsibilities corresponding to each authority in charge of defining and implementing public infrastructure investments. For instance, each ministry has a law defining its mandate; there is also a Law of Local Public Administration that defines the tasks of county and local authorities. Both political and technical positions should assume the goal of coordination.  Based on adjustments to the relevant legislative acts, coordination should further be adopted as a key goal in the bylaws (Regulamentul de Organizare și Funcționare – ROF) of each authority. Mission and internal strategy documents should also be adapted to reflect this renewed focus on coordination.  Further, this should trickle down to the terms of reference ( fișa postului) of each staff. For example, a planner in a city hall would be evaluated on whether she reached to counterparts in neighboring jurisdictions for projects that can be implemented across administrative boundaries or whose influence goes beyond the respective city. Similarly, 168 a Chief Information Officer in a Ministry would be penalized if she developed a database of projects that does not “communicate” with other institutions.  In addition, the MRDPA centrally and regional/county/local authorities at their respective level may consider appointing an informal point person responsible for monitoring coordination tasks, disseminating best practices, and generally keeping the issue prominent on their institution’s agenda. 307. Such measures are meant to complement each other: on the one hand, explicitly ask staff to coordinate their actions and hold them accountable; on the other hand, offer them the knowledge and build the culture required to collaborate. This would help address one of the key gaps of the current system, which does not track coordination efforts – or lack thereof. As the main ministry in charge with supporting subnational authorities (i.e., Romania’s public administration), the MRDPA can promote these initiatives at the level of county and local councils. 308. On a related but separate note, accountability goes hand in hand with legislative clarity: if the overall framework is confusing, it is impossible to ask stakeholders to coordinate effectively. One example is GEO 88/2013, mentioned before as a key step forward in ensuring the prioritization and coordination of major projects. For all its good intentions, the ordinance left some key questions unanswered, and its application requires further clarifications. For instance, it is unclear if the provisions of the act also apply to EU-funded projects exceeding RON 100 million. If so, an applicant would have to seek approval from the Ministry of Public Finances before proceeding to developing the feasibility study – this would require operational programmes to ask applicants for proof of such approval as part of the application process (as an eligibility criterion). Another issue that creates confusions is that even though the act refers mainly to large projects (over RON 100 million), it stipulates that the principles and the selection criteria may also be applied to the medium-sized projects (between RON 30 million and RON 100 million) if the evaluation of the Ministry of Public Finances revealed risks in achieving results/objectives. The simple point is that formal legal mechanisms can be useful for boosting accountability to coordinate better, provided that they are clearly defined and rigorously implemented. 5.1.3 Capacity 309. It is common in Romania – and elsewhere, for that matter – to face opposition from subnational governments when discussing additional tasks that they would need to perform (i.e., vertical and/or horizontal coordination). The reason is seemingly always the same: lack of capacity. Field interviews carried out as part of this work and as part of previous World Bank engagements with the MRDPA since 201192 reveal that there is truth to such concerns at the local and county levels. It is easy to make the argument that any serious effort to enhance coordination of public investments needs to take into account the “who” – Who will do the actual work of coordinating across departments/institutions/ sectors/administrative levels? This is not a task that can be outsourced, but one that requires active involvement from insiders, experienced staff members who know the system and can navigate it across institutional and 92These include the 2011 Functional Review of the regional development sector and the first phase of the Romania Regional Development Program (2012-2014) 169 jurisdictional lines. Particularly in the context of low-paid positions in Romania’s public administration, with high turnover and monthly wages of around EUR 400 or lower, such specialists are very hard to come by and, even where they still exist, they tend to be in very high demand. 310. In a context of high time pressures and low capacity, coordination tasks risk falling at the bottom of the list of priorities, even when they are explicitly part of an institution’s and/or a staff member’s mandate. This is true not only in the case of Romania, but generally in organizations in public and private sectors. Infrastructure investment units in subnational governments around the country are charged with the critical and pressing task of applying for and implementing EU-funded projects. This is particularly the case in the recent period, when teams have had to both accelerate the implementation of ongoing projects to complete them before the 2015 deadline and also prepare new projects for the 2014-2020 budgeting cycle. This comes with a lot of work and responsibility, but also with many controls, audits, and monitoring visits from various organizations (IBs, the MA, the National Audit Authority, the National Court of Accounts, etc.). In this environment, it is unlikely that key staff will have any time to dedicate to coordination activities, which can seem less urgent and time-consuming. 311. The solution is to ensure that local and county authorities have at their disposal the resources and mechanisms to perform human capital management functions, motivate staff to coordinate within and across institutions, and reduce turnover. Based on desk review and field visits data, this report reinforces the recommendations presented in the 2014 World Bank report on “ROP 2.0: Facilitation of Proactive and Direct Support for Applicants and Beneficiaries of the Regional Operational Programme 2014-2020.” Specifically, the MRDPA should spearhead the following policy and legislative efforts aimed at improving the working environment of public sector employees:  Increase the salary base in line with performance and consider rewarding coordination efforts in particular. The MRDPA can lead the effort to revamp criteria for evaluating the performance of public sector employees working on infrastructure investments, reflecting the importance of such tasks. One of the process criteria can be related to effectiveness of coordination. 93  Expand the bonus scheme applicable to EU projects (Law 284/2010 allowed for awarding bonuses of up to 25 classes, equivalent to 62.5% increase in the base salary) to cover all types of infrastructure projects and all phases of infrastructure projects (planning, implementation, and post-implementation monitoring and evaluation activities). This is needed to remain competitive with private sector wages; experienced practitioners that design and manage investment projects tend to be in high demand.  Improve the hiring system to put the right people into the right positions , with adequate, meritocratic hiring practices that bring much needed skills from key areas (economics, civil engineering, and legal affairs). In parallel, reduce turnover of critical staff by enabling access to proper reward mechanisms. 93See “Draft report outlining the job analysis for functions involved in EU funds management and suggested performance appraisal indicators,” World Bank, J anuary 2015 170 5.1.4 Information systems 312. Effective coordination also depends on comprehensive, timely, and accurate information flows among all stakeholders involved – both vertically (among national and subnational actors) and horizontally (across sectors and across jurisdictions). As the previous chapter noted, the entrenched lack of collaboration is doubled by a lack of information across different administrative levels, across ministries, and even across units within departments within ministries. Romania has not gone through the effort of aligning all databases of information pertaining to its public institutions, and now it is very challenging to get systems to “talk to one another.” No matter how tough the challenge is, there can be no effective coordination of public investments without a proper database of these interventions – across sectors, across levels (national and subnational), across sources of funding (both EU and state- budget funds). 313. Several recent examples suggest that developing a common database of all infrastructure investments in Romania is ultimately possible. Despite all its issues, the Single Management Information System (SMIS) does the job of collecting in one place information regarding EU-funded investments across all operational programmes, regardless of which ministry serves as the managing authority. Based on SMIS information and its own effort to synthesize it and report it in an effective way, the MA ROP within the MRDPA developed a GIS map of all interventions financed by the program in 2007-2013. 94 The map allows users to search by project, locality, county, and region. When the user clicks on a locality on the map, a pop-up of all projects displays, including project status, total budget, and even pictures (if available). Data from field interviews suggest that there is recent interest by the DG RDI to develop a similar tool for PNDL projects and, hopefully, merge the two databases to show projects financed through both programs. Figure 53. Interactive map for ROP 2007-2013 investments (example of Mușatești, Argeș) 94 The map is available at http://administratie.gisportal.ro/mdrap/ 171 314. Another great example is offered by the Ministry of Education ’s database on infrastructure across the entire country, recently developed and launched at the initiative of the MRDPA and with support from PODCA 2007-2013. 95 There are several important elements about this database. For one, it is the first mapping of the entire national school network, allowing interactive snapshots of various key statistics (e.g., number of rehabilitated units, number of students per unit, etc.). Second, each unit includes detailed information about organization structure, location and contact data, staff data, the physical state of buildings (i.e., overall state, roof, windows, and doors) and utilities (i.e., running water, sanitation systems, heating, gas electricity). For example, the second figure below shows data on the school in Dochia commune, Neamț County, but similar data are available for most localities in the country. Finally and perhaps most importantly, the data collected are primarily based on user inputs – specifically, a point person for each school unit enters all the required information onto a portal. The data then allows the Ministry of Education and the MRDPA to understand real-time infrastructure needs for the entire school network, and couple them with other useful information (number of students, number of staff, number of classes, number of students at each academic level, etc.). Figure 54. The database on school units in Romania offers detailed information for each unit 315. The MRDPA should replicate these good practices for the PNDL and beyond. Most immediately and directly, the ministry can map out the investments in the 2014 PNDL portfolio, including the key data that it already has on these interventions (e.g., project name, locality, project status, total budget, remaining expenditures, start date, proposed end date, etc.). As a second step, DG RDI should continue the collaboration with the MA ROP and develop a joint database of information regarding projects supported by the two programs. Third, the MRPDA should assume a leadership role in developing a single database covering all public infrastructure investments – at least for roads, water and wastewater, and social infrastructure. Throughout all these efforts, the Ministry should keep in mind the following principles: 95 The database is available at https://www.siiir.edu.ro/carto/ 172  There should be a clear leader who takes responsibility for centralizing the information, reviewing it, standardizing it, and publishing it. The MRDPA can effectively take on this task and leverage EU funding to develop the IT infrastructure, much like the Ministry of Education did with the aforementioned database. The MRDPA is the ministry responsible with overseeing public investments, manages arguably the most important programs financing local infrastructure projects (PNDL, ROP), and also has the most direct link with local and county-level authorities, so it can naturally assume this leadership position.  The database should rely primarily on user inputs. This would help minimize the workload required of the coordinator (the MRDPA), and also ensure that the information presented is updated in real time. For this to happen regularly, the platform should be as user-friendly as possible.  Local authorities should be held accountable for inputting required data, but it should also be easy for them to do so. Put differently, this task should not add much to their workload. The optimal solution is to have an integrated electronic system for issuing zoning and construction permits; every time a zoning and/or construction permit is issued by a main credit release authority (e.g., local or county council), a system would collect all the data related to the investment (location of investment, beneficiary, characteristics of the investment, etc.). o Specifically, zoning permits (issued before feasibility studies) would enable the integrated system to map what authorities would intend to invest in; data from construction permits would map what authorities will invest in. The earlier the system collects the data and integrates it, the easier it is to coordinate across projects. o For example, commune A may realize through the online platform that a nearby commune (commune B) is about to invest in a new school. Suppose for the sake of argument that commune A is facing a declining student population and an increasing elderly population, while in commune B it just so happens that the reverse is true. By sharing data from zoning permits – what they intend to do – the two authorities can join forces: A can rehabilitate the cultural center and add to it an elderly care facility, while B can rehabilitate the local school. The two communes can share buses to move students and/or elderly people to the two respective locations. o Local authorities would also be asked to monitor data inputs corresponding to their localities and also add to them or adjust them, as necessary. Even if the automated data collection system is not operationalized, it would still be relatively easy for each local authority to plug into an online portal key data regarding planned and ongoing investments. The education infrastructure portal proves that databases with user-based inputs are possible in Romania too. o As an added incentive, the MRDPA could make data entry an eligibility criterion for PNDL funds. Authorities that fail to input and/or update their data regularly would no longer be eligible to receive annual PNDL allocations and/or reimbursements for payment requests – this provision would have to be included in the financing agreements between the MRDPA and beneficiaries of PNDL funds. 173  Information in the database of infrastructure projects should be transparent, accurate, timely, and relevant. County Councils could play a supporting role to the MRPDA – as they do under the current PNDL framework – to ensure that data reporting arrangements are followed by local authorities in their jurisdiction. All the data should also be accessible to the public, in a form that is easy to comprehend quickly. The figure below presents a good practice example developed by KMPG for the United Kingdom – the data can be sorted by region and type of infrastructure, and each projects includes a number of key details (sponsor, location, cost, date). Figure 55. Good practice example of integrated infrastructure investments database Source: http://www.kpmginteractiveinfrastructure.com/ 316. It is beyond the purposes of this report to describe how the full system of data collection would operate, but the simple point is that with a relatively modest investment the MRPDA could truly catalyze data sharing on infrastructure projects. The benefits of the system would be noticeable at all levels: key stakeholders in the government, civil society, the media, and the private sector would have, at the click of a button, the full picture of planned and ongoing infrastructure investments in a locality, in a county, in a region, and nationally. The data should be made available to decision-makers in a position to evaluate the performance of an investment program, such as t he Prime Minister’s Chancellery and the Ministry of Public Finance. The later section of monitoring and evaluation elaborates this point. 174 5.2 Intra-Sectoral Coordination 5.2.1 Vertical Coordination of Strategies and Plans 317. The main factor that hinders intra-sectoral coordination of strategies and plans is the poor timing and low quality of such documents. The strategies themselves make it hard or impossible to coordinate planned infrastructure projects with higher-level goals because they are either developed too late or because they are too vague to allow for anchoring projects in their stated goals and priority interventions. What is there to be done – in general by the Romanian Government, by line ministries, and, in particular, by the MRDPA? 318. First, sectoral strategies should be finalized and made publicly available. Without this basic step, there can be no effective coordination across administrative levels. For each sector, the process is to be led by the corresponding line ministry. The MRDPA has limited leverage in this respect, but it can work with the Prime Minister’s Chancellery to ensure that all sectors targeted by the PNDL benefit from high-quality sectoral strategies (see section 5.3.1 on inter- sectoral coordination for a series of proposals regarding the establishment of a formal Strategy Unit at the Center of Government). In the roads sector, this involves securing the final approval by the EC for the General Transport Master Plan and updating the National Spatial Plan (PATN), the normative document for the sector, to reflect the new priorities. In the water and wastewater sector, the Regional Master Plans for 2014-2020 should be finalized, upholding with rigor the principles and criteria for determining agglomerations, clusters, and priority projects. In the social infrastructure sector, the next step is to have approved sectoral strategies for all key areas (including the strategy for education infrastructure). Once these high-level documents are in place, lower-level strategies at the regional, county, and local levels will need to be amended to ensure full alignment of goals, priorities, and projects. The related point is that there should be a clear calendar for developing such documents; otherwise, local, county, and regional strategies, and project proposals, will continue to be generated in the absence of updated and relevant sectoral strategies, as it has typically happened for the 2014-2020 cycle. 319. Second, there should be clear quality standards for sectoral strategies and plans , in accordance with existing legislation (e.g., GD 870/2006, GD 775/2005). These standards should include, at a minimum, a vision, clear goals, activities, and indicators to track progress. Section 5.3.1 on cross-sectoral strategies elaborates further on these basic requirements and also describes a new institutional mechanism that can be deployed to ensure coordination in this respect (i.e., a Strategy Unit under the Prime Minister). 320. Third, the MRDPA and other key stakeholders involved in the management of state- budget-funded programs should include stronger conditionalities to support vertical coordination. As part of the eligibility check phase, each proposed project should be tested for fit with the corresponding sectoral strategies (“project relevance”). Thes e would be simple yes/no checks. If a wastewater investment is not included in the Master Plan, for instance, it should not receive any funding. If a school is set to be rehabilitated but the student population in the community is low or nonexistent, the requested funds should go to a school in a locality that actually needs the infrastructure (i.e., young and growing student population, marginalized groups, etc.). This is also related to the next recommendation on horizontal coordination of programs. 175 5.2.2 Horizontal Coordination of Investment Programs 321. Eligibility and selection criteria should be harmonized across EU and state-budget- funded investments in each sector targeted. But what does harmonization imply in this context? The answer is dual-fold:  On the one hand, harmonized criteria can be equivalent across investment programs. This is appropriate particularly when the needs in the sector far outweigh the supply of funds and there are also clear requirements to fund particular investments.  On the other hand, harmonized criteria can be complementary across investment programs. That means that in a given sector one may define from the start of a programming period the list of eligible types of investments for each fund. Together, these lists would be “MECE” – mutually exclusive, comprehensively exhaustive. In other words, there would be no overlaps and as a whole the funds would serve all the needs in the sector. 322. As hinted above, the optimal approach varies by sector, as there is no one-size-fits-all answer: in some sectors, the first approach (“equivalency ”) is optimal; in others, the second approach (“complementarity”) is needed. For example, in the roads sector, the ROP 2014-2020 will focus on county roads connecting to the TEN-T network; the PNDL could take on county roads that do not connect directly to TEN-T, but remain a priority based on a number of other criteria (e.g., located in the area of a major urban center, high number of beneficiaries, etc.). By contrast, for the water and sanitation sector, the PNDL should maintain the EU requirements of focusing on localities over 50 people for water and over 2,000 p.e. for sewage systems, in accordance with Water and Wastewater Master Plans. Why not focus on localities that are not eligible for EU funds through the Large Infrastructure OP or the PNDR 2014-2020? The answer is simple: the priority lists have already been established by the Master Plans based on clear criteria, and Romania still needs to fulfill EU-level commitments in the water and wastewater sector, as explained in Chapter 3. This is why it is best to go down the list of priority projects from the Master Plans, covering as many beneficiaries as possible with the limited funds available. Finally, for the social infrastructure, the PNDL should make sure that it evaluates and prioritizes investments based on a set of criteria that are similar to those used by EU funds – these are sensible measures for making sure that the investments have the desired impact (e.g., sufficient number of students/patients, etc.). 323. One aim of harmonization is to avoid investments that are duplicative or unfeasible, and channel the money instead to projects that deserve to be prioritized based on a set of clear, transparent, and rigorous criteria. The final report submitted in December 2014 to the MRDPA as part of the work under Component 2 of this engagement and the upcoming final report for Component 1 (due on August 27, 2015) focus precisely on designing better criteria for PNDL projects. In fact, the relevant proposed criteria could also apply to other state-budget- funded programs. Based on a number of indicators, detailed maps are produced at the level of each county to reveal which projects should be a priority for county/local authorities. The key point is that an effective project selection model depends on fulfilling four core objectives: disbursement, impact, legitimacy, and feasibility. 324. Another aim of harmonization is to ensure that budget-funded programs do not crowd out EU structural instruments, which is a real risk particularly for smaller projects that fit 176 better the PNDL’s year-to-year budgeting and more flexible implementation framework. The solution is to guide or even require applicants interested in the PNDL to apply first to EU programs, if their projects are eligible for such funding. This would ensure a more consistent pipeline of projects for EU structural instruments, boosting Romania’s absorption rate in the long term. Again, the aim is to “do more with less,” which is certainly the case wi th EU grants vs. funds from the state budget. 325. In particular for the MRDPA, there are significant opportunities to improve coordination across EU and state-budget-funded programs – the Regional Operational Programme and the PNDL, respectively. Both target county roads and some types of social infrastructure (e.g., schools). As two different departments within the ministry handle the two instruments, it is critical to enhance cooperation among them, across all phases of the programs: from planning through post-implementation. Even within a single institution, the same four core elements of an enabling environment still apply: trust, accountability, capacity, and systems for information exchange. 326. In short, the proposed approach for selecting local PNDL investments for financing would involve multiple steps and criteria, as summarized below for each key sector.96 1A. County Roads STEP 1 – Prioritization of all county roads within a county Prioritization Criteria Weight Relevance Connection to opportunities 30% While the network of county roads is relatively  Connection to a growth pole (10 points) large in every county, some road links are more  Connection to a county residence (7 points) important than others. Of particular importance  Connection to a city with more than 10,000 are those county roads that improve people (4 points) accessibility to centers of opportunity – i.e.,  Connection to a city with less than 10,000 larger localities that provide jobs, education, people (1 point) healthcare, culture, administrative services and act as engines for the local/ county/ regional/ national economy. Connection to major trunk infrastructure 20% Connection to major trunk infrastructure  Connection to a highways proposed in the enables overall accessibility to people living Transport Masterplan (10 points) along the respective county road.  Connection to an express road proposed in the Transport Masterplan (7 points)  Connection to a national road (4 points) Traffic on the County Road 30% The more travelled a county road is the more  More than 3,500 vehicles per day (10 attention it should garner when it comes to points) rehabilitation/modernization works.  2,000-3,500 vehicles per day (7 points)  500-2,000 vehicles per day (4 points)  Less than 500 vehicles per day (1 point) 96For the full methodology, see “Improved Prioritization Criteria for PNDL Projects,” World Bank, 2014 (Final Report under Component 2 of the current engagement with the MRDPA) 177 Number of people per km serviced by county road 20% It is not enough to ease access to opportunities,  More than 450 people/km (10 points) it is important to do so for as many people as  300-450 people/km (7 points) possible. County roads that connect a larger  150-300 people/km (4 points) population to a center of opportunity should  Less than 150 people/km (1 point) receive a higher score. STEP 2 – Identification of projects that could be financed from EU funds* Sub-step 2.1 Reasoning Identify the county roads that connect to the TEN-T network. County roads that connect to the TEN-T network may be eligible for funding under the Regional Operational Programme 2014-2020, and applicants should first apply to the ROP, before attempting to apply for PNDL funding. If, the ROP application is not accepted for funding, applicants should provide an explanation of why it was not accepted. *Note: This step may be subject to change, based on the final Applicant’s Guide developed for the Regional Operational Programme 2014-2020. STEP 3 – Identify the road links that should receive PNDL funding Sub-step 3.1 Reasoning Using the priority list prepared under Step 1, and subtracting Available funds should be allocated with priority the county roads that may be eligible for EU funding, to the road links that have been identified by determine the length of the county road links defined as the county councils as being “bad”. It is the “bad”, which could be financed from the county road county councils that best know which road links allocation for the respective county. Funding will be given to are in most need. The prioritization the county roads that have received the highest score under methodology described under Step 1 ensures Step 1, and which have a road link defined as “bad”. I f the that a unified methodology is used nationally PNDL funding available to a county for county road projects for allocating PNDL funds for “bad” county road will suffice to modernize all road links defined as “bad”, Sub - links. step 3.2 will be undertaken. County councils have provided information on the state of the roads (i.e., “good”, “medium”, or “bad”). According to GD 363/2010, the standard cost for the modernization of 1 km of c ounty road is €332,832. Sub-step 3.2 Reasoning If available funding for a particular county suffices to cover the If “bad” county road links can be covered with modernization of all “bad” county road links, the remaining allocated PNDL funds, the rest of available funding can be used for the rehabilitation of “medium” county funds should go to second priority road links road links as follows: identified by county councils as being in a  Priority will be given to the county roads with the “medium” state. highest estimated score under Step 1, with the exception of the roads that may be eligible for EU funding.  Funding will be allocated with priority to dirt or gravel roads defined as “medium”.  If funds will remain after this allocation, remaining funds will be allocated to “medium” 178 county road links that have the following coverage type: cement concrete; paved with setts; or, bituminous asphalt.  Should funding be available even after this allocation, the remaining funds will be allocated to “medium” county road links that have been modernized already (i.e. they have an asphalt concrete coverage). County councils have provided information on the state of the roads (i.e., “good”, “medium”, or “bad”) and on the surface coverage of county roads. According to GD 363/2010, the standard cost for the rehabilitation of 1 km of county road is €273,8 55. 1B. Communal Roads STEP 1 - Eligibility Sub-step Reasoning Finance communal road projects only in PNDL funds should target initially larger communes, where a communes with more than 1,000 people. minimum of economies of scale can be achieved. STEP 2 – Identifying the TAUs that should receive priority funding for communal roads Prioritization Criteria Weight Relevance Population of locality 40% The larger the population of a particular locality, the bigger the need for investments in communal roads. Population density 30% The denser a locality is, the more impactful a communal road development project is likely to be – i.e., a larger population can be serviced by fewer kilometers of road. Local Human Development Index 15% LHDI at the locality level should be taken into consideration to give (LHDI) more attention to poorer localities, which have a tougher time financing investments from their own budget. Financial Sustainability Index (FSI) 15% The FSI at the locality level will provide a counterweight to the LHDI, ensuring that priority is given to localities face development needs but that can also actually cover operation and maintenance costs once the development is finalized. STEP 2 – Identifying the TAUs that could receive PNDR 2014-2020 funding* Sub-step Reasoning Propose for PNDR 2014-2020 funding the The communes that have a larger FSI, have a larger budget TAUs that have an FSI larger than 4 million capacity, and a higher administrative capacity required for writing Euros. Focus only on communal road a PNDR application. Moreover, smaller infrastructure projects projects of less than 5 kilometers. require lower operation and maintenance costs, and they allow more communes to benefit from investments in their communal According to GD 363/2010, the standard roads. cost for the modernization of 1 km of communal road is €193,506. *Note: This step may be subject to change, based on the final Applicant’s Guide developed for the PNDR 2014 - 2020. 179 2A. Water STEP 1 - Eligibility Sub-step Reasoning Identify all localities at the water region level with more than 50 According to the EU Water Acquis, it is people only these localities that should be prioritized for investments in water infrastructure. Investments for smaller localities are not considered a priority STEP 2 – Coordination with EU funded projects Sub-step Reasoning Identify localities financed under LI OP 2014-2020, as well as localities This allows the charting of all ongoing or with ongoing investments under SOP Environment 2007-2013, PNDL, proposed investments in the sector, and PNDR, and the Environment Fund ensures that PNDL funds will go to completing started PNDL water investments or go to starting new investments in areas not yet covered by other investment programs STEP 3 – Prioritization of water investments Prioritization Criteria Weight Reasoning Population in locality without access to piped water 35% Localities with a higher number of  More than 2,000 people (10 points) unserved people should receive a higher  1,000-2,000 people (7 points) priority.  500-1,000 people (4 points)  Less than 500 people ( 1 point) Level of development of locality as measured by the Local 15% Priority should be given to less Human Development Index developed localities, which lack the  Poor locality (10 points) resources to undertake needed  Low-med locality (7 points) investments in the sector.  Hi-med locality (4 points)  Developed locality (1 point) Financial Sustainability as measured by the FSI * 15% The capacity of the locality to potentially Note: where local authorities intend to cede operations and cover operations and maintenance costs maintenance to regional operator, a measure of affordability should be factored in (customers’ willingness to pay) can be used instead, to the extent that the data exist Locality is part of a regional s ystem within the water 35% Ideally, investments in water should only masterplan focus on localities that are part of the  Yes (10 points) masterplan, as these were identified as  No (4 points) the target places for achieving the EU Acquis. Also, the masterplans already presuppose a prioritization process of investments, including an analysis of affordability of the service and the capacity of end-users to pay for the service. 180 2B. Wastewater STEP 1 - Eligibility Sub-step Reasoning Identify all agglomerations at the water region level with more than According to the EU Water Acquis, it is 2,000 people equivalent only these localities that should be prioritized for investments in wastewater infrastructure. Investments for smaller localities are not considered a priority STEP 2 – Coordination with EU funded programs Sub-step Reasoning Identify agglomerations financed under LI OP 2014-2020, as well as This allows the charting of all ongoing or localities with ongoing investments under SOP Environment 2007- proposed investments in the sector, and 2013, PNDL, PNDR, and the Environment Fund ensures that PNDL funds will go to completing started PNDL wastewater investment or to starting new investments in areas not yet covered by other investment programs STEP 3 – Prioritization of wastewater investments Prioritization Criteria Weight Reasoning Helping achieve a better quality of water bodies 10% This measure can help achieve the EU  Agglomeration is on a YELLOW water body, with Water Framework Directive, while at the wastewater identified as a major source of same time meeting targets for the pollution (10 points) Wastewater Directive.  Agglomeration is on a RED water body, with wastewater identified as a major source of pollution (7 points)  Agglomeration is on a GREEN water body (4 points)  Agglomeration is on a BLUE water body (1 point) Population in locality without access to sewage 30% Localities with a higher number of  More than 3,000 people (10 points) unserved people should receive a higher  2,000-3,000 people (7 points) priority.  1,000-2,000 people (4 points)  Less than 1,000 people ( 1 point) Level of development of locality as measured by the Local 15% Priority should be given to less Human Development Index developed localities, which lack the  Poor locality (10 points) resources to undertake needed  Low-med locality (7 points) investments in the sector.  Hi-med locality (4 points)  Developed locality (1 point) Financial Sustainability as measure by the FSI * 15% The capacity of the locality to potentially Note: where local authorities intend to cede operations and cover operations and maintenance costs maintenance to regional operator, a measure of affordability should be factored in (customers’ willingness to pay) can be used instead, to the extent that the data exist Locality is part of a regional system within the water 30% Ideally, investments in wastewater masterplan should only focus on localities that are  Yes (10 points) part of the masterplan, as these were 181  No (4 points) identified as the target places for achieving the EU Acquis. Also, the masterplans already presuppose a prioritization process of investments, including an analysis of affordability of the service and the capacity of end-users to pay for the service. 3A. Education STEP 1 – Identifying the TAUs that should receive priority funding for educational infrastructure projects Proposed indicator Measure Year Weight Relevance Number of school aged (6- Number 2011 30% Indicates the sustainabili ty of 18) / pre-school aged (3-6) educational investments. The existence population of a critical mass of children and pupils ensure the efficiency and improves the impact of public spending. Share of population with % 2011 10% It is a measure for the likelihood that the pre-university education educational infrastructure will be used. Average no of Number 2013 10% Indicates the provision of sufficient children/pupils / educational infrastructure for the school classroom population. A high number of pupils/classroom generally indicates the need for additional investments in extending the existing infrastructure. LHDI Value 2013 15% The level of socio-economic development is strongly correlated with quality of educational services. Investments in educational services should target less devel oped communities with limited resources and social issues. FSI Value 2014-2020 15% The FSI is designed as a counterweight to the LHDI and measures the capacity of the public authorities to operate and maintain the infrastructure investment once it has been finalized. Number of PCs / 1,000 Number 2013 10% The access to educational IT&C pupils infrastructure is an indicator for the quality of life and of the schools endowment (quality of education). Poor and remote areas are generally confronted with poor access to IT&C tools, both in households and schools. 182 Number of sports fields / Number 2013 10% The obesity is on the rise among school 1,000 pupils children and schools should provide proper sports facilities to improve their physical condition. STEP 2 – Coordination with EU funded projects* Sub-step Reasoning Propose for PNDR 2014-2020 or POR 2014-2020 funding the TAUs that The communes that have a larger FSI, have an FSI larger than 4 million Euros. Focus only on education have a larger budget capacity, and a infrastructure projects of less than €500,000. higher administrative capacity required for writing a PNDR or a ROP application, and required for writing more complex and higher value integrated development projects (which are eligible under PNDR). Moreover, smaller infrastructure projects require lower operation and maintenance costs, and they allow more communes to benefit from investments in their communal roads. €500,000 is the upper threshold set in the draft PNDR 2014-2020 programmatic document, and it should be used by PNDL too, to ensure a coordinated approach. *Note: This step may be subject to change, based on the final Applicant’s Guide developed for the Regional Operational Programme 2014-2020 and the PNDR 2014-2020. 3B. Health STEP 1 – Identifying the TAUs that should receive priority funding for health infrastructure projects Proposed indicator Measure Year Weight Relevance Share of population over % 2011 20% Indicates the level of demand for health 65 in total population services, that is directly correlated with the population’s median age Number of inhabitants / Number 2013 20% Indicates the accessibility to primary physician medical services. The provision of a sufficient number of physicians generally ensures lower morbidity rates and higher life expectancy. Number of inhabitants / Number 2013 20% Indicates the accessibility to pharmacy pharmaceutical drugs. The access to pharmacies generally ensures a better health condition for the population. Distance to the closest Kilometer 2013 20% Indicates the accessibility to specialized 183 hospital medical services. The availability of complex emergency and specialized services, such as the ones offered by hospitals, generally suggests a better quality of life for citizens. Average mortality / infant ‰ 2009-2013 20% The average mortality rate is an mortality rate indicator directly influenced by the average age and the quality of medical services. Higher mortality rates indicate both an unfavorable age structure and the need for improved medical services. STEP 2 – Coordination with EU funded projects* Sub-step Reasoning Propose for PNDR 2014-2020 or POR 2014-2020 funding the TAUs that The communes that have a larger FSI, have an FSI larger than 4 million Euros. Focus only on health have a larger budget capacity, and a infrastructure projects of less than €500,000. higher administrative capacity required for writing a PNDR or a ROP application, and required for writing more complex and higher value integrated development projects (which are eligible under PNDR). Moreover, smaller infrastructure projects require lower operation and maintenance costs, and they allow more communes to benefit from investments in their communal roads. €500,000 is the upper threshold set in the draft PNDR 2014-2020 programmatic document, and it should be used by PNDL too, to ensure a coordinated approach. *Note: This step may be subject to change, based on the final Applicant’s Guide developed for the Regional Operational Programme 2014-2020 and the PNDR 2014-2020. 3C. Culture STEP 1 – Identifying the TAUs that should receive priority funding for cultural infrastructure projects Proposed indicator Measure Year Weight Relevance Average number of Number 2009-2013 30% It indicates the settlement’s touristic tourists attractiveness, considering that culture and tourism are strongly correlated. The existing touristic poles require additional investments in cultural infrastructure and events, in /order to improve their offer to visitors and to improve their competitiveness. 184 Average number of visitors Number 2009-2013 20% It indicates the cultural attractiveness of in museums the settlements. Such investments should target the cultural poles, by exploiting their existing potential. Average number of Number 2009-2013 10% It signals the level of cultural services’ organized performances provision. More performances indicate the existence of a strong demand for cultural events that should be supported by investments in infrastructure. Average number of active Number 2011-2013 10% The indicator reveals the level of the readers in public libraries cultural demand at local level, orienting the investments in an efficient way. LHDI Value 2013 15% The level of socio-economic development is strongly correlated with quality of educational services. Investments in educational services should target less developed communities with limited resources and social issues. FSI Value 2014-2020 15% The FSI is designed as a counterweight to the LHDI and measures the capacity of the public authorities to operate and maintain the infrastructure investment once it has been finalized. STEP 2 – Coordination with EU funded projects* Sub-step Reasoning Propose for PNDR 2014-2020 or POR 2014-2020 funding the TAUs that The communes that have a larger FSI, have an FSI larger than 4 million Euros. Focus only on cultural have a larger budget capacity, and a infrastructure projects of less than €1,000,000. If cultural heritage higher administrative capacity required sites are financed, focus only on Class B sites. for writing a PNDR or a ROP application, and required for writing more complex and higher value integrated development projects (which are eligible under PNDR). Moreover, smaller infrastructure projects require lower operation and maintenance costs, and they allow more communes to benefit from investments in their communal roads. €1,000,000 is the upper threshold set in the draft PNDR 2014-2020 programmatic document, and it should be used by PNDL too, to ensure a coordinated approach. The ROP focuses on Class A cultural heritage sites in urban and rural areas, and on Class B cultural heritage sites in urban areas. The PNDR focuses on Class B cultural heritage sites in rural areas, and so should the PNDL to ensure a coordinated approach. 185 *Note: This step may be subject to change, based on the final Applicant’s Guide developed for t he Regional Operational Programme 2014-2020 and the PNDR 2014-2020. 3D. Sports Proposed indicator Measure Year Weight Relevance Share of young population % 2011 40% Youngsters represent the largest share (5-29) in total population of sports facilities users. The indicator reflects the availability of a critical mass of end users for sports infrastructure. Number of sports rooms / Number 2013 15% The indicator is relevant for evaluating 1,000 inhabitants the quantitative availability of sports facilities at local level. Investments of such kind should target the most deprived areas in terms of sports facilities. Number of sports fields / Number 2013 15% The indicator is relevant for evaluating 1,000 inhabitants the quantitative availability of sports facilities at local level. Investments of such kind should target the most deprived areas in terms of sports facilities. LHDI Value 2013 15% The level of socio-economic development is strongly correlated with quality of educational services. Investments in educational services should target less developed communities with limited resources and social issues. FSI Value 2014-2020 15% The FSI is designed as a counterweight to the LHDI and measures the capacity of the public authorities to operate and maintain the infrastructure investment once it has been finalized. STEP 2 – Eligibility Sub-step Reasoning Focus only on sports infrastructure projects of less than €665,720. This is in accordance with the standard costs included in GD 363/2010. No EU funded operational programmes proposes the funding of sports infrastructure in rural areas. 186 5.3 Inter-Sectoral Coordination 5.3.1 National Level Strategies and Plans 327. The first phase of cross-sectoral strategic programming is to develop, refine, and approve the strategy or strategies underpinning a particular investment program. As noted in the previous chapter, a critical challenge is to collect, review, and refine all current strategies at the Center of Government in the Prime Minister’s Chancellery. While it is true that the MRDPA cannot take a leading role in this effort, the current report cannot ignore the fact that coordination challenges often originate in the large number of existing sectoral and cross- sectoral strategies, with overlapping and unclear objectives and with insufficient grounding in specific investment priorities and budget ceilings. The space of strategic planning in Romania is oversaturated with these outputs and, quite simply, there is a pressing need to bring some order to the status quo. 328. This report concurs with the list of measures proposed in the report on “Harmonizing Strategic Planning and Budgetary Programming in Romania,” developed as part of a potential effort to set up a Strategy Unit (SU) under the Prime Minister’s coordina tion . The following recommendations are particularly noteworthy and can be taken on by the MRDPA – in this case, not as a leader, but as a strong and proactive enabler:  Make an inventory of all high-level strategies that are currently in force and assess them for relevance based on: alignment with current policy agenda; fulfillment of EU or other international obligations; and fit with current directions of institutions responsible for operationalizing the respective strategy.  Adopt a set of preconditions and common standards for developing new strategies, with the aims of limiting the number of such documents and ensuring a standardized approach. A Strategic Planning Committee would evaluate each strategy in depth before formal adoption by the Cabinet and by Parliament to determine the need for the document and the fulfilment of required standards (e.g., timeline, objectives, results, implementation plan, M&E, etc.). It should be noted that a number of regulations (GD 870/2006 and GD 775/2005 particularly) have attempted to adopt common standards for the development of public policies, including strategies, with a key role played by Public Policy Units (PPUs) in each ministry. But the role and attributions of the PPUs have diminished over the years and the role of the General Secretariat of the Government – which was to assist, alongside the Ministry of Finance, other ministries in setting their strategic priorities and plans, in accordance with the Government Program and other key documents – has also significantly reduced. As such, the Strategic Planning Committee under the Prime Minister should take current legislation as a starting point and further build on it.  Establish and implement a priority-setting process through a Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) chaired by the Prime Minister . As noted in the aforementioned report, the vast number of strategies has generated “a backlog of uncosted policy commitments that, cumulatively, place unaffordable demands on the government.” Setting priorities 187 across sectors is intrinsically a political process, determined by commitments at the highest level. Box. 2. The Polish experience of creating a Strategy Unit In Poland, the task of coordinating various national strategies has been located under the Chancellery of the Prime Minister. A Minister – with the rank of Secretary of State – is responsible for coordinating legislative work of the Council of Ministers. Among its tasks, the Minister is also responsible for coordinating development of strategies and programs, including multi-annual programs. In 2009 the Polish Government prepared and adopted a document entitled “Development strategy arrangement plan,” as one of the elements of organizing and streamlining existing strategic documents. The main aim was to optimize (i.e., reduce) the number of development strategies. The plan proposed to reduce the number of development strategies and policies from 42 down to 9 new development strategies, implementing the medium- and long-term development strategy of the country. That concept aimed at, among other things, constructing a coherent hierarchy of strategic documents and determining their mutual dependence. According to the amended Act on principles of development policy there are 3 categories of development strategies: - Long-term development strategy with at least a 15-year term (horizontal, comprehensive document); - Mid-term development strategy for a 4-10-year term (currently it is the National Development Strategy 2007-2015) – also a complex, horizontal document. The mid-term strategy takes into account the findings of the long- term strategy; - Other development strategies - documents relating to the areas indicated in the mid-term strategy; these also have a 4-10-year term, unless a longer time horizon is due to the specific nature of development in the area. The Government has decided to develop nine “other development strategies.” For each a coordinator has been appointed. The primary role of the coordinator is to direct the work on the document and on its organization, in cooperation with other relevant ministries to capture all relevant views. 329. The same SU should also take up – upon proper alignment of capacity with needs – the role of monitoring and evaluating investment programs financed from the state budget. This would be an appropriate function for the unit, which would be able to issue more neutral assessments of how programs are going. For that to happen, however, programs like the PNDL need to set clear performance targets. The easiest indicators to report and monitor/assess are process-related. The table below is an example of what could be tracked under this category for programs like the PNDL: 188 Table 11. Proposed PNDL General Process Indicators Proposed indicator Measure unit Data source Baseline value Annual new projects selected by PNDL No. Projects 3,952 database Annual project completion ratio % Projects 0 (share of completed projects in total on- database going projects) Annual in/out balance RON Projects 0 (value of new projects divided by the database value of completed projects) Annual increase ratio of ongoing % Projects 0 investments database (the projects value/number at the end of the current year divided by the number/value of projects at the end of the previous year) These process indicators can provide the Government with a quick snapshot of the PNDL ’s entire portfolio (and other state-budget-funded programs) and they can prompt a potential intervention if needed. In addition to these basic indicators, impact indicators may be collected, which could show the extent to which these instruments helps achieve the respective programs’ own targets and broader governmental priorities. All these data should also be made available to the Ministry of Public Finances, which manages the overall state budget and should be made aware of programs’ performance. If a program cannot hit project completion targets or demonstrates other serious gaps in performance, for instance, it should not receive additional funds within the same calendar year. Last but not least, all data should be easily accessible by the media and by the general public to enhance both transparency and accountability for results. Investment Programs 330. For the MRDPA, in addition to supporting and enabling the SU’s efforts, the main implication of the recommendations above is to anchor the PNDL in a strategic framework through a programmatic document that reflects high-level government priorities. While EU- funded programs are firmly linked to strategies like Europe 2020 and the Romania -EU Partnership Agreement, there is no strategy as the backbone of the PNDL. This is not to say that the MRDPA should invent a new strategy just for the program, but there should be a proper programmatic document that sets clear and measurable development objectives drawn from one or more strategic documents (e.g., the Territorial Development Strategy of Romania – SDTR). The programmatic frameworks corresponding to EU funds like the ROP 2014-2020 or the PNDR 2014-2020 can serve as models to be replicated by the PNDL. Moreover, the process for developing the PNDL’s programmatic document should also be adopted to ensure that all stakeholders involved have a say in how the program is designed and implemented. At the same time, budgetary allocations across the program’s axes should reflect the government’s highest- level commitments and remain stable for the entire duration of the program ( see below) – if, say, the government makes education its top priority, the PNDL should orient the bulk of its resources to that sector. 189 331. At the same time, the question of scale is important to keep in mind: the PNDL’s budget for 2014-2020, keeping constant the 2014 allocation of EUR 340 million, would be EUR 2.4 billion, less than a third of the EUR 7.9 billion allocated through the ROP. The capacity to design and implement the two programs is also markedly different. For example, the Regional Operational Programme has a staff of over 500 working in the Managing Authority and the Regional Development Agencies. By comparison, the PNDL has a staff of less than 40. The average value of PNDL projects is also much smaller than ROP projects. All this points to an approach adapted to the capacity of the program – i.e., a simpler framework than for the ROP may be both sufficient and feasible. 332. The PNDL Planning Committee (PC) would have a clear mission of designing the program within a simple but inclusive structure, under the leadership of the MRDPA’s DG RDI, which would also serve as its permanent secretariat. The PC would bring to the same table public authorities at the national and subnational levels, along with key interest groups from the private sector and from civil society, organized into three working groups (WGs) corresponding to the sectors targeted: roads; water and wastewater; and social infrastructure (including education, health, culture, and youth and sports). This committee – through its WGs – would design a multi-year program harmonized with EU structural instruments, with at least the following common elements: 97  Defined priorities over a programming cycle (e.g., 2014-2020). Strategic priorities should not change from year to year – and programming should not be an annual exercise. Ideally, the programming period would be the same as for EU funds, namely seven years. This will not only ensure a more rigorous approach and the possibility to finance more impactful projects, but it will also enable better coordination and harmonization of all operational and investment programs – i.e., operational programs financing similar investments could draw on a joint strategy and would look to contribute toward the same goals. If the process proposed here would not be ready until 2015, the first cycle may have – as an exception – only six years, until fully correlated with EU investments in 2020. As noted earlier, these priorities, along with their corresponding funding allocations, would have to match the order determined by high-level political commitments (through the proposed Strategic Planning Committee under the Prime Minister’s coordination). It would also be important to clearly explain the needs between development needs – priorities – financing criteria. For instance, unlike the ROP, the PNDL does not appear to take into account differences among development regions; proposed recommendations in this report and in the report on selection criteria (Component 2) would be steps in the right direction.  Clear, fixed implementation timeline, synchronized with the EU programming cycle . Beneficiaries of EU funds know that they have a clear deadline by which they have to use accessed funds, and they risk losing those funds if they do not complete the investment in the set timeline. Under state-budget-funded programs there is no time restriction and many investments, even small ones, are continued for years on end, drawing funds from a limited pool to keep the investment going, often at a minimum effort level. Countless construction sites are started around the country, without any 97For a full list of recommendations covering the entire program and project cycle, see “Improved Prioritization Criteria for PNDL Projects ,” World Bank, December 2014 190 substantial push to complete such works before approving new ones. Especially for a program like the PNDL, which now has a portfolio of nearly 4,000 projects, it is important to decide what budget can reasonably be expected year-on-year to finish (at least some of) the projects started in a reasonable timeline.  Multi-year budgeting. Without multi-year budgets, there is little predictability for beneficiaries (their projects may receive funding this year and receive none the next), there is an incentive to finance smaller and less impactful projects (the investments financed through the PNDL 2014 were on average three times smaller than similar projects financed through the ROP 2007-2013 and the PNDR 2007-2013), and it is hard to do proper strategic planning (yearly investment programs can only finance the projects submitted for financing for that particular year). Box 3. Main steps to a potential multi-annual budgetary framework for the PNDL Step 1: Rationalize the PNDL portfolio based on budget constraints. The current portfolio would take over 15 years to complete, assuming that 2014 funding levels would hold going forward. The rationalization should therefore be done for each sector by: (i) deploying the sector-specific criteria listed in the previous section on horizontal coordination of investment programs (section 5.2.2); and (ii) considering project completion status, with more advanced works taking priority. Step 2: Set the PNDL baseline (for the budgeted year and for the programming period). This would cover all ongoing investments that passed the test (i.e., remained in the portfolio) in the previous step. All these projects should be finalized according to their implementation timeline (without intervening on the portfolio of ongoing investments to exclude some projects and/or introduce new ones). Step 3: Consider new investments separately from ongoing projects and only when allowed by the available budget envelope. New investment projects should be funded exclusively by the difference between the total PNDL budgetary allocation (budgeted year and programming period) and the PNDL Baseline (as is defined above). These projects would be prioritized according to the sector - specific criteria in this report (section 5.2.2). For all new projects accepted, the corresponding planned budget allocations must be included in the PNDL baseline for future years. Step 4: Design a clear legal procedure to follow if the PNDL budgetary allocation is smaller than the PNDL baseline. This may happen for different reasons: e.g., budgetary austerity, change in government priorities, etc. There are mainly two alternatives under this scenario: (i) a proportional cut for all investment projects included in the baseline, with the price of delaying the completion date for all; (ii) allocation of the available funds to investment projects according to their evaluation/selection scores or based on costs required for conserving ongoing works (ongoing projects would thus be classified as “in implementation ” and “paused”). Whatever the ultimate solution, if the allocation is smaller than the baseline then the new investment project submission would be suspended until there are funds to cover all ongoing projects (including “paused” ones) and any excess could be allocated to brand new investments. Note: The monitoring of the system is critical but relatively straightforward. Indicators on project completion rates and overall portfolio evolution should be made available to the general public to enhance oversight and accountability. See subsections on monitoring below. Source: World Bank technical assistance for the Ministry of Public Finances on public investment management (2015) 191 Ultimately, even EU-funded interventions currently “run through” the national budget and expenditures get subsequently reimbursed; this suggests that it is possible to have multi-year infrastructure investment projects even under the status quo constraints of annual budgeting, provided that there is firm commitment to a clear annual budget allocation. Implicitly, adopting a rolling multi-year budgetary framework for the PNDL would require rationalization of the current portfolio of around 4,000 ongoing projects, and defining procedures for allocating funds to new vs. ongoing investments. The box above presents a potential system for multi-year budgeting for the PNDL.  Dedicated applicant guide. Once the strategic framework is agreed upon, the next step is to develop the operational document for the PNDL – i.e., the Applicant Guide. This draws the overall rules for implementing the program, offering in-depth descriptions of investment axes and eligible types of interventions, eligible expenditures, eligibility criteria (types of beneficiaries), and evaluation and selection criteria. For effective coordination, this too should be carefully aligned with EU-funded instruments.  Transparent, fair, and rigorously enforced eligibility and selection criteria. The criteria described above can be relatively easily adopted for each of the target sectors. The approach – described in full in the final report on “Improved Prioritization Criteria for PNDL Projects” (December 2014) – relies on a set of objective measures. This should ensure enhanced credibility with potential beneficiaries, as well as funding allocations (across and within counties) that can be grounded in actual needs on the ground, as evidenced by hard data. The added benefit is that the methodology can be implemented even with limited staff capacity, as is the case for DG RDI. It would be recommended to invest in an IT system that would process the data and the results of the analyses.  Harmonized evaluation and contracting procedures for all applicants. o There should be a single system for applying for funds. The current PNDL framework notes that applicants may submit applications directly to the MRDPA under “special circumstances.” The law leaves room for interpretation regarding “special circumstances” in which a local authority may bypass the corresponding county council and submit the documentation directly to the Ministry. This alternative was presumably introduced to allow local authorities that have divergent positions (politically) from a County Council to apply directly to the MRDPA. But this runs the risk of introducing double standards. All applicants should go through the same process: if the ministry does not think that county councils can treat all applications equally, then it should centralize all submissions to ensure a level playing field, along with measures to increase the transparency of the process. An appeal system may be considered, to enable applicants to contest certain decisions. o The PNDL should include a technical and financial evaluation (TFE) of proposed projects that are deemed to be eligible for funding. Projects that are not in full conformity with program rules should not make it to the TFE phase. EU-funded programs like the ROP and the PNDR provide good examples of what the TFE should consist of. Evaluation grids should be published along with Applicant Guides to ensure that there is full transparency regarding how proposed projects are reviewed. Importantly, this step in the process can be iterative: evaluators 192 should ask for clarifications and applicants – with the help of their consultants and designers – should be allowed the opportunity to improve the submitted documentation. A maximum number of clarification rounds can be set to two, as is typical for the EU-funded programs. It may make sense to also explore the option of hiring external evaluators for this stage. o For particularly large and/or complex projects, the MRDPA should conduct field visits to check the conditions on the ground for completing proposed works. This can also be done on a random sampling basis. The idea is not only to sanction applicants whose documents do not reflect the reality on the ground, but especially to assist them by drawing attention to particular technical and financial aspects. To maintain the objectivity of the process and also keeping in mind the limited internal resources at the MRDPA level, this phase could also be carried out with the help of external support.  Stronger monitoring and evaluation (M&E) mechanisms at program level. o First, the PNDL should set performance indicators for the entire program (e.g., number of projects, total beneficiaries, absorption rates, etc.) and for each sector (length of rehabilitated roads, number of additional people with access to water and sanitation, etc.) o Second, to enable the monitoring process to run smoothly, a Monitoring Committee could be established, including both staff of the MRDPA and representatives of the beneficiaries (e.g., one representative per county). Monitoring could also rely on County Councils or Regional Development Agencies (as PNDL Intermediate Bodies) and on local communities themselves. Figure 56. Proposed PNDL Monitoring Framework 193 o As for program evaluations, the government should conduct independent impact assessments of completed projects. It is recommended that these tools be deployed by third-party auditors – one option would be to have the Prime Minister’s Chancellery deploy a core team of in-house or hired experts to evaluate whether programs – through a sample of projects – have indeed generated positive development effects through output and outcome indicators. Some simple indicators such as, in the case of running water projects, the number of people connected or the number of people connected who are regularly paying their bills, could tell a lot about the quality of the design of some programs and their opportunity cost. The impact assessments could then be used to further refine the policy framework for relevant investment programs and should be made public. Currently, there are no systematic efforts to carry out impact assessments of state-budget-funded investment programs and there are no public, transparent evaluations of such instruments.  Stronger monitoring at the project level. o A proper monitoring is the first step in enabling the MRDPA to correct issues promptly as they develop during the project implementation phase. Currently, the system is based on simple desk reviews of submitted documents, as there are no continuous mechanisms for verifying the works on the ground. This is critical in terms of providing a constant flow of information regarding how projects are advancing, how much funds they would require at different stages in their implementation, where delays are accumulating and why, etc. o For its part, the MRDPA should continue to have the overall program monitoring role, with specific project monitoring visits scheduled based on a defined methodology (e.g., as mentioned earlier, larger/more complex projects should be more carefully scrutinized). In addition, the MRDPA could rely on a more active involvement by county council representatives, as well as on independent auditors. It is highly recommended to implement a standard electronic reporting system, easily accessible by all local authorities, who should be incentivized to gradually move away from hard-copy report submissions. This would enable faster processing and real-time monitoring of progress.  Adoption of harmonized procedures for the post-implementation phase, following the example of EU funds, including through targeted impact assessments. o The first step in establishing a proper M&E system for the post-implementation phase is to define and agree on a set of performance indicators for each financed project. Based on Romania’s experience with EU funds, PNDL applicants should be encouraged to select from a pre-defined list, customized based on type of investment, which would be easy to implement particularly through an e-application form. At a minimum, chosen indicators should abide by the “SMART” set of criteria: specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time - oriented. As an alternative, applicants could be free to choose their own targets, but evaluators should be allowed and instructed to correct these based on the principles enunciated above. These solutions would avoid instances of 194 beneficiaries over-promising on the impact of their projects and would also save time when preparing the monitoring reports. o There is also a need to continue monitoring visits in the field for a number of years after the completion of the investment. Again, this can be done with the support of county councils, independent auditors, or Regional Development Agencies. The purpose is to see how the project is performing, if the indicators have been reached, and if there are any issues worth signaling in terms of operations and maintenance. o Finally, the MRDPA should leverage the experience of beneficiaries who successfully complete PNDL projects and involve them in dedicated knowledge- sharing mechanisms. One simple option is to add to the ex-post monitoring reports submitted by beneficiaries a number of questions asking for suggestions for future beneficiaries. It should be easy to receive and collect this feedback at the level of each county in electronic form, and then send it to the MRDPA for further processing and analysis. Another option is to host in-person workshops with successful PNDL “graduates” acting as trainers and mentors for new beneficiaries. In some regions, successful EU-funded projects are featured in promotional materials and project managers are sometimes asked to give talks to various audiences, but this practice has not been institutionalized for all programs. The PNDL can replicate and improve these mechanisms. 333. To help with the implementation of the measures proposed above, the MRDPA should consider a revamped institutional structure for the implementation of the PNDL, taking on higher-level strategic tasks and delegating day-to-day operations to an “intermediate body. ” IBs would perform activities where they would enjoy a comparative advantage compared to the central level, primarily resulting from a “shorter distance” to program applicants/beneficiaries: for example, advertising financing opportunities, conducting trainings, completing initial eligibility and conformity checks of applications, monitoring project implementation and reimbursement requests, etc. This “division of labor” would enable the MRDPA (i.e., the Managing Authority) to focus on critical tasks, including coordination with other investment programs and relevant institutions, addressing the significant constraint faced by DG RDI in terms of insufficient staffing to handle all PNDL applications. The costs of the IBs’ functioning could be covered through a specific technical assistance axis under the PNDL – much like for the ROP – reflecting the program’s implementation costs. This would also be a step toward performance budgeting and a first in the management of state-budget-funded investment programs. 334. There are two primary options for selecting an optimal institutional structure, i.e., answering the question of who should serve as the PNDL’s IBs: County Councils or Regional Development Agencies. There are pros and cons to each scenario. On the one hand, County Councils have been a de facto IB for the program already, particularly before some of the more recent changes were introduced – they used to centralize all applications and decide on the list of proposals for financing, and were also key link in the process chain for reimbursement requests. On the other hand, this system can generate conflicts of interest whereby County Councils both evaluate financing requests from local authorities and enter their own projects (i.e., county roads) in the pool of projects to be supported by the PNDL in a given year. This 195 could be resolved by separating the two streams of funding – pre-allocating some funds specifically for county roads (to be selected directly by County Councils) and providing a separate “axis” for local-level financing requests. The other scenario would rely on RDAs as Intermediate Bodies – this is discussed further under the sub-section focusing on the “regional level (section 5.3.2 in this report). Whatever the ultimate choice, the key message remains that the MRDPA should strongly consider designating formal Intermediate Bodies for the PNDL to ensure a more optimal division of labor between strategic and operational tasks. Much like for EU-funded instruments, there should be a contract signed between DG RDI (as the PNDL’s MA) and the IBs of choice, spelling out what each party is responsible for and how performance is assessed. Figure 57. “Division of labor” between an MA and an IB of an investment program Strategic Tasks (high “competitive advantage” for MA) • Vision-setting • Coordination and integration • MA efforts are divided • Communication with IBs, Critical MA- between strategic roles level tasks beneficiaries and implementation- • Capacity building support (sharing focused actions of best practices, methodologies, • MA should focus on high- etc.) value-add, strategic tasks • Implementation-focused tasks should remain at IB Implementation-Focused Tasks (high “competitive advantage” for Critical IB-level IBs – such as County Councils) tasks • Procedural approvals based on (to full extent conformity checks possible) • Validation of notifications/addenda 9 Source: Adapted based on “ROP 2.0: MA-IB Collaboration and Communication for the Regional Operational Programme 2014-2020,” World Bank, 2014 335. Last but not least, the MRDPA should be an actively involved stakeholder in the coordination mechanisms that are already planned for the 2014-2020 programming period and that explicitly aim to enhance coordination among EU- and state-funded instruments . Through MA ROP 2014-2020, the MRDPA will be present in both the Management of the Partnership Agreement Steering Committee (MPASC) and in the thematic sub-committee for “Developing modern infrastructure for growth and jobs.” Its tasks include to: “ensure complementarity and [an] integrated approach among ESI funds […] [and] ensure coherence with other EU and national instruments.”98 DG RDI within the MRDPA should collaborate closely with MA ROP and also seek to get involved as early as possible in how the MPASC and especially the thematic sub-committee will be run, they types of issues they will address, etc. As the manager of two critical sources of investment financing for local authorities – the EU-funded ROP and the state-budget-funded PNDL – the MRDPA has sufficient leverage to ensure that the 98 Ibid. (emphasis added) 196 topic of harmonizing the two different types of instruments remains front and center on the agenda. Projects 336. With respect to the coordination of projects of national scale and importance (over RON 100 million), the MRDPA should support and help strengthen the two mechanisms that are already operational at this level. First, the MRDPA should continue to ensure the leadership and functionality of the Inter-Ministerial Committee for Approval of Public Works of National Interest and Housing. At the same time, expectations need to be realistic with respect to what the committee can accomplish given its capacity and given legal constraints: it successfully brings different stakeholders to the same table and ensures that proposed projects have everyone’s buy-in (including formally through permits and the like), but it cannot possibly play an active role in the coordination of policies, programs, or even projects. 337. For its part, the UEIP has faced significant challenges since its establishment. If it had stronger capacity and if the legislation was made clearer, the unit could truly play a critical role in the coordination of national-level (major) investments. In this context, “coordination” refers primarily to: prioritizing investments based on a set of criteria; 99 and proper sequencing of these priority investments, including ensuring that commitments are followed through every year and from year to year. Beyond this, the UEIP should not be expected to coordinate the projects at the level of policies – i.e., decide to finance a major research center and the road connecting it to Bucharest. This would exceed both the capacity and the mandate of the unit. Indeed, it makes sense for the prioritization exercise to be carried out by each line ministry (with support from the UEIP in validating the order of priorities based on applying the criteria in GEO 88/2013 and GD 225/2104), and the cross-sectoral prioritization to be done at the level of the Center of Government (Prime Minister’s Chancellery), in line with the high-level political commitments. 5.3.2 Regional Level 338. Since Romania does not yet have administrative regions, coordination mechanisms at this level will continue to depend on somewhat imperfect arrangements. For one, the Regional Development Plans, although typically strong in terms of the data provided and the policy priorities they set, are not normative for authorities within a region. Coordination can still happen, however, through program conditionalities. As noted earlier, the ROP 2014-2020 will seek to finance truly regional county road projects; to this end, the program has already mobilized Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and, through RDAs, Regional Development Councils (RDCs), who have convened and agreed to put forth for financing county roads that cross the jurisdictions of multiple counties. Similar mechanisms can be designed for the water and wastewater sector and for social infrastructure too. 339. The MRDPA can also explore the possibility of relying more on Regional Developmen t Agencies to communicate with county and local-level beneficiaries of PNDL. In several interviews, the idea of signing a contract with the RDAs and appointing them as IBs for the PNDL was welcomed. This would be one way to coordinate regional-level interventions by consolidating operational programs under the RDAs as IBs. On the positive side, RDAs know the 99 See Annex D 197 beneficiaries of funds very well, particularly in urban areas, and have dealt extensively with project management issues through the implementation of the ROP. That said, RDAs have a more limited knowledge of rural-area authorities and projects, as their ROP experiences have been largely centered on urban environments. In short, despite legislative constraints on the regional level, the current mechanisms for coordination across sectors – namely, the RDAs and the RDCs – function well. The MRDPA can support them further and work with them to develop their coordination capacity. 5.3.3 Local Level 340. Last but not least, the MRDPA should contribute to the dissemination of good practices in coordination at the local level. With respect to plans, local authorities are now more experienced with the design and implementation of PIDUs – Integrated Urban Development Plans – and, despite some gaps in these documents (reviewed in a 2013 World Bank report on the topic – overall this has been a step in the right direction toward more integrated planning across jurisdictions (within metropolitan areas). 341. As for the implementation of projects across sectors, local authorities have multiple ways to accomplish this, particularly upon approving an intervention and subsequently during its implementation. The Mayor can propose to the local council a gradual, calculated approach to needed infrastructure investments – i.e., making sure that they first invest in underground networks of utilities and only then move on to road rehabilitation. Specifically, each subnational authority has an annual investment plan. Some actors at this level begin developing this document far in advance, which allows them sufficient leeway to coordinate planned investments with a variety of stakeholders. Consultations with public service providers (electricity, gas, water, wastewater, etc.) are critical to ensure that investment plans are fully correlated. For example, the gas operator plans to repair the network on Street A in year 1 and on street B in year 2 – the mayor can persuade the company to start with street B if that is a priority for road rehabilitation. 342. Another option for cross-sectoral coordination is for local authorities to require designers the use of technologies that permit a proper sequencing of investments – or rather, that reduce the need for staggered implementation. For example, building roads with sufficient room on the sides for developing or repairing utility networks can be a feasible option in some circumstances. While such solutions may seem more expensive than traditional designs in the short run, in the long run they save money by requiring fewer repairs. 343. During the project implementation phase, delays may occur as a result of public procurement procedures. For example, a road project may be quickly attributed, while a more expensive water/sewage project may face a challenge in court regarding the contract’s attribution. The road must then be placed on hold until the other project is completed. It is a good idea to hold public tenders with “suspension clauses,” whereby the beneficiary of an investment program (e.g., a city hall) will control the start date of a project, conditioned upon fulfilling a set of requirements. If more than one investment enters the implementation phase at the same time, the engineer, together with the beneficiary of the funding, can work together to develop a feasible plan for the completion of construction works through all concomitant projects. 198 344. The role of the MRDPA should be to collect, review, and disseminate good practices for coordination of investments at the local level. Often times, local authorities do not have the capacity (i.e., time, resources, etc.) to learn about and adopt these tools, despite their best intentions, so having a central-level coordinator would be tremendously helpful in the effort to improve local-level coordination across sectors. 199 Chapter 6: Summary of Targeted Strategies and Specific Action Steps Figure 58. Summary of targeted strategies and specific action steps for enhancing intra-sectoral coordination Solutions for enhanced Other key actors Level Main challenges MRDPA role coordination  Poor quality of sectoral strategies  Adopt and enforce standards  Support SU under PM  Center of for strategy development, Government approval, and M&E (CoG)  Public Policy Units in line Vertical ministries across admin  Projects that do not take sectoral  Improve eligibility and selection  Revamp PNDL criteria for evaluation  Other line levels strategies into account still receive criteria for state-budget-funded and selection of investments ministries funding programs like the PNDL and the implementing Environment Fund state-funded programs  Ministry of Public Finance  State-budget-funded investment  Rethink types of interventions  Redesign the PNDL to complement  CoG programs are not designed to be financed by state-budget-funded other funds in each sector  Ministry of complementary with each other and programs to complement EU- European Funds Horizontal with EU structural instruments funded investments across  There is a risk of state-budget funds  Direct state-budget funds’  Support PNDL applicants early on by  Other Managing programs crowding out EU structural applicants eligible for EU funding to directing them to optimal sources of Authorities instruments the optimal operational program funding & help boost EU-funds  RDAs (as absorption intermediary bodies) 200 Figure 59. Summary of targeted strategies and specific action steps for enhancing inter-sectoral coordination Solutions for enhanced Level Main challenges MRDPA role Other key actors coordination  Poor quality of national strategies  Adopt and enforce standards for  Support SU under PM  Center of Gov’t  Lack of political process for prioritizing strategy development, approval,  Reflect national cross-sector priorities in (General across sectors and M&E (same as above) PNDL allocations Secretariat,  Lack of accountability for implementing  Review investment programs and Chancellery) strategies decide on potential  Min. of Finance adjustment/continuation  Public Policy Units in line ministries  Significant discrepancies in the  Harmonize procedures across  Bring PNDL up to standards of EU funds  Min. of procedures applicable to state-budget- state-budget-funded and EU- (to the extent that capacity allows it) for European Funds National funded vs. EU-funded investments funded programs for the entire the entire cycle (planning,  Other line  The former lack transparency, cycle (planning, implementation, implementation, and post- ministries predictability, and rigor in selecting and post-implementation) implementation) implementing interventions  Participate actively and regularly in EU funds Coordination Committees set-up through the Partnership Agreement  Major infrastructure projects lack inter-  Strengthen national-level  Support UEIP within MPF  Center of Gov’t sectoral prioritization and coordination mechanisms for coordinating and  Ministry of prioritizing major infrastructure Finance projects  Regional planning is hindered by the lack  Support current institutions like  Support RDAs and RDCs  RDAs Regional of formal administrative status for RDAs and RDCs with tools for  Disseminate best practices  RDCs Romania’s regions regional coordination  Associations  Subnational governments have weak  Consolidate capacity of local  Collect and publish set of guidelines for  RDAs capacity to apply good practices in authorities across entire coordinating investments at local level  Min. of coordination of planning, investment cycle  Support integrated planning efforts, European Funds Local implementation, and M&E of their  Incentivize joint projects including through PIDUs infrastructure investments  Reward joint projects in the PNDL evaluation/scoring process 201 Annex A: Detailed Sector Assessments Roads Key Players 345. Investments in transport infrastructure are done by a number of key players at the supra-national, national, regional, and local level. All these actors need to communicate with each other or at least be informed about what the others are doing. Proper coordination of investment projects would at the very least require that lower level plans/programs/ investments take into consideration higher-level ones. In other words, key players at lower administrative levels should be aware of what players at higher administrative levels are doing. In what follows, this report discusses the relevant actors in the transport sector, at different levels. A. Supranational level The European Union 346. There are several supra-national actors that play a role in the transport sector in Romania. Of them, by far the most important is the European Union. The EU is not only the largest outside funder of transport infrastructure in Romania, but it also shapes policy in the sector. Before joining the EU in 2007, Romania had to adopt the EU acquis communautaire , including key directives on transport. The transport chapter of the accession negotiations was closed in December 2004 and included several policies related to the sector. These cover a wide range of issues, such as mandatory rest stops for truck drivers, road safety issues, speed limits, vehicle size, and emission standards. 347. In terms of investments in the transport sector, the most important EU-level framework is the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) Policy. The TEN-T Policy was set up at the beginning of 1990, as a way of enabling better functioning of the internal EU market through key investments in transport, energy, and telecommunications infrastructure. A first master plan for an EU-wide transport network was established in 1996, following the adoption of the Community Guidelines for the development of a trans-European network. These guidelines, modified in 1999 (EC No 1655/1999), determined the eligibility for transport investment projects with EC/EU funding. In 2009, an overhaul of the TEN-T was undertaken with an eye for the preparation of the 2014-2020 programming period. The aim of this policy is to “close the gaps between Member States’ transport networks, remove bottlenecks that still hamper the smooth functioning of the internal market and overcome technical barriers such as incompatible standards for railway traffic.” 100 EUR 26 billion have been allocated in support of this policy. 100 http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/index_en.htm 202 The TEN-T for Romania includes Core and Comprehensive Network segments 348. Romania will continue to be able to access EU Funds for the 2014-2020 programming period for investments in the TEN-T network for Romania. The TEN-T network builds on existing and planned infrastructure in Romania and is identified following an existing methodology (that lays out common requirements/standards). 101 The TEN-T network includes a Comprehensive Network and a Core Network. The former is a basic multi-modal network that lays out all the transport modes (rail, road, inland waterway, air, and maritime) eligible for EU funding. The Core Network is a subset of the Comprehensive Network and it represents what are considered to be the most important nodes and links of the TEN-T. The Core Network is identified in two steps: first, the main nodes of the network; second, the multimodal links between these primary nodes. Investments in the Core Network can be completed from the EU Cohesion Fund (and around 3 billion have been allocated for the 2014-2020 programming period), while investments in the Comprehensive Network can be financed through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). The Core Network and Comprehensive Network for Romania are included in the map above. Overall, the Comprehensive Network has a length of 4,598 kilometers, of which the Core Network comprises 2,485 km. Co-financing rates for the two networks can also vary, with the EU shouldering more of the costs associated with projects for developing the Core Network, considered to be higher-priority than the Comprehensive Network. 101Methodology is available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52013SC0542&from=EN 203 The World Bank 349. The World Bank is an International Financial Institution (IFI) that, among other things, helps finance Government investment projects in a variety of fields – including transport. In the 1990s, the Bank has financed the rehabilitation of over 1,100 km of national road in Romania. In the first decade of the new millennium, the Bank has financed further road rehabilitation work and the development of several city bypasses. To determine what type of projects it will focus on, the World Bank elaborates together with the Client Government a Country Partnership Strategy – usually for a four year period. The Country Partnership Strategy 2014-2017 for Romania does not include any transport investment projects, but does make a provision for a strengthening of administrative capacity, including in the transport sector. 350. The map below includes all the major road projects financed by the Bank after 1995. Interestingly, all road segments financed are part of the TEN-T Core and Comprehensive Networks. Several of the road links financed by the World Bank are now slated to be upgraded with EU funds, including Craiova-Pitești, Alexandria -București, Câmpina -Comarnic, and Buzău- Râmnicu Sărat. In addition, through the Romanian Social Development Fund (RSDF), the Bank has also financed a range of smaller-scale road projects in rural areas, improving marginalized communities’ access to opportunities. The World Bank has financed multiple major road projects in Romania after 1995 351. The World Bank has also undertaken road development projects at the local level, primarily through the Romania Social Development Fund. The map below indicates the localities where such investments have been financed. 204 RSDF investments in local roads The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) 352. The EBRD is another IFI that has helped the Romanian Government finance transpo rt investment projects in Romania. For example, in the 1990s, the EBRD has financed the rehabilitation of 224 km of national roads. Part of this transport investment program was co- financed by the World Bank, the European Investment Bank, and through EU PHARE funds. In the new millennium, EBRD has financed two major transport projects that are part of the TEN-T Network development – the Pitesti and the Constanta bypasses, and also a number of municipal infrastructure projects. At the end of 2011, the EBRD had transport projects worth EUR 1.7 billion in Romania. 102 In February 2012, the EBRD devised a new Strategy for Romania, covering three years and with a specific focus on the development of transport infrastructure. A special emphasis is put on the involvement of the private sector in road infrastructure (e.g., concessions or Private-Public Partnerships), with a potential involvement of the EBRD in the financing of the Comarnic-Brașov highway, under a PPP arrangement. The European Investment Bank (EIB) 353. The EIB is the EU’s bank, owned by the EU Member States, and works closely with European institutions to promote EU policy. The EIB does lending (including for the private sector), blending, and provides advisory services – e.g., through the JASPERS (Joint Assistance to Support Projects in European Regions) Program. The EIB also provides financing for SMEs through the European Investment Fund (EIF). In Romania, the EIB helps with the co-financing of several TEN-T investments done by the Romanian Government through the SOP Transport 2007- 2013. Some of the projects include the Lugoj-Dumbrava section of the Lugoj-Deva Highway, the 102 http://www.ebrd.com/downloads/country/strategy/romania.pdf 205 Timișoara-Lugoj Highway and bypass, the Orăștie -Sibiu Highway, and the Nădlac -Arad Highway. There are also a number of national road rehabilitation projects, part of the TEN-T comprehensive network, where EIB provides assistance for co-financing – e.g., the National Road 1H from Zalău to Aleșd or the National Road 6 between Alexandria and Craiova. Between 2009 and 2013, the EIB provided financing of around EUR 1 billion for transport and telecommunications. The EIB is also considering providing assistance for finalizing the PPP arrangement for the Comarnic-Brașov Highway. B. National level 354. There are a number of institutions that undertake road investments at the national level. Most of these focus on national roads, expressways, and highways. Investments in county and communal roads are done by subnational authorities (i.e., county councils and local councils), either with their own funds or with assistance from the Central Government (e.g., funds from the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration). The Ministry of Transport 355. The Ministry of Transport has been the key national level player in the field of transport. Most of the road investments in Romania were managed, up to July 2014, by the Ministry of Transport through the National Company for Highways and National Roads (CNADNR – Compania Națională de Autostrăzi și Drumuri Naționale din România). The Ministry of Transport was also responsible for elaborating key policies in the road sector. Starting with July 9, 2014, most of the attributions pertaining to national road and highway development have been passed to the Department for Infrastructure Projects, Foreign Investment, Public Private Partnership and Export Promotion. As of August 2014, the Ministry of Transport had no more investment responsibilities in the road sector. It merely took on investments pertaining to air, rail, and naval infrastructure. 356. The Ministry of Transport has also acted as the Managing Authority for the Sectorial Operational Programme Transport (SOP-T) 2007-2013. However, for the 2014-2020 programming period, the Large Infrastructure OP (LIOP), which will undertake transport investments with EU funding, will function under the Ministry of European Funds. This will mean that, at a de facto level, the Ministry of Transport will have no responsibilities in the field of road development. The Department for Infrastructure Projects, Foreign Investment, Public-Private Partnership, and Export Promotion (henceforth Department for Infrastructure Projects) 357. The Department for Infrastructure Projects (DIP) was set-up through Government Decision 7/2013 as a specialized body of the General Secretariat of the Government, under the Prime Minister’s Office. The DIP ensures “the coordination of infrastructure projects of national interest, the preparation, execution, and implementation of infrastructure projects and the uniform application of policy coordination in the area of stimulating, promoting, and implementing foreign investment and public-private partnerships.” In essence, this department has taken over all policymaking and investment responsibilities in the roads sector. 358. Actual investments in the roads sector are carried out by CNADNR, wh ich now sits under the DIP. CNADNR is responsible for both road development/rehabilitation/modernization and for road upkeep and maintenance work. The Company invests in the development of 206 highways, expressways, bypasses, the modernization of national roads, and the rehabilitation of bridges. It is the direct beneficiary of EU funds (from the Cohesion Fund and from the ERDF) for the development of the TEN-T network and for the modernization of national roads and development of bypasses, mainly outside the TEN-T network. All the investments done with EU funds follow the provisions of SOP-T 2007-2013 Programmatic Document. 359. In terms of the development of expressways, CNADNR is considering 11 projects. It is not clear at this point, however, whether these projects will be taken on or whether they will be completed as highways. For example, on its website, CNADNR indicates that it is considering the development of the Craiova-Pitesti Expressway and the development of the Sebeș-Turda Expressway. However, these road links are now considered highway links – the Sebeș-Turda Highway is actually slated to be completed by the end of 2015. 360. The development of new bypasses is another key priority of CNADNR. Bypasses are considered to represent critical investments as they help to decongest traffic in cities, increase traffic capacity, reduce maintenance and repair costs for urban roads, reduce emissions through increased travel speeds, and facilitate flows for the transport of goods. A number of bypasses have already been completed and several are under implementation (e.g., București North, Cluj East, Oradea, Iași, Arad, Pitesti, Sibiu, Lugoj, Alexandria, Brasov, Craiova South, Suceava, Timisoara North-East) or are planned (e.g., Caransebeș, Bacău, Bistrița, Dej, Huedin, Ma ngalia, Mediaș, Miercurea Ciuc, Reghin, Târgu Mureş, Târgu Jiu, Timișoara South). 361. The modernization of the national road system is undertaken under a long -term strategy, commenced in 1994. This proposed 15 phases, from 1994 through 2014. Through 2014, 11,300 km of roads were to be rehabilitated/modernized – several with financing from IFIs (e.g., the World Bank, EBRD) or with EU pre-accession funds (e.g., PHARE) or post-accession funds (e.g., ERDF). By 2014 only 3 phases were completed and the total length of rehabilitated/modernized national roads amounted to only 2,275 km – a mere 20% of the total proposed initially. Phases IV, V, and VI are now under implementation. 362. Future investments in road development will be subject to strategic planning. The Romanian Government has been developing the General Transport Master Plan for Romania (approved on March 3, 2015). 103 The team developing the document has devised a model that will be used to prioritize key investments in the transport sector for the 2014-2020 programming period. A total of 227 road projects have been proposed for testing and the full list is available on the MA POS-T website. 104 This means that all future investments to be undertaken by CNADNR have to come directly from the Transport Master Plan. 103 See Romania General Transport Master Plan: Revised Final Report on the Master Plan Short, Medium and Long Term’, draft 2 of October 2014 and WB Report on Review of ‘Romania General Transport Master Plan Revised Final Report on the Master Plan Short, Medium and Long Term’ of November 3, 2014, prepared as part of the RAS contract: Assistance to the Ministry of Transport and Infrastructure to Strengthen Strategic Planning in the Transport Sector 104 See: http://www.ampost.ro/fisiere/pagini_fisiere/listaproiecteloradmisepentrutestareMPGT15042014.p df [Accessed on August 23, 2014] 207 The Ministry of European Funds 363. The Ministry of European Funds (MEF) plays two key roles in road development: it elaborates the Partnership Agreement with the EU and it will serve as the Managing Authority for the SOP Large Infrastructure 2014-2020. The Partnership Agreement is completed with the input of responsible Managing Authorities and of relevant line ministries and agencies. However, the MEF plays a key integrating role for the elaboration of the final document, and also a key role in the allocation of funds for individual operational programmes. For the 2014- 2020 programming period, the MEF will manage major EU-funded infrastructure investments through the MA for the LIOP. The beneficiary of most of these road development projects will be CNADNR. The Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration (MRDPA) 364. The MRDPA finances county and communal road development projects – both from the state budget and with EU funds. Through the PNDL, the MRDPA provides grants to county councils and local authorities of towns and communes. For the 2014 fiscal year, a total of around EUR 300 million have been allocated for the continuation of ongoing road development projects and for the commencement of new investments (i.e., projects at the stage of feasibility study or, less frequently, with detailed technical designs). Road projects represent around 56% of the total PNDL allocation for 2014, with much of the rest of the allocation going to water and wastewater investments. The maps below indicate the county road links and the localities where communal roads have been financed in 2014. PNDL 2014 funds have been committed for county roads in all of Romania’s regions Data source: MRDPA (2014) 208 ROP 2007-2013 road investments total over EUR 1.4 billion Data source: MRDPA (2014) What the PNDL allocated funds for in 2014 Sector PNDL Allocations for 2014 Roads € 297,092,548 Water € 117,566,375 Wastewater € 76,497,061 Education € 14,528,999 Bridges € 13,837,273 Cultural € 3,880,278 City Halls € 3,655,247 Markets € 2,983,641 Sports Infrastructure € 1,935,893 Health € 621,899 Sanitation € 213,829 Tourism € 113,636 TOTAL € 532,926,678 365. The MRDPA also houses a number of Managing Authorities that provide financing for subnational road development projects. The most important of these managing authorities is the MA for the Regional Operational Programme (MA ROP). For the 2007-2013 programming period, the MA-ROP has contracted road projects with a value of EUR 1.4 billion – primarily county roads, urban bypasses, and urban roads. Projects are selected on a first-come, first- served basis, but they have to first pass an evaluation stage and receive a passing grade (i.e., at least 3.5 out of 6 total points). The map above indicates the county road links and the urban 209 areas where ROP 2007-2013 projects have been contracted. Road projects are also financed through a number of Territorial Cooperation Programmes, which primarily finance cross-border road links. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) 366. The MARD finances communal road development projects through its EU-funded National Rural Development Programme (PNDR). The PNDR focuses primarily on small projects (less than EUR 1.5 million) in rural areas and projects are selected on a competitive basis using an evaluation and selection grid. The projects that receive EU funds are those with the highest score within one call for proposal. Out of a total of around 13,000 villages in Romania, 623 have benefited from PNDR funds in 2007-2013. The Ministry of Public Finance The Ministry of Public Finance is an important player with regard to transport infrastructure in Romania. One of the main roles of the Ministry is to manage the public goods that are in the public or private property of the state. The Ministry centralizes the inventories of the public goods belonging to the public and private domain of the state and/or the local territorial administrative units, as well as of the goods under the central administrations and other public structures. Also, the Ministry assesses the public investment programs in order to make sure that such investments are done within some expenditure limits and that they fall within the given selection and prioritization criteria. The Ministry keeps an eye on the overall process pertaining to local investments and asks local or central authorities to release relevant documents. Also, it establishes the methodological norms for designing the evaluation and selection criteria for public investment programs/projects. C. Regional level 367. There are two types of players at the regional level – Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and County Councils. Both undertake road planning activities, but only County Councils actually invest in roads’ development. Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) 368. RDAs are public purpose non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that also serve as intermediate bodies for EU-funded programs – primarily for the Regional Operational Programme. Since there is no regional administrative level, RDAs do not actually take on road investment projects. However, they do play a key role at the planning level. In the Project Selection Models for the Regional Operational Programme project, the World Bank has recommended that RDAs include in the Regional Development Plans a number of regional priorities, including potentially regional connective infrastructure. These are projects with regional impact, which could be undertaken either by one public authority, or by an Intercommunity Development Association (ADI). County Councils 369. Counties are currently the largest subnational administrative units. There are 41 counties and the City of Bucharest – in the case of the capital, the local council also fulfills attributions typically associated with county councils. County councils have a number of 210 responsibilities, including the planning, managing, and financing of county roads. County councils can finance county road investment projects from their own funds, from state-budget programs, with the help of EU funds, or by relying on a loan (either from a private institution or from an IFI). Between 2010 and 2012, around 60% of capital investments done by county councils were done with EU funds. In the roads sector specifically, the most important structural instrument has been the Regional Operational Programme 2007-2013, which has included a priority axis specifically dedicated to the development of county roads. D. Local level 370. All investments done at the local level are done by local authorities – municipalities, towns, or communes . Depending on their size and development level, some local authorities are more adept than others at generating their own funds for road development/rehabilitation/ modernization. Usually, larger municipalities generate more funds for road investment projects, while most of the communes depend on state-budget-funded programs (e.g., the PNDL), on EU- funded programs (e.g., the PNDR), or on governmental transfers to complete such projects. Between 2010 and 2012, around 30% of capital investments completed by the 40 county residences in Romania (Ilfov county does not have a county residence) were done with EU funds. Legal Framework 371. To enable a proper coordination of investments in the road sector, it is important to be aware of the legal framework governing the sector in Romania. The following sub-sections address both EU and national-level legislation. A. Supranational level 372. The EU Policy on the trans-European networks (transport, energy, and communication) has come into effect in 1993, based on Title XVI, Articles 170-172, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union . The overall aims of this policy are to improve the efficiency of internal markets and their connectivity to external markets. The main motivation of the TENs Policy is to enable Member Countries to interconnect national infrastructure networks and ensure their interoperability. 373. The two key instruments of the TENs Policy are the Union Guidelines and the EU infrastructure fund. The Union Guidelines lay out the objectives, priorities, and measures for identifying projects. The first set of guidelines for the TENs were adopted by the European Parliament and the Council in 1996. Over the years, the TEN-T Policy has grown in importance, following the three major enlargement waves. A major policy review was started in 2009, culminating with a new legislative framework that came into force in 2014. The infrastructure fund helps Member States develop the TENs, with the first regulation for EU funding adopted in 1995. TEN-T Policy 374. EC Regulation No. 473/2014, which has amended Regulation No. 1315/2013, provides the Guidelines for the Development of the TEN-T Network. Several key issues are addressed: 211  The subsidiarity principle: Member States are responsible for developing and maintaining infrastructure, but they may choose to enter into PPP arrangements or concessions to private companies  Focus on rehabilitation and upgrade: the TEN-T consists to a large extent of existent infrastructure and the focus is on rehabilitation and upgrades, rather than the development of new infrastructure.  Dual-layer structure: each Member State can develop a Core Network, which is of strategic importance for EU-wide connectivity, and a Comprehensive Network, which ensures the accessibility and connectivity of all the regions in the EU, including insular and remote regions.  Focus on convergence: there are substantial infrastructure endowment differences between the West and the East of the EU and these differences need to be tackled.  The Core Network is the backbone: Priority should be given to the development of the Core Network by 2030. The Comprehensive Network should be finalized by 2050.  Obligation of Cost-Benefit Analysis: all TEN-T projects that receive EU funding should use a recognized socio-economic cost-benefit analysis methodology.  Reduce green-house gas emissions by 60% by 2050, compared to the 1990 baseline.  Cooperation with neighboring and third countries.  TEN-T should ensure efficient multimodality. The core TEN-T Network connects EU Member States Source: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/infrastructure/ten -t-guidelines/doc/maps/eu.pdf 212 375. Section 3 of the TEN-T Guidelines deals directly with road transport infrastructure. Article 17 notes that EU-funding for eligible road transport infrastructure comprises: (a) high- quality roads (including bridges, tunnels, junctions, crossings, interchanges, hard shoulders); (b) parking and rest areas; (c) associated equipment; (d) telematics applications; (e) freight terminals and logistic platforms; (f) connections between different modes of transport; (g) coach stations. High-quality roads can include highways (motorways), express roads, or conventional strategic roads. Of particular importance is the fact that investments in crossings, interchanges, and crossings are eligible for EU funding, which is a key incentive for coordinated investments in the TEN-T infrastructure and the national and subnational road network. 376. The Core Network’s development should focus on: (a) modal integration; (b) interoperability; and (c) a coordinated development of infrastructure (with a focus on cross - border sections and bottlenecks). The Guidelines set out that core network corridors are multimodal, cross at least two borders, and, if possible, involve at least three transport modes. The map above provides a full representation of the network. European Structural and Investment (ESI) Funds Regulations 2014-2020 377. Article 174 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides that the EU should strive to strengthen its economic, social, and territorial cohesion, and reduce disparities between regions – with particular attention to be paid to rural areas. With this aim in mind, several funds have been established in the EU, and these provide resources to Member Countries for a variety of development projects. The most important funds are the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF), the European Territorial Cooperation (ETC) fund, the Cohesion Fund (CF), the European Grouping of Territorial Cooperation (EGTC), and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). Road development works can primarily be financed using the ERDF, the CF, and the EAFRD. 378. EU Regulation No. 1303/2013 sets forth the Common Provision Regulation for all ESI Funds for the 2014-2020 programming period. Among other things, it stipulates that the key investments to be financed from ESI funds need to be laid out in the Partnership Agreement. The Partnership Agreement is a document prepared by each Member State, which “sets out that Member State’s strategy, priorities, and arrangements for using ESI Funds in an effe ctive and efficient way so as to pursue the Union strategy for smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth, and which is approved by the Commission following assessment and dialogue with the Member State concerned.” The Romania -EU Partnership Agreement was approved by the European Commission on August 6, 2014. 379. The Common Provision Regulation, under Article 9, sets out the key Thematic Objectives that ESI Funds should be used for. Thematic Objective 7 focuses on “promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructure.” Each of the ESI Funds makes provisions for how Thematic Objective 7 is addressed. For example, the ERDF allows the following type of road investments: (a) development of the Comprehensive TEN-T Network; (b) development of secondary and tertiary connections to the TEN-T Network, including multi-modal nodes; (c) development and improvement of environmentally-friendly and low-carbon transport systems; (d) development and rehabilitation of the railway system; (e) 213 improving energy efficiency and security of supply. 105 The CF allows for the following type of road investments: (a) development of the TEN-T (with a focus on the Core TEN-T); (b) development and improvement of environmentally-friendly and low-carbon transport; (c) development and rehabilitation of comprehensive high quality and interoperable railway system. The EAFRD sets out to promote social inclusion, poverty reduction, and economic development in rural areas, allowing, among others, investments in communal roa d development/rehabilitation/upgrade. 380. Some of the ESI Funds also provide thresholds for how allocated grants should be used. For example, the ERDF indicates that at least 50% of resources should be allocated to two or more of the thematic objectives 1,2,3, and 4, and at least 12% of resources should be allocated to thematic objective 4. 106 This restriction on the use of ERDF resources may make sense in many of the older EU Member States, but it is not necessarily optimal for Romania, which still has substantial infrastructure deficiencies, including in the road sector. These restrictions will also affect the way Operational Programs are structured. B. National level 381. The national legislation is less straightforward than EU regulation . There are a number of legislative measures that guide road investments, but these are not always properly correlated. There is nonetheless a legislative hierarchy that at least guides development at the national scale. 382. The most important normative document at the national level is the National Spatial Plan and particularly Section 1 on the National Transport Network (approved through Law 363/2006). The National Spatial Plan sets out the network of highways and expressways to be developed in Romania in the coming years. All road investments have to take this plan into consideration. The proposed TEN-T Network for Romania (both the Core Network and the Comprehensive Network) has been incorporated in the blueprint provided by the national spatial plan. All other road investments (national roads, county roads, communal roads) have to take this plan into consideration and ensure that new road developments are spatially coordinated with the proposed network of highways and expressways. A map of the National Spatial Plan network of highways and expressways is provided in Figure 4 above. As can be seen in that figure, all the links of the TEN-T Core and Comprehensive Networks are part of the larger National Spatial Plan network. 383. There are no other major legislative provisions to guide investments in the road network, apart from those that approve major investment programs. 107 Government Decision 947/1990 approved the National Program for the Modernization of National Roads and Construction of Highways. Government Ordinance 16/1999 approved the Priority Program for 105 See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32013R1301&from=EN 106 The thematic objectives are as follows: (1) strengthening research, technological development and innovation; (2) enhancing access to, and use and quality of, ICT; (3) enhancing the competitiveness of SMEs; (4) supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy. 107 The new General Transport Master Plan for Romania was very recently approved by the Government. The revised draft Final Report was presented to Romanian Government by AECOM in October and commented by the World Bank on November 3, 2014 214 the Development of Highways. Four major highways were planned to be developed or rehabilitated under this program: 1) București -Pitești (96 km); 2) București-Constanța (201 km); 3) the București South Bypass (57 km); 4) Pitești-Nădlac (460 km); 5) București-Buzău-Focșani- Albița (380 km). Of these, the first two have been completed. The fourth is under construction with EU funds (it basically is part of the TEN-T Corridor IV). The fifth is under consideration for the 2014-2020 programming period. Law 1/2002 approved Ordinance 16/1999 and completes it with the addition of a number of proposed highways and expressways. The additional highways include: 1) București-Fetești-Cernavodă (151 km); 2) the București North Bypass (50 km); 3) București-Ploiești (70 km); 4) Ploiești-Comarnic (36 km); 5) Comarnic-Brașov 65 km); 6) Borș- Oradea-Cluj (167 km). The additional expressways include: 1) București -Giurgiu (49 km); 2) Brașov-Sibiu (110 km); 3) Cernavodă -Constanța (61 km). Several of these proje cts have been completed (e.g., București-Cernavodă, București-Ploiești), while others have been started but have not been finished yet (e.g., the Transylvania Highway). 384. CNADNR has a number of cost standards for different types of roads and these provide guidance for road investment projects. The following cost standards are applied:  Highway on a plane surface: 3,802,000 EUR/km  Highway on hilly terrain: 4,980,000 EUR/km  Highway on mountainous terrain: 5,992,000 EUR/km  Development of National Road – Technical Class III: 1,271,800 EUR/km  Rehabilitation of National Road – Technical Class III: 764,700 EUR/km  Tunnel for two lane road: 19,000 EUR/m  Tunnel for two lane road plus emergency lane: 27,500 EUR/m 385. If the lowest cost standard for highways is applied to the entire Core TEN-T Network, then the required funds for completing this network come up to around 9.5 billion Euro, which is more or less the entire allocation for OP Large Infrastructure 2014-2020. Thus, it is clear that only a portion of the Core TEN-T can be finalized in the next programming period with the help of EU funds. Strategies and Plans A. Supranational level The Europe 2020 Strategy 386. The Europe 2020 Strategy is the framework document that sets out the EU priorities for the 2014-2020 programming period and lays the foundation for how EU Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund will be used. For Romania this strategy is of critical importance, as many of the necessary infrastructure investments, particularly in transport, are funded with the help of EU funds. The main thrust of the strategy is to help the EU overcome the challenges of the 2008/2009 economic crisis, encourage a more competitive economy, and boost employment. 387. The three major priorities of the Europe 2020 Strategy are smart, sustain able, and inclusive growth. Smart growth entails more effective investments in education, research, and innovation. Sustainable growth envisages a more decisive move to a low-carbon economy. 215 Inclusive growth puts a stronger emphasis on the creation of jobs and poverty reduction. These three key priorities are then translated into 5 key targets to be achieved by 2020: 1. Employment: 75% of the 20-64 year-olds to be employed; 2. R&D: 3% of the EU’s GDP to be invested in R&D; 3. Climate change and energy sustainability: greenhouse gas emissions 20% lower than 1990; 20% of energy from renewables; 20% increase in energy efficiency; 4. Education: reducing the rates of early school leaving below 10%; at least 40% of 30-34- year-olds completing third level education; 5. Fighting poverty and social exclusion: at least 20 million fewer people in or at risk of poverty and social exclusion. 388. The fact that the Europe 2020 Strategy is quite focused may make it more efficient – it misses, however, the wide diversity across the EU space. Among other things, Romania is one of the countries that continue to have, even after the 2007-2013 programming period, significant infrastructure shortages. The highway network needs to be expanded, while the national, regional, and local road networks require rehabilitation and modernization. Improved connectivity is not identified outright as a key priority for the EU in 2014-2020, but it is one of the most important priorities for Romania – as discussed in some detail in the World Bank report Competitive Cities: Reshaping the Economic Geography of Romania. The Europe 2020 Strategy discusses connectivity only under “Other tools for growth and jobs,” where it indicates that a deepening of the single market requires that several obstacles be dealt with, including: bottlenecks to cross-border activity; and insufficiently interconnected networks. TEN-T Policy 389. The TEN-T Policy is the EU’s major planning document for pan -European transport infrastructure. The Policy was discussed in more detail in this report’s previous section. It draws out the Core TEN-T Network and the Comprehensive TEN-T Network, and conditions for the use of EU funds for investments in the TEN-T. In Romania, investments in the Core TEN-T Network (primarily the Rhine-Danube Corridor – the former Corridor IV, and the Orient/East-Med Corridor) are financed from the Cohesion Fund, while investments in the Comprehensive Network are financed from the ERDF. 390. The regulations for the use of ESI Funds also shape strategic planning at the national and subnational level. For example, the ROP 2007-2013 awarded a higher score in the evaluation and selection process for county roads that connect to the TEN-T network. Consequently, most of the county roads projects submitted and accepted for financing under the ROP connect to the TEN-T. B. National level 391. There are several overarching strategies/plans/programs at the national level, which impact how investments in the transport sector are done. The most important ones will be discussed in what follows. Interestingly, there is no national overarching development strategy, similar to the National Development Plan 2007-2013, which outlined the key directions of development for the country, in preparation for that programming period. 216 392. It is important to reemphasize that the General Transport Master Plan (GTMP) is not available publicly as of early March 2015, and will only be discussed in depth for the upcoming final report (also under Component 1 of the current work). As noted earlier, the GTMP sets the main directions for developing the transport sector in Romania and, although it is based on nationwide traffic data, it only covers national roads, which remain outside the purview of the state-budget-funded PNDL. Indeed, county and local roads (including communal roads in rural areas) are the main focus of this analysis, in line with the agreed scope of the engagement. The Governing Program 2013-2016 393. The Governing Program 2013-2016 outlines the key priorities for the current Government, including those for the Transport sector. The Transport section of the Program indicates that many national road links register traffic figures of over 11,000 vehicles per day. This in itself would indicate the need for the extension of the highway and expressway network in Romania. Also, only 35% of national roads and only 15% of county roads are in a very good or good condition, which indicates that there is a very high need for the rehabilitation of these transport corridors. 394. In terms of highway development, the Governing Program identifies 6 critical links. The first is the completion of the A1 (Corridor IV) Highway and of the A3 Highway. Other priorities include: the completion of the Comarnic-Brașov Highway (part of the A3 Highway); the commencement of the East-West Highway from Iași-Ungheni to Târgu Mureș; the development of the București-Ploiești-Focșani-Bacău-Pașcani Highway; the commencement of the South Highway linking București to Alexandria, Craiova, Drobeta -Turnu Severin, and Timișoara; and the finalization of the București beltway. 395. Interestingly, under the section Large Infrastructure Projects, there is a different set of priorities for large road investments. Thus there are two large highway links listed as priorities: the Comarnic-Brașov Highway and the Sibiu-Râmnicu Vâlcea Highway (the remaining link required to complete Corridor IV on Romania’s territory, i.e., from Constanța to Nădlac). 396. The section on Development and Administration outlines a number of priorities for county and communal roads. Thus, it is indicated that the modernization of county roads be continued to improve accessibility to the national and European road network. Also, the “Romanian Village” Program indicates that a minimum required package of public investments will have to be implemented in Romanian villages to raise living standards and the quality of life. Thus, every village should have, among others, at least the following: good communal roads, a school, a church, a pharmacy and dispensary, water and wastewater, public lighting, solid waste management, a fire truck, an ambulance, and a communal market. 397. The Governing Program is less explicit when it comes to priorities for the development of other types of road infrastructure. It merely states that an extended expressway network will help improve connectivity between the different highway links and between important urban centers, that another 50 bypasses will be constructed, and that 75% of the national roads and 55% of the county roads will be brought to a good or very good state. Interestingly, the Program indicates that the Ministry of Transport will be actively involved in the 217 modernization/rehabilitation of county roads by taking those under its administration during the actual construction period. The National Territorial Development Strategy (SDTR) 2035 398. The SDTR 2035 was still in draft form at the time of the writing of this report, but it provided some key lines of actions, including proposals for the development of road infrastructure. The Strategy puts forth three major concepts: CONCENTRATION-CONNECTION- COOPERATION. In essence, this presupposes an encouragement of the urbanization process and enabling cities to enlarge their demographic and economic mass. It promotes better access to and between these urban centers. And it encourages increased regional flows, particularly with neighboring countries that are non-EU Members and with which there still are a number of trade barriers. 399. The Strategy starts with a diagnostic of the current connective infrastructure. It indicates that Romania occupies a peripheral position within the EU and is bypassed by the 5 major transnational axes defined by the European Commission. Moreover, the TEN-T Network, with its current design, leaves large areas of the county (e.g., the North) uncovered by ma jor transport infrastructure (see Figure 7). Moreover, there are a number of natural barriers (e.g., the Carpathians and several large rivers) that create transport bottlenecks. For example, if the Olt Valley road is jammed, for whatever reason, the only way around the Carpathian Mountains is a couple of hundred kilometers away. Similarly, between Giurgiu and Calafat (covering a distance of around 300 km) there is no bridge crossing the Danube. The only other bridge between Romania and Bulgaria, crossing from Calafat to Vidin, was only recently completed with the help of EU funds. 400. The first key objective of the SDTR 2035 is to develop an efficient and diversified transport network, capable of managing the growing movement of people and goods within and outside Romania. In fact, the overall vision of the Strategy is to have by 2035 “a country with a functional territory, managed efficiently, which ensures attractive living conditions for its citizens, playing an important role in South-Eastern Europe.” One of the key hurdles to overcome in terms of development of transport infrastructure relates to improved connections over the Carpathians. The East and the South of the country are less developed than the rest of also because of their poor connectivity to rich markets in Western Europe. Also, there are only a few connections through the Carpathians, such as Olt Valley, Prahova Valley, or the Oituz Pass, which often struggle with traffic jams, delays, and poor accessibility. 401. The Strategy also proposes a series of measures in the transport sector at different territorial dimensions. One of the first priorities identified by the SDTR 2035 is the integration into the EU’s highway network (70% of Romanian exports flow through the Western border), prioritizing the completion of the A1 Highway (Rhine-Danube Corridor, formerly Corridor IV) and the A3 Highway (București-Brașov-Cluj-Oradea). Another priority concerns improved connections to București – the largest market in Romania. As such, the Moldova Highway (connecting Suceava and Botoșani to Bucharest) and the Craiova -Pitești Highway are considered to be key investments for spurring growth in the East and South of Romania. Also of importance are improved connections over the Carpathian arch, particularly for the East of the country. Two major road links are proposed in this respect: 1) Satu Mare – Baia Mare – Mireșu Mare – Dej – 218 Bistrița – Vatra Dornei – Suceava; 2) Târgu Mureș – Piatra Neamț – Roman – Târgu Frumos – Iași – Sculeni. Of these two options, the first would also contribute to improved connections in the North of the country, which now is largely bypassed by the TEN-T Network, and not considered for priority transport investments by the Government. 402. At the local and regional level, the strategy proposes improved transport connections between the country’s main urban centers and their hinterland . On the one hand, this allows firms an easier access to a larger pool of people; on the other hand, it enables more people easier access to key opportunities offered by these urban centers (e.g., jobs, education, healthcare, culture, entertainment, etc.). Also important are considered the transport connections between urban centers that form urban systems – e.g., Brăila -Galați, Timișoara - Arad, Suceava-Botoșani, Piatra Neamț-Bacău, Satu Mare-Baia Mare, or Deva-Hunedoara-Orăștie. The National Sustainable Development Strategy (NSDS) 2013-2020-2030 403. The NSDS is one the country’s long -term development strategies published shortly after Romania’s accession to the EU. The scope of this strategy is to link Romania to a new philosophy of development, more in-tune with EU principles and with global best-practices on sustainable development. Three major strategic objectives are set: 1) By 2013: Incorporate in an organic fashion the principles and practices of sustainable development within the programs and public policies developed by Romania; 2) By 2020: Reach the EU average on key sustainable development indicators; 3) By 2030: Reach the EU average on a larger set of sustainable development indicators. 404. One of the key objectives to be achieved is Sustainable Transport. The idea is to improve the transport network and adjust it to economic, social, and environmental needs, while at the same time reducing potential negative economic, social, and environmental externalities. For the road network, the strategy recommends a modernization of the infrastructure to reduce traffic accidents by 50% by 2030, improve traffic flows, and reduce pollution in cities. The Romania EU Partnership Agreement (PA) 2014-2020 405. With regards to actual investments, the PA is probably one of the most important planning documents in Romania. The PA, which was approved by the European Commission in August 2014, charts out how EUR 40 billion in EU grants will be spent between 2014 and 2020, and as such it is one of the most referenced documents in Romania. Public authorities, private companies, NGOs, and private individuals all have an interest in looking at this document and determining how they could access EU funds for the projects they are developing. The Partnership Agreement 2014-2020 plays the same role that The National Strategic Reference Framework 2007-2013 played in the previous programming period. 406. The PA clearly identifies the lack of proper transport infrastructure as one of the major development challenges in Romania. A total of five development challenges are identified: 1) competitiveness and local development; 2) people and society; 3) infrastructure; 4) resources; and, 5) administration and government. Under the infrastructure challenge, the document indicates that “[a]lthough Romania sits on important routes connecting Central Europe with the Black Sea and the Caucasus, its transport infrastructure is underdeveloped relative to the 219 volume of goods and passengers that transit Romanian territory [sic], and accessibility remains a major barrier to regional growth.” Similar to the SDTR 2035, the PA 2014 -2020 indicates that the TEN-T proposed network does leave large areas of the country uncovered (e.g., the North) and that the Carpathians obstruct connectivity for the East and South of the country. The document also notes that Romania ranks last in the EU in terms of the overall quality of its transport infrastructure. 407. A number of key priorities in the road sector are identified by the PA:  the missing links of the Rhine-Danube Corridor (former Corridor IV) will need to be completed by 2020;  additional major transport links of the TEN-T Comprehensive would need to be taken on, as outlined in the General Transport Master Plan for Transport 2020-2030;  the continued construction of ring roads for town and villages will be necessary, to improve travel time, reduce fuel consumption, and decrease pollution levels;  investments in Customs infrastructure to reduce waiting times and delays at border- crossing areas;  modernization and development of inter-modal transport;  improved accessibility to the TEN-T network by developing/rehabilitating/ modernizing the secondary and tertiary connections to the network. C. Regional level Regional Development Plans 408. Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) prepare Regional Development Plans (RDPs), which guide investments at the county and at the locality level. Since RDAs are public utility NGOs, and since there is no formal regional administrative tier, the proposals made in the RDPs serve as guiding tools for subnational authorities. For example, if the RDA proposes that an inter-county road be financed, it is up to the respective county councils to decide whether they will undertake such a project. All RDAs have started to draft updated RDPs for the 2014-2020 programming period, but these will only be finalized when the Regional Operational Programme 2014-2020, as well as the other operational programmes, are finalized (i.e., when they have the final approval of the European Commission). All regional development plans include objectives related to the development and rehabilitation of transport infrastructure. Regional Spatial Plans 409. Regional Spatial Plans (Plan de Amenajare al Teritoriului Zonal – PATZ) are binding documents for lower-level spatial plans and they are prepared either at the national or at the subnational level. For example, the MRDPA may prepare a PATZ for a region that may face specific economic, social, or environmental challenges. Similarly, a county, or an associations of counties and/or localities may prepare a PATZ to address key issues. For example, a PATZ may be put in place to address key spatial dynamics at the metropolitan level (e.g., the need for additional connective infrastructure). 410. A PATZ may make a number of clear recommendations for new infrastructure needs. When this happens, a clear claim on the territory in the region is made, which will influence 220 territorial decisions taken at a lower level. For example, plans may be hashed out for future road links. When these plans are not carried through though, they may negatively affect decisions at the lower level. For example, a private investor will not be able to build a new factory on land that has been zoned for transport infrastructure, even though the development of that transport infrastructure is uncertain (e.g., because of the lack of appropriate sources of funding). County Development Strategies 411. Since the maintenance/rehabilitation/modernization of county roads is one of the key responsibilities of county councils, virtually all county development strategies include proposals for investments in road infrastructure. County councils know best the state of the existing road network, they identify potential bottlenecks, and they can measure the impact of an investment once it has been finalized. For example, discussions with a number of county council representatives have revealed that the rehabilitation of some county roads has led to an increase in traffic well above what was estimated before the work started. This can affect the warranty period for the respective road and reduce the time by when new rehabilitation work may be required. 412. While country development strategies include a list of road dev elopment projects, they rarely include a list of priority investments. More often than not, these documents include primarily a laundry list of potential projects, with potential sources of funding, and no clear priorities. This approach unfortunately leads to a haphazard implementation cycle, poor coordination, and often to lack of investments (despite available resources), as local authorities wait for the “proper” time to start or continue an investment. 413. For development strategies to be effective, they should ideally be linked to clear operational programs and to specific and reliable sources of funding. As was shown in the World Bank’s Project Selection Models report, around 60% of county councils’ capital investments between 2010 and 2012 were done with the help of EU funds. This is a considerable amount and points to the fact that county councils have a reduced budgetary capacity to cover all the needs of the communities they represent. It is therefore that much more imperative that clear priorities are set and these should be coupled with defined sources of funding. County Spatial Plans 414. County spatial plans (Planuri de Amenajare a Teritoriului Județean – PATJ) are normative documents that lay down development restrictions and guidelines, as well as th e territorial interventions to be taken within a given time period. As was discussed in the World Bank’s Enhanced Spatial Planning report, there is often a disjointed approach between the PATJ and the County Development Strategy. In essence, the PATJ, while it has its own socio-economic section, should draw on the existing development strategy. This does not always happen and often the list of proposed projects in the PATJ does not coincide with the list of proposed projects in the development strategy. 415. The PATJ has to be correlated with higher-level spatial plans (national and regional) and strategies. Thus, if a new road development (e.g., highway or expressway) is proposed at 221 the national level, the PATJ has to link its own list of intended projects to these higher-level proposals. 416. The instances where new roads are proposed in a PATJ are relatively limited given the mounting need for rehabilitating and modernizing the existing infrastructure. Most county spatial plans simply include the new proposals for national road links, and possibly proposals for the modernization/rehabilitation of county and local roads. The example below, from Brăila County, is illuminating in this respect. The Brăila PATJ includes several transport proposals Source: Brăila PATJ D. Local level Local Development Strategies 417. Many localities prepare development strategies. Sometimes, such strategies are needed as a precondition to access certain funding sources (e.g., as is the case of Integrated Development Plans, which are used to get funding under Axis 1 of the Regional Operational Programme 2007-2013), but most often they are prepared to lay down key issues that a local administration hopes to tackle. Most often, these strategies include projects that focus on the rehabilitation/modernization of the existent transport infrastructure and in cities with a vibrant real estate market they can also include proposals for new infrastructure or for the extension of existing networks. 222 General Urban Plans 418. General Urban Plans (Planuri Urbanistice Generale – PUG-uri) are the key tools used by local authorities to direct spatial interventions. By law, as in the case of counties, each locality has to have such a plan in place. The PUG provides development restrictions and guidelines (e.g., what can and cannot be developed in each area) and also lays down the infrastructure developments proposed for completion within the timeline covered by the PUG (usually 10 years). Below is an example from the Cluj-Napoca PUG, which includes the existent infrastructure network and new road infrastructure interventions proposed for the future. The Cluj-Napoca PUG includes current (up) and proposed (down) road networks Source: Planwerk 223 Water and Wastewater Key Players A. Supranational level The European Union 419. The main player at the supra-national level is the European Union, which fulfills two key functions: setting policy directions, developing legally binding instruments, and supporting financing investments in the water and sanitation systems of Member States. As in other sectors, the EU’s role is limited by the nature of its supra -national mandate, since the provision of water and wastewater services are part of a Member State’s responsibilities and, in actuality, are often carried out at the subnational/local level. In the 2003 Green Paper on Services of General Interest, there is a recognition that “i t is primarily for the competent national, regional and local authorities to define, organize, finance, and monitor services of general interest .”108 Of course, subsidiarity allows Member States to choose how they can fulfill standards set at the supranational level, not whether to respect such regulations. The EC also defines a set of principles and standards applicable to such services, including water a nd sanitation: universal service, continuity, quality of service, affordability, and user/consumer protection. 420. In addition, the EU has adopted certain policies to regulate the quality of the services provided. In the water and sanitation sector, the main policies set by the EU include the following: the EC Directive 98/83/EEC relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption, the EU Directive 91/271/EEC concerning the urban wastewater treatment, and the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC. The Directorate General (DG) Environment leads EU policies in the water and wastewater sector, covering a variety of topics: river basin management, flood risk management, water scarcity and droughts, drinking water, bathing water, water pollution (including urban wastewater), etc. DG Environment is active in monitoring the implementation of EU-level legislation, but also produces key reports on the status of reforms and public opinion surveys (e.g., the Water Eurobarometer). 421. On the financing side, the EU makes available significant funds for the rehabilitation of existing water and sanitation systems and for the development of new systems. There are two main options for financing such projects: the Cohesion Fund (CF), with an 85% maximum EU co- financing rate, and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), with a 75-85% maximum EU co-financing rate. In 2007-2013, the Romanian authorities chose to create a specific OP for the sector, OP Environment, in recognition of the need to invest massively in the co untry’s water and sanitation infrastructure, as reflected also in the accession commitments made under Chapter 22 (Environment) of the negotiations for joining the EU. OP Environment 2007-2013 received both CF and ERDF funding, though water and wastewater investments only drew funds from the CF, with an 88.16% co-financing from the EU. 109 The policy sub-section below details the main directives and respective targets for Romania. OP Environment had a total budget of EUR 5.6 billion, with EUR 4.5 billion coming from the EU, and 60% of all funds available were 108 European Commission, “Green Paper on Services of General Interest,” COM(2003) 270 final 109 See OP Environment programmatic document, p. 100 224 allocated to Axis 1, dedicated to water and wastewater infrastructure investments. With respect to actual absorption, as of October 31, 2014, OP Environment registered the second poorest performance, with only 38.7% (total reimbursement requests sent to the EU divided by the total allocation available to the program). 422. EU financing for interventions in the water and sanitation sector was also made available through the EU-funded National Rural Development Program (PNDR). This applied particularly for rural areas. The coordination between OP Environment and the PNDR is supposed to take place through the long-term investment plans prepared through the county- level Master Plans on Water and Wastewater. As shown later on in this chapter, there are also several state-budget-funded programs that support water and wastewater projects. 423. In short, the EU acts as a partner to the Romanian Government, offering assistance in defining an EU-wide approach to water sector challenges and solutions, as well providing the financial means to make progress toward set goals. As detailed later in the sub-sections covering national and subnational players, the EU has had a tremendous impact on all dimensions related to the development of Romania’s water and wastewater infrastructure: policy and vision-setting; institutional mechanisms, including the set-up of regional operators and the pursuit of projects involving substantial economies of scale; and direct funding. The World Bank 424. In addition, there are multiple global actors that play a role in the water sector, through a variety of functions, such as the World Bank. The World Bank has financed projects through the RSDF all over the country Note: The map illustrates all types of projects financed by the RSDF, i.e., not only water and wastewater projects, but also investments in roads and social infrastructure. 225 The Bank has financed a variety of infrastructure projects, including in roads, water supply, sanitation systems, and social infrastructure, with total financing since 1993 exceeding USD 1 billion. For example, the Bank has invested in rural communities’ water and sanitation systems through the Social Inclusion Project, via in the Romanian Social Development Fund (RSDF). The RSDF has financed roads primarily, but also 15 water supply projects (worth a total of USD 1.64 million) and 6 sanitation projects (worth a total of USD 719,000). Also, the Romania Integrated Nutrient Pollution Control Project has invested in 70 other localities, across the whole country, although it has only financed wastewater projects only in a handful of localities. Other IFIs 425. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the European Investment Bank (EIB), and the Development Bank of the Council of Europe have also supported this sector in Romania. The EBRD finances water and wastewater projects throughout the region, with the aims of increasing the number of people with access to basic services, decreasing water losses, increasing energy efficiency, and improving public actors’ capacity to manage the sector. Only in 2012, the EBRD signed projects in six Romanian counties, totaling close to EUR 70 million. 110 Similarly, the EIB has supported projects in the Cluj and Sălaj Counties, with the explicit aim of helping Romania achieve the targets set through the acquis communautaire. The EIB has taken on a broad mandate in supporting investments in the entire water cycle, from water resources and supply, to wastewater collection, treatment and disposal, coastal erosion, and flood control and protection. The EIB also notes that it has been “the largest source of loan financing to the global water sector to date as compared to other international financing institutions.” 111 Indeed, between 2008 and 2012, the EIB channeled EUR 17 billion to the sector, with 89% of the funds going to EU Member States. Last not but least, the Development Bank of the Council of Europe has also financed similar interventions, covering the rehabilitation of water and sewage systems in 17 communities across Romania in 2009. 112 B. National level The Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MECC) 426. At the national level, the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MECC) oversees the water and sanitation sector, particularly from the perspective of environmental regulation. At a de jure level, the ministry is responsible for elaborating the national policies in the environmental sector, including specific regulations and all required measures for implementing the National Sustainable Development Strategy. The MECC covers a wide range of key topics: sustainable development, climate change, environmental protection, protected areas, pollution control, environmental impact assessments, soil, water, and forestry management, fisheries, etc. As such, the main functions of the MECC are policy development, coordination (at the national and supranational levels), regulation, financing, and monitoring and control. At the same time, the MECC supervises directly several key players in the sector, including the National Administration Romanian Waters (NARW), the National Environment Protection Agency (with its subordinate regional and local bodies), the Danube Delta Reserve 110 See http://www.ebrd.com/downloads/research/factsheets/meiwatere.pdf 111 See http://www.eib.org/attachments/thematic/water_en.pdf 112 See http://www.undp.ro/download/MDGR_Report_2010.pdf 226 Administration, the National Agency for Fishing and Aquaculture, the National Administration for the Environment Fund, the National Forest Administration, the National Weather Administration, and several research institutes. The Ministry also serves as the Managing Authority for the OP Environment for the 2007-2013 programming period. The National Administration Romanian Waters (NARW) 427. The National Administration Romanian Waters (NARW) is the water management body in Romania, under the direct authority of the Ministry of Environment. NARW was established through Government Decision (GD) 107/2002 and aims to “research, protect, value, and promote the sustainable use of water resources, natural monopoly of strategic interest.” 113 It includes 11 subordinated Water Directorates, based on the location of the main rive rs: Someș- Tisa, Crișuri, Mureș, Banat, Jiu, Olt, Argeș-Vedea, Buzău-Ialomița, Siret, Prut, and Dobrogea - Litoral. The NARW applies the national strategy in the area of quantitative and qualitative management of water resources, including specific knowledge, conservation, rational use, environmental protection, and implementation of relevant EU legislation. The Administration is also the only authorized operator of water resources, both surface and underground waters, and of related infrastructure, such as dams, channels, and water monitoring systems. The NARW can decide to grant to other actors, under specific conditions, the right to use certain water resources. The Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration (MRDPA) 428. Also at the national level, the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration (MRDPA) has played the main role in financing investments in the water and wastewater infrastructure. Law 51/2006 on public services, Article 12, identifies the MRDPA as specialty central authority in charge of “analyses, syntheses, decision-making, coordination, monitoring, and planning at the central level for public utility community services” – including water and wastewater. The same act lists the main responsibilities of the MRDPA in this sector, which include:  Development and promotion of the national strategy for community public utility services;  Development and promotion of relevant sectoral strategies;  Justification, approval, and coordination of priority-setting in the allocation of central government resources ;  Monitoring, centralization, and evaluation of performance indicators;  Coordination and monitoring of governmental investment programs in the sector, including programs implemented with external assistance from the EU or IFIs;  Collaboration with local authorities in the area of public services. 429. It is particularly noteworthy that the MRDPA is formally assigned the coordination role for infrastructure investment programs, regardless of the source of financing. For one, the Ministry has implemented its own programs. Through 2012, the MRDPA – at that time, the Ministry of Regional Development and Tourism (MRDT) – implemented the Program for the Rehabilitation of Water Supply, Wastewater, and Water/Wastewater Treatment Systems, which targeted localities with fewer than 50,000 residents. Mainly through two rounds of financing 113 See http://www.rowater.ro/Descrierea%20activitatii/Forms/AllItems.aspx 227 from the Council of Europe Development Bank (CEB), the program aimed to contribute to Romania’s fulfillment of EU requirements (particularly Directives 98/83 a nd 921/271). The total value of the program was EUR 208 million for phase 1 (2007-2009) and EUR 232.9 million for phase 2 (post 2009). For the first phase, the selection criteria include a long list of options, from “fulfillment of Romania’s obligations under the acquis communautaire ” to improvement in water quality, lack of other available financing, reduction in water losses, lower O&M costs, etc. For the second phase, the program explicitly mentioned the need to correlate the selection and prioritization of investments with regional water and wastewater master plans. The program also noted that localities were chosen in close cooperation with the Ministry of the Environment, County Councils, and Local Councils to avoid financing overlaps and inefficiencies. 114 Through 2012, 37 projects had been finished. 115 430. The main infrastructure development program currently led by the MRDPA is the National Local Development Program (PNDL). As noted elsewhere, the PNDL includes several programs that had previously operated as separate initiatives. For the water and wastewater sector, the predecessor of PNDL was the GD 577/1997 program, which targeted investments in Romanian villages. 116 Much like the PNDL, the GD 577/1997 included a list of relatively vague selection criteria, such as infrastructure gaps, balanced regional development, number of residents and households, sustainable development, social and economic cohesion, and the status of technical-economic documentation (e.g., feasibility study, detailed technical design, etc.). Given the lack of clarity around such criteria, the choice of investments was largely left to county councils, though the final formal decision belonged to the Ministry, as the primary stakeholder responsible for the program’s implementation ( ordonator principal de credite ). As for the PNDL, its implementation framework is described in detail in an earlier chapter. Nevertheless, through the PNDL, the MRDPA continues to play the main role in developing the water and wastewater infrastructure across Romania, aside from the funds allocated by the EU. The National Authority for Regulating Public Utility Community Services (ANRSC) 431. Last but not least, the National Authority for Regulating Public Utility Community Services (ANRSC), subordinated to the MRDPA, is responsible for the proper delivery of public services, including water and sanitation. The ANRSC proposes the framework for setting tariffs and fees related to public services delivery (according to GD 1591/2002), grants licenses to operators, develops methodologies and performance indicators, and monitors the delivery of public utility services. Based on Law 241/2006 from February 2013, which regulates the provision of water and wastewater services, the Authority is also in charge with disseminating best practices among public authorities and developing an integrated database to continuously monitor and compare the performance of various licensed operators. 432. On tariffs specifically, an issue worth noting is the practice of single rates, regardless of location. This means that, for the same quantity of water consumed in the network corresponding to a single regional operator, a resident of a rural village may pay as much as one 114 See http://www.mdrap.ro/lucrari-publice/programe-de-infrastructura/programul-privind- reabilitarea-sistemelor-de-alimentare-cu-apa-a-sistemelor-de-canalizare-si-a-statiilor-de-tratare-a- apei-potabile-si-de-epurare-a-apei-uzate 115 See http://www.mdrap.ro/userfiles/UCP_stadiu2012.doc 116 See GD 577/1997 and corresponding methodological norms 228 in a large city. The high rates have reduced the appetite of the rural population to connect to water supply and sanitation networks, which further reduces the sustainability of the entire system in rural localities. In reality, however, all regional companies use a form of cross-subsidy on tariffs. Usually the tariffs that can be charged in cities are much lower than the tariffs that can be charged in less dense rural areas, because of economies of scale. Consequently, the tariff is brought up in cities and down in rural areas for a single tariff. Most rural areas consequently pay less than they normally should. In addition, by law, public authorities can provide their own subsidies for water and wastewater if they think this is necessary, particularly for special cases (e.g., where household income is below a certain threshold). At the same time, keeping in mind mid and long-term sustainability, in low-density areas, alternative individual systems (compared to extensions of existing networks) should be analyzed to identify the most cost-effective solutions. C. Regional level 433. There are three key players at the level of each county, as warranted by the OP Environment 2007-2013: an Intercommunity Development Association (IDA), a Regional Operator, and a Delegation Contract for the Services, signed between the IDA and the operator. Put differently, if local authorities wanted to access funds through the Environment OP – essentially, the main source of investment funding for water and sanitation infrastructure for the 2007-2013 programming period – they had to create the conditions for establishing all three aforementioned components. This has dramatically changed the institutional framework of Romania’s water and sanitation sector, encouraging cooperation among local authorities, encouraging more effective knowledge sharing, and facilitating economies of scale and lower standard and maximum costs in the delivery of basic public services. Intercommunity Development Associations (IDAs) 434. The county-level Intercommunity Development Association (IDA) brings together local authorities interested in delivering services jointly and/or seeking to undertake common investment projects. Membership in an IDA is usually open to all localities that seek to join (e.g., the county council, the local council of the county residence, and the local councils of other towns and communes). IDAs are non-profit organization, regulated by Ordinance 26/2000 for NGOs and Foundations. The mission, objectives, and activities of IDAs are roughly similar across all counties. For example, IDA Water and Sanitation (ADIAC) A rad was established “with the aim of regulating, establishing, organizing, financing, exploiting, monitoring, and managing jointly the water and wastewater services for members and for completing certain public investment projects […] based on the relevant development strategy.”117 In practice, more and more localities have decided to join IDAs in recent years, as the benefits of increased access to financing for infrastructure projects and improved quality of service have become more obvious. Regional Operators (ROs) 435. Equally important, 42 “regional operators” (ROs) have been established since before 2009, as part of a “regionalization process” sparked by the conditionalities of accessing OP Environment funds. Local authorities received pre-accession funding to support the development of ROs, as an attempt to address the pressing issues of the water and sanitation 117 See http://www.adiac-arad.com/ 229 sector: high degree of fragmentation, lack of economies of scale, low profitability or even significant losses, mounting debt, decaying infrastructure and lack of funding for investment projects, low coverage rates (compared to EU averages) for water supply and especially sanitation, etc. The idea was to create more powerful and accountable entities that could design and implement investment projects and also deliver better services to consumers. To this day, around 10% of the country – according to unofficial ANRSC estimates – is covered not by ROs, but by other smaller companies. Data from these smaller players is often hard to get, so it may be that Romania is actually somewhat closer to the 2018 targets than typically believed in reference only to data from the 42 ROs. 436. Currently, each of the 42 ROs is a commercial entity and includes multiple shareholders, i.e., public authorities at the city/commune and county level, though county councils typically hold the vast majority of shares. For cost-efficiency reasons and, most localities have opted to cede the operation of water and wastewater systems to one of the ROs – typically, the same operator covers an entire county – but there are also exceptions to this rule. For example, there are some localities that have decided to manage and operate their own systems, while others have decided to cede the operation to companies from other counties (e.g., RAJA Constanța serves over 1 million customers across seven counties, namely Constanța, Ialomița, Ilfov, Călărași, Dâmbovița, Brașov, and Prahova). Still, overall, the coverage of the RO has expanded: between 2009 and 2010, for instance, the total number of localities covered increased by 5.4%, from 955 to 1007. 118 That said, a number of large municipalities, including București and Ploiești, continue to prefer to have their own dedicated operators. Regional Operators typically encompass the territory of a single county 118 See “Starea serviciului de alimentare cu apă și de canalizare”, ANRSC, 2011 230 Population served by ROs vs. total population in each area Total pop. % Total pop. % coverage County Regional Operator served coverage served WWATER WATER WATER WWATER ALBA S.C.APA-C.T.T.A. S.A. ALBA IULIA 189,610 73 136,970 52 ARAD S.C.COMPANA DE APA ARAD S.A. 249,163 73 137,038 57 ARGES S.C.APA-CANAL 2000 S.A. PITESTI 217,271 93 180,514 77 BACAU SC COMP. REGIONALA SA BACAU 341,356 97 182,430 48 BIHOR S.C.COMPANIA DE APA ORADEA 217,038 91 196,055 83 BISTRITA NASAUD S.C."AQUABIS" BISTRITA NASAUD 133,629 60 90,830 65 BOTOSANI S.C. NOVA APA SERV SA BOTOSANI 129,839 50 110,436 42 BUZAU S.C. COMPANIA DE APA S.A. BUZAU 193,795 88 163,397 74 BUCURESTI S.C. APA NOVA BUCURESTI SA 1,730,009 83 1,710,764 82 BRASOV S.C. COMPANIA APA SA BRASOV 344,404 95 291,632 80 BRAILA S.C. DUNAREA SA BRAILA 300,111 90 185,789 76 CALARASI S.C. ECOAQUA SA CALARASI 98,500 72 78,500 57 CARAS SEVERIN S.C. AQUACARAS S.A. RESITA 154,610 87 118,899 67 CLUJ - SALAJ S.C. APA SOMES S.A CLUJ-NAPOCA 528,544 87 382,361 63 CLUJ S.C. APA ARIES S.A. TURDA 96,840 93 65,530 62 CONSTANTA S.C. RAJA CONSTANTA 645,629 91 415,933 59 COVASNA S.C. SF. GHEORGHE. 81,009 76 71,010 66 DAMBOVITA S.C. APA TARGOVISTE DAMBOVITA 167,867 66 100,121 58 DOLJ S.C. OLTENIA S.A.CRAIOVA 330,000 41 300,000 37 GORJ S.C APAREGIO GORJ S.A. TG. JIU 123,065 89 93,059 67 GIURGIU S.C. APA SERVICE S.A. GIURGIU 73,728 81 50,253 55 GALATI S.C. APA CANAL S.A. GALATI 306,813 78 291,734 74 S.C. APA -PROD S.A. DEVA 188,636 89 161,304 76 HUNEDOARA SC APA SERV VALEA JIULUI 122,648 88 84,197 61 HARGHITA SC HARVIZ SA - MIERCUREA CIUC 60,646 68 47,288 52 IASI S.C. APA VITAL S.A. IASI 345,667 42 280,085 34 ILFOV SC APA CANAL ILFOV SA 16,815 29 16,662 29 MARAMURES S.C. VITAL S.A. BAIA MARE 209,969 82 156,882 60 MEHEDINTI S.C. SECOM S.A. DR.TR.SEVERIN 122,386 92 100,309 84 MURES S.C. AQUASERV S.A.TG.MURES 291,732 86 239,726 81 NEAMT S.C APA SERV PIATRA NEAMT 246,916 75 168,937 71 OLT S.C COMPANIA DE APA OLT S.A. 74,932 63 52,646 44 S.C. APA-NOVA S.R.L. PLOIESTI 232,452 100 171,676 74 PRAHOVA S.C. HIDRO PRAHOVA S.A.PLOIESTI 189,882 71 85,078 32 SATU-MARE S.C. APASERV SATU MARE 179,573 82 139,567 81 S.C. APA-CANAL S.A. SIBIU 241,265 81 207,554 69 SIBIU S.C. COMP. "APA TARNAVEI MARI” 56,032 80 53,277 76 SUCEAVA S.C. ACET S.A. SUCEAVA 165,685 71 157,602 68 TELEORMAN S.C. APA SERV S.A. ALEXANDRIA 91,973 68 80,279 59 TIMIS S.C. AQUATIM S.A. TIMISOARA 398,664 88 336,097 74 TULCEA S.C AQUASERV S.A. TULCEA 110,433 97 97,414 86 VALCEA S.C. APAVIL S.A. RM. VALCEA 173,235 88 117,754 60 VASLUI S.C. AQUAVAS S.A. VASLUI 98,971 66 84,700 57 VRANCEA S.C UTILITATI PUBLICE SA FOCSANI 119,443 85 101,998 73 TOTAL 10,390,785 51.2% 8,294,287 40.9% Note: Total population equal to 20,294,683 (Eurostat, 2010). Other data is from ANRSC (2010) 231 Most Regional Operators are profitable (2010) Source: ANRSC (2010) 232 437. Available data on the 2010 revenues and expenditures of ROs show that most of them appear to be profitable, though obviously this is only a snapshot in time . The only exceptions are the ROs in Târgu Mureș and Bistrița Năsăud, but even these incurred relatively low losses (RON 1 million and RON 143,000, respectively). From this perspective, the regionalization effort appears to have been a success in the short term, at least with respect to the balancing of current revenues and expenditures at the level of each RO. This is particularly important given the limited budgetary envelope of local authorities. By contrast, if ROs were operating at a loss – as before the regionalization reforms that allowed for cost efficiencies and economies of scale – this would have put significant strain on local budgets. The important caveat is that additional expenses may be incurred going forward, as an increasing number of projects will need to be finalized to come close to the EU acquis targets. It will be interesting to track how the profitability and affordability data may change as the systems continue to grow. 438. In the absence of a more complete review, it is harder to make definitive statements about the ability of ROs to make investments in new or upgraded water supply and sanitation infrastructure. The tariffs are supposed to cover both O&M and needed capital expenditures, and in practice most operators have tried to obtain grant funding or non-commercial loans to support capital investments – it remains to be seen if the evolution of tariffs will still cover the higher O&M costs of the expanded system going forward. Despite the sector’s significant needs in essentially every county, some ROs have had very poor results in absorbing EU grants available through OP Environment, as shown in the table below. Moreover, the funds available for the 2007-2013 programming period appear highly insufficient compared to the total investment needs for water and sanitation infrastructure in each county. This situation will not change for the 2014-2020 budgeting cycle; EU funds can only cover so much of Romania’s needs in the sector, so alternative sources of funding – state budget, PPPs, etc. – will need to be identified if the country is to fulfill its obligations under the EU acquis by 2018. Total investment needs vs. 2007-13 OP Environment funds available/absorbed for each county (as of end 2013) OP ENV Total investment OP ENV OP ENV contracted need Total project project projects COUNTY/ AREA 2007+ value value/ completion (in EUR (in EUR total need status as of end thousands) thousands) 2007+ 2013 ALBA 1,101,134 87,000 8% 66.13% ARAD 526,032 119,740 23% 38.07% ARGES 1,314,088 98,232 7% 6.94% BACAU 1,149,837 115,313 10% 9.60% BIHOR 602,513 78,595 13% 38.24% BISTRITA NASAUD 294,070 66,941 23% 27.69% BOTOSANI 746,470 100,179 13% 2.45% BRAILA 349,625 76,753 22% 75.21% BRASOV 1,355,944 130,097 10% 40.49% BUCURESTI 369,200 213,355 58% 51.16% BUZAU 954,694 78,582 8% 51.06% CALARASI 351,412 76,103 22% 75.45% 233 OP ENV Total investment OP ENV OP ENV contracted need Total project project projects COUNTY/ AREA 2007+ value value/ completion (in EUR (in EUR total need status as of end thousands) thousands) 2007+ 2013 CARAS SEVERIN 611,374 113,355 19% 1.22% CLUJ-CAMPIA TURZII 62,265 49,968 80% 97.36% CLUJ-SALAJ 472,003 148,197 31% 91.17% CONSTANTA-IALOMITA* 693,014 155,049 22% 74.20% COVASNA 500,917 59,795 12% 28.35% DAMBOVITA 657,600 111,232 17% 48.68% DOLJ 583,424 114,688 20% 15.05% GALATI 733,226 116,775 16% 26.39% GIURGIU 681,349 45,985 7% 93.76% GORJ 125,460 56,683 45% 69.86% HARGHITA 330,030 65,439 20% 10.32% HUNEDOARA 357,317 107,940 30% 25.50% HUNEDOARA-VALEA JIULUI 253,116 32,980 13% 72.79% IASI 1,620,981 135,813 8% 45.52% ILFOV 305,956 71,551 23% 67.82% MARAMURES 723,532 119,978 17% 16.30% MEHEDINTI 346,226 71,128 21% 1.75% MURES 1,189,171 106,237 9% 6.80% NEAMT 1,008,157 99,785 10% 15.61% OLT 582,972 57,194 10% 83.94% PRAHOVA 1,602,048 150,651 9% 7.24% SATU MARE 1,038,731 99,709 10% 8.01% SIBIU 250,914 96,934 39% 35.55% SIBIU-APA TARNAVEI 72,301 75,584 105% 95.65% SUCEAVA 1,774,600 88,944 5% 40.77% TELEORMAN 954,814 85,586 9% 76.98% TIMIS 1,166,435 117,216 10% 36.37% TULCEA 400,385 96,456 24% 81.37% VALCEA 990,235 90,997 9% 16.65% VASLUI 611,274 107,654 18% 0.46% VRANCEA 430,100 101,606 24% 79.57% * Note: The data for Constanța and Ialomița have been comb ined to reflect the fact that the two counties have the same operator (RAJA Constanța) Sources: OP Environment; regional master plans County Councils 439. Last but not least, County Councils can play a critical role at the county level, not just as shareholders of the RO and members of the IDA, but also as a key decision -maker and funder of hard infrastructure investments. As noted elsewhere, County Councils are entrusted under the PNDL to prioritize proposals from the local level and forward them to the Ministry, which ultimately has the last word on selecting the investments that receive financing in a given calendar year. In practice, county councils’ list of proposals is typically approved as is by the 234 MRDPA, in recognition of the principle of subsidiarity and of the fact that local needs are better understood at the county level. County councils also play a role in monitoring approved PNDL projects and are supposed to be informed of all payment requests going from the local level to the Ministry. In practice, in some cases, evidence gathered through field visits suggests that certain county councils co-finance investments in water and sanitation infrastructure at the level of communes. For example, if a commune allocates part of its local budget to finish up a project started under a program financed by the central government, the county council will contribute some of its own funds to help the local authority complete the investment. Other regional players 440. For one, Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) are responsible for drafting Regional Development Plans (RDPs) corresponding to seven-year programming periods (e.g., 2007- 2013, 2014-2020, etc.). While this document is not mandatory per se, it draws the main investment priorities in a region, based on inputs gathered from local and county authorities. As such, together with the master plans for water and wastewater, RDPs can guide the selection of particular projects for upgrades/extensions/new developments of water supply and sanitation systems. 441. At the level of each county, there are a range of deconcentrated institutions, essentially county-level branches of national bodies. These include: County Environment Protection Agencies, County Environmental Commissariats (under the National and Regional Environmental Agency), subunits of the Romanian Waters National Administration (Water Directorates, Water Management Systems), etc. Essentially, these bodies apply the mandate of the national-level organizations that they represent at the county level. There are also Regional Environment Protection Agencies – under the National Environment Protection Agency, subordinated to the MECC – that coordinate the development and monitoring of regional action plans for environmental protection, track progress toward fulfilling EU-level commitments, and also act as Intermediate Bodies for the 2007-2013 Environment OP. D. Local level 442. Local stakeholders include local councils and Mayors, as the elected decision -making authorities at the level of cities, towns, and communes. They are responsible for delivering public services to citizens in their respective communities and act as beneficiaries of investments, regardless of the source of financing (i.e., EU structural funds or the state budget). Local councils play the main role especially in the early stages of an investment: they initiate the project and the development of technical documentation, often from their own local budget (e.g., pre-feasibility and feasibility studies); they apply for funding, typically for PNDL, PNDR, or OP Environment/ OP Large Infrastructure funds; once grated financing, they are fully responsible for managing and implementing the project, running all the required public procurement procedures, handling the relationship with service providers and contractors, and monitoring progress on the ground; depending on requirements specific to each source of financing, local authorities also need to oversee ex-post monitoring and evaluation and ensure that project indicators are fulfilled. 235 443. Once the investment is completed, most local authorities cede operation and maintenance (O&M), along with corresponding revenues, to the RO. This is a requirement for accessing funds under OP Environment, going along with the effort to reduce the sector’s fragmentation and improve its profitability. Under PNDR, local authorities have the option to run the systems themselves, but they need to prove as part of the application process that this is a feasible option – e.g., sufficient own resources to cover O&M expenditures, sufficient number of customers to enable the systems’ proper operation, etc. The PNDL does not specifically address the issue, leaving the choice entirely up to local authorities. In practice, as revealed during field visits, there are examples of local councils that decide to transfer to ROs the operation and maintenance of completed projects. Legal Framework A. European level 444. As an EU member since January 2007, Romania has committed to abiding by the full body of European laws, including directives that concern the water and sanitation sector and set clear quantitative targets for what Member States need to accomplish. The Drinking Water Directive 445. First, the Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EEC) aims “to protect human health from adverse effects of any contamination of water intended for human consumption by ensuring that it is wholesome and clean.” 119 For this purpose, Member States are to monitor at least 48 parameters for all distribution systems that serve more than 50 people or supply more than 10 cubic meters per day, as well as all for all water supplied as part of an economic activity. 120 The directive further lays out provisions for proper planning, regulation, monitoring, and reporting. The same directive notes that derogations from its provisions are possible, as follows: the first two, each limited to a maximum of three years, are the responsibility of Member States; a third “exceptional” derogation can be granted by the EC. In the case of Romania, as noted in the country’s EU Accession Treaty, the derogations for achieving the Directive’s targets are as follows:  Agglomerations with less than 10,000 inhabitants — Oxidisability: December 31, 2010 — Ammonium, nitrates, turbidity, aluminums, iron, lead, cadmium, and pesticides: December 31, 2015  Agglomerations with 10,000-100,000 inhabitants — Oxidisability and turbidity: December 31, 2010 — Ammonium, nitrates, aluminum, iron, lead, cadmium, pesticides, and manganese: December 31, 2015  Agglomerations with more than 100,000 inhabitants 119 See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-drink/legislation_en.html 120 Ibid. 236 — Oxidisability, ammonium, aluminum, pesticides, iron, and manganese: December 31, 2010 In the June 2014 EC report on “The Quality of Drinking Water in the EU,” Romania’s performance is good with respect to large water supplies (95-99% compliant with the directive) and less so for small water supplies (under 90% compliant). Romania is also last when it comes to the percentage of the population connected to the public water supply network, with only 56.5% connection rate (2011 data) and way behind the second to last Member State, Latvia, at 75%. The Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 446. Second, the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive (91/271/EEC) seeks to “protect the environment from urban wastewater discharges and discharges from certain industrial sectors.”121 In short, the Directive mandates: the Collection and treatment of wastewater in all agglomerations of more than 2,000 population equivalent (p.e.); secondary treatment of all discharges from agglomerations of over 2,000 p.e. and more advanced treatment for agglomerations of over 10,000 population equivalent in sensitive areas and their catchments; pre-authorization of all discharges of urban wastewater, of discharges from the food-processing industry, and of industrial discharges into urban wastewater collection systems; monitoring of the performance of treatment plants and receiving waters; and controls of sewage sludge disposal and reuse, and treated wastewater reuse when possible. The text of the Directive was formally adopted in 1993, with an implementation timeline of up to the end of 2005. For Romania and other new EU Member States, however, a different timetable was set at the time of accession. 447. Interestingly, Romania has the second-highest investment needs in urban water treatment systems, only surpassed by Poland, which covers, nonetheless, a larger area. The total sum needed to fully implement the directive in Romania exceeds EUR 10 billion, as shown in the chart below, based on estimates done at the time of the country’s accession. Recognizing the fact that this requires a substantial financial effort, the EC agreed through the Treaty of Accession to an implementation timeline adjusted to Romania’s specific needs and capacity. In hindsight, it appears that even the adjusted schedule was overly ambitious and the country is facing a high risk of breaking the commitments it made for the water and sanitation sector through the EU Accession Agreement. 121 See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-urbanwaste/index_en.html 237 Member States have different investment needs related to the implementation of the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive Cyprus Lithuania Estonia Malta 1.8% 1.5% 0.7% 0.4% Slovenia Latvia 2.3% 2.4% Slovakia 4.6% Poland Bulgaria 31.9% 6.1% Czech Republic 8.5% Hungary 11.1% Romania 28.8% Source: European Commission 448. The requirements of the Urban Waste Water Directive will apply fully to Romania starting on December 31, 2018, but there is also a schedule of intermediate targets, as presented in the table below. Key requirements of the Urban Waste Water Directive Article Timetable Article 3: All agglomerations over 2,000 p.e.  By December 31, 2013: compliance for all provided with collecting systems for urban agglomerations of more than 10,000 p.e. wastewater  Minimum overall population equivalent rates: o By December 31, 2010: 61% o By December 31, 2013: 69% o By December 31, 2015: 80% Article 4: All agglomerations over 2,000 p.e.  Minimum overall population equivalent provided with secondary treatment before rates: discharge of urban wastewater entering o By December 31, 2010: 51% collecting systems o By December 31, 2013: 61% Article 5 (2): All agglomerations of more o By December 31, 2015: 77% than 10,000 p.e. provided with stringent (tertiary) treatment of urban wastewater entering collecting systems before discharge into sensitive areas 238 Essentially, by December 31, 2018, Romania needs to provide all agglomerations (i.e., settlements) with more than 2,000 p.e. with proper infrastructure for the collection and treatment of urban wastewater. The Directive does allow for some exceptions to this rule, where particular contextual elements do not justify investments in such systems, though any such cases need to be properly justified by in-depth studies. What happens if Romania misses the intermediate targets? It is unclear if the EC would launch any sanctions and, in practice, there do not appear to be any current assessments of Romania’s progress in reaching set goals: the latest synthesis reports available from the Commission, published in 2013, use 2009 dat a and specifically recognize that Romania’s first compliance deadlines were only in 2010 (i.e., after the data collected). 449. As of 2011, only 57% of households were connected to public water supply and only 42% were connected to wastewater treatment plants (lowest and second-lowest figures, respectively, among all Member States). 122 This means that Romania has already failed on reaching the intermediate target of 61% connection rate for urban wastewater treatment by the end of 2010 and it is bound to miss 2018 targets too. The substantial gap of nearly 20% between realized and target values questions the likelihood of reaching set goals by 2013, 2015, and 2018 respectively. At the same time, the experience of other Member States like Greece, Spain, and Italy teaches that Romania does risk sanctions if it fails to reach the 2018 targets. The Water Framework Directive 450. Third, in October 2000, the EU Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) was adopted with the aim of establishing an integrated framework “for the pr otection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters, and groundwater.” 123 In short, the directive seeks to achieve good ecological status for all water bodies in the EU. The specific aims of the Directive are multifold: to prevent further deterioration; to promote sustainable water use; to progressively reduce discharges as well as the pollution of ground water; and to mitigate effects of floods and droughts. Member states are required to identify individual river basins (article 3) and assign them to districts and corresponding competent authorities for the management of such districts. Member states also need to present for each river basin a programme of measures and a river basin management plan including the following: general characteristics; mapping of locations, boundaries, ecoregions, etc.; summary of impact of human activity on surface water and groundwater; a register of protected areas that require special attention for the conservation of habitats and species; mapping of monitoring networks; list of environmental objectives; economic analysis of water use; summary of programme of measures, taking into account the principle of recovery of costs; register of detailed programmes and management plans for particular sub-basins/sectors; summary of public consultations; list of competent authorities; monitoring and control data and procedures. 451. Romania has made progress in implementing the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD), both with respect to the development of river and sub-river basin management plans and in terms of putting in place the institutional architecture required for the implementation of measures. The legislative framework was set in place by mid-2004, followed by an analysis of 122 Data source: Eurostat (2011) 123See Article 1 of the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32000L0060&from=EN 239 the main characteristics of Romania’s water basins by the end of 2004. Romania has a single river basin district for the Danube River, sharing courses with Serbia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Ukraine, and Moldova (there are a total of 19 countries in the entire river basin). The river basin district of Romania is further divided into 11 sub-river basin management plans: Someș-Tisa, Crișuri, Mureș, Banat, Jiu, Olt, Argeș Vedea, Buzău Ialomița, Siret, Prut, and Dobrogea Litoral. By the end of 2006, Romania developed required monitoring mechanisms and also published the draft programme of measures. The management plan was finalized in December 2009. Romania has committed to reaching a good state for 60% of the surface waters, groundwater, and protected areas by December 2015 (i.e., fifteen years after the adoption of the directive), with potential derogations through December 2021/2027 under justified circumstances, based on Article 4 (4) and 4 (5). Annex V of the WFD 2000/60/EC provides detailed indicators for assessing the status of a particular body of water. As for the institutional framework designed to implement the WFD, the National Administration Romanian Waters (NARW) plays the central role in overseeing the directorates of 11 sub-basins and in liaising with other stakeholders at the national and supranational level. Romania features a complex institutional structure for the implementation of the Water Framework Directive Source: European Commission Report on the Implementation of the WFD (2012) 124 124 See http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/pdf/CWD-2012-379_EN- Vol3_RO.pdf 240 Other EU policies 452. Finally, the EU has a number of other policies, communications, and positions related to the water sector, though less relevant for water and sanitation infrastructure per se. These cover topics such as bathing water quality, industrial emissions, agriculture/ nitrates, chemical status, water scarcity and droughts, flood risk management, water eurobarometers for quantifying customer satisfaction with water services, etc. B. National level 453. As an EU Member State, Romania is required to transpose into national legislation the requirements of the acquis communautaire, including the key directives referenced above. This was accomplished mainly through the following legal acts: Law 458/2002 on the quality of drinking water (enacting the Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EEC) and Government Decision (GD) 188/2002 (corresponding to the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive 91/271/EEC). 454. In addition, the national legal framework includes a number of important provisions that shape the functioning of the water and sanitation sector. The Law on Local Public Administration (Law 215/2001) mandates local public authorities to manage the provision of public services to residents, including public utility community services such as water supply, natural gas, sanitation, waste collection, district heating, public lig hting, and local public transport” (article 36). Further, Law 51/2006 for community services of public utility defines the main services and principles of their provision, relevant public authorities, management procedures, operators, users, financing of services, and applicable sanctions for breaches of the legal provisions in the sector. Article 8 specifically mentions that the establishment, organization, coordination, and functioning of public services are exclusively under the mandate of local public authorities, while regulation, monitoring, and control are competences shared with the national government. 455. The main law applicable to water and wastewater services was adopted in 2006 (Law 241/2006) and defines a comprehensive framework for the establish ment, functioning, monitoring, and control of the sector. The law defines several important aspects, as summarized below:  Principles of service provision (Article 7): safety; equitable tariffs; profitability, quality, and efficiency; transparency and public ownership, including public consultations with associations, labor unions, users, etc.; continuity (quantity and quality); adaptability to user preferences; equal accessibility, on a contractual basis; and adherence to formal water management, environmental, and health regulations.  Performance indicators (Article 8): The services provided must meet a set of performance indicators, as defined in the framework agreement for service provision (proposed by the National Authority for Regulating Public Utility Community Services – ANRSC and approved by local authorities).  Investment programs (Articles 9-12): Deliberative bodies at the local level (i.e., Local Councils) approve investment strategies and programs, in accordance with “local urban and territorial development plans, development programs of the respective territorial administrative unit, and international commitments in the area of environmental 241 protection.”125 Local development strategies are supposed to promote investments into the expansion and modernization of current water and sanitation systems and ensure equal access for community members. The Law encourages local authorities and Intercommunity Development Associations (IDAs) to design, implement, and continuously monitor investment programs, based on multiannual strategic planning. Local authorities also play the main role in approving such investment programs, at all stages (technical documentation, financing, implementation of contracted works, direct/delegated operation and maintenance).  Management and operations of existing systems (Articles 17-25): There are two options available to local public authorities: direct (self) or delegated management. The choice is based on a detailed study and public consultations that take into account local needs, size and characteristics of localities, the status of existing water and sanitation systems, local capacity to finance the operation and expansion of the infrastructure. Under direct management, an operator established by a particular local authority is responsible for operating the system, and any profits carry over to the next fiscal year as earmarked funds that are to be used by the same operator. For delegated management, the option preferred by most local authorities, a separate operator is hired – by a local authority of by the IDA – based on a framework delegation contract. Specific procurement law provisions apply, though direct (non-competitive) concession of operations is possible in the case of a Regional Operator established by the same local authorities.  Responsibilities of local authorities (Article 24): The law clearly notes that a delegation contract does not void the responsibilities of local authorities in the provision of water and wastewater services. They must also constantly monitor how the operators are fulfilling their contractual obligations, including clear performance standards. Local authorities also verify the operators’ management of assets, including completion of maintenance work, expansions, etc.  Responsibilities of operators (Article 27): Most of the tasks assigned to operators concern the actual operation and maintenance of the system, including strict monitoring of the quality of services provided. There are no clear provisions requiring operators to make investments in new or upgraded infrastructure.  User rights and obligations (Articles 28-31): Users can be individual households or institutions/organizations (public or private) and have a guaranteed right to nondiscriminatory access, under their specific contractual conditions. The law also defines a set of sanctions applicable to users who break agreed standards (e.g., unlawful discharges, etc.). Importantly, it is the right of every user to have an individual meter, and the costs for the equipment and its installation are supposed to be reimbursed by the operator.  Financing (Articles 35-37): ANRSC is responsible for setting the procedures for setting, adjusting, or changing tariffs. Local authorities – directly in the case of self-management or indirectly in the case of delegated management, through an IDA – approve tariffs and any changes in the tariff structure. For operators participating in programs financed by 125 See Law 241/2006, Article 11 242 external partners, ANRSC is responsible for approving tariffs. Article 37 clarifies another critical point: “The financing of investments for establishing, developing, rehabilitating, and modernizing water and sanitation system is under the mandate of local public authorities. Depending on specific contractual clauses, the responsibility of financing investments can be transferred to the operator.” 126 Under delegated management, any subsidies grated to the operator are supposed to lead to a reduction of the tariff and/or an improvement in service quality, proportional to the subsidy granted.  Sanctions: The same act describes the main sanctions for various unlawful acts (e.g., pollution, destruction of infrastructure, operating with required licenses, etc.). 456. In addition, there are a number of other laws and norms that influence the provision of water and sanitation services. It is beyond the scope of this report to provide a full and comprehensive review of such legislation. The following are some of the more important acts that guide the sector’s functioning:  Minister Order 88/2007 for approving the framework for the water and sanitation public service includes: provisions on safety (e.g., technical requirements for pipes, recording of potential irregularities, operator obligations, etc.); water supply services (e.g., catchment, treatment, transport of drinkable/industrial water, storage, distribution and losses, etc.); sanitation services (e.g., collection, transport, and evacuation of wastewater, maintenance work, wastewater treatment, management of sludge, etc.); performance indicators; etc.  Minister Orders 89 and 90/2007 define the template for the contract between local authorities or Intercommunity Development Associations (IDAs) and operators, providing a standard form to be used during tendering procedures. This includes a number of minimum requirements for both water supply and sanitation services, helping to ensure that whichever companies are eventually selected abide by a set of common required norms. Neither act makes a clear mention of operators’ responsibilities when it comes to making investments from its own budget for the upgrade and/or expansion of networks. This maintains clauses expressed in other laws, whereby local authorities have full responsibility over infrastructure investments, unless otherwise agreed with particular operators, on a case by case basis. However, operations and maintenance work is clearly under an operator’s mandate.  Minister Order 140/2003 establishes the procedure and requirements for obtaining a license to perform a number of services in the water and sanitation sector. Some of the criteria deployed in deciding on the licensing of a particular applicant include: completeness of the application; managerial capacity; financial capacity; potential to ensure quality services; energy efficiency, etc.  Minister Order 65/2007 describes how tariffs for water and sanitation services are to be set, in pursuit of three main objectives: financial viability of operator, user rights (including affordability), and environmental protection. Tariffs are supposed to include production and operation costs (including potential water losses, justified according to the technical state of the network), maintenance and repairs, and a “development quota” (DQ). The DQ is optional and can be proposed by the RO, though ultimately its 126 See Law 241/2006 (Article 37) 243 approval is at the discretion of local authorities. The sums collected as such go into a separate fund meant to support additional investments for improving service quality. 127 Interestingly, Article 10 requires ROs that benefit from external grants (e.g., EU funds) to charge a single tariff for the entire area that they cover. The same act also stipulates the specific conditions that have to be met before tariffs can be adjusted – for example, if a new component of the network is launched and the quality of water delivered increases substantially, there are sufficient grounds for increasing tariffs after the new component is operational. 128  GEO 198/2005 sets the parameters of for the “establishment, financing, and use of the Fund for Maintenance, Replacement, and Development (II D).”129 The IID provisions only apply to operators that have benefited from EU or other form of external grants and/or loans. IID funds are held in a separate account, financed from sources such as a share of the operators’ net profits, local authorities’ budgets, income from leased goods, interest earned on IID funds, VAT, etc. The purpose of the IID is to act as a backup fund for covering various expenses, in the following order of priority: loans and other associated fees incurred as part of co-financing EU-funded investment projects; ineligible expenditures resulting from the implementation of such projects; funds (including VAT) for maintenance, replacement, and development of leased assets, based on an annual investment program proposed by the operator and approved by the corresponding local authorities. It remains to be determined if the IID funds available are generally sufficient to cover needed investments. 457. Finally, a range of other legal provisions help regulate the water and sanitation sector and the corresponding infrastructure works for expanding/modernizing the current network. For example, there are numerous environmental provisions per se, including on the Law on Water (Law 107/1996, with subsequent adjustments), the Law on Wastewater Discharge (GD 352/2005), norms on supervision, inspection, and monitoring of water quality (GD 974/2004), the Environmental Protection Law 265/2006, regulations on environmental assessments (GD 1076/2004, GD 1213/2006, etc.), protected areas (GD 930/2005), environmental audits (Minister Order 184/1997), environmental licensing (MO 1798/2007), public consultations in the environmental sector (GD 564/2006), pollution prevention law (GEO 152/2005), bathing water quality (GD 459/2002), etc. There are also key provisions in Romania’s administrative law, defining what local authorities can and cannot do (e.g., GEO 34/2006 on public procurement, Law 215/2001 on local public administration, GEO 54/2006 on leasing public assets, etc.). Last but not least, actual infrastructure works are governed by the fundamental Law 10/1995 on quality in construction, along with a range of specific norms and standards. C. Local level 458. The Local level implements the national legislation in the water and sanitation sector through Local Council Decisions. Local authorities cannot deviate from the provisions set by the central level, though, as noted above, they do have some leeway in how they apply them. To cite an earlier example, they could chose to run their own operator, without delegating t his 127 See Article 7 in Minister Order 65/2007 128 See Article 19 in Minister Order 65/2007 129 See GEO 198/2005 and Law 108/2006 244 service to an IDA-contracted company. They can also influence the level of tariffs and are the ones responsible for major capital expenses. 459. All in all, while this section cannot cover the full body of laws that govern Romania’s public infrastructure investments in the water and wastewater sector, it provides a clear indication regarding the system’s complexity . In no small part, the current laws are influenced by EU-level directives, as mentioned earlier. Based on this foundation, the next section turns to the various strategies that guide the sector’s development, from the supra -national down to the national, regional, and local level. Strategies and Plans A. EU level 460. Compared to other sectors where synergies between Member States are critical (e.g., connective infrastructure), there is less need for the EU to have an active role in shaping and coordinating Member States ’ investments in water and sanitation infrastructure. As such, there is no grand strategy at the EU level to cover this sector. Moreover, the Europe 2020 strategy, which is meant to guide the EU’s development for the 2014 -2020 programming period, does not include a specific focus on water and sanitation among its key priorities (smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth) and main targets (employment, R&D, climate change and energy sustainability, education, and fighting poverty and social exclusion). In part, this is because the strategy is forward-thinking and less focused on basic needs like water supply and wastewater systems. Indeed, most EU members have largely addressed such issues and can focus on more “sophisticated” growth measures. The only flagship initiative related to the Europe 2020 strategy that mentions something related to the water sector is the “Resource - Efficient Europe,” though it deals specifically more with water quality and less with actual infrastructure projects. 461. In the case of Romania, addressing persistent basic service needs is a required key step in reaching the Europe 2020 targets. This remains fundamentally true, even if it is not spelled out in the Romania-specific recommendations resulting from the Europe 2020 strategy. For example, providing people in rural areas with access to water and sanitation infrastructure enables them to focus more of their time on productive activities and can also attract higher levels of investment – both of these effects can contribute to an increase in employment. The same goes for fulfilling the objectives on fighting poverty and social inclusion; without proper access to basic services, Roma and other disadvantaged groups cannot fully access educational opportunities and cannot properly compete on the labor market. Breaking the vicious cycle of poverty and discrimination cannot happen in the absence of investments in water a nd wastewater infrastructure. B. National level The Romania-EU Partnership Agreement (PA) 462. First and foremost, the Romania-EU Partnership Agreement (PA), as the key document defining how the country will spend $50 billion over the next seven years, referen ces gaps in 245 water and wastewater infrastructure as one of the main challenges to Romania’s growth. This fits under the Thematic Objective 6 on preserving and protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency. The agreement recognizes that such basic needs continue to persist, especially in rural areas and pockets of urban poverty, despite the fact that both state- budget and EU-funds have been channeled to the sector during the previous programming period (2007-2013). In specific figures, the document notes that the full implementation of the Water Framework Directive requires an addition €4.236 billion for improving drinking water quality and €8.378 billion for wastewater collection and treatment. 130 On the prioritization of investments, the same document specifies that this will be done based on updated versions of Regional Master Plans in the water and wastewater sector. Regarding agglomerations under 2,000 p.e., these are not considered a high priority – given the need to reach the water and wastewater targets in Romania’s Accession Agreement – though “support can be provided [to these communities] in exceptional situations, consistently with the Master Plans and based on a sound technical and economic justification, only for centralized systems.” 131 463. Importantly, the PA notes that national budget funds are expected to fill the financing gap in the sector, “[following] the same procedures, indicators, and rules applied in the frame of European Structural and Investment Funds.” 132 One of the reasons cited for the need to ensure coordination is the fact that the Romanian Government has previously implemented programs that competed with EU-funded schemes “in a counterproductive way.” 133 The document goes on to say that “Romania will align the conditions of th e concerned national funding schemes with those ruling access to ESI Funds, in terms of policy conditions (regionalization framework in water and waste sector), the quality of the technical and economic evaluation of projects, and the financing rates.” 134 One easy way to accomplish this task is to channel national budget funds to the co-financing of EU-funded projects. Put differently, the government could finance 20-30% of the costs of a project (higher than the minimum co-financing threshold), ensuring that EU funds can cover a larger total number of investments. This possibility can be further explored in future iterations of this report. The National Sustainable Development Strategy 2013-2020-2030 464. Internally, Romania’s main strategic document in the envi ronment sector is the “National Sustainable Development Strategy 2013 -2020-2030,” completed in 2008 with assistance from UNDP. Under the current situation diagnostic chapter, the document notes that Romania still faces tremendous challenges in terms of basic infrastructure, citing the common statistics on the coverage of water and sanitation systems, wastewater discharges, and the quality of water supplied (in 2008, a quarter of the localities between 50 and 5,000 people had inadequate water quality). Under the chapter on target objectives and actions for 2013-2020- 2030, the strategy includes a sub-heading on “Conservation and Management of Natural Resources,” with a national objective to “reduce the gap compared to other EU Member States with respect to environment-related infrastructure, in terms of both quantity and quality, by 130 See the Romania-EU Partnership Agreement, p. 177 131 Ibid., p. 118 132 Ibid. 133 Ibid., p. 218. 134 Ibid. 246 developing efficient public services.” 135 The document explicitly draws from EU-level directives and targets, noting the massive financing needs in the sector, but does not go further in prioritizing investments or in suggesting specific funding streams. That said, the National Sustainable Development Strategy 2013-2020-2030 has several key merits: first, it properly reflects the need to invest in water and sanitation infrastructure to close the gap between Romania and other EU Member States; second, it specifically correlates with EU policies, programs, and targets in the sector, while citing other documents that will be revised over the coming years (e.g., management plans for river basins, flood and hazard maps, etc.). The Governing Program 2013-2016 465. The Governing Program 2013-2016 establishes the policy agenda and priorities for Romania for the short and medium-term, as set out by the current cabinet (as of October 2014). Water and sanitation infrastructure needs are mentioned repeatedly and, as elsewhere, they are put in the context of broader EU requirements. For example, under the “water and forestry” chapter, one of the action items for water management is to “finalize the invest ment projects for water supply, sewage, and water treatment plants with the aim of implementing EU water directives and to fulfill European and international commitments.” 136 A similar objective shows up again in the chapters on the “environment” and on “minorities”, in relation to the need for improving people’s quality of life, including through better water and sanitation public services, with a special focus on Roma communities. Interestingly, the section on “development and administration” argues that there has been a chronic shortage of financing of services offered by local authorities and a lack of public investment prioritization, with clear financing criteria, which has led to ever-larger discrepancies between various areas in Romania. Under action items for Romania’s development, the program emphasizes the need to continue and finish infrastructure projects that have been started in the past, based on clear priorities and consultations with beneficiaries. The same document also prefaces the National Local Development Program (PNDL), calling for “financing a minimum package of required public investments,” which include water and sanitation systems, along with roads and various types of social infrastructure. The National Territorial Development Strategy 2035 (SDTR) 466. Last but least, the National Territorial Development Strategy 2035 (SDTR) serves as the foundation for Romania’s spatial planning and territorial development system, including lower-level strategies (i.e., at the regional and local level) and urban development plans. The strategy emphasizes the role of urban areas as economic engines for the country’s sustainable and inclusive growth. In this context, references to water and sanitation infrastructure include the following key points:  Lack of water and wastewater services affects a significant proportion of the housing stock, particularly in rural areas and smaller towns. Implicitly, this reduces people’s quality of life and perpetuates the conditions that contribute to social exclusion.  Particularly in lagging areas, critical investment efforts should focus on the delivery of basic public services to enable similar living standards all across Romania. Less than half 135 See Romania’s National Sustainable Development Strategy 2013-2020-2030, p. 60 136 See Government Program 2013-2016 247 of the population has access to centralized sanitation systems and about 11 million people benefit from public water supply.  Cities have a polarizing effect: peri-urban areas around București, Timișoara, Cluj, Constanța, and Sibiu enjoy markedly better access to water and sanitation services compared to areas that are more distant from urban centers. This suggests that new investments in the networks’ expansion around the main cities should be prioritized.  Another important consideration in undertaking investment projects refers to proper consideration of operations and maintenance (O&M) costs. Particularly for wastewater systems, as the strategy notes, people in rural areas may not afford to connect to the central network and may continue to use cheaper alternatives.  The SDTR also proposes to monitor a few key indicators, including the number of households with access to running water / public sewage.  Investments in water and wastewater infrastructure fall under the strategy’s second main target – “increasing quality of life through the development of public infrastructure and public services to ensure high-quality, attractive, and inclusive urban and rural spaces.”137 The SDTR proposes ambitious targets to be reached in the next 7 years: 100% of residents in urban areas and 70% of residents in rural areas connected to water supply systems; 75% of all residents connect to sanitation systems. C. Regional level Regional Development Plans 467. At the regional level, there are a number of planning documents that are supposed to guide investment priorities across counties – foremost among them, the Regional Development Plans (RDPs). Romania does not have formal administrative regions, but merely “development regions” that primarily come into play when it comes to the programming and implementation of EU structural funds. At the level of each region, the Regional Development Agency (RDA), a public-utility NGO, is mandated by the association of counties in that particular region to develop the RDP. This document applies to a full EU programming period (e.g., 2007- 2013, 2014-2020, etc.), but it is not mandatory in the sense that there is nothing requiring local authorities to follow the directions provided in the RDP. 468. On the topic of water and sanitation infrastructure, typically under the “environment” chapter, RDPs include some key data. For instance, in the diagnostic section, there are region-specific indicators on share and number of people connected to the central public systems, noting potential discrepancies across and within counties. RDPs also present lists of potential investments in each county, including estimated total budgets. The Plans also feature some indicative targets to be reached by the end of the programming period (e.g., for the NE Region, the aim is to reach by 2022 an 80% connection rate for water supply (vs. only 45.3% in 2012) and 65% for sanitation systems (vs. only 35.4% in 2012). What such documents usually lack is a correlation of project lists and available budgets from various sources, and they typically focus only on EU-funded instruments, with no or few references to state-budget funds. In part, this is due to the fact that the latter are a lot more unpredictable over a seven-year period. As such, there are no in-depth discussions on how to coordinate strategies and 137 See “The National Territorial Development Strategy 2035 (SDTR),” p. 209 248 investment projects across multiple sources of funding. Strikingly, some RDPs even fail to reference Regional Master Plans for Water and Wastewater, which are supposed to guide and prioritize all investments in the sector (see below). River Basin Management Plans (RBMPs) 469. The Water Framework Directive requires Romania to develop management plans at the level of each river basin, with the aim of “balanced management and protection of water resources in order to reach the proper status for both surface and underground waters.” 138 As such, this is less about expanding access to water/wastewater services and more about the sustainable management of existing waters to ensure that Romania can properly respond to current and future challenges; moreover, reaching good ecological status where implementing the Urban Waste Water Directive is a necessary, but insufficient condition for many water bodies. The main players responsible for the development of RBMPs are the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MECC) and the National Administration Romanian Waters. Romania’ s territory is part of the wider Danube River Basin Management Plan. At the national level, this includes 11 sub-plans, as follows: Someş - Tisa; Crişuri; Mureş; Banat; Jiu; Olt; Argeş - Vedea; Buzău - Ialomiţa; Siret; Prut - Bârlad; and Dunăre, Delta Dunării, Dobrogea (see figure below). The National River Basin Plan provides a synthesis of these 11 separate documents, covering the following topics: general overview of water resources in each basin; surface and underground waters (types, sources, pollution risks, etc.); protected areas; monitoring of current status; environment objectives; economic assessment; lists of priority measures/actions; climate change; public consultations on the documents; and other issues. There are 11 river basins in Romania 138 See The Synthesis of the National Plan for River Basin Management, p. 2 249 The ecological state of different types of Romanian waters has been mapped in detail Source: National River Basin Management Plan 470. The National RBMP also provides an in-depth look into the quality and quantity of Romania’s water resources, mainly based on 2007 data provided by NARW. For example, the document presents the ecological and chemical status of all water bodies (rivers, lakes, coastal waters, etc.). In the map above, which refers to the ecological status, blue corresponds to very good quality, green to good quality, yellow to average quality, orange to weak quality, and red to poor quality. Most of Romania’s waters are “yellow” and “green” – i.e., average to good ecological status. The Management Plan has detailed information at the level of each basin, split based on the percentage of waters in each category. This is particularly helpful for understanding where investments into improving water quality are needed, in the general sense; again, this is a different – yet critical – issue that complements the need to expand access to water/sanitation per se. In fact, the prioritization of investments into urban wastewater treatment should take into account the current water quality status of different water bodies and the main pressures (urban, diffuse, hydromorphological) identified through each RBMP. In addition, the RBMPs review extensive data on the quantity of water available, the usage for different types of consumers (e.g., industry, agriculture, private households, etc.), and scenarios for future demand and supply of water to determine potential excess capacity or shortages. 471. The National RBMP also includes a list of measures (i.e., investments) needed to abide by EU and national legislation – i.e., basic ones to fulfill minimum legal requirements and 250 supplementary ones to fulfill the Water Framework Directive’s Article 4 objectives. 139 Estimated investment costs and timelines are based on the county-level Master Plans on Water and Wastewater. For the full implementation of basic and supplementary measures, the national plan estimates a total need of EUR 20.992 billion, of which 97.2% are costs related to basic measures. 140 The same document also defines the three general principles that apply in determining costs: (1) precaution and prevention (decisions must be fact-based, minimizing all risks); (2) the beneficiary pays (water has value, in all its forms of use); and (3) the polluter pays (any changes in the quality of water, attributable to a specific user, nee to be addressed by that user). There are also specific principles to be followed: (1) proper knowledge of water quality and quantity; (2) high level of protection generally and special protection for certain areas; (3) continuous monitoring; (4) continuous reporting; (5) positive incentives for users who demonstrate special care in managing water resources; and (6) optimal distribution and sharing of risks. Overall, the National Plan describes the full set of investment projects needed, from expansion of water supply networks to the reduction of industrial and agricultural pollution of bodies of water. 472. On water and wastewater infrastructure investments specifically, the national and subnational RBMPs make direct references to Master Plans (MPs) in the sector. MPs are developed precisely to “establish and prioritize needs and investments at the lowest possible cost, which determines a project’s eligibility, [...] and describe the viable technical solutions of water and wastewater public services.” 141 To this end, the National RBMP urges local authorities to join forces and enable a regional approach to the delivery of such services, as the optimal solution for minimizing costs through economies of scale and for achieving meaningful positive environmental impact at the river basin level. It is also expected that all operation costs would be financed through the tariff charged by Regional Operators to consumers. 473. All in all, the RBMPs reinforced the idea that the general management of water resources needs to be performed at the level of river basins to increase efficiency and accountability. Romania has been managing its water resources on a similar framework (i.e., river-basin based) since 1956, so this is a natural continuation and update of past policies. When it comes to actual infrastructure investments, the RBMPs rely on the Master Plans for Water and Wastewater, completed for 2007-2013 and in the process of getting updated for 2014-2020, as of October 2014. In addition to investments for reaching the targets for expanding coverage of water and sanitation systems, the Romanian authorities also need to keep in mind environmental objectives, or they may risk infringements for potential breaches of the Water Framework Directive. Regional Master Plans for Water and Wastewater 474. For the 2007-2013 programming period, each area covered by a Regional Operator (RO) in Romania – typically corresponding to one county – developed a Master Plan (MP) for 139 See WFD Article 4 on surface and underground waters and protected areas, available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:5c835afb-2ec6-4577-bdf8- 756d3d694eeb.0004.02/DOC_1&format=PDF 140 See the National River Basin Management Plan, p. 217. Note that the Urban Waste Water Directive is part of the basic measures (according to Annex VI, part A) 141 Ibid., p. 253 251 the Extension and Rehabilitation of Water and Wastewater Infrastructure. Recently, these documents have been updated to prepare for the 2014-2020 programming period. The aim of the MPs is to propose an integrated long-term development strategy for water and wastewater infrastructure, in a defined area covered by a Regional Operator, including cost estimates for investments required as part of Romania’s EU commitments. In essence, each MP puts forth a list of priority investments, selected based on clear criteria and prioritized for different periods of time (e.g., through 2015, 2016-2018, and after 2018). Going forward, it will be critically important to integrate environmental objectives as part of the prioritization criteria for MPs. Simply put, if there is not enough money to reach the targets of the Drinking Water Directive and the Urban Waste Water Directive, Romania needs to make sure that the limited resources it has at its disposal take into account the Water Framework Directive goal of achieving good ecological status for all water bodies. 475. The content of each MP is pre-defined by the Guide for Developing Master Plans for Water and Wastewater Projects, available from the Managing Authority for the SOP Environment, and includes the following main sections:  Introduction: main purpose and objectives, key players, etc.  Diagnostic of the current situation: basic data about the area covered, water resources, existing infrastructure, etc.  Forecasts: assessment of different scenarios regarding demand for water resources;  National and county-level targets: policies, objectives, and targets for the water and sanitation sector in each area;  Assessment of options: definition of agglomerations, list of investments, prioritization based on the need to fulfil EU acquis targets;  County-level strategy: fit of proposed investments in county strategies and policies;  Long-term investment plan: full list of proposed investments, including a summary of investments and O&M costs, implementation plan, contribution to reaching set targets  Financial and economic analysis: detailed assessment of investment and O&M costs, including net present values for each project;  Affordability analysis: estimates of different client types’ contributions, level of affordability given estimated costs and tariffs, etc.  Priority investment plan: list of investments for a defined period of time (e.g., 2014-2018 for the 2014-2020 MPs), including selection criteria;  Action plan: deadlines, responsible parties, and concrete actions for putting in practice the objectives of the investment plan;  Annexes: data, maps, etc. There is a need to reflect the requirements of the Water Framework Directive in the MPs, including through an analysis of the current ecological status of waters (from the RBMPs) and the identification of the main pressures (urban, diffuse, hydromorphological, etc.) on various water bodies. 476. To access financing under SOP Environment 2007-2013, local authorities had to join an Intercommunity Development Association (IDA) and cede the operation of the water/wastewater infrastructure to a Regional Operator. For example, in Bacău County, the towns of Moinești and Comănești were initially defined as part of the same cluster. Subsequently, because Comănești did not fulfill the eligibility criteria (i.e., local authorities did 252 not agree to join the IDA), the two localities were placed in separate clusters to ensure that Moinești could receive financing through SOP Environment. Again, conditionalities related to accessing cohesion funds were meant to ensure that local authorities come together and enable the creation of IDAs, thereby ensuring economies of scale in the delivery of water and wastewater services. 477. As far as selection and prioritization criteria go, MPs generally give precedence to projects that can be completed within specific timelines (e.g., by 2015 or 2018), which fit Romania’s bro ader EU acquis commitments. Beyond that, each MP includes a specific set of criteria, without a fully standardized approach. Some MPs leave these criteria at a broad level, merely indicating that they include institutional, technical, and impact indicators, while others present detailed scoring grids (e.g., Brăila, Constanța, Ialomița, Ilfov, etc.). The table below presents one such example from the latter category, including different points for localities depending on their population size. Other common criteria for the prioritization process are: urgent measures required to stop environmental damages caused by wastewater discharges or wastewater exfiltration; urgent measures required to stop water losses; and urgent measures required to stop wastewater infiltration. Example of selection grid for water/wastewater investments Number of points based on population size between: Criteria 50,000- 20,000- 10,000- 5,000- 2,000- 100,000 50,000 20,000 10,000 5,000 A. Risk on the human (public) health Localities with water supply system A1 10 8 6 4 2 but no sewerage Localities were the drinking water A2 quality is not in compliance with the 10 8 6 4 2 EU Directives Localities with no water supply A3 7.5 6 4.5 3 1.5 system A4 Localities with no sewerage network 7.5 6 4.5 3 1.5 Localities were the water supply A5 system is partially serving the 5 4 3 2 1 population Localities were the sewerage A6 network is partially serving the 5 4 3 2 1 population Localities with no water treatment A7 plant or with insufficient water 5 4 3 2 1 treatment plant (not efficient) Localities with seriously damaged A8 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 sewerage network 253 B. Environmental pollution Localities with no water treatment B1 10 8 6 4 2 plant Localities with an inefficient water B2 7.5 6 4.5 3 1.5 treatment plant B3 Localities with no sewerage network 5 4 3 2 1 Localities with insufficient sewerage B4 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 network or with major damages C. Increase of the water/sewerage systems efficiency Projects that determine the C1 5 4 3 2 1 reduction of power consumption Projects that determine the C2 4 3 2 1 0.5 reduction of water losses Projects that determine the increase C3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 of the operator capacity Diminishing of the water supply and C4 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 sewerage systems risk for shortage D. Affiliation to ROC and the programmes implementation capacity Local operator is approved as part of D1 10 8 6 4 2 the ROC Local authorities have enough D2 capacity for programmes 5 4 3 2 1 implementation Source: Brăila Master Plan for Water and Wastewater Investments 478. Another key element is the definition of clusters by each MP, which ensures that water and sanitation services can be delivered efficiently, at the lowest possible operational costs. Not all localities in a county belong to a cluster; there are remote villages, for instance, where it is not possible to expand centralized water/wastewater systems at a reasonable cost. For example, each MP considers some of these criteria in defining agglomerations: distance between a particular locality and existing networks; characteristics of the terrain and maximum levels of underground waters; risks of flooding; distance to major access roads/networks and other localities; the required and maximum capacity of treatment plants; other criteria (e.g., cost and availability of the land, feasibility of centralized vs. decentralized treatment, demographic projections, population density, etc.). A cluster does not necessarily correspond to existing administrative territorial boundaries and may also expand/contract depending on demographic and economic dynamics. If a particular community is not included in a cluster, it does not necessarily mean that its residents should not have access to water and sanitation public services. However, investments in such areas are less of a priority compared to larger, easier-to-reach localities, and may involve different technical solutions that keep operations and maintenance costs to a reasonable level, which can be covered from the tariffs paid by consumers. Importantly, different areas for water supply and wastewater clusters do not need 254 to overlap fully and depend on the specific characteristics of each area, as shown in the two figures below for Bistrița Năsăud County. Water supply areas (up) and wastewater clusters (down) in Bistrița Năsăud County Source: Bistrița Năsăud Master Plan for Water and Wastewater 255 479. In short, county-level Master Plans are arguably the most important documents for determining investment priorities in the water and sanitation sector. They are generally very thorough, including data collected on the ground (to be refined/supplemented through additional technical documentation like feasibility studies and detailed technical projects), and follow the basic principle that Romania needs to allocate funds in such a way as to ensure fulfillment of EU acquis targets by 2015 and 2018. Because of the large investment needs at the level of each county, EU funds need to be complemented by other sources, primarily state- budget-funded programs, if the investment plans are to be followed. This is why the Master Plans for the Water and Wastewater should be the reference point for infrastructure investments in the sector. If national, county, or local authorities decide to finance projects outside the priorities defined by the MP, rigorous justification should be provided, along with clear and convincing data regarding the sustainability of such investments over the long run. D. Local level 480. At the local level, authorities issue general urban plans (PUGs) and development strategies, both of which often reference planned investments in water and wastewater infrastructure. For example, the PUG for Sibiu’s historical center notes the intention to expand sewage networks, rehabilitate existing infrastructure, and perform new works for the proper storage and discharge of rainwater. 142 In a similar vein, the development strategy for the municipality of Bistrița provides an overview of the current situation in the water and sanitation sector (e.g., % coverage, user satisfaction survey data, etc.), along with a summary of recent infrastructure works through SOP Environment, forecasts for changes in the demand for water/wastewater public services, and plans for the future. 143 The document notes under “sectoral priority area 1.8” the need to expand and improve the city’s water and wastewater systems, including for the collection and discharge of rainwater. There is also a list of specific projects and streets that require the expansion of water supply and sewage networks, as well as a proposed investment into modernizing the treatment plant in Sărata – each with a tentative budget and implementation deadline. The strategy also includes a list of indicators, such as kilometers of water/wastewater networks modernized/developed and number of connected households. 481. There are two main challenges with such documents. First, they do not typically include financing sources and available budgets. As such, they remain wish lists with desirable projects, without any connection to a locality’s actual resources for bringing these from the concept phase through project design and implementation. Second, sometimes such documents fail to correlate with other key documents in the sector, especially the regional master plans for water and wastewater. This can create overlaps and inefficiencies, leading to the financing of projects that are not among the agreed priorities. 142 See Si biu’s “Planul Urbanistic General – Centrul Istoric,” available at http://www.sibiu.ro/ro2/pug/PUG_Sibiu_rlu_zona_istorica_feb2001_1.pdf 143 See Bistrița’s development strategy, available at http://www.primariabistrita.ro/portal/bistrita/portal.nsf/All/FF03EE32A876CA72C225798A003F57 16/$FILE/strategia%20de%20dezvoltare%20locala%20a%20municipiului%20bistrita.pdf 256 482. In addition, there are strategies specifically aimed at the development of public services at the level of local communities. GD 246/2006 approved the National Strategy for Accelerating the Development of Public Services, including a corresponding multi-annual implementation plan. Under Article 6, this law mandated local authorities (communes, towns, municipalities, and counties) to adopt similar strategies for their communities. Subsequently, such documents were developed at all levels, without a full understanding of the purpose they would serve. They follow a similar structure: overview of the town/county characteristics; current situation for the public utilities sector (accessibility, technical status, operators, legislation, financing, and SWOT analysis); the actual strategy, including mission, objectives, principles, management structure, etc. However, the level of depth varies greatly across such strategies. The Botoșani County Strategy for Accelerating the Development of Public Services is a good practice example, including very detailed data and an action plan with key players, objectives, deadlines, and financing sources. By covering all public services, some synergies across sectors may be leveraged more easily (e.g., rehabilitating/introducing water/sewage networks first and only then rehabilitating the roads). Social Infrastructure Key Players A. Supranational level The United Nations System 483. Through its various agencies and bodies, the United Nations (UN) system is an important player at the international level for the education and health sectors, although it does not necessarily cover specific aspects related to social infrastructure per se. However, even if it does not make specific references in this respect, UN agencies’ work may indeed influence the development of social infrastructure and related investments. 484. The UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), one of the five UN regional commissions, has focused on the crucial connection between transport, health, and the environment. In 2002, UNECE developed the Transport, Health, and Environment Pan-European Program that offers a platform for countries from Europe, Central Asia, the Caucasus, and North America to share information and knowledge, with the main purpose of translating national policies into local actions. At a high-level meeting in Paris in 2014, the participants set five priority goals to be achieved by 2019, such as contributing to sustainable economic development and stimulating job creation through investment in environment and health- friendly transport; promoting a more efficient transport system; reducing transport -related greenhouse gas emissions and noise; and promoting healthy and safe modes of transport. 485. Together with the World Health Organization, through its Europ ean Center for Environment and Health, UNECE established in 1997 a Joint Task Force on Health Aspects of Air Pollution designed to assess the health effects of long-range trans-boundary air pollution. This task force aimed to measure the contribution of pollution to human health risks and help identify priorities for future monitoring and abatement strategies. Experts asses the health costs 257 associated with pollution and identify what additional informational is required to improve such evaluations. 486. UNECE has also taken the initiative in the field of education in 2005 when it adopted the Strategy on Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). The document is a practical instrument that incorporates the key theme of sustainable development into the region's education sector. The strategy calls on Member States to integrate ESD into their education systems. Main teaching topics about sustainable development should include poverty alleviation, citizenship, ethics, peace, democracy and governance, security, health, human rights, justice, and culture. 487. On a different note, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) seeks to contribute to peace and security in the world by promoting international collaboration through education, science, and culture. UNESCO’s key priority is to ensure that every child has access to quality education as a fundamental human right and as a prerequisite for human development. Other priorities include building intercultural understanding through the protection of heritage and support for cultural diversity, and pursuing scientific cooperation among nations by developing a different mechanism, such as early warning systems for tsunami or trans-boundary water management agreements. 488. The World Heritage was created by UNESCO as an instrument to help protect sites of outstanding universal value worldwide. The UNESCO World Heritage in Romania includes seven sites, namely the Danube Delta, the Churches of Moldova, the Dacian Fortresses of the Orăștie Mountains, Monastery Horezu, the Saxon villages with fortified churches in Transylvania, the historic center of Sighișoara, and the wooden churches of Maramureș. 489. The World Health Organization (WHO) is the directing and coordinating authority for health within the UN system, responsible for providing leadership for global health matters. The WHO shapes the health research agenda, sets norms and standards on health aspects, forms evidence-based policy options, and provides technical assistance to countries on health issues. Health 2020 is the WHO’s new health policy framework for Europe, setting out an innovative roadmap aimed at providing support for actions across governments and societies in order to improve the health and well-being of populations, reduce health inequalities, and strengthen public health. This policy framework adopted in 2012 by 64 states in the European region provides policymakers with a set of priorities and actions on health issues, and makes the case for investments in health. One of the main recommendations is to address population health through whole-of-society and whole-of-government approaches. 490. The WHO has been providing support for improving health conditions in Romania for years. The current priorities have been set under the biennial collaborative agreement between the WHO-Europe and Romania for the period 2014-2015. The agreement is aligned with the WHO’s priorities for the period 2014-2019 that reflects three main areas of reform, namely programs and priorities, governance, and management. WHO and Romania will join efforts to raise the level of health in the country and diminish inequity in the distribution of health for the population. The main program areas include development of integrated people-centered health services and support for increasing access to health technologies and medicine. 258 491. The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) is the UN development network that partners with people at all levels of society to help empower lives and build resilient nations and to improve the quality of life. The UNDP is the main UN body that has dedicated efforts towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), with its main objective of cutting poverty in half by 2015. Among other things, the UNDP offers assistance to improving healthcare and rehabilitation/renovation of social infrastructure in countries all over the world. The UNDP is actively engaged in Romania based on the legal framework provided by the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement signed between the Romanian Government and the UN agency. Over the course of time, the UNPD had developed a number of projects in the country. For example, one of them involved providing support for setting up the HIV/AIDS Center within the Institute for Infectious Diseases „Prof. Dr. Matei Balș” in Bucharest. The Institute hosts the HIV/AIDS Center and provides access to its treatment and prevention facilities. The World Bank 492. The World Bank (WB) has been active in Romania over the past two decades, engaging in advisory analytical assistance services, and lending. Some of the WB programs target the social infrastructure of the country. The WB is currently running a USD 250 million lending program aimed at improving the health sector infrastructure. The program called “Improving Health System Quality and Efficiency” is implemented by the Ministry of Health and it should be completed by 2020. It aims to enhance the access, quality, and efficiency of public health services by supporting the healthcare service delivery network through strengthening hospitals’ support systems and services, increasing outpatient medical care services, enhancing primary healthcare services at the community level, and strengthening governance across the healthcare system. The focus of the program stays on prevention and out-of-hospital assistance as the most cost-effective ways to improve health outcomes. 493. The WB loan will be used for the rationalization of healthcare delivery by strengthening key hospitals that will become the backbone of national/regional networks. Ambulatory care will support secondary ambulatory and primary care through the development of specialized secondary ambulatory care units aimed at boosting such services and reducing the admissions rate in hospitals for patients who can be treated in outpatient settings. Eventually, the main goal is to enhance primary health care services at the community level. In the past, the WB assistance for Romania also included the rehabilitation of health services project and the Health Adaptable Program Lending series. The European Union 494. For its part, the European Union has several key policies and financing mechanisms for health, education, and culture, providing support for the development of social infrastructure. Two of the articles of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, known as the Lisbon Treaty, approved in 2007, refer to health and education. According to Article 168, EU policies and activities should ensure a high level of health protection, focusing on improving public health, preventing physical and mental illness and diseases of people, promoting research into causes of major health issues, and preventing transmission and prevention. It is for the Member States to ensure proper health policies and health services and medical care, manage health services and medical care, and allocate appropriate resources to these ends. Article 165 on education and vocational training is calling on the EU to support the development of quality education by 259 encouraging cooperation between Member States, by providing assistance and supplement their actions. Member states are fully responsible for setting up and organizing the education systems, and ensuring their cultural and linguistic diversity. At the same time, the Treaty gives the EU some guidance in terms of issues based on the specific nature of sport, and its social and educational functions. 495. Health and education are mentioned in the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union adopted in 2000. According to Article 35 of the Charter, all EU citizens have the right of access to preventive health care and the right to medical treatment under national laws and practices. EU policies and activities should include a high level of human health protection. The Charter also emphasizes everyone’s right to education and access to vocational and continuing training. To this end, the document calls on Member States to fund educational establishments to allow people fulfil their right to education. 496. The European Commission (EC), the executive arm of the EU, is responsible for shaping specific policies for different sectors through the directorate generals coordinated by their respective European Commissioners . One of the most important branches of the EC responsible for shaping regional development policies and actions in order to reduce regional disparities between regions and countries is the Directorate General for Regional and Urban Policy, known as DG Regio. DG Regio is involved in identifying the most appropriate cohesion policies for promoting continuous improvements in the field of competitiveness and employment. This EC branch helps regions that are less prosperous or are suffering from structural problems to improve competitiveness and achieve a faster rate of economic development in a sustainable way, by co-financing infrastructure projects, developing information society, speeding up the transfer of know-how, and supporting investments in people. Two of the three major funds managed by DG Regio are the European Regional Development Fund, which co-finances investments with a focus on regions with lowest GDP/capita, and the Cohesion Fund that co- finances transport and environment projects in Member States whose Gross National Product is less than 90% of the Community average. 497. As a recipient of EU financial support through structural funds, Romania receives from the ERDF billions of euros for reducing regional disparities, under the Regional Operational Program (ROP). Part of the money that comes under the ROP covers investments in social infrastructure, such as educational units and healthcare facilities. Under the 2014-2020 Regional Operational Programme, Romania is expected to receive EUR 400 billion for investments in health and social infrastructure aimed at promoting inclusion and fighting poverty. Investments in social and health infrastructure should ideally lead to national, regional and local development, reduce inequalities in terms of access to healthcare, and help the country transition from institutional to community services. 498. The EU has several strategies calling for investments in the health sector. According to “Investing in health,” a document prepared in 2013, investments in health play an important role in achieving the objectives of smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth from the Europe 2020 strategy. The EU and the Member States should evaluate and modernize social policies to increase their effectiveness by making efficiency gains in budgets, taking action throughout life, ensuring adequate livelihoods, and using EU funds. The EU makes the case for efficient spending 260 in health, calling on the Member States to invest in programs for people’s health as a way of reducing economic and social inequalities and fighting social exclusion. The Health Strategy “Together for Health” supports the overall Europe 2020 Strategy, aiming to turn the EU into a smart and sustainable economy based on growth for the citizens and based on a population in good health. The document is a response to the challenges faced by the Member States in the health sector by strengthening cooperation and coordination across the EU and complementing national policies. 499. The EU cohesion policy and cohesion funds can assist Member States in improving their national health systems. During the 2007-2013 programming period, EU members have been allocated over EUR 5 million for health infrastructure through the European Regional Development Fund. The EU proposal for the 2014-2020 programming period is set to support health investments in Member States through the Cohesion and Structural Funds. In the next few years, the EU seeks to support health infrastructure that fosters transformational changes in the health system. Such changes should eventually shift from a hospital-centered model to community-based care and integrated services, and enhance accessibility to affordable and high-quality healthcare that could reduce inequalities among regions and help disadvantaged communities. 500. The Directorate General Education and Culture is the executive branch of the EU for shaping policies in field of education, culture, languages, and sports. The education component focuses primarily on cooperation by opening ways for the Member States to learn from each other’s experience, and join efforts to improve education across Europe. The DG manages a number of education programs, such as Erasmus + aimed at improving education and training. With regard to sports, the DG enables participation of people in physical activities and increases availability of sporting opportunities, assisting Member States to increase access to sports facilities for people with disabilities. The DG also encourages countries to promote their unique cultural features and provides support for relevant cultural programs. 501. Perhaps one of the most important roles of the European Parliament (EP) is the approval of the seven-year EU budget, which includes the money allocated under the structural funds that cover, among other things, investments in education and health. The EP works through a number of specific committees that cover all major EU issues, including health, education, and culture. The Committee on Culture and Education is responsible for shaping education and cultural policies, and oversees some of the main EU educational and cultural programs. The Committee on Environment, Public Health, and Food Safety channels its efforts to identifying the most adequate European solutions in the field of health. The Committee on Regional Development is responsible for the operation and development of the regional development and cohesion policy, the ERDF, and the Cohesion Fund. It also shapes the urban dimension of the cohesion policy and gets involved in the coordination of the structural instruments. The European Investment Bank 502. An important player for social infrastructure investments in Romania is the European Investment Bank (EIB). The EIB finances projects, supporting EU policies in Member States and candidate countries, as well as in a number of developing nations around the world. The EIB 261 refinances its lending by issuing bonds on the international capital markets and it is one of the most important external sources of funding in the region. 503. With co-financing from the World Bank and the Council of Europe Development Bank, in 1997 the EIB launched a rehabilitation program of 1,200 schools in Romania in order to reduce discrepancies in access to education across rural and urban areas. The program helped improve the learning environment and contributed to the rationalization of the network of schools. The EIB assistance helped Romania carry on with the educational policy in line with the priorities set out in the EU Accession Agreement. 504. The second phase of the program was launched in 2003, when EIB lent Romania up to EUR 131 million for school infrastructure, which covered rehabilitation and furnishing of about 1,400 pre-university units all over the country. 80% of the schools rehabilitated were in rural areas and the rest of 20% in urban areas. More recently, the capital city Bucharest implemented a large school infrastructure rehabilitation program under a EUR 228.2 million project, of which EUR 112.2 million were provided in the form of a loan from the EIB, while EUR 116 million was the contribution from the local budget. The project was completed in 2011 and it included 102 education units – 64 schools, 15 high schools, 19 special schools, and 4 kindergartens (including 10 sports halls, a swimming pool, and several ceremony halls). The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) 505. Another important International Financial Institution for the field of social infrastructure is the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). The EBRD provides project financing for banks, industries, and businesses, through both capital ventures and investments in existing companies. The EBRD invests in public and private sectors from Central Europe to Central Asia and in the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean regions, thus fostering the transition toward open and democratic market economies. The overall EBRD investments in Romania in the past two decades amount to EUR 6.7 billion. Currently, the bank is involved in a number of rehabilitation projects across the country, such as thermal rehabilitation of 21 schools in Craiova, rehabilitation of seven schools in Arad, and renovation of seven public buildings in Galati (including a hospital and a few education units). The Council of Europe 506. Finally, the Council of Europe’s European Social Charter mentions the right to protection of health. Article 11 of the Charter calls on the parties to take the appropriate measures to remove the causes of ill-health, provide advisory and educational facilities for health promotion programs, and prevent epidemic and other diseases. According to the Charter, signatories should grant to those without resources adequate assistance to take care of their health in case of sickness. The right to vocational guidance and vocational training is granted under Articles 9 and 10 of the Charter, as countries should assist all people, including those with disabilities, to help them pursue their occupational choices. Countries also agreed on a number relevant issues, such as promoting technical and vocational training and granting facilities to access higher technical and university education, providing apprenticeship for training teenagers, and training workers and the reintegration of long-term unemployed people. 262 B. National level The Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration (MRDPA) 507. First and foremost, a key player for investments in Romania’s social infrastructure is the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration (MRDPA). As the managing authority of the EU-funded Regional Operational Programme (ROP) aimed at promoting regional development and reducing disparities among region, the MRDPA is responsible for investments in education units, healthcare facilities, and cultural centers. The priority axis on the development of health and social infrastructure tackles social inclusion and poverty. The ROP for 2014-2020 will stimulate, among other things, investments in social and health infrastructure that could boost national, regional, and local development by reducing inequalities in terms of access to healthcare. The ROP also helps with the transitioning from institutional services to community services at the local level. One of the ROP’s axis targets the education sector by supporting development of relevant infrastructure and training to increase participation in the educational system. The MRDPA also coordinates the National Local Development Program that supports the improvement, rehabilitation, expansion, and development of social infrastructure in rural areas (e.g., kindergartens, elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, professional schools, special educational units, post high schools, medical clinics, pharmacies, cultural centers, or sports facilities). The Ministry of Health 508. The specialized body of the central administration responsible for the national healthcare policies and infrastructure in Romania is the Ministry of Health (MoH). The Ministry drafts policies, strategies, and actions plans in the field of public health, and coordinates their implementation at the national, local, and regional level. The Ministry takes appropriate measures to improve the quality of the medical services delivered to people. With support from the central and local governments, the Ministry monitors and evaluates the activity of all medical institutions in the country, and ensures the necessary human, material, and financial resources for a proper functioning of the public health system. Nearly 50 major national hospitals and healthcare facilities of national interests are under the Ministry’s dire ct management – this is a much lower number compared to before the decentralization process, which mandated local authorities to take ownership over health units in their respective jurisdiction. 509. This MoH also coordinates 41 public health departments at the county level and in Bucharest, i.e., the deconcentrated institutions in charge with the implementation of the national health programs policies at the local level. For their part, counties manage the county hospitals, while local councils are responsible for local hospitals and healthcare facilities. County hospitals receive funds from the county budgets, while local hospitals are funded from the local budgets. Clinical hospitals with university departments are funded from the central budget by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education. 510. The National Strategy for Health for the period 2014-2020 and its Action Plan lay out a number of activities aimed at improving the healthcare infrastructure at the local and regional level. The actions included in the plan include the restructuring and rationalization of hospitals at the national and regional level, expanding access to healthcare to all communities, building three new regional hospitals, upgrading the infrastructure for oncology and radio thera py, and 263 improving healthcare services infrastructure for ambulatory care by improving medical services at the community level. 511. The Ministry’s task is to implement and oversee the activities laid out in the program, together with local public administration institutions. These activities include: ensuring the necessary infrastructure for a gradual development of healthcare services at the community level, modernization of primary care services, and upgrading of infrastructure for medical services for outpatient diagnostic and treatment services. Some of the future steps to be taken involve the rehabilitation of healthcare facilities at the community level, upgrading the primary care facilities or building new facilities at the community level and permanent local medical centers, and rehabilitation or development of new ambulatory care facilities. The Ministry of National Education 512. The Ministry of National Education is the central government body that designs and applies the strategy and policies for education, establishes the objectives of the education system, and sets the targets for all education profiles. The Ministry can execute financial policies in the field of education and elaborates specific construction norms for educational units and their endowment. In recent years, the Ministry has completed a number of higher- education infrastructure projects throughout the country. At the local level, the city/commune councils manage the land and the buildings of kindergartens and primary and secondary schools. The county council is responsible for education facilities for students with special needs, while the county school inspectorates are in charge with the auxiliary education infrastructure, such as children palaces, student clubs, and sports clubs. Public universities have their own patrimony and they can self-manage. 513. At the local level, the Ministry operates through the county school inspectorates . These are the Ministry’s deconcentrated bodies responsible for fulfilling the objectives set in the Education Law, with the main tasks of coordinating and monitoring the primary and secondary education in the country. With approval from the Ministry, the inspectorates set up educational units, such as kindergartens, primary schools and secondary schools, and arts and vocational schools. The inspectorates also control the activity of the libraries that operate under subordinated education units. 514. In recent years, youth and sports activities have been either under the Ministry of Education or organized under a different governmental agency. In 2013, the Ministry of Youth and Sports was established, with a primary objective of applying and implementing the strategies and governmental programs with regard to sports and youth matters. The Ministry manages the youth and sports public or private properties of the state, and develops and implements projects related to the rehabilitation and expansion of students’ cultural houses and leisure centers. 515. The Ministry has 42 deconcentrated departments for sports and youth at the county level, including in Bucharest. Their primary responsibility is to manage the implementation of sports and youth national policies and strategies at the local level. They can also use the leisure, sports, and youth facilities to organize leisure activities and youth camps, and set up specific sports and youth projects. Together with local public authorities and benefiting from support 264 from the Ministry and other sources, the sports and youth departments coordinate and develop the material goods that belong to leisure and sports centers in order to modernize relevant services. Special sports programs for athletes and sport teams at the local level can be funded through the county school inspectorates. The Ministry of Culture 516. The specialized government body responsible for designing and implementing the national strategies and policies in the cultural sector is the Ministry of Culture. The Ministry’s main tasks include protecting the cultural heritage and developing, restoring, and equipping the cultural infrastructure. There are over 40 units of national interests under the Ministry, including 15 museums, seven theatres, five opera houses, the National Institute for Cinema, the National Center for Dance, the Ellie Wiesel National Institute for the Study of the Holocaust in Romania, and the National Library. The Ministry also has deconcentrated bodies – i.e., county departments for culture and national patrimony. These departments are responsible for implementing the strategies and national policies in the culture sector at the local level. With support from local public authorities, the departments are responsible for protecting the national heritage. The National Investment Company 517. The National Investment Company (NIC), an agency under the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration, is in charge with a number of national investment programs, including regarding sports and social infrastructure . Such programs focus on sports halls, sports facilities, cultural centers, swimming pools, skating rinks, development of higher- education units, healthcare facilities in rural areas, and cinema halls. For example, the program on cultural centers tackles rehabilitation, modernization, construction, and endowment of cultural facilities in small cities and rural areas. So far, 45 cultural centers have been developed or rehabilitated under this program. Between 2002 and 2014, the NIC has funded the construction of 1,040 new sports facilities across the country and has rehabilitated 45 sports facilities built before the year 2000. The National Institute of Patrimony 518. Finally, the National Institute of Patrimony is an institution under the Ministry of Culture that is funded by its own resources with subsidies from the state budget. The Institute manages the funds targeting the restoration and conservation work of historical monuments under the National Restoration of Historical Monuments Program. On behalf of the Ministry, the Institute is responsible for the administration of historical monuments that have become property of the state, other than those administered by different public institutions. It can propose programs and projects aimed at reviving such historical monuments. The Institute can also lease the monuments under certain conditions. The Institute prepares the documents of the historical monuments to be included in the list of universal heritage. With support from the cultural county departments and other specialized bodies, the Institute prepares the inventory of historical monuments. Also, the Institute designs projects aimed at exploiting the historical monuments and their adjacent areas through the promotion of cultural tourism. 265 C. Regional & local level 519. The county councils and local councils have the most important say with regard to social infrastructure. Thus, rehabilitation of primary schools, healthcare and social assistance facilities, local cultural centers (if they belong to communes/cities) is performed with funds from the local budget. In the case of facilities belonging to the county, the responsibility to support such works stays with county authorities. Depending on the budget, local and county authorities can decide to start new investments. There are a few matters where local authorities share competencies and responsibilities with governmental authorities, like pre-university education, social housing, social and medical care for people with social problems, and assistance for people with disabilities. County authorities may share responsibilities with central authorities when it comes to primary and specialized social assistance for the protection of children or the education of students with special needs. 520. In some areas of the social infrastructure, local and county authorities have exclusive competencies. For example, local authorities are the administrators of the public and private domains of the commune or city. They also manage the cultural institutions and medical facilities of local interest, and the primary and the specialized social assistance services. County authorities are solely responsible for the social infrastructure that makes up the public and private domain of the county, for medical facilities of county interest (county hospitals), as well as for specialized social assistance services for the elderly. The pre-university public education assets (land and buildings), such as kindergartens or schools, are controlled by the local councils. Public hospitals are financed from their own revenues and operate based on the principle of financial autonomy. County hospitals get funds from the county council, while local healthcare facilities are funded from the local budgets. Legal Framework A. Supranational level UN Covenants 521. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights tackles the right to health and education, but like other international documents it refers mainly to policies and only indirectly to social infrastructure. The right to health is discussed under Article 26, according to which everyone is entitled to an adequate standard of living, proper for his/her h ealth and his/her family’s well- being, including medical care and social services, while mothers and children should be given special care and assistance. According to Article 26, elementary education and education at fundamental stages is free, while elementary education should be made compulsory. At the same time, technical and professional education should be made generally available, whereas higher education should be accessible to all based on merit. 522. The right to health and education is also mentioned in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, adopted in 1966. Article 12 of the Covenant does recognize people’s right to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, asking the parties to take the necessary steps in order to tackle a few stringent issues, such as reducing infant mortality and generating appropriate conditions to ensure medical services and medical attention for all, whenever needed. The right to education is discussed under Article 13, 266 according to which education is crucial for helping people develop themselves and enabling them to participate effectively in a free society. Primary education should be available to all, while secondary education should be accessible by appropriate means. The states should make sure that people can get access to higher education based on merits, and should encourage fundamental education for those who are not able to receive or complete their entire primary education. Cultural aspects are referred to in Article 15 of the Covenant, which grants people the right to take part in a community’s cultural life and enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and related applications. Europe 2020 523. At the EU level, the Europe 2020 Strategy is aimed at helping the EU b ecome a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy by achieving five ambitious objectives, namely employment, education, innovation, social inclusion, and climate/energy. According to the Strategy, Member States to take the appropriate actions in order to deliver high levels of employment, productivity and social cohesion by 2020. The Strategy targets social infrastructure through setting the paths for a smart and inclusive economy. 524. The smart growth priority aims to improve the EU’s performance in the educat ion sector, encouraging people to learn and study, and update their skills. Currently, approximately 25% of the school kids across Europe have poor reading skills, and there is an increase in the number of young people who are leaving education or training programs without qualifications. Only a third of young people between the ages 25 and 34 have graduated from college/university, which is below the figures in the United States (40%) or Japan (50%). In order to address these issues, one of the EU’s main objectives with regard to education is reducing the school dropout rate below 10%. The EU’s ambitious objective regarding inclusive growth is emphasizing job creation and poverty reduction. The main targets are focusing on achieving a high-employment economy capable of delivering economic, social, and territorial cohesion. Some of the key targets Member States should accomplish by 2020 include two-thirds employment rate for women between 20 and 64 years old, minimum 40% of the people aged 30-34 to complete third level education, and reducing the number of people living in poverty or being at risk of poverty and social inclusion by 20 million. B. National level 525. The section below regarding the Romanian legislation on social infrastructure is organized according to public institutions’ competencies in terms of property, administration, and finances, and with regard to the education, health, cultural, and sports sectors. Property 526. According to the Romanian constitutional law and organic legislation Law no. 213 /1998 on public property goods, the property is public or private, it belongs to the public or private domain, and it may be of national interest or of local interest . 144 The organic law that provides the legal framework for the goods belonging to the public realm is Law no. 213/1998. 144 See Article 136 of the Romanian Constitution: http://www.constitutiaromaniei.ro/art-136- proprietatea 267 According to this law, public goods are any goods that are considered – by law or by their nature – of public usage or of public interest. They are acquired by the state or by the territorial- administrative units (TAU) through legal means. 527. The public domain includes all goods that are subject to the state’s public property or belong to the TAUs and are of public usage or interest – be it national or local. The public domain of the state includes the goods that are of national public interest and that are considered as such by law. The public domain of the counties comprises those goods that are of county public interest, considered as such by the county council unless they are declared of national public usage or interest. The public domain of communes, cities, and municipalities includes the goods that are of local public usage or interest, considered as such by the local council unless they are already considered of national or county public interest. 528. The assets of the public domain are inalienable, undetectable, and indefeasible. Inalienable assets cannot be alienated, but only given in administration, lease or concession, according to the current laws. Undetectable goods means that they cannot be submitted to forced execution and they cannot be used as real guaranties. Indefeasible assets are those assets that cannot be acquired by other people through acquisitive prescription or by effect of the good faith possession over movable goods. However, these assets may be rented based on a governmental or county/local council decision, but the rented good must be exploited only according to its character/nature. The rental revenues go to the state or local budget. 529. The notions of public domain, public property, and patrimony/heritag e are not entirely synonymous, and neither are the terms of public interest and public usage . The property is a judicial institution, while the domain represents the totality of goods that are the object of property. It is also important to note that the sphere of the patrimony is larger than the public domain because it also includes private domains, as well as patrimonial rights and obligations. 145 There is also a difference between public usage goods and public interest goods. The first category includes goods that can be used by all people at the same time (roads, public parks etc.), while the second category comprises the goods that serve the functioning of the public services (e.g., equipment) or the general interest of the national community or local community (such as art collections, museums, etc.). 530. The private domain of the state or of a TAU includes the assets that are in their property and do not belong to the public domain . Over these goods the state and the TAU have the rights of private property. However, these assets may be transferred to the public domain of the state or of the TAU based on a government, county council, or local council decision, as the case may be. Similarly, the transfer of a good from the public domain of the state to the public domain of the TAU is done upon the request of the county council or the local council and by the national government’s decision. Conversely, the transfer of an asset from the public domain of the TAU to that of the state is done upon the government’s request and following the decision of the county council. The transfer of goods from the public domain to the private domain is done based on a government, county or local council decision, as the case may be, but only if the Constitution or the current laws do not dispose otherwise. 145 See Art. 119 from the Law no. 215/2001 on local public administration 268 531. The goods belonging to the public and private domains of the state or of the TAUs are subject to inventories. In the case of the state’s public domain, such inventories are done by the ministries and other central public administration bodies, and are centralized by the Ministry of Public Finance. The inventories of the assets belonging to the public domain of the TAUs are done by special commissions chaired by the county council presidents and by the mayors. These are centralized by the county councils and are sent to the national government. The Annex to Law no. 213/1998 includes some the goods that are part of the public domain of the state and of the TAUs. 146 Order no. 668/2014 of the Minister of Public Finance (presented below) regulates the inventory of the state’s private property. 532. The public domain of the state comprises assets of national interest. These include: monuments of national public interest; ensembles and historical and archaeological sites; museums and art collections that have been declared to be of national public interest; land and buildings in which central public authorities operate – the Parliament, the Presidency, the government, the ministries, and other specialized bodies of the central administration, as well as the public institutions subordinated to them; courts and prosecutor's offices; the military bases of the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Internal Affairs, intelligence services, and of the General Directorate of Penitentiaries; decentralized public services of ministries and other specialized bodies of the central administration, as well as prefectures, except for the land and buildings acquired through their own extra revenues, which constitute their private property. It also includes the national roads - highways, expressways, European primary and secondary highways. 533. The assets belonging to the public domain of the counties are “of county interest,” whereas those belonging to the domain of villages, cities, and municipalities are “of local interest.” The first category includes: county roads, land and buildings where the county council and its apparatus operate, but also the county public institutions (such as libraries, museums, county hospitals, etc.), if not declared of national/local public usage or interest. The county public domain also includes water networks developed at the zonal or micro-zonal level, together with their treatment plants and installations, constructions, and related land. As for local public domain of villages, cities and municipalities, it includes, among others: communal roads and streets; public markets, trade fairs, public parks, and recreational areas; lakes and beaches that are not of national or county public interest; water supply networks, sewerage, district heating, wastewater treatment plants, with their facilities constructions and related fields. The local public domain includes the lands and buildings in which the local council, the mayor’s office, and public institutions of local interest (such as theaters, libraries, museums, hospitals, clinics and the like) operate. It also comprises social housing units; monuments, unless they have been declared of national public interest, and all underground resources, unless they have been declared of national public interest; land for forestry, unless part of the private domain of the state, and are not owned by individuals or private legal entities; city and village graveyards. 146 According to the law, the enumeration from the Annex is illustrative. 269 534. Under GD 1705/2006 on the centralized inventory of goods pertaining to the public domain of the state, the government approved the centralized inventory of the assets belonging to the public domain of the state (listed in 46 annexes). According to the law, any changes to the centralized inventory must be approved by the government at the initiative of the ministries, specialized bodies of the central public authorities subordinated to the government, autonomous administrative authorities, and local public authorities (depending on the exact situation) through the MRDPA. Importantly, the centralized inventory is updated annually through the IT systems of the Ministry of Public Finance, and published on its website. 535. The Land Law (Law 18/1991) establishes the definition and the extent of Romania’s land stock and makes a series of distinctions that are also present in Law 213/1998. Romania’s land stock comprises any kind of land, irrespective of its destination, entitlement right, or domain (public or private). The legal distinctions focus on the terms of property, domain, and interest. First, the law distinguishes between lands held in private property by individuals or legal entities, and lands pertaining to either the public domain or to the private domain. Secondly, with respect to the public domain, it separates the public domain of national interest from the public domain of local interest. In the former, the property and administration rights belongs to the state, while in the latter they belong to communes, cities, municipalities, and counties, which are entitled to administer them through the mayors’ offices or the prefectures. 536. The law stipulates clearly that the lands pertaining to the public domain (of national or local interest) are those allocated to a public utility. For example, the lands on which public interest buildings are placed belong to the public domain (either national or local). Like any other asset from the public domain (see Law no. 213/1998), these lands are inalienable, undetectable, and indefeasible, as explained above. As for the lands belonging to the private domain of the state, respectively of the communes, cities, municipalities, and counties, the Land Law only states that they are acquired by these entities in the ways provided for by the legislation. Administration 537. The Public Administration Law (Law 215/2001) regulates the local autonomy and the organization and functioning of the local public administration. According to the law, local public administration authorities have the right and capacity to solve and manage public affairs in the name and for the interest of the local communities that they represent. This right is exercised by the local councils and mayors, as well as by the county councils and their presidents. 538. Among other provisions, the law includes a special chapter on public goods and public works, reaffirming the legal provisions from the Land Law (Law 18/1991) and the Law on public property (Law 213/1998). The law first defines what is understood by “patrimony” of any territorial-administrative unit (TAU): the movable and immovable goods belonging to the public and private domains of the TAU, as well as patrimonial rights and obligations. Second, it distinguishes between the public domain and the private domain of any TAU, stating that all the assets of public interest or usage (that are not declared of national public interest) belong to the public domain. Third, it introduces the requirement of undertaking annual inventories of public 270 goods, with the mayor/the president of the county council (as the case may be) having to report to the local/county council on the status of these assets. 539. In the same chapter, the law provides for the right of local and county councils to decide whether goods belonging to the public or private domain, of local/county interest, shall be given in administration, concession or lease to autonomous administrations or public institutions . They also decide on buying or selling goods that belong to the private domain of local/county interest. As a rule, sales, concessions, and leases are done by public auction. It deserves to be mentioned that the local/county councils have the right to give for free use and on a limited term movable and immovable goods that belong to the local/county public or private property to non-profit legal entities that perform charitable or public utility activities or public services. With respect to public works, the law gives local and county councils the right to contract by auction public utility works and services within the limits set out by the local or county budgets. Construction and repair works of public interest and financed by budgets of communes, cities, municipalities, or counties must be awarded on the basis of public auctions. 540. Law no. 196/2006 on decentralization establishes the principles, rules, and framework that regulate the process of administrative and financial decentralization , distinguishing between three types of competences pertaining to administrative authorities: delegated, exclusive, and shared . The delegated competences are attributed by the central public authorities to the local public administration authorities – along with the corresponding financial resources – and are exercised in the name and within the limits established by the central authorities. The exclusive competences are attributed by law directly to the local public administration authorities, which enjoy the right of decision and have the necessary resources and means for accomplishing them. As for shared competences, they are exercised by the local authorities together with other authorities at the central or county level, based on a clear separation of the financing and decision-making prerogatives for each of them. 541. With respect to social infrastructure, local public administration authorities have exclusive competencies over a wide range of assets . They cover: the administration of the public and private domain of the commune or city; the administration of the cultural institutions of local interest; the administration of public medical units of local interest; primary social assistance services for the protection of children and for the elderly; and primary and specialized social assistance services for the victims of family violence. As for the authorities at the county level, they also have exclusive competencies with respect to social infrastructure: the administration of cultural institutions of county interest; the administration of public medical units of county interest; primary and specialized social assistance services for the victims of family violence; and specialized social assistance services for the elderly. 542. Local public authorities from communes and cities share competencies with the public authorities from the central level in areas related to social infrastructure that require both a national and local approach. These areas include: building social housing and housing for young people; state pre-university education (except for the education of students with special needs); medical and social assistance services for individuals with social problems; and primary social assistance services for persons with disabilities. 271 543. County-level public administration authorities also share competencies with central public authorities in the area of social infrastructure. These include: state education for students with special needs; medical and social assistance services for individuals with social problems; primary and specialized social assistance services for the protection of children; and specialized social assistance services for persons with disabilities. Finances 544. The Law 500/2002 on public finances defines capital expenditure as the share of the public spending that is intended for the financing of investment objectives/projects and of other investment categories . According to the law, under investment programs, capital expenditures are grouped into three clusters: continued (in progress) investment projects/objectives; new investment projects/objectives; and other capital expenditures. The last cluster includes several types of costs, including costs for: the acquisition of real estat e, including land; independent endowments; pre-feasibility and feasibility studies; permits, authorizations, and approvals; technical design, technical assistance, etc. Investment programs must be presented annually by the main credit release authorities, along with the funding sources. 545. Many of the provisions of Law 500/2002 have been changed in recent years as a way of strengthening the medium-term expenditure framework. For example, a key requirement was introduced in 2013 under article 43, paragraph 9 on enforcing hard budgetary constraints for public investments done exclusively with national funds. Thus, a public investment program cannot add new investment projects, which cannot be financed integrally according with the approved technical documentation. In essence, the value of these new investments has to be below the ceiling set through the medium-term expenditure framework and/or fiscal-budgetary strategy approved based on Law 69/2010. The exception to this rule are investment projects financed with EU funds. 546. Supporting documents for each investment objective/project and for the expenditures included in the cluster “other capital expenditures” have to be examined and validated by the authorities. Depending on the value of the investment, technical and economic documentations, approval documentations for intervention works, substantiation reports, etc. must be approved by one of the following authorities: the government, for amounts over RON 30 million; the main credit release authorities, for amounts between RON 5 million and RON 30 million; other credit release authorities for proposed expenditures less than RON 5 million, but with the prior approval of the main credit release authority. 547. The role of examining the investment programs in order to see if they fit in the established expenditures limits belongs to the Ministry of Public Finance (MPF). The Ministry has to also check if projects comply with the selection and prioritization criteria and if they divide the budgetary appropriations according to the duration of the objectives’ execution. Moreover, the MPF coordinates the monitoring of the entire investment program and is entitled to request all necessary information from the main credit release authorities. As per the law, any public investment program will include only the investment objectives/projects/categories that can be financed entirely within the expenditure limits set by the expenditure framework 272 and/or the fiscal-budgetary strategy (approved by Law no. 69/2010 147 ). Exceptions are made for investment objectives/projects/categories that are financed through external non-reimbursable or reimbursable funds. 548. According to Law 273/2006 on local public finances, expenses for public investments and other capital expenditures financed from local public funds have to be integrated in the budget proposals of territorial-administrative units on the basis of their own investment programs. The budget proposals are developed by the credit release authorities and then approved by the deliberative authorities. Only investment objectives that are entirely financed through multiannual budget proposals may be included in public investment programs. The main credit authorities are the mayors of the TAUs (including the general mayor of Bucharest and mayors of the sectors) and the presidents of the county councils148 . 549. The main credit release authorities for local budgets elaborate public investment programs annually. For each of the objectives, financial and non-financial information is integrated. The financial information includes: the total value of the project; the commitment appropriations; the budgetary appropriations; the funding schedule, structured by sources and years, and correlated with the implementation schedule; the cost-benefit analysis; and operation and maintenance costs. The non-financial information should comprise: the investment strategy (including investment priorities and the relationship between different projects, and the analysis criteria that determine the introduction in the investment program of new objectives to the detriment of ongoing ones); the description of the project; and the physical progress of the objectives. 550. The main credit release authorities also set the priorities in the distribution of amounts per each objective included in the investment program. They have to stay below the limits set in the budget proposal. The structure of the local public investment programs follows the same pattern applicable to other territorial-administrative levels and that is described in the Law 500/2002 on public finances – i.e., the investment objectives as grouped in three clusters, which are continued investments, new investments, and “other capital investments”. The last cluster has to be structured according to investment categories, such as: acquisitions of real estate; independent endowments; pre-feasibility and feasibility studies, technical design, technical assistance etc. 551. The main credit release authorities are also responsible with monitoring investment projects. If a project cannot be implemented according to the budgetary projections for objective reasons, the main credit release authorities may propose to the deliberative authorities the redistribution of funds among the projects included in the investment program. Also, the main credit release authorities are required to publish on their websites details related to the investment programs, in a maximum of 5 days after their approval. 147 See Law no. 69/2010 on fiscal and budgetary responsibility (with subsequent modifications and amendments) 148 See Art. 21 of the Law no. 273/2006 273 552. Transfers from the state budget toward local budgets may be approved in certain situations . This is possible for investments financed through external loans and with some contribution from the central government. These transfers are approved annually through the state budget law. 553. Order no. 980/2005 of the Minister of Public Finance (MPF) for the approval of the methodological norms regarding the evaluation and selection criteria for public investment objectives follows introduces norms for evaluating and selecting investment objectives financed in full or in part from public (state or local) budgets.149 Law 500/2002 on public finances stipulates that the MPF has, among others, the attribution of establishing the methodological norms for the elaboration of evaluation and selection criteria that apply to the public investment objectives. 554. According to the methodology, the implementation of investments follows the following four stages . First, the technical and economic documentation of the investment projects has to be developed. Second, the projects have to be included in the public investment programs based on the evaluation and selection data from the prioritization corresponding to each objective. Third, the costs of investments must be included in the public investment program, as an annex to the annual budget. The documentation for each investment objective must be prepared. The fourth stage refers to monitoring the implementation of the investments, monitoring the drafting of the technical design, as well as the construction and assembly works, the reception, and the commissioning of the investment projects. 555. According to the same methodology, the evaluation and selection of public investments imply several steps . First, a reexamination of the ongoing investment projects has to be performed in order to prove they are still consistent with the gover nment’s strategy. At the same time, each project has to be analyzed according to the following aspects: expected costs and benefits of the proposed investment; the stage of the project’s implementation; the funds spent until the date of analysis; if the pr oject is still in line with the government’s policies and if the project is justified considering the approved changes in the respective sectoral strategies. At the end of the reexamination, the main credit release authorities decide whether the investment can be put on hold (in which case alternative solutions must be found – e.g., asset sales, privatization, concession, management contract, etc.) or must continue and be 149 The respective budgets at the state level are the following: state budget, state social insurances budget, special funds budget, state treasury budget, autonomous public institutions budget, public institutions budget financed partially or entirely through the state budget/social insurances/special funds budgets, public institutions entirely financed by their own incomes, the budget of the funds coming from external credits (contracted or guaranteed by the state), the budget of external non- reimbursable funds (see Art. 1 (2) from the Law no. 500/2002 regarding the public finances ). The local budgets are the following: the budgets of communes, cities, municipalities, Bucharest sectors, counties, the budgets of the public institutions finances partially or entirely from the local budgets, the budgets of the public institutions entirely financed from their own incomes, the budgets of internal and external loans, with costs covered from the local budgets; the budget of external non- reimbursable funds (see Art. 1 (2) from the Law no. 273/2006 regarding the local public finances). 274 subject to the prioritization program. 150 The investments that continue and are subject to the prioritization program will be evaluated against several other elements: size of the project, cost estimations, funding plan, etc. Afterward, they are introduced in the public investment program based on the order of their score. 151 The assessment of new investment projects follows next. The analysis looks at the necessity, opportunity, and relevance of a project against general and sectoral economic policies, as well as the data regarding its value, capacity, cost -efficiency and cost-benefit analysis, social benefits, and environmental impact. Education Infrastructure 556. Law 1/2011 (The National Education Law) treats separately the pre-university education and the university education, including for infrastructure . Concerning the former, the land and buildings of early education units, of the preparatory, primary, and secondary education units (including any other units by levels of education, established by the state) belong to the local public domain and are administered by the local councils. The other components that constitute the material basis of the units are in their ownership and are administered by the executive boards, as required by law. 152 Concerning the state schools for students with special needs and educational assistance county centers, the land and buildings in which they operate are part of the county public domain (Bucharest municipality included) and are administered by the county council through the administration councils of the respective education units. The other components from the material basis of these units are their property and are managed by their respective administration councils. As for the palaces for children, clubs for students, and sports clubs, they are part of the public domain and are managed by the Ministry of Education through county school inspectorates and through the executive boards of these units. Such facilities (including land and buildings) can be transferred from the public domain of the state to the public domain of the territorial-administrative units where they operate, at the request of the county/local council and by Government decision. 557. With respect to state or private universities, they have their own patrimony, which they can freely manage within the limits set by the law. State universities may also have in their patrimony movable and immovable goods belonging to the public or private domain of the state. Over these assets, universities have the right of administration, use, rental, and concession. These goods may be transferred from the public domain of the state to the private domain of the state and then in the property of the state universities through the government’s decision. In the case of dissolution, the goods owned by the respective university and left after liquidation is transferred in the private property of the state. As for private universities, they have property rights and other real rights over their own patrimony. 150 The standard methodology for the evaluation of the ongoing investment objectives/projects can be found in Annex 1 of the Order no. 980/2005 151 See Annex 2 of the Order no. 980/2005 for a close examination of the standard methodology for the analysis and selection of the ongoing public investment projects. The Annex 3 includes the template of the centralizing table of investment projects prioritization. 152 See Art. 112 of the Law no 1/2011. 275 Health Infrastructure 558. Law 95/2006 on the health system reform sets the legal, institutional, and policy framework of the Romanian health system. It is a complex act that prescribes the rules for a multitude of health-related aspects: from principles and authorities to specific medical activities, insurances, medicines, etc. 153 The same law recognizes as authorities of the public health system the Ministry of Health (as the specialized body of the central public administration 154 ) and other institutions and specialized structures of the Ministry, functioning at the national, regional, and local level. 559. The law distinguishes between public health county departments, institutes or centers of public health (at the regional or national level) and county public health authorities . The public health departments are deconcentrated public services of the Ministry of Health and represent the public health authority at the local level, while the public health authorities are subordinated to the Ministry of Health and implement national policies and programs at the local level and develop local actions. For their part, the institutes/centers of public health are also subordinated to the Ministry. 560. Law no. 95/2006 focuses mainly on public hospitals, public utility sanitary units with beds, which provide various kinds of medical services . Based on their complexity and reach, public hospitals are local, county, and regional. They may be part of three kinds of chains, depending on the authority that has them under administration: 1) the Ministry Health; 2) other ministries and public institutions; and 3) the local/county public administration authorities. The management as well as the buildings that belong to the second and third chains may be transferred to local public administration authorities or to state universities of medicine and pharmacy. 561. According to the same law, public hospitals are entirely financed from their own income and operate on the basis of the financial autonomy principle. Their revenues are acquired from the amounts collected in exchange for medical services and other contract-based services. The medical services are provided based on contracts that public hospitals have to sign with the national health insurance house (NHIH). The contracts are negotiated by the hospital managers with the management of the NHIH under the conditions set out in the framework contract regarding the provision of medical assistance through the health insurance system. 153 Law no. 95/2006 mainly regulates the following aspects: public health assistance principles, the authorities of the public health system, public health control, medical assistance, pharmaceutical assistance, implementation and financing of national health programs, family medicine, primary medical assistance, first aid and emergency medical assistance, county ambulance services, mobile emergency, resuscitation and extrication services, community medical assistance, human organs, tissues and cells donations and transplants, organization, functioning and financing of hospitals, health insurances, medical services covered from the National Fund for health insurances, the organization of health insurances houses, medical services suppliers, voluntary health insurances companies, profession of physician, dentist, pharmacist, the Romanian Colleges of Physicians, Dentists, Pharmacists, medicines (fabrication, import, labeling, prospectus, classification, distribution, publicity, public information). 154 See Law no. 184/2013, which approves the GEO no. 71/2012 regarding the nomination of the Ministry of Public Health as centralized public acquisitions unit. 276 562. The income earned by the medical units may be used for investments in infrastructure and endowment with medical equipment, but only after covering their operational expenditures. In the case of public hospitals belonging to the chain of the Ministry of Health and to the chain of the ministries and other institutions with their own medical units (therefore, except for the public hospitals attached to local public administration authorities) they also receive funds from the state budget and from the local budgets for a clearly defined purpose. Clinical hospitals with university departments receive funds from the state budget via the Ministries of Health and Education. County hospitals receive funds from the county budgets, while the hospitals of local interest receive funds from the local budgets. 563. The funds that the public hospitals attached to the central level administration receive from the state budget and from local budgets cover various types of costs. State budget funds may cover, among others, the acquisition of medical equipment and investments for building new hospitals or for completing unfinished ones, as well as for modernizing, transforming, repairing, and extending the existent constructions. The funds from the local budgets may contribute to covering administration and operational expenditures, respectively goods and services, investments, capital repairs, consolidations, extensions, modernizations, and medical equipment endowments for the sanitary units of county/local interest, within the limits approved in the respective budgets. 564. The public hospitals that are attached to the local administration may receive funds from the state budget and from the Ministry of He alth’s own revenues for different purposes. These include: finalizing investment objectives (new or in progress); medical equipment endowment; capital repairs; modernizing, transforming, and extending existent constructions, as well as expertise, technical design, and consolidation of buildings. The allocated amounts from the Ministry’s budget for these objectives (except for the investment projects) and the list of the beneficiary hospitals are approved annually by Government decision. The decision is approved based on the proposals made by the specialized structures within the Ministry and following requests from the local public administration authorities. The local public authorities may also participate in the funding of administration and operation expenditures, respectively staff-related costs, goods and services, investments, capital repairs, consolidation, extension, and modernization, endowment with medical equipment, etc. As for the budgets of the public hospitals attached to the local authorities, they are elaborated, approved, and executed according to the provisions of the Law 273/2006 on local public finances and they are part of the general budget of the territorial-administrative units/sub-divisions. 565. Order 512/2014 approving the Methodology for elaborating the public investments program of the Ministry of Health and for allocating funds for capital expenditures to the units from the chain of the Ministry of Health aims to establish specific procedures for developing the Ministry’s public investments program, but is also used for the allocation of funds for capital expenditure toward public units attached to the Ministry. The program has to be presented as an annex to the approved budget of the Ministry of Health. The methodology follows the provisions of Law 500/2000 on public finances155 and breaks capital expenditures 155 See Art. 38 1 from the Law no. 500/2002 (with subsequent modifications and amendments). 277 under the investment programs into three groups: continued/in progress investment projects/ objectives; new investment projects/objectives; other capital expenditures. 566. Investment objectives/projects have to be supported by technical and economic documents,156 approval documents for intervention works, 157 as well as by reports regarding the necessity and opportunity of expenditures included in “other capital expenditures” chapter. 158 The investment projects and documentations have to be approved by the government (when the amounts are greater than RON 30 million), by the main credit release authorities159 (when the amounts are between RON 5 million and RON 30 million), or other credit release authorities (when the amounts are less than RON 5 million and with the prior approval160 of the main credit release authority). Still, the approval of investment projects, notwithstanding their value, does not automatically ensure the financing of capita l expenditures. This approval only represents the condition for them to be integrated in the annual investments programs and therefore to be annexed to the budgets of the Ministry of Health, which have to be approved by annual budgetary laws. 567. The Ministry of Health centralizes the investment objectives/projects and other capital expenditures that fulfill the necessary prerequisites for entering in the investments program (including technical and economic documentations, approval documents, etc.). The draft of the investments program is elaborated along with the budget proposal of the Ministry of Health and has to take into account the following: the limits of budgetary expenditures established by the Ministry of Public Finance and the strategy of the Ministry of Health with regard to the investment policy in the health sector and the solicitations from the public units attached to the Ministry of Health and/or from its specialized structures. The final draft of the investment program, which is accompanied by substantiation reports161 regarding the need and the opportunity of including in the investment program the respective objective/investment category, is approved by the main credit release authority along with the approval of the annual budget proposal of the Ministry of Health through the annual law of the state budget. The investment program is annexed to the Ministry’s approved budget. 568. The methodology further describes the procedure of allocation of funds from the Ministry of Health’s budget for capita l expenditures to the public units attached to the Ministry . After the budget’s approval, the budgetary provisions for capital expenditures are allocated to public units and/or to the specialized structures on the basis of substantiation 156 The template regarding the presentation note that has to accompany the technical and economic documentations, respectively the feasibility studies correspondent to new investment objectives and the approval documentation for intervention works, is to be found in Annex 4. 157 Intervention works are construction works to existent buildings, including correspondent installations. They include: repairs, changes, modifications, upgrades, consolidations, thermal rehabilitation and intervention works to prevent or eliminate the effects of accidental actions and natural disasters. 158 The template of the substantiation report for “other capital expenditures” is included in the Annex 1 of the Methodology 159 The template of the act of Approval of the main credit release authority can be found at Annex 2. 160 The template of the Prior Approval of the main credit release authority is included in Annex 3. 161 The template for this type of substantiation report can be found in Annex 5 to the Methodology. 278 reports corresponding to the respective capital expenditure - new investment objectives, continued/in progress investment objectives, and other capital expenditures. In what may concern the substantiation of the Ministry of Health’s budget proposal, the same model used for the investment program will be applied by the county (Bucharest) departments of public health with respect to the proposals coming from the public hospitals attached to the local public administration authorities, which may receive funds from the state budget and from the Ministry’s own funds. Cultural Infrastructure 569. According to GD 90/2010, the Ministry of Culture is a specialized structure of the central public administration, which elaborates and ensures the implementation of strategies and policies in the cultural sector . 162 The Ministry is responsible for protecting the national cultural patrimony (material and immaterial), including through developing, restoring, and endowing the cultural infrastructure according to cultural needs. Also, it has to ensure the efficient administration of its institutional system, including subordinate institutions and deconcentrated public services. The Ministry has to support, in collaboration with the local public administration authorities, the proper functioning and activity of cultural institutions and settlements that are subordinated to local and county authorities. Furthermore, the Ministry has the attribution to propose and promote partnerships with the local public administration authorities and with civil society actors in view of diversifying, upgrading, and optimizing the public services offered by cultural institutions and settlements. 570. Annex 2 of GD 90/2010 lists the units that operate under the subordination of the Ministry of Culture and are financed entirely from the state budget . They are the following: county departments for culture and national patrimony, the National Preservation and Promotion Center of Traditional Culture, and the State Secretariat for Cults. The Romanian Copyright Office is a specialized body under the coordination of the Minister of Culture and is also financed from the state budget. 163 The county departments for culture and national patrimony represent the deconcentrated public services of the Ministry of Culture and their directors are appointed by the Minister of Culture. The patrimony of these departments includes rights and obligations over movable and immovable goods that are in the public or private property of the state and that are administered by these departments. 571. There are as well central-level specialized bodies and national interest cultural institutions that are financed both from their own revenues and through subsidies from the state budget. They are the following: the national museums, the national theatres, the national operas, philharmonic, and choir, national art centers, the National Patrimony Institute, the National Institute for Cultural Research and Training, the National Cultural Fund Administration, 162 The organizational structure of the Ministry of Culture is set out in Annex 1, as updated to the latest version. The latest modifications of the Annex 1 were introduced by GD no. 21/2013 for the modification and completion of GD no. 90/2010. 163 Annex 2, as updated to the latest version, lists the units that operate under the subordination and under the authority of the Ministry of Culture, as well as under the coordination of the Minister of Culture. The last normative act that modified the Annex 2 is the GD no. 563/2002 regarding certain measures for the organization of the Ministry of Culture and National Patrimony and the State Secretariat for Cults. 279 Bucharest Cinema Creation Studio, “Video” publishing house, etc. There are also some cultural institutions that are financed from their own income/extra-budgetary revenues – this is the case of Artexim. Finally, there are units that operate under the authority of the Ministry of Culture: the National Printing Compa ny “Coresi” S.A., the Autonomous Distribution and Exploitation Administration “RomaniaFilm”, Cinema Studios “Rofilm”, “Sahia”, “Animafilm”, etc. Youth and Sports Infrastructure 572. GD 11/2013 on the organization and functioning of the Ministry of Youth and Sp orts establishes the roles and responsibilities of this specialized body of the central public administration . 164 Its main role is to coordinate the implementation of governmental strategies and policies in the sector of youth and sports. Among other responsibilities, the Ministry has to ensure the administration of the entrusted goods, which are the public or private property of the state. Also, it has the competence to establish youth centers by accommodating unused spaces and buildings from the public domain of the state or spaces that are administered by the institutions that are under its subordination. Among other responsibilities, the Ministry of Youth and Sports has the task to develop and implement the plan for the rehabilitation and expansion of leisure centers and students’ cultural houses. It also has to ensure their organization and functioning. 573. Annex 2 to the Government Decision 11/2013 includes the units that function in the subordination of the Ministry of Youth and Sports and mentions their s ources of funding: own income and subsidies from the state budget. County departments for sports and youth are organized and function as deconcentrated public services of the Ministry. 165 The students’ cultural houses and the “Tei” cultural and sports studen t complex are public institutions belonging to the Ministry of Youth and Sports. 166 The sports clubs also belong to the Ministry of Youth and Sports. The national sports complexes, as well as the National Training and Proficiency Center for Coaches, the National Research Institute in Sports, and the Sports Museum subordinated to the Ministry. Strategies and Plans A. Supranational level The Europe 2020 Strategy 574. The Europe 2020 Strategy does not include special provisions for social infrastructure. It sets two major goals in the education sector: 1) reducing early school leaving below 10%; 2) at 164 The organizational structure of the Ministry of Youth and Sports is included in Annex 1 to the GD no. 11/2013, as modified by the GD no. 30/2013. 165 The activity of the county departments for sports and youth (including the Bucharest department for sports and youth) is regulated by GD no. 776/2010 regarding the organization and functioning of county departments for sports and youth and of the Bucharest department for sports and youth (...). 166 The activity of the students’ cultural houses and the “Tei” complex is regulated by GD 801/2004 regarding the organization and functioning of the students’ cultural houses and the “Tei” cultural and sports student complex. 280 least 40% of 30-40 year-olds completing third level education. These major goals were translated into country-level objectives, with Romania committing to reduce early school leaving to 11.3% by 2020 and to have at least 26.7% of 30-40 year-old complete tertiary education by the same deadline. One could say that these targets could also be achieved through strategic infrastructure investments, but a bigger role in this case will be played by policies, training, and other soft investments. B. National level 575. There are several overarching strategies and plans at the national level, which impact how investments in social infrastructure are done. There is no overall strategy focusing on the development/rehabilitation/modernization of social infrastructure, given that this sector is quite eclectic. Rather, such investments are treated separately in individual sectoral strategies. The Governing Program 2013-2016 576. The Governing Program 2013-2016 discusses a number of investment priorities for culture, education, and health. In some cases, the proposals are quite specific, identifying a number of priority projects to be considered; in other cases, the proposals are larger in scope when discussing investment programs. For example, in the case of cultural heritage, the focus is on a number of key objectives, such as the Dacian fortresses in the Orăștie Mountains, or the network of ethnographic museums. Under the Education chapter, there is a section focusing on the modernization of pre-university education infrastructure, with a focus on IT&C investments, connection to high-speed internet, equipping of libraries and the extension of virtual libraries, and strengthening educational centers (with the help of both EU and state-budget funds). In terms of health infrastructure, the focus is on overhauling and modernizing the existing system (e.g.. by investing in regional hospitals, in county hospitals of strategic importance, and extending the SMURD infrastructure). 577. Social infrastructure is also covered in the section on regional revelopment. The focus there is on rural development and on ensuring that each village in Romania benefits from a minimum package of investments, including one of each of the following: health clinic, pharmacy, library, and cultural center. The National Territorial Development Strategy (SDTR) 2035 578. The draft SDTR 2035 discusses the need to provide basic infrastructure to improve the quality of life in rural areas. The large objectives and sub-objectives do not go into specifics, but the proposed performance indicators discuss details pertaining to social infrastructure (i.e., education, health, culture). Moreover, the strategy proposes the identification of rural localities with a polarization potential in regions that lack an urban center. The idea is to prioritize strategic infrastructure investments in such rural localities (e.g., improving a school or a health center) and improve their connectivity to surrounding areas. This way, people from neighboring rural localities can benefit from these services in a manner that ensures economies of scale. The Romania EU Partnership Agreement (PA) 2014-2020 579. The Partnership Agreement makes a distinct mention of the need to in vest in social infrastructure, particularly rural small-scale infrastructure. The PA acknowledges that small- 281 scale infrastructure (e.g., education, health, cultural) plays a key role in improving the quality of life in rural areas and in making them more attractive. For example, it is indicated that the percentage of kindergarten coverage in rural areas is only 7.44% of the number registered at the national level, while the number of agricultural high schools has dropped by 80% in the past 15 years (there were only 34 rural agricultural high schools left in 2011). It is also considered that social services and related infrastructure do not meet the needs of the rural population, affecting economic development potential. Moreover, cultural infrastructure, which is critical for preserving local identity, is deficient. C. Regional Level 580. Law 195/2006 defines the set of responsibilities that belong to local and county -level authorities. The list of exclusive and shared competences is included in the table below. Thus, county councils are responsible for the management, rehabilitation, and development of the following type of social infrastructure: county culture institutions, county health units, and social assistance and health services. Many county councils include as objectives in their development strategies the rehabilitation/development of social infrastructure they are responsible for. In addition, county councils can provide funds for projects undertaken by local authorities. Table 12. County Councils have competences in the social infrastructure sector Admin level Exclusive competences Shared competences with the central level  County public and private domain  County road transport administration infrastructure  Airports  Special learning programs  County culture institutions  Social and health services for  County health units people facing social challenges  Social assistance for family  Primary and specialized social County Council violence victims assistance for child protection  Social assistance for the elderly  Specialized social assistance for  Other (as mandated by law) disabled people  Public community services for population records  Other (as mandated by law) D. Local level 581. Local authorities administer the largest share of social infrastructure units in Romania. The table below indicates the exclusive and shared competences that local authorities have, as laid out in Law 195/2006. Most of the larger localities regularly carry out the rehabilitation/modernization/development work of social infrastructure. Smaller localities, however, remain for the most part dependent on transfers from the central government and on national investment programs, such as the PNDL, the PNDR, or the ROP. 282 Table 13. Administrative competences of local councils Admin Exclusive competences Shared competences with the central level level  Local public and private domain  Central heating administration  Social and youth housing  Local road transport infrastructure  Pre-university public education, except  Local culture institutions for special programs  Local health units  Public order and safety  Urbanism and spatial planning  Social assistance to people in difficulty  Sanitation  Prevention and management of  Public lighting emergency situations at the local level Local  Trash collection  Social and health services for people Council  Social assistance for children and the facing social challenges elderly  Primary social assistance for disabled  Social assistance for family violence people victims  Public community services for  Public transportation population records  Other (as mandated by law)  Local road transport infrastructure (for communes)  Other (as mandated by law) 283 Annex B: Case Studies of Coordination Mechanisms The coordination of public investments could be performed through different ways and mechanisms. Most of the European countries rely on both horizontal and vertical coordination, involving both central and local/regional governments. The OECD report Investing Together: Working Effectively across Levels of Government and a number of OECD papers on coordination of public investments across levels of government in different countries provide good examples of the methods and mechanisms deployed by European states to better coordinate and keep a vigilant eye on projects financed from public funds. 167 Below are a few example of how vertical and horizontal coordination of public investments works in five regions in Europe. Basilicata, Italy The Basilicata Region in Italy uses coordination mechanisms across both vertical and horizontal levels of government. Coordination at the central level is done through the Inter-Ministerial Committee for Economic Planning and the Department for Development. The committee is a political decision-making instrument comprising 11 ministries, headed by the Prime-Minister, and coordinates regional and national policy priorities. The committee allocates funds for development programs and projects, sets sectoral policies, and oversees the execution of public investments in line with regional policy by co-financing regional action plans and approving framework agreements. The Department for Development is in charge with the coordination of investments financed from the structural funds and regionally allocated money through the Funds for Development and Cohesion. The coordination between the region and the central government is done through two main players, namely the state-regions conferences and the Objectives for Public Services. The conferences are the arenas for political dialogue and vertical coordination between the regional and authorities, where the two parties meet at least twice a year in order to set regional policies and negotiate over the funds. The Objectives for Public Service provisions (Obiettivi di servizio) are the final objectives for performance management and reward in compliance with the performance-based criteria. The money from the central government gets transferred to regions based on how well or poorly they perform. Money goes to the most performing regions. This programming practice enables the central government to provide incentives to the regional authorities that achieve concrete targets and results in specific policy areas. For example, if the region does not meet the given target, then the high-performing municipalities could receive up to 50% of the resources assigned, while the remaining funds would go to other regions. Another tool that is used to coordinate between the center and the regions is the framework agreement signed between national and regional administrations. They assist municipalities to 167 OECD (2013), Investing Together: Working Effectively across Levels of Government, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264197022-en The case of Brandenburg available at: http://www.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/Brandenburg_edited.pdf The case of Galicia available at: http://www.oecd.org/gov/regional -policy/Galicia_edited.pdf The case of Skane available at: http://www.oecd.org/gov/regional -policy/Skane_edited.pdf The case of Basilicata available at: http://www.oecd.org/gov/regional -policy/basilicata_edited.pdf The case of Wielkopolska available at: http://www.oecd.org/gov/regional-policy/wielkopolskie_edited.pdf 284 stick around to the investment plans by setting schedules and mutual commitments for specific interventions and sectors. Nearly 86% of framework agreement resources in Basilicata have been used to finance public investments. The coordination at the sub-regional level among municipalities is done through the programming area (soon-to-be Unions of Communes - Unioni di Comuni) that act like intermediate bodies between regions and municipalities. This framework gives significant power to local administrations to push for the interventions they need at the local level. There are also inter-municipal cooperation instruments within some of the operational programs that finance joint provision of services, tourism, and sustainable urban development. Basilicata uses different tools to encourage cooperation among regions and municipalities. A good example of such coordination is the 1999 Inter-Regional Program Agreement on Water signed between the regions of Puglia and Basilicata with the Ministry of Public Works to plan together on investment strategies, on the use of water, and decide on tariffs. Italy employs some strong monitoring and evaluation (M&E) mechanisms at the national, regional and local level. One of the instruments doing the monitoring at national level is the Public Investments Evaluation Unit set up by the Ministry of Economic Development that provides technical support to the government for developing methods for ex ante , mid-term and ex post evaluations of public investments. The unit establishes incentives to enhance the effectiveness of public interventions and conducts ad hoc evaluations of economic policies requested by the inter-ministerial committee headed by the Prime Minister. A network made of central and regional evaluation units do the analysis at the lower level of the administration, calling on regions to share methodologies and best practices. At the regional level, the Public Investments Evaluation Unit under the Department for Structural Funds checks consistency of the strategic projects with the regional development plan and the annual financial plan. In addition, the System for Monitoring Public Investments uses a unified codification system with information on procedural, financial, and physical indicators to provide timely data on the implementation of all public investments financed from multiple resources. Such mechanism that has been tested in five Italian regions, including in Basilicata, and is connected to the Information System on Operations of Government Bodies for online collection of data on cash transactions and payments made by public administrations. A similar system tracks down projects funded through EU money or regional financial resources. Brandenburg Land, Germany Comprising four districts and 419 municipalities, the Brandenburg Land has limited powers over the public investment spending, as it dependents mostly on transfers from the central budget and EU funds. Regional investment priorities funded under structural funds are defined by Brandenburg’s regional strategy, a document prepared in consultation with lower levels of government, private actors, NGOs, and researchers. The Land has a good vertical coordination and sectoral cooperation with higher levels of government. Investment priorities for the Land are decided by the federal government, in collaboration with the Land, under the Joint Task, a common platform setting priorities in a number of sectors (such water and regional development). Joint Tasks are available for all 285 Länder in the country, and they are managed by the federal government through a body comprising the Länder and the federal ministries of Finance and Economy. The Joint Task for Brandenburg is an important source for public investment. Together with the EU funds, it is funding interventions pertaining to regional development. Brandenburg has limited leverage on the implementation process, since the federal government is responsible for the coordination framework and EU procedures with regard to state and cohesion policy. Coordination and implementation of public investments in Brandenburg involves a number of factors, such as timeframes (the funds are allocated for three years and annual funds must be spent by the end of the year), ex-ante evaluation, thematic priorities, and private sector inclusion. Although Germany has an institutionalized approach when it comes to coordination between the center and the Länder, it is very sector-driven, as there are only a few institutionalized mechanisms at the vertical level. 15 regional core growth areas help make coordination with the sub-regional levels by concentrating funds for innovation and other business environment investments, thus establishing a direct dialogue between the regional government and local partners. Projects associated with one of the core growth areas are given priority. Brandenburg Integrated Regional Transport until 2030 is a good example of cooperation within the Land. Investments in the transport sector are decided jointly by the Land, communes and districts, and other stakeholders (like transport operators). The collaboration across Länder is weak due to the policy autonomy on energy, infrastructure, and education, on one hand, and the allocation of public investments, on the other hand. Public funds are allocated based on a competitive rather than a collaborative approach, while EU funds are dedicated for each region. Anyway, despite weak horizontal collaboration across the Länder, Brandenburg was able to establish a successful collaboration with Berlin, the capital city, through a joint transport network with a single tariff system. There is also good horizontal collaboration at the lower levels of Land through formal agreements between communes, informal collaboration, and financial incentives for merging municipalities. Communes collaborate well with each other primarily with regard to business environment, ambulance services, and waste management. The Land receives external administrative support to improve its capacity to better manage funds, through two tools, namely the Communal Academy and the Regional Investments Banks. The Communal Academy is providing training to more than 100 public administrators each year in order to help them improve their administrative skills, including how to better manage local funds. As for the Regional Investment Bank (Investitionsbank des Landes Brandenburg – ILB), it manages government financing programs and sometimes can decide on the allocation of money for small and medium-sized enterprises. ILB also provides consultancy for municipalities on public-private partnerships and waste and sanitation treatment plants. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of public investments in Brandenburg is carried out through the Joint Task program, based on a number of indicators (such as the creation of jobs of economic development programs). ILB is also involved in the M&E process by keeping an eye on the eligibility of the use of funds. 286 Wielkopolska, Poland Wielkopolska (Great Poland Voivodship) is one of the 16 Voivodships, comprising 35 Powiats (district governments) and 226 Gminas (local commune governments). The regional government is responsible for the regional development policy, including education, health, transport, and protection of the region’s heritage. Public investment policy is coordinated by the Marshal’s Office (the head of the region). The strategic goals for public investment policy are set by the Regional Development Strategy, which is implemented via the EU-funded Regional Operational Program (ROP). Each of the 16 Voivodships has its own ROP designed by the Marshal’s Office in close collaboration with other regional stakeholders. The decentralization process added new competencies to the regions with regard to coordination between the ROPs and the programs managed by the central government. Poland relies on vertical coordination between the regions and other levels of government with regard to public investments. The coordination between the ROPs and other national programs is managed by the Ministry of Regional Development, with support from special central level bodies. The Ministry works closely with the Marshal Offices to set and implement the regional programs but also to identify horizontal issues needed for program implementation. The central government ensures coordination between the priorities and measures of the ROPs and the operational programs. Vertical coordination is ensured primarily by the central government institutions. The regional authorities are the Managing Authorities for the ROP 2007-2013, and they are also in charge with the implementation of other EU funds. Although the regional government cannot get involved in the management of those projects that part of the national roads system, they take into consideration the national plans dealing with the extension of the national highway network in the regional transport infrastructure plans. The Main Directorate for National Roads and Motorways, the Marshal Offices, and local authorities coordinate investments in the transport sector. Public investments must take into account a number of factors, such as the spatial planning frameworks at different level of governments, ex-ante conditionalities for EU investments, and contractual arrangements between regions and central authorities. Such agreements not only help with the coordination at the vertical level, but they indicate how the state development funding is used by regions in executing their ROPs. Agreements include provisions related to the Ministry of Regional Development’s supervision of the funds by the regions and coordination between the ROPs. Regional investments are coordinated by regional and local stakeholders. The region designs the regional development strategies and the ROPs, in consultation with local governments and stakeholders. The other two instruments available in Wielkopolska dealing with coordination between the regional and local level are the Monitoring Committee for the ROP, a body gathering local representatives of different stakeholders (like private sector, trade unions, NGOs) and the Wielkopolska Council of Thirty, a special advisory body dealing with regional development and innovation-related issues. The horizontal coordination between municipalities brings together associations of towns that group resources, thus reducing the cost of investments that respond to common needs. These 287 activities are enforced by agreements signed between municipalities (gminas) – e.g., a joint company established by a union of 13 local communal governments around the city of Kalisz or the partnership with the private sector for the sewage system in the Poznań agglomeration covering nine municipalities. It is worth noting that this Polish Voivodship partners with the private sector for public investments. The regional authorities assess twice a year how the Development Strategy of Wielkopolska met its objectives, based on a set of indicators for each of the priorities and measures. The reports are approved by the Regional Assembly. In addition, they are conducting impact evaluations on the EU-funded projects that are subsequently presented as examples of good practices. Galicia, Spain The coordination of public funds in Galicia, an autonomous region in Spain comprising 4 provinces and 315 municipalities, is done both vertically and horizontally. The autonomous regions in Spain have large executive, legislative and regulatory powers, but quite limited financial and budgetary powers. Galicia has its own Regional Operational Programme. The vertical coordination between the central authorities is executed through agreements and co-financing under which local communities receive transfers from the central government for capital expenditures. This process involves equalization funding and cooperative agreements (Convenios de Colaboración) signed by regions in order to get money for each type of investment. Such agreements play an important role in the regional development and influence the long-term strategic planning of the autonomous communities. The agreements between Galicia and the central government cover environment, rural and marine affairs, education, and health. Structural funds are Galicia’s most important source of public investment financing, accounting for one-third of the region’s overall funding in 2011. The central government has an important say with regard to the allocation and management of EU funds, taking into consideration regional needs. For example, the EU-funded Technological Fund framework has been adjusted for Galicia in order to finance specific projects for the region. Vertical coordination between regions and local governments also occurs in the transfer of earmarked grants. The horizontal coordination among municipalities is done through the so- called soft and hard agreements. Signed by municipalities on a voluntary basis, the soft agreements promote greater inter-municipal cooperation. Under such agreements, funding priority is given to projects involving several municipalities, thus increasing the number of inter- municipal investment projects. For example, there is a soft agreement for integrated water cycle by grouping nine municipalities in a very rural, sparsely populated area in Galicia . Hard agreements are imposed. They are used in Vigo, an association of 14 municipalities, for imposing inter-municipal service provisions by law with the aim of improving services on water and transport, thus increase efficiency through common expenditures. The association of municipalities has opened the way for different types of local cooperation, such as the collaboration in the transport sector grouping the seven biggest cities in Galicia. 288 Galicia attempts to integrate policies across different sectors through a multi-annual master plan that regroups several regional plans for road infrastructure, transport, and water. Citizens and firms are involved in the coordination and elaboration of the sectoral plans. For instance, citizens were consulted for the development of Plan MOVE 2009-2025, a multi-billion euro plan funded from EU, central, and local budgets, which includes municipal plans for the seven biggest cities in the region. Monitoring and performance assessments at the municipal level also lack conditionalities, as there is no systematic outcome on investment evaluation. Because such evaluation is often seen as an infringement of the regional autonomy, authorities are reluctant to impose stricter performance indicators. It has to be mentioned that the Galician Infrastructure Agency also monitors the results related to infrastructure projects. Skane, Sweden Skane is one of 21 counties in Sweden, comprising 33 municipalities. Despite of being a county, Skane is referred as region, due to its additional responsibilities. Skane has weak regional autonomy, with limited powers, although the list of responsibilities at regional and local level is quite significant. In Sweden, regions have a say in the decision-making process, but the central government decides on financing and implementation. Vertical coordination between the region and the national government is performed by two bodies, namely the Swedish Agency for Economic and Regional Growth and the National Forum for Regional Competitiveness, Entrepreneurship, and Employment. The region relies on sectoral and cross-sectoral regional policy guidance documents. The sectoral strategies are funded through the central or municipal budgets, and they are developed altogether with budget and implementation plans. Skate also has a cross-sectoral strategy with limited impact though because it is not supported from the local and central budgets or from the region’s money. There is weak coordination of public investments between the region and the central government. For example, the region has only 20% autonomy over regional transport infrastructure investments. Skane does not have a strong voice regarding transport policy, since 80% of the infrastructure investment decisions in the region follow from the national transport policy plan. The coordination among municipalities is strong. Municipalities develop regional sectoral plans – e.g., the Skane regional transport plan was developed in consultation among the regional administration and the 33 municipalities. At the same time, there is simultaneous vertical coordination with the central and local levels on specific transport investments regarding the implementation process. Although the final decision about financing and implementation stays with the central government, municipalities also have a say in this matter, since they can block the project. Skane employs an institutionalized integrated vertical coordination mechanism involving a number of stakeholders. It is the case of the Sustainable Mobility, there is a platform where all stakeholders meet and exchange experiences with regard to the sustainable transport plan for the region. The vertical coordination between the region and municipalities is also ensured through contracting — municipalities provide services to the region or get engaged in joint transport projects. 289 Sweden coordinates well with EU programs, especially regarding regional cross-country transport development. Sweden is part of the TEN-T network and INTERREG initiative where Sweden consulted and coordinated international transport priorities with Denmark and Germany. In Sweden, coordination between regions or across municipalities is done through inter-municipal and inter-council collaboration. Such horizontal collaboration helped Skane increase its stakes in negotiations with the central government, as the region coordinates with other counties across the larger South Sweden Region. The selection of investments in Skane takes into consideration two instruments, namely the regional development programs (RUP) and the regional growth programs (RTP) that foster an integrated policy approach in the region. The RUP is an umbrella program covering different sectors, acting as a basis for other strategies in regional development, such as the RTP and the EU funds. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of public investments in transport sector take place at the central level. The region is responsible for M&E of the implementation of the regional development strategy. However, the evaluation process is quite ineffective in forming further policies, given the low impact of the regional development plan. User-feedback mechanisms work well for regional level and for transport monitoring. 290 Annex C: Review of County Development Strategies 1. ALBA Strategy name in Romanian Strategia de Dezvoltare a Județului Alba pe perioada 2014-2020 Strategy name in English Alba County Development Strategy over the period 2014-2020 Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Vision The Alba County – a dynamic community, open to partnerships, attractive to investors and tourists, where The world we desire to see… development is supported by unique natural and cultural resources. Objectives Cohesion and competitiveness The goals of the strategy are… Connectivity, attractiveness, and safety Heritage as Creativity driver A well-managed county Types of activities relevant for county Ensuring accessibility and increasing mobility (considered to be the support of the polycentric development road infrastructure, water and sewage of the county in regional and national context and taking into consideration the environmental protection) infrastructure, and social infrastructure through – The goals would be achieved through several Integrated development of transport infrastructure types of activities… Development of energy and communication infrastructure Increasing the operational capacity of the public transport (with low pollution degree) Endowment with public utilities and services of general interest under conditions of environmental protection and efficient use of resources in order to increase the attractiveness and functionality of the territory through – Development of water and sewage infrastructure and their correspondent services in conditions of safety, health and protection of existing resources and of the environment Improving waste management and reducing land and groundwater pollution Ensuring the infrastructure and the provision of social, education, and health services Relevant projects for county road Road infrastructure infrastructure, water and sewage Modernization and rehabilitation of county roads which ensure the connection with the TEN-T infrastructure, and social infrastructure Modernization and rehabilitation of urban and communal roads with direct or indirect links to the 291 Exam ples of projects include… national and regional roads network Development of maintenance systems for the transport infrastructure Modernization and development of transport node Railway Station - Bus stop in Alba Iulia Water and sewage infrastructure Modernization/expansion of catchment sources Improving the treatment services for the drinking water and the monitoring of water quality and water consumption Developing the service monitoring and infrastructure maintenance systems Expansion and rehabilitation of the wastewater collection and treatment networks Identification of alternative methods for wastewater treatment in small communities Development of the service monitoring and infrastructure maintenance systems Social infrastructure Rehabilitation/ modernization/ expansion of buildings that constitute social centers and the introduction of energy efficiency measures Rehabilitation and modernization of social housing and energy efficiency use Assisting and caring for single elderly Ensuring occupational consultancy for active elderly Access facilities for disabled people in buildings and public transport means Improving educational infrastructure through construction, rehabilitation, and endowment works Operational, sanitary and energetic rehabilitation of pre-school and school constructions Building new facilities and endowing them with equipment for training activities (land and/or gyms, thematic spaces for research and/or practice) Building a complex facility for education and sport performance at the county level Developing /upgrading sports fields Improvement of the system of response to emergency situations Rehabilitation, modernization and expansion of constructions that ensure the provision of health services (building and equipment) Rehabilitation of ambulatories and permanent medical assistance centers (in urban and rural areas) Building in partnership with the Alba County Hospital a center for diagnosis and treatment through „telemedicine" (urban, rural, mountain) Ensure sterilization and neutralization of medical waste 292 Budget for projects related to county Road transport infrastructure: OP Major Infrastructure; Regional Operational Programme; local budget; road infrastructure, water and sewage private sources infrastructure, and social infrastructure Water and sewage infrastructure: OP Major Infrastructure; local budget The financing of these projects would come Social infrastructure: Regional Operational Programme; OP Rural Development; șocal budget; OP Human from… Capital Timeline 2014-2020 The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities Europe 2020 Strategy The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates 2020 Territorial Agenda with the following… Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion Common Strategic Framework 2014-2020 2014-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework Coordination aspects related to The Strategy provides that by means of general urban plans and spatial plans for the surrounding areas, investment objectives, types of activity, the following aspects will be coordinated: (1) the types of compatible investments (in order to avoid and projects (expressly mentioned) negative territorial externalities); (2) the ability of existing and proposed public utilities with the density of functional units (homes, offices, logistics parks, etc.) required by the housing market. Other Observations Overall, the strategy is clear, coherent, well-organized, and easy to read. The objectives are clear-cut (not Other useful things to note about this strategy overlapping) and well split into specific objectives, programmes and projects. include… The Strategy’s action plan is comprehensive, containing for each project: the timeline, the responsible entity, the funding sources, output indicators. 2. ARAD Strategy name in Romanian Strategia de dezvoltare a județului 2007-2013 Strategy name in English County Development Strategy 2007-2013 Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Vision - The world we desire to see… Objectives General objective: Living standards increase, sustainable development and EU regional integration of Arad The goals of the strategy are… County 293 Specific objectives: Stimulation of sectors with growth potential and high added value Better valorization of human resources and ensuring suitable employment levels Promotion of a balanced regional development and mitigation of regional disparities Priorities corresponding to specific objectives: Improving the competitiveness of the productive sector and its attractiveness to foreign investors Improving and developing transport infrastructure, energy infrastructure, and environment protection Increasing employment, developing human resources and combating social exclusion Development of rural economy and increasing agricultural productivity Balanced participation of all communities in the socio-economic development Types of activities relevant for county Increased competitiveness of the productive sector road infrastructure, water and sewage Fostering investments, including through the development of physical infrastructure (utilities) infrastructure, and social infrastructure necessary for the development of productive activities The goals would be achieved through several Tourism development, including by developing transport infrastructure and access to areas with types of activities… touristic potential Public sector development, including through the development of public health services and education and their infrastructure Improving and developing transport infrastructure and energy infrastructure, as well as environment protection Improvement and development of transport infrastructure Waste management and water management in urban and rural areas Increasing employment, developing human resource and combating social exclusion Developing the educational system, including through the development of the infrastructure and material resources of the educational system Restructuring and developing social services (hard infrastructure measures are not considered, but only soft measures) Rural development and productivity growth in agriculture Rural development, including rural infrastructure development Relevant projects for county road Road infrastructure infrastructure, water and sewage Modernization of the road segment Julita – Madrigesti – Component of the tourist route E68 infrastructure, and social infrastructure Moneasa 294 Examples of projects include… South Ineu road ring The wine route – Păuliş – Ghioroc – Covăsânţ – Şiria Modernization of CR 709B Arad – Curtici Water and sewage infrastructure Construction and rehabilitation of water supply systems in urban and rural areas Construction and rehabilitation of sewage systems and wastewater treatment and purification plants Water and air quality management Management of household and industrial waste Management of rainwater and groundwater Social infrastructure Upgrading the Polyclinic of Arad County Hospital Modernization of “Tudor Vladimirescu” Center for children with disabilities, Arad Expansion, modernization and development of the Care Center for the Elderly, Arad Renovation of the primary school from Pancota Restoration, rehabilitation, and revival of Ineu Fortress Rehabilitation of Arad’s historical center Budget for projects related to county Regional Operational Programme road infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure The financing of these projects would come from… Timeline 2007-2013 The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities National Development Plan 2004-2006 The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates Regional Development Plan for the West Region 2004-2006 with the following… Coordination aspects related to The Strategy mentions in the chapter „Business support infrastructure” about the Agency for Promotion investment objectives, types of activity, and Development of Arad County (ADAR), which has - among others - the following objective: the and projects (expressly mentioned) coordination of infrastructure and urban development programs, but also rural development and service development. Other Observations The strategy is general too narrative, and incomplete. Leaving aside the lack of a clear correlation with 295 Other useful things to note about this strategy other reference documents, the strategy lacks important items: indication of funding sources, a timeline, include… and result indicators. Often it falls short of identifying specific projects, as in the case of water and sewage infrastructure. The general impression is that the strategy stopped (at least at the level of elaboration) before mentioning the specific projects that would correspond to the objectives (including a budget, timetable for implementation and output indicators). The project portfolio attached to the Strategy lists 36 projects under different stages of implementation at the level of 2008, among which: 17 road projects (of which 12 are for county roads), 5 health infrastructure projects, 7 social infrastructure projects (elderly, children, disabled), 1 project for school infrastructure. 3. ARGES Strategy name in Romanian Strategia de dezvolt are teritorială integrată a teritoriului Argeș – Muscel (2014-2020) Strategy name in English Integrated Territorial Development Strategy of Arges – Muscel Territory (2014-2020) Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Vision The territory consisting of Arges county, the Transfagarasan (Sibiu), and the Leaota Massif (Dambovita) The world we desire to see… aspires to meet all thematic objectives as set out under Article 9 of the Regulation no. 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The Article 9 includes the following thematic objectives: (1) strengthening research, technological development and innovation; (2) enhancing access to, and use and quality of, ICT; (3) enhancing the competitiveness of SMEs, of the agricultural sector (for the EAFRD) and of the fishery and aquaculture sector (for the EMFF); (4) supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors; (5) promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management; (6) preserving and protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency; (7) promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures; (8) promoting sustainable and quality employment and supporting labour mobility; (9) promoting social inclusion, combating poverty and any discrimination; (10) investing in education, training and vocational training for skills and lifelong learning; (11) enhancing institutional capacity of public authorities and stakeholders and efficient public 296 administration. Objectives General objectives: The goals of the strategy are… Strengthening the administrative efficiency at the level of the designated territory in which integrated territorial investments will be done Development of high-speed internet networks to enable all households and businesses in the designated territory to take full advantage of the digital single market Specific objectives: Increasing the employment in the designated area for the population aged 20 to 64 years to at least 70% - this being the average required by the EU to Romania; Achieving the objective to invest in research and development (R & D) 1% of the GDP of Arges County Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% compared to 1990 20% increase in the share of renewable energy in the final energy consumption 20% increase in energy efficiency Reduction of early school leavers to a percentage under 11.3% - this being the average required by the EU to Romania Increase the percentage of population aged between 30 and 34 years with postgraduate studies to at least 20% - as required by the EU to Romania Reduce the number of Europeans living below the poverty line by 25% Types of activities relevant for county Development and modernization of transport infrastructure (including trans-regional road infrastructure road infrastructure, water and sewage modernization and construction) infrastructure, and social infrastructure Rehabilitation and modernization of cultural, sporting and recreational infrastructure The goals would be achieved through several Modernization of social infrastructure, investments in educational and health infrastructure, and types of activities… investments in social housing Relevant projects for county road Road infrastructure infrastructure, water and sewage Paving the County Road (CR) 704H Baiculesti – Tutana km 0-2+135, Baiculesti coomune infrastructure, and social infrastructure Paving the CR 704F Valea Brazilor – Noaptes, Baiculesti coomune Examples of projects include… Rehabilitation, modernization of National Road (NR) 65A Pitesti – Rosiori – Turnu-Magurele Rehabilitation of NR 73C Campulung – Curtea de Arges Construction of Pitesti – Sibiu Motorway ( segment Pitesti – Salatruc: the sector between km 57+600 – km 116+640) 297 Water and sewage infrastructure Sewage network and treatment plant in Baiculesti coomune Expansion of water supply network in Bradulet commune Centralized water supply and sewage system in Corbeni commune, the villages of Oesti Ungureni and Oesti Pamanteni Social infrastructure Rehabilitation of the cultural center from Baiculesti, Zigoneni commune Rehabilitation of the school (classes I-IV) and kindergarten from Berindesti, Corbeni commune Rehabilitation and modernization of the human medical clinic in the village of Dragoslavele Rehabilitation of county emergency hospitals in Pitesti (including Pediatric Hospital) Establishment of a multifunctional and exhibition cultural complex in Pitesti Budget for projects related to county European funds (ERDF, ESF, CF, EAFRD), national budget, local budgets road infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure The financing of these projects would come from… Timeline 2014-2020 The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities Europe 2020 Strategy Regulation no. 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates with the following… Community Strategic Framework for 2014-2020 National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) 2007-2013 National Development Plan 2007-2013 South Muntenia Regional Development Plan 2014-2020 Regional Action Plan for Education 2009-2013 Regional Action Plan for Employment and Social Inclusion 2009-2011 Regional Action Plan for Education in South Muntenia 2009-2013 Competitive Cities, engines of sustainable and inclusive smart development of Romania during the period 2014-2020, World Bank for MRDPA, 2013 Coordination aspects related to The Strategy includes among the lessons learned from the implementation of 2007-2013 programs the investment objectives, types of activity, coordination between various investments supported from public funds in view of concentrating their 298 and projects (expressly mentioned) resources and maximizing their impact. In terms of monitoring and evaluation, the Strategy mentions the ITI Administration Body and the Centre of Assessment, Technical Regulation and Implementation of the Strategy. These bodies have – among others – the role of coordinating the implementation of the strategy and of the prepared projects. Other Observations Overall, the Strategy is well developed and mainly correlated with the European reference framework. The Other useful things to note about this strategy Strategy takes over and develops the thematic objectives contained in the European Regulation no. include… 1303/2013. The document also includes the approach proposed by the concept of integrated territorial investments. The 224 listed projects are presented based on the following information: name, correspondent thematic, general, and specific objectives, value investor (public/private), target area, domains concerned. 4. BACAU Strategy name in Romanian Strategia de Dezvoltare a Județului Bacău: Document -cadru pentru perioada de programare 2014‐2020 Strategy name in English Bacau County Development Strategy: Framework document for the programming period 2014-2020 Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Vision At the horizon of 2020, Bacau will position itself among the first 10 counties that are most attractive to The world we desire to see… investors and tourists in Romania, with a competitive, open and sustainable economy, based on smart specialization and highly skilled workforce, and with a modern infrastructure, accessible to all residents. Bacau County will offer to its residents a high quality of life and proper educational, medical, social and cultural services, while the public administration will be oriented towards the needs of the citizens, who will be actively involved in the community they belong to. Objectives General objectives (targeting the entire county): The goals of the strategy are… Bacau County – tourist destination of national and international reputation Bacau County – attractive destination for business and investments Bacau County – high quality public services accessible to all residents Bacau County – integrated territorial development Bacau County –accessible and connected county to major transportation Specific objectives (priorities) for each of the following micro-regions: Siret Valley, Mountain Valley, Trotuşului Valley, Tutovei Hills. 299 Increase accessibility and support mobility Support economic development Develop technical and urbanistic infrastructure Ensure access of all citizens to high quality services Improve the quality of the environment For the Mountain Valley micro-region: Increase administrative capacity and ensure good governance Types of activities relevant for county Ensure each micro-region’s accessibility to national and international urban poles and to priority transport road infrastructure, water and sewage axes (TEN-T) through: infrastructure, and social infrastructure Rehabilitation and modernization of county roads The goals would be achieved through several Modernization and development of TEN-T priority axes (road, rail, air, river) types of activities… Modernization and development of national and regional transport infrastructure outside TEN-T (road, rail, air, river) Promote inter-modal transport Increase mobility within each micro-region through: Rehabilitation and modernization of urban streets, including passageways, parking, cycle paths Construction, rehabilitation and modernization of bypasses and ring roads Expansion and modernization of public transport, including through the provision of new means of transport, etc. Implementing traffic management and monitoring systems Providing residents with access to water and sewage through: The extension and modernization of water and wastewater systems Ensuring access to high quality infrastructure and education services for all residents through: Extension, rehabilitation, modernization and endowment of schools Construction of educational campuses Expanding school transport Implementation of e-Education Ensuring access to high quality infrastructure and health services for all residents through: Construction, expansion, modernization and endowment of public and private health facilities (hospitals, clinics, ambulatories, medical cabinets etc.) Providing ambulatories services with ambulances Implementation of e-Health systems 300 Ensuring access to high quality infrastructure and social services and combating poverty through: Construction, expansion, modernization and endowment of social assistance units (day care centers for adults and children, residential care centers for children, elderly and people with disabilities, etc.) Social housing and housing for youth Supporting the establishment of social enterprises Relevant projects for county road Road infrastructure infrastructure, water and sewage Rehabilitation and modernization of inter-county road ensemble CR 241 (Vrancea county limit - infrastructure, and social infrastructure Podu Turcului - Glavanesti - Răzasu - Chicerea - Motoseni - Burdusaci - Rachitoasa - Buda - Danaila - Examples of projects include… Zapodia - Colonesti - Calini - Spria - Izvoru Berheciului, km 25+000 - 83+368), CR 241A (Izvoru Berheciului - Obirsia - Glodisoarele - Secuieni - NR 2F, km 64+250 - 78+114), CR 207D (Neamt county limit - Damienesti - Dragesti - Brad - Magla - Ursoaia - Prajesti - Traian (NR 2F), km 28+000 - 50+224 Rehabilitation and modernization of inter-county road ensemble Onesti - Racaciuni - Parincea - Motoseni - Vaslui county limit, CR 119 (Onesti - Gura Vaii - Dumbrava, km 33+471 - 51+726), CR 206B (Racaciuni - Parava - Dumbrava, km 0+000 - 12+116), CR 252E (Racaciuni - Dieneț, km 0+000 - 5+001), CR 252C (Dienet - Pincesti, km 26+904 -27+774), CR 252B (km 30+223 - 38+962), CR 252 (Petresti - Parincea, km 100+752 - km 111+256), CR 243B (km 33+939 - 77+493) Water and sewage infrastructure Extension and rehabilitation of water and wastewater infrastructure of Bacau county Social infrastructure Capital repairing at the HIV/AIDS Section of the Bacau County Emergency Hospital Modernization of the Ambulatory of the Pediatric Hospital, Bacau Construction of the Oncology and Radiology Pavilion belonging to the Emergency County Hospital Building the headquarters of Bacau County Library Strengthening and modernizing the Museum of Ethnography Rehabilitating and modernizing the building and permanent exhibition at Vivarium - Bacau municipality Budget for projects related to county Considering the micro-region projects: state budget, local budgets, ROP 2014-2020, National Programme road infrastructure, water and sewage for Rural Development (NPDR) 2014-2020, OP “Administrative Capacity Development” (OP ACD) 2014 - infrastructure, and social infrastructure 2020, OP “Increase of Economic Competitiveness” (OP IEC) 2014 -2020, public-private partnership, private The financing of these projects would come funds. 301 from… Considering the projects of Bacau County Council: OP Transport 2014-2020, OP IEC 2014-2020, ROP 2014- 2020, County Council’s budget, INTERREG SEE, OP Major Infrastructure 2014 -2020, Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI). Timeline 2014-2020 The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities Strategy Europe 2020 The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates EU Regulation Proposals for 2014-2020 with the following… Communication from the European Commission “Regional Policy contributing to smart growth in Europe 2020” Communication from the European Commission “Regional Policy contributing to sustainable growth in Europe 2020” JESSICA initiative (Joint European Support for Sustainable Investment in City Areas) National Strategy for Regional Development 2014-2020 (draft) Position of the Commission Services on the development of Partnership Agreement and programmes in Romania for the period 2014-2020 EU Regulation Proposals and the Common Strategic Framework for the period 2014-2020 North-East Region’s Regional Development Strategy 2014-2020 (draft - September 2013) Northeast Region’s Smart Specialization Strategy 2014 -2020 Coordination aspects related to The Strategy mentions the EU Commission's recommendation (present in the Cohesion Policy 2014-2020) investment objectives, types of activity, that integrated investment strategies for a sustainable urban development should be adopted. In this and projects (expressly mentioned) context, the Strategy refers to integrated territorial investments and integrated actions. Other coordination aspects are not expressed. Other Observations The strategy is clear, coherent, well documented and organized. The objectives and priorities seem to Other useful things to note about this strategy cover all aspects that could be possibly integrated into a development strategy. The challenge implied by include… this approach is the prioritization of projects. The key elements of detailing the strategy are present. Some aspects deserve to be mentioned though. With the support of some cards for the collection of project ideas – which were made available at the meetings with local authorities in localities of the micro-regions, as well as in the working groups at the level of each micro-region – the participant stakeholders identified projects or project ideas that should be implemented in 2014-2020 period. As well, by using different ranking criteria, the stakeholders classified the projects in the following categories: 302 - Individual projects of territorial-administrative units, with local impact – i.e. rehabilitation of urban roads, communal roads, urban regeneration of neighborhoods etc. - Integrated projects impacting the entire micro-region and implemented in partnership – i.e. establishment of an industrial park, expansion of public transport etc. - Projects with impact at the county level, implemented in partnership – i.e. expansion and rehabilitation of water and wastewater infrastructure etc. - Bacau County Council projects with impact at the county level. The indicative list of strategic project proposals can be found in Annex 1 of the Strategy; it contains relevant information for each project, including: objectives, priorities and measures in compliance with those set out in the Strategy, as well as the category they belong to from the ones mentioned above. The Annex 1 includes: 21 enlisted projects for micro-regions, including: title, purpose, specific objectives, problems addressed, main activities, estimated budget, funding sources, partners, indicative timeline; 515 individual titles of various UAT projects of Bacau (no other information); 33 enlisted projects of Bacau County Council including: title, purpose, specific objectives, problems addressed, main activities, estimated budget, funding sources, partners, indicative timeline. 5. BIHOR Strategy name in Romanian Strategia pentru dezvoltarea durabilă a județului Bihor pentru perioada 2014 -2020 Strategy name in English Sustainable Development Strategy of the Bihor County for the period 2014-2020 Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Vision Bihor aims by 2020 to become a dynamic and competitive county in which welfare is directly enjoyed by all The world we desire to see… county residents. Bihor wants to be recognized as a gate of entry and exit to Western Europe, where the entrepreneurial initiatives are actively supported by public institutions through good quality public services and infrastructure. Complementarily, the county aims to become a well-known tourist destination, both in Romania and neighboring countries. Objectives General objectives: The goals of the strategy are… The development of public infrastructure in the county Increasing economic competitiveness in industry and agriculture Exploiting the tourism potential of the county 303 The development of public services and administrative capacity Specific objectives for the first general objective: Modernization of transport infrastructure in the county Development of built infrastructure and networks Development of social infrastructure Increasing energy efficiency in the county Types of activities relevant for county Modernization of transport infrastructure in the county through: road infrastructure, water and sewage Modernization of road infrastructure infrastructure, and social infrastructure Modernization of air transport infrastructure The goals would be achieved through several Development of alternative transport modes and increase of traffic safety types of activities… Modernization of railway infrastructure Development of built infrastructure and networks through: Expansion and modernization of utilities in the county Development of social infrastructure through: Development of physical infrastructure in the social sector Increasing the energy efficiency in the county: Development of projects for reducing energy consumption Exploitation of renewable resources in the county Relevant projects for county road Road infrastructure infrastructure, water and sewage Rehabilitation and modernization of the county road (CR) 764 Beiuș-Roșia-Aștileu-Aleșd, i.e. the infrastructure, and social infrastructure sector between 31+000 km and 64+655 km Examples of projects include… Rehabilitation and modernization of CR 108I Bucea-Bulz-Tileagd, L = 46,533 km Rehabilitation of CR 764 Beiuș-Roșia and CR 764D Bratca -Borod, second stage, L = 32,128 km Modernization CR 763 Padiş-Cluj county limit (Ic Ponor) L = 10 km Rehabilitation and modernization of CR 108I Bucea-Bulz-Vadu Crişului, section 2 Modernization CR Marghita-Tășnad Regional Trail Transilvania Nord Rehabilitation and modernization of CR 767A Sarbi-Sâniob Rehabilitation and modernization of CR 767A Uileacu de Criş-Bălaia-Burzuc-Sîrbi Modernization CR 767 D Fasca-Cornet, L=8,450 km Modernization and rehabilitation of other county roads of strategic importance in the county Water and sewage infrastructure 304 Investment for the rehabilitation and expansion of public utilities infrastructure: water - sewage (starting from the territorial-administrative units with tourist resources) Extension and modernization of water and wastewater infrastructure in Bihor County Construction of telecommunications network between the Békés region and Bihor county Construction of an ecological water supply system and wastewater collector / treatment plant, and of an integrated waste management system in the Apuseni Natural Park Using geothermal water resources in the border area for the construction / rehabilitation of facilities in order to establish cross-border circuits. (More investment in the use of geothermal waters for tourist activities and in ensuring thermal energy supply on both sides of the border) Upgrading the low voltage network and improving its operation Rehabilitating and securing river dams, improving the hydrotechnical facilities of Crișul Repede river, building passages for the migration of ichthyofauna, and restoring longitudinally the watercourse Developing new hydrological facilities, rehabilitating the existing ones and making them safe, as well as creating wetlands on Crisul Negru river Bringing drainage canals, bridges and dams to the designed parameters, and purchasing equipment, machinery and installations for emergency situations Social infrastructure Extension of social services provided to youth / adults with disabilities and the elderly Extension of residential social services for children Modernization of educational infrastructure in Bihor County, including special education infrastructure Development and modernization of health infrastructure (hospitals, clinics) and the establishment of first aid offices to treat patients in crowded tourist areas or in areas without adequate medical coverage, in the border area on both sides of the border: new buildings, rehabilitating existing buildings, purchasing modern medical equipment. (Continuing and expanding health projects started in the period 2007-2013) Endowment the operational units of the Inspectorate for Emergency Situations Bihor with machinery and equipment Integrated project for sustainable development in the mountain area of Bihor county, improved access and a better response to emergency situations (Codru-Moma - Bihar - Vlădeasa - Pădurea Craiului) 305 Border telemedicine network development / implementation of telemedicine protocols developed within the project HURO/1001/095/2.4.2. (Continuing projects started in the period 2007-2013) Rehabilitation of poor sub-urban areas in the Ierului Valley (Development of poor border areas) Modernization of social services infrastructure in the Bihor county Upgrading and equipping the health infrastructure in Bihor county The strategy contains five separate strategic initiatives: 1. Modernization Oradea airport; 2. Development of the business environment in the Tileagd-Alesd area; 3. Development of sustainable tourism in the Apuseni Mountains; 4. Development of the business environment in the Beius area; 5. Diversification and strengthening of the economic base in the Ierului Valley micro-region (Marghita-Valea lui Mihai-Sacueni). The integrated package of initiatives contains projects for developing road infrastructure (e.g. rehabilitation and modernization of county roads), water and wastewater infrastructure (e.g. extending water and sewage networks), and social infrastructure (e.g. developing multifunctional cultural centers and sports facilities). Budget for projects related to county ROP; SOP Transport, SOP Environment, ERDF, ESF, SOP IEC, NPID, Sub-Programme „Modernization of road infrastructure, water and sewage Romanian Village” and Sub-Programme „Infrastructure at the county level” from NPLD, RNCMNR, local infrastructure, and social infrastructure budgets, national budget. The financing of these projects would come from… Timeline 2014-2020 The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities Strategy Europe 2020 Development Plan for the Nord-West Region 2014-2020 The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates with the following… TENT-T Programme Coordination aspects related to According to the Strategy, the County Council has the responsibility of coordinating projects and reaching investment objectives, types of activity, the targets set with respect to the assumed objectives, but its methods and tools of intervention are and projects (expressly mentioned) limited. For a unitary development, the established projects involve a number of other existing or potential partners, and their independent actions aiming at contributing to a common goal. 306 The implementation and monitoring of projects will be the prerogative of a Working Group on the Development Strategy, involving a responsible person designated as Strategy implementation coordinator. The Strategy Implementation coordinator will work closely with departments within/under the subordination of Bihor County Council, such as: Technical Department, Economic Department, Chief Architect, and General Department for Local Government. The Strategy provides the criteria for the prioritization of projects, the following two aspects being included: Correlation of project with other investments in various stages of development in Bihor county; Correlation of project with other future investments in the county of Bihor (from the list of strategic and specific projects). In the project portfolio, the need of correlating investment projects is also mentioned. Other Observations Overall, the Strategy is clear, coherent, applied; its parts are closely intertwined. Other useful things to note about this strategy Looking at the details, it is worth mentioning certain strengths. include… The Action Plan is very specific - it includes, besides the title, actors, timeline, budget estimates (EUR) and the assigned priority level (out of three levels of priority). The strategy includes records of projects; these contain relevant details, such as: the projects’ relevance for the envisioned development (its subordination to the strategic goal, specific objective or measure); their integration into other national/regional strategies, territorial reach, objectives and main activities, applicant and potential partners, potential funding sources, estimated budget, implementation timeline, priority degree, project status. The strategy also includes a cross-cut approach through five strategic initiatives; they are treated separately and with priority, and they are located in various geographical points of Bihor county (center, north, south-east, and west). The project implementation structure is clearly defined. According to the Strategy, specific projects are scheduled and sized according to the implementation capacity of the County Council, but also according to the opportunities and available funding. The timing of the projects depends on their degree of priority and on their compliance with other projects (some initiatives are conditioned or preceded by others). 307 6. BISTRITA-NASAUD Strategy name in Romanian Strategia de Dezvoltare a Județului Bistrița -Năsăud pentru perioada 2014-2020 Strategy name in English Bistrita-Nasaud County Development Strategy over the period 2014-2020 Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Vision By 2025, Bistrita-Nasaud will configure the frame for a sustainable development through a smart, diverse The world we desire to see… and specialized economy, through a differentiated position based on an intelligent valorization of traditions and authentic values, and through enhanced connectivity with the territory. Statement of Vision for 2025 time horizon can be formulated as follows: Bistrita-Nasaud county is competitive by its smart communities, cultural uniqueness and magical nature. Objectives Smart economic development through diversified specialization The goals of the strategy are… Sustainable development Differentiation through smart valuing of traditions and of authentic values Enhanced connectivity Types of activities relevant for county Transport infrastructure and utilities road infrastructure, water and sewage Infrastructure, endowments and services for water supply and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure Development of road infrastructure The goals would be achieved through several Development of public transport services types of activities… Configuring inter-modal transport system Territorial, urban and rural development Program for the development of education services (urban, rural) Program for the development of health services (urban, rural) Program on social protection (urban, rural) Program for the development of cultural services (urban, rural) Program for endowments in the cults’ sector (urban, rural) Program on urban/rural housing Territorial Cooperation Program on involvement in large scale territorial projects in the region, on the 7 development themes of the micro-regions (strategic areas) Program on participation in networks Program on participation in relevant regional partnerships 308 Relevant projects for county road Road infrastructure infrastructure, water and sewage Modernization of NR 17C - Bistrita-Moisei infrastructure, and social infrastructure Modernization of NR 17D - Beclenut-Valea Mare Examples of projects include… Modernization of sections from CR 154, CR 162, CR 171, CR 172, CR 173 Modernization of access road infrastructure in Nasaud Modernization of access road infrastructure in the industrial area Bistrita Modernization of communal roads: LAG Ruralis, Sieului Valley area Construction of a ring road in Beclean Water and sewage infrastructure Water and sewage infrastructure in all lowlands localities in the South-west Extension and modernization of water and wastewater infrastructure in Bistrita-Nasaud - Phase II Water treatment plant in Matei (locality) Completing the sewage network in all the localities through integrated projects: LAG Ruralis, Sieului Valley area Water supply from Lake Colibita: LAG Ruralis, Sieului Valley area Completing the sewage system in the area of the Lake Colibita Extension of water and sewage networks (e.g. Rebrisoara): LAG Nasaud Social infrastructure Rehabilitating, upgrading and equipping “George Cosbuc” National College Nasaud (urban) Renovation of the kindergarten from Salciilor Steet, Singeorz-Bai (urban) Construction of a school campus in Teaca (rural) Construction of a gym at “Liviu Rebreanu” School in Chiuza village (rural) Construction of a communal library in Lesu locality (rural) Development of Singeorz balneary center (urban) Rehabilitation of surgical departments, centralized operating theater and Anesthesia and Intensive Therapy wards from Bistrita County Emergency Hospital (urban) Thermal rehabilitation of the Bistrita County Emergency Hospital departments (urban) Rehabilitation, modernization and equipping of “Dr. George Trifon” City Hospital in Nasaud (urban) Rehabilitation and equipping of the human dispensary from Milas village (rural) Rehabilitation, modernization, and equipping of the Center for Child Protection Bistrita (urban) Establishment of a center for sheltering and counseling victims of domestic violence (urban) Construction of social housing complex with 16 apartments on the Bistritei Street, Nasaud city 309 (urban) Expansion, modernization and rehabilitation of the care center for elderly, Nuseni locality (rural) Developing the Bistrita and Nasaud Village Museum (urban) Constructing and endowing the Polyvalent Hall for performances, exhibitions, meetings, Bistrita (urban) Restoration of the Culture House in Singeorz-Bai (urban) Introducing the Village Museum of Budesti in the tourist circuit Renovation and extension of the chapel of Singeorz-Bai city (urban) Rehabilitation of the orthodox church from Satu Nou locality, Cetate commune (rural) Budget for projects related to county Annex A2 of the Strategy includes potential funding sources for 2014-2020. The 28 page document enlists road infrastructure, water and sewage the following funding sources: ROP and SOP 2007-2013, with the major areas of intervention that are still infrastructure, and social infrastructure active; EU structural funds 2014-2020; NPRD, with the relevant axes and measures, other funding sources, The financing of these projects would come including state aid schemes, European Investment Bank funds, Progress Microfinance, Darby Private Fund. from… Timeline 2014-2020 The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities Europe 2020 Strategy The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates Connecting Europe Facility with the fol lowing… White Paper - Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area - Towards a competitive and resource efficient transport system Energy 2020: A Strategy for competitive, sustainable and secure energy Small Business Act Creative Europe Framework Programme 2020 Horizon Framework Programme Enhancing and focusing EU international cooperation in research and innovation: A strategic approach EU Programme for Social Change and Innovation The White Paper on multilevel governance Danube Strategy Sustainable development of the Tisa River Basin Positioning in the pole network of the Partnership for sustainable territorial development, Visegrad Group 4+2 310 Sustainable development of the Carpathian Euro-region Territorial Network of Local Action Groups National Reform Programme Strategic Concept of Territorial Development Romania 2030 National Strategy for Regional Development 2014-2020 Sustainable Transport Strategy for the period 2007-2013, and 2020, 2030 Strategy for Inter-modal Transport in Romania 2020 Master Plan for National Tourism Development in Romania 2007-2026 Memorandum - Romania's preliminary position on the Commission Communication “The CAP towards 2020: Meeting the food, natural resources and territorial challenges of the future” National Strategy for Sustainable Development in Romania for the time horizon 2020 and 2030 Partnership Agreement 2014-2020 National Development Plan 2014-2020 Competitiveness Strategy for the period 2014-2020 National Programme for Rural Development 2014-2020 Regional Development Plan for the North-West Region 2014-2020 Coordination aspects related to The strategy notes that in terms of strategic approach related to transport infrastructure and utilities, the investment objectives, types of activity, following recommendations (among others) must be taken into account: and projects (expressly mentioned) Coordination of development plans with those for transport infrastructure and utilities Coordinating their development with the processes of catalyzing local economic development (ensuring financial resources for their operation, maintenance, and development) and controlling their physical and moral wearing; Coordination of transport infrastructure and utilities development plans, while ensuring measures for environmental protection (against air pollution etc.), land values and specificities (monuments, rivers, land in general etc.). The Strategy contains as well integrated projects for water supply and sewage infrastructure, and road infrastructure in the localities of the county. Other Observations Overall, the strategy is properly drawn up, clear, coherent, complex. Other useful things to note about this strategy The degree of detailing the objectives and intervention measures is suitable. Specific projects are listed for include… each area of intervention, and that adds value to the strategy. Compared to other strategies, the document contains a special section regarding the policy framework for the implementation of projects. 311 The strategy adopts a different approach depending on each of the development areas. Annex A3 of the Strategy centralizes projects of the Bistrita-Nasaud County Council 2014-2020. The document includes for each project: project title, project stage, maturity (implementation period), target group. Projects are grouped into the following categories: transport infrastructure (26 projects) and other areas (43 projects in the following domains: utilities, tourism, economic development, social, cultural, environmental, public administration). Annex A4 contains the projects of the administrative-territorial units of Bistrita-Nasaud county for the period 2014-2020. The document includes for each project: project title, project stage, maturity (implementation period), target group. The projects are grouped according to the 41 administrative units they belong to. 7. BOTOSANI Strategy name in Romanian Strategia de Dezvoltare Socio-economică a Județului Botoșani 2014-2020 Strategy name in English Socio-economic Development Strategy of the Botosani County 2014-2020 Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Vision The vision of this Strategy is taken from the Development Strategy of the North-East region for the period The world we desir e to see… 2014-2020: “In 2022, the North-East will be a more attractive place to invest, work and live!” Objectives The general objective is taken from Development Strategy of the North-East region for the period 2014- The goals of the strategy are… 2020. General objective: lead the North-East region through a process of sustainable economic growth that is favorable to economic competitiveness and to social inclusion, reducing the gaps between the region and other regions of Romania. The proposed target for 2022: disparity index of the regional GDP per capita will be 75% of the national indicator and 37% of the indicator at the Community level. Development priorities according to the objectives (included in the Botosani County Strategy): Improve communications infrastructure and public services in order to increase accessibility of the county Sustainable economic development and competitive economy based on research, development and innovation, as well as on the information society 312 Supporting rural economy and rural development by harnessing countryside specific resources Improving human capital by promoting employment, access to education, health and education, promoting social inclusion and combating poverty Promoting and exploiting the cultural tourism resources of the Botosani county, promoting a healthy lifestyle Developing external cooperation and intra-and inter-regional partnerships Types of activities relevant for county Improve road infrastructure and territorial planning, including through: road infrastructure, water and sewage Modernization of the county road infrastructure (national roads, county roads, commune roads, infrastructure, and social infrastructure village roads, European roads, and bypasses) The goals would be achieved through several Construction/rehabilitation of bridges and culverts types of activities… Improve the infrastructure for environmental protection, natural heritage and natural risk prevention and management, including through: Construction/rehabilitation/expansion/modernization of water supply and sewage networks and treatment plants Improve social, education and health infrastructure, including through: Rehabilitation/ modernization/ equipping of social services infrastructure Rehabilitation/ modernization/ equipping of health services infrastructure Rehabilitation/ modernization/ equipping of pre-university and university infrastructure Development of infrastructure for sports and recreation Construction/ rehabilitation/ modernization of the cultural infrastructure Relevant projects for county road Road infrastructure infrastructure, water and sewage Rehabilitation of sections from the following county roads (CR): CR 282, CR 297, CR 208H, CR 208I, infrastructure, and social infrastructure CR 208C (via ROP 2014-2020) Examples of projects include… Extending and upgrading water and wastewater systems (SOP Environment or equivalent, state budget, local budgets) Modernization of the county road infrastructure (national roads, county roads, commune roads, village roads, European roads, and bypasses): around 250 project titles Water and sewage infrastructure Construction/ rehabilitation/ expansion/ modernization of water supply and sewage networks and treatment plants: over 130 listed projects. Social infrastructure Housing/social housing infrastructure: 30 projects listed 313 Rehabilitation/ modernization/ equipping of social services infrastructure: over 100 listed projects Rehabilitation/modernization/equipping of health services infrastructure: over 60 projects Rehabilitation/ modernization/ equipping of pre-university and university infrastructure: over 140 project titles Development of infrastructure for sports and recreation: over 100 project titles Construction/rehabilitation/modernization of the cultural infrastructure: over 150 project titles Budget for projects related to county The mentioned funding sources: ROP 2014-2020, SOP Environment or equivalent, state budget, local road infrastructure, water and sewage budgets, private equity, credit, European funds (generic), NPRD. infrastructure, and social infrastructure The financing of these projects would come from… Timeline 2014-2020 The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities Strategic Framework Europe 2020 EU Cohesion Policy The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates with the following… Partnership Agreement 2014-2020 European Strategy for Sustainable Development National Strategy for the Sustainable Development of Romania horizons 2013-2020-2030 Strategic Concept of Territorial Development Romania 2030 Regional Development Strategy for the North-East Region 2014-2020 Smart Specialization Strategy for the North-East Region 2014-2010 Coordination aspects related to The Strategy explicitly mentions the role of the County Council to coordinate and control the investment objectives, types of activity, implementation of investments and infrastructure rehabilitation activities in the county. and projects (expressly mentioned) The Strategy refers to integrated territorial investments for multidimensional and cross-sector interventions. Monitoring will suppose the review of the implementation during the scheduled activities and will contribute to an improvement in the coordination of projects carried out at the territorial level. The Strategy speaks about integrated territorial investments and projects linking LAG (Local Action Groups) with NPRD. The strategy includes integrated projects for water, sewage, and treatment plants, but also integrated projects that comprise road infrastructure activities. 314 Other Observations Overall, the strategy is relatively well written and fairly detailed. It contains long lists of projects on Other useful things to note about this strategy intervention domains. include… The strategy contains 10 strategic projects, briefly presented using the following information: implementation period, purpose, estimated value, partners, funding sources, specific objectives, main activities. A special section is devoted to the infrastructure that supports economic and social activities, including: public administration, local action groups, community development associations, European regional development group. The Strategy contains numerous monitoring indicators, which are listed for each strategic objective and for each development priority. However, the strategy lacks budget estimates for the projects and a constant and clear identification of the available funding lines. Sources of funding are mentioned in the case of strategic projects. They are included in projects’ lists as well, but the entries are vague, and for some of the projects they are missing. 8. BRAILA Strategy name in Romanian Strategia de Dezvoltare Durabilă a Județului Brăila 2010 -2015 Strategy name in English Sustainable Development Strategy of the Braila County 2010-2015 Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Vision In 2015 Braila County will be characterized by sustainable development meaning: The world we desire to see… - viable exploitation of its geo-strategic position and natural resources in order to ensure a balance between socio-economic systems and natural potential; - skilled workforce for which there is a sufficient number of well-paid jobs; - maintenance of the county’s competitiveness through the pursuit of rewarding economic activities, the adoption of new technologies and through investments in knowledge and innovation; - continuous improvement of living standards by providing equal access to utilities, to social, health and education services; - active involvement of institutions in view of a balanced economic and social development of the county, with the support of the community, social partners and business through democratic consultations in decision-making. 315 Objectives General objective: continuous improvement of life quality in Braila county for present and future The goals of the strategy are… generations through the creation of a sustainable community, able to manage and use resources efficiently and effectively, thus ensuring prosperity, environmental protection and social cohesion. Specific objectives: Balanced infrastructure development, coordinated with the implementation of adequate systems for the management of natural capital and natural risks. Creating the conditions for a flexible labor market (where the labor supply is continuously adapted to the requirements of employers) by promoting entrepreneurial culture, information society and new services in the context of the integration of productive activities in the European economic area. Managing eco-efficiently resource consumption and to maximizing their valorization by promoting consumption and production practices that enable long-term sustainable growth. Improving the properties of the physical environment, in support of life in rural and urban areas of the county in view of the county's sustainable development and of reducing disparities between rural and urban areas. Types of activities relevant for county Improving transport infrastructure and utility networks, including through: road infrastructure, water and sewage Modernization of public transport systems infrastructure, and social infrastructure Modernization/ development of ring roads for urban centers The goals would be achieved through several Construction/ rehabilitation of bridges and culverts types of activities… Rehabilitation and modernization of the road transport network Improving water and wastewater infrastructure, including through: Integrated projects water - sewage - treatment plants Construction/rehabilitation/expansion/modernization of water supply networks Construction/ rehabilitation/ extension of water and sewage systems Construction/ rehabilitation/expansion of sewage systems and treatment plants Improving life quality for the citizens of Braila county, including through: Construction/ rehabilitation/modernization of housing, of cultural, sports and leisure facilities Ensuring equal access to social services, including through: Rehabilitation, modernization, development and equipping of social services infrastructure Supporting partnerships to develop support services for the elderly Establishing mutual aid network for various disadvantaged groups Ensuring equal access to health services, including through: 316 Rehabilitation, modernization, development and equipping of health services infrastructure Ensure equal access to education, including through: Rehabilitation, modernization, development and equipping of pre-university education infrastructure Support for gifted children by social grants and afterschool centers Sustainable use of natural and cultural heritage, including through: Enhancement of cultural heritage through rehabilitation and restoration of historical monuments and buildings belonging to the architectural heritage Relevant projects for county road Road infrastructure infrastructure, water and sewage Water - sewage - treatment plants integrated projects - 3 projects infrastructure, and social infrastructure Development/ rehabilitation/ expansion/ modernization of water supply networks - 28 projects Examples of projects include… Construction/ rehabilitation/extension of water supply and sewage systems - 2 projects Construction/ rehabilitation/ expansion of sewage systems and treatment plants - 41 projects Water and sewage infrastructure Modernization of public transport systems - 7 projects Modernization/ development of ring roads for urban centers - 2 projects Construction/ rehabilitation of bridges and culverts - 4 projects Rehabilitation and modernization of the road transport network - 48 projects Social infrastructure Construction/ rehabilitation/ modernization of housing, of cultural, sports, and leisure facilities - 57 Rehabilitation, modernization, development and equipping of social services infrastructure - 7 projects Supporting partnerships to develop support services for the elderly - 7 projects Mutual aid network for various disadvantaged groups - 1 project Rehabilitation, modernization, development and equipping of health services infrastructure - 6 projects Providing primary health care in rural areas - 18 projects Rehabilitation, modernization, development and equipping of pre-university education infrastructure - 54 projects Afterschool centers construction - 4 projects Rehabilitation and restoration of historical monuments and buildings belonging to the architectural heritage - 8 projects 317 Budget for projects related to county SOP Environment 2007-2013, ROP 2007-2013, SOP Transport, TEN-T Multiannual Programme 2007-2013, road infrastructure, water and sewage NPRD, governmental housing constructions programs, Environmental Fund Administration, county budget, infrastructure, and social infrastructure local budget The financing of these projects would come from… Timeline 2010-2015 The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities National Development Plan 2007-2013 The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates Regional Development Plan 2007-2013 of the South-East Region with the following… Intervention areas of the EU’s Structural Funds and Cohesion Funds EU Strategy for the Danube Region Joint Operational Programme “Black Sea Shore” NAIADES Program – integrated action programme in support of inland waterway transport TEN-T Guidelines – Trans-European Transport Networks Coordination aspects related to The Strategy mentions among its specific objectives the balanced development of infrastructure, investment objectives, types of activity, coordinated with the implementation of appropriate management systems of natural capital and natural and projects (expressly mentioned) risk prevention. The strategy proposes a coordination committee for the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the Strategy. The Strategy includes water - sewage - treatment plants integrated projects. Other Observations Overall, the Strategy is clear and consistent. It is sufficiently detailed and includes specific projects for each Other useful things to note about this strategy strategic objective. Also, funding sources are given careful attention. For example, the strategy identifies include… the intervention areas of the EU’s Structural and Cohesion Funds through which the projects may be financed. For each of the proposed projects under “Policies, programs and indicative operations, projects” (other than those that are already under implementation), there are project sheets containing the following information: the project’s integration in t he Strategy; the objective of the project; sources of funding available to initiate and implement the project; applicants/partners; other references, where appropriate; timeline. The Strategy’s Action Plan consists of project sheets, which can be ordered b y priority depending on: the time axis, the logical sequence of implementation of the measures, the schedule of calls for a particular OP 318 (if applicable), the maturity of the project. In terms of funding sources, the Strategy identifies the operational programs, axes and measures for the projects detailed projects in the project sheets (over 120). For each specific objective, expected results (generically formulated) and monitoring indicators are presented. The strategy includes the main steps to be followed in developing and submitting a project’s documentation in view of being funded. It also mentions briefly what the evaluation and selection processes and the pre-contracting stage include. The strategy includes the following types of projects: ongoing projects, targeted projects (for which technical studies exists), proposed projects, project ideas. 9. BRASOV Strategy name in Romanian Strategia de dezvoltare a județului Brașov 2013-2020-2030 Strategy name in English Brasov County Development Strategy 2013-2020-2030 Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Type of Strategy General general or sector-based (name of sector) Vision In 2030, Brasov County will be competitive and prosperous, attractive for those who want to live or invest The world we desire to see… here, and for those who want to visit it. Objectives The overall strategic objective: Effective use of all existing physical and human resources, respecting the The goals of the strategy are… sustainable development principles, in order to achieve long-term economic and social development, meant to lead to increased life quality in Brasov County. Main development directions and relevant correspondent objectives (selection): Infrastructure development in the county and municipalities. Brasov - main transportation and communication hub Development, rehabilitation and modernization of transport infrastructure Improvement of technical and urbanistic infrastructure Tourism development. Brasov - Romanian tourism capital Infrastructure development to ensure increased attractiveness and competitiveness of the region's natural and cultural tourism potential 319 Promotion and enhancement of tourist attractions, events and local manifestations Consolidation and development of the county economy. Doubling Brasov GDP by 2020 Polycentric urban development. Brasov metropolitan area - capital of the Center Development Region. Sustainable Tourism Development. Brasov Growth Pole – tourism capital Sustainable and competitive development of B rasov’s economy - Brasov Growth Pole – Center of excellence in research, innovation and technology transfer Sustainable development of transport and communications. Brasov Growth Pole – transport and communications hub, logistics center Sustainable development of the local community – an European life standard in the Brasov Growth Pole Improving the environmental management sector. Brasov - Romania's green capital Sustainable Water Management Waste Management Increasing the quality of human capital. Redefining the status/ values of being “inhabitant of the county of Brasov”. Development and modernization of school infrastructure, increasing the quality of services in schools Development and modernization of health infrastructure, improving the quality of services in medical units Development and modernization of social infrastructure, improving the quality of services in specialized units Rural development. Agriculture – alternative source of income. Types of activities relevant for county Development, rehabilitation and modernization of transport infrastructure, including through: road infrastructure, water and sewage The construction and development of major transport infrastructure infrastructure, and social infrastructure Streamlining traffic on national and European roads The goals would be achieved through several Upgrading and rehabilitation of local traffic routes (county and municipal) so that they meet types of activities… current traffic demands Upgrading and rehabilitation of local traffic routes (county and municipal) with high tourist impact Construction of new inter-county tourist roads Expanding public transport to rural areas and within rural areas Improving the overall quality of public passenger transport in the county, in compliance with environmental rules 320 Construction of parking spaces in accordance with the traffic flow and fleet especially in Brasov municipality Improvement of technical and urbanistic infrastructure, including through: Introduction, expansion, rehabilitation and modernization of water and sewage systems especially in the rural area Development and modernization of school infrastructure, increasing the quality of services in schools, including through: Renovation or construction of kindergartens, schools, including annexes (e.g. sports buildings and facilities), but only according to demographic forecasts and projections of enrollment Development of research and development infrastructure Development and modernization of health infrastructure, improving the quality of services in medical units: Construction of University Hospital as an integrated system of health services Upgrading and equipping health units and emergency departments, and of the county’s ambulance service Development and modernization of social infrastructure, improving the quality of services in specialized units, including through: Establishing alternative residences (temporary shelters, transit centers, crisis centers, protected dwellings, family-type houses) Establishing alternative non-residential units (day centers, counseling centers, clubs, therapy and rehabilitation centers) Construction of social housing for families and individuals in need or at risk Relevant projects for county road Road infrastructure infrastructure, water and sewage Construction of the motorways Brasov-Bors and Brasov-Bucharest infrastructure, and social infrastructure Construction of an integrated logistics center close to Brasov airport Examples of projects include… Construction of bypasses for localities (or completion, widening, and strengthening of the existing ones). The following will be prioritized: Brasov municipality (completion of Brasov’s bypass, construction of the ring road on the route Sacele - Harman - Bod - Halchiu - Dumbravita - Vladeni), Fagaras and Săcele municipalities, Rasnov, Ghimbav, Codlea, and Zarnesti cities, as well as the communes crossed and affected by the traffic on DN1, DN 13, DN10. Modernization / rehabilitation roads with strategic role – those that connect to other counties / those that can streamline the traffic as an alternative to European or national roads: DJ 104 321 (Şercaia - Hoghiz), DJ 104A (Perşani - Victoria - Ucea de Jos), DN 73A (Tohanu Vechi - Şinca Veche), DJ 105A (Rupea - Cincu - Toarcla - Sibiu), DJ 132 (Homorod - Jimbor - Harghita), DJ 132B (Homorod - Ioneşti - Harghita), DC 32 (DN 13 - Racoş - Augustin), DC 34 (Apata - Ormeniş - Augustin), DC 55 (Victoria - Sibiu), DJ 112 (Harman -Podu Olt - Covasna), DC 24 (Cobor - Ticusu Vechi - Comana), DJ 105 (Cincu - Voila), DJ 104 D (Fagaras - Soars - Sighisoara). Upgrading and rehabilitating local traffic routes (county and municipal) with high tourist impact. Priority will be given to: DC 28 (Bunesti - Viscri), DC 44 (DN1 – Dumbravita), DC 56 (Moeciu – Pestera with extension towards DC 57 Pestera – Magura – Zarnesti, and connection with a future tourist road linking Pestera, Sirnea, and Arges in parallel with Piatra Craiului mountain); DC 55 Fundata – Sirnea, DC 53 Moeciu de Jos – Moeciu de Sus, DC 59 ( Predelut – Zarnesti); DN 73A, which overlaps with the motorway on the segment Predeal – Zarnesti; DJ 102P (Predeal – Cabana Trei Brazi), DC 84 (Râşnov – Poiana Braşov), DJ 103A Tarlungeni – Vama Buzaului; Persani – Grid – Comana – Venetia de jos – Baile Venetia with the link between Comana de Sus and Crizbav. New tourist roads construction between counties: Moeciu de Sus – Dambovita; Sacele – Valea Doftanei – Prahova; Vama Buzaului – Covasna – Buzau; Victoria – Balea Cascada; Pestera – Sirnea – Cheile Dambovicioarei; Rasnov – Diham – Busteni. Extending passenger public transport to rural areas and inside rural areas; priority will be given to the following areas: Rupea – Fagaras: Brasov – Rupea, Hoghiz - Sercaia, Rupea – Racos - Augustin, Homorod – Jimbor, Homorod – Ionesti, Homorod – Beia, Fagaras - Cincu – Soars - Lovnic - Jibert – Dacia – Rupea. Water and sewage infrastructure Introduction, expansion, rehabilitation and modernization of water and sewage systems in the county, especially in rural areas. The following will be prioritized: completion of the investment started by the Company “Apa” with financial support from SOP Environment, Axis 1; investment in Fagaras municipality in partnership with Sibiu county through SOP Environment, Axis 1; the rural area from Tara Fagarasului and the rural area in the north-western part of the County (possibly by NPRD 322, local budgets, the national budget). Social infrastructure Construction of Research, Innovation, and Development Center by „Transylvania” University – Brasov Construction of University Hospital Budget for projects related to county The financial capacity of local authorities is declining. Under these conditions, in the short and medium 322 road infrastructure, water and sewage term, the main financing sources for investment projects may be the EU’s structural funds. infrastructure, and social infrastructure Funding sources mentioned explicitly: SOP Environment, NPRD, the Environment Fund, public-private The financing of these projects would come partnerships, local budgets. from… Timeline 2013-2020-2030 The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities National Development Plan 2007-2013 The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates National Strategic Reference Framework 2007-2013 with the following… National Strategy for the Sustainable Development of Romania 2013-2020-2030 Regional Development Plan for the Center Region 2007-2013 Demographic Forecast for the Center Region 2003-2025 National Territorial Development Plan 2009 Territorial Development Plan of Brasov County 2002 County Waste Management Plan Brasov 2010 (draft) Regional Master Plan for Water Local Action Plan for Environmental Protection, Brasov county, 2006 Regional Action Plan for Employment and Social Inclusion School Development Plan of Brasov County, 2010 Master Plan on Romania’s National Tourism, 2007-2026 Integrated Urban Development Plan Brasov 2009 Local development strategies of cities, towns and villages in the county (drafts from 2010) Coordination aspects related to The Strategy includes an integrated project in the field of major transport infrastructure construction and investment objectives, types of activity, development: the construction of an integrated logistics center near the airport of Brasov. It also takes into and projects (expressly mentioned) account the integrated waste management. Other provisions concerning aspects of coordination are not present. Other Observations Overall, the strategy is comprehensive especially in the analytical part and detailed enough. It includes Other useful things to note about this strategy major directions of development for the county. However, some of these directions overlap. For example, include… the road infrastructure is found in three of the seven major development directions. Concrete projects are present, but not for all the specific objectives mentioned. An action plan for the implementation of the Strategy is not present, and funding sources are not given enough attention. 323 10. BUZAU Strategy name in Romanian Strategia de dezvoltare durabilă a județului Buzău 2007-2013 Strategy name in English Sustainable Development Strategy of Buzau County 2007-2013 Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Vision In the year 2013, Buzau will be a county that will have developed sustainably in the following directions: The world we desire to see… - viable exploitation of its geo-strategic position and natural resources in order to ensure a balance between socio-economic systems and natural potential; - skilled workforce for which there is a sufficient number of well-paid jobs; - maintenance of the county’s competitiveness through the pursuit of rewarding economic activities, the adoption of new technologies and through investments in knowledge and innovation; - continuous improvement of living standards by providing equal access to utilities, to social, health and education services; - active involvement of institutions in view of a balanced economic and social development of the county, with the support of the community, social partners and business through democratic consultations in decision-making. Objectives General objective: continuous improvement of life quality in Buzau county for present and future The goals of the strategy are… generations through the creation of a sustainable community, able to manage and use resources efficiently and effectively, thus ensuring prosperity, environmental protection and social cohesion. Development directions and relevant corresponding objectives (selection): Natural resources and environment Improving the quality of the water and wastewater infrastructure Economic development and competitiveness Human resource development Infrastructure and utilities Improve infrastructure and utilities Ensuring equal access to social services Ensuring equal access to health services Equal access to education Sustainable use of natural and cultural heritage 324 Types of activities relevant for county Natural resources and environment road infrastructure, water and sewage Integrated projects water – sewage – treatment plants infrastructure, and social infrastructure Construction/rehabilitation/expansion/modernization of water supply networks The goals would be achieved through several Construction/rehabilitation/expansion of sewage systems and treatment plants types of activities… Infrastructure and utilities Rehabilitation and modernization of road transport network Construction/rehabilitation/modernization of housing, cultural facilities, sports, and leisure infrastructures Rehabilitation, modernization, development, and equipping of social services infrastructure Rehabilitation, modernization, development, and equipping of school infrastructure Harnessing the cultural heritage through the rehabilitation and restoration of historical monuments and buildings belonging to the architectural patrimony Relevant projects for county road Road infrastructure infrastructure, water and sewage Modernization of the County Road (CR) CR 203K, Km 75+000 – 105+000, Vintila Voda – Plaiul infrastructure, and social infrastructure Nucului, Buzau county Examples of projects include… Rehabilitation of CR 203K, km 116+000 – 127+600, Gura Teghii – Nehoiasu, Buzau county Rehabilitation of CR 203H, km 0+000 – 16+000, Ramnicu Sarat – Buda Water and sewage infrastructure Water supply, building/upgrading sewage treatment plants and rehabilitating/expanding sewage networks in Buzau, Ramnicu Sarat, Nehoiu, Patarlagele, Pogoanele Water supply, sewage, and wastewater treatment plant in the communes of Smeeni (Smeeni, Udati Manzu) Topliceni (Babeni and Raducesti) etc. Water supply system of the localities situated in Buzau valley – 25 places Rehabilitation of chlorination station, water tank, water distribution network, wastewater treatment plant; water connection; execution of water catchment, sewage and wastewater treatment plants in Patarlagele city and its component villages. Social infrastructure Construction of gyms at the Technical Group School, School no 1, and School no. 2 from Nehoiu Construction of a stadium in Patarlagele city Rehabilitation of the Bisca Rozilei Day Centre, Nehoiu city Enlarging the Service Complex for severely disabled no. 8 in Buzau by a new pavilion Modernization, development, and equipping of the Râmnicu Sarat Municipal Hospital’s special ized 325 ambulatory Rehabilitation of Nehoiu City Hospital Rehabilitation of the dispensary, pharmacy, and rescue substation in Mihailesti commune Rehabilitation/modernization of the School with classes I-VIII no. 6, School with classes I-VIII no. 3, Agricultural School Group Ramnicu Sarat Rehabilitation of “Alexandru Vlahuta” National College, Ramnicu Sarat Rehabilitation of School with classes I-IV, Mlajet - Nehoiu Rehabilitation of “Alexandru Odobescu” County Museum, Buzau Rehabilitation of Albatros Villa (national patrimony building) Restoration of “Casa Domneasca” Museum and historic monument, Ramnicu Sarat Budget for projects related to county Local budget, county budget, national programs, Environmental Fund, SOP Environment, ROP, Territorial road infrastructure, water and sewage and Interregional Cooperation Programmes, NPRD, bilateral programmes, bank loans infrastructure, and social infrastructure The financing of these projects would come from… Timeline 2007-2013 The implementation / completion of these projec ts is foreseen… Complementarities European Council Regulation no. 1083/2006 Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion, 2008 The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates with the following… Territorial Agenda of the European Union Strategic EU Cohesion Guidelines Lisbon Agenda Operational Programmes European Territorial Cooperation and interregional programmes National Development Plan 2007-2013 National Strategic Reference Framework 2007-2013 Spatial Plan of Buzau County Coordination aspects related to According to the Strategy, a Coordination Committee for implementing, monitoring, and evaluating it will investment objectives, types of activity, monitor the effectiveness and quality of its implementation. and projects (expressly mentioned) The Strategy also states that the directions of development of the Strategy were correlated with the county land-use development strategy, presented in the Spatial Plan of Buzau county. 326 The strategy proposes integrated projects for water, sewage, and treatment plants, without mentioning other aspects related to investment coordination. Other Observations Overall, the strategy is clear, coherent and comprehensive. It details the technical aspects related to the Other useful things to note about this strategy development and implementation of projects and to funding. The strategy also includes development include… scenarios. The main content of the Strategy is deployed in the following order: development direction, the objective correspondent to the development direction, development sub-direction, proposed projects, expected results, responsible institutions/ partners. The Action Plan contains the following types of information: the development direction and sub-direction that frame each project, project title, responsible institutions (beneficiaries and partners), recommended timeframe for implementation, available funding sources. It is worth noting that the strategy includes, inter alia: - specific recommendations for achieving the objectives of each development direction; - the main steps to be taken in developing and submitting the documentation of a project for funding; - the main steps to follow to implement the proposed project; - a separate section detailing the available funding sources - national programmes, operational programmes (transnational territorial cooperation programmes, interregional cooperation programmes), bilateral programmes, funding from international financial institutions, banks specialized in public sector financing, commercial banks , embassies, foundations, organizations, sponsorships; - a separate chapter dedicated to partnership opportunities. 11. CALARASI Strategy name in Romanian Planul de Dezvoltare a județului Călărași pentru perioada 2014 -2020 (variantă în consultare, noiembrie 2014) Strategy name in English Calarasi County Development Plan 2014-2020 (draft, last accessed: November, 2014) Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Vision Calarasi 2020 – a county with a sustainable local economy, developed through innovation, tradition and The world we desire to see… valorization of resources, attractive to investors, supported by a modern infrastructure and by a solid partnership environment. 327 Objectives General objective: the sustainable development of the local economy and society through valorizing and The goals of the strategy are… preserving the natural resources, reducing disparities (urban-rural), creating an attractive environment for investors and tourism that is supported by a modern infrastructure, human resources training, and promoting social inclusion. Specific objectives: Develop the county’s infrastructure by providing sustainable public transport networks and utility services Develop human capital for economic growth and social development through modern health services, improved education and adult training promotion, increased employment in the labor market and ensured social inclusion Sustainable development by promoting an efficient, ecological, and competitive economy in terms of resource use and energy policy, environmental protection and risk management Increase the competitiveness of the county economy by developing business support infrastructure and strengthening the research - development – innovation sector The dynamic growth of the rural economy, the development of living standards in rural areas and the increase of the rural areas’ contribution to the county's economy Develop the administrative capacity by improving the accessibility and quality of public services and by adopting a transparent management Types of activities relevant for county Public transport network road infrastructure, water and sewage Sustainable development and modernization of the county/regional transport infrastructure infrastructure, and social infrastructure connected to the European networks The goals would be achieved through several Traffic fluidization by reducing congestion on county and national roads types of activities… Upgrading and rehabilitation of regional and local interest roads Public utility services Introduction, expansion, rehabilitation, and modernization of public utilities Construction, strengthening, and modernizing the urban infrastructure Construction, upgrading, and equipping of cultural infrastructure Improving the educational infrastructure and the quality of educational services in the county’s localities Improvement and development of health infrastructure and increasing the quality of medical services Development and modernization of social protection infrastructure and increasing the quality of 328 specialized services Relevant projects for county road Road infrastructure infrastructure, water and sewage Establishing connectivity between county roads and the national road network and also the A2 infrastructure, and social infrastructure motorway through the of the County Road (CR) 402 + CR 302, CR 306 and CR 201B + CR 305 + CR Examples of projects include… 313 Building a bridge over the Danube between Calarasi and Silistra Construction of a bypass road for the city of Calarasi (railway level crossing on CR 310 and other existing road sections) Construction of a bypass road for the city of Olteniţa Establishing connectivity between NR 4 – CR 301 as a bypass of Budesti city, intended for heavy traffic (including crossing over the river Dambovita) Construction of passageways over the railway on NR 21 in Drajna area, NR 3 in the area of Lehliu train station, on the NR 301 and in Calarasi city – Sloboziei street Development of intra- and inter-county access, including to economic resources through the rehabilitation and modernization of CR 401C + CR 402, CR 211D and CR 100 Water and sewage infrastructure Introduction, expansion, rehabilitation, and modernization of drinking water infrastructure Introduction, expansion, rehabilitation, and modernization of sewage infrastructure Social infrastructure Construction, rehabilitation, and modernization of social housing, housing for young people and housing for certain socio-professional categories Build a modern county library in the city of Calarasi Upgrade the “Lower Danube” county Museum, Calarasi Establish a municipal arts museum in the city of Calarasi Build a cultural center in the city of Oltenita Construction, rehabilitation, modernization, and equipping of kindergartens, schools, high schools and their respective annexes Continue with the construction of a regional emergency hospital in Calarasi county Modernization, rehabilitation, and equipping of Calarasi County Emergency Hospital Modernization, rehabilitation, and equipping of the Ambulatory and Municipal Hospital in Oltenita Establish a multifunctional office for nursing and social assistance, residence for the elderly, club, day care centers, activities area in the city of Calarasi 329 Budget for projects related to county EU Structural and Investment Funds 2014-2020, national budget, local budgets road infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure The financing of these projects would come from… Timeline 2014-2020 The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities Europe 2020 Strategy The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates Strategic Territorial Planning Framework for the European Union with the following… Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion (2008) Community Strategic Guidelines on Cohesion EU Strategy for the Danube Region National Reform Programmes National sectoral strategies (summarized) National Strategy for Regional Development 2014-2020 South Muntenia Regional Development Plan for 2014-2020 Coordination aspects related to The Strategy does not mention relevant aspects related to coordination at the implementation level. It investment objectives, types of activity, only states the need for an integrated management of water resources and waste. As well, integrated and projects (expressly mentioned) projects for the modernization of the urban space or historical centers are included in the section of indicative actions. Other Observations Overall, the strategy is well structured, clear, and coherent. In some places at the level of project Other useful things to note about this strategy identification, the document doesn’t keep the same degree of specificity. include… It is worth noting that the strategy contains a special section regarding the correlation between the specific strategic objectives of Calarasi county and the thematic objectives of the EU and the priorities and measures included in the Development Plans at national and regional level. An overall estimate of the financial needs for the measures contained in each of the six strategy objectives is also included in in the strategic document. The Action Plan is designed on short-term (2014-2015), medium term (2016-2018), and long term (2019-2021). As for the project portfolio, it is mentioned that it is included in Appendix 1 of the Strategy, but it is not present on the website of Calarasi County Council (last check: 11/28/2014). 330 12. CARAS-SEVERIN Strategy name in Romanian Strategia de dezvoltare durabilă a judeţului Caraș-Severin 2007-2013 Strategy name in English Sustainable Development Strategy of Caras-Severin County 2007-2013 Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Vision The Strategy does not mention a clear-cut vision, but it refers to it in the following statements: The world we desire to see… The vision of the sustainable development strategy is based on the understanding that the region's economy is more than the sum of its parts, that the changes in a subsystem or other generate overall changes under dynamic linkages between components. The Sustainable Development Strategy of Caras-Severin apply similar principles to each locality and takes account of local circumstances and practices at the same time. Objectives General objective: achieving a sustainable economic and social development, leading to long-term increase The goals of the strategy are… of the population’s living standards and positioning of Caras-Severin County in an honorable position with respect to the level of development. Development priorities: Tourism Transport and energy infrastructure Economic competitiveness Utility and communications infrastructure Socio-human and social potential Agriculture, forestry and rural development Types of activities relevant for county Integration the road transport infrastructure of Caras-Severin into the European transport system road infrastructure, water and sewage Increasing the bearing capacity of the European and national roads in the county infrastructure, and social infrastructure Adequate border connection between Romania and Serbia The goals would be achieved through several Appropriate connections with regional and European road networks types of activities… Building ring roads and bypasses at the level of cities Rehabilitation and improvement of road transport infrastructure of county interest Construction/rehabilitation of road infrastructure facilitating access to tourist areas or zones with tourism potential Rehabilitation/modernization of roads under the management of county and communal authorities, priority being given to those that facilitate to development areas of county interest 331 Upgrading the network of communal roads that allow passage of agricultural machinery, mainly in areas adjacent to national roads Construction, rehabilitation/modernization of passages, underpasses for railways, bridges and culverts Water infrastructure development Creation, rehabilitation, and development of water supply networks Upgrading raw water treatment plants and the purchase of disinfection equipment under EU rules Designation of areas of sanitary protection of water sources and their marking in the GUPs Counting drinking water consumption, especially in rural areas Development of sewage infrastructure and treatment plants Extension, rehabilitation of existing sewage systems Construction of sewage systems within the deadlines foreseen in the implementation plans of EU Directives on wastewater Construction of sewage systems in divider system for taking over rainwater The construction and expansion of wastewater treatment plants and technical compliance with the acquis communautaire Rehabilitation of the educational infrastructure Modernization and/or expansion of schools Rehabilitation of accommodations and meal spaces that serve schools Providing modern equipment to laboratories and school workshops Equipping classrooms, school libraries and gyms Providing means of transport for students to isolated towns Health infrastructure rehabilitation Renovating hospitals and other healthcare facilities that are old Providing advanced medical equipment Upgrading utilities in health units Rehabilitation and modernization of culture, youth, and sport networks Conservation and restoration of assets belonging to the historical and cultural heritage Conservation and restoration of the industrial heritage of the county Conservation and restoration of historical monuments and traditional architecture monuments Rehabilitation of churches Rehabilitation and equipment with modern amenities of school camps 332 Modernization and expansion of sports centers Rehabilitation/construction of social infrastructure Redevelopment of social assistance institutions in order to increase their capacity Relevant projects for county road The strategy does not mention specific projects for each development priority. The Annexes do not include infrastructure, water and sewage a portfolio of projects either. infrastructure, and social infrastructure The only projects mentioned in the presentation of the Strategy’s activities are the following: Examples of projects include… Redevelopment and construction of a new wing at the Residence for the Elderly, Sacu; Redevelopment and construction of “Constantine and Elena” Residence for the Elderly, Caransebes; Re-modulation of “Apartment” placement Centre in Resita; Establishment of protected housing at Oravita Support and Care Center and the rehabilitation thereof; Establishment of protected housing at “Annunciation” social services complex in Caransebes; Rehabilitation of the Residence for the Elderly in Resita; Redevelopment of other centers/complexes according to the authorities’ requir ements. Budget for projects related to county - road infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure The financing of these projects would come from… Timeline - The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities - The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates with the following… Coordination aspects related to - investment objectives, types of activity, and projects (expressly mentioned) Other Observations Overall, the Strategy is well structured and clear, but it is incomplete. Important parts are missing: project Other useful things to note about this strategy portfolio, budget/funding sources, an action plan with a timeline, and aspects related to implementation, include… monitoring, and evaluation. 333 13. CLUJ Strategy name in Romanian Strategia de Dezvoltare a Judeţului Cluj pentru perioada 2014 -2020 Strategy name in English Cluj County Development Strategy for the period 2014-2020 Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Vision In 2050 and from a development perspective, Cluj county will be the second region of Romania after The world we desire to see… Bucharest-Ilfov, as well as the most important economic, medical, and educational pole in the territory bounded by two major central and eastern European capitals: Bucharest and Budapest. With a modern and competitive economy based on cultural and scientific opportunities, Cluj will offer its residents a high standard of living in harmony with the environment, while encouraging civic spirit. Objectives General objective: to develop and promote Cluj county as an attractive destination for investors, tourists The goals o f the strategy are… and residents, based on a competitive and sustainable economy, a modern infrastructure and high quality services, accessible to all, with a dynamic cultural and scientific life, supported by a highly skilled workforce and responsible citizens. Specific objectives: Enhance the competitiveness of Cluj county by harnessing human resources and entrepreneurship in the county, by supporting innovation and offering business services tailored to the needs of agricultural, industrial and service providers Increase the accessibility of the county and ensure modern utility, education, health, and social infrastructure as a basis for economic and social development Human resource development in support of economic and social development by improving the quality of education and by promoting adult education, increasing employment in the labor market and ensuring social inclusion Ensure sustainable growth by promoting a more efficient, greener and more competitive economy in terms of resource use and energy policy Ensure a balanced territorial development, consistent and harmonious in terms of economic and social activities Improve accessibility and quality of public services by developing a modern local and county public administration, with a management based on a real partnership with the citizens and businesses in the county 334 Types of activities relevant for county Improving county infrastructure in order to increase accessibility and ensure a better quality of life. This road infrastructure, water and sewage involves – infrastructure, and social infrastructure Connecting the county to passenger and freight flows through a modern transport infrastructure The goals would be achieved through several and ensuring a balance between different modes of transport types of activities… Developing other critical infrastructures for the county: utility networks, education, health and social infrastructures Relevant projects for county road Road infrastructure infrastructure, water and sewage Rehabilitation of Cluj county roads infrastructure, and social infrastructure Building Cluj-Napoca – Ciurila access to Transylvania Motorway Examples of projects include… The construction of motorways or fast roads that can be later converted into motorways towards four important traffic directions: to the west and northwest, i.e. Transylvania Motorway towards Zalau; to the northeast, i.e. a motorway that would connect Cluj-Napoca – Gherla – Dej – Bistrita, with a possibility of going further towards Vatra Dornei and Suceava; to the east and southeast, i.e. Transylvania Motorway towards Targu Mures; to the south, i.e. a motorway-type express road that would connect Turda – Alba Iulia – Sebes (intersection point with the motorway Nadlac – Bucharest). Rehabilitation and modernization of five national roads: NR 16 Apahida – Reghin represents an important access way to the east of the country; NR 1R Huedin – Belis – Poiana Horea – Albac (ex- CR 108) has the potential to turn into an important tourist axis of the county; NR 75 Turda – Campeni – Stei could also support the development of tourism in the Apuseni Mountains area; NR 18B, Caseiu – Targu Lapus needs modernization on the Chiuiesti – Rohia segment; NR 1G, Huedin – Zimbor, important for the accessibility of the Huedin city (especially future accessibility, after completion of Transylvania Motorway). Modernization and rehabilitation of county and communal roads, selected according to their importance Construction of new express roads: urban motorway network in Cluj-Napoca area, new access ways to Transylvania Motorway Water and sewage infrastructure Rehabilitation, upgrading and construction of new local importance utilities infrastructures (water supply, sewage, wastewater treatment, collection and drain of rainwater, etc.) Social infrastructure Reconstruction, expansion, consolidation of buildings; improvement of central heating and sanitary 335 facilities; endowment with special equipment and utilities for students with disabilities; purchase of student transportation means; providing schools with equipment (including IT equipment) Rehabilitation, modernization and equipping of specialized hospitals, emergency departments and centers for permanent medical assistance Rehabilitation, modernization and equipping of social and residential centers Building a regional emergency hospital Rehabilitation, modernization and equipping of medical services in Cluj-Napoca Restoration and re-operationalization of the Art Museum building Rehabilitation, modernization and equipping of the Neuropsychiatry Recovery and Rehabilitation Centre Gherla Rehabilitating, upgrading, equipping and expanding the Elderly Center Recea-Cristur Restoration of the castle Rascruci, Cluj – harnessing the historical, cultural and natural heritage Construction of cultural paths (i.e. wooden/ medieval churches road in Cluj, castles and fortresses road in Cluj) Rehabilitation/upgrading of communal roads in Cluj county Rehabilitation of „Cuvioasa Paraschiva” Church of the Feleac and Vad Diocese, Feleacu village, Feleacu commune Establish a residential center for people with Alzheimer's disease Rehabilitation of the areas inhabited by Roma in terms of living conditions, social and occupational opportunities Budget for projects related to county EU funds, local budget, state budget road infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure The financing of these projects would come from… Timeline 2012-2020 The implementation / completion of these Projects are split in the following time segments: short-term (2012-2013), medium term (2014-2017), long- projects is foreseen… term (2018-2020). Complementarities Europe 2020 Strategy The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates National Development Plan 2007-2013 with the following… National Strategic Reference Framework 2007-2013 Strategic Concept of Territorial Development Romania 2030 336 National Programme for Rural Development 2007-2013 Sectoral Operational Programme Increase Economic Competitiveness 2007-2013 Regional Operational Programme 2007-2013 Operational Programme for Administrative Capacity Development 2007-2013 Master Plan for Tourism Development in Romania 2007-2026 Regional Development Strategic Framework 2007-2013 for the (North Transylvania) Regional Sectoral Programming Document for Tourism Development in the North-West Region 2007-2013 Coordination aspects related to According to the document, project portfolio composition was assessed against both the socio-economic investment objectives, types of activity, analysis and the Strategy. It also states that a correlation between the projects proposed by the partners and projects (expressly mentioned) was made so as to eliminate any possible overlaps and identify complex integrated projects with impact at the county or even regional level. The Strategy mentions the need for its constant update; in this way the investment plans will be correlated to the resources that can be actually accessed by the initiators of priority projects. The Strategy also speaks of the need to promote a coordinated development and an integrated management of activities on water, land and adjacent resources: transport, urban development and nature conservation. Integrated territorial investments are mentioned as well. Other Observations Overall, the Strategy is well developed and segmented according to development directions, but Other useful things to note about this strategy insufficiently specific in terms of projects. include… The strategy includes 90 projects in its portfolio, which are ordered by priority. They are accompanied by the name of the applicant and include the correspondent amounts in about half of cases. The Strategy mentions that the projects were inventoried on the basis of a standard format, containing: the title, main activities, promoters of the project, estimated budget and possible funding sources. The strategy also states that projects are ordered by priority, and the criteria used to rank projects were sensible to: strategic objectives, complexity and potential impact, elements of financial and investment policies and other information available. However, the complete inventory in a standard format is neither included in the strategy, nor in an Annex to the Strategy. The action plan includes only the responsible actors for the planned actions, which are divided into three time segments: short-term (2012-2013), medium term (2014-2017), long-term (2018-2020). 337 14. CONSTANTA – none found Strategy name in Romanian Strategy name in English Level of Strategy Supranational/national/regional/local Vision The world we desire to see… Objectives The goals of the strategy are… Types of activities relevant for county road infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure The goals would be achieved through several types of activities… Relevant projects for county road infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure Examples of p rojects include… Budget for projects related to county road infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure The financing of these projects would come from… Timeline The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates with the following… Coordination aspects related to investment objectives, types of activity, and projects (expressly mentioned) Other Observations 338 15. COVASNA – none found Strategy name in Romanian Strategy name in English Level of Strategy Supranational/national/regional/local Vision The world we desire to see… Objectives The goals of the strategy are… Types of activities relevant for county road infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure The goals would be achieved through several types of activities… Relevant projects for county road infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure Examples of projects incl ude… Budget for projects related to county road infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure The financing of these projects would come from… Timeline The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates with the following… Coordination aspects related to investment objectives, types of activity, and projects (expressly mentioned) Other Observations 339 16. DAMBOVITA Strategy name in Romanian Strategia de dezvoltare durabilă a județului Dâmbovița 2012-2020 Strategy name in English Dambovita County Sustainable Development Strategy 2012-2020 Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Vision Strengthening the economic base, repositioning the county as a tourist destination in the south of The world we desire to see… Romania, reinforcing the agro-food sector’s performance on the existing bases and consolidating the value brought by the evolving university center will provide the basis for rebuilding the local economy. Dambovita County will develop gradually, aiming at reducing disparities and balancing the level of development between rural and urban areas and at defining and supporting local identity. Objectives General objectives: The goals of the strategy are… Strengthening Dambovita’s economy, including functional relationships with neighboring counties and Bucharest Metropolitan Area Developing the tourism as a sector with potentially significant contribution to the economic growth of the county Improving the performance of the agro-food sector so as to become the main supplier of perishable products for South-Muntenia region Recovery of human capital through education and by fostering entrepreneurship Improved quality of life for the residents of Dambovita county Specific objectives (selection): Supporting the development of the necessary infrastructure for business development Increasing inter-connectivity with adjacent functional areas within the county Increasing t he accessibility of the county’s tourist attractions Developing the support infrastructure for the agri-food sector Increasing the attractiveness of cities for young people Expanding access to basic public services and internet services in rural areas Increasing access to public services for vulnerable groups and in critical areas Types of activities relevant for county Supporting the development of the necessary infrastructure for business growth through: road infrastructure, water and sewage Supporting the development of office and production infrastructure infrastructure, and social infrastructure Connecting the office and production infrastructure to the necessary utilities The goals would be achieved through several Stimulating the development of the infrastructure for renewable energy production types of ac tivities… 340 Increasing inter-connectivity with adjacent functional areas within the county through: Increasing connectivity within inter-county functional areas (motorway A1 corridor Bucharest - Dambovita - Arges, Moreni - Ploiesti perimeter and Bucharest Metropolitan Area). Increasing internal connectivity to facilitate the movement of labor and goods Increasing the accessibility of the county’s tourist attractions through: Developing road access to the main tourist attractions in the county Measures for increasing the attractiveness of cities for young people through: Regeneration of cities Improving services for families Expanding access to basic public services and internet services in rural areas through: Development of public services in rural areas Increasing the access to public services for vulnerable groups and in critical areas through: Investments in infrastructure for disadvantaged areas and vulnerable groups Relevant projects for county road Road infrastructure infrastructure, water and sewage Development of business/production infrastructure in order to serve the south of the county - NR7 infrastructure, and social infrastructure (possibly Racari) or NR1A connection Examples of projects include… Modernization and expansion of Moreni – I.L. Caragiale road for connection to Ploiesti growth pole Upgrading access ways of localities from Dambovita to the motorway in order to facilitate their access to Bucharest-Pitesti growth corridor Modernization of road infrastructure in the south-east of the county in order to enhance connectivity with Bucharest Metropolitan Area Completion of South Road (connection couplings to NR 1 and A1) Implementation of Subcarpatica Road project Optimizing connections between urban settlements and NR1 and A1 (Titu, Racari, etc.) Connecting the peripheral areas to the development corridors of the county (Dambovita Valley, the area situated north from Gaesti: 702L, 702A, D, E; communes south-west from the motorway) Water and sewage infrastructure Expanding utilities (water, sewage) to the land designated for industrial functions Supporting modernization / expansion of water and wastewater systems in urban areas so as to cover them fully Expanding wastewater systems in all communes in the county Expanding water supply systems in all communes in the county 341 Social infrastructure Continue the infrastructural upgrading of the Emergency County Hospital Targoviste Support the modernization of kindergartens and the construction of playgrounds for children Modernization and expansion of infrastructure for social services Budget for projects related to county SOP IEC, SOP Environment, ROP, ERDF, EAFRD, governmental funds, funds from the National Investments road infrastructure, water and sewage Company, local budgets, county budgets infrastructure, and social infrastructure The financing of these projects would come from… Timeline 2012-2020 The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities Europe 2020 Strategy The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates Strategic Plan 2010-2013 of the Ministry of Communications and Information Society with the following… Government Programme 2009-2012 Master Plan for integrated mobility in Dambovita, 2010 National Territorial Development Plan Urbanistic Area Plan National Rural Development Plan Coordination aspects related to The Strategy mentions the need to correlate the implementation of a measure regarding the connection of investment objectives, types of activity, the sites for offices and industry to the required utilities with the implementation of other proposed utility and projects (expressly mentioned) projects. Further aspects of coordination at the level of project implementation are not included. Other Observations Overall, the strategy is well developed. A strong point of the Strategy is the smart presentation of the Other useful things to note about this strategy projects, mentioning: the objectives and the measures to which they belong, the stakeholders, funding include… source, their value, the county council’s contribution, timeline, project category to which they belong (infrastructure , increase of economic competitiveness, environment, rural development, etc.), investment planning per year and in EUR. However, some objectives seem too ambitious (if we consider the way in which they are formulated), and some projects are vaguely defined and delineated. Correlation with other strategic documents is not explicitly mentioned. 342 17. DOLJ Strategy name in Romanian Strategia de dezvoltare economico-socială a judeţului Dolj 2007-2013 Strategy name in English Economic and Social Development Strategy of Dolj County 2007-2013 Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Vision Dolj – an attractive county, a stable and diversified economic area, able to ensure prosperity and to reduce The world we desire to see… development disparities compared to other regions. Objectives General objective: Improve the quality of life and promote sustainable development in Dolj county, so that The goals of the strategy are… it becomes a county with a dynamic and diversified economy and highly qualified human resources, and the county's GDP grows by 2013 to 90% of the national average. Specific objectives: Achieving an open and competitive territorial system and alleviate intra- and inter-regional economic and social disparities Creating conditions for the promotion of measures able to generate demographic trends that are favorable to economic and social development Increased accessibility and connectivity of Dolj County Efficient and sustainable use of natural and built heritage in both the urban and rural habitats Strengthening the administrative capacity (of public authorities) Types of activities relevant for county Development of transport infrastructure in urban and rural areas road infrastructure, water and sewage Rehabilitation and modernization of the county roads network infrastructure, and social infrastructure Construction/rehabilitation/modernization of ring roads with county road status The goals would be achieved through several Creating and upgrading the basic physical infrastructure in rural areas (creation of new roads, types of activities… extending and improving the network of local roads, rehabilitating and modernizing county and local bridges and culverts) Construction of a ring road in the south of Craiova municipality Construction of Craiova-Pitesti express road Modernization and development of road infrastructure on the TEN-T 7 Axis (Craiova-Calafat) Modernization and development of railway infrastructure on the TEN-T 22 Axis (Craiova-Calafat) Rehabilitation of Craiova – Calafat national road in order to be converted into an express way Rehabilitation of Craiova – Bechet national road in order to be converted into an express way Rehabilitation of Craiova – Caracal national road in order to be converted into an express way 343 Water and waste infrastructure and management in urban and rural areas Construction, rehabilitation, modernization of drinking water networks Construction and rehabilitation of treatment plants for drinking water Construction, rehabilitation, and modernization of sewage systems Construction and rehabilitation of wastewater treatment plants Improving the existing drinking water networks The development of social infrastructure Development and modernization of education infrastructure Development and modernization of health infrastructure First establishment and endowment of social services infrastructure, such as centers for child care, the elderly and people with special needs Investments in the construction and equipment of new kindergartens for children; renovation and modernization of existing ones Investments for the renovation, modernization and equipping of cultural establishments Relevant projects for county road Road infrastructure infrastructure, water and sewage Modernization of County Road (CR) 606E: Pietroaia (CR 606) – Urdinita – Gogosita – Botosesti Paia infrastructure, and social infrastructure –Mehedinti county limit; km 0-000÷24+980 Examples of projects include… Modernization of CR 652: NR 65 (Lacrita) – Lacrita Mica – Cosoveni – Ghindeni – NR 55 (Secui), km 0+000÷18+942 + bridge on CR 652 Modernization of CR 561E: CR561A (Bailesti) – Seaca de Camp – Piscu Nou – Tunarii Noi – NR 55A; km 0+000÷11+100 Water and sewage infrastructure Regional water supply system, Gorj and Dolj counties Water supply network in the locality of Bechet Network and sewage treatment plants in the locality of Bechet Extension of water/sewage network in Craiova Social infrastructure Rehabilitation, modernization and equipping of Craiova County Emergency Hospital Development of the Emergency Department of the County Emergency Hospital Consolidation, development, and modernization of the internal section of the Filiasi Town Hospital Rehabilitation of the school and kindergarten in the locality of Bechet Rehabilitation of the library and museum in the town of Filiasi 344 Budget for projects related to county Structural and cohesion funds, state budget, county budget, local budgets road infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure The financing of these projects would come from… Timeline 2007-2013 The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities Lisbon Strategy The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates White Paper on European Transport Policy with the following… Cohesion policy in support of economic growth and employment Community Strategic Guidelines 2007-2013 Areas of intervention of the Structural and Cohesion Funds of the EU National Development Plan 2007-2013 National Strategy for Regional Development National sectoral development strategies Regional Development Plan 2007-2013 of South-West Oltenia Region Coordination aspects related to The Strategy only mentions its correlation with the intervention areas of the EU Structural and Cohesion investment objectives, types of activity, Funds. Other aspects of coordination at the level of implementation of investment projects are not listed. and projects (expressly mentioned) Other Observations Overall, the strategy is clear and coherent, but it is incomplete and insufficiently detailed at the project Other useful things to note about this strategy level. Some positive aspects are worth mentioning. Each priority/area of intervention/measure of the include… Strategy is correlated, where appropriate, with Community, national, and regional policies, as well as intervention areas of the Structural and Cohesion Funds of the EU. The Strategy also devotes a separate chapter to the prioritization of investment projects, presenting three types of criteria: access criteria, key criteria, specific criteria. The portfolio of projects/project ideas includes the following information: name of the project, the proponent, the value (thousand euros) existing documentation. The list includes: 132 infrastructure projects, 396 environmental projects (including water and sewage projects), and 80 health and education projects. The implementation part (with an action plan, calendar, responsible institutions and clearly identified funding sources), as well as the monitoring and evaluation parts are missing. The Annex contains an overview of the indicative operations of the Strategy and good practice examples from other EU countries. 345 18. GALATI Strategy name in Romanian Strategia de Dezvoltare a Județului Galați 2010-2015 Strategy name in English Galati County Development Strategy 2010-2015 Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Vision Galati County - competitive socio-economic area so as to increase the quality of life and attractiveness to a The world we desire to see… global level. Objectives General objective: sustainable development of Galati county by harnessing its existing potential, The goals of the strategy are… diversifying and expanding economic and social activity in view of the increase of the inhabitants’ standard of living by 2015. Strategic objectives: Economic development Increase of administrative capacity Territorial planning – urban and rural development Development/modernization of the education and training systems. Support for cultural development Development / Modernization of health and social assistance systems The protection and conservation of the natural and built-up areas Relevant specific objectives (selection): Upgrading communications ways and connecting Galati county to major national and international transport routes Urbanistic infrastructure development Construction, rehabilitation, upgrading of the housing environment Modernization of the education system’s infrastructure in Galati county Cultural promotion of Galati county Development/modernization and diversification of regional interest health and social services offered in Galati county Protection and sustainable development of the built-up area in Galati county Types of activities relevant for county Upgrading communications ways: 346 road infrastructure, water and sewage Connecting to major transport corridors and development of multimodal transport infrastructure, and social infrastructure Development of transport infrastructure in rural areas The goals would be achieved through several Traffic streamlining in Galati, the main transport hub of the county types of activities… Optimizing intra-county transportation corridors Urbanistic infrastructure development: Expanding and rehabilitating water and wastewater infrastructure in Galati county Construction, rehabilitation, extension, modernization of the housing environment: Construction/ rehabilitation/ extension/ modernization/ endowment of residential areas Modernization of the education system’s infrastructure in Galati county: Construction/ rehabilitation/ extension/ modernization of education units in Galati county Cultural promotion of Galati county: Development of education and culture infrastructure of regional interest Development/modernization and diversification of regional interest health and social services: Construction/ rehabilitation/ modernization of regional interest social infrastructure and diversification of medical and social services Relevant projects for county road Road infrastructure infrastructure, water and sewage Completion of corridor IX infrastructure, and social infrastructure Rehabilitation of the Beresti – Barlad county road Examples of projects include… Construction of Galati – Bucuresti express road Construction of Galati – Tecuci express road Construction of a bridge over the Danube Developing the Danube ports – Danube Inland Harbor Development – DoHar Construction of a ring road in Tecuci municipality Rehabilitation of road infrastructure connecting Tecuci municipality and Poiana, Cosmesti, and Munteni localities Rehabilitation and modernization of DJ251 between Tecuci and Galati municipalities Rehabilitation DJ253 (km. 0+000 – 15+170) Rehabilitation and modernization of DJ242A (km. 0+000 – 14+500) Rehabilitation and modernization of DJ242B (km. 0+000 – 19+000) Rehabilitation and modernization of DJ255, Pechea – Rediu sector (km 19+000 – 28+000) Rehabilitation and modernization of DJ252 (km. 14+300 – 36+000) etc. Construction of Târgu Bujor – Tecuci county road 347 Water and sewage infrastructure Expansion and rehabilitation of water network - channel in Galati municiplaity Rehabilitation of water supply and sewage systems in the north of Tecuci municipality Expanding the water supply and sewage networks in Targu Bujor Establishing a treatment plant in the city of Targu Bujor Extension of the sewage network in the city of Beresti Creation / expansion and rehabilitation of water and wastewater infrastructure in the rural area of Galati county Social infrastructure Development of “Dimitrie Cantemir” residential area and of related facilities Social housing construction in Galati county Expansion, modernization and equipping of classrooms and laboratories for dental specialization within the Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy Galati Modernization, expansion and equipping of “Emil Girleanu” Special School, Galati municipality; Rehabilitation and modernization of “Iorgu Jordan” Middle School Functional reconversion, consolidation and restoration of Tecuci Mix Museum Consolidation and rehabilitation of Tecuci cultural house Consolidation, rehabilitation, and modernization of the Episcopal Palace – History, Culture and Christian Spirituality Museum from “Dunărea de Jos” Construction / extension of “V.A. Urechia” county library, Galati Modernization of “Sf. Apostol Andrei” Polyclinic and County Clinical Emergency Hospital, Galati Construction of a medical emergency unit in the city of Tecuci Modernization of the multifunctional socio-medical center for the elderly in Galati municipality Modernization of the social canteen from the multifunctional center “Help” from Galati municipality Budget for projects related to county ROP, SOP Transport, SOP Environment, NPRD, PPP, state budget, local budget, private funding road infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure The financing of these projects would come from… Timeline 2010-2015 The implementation / completion of these 348 projects is foreseen… Complementarities EU strategic documents The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates Integrated Urban Development Plan Galati with the following… Regional Development Strategy 2007-2013 Regional Master Plan National Strategy for Sustainable Development of Romania 2013-2020-2030 Romania's Energy Strategy 2007-2020 National Strategy for Biodiversity Conservation National Strategy for Flood Risk Management National Development Plan 2007-2013 Regional Development Plan 2007-2013 for the South-East Region Development strategies of counties/cities in the area (Constanta, Tulcea, Braila, Buzau, Iasi) Sectoral development strategies (economy, tourism, education, sustainable development, social services) Coordination aspects related to The Strategy only mentions the role of Galati County Council to coordinate municipal and town councils in investment objectives, types of activity, view of ensuring public services of county interest. and projects (expressly mentioned) Other Observations Overall, the strategy is well elaborated and quite well substantiated (including on the basis of a sociological Other useful things to note about this strategy survey). Strategic and specific objectives are too general and too generous, but most of the projects are include… specific and delineated. The strategy contains project sheets, mentioning – among other details – initiation deadlines and recommended funding sources. 19. GIURGIU Strategy name in Romanian Strategia de dezvoltare socio-economică a judeţului Giurgiu 2014-2020 Strategy name in English Socio-economic development strategy of the Giurgiu county 2014-2020 Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Vision - The world we desire to see… Objectives General objectives: The goals of the strategy are… Improving territorial connections for individuals, communities and businesses 349 Expansion and modernization of technical and urbanistic infrastructure and environmental infrastructure Improving the quality of public education service to create human capital needed for economic development A healthier population with equal opportunities of access to medical services Reducing gaps at the population level in the county of Giurgiu by improving social services and social infrastructure Relevant specific objectives (selection): Integrated and efficient transport system through intermodal approach Development and modernization of road infrastructure Development of technical and urbanistic infrastructure systems Improving educational infrastructure and developing programs for attracting and retaining students in educational institutions, especially in the rural area Development and modernization of health and social asssistance infrastructure Improving the quality of health services by increasing the number of medical units, by establishing hospitals of 1st and 2nd categories, but also through the development of access infrastructure in the rural area Development and modernization of social care infrastructure in order to increase the accessibility of the population to quality social services Types of activities relevant for county Development and modernization of road infrastructure through: road infrastructure, water and sewage Rehabilitation of county roads especially in lagging areas infrastructure, and social infrastructure Rehabilitation of communal road infrastructure The goals would be achieved through several Expansion and modernization of technical and urbanistic infrastructure and environmental infrastructure types of activities… through: Rehabilitation of the water and sewage systems in the county of Giurgiu A healthier population with equal opportunities of access to medical services through: Improving health services in residential areas by increasing investments in rural medical units – i.e. re-establishment of the dispensary system in rural areas Development and modernization of education, health, culture, and tourist infrastructure through: Rehabilitation and improvement of educational infrastructure (schools) Construction and upgrading of sports infrastructure Rehabilitation, modernization or construction of cultural establishments 350 Relevant projects for county road Road infrastructure infrastructure, water and sewage Rehabilitation and modernization of the county road (CR) 401 A, Gaiseni – Carpenisu –Dambovita infrastructure, and social infrastructure county limit, km 58+730 – 61+170, km 63+ 150 – km 63+550, 2.840 km Examples of projects include… Rehabilitation and modernization of CR 506 A –Teleorman county limit – Toporu (CR 503), km 14+000 – 20+930, 6.930 km Rehabilitation and modernization of CR 503 Giurgiu – Ghizdaru – Gara Stanesti – Gara Chiriacu – Toporu, km 1+200 –km 3+100, km 5+200 – 7+550, km 7+900 – 28+000; 24.350 km Rehabilitation and modernization of the route Rasuceni – Giurgiu, composed of CR 503 Giurgiu – Balanu – CR 503 A (Ghizdaru); 2.450 km and CR 503 A DJ 503 – Oncesti – Radu Voda – Izvoarele – Chiriacu – Rasuceni; 16.138 km Rehabilitation and modernization of CR 503 A CFR Station Oncesti – Radu Vodă – Izvoarele – Chiriacu – Rasuceni – Limit of Teleorman county, km 1+530 – 3+500, km 9+608 – 12+383, km 13+630 – 17+007, km 24+260 – 30+100; 13.962 km Water and sewage infrastructure Development, extension, modernization, and rehabilitation of the water supply, treatment and distribution system, as well as of the sewage and wastewater treatment systems in urban and rural areas Social infrastructure Building a new county emergency hospital with a capacity of about 500 beds Developing the Giurgiu Ambulance headquarters Consolidating, upgrading and equipping Giurgiu County Emergency Hospital Developing the care and assistance center from Bolintin Vale, Giurgiu County Establishment of a care and support center for persons with disabilities through the rehabilitation, upgrading and equipping of “Sfanta Maria” Placement Center Rehabilitation of the Giurgiu county library’s secondary office Construction of sports facilities and modernization of the existing units Rehabilitation, modernization or construction of cultural establishments in the county of Giurgiu Rehabilitation, modernization and equipping of “Tudor Vianu” Theatre Developing and equipping the “Giurgiu Youth House” Construction of medical-social centers for people with special needs Budget for projects related to county Structural funds, governmental programs road infrastructure, water and sewage 351 infrastructure, and social infrastructure The financing of these projects would come from… Timeline 2014-2020 The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities The Strategy takes into account the European and national development goals. It is also in conjunction The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates with the Regional Development Plan of South Muntenia Region. Therefore, the correlation of the county with the following… Strategy with the regional strategy is an obligation and a priority. Coordination aspects related to The Strategy mentions the need for a better coordination at the administrative level in terms of providing investment objectives, types of activity, decentralized and deconcentrated services with a view of improving their coverage. and projects (expressly mentioned) The Strategy states that its development objectives are correlated with a number of other objectives from the development strategies of TAU belonging to Giurgiu county. The implementation of an integrated management system of the county’s territory and the increase of IDAs’ capacity to manage integrated projects are listed am ong the provisioned projects. Other Observations Overall, the strategy is clearly stated and easy to follow, but sometimes incomplete. For each general Other useful things to note about this strategy objective several indicative actions are listed: they exemplify the activities that may be included in such include… objectives. The brief presentation of the projects include: the title, the institutions involved, the source of funding, the implementation deadline. The Strategy contains in the annex the list of 32 contracted projects under implementation, financed with external funds and national funds (2007-2013), accompanied by their values and implementation periods. However, the sources of funding for the projects proposed for 2014-2020 are not clearly identified. Often the term “structural funds” is mentioned, without further details; any other national sources are not specified. The section on the evaluation and monitoring of the Strategy is missing. 20. GORJ Strategy name in Romanian Strategia de dezvoltare durabilă a județului Gorj pentru perioada 2011-2020 Strategy name in English Sustainable Development Strategy of the Gorj county for the period 2011-2020 Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local 352 Vision By 2020, Gorj county will redefine itself as a dynamic and modern county, where the inhabitants’ pride of The world we desire to see… being „from Gorj” will not only rely on exceptional historical and cultural heritage, but also on the confidence in a better future. Objectives Strengthening a sustainable economic base The goals of the strategy are… Multi-sectorial entrepreneurial development Unlocking the potential of tourism Reducing the pressure on the environment caused by socioeconomic factors Integrated approach to social issues Types of activities relevant for county Attracting investments and signing public-private partnerships for harnessing resources (land, natural road infrastructure, water and sewage resources) infrastructure, and social infrastructure Regenerating public spaces and improving living conditions The goals would be achieved through several Improving services for families types of activities… Investing in infrastructure especially in lagging areas and for vulnerable groups Involving the private sector in the community through corporate social responsibility actions Relevant projects for county road Road infrastructure infrastructure, water and sewage Investments in the infrastructure (utilities, roads) related to new industrial platforms for attracting infrastructure, and social infrastructure investments and signing PPPs Examples of projects include… Water and sewage infrastructure Expanding access to water supply network in all localities in the county and rehabilitating the existing networks Expanding access to wastewater network in all localities in the county and rehabilitating the existing networks Social infrastructure Continuing the modernization and equipping of the County Hospital Introducing mobile medical/pharmaceutical services in critical areas, with limited access to health infrastructure Supporting the modernization of kindergartens and the construction of playgrounds for children Improving the infrastructure of medical units (ambulatories) in rural areas Developing after-school facilities in rural areas for children with parents working abroad Upgrading, equipping and diversifying basic and complementary social services, adapted to the specific needs of vulnerable groups 353 Rehabilitation / modernization / development and equipping of social services through public - private partnership Budget for projects related to county ERDF, CF, ROP, NPRD, national budget, county budget, local budget, PPP, private funding road infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure The financing of these projects would come from… Timeline 2012-2020 The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities Europe 2020 Strategy The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates National Strategy for the Sustainable Development of Romania horizons 2013-2020-2030 with the following… Development Strategy and Development Plan of the South-West Oltenia Region Framework documents for the implementation Operational Programmes EU Cohesion Policy, Community strategic guidelines and the acquis communautaire Romanian Energy Strategy for 2007-2020 Mining Strategy for the period 2008-2020 Territorial Development Plan of Giurgiu County County Strategy in the field of social and child protection for 2007-2013 Strategy for public administration modernization at the level of Gorj County Council Gorj County - elements of cultural strategy for the short, medium and long term Long-term investment plan “Integrated management system for solid waste in Gorj county” Risk Analysis and Risk Coverage Plan for Gorj county Coordination aspects related to The Strategy refers to the role of Gorj County Council to coordinate major infrastructure project s in order investment objectives, types of activity, to increase access to basic public services: water, sewage, health, education, etc. and projects (expressly mentioned) The Strategy provides that, at the institutional level, there is a Coordination Committee for the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the Strategy. The Strategy speaks of its correlation with other strategies at the European, national, and regional levels, but it does not mention the correlation between the various projects included in this document. Other Observations The strategy is very complex and adopts an extremely generous approach. It is less clear than other Other useful things to note about this strategy strategies because of the high generality degree of objectives and projects. include… The planning of the investment effort and the investment plan are worth mentioning. The planning of the 354 investment effort is done for the projects included in each of the five strategic objectives, the amounts being divided by years for each of them; the total expenditure and the total contribution of CJ are also mentioned. The investment plan includes: project title, overall objective, purpose, problems addressed, institutions/stakeholders, funding source, budget estimates (in EUR), the contribution value of the county council, target group, calendar. The general impression is that the Strategy includes too many “soft” projects (information and awareness campaigns, support programs, trainings, etc.) and too few „hard” projects (infrastructure initiatives), which should be prioritized in view of ensuring a decent life standard for the county citizens. That saying, road, water, sewage, and social infrastructure projects are rare and vaguely formulated. Out of 156 initiatives, approximately 10 seem to belong to this sector. 21. HARGHITA Strategy name in Romanian Strategie de dezvoltare. Județul Harghita. 2002-2013 Strategy name in English Development Strategy. Harghita County. 2002-2013 Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Vision The strategy contains a vision of development that applies to all three development scenarios included in The world we desire to see… the document: - Development initiated and carried out by external investors, exclusively profit-oriented. This development focuses exclusively on targeted cities and localities. - Development focused on the stability of the subregion, initiated by domestic investors. The emphasis is on traditional values. - Development based on the cooperation of social and economic actors (local authorities, entrepreneurs, civil society). In addition to economic benefits, the aim is the sustainable development of the region's resources, the improvement of the quality of life, and the protection of natural and cultural values. Objectives Strategic sectors: The goals of the strategy are… Human resources development Infrastructure development Agriculture Forestry, hunting, non-timber products 355 Crafts, maintain cultural heritage Tourism Local, product and services marketing Attracting funds Relevant strategic objectives (selection): Development of investments and services in basic, human, and institutional infrastructure, thereby contributing to other sectoral strategies Relevant priorities (selection): Commencement or continuation of programs in basic infrastructure (road, gas, drinking water, recycling and waste disposal) Developing the capacity of educational, social, and health institutions to attract resources (funds) Further development of the institutional structure Types of activities relevant for county Basic infrastructure road infrastructure, water and sewage Planning programs underway and scheduled by 2013 infrastructure, and social infrastructure Human infrastructure The goals would be achieved through several Develop the technical infrastructure of social and educational institutions types of activities… Relevant projects for county road - infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure Examples of projects include… Budget for projects related to county - road infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure The financing of these projects would come from… Timeline 2002-2013 The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities - The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates with the following… Coordination aspects related to The Strategy provides that coordinated and controlled infrastructure development is based on those 356 investment objectives, types of activity, development programs that rely on the cooperation of key stakeholders. More specific references related and projects (expressly mentioned) to these issues are not present. Other Observations The strategy is very schematic and incomplete compared to other strategies. Other useful things to note about this strategy The strategy includes development scenarios and “strategies” on eight sectoral development areas (listed include… above). Although upgrading the transport network is referred to as a key element in achieving the strategic program, this is not detailed in the correspondent development area. Among the missing parts the following deserve to be mentioned: action plan, project portfolio, financing sources, complementarities with specific policy documents, aspects related to implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. 22. HUNEDOARA Strategy name in Romanian Planul de dezvoltare al județului Hunedoara în perioada 2007-2013 Strategy name in English Hunedoara County Development Plan for the period 2007-2013 Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Vision - The world we desire to see… Objectives General objective: the harmonious development of Hunedoara county, so that it becomes a competitive The goals of the strategy are… district in the European Union, with a dynamic and diversified economy, with highly qualified human resources and with a regional GDP/capita that reaches 45% of the average GDP/capita in the European Union (EU 27) by the year 2013. Specific objectives: Increasing the attractiveness of Hunedoara county by developing the infrastructure and strengthening the territorial cooperation; Development and diversification of economic activities in the county through innovation, strategic investment attraction and business development, in compliance with European standards on environmental factors; Increasing employment in the region, ensuring equal opportunities for all social categories and improving the living standards of the population; Reducing intra-regional disparities through polycentric urban development and rural areas 357 support; Improvement and conservation of the environmental quality in order to ensure sustainable development and promote regional tourism. Types of activities relevant for county Road transport infrastructure road infrastructure, water and sewage Integration of road transport infrastructure of Hunedoara county into the European transport infrastructure, and social infrastructure system The goals would be achieved through several Construction of Nadlac - Arad - Timisoara - Lugoj - Deva motorway (Corridor IV Pan - European) types of activities… Optimal connection of roads in the county with the future motorway Construction/rehabilitation of road rings and by-passes of towns in the county Connecting the county capital cities of the four counties of the West Region by fast roads (express) Construction of road passages and widening up to four lanes the sectors with a high traffic Rehabilitation and improvement of road transport infrastructure of local and regional interest Rehabilitation and/or upgrading of roads that are under the management of the county, local and communal authorities Construction, rehabilitation and/or upgrading of bridges, underpasses for railways, bridges and culverts Modernization of road access infrastructure to industrial parks or industrial areas Construction of road access infrastructure to farms Construction of road access infrastructure to forest holdings Solving problems in the water field Implementation of pilot projects for experimenting alternative systems for wastewater treatment Construction of wastewater treatment plant for technological wasterwater and the one resulting from the washing of mine machines and equipment from the county Rehabilitation of drinking water catchment systems Development of centralized drinking water supply system for individual households Developing systems of collection and treatment of wastewater coming from individual households Rehabilitation of old networks and building new drinking water distribution networks Rehabilitation of education infrastructure Modernization and/or expansion of schools (including kindergartens) Rehabilitation of school accommodation and meal spaces Upgrading/arranging campuses attached to the universities in the region Equipping classrooms, laboratories, libraries, schools, and gyms 358 Specific measures in schools to ensure access to education for students with disabilities Development of social services Renovation of hospitals and other healthcare facilities that are old Creation/extension of adjacent infrastructure in existing hospitals Providing medical units with specialized equipment Upgrading of utilities in health units (furniture, clinical utilities, air conditioning) Construction and/or rehabilitation and/or equipping of buildings and spaces for social services, social assistance, cultural services, training and career counseling for disadvantaged groups (residences for the elderly, social canteens, day centers for youth, centers for disadvantaged groups, abandoned children, and disabled, abused women and children, etc.) Relevant projects for county road Road infrastructure infrastructure, water and sewage Consolidation of NR 7 km 370 + 000 - km 370 + 250, Spini area infrastructure, and social infrastructure Building a bridge on NR 66A km 9 + 587, across the river Balea at Paroşeni Examples of projects include… Road upgrading on CR 742B: Grosuri - Alba county limit (11.3 km) Further modernization of county roads CR 742A, CR 705D Developing a link road, CR 709K: Petrila – Sureanu, which will make the connection to Alba county Water and sewage infrastructure Regularization and sanitation of Aninoasa stream – stage II, III, IV Clogging and channeling of valleys passing through villages, Orastioara de Sus Expansion and rehabilitation of the sewage system in Aninoasa locality Rehabilitation and upgrading sewage and wastewater treatment plants in the city of Calan Social infrastructure Capital repairing of the primary school in the village of Sesuri Modernization (repairs, painting, construction, water supply repairing, central heating) at Rachitova School Construction works at the kindergarten with extended program in Simeria Modernization of Roma housing in the locality of Mihăileni Modernization of the care and assistance center in Geoagiu in compliance with the minimum and mandatory quality standards Rehabilitation and equipping of Orastie Municipal Hospital Capital repairing at Sarmisegetusa-Hateg Museum - Department of Archaeology, Hunedoara county 359 Repairing the reformed churches assembly from Orastie Citadel Modernization and rehabilitation of the Culture House, Petrila city Budget for projects related to county - road infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure The financing of these projects would come from… Timeline 2007-2013 The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities - The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates with the following… Coordination aspects related to - investment objectives, types of activity, and projects (expressly mentioned) Other Observations Overall, the Strategy is coherent, clear, and extremely complex at the level of breaking down priority axes Other useful things to note about this strategy on measures and types of activities. The portfolio of projects / project ideas is also very comprehensive. include… However, important parts are missing. The Strategy itself mentions that its aim is to guide the development of the county in 2007-2013 and to substantiate the county’s access to the Structural and Cohesion Funds of the EU. The project portfolio is divided into the same eight strategic axes contained in the Strategy: transport and energy infrastructure; economic competitiveness; tourism; territorial cooperation; rural development; human resource development and social services; the environment; urban development. The portfolio includes, for example, 280 road transport infrastructure projects, the total number of projects being 1431. The projects are presented on the basis of the following information: locality, name of the project, project stage, value in euro, priority, observations. The portfolio includes also a summary table of the amounts expected to be required on years (2007-2013) and on (the eight) strategic axes. The missing parts of the strategy include those relating to implementation, monitoring and evaluation, and public policy complementarities with other regional, national and European level. 360 23. IALOMIȚA Strategy name in Romanian Document strategic cu scenarii de dezvoltare socio-economică și demografică a teritoriului județului Ialomița pe perioada 2009-2013, cu orizont 2013-2020 – „Realizarea Strategiei de Dezvoltare a județului Ialomița” Strategy name in English Strategic Document with socio-economic and demographic development scenarios of the Ialomita County for the period 2009-2013, in view of 2013-2020 horizon – “Implementing the Development Strategy of Ialomita County” Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Vision In 2020, Ialomita will be a county that will have progressed sustainably, harnessing the economic potential The world we desire to see… of each of its development areas in the following directions: - viable exploitation of its geo-strategic position and natural resources in order to ensure a balance between socio-economic systems and natural potential; - skilled workforce for which there is a sufficient number of well-paid jobs; - maintenance of the county’s competitiveness through the pursuit of rewarding economic activities, the adoption of new technologies and through investments in knowledge and innovation; - continuous improvement of living standards by providing equal access to utilities, to social, health and education services; - active involvement of institutions in view of a balanced economic and social development of the county, with the support of the community, social partners and business through democratic consultations in decision-making. Objectives General objective: To continuously improve the quality of life of the Ialomita county residents, of present The goals of the strategy are… and future generations, through the creation of a sustainable community able to manage and use resources efficiently, according to areas with economic potential and to priority areas, ensuring prosperity, environmental protection, and social cohesion. Specific objectives: Continuous increase management, planning and partnership capacity of relevant stakeholders Balanced development of infrastructure Improvement of services provided to citizens Development directions and sub-directions (selected): Development of administrative capacity 361 Economic development Improving transport infrastructure Expanding and improving access to public utilities Social sector development Improving life quality of the Ialomita county citizens Ensuring equal access to social services Ensuring equal access to health services Ensuring equal access to education Types of activities relevant for county Improving transport infrastructure road infrastructure, water and sewage Construction/rehabilitation/upgrading of local and county roads infrastructure, and social infrastructure Construction/rehabilitation/modernization of farm roads The goals would be achieved through several Construction/rehabilitation/upgrading of bridges and culverts types of activities… Upgrading/construction of ring roads for urban centers Expanding and improving access to public utilities Integrated projects water - sewage - treatment plants Construction/rehabilitation/expansion / modernization of water supply Construction/rehabilitation/extension of water and / or sewer Construction/rehabilitation/expansion of sewage systems and treatment plants Improving life quality of Ialomita county citizens Integrated local projects (road infrastructure, utility infrastructure, social component, cultural component) Developing civic centers and public spaces Construction/rehabilitation/modernization of housing, cultural, sports and leisure infrastructure Ensuring equal access to social services Rehabilitation, modernization, development and equipping of social services infrastructure Ensuring equal access to health services Rehabilitation, modernization, development and equipping of health services infrastructure Equal access to education Rehabilitation, modernization, development and equipping of education infrastructure Relevant projects for county road A. Projects split on development areas infrastructure, water and sewage Road infrastructure infrastructure, and social infrastructure Upgrading communal roads in Girbovi commune 362 Examples of projects include… Upgrading roads in the city of Fierbinti-Targ Construction of ring road in the city of Fierbinti-Targ Rehabilitation of bridge over the Ialomita river in the city of Fierbinti-Targ Modernization of County Road (CR) 201A in Adincata commune Modernization of CR 201 Cosereni-Axintele on a length of 18,100 m Water and sewage infrastructure Rehabilitation and extension of water distribution and sewage systems in Urziceni municipality Construction of a treatment plant and a sewage network in the Ion Roata commune Construction of drinking water distribution network, sewage system and treatment plant in Alexeni commune Social infrastructure The „Romanian village Revival” - 10 houses for specialists in Brazi commune Rehabilitation of the block for professionals in Jilavele commune Equipping the community center from the Ciocirlia commune, Ialomita Modernization of the stadium in Fierbinti city Development of a sports base in Ciochina village (belonging to Ciochina commune) Construction of a House of Culture and a Library in Fierbinti city Rehabilitation of the Centre for medical and social assistance, Fierbinti-Targ Establishing a human dispensary in Alexeni commune Capital repairing of the Kindergarten in Alexeni commune Rehabilitation of the General School from Coşereni commune Establishment of a care center for elders in Reviga commune B. Transport infrastructure integrated projects – modernization, rehabilitation and maintenance CR 212 on the Tandarei – Fetesti sector CR 213 Luciu – NR 2A CR 212 on the Braila county limit – Luciu sector CR 101 on the entire length: Ilfov county limit – Fierbinți – Dridu – Moldoveni – NR 1D at Jilavele Budget for projects related to county ERDF, EAFRD, governmental funds, county budget, local budget road infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure The financing of these projects would come 363 from… Timeline 2009-2020 The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities National Development Plan 2007-2013 The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates National Strategic Reference Framework with the following… Operational Programmes National Rural Development Programme 2007-2013 LEADER Programme Regional Development Plan for the South Muntenia Region Strategy for upgrading, rehabilitation and maintenance of roads in Ialomita County Territorial Development Plan Local Action Plan for Environment Coordination aspects related to The Strategy states that the proposed body for its implementation also includes a Coordination Committee investment objectives, types of activity, for the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the Strategy (appointed by the County Council). and projects (expressly mentioned) However, among the listed tasks, aspects related to the coordination of investment objectives at the implementation level are not present. Other Observations Overall, the Strategy is very clear, coherent, well structured. The approach is complex: the document Other useful things to note about this strategy includes both projects grouped on development areas and integrated projects. include… The available European funds (ERDF, ESF, CF, EAFRD) are briefly presented in the introduction of the Strategy. A special chapter is dedicated to South Muntenia Region’s development objectives and priorities. The Strategy also uses a multi-criteria analysis in order to identify development scenarios. The criteria are: transport infrastructure (accessibility and connectivity, quality of existing transport infrastructure), social infrastructure (education, health, and social assistance), utilities (water supply, sewerage, public lighting, and waste management), tourist accommodation infrastructure, administrative capacity, agricultural potential, market potential, industrial potential, and tourism potential. A low score recorded for criteria related to the existent situation means that an urgent need for interventions in order to improve the status quo. A high score recorded for development potential-related criteria means that the context is favorable for the development of initiatives to capitalize the respective potential. Funding sources are identified for each project. In addition, the Strategy includes sheets of projects for 20 priority initiatives. They are presented in a much more detailed manner in a very efficient format. Each 364 sheet contains the following information: title, purpose, specific objectives, existing problems and the need for intervention, ways of solving the problems, consistency with European, national, regional, county, and local strategies, target groups, plan and description of activities, expected results, impact, sustainability, budget estimates, available funding sources, the applicant/opportune partners, necessary documents. Budget estimate is made on the following categories: core investment, design and engineering, sundry expenses and contingency expenses, auditing, advertising. Unlike other strategies, the document contains specific recommendations for the objective belonging to each development direction. 24. IASI Strategy name in Romanian Strategia de dezvoltare economică și socială a judeţului Iaşi 2014 -2020 Strategy name in English Economic and social development strategy of the Iasi county 2014-2020 Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Vision The strategic vision for the development of Iasi County in 2014-2020 involves a joint commitment of the The world we desire to see… county actors to support the creation of a dynamic and performing economic environment that confirms Iasi as being an engine of development in the Moldavia region, enabling the regeneration and the sustainable revitalization of local communities and providing a better life for its residents. Objectives Strategic objectives: The goals of the strategy are… Improving the infrastructure, connectivity and accessibility Strengthening the county economy Increasing the quality of life and the environmental protection Priorities: Improving accessibility by investments in road infrastructure Developing intermodal transport for passengers and freight and ensuring intermodal logistics spaces Modernizing and expanding urbanistic infrastructure and built environment Supporting businesses mainly in the foreground economic domains Supporting the development of the agricultural industry across the entire value chain Promoting the county as a business location, nationally and internationally 365 Supporting culture, creativity and education Developing public services and increasing public access to these services Increasing the quality of the natural environment in the county Types of activities relevant for county Improving accessibility by investments in road infrastructure road infrastructure, water and sewage Rehabilitation and modernization of priority inter-county roads infrastructure, and social infrastructure Rehabilitation and modernization of county and communal roads The goals would be achieved through several Maintenance of county road components types of activities… Development of intermodal transport systems Intermodal transport infrastructure development Development of support elements for improving transport systems Modernization and expansion of urbanistic infrastructure Expansion and modernization of basic urbanistic infrastructure Improving urbanistic infrastructure Supporting culture, creativity and education Promoting and supporting the county’s creative and cultural life and heritage Supporting education and training Developing public services and increasing public access to these services Development of social services tailored to the citizen’s needs Support for public health services Relevant projects for county road Road infrastructure infrastructure, water and sewage Rehabilitation and modernization of inter-county road infrastructure on a length of 94km: CR 282, infrastructure, and social infrastructure CR 281D, CR 281B, CR 281 on the route Iasi – Movileni – Gropnita - Coarnele Caprei - Belcesti – Examples of projects include… Scobinti – Siretel – Lespezi – Suceava county limit (Axis 1) Rehabilitation and modernization of inter-county road infrastructure on a length of 64km: CR 248A, CR 246 and CR 280 on the route Iasi – Miroslava – Tibana - Tibanesti –Tansa - Dagata (Axis 2) Rehabilitation and modernization of inter-county infrastructure on a length of 59.4km: CR 248B, CR 248C, CR 248D on the light traffic ring road of Iasi, between NR 24 and NR 28 Rehabilitation and modernization of county road infrastructure ( 15 road segments are targeted) Rehabilitation and modernization of communal road infrastructure (23 road segments are targeted) Regular maintenance works of public roads (14 road segments are targeted) Regular maintenance of bridges, crossings, culverts associated to county roads through in situ 366 recycling of pavement (6 interventions are targeted) Water and sewage infrastructure Investments for the modernization and expansion of the water supply system and sewage: expansion and rehabilitation of pipes and water treatment plants, expansion and rehabilitation of the distribution network and water tanks, construction and rehabilitation of pumping stations, as well as the rehabilitation and extension of sewage networks, including construction and rehabilitation of treatment plants. Note: the agglomerations that will suffer the above interventions are not identified. Social infrastructure Program for the modernization and equipping of the cultural infrastructure. Expected results: at least two cultural attractions upgraded/rehabilitated/equipped each year; increase of the independence and self-support of cultural institutions in the county at least by 30%. Strengthening the higher education sector in Iasi and supporting partnership and collaboration projects. Among the expected results: joint campus constructed and put into operation. Program for adapting the school network and educational offer to the needs of students (children's clubs, teachers’ house, student camps etc.). Among the expected results: improving educational infrastructure. Rehabilitating buildings and upgrading schools in rural areas, and also providing them with the necessary equipment. Expected results: rehabilitation / modernization of at least 10 schools each year; endowment of at least 15 schools with the necessary equipment. Investments program in the construction, expansion and rehabilitation of social infrastructure. Expected results: the rehabilitation and modernization of the Social Services Complex in Targu Frumos; rehabilitation, upgrading and expansion of the Placement Centre “Sfantul Stelian” (part of the Social Services Complex “M. Sadoveanu” ) Pascani; creating a Recovery and Rehabilitation Center for the disabled in Budai; rehabilitation and modernization of the Community Services Complex in Bucium; rehabilitating, upgrading and equipping of Pascani and Pavelcu special schools. Program for investments in innovative social services, tailored to the beneficiaries’ needs, including in the construction of social infrastructure. Expected results: 50 social housing units or residential services of small proportions. Investments program for the construction, expansion, rehabilitation and equipping of medical units of county, regional and national importance. Expected results: five medical units that are the 367 beneficiaries of the investments. Program for the improvement of rural healthcare infrastructure: repairing and equipping medical practices (including dentistry and permanent centers). Expected results: 100 medical units benefitting from investments. Budget for projects related to county European structural and investment funds, external funds, state budget, county budget, local budget, PPP. road infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure The financing of these projects would come from… Timeline 2014-2020 The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities Europe 2020 Strategy The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates National Reform Programme 2011-2013 with the following… Regional Development Strategy for the Nord-East Region 2014-2020 Coordination aspects related to With respect to the implementation of the Strategy, the County Council assumed the coordination of the investment objectives, types of activity, development of appropriate infrastructure and utilities. It also assumed that it would keep trace of the and projects (expressly mentioned) correlation between investments at the local level and would promote an integrated approach with respect to projects implemented through the National Rural Development Plan. The same Strategy states that the objectives, action directions and measures are implemented through specific, coordinated, and correlated programs (packages of projects) and projects. The Strategy recognizes the importance of the capacity of correlating, harmonizing, and financing investments. In this context, it is stated that integrated territorial investments (ITI) are a crucial tool that facilitates cooperation at cross-sectoral and cross-administrative levels. Other Observations Overall, the strategy is clear and coherent, well-structured and easy to follow. In some places, however, Other useful things to note about this strategy the projects that should support the strategic objectives are not clearly identified. In the case of water, include… sewage, and social infrastructure some targets are set out, but nothing more. In contrast, for road infrastructure projects are clearly identified. Description of projects is often done with accuracy. The descriptions contain the following information: purpose and objectives; problems addressed; main activities; expected results; estimated budget; timeline; potential funding sources; potential partners. 368 26. ILFOV Strategy name in Romanian Strategia de dezvoltare a județului Ilfov. Orizont 2020 Strategy name in English Ilfov county Development Strategy. 2020 Horizon Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Vision In 2020 horizon, the Ilfov county will be: The world we desire to see… - Relaxed for the family: Ilfov county will be a flourishing county, offering a harmonious and prosperous lifestyle for families, which will be close to opportunities and benefitting from competitive public services - Effervescent for business: Ilfov will be a catalyst environment for investors and entrepreneurs, providing a high connectivity, excellent services and support infrastructure for business Objectives Strengthening competitiveness of Ilfov county in the context of its proximity to Bucharest The goals of the strategy are… Improving the residents’ quality of life in Ilfov county Ensuring a high degree of mobility and accessibility for residents and businesses in Ilfov county Increasing institutional capacity in order to improve the quality and timeliness of the administrative process Types of activities relevant for county Developing the county’s leisure offer, while protecting the environment, including through the road infrastructure, water and sewage preservation and enhancement of heritage infrastructure, and social infrastructure Improving access to public and private social services, tailored to local needs The goals would be achieved through several Increasing the quality of the natural environment, including through supporting public social services types of activities… Improving the transport system for the residents inside the county and at the inter-county level, including by improving road infrastructure Relevant projects for county road Road infrastructure infrastructure, water and sewage Rehabilitation and modernization of county roads in Ilfov – CR 401 A, km 0+000 (Vidra) – km infrastructure, and social infrastructure 28+209 (Domnesti) Examples of projects include… Rehabilitation and modernization of county roads in Ilfov – CR 300, km 0+000 (Pantelimon NR 3) - km 12+430 (Sindrilita NR 2) Rehabilitation and modernization of county roads in Ilfov – CR 101, km 12+970 (Balotesti) – 37+549 (Sitaru) Rehabilitation and modernization of county roads in Ilfov – CR 401, km 6+520 (Centura Bucuresti) – km 19+000 (Giurgiu county limit) Intermodal node for freight and passenger transport Otopeni – Tunari - Moara Vlasiei 369 Construction of road connection between Bucuresti ring road – Corbeanca and CR 101 (Peris) and modernization CR 101A Peris – Corbeanca Construction of road connection between CR 200 and NR 2, including its supplementary construction Construction of a road passage between Bd. Ghencea Extension and CR 602 (Domnesti) Modernization of CR 300 (Pantelimon city) – NR 2 (with passage over Bucuresti ring road) Connection CR 602 – Bucuresti ring road – Bd. Timișoara Extension Connection CR 301 (Cernica) – CR 401 (Berceni) Connection A3 (Tunari) – Airport Otopeni Terminal (Otopeni) Construction of a road passage between NR 3 – CFR Stop, Branesti village – A2, including interchange A2 Connection North Ring Motorway – Otopeni Airport Terminal –A3 overpassing over Dascalu Construction of the ring road of Buftea city Water and sewage infrastructure Rehabilitating and expanding public utilities infrastructure – water and sewage Note: other details are not included. However, the Strategy mentions the Water – Sewage Master Plan (in progress). Social infrastructure Rehabilitation and cultural and tourist harnessing of Ghica Palace in Caciulati Rehabilitation and expansion of early childhood education infrastructure in the county Rehabilitation of social service infrastructure Upgrading and equipping health infrastructure in the Balaceanca complex Extending and equipping the health infrastructure of the Hospital of Obstetrics and Gynecology Buftea Modernization and improvement of the equipment for emergency interventions Improving the infrastructure for emergency situations in the county Budget for projects related to county FEDR, state budget, local budget, own funding, other legal sources, PPP road infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure The financing of these projects would come from… Timeline 2014-2020 370 The implementation / completion of these project s is foreseen… Complementarities Europe 2020 Strategy The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates National Strategy for Regional Development with the following… Coordination aspects related to According to the Strategy, the County Council will work in partnership with the municipalities of Ilfov investment objectives, types of activity, county, improving the available land records and ensuring the coordination and development of and projects (expressly mentioned) infrastructure and utilities. The Strategy notes that a person will be designated (in the Department of Internal Funds Absorption) to take the responsibility of coordinating its implementation. Other Observations The Strategy defines four priority areas of intervention at the level of infrastructure in order to support Other useful things to note about this strategy investments in the following sectors: research - development - innovation; tourism, business in industry include… and services; business in the primary sector and manufacturing. The projects that are included in the Strategy are ordered by priority according to the following criteria: - The degree of relevance with respect to the needs identified in the diagnostic analysis; - The extent to which they condition other development initiatives too; - The degree of feasibility in relation to the estimated budget that is required. Based on these criteria, projects were marked with one to three stars of priority for the County Council (low, medium and maximum). The timeline depends, on the one hand, upon their relative priority and, on the other hand, upon the conditionality between projects (some initiatives are conditioned or should be preceded by others). The strategy includes project sheets for each strategic objective. Projects are presented based on the following information: title, relevance, concerned territory, applicant and potential partners, potential funding sources, targets, potential activities, results, estimated budget, implementation period, priority degree, project status, helpful materials/examples. 27. MARAMURES Strategy name in Romanian Strategia de dezvoltare a județului Maramureș 2009-2014 Plan integrat de dezvoltare a județului Maramureș Plan integrat de dezvoltare a regiunii transfrontaliere Maramureş – Ivano – Frankivsk – Zakarpattia Strategy name in English 2009-2014 Development strategy of the Maramures county 371 Integrated development plan of the Maramures county Integrated development plan of the border region of Maramures – Ivano – Frankivsk – Zakarpattia Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Vision In the short-term, the development of the Maramures County will be oriented towards a better use of The world we desire to see… resources that contribute to the tourism potential of the area. In the long term, Maramures will be an area with a well-defined historical and cultural identity in the context of a solid economic growth. Objectives The overall objective in the short term: better use of the material and non-material assets, and of the The goals of the strategy are… human resources in order to support economic and institutional development and to reduce the gaps in the socio-economic development of the communities covered by the county. The long-term strategic objective of development: improving living standards and the overall development of the county of Maramures so as to become a competitive European area, attractive for both tourists and investors, known for its economic, social and cultural valences. Relevant specific objectives: Improve the road infrastructure of the county in order to provide direct and effective communication with key national and European main transport for the purposes of supporting both economic activities and tourist traffic, and improving access to and from Maramures Affirmation of the polarizing role of the local cities in order to develop urban-rural relations that are conducive to a harmonious development of the whole county area Improve the correlation between the education curricula and the labor market needs and support the adaptability of workers to meet demand dynamics in terms of economic specializations Enhance the efficiency of the public administrations by improving their capacity of planning, accessing and implementing projects, coordinating projects at the territorial level, optimizing public service delivery etc. Develop appropriately the natural areas of the county and improve their management in order to protect and enhance the natural environment of the county Harness cultural and historical heritage elements in order to redefine the real identity of the the county of Maramures and in order to support cultural activities and tourism Types of activities relevant for county Upgrading and rehabilitation of transport infrastructure road infrastructure, water and sewage Improving access to modern communication and information systems. Internet access. infrastructure, and social infrastructure Rehabilitation, modernization and extension of public utilities 372 Improving healthcare system The goals would be achieved through several types of activiti es… Improving social services system Improving public education and culture Improving public safety and emergency response Relevant projects for county road Road infrastructure infrastructure, water and sewage Modernization and rehabilitation of inter-county road transport axes infrastructure, and social infrastructure Route 1: Suceava county limit – Borşa – Moisei – Sighetu Marmaţiei – Satu Mare county limit Examples of projects include… (segments NR 18 and NR 19) Route 2: Cluj county limit (via Dej) - Baia Mare - Satu Mare county limit (NR 1C) Modernization and rehabilitation of intra-county road transport axes Corridor I: Suceava county limit – Borşa – Moisei – Rozavlea – Bârsana – Budeşti – Cavnic – Baia Mare – Hideaga – Ardusat – Gârdani – Ariniş – Sălaj county limit (road segments and the correspondent lengths are mentioned) Corridor II: Vişeu de Sus (Valea Vaserului) – Vişeul de Jos – Bogdan Vodă – Şieu – Botiza – Băiuţ – Târgu Lăpuş – Vima Mică – Boiu Mare – Mesteacăn – Şomcuta Mare – Mireşu Mare – Ulmeni – Ariniş (road segments and the correspondent lengths are mentioned) Corridor III: Sighetu Marmaţiei – Săpânţa – Giuleşti – Mara – Izvoarele – Valea Neagră – Firiza – Baia Mare – Copalnic Mănăştur – Târgu Lăpuş – Coroieni – Sălaj county limit (road segments and the correspondent lengths are mentioned) Corridor IV: Vişeu de Jos – Petrova – Sighet – Baia Mare – express road [Baia Mare – Satu Mare – Vaja (Ungaria)] (road segments and the correspondent lengths are mentioned) Water and sewage infrastructure Enlargement of domestic and drainage networks and construction of wastewater treatment plants in the rural area of the town of Targu Lapus Water supply for Monastery St. Ana and for a part of the village Rohia Social infrastructure Rehabilitation of the ambulatory of the Hospital of Infectious Diseases, Dermatology and Psychiatry Baia Mare Campus school (one student dorm, one dining room, studios for teachers) in Targu Lapus Rehabilitation of the culture house in Targu Lapus Consolidation, modernization, and expansion of school infrastructure (Răzoare, Dobric, Borcut, Cufoaia, Rohia etc.) 373 Multifunctional social center in the town of Targu Lapus Thermal rehabilitation of housing blocks in Targu Lapus Budget for projects related to county ROP 2007-2013 (Axes 2, 3 ),SOP Environment 2007-2013, EAFRD, NPRD, state budget, local budget, own road infrastructure, water and sewage sources infrastructure, and social infrastructure The financing of these projects would come from… Timeline 2009-2014 The implementation / completion of these project s is foreseen… Complementarities The Strategy mentions that it is developed in accordance with the existing development plans and sectoral The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates strategies at the county level, with the general plan and with the regional sectoral development plans, as with the following… well as with national and European development programs. The following are explicitly mentioned: Sustainable Development Plan of the Maramures county, Regional Plan for Development of the North-West Region, National Sustainable Development Strategy of Romania, Sustainable Development Strategy of the European Union. Coordination aspects related to The Strategy devotes a separate specific objective to the aspects of effective public administration, investment objectives, types of activity, including the territorial coordination of projects. Other aspects of coordinating the implementation of and projects (expressly mentioned) projects are not mentioned. Other Observations Overall, the strategy is concise and clear. Other useful things to note about this strategy Specifically, the chapter on the implementation and monitoring includes both county level and local level include… indicators. The strategy itself does not contain the following elements: budget and funding sources, calendar. As well, except for transport infrastructure, specific projects are not mentioned (water and sewage infrastructure or social infrastructure). However, besides the Strategy, Maramures County Council ordered the preparation of a Plan for integrated development of the county that is not mention explicitly in the Strategy. The plan includes two sections: the first targets the county level, while the other is dedicated to the local level; both lists of projects in various fields (development of road infrastructure, the development of health and social welfare, culture and education, etc.). The presentations of projects include: name, short description, implementation period, necessary amounts, funding sources, applicants. Regarding the funding sources, the European ones are clearly 374 delineated, indicating in each case the operational program and the concerned major area of intervention. As well, another plan is worth mentioning – the Integrated development plan of the border region of Maramures - Ivano - Frankivsk - Zakarpattia, which is built on the same pattern as the county development plan, containing a list of projects that can be developed through cooperation between administrative- territorial units from the two sides of the frontiers (including transportation, water infrastructure, culture, tourism projects). 27. MEHEDINTI – none found Strategy name in Romanian Strategy name in English Level of Strategy Supranational/national/regional/local Vision The world we desire to see… Objectives The goals of the strategy are… Types of activities relevant for county road infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure The goals would be achieved through several types of activities… Relevant projects for county road infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure Examples of projects include… Budget for projects related to county road infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure The financing of these projects would come from… Timeline The implementation / completion of these 375 projects is foreseen… Complementarities The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates with the following… Coordination aspects related to investment objectives, types of activity, and projects (expressly mentioned) Other Observations Other useful things to note about this strategy include… 28. MURES Strategy name in Romanian Strategia de dezvoltare a judeţului Mureş pentru perioada 2014 -2020 Strategy name in English Mures county development strategy for the period 2014-2020 Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Vision Mures County, exploiting its strategic position, available resources and opportunities, aims to become by The world we desire to see… 2020 a dynamic county, progress-oriented, renowned in the medical and research domains, with a sustainable economy (based on an intensive agriculture, an industry with high added value, and an attractive service sector), supported by a modern and accessible infrastructure, thus providing to its residents the premises for a high standard of living, a county where the new builds on multicultural traditions. Objectives General objective: Increasing economic competitiveness and attractiveness of Mures county, reducing The goals of the strategy are… disparities between urban and rural areas in order to create a favorable environment for residents, businessmen and tourists. Specific objectives: Extending, rehabilitating, and upgrading the basic infrastructure in urban and rural areas in support of the economic development of the county Strengthening the character of Mures county as a medical and research center Supporting urban and rural development poles (as they were defined in the Spacial Plan of Mures county) to ensure the polycentric development of the county; Development of rural areas in order 376 to reduce the major economic and social gaps between the rural and urban environment Diversifying the local economy through the development of the tourism sector, especially cultural, spa, rural and mountain tourism, in the spirit of a multicultural tradition Rationally harnessing the natural heritage, the potential for producing renewable energy in accordance with the principles of sustainable development Developing effective human resources to support economic competitiveness Developing social services and increasing access to sustainable and high quality social services for disadvantaged groups Developing the administrative capacity of local authorities. Types of activities relevant for county Technical infrastructure development road infrastructure, water and sewage Rehabilitation and modernization of road, rail and airport infrastructure in the county in view of infrastructure, and social infrastructure ensuring an efficient transport The goals would be achieved through several Extension, rehabilitation and modernization of technical-public infrastructure in the county in view types of activities… of ensuring a sustainable development and more efficient administration of the territory (including water network, sewage, and wastewater treatment) Development of the communications infrastructure, in particular with regard to facilitating people's access to broadband in order to improve the transfer of data and information Development of education, health, emergency, and social protection infrastructure Development of educational infrastructure and services by building, developing, expanding, and modernizing teaching units in urban and rural areas Development of health infrastructure and services by building, developing, expanding, and modernizing medical units in urban and rural areas Development of emergency infrastructure and services in urban and rural areas Development of social infrastructure and services through the establishment, rehabilitation, development, expansion and modernization of social units in rural and urban areas Relevant projects for county road Out of the 734 projects, the most numerous belong to the transport sector (161). They are followed by infrastructure, water and sewage water and sewage projects (117), education (82), culture (53), and tourism projects (53), and at a certain infrastructure, and social infrastructure distance by social services (42) and health (16) projects etc. Examples of projects include… Road infrastructure Road system rehabilitation on the county road CR 151B Ungheni – Capilna de Sus – Bahnea – Sibiu county limit and CR 142 Tarnaveni – Balauseri, Mures county (including rehabilitation of bridges) 377 Rehabilitation CR 136 Singeorgiu de Padure – Bezidu Nou – Harghita county limit km 0+000-14+000 and CR 136A km 0+000-3+800 Development of inter-county mobility between NR 13 and E68 through the rehabilitation of the road system on the county road CR 106 Agnita – Apold – Sighisoara (including rehabilitation of bridges) Road ring connecting DN13 – DN15 – Transylvania Motorway Water and sewage infrastructure Extension of water supply networks in the western areas of the county (Ludus – Miheşu de Campie adduction construction) Rehabilitation and extension of water supply and sewerage systems in Tirgu-Mures municipality Modernization of the water plant and pumping station in Reghin municipality Social infrastructure Rehabilitation, modernization and endowment with medical equipment and furniture of the ambulatory belonging to the Municipal Hospital “Dr. Gheorghe Marinescu”, Tarnaveni Building Regional Hospital in Tirgu-Mures Building accommodation spaces inside the University of Medicine and Pharmacy Tirgu-Mures Building a multimedia education center inside the ”Petru Maior” University, Tirgu-Mures Extension, rehabilitation and modernization of the residence for elderly in Ideciu de Jos (including energy efficiency works) Rehabilitation, repartitioning, modernization, and endowment of a future residential center in the Zau de Campie commune Budget for projects related to county Mentioned sources: European funds (ROP, MIOP), NPRD, state budget, local budget. road infrastructure, water and sewage The project portfolio contains 734 projects, with a total estimated value of 13.271.180.687 lei, meaning infrastructure, and social infrastructure 2.949.151.264 EUR. This value represents an estimation of the financial needs of the Mures county during The financing of these projects would come 2014-2020 and includes a series of foresights with respect to the envisioned investments. It is mentioned from… that not all the projects are budgeted. Timeline 2014-2020 The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities Europe 2020 Strategy The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates Memorandum on the actions and documents needed for the preparation of the 2014-2020 European with the following… Funds accession and implementation 378 Partnership Agreement National Reform Programme (2011-2013) Regional Development Plan of the Centre Region for 2014-2020 National Strategy for the Sustainable Development of Romania - Horizons 2013-2020-2030 Strategic Concept of Spatial Development - Romania 2030 Coordination aspects related to The strategy recognizes the role of the County Council as coordinator of the development and investment objectives, types of activity, implementation of Mures County Development Plan, but the aspects of coordination are not detailed. and projects (expressly mentioned) Other Observations Overall, the Strategy is clear, coherent and comprehensive. It is included in the Development Plan of Mures Other useful things to note about this strategy County for 2014-2020, which contains all the necessary elements for a proper implementation of the include… Strategy. At the specific level, several issues are worth noting. In the chapter „Estimated financing needs” are l isted the relevant structural and investment funds available, as well as the operational programs. Individual EU funding programs, with their fields of application are also identified. The national funding programs, including NPLD, are mentioned as well. The chapter on output indicators regarding the objectives of the Strategy is very well developed. It presents in a tabulated format the following information regarding each priority/measure: name of indicators, types of indicators (output, outcome, and impact), main expected results, and the institutions providing the indicators. The project portfolio is very well organized. It contains the following information in a tabulated format: beneficiary, title, location, county, estimates, expected funding source, scope, maturity (1 – highest level, with FS, TD, other studies and analyzes, and 5 - the lowest level, with only the idea of the project), the expected implementation period, the contact details of the beneficiary, the importance/relevance for county (from 1-5), compliance with the priorities and strategic objectives, comments, and possible eligibility for operational programs. 29. NEAMT Strategy name in Romanian Planul local pentru dezvoltare durabilă a județului Neamț. Agenda locală 21 Strategy name in English Local Plan for Sustainable Development of Neamt County. Local Agenda 21 Level of Strategy Local 379 Supranational/national/regional/local Vision - The world we desire to see… Objectives General objectives: The goals of the strategy are… Sustainable management of natural capital Strengthening and stimulating local institutional structures and the economic environment Development of the rural area and increasing the competitiveness of the agri-food sector Development of transport infrastructure Restoration and development of basic infrastructure Sustainable tourism in Neamt county Development and improvement of social services and the correspondent infrastructure Development and improvement of the quality of healthcare services and their balanced distribution across the county Improving and adapting the education system to the labor market Relevant specific objectives (selection): Sustainable use of water resources Improved county and local transport infrastructure Infrastructure development in the medical field Modernization of social services infrastructure Types of activities relevant for county Ring roads for the major cities in the county road infrastructure, water and sewage Creating a centralized system of water supply, sewage and treatment plants and connecting county infrastructure, and social infrastructure residents to it The goals would be achieved through several Rehabilitation and modernization of county roads infrastructure types of activities… Restructuring and modernization of special protection centers for children and adults with disabilities Infrastructure development in the medical field Rehabilitation, modernization, expansion and equipping of social centers and special schools Relevant projects for county road Rehabilitation/modernization/expansion of water supply, sewage, and wastewater systems from Neamt infrastructure, water and sewage county infrastructure, and social infrastructure Rehabilitation and modernization of the county road (CR) 156A, km 28+000 – 40+700, Neamt county Examples of projects include… Rehabilitation and modernization of CR 208G km 30+238 – 56+998 Hanu Ancuţei – Girov, Neamt county Rehabilitation and modernization of CR 127A km 5+ 000 – 40+585 Tosorog – Bicazu Ardelean – Bicaz Chei – Damuc – Harghita county limit 380 Rehabilitation, modernization and equipping of the School Center for Inclusive Education “Stefan cel Mare” Budget for projects related to county European funds, state budget, County Council budget, local budgets, external road infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure The financing of these projects would come from… Timeline 2009-2015 The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities - The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates with the following… Coordination aspects related to - investment objectives, types of activity, and projects (expressly mentioned) Other Observations Neamt County Development Strategy 2014-2020 is under elaboration (last time: 12/03/2014). To date, it Other useful things to note about this strategy contains only the substantiation part. The previous strategic plan is therefore analyzed here. include… Unlike other strategies, Agenda 21 is less deep and less coherent. At the level of objectives and projects formulation, the degree of generality/specificity is not the same. In the portfolio of priority projects, these are described based on the following types of information: general objective, specific objectives, total project duration of the project, brief description of the project. 30. OLT Strategy name in Romanian Strategia de dezvoltare a județului Olt pentru perioada 2014 -2020 Strategy name in English Olt County Development Strategy for the period 2014-2020 Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Vision For the period 2014-2020, Olt county aims to become a promoter of competitiveness in both the industry The world we desire to see… and agriculture, but also of the digital economy by developing a better business environment based on competent human resources, on the integration of innovative technologies and on the promotion of sustainable development. 381 Objectives Overall strategic objective for 2014-2020 is the sustainable and balanced development of Olt county in The goals of the strategy are… order to increase the living standards of citizens. Specific objectives: Increasing the attractiveness and sustainable development of the county by improving its infrastructure, by harnessing the agricultural potential, as well as the urban and tourism potential Increasing the county’s competitiveness by supporting enterprises, the development of specific infrastructure for research/innovation, and the qualification of human resources Protecting and improving the environment by improving the quality of the environmental infrastructure and increasing energy efficiency Types of activities relevant for county Basic infrastructure development (roads, utilities) in the county and in urban areas road infrastructure, water and sewage Creating a smart road transport system at the county level, in conjunction with European infrastructure, and social infrastructure networks, bypasses, and adjacent road infrastructure; The goals would be achieved through several Ensuring the connectivity of the regional road network with the TEN-T network by upgrading and types of activities… rehabilitating county roads that provide connectivity (primary and secondary) with this network; Upgrading county/local/communal roads that provide connectivity with the national network; Development of intermodal transport and related logistics; Modernization and development of port and rail transport to improve accessibility. Modernization and development of social infrastructure (health, education, social services) Construction/modernization of hospitals (buildings and equipment), clinics, health centers, ambulatories, laboratories, centers of prevention; Special equipment of health units and training; Rehabilitation/modernization/expansion of school infrastructure (including kindergartens) and university campuses; endowing them with specific equipment; Rehabilitation/modernization of training centers, including endowment with special equipment; Creation, rehabilitation/modernization of social services, including endowment with specific equipment; Construction/modernization of infrastructure to support the transition from institutional assistance to proximity assistance. Relevant projects for county road Road infrastructure infrastructure, water and sewage Rehabilitation and modernization CR 643, km 0+000-51+400, Valcea county limit, Olt county infrastructure, and social infrastructure Rehabilitation and modernization CR 546, km 40+000-127+200, Teleorman county limit – Examples of projects include… Verguleasa (NR 67B) 382 Rehabilitation and modernization CR 703C, Km 0+000-29+519, Ciuresti (CR 703) – Poganu (CR 67B) Water and sewage infrastructure Extension and rehabilitation of water and wastewater infrastructure in Olt County Social infrastructure Modernization and equipment of the County Emergency Hospital Slatina Modernization of the center for elderly in Falcoiu Modernization of the “Floare de Colt” placement center from Balș in view of converting it in a residential institution for adults Restoration, consolidation, and modernization of Casa Fantaneanu – Eparchial Social-Cultural Center Budget for projects related to county European funds 2014-2020 road infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure The financing of these projects would come from… Timeline 2014-2020 The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities Europe 2020 Strategy The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates European Commission Communication “Regional Policy contributing to smart growth in Europe 2020” with the following… European Commission Communication “Regional Policy contributing to sustainable growth in Europe 2020” EU Strategy for the Danube Region (EUSDR) National Strategy for Regional Development 2014-2020 The position of the Commission services on the development of a partnership agreement and programs in Romania in 2014-2020 Coordination aspects related to - investment objectives, types of activity, and projects (expressly mentioned) Other Observations The strategy is fairly consistent and clear overall, but it is incomplete and contains irrelevant information in Other useful things to note about this strategy the substantiation chapter. It is difficult to read it thoroughly because of the rudimentary form of data include… presentation (e.g. the table of contents is missing). 383 However, the Strategy contains a chapter on the projects developed in 2007-2013, giving a detailed account of the projects undertaken. The appendix contains the list of priority projects to be financed for the period 2014-2020. The list includes the following information: the applicable domain, project title, applicant/partners, location, implementation timeline, main activities/targeted results, estimated amount of investment, stage of development of the documentation. A breakdown on funding sources and a timeline for implementation are missing. 31. PRAVOVA Strategy name in Romanian Planul de dezvoltare durabilă a județului Prahova în perioada 2014-2020 Strategy name in English Sustainable development plan of the Prahova county for the period 2014-2020 Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Vision For the programming period 2014-2020, Prahova County takes over the strategic vision of South-Muntenia The world we desir e to see… Region, which itself follows both the fundamental objective set by the Europe 2020 Strategy with respect to promoting smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth, and the national targets defined for the main areas of activity. Objectives General objectives: The goals of the strategy are… Sustainable development of local and county infrastructure, including tourism infrastructure Sustainable Urban Development Developing support infrastructure for business and economic competitiveness Environmental protection and increasing energy efficiency Human resources development, support for education and employment Supporting health and social assistance Rural development Relevant specific objectives: Development and modernization of transport infrastructure Development and modernization of utilities and public services infrastructure Development and modernization of the infrastructure for tourism, sports, natural and cultural heritage, recreational activities Development and modernization of educational and research infrastructure 384 Development and modernization of infrastructure for health and social assistance Types of activities relevant for county Development and modernization of transport infrastructure road infrastructure, water and sewage Development, rehabilitation and modernization of road infrastructure through investments aimed infrastructure, and social infrastructure at enhancing regional mobility and connection with surrounding areas, sustainability, and The goals would be achieved through several reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Priorities: roads that ensure connectivity with the types of activities… European transport network (TEN-T), connections between counties, ring roads, new county and regional roads, modernization of urban streets, and the development of bike trails Upgrading and rehabilitation of railway infrastructure Investments to promote sustainable, efficient, and environmentally friendly transport systems Creating multimodal transportation centers Development and modernization of utilities and public services Construction, rehabilitation, upgrading, and expansion of the technical infrastructure of public utilities Improving the quality of public services Construction, rehabilitation, and modernization of housing for young people, social housing and housing for some socio-professional categories Development and modernization of educational and research infrastructure Modernization, rehabilitation / strengthening of some units and endowment with utilities Construction of school gyms, specialized laboratories, facilities with modern and appropriate teaching equipment Constructions and endowments for continuing vocational training Development and modernization of health services and social assistance Construction, rehabilitation, development, expansion, and modernization of health services, including endowment with innovative equipment Construction, rehabilitation, development, expansion, modernization, and endowment of social services Construction/modernization of infrastructure to support the transition from institutional assistance to proximity assistance Relevant projects for county road Road infrastructure infrastructure, water and sewage Ring road between NR 1 and NR 72 infrastructure, and social infrastructure Rehabilitation CR 100C Salciile (CR 102D) – Fulga – Mizil (CR 102D); km 0+000 – km 18+670 Examples of projects include… Rehabilitation CR 101P Bratasanca (NR 72) – Poiana Campina – Podu Vadului (CR 101R); km 0+000 385 – km 28+335 Rehabilitation CR 102I Campina – Valea Doftanei – Brasov county limit; km 35+100 – km 50+924 Modernization of Busteni road (E 60; NR 1) – Rasnov (NR 73 A); km 0+000 – km 23+130 Increasing accessibility in the eastern part of Ploiesti municipality towards the Pan-European Corridor TEN-IX by constructing a road passage over the railway in the south-eastern part of Ploiesti municipality Water and sewage infrastructure Rehabilitation of water supply infrastructure in Campina municipality Rehabilitation and modernization of water and wastewater systems in Azuga Extension of water infrastructure – sewage – treatment in the city of Mizil Making new sewage networks and sewage treatment plants in the city of Sinaia Social infrastructure Thermal rehabilitation of Campina Municipal Hospital Rehabilitation, modernization and equipping of the industrial school group “Petrol” in Campina Construction of a care center for elderly in Campina Residential center for disadvantaged people in Sinaia Rehabilitation of the heritage building “Casa Ion Balan” in Sinaia Budget for projects related to county Local budget, EU funds national budget, and other funding instruments road infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure The financing of these projects would come from… Timeline 2014-2020 The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities Europe 2020 Strategy National Strategy for Regional Development 2014-2020 The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates with the following… Main sectoral strategies for 2014-2020 in Romania (listed and briefly described) Regional Development Plan 2014-2020 for the South-Muntenia Region Coordination aspects related to In a section related to preparing applications for SOP Environment 2014-2020, the Strategy refers to the investment objectives, types of activity, aspect of correlating investments: e.g. roads vs. water/sewage, regional projects vs. local projects. and projects (expressly mentioned) The Strategy also includes integrated projects, which comprise water networks, sewage, road 386 modernizations, or rehabilitation of community centers/kindergartens in communes. Other Observations Overall, the Strategy is quite well written, but incomplete. It contains the major aspects related to the Other useful things to note about this strategy development of the county and it mentions explicitly in the development vision its correlation with the include… relevant strategies at the European, national, and regional level. Still, the projects / ideas of projects that are to serve the priorities are not sufficiently detailed. In the summarizing table of the 887 projects are only mentioned their names and the initiators of the projects. The chapters dedicated to implementation, monitoring, and evaluation are missing. However, the Annexes contain useful information about the state of viability of county/communal roads and bridges. 32. SALAJ Strategy name in Romanian Plan de dezvoltare județean Sălaj 2007-2013 Strategy name in English Salaj County Development Plan 2007-2013 Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Vision Salaj - driver of regional development, a community capable of attracting investment and European The world we desire to see… projects. Objectives General objectives: The goals of the strategy are… Transport - Rehabilitation, modernization and a balanced development of all transport infrastructure in the county and ensuring inter-modality in view of connecting it to regional, national and European transport corridors. Competitiveness - Increasing the competitiveness in the county’s priority sectors in order to develop a knowledge-based economy Human Resources - Better harnessing of human resources, ensuring adequate employment and combating social exclusion Environment - Protecting and improving the environment in order to create the preconditions for a sustainable development Agriculture and Sustainable Development – A diversified rural economy - source of income for sustainable development Sustainable urban development - Salaj County Cities - engines for economic growth, employment, 387 and sustainable development of local communities Relevant specific objectives (selection): Transport – Ensuring the right to mobility by creating functional links between growth poles and with major regional centers Development of transport infrastructure in order to ensure operational connections to industrial areas, tourist areas and other critical areas (rural area, isolated areas) Tackling congestion in the centers of influence in the county to ensure territorial development Improvement of road connections between the main transit roads and areas with a high population concentration Ensuring traffic safety, restoring the balance between different types of transport and developing inter-modality Human resources – Development of initial and continuing education by providing quality educational offerings that are also relevant for the labor market Increasing the quality of medical and social services Promoting social cohesion through increased inclusion of disadvantaged people and combating discrimination Environment – Development of regional systems of water management Types of activities relevant for county Road transport infrastructure road infrastructure, water and sewage Development of road infrastructure for the connection with the counties of the North -West infrastructure, and social infrastructure Region in order to facilitate economic development and increase competitiveness The goals would be achieved through several Improving road connections between economic and social centers, growth poles and micro-regions types of activities… in the county Reducing the risk of road accidents on county roads and in urban transport system Secure the bridges on the network of county roads (approx. 20 bridges) Ensuring road connections of regional, national, and European interest with Jibou Industrial Park Rehabilitation of roads that ensure the connection of the main tourist attractions in the county with the main roads (national roads and/or European roads) and of those that will lead to touristic potential capitalization 388 Construction of access and bypass road infrastructure in congested urban areas Water and sewage infrastructure Improving and developing the infrastructure of wastewater collection systems in urban areas by rehabilitating and expanding sewage networks Rehabilitation of treatment plants in urban centers Rehabilitation of industrial processes and/or upgrading the correspondent sewage systems Social infrastructure Rehabilitation of school infrastructure in Salaj county in order to create optimum conditions for ensuring learning conditions that comply with the minimum standards by 2008 and to European standards by 2013 The development of (hospital and specialist) ambulatory services Adapting schools infrastructure to support students and teachers with special needs Development of local social services through increasing the number of day care centers for children and the elderly especially in rural areas Creating social housing/protected apartments for young people over the age of 18 leaving residential units and being unable to be integrated in family (8-10 apartments/year); Relevant projects for county road Road infrastructure infrastructure, water and sewage Capital repairing at the CR 108D: Criseni - Cehu Silvaniei – Maramures county limit infrastructure, and social infrastructure Capital repairing at the CR 108B: Surduc – Garbou – Cluj county limit – Dej Examples of projects include… Modernization of the CR 108T: Cehu Silvaniei – Ulciug – Ulmeni Capital repairing at the following county roads with access to the motorway: CR 108F: Moiad (NR 1F) – Simleu Silvaniei (NR 1H) CR 191D: Ciucea (NR 1) – Nusfalau (NR 1H) CR 108A: Cluj county limit – Buciumi – Romanasi Construction of Eastern Jibou ring road Water and sewage infrastructure Rehabilitation and extension of sewage networks for domestic water and rainwater in seven urban localities from Somes – Tisa river basin: Zalau, Simleu Silvaniei, Jibou and Cehu Silvaniei in Salaj county, and Dej, Gherla, and Huedin in Cluj county Rehabilitation of treatment plants in seven urban centers of Somes – Tisa river basin: Zalau, Simleu Silvaniei, Jibou and Cehu Silvaniei in Salaj county, and Dej, Gherla, and Huedin in Cluj county Centralized water supply and sewage systems, treatment plants in villages neighboring Cluj – Salaj 389 drinking water thoroughfare Social infrastructure Rehabilitation and modernization of the infrastructure of Zalau County Hospital Rehabilitation of the Centre for Social Services of the city of Zalau Rehabilitation of school infrastructure in Zalau city Rehabilitation of the social, cultural, and educational modular complex for pre-university students in Zalau Refunctionalization and upgrading of Youth Club in Zalau city Budget for projects related to county SOP Transport, SOP Human Resources, SOP Environment, ROP road infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure The financing of these projects would come from … Timeline 2007-2013 The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities Lisbon Strategy The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates Operational Programmes with the following… Coordination aspects related to Some of the measures related to the access to public utilities include the coordination and conjugation of investment objectives, types of activity, efforts for the development and expansion of public utility infrastructure in urban and rural areas. and projects (expressly mentioned) The measures regarding the urban areas include, among others, the promotion of an integrated regional approach to problems related to water and wastewater (sewage - treatment) in the urban areas and their surroundings in Salaj and Cluj counties, Somes – Tisa river basin. The Strategy also notes the need to coherently connect the county road network to the regional, national, and European networks. Other Observations Overall, the strategy is broad and very complex. This complexity gives the impression of over-division and Other useful things to note about this strategy overlapping at the level of the objectives and measures. include… Project portfolio is structured according to the type of planning tools and financial allocation, i.e. Sectoral Operational Programmes and Regional Operational Programme (with its four axes). Projects are presented according to the following types of information: project name, estimated value, and period (sometimes, beneficiaries). Issues not covered in the Strategy include: technical aspects related to the implementation of the strategy, monitoring and evaluation. 390 33. SATU MARE Strategy name in Romanian Strategia de dezvoltare a județului Satu Mare 2014-2020 Strategy name in English Satu Mare county Development Strategy 2014-2020 Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Vision In 2020, Satu Mare county will become a place of prosperity, basing its development on a long practiced The world we desire to see… industry and on harnessing its agricultural and touristic potentials, exploited in harmony with nature and mobilized by the entrepreneurship spirit and work capacity of the Satu Mare inhabitants. The county’s potential as a logistic pole, determined by its positioning on the border, will contribute actively to attracting investment and to exploiting local products, as well as to affirming its role as a key player in the cross-border cooperation. Objectives Strategic objectives: The goals of the strategy are… Increasing economic competitiveness in the context of the strategic position of the county Developing tourism in the county Improving the quality of life in Satu Mare Strengthening administrative capacity Relevant specific objectives (selection): Improved mobility and accessibility at the county level Development of public utilities Supporting public services in health, education and safety of citizens Improving the performance of social care services and child protection Protection and enhancement of the natural environment, including harnessing renewable energy resources Types of activities relevant for county Improved mobility and accessibility at county road infrastructure, water and sewage Rehabilitation and modernization of road infrastructure in the county infrastructure, and social infrastructure Development of public utilities The goals would be achieved through several Rehabilitation and extension of water supply and sewage infrastructures types of activities… Supporting public health services, education and citizen safety Rehabilitation and modernization of the educational infrastructure that is under the administration 391 of the county council Rehabilitation, modernization, and equipping of the county health infrastructure Relevant projects for county road Road infrastructure infrastructure, water and sewage Modernization CR 108L Tasnad - Cig - Eriu Sancrai - Craidorolt - Piscari - Terebesti - Gelu - county infrastructure, and social infrastructure limit Examples of projects include… Modernization of the road infrastructure segment of North Transylvania Regional Route Water and sewage infrastructure Rehabilitation and extension of the water supply infrastructure Extension of sewage infrastructure and management of industrial or household wastewater in the county Social infrastructure Rehabilitation of the health infrastructure from the county of Satu Mare Rehabilitation of the educational infrastructure from the county of Satu Mare Redeveloping the Satu Mare County Museum, rearranging the basic exhibition and endowing it with the necessary equipment Construction/development of the Satu Mare Library, development of its information system and endowment with the necessary materials and equipment Extending the Marius Ethnographic Museum Rehabilitation of social assistance infrastructure in the county of Satu Mare Budget for projects related to county ROP 2014-2020, MIOP 2014-2020, governmental funds road infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure The financing of these projects would come from… Timeline 2014-2020 The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities Europe 2020 Strategy The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates Partnership Agreement 2014-2020 with the following… National Strategy for Regional Development Spatial Development Strategy of Romania Operational Programmes 2014-2020 392 National Rural Development Programme 2014-2020 Regional Development Plan of Northern Transylvania 2014-2020 Coordination aspects related to According to the Strategy, the coordination of its implementation will be ensured by the Department for investment objectives, types of activity, Regional Development of Satu Mare County Council. Any mentions related to coordination at the project and projects (expressly mentioned) level are not included. Other Observations Overall, the strategy is clear, coherent and concise. Other useful things to note about this strategy The strategy contains a portfolio of priority projects that are presented based on the following types of include… information: title, brief description, potential partners, estimated budget, and potential external sources of (co-) funding. Even with these data, a large proportion of projects are defined too generally. 34. SIBIU Strategy name in Romanian Strategia de dezvoltare a judeţului Sibiu pentru perioada 2010 -2013 şi direcţiile de dezvoltare ale judeţului pentru perioada 2014-2020 Strategy name in English Sibiu County Development Strategy for 2010-2013 and directions of development of the county for 2014- 2020 Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Vision Sibiu County Council will become the main catalyst for the sustainable development of the county, aiming The world we desire to see… to place the county on one of the top two places in the region and among the top 10 counties at the national level, according to the main economic and social indicators (real GDP growth, the GDP/capita, unemployment rate, average net monthly earnings - lei/employee etc. Objectives The main objective is to achieve a sustainable development of the county, able to lead to the increase of The goals of the strategy are… the living standards of the population. The priorities of the Strategy refer to: transport infrastructure, urban infrastructure and public services of county interest, social services and special education, protection of cultural heritage, tourism, agriculture and rural development, environmental protection, land-use planning, public health and safety, administrative capacity and attracting investment in the county. Types of activities relevant for county Road infrastructure development road infrastructure, water and sewage Modernization, reconstruction, and rehabilitation of county roads and bridges infrastructure, and social infrastructure Constant maintenance and repair of the existing ones, and construction of new sections 393 The goals would be achieved through several Reclassification of important communal roads as county roads types of activities… Development of water and sewage infrastructure Expanding the distribution network of drinking water Expanding the sewerage network New wastewater treatment plant Development of social infrastructure Rehabilitation of health facilities Improving school infrastructure through consolidation, rehabilitation, and equipment Upgrading and expansion of social assistance and child protection centers Rehabilitation of historic monuments Relevant projects for county road Road infrastructure infrastructure, water and sewage Modernization CR 105G Sadu – Sadurel infrastructure, and social infrastructure Modernization CR 106D Rășinari – Orlat Exam ples of projects include… Modernization CR Ocna Sibiului – Slimnic Bridge on CR 105D Chirpar – Agnita Water and sewage infrastructure Upgrading the water infrastructure in the North-Eastern part of the Sibiu county Social infrastructure Rehabilitation and modernization of the School Center for Inclusive Education Turnu Rosu Rehabilitation of the specialized ambulatory from the County Clinical Hospital Sibiu Rehabilitation of the specialized ambulatory from the Psychiatric Hospital Gh. Preda Modernization of the conservation, restoration, and valorization center – Astra Museum Budget for projects related to county Local budget, external funds, revolving fund road infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure The financing of these projects would come from… Timeline 2010-2013; 2014-2020; post-2020. The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities Strategy and Development Plan of the Sibiu County for the period 2006 – 2007 – 2013 The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates Master plan for water supply and sewage disposal in Sibiu county with the following… 394 Master plan on the extension and rehabilitation of water and wastewater in the regions Medias, Agnita, Dumbraveni Study on wastewater disposal and treatment at the bottom of Hirtibaciului river Master plan for Integrated Waste Management System in Sibiu county Study to determine Development Strategy of Sibiu Airport County Waste Management Plan County Spatial Plan Study on increasing the effectiveness of maintenance and modernization services of county roads in Sibiu county Coordination aspects related to Under the measure „Building major infrastructure routes in accordance with the national, interregional, investment objectives, types of activity, regional and inter-county corridors”, the Strategy mentions the need to coordinate the activities of Sibiu and projects (expressly mentioned) County Council with both the superior public authorities and the local councils in view of an integrated and efficient development of roads. Other Observations Overall, the Strategy is well designed, comprehensive and well documented. It contains the key areas of Other useful things to note about this strategy development and is well correlated with other plans at the county level. Projects are well delineated. include… What is worth noting is the implementation timeline of the strategy. If the earlier Strategy envisioned the period 2006-2007-2013, the present Strategy takes into account the period 2010-2013 and the 2014-2020 perspective. 35. SUCEAVA Strategy name in Romanian Strategia de dezvoltare economică și socială a județului Suceava, perioada 2011 -2020 Strategy name in English Social and Economic Development Strategy of Suceava County for the period 2011-2020 Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Vision In 2020, Suceava county will be a county that has developed sustainably, capitalizing on existing economic The world we desire to see… potential in order to: - balance socio-economic systems and natural potential; - ensure a skilled workforce, for which there is a sufficient number of well-paid jobs; - increase the competitiveness of the county through the development of existing economic sectors in order to eliminate intra- and inter-regional economic disparities; 395 - diversify the county's economy through efficient, ecological, and sustainable capitalization of the natural assets, cultural-historical and human patrimony, and geographic positioning in the border area; - continuously improve the living standards of the citizens of the county, ensuring their equal access to high quality public services and utilities; - actively involve the institutions in the balanced social and economic development of the county, democratically consulting the community, social partners and business in the decision-making. Objectives General objective: the sustainable development of the county by harnessing the existing potential, The goals of the strategy are… diversifying and expanding the economic and social activities in order to increase the standard of living of the inhabitants. Relevant specific objectives (selection): Balanced development of infrastructure, coordinated with the implementation of appropriate systems for natural capital management and natural risk prevention and management Education sector development in order to promote formal and non-formal learning and a healthy lifestyle Ensuring the conditions for a flexible labor market, where the labor supply is continuously adapted to the requirements of employers and promoting equal access to quality social services and health care Developing the cultural infrastructure and harnessing cultural and historical heritage in the Suceava county The continuous improvement of international relations and development of intra- and inter- regional partnerships Types of activities relevant for county Balanced development of infrastructure road infrastructure, water and sewage Construction/rehabilitation/expansion/modernization of water supply networks infrastructure, and social infrastructure Construction/rehabilitation/extension of water supply and sewage systems The goals would be achieved through several Construction/rehabilitation/expansion of sewage systems and treatment plants types of activities… Construction/rehabilitation of bridges and culverts Rehabilitation and modernization of road and air transport networks The development of the education sector Rehabilitation, modernization, development, and equipping of pre-university infrastructure School guidance and counseling programs, increasing safety of the education system Development of infrastructure for sports activities Promoting equal access to quality social and health services 396 Rehabilitation, modernization, development, and equipping of social services infrastructure Rehabilitation, modernization, development, and equipping of health services infrastructure Providing primary health care in rural areas Relevant projects for county road The Strategy contains a list of 1,482 projects/project ideas, most which belong to the following domains: infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure and spatial planning (including transport and utilities), education, youth and sports, culture, infrastructure, and social infrastructure social protection and health. Examples of projects include… Road infrastructure Modernization of the County Road (CR) 177, Poiana Micului – Sucevita, km 10+000 – 20+875 Modernization CR 178 Ilisesti – Ciprian Porumbescu km 36+150 – 44+000, Suceava county Paving the Communal Road 65 from km 0+000 to km 2+000, Dumbraveni commune Modernization of CR 175A Campulung Moldovenesc – Rarau, km 0+000 – 12+600 Modernization of CR DJ 209G Brodina – Ukraine border, km 22+400 – 25+750, Suceava county Construction of a bypass in Radauti municipality Construction of a detour in Vatra Dornei municipality Concrete road bridge over the river Moldova, Draguseni commune Water and wastewater infrastructure Extension and rehabilitation of water and wastewater infrastructure in Suceava Network of drinking water supply and sewage in Campulung Moldovenesc municipality Networks of water supply and sewage in the residential district of Gura Humorului Establishment of a sewage network and treatment plant in Capu Campului village Social infrastructure Rehabilitation of “Eudoxiu Hurmuzachi” College, Rădăuţi Rehabilitation of Balaceanca village school Rehabilitation, modernization, and equipping of the School no.3 “Bogdan Voda” and of the School no. 4 “Teodor Stefanelli” in Campulung Moldovenesc municipality Building a swimming pool and a sports facility in Rădăuţi Continuing the building works to the Hospital of General Medical Practice and the Medical clinic in Fălticeni municipality Rehabilitation, modernization, development, and endowment of the Ambulatory attached to Radauti Municipal Hospital Construction of a communal dispensary in the village of Comanesti Building a medical dispensary and pharmacy in the village of Iaslovat 397 Social enterprise for the development of handicrafts in the village of Panaci Day care center for children at risk, Berchisesti commune Modernization and expansion of a care and assistance center for the elderly in Vatra Dornei municipality Rehabilitation, modernization and endowment of the cultural center in Brosteni city Budget for projects related to county Local budget, governmental funds, European funds road infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure The financing of these projects would come from… Timeline 2011-2020 The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities Regional Development Plan 2007-2013 of the North-East Region The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates National Development Plan 2007-2013 with the following… Intervention areas of the Structural and Cohesion Funds of the European Union Coordination aspects related to The Strategy includes integrated projects, which focus on: water and sewage networks, treatment plants, investment objectives, types of activity, road modernizations, and social infrastructure (cultural centers, schools). and projects (expressly mentioned) Other Observations The strategy is clear, consistent, and well correlated with other plans at the regional and national levels. It Other useful things to note about this strategy is worth mentioning that the strategy contains a special section dedicated to the investment opportunities include… that were identified in the localities belonging to Suceava county based on a questionnaire. However, projects/project ideas are presented too briefly through the following information: the development direction and sub-direction, name of the project, initiator/partners, and sources of funding. It is also worth noting that the Strategy includes integrated projects. For example, the same project contains the following: sewage system and treatment plant, water supply, modernization of 3.7 km of communal road, upgrading of the Popular Athenaeum. 398 36. TELEORMAN Strategy name in Romanian Strategia de Dezvoltare Durabilă a Județului Teleorman 2010 -2020 Strategy name in English Sustainable Development Strategy of Teleorman county 2010-2020 Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Vision The combination of tradition and innovation will bring a high level of welfare in Teleorman county. The world we desire to see… The revitalization of the industrial tradition, the creation of a regional center of competitiveness in the agro-industrial sector and the development of the business environment will be the basis for the reconstruction of the local economy. Teleorman county will develop gradually, aiming at reducing disparities and balancing the level of development between rural and urban areas, but also at repositioning itself at the national level by defining and supporting a local identity. These ambitious targets can become reality through solid, long-lasting local and regional partnerships. Objectives Vertical strategic objectives: The goals of the strategy are… Reactivation of the local economy through industry development Increase of competitiveness in agriculture and rural development Developing entrepreneurial environment Reducing imbalances and increasing social integration Harnessing renewable energy resources Horizontal strategic objectives: Strengthening infrastructure for balanced development Equal opportunities, basic principle in valuing human capital for building a knowledge-based economy Protecting the environment and sustainable development Strengthening cross-border cooperation and the strategic position of the county Stimulating the development of Teleorman county by strengthening the institutional capacity of public administration Relevant specific policies (selected): Creating the necessary infrastructure for industrial development and intermodal accessibility support Ensure adequate infrastructure to increase competitiveness in agriculture and rural development Reducing regional disparities by improving social infrastructure 399 Promoting the development of the county considering the requirements of environmental protection Types of activities relevant for county Expanding water transport infrastructure on the Danube road infrastructure, water and sewage Upgrading transport and management infrastructure of local waters infrastructure, and social infrastructure Correlating modal centers in the county The goals would be achieved through several Creating and rehabilitating the technical infrastructure types of activities… Modernizing educational and social infrastructure for ensuring the provision of education and health services Construction and rehabilitation of technical infrastructure (water supply, sewage, treatment plants, etc.) Relevant projects for county road Road infrastructure infrastructure, water and sewage Construction of bypass roads in cities infrastructure, and social infrastructure Upgrading and rehabilitation of county road infrastructure Examples of projects include… Upgrading and rehabilitation of commune road infrastructure Upgrading and rehabilitation of national road infrastructure Upgrading the E70 and construction of the Bucharest – Alexandria – Craiova express road (widening and construction of 4 lanes) Construction of the Bucharest – Alexandria – Craiova motorway Rehabilitation and modernization of transport infrastructure in the border area Construction of express road towards the border crossing point by ferry at Turnu Magurele – Nikopol (Drumul Viilor) Water and wastewater infrastructure Establishment, rehabilitation, modernization, and expansion of water supply systems, sewage systems and treatment plants according to the Master Plan of Teleorman county for all urban and rural localities Social infrastructure Rehabilitation and modernization of the educational infrastructure in Teleorman county Rehabilitation and upgrading of libraries Construction, endowment, modernization of cultural centers Construction of sports facilities and gyms, and modernization of the existing units Modernizing places of worship and including them into the tourist circuit Rehabilitation and modernization of technological equipment in hospitals Construction of a regional hospital 400 Establishment of dental offices in rural areas Budget for projects related to county State budget, county budget, local budget, non-reimbursable funds road infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure The financing of these projects would come from… Timeline 2010-2020 The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities Teleorman County Master Plan The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates National Rural Development Plan with the following… County Waste Management Plan Regional Waste Management Plan for the South Muntenia Region Coordination aspects related to The Strategy mentions the way in which its vertical objectives correlate with its horizontal objectives. investment objectives, types of activity, Aspects related to the coordination of projects at the level of implementation are not mentioned. and projects (expressly mentioned) Other Observations Overall, the Strategy is clear and coherent, but has a very broad and generous approach. The vast majority Other useful things to note about this strategy of projects related programs are not clearly delineated. include… It is worth noting that the strategic objectives are divided into two categories - vertical and horizontal - and that the Strategy mentions how they correlate. The presentation of projects is too brief and general. It contains the following information: project title, institution involved/potential partners, funding sources, project value, and period of implementation. The project portfolio includes three categories: projects proposed; projects accepted for non-reimbursable financing (of the business environment); local businesses projects under implementation. 37. TIMIS Strategy name in Romanian Strategia de Dezvoltare Economico-socială a județului Timiș 2009-2015 Strategy name in English Timis county Economic and Social Development Strategy 2009-2015 Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Vision The sustainable development of Timis county - creating a competitive, stable, healthy, and diverse socio- 401 The world we desire to see… economic environment, capable of ensuring continued economic growth, the increase of the quality of life of citizens and the reduction of disparities compared to EU regions. Objectives General objective: To support and promote a sustainable socio-economic development that is appropriate The goals of the strategy are… to local needs in order to ensure the highest level of regional and national competitiveness for Timis County. Specific objectives: Accessibility – Improving the county’s accessibility regionally, nationally, and across borders Attractiveness – Increasing the attractiveness of the county as a result of improved urban, rural, and social public infrastructure Local growth poles – Increased economic and social role of urban centers in regional/local development Competitiveness – Increased competitiveness of the county, as a location for business Developed tourism – Increased contribution of tourism to the economic and social development of Timis county Good quality of life – Increased living and environmental standards, focusing in particular on meeting the environmental acquis communautaire Types of activities relevant for county Transport road infrastructure, water and sewage The construction of the motorway infrastructure crossing Timis county, as well as adjacent infrastructure, and social infrastructure infrastructure The goals would be achieved through several Rehabilitation and modernization of national road infrastructure crossing Timis county types of activities… Rehabilitation and modernization of the county road infrastructure Construction and upgrading of communal road infrastructure in Timis county Construction of the infrastructure specific to intermodal transport of goods (terminals and logistics centers) Environment Ensuring water supply sources Construction/rehabilitation/extension of water supply networks Construction/rehabilitation/extension of sewage systems and wastewater treatment plants Education and human resources Rehabilitation, modernization, and equipping of school infrastructure Rehabilitation of the accommodation, and meal serving infrastructures in schools Rehabilitation, modernization, and equipping of kindergarten infrastructure 402 Rehabilitation, modernization and equipping of high school infrastructure Rehabilitation, modernization and equipping of pre-university campuses Supporting the construction of new schools in accordance with the plans of expansion of schools Social and health Rehabilitation and equipping of social centers Establishment of new social centers Establishment/rehabilitation of social canteens Rehabilitation/upgrading and endowment of residential centers, including utilities and equipment Development of the housing stock so as to cover demand for new housing, with priority given to vulnerable social groups and youth Rehabilitating/modernizing, equipping and, where appropriate, increasing the capacity of hospitals Construction of new hospitals according to the needs of the area Rehabilitation/modernization and equipping of ambulatories Construction of new medical units in the inter-communal influence centers of Timis county Culture Construction, rehabilitation, modernization, redevelopment, and equipping of buildings with cultural destination Relevant projects for county road Road infrastructure infrastructure, water and sewage Rehabilitation of the County Road (CR) 592 Buzias – Lugoj infrastructure, and social infrastructure Rehabilitation of CR 682 –Arad county limit – Periam – Saravale – Sannicolau Mare Examples of projects include… Widening to four (4) lanes on the CR 592 Timișoara – Mosnita Noua, 4+ km 700-7 + 100, L = 2.4 km Rehabilitation and modernization of county roads network CR 594 - CR 594A – CR 594B – CR 693 in the west of the county in view of the interconnection with the national road infrastructure from the reference area and to the highway route, total length - 76 km Rehabilitation and modernization of road infrastructure on CR 681 – CR 684 – CR 681A in the tourist area from the eastern part of Timis county, total length – 95.2 km Modernization of the road infrastructure on CR 682B Valcani – ROSE frontier crossing point, L – 4.4 km Water and sewage infrastructure Expansion and modernization of water supply and sewage systems in Timis County Social infrastructure Rehabilitation, modernization, and equipping of the school building and gym belonging to the 403 School of Arts and Crafts “Gheorghe Atanasiu”, Timisoara Endowment, improvement and rehabilitation of the School Centre for Inclusive Education “Constantin Paunescu”, Recas Rehabilitation and modernization of pre-university campus in Buzias locality Redevelopment, re- compartmentalization, and modernization of services complex for children with psychosocial problems CRRN no. 2, Lugoj Modernization of the specialized ambulatory of the County Emergency Hospital Timisoara Development works at the County Emergency Hospital Infrastructure rehabilitation of the treatment and leisure base Lovrin Restoration of the set of buildings of the “Monastery of St. Joseph the New from Partos” Endowment, rehabilitation, and modernization of “Traian Vuia” Museum Restoration, strengthening, protection, and conservation of the Timis County Library Rehabilitation and revitalization of the fortress Citadel Timişoara - Bastion Theresia Restoration - conservation of the Franciscan Monastery – historic monument, cultural revitalization center Budget for projects related to county Structural and Cohesion Funds of the European Union, sectoral operational programs and territorial road infrastructure, water and sewage cooperation programs financed by them infrastructure, and social infrastructure EU funds for agriculture - National Rural Development Programme The financing of these projects would come EU pre-accession funds, until they are over from… Government funding programs The budget of the Timis County Council Local budgets of Timis County communities Other programs and external grants Other sources: bank loans and private financing. Timeline 2009-2015 The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities Regional Development Plan 2007-2013 of the West Region The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates National Strategy for Sustainable Development in Romania with the following… National Strategic Reference Framework 2007-2013 The concept of Romania's territorial development and territorial integration in the EU 2007-2030 The main programs of European development: Regional Operational Programme (ROP), six Sectoral 404 Operational Programmes (SOP), the European Territorial Cooperation Programmes and National Programme for Rural Development (NPRD), all financed by the Structural and Cohesion Funds of the European Union 2007-2013 (the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund). Coordination aspects related to According to the Strategy, the specific objectives will be fulfilled by complementing the regional and local investment objectives, types of activity, interventions with the national sectoral ones; as well, through a good coordination at the administrative and projects (expressly mentioned) level, complementarity of local interventions with the regional and sectoral ones will be achieved. More specific aspects in matters of coordination are not present. Other Observations Overall, the Strategy is very clear, coherent, comprehensive, and specific. Some strengths of this document Other useful things to note about this strategy are worth mentioning below. include… The strategic program included in Timis County Council's strategy is structured according to 10 strategic development axes, each axis including the corresponding strategic intervention areas, measures, and projects to be implemented by Timis County Council or the local public administrations in Timis County. The Strategy shows a clear interest of the county and local administrations to access EU funds for the projects included in the Strategy: it summarizes the major sources of non-reimbursable funds and some of the access conditions mainly addressed to public administrations in Romania. With reference to the structure of the strategic program, the following aspects are mentioned: intervention area, development objective, institutional competencies in matters of implementation, measures. With reference to the presentation of projects, the following details are included: title, beneficiaries, total budget, decision of Timis County Council, funding program, stage. The strategy contains the summary of the financial data for the strategic program, including for the modernization of public infrastructure in the localities of Timis county. The financial summary is divided into the already mentioned 10 strategic axes and contains the following information: the total number of projects for each axis, the estimated total value of the projects, and the total amount of local co-financing for them. The amounts for the priority projects included in the program (estimated value and the value of co-financing) are included as well. Finally, the summary includes the percentage of the priority projects’ value of the total value of all projects included in the program. The transport and environment axes, followed by the culture axis have the highest share in terms of value - 45.09%, 21.45%, and 13.18%. The strategy also contains the financial data of projects completed in 2004-2008 according to the same strategic axes, thus showing continuity of approach. The highest number of completed projects (15) was recorded on the territorial cooperation axis and therefore their total value was the highest (5.1 mil. Euro). The next axis was that of the education and human resources (6 projects), but with a lower total (1.6 mil. 405 Euro) than the social and health axis (2.5 mil. Euro), which had a smaller number of completed projects (2 projects). The chapter referring to the implementation of the strategic program has a special section on prioritization and project selection criteria, while the chapter on monitoring includes a catalog of indicators corresponding to the system of objectives of the strategy. 38. TULCEA Strategy name in Romanian Strategia de dezvoltare a județului Tulcea 2014-2020 Strategy name in English Tulcea county Development Strategy 2014-2020 Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Vision In 2020, Tulcea will be a county with a sustainable development constantly based on the following The world we desire to see… European principles: smart growth, cohesion and environmental protection, by harnessing the existing economic potential on areas called Development groups. Objectives General objective: to continuously improve the quality of life in Tulcea county for the present generations, The goals of the strategy are… but paying particular attention to future generations through the development of sustainable communities able to use and manage resources effectively, on zones with economic potential and on priority areas, ensuring prosperity for the inhabitants, social cohesion, environmental protection and sustainability. Relevant specific objectives (selection): Construction and development of a transport infrastructure connected to European axes, while improving accessibility of all areas of the county Increase and improve the accessibility of the population to modern water and sewage services and to other public utilities Improving the infrastructure and quality of health, education, and training services Improving the quality of social care services provided to citizens Types of activities relevant for county Improving the transport infrastructure road infrastructure, water and sewage Construction/rehabilitation/modernization of local and county roads infrastructure, and social infrastructure Construction/rehabilitation/modernization of farm roads The goals would be achieved through several Construction/rehabilitation/modernization bridges and culverts types of activities… Modernization/rehabilitation of ring roads around urban centers 406 Construction of a bridge crossing the Danube between Braila/Galati and Tulcea The construction of an expressway Constanta - Tulcea - Macin - Focsani that would cross the built bridge Expanding and improving access to public utilities Integrated projects for water - sewage - treatment plants Construction/rehabilitation/expansion/modernization of water supply networks Construction/rehabilitation/expansion of sewage systems and treatment plants Ensuring equal access to social services /health/education Rehabilitation/modernization/development and equipping of social services infrastructure Rehabilitation/modernization/development and equipping of health services infrastructure Rehabilitation/modernization/development and equipping of pre-university infrastructure Relevant projects for county road In the consulted draft of the Strategy, the project portfolio (Chap. VI) is missing. infrastructure, water and sewage (Last accessed: 11/26/14.) infrastructure, and social infrastructure Examples of projects include… Budget for projects related to county Integrated Territorial Investments (ITI) are mentioned. road infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure The financing of these projects would come from… Timeline 2014-2020 The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities Europe 2020 Strategy The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates European Commission Recommendations for Romania, 2013 with the following… Economic and Social Cohesion Policy of the EU Common Agricultural Policy 2014-2020 Lisbon Strategy Relevant European regulations (listed) Partnership Agreement 2014-2020 Framework documents for the implementation of the Operational Programmes Operational Programmes 407 National Reform Programme National Strategy for Sustainable Development 2013-2020-2030 National Strategic Reference Framework 2014-2020 Regional Development Plans 2000-2004, 2004-2006, 2007-2013 Coordination aspects related to The Strategy notes that its implementation will be ensured by a Local Coordination Committee, which will investment objectives, types of activity, be supported by a Secretariat that will operate in the investments/regional development department of and projects (expressly mentioned) Tulcea County Council. Specific coordination aspects related to projects are not mentioned. Other Observations The consulted draft Strategy (last accessed: 11/26/14), which was also submitted to public debate, is Other useful things to note about this strategy incomplete. The essential part is missing, namely: the portfolio of projects, with the necessary financial, include… institutional, and policy details. At a specific level, the Strategy presents the available European funds. The strategy also contains a multi- criteria analysis on potential areas for development in the county, along with four development scenarios for the county. 39. VALCEA Strategy name in Romanian Strategia de dezvoltare economico-socială a județului Vâlcea 2009-2013 Strategy name in English Valcea county Economic and Social Development Strategy 2009-2013 Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Vision Valcea, a rich county: The world we desire to see… - that knows how to exploit natural resources sustainably, maintain a clean environment through technologies and alternative energy sources; - in which people make the difference, ensuring the county’s prosperity through productive economic activities ; - which is visited by tourists of all ages, both Romanians and foreigners interested in the cultural and natural heritage and living traditions, but also in the quality services offered by cultural, monastic, spa, and leisure tourism; - in which good quality education, health, and social services are distributed in a balanced way along the territory; - which benefits from upgraded networks of county and municipal roads and utilities. 408 Objectives Development priorities: The goals of the strategy are… Infrastructure, utilities, and equipment Human resources Promotion, information and administrative capacity Relevant development directions (selection): Upgrading and rehabilitation of road transport infrastructure Upgrading and rehabilitation of water supply and sewage systems Public health and medical services Education adapted to market needs Social services Types of activities relevant for county Upgrading and rehabilitation of road transport network road infrastructure, water and sewage Rehabilitation and modernization of county roads infrastructure, and social infrastructure Rehabilitation and modernization of communal roads The goals would be achieved through several Construction/modernization of bypasses/ring roads of localities types of activities… Upgrading and rehabilitation of water supply and sewage systems Implementing integrated projects of water – sewage – treatment plants Construction/rehabilitation/expansion/modernization of water supply networks Construction/rehabilitation/expansion of sewage systems and wastewater treatment plants Social Infrastructure: health, education, social services Development of a program to improve the infrastructure and equipment of health units under the administration of municipalities Development of hospital services other than those pertaining to the emergency system and rehabilitation and modernization of the Hospital so as to include the emergency regime as well Restoration of Schools of Arts and Crafts in order to carry out practical activities Implementing a rehabilitation program for the Social Assistance Centers Relevant projects for county road - infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure Examples of projects include… Budget for projects related to county Regional and Sectoral Operational Programmes road infrastructure, water and sewage National Rural Development Programme infrastructure, and social infrastructure Valcea county budget 409 The financing of these projects would come The budgets of communes and cities in the county from… Pre-accession programs until their completion Government programs Other programs and external funds Other sources: bank loans and private financing Timeline 2009-2013 The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities Operational Programmes The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates Interregional Cooperation Programmes with the following… Transnational Cooperation Programme Coordination aspects related to The Strategy explicitly mentions the duty of Valcea County Council to coordinate and support its investment objectives, types of activity, implementation, while stimulating participation and building partnerships. and projects (expressly mentioned) The Strategy notes the existence of a County center for implementation, monitoring, and evaluation purposes, which comprises several bodies, including a Coordination Committee and a Secretariat. Specific aspects related to the coordination of various projects are not mentioned. Other Observations Overall, the strategy is fairly consistent and quite clear, but incomplete and less detailed than other county Other useful things to note about this strategy strategies. Compared to other similar documents, the quality of the formulation of objectives and include… measures is inferior. It is noteworthy that the Strategy summarizes the sectoral operational programmes, the regional operational programme, and the territorial cooperation programmes in the section dedicated to funding sources. It is equally noteworthy the absence of the project portfolio. 40. VASLUI Strategy name in Romanian Strategia de dezvoltare economico-socială a județului Vaslui 2013-2020 Strategy name in English Vaslui county Economic and Social Development Strategy 2013-2020 Level of Strategy Local Supranational/national/regional/local Vision Vaslui County will develop through the high capitalization of its resources, in particular by leveraging the The world we desire to see… available agricultural potential. Vaslui County will become attractive for investors and will provide good prospects to its inhabitants and decent conditions to live and work in the localities of Vaslui. 410 Objectives General objective: reducing economic and social disparities of Vaslui County compared to other counties of The goals of the strategy are… Romania and intra-county disparities between rural and urban areas. Relevant sectorial objectives (selection): Improving the living conditions offered by urban centers Expanding the influence of urban areas by developing public services Increasing the accessibility of Vaslui county and localities Increasing road safety and fluidizing the traffic on public roads in Vaslui county Improving the equipping of localities in Vaslui county Improving the quality and coverage of social services at the county level Improvement of conditions for providing education services Improving the provision of health care services Improving the operating conditions for cultural institutions in Vaslui county Types of activities relevant for county Urban development road infrastructure, water and sewage Upgrade road infrastructure infrastructure, and social infrastructure Modernize and expand utility networks The goals would be achieved through several Develop cultural activities types of activities… Infrastructure Rehabilitate and upgrade the main road routes Construct bypass routes around cities Develop local interest communication infrastructure Develop secondary road networks for agricultural vehicles, carts and bicycles Develop and modernize the urban infrastructure Social, education, health, culture Develop the network and infrastructure of social services, with particular emphasis on preventive services and services for the elderly Rehabilitate school infrastructure Rehabilitate and develop the infrastructure of medical units Endow hospitals and ambulatory facilities with modern equipment Develop and support medical services in rural areas Rehabilitate the infrastructure in which cultural institutions operate Relevant projects for county road Road infrastructure infrastructure, water and sewage Rehabilitating and modernizing roads of strategic interest for the development of Vaslui county 411 infrastructure, and social infrastructure - Modernization of County Road (CR) 243 (Barlad – Puiesti – Dragomiresti) – 52.4 km; Examples of projects include… - Modernization of CR 244A (Roşieşti – Poşta Elan – Berezeni) – 39,9 km ; - Modernization of CR 245 E (Moreni – Deleni) – 14.635 km; - Modernization of CR 247 (Codaesti – Zapodeni – Laza) – 42.59 km; - Modernization of CR 244E (Husi – Tatarasti – Miclesti) – 27.75 km; - Modernization of CR 245 (Barlad-Poienesti) – 35.5 km; - Modernization of CR 244 D (Husi – Coropceni) – 25.5 km; - Modernization of CR 207 E (Balteni – Osesti – Negresti) – 35 km; - Modernization of CR 159 A (Bacesti Garceni) – 10 km. Setting up secondary/parallel roads Building and rehabilitating bypasses of municipalities in Vaslui county Water and wastewater infrastructure Rehabilitating and extending water supply and wastewater networks in urban areas in Vaslui county - Rehabilitate basic utilities networks in the cities; - Extend basic utilities networks in new residential areas or in those not covered yet; - Expand and resize the basic utility networks in areas with economic potential; - Modernize the supply system of service utilities. Social infrastructure Rehabilitation and modernization “Stefan cel Mare” County Museum, Vaslui Establishment of a residential center for the elderly in Vaslui municipality Introducing in the tourist circuit the following heritage attractions: Parvesti, Floresti, and Fastaci Monasteries Construction and equipping of homes for children with disabilities in the city of Negresti The establishment of a Centre for Integration through Occupational Therapy in the locality of Malaesti, Vutcani village Rehabilitation, modernization, and equipping of Vaslui County Emergency Hospital Rehabilitation, modernization, and equipping of school centers for inclusive education in Husi municipality and the city of Negresti Budget for projects related to county Non-reimbursable funds road infrastructure, water and sewage European Neighborhood and Partnership Instrument infrastructure, and social infrastructure Vaslui county budget 412 The financing of these projects would come Credits from… Timeline 2013-2020 The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities Sustainable Development Strategy of the European Union The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates National Strategy for Sustainable Development of Romania, Horizons 2013-2020-2030 with the following… Coordination aspects related to The Strategy points out that the monitoring activity will contribute to the improvement of the territorial investment objectives, types of activity, coordination of projects under implementation. and projects (expressly mentioned) The Strategy mentions the existence of a strategic coordination group, whose role is to validate the strategy, to identify and sort by priority the projects included in the portfolio. Other details are not provided. Other Observations Overall, the Strategy is extremely clear, coherent, interlinked, logical, concise, and realistic. It could be Other useful things to note about this strategy taken as a well-developed example by other County Councils, as problems/challenges are largely the same. include… The differences are to be found at the project level. In terms of specific observations, several aspects are worth mentioning. The Strategy includes development scenarios and a separate chapter on sources of project financing. In the action plans the targets for each sectorial objective are presented through percentages/ numbers, while being mentioned both the 2008 levels and the levels to be reached by 2020, together with the related indicators. As well, cross-sectorial links between sectors at the measure level are shown. The strategy also contains a short term action plan for mitigating the effects of the crisis on the communities and local authorities. The projects included in the portfolio are presented based on the following information: title, purpose, specific objectives, main activities, implementation period, estimated value, potential partners, and funding sources. Some of them have specific project fiches. At the end, the Strategy contains a separate chapter on the planning stages of this document. 41. VRANCEA Strategy name in Romanian Strategia de dezvoltare a județului Vrancea 2007-2013 Strategy name in English Vrancea County Development Strategy 2007-2013 Level of Strategy Local 413 Supranational/national/regional/local Vision - The world we desire to see… Objectives General objective: accelerated growth of the county’s GDP based on a higher growth rate than the regional The goals of the strategy are… average through the sustainable capitalization of the county’s competitive advantages in matters of natural, cultural and human resources. Specific objectives: Balanced development of infrastructure in coordination with the implementation of appropriate management systems of natural capital and natural risk prevention and management; Maintaining an active, attractive and clean rural environment, strongly integrated with the urban environment, while simultaneously adding value and diversifying economic activities in rural areas; Creating an environment conducive to investments and entrepreneurship, human resource development in view of increasing their productivity and creating well-paid jobs; Creating an inclusive social environment that will support effective integration of all disadvantaged groups in the socio-economic life of the county. Relevant priority axes (selection): Improving the physical infrastructure to support sustainable socio-economic development; Improving the properties of the physical environment in support of rural and urban life; Significant improvement of the access to basic public services. Types of activities relevant for county Road infrastructure road infrastructure, water and sewage Construction/rehabilitation/modernization of national/county/local roads facilitating access in infrastructure, and social infrastructure rural areas with high tourist attraction The goals would be achieved through several Construction/rehabilitation/modernization of national/county/local roads that can enter into a types of activities… tourist or economic circuit Construction/modernization/rehabilitation of road bridges and passages that facilitate access to historical, religious, and cultural sights Construction/rehabilitation/modernization of national/county/local roads that help to reduce the isolation of rural areas, priority being given to poor rural areas Water resources management Modernization of the equipment for water supply and rehabilitation of drinking water treatment plants Finding effective solutions for the centralized distribution of drinking water and gradual reduction 414 of individual supplies with underground water Extension of drinking water distribution networks and sewage systems Construction/rehabilitation of wastewater treatment plants Construction/rehabilitation of sludge treatment facilities Protective measures of surface water and groundwater against pollution Fitting complex (with hydraulic works) of watershed and afforestation; degraded land (to reduce water losses and damages caused by torrential runoff) Protective measures of surface water and groundwater against pollution Complex interventions (with hydraulic works) on torrential hydrographic basins and afforestation of degraded land (to reduce water losses and damages caused by torrential runoff) Health services Rehabilitation, modernization, development, and equipping of county hospitals Rehabilitation, modernization, development, and equipping of municipal, town, and village hospitals Rehabilitation, modernization, development, and equipping of GP offices, especially in rural areas and in areas inhabited by disadvantaged groups Rehabilitation, modernization, development, and equipping of hospital ambulatories and health centers School infrastructure Rehabilitation, modernization, development, and equipping of primary and secondary education (grades I-VII) infrastructure, particularly in rural areas and areas inhabited by disadvantaged groups Rehabilitation, modernization, development, and equipping of inclusive education Construction and development of school campuses in areas inhabited by disadvantaged groups Social services Investments for the development and improvement of community social services for vulnerable groups and people in need through: social canteens, shelters for homeless persons, home care services, day centers for people in need, social rehabilitation centers, temporary housing, counseling centers, home assistance, protected housing, respite centers, emergency reception centers, etc. Establishment of alternative social services centers for the disabled: day centers, clubs etc. Relevant projects for county road The Strategy does not contain a portfolio or a list of projects. infrastructure, water and sewage 415 infrastructure, and social infrastructure Examples of projects include… Budget for projects related to county Structural funds, local funds, private investments. road infrastructure, water and sewage infrastructure, and social infrastructure The financing of these projects would come from… Timeline 2007-2013 The implementation / completion of these projects is foreseen… Complementarities Regional Development Plan of the South-East Region The strategy mentions / draws from / correlates Local Action Plan for Education with the following… Regional Action Plan for Employment Operational Programmes 2007-2013 Coordination aspects related to The Strategy states that one of its objectives is the balanced development of infrastructure, coordinated investment objectives, types of activity, with the implementation of an adequate management system with regard to natural capital and natural and projects (expressly mentioned) risk prevention. More specific aspects related to coordination are not included. Instead, the Strategy states that a major problem affecting the transport infrastructure projects is the lack of coordination between institutions that play a role in ensuring the implementation of road modernization projects (RNCMNR, Romsilva, Romanian Waters, CC, LC, etc.). Other Observations Overall, the Strategy is clear and coherent, but incomplete and too general. The project portfolio/ list is Other useful things to note about this strategy missing, and the document includes only the following types of information for each priority axis of include… development: justification, specific objectives, priority lines of intervention, activities and operations. An action plan is also missing, and the aspect of project financing is mentioned tangentially. 416 Annex D: Simplified Prioritization Criteria (GEO 88/2013) Principles Criteria for Prioritizing New Projects Criteria for Prioritizing Existing Projects Principle 1: 1.1: Are the project’s goals and 1.1: Are the project’s goals and Appropriateness of the objectives relevant? [10 points] objectives still relevant? [10 points] Project in the Policy 1.2: Does the project represent a high 1.2: Does the project represent a high Context [20 points] priority at the current national priority at the current national strategies? [10 points] strategies? [10 points] Principle 2: Economic 2.1: Is the project economically justified 2.1: Is the project still economically and Social Justification through (pre)-feasibility study? [15 justified? [10 points] [40 for New / 30 for points] 2.2: Is the project still socially justified? Existing projects] 2.2: Is the project socially justified? [10 [10 points] points] 2.3: Is and was the environmental 2.3: Is the environmental impact of the impact of the project acceptable? [5 project acceptable? [10 points] points] 2.4: Are the terms of the 2.4: Are/Were the terms of the acquisition/procurement designed acquisition/procurement competitive? competitive? [5 points] [5 points] Principle 3: 3.1: Is the total funding requirement 3.1: Is and was the total funding Affordability and for the project consistent with a requirement for the project Financial Sustainability realistic forecast of forward resource consistent with a realistic forecast of [20 points] availability in the sector/sub-sector? forward resource availability in the [10 points] sector/sub-sector? [10 points] 3.2: Does the total funding/financing 3.2: Does the total funding/financing require domestic Government co- require domestic Government co- financing? [5 points] financing? [5 points] 3.3: Are credible arrangements in 3.3: Are credible arrangements in place for meeting the resulting place for meeting the resulting operating and maintenance costs on a operating and maintenance costs on a sustainable basis once the project is sustainable basis once the project is completed? [5 points] completed? [5 points] Principle 4: 4.1: How well is the current 4.1: How well is the current Implementation preparation of the project? [10 points] preparation of the project? [10 Arrangements/Implem 4.2: Have appropriate indicators of points] entation Performance project progress and performance 4.2: Is there an identified project [20 for New/30 for been defined and suitable monitoring management body accountable for Existing points] and evaluation arrangements been implementation progress? [5 points] designed? [5 points] 4.3: How well is the current project 4.3: Is there an identified project management performing? [15 points] management body accountable for implementation progress? [5 points] 417 Auxiliary Principle A.1: How near is the project in terms (Only for Existing): of time remaining (how many years Nearness to left) or physical status (how many Completion [additional implementation progress left)? points] [additional 5 points] A.2: What would be the costs involved in restructuring or closing the project? [additional -5 points] 418 Annex E: List of Interviewed Stakeholders Institution Stakeholders 1 Ministry of Regional Development and Public  General Directorate for Regional Development and Administration Infrastructure  General Directorate for European Programs and Managing Authority for the Regional Operational Programme (MA ROP) 2 Ministry of European Funds  General Directorate for Analysis, Programming and Evaluation  Managing Authority for Large Infrastructure OP 3 Ministry of Public Finances  Public Investments Evaluation Unit  General Department for Budget Policy 4 Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development  Managing Authori ty for the National Rural Development Programme (PNDR) 5 Ministry of Environment and Climate Changes  Managing Authority for the Sectoral Operational Program Environment 2007-2013 6 Ministry of Education  Representatives responsible for investments in education infrastructure and project implementation 7 Ministry of Health  Public Procurement Department 8 Chancellery of the Prime Minister 419 Institution Stakeholders 9 City Hall Alba Iulia  Units responsible for strategic planning and EU projects 10 City Hall Arad  Representatives responsible for investment planning and project implementation 11 City Hall Oradea  Representatives responsible for investment planning and project implementation 12 County Council Arad  Representatives responsible for investment planning, county roads development, and project implementation 13 County Council Bihor  Representatives from units responsible for budgeting, investment planning, project implementation, transportation, county roads development, education, technical assistance 14 County Council Bistr ița Năsăud  Representatives responsible for investment planning, county roads development, and project implementation 15 County Council Sălaj  Representatives responsible for investment planning, county roads development, and project implementation 16 County Council Cluj  Representatives responsible for investment planning, development of county roads, and project implementation 17 County Council Prahova  Representatives responsible for investment planning and project implementation 420 Institution Stakeholders 18 County Council Călăraşi  Representatives responsible for project implementation 19 Communal Local Councils from Bihor, Bistrița,  Representatives responsible for investments, Sălaj, Cluj, and Arad Counties budgeting, public procurement, and project implementation at the local l evel 20 Regional Development Agency București - Ilfov  Representatives responsible for overviewing implementation of EU projects in the region 21 Regional Development Agency South  Regional responsible for overviewing implementation Muntenia of EU projects in the region 22 Ploiesti Growth Pole Coordinator 23 European Commission - DG REGIO 24 Private consulting company  Expert in EU funds and public investments 421 Annex F: The Polish Experience with Territorial Contracts The territorial contract (TC) is an instrument of reconciliation of projects between the national government and the regional authorities, aimed at implementing the regional development policy objectives enshrined in the National Strategy for Regional Development (NSRD). The contract is also a commitment by both the national and subnational governments to the implementation of priority projects, focusing on areas of strategic intervention in accordance with the NSRD, which also correspond to the directions of the Regional Development Strategy of each region. Thus, the TC serves to coordinate development activities undertaken by the government and local authorities to achieve common objectives defined for a particular territory. TCs should not be identified with any specific operational program, either national or EU- funded, despite the situation in Poland whereby the contract is based mainly on activities to be financed from the EU Operational Programmes’ funds. The TC constitutes a legal structure that allows: completion of selected projects that solve identified problems in a coherent manner; complementarity and synergies of actions on the regional level. Each of the projects planned for in the TC should be consistent with the relevant actions of strategic documents of the region, with the country cohesion policy, but also with the EU2020 Strategy. However, the TC covers only the most important projects implemented in the region that have been agreed between the government and the regional and local governments during contract negotiations. It does not include all projects implemented in the region. The resources foreseen for the TC include:  National public funds, especially those held by the Ministry of Regional Development and Infrastructure, including funds from the EU and other donors;  Funds at the disposal of other ministries (including EU funds), with public funds from the local and regional governments;  Funds from international financial institutions;  Other public, semi-public, and private funds. The involvement of the government in each concluded contract should not exceed 60%, which means that at the regional level authorities need to mobilize at least 40% of the funds. TC development steps: 1. Identification of thematic areas for support Based on the analytical material prepared by the region, identification and justification of the areas and sectors for support is concluded by the Regional Marshal Office, within each of those types of “financial flows” foreseen in the TC. 2. Identification of specific projects / projects / plans to finance As part of the thematic areas of possible support (which can be different for each of the regions) 422 a list of projects and types of projects is identified. All institutions, organizations, and companies from a region are requested to provide feedback on the most important projects for the TC. These projects are gathered by the Marshal Offices. Once compiled, the committee chaired by the Marshal discusses all the projects and selects those that will be proposed for the TC (and also for the Regional Operational Programme). The projects coming from the region are accompanied later by the projects foreseen by the central government to be financed in that specific region. At the end of the negotiations of the TC, the document contains a detailed table, which specifies the key information – as presented in the titles of the columns in the excerpt below: Name of the activity Responsible [Gov. / Foreseen source of Conditions for implementation self-gov.] financing Construction of northern Self-government Relevant OP 2014- The activity incorporated into bypass of Cracow 2020 / state budget in Transport Development Strategy and within National Plan for Road Development 2011-2015 3. Strategic investments The projects that may be included in the TC have to: fulfil the objectives pursued by the TC; be complementary with other projects that might be implemented in the area /sector within the established timeframe of the contract. Joint venture projects implemented and funded jointly by the government and by the regional/local government are crucial for fulfilling strategic development objectives of the government and the local governments. There may also be complementary projects implemented and funded separately by the government and sub-national governments, mutually reinforcing their impact on regional development. The complementary projects should not be contradictory and can have the following links: 1. Projects can complement themselves spatially or sectorally, and achievement of the effects of one project is not dependent on the implementation of the second; 2. One of the projects complements the other and without its implementation expected results of the second project are not achieved; 3. Projects complement each other and depend on each other for fulfilling their individual results. On behalf of the national government the contracts are signed by the Minister for Infrastructure and Development, while on the regional level they are signed by the Marshal of the Region168 on 168 Marshal of the region - a collegial board chairman of the region, the executive body of the regional self-government. The position was created on January 1, 1999 by the Act of 1998 in the framework of administrative reform. Marshal of the province organizes the 423 behalf of all regional and local authorities. The specific actions listed in the contract are so much linked to EU Operational Programmes that it is very difficult for either side to change the contract and the detailed projects agreed. Therefore the contract is generally stable and does not change often, even if elections bring a different party to power. work of the board and the marshal's office, manages the current affairs of the region and represents it. She is the head of the marshal's office and the superior of her employees, as well as the head of the provincial government organizational units. Has the power to issue decisions in individual cases in the field of public administration. 424