SR3
Safeguards Diagnostic Review
for
Piloting the Use of Romanian Systems to Address
Environmental and Social Safeguard Issues in the
Proposed World Bank-Assisted
Romania
Municipal Services Project
and
Transport SWAp Project
Equivalence and Acceptability Assessment Report
Draft January 2006
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements... .........................................................................................iii
Abbreviations ........... .........................................................................................iv
Executive Summary .. ..........................................................................................v
1.0 Background...... ..........................................................................................1
2.0 Project
Description......................................................................................2
2.1 Romania Municipal Services Project................................................ 2
2.2 Romania Transport Sector-Wide Approach (SWAp) ........................ 2
3.0 Equivalence
Assessment .............................................................................4
3.1 Bank's Safeguards Policies Applicable to the Proposed 4
Pilot
Projects ................................................................................... 4
3.1.1 Romania
Municipal
Services
Project.................................. 4
3.1.2 Romania Transport Sector-Wide Approach (SWAp).......... 4
3.2 Process
for
Determining
Equivalence............................................... 5
3.3 Equivalence Assessment Environmental Assessment .................... 5
3.3.1 Romanian Laws and Regulations Applicable to
the Project.......................................................................... 5
3.3.2 Analysis
of
Gaps................................................................ 8
3.3.3 Proposed Measures to Address the Gaps of the Romanian
EA System......................................................................... 9
3.4 Equivalence Assessment Cultural Property ................................... 9
3.4.1 Romanian Laws and Regulations Applicable to the
Projects ............................................................................. 9
3.4.2 Analysis
of
Gaps.............................................................. 12
3.4.3 Current and proposed Measures to Improve the
Equivalence..................................................................... 12
3.5 Equivalence Assessment Dam Safety .......................................... 12
3.5.1 Romanian Laws and procedures....................................... 13
3.5.2 Analysis
of
Gaps.............................................................. 13
3.5.3 Current and Proposed Measures to Improve the
Equivalence ..................................................................... 13
3.6 Equivalence
Assessment
Involuntary
Resettlement ..................... 13
3.6.1 Romanian Laws and Procedures ...................................... 14
3.6.2 Equivalence and Analysis of Gaps ................................... 15
4.0 Acceptability
Assessment.......................................................................... 23
4.1 Scope of the Acceptability Assessment .......................................... 23
4.2 Methodology Followed in Determining Acceptability.................... 23
4.3 Acceptability Assessment Environment Assessment (EA) .......... 23
4.3.1 Implementation Practices and Institutional Capacity........ 23
4.3.2 Gap
Analysis................................................................... 25
4.3.3 Current and Proposed Measures to Increase the
Acceptability................................................................... 25
4.4 Acceptability Analysis Cultural Property .................................... 26
4.4.1 Implementation Practice and Institutional Capacity ......... 26
4.4.2 Gap
Analysis................................................................... 27
1
4.4.3 Current and Proposed Measures to Increase the
Acceptability................................................................... 27
4.5 Acceptability
Assessment
Dam Safety ........................................ 27
4.6 Acceptability Assessment Involuntary Resettlement ................... 28
4.6.1 Implementation Practice and Institutional Capacity ......... 28
4.6.2 Gap
Analysis................................................................... 29
4.6.3 Current and Proposed Measures to Increase the
Acceptability................................................................... 29
ANNEXES
Annex I:
Legal and Institutional Framework................................................. 31
Annex I A: Relevant Legal Texts ..................................................................... 31
Annex I B: Romanian Licensing and Permitting procedures............................. 36
Annex I C: Government of Romania's Current and proposed Measures that
would Improve and Sustain Acceptability...................................... 41
Annex II:
Summary Matrices for Assessment of Equivalence ........................ 46
Annex II A: Environmental Assessment ............................................................ 46
Annex II B: Cultural Property ........................................................................... 51
Annex II C: Dam Safety.................................................................................... 55
Annex II D: Involuntary Resettlement (Expropriation for Public Utility ............ 57
Annex III: List of Persons Met........................................................................ 64
Annex IV: December 12, 2005 Public Consultation ........................................ 68
Annex IV A: Summary Minutes ......................................................................... 68
Annex IV B: List of Participants......................................................................... 71
TABLES
Table 1.
EIA Categorization of proposed Sub-Projects Under the
Romanian Law ................................................................................7
FIGURES
Figure 1. Procedures for issuing the environmental license to start-up investments
of a new facility............................................................................. 45
2
Acknowledgements
Draft and final reports were prepared by a World Bank team led by Ron Hoffer, Lead
Environmental Specialist and Regional Safeguards Coordinator (ECSSD). Team members
included Hanneke van Tilburg (Senior Counsel, LEGEN), Ruxandra Floroiu (Environmental
Engineer, ECSSD), Panneer Selvam (Senior Environmental Specialist, ESDQC/QACU), Stan
Peabody (Lead Social Scientist, ECSSD), Miroslav Ruzica (Senior Social Scientist;
PA9SS/ECSSD), and Alexander Rowland (Communications Officer, ECCBK). Critical
support on mission logistics and outreach within Romania from George Moldoveanu (Team
Assistant, ECCRO) and Alexandra Caracoti (External Affairs Officer, ECCRO) was
invaluable. Technical input was also provided by Gabriel Ionita (Senior Agricultural
Specialist, ECSSD) and Peter Dewees (Lead Environmental Specialist, ECSSD). Peer review
and management insight from other Bank staff, including Maninder Gill, Arlene Fleming,
Doina Visa, Stephen Lintner, Charles DiLeva, Laura Tuck and Benoit Blarel, as well as Task
Team Leaders Sudipto Sarkar and Henry Kerali, is very much appreciated. Finally, the team
would like to thank ECSSD, QACU, ECCU5, and OPCS, who generously assisted in the
financing of staff and travel resources over and above project budgets to carry out this work.
The report was reviewed by a Working Group in the Ministry of Environment and Water
Management of Romania, to provide policy guidance and ensure that the results of the study
are accurate and reflect national priorities and support. The working group is lead by Mr.
Silviu Stoica, Director of the Environment Department (MEWM), and includes the following
specialists: Ms. Adriana Baz (Director, Department of Nature Conservation, Biodiversity, and
Biosecurity, MEWM); Ms. Elena Dumitru (Director, Department of Solid and Hazardous
Waste Management, MEWM); Ms. Angela Filipas (General Director, Department of Impact
Assessment, Control Pollution and Risk Management, MEWM); Ms. Camelia Calatan
(Department of Authorization and Horizontal Legislation, NEPA); and Ms. Doina Cioaca
(Department of Nature Conservation, Biodiversity and Land). The Working Group also
coordinated input from other Ministries. A public consultation on the major findings of this
review took place in Bucharest, Romania on December 12, 2005, following disclosure of the
Executive Summary of the November 22nd version of this report. This revised report is being
disclosed in English in the World Bank InfoShop and in Romanian on the MEWM web site
in mid-to-late January, 2006.
3
Abbreviations
EA
Environmental
Assessment
EGO
Emergency
Government
Ordinance
EIA
Environmental Impact Assessment
EIS
Environmental Impact Study
EMF
Environmental
Management
Framework
EMP
Environmental
Management
Plan
EMAS
Eco Management and Audit Scheme
GD
Government Decision
FI Financial
Intermediary
ICIM
National Research Development Institute for Environmental Protection
IPTANA
Roads Design Institute
ISPCF
Railway Design Institute
LEPA
Local Environmental Protection Agency
MCRA Ministry of Culture and Religious Affairs
MEWM
Ministry of Environment and Water Management
MO
Ministerial
(MEWM)
Ordinance
M.Of
Official Gazette of Romania
MPF
Ministry of Public Finance
MTCT
Ministry of Transport, Construction and Tourism
NCA
National Commission for Archaeology
NCMNR
National Company for Motorways and National Roads
NEAP
National Environmental Action Plan
NEG
National
Environmental
Guard
NEPA
National Environmental Protection Agency
REPA
Regional Environmental Protection Agency
SNCFR
National Railway Company CFR SA
4
Executive Summary
Introduction
· Following extensive global notification and consultations, in March 2005, the World
Bank Board approved a pilot program to test the use of borrower or "country" systems
for meeting the objectives of World Bank environmental and social safeguard
policies. This led to the issuance of World Bank Operational Policy 4.001, which lays
out specific criteria for advancing pilot projects. It was recognized in the background
paper for Board consideration that sector-specific Bank operations in new member
states and candidates for EU accession hold particular promise as pilots.
· Two operations proposed for Romania are being considered for piloting under OP
4.00 and is the subject of review in this report: the Municipal Services Project (MSP)
and the Transport Sector-Wide Approach program project (Transport SWAp). The
Municipal Services project will support the rehabilitation and improvement of
wastewater, stormwater and drinking water systems to reduce pollution, improve
public health, and assist Romania in meeting environmental requirements for
European Union accession. The Transport SWAp will provide funds to rehabilitate
and improve major road and rail systems.
· In cooperation with Romanian officials, and with the support of the European
Commission staff, the World Bank has compared the Romanian systems (including
those which stem from EU directives) against the Operational Principles laid out in
OP 4.00-Table A1 for key safeguards that would normally apply to these two Bank-
assisted projects. This assessment included a legal and technical review; both on
paper and through field interviews and site visits. Report conclusions were discussed
at a public meeting in Bucharest on December 12, 2005, following disclosure in
Romania of a draft Executive Summary. Disclosure of the full report is planned for
mid-January 2006.
Principal Observations - Environmental Assessment (EA) and Cultural Property
· The World Bank examined the acceptability of the EA process along two lines: EA
approval procedures, and compliance monitoring during construction and operation.
The Bank is pleased to note that there is a well defined process in place for screening,
review, public consultation, disclosure, and approval of EA documents. Regarding
screening (i.e. determination of the appropriate EA category), projects falling on
Romania's Annex I list2 would typically fall in the World Bank's EA Category A.
These mandatory EAs require a level of attention to assessing risk, alternatives and
mitigation/monitoring (i.e. scoping) which is comparable to World Bank requirements
for Category A projects. Both the Municipal Services and Transport SWAp projects
are currently categorized, however, as Category B for Environmental Assessment
under the World Bank system, so if sub-projects fall under Annex I of the Romanian
system, they would receive more thorough due diligence for EA than they would
under a stand-alone World Bank project.
1 http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/tocall/E49CED1645FB433885256FCD00776B19?OpenDocument
2 Annex I to GD 918/2002; projects subject to mandatory EA; based on EU Directive 85/337/EEC as amended
5
· The approach to EA for projects on Romania's Annex II list was also examined. The
vast majority of these projects correspond to World Bank Category B though through
the formal Romanian EA process, the few that would correspond to Category A of the
World Bank would receive an Annex I level of preparation and review. All sub-
project categories being considered under the Municipal Services and Transport
SWAp projects will likely, therefore, be subjected under the Romanian system to at
least an equivalent approach to EA screening, scoping and analysis as set forth in
World Bank OP 4.00.
· While the EA documents are prepared by project proponents, an independent
Technical Committee is established by government to review each project. The
committee include representatives of local and regional environmental agencies, local
officials, representatives of the Health services, the National Environmental Guard
(inspection service), the Romanian Water Company ("Apele Romane"), research
institutes, etc.. Public participation during the EA process includes at least one public
consultation, and as many as three public announcements in local newspapers or on
the local environment agency website. This approach should achieve comparable
outcomes as envisaged by the Bank under OP 4.00. Environmental sections of
standard bidding documents for roads and rail projects were examined and found
comparable to the core mitigation and monitoring aspects of stand-alone
Environmental Management Plans normally included as a requirement of World Bank
safeguard policies.
· Regarding implementation, a successful project application results in the issuance of
two documents which are comparable in aim to the Environmental Management Plan
required for Bank projects. Following the acceptance of the EA, an Environmental
License to Construct (called the "environmental agreement") is issued for all projects
with civil works. After construction, the project proponent is required by law to apply
for the Environmental Permit to Operate (sometimes called "environmental
authorization"), which is issued only after a review by local or regional environmental
authorities. The Environmental License would have measures/conditions to mitigate
adverse impacts during construction and is issued by the competent environmental
authority based on the information obtained during the environmental impact
assessment procedure. Based on the "environmental agreement" the City Hall issues
the License to Construct.
The Environmental Permit includes measures to be
implemented during operation and is issued only by the local EPA. The permitting
process includes setting wastewater discharge limits (by Apele Romane). Discharge
standards and wastewater management programs (e.g. receiving water quality) set by
Romanian authorities are aligning with comparable EU directives on wastewater and
watershed management (as transposed into Romanian law), and are quite consistent
with the Bank's narrative descriptions of good water quality management programs in
the Pollution Prevention and Abatement Handbook (Part II).
· The World Bank review included meetings and site reviews in cooperation with
environmental officials at the local and regional levels. In Romania all key
environmental responsibilities fall under the Ministry of Environment and Water
Management (MEWM). Preparation for EU accession has led and will likely continue
to lead to considerable increases in staff at both the policy and field levels. A core
group of environmental specialists are also on staff in key regional offices responsible
6
for rails and roads; a very important element in practical implementation of
environmental requirements.
· Regarding compliance monitoring, an independent agency under the MEWM the
National Environment Guard (NEG) is tasked to carry out this responsibility. The
NEG is being staffed up and responsibilities strengthened through passing of bylaws
and establishment of good working procedures. An ambitious training program is
also being implemented. If violations in licenses or permits are found, the NEG has a
range of administrative orders and penalties to issue at its disposal. There seems to be
serious commitment at the senior management level to improve the overall
compliance level. The trend is positive, with reportedly increased fines for violations,
more transparency, and reduced ambiguity in setting the fines (thereby helping reduce
corruption). It should be noted, however, that a fully staffed NEG will not be in place
for about a year, so effectiveness cannot yet be fully documented.
· In the area of Environmental Assessment, the review concludes that there are no
major gaps regarding the equivalence of Romanian systems that would inhibit
piloting. Smaller differences in process or application of policies (for example
continuing consultation during relatively higher risk sub-projects) do not appear to
apply to the types of sub-projects expected to be carried out under the pilots.
Strengthening of the EA system has been accomplished recently as part of the EU
accession process and further strengthening would be helpful more broadly for
environmental performance improvement, but is not necessary to meet the due
diligence requirements for the Municipal Services and Transport SWAp projects. It
should also be noted that the Bank's proposed Environmental Management Loan
(slated for delivery in FY07) is expected to provide considerable capacity building
which will directly and positively improve Romanian systems at both the policy and
field levels.
· Regarding cultural property, the Bank believes that Romanian systems are appropriate
for application to both operations. If either operation would require construction or
rehabilitation near to historic buildings or other physical cultural resources, or if
"chance finds" are encountered, we believe that Romanian systems are at least as
effective as those outlined in OP/BP 4.00 on such points. Inventories of buildings and
sites of cultural significance are available, and are consulted to assess whether
proposed investment projects might cause impact. Local experts on archeology,
architecture and other relevant fields are brought in for assessments before
construction decisions are made, and after if "chance finds" are encountered during
construction.
· With respect to EA implementation practices (the core of the "acceptability analyses")
the Bank finds the current approach and direction of Romanian institutions in carrying
out sub-sector laws and policies (including compliance and enforcement) to conform
with the goals of OP 4.00. While several areas would benefit from strengthening (as
part of the country's overall improvement in environmental management and
implementation of sectoral policies), these are not significant enough to hinder the
Municipal Services or Transport SWAp projects from being approved as pilots.
Capacity-building under European Union programs, as well as the proposed World
Bank Environmental Management Loan, will also be very supportive.
7
Principal Observations Involuntary Resettlement
· The two pilot projects will only involve small-scale land acquisition, not physical
relocation of households or businesses. For this assessment, we commissioned a
thorough legal analysis of expropriation and related legislation, met with officials in
national and local governments who deal with expropriation, property assessors, and
people whose land had been expropriated. Our analysis focuses on the principles of
OP 4.00 that are applicable to expropriation and land acquisition.
· Unlike the case of Environmental Assessment, the EU does not have community-wide
policies or directives regarding the expropriation of land by government, or the
subsequent resettlement of people or loss of income. Each member state has its own
laws and procedures on these matters, and Romania is no exception. Little
expropriation was carried out in Romania for many years following the fall of the
Ceausescu regime, as there was little infrastructure development or rehabilitation
activity. More recently, however, significant investments in highway construction on
the national level, and rehabilitation and expansion of infrastructure on the local level,
have increased the incidence of expropriation in the country.
· Expropriation in Romania is governed by Law 33/1994 which establishes principles
and the framework for expropriating private land for public use. This law is
supplemented by Government Resolution 583/1994, which specifies procedures for
investigations required to establish public use. The law and procedures apply to
expropriation carried out by all levels of government--national county and local.3
· The two investment projects may involve small-scale land acquisition, with little
chance that households or businesses will be relocated. The proposed Municipal
Services Project may fund the extension of wastewater and storm sewage systems and
the rehabilitation of drinking water distribution and treatment systems in Bucharest
and Arad. The individual projects may require rights-of-way for pipes and acquisition
of small plots for pumping. Most of the pipes will be buried under streets, for which
the local government will issue concessions for the right-of-way.
· The proposed Transport SWAp will fund the rehabilitation of roads and
improvements to railways. The road rehabilitation component is not expected to
require the acquisition of land or removal of illegal encroachments. The railway
component may entail improvements in railway alignments close to existing tracks,
for which land would be acquired.
· Looking at the Operational Principles of OP/BP 4.00 governing pilots, we see
equivalence in most key areas such as; emphasizing alternatives that do not require
expropriation; applying similar standards and procedures at all governmental levels
and for all aspects of an investment; establishing baseline ownership conditions;
including consultations, public participation and systematic disclosure of decisions
and designs; using market value as the compensation standard, with the possibility of
3 For highway construction, Law 198/2004 was adopted, which applies only to highways and national roads. It
was supplemented by Methodological Rules of June 10, 2004. In addition to existing provisions of Law
33/1994, Law 198/2004 prescribes the use of escrow accounts to enable the expropriator to pay compensation in
cases where ownership is unclear or contested, thereby speeding up the expropriation process. The 2004 law
does not apply to the pilot projects.
8
additional compensation for damages and lost benefits; requiring prompt payment;
providing compensation for the loss of assets by third parties and persons without
formal rights; and, there are only a few key differences that would need to be
addressed.
· We found a few areas in which Romanian expropriation laws and procedures are not
equivalent to principles in OP/BP 4.00. Neither Romanian laws nor practices
explicitly: require a baseline socio-economic survey for expropriation; call for
follow-up monitoring and assessment; notify affected persons of their rights; grant
special consideration to the poor, vulnerable or other special groups; or give
preference to a land-based strategy. We conclude that three of these differences
would not significantly affect achieving the objectives of OP/BP 4.00 in the pilot
projects. The lack of a socio-economic survey would not materially affect outcomes,
as the combination of compensation for loss of assets and "prejudice," (damages and
lost benefits) should be adequate to enable affected persons to maintain their socio-
economic status. Similarly, the law is applied uniformly regardless of the physical or
economic status of affected persons, although the provision of prejudice may be
invoked to compensate for damages. Finally, affected persons have access to an open
land market which enables them to purchase alternative lands, if they wish, without
requiring an administered land replacement system. Two differences are salient,
however. First, Romanian authorities do not systematically inform affected people of
their rights, as required in OP/BP 4.00. Second, as compensation is assumed to be
adequate, there is no monitoring or assessment of the impacts of expropriation. The
team concludes that these differences can be mitigated, as indicated below, making it
suitable to include this policy in the pilot.
o
Notify owners of rights and procedures. Notification is inadequate. The letter
announcing the intent to expropriate should be accompanied by a brochure
that clearly outlines the expropriation process and the rights of owners at each
step, including how to document a claim for damages (prejudice), including
relocation costs and assistance to address impact on livelihoods, if applicable
o
Monitor. The pilot projects should provide resources for local independent
monitors to report periodically on expropriation activities and their impacts.
The Bank will monitor the promptness and adequacy of compensation,
including prejudice, and the impacts of expropriation during regular
supervision missions and recommend steps to resolve significant problems
that emerge during implementation as identified by project officials and
independent monitors
· Regarding acceptability, we conclude that the expropriation process in Romania is
implemented according to the law and is markedly consistent with OP/BP 4.00. Some
key strengths in the expropriation process are: legislation and procedures apply
uniformly to all administrative levels; the systematic involvement of a wide range of
institutional stakeholders in the preparation and review of expropriation decisions; the
use of market value as the compensation standard with the provision of additional
compensation for damages; judicial review of all purchase agreements and resolution
of disputes; clear payment requirements; and the requirement that all expropriation
must be completed before a Construction License is issued.
9
· The team also notes weaknesses in a few areas which need to be addressed. The
issues and the team's recommendations for mitigation measures are as follows:
o
Share valuation assessments carried out by qualified assessors. Compensation
is based on valuation assessments mostly made by qualified assessors, but the
assessments are not necessarily shared. As market value is the basis for the
assessments, they should be carried out by qualified assessors and shared with
affected persons prior to negotiations.
o
Pay compensation at the assessed value of land, structures and damages. The
law sets a compensation threshold at the assessed value of assets, but officials
may attempt to pay less. Negotiators should be instructed to ensure that they
document and pay the legal minimum.
o
Inform of exceptional cases. The expropriation of businesses and residences is
reported to be rare, thus there is little documentation of compensation for
many of the things that would be covered by prejudice. The Bank and
borrower should agree on arrangements to address unusual cases and then
discuss and agree on specific actions to be taken in the following cases:
acquisition of residences; acquisition of parts of an agricultural holding where
the remainder is not adequate to allow people to sustain their livelihoods,
compelling affected people to change their occupations; acquisition of
commercial structures or businesses; and expropriation of land used by people
without claim to legal title.
Principal Observations Dam Safety
· There is a possibility that some Municipal Services sub-projects may rely on drinking
water supplies obtained from dams or other control structures. New dams will not be
financed by the project, nor will dams be rehabilitated under the project, but the
capability of Romanian authorities to ensure dam safety is important should water
supplies be associated with control structures. Good alignment was found between
Romanian requirements and those of the Bank for dam safety. Experience by the
World Bank in ongoing projects in Romania also suggests that the country's system
for ensuring the safety of existing dams that are utilized for water supply is adequate
for piloting.
Principal Observations Other Issues
· Regarding Natural Habitats, there is no information at this stage to indicate that this
safeguard-related policy area will be triggered by the proposed MSP and Transport
projects. If site-specific Natural Habitats issues arise during the final stages of project
preparation or during implementation, normal Bank and Romanian safeguard policies
will be applied as appropriate. If the issues are of relatively low risk and Romanian
systems are found equivalent and acceptable to the Bank, then a revision to this report
will be prepared and disclosed. No other safeguard-related issues are being
considered for piloting.
10
· The International Waterways Safeguard may be triggered by some sub-projects in the
Municipal Services project, and World Bank procedures under OP/BP 7.50 will apply.
As per OP 4.00, this policy cannot be piloted for the use of borrower systems.
Conclusions
· We believe that the Romanian system of laws, regulations and practices in the sub-
sectors to be supported by the proposed Municipal Services and Transport SWAp
projects is sufficiently equivalent to those of the World Bank, and sufficiently
acceptable in practice, to support piloting under OP/BP 4.00 in four safeguards-
related areas. Two of these areas, environmental assessment and cultural property,
require very little if any gap-filling. Gap-filling is needed to a greater extent for
piloting involuntary resettlement. Should dam safety issues arise in association with
the Municipal Services project, we believe that Romanian systems are also equivalent
and acceptable for piloting with very little if any gap-filling.
· World Bank supervision on safeguard-related matters will continue throughout the
implementation of the two proposed projects to: (i) ensure compliance with
"equivalent and acceptable" Romanian procedures, (ii) assess implementation of gap-
filling measures, (iii) ensure compliance with Bank policies if/where they apply in
lieu of Romanian systems, and (iv) looking more broadly, track results in terms of
environmental and social development outcomes. This will include review of
monitoring reports as agreed with the borrower.
11
1.0 Background
Starting in 2005, and extending over a two year period, the Bank will be supporting a limited
number of pilot projects in which lending operations will be prepared using the borrowing
country's systems4 for environmental assessment and other environmental and social
safeguards, rather than the Bank's operational policies and procedures on safeguards. The
rationale for using country systems is to scale up development impact, increase country
ownership, build institutional capacity, facilitate harmonization and increase cost
effectiveness. These pilot operations will be governed by a new operational policy5 (OP 4.00)
on "Piloting the Use of Borrower Systems to Address Environmental and Social Safeguard
Issues in Bank-Supported Projects". This Policy elaborates on the approach, enumerates the
criteria for assessing country systems, and specifies documentation and disclosure
requirements and respective roles of the client country and the Bank.
The Bank considers a borrower's environmental and social safeguard system to be equivalent
to the Bank's if the borrower's system is designed to achieve the objectives and adhere to the
applicable operational principles set out in Table A1 of OP 4.00. Since equivalence is
determined on a policy-by-policy basis in accordance with Table A1, the Bank may conclude
that the borrower's system is equivalent to the Bank's in specific environmental or social
safeguard areas in particular pilot projects, and not in other areas6. Before deciding on the use
of borrower systems, the Bank also assesses the acceptability of the Borrower's
implementation practices, track record, and institutional capacity. The above approach and
criteria for assessment were developed with inputs from external stakeholders such as
representatives of governments, bilateral and multilateral development institutions, civil
society organizations, and the private sector and is consistent with commitments made by the
development community in the March 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness.
Romania is one of the initial few countries that are being considered for piloting the use of
country systems, specifically in the proposed Bank-assisted Municipal Services Project and
the Romania Transport Sector-Wide Approach (SWAp) Project. The following sections
describe the equivalence and acceptability assessments, carried out by the Bank staff in co-
operation with Romanian officials, European Commission officials, and consultants. The
proposed pilot is expected to bring the added benefit of moving towards harmonization of
environmental and social safeguards requirements among the Government, the World Bank
and other development partners such as the European Union, European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development, European Investment Bank, and other financial institutions
and donors who support similar projects in Romania.
4 Country systems is defined as the country's legal and institutional framework, consisting of its national, sub-national, or
sectoral implementing institutions and relevant laws, regulations, rules, and procedures that are applicable to the proposed
pilot project.
5 OP 4.00 can be viewed at this web-site:
http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/Institutional/Manuals/OpManual.nsf/tocall/E49CED1645FB433885256FCD00776B19?OpenDocument
6 The Bank's environmental and social safeguard policies will apply to the areas which the Bank has determined not to be
equivalent to its applicable policy framework and will continue to apply to all projects that are not part of the pilot program.
1
2.0 Project
Descriptions
2.1
Romania Municipal Services Project
The proposed Romania MSP is a Category B project for Environmental Assessment7 to be
implemented largely in Bucharest and Arad with the following components highlighted for
attention:
An investment component, which may include the following types of investments8 for
which the MPF will make the proceeds of the loan available to utilities and regional
operators:
· Rehabilitation of existing drinking water networks;
· Rehabilitation of existing sewerage lines;
· Rehabilitation of existing storm water drainage lines;
· Rehabilitation and upgrading of existing drinking water treatment plants;
· Rehabilitation and upgrading of existing waste water treatment plants;
· Possibly rehabilitation of existing landfills;
· Construction of new drinking water networks;
· Construction of new sewerage lines;
· Construction of new storm water drainage lines;
A technical assistance activity (within the second component) consisting of:
· Strengthening of the water/waste water regulator that was created in 2002; and
· Institutional strengthening of ministries and agencies as needed to develop investment
priorities.
2.2
Romania Transport Sector-Wide Approach (SWAp)
The proposed Romania SWAp (Transport Project) is categorized as a Category B project for
Environmental Assessment, will be structured as an investment lending, and be implemented
by the Ministry of Transport, Construction and Tourism (MTCT). As a SWAp, it will assist
the government's national transport rehabilitation and improvement program, and will consist
of the following components:
A roads component comprising:
· Periodic maintenance and primary rehabilitation of selected key sections of the
national road network, in line with the Governments on-going program;
7 Earlier versions of the Bank's Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet (ISDS) noted a proposed FI category with
possible A and B sub-projects in several cities. The project as now envisaged does not include landfills or
wastewater treatment plants, nor is it currently slated to provide co-funding for cities beyond Bucharest and
Arad. With a focus on rehabilitation and minor systems expansion, the latest ISDS notes the more appropriate
Category B rating.
8 At the time this report is being prepared, investments in solid waste management and drinking water and
wastewater treatment are not envisaged for financing but since the Equivalence and Acceptability Analysis
considered these aspects we are including them for completeness.
2
· Improvement of capacity within the NCMNR to effectively manage road maintenance
and rehabilitation, through the implementation of modern pavement and bridge
management systems, in addition to staff development for NCMNR; and
A railway component consisting of:
· Periodic maintenance of existing infrastructure (e.g. railway track, bridges and
tunnels);
· Modernization of signaling, power supply, and inter-modal equipment at border
stations;
· Procurement of diesel and electrical motorized units as well a other rolling stock for
passenger services, subject of the results of a market study; and
· Institutional strengthening for the implementation of railway infrastructure
maintenance management systems.
3
3.0 Equivalence
Assessment
3.1
Bank's Safeguards Policies Applicable to the Proposed Pilot Projects
3.1.1 Romania Municipal Services Project
The proposed MSP will be assisting Romania in its efforts to meet the cost of water,
wastewater, and storm sewerage investments, to comply with wastewater discharge, and
water quality standards set by EU directives9. Though these are environment friendly
investments aimed to reduce the current pollution load, they could result in adverse
environmental impacts if inappropriate design, construction and operational practices are
followed. In order to address these potential adverse impacts, the Bank Policy on EA is
applicable to the proposed MSP10. Potential adverse impacts are expected to range from local
and reversible impacts during implementation/construction only, to more significant effects.
Under the current scope of the proposed MSP, the Bank Policy on Physical Cultural
Resources is also considered applicable since investments may take place in historic districts,
potentially affect historic structures, or influence other physical-cultural resources.
Furthermore, although the scoping of the extent of any involuntary resettlement required for
the proposed project is still in process, it is expected that some land may be needed, for
example to extend sewerage networks. Therefore, the Bank's policy on Involuntary
Resettlement is also considered applicable to the proposed MSP. In any case, involuntary
land acquisition will be minimized and an attempt will be made to meet any land
requirements by voluntary donation or voluntary relocation within the same community.
There is a possibility that some Municipal Services sub-projects may rely on drinking water
supplies obtained from dams or other control structures. This will not be fully ascertained at
appraisal. While new dams will not be financed by the project, nor will dams be rehabilitated
under the project (two more sensitive and risky settings), the capability of Romanian
authorities to ensure dam safety is important should water supplies be associated with control
structures. International Waterways (OP 7.50) may be triggered for the MEP, but this
safeguard policy is not authorized for piloting and normal World Bank procedures would be
followed.
3.1.2 Romania Transport Sector-Wide Approach (SWAp)
As described above, the proposed Transport Project will be assisting Romania in its efforts to
maintain, rehabilitate and modernize it roads and railways. Rehabilitation and maintenance
activities under the proposed project could result in some adverse environmental impacts,
unless appropriate design, construction and operational practices are followed. Potential
adverse environmental impacts are expected to be local, and occur during
9 A list of relevant EU directives can be found in Annex I
10 Under the Bank's OP/BP 4.01 the MSP would be classified as environmental "B". Earlier versions of the
Bank's Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet noted a proposed FI category with possible A and B sub-projects. The
project as now envisaged does not include new landfills or wastewater treatment plants, nor is it currently slated
to provide co-funding for other cities. With a focus on rehabilitation and minor systems expansion in Arad and
Bucharest, the Category B rating is more appropriate. The ISDS is being updated at this time.
4
implementation/construction only. Few if any of them are expected to be irreversible. In
order to address the potential adverse impacts, the Bank policy area on EA11 is applicable.
Under the current scope of the project, investments (such as resurfacing of roads,
improvement of signaling, and maintenance of rail) are largely expected to incur within the
existing right of way. However, it cannot be excluded that acquisition of small amounts of
land may be needed for instance for maintenance of yards or sub-stations, and the Bank's
policy area on Involuntary Resettlement is therefore also considered applicable to the
proposed Transport Project. In any event, involuntary land acquisition will be minimized.
Currently, there is no information to indicate that other environmental and social safeguard
policies of the Bank are applicable. However, as for the MSP, all respective sub-projects will
be screened during implementation as standards procedure for their potential impacts and
other relevant Bank safeguard will be applied as appropriate.
3.2
Process for Determining Equivalence
This equivalence assessment was carried out by the Bank staff in co-operation with
Romanian and EU officials, consultants and legal and environmental counsel12. The
methodology included desk review of current in-force Romanian legislation, Romania's
treaty of accession to the EU, relevant European Union's Directives and International
Conventions, discussion with Romanian officials and EU Commission staff, and review of
EU and Bank reports and studies. Matrices comparing the policy objective and operational
principles, as stated in Table A1 of OP 4.00, with requirements under Romanian Law are
included as Annex II, and formed the basis of equivalence assessment.
3.3
Equivalence Assessment - Environmental Assessment
3.3.1 Romanian Laws and Regulations Applicable to the Projects
Annex I contains a list of laws, regulations, rules and procedures that govern EIA
categorization in Romania. In addition, it lists relevant EU directives and international
treaties to which Romania is party. Matrices comparing Romanian systems to the
requirements of OP 4.00 for Environmental Assessment are included as Annex IIA to this
report.
Joining the European Union is one of the central development objectives of Romania with the
recently signed Accession Treaty committing the government to EU membership in 2007.
Article 148 (2) of Romania's Constitution (titled "on Integration into the European Union")
provides that, as a result of accession, the provisions of the constituent treaties of the
European Union as well as the other binding community regulations shall take precedence of
the opposite provisions of the national law, in compliance with the provisions of the
accession act.
European Union law on environmental protection comprises over 200 legal acts covering
horizontal legislation, water and air pollution, management of waste and chemicals,
11 Under the Bank's OP/BP 4.01 these project would be classified as environmental category "B", and EMPs
and consultation of project affected groups and NGOs, instead of a full fledged EIA would be required.
12 Key officials met during the major September 2005 study mission are mentioned in Annex III; the input of
other staff during previous and follow-on meetings and discussions is gratefully acknowledged.
5
biotechnology, nature protection, industrial pollution and risk management, noise and
radiation protection. If it finds that an EU member state is not applying EU law, and therefore
not meeting its legal obligations, the European Commission takes steps to put the situation
right, though a process called the `infringement procedure'. If this procedure fails to correct
matters, the Commission must then refer the matter to the European Court of Justice, which
has the power to impose penalties. The Court's judgments are binding on EU member states
and institutions.
Preparation for EU accession has required wide ranging reforms of the Romanian
administration and legal system in order to prepare for acceptance of the so-called acquis
communautaire, and to improve the physical infrastructure. General framework Law
294/2003 approving the EGO no91/2002 which amended Law no.137/1995 was adopted,
introducing a compulsory procedure for EIA for certain projects, including those with
transboundary effects. The GD no.918/2002 (transposing the EIA Directives) and four
Ministerial Ordinances13 were adopted establishing the competencies, procedural stages and
instructions including on public participation and preparation in the EIA procedure (screening
of projects, scoping of EIS, and review)14. Screening of projects, to determine whether
significant environmental impacts are likely to occur, and a full EIA has to be carried out, is
based on quantitative and qualitative criteria. Competent authorities are MEWM (for certain
important projects) and NEPA at national level, REPAs and LEPAs, depending of the type
and anticipated impact of a proposed project. Annex I.1 and I.2 of MO 860/2002, as amended
by MO 210/2004 and MO 1037/2005, determines which competent authority is responsible
with regards to which type of project. A Technical Review Committee comprised of several
representatives of ministries and representatives of civil protection and the fire brigade, and
which may be enlarged with experts as needed, participates in all stages, notably, screening,
scoping, and quality review of the EIS. The EIS may only be carried out by certified
specialists.
New projects, and any change, extension, or dismantling of projects that may have significant
environmental impacts, related to activities listed in GD 918/2002 (environmental impact
assessment framework) and EGO no.152/2005 (on integrated pollution prevention, mitigation
and control) require an environmental license to construct15, and in some instances (such as
sanitary landfills) an integrated, including a summary description of the project, its impacts
and appropriate mitigation measures16. A full EIA is required for projects of the types listed
in Annex 1 of GD no.918/2002, and for the types listed in Annex 2 of that same
Governmental Decision, when the competent authorities have so determined on a case by
case basis (screening). The following table aims to provide an overview of EIA procedures
applicable to the proposed projects. Investment projects not subject to EIA are subject to
simplified environmental licensing procedures in view of issuing the Unique Agreement.17
13 The regulatory instruments in Romania include Laws, Decisions and Ministerial Ordinances. Decisions are
issued to organize the application of laws. Ordinances are issued within the limits and conformity with the
provisions of enabling laws. Laws are passed by the Parliament. Decisions and Ordinances are signed by the
prime Minister and countersigned by the Minister(s) who carry-out their execution.
14 For detailed references see legislation listed in Annex IA
15 Romanian law uses the term "environmental agreement" in this context.
16 MO 860/2002, Art 5 (1)
17 MO 860/2002, Art 5(3) the Unique Agreement is given for those investments that are subject to
environmental procedure without an environmental agreement (license to construct) and therefore for which it is
not necessary to develop an EIA.
6
Table 1. EIA Categorization of Proposed Sub-projects Under the Romanian Law
Project component Investments for which EIA is
Investments for which the
List of investments for
mandatory under the Romanian
need for EIA is determined
which Unique
Law
on a case by case basis
Agreement is required,
(annex 2 GD 918/2002 and
but is not subject to full
(annex 1 GD 918/2002
Annex I.2 of MO 860/2002
EIA
and Annex I.1 of MO 860/2002
Municipal Services Project18
1. Rehabilitation of
Any change or extension of
860/2002
existing drinking
investments listed at
water networks
point10,b)Urban development
2. Rehabilitation of
Any change or extension of
860/2002
existing sewerage lines
investments listed at point 10,b)
Urban development
3. Rehabilitation of
Any change or extension of
860/2002
existing storm water
investments listed at point 10,b)
drainage lines
Urban development
4. Rehabilitation and
Any change or extension of
860/2002
upgrading of existing
investments listed at point 10,b)
drinking water
Urban development
treatment plants
5. Rehabilitation and
Any change or extension of
upgrading of existing
investments listed in Annex 1 or 2
waste water
[i.e. waste water treatment plants
treatment plants
with a capacity exceeding 150,000
population equivalent] which may
have significant effects on the
environment (annex 2 cat 13a)
[note: changes to smaller waste water
treatment plants are subject to the
screening stage]
6. Rehabilitation of
Any change of extension of
860/2002
existing landfills
investments listed in Annex 1 or 2
[i.e. installations for the disposal of
waste] which may have significant
effects on the environment (annex 2
cat 13a)
If the screening stage decision does
not require an EIA, this project is
subject to Unique Agreement
procedure without an EIA.
7. Construction of new Installations
of
long-distance
860/2002
drinking water
aquaducts (annex I.2cat. 10(j)
networks
8. Construction of new
Investments listed at point 10, b),
860/2002
sewerage lines
Urban development
9. Construction of new
Investments listed at point 10, b),
860/2002
storm water
Urban development
drainage lines
Transport SWAp Project
10. Maintenance and
- Construction of motorways and
Construction of roads (not included
primary rehabilitation express roads (annex 1 cat 8.3)
in Annex I.2)
of selected key sections
of the national road
- Construction of a new road of four or
network
more lanes or realignment and/or
widening of an existent road, of two
Any change of extension of
lanes or less so as to provide four or
investments listed in Annex 1 or 2
18 At the time this report is being prepared, investments in solid waste management and drinking water and
wastewater treatment are not envisaged for financing but since the Equivalence and Acceptability Analysis
considered these aspects we are including them for completeness
7
more lanes, where such new road or
which may have significant effects
realigned and/or widened section of
on the environment (Annex 2 cat
road would be 10 km or more in a
13a)
continuous length (annex 1 cat 8.4)
11. Maintenance of
Construction of lines for long distance
Construction of railways (projects
existing infrastructure railway traffic (annex 1, cat. 8.1)
not included in Annex 1)
(e.g. railway track,
bridges and tunnels)
Any change or extension of
investments listed in Annex 1 or 2 [
i.e. lines for long distance railway
traffic] which may have significant
effects on the environment (Annex 2
cat 13a)
12. Modernization of
Construction of overhead electrical
Transmission of electrical energy by
signaling, power
power lines with a voltage of 220 kV or overhead cable
supply, and inter-
more and a length of more than 15 km
modal equipment at
(annex 1.1, cat 3.9)
Construction of intermodal
border stations
terminals
Manufacture of railway equipment
Any change of extension of
overhead electrical power lines with
a voltage of 220 kV or more and a
length of more than 15 lm [i.e.
projects listed in Annex 1 or 2]
which may have significant effects
on the environment (annex 2, cat
13a)
3.3.2 Analysis of Gaps
As can be seen from the equivalence review matrix in Annex IIA, the Bank's EA policy and
the Romanian EIA system have many common features and principles and are considered
compatible in many aspects. Both the Romanian EIA system and the Bank's policy on EA
classify projects and activities into categories. The positive list of projects and activities
subject to full environmental assessment or a more limited environmental analysis under the
Romanian legislation is by nature similar to the classification in Category A and Category B
projects under the Bank's policy.
Overall, the Romanian system screening process is comprehensive and provides adequate
procedural details (including checklists for the competent authorities). However, the
differences in the Romanian EIA process and the principles stated in the Bank's OP/BP 4.00
relate to (a) continuing consultation throughout implementation of high-risk projects and (b)
use of independent advisory panels during the implementation of such projects.
Regarding point (a) it must be underlined that during the construction phase the competent
public authorities must visit the location of the construction and draw up minutes of this visit.
When the construction works are finalized the competent environmental authority carries out
inspection visits in order to verify the fulfillment of all the conditions stipulated in the
"environmental agreement". Continuing consultation with the authorities involved in the EIA
procedure takes place during the procedure for issuing the "environmental agreement". For
this purpose there is a Technical Review Committee set up at the national and local levels
under which the consultations take place.
3.3.3 Proposed Measures to Address the Gaps of the Romanian EA System
8
The above mentioned gaps are not likely to be relevant for the majority of investments under
the proposed projects. If there were higher risk Category A sub-projects (e.g. larger landfills
and wastewater treatment plant construction) we would be seeking strengthening in terms of
consultation during implementation and advisory panels as appropriate. Inclusion of these
sub-projects was a possibility in pre-appraisal but have been dropped from the MSP.
Romania is committed to improve the EA system as part of the EU accession process
regarding the transposition and implementation of Directive 2003/35/EC which amends the
EIA Directive and would be helpful more broadly for environmental performance
improvement, but is not necessary to meet the due diligence requirements for the Municipal
Services and Transport SWAp projects. It should also be noted that the Bank's proposed
Environmental Management Loan (slated for delivery in FY07) will provide considerable
capacity building which will directly and positively improve Romanian systems at both the
policy and field levels.
3.4
Equivalence Assessment - Cultural Property
Under the proposed Municipal Services project, it is possible that investments may take place
in historic districts, potentially affect historic structures, or influence other physical-cultural
resources. The equivalence assessment, therefore, focuses on all aspects of Romanian
legislation covering protection of physical and cultural resources (PCR).
The EU has limited legislation in this area, primarily addressing standards for the export of
cultural goods/national treasures as well as measures to return illegally traded cultural
property. Each member state has its own laws and procedures for protecting PCR which go
well beyond those of the EU in terms of comparability in scope to that of the World Bank
safeguard policies.
3.4.1 Romanian Laws and Regulations Applicable to the Projects
Our comparison of Romanian systems for Cultural Property/PCR to those of the World Bank
under OP/BP 4.00 is included as Annex IIB.
PCR protection in Romania is comprehensively governed by several pieces of legislation, the
most pertinent being: Law 422/2001 on protection of historic monuments and Government
Ordinance No. 43/2000 (GO 43/2000) on Archaeological Heritage Protection and Declaring
of Certain Archaeological Sites as Areas of National Interest (modified text following the
Law No. 378/2000 and the Law No. 462/2003).
Law 422/2001 establishes the principle of classification of historic monuments: Group A
being historic monuments of national and universal interest, and Group B being historic
monuments representative of the local cultural heritage. Classification for both groups is
performed under an Order of the Minister of Culture and Religious Affairs (MCRA), at the
proposal of the National Commission for Historic Monuments (NCHM)19. Owners and the
public as well as the NCHM, the National Commission for Archaeology (NCA), the local
19 The NCHM is a 21 member body which meets once a month to advise the MCRA on classifications
(particularly Group A), national strategies and methodologies for PCR protection, general urban plans, and
criteria for selecting specialists and experts in PCR protection. Its membership comprises representatives from:
the Romanian Academy, Ministry of Education and Research, Ministry of Public Works, Transport and
Housing, NGOs, and the MCRA.
9
mayor, and local or county councils are entitled to participate in the listing process, as they
can make proposals for listing; proposals that have to be taken into account by the county
services of the Ministry of Culture. Any order of classification must be communicated to the
owner of the property and the local public administration within 30 days of the decision being
taken. On the other hand, the owner of a building proposed to be listed or rejected for listing
is entitled to appeal against the decision at the MCRA within 30 days of receiving the
communication.
Law 422/2001 also contains provisions entitling the owner to receive scientific, technical,
material and financial support for the conservation and restoration of his/her monument. This
mechanism helps to bring the public effectively into the process of both listing and preserving
historic monuments. There are approximately 29,000 listed monuments in Romania.20
For each monument, an area of protection is created by the local public administration (with
the engagement of qualified staff), and the protected area must be demarcated within the
General Urban Plan of the municipality. Until a protection area has been established for a
historical monument, it is considered to have a protection radius area of 100 meters in towns,
200 meters in villages, and 500 meters in the countryside. Newly listed buildings must be
included in the General Urban Plan within 12 months of being listed, and the plan must be
communicated to the MCRA every five years, along with all up-to-date information
concerning historic monuments.
Without exception, there can be no intervention upon listed buildings without the prior
consultation and authorization of the MCRA. This means that the building permission request
must be seen by the local representative of the MCRA, who will provide advice and
recommendations on the construction works in the form of an administrative document. Only
after receiving this document can a County Council, following the qualified advice of the
MCRA and the NCHM, grant or refuse a construction request affecting a listed building /
site. If the works are approved, they must involve design supervisor engineers and/or
architects who have specific qualifications in the field of historical buildings, certified by
MCRA.
The same principles apply to located archaeological sites (the National Archaeological
Repertory), which is maintained by the MCRA and includes some 5,600 locations21. GO
43/2000 on Archaeological Heritage Protection set up a comprehensive system of
preservation for Romania's archaeological heritage from areas of archaeological potential and
from the urban development areas, following on the provisions of the Council of Europe
Convention of La Valetta (1992). The law makes it mandatory for an infrastructure project
investor to carry out field surveys at the feasibility study stage of the project, using qualified
specialists. They must also pay for archaeological surveillance over the entire period of the
works to protect the archaeology and chance finds. Research carried out in this manner is
known as `preventive archaeological research' and aims to find the most likely archaeological
remains, to study them and to protect them in a specialized institution before the investment
project could affect them. In certain cases, especially when there are structures with great
historic, cultural or scientific importance that cannot be moved, the archaeological team can
recommend the preservation of the remains by changing the initial plans. Planned building
works on located archaeological sites cannot go ahead without the MCRA issuing a
20 The list, which includes UNESCO World Heritage Sites can be consulted on-line at
http://www.cultura.ro/Documents.aspx?ID=89
21 This list may be consulted on-line at: http://www.cimec.ro/scripts/ARH/RAR-Index/cauta.asp
10
certification that all archaeological patrimony has been revealed and fully examined (the so-
called "Archaeological Burden Discharge Certificate")22. If archaeology is discovered during
any archaeological research, the location can be added by the MCRA to the National
Archaeological Repertory and the National Office for Cadastre, Survey and Mapping must
include these areas of located heritage on cadastre plans and topographical maps.
Under the terms of GO 43/2000, `chance' archaeological finds discovered during building
works, or any human activity, must be reported to the town mayor within 72 hours of
discovery. Following the discovery, and until the Archaeological Discharge Certificate is
issued, the building permit is suspended or the town Mayor can order the interruption of all
activity. Scientific, managing and technical measures must then be adopted to preserve the
vestiges uncovered by chance until the classification of those assets or until conclusion of the
archaeological research. Law enforcement officials must also be notified to guard the area.
Environmental Protection Law 137/1995 also stipulates measures for cultural heritage
protection within the Environmental Impact Assessment procedure (detailed in Government
Ordinance 860 / 2002). In particular, type A stamps on the technical fiches of projects with
insignificant environmental impact, can only be issued after the project site location has been
checked against its relative position to, inter alia, protected areas, and natural or
archaeological monuments. The EIA must specify effects on material assets and cultural
heritage at each stage of the process (screening, scoping and review) and, as necessary,
experts from structures responsible for archaeological sites and historical monuments may
participate in the Technical Review Committee for EIA. In addition, public consultation is
foreseen at publication of the assessment study, before which the public may forward
justified proposals concerning the EA.
Romania became a member of the Council of Europe in 1993. They are also bound to a
number of conventions relating to the protection of cultural property, including the European
Cultural Convention, the Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of
Europe, and the European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage.
To summarize, Romanian law specifies that inventories of buildings and sites of cultural
significance are consulted to assess whether proposed investment projects might cause
impact. Local experts on archeology, architecture and other relevant fields are brought in for
assessments before construction decisions are made, and after if "chance finds" are
encountered during construction. Only when the finds have been fully analyzed are
investment projects allowed to proceed.
3.4.2 Analysis of Gaps
We believe that there are no significant gaps between Romanian law and regulations
compared with the requirements set by OP 4.00 on PCR for piloting. While Romanian PCR
legislation is largely comprehensive it does not, however, provide for comprehensive public
consultation. Owners of property (archeology and/or monuments) that is to be classified are
notified of the process and made aware of the obligations of having their property listed and
can contest the decision. For an investment project affecting a site, however, there is no
22 The certificate may be issued by the local offices of the MCRA, in the case of researches made necessary for
the construction of private homes.
11
public consultation foreseen in the law following the delivery of the MCRA's
`Archaeological Burden Discharge Certificate'. Public consultation, however, does occur
during the EIA process, and hence we deem this equivalent to OP/BP 4.00. We do note that
the PCR law says little about the issue of `institutional strengthening' directly to deal with
impacts on PCR discovered during project implementation.
3.4.3 Current and Proposed Measures to Improve the Equivalence
Both projects proposed for the pilot are Category B projects. This means that EA will be
required and that consultation of project-affected groups and local non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) about the project's environmental and PCR aspects must be held. We
therefore do not envisage any gap filling measures.
While the MCRA, the NCHM and NCA together do work out programs for training
specialists, as well as plans of teaching and specialization in the field of protecting PCR,
broader capacity building measures will be considered as part of Bank supervision.
3.5
Equivalence Assessment - Dam Safety
3.5.1 Romanian Laws and Procedures
There is a possibility that some Municipal Services sub-projects may rely on drinking water
supplies obtained from dams or other control structures. New dams will not be financed by
the project but the capability of Romanian authorities to ensure dam safety is important
should water supplies be associated with control structures. The Romanian legislation (Water
Law 107/1996 modified by Law 310/2004, and Government Ordinance 244/2000) and
regulations (Ministerial Ordinance 128/2005) for dam safety are sufficiently broad and
include coverage for water retention structures. Both categories were considered under the
Bank-financed Hazard Risk Mitigation and Emergency Preparedness Project (HRMEP),
currently under implementation. Good alignment was found between Romanian requirements
and those of the Bank. Experience by the World Bank in ongoing projects in Romania also
suggests that the country's system for ensuring the safety of existing dams that are utilized
for water supply is sufficiently equivalent to applicable aspects of the Municipal Services
project. Depending on risk, key aspects of this system includes, for example, the assurance
that:
· For each of the control structure associated with the project, emergency preparedness
plans (EPP) would be in place and periodically updated.
· That operations and maintenance plans are in place for each dam or control structure.
· For higher risk control structures, a Panel of Experts (POE) including certified
independent experts would be tasked to undertake reviews of designs and technical
specifications for works; the POE will further advise on construction quality.
Dam safety is not envisaged as a factor in the Transport project.
3.5.2 Analysis of Gaps
For the very limited application of dam safety provisions in the Municipal Services project,
we believe there are no significant gaps in Romanian law and regulations as compared to the
requirements set by OP 4.00 for piloting.
12
3.5.3 Current and Proposed Measures to Improve the Equivalence
For the very limited application of dam safety provisions in the Municipal Services project,
we do not envisage gap-filling measures.
3.6
Equivalence Assessment - Involuntary Resettlement
The equivalence assessment focuses on expropriation and land acquisition, rather than
physical relocation of households or businesses over long distances, as the two pilot projects
are not likely to cause physical relocation. No future large scale resettlement is envisioned.
Romanian laws and procedures apply to the expropriation of private land for public use, but a
specific Act of Parliament is required for the relocation of a village, presumably because the
cost of such an undertaking would be considerably higher than simple expropriation.
Displacement for mining is the only exception, but it is based on negotiation with
landowners, rather than expropriation.
The EU does not have a common policy or standards regarding resettlement or expropriation.
Each member state has its own laws and procedures for expropriation.
Expropriation at all levels is governed by a general framework Law 33/1994, the
implementation of which is guided by Government Resolution 583/1994.23 The basic
principles are straightforward: expropriation must be justified and minimized; compensation
is in cash based on market value and damages; all contracts are subject to judicial review and
ratification; failed negotiations regarding compensation are settlement by the court, informed
by an expert valuation assessment; and civil works can start only after the transfer of the title
is ordered by the court and full compensation is paid.
3.6.1 Romanian Laws and Procedures
The Romanian Constitution (Art. 44, para. 3, 6) protects the ownership of private property
and provides that "nobody may be expropriated unless for a cause of public use, established
according to the law, subject to a fair and prior compensation." Implementation of this clause
is the subject of the Expropriation Law (33/1994) regarding the Process of Land Acquisition
for Reasons of Public Utility, referred to as the "Expropriation Law." Procedures for
establishing public use are articulated in Government Resolution 583/1994, Regulation
regarding the procedure of the commissions for performing a prior investigation to declare a
public use for national or local interest works. The Expropriation Law specifies conditions
under which different governmental authorities (national, country and local) can expropriate
private land and outlines procedures for doing so. Government Resolution 583/1994, a
companion to Law 33/1994, sets procedures and the functioning and membership of review
commissions involved in making the expropriation decision. These procedures apply to all
levels of government. The process consists of three stages that are described in Law 33/1994.
We have assigned titles to the stages for clarification:
23 Another law, No. 198/2004, accompanied by Methodological Rules of June 10, 2004, for the application of
Law 198/2004, simplifies expropriation for highways and national roads by establishing provisions to use
escrow accounts to deposit funds for complicated cases involving disputes, absentee owners or uncertain
owners. This law does not apply to the pilot projects, although there is an attempt underway to pass similar
legislation for the railroads.
13
Declaration of Public Use--based on a feasibility study and economic analysis, in the
expropriation request the expropriator must demonstrate public need; document that
the investment is included in the urban or regional plan; and include a preliminary
assessment of land acquisition and cost. Documentation is reviewed by a commission
(county, local), which obtains inputs from utilities, agencies and interested parties.
People who feel they may be affected can inquire and raise objections at this time.
The commission either accepts the proposal and issues a Location Permit, or returns it
to the expropriator. Minutes of the decision meeting are posted and distributed to
affected parties. The Location Permit is posted in the County or Local Council and
published in a local newspaper.
Administration--based on the Technical Design, which specifies ownership of
affected parcels (approved by the Cadastre office) and compensation levels set by
authorized assessors, the expropriator acquires land or rights-of-way. The design and
proposed aggregate compensation is posted in the County or Local Council and
published in a local newspaper, and owners are notified of the intent to acquire land or
right of way. Interested parties can challenge the technical design by writing to the
mayor, who appoints a commission to review and respond to all inputs. The minutes
of the deliberation of the commission and posted and the commission either endorses
the design or instructs the expropriator to modify it. Owners must provide
documentation of ownership to negotiate. By law, the expropriator cannot offer an
amount less than the assessed value of the property (Law no. 33/1994, Chapter IV,
Art. 27). If the expropriator and owner agree on the compensation amount, a
purchase contract is prepared and signed. The agreement becomes effective when it is
ratified by the court and compensation is paid. If the two parties do not agree on a
compensation amount, the case is submitted for court adjudication.
Adjudication--all agreements are reviewed by the court to determine whether or they
followed proper procedures fulfilling legal requirements; if so, they are ratified and
the transfer is immediate upon payment. In case of a dispute over compensation, the
court commissions an expert valuation and sets the level of compensation. Ownership
is deemed transferred when the transaction is registered in the cadaster and
compensation is paid. The court also has the authority to sanction expropriation if
owners cannot be located or ownership is disputed.
Land acquisition must be completed before a Construction License is issued, after which civil
works can start.
The process can be time consuming, particularly if ownership is unclear or disputed, if
owners cannot provide documentation of ownership or if owners cannot be located.
Compensation for disputed lands is decided by the court and the expropriator deposits funds
that are distributed once the dispute is settled. In cases where documentation is incomplete,
the expropriator helps legitimate claimants acquire documents. If owners are not located, the
expropriator follows a prescribed notification procedure. The law does not clearly limit the
time required to complete expropriation or provide adequate guidance on how to conclude the
process for complicated cases24. Consequently, the expropriation process can be protracted.
24 Law 198/2004 was enacted to simplify procedures for the construction of highways and national roads.
Methodological Rules were issued to guide application of the law (June 10, 2004). The new law differs from
14
Once the court ratifies the arrangement, and money is deposited in a bank account, the
transfer can take place. The owners of the land that was expropriated have three years to
challenge the compensation amount, but cannot reverse the court decision to transfer
ownership. The public disclosure process is the same under both laws.
Disputes over ownership are resolved through a separate process outside the scope of the
Expropriation Law. The process involves the cadastre office as well as courts, which make
the final determination of the validity of conflicting claims and the distribution of assets.
3.6.2 Equivalence and Analysis of Gaps
The expropriation system in Romania is broadly consistent with the objectives and many of
the key principles of OP/BP 4.00. A number of the "Principles" listed in Table A1 of the OP
do not have specific corresponding requirements in Romania, however. The discussion
below highlights similarities and differences between principles in OP/BP 4.00 and
Romanian legal requirements and practices. The discussion is structured to follow the
statements of principles listed in OP/BP 4.00 Table A1 (see summary matrix as Annex II to
this report).
Objective: To avoid or minimize involuntary resettlement and, where this is not feasible, to
assist displaced persons in improving or at least restoring their livelihoods and standards of
living in real terms relative to pre-displacement levels or to levels prevailing prior to the
beginning of project implementation, whichever is higher.
The Romanian Constitution protects private property and provides that "nobody may be
expropriated unless for a cause of public use, established according to law, subject to a fair
and prior compensation" (Art 44, para. 3, 6). These principles were subsequently spelled out
in the Expropriation Law (33/1994) and Government Resolution 583/1994 to establish
standard practices that apply to all levels of government. Each act of expropriation is based
on a request for an expropriation decision, which must justify "the national or local interest,
the economical-social, environmental or any other kind of advantages that justify the
necessary character of works and could not be carried out except by means of expropriation
(Art. 10 Expropriation Law).
The Expropriation Law is based on the assumption that compensation at market value and
"prejudice" (real value of the premises and the prejudice caused to the owner or other entitled
persons (Art. 26, Expropriation Law). This should be adequate to enable the affected people
to maintain the value of their assets and, if relevant, to re-establish themselves under similar
circumstances. Article 26 of the Expropriation Law loosely characterizes prejudice as
"damages caused to the owner or, if the case may be, to other entitled persons, also
considering the justification submitted by them." The Civil Code defines prejudice as
"damage effectively suffered and unrealized benefits." Expropriation cancels tenancy
agreements and the tenants are "entitled to compensation" (Art. 28, Expropriation Law). It
appears that prejudice thus covers impacts on income and livelihoods beyond the cost of
affected assets, including impacts on third parties.
Law 33/1994 in one principal respect--the introduction of escrow accounts to deposit compensation when
ownership is unclear or disputed or owners cannot be located. This law is not applicable in the pilot projects.
15
Operational Principles:
1. Assess all viable alternative project designs to avoid, where feasible, or minimize
involuntary resettlement.
Article 10 of the Expropriation Law requires the expropriator to justify the need for
expropriation and to demonstrate that the investment cannot occur without expropriation. A
commission (national, county or local) is set up to review each proposal, obtain technical
inputs from government agencies and inputs from interest parties, and recommend an
expropriation decision or return the proposal to the investor. Various agencies and ministries
also append specific requirements that must be fulfilled in the technical design. The process
is essentially repeated again when the technical design is completed and affected persons are
identified.
2. Through census and socio-economic surveys of the affected population, identify, assess,
and address the potential economic and social impacts of the project that are caused by
involuntary taking of land (e.g. relocation or loss of shelter, loss of assets or access to assets,
loss of income sources or means of livelihood, whether or not the affected person must move
to another location) or involuntary restriction of access to legally designated parks and
protected areas.
The expropriation process does not require a baseline census or socio-economic survey. The
expropriation request must identify economic and social benefits of the investment, however,
and the Technical Design includes detailed information about land ownership and use
(confirmed by the Cadastre Office) and estimated value of the land to be expropriated. This
constitutes a de facto household census. Cases involving physical relocation and loss of
access to assets are identified through the process of collecting information for the technical
design. The loss of income sources or means of livelihood and transition costs can be
included in calculations of compensation for "prejudice," but they must be claimed by the
owner or other affected person.
No socio-economic surveys are required for expropriation.
3. Identify and address impacts also if they result from other activities that are (a) directly
and significantly related to the proposed project, (b) necessary to achieve its objectives, and
(c) carried out or planned to be carried out contemporaneously with the project
Legal expropriation standards and procedures and compensation standards apply equally to
all aspects of an investment.
4. Consult project-affected persons, host communities and local nongovernmental
organizations, as appropriate. Provide them opportunities to participate in the planning,
implementation, and monitoring of the resettlement program, especially in the process of
developing and implementing the procedures for determining eligibility for compensation
benefits and development assistance (as documented in a resettlement plan), and for
establishing appropriate and accessible grievance mechanisms. Pay particular attention to
the needs of vulnerable groups among those displaced, especially those below the poverty
line, the landless, the elderly, women and children, Indigenous Peoples, ethnic minorities, or
other displaced persons who may not be protected through national land compensation
legislation.
16
Investments must be embedded in urban or regional spatial plans, which are adopted and
revised through open meetings. Documentation related to justifying an investment and
implementing it, to obtain a Location Permit and then Construction License, must be posted
in County and Local Councils, offices of the expropriator, the official gazette and local
newspapers. The documentation constitutes both expropriation and construction plans,
owners and proposed compensation. The documentation prepared to request an expropriation
decision and to obtain a Location Permit, is reviewed by officials from different agencies.
The process is relatively open, although there are no public meetings. Affected persons are
not specifically contacted at this point, but they and all other interested parties have access to
officials to discuss various aspects directly or submit written questions or objections, which
are considered in making the decision.
Once the Location Permit is issued, the Technical Design is completed and posted in the
country or local government offices, as well as the office of the expropriator. Interested
parties who have questions or objections can express their reservations in writing to the
mayor or head of the county, who establishes a commission to review and address each
petition and consult with interested parties. These consultations can lead to revisions of the
technical design. For example, input from local people, through the mayor, prompted the re-
location of a bypass (Transport Restructuring Project) away from the city to give more room
for urban development. Although there are no resettlement plans, as such, the documentation
for the expropriation decision and the technical design can be seen as a reasonable proxy for a
land acquisition or resettlement plan, especially since the system is almost exclusively based
on paying cash compensation for affected assets.
Grievance mechanisms exist at successive stages in preparation and design of the investment.
Prior to the issue of the Location Permit and completion of the Technical Design, interested
parties can address their concerns regarding location, alignments and the scope of
expropriation to agencies involved in the decision-making process, the mayor, and
negotiation representatives of the expropriator (Art. 12-19 Expropriation Law).
Expropriation must be concluded before the Construction License is issued. Once that
occurs, affected persons can challenge the level of compensation in the courts, but cannot
reverse the expropriation process.
There are no regular mechanisms for public participation in monitoring the implementation of
the investment and the impact of expropriation, although controversial projects are generally
actively scrutinized by the press.
Eligibility for compensation is consistent and straightforward, including owners, tenants and
other individuals who occupy land to be expropriated (Art. 28 Expropriation Law). Tenants
are compensated for damages and illegal occupiers may be compensated for the loss of above
ground assets (Art. 29 Expropriation Law) ("value-added").
There are no special provisions for the vulnerable, minorities or others and, with the
exception of squatters, there appear to be no displaced persons or minorities who are not
protected through national land compensation legislation.
5. Inform displaced persons of their rights, consult them on options, and provide them with
technically and economically feasible resettlement alternatives and needed assistance,
including (a) prompt compensation at full replacement cost for loss of assets attributable to
the project; (b) if there is relocation, assistance during relocation, and residual housing, or
17
housing sites, or agricultural sites of equivalent potential, as required; (c) transitional
support and development assistance, such as land preparation, credit facilities, training or
job opportunities as required, in addition to compensation measures; (d) cash compensation
for land when the impact of land acquisition on livelihoods is minor; and (e) provision of
civic infrastructure and community services as required.
Owners are notified by letter of the intent to expropriate, which includes a copy of the
minutes of the expropriation decision. Since compensation is in cash, affected people are not
given different options; rather, it is assumed that they can use the compensation to choose
their own options.
a) Land acquisition must be completed--compensation must be paid and titles transferred--
before a Construction License is issued for the investment. Compensation must be paid
within 30 days of court judgments. Compensation is at market value, plus prejudice, which is
considered sufficient to replace assets and restore incomes, therefore, equivalent to
replacement cost. Occupants without legal titles to affected land can be compensated for
their affected above-ground assets, expressed as "value added." Affected persons and third
parties who seek compensation for prejudice must present their cases to negotiators or the
court. Crop loss is the only form of damage that is explicitly stated in the law; claims for
other losses must be documented by affected persons on a case-by-case basis. They must
claim compensation as "prejudice."
b) Residences are rarely affected. If they are, the residents of expropriated properties move
to housing arranged by themselves, following negotiation, compensation and the transfer of
titles. If they ultimately need to be evicted, the expropriator must provide another "dwelling
space, in conformity with the law" (Art. 29 Expropriation Law). Tenants and illegal
occupants of expropriated residences, even more rare, must be provided with acceptable
alternative housing to which to move (Art. 29 Expropriation Law).
c) Relocation costs would be included in compensation for "prejudice." Owners and others
who have cause must make the claim for damages during the negotiation process or, in court,
if their claim is not resolved to their satisfaction. The court renders final decisions on
compensation levels that are under question. In the absence of strict guidelines, "prejudice"
can cover a range of impacts, but it is up to the claimant to make the case.
d) Cash compensation is the norm. If most of a parcel is subject to expropriation, and the
remainder is not viable or without value, the owner can appeal to have the whole parcel
expropriated (Art. 24 Expropriation Law).
e) No community-wide involuntary physical relocation is envisioned under the pilot projects.
Thus the expropriation law would apply to all expropriation related to project investments. In
the event that there is relocation of individual households, which occurs rarely, people would
move to residences with appropriate infrastructure and community services, rather than a
greenfield site.
6. Give preference to land-based resettlement strategies for displaced persons whose
livelihoods are land-based
Expropriation laws and procedures are based on cash compensation at market rate, which is
assumed to enable owners to purchase land to replace the expropriated land. Land
18
replacement is not prohibited by the law, but it is not expected and it would be impractical in
the Romanian context to make administered land substitution a standard policy, given limited
amounts of state land and the prevalence of ownership issues related to re-privatization and
restitution of previously nationalized lands.
Land can be bought and sold freely in urban and rural areas. The rural land market is open,
but it is not really active, as sales are very limited. All informants claim that owners are
generally amenable to sell land and buyers can find land easily. Reportedly, those who lose
land to expropriation can readily purchase alternative land from others who would like to sell.
Consequently, as the land market is open and active on the supply side, affected persons use
the market for land and housing, if needed, and there is sufficient supply of land and housing,
a land-based expropriation strategy is not necessary.
Municipalities and local self-government authorities may own land that can be sold and/or
exchanged to owners of expropriated land on a case-by case basis. When this occurs, if the
alternative plot is either more valuable or less valuable than the expropriated land, the
difference is settled in cash. For example, Arad has implemented such arrangements, as it
has both urban and rural land available.
7. For those without formal legal rights to lands or claims to such land that could be
recognized under the laws of the country, provide resettlement assistance in lieu of
compensation for land to help improve or at least restore their livelihoods.
The investor advises owners on the registration process for unregistered lands. This is a
mutual interest, as lands have to be registered to be purchased. People who have been using
state land for 30 years can apply for ownership and registration (governed by Civil Code and
Civil Procedure Code). Households living on or using land they do not own are only
compensated for their "value added" contributions (lost above-ground assets) (Art. 26 and 28
Expropriation Law). There is no specific provision for resettlement assistance in lieu of
compensation for land, except as it would be claimed and included under "prejudice."
8. Disclose draft resettlement plans, including documentation of the consultation process, in
a timely manner, before appraisal formally begins, in an accessible place and in a form and
language that are understandable to key stakeholders.
Proposals for expropriation and Location Permits and technical designs are prepared in the
local language and made available in the respective county or local council office and the
expropriator's office and are posted in the official gazette and local newspapers before
expropriation is initiated. Interested parties, including actual or potential affected persons,
can register their concerns verbally or in writing when the expropriation decision is under
consideration and later, after the technical design is completed. No formal resettlement or
land acquisition plans are issued in addition to the documentation required to justify
expropriation and the technical design, but these documents are essentially equivalent to the
plans specified in the principle. Documentation of the consultation process includes the
minutes of the expropriation decision and the findings of the commission established by the
mayor to respond to complaints and objections.
9. Apply the principles described in the involuntary resettlement section of this Table, as
applicable and relevant, to subprojects requiring land acquisition.
19
The principles apply to all aspects of an investment involving expropriation, at each level of
government, including all subprojects.
10. Design, document, and disclose before appraisal of projects involving involuntary
restriction of access to legally designated parks and protected areas, a participatory process
for: (a) preparing and implementing project components; (b) establishing eligibility criteria;
(c) agreeing on mitigation measures that help improve or restore livelihoods in a manner that
maintains the sustainability of the park or protected area; (d) resolving conflicts; and (e)
monitoring implementation.
This issue is not relevant to the pilot projects.
11. Implement all relevant resettlement plans before project completion and provide
resettlement entitlements before displacement or restriction of access. For projects involving
restriction of access, impose the restrictions in accordance with the timetable in the plan of
actions.
Expropriation must be completed before a Construction License is issued, which enables the
investor to start civil works.
There are no restrictions on access that require mitigation.
12. Assess whether the objectives of the resettlement instrument have been achieved, upon
completion of the project, taking account of the baseline conditions and the results of
resettlement monitoring
No ongoing monitoring of the expropriation process is required. Similarly, no follow-up
assessments are undertaken, as compensation is assumed to be adequate unless it is revised
by a court decision in response to a challenge.
Analysis of Differences
There are no salient differences between Romanian expropriation laws and OP 4.00 in the
objectives and principles 1, 3, 8, 9 and 11. Principle 10 is not relevant for the pilot projects.
The principles in which there are differences are discussed below, with abbreviated titles of
the respective principles.
2. Census and Survey. The expropriation documents and technical design include household
land ownership, which constitutes a proxy for a household census. The second principle
requires a baseline household socio-economic survey to be carried out, Romanian
expropriation laws and procedures do not require a survey. The pilot projects primarily
involve land acquisition, not physical relocation, and would not require affected persons to
change occupations, for which a socio-economic survey might have some value. This
difference does not compromise the objectives or outcome of the process and thus is not a
significant issue that would prevent the application of OP 4.00
4. Consultation, Entitlements and Special Groups. The consultation and disclosure process is
adequate, although a specific resettlement document is not required. The team concludes that
20
the documents prepared for the expropriation decision and the technical design are reasonable
proxies for the plan specified in the principle.
Eligibility for compensation is based on documentation of ownership or claims for damages.
Within 15 days of the completion of the technical design, which identifies affected persons
specifically, they are notified by letter of the intent to expropriate, along with a copy of the
minutes of the expropriation decision. Negotiation for compensation can be complicated if
the land is not titled and ownership is contested, however. The estimated cost of
expropriation is included in the expropriation request and refined in the technical design,
which includes estimates of the value of each parcel. Affected persons must request
compensation for "prejudice," during negotiation or in the court, if they are not satisfied with
the outcome of negotiations.
The process does not give special consideration to the vulnerable or excluded groups, but that
difference is not considered to be significant if (a) assessed valuation is adequate and
consistent and (b) people are informed of their rights and entitlements. It is not clear whether
or not expropriation in the pilot projects will affect squatters or illegal occupants. Informants
indicated little experience with the issue, thus it needs to be monitored closely in
implementation.
5. Inform People of Rights, Compensate and Support Transition. There are no provisions
that require the expropriator to inform people of their rights. If information is provided,
however, it is cursory and appears to be inadequate. This is a salient divergence from the
principle which could have significant impact if it results in compensation below market
value and people are unaware of opportunities to contest the amount. This gap would need to
be mitigated.
Prompt payment of compensation is required, and consistent with the principle, but violations
of this principle in major highway construction have been reported, thus the issue needs to be
monitored closely during implementation.
Property values are assessed by certified assessors. Informants indicated some discrepancies
in the extent to which specific assessment reports are prepared and whether they are prepared
before or after negotiations. If the reports are prepared before negotiations, they are not
necessarily shared with owners, thus potentially disadvantaging them in negotiations. This is
a salient divergence which can be mitigated by standardizing the timing of assessments as
well as the requirement that they be shared with owners at the start of negotiations.
The quality and consistency of assessors appears to be subject to dispute, which undermines
public confidence in the valuation process and could result in under-valuation, which would
violate the principle. This divergence in practice would need to be mitigated.
If people are adequately informed about their rights, a combination of compensation for
assets and prejudice should be adequate for households to restore their assets, livelihoods
and, if relevant, transition to another location. Improved dissemination of information will
help reduce the likelihood that compensation is inadequate, making the process and practice
equivalent to the principle. To address the divergence in practice related to information
dissemination, the letter that announces the intent to expropriate needs to be accompanied by
a brochure that clearly describes the expropriation process and the rights of owners in the
process, including the scope of prejudice.
21
If affected persons are compensated adequately for their losses, there is land is available for
owners to make their own adjustments, thus the divergence from the principle of a land based
strategy is not considered to be material. Special cases involving major land losses and the
loss of businesses and residences would need to be managed on a case-by-case basis in
consultation with the Bank until there are adequate assurances that the system works.
6. Preference for a Land Based Strategy. The use of cash compensation for expropriation in
Romania differs from the principle that compensation of people displaced from land-based
livelihoods and expropriation should be land based. Given the complex landholding situation
in Romania and the lack of availability of State land that could be traded, and given the
availability of private land for purchase an, open access to the land market, the current
arrangement should be adequate to enable affected households to pursue a land based
solution on their own, if they so desire. This difference from the principle is therefore not
considered to be significant.
7. Provide Resettlement Assistance to those Without Formal Legal Rights to Land.
Informants indicated little experience expropriating land used by people who are without use
or ownership rights. Romanian law does not make specific provision for people without legal
rights to land although they may be eligible to claim damages (prejudice). Although it is not
expected that the pilot projects will encounter such situations, Bank and Romanian authorities
would need to agree on a mechanism to address this issue in the unlikely event that people
without legal title to land are affected by the pilot projects. Each case should subsequently be
monitored.
8. Follow-up Monitoring and Assessment. Romanian law and practices do not require
monitoring or assessment of the impact of expropriation. This is a divergence that would
need to be addressed through independent monitoring and regular Bank supervision.
22
4.0
Acceptability Assessment
4.1
Scope of the Acceptability Assessment
The previous sections on "equivalence" looked at the Romanian system of laws and by-laws,
-- as augmented by formalized procedures relative to the Operational Principles of OP/BP
4.00. The previous discussion showed consistent alignment in a number of key safeguard-
related areas. The next step in the analysis is whether there is sufficient capability to carry
out due diligence on the types of transport and municipal services projects intended to be
supported by the World Bank loans in question. It should be noted that the Bank will
continue to supervise pilot projects during implementation; in fact with no diminution of
attention. Ensuring a good "track record" in advance of project implementation should,
however, solidify lessons gained from piloting.
4.2
Methodology Followed in Determining Acceptability
To complete this review of "acceptability" for piloting several key factors were considered:
(i) whether there are good formal or informal processes in place to implement the laws, by-
laws and procedures, (ii) capability in the field, as judged through selected field interviews,
site visits and desk reviews of Bank-supported projects, (iii) evidence of progress towards
meeting EU targets on transposition of legislation, staffing and budgets where these apply,
(iv) informal consultations with specialist and stakeholders, and (v) how the track record for
Romania compares with other Bank middle-income countries in these regards.
Regarding the field reviews, World Bank specialists visited ongoing, proposed and completed
projects (Bank, Romania and EU-financed) in representative key cities slated for the
Municipal Service and Transport SWAp projects, including Bucharest, Brasov, Tirgu Mures,
Arad, and Calarasi. Selected bidding documents and environmental reports were reviewed, as
were government procedural manuals, compliance checklists and other information sources.
Interviews with EU officials responsible for peer reviews of Romanian environmental
systems, and for determining progress with accession requirements were also helpful. The
World Bank files for the Railway Rehabilitation project (closed in September 2003) and
ongoing Roads 2 and Transport Restructuring projects, showing satisfactory progress on
safeguards, were also reviewed.
4.3 Acceptability
Assessment
Environment Assessment (EA)
4.3.1 Implementation Practices and Institutional Capacity
Romania is committed to making enormous investments in environmental protection and
management as part of its EU accession process. This commitment includes: (i) completing
the transposition of the comprehensive EU environmental aquis; (ii) strengthening the
institutional capacity in the environmental sector at local, regional and central level; (iii)
investing in pollution control to meet media-specific directives; (iv) building enforcement
and control capacity.
Environmental protection investments in infrastructure are increasing dramatically; for
example about Euro 347.8 million were spent during the period of January-July, 2005 alone
on technology; largely in water and air pollution control by industry. An additional amount
of Euro 1,200 million has been allocated to Romania under the EU's ISPA program (through
23
2006) for critical investments in water and transport infrastructure; supported by
environmental capacity-building at the local level.
Capabilities on the institutional front are also getting stronger and, we believe, are sufficient
to support piloting of Environmental Assessment. The establishment of an over-arching
Ministry of Environment and Water Management (MEWM) with specialized Departments
and Directions is considered by European Commission officials to be a very positive step.
MEWM has eight Regional Agencies (REPA) and 42 County Agencies (LEPA). Staff are
organized to carry out oversight (in parallel with routine World Bank supervision) on the
types of investments planned to be supported by the Municipal Services and Transport SWAp
projects. Staffing in the MEWM has been increasing with approximately 949 specialists
being added recently in the environmental sector at central, regional and local levels. Overall,
the MEWM has developed a strategy regarding the environment personnel increase by 1,660
persons/civil servants until 2006; driven again by meeting expectations of the EU regards
with regards to capacity needs. The MEWM, its entities and supporting administrative
structures implement relevant EA laws, by-laws, and established procedures through a
practice which is embodied in the application, review and approval (or denial) of various
licenses (to construct) and permits (to operate). As presented in more detail in Annex IB,
these are effective analogies to World Bank procedures for the review of proposed projects
under relevant safeguard policies.
The importance of training and public awareness components have been recognized in the
move towards EU accession. A total of twelve (12) training seminars for experts in the
MEWM and their subordinate structures are scheduled to take place during 2005; eight of
these seminars had already taken place by September. About ten EU-twinning projects
totaling Euro 13.5 million are developed and/or scheduled to be launched during the period of
2005-2006 with a focus on training and technical assistance of government personnel. Public
education and awareness programs are aimed at business operators, public officials and local
stakeholders.
In addition, environmental inspection, compliance and control is on track for significant
improvement through the consolidation and growth of the National Environmental Guard
(NEG), the national institution under the MEWM that is in charge with: (i) the inspection and
enforcement activities for environment protection; and (ii) the issuance of penalties for
exceeding discharges and emission limits. Control and monitoring actions have strengthened
during the last year. For example, during the period of July 1st-August 15, 2005, the
representatives of NEG performed inspections at 958 sites; a significant increase over
previous periods. The process of assigning fees and fines has also evolved to reduce the
potential for corruption, as contrasted to more favorable investments in pollution control
technology.
The NEG works closely with other institutions on monitoring; for example the National
Water Agency "Apele Romane" responsible for ambient water flow and quality and. On the
transport side, we also found capability for setting and tracking environmental requirements
in such institutions as: (i) National Railway Company (SNCFR), (ii) Roads Design Institute
(IPTANA) and (iii) Railway Design Institute (ISPCF). These entities help set performance or
technical standards in bid documents for maintenance projects, for example, which are
comparable to the Bank's Environmental Management Plans for such relatively lower risk
investments.
24
The National Environmental Protection Agency is an entity inside the MEWM with growing
responsibilities and influence. It plays a key advisory role in policy and strategy formulation
and implementation. Key Directorates include one for nature conservation, biodiversity and
soil protection, and another for monitoring and data coordination and synthesis. Additional
institutional information is provided in Annex IC.
4.3.2 Gap
Analysis
Regarding system design and general implementation, there are no major gaps regarding the
acceptability of Romanian systems that would inhibit piloting for Environmental Assessment.
It is recognized, however, that some regional and local arms of the MEWM (including the
NEG) are still staffing up, and that experience is only now being gained on new monitoring,
inspection and compliance programs. Therefore the only gap is a "track record" of improved
performance under a strengthening structure. As noted below, however, this can be addressed
through mutually-beneficial pilot project implementation.
4.3.3 Current and Proposed Measures to Increase the Acceptability
To avoid any significant differences in the environmental protection outcome of the EA
process, as well as to gain familiarity with the actual application of Romanian systems during
the pilot program, the Bank and Romania should agree on an initial approach to jointly
reviewing and clearing sub-project EAs25, as follows:
· on an ex-ante basis, sub-project EAs which fall in Annex I of the Romanian system.
(Given that both the MSP and Transport SWAp projects are currently Category B for
EA under the World Bank system, sub-projects are not likely to fall in Annex I of the
Romanian system, however).
· on an ex-ante basis sub-projects which fall in Annex II of the Romanian system if
evidence suggest these might fall in Category A of the World Bank. (While this is
theoretically possible, the current Municipal Services and Transport SWAp projects
do not envisage such projects being brought forward for World Bank support).
· on an ex-ante basis, the first three EAs which fall in Annex II of the Romanian
system;
· on an ex-poste basis thereafter, selected EAs which fall in Annex II of the Romanian
system; and
· as an integrated part of the normal procurement practice (with commensurate ex-ante
and ex-poste provisions), review of relevant annexes of bid documents describing
environmental mitigation and monitoring procedures to be carried out by works
contractors, supervisory contractors, etc..
This initial approach can be revised during project implementation as needed. To reinforce
the importance of good compliance, monitoring and enforcement, the Bank will receive
25 This includes stand-alone environmental impact reports and/or affiliated analyses/documentation associated
with permits and licenses.
25
regular updates of sub-project compliance with Romanian environmental laws. To the extent
practical, the Bank will coordinate supervision visits with local environmental officials.
Strengthening of the EA system is underway as part of the EU accession process and would
be helpful more broadly for environmental performance improvement, but is not necessary to
meet the due diligence requirements for the Municipal Services and Transport SWAp
projects. It should also be noted that the Bank's proposed World Bank Environmental
Management Loan (slated for delivery in FY07) will provide considerable capacity building
which will directly and positively improve Romanian systems at both the policy and field
levels. A strong and well equipped administration is needed for the application of the
acquis26.
4.4
Acceptability Analysis - Cultural Property
4.4.1 Implementation Practice and Institutional Capacity
As noted earlier, the Romanian system of laws, procedures and practices is comprehensive
with respect to the key aspects of cultural property protection suitable for piloting under OP
4.00. Bank staff reviewed Romanian practices in this regard in connection with the
implementation of Bank projects, and more broadly in discussions with officials in Bucharest,
Arad, Brasov and other cities.
In practice, we note that the wide applicability and comprehensiveness of the Romanian legal
system can mean a backlog on processing applications by relevant bodies, with the potential
for some applications not getting full review. This is not unexpected given the rapidity of
investment growth in the country. In addition, the level of public awareness of the law on
protection of PCR is fairly limited and, if known, often seen as being of secondary
importance to new investments and development (especially in historic town centers which
often have older road, energy, telecommunications, and water infrastructure). Although the
MCRA has carried out awareness raising campaigns of the law in national newspapers, local
museums do not always have a particularly interactive dialogue with the public, seeing
themselves more as research institutes. The lack of awareness is aided by the fact that not all
historic monuments are marked with a clearly identifiable sign, as mandated in Law
422/2001.
The MCRA has a decentralized staff, with one representative in each of the 42 Counties of
Romania. Most municipalities, however, do not have services for PCR analysis and support,
so this work is typically carried out by local museums (according to a list of experts
maintained by the MCRA). In addition, the MCRA notes that in only three counties do they
have an archaeologist working at local level for the MCRA. In practice, the principles and
procedures outlined in section 3.4.1 work satisfactorily but, as noted, there are instances
when applications for building permission do not get fully reviewed, and occasions when the
local representatives of the MCRA are not consulted prior to applications being granted. In
addition, not all General Urban Plans are being systematically communicated to the MCRA
and reviewed by the NCHM.
26 http/europa/Eu.int/enlargement negotiations/chapters/chap22/index.htm. Capacity-building support through
the EU IMPEL/ECENA networks is particularly relevant.
26
Public consultation is provided under EIA procedures, whereby PCR must be identified
during the screening, scoping and review phases. This can help to supplement the traditional
lists of classified monuments and sites by taking into account, through studies and
consultation, the entire project impact area.
4.4.2 Gap
Analysis
The law governing EA procedures only requires experts `as needed' from structures
responsible for archaeological sites and monuments to sit on the Technical Review
Committee that oversees the EA process. In addition, while there are high standard
procedures for authorizing the environmental experts that work on EIA studies, there is no
standard provision for PCR experts to work on EIA studies.
4.4.3 Current and Proposed Measures to Increase the Acceptability
In light of the assessment above the only area in which practice diverges from World Bank
safeguards on PCR concerns EIA procedures. For the two proposed projects we recommend
that:
· Representatives from the MCRA are included in the EIA Technical Review
Committee/s
· PCR experts, as identified by the MCRA, are used to help draft the PCR aspects of the
EIA study
· Where appropriate, provisions safeguarding PCR, including those for `chance finds'
should be included in the Environmental Management Plan, with provisions for
monitoring by PCR experts during project implementation.
With these measures taken, we do find the system acceptable for the purposes of the two
proposed Bank projects which will rely on: (i) inventories of buildings and sites of cultural
significance, (ii) inventories being supplemented by in-field surveys where inventories are
insufficient, (iii) use of local experts on archeology, architecture and other relevant fields for
assessments before construction decisions are made, and after if "chance finds" are
encountered during construction, and (iv) full approvals by relevant local bodies before
construction and operation takes place.
4.5.
Acceptability Assessment - Dam Safety
OP 4.00 allows piloting of borrower dam safety requirements as they apply to three types of
projects: (i) construction of new dams, (ii) rehabilitation of existing dams, and (iii) carrying
out activities that may be affected by an existing dam. The World Bank has financed projects
covering points (ii) and (iii) and, regarding acceptability, has found good progress to date.
Dam safety safeguards requirements are implemented by the Borrower (through the Ministry
of Environment and Water Management).
In Romania the implementation of the dam safety policy is achieved though ten consulting
firms experienced in dam safety design. The MEWM has five specialists, who work closely
with CONSIB (two of them being also members) while the National Agency "Apele
Romane" has ten specialists including two in the headquarter office and eight in the regional
branches (one for each river basin department). The CONSIB experts are in charge with the
27
review of the dam safety designs as well as with periodic inspections and reviews of dam
safety operations.
Training options on dam safety were scarce. Recently, the World Bank HRMEP project
currently under implementation in Romania offered the opportunity of an USBR training
course on dam safety and plans to continue to enhance the technical capacity of the
Romanian engineers in the field. Contacts with international experts are held periodically
through participation in seminars, workshops, but the participation is limited to a small
number of experts.
We find satisfactory progress since:
· A Panel of Experts (POE) including independent experts certified by MEWM and
members of CONSIB was selected by the implementing agency to undertake reviews of
designs and technical specifications for works;
· The POE advises on construction quality;
· For each of the dams included in the project, emergency preparedness plans (EPP) are in
place and periodically updated;
· During the floods which occurred this year no dam was compromised and the
functionality of Emergency Preparedness Plans was assessed, and
· Operation and Maintenance plans are in place for each dam, and the dams subject to
rehabilitation are operated under restrictions which were fully observed during recent
floods.
There is a possibility that some Municipal Services sub-projects may rely on drinking water
supplies obtained from dams or other control structures (condition iii above). New dams will
not be financed by the project, nor will dams be rehabilitated under the project, but the
capability of Romanian authorities to ensure dam safety is important should water supplies be
associated with control structures. The Bank has noted good practice on dam safety since
implementation of HRMEP, and finds Romanian procedures acceptable for piloting under OP
4.00 in the rather targeted application to the Municipal Services Project.
4.6
Acceptability Assessment - Involuntary Resettlement
4.6.1 Implementation Practice and Institutional Capacity
The proposed Municipal Services Project will fund the rehabilitation and extension of water
and wastewater systems in Bucharest and Arad. Individual investments may require rights-
of-way for pipes and the acquisition of very small parcels for pumping stations. Most of the
pipes will be buried under streets, for which the local government will issue concessions for
the right-of-way.
The proposed Tansport SWAp will fund the rehabilitation of roads and improvements to
railways. The road rehabilitation component is not expected to require land acquisition or the
removal of illegal encroachments. The railway component may entail improvements in
railway alignment, close to existing tracks, for which land would be acquired.
Implementing agencies and local governments have adequate staff with appropriate skills to
undertake the land acquisition satisfactorily. In turn, they have access to qualified assessors,
28
although the level and consistency of assessments deserves close attention during
implementation.
Our investigations for the acceptability analysis revealed that agencies at all levels
consistently and systematically adhere to the standards and procedures specified in the
Expropriation Law and related regulations. Responsible officials are fully versed in the law
and knowledgeable about both required practices and shortcomings. The official process
required justifying expropriation and practical considerations of the problems associated with
establishing ownership and conducting negotiations are an effective deterrent to frivolous use
of the expropriation process. Moreover, expropriating residences and businesses is even
more difficult thus, in practice, alternative designs are considered and designs are revised to
eliminate the need to abolish structures and relocate households. For example, the
alignments of bypasses to be constructed under the Transport Restructuring Project
deliberately avoided residences.
4.6.2 Gap
Analysis
The Equivalence Assessment discussed above identified two areas that need to be addressed
if the projects are used as pilots for the use of country systems for compliance with
safeguards: notification of affected persons of the expropriation process and their rights and
opportunities for redress; and monitoring of the impact of expropriation. Recommendations
for addressing these issues are discussed in the next section.
The Acceptability Assessment concluded that the expropriation process is clear and
consistently executed, but there are three areas of weakness. First, the law requires that
property valuation be carried out by certified experts, but the process is not fully transparent.
Presumably, the purpose of the requirement is to protect the interests of both the government
and private parties. The valuation assessments should serve both parties, not just the
expropriator, thus they should be shared with owners, as well, in order to level the playing
field. Second, compensation must be no lower than assessed valuation, but the lack of
transparency in the valuation and negotiation processes makes it difficult for owners to be
confident that they have received fair price for their assets. Third, our discussions covered
pretty standard examples of expropriation plans and practices, but we received little
documentation regarding some of the more complicated issues that the Bank's policies are
designed to address, such as compensation for loss of livelihoods, illegal occupation, and
direct and indirect impacts on businesses. The team concluded that the lack of experience in
dealing with these issues is an opportunity for an ongoing dialogue between the Bank and
expropriators to give both parties the assurance that best practices are followed.
Recommendations regarding how to address these three issues are also discussed in the
following section.
4.6.3 Current and Proposed Measures to Increase the Acceptability
The few areas in which Romanian laws and practices diverge significantly from the
principles in Annex A, OP 4.0, and areas in which experience is too limited to determine
whether practices ultimately achieve the principles, have been discussed above. These
divergences are discussed below, together with recommended actions to be taken during
project preparation and implementation to comply fully with the Bank's fiduciary
responsibilities.
29
Notify Owners of Rights and Procedures. The Bank should seek assurances that the client
prepares a readable brochure for each government level (national, county and local) that
outlines steps in the expropriation process; discusses the valuation and negotiation processes;
describes the steps in obtaining compensation for damages (prejudice), including relocation
costs and assistance to address impact on livelihoods, if relevant; provides information on the
rights of owners at each step of the process and avenues of recourse at each step; and advises
on how owners can obtain legal assistance, if needed. The brochure should be distributed
with each letter that notifies an owner of the intent to expropriate. The practice should be
specified in any guidance documents and manuals of the respective agencies.
Share Assessments carried out by Qualified Assessors. The Bank and the Client should agree
on the timing of valuation assessments and the qualifications of assessors, such as the
requirement that they be certified and trained in market-based assessments. In addition, the
Client should revise require field staff to share assessment reports with owners at the start of
negotiations, and incorporate the requirement in operational guidelines and manuals.
Pay Compensation at the Assessed Value of land and Damages. Expropriators are expected to
document the fact that they did not pay too much for land, but not that the compensation at
least equals the assessed value of land and other assets. Negotiators should be instructed to
ensure that they pay assessed value at a minimum and that they document this in each
expropriation file.
Inform of Exceptional Cases. The expropriation of residences and businesses appears to be
rare, and there is little follow-up, thus there is some uncertainty about the final status of
owners who lose more than land due to expropriation. Consequently, the Bank needs
assurances that unusual cases are handled appropriately. The Bank and the borrower would
need to agree on specific arrangements to address such cases. The Bank would therefore be
informed promptly of cases such as those listed below and apprised of the proposed remedial
approach, based on agreed arrangements, before proceeding. The following circumstances
would require notification: acquisition of residences; acquisition of parts of an agricultural
holding where the remainder is not adequate to allow people to sustain their livelihoods,
compelling affected people to change their occupations; acquisition of commercial structures
or businesses; and expropriation of land used by people without claim to legal title.
Monitor. The pilot projects should provide resources for local independent monitors to report
periodically on expropriation activities and their impacts. The Bank will monitor the
promptness and adequacy of compensation, including prejudice, and the impacts of
expropriation during regular supervision missions and recommend steps to resolve significant
problems that emerge during implementation as identified by project officials and
independent monitors.
If these conditions are met, the projects can proceed as pilots for the use of Country Systems
according to OP 4.0
30
Annex I - Legal and Institutional Framework
Annex I A - Relevant legal texts
International law
Article 11(2) of Romania's Constitution (as revised by Law No. 429/2003) provides that
treaties ratified by Parliament according to the law are part of national law.
The following treaties to which Romania is party relate to the protection of natural habitats:
· Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, 1971), ratified by Romania on 21/9/91.
· The Danube Delta and Small Island of Braila have been designated as Ramsar Sites.
· Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species (Bonn, 1979), ratified by
Romania on 1/7/98.
· Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio de Janeiro, 1992), ratified by Romania on
17/8/94.
· Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Berne,
1979). Accession by Romania on 18/5/93.
· Convention concerning the protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage
(Paris, 1972). Accession by Romania on 16/5/90. Several areas, including the Danube
Delta are designated as UNESCO World Heritage Site.
· Danube River Protection Convention signed in 1994.
On environmental assessment, relevant treaties ratified by Romania include:
· UN/ECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-
making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus, 1998), ratified by
Romania on July 11, 2000.
· Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context
(Espoo, 1991), ratified by Romania on March 29, 2001.
The following treaties ratified by Romania relate to cultural property:
· European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (revised)
(Valetta, 1992), ratified by Romania 20/11/9727.
· Convention concerning the protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage
(Paris, 1972). Accession by Romania on 16/5/90. Several areas, including the Danube
Delta are designated as UNESCO World Heritage Site.
27 This convention makes the conservation and enhancement of the archaeological heritage one of the goals of
urban and regional planning policies. It is concerned in particular with arrangements to be made for co-operation
among archeologists and town and regional planners in order to ensure optimum conservation of archaeological
heritage
31
European Union's "acquis communautaire"
Relevant legal texts include:
· Treaty concerning the Accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the
European Union, signed by the EU Member States and Bulgaria and Romania in
Luxembourg on 25 April 2005.
· Protocol concerning the conditions and arrangements for admission of the Republic of
Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union (Annex VII; list referred to in Article 20 of
the protocol; transitional measures, Romania; Section 9 on environment).
Environmental Assessment
· Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 (as amended by Directives 97/11/EC and
2003/35/EC), on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment.
· Directive 2001/42/EC on Strategic Environmental Assessment.
Pollution Prevention and Control; Integrated Permitting
· Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996 concerning integrated pollution
prevention and control (as amended by Directive 2003/35/EC of 26 May 2003).
Waste Management28
· Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999, on the landfill of waste.
· Council Regulation EEC/259/93 of 1 February 1993, on the supervision and control of
shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community.
· Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975, on waste (as amended by Council
Directive 91/156/EEC, Commission Decision 94/3/EC, Commission Decision 96/350/EC
and Commission Decision 2000/532/EC).
· Council Directive 86/278/EEC of 12 June 1986, on the protection of the environment, and
in particular the soil, when sewage sludge is used in agriculture (as amended by Directive
91/692/EEC).
· Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991, on hazardous waste (as amended
by Council Directive 94/31/EC, Council Decision 94/904/EC and Commission Decision
2000/532/EC and implemented by Commission Decision 96/302/EC).
· Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20N December 1994 on packaging and packaging of
waste (as implemented by Commission Decisions 97/129/EC and 97/138/EC and
amended by Directive 2004/12).
Water and Waste Water
· Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste water
treatment, as amended by Commission Directive 98/15/EC.
· Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for
human consumption.
28 This information is included for illustrative purposes only; no new waste disposal sites are now currently
envisaged for financing under the MEP.
32
· Council Directive 75/440/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the quality required of
surface water intended for the abstraction of drinking water in the Member States (as
amended by Council Directives 79/869/EEC and 91/692/EEC).
· Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain
dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community (as
amended by Council Directive 91/692/EEC).
· Council Directive 79/869/EEC of 9 October 1979 concerning the methods of and
measurements and frequencies of sampling and analysis of surface water intended for
the abstraction of drinking water in the Member States (as amended by Council
Directive 91/692/EEC).
Council Directive 80/68/EEC of 17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater
against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances (as amended by Council
Directive 91/692/EEC).
Nature Protection29
· Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats
and of wild flora and fauna.
Air Quality
Council Directive 96/62/EC of 27 September 1996 on ambient air quality assessment
and management.
Council Directive 1999/30/EC of 22 April 1999 relating to limit values for sulphur
dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter and lead in
ambient air (amended by Commission Decision 2001/744/EC of 17 October 2001).
Romanian Law
· Relevant Romanian law includes the following:
Environmental Assessment
· Law 137/1995 (amended by EGO 91/2002, published in M.Of no. 465 of 06/28/2002,
approved by Law 294/2003, published in M.Of no. 505, of 07/14/2003). Framework
Law on Protection of the Environment.
· GD 918/2002 (published in M.Of no. 686 of 09/17/2002) (as modified by GD
1705/2005 M.Of no. 970 of 10/22/2004). Framework procedure for environmental
impact assessment, and approval of list of public and private projects subject to this
procedure.
· MO 860/2002 (published in M.Of no. 52 of 01/30/2003) (as modified by MO
210/2004, published in M.OJ no. 309 of 04/07/2004) as amended by MO 1037/2005,
published in M.Of no. 985 of 11/07/2005). Procedures for approval of the EIA and
the issuance of environmental agreement.
· MO 863/2002 (published in M.Of. no. 52 of 01/30/2003)
· Guidelines on EIA methodology (screening, scoping, and review of study)
29 This information is included for illustrative purposes only; the Natural Habits safeguard is not expected to be
triggered under either project though if this does occur, normal Bank procedures and Romanian law applies.
33
· MO 864/2002 (published in M.Of. no. 397 of 06/09/2003) on procedures and public
consultation in case of transboundary impacts.
· MO 171/2005 (published in M.Of. no.236 of 03/22/2005) setting up Technical review
Committee at central level.
· MO 210/2004 (published in MO 309 on 04/07/04) Methodology of reviewing the EIA
and approving the environmental license to construct
· MO 1037/2005, published in M.Of. no.985 of 11/07/2005
· MO 978/2003 (published in MO 3 on 01/05/04) Rule that attests physical and
juridical persons that develop the EIA
· MO 97/2004, published in M.Of. no.504 of 06/04/2005
· MO 876/2004 (published in MO 31 on 01/1/05) Methodology for the approval of the
Environmental Permit for activities with significant impact on the environment
Strategic Environmental Assessment
· GD 1076/2004 (published in M. Of nr. 707 of 05.08.2004) on procedures for
environmental assessment of plans and programs.
Dam Safety
· Law 107/1996, modified by Law 310/2004 Water Law
· EGO 244/2000, approved with amendments by Law 466/2001 - on safety of dams
· MEWM Ordinance 128/2005 regulations regarding responsibilities and organization
of the National Commission on Safety of Dams (CONSIB)
Nature Protection30
· EO 236/2000 regarding the management of protected natural areas and the
conservation of natural habitats, wild flora and fauna
· Law 462/2001, regarding the management of protected areas and the conservation of
natural habitats, wild flora and fauna
· GD 230/2003
· MO 552/2003
· MO 850/2003
Waste, Waste Water, Air and Noise Pollution
· MO 1141/2002 for the approval procedure and competencies for issuing water
management permits and authorizations
· Water Law 310/2004 for the amendment and completion of Water Law 107/1996
· Law 456/2002 regarding drinking water quality, modified by law 311/2004
· GD 974/2004 on inspection and monitoring of drinking water
· GD 168/2005 on inspection of monitoring systems
· GD 162/2002 regarding management of solid waste, amended by GD 349/2005
30 This information is included for illustrative purposes only; the Natural Habits safeguard is not expected to be
triggered under either project though if this does occur, normal Bank procedures and Romanian law applies.
34
· GD 188/2002 for the approval of certain norms concerning the conditions of
discharging waste water into the aquatic environment
· GD 662/2002 regarding management of oil waste
· GD 349/2002 regarding management of collection and storage of solid waste
· GD 856/2002 regarding records of disposal and collection of solid waste and approval
of list including hazardous waste
· Law 426/2001 approval of EGO 78/2000 regarding classification of solid waste
· GD 1159/2003 Modification of GD 662/2001 regarding disposal of oily waste
published in O.M. 715/October 14, 2003
· Law 294/2003 Approval of UGO 91/2002 regarding modification and completion of
Environmental Protection Law 137/1992
· MO 592/2002 Norms regarding minimum permissible values and evaluation methods
for SO2, NOx and NO2, suspended solids (PM10 and PM2.5), Pb, CO, O3, and benzene
in the air.
· Law 655/2001 Law for approval of UGD 243/2000 regarding environmental
protection
· GD 1470/2004 (MO 954/2004) regarding approval of National strategy for solid
waste management and National Plan for solid waste management
Cultural Property
· Law 422/2001 on protection of historic monuments
· Law 43/2000 on protection of the archaeological heritage (as amended by Law
462/2003)
· Law 150/1997 ratification of the European Convention on the Protection of
Archeological Heritage (Valetta, 1996)
35
Annex I B Romanian Licensing and Permitting Procedures
1. Introduction
In conformity with the Law of Environmental Protection No.137/1995 including the
respective updates - the Emergency Ordinance No.152/2005, the Governmental Decision No.
918/2002, and the Ordinance of the Ministry of Environment and Water Management No.
860 and 863/2002, the decision making process of the EIA regarding the issuance of the
Environmental License to construct and the Environmental Permit to operate is well
developed. The Environmental Protection Law sets out the EIA requirements and principles;
the GD 918/2002 sets out the procedures, while the OM 860/2002 and 863/2002 present in
detail the procedures for EIA and for issuing the environmental license.
Based on the Romanian law, any development of a new facility or modification of an existing
one requires the approval of an EIA before the environmental license (environmental
agreement) and permit to operate (environmental authorization) is approved by LEPAs. For
any activities not covered in the list of mandatory EIA (Annex II of the GD no.918/2002), the
LEPAs or REPAs use selection criteria to determine whether such activities could have a
significant environmental impact. Existing facilities require an environmental permit from the
LEPAs, which includes assessment of compliance with the environmental standards (e.g.,
conditions related to air, water, and soil reflecting existing standards).
The GD 918/2002 presents the steps of the procedure, the requirements that the physical or
legal certified persons to prepare the impact studies, and the list of activities which are
subject to the EIA procedure. Overall, the EIA procedure includes a screening stage, a
scoping stage, and a validation stage.
2.
Procedures for Receiving an Environmental License to Construct (OR the
Environmental Agreement)
The procedure for issuing the environmental license to construct is described in detail in the
following steps and briefly presented in the flow chart.
Step 1. The initial screening of the new project/investment
This is determined by the local EPA responsible for the location (commune, city) where the
investment will develop. When requesting the Environmental License to Construct, the
Beneficiary/the Investor (e.g., National Railways Company SCNCF ,,CFR" SA; the City
Hall) is responsible to present to the local/regional EPA or MEWM a Technical File
including the following documentation:
· Request Form of the EA in conformity with the MO No. 860/2002; this request is
attention to the local or regional EPA or to the MEWM depending on the
geographical location of the project;
· Urban Planning Certificate and the corresponding licenses and permits (obtained at
the level of Feasibility Study) based on the corresponding law;
· Contracts with the local solid waste company for collection of the solid wastes and
with "Apele Romane" for water supply and sewage discharges (other authorizations
from local utilities may be required based on necessity);
36
· Technical Memorandum (standard form) in conformity with Annex II.2 of the MO
No. 860/2002 (prepared by the Consultant/Firm that developed the Feasibility Study);
· Technical Note (standard technical form) in conformity with the OMEWM No.
1943/2001 (prepared by the Consultant/Firm that developed the Feasibility Study);
· Fee (differs depending on the stage of the EA process);
· Public announcement regarding the request to obtain the Environmental Permit in
conformity with Annex II.4 of the MO No. 860/2002.
Within the EPA, a Technical Review Committee (TRC) is formed based on the Ordinance of
Prefect, which includes members of the local/regional EPA, the National Environmental
Guard (NAG), the National Water Company ,,Apele Romane", Sanitary and Urban Institutes
and those authorities responsible for environmental permits authorizations. The TRC
members analyze the documentation presented within the Technical File and issue one of the
following three classifications of the project investments: (i) activities are of insignificant
environmental impact and therefore the project is NOT subject to environmental procedure31;
(ii) activities are of low environmental impact and the simplified licensing procedure will
apply32; and (iii) activities are of significant environmental impact and the full environmental
permitting procedure will apply33. Furthermore, (for cases (ii) and (iii)) the EPA authorities
together with the members of TRC and the Beneficiary are visiting the site of the future
investment to: (i) verify its location as presented in the Technical File; and (ii) complete the
List of Control developed according to the OMEWM No. 863/2002.
Step 2. EIA Report Preparation
The EPA reviews and approves the List of Control which includes the conclusion
presented by the TRC, based on which documents it announces the Beneficiary of his
obligation to develop the EIA study (the impact study).
The Beneficiary is obliged to:
· Prepare the EIA report in conformity with the OMEWM No. 863/2002. The EIA
report should be developed only by physical persons or consulting firms
independent34 of the Beneficiary and the person who developed the Feasibility Study,
that are accredited for developing such technical studies for Infrastructure
Projects/Investments (as defined in the Annex 4 of the OM No. 978/2003) including
the legal conditions stipulated in the OM No. 978/2003 and 97/2004;
· Hire based on contract and competition through expression of interest/invitation to
submit proposals process the firm/physical person who will develop the EA report;
· Prepare and sponsor the public announcement of the definition of the project (this is
the 2nd public information in the EIA process approval);
31 Stamp "A" will be placed on the technical file by the environmental authority.
32 Stamp "B" will be placed on the technical file and the project is subject to environmental procedure
WITHOUT an environmental agreement
33 Stamp "B" will be placed on the technical file and the project is subject to environmental procedure WITH an
environmental agreement
34 The EA report could be developed by foreign firms/persons if they possess an accreditation issued by an EU
country and approved by the Romanian National Accreditation Institute
37
Step 3. The review of the EIA Report
At this stage, the EPA is in charge with the following steps: (i) completes the List of
Control for the EIA Report analysis process; (ii) prepares the Public Consultation35; and (iii)
communicates the results to the Beneficiary.
The Beneficiary is obliged to:
· Present to the local EPA the EIA report, with the help of the consulting firm that
developed the EIA;
· Prepare and launch the public consultation in the presence of those affected, NGOs, or
interested persons including presentation of the project and the EIA Report during of
a public debate;
· Evaluate the discussions and conclusions received during the public consultation;
· Reply to the public comments and requests with a valid technical solution.
Step 4. Decision and Approval of the Environmental License to construct
The EPA issues the Environmental License to start construction of the investment within
30 days after the final decision.
The Beneficiary is obliged to:
· Announce the public36 about the approval of the Environmental License;
· Request of Environmental Permit to Operate
Additional points:
· The EIA report is prepared at the level of the project's Feasibility Study, in
conformity with GD No. 918/2002;
· The minimum information presented by the Beneficiary during the request to obtain
the Environmental License should be also completed based on conditions
recommended by the foreign donors (EBRD, WB, EIB) and/or as required by the EU
legislation and the Romanian legislation in force;
· For those investments obtained through ISPA or SAPARD funds, the conditions
during the project operation established through the Environmental Permit will take in
consideration the limits of the pollutants' discharges required by the EU and
Romanian legislation. However, the national limits will prevail if they are more
restrictive than those imposed by the EU legislation.
· The Environmental License is valid during the entire period of the project
construction, but will expire if the investment works will not start in maximum 2
years from its approval. During the period of investment constructions, the local
environmental protection authorities will monitor those conditions imposed by the
Environmental License (please note detailed information on the monitoring process in
the next section);
35 The Public Consultation preparation activities are financed by the Beneficiary
36 During the EIA approval process there are three public information sessions [(i) when the Beneficiary
submits the technical file to the EPA; (ii) at the end of screening phase; (iii) the public debate; and (iv) when the
Environmental Approval is issued by the local EPA].
38
· The Beneficiary is obliged by law to inform the environmental protection authorities
in writing any time when there is a significant modification of the initial conditions of
the project based on which the current Environmental License was issued.
3.
Procedures for Obtaining an Environmental Permit to Operate37
The Environmental Permit to Operate investments with significant impact on the
environment is issued by the EPA in conformity with OMEWM No. 876/2004. The local
EPA together with the local National Environmental Guard as well as representatives of
National Agency "Apele Romane" is inspecting the site after construction and issue a
technical note with observations at the site (e.g., Environmental Audit).
The Environmental Audit of existing facilities is carried out only by certified persons paid by
the Investor and includes: (i) a checklist including characteristic elements of the investment;
(ii) an environmental study including data collection and technical review of all
environmental aspects, before taking a decision on the scale of potential or existing
environmental impacts from the site; and (iii) site investigations to quantify the potential
scale of contamination of the site. Compliance programs are usually required based on the
result of the environmental audit.
The Beneficiary is in charge with:
· Request the Environmental Permit to the local EPA;
· Prepare a Technical File as in the previous case;
· Announce the public about the request to start operations;
· Annual renewal of the permit once it is issued (it is valid for 5 years).
Standards (ambient and emission limits) are usually followed to comply with the
environmental protection as requested by EU. Currently there are ambient standards for air,
noise, waste and discharges of certain substances in the water38.
4.
Monitoring Capacity During the Constructions Period and After the Issuance of
the Environmental Permit to Operate
During constructions, LEPAs together with the NGA and "Apele Romane" are in charge with
visiting the site of the project and inspecting the environmental compliances stipulated in the
Environmental License and Environmental Permit. Also, within the technical Department of
SNCFR, one permanently evaluates the impact of the railway activity regarding water, air,
soil and noise pollution. This monitoring is achieved by analyses and measurements of
environmental factors concentrations performed in the environmental protection laboratories
network of SNCFR (there are 8 regional laboratories). These laboratories are certified by the
European RENAR.
The NGA inspectors may accompany the LEPAs' inspectors for site visits according to an
inspection program. Following the site visit and checking the compliance, the inspectors
prepare a report based on which they may advise the operators on how to meet standards and
permit conditions. If a facility/project does not comply with relevant standards, it will first
receive a warning from the inspector followed by a certain amount of time necessary to take
37 Issued for existing activities or when a new investment starts its operation
38 Standards required by Law are listed in Annex I A
39
care of the steps that comply with the permit. If these steps are not performed, an
administrative fine will be imposed (the size of the fine varies as presented in the legislation).
Finally, non-compliance will result in court action.
40
Annex I C - Government of Romania's Current and Proposed Measures
that would Improve and Sustain Acceptability
Introduction
The costs that Romania needs to adjust to the EU environmental requirements by 2018 -the
final year of the longest transition period obtained by Romania to comply with the EU
environmental requirements - totals Euro 29.3 billion, out of which about 20% will be
covered from the State and local budgets, 34% from the EC funds, 26 % by the business
operators, and the rest of about 20% from other sources (credits, loans, bilateral agreements).
The environmental protection investments totaled about Euro 347.8 million during the period
of January-July, 2005, representing mainly the business operators' contribution in the
industrial pollution control and air quality. The water sector requires the highest costs of the
total needed expenses, specifically 65% (or Euro 19 billion) are estimated to account for
wastewater treatment while about Euro 6.5 billion will be needed for the drinking water
quality sector.
The commitment undertaken by Romania during the Chapter 22 Environment negotiations
refers to the following actions: (i) finalization of the environmental aquis transposition by the
end of 2006; (ii) strengthening the institutional capacity in the environmental sector at local,
regional and central level; and (iii) enforcement and control of the relevant legislation.
In order to strengthen the administrative and institutional capacity for implementation of the
environmental legislation at national, regional and local level and for the country preparation
for EU accession, the Government of Romania undertook a number of steps during 2004 and
2005 which are outlined in the following sections.
Transposition of the EU Legislation and Its Enforcement
By the third quarter of Calendar Year 2005, 95% of the EU environmental aquis is
transposed, specifically the water quality sector, nature protection, noise and nuclear safety
and radio-protection. In sectors such as air quality or industrial pollution control, chemicals
and waste management, transposition rates are about 90%; all institutional capacity of
structural and cohesion funds absorption have been built and enhanced; all technical
implementation measurements currently scheduled for 2005 have been completed.
In the water sector the main legal acts are the Environmental protection Law and the Water
Law 107/1996, recently amended in order to amend the Water Framework Directive. In order
to improve the quality of waters, the 2004 National Report including management plans for
the development of hydrographic basins in Romania was developed. Moreover, the maximum
limits of certain dangerous chemical substances discharged into the surface waters were
established. Also, the activity of reviewing and transposing the permit conditions of
wastewater treatment plants discharges in surface waters has been launched.
In the transport sector, the air quality problem is approached by imposing the use of less
pollutant fuels and by rehabilitating the trans-European roads (GD 343/2002). In addition,
regulations were adopted on certification of vehicle equipment, spare parts and materials
(Law 671/2002), on periodical inspection of the vehicle technical quality to ensure safety on
roads and environment protection (Law 167/2003), and on gas and particle emission
41
limitation from internal combustion engines used for mobile equipment that are not vehicles
(GD 743/2002).
Institutional Consolidation
Institutional consolidation through establishment of specific institutions for an adequate
enforcement of the environment aquis and through approval of supplemental staff positions in
the main institutions responsible for environmental protection to increase the efficiency of
environmental activity (Table xx). There are currently institutions with very clear
responsibility in the implementation and control of the environment legislation enforcement
as following:
· the MEWM, by its specialized Departments and Directions (e.g., EU Integration;
Environment; and Water), is in charge only with the development and supervision of
application of the environment protection policy and strategy, programs and plans and
concentrates on the coordination, elaboration, and promotion of norms that entirely
transpose the EU legislation into the Romanian legislation. The MEWM has in its
subordinate the NEPA, together with its eight Regional Agencies (REPA) and 42
County Agencies (LEPA);
· the NEPA is the national institution that: (i) ensures the technical support of the
MEWM; (ii) coordinates REPAs and LEPAs; and (iii) implements and monitors the
environmental action plans at national, regional and county level;
· the REPAs (8) are in charge with the environmental management at regional level and
coordination of the LEPAs;
· the LEPAs (42) are in charge with the coordination, implementation and monitoring
of the environmental action plans at county level;
· the NGA, which is directly subordinated to the MEWM, is the national authority for
control and complying with the environmental protection legislation. The NGA is in
charge with: (i) the inspection and enforcement activities for environment protection;
and (ii) the issuance of penalties for exceeding discharges and emission limits;
· the National Agency "Apele Romane" is the governmental authority responsible for
the management of water quality and quantity of the Romanian hydrographical basins.
Together with MEWM is the institution in charge with water as physical resources.
· The MTCT is in charge with development of policies and activities in the transport
sector, being the main regulation authority for vehicle emissions. Responsible also for
activities concerning land use planning and tourism.
· The Environmental Fund identifies environmental priorities and totals about Euro 50
million in 2005 mainly from environmental taxes.
Other institutions involved:
· ICIM operates under the MEWM authority and caries out complex research studies
concerning surface and underground water quality, air quality, pollution sources,
environmental radioactivity, technical assistance and environmental expertise,
training courses for the personnel in the environmental and water field. Although
plays an important role in the overall functioning of the MEWP (including
harmonization process, environmental monitoring and coordination of data provided
by local EPAs, reference body for the Danube river areas conservation), ICIM has no
regular yearly income secured from the State budget and about 85% of its funding is
42
based on contracts with economic agents and private sector (e.g., EIA studies,
environmental audits);
· Institute of Meteorology, Hydrology and Water Management operates under the
National Agency "Apele Romane" authority and monitors, forecasts, and carries out
research on meteorology, hydrology and water resource management as well as
information on the ozone layer and wind speed;
· SNCFR implements the environmental implementation programs of an ecological
railway transport in the country
· ISPCF designs the railway infrastructure
· IPTANA designs the roads infrastructure
Approximately 949 additional experts have been employed in the environmental sector at
central, regional and local level. Overall, the MEWM has developed a strategy regarding the
environment personnel increase by 1,660 persons/civil servants until 2006, as noted in the
following table:
Approved positions for additional staff in state institutions
Institution
Supplemental Staff approved in
Staff positions filled-in as of
2004
September 2005 (of total # approved
for 2005)
MEWM
50 (in the General Direction for
23 (of 96)
Management of Structural Funds)
NEPA 100
33
(of
95)
REPA (8)
88
36 (of 70)
LEPA (42)
498
55 (of 222)
NARW
63
ARBDD
8
(of
15)
The Control and Monitoring Activities process including the prevention, observation and
penalty application for avoiding the law regarding environmental protection strengthen
during the last year. For example, during the period of July 1st-August 15, 2005, the
representatives of NEG performed inspections at 958 economic agents concluding the
following: (i) about 47% of the required environmental measures were adopted totaling
121,170 RON; and (ii) about 53% of other environmental protection investment measures
proposed for 2005 were already developed totaling about 70,760 RON. Moreover, the NEG
will perform a regular inspection together with representatives of MEWM (e.g., "Apele
Romane") and LEPA/NEPA in conformity with a program approved by the MEWM and
LEPA/NEPA.
Personnel Training
A total of twelve (12) training seminars for experts in the MEWM and their subordinate
structures are scheduled to take place during 2005 (eight of these seminars already took place
during the first eight months of 2005). About ten (10) twinning projects totaling Euro 13.5
million are developed (and/or scheduled to be launched) during the period of 2005-2006
involving the daily training of REPA personnel as well as regular technical assistance for the
personnel of NEPA and of the General Direction in charge with managing the Structural
Funds within the MEWM. In 2004, the SNCFR achieved the training of 4 employees in
43
Management integrated systems for quality (ISO 9001), environment (ISO 14001), and health
and work security (OHSAS 18001). Also, 7 SNCFR employees participated at ISO 1400
training while other 2 employees participated at the environmental auditors testing
laboratories (ISO/EC 17025).
Financing and Other Activities
Financing and facilitating access to viable environmental technologies through strengthening
the Environment Fund capacity: the number of applications and concrete projects using
allocation of appropriate amounts from the EF has increased considerably. The amount of
Euro 1,200 million allocated to Romania under the ISPA program until 2006 for the
improvement of the environmental infrastructure has been covered through the projects
submitted so far to Brussels. A new portfolio of projects able to absorb the future funds that
Romania will benefit from in the future is in process to be established.
Supporting public education and awareness through specific programs related to
environmental issues: numerous actions and awareness raising campaigns regarding the
possibility of business operators, public administration, and all stakeholders in the
environment protection have been carried-out.
44
Project Beneficiary (Investor)
Application request for an environmental license procedure
· project description/Technical File to LEPAs
· public announcement of the investment
Preliminary report by Beneficiary
Justified
Analysis of the documentation
Rejection
by LEPA (TRC)
Need of supplementary data
Guidelines from MEWM/LEPA
EA Report about impact study presented by Beneficiary
Modifications addressed by Beneficiary
Refusal of
Analysis and approval of report by LEPAs
project
Comments
Public Consultation
Modifications amended in report by Investor
Analysis of public observations
Comments, request of additional data
by LEPAs (TRC)
Impact Study/Technical advise by LEPAs
Justified
Analysis of documentation by LEPAs
Rejection
Approval of environmental
License to construct
Figure. Procedures for issuing the environmental license to start-up investments of a new facility
45
Annex II Summary Matrices for Assessment of Equivalence
Annex II A - Environmental Assessment
Bank Policy (OP
Government of Romania's Equivalent Requirements
Significant
System
4.00) Requirements
differences between
improvements
OP 4.00 and
that would be
Objectives and
Romania's corresponding laws,
Romania's
undertaken by
Operational Principles
rules, regulations, procedures,
requirements.
the Government
(Objective and
as stated in Romania's
and sectoral guidelines.
of Romania
Operational
corresponding laws,
before
Principles)
rules, regulations,
implementation
procedures, and sectoral
of the project
guidelines.
activities
Objective: To help
protection of the
Art 1 Law 137/1995
No significant gaps.
None required
ensure the
environment and leading to
environmental and
sustainable development of
social soundness and
society
sustainability of
investment projects. To
EIA aims at stating the
support integration of
measures of reduction or
Art 3(2) GD 918/2002
environmental and
avoidance of the negative
social aspects of
impact of the project on the
projects into the
factors mentioned enumerated
decision- making
in paragraph (1) and
process.
determines the decision of
More generally, environmental
achieving or not achieving the
assessment is governed by the
project on the chosen site.
following Romanian legislation:
Factors enumerated in
Law 137/1995
paragraph (1) are: (a) human
GD 918/2002
beings, fauna, flora, (b) soil,
MO 860/2002
water, air, climate and the
MO. 863/2002
landscape, (c) material assets
MO 864/2002.
and cultural heritage, and (d)
the interaction between (a),
(b), (c).
Operational
Principles:
No significant gaps.
None required
1. Use a screening
A screening process is in
On Category A
process for each
place and consists of three
GD 918/2002, Art 3(4)
proposed project, as
categories: (a) projects that
EIA is achieved in 3 stages as follows:
early as possible, to
require the preparation of a
(i) the environment impact assessment
determine the
full EIA, either mandatory or
screening stage; (ii) the environmental
appropriate extent and
after screening by the
impact assessment scoping stage and
type of environmental
competent authorities
(iii) the review of the environmental
assessment (EA) so that
(Category A); (b) projects
impact statement stage.
appropriate studies are
that are subject to an "unique
undertaken proportional
agreement" and require only a
Art 6(2): EIA is mandatory for
to potential risks and to
summary description of the
projects of Annex 1 of GD 918/2002.
direct, and, as relevant,
project, its impacts and
Art 6(3), (4), (5): screening is
indirect, cumulative,
appropriate mitigation
mandatory for projects of Annex 2,
and associated impacts.
measures (Category B); (c)
using criteria of annex 3, to determine
Use sectoral or regional
projects that do not require an
need for full EIA.
environmental
EA (Category C).
assessment when
Art 8: Competent authority provides
appropriate.
Competent environmental
guidance to developer on type and
authorities review all category
extent of issues to be addressed in
A and B projects for their
impact study. Minimum information
potential impacts and
to be provided by the project
determine the scope of the
developer at the screening stage is
EIA, or a limited
listed in Annex 4 of the same GD
environmental analysis
918/2002, and includes direct,
indirect, secondary, cumulative,
positive and negative impacts.
39 Romanian law uses the term "environmental agreement" in this context.
46
Bank Policy (OP
Government of Romania's Equivalent Requirements
Significant
System
4.00) Requirements
differences between
improvements
OP 4.00 and
that would be
Objectives and
Romania's corresponding laws,
Romania's
undertaken by
Operational Principles
rules, regulations, procedures,
requirements.
the Government
(Objective and
as stated in Romania's
and sectoral guidelines.
of Romania
Operational
corresponding laws,
before
Principles)
rules, regulations,
implementation
procedures, and sectoral
of the project
guidelines.
activities
Details of the screening and scoping
procedures are given in MO 860/2002
and MO 863/2002, that include
checklists for both the screening and
scoping stages.
On Category B
GD 860/2202 Art 5(1`) New projects,
and any change, extension, or
dismantling of projects that may have
significant environmental impacts,
related to activities listed in GD
918/2002 (environmental impact
assessment framework) and EO
152/2005 (on integrated pollution
prevention, mitigation and control)
require a license to construct39, and in
some instances (such as sanitary
landfills) an integrated [permit to
operate], including a summary
description of the project, its impacts
and appropriate mitigation measures
MO 860/2002 Artt 7, 10 (standard
application form), 11, 13(a), Art 33
(model and minimum content of
environment agreement).
No significant gaps.
2. Assess potential
EIA shall identify, describe
GD 918/2002 Art 3(1)
None required
impacts of the proposed
and assess in an appropriate
project on physical,
manner in the light of each
Furthermore, MO 863/202 provides
biological, socio-
individual case the direct and
detailed guidance to competent
economic and physical
indirect effects of a project on
authorities on factors to be both
cultural resources,
(a) human beings, flora and
screening and scoping. Assessment of
including transboundary
fauna; (b) soil, water, air,
global concerns not explicitly
and global concerns,
climate and the landscape; (c)
mentioned but addressed in the
and potential impacts on
material assets and the
content MO 863/2002 (climate
human health and
cultural heritage; (d)
change, ozone depletion, pollution of
safety.
interaction between factors
international waters, biodiversity)
mentioned under (a), (b) and
(c).
Art 13 of GD 918/2002 and MO
864/2002 provide detailed procedures
for environmental assessment of
projects likely to have transboundary
effects. Law 22/2001 ratifies the
ESPOO Convention on transboundary
environmental impact assessment.
3. Assess the adequacy
Romania is committed to EU
There are no explicit provisions under
No significant gaps
of the applicable legal
membership in 2007 and
Romanian law; but provisions in the
None required
and institutional
adoption of the EU's
Constitution (Article 11) however
framework, including
environmental acquis
recognize that international treaties
applicable international
(including several
once ratified are part of national law.
environmental
international conventions).
Article 148 of the Constitution
agreements, and
Upon EU accession, non-
provides that binding EU regulations
confirm that they
compliance would result in an
take precedence over contrary national
provide that the
infringement procedure. Also,
laws.
cooperating government
as mentioned in Annex I,
does not finance project
Romania is signatory to
activities that would
several international
contravene
conventions related to Natural
Habitat and Cultural Property
and Convention on EIA in a
47
Bank Policy (OP
Government of Romania's Equivalent Requirements
Significant
System
4.00) Requirements
differences between
improvements
OP 4.00 and
that would be
Objectives and
Romania's corresponding laws,
Romania's
undertaken by
Operational Principles
rules, regulations, procedures,
requirements.
the Government
(Objective and
as stated in Romania's
and sectoral guidelines.
of Romania
Operational
corresponding laws,
before
Principles)
rules, regulations,
implementation
procedures, and sectoral
of the project
guidelines.
activities
transboundary context
(Espoo, 1991).
4. Provide for
The "no project" alternative
GD 918/2002. Annex 4 and Art 10
No significant gaps.
assessment of feasible
must be considered under the
require that EIA includes at least (i)
None required
investment, technical,
EIA for categories "A"
description of measures taken into
and siting alternatives,
projects. The other points
account in order to avoid, reduce, and
including the "no
listed under principle 4 are
if possible remedy negative effects on
action" alternative,
referred to in varying degrees
the environment; (ii) description of
potential impacts,
of detail.
environmental aspects potentially
feasibility of mitigating
affected; (iii) general presentation of
these impacts, their
main alternatives studies by developer
capital and recurrent
with indication of reasons for his
costs, their suitability
choice.
under local conditions,
and their institutional,
MO 863/2002, Annex 2, Part I, point
training and monitoring
2.1 and table 1 list a range of
requirements associated
alternatives, (including siting and
with them.
technology), to be considered by the
competent authorities during scoping.
The zero alternative must be
considered.
MO 863/2002, Annex 2, Part I, points
3.1 and 3.2 and table 2 (scoping
checklist) provide a list of potential
impacts to be considered during
scoping.
MO863/2002 Annex 2, Part II, Annex
3 (guidelines on review of EIA report)
includes review by competent
authorities of whether the
responsibilities and funding for
implementation of mitigation are
clearly defined.
5. Where applicable to
No reference to PPAH
Emissions, waste management, water,
No significant gaps,
None required
the type of project being
guidelines in Romanian Law
wastewater discharge, and air
since Romanian
supported, normally
pollution standards are set in various
standards are more
apply the Pollution
pieces of Romanian legislation.
comprehensive and
Prevention and
equally/more stringent
Abatement Handbook
MO 860/2002. Art 33(3) and Annex
(PPAH). Justify
III.1 provide a model and minimum
deviations when
content of the environmental
alternatives to measures
agreement that include allowed levels
set forth in the PPAH
of emissions.
are selected.
MO 860/2002 Art 34. For investment
projects that are and to be financed
from (EU) community funds the
installation parameters and operating
conditions established by the
environmental agreement shall
consider pollutant emission discharge
conditions set by EU legislation.
National limits shall apply when more
restrictive.
6. Prevent and, where
The EIA emphasizes both
MO 860/2002 Art 49]
No significant gap
None required
not possible to prevent,
positive and negative impacts
The environmental agreement shall be
at least minimize, or
with major focus on the
issued only if the project provides the
compensate for adverse
mitigating measures for
removal of the negative consequences
project impacts and
addressing negative impact.
on the environment in relation to the
enhance positive
applicable provisions of the technical
impacts through
However, no specific
norms and regulations in force.
48
Bank Policy (OP
Government of Romania's Equivalent Requirements
Significant
System
4.00) Requirements
differences between
improvements
OP 4.00 and
that would be
Objectives and
Romania's corresponding laws,
Romania's
undertaken by
Operational Principles
rules, regulations, procedures,
requirements.
the Government
(Objective and
as stated in Romania's
and sectoral guidelines.
of Romania
Operational
corresponding laws,
before
Principles)
rules, regulations,
implementation
procedures, and sectoral
of the project
guidelines.
activities
impacts through
requirements are given for
environmental
EMP
MO 860/2002 Annex No III.1 regards
management and
Contents of Environmental Agreement
planning that includes
(Model)
the proposed mitigation
measures, monitoring,
MO 860/2002 Annex II.2 on standard
institutional capacity
contents for the technical
development and
memorandum for integrated
training measures, an
environmental agreement; point V
implementation
provisions on environmental
schedule, and cost
monitoring.
estimates.
MO 860/2002 Art 50, the
environmental agreement shall be
revised if new elements [become
known?]. Project proponent must
inform competent authorities of
substantial change of data that formed
basis of issuance of environmental
agreement.
MO 8676/2004
Standard bidding documents are used
in all projects that include
requirements for onsite mitigation
measures during construction
7. Involve stakeholders,
Public involvement foreseen
Requirements for public participation
Gap with respect to
including project-
at screening, EIA review, and
(information and consultation) are in
continuing consultation
None required since
affected groups and
decision stage.
Art 12, 14, and 15 of GD 918/2002
throughout project
high risk will not be
local nongovernmental
implementation of high
financed by either
organizations, as early
No provision for continuing
Detailed arrangements (including
risk projects such as
project.
as possible, in the
consultation throughout
timeframes, model public
large new landfills.
preparation process and
project implementation of
announcements, forms for recording
ensure that their views
high risk projects.
and for evaluating comments) are
and concerns are made
provided in chapter III (public
known to decision
information and consultation) of MO
makers and taken into
860/2002. Procedure includes
account. Continue
information to be made available,
consultations
public debate, and consideration of
throughout project
written comments
implementation as
necessary to address
EA-related issues that
affect them.
8. Use independent
Certified expertise required
Art 11(1) of GD 918/2002: EIA study
Gap with respect to use
None required since
expertise in the
for EIA study
is achieved on the basis of guidance
of independent advisory
high risk will not be
preparation of EA
foreseen in Art 8 (i.e. scoping by
panels during
financed by either
where appropriate. Use
Review of EIA by TRC
competent authority) through
implementation of high
project.
independent advisory
specialized units, independent of the
risk projects
panels during
developer and certified by law.
preparation and
implementation of
GD 918/2002 Technical Review
projects that are highly
Committee at central and local level
risky or contentious or
comprised at central of representatives
that involve serious and
of certain public central and/or local
multi-dimensional
authorities. It may be enlarged with
environmental and/or
experts as the specific conditions of
social concerns.
the project will impose. MO 863/2002
makes checklists compulsory for
49
Bank Policy (OP
Government of Romania's Equivalent Requirements
Significant
System
4.00) Requirements
differences between
improvements
OP 4.00 and
that would be
Objectives and
Romania's corresponding laws,
Romania's
undertaken by
Operational Principles
rules, regulations, procedures,
requirements.
the Government
(Objective and
as stated in Romania's
and sectoral guidelines.
of Romania
Operational
corresponding laws,
before
Principles)
rules, regulations,
implementation
procedures, and sectoral
of the project
guidelines.
activities
every stage of the EIA procedure
(screening, scoping, review of EIA
report) and to be reviewed by TRC
with aim to ensure quality.
Independent Panel of Experts during
implementation for
risky/contentious/multi-dimensional
projects not envisioned.
9. Provide measures to
There is no specific
MO 171/2005
No significant gaps
None required
link the environmental
requirement
assessment process and
findings with studies of
However, composition of
economic, financial,
TRC allows for input from
institutional, social and
the various parts of the
technical analyses of a
administration and for
proposed project.
intergrated decision making
10. Provide for
Concept of subproject not
Under Law 137/1995, GD 918/2002
No significant gaps.
None required
application of the
mentioned in Romanian
and its executive regulations, the
principles in this Table
legislation, [but all
competent authorities are required to
to subprojects under
investment types are covered]
screen and review all investment
investment and financial
projects for their potential impacts.
intermediary activities.
GD 860/2002 Art 5(1) provides that
applying for an environmental
agreement is mandatory for all new
investment projects and any change or
extension that may have significant
effects on the environment, including
for dismantling projects, related to
activities as established by GD
918/2002 on the environmental impact
assessment framework procedure and
the Emergency ordinance 152/2005 on
integrated pollution prevention and
control.
GD 860/2002 Art 5(2), (3)
For investment projects related to
activities not subject to an EIA, public
authorities for environmental
protection shall apply simplified
environmental licensing procedures
(...) only an environmental permit
shall be issued.
11. Disclose draft EA
Romanian law has
MO No. 860/2002
No significant gap.
None required
in a timely manner,
comprehensive disclosure and
before appraisal
consultation requirements
formally begins, in an
the national/regional or local
accessible place and in a
EPA is responsible for
form and language
organizing public
understandable to key
consultation/debate on draft
stakeholders.
EIA and publish its decisions,
including those of Technical
Review Committees's in local
newspapers and their
websites.
50
Annex II B - Cultural Property
Bank Policy (OP 4.00)
Government of Romania's Equivalent Requirements
Significant
System
Requirements
differences between
improvements
OP 4.00 and
that would be
Objectives and
Romania's corresponding
Romania's
undertaken by
Operational Principles
laws, rules, regulations,
requirements.
the Government
(Objective and
as stated in Romania's
procedures, and sectoral
of Romania
Operational Principles)
corresponding laws,
guidelines.
before
rules, regulations,
implementation
procedures, and
of the project
sectoral guidelines.
activities
Objective: To assist in
Protection of historic
Law 422 / 2001
No significant gap
None required
preserving physical cultural
monuments is in the public
resources (PCR) and avoiding
interest.
their destruction or damage.
PCR includes archaeological,
Aim is to protect
Government Ordinance 43 /2000
paleontological, historical,
archaeological heritage
(as amended by Law 378/2000 and
and sacred sites, including
and to certify certain
Law 462 / 2003)
graveyards, burial sites, and
archaeological sites as
unique natural values.
areas of national interest
(including structures,
constructions, groups of
buildings, developed sites,
moveable objects,
monuments of other kinds
as well as their context,
whether situated on land or
under water, war
memorials and
graveyards).
Operational Principles:
In the case of infrastructure
Government Ordinance 43/2000
No significant gap
None required
projects in areas with
Article 6
1. Analyze feasible project
located archaeology,
alternatives to prevent or
investors are obliged to
minimize or compensate for
finance any modifications
adverse impacts and enhance
to the project necessary to
positive impacts on PCR,
protect archaeological
through site selection and
discoveries. In some cases,
design.
if there are structures with
great historic, cultural or
scientific importance that
cannot be moved (such as
churches, temples,
monumental tombs,
fortified settlements), the
archaeological team can
recommend the
preservation of the remains
by changing the initial
plans.
For projects likely to have
Government Ordinance 860/2002
insignificant environmental
effects such determination
can only be made after
checking the application,
the site location within the
urban development plan
and in relation to its
relative position with
regards to protected areas
or buffer zones, natural or
archaeological monuments,
restricted development
zones.
51
Bank Policy (OP 4.00)
Government of Romania's Equivalent Requirements
Significant
System
Requirements
differences between
improvements
OP 4.00 and
that would be
Objectives and
Romania's corresponding
Romania's
undertaken by
Operational Principles
laws, rules, regulations,
requirements.
the Government
(Objective and
as stated in Romania's
procedures, and sectoral
of Romania
Operational Principles)
corresponding laws,
guidelines.
before
rules, regulations,
implementation
procedures, and
of the project
sectoral guidelines.
activities
2. If possible, avoid financing
Any intervention on a
Law 422 / 2001, Article 22, 28
No significant gap
No significant gap
projects that significantly
listed monument or
(f,g), 55
damage PCR. As appropriate,
archaeological site must be
Government Ordinance 43 / 2000,
conduct field based surveys
authorized by the Ministry
Article 5 (9)
using qualified specialists to
of Culture and Religious
evaluate PCR.
Affairs.
In the case of any
Government Ordinance 43/30
infrastructure project,
Article 6
investors are obliged in the
feasibility study to carry
out field surveys using
qualified specialists. They
must also pay for
archaeological surveillance
over the entire period of
the works to protect the
archaeology and chance
finds.
Qualified specialists are
Government Ordinance 43/ 2000
specified on a Register of
Article 10 (h)
Archaeologists, maintained
by the Ministry of Culture
and Religious Affairs.
3. Consult local people in
Owners whose building is
Law 422 (2001), Article 13, Article
No significant gap
No significant gap
documenting the presence and
subject to a protection
60 (2)
significance of PCR,
classification procedure
For infrastructure
assessing the nature and
must be informed of this
projects affecting
extent of potential impacts on
by the County department
historic monuments and
these resources, and
for culture, religious and
sites, public
designing and implementing
national public patrimony.
consultation is not
mitigation plans.
They are entitled to
enshrined in Law 422 or
challenge the procedure at
GO 43. This is only
the Ministry of Culture and
foreseen in EIA
Religious affairs within 30
procedures, which
days of being notified.
require inclusion of
PCR experts `as
Local public
Government Ordinance 43 (2000),
needed'.
administration authorities
Article 20 (c)
are responsible for
modifying general urban
plans in order to protect
archaeological patrimony.
They must also define the
limits of the priority
archaeological interest
area, and inform the public
of the special regime of
protection for that area.
PCR protection is covered
Government Decision 918 / 2002,
in Environmental Impact
Articles 12, 14, and 15
Assessment procedures
and public involvement
foreseen at screening, EIA
review, and decision stage.
Under the detailed
Government Ordinance 860 / 2002,
arrangements for public
Chapter III, Articles 13 to 17
information and
participation in the EIA
52
Bank Policy (OP 4.00)
Government of Romania's Equivalent Requirements
Significant
System
Requirements
differences between
improvements
OP 4.00 and
that would be
Objectives and
Romania's corresponding
Romania's
undertaken by
Operational Principles
laws, rules, regulations,
requirements.
the Government
(Objective and
as stated in Romania's
procedures, and sectoral
of Romania
Operational Principles)
corresponding laws,
guidelines.
before
rules, regulations,
implementation
procedures, and
of the project
sectoral guidelines.
activities
process, the public has the
right to present proposals.
Procedure includes
information to be made
available, public debate,
and consideration of
written comments
4. Provide for the use of
Mandatory reporting to
Government Ordinance 43 (2000)
None None
required
"chance find" procedures that
authorities within 72 hours
Article 4 (3)
include a pre-approved
of a find.
management and
conservation approach for
The Town Mayor can
Government Ordinance 43 (2000)
materials that may be
order the interruption of all
Article 5 (10)
discovered during project
activity / revoke the
implementation.
building permit, following
Law 422 /2000 Article 48 (d)
authorization from the
decentralized services of
the Ministry of Culture and
Religious Affairs.
Scientific, managing and
Government Ordinance 43 (2000)
technical measures should
Article 5 (1)
be adopted to preserve the
vestiges uncovered by
chance until the
classification of those
assets or until conclusion
of the archaeological
research.
The area of archaeological
Government Ordinance 43 (2000)
patrimony accidentally
Article 2 (j)
revealed must be
delimited, as suitable,
either as: the entire area of
the building authorization /
a radius of 50 meters from
the place of discovery / the
entire area affected by the
action of a natural event
that revealed the find.
Police must be notified to
Government Ordinance 43 (2000)
guard the area.
Article 11 (e)
Only when the discovery
Government Ordinance 43 (2000)
has been fully analyzed by
Articles 5 (1,2, & 3)
qualified experts can the
MCRA authorize a
"Archaeological Discharge
Certificate".
5. Define and undertake
During the feasibility study
Government Ordinance 43 (2000)
The law says little about
None required;
measures for strengthening
for a project, the investor is
Article 6
measures to strengthen
institutional capacity to
obliged to establish the
`institutional capacity'
implement mitigation plans
measures and necessary
to deal with impacts on
and to deal with impacts on
funds for the protection of
PCR discovered during
PCR identified prior to and/or
PCR.
project implementation.
discovered during project
implementation.
The MCRA is responsible
Government Ordinance 43 (2000)
for establishing the
Article 10 (f1)
methodology of planning,
execution and control
53
Bank Policy (OP 4.00)
Government of Romania's Equivalent Requirements
Significant
System
Requirements
differences between
improvements
OP 4.00 and
that would be
Objectives and
Romania's corresponding
Romania's
undertaken by
Operational Principles
laws, rules, regulations,
requirements.
the Government
(Objective and
as stated in Romania's
procedures, and sectoral
of Romania
Operational Principles)
corresponding laws,
guidelines.
before
rules, regulations,
implementation
procedures, and
of the project
sectoral guidelines.
activities
regarding preventive
archaeological research.
MCRA and the NCHM are
Law 422/2001 Article 28 (r),
responsible for elaborating
Article (p)
and organizing a national
system for education,
training and improvement
for specialists in protection
of PCR
6. Disclose draft mitigation
Under the detailed
Government Ordinance 860 / 2002,
No significant gap
None required
plans, in a timely manner,
arrangements for public
Chapter III, Articles 13 to 17
before appraisal formally
information and
begins, in an accessible place
participation in the EIA
and in a form and language
process, the public has the
that are understandable to key
right to present proposals.
stakeholders.
Procedure includes
information to be made
available, public debate,
and consideration of
written comments
54
Annex II C Dam Safety
Bank Policy (OP 4.00)
Government of Romania's Equivalent
Significant
System
Requirements
Requirements
differences
improvements that
Objectives and
Romania's
between OP 4.00
would be
Operational Principles
corresponding laws,
and Romania's
undertaken by the
(Objective and
as stated in Romania's
rules, regulations,
requirements.
Government of
Operational Principles)
corresponding laws,
procedures, and sectoral
Romania before
rules, regulations,
guidelines.
implementation of
procedures, and
sectoral guidelines.
the project
activities
To assure quality and safety
To provide a
· Law 107/1996,
No difference
None required
in the design and
framework for quality
modified by Law
construction of new dams
assurance of design and
310/2004
and the rehabilitation of
construction of new
· Gov. Ordinance
existing dams, and in
dams or rehabilitation
244/2000
carrying out activities that
of existing dams, and
· MEWM Ordinance
may be affected by an
for their safety
128/2005
existing dam.
operation.
1. Identify existing dams and
In case a new project
· Law 107/1996,
No significant
None required
dams under construction that
would need to be linked
modified by Law
differences
can influence the
to an existing dam or a
310/2004
performance of the project
dam under
and implement necessary
construction, the new
safety measures/remedial
project must fully
works
comply with the dam
safety regulations
2. Use experienced and
Design of dams can be
· Law 107/1996
No significant
None required
competent professionals to
undertaken only by
modified by Law
differences
design and supervise the
firms specialized and
310/2004
construction, operation and
certified by MEWM.
· Gov. Ordinance
maintenance of dams and
Construction
244/2000
associated works.
supervision can only be
undertaken by site
supervisors certified in
this field.
3. Develop detailed plans,
It is mandatory that, for
· Law 107/1996
No significant
None required
including for construction
all dams, the owners
modified by Law
differences
supervision, instrumentation,
have detailed plans for
310/2004
operation and maintenance
instrumentation,
· Gov. Ordinance
and emergency
operation and
244/2000
preparedness.
maintenance, and
emergency
preparedness.
During construction
phase, the supervision
programs are prepared
by the designer
4. Use independent advice on
All engineering designs
· Law 107/1996,
No significant
None required
the verification of design,
must be verified by
modified by Law
differences
construction, and operational
certified, independent,
310/2004
procedures and appoint
verificators. Also, the
· Gov. Ordinance
independent panels of
operational plans need
244/2000
experts for large or high
to be reviewed and
· MEWM Ordinance
hazard dams.
accepted by an
128/2005
independent panel of
experts members of
CONSIB (the National
Commission on Dam
Safety
5. Use contractors that are
For large and medium
· Law 107/1996,
No significant
None required
qualified and experienced to
size dams, the works
modified by Law
differences
undertake planned
can be contracted only
310/2004
construction activities.
with qualified and
experienced
contractors. For small
dams, of local
importance, other
contractors can be
considered, under close
supervision of the
designer.
55
Bank Policy (OP 4.00)
Government of Romania's Equivalent
Significant
System
Requirements
Requirements
differences
improvements that
Objectives and
Romania's
between OP 4.00
would be
Operational Principles
corresponding laws,
and Romania's
undertaken by the
(Objective and
as stated in Romania's
rules, regulations,
requirements.
Government of
Operational Principles)
corresponding laws,
procedures, and sectoral
Romania before
rules, regulations,
guidelines.
implementation of
procedures, and
sectoral guidelines.
the project
activities
6. Carry out periodic safety
Annual safety
· Law 107/1996,
No significant
None required
inspections of
inspections are
modified by Law
differences
new/rehabilitated dams after
manadatory for all
310/2004
completion of
dams, conducted under
· Gov. Ordinance
construction/rehabilitation,
the supervision of
244/2000
review/monitor
independent experts.
· MEWM Ordinance
implementation of detailed
Annual reports are
128/2005
plans and take appropriate
evaluated periodically
action as needed.
as part of the process of
renewing the licence for
dam operation.
56
Annex II D - Involuntary Resettlement (Expropriation for Public Utility)
Bank Policy (OP 4.00)
Romania's Equivalent Requirements
Differences between
Differences that are
System improvements that would be
Requirements
OP 4.00 and
significant and
undertaken by the Government of
Romania's
material to the Pilot
Romania before implementation of
Objectives and Operational Principles
Romania's
requirements.
Projects and would
the project activities
as stated in Romania's corresponding
corresponding laws,
need to be addressed
(Objective and Operational
laws, rules, regulations, procedures,
rules, regulations,
Principles)
and sector guidelines.
procedures, and sector
guidelines.
Objective: To avoid or minimize
a) Expropriation can occur only after
a) Constitution, Art. 44,
The principles are not
"Prejudice" which
Need to inform affected people about
involuntary resettlement and, where this is
the need for "public use" is
para. 3, 6"nobody may be
explicitly stated, but are
captures impacts on
compensation standards and prejudice and
not feasible, to assist displaced persons in
demonstrated in a legal process and
expropriated unless for a
embedded in legal
incomes and livelihoods,
procedures to claim prejudice.
improving or at least restoring their
compensation is made. Therefore, the
cause of public use,
requirements and
needs to be claimed by
livelihoods and standards of living in real
need to minimize involuntary
procedural requirements.
the affected persons as
established according to
terms relative to pre-displacement levels or
resettlement is implicit.
part of negotiations and
the law, subject to a fair
to levels prevailing prior to the beginning
The Romanian law does
is not an automatic
and prior compensation."
of project implementation, whichever is
b) Compensation is paid at market
not establish a standard for
entitlement.
higher.
value and "prejudice" (damages actually
Law No. 33/1994
mitigating social impacts;
suffered and lost benefits, such as loss
(referred to as the
rather, it assumes that
of income. relocation costs, etc).
Expropriation Law)
compensation is adequate
Assumed to enable affected people to
a) Expropriation Law,
mitigation..
maintain the value of their assets and
Art. 1, 10.
restore their livelihoods and standards of
b) Expropriation Law,
living.
Art 26. Pecuniary
damages consist of the
real value of the premises
and the prejudice caused
to the owner or other
entitled persons.
Expropriation Law Art.
28 "The usage, the
usufruct, superficies, as
well as any other real
rights and concession and
award into possession
will be extinguished as a
result of expropriation,
the holders being entitled
to receive pecuniary
damages.
57
Bank Policy (OP 4.00)
Romania's Equivalent Requirements
Differences between
Differences that are
System improvements that would be
Requirements
OP 4.00 and
significant and
undertaken by the Government of
Romania's
material to the Pilot
Romania before implementation of
Objectives and Operational Principles
Romania's
requirements.
Projects and would
the project activities
as stated in Romania's corresponding
corresponding laws,
need to be addressed
(Objective and Operational
laws, rules, regulations, procedures,
rules, regulations,
Principles)
and sector guidelines.
procedures, and sector
guidelines.
Operational Principles:
An expropriation decision is issued by a
Expropriation Law, Art.
No significant difference
None required
None required
1. Assess all viable alternative project
relevant authority (national, county, or
7, 8, 10,
in practice, as
designs to avoid, where feasible, or
local depending on the level of the
expropriation must be
minimize involuntary resettlement.
authority that is investing), based on
justified and residences are
a"Prior Investigation File" that justifies
assiduously avoided in
the works requiring expropriation and
designs.(is there any
demonstrates that they cannot be carried
reference to this in the
out without the specific expropriation
regulations)
requested. The need to minimize
involuntary resettlement is implicit in
this requirement.
(any basis in the regulations on the need
to avoid structures?)
2. Through census and socio-economic
a) The Prior (Preliminary) Investigation
a) Government Decree
The expropriation
This deficiency does not
None required
surveys of the affected population, identify,
File identifies the "economic-social,
No. 583/1994, On
documents and tTechnical
compromise the
assess, and address the potential economic
environmental or any other kind of
Working Procedures of
Design include household
objectives or outcome of
and social impacts of the project that are
benefits" of the work as well provides
the Commissions in
land ownership, which
the process and this is
caused by involuntary taking of land (e.g.
data "to describe expropriation,
constitutes a proxy for a
not a significant issue
Charge of Conducting
relocation or loss of shelter, loss of assets
economic, social environmental or any
household census.
that would prevent the
Preliminary
or access to assets, loss of income sources
other kind of inconveniences.
No household socio-
application of OP 4.00
or means of livelihood, whether or not the
b) Once public interest is established, a
Investigations in Order to
economic surveys are
especially since the
affected person must move to another
Technical Design is completed, which
Establish Public
carried out, as stipulated in
pilots involve only land
location) or involuntary restriction of
includes details regarding alignment,
Usefulness for National
Principle 2, as
acquisition and cash
access to legally designated parks and
specific parcels affected, ownership
or Local Interest Works,
compensation standards
compensation without
protected areas.
details from cadastre, and other assets
Annex 1,
and prejudice are assumed
any need to change
affected and compensation standards
b) Expropriation Law
to be adequate to offset
occupations.
and total cost.
Art. 3
losses.
3. Identify and address impacts also if they
Legal expropriation and compensation
No significant difference.
None required
None required
result from other activities that are (a)
requirements apply to all aspects of an
directly and significantly related to the
investment.
proposed project, (b) necessary to achieve
its objectives, and (c) carried out or
planned to be carried out
contemporaneously with the project.
4. Consult project-affected persons, host
a) Works must be entered into Urban
a) Expropriation Law,
The consultation,
While affected people
None required
communities and local nongovernmental
and regional spatial plans (a public
Art. 8, 10.
disclosure and appeals
are not involved in
organizations, as appropriate. Provide them
process) before an expropriation request
Law No. 71/1996
processes are consistent
implementation and
opportunities to participate in the planning,
can be made are revised to include new
regarding approval of the
with the principle and
monitoring, they are
implementation, and monitoring of the
National Territory
adequate.
carried out on the basis
investments and changes in land use
resettlement program, especially in the
Planning Section I
of established laws and
through public meetings.
process of developing and implementing
Means of Communication
Although a specific
guidelines. Similarly,
58
Bank Policy (OP 4.00)
Romania's Equivalent Requirements
Differences between
Differences that are
System improvements that would be
Requirements
OP 4.00 and
significant and
undertaken by the Government of
Romania's
material to the Pilot
Romania before implementation of
Objectives and Operational Principles
Romania's
requirements.
Projects and would
the project activities
as stated in Romania's corresponding
corresponding laws,
need to be addressed
(Objective and Operational
laws, rules, regulations, procedures,
rules, regulations,
Principles)
and sector guidelines.
procedures, and sector
guidelines.
the procedures for determining eligibility
b) Documents related to the declaration
b) Expropriation Law,
resettlement document is
since eligibility is
for compensation benefits and development
of public utility (the expropriation
Art. 11.
not prepared, the
straightforward, there is
assistance (as documented in a resettlement
decision) are posted in administrative
c) Expropriation Law,
documents prepared for
no need to involve
plan), and for establishing appropriate and
offices (Ministry, County or Local,
Art. 12.
the expropriation decision
affected people in
accessible grievance mechanisms. Pay
depending on the scope), offices of the
d) Expropriation Law,
and the Technical Design
determining eligibility.
particular attention to the needs of
are reasonable proxies for
expropriator and newspapers (national,
Art. 14,, 15, 16
vulnerable groups among those displaced,
the plan specified in the
county or local).
e) Expropriation Law,
especially those below the poverty line, the
principle.
landless, the elderly, women and children,
c) The Technical Design, providing
Art. 17
f) Expropriation Law,
Indigenous Peoples, ethnic minorities, or
details regarding siting, ownership, and
Eligibility for
Include a discussion of prejudice in the
Art. 18, 19.
other displaced persons who may not be
proposed compensation levels are
compensation, based on
brochure that would be sent out.
protected through national land
posted in the county or local office "in
g) Expropriation Law
documentation of
Art. 20.
compensation legislation.
order to be consulted by interested
ownership and claims for
Have independent monitors monitor
h) Expropriation Law,
persons."
damages, is
expropriation of businesses and other assets
Art. 4.
d) Within 15 days of publication of the
straightforward, although
and transaction costs that should be
i) Expropriation Law,
actual receipt of
compensated as damages.
Technical Design, affected owners are
Art. 21, 22, 24-29.
compensation can be
notified of the proposals for
j) Expropriation Law,
complicated if the land is
expropriation, given minutes of the
Art. 30
not titled and ownership is
expropriation decision and requested to
contested. There is little
prepare ownership documents for
scope for participation in
negotiation. They have 45 days to
defining eligibility criteria,
contest the decision to the Mayor of the
as called for in the
relevant local or county government.
principle
The Mayor appoints a Committee to
review disagreements, offers and claims.
There is no explicit or
implicit involvement of
Membership includes local landowners.
affected people in
e) The Committee reviews documents,
implementing and
hears interested parties, asks for
monitoring the
additional information, and issues
expropriation program. .
decisions recorded in Minutes.
Inadequate information
f) The Committee can accept the
Affected persons must
about compensation for
proposal of the expropriator or reject it
claim for compensation for
damages ("prejudice")
and call for new drawings.
"prejudice," which can
may constrain people
g) If a second proposal is rejected, the
cover development
from demanding and
expropriator or owners can challenge the
assistance, as necessary.
receiving adequate
compensation.
Committee's decision in the Court of
The law does not explicitly
Appeals.
refer to the entitlements of
There appears to be little
h) Interested parties agree on the
squatters and illegal
documented experience
transfer and level of compensation and
occupants, although it is
in dealing with illegal
59
Bank Policy (OP 4.00)
Romania's Equivalent Requirements
Differences between
Differences that are
System improvements that would be
Requirements
OP 4.00 and
significant and
undertaken by the Government of
Romania's
material to the Pilot
Romania before implementation of
Objectives and Operational Principles
Romania's
requirements.
Projects and would
the project activities
as stated in Romania's corresponding
corresponding laws,
need to be addressed
(Objective and Operational
laws, rules, regulations, procedures,
rules, regulations,
Principles)
and sector guidelines.
procedures, and sector
guidelines.
damages prior to invoking
presumed that they would
occupants, so the team
Notify the Bank of instances of
expropriation,
be among the "other
was unable to determine
expropriation involving squatters and
i) If negotiations for compensation fail,
entitled persons" (Art. 26
how or if they are
illegal occupants. Independent monitors
owners cannot be located or ownership
of the Expropriation Law)
compensated in practice.
will monitor and the Bank will supervise.
is disputed, the expropriator appeals to
or other "holders being
entitled to receive
the County Low Court or Bucharest
pecuniary damages (Art.
Municipality Court to resolve disputes
28 of the, Expropriation
and set compensation, based on the
Law).
findings of an expertise. The claims of
The lack of special
"other entitled persons" are also
The process does not give
attention to vulnerable
resolved in the court.
special consideration to the
groups is not considered
j) The expropriator must pay
vulnerable or excluded
to be significant if
compensation within 30 days, after
groups
assessed valuation is
which the title is considered transferred
adequate and consistent
and people are informed
and work can begin. Owners can still
of their rights and
contest compensation levels or
entitlements.
demonstrate ownership and eligibility
for compensation after payment
5. Inform displaced persons of their rights,
Owners are notified that their land is to
Expropriation Law, Art
The law does not require
Notification of rights is
Prepare information to be given to owners
consult them on options, and provide them
be expropriated and given a copy of the
13, 14
provision of information
unreliable not systematic
before negotiation to inform of rights,
with technically and economically feasible
minutes of the expropriation decision.
on rights or options, as
or adequate. and .
including provisions for prejudice.
resettlement alternatives and needed
Although they have 45 days to contest,
a) Constitution, Art. 44,
required by the principle. .
could have significant
assistance, including (a) prompt
the law does not require the expropriator
para. 3, 6; Expropriation
This is a salient divergence
impact if it results in
Independent monitoring of payments.
compensation at full replacement cost for
to notify them of their rights
Law, Art. 31.
from the principle. .
compensation below
Monitor during Bank supervision.
loss of assets attributable to the project; (b)
a) Land acquisition must be
market value and people
if there is relocation, assistance during
completed--compensation must be paid
b) Expropriation Law,
a) Prompt payment of
are unaware of
Obtain agreement on timing of assessments
relocation, and residual housing, or housing
and ownership transferred--before a
Art. 29.
compensation is required,
opportunities to contest
and assurance that assessors are certified.
sites, or agricultural sites of equivalent
construction license is issued for the
and consistent with the
the amount. This should
(EU and USAID are training assessors for
potential, as required; (c) transitional
investment.
c) Expropriation Law,
principle
be mitigated
capacity building).
support and development assistance, such
b) If relocation is required, the
Art. 26, 28.
as land preparation, credit facilities,
expropriator must ensure an alternative
b) No significant
c) As above, due to
Obtain agreement to share assessments
training or job opportunities as required, in
dwelling, in conformity with the law, is
d) Expropriation Law,
difference
inadequate information,
with owners prior to negotiation. Introduce
addition to compensation measures; (d)
made available.
Art. 26
affected persons may not
instructions in guidance documents.
cash compensation for land when the
c) No damage payments
claim prejudice.
impact of land acquisition on livelihoods is
c) Relocation costs, transitional support
e) Expropriation Law,
are automatic, except for
Independent monitoring of compensation to
minor; and (e) provision of civic
and development assistance, as needed,
Art. 7. Expropriation of
standing crops. Affected
ensure that it is not lower than value
infrastructure and community services as
would be included in compensation for
entire urban or rural
persons must claim
determined by assessors.
required.
"prejudice."
localities requires a
prejudice.
d) Cash compensation is the norm.
special law; Art. 29.
Manage special cases involving major land
60
Bank Policy (OP 4.00)
Romania's Equivalent Requirements
Differences between
Differences that are
System improvements that would be
Requirements
OP 4.00 and
significant and
undertaken by the Government of
Romania's
material to the Pilot
Romania before implementation of
Objectives and Operational Principles
Romania's
requirements.
Projects and would
the project activities
as stated in Romania's corresponding
corresponding laws,
need to be addressed
(Objective and Operational
laws, rules, regulations, procedures,
rules, regulations,
Principles)
and sector guidelines.
procedures, and sector
guidelines.
e) No community-wide involuntary
d) Property values are to
losses and the loss of businesses and
relocation is envisioned in the pilot
be assessed by certified
residences on a case-by-case basis in
projects. In the event of relocation of
assessors.
consultation with the Bank until there are
individual households, it would be to
adequate assurances that the system works.
sites with appropriate infrastructure and
e) No significant
The following circumstances would require
community services.
difference.
notification: acquisition of residences;
acquisition of parts of an agricultural
holding where the remainder is not
adequate to allow people to sustain their
livelihoods, compelling affected people to
change their occupations; acquisition of
commercial structures or businesses; and
expropriation of land used by people
without claim to legal title.
.
6. Give preference to land-based
. Expropriation laws and procedures are
Expropriation Law, Art.
The use of cash
None required
None required
resettlement strategies for displaced
based on cash compensation at market
1, 26.
compensation in Romania
persons whose livelihoods are land-based.
rate.
differs from the principle
that resettlement of people
displaced from land-based
livelihoods and
expropriation should be
land based. Given the
complex landholding
situation and the inability
to be confident that
substitute land under State
control is available, and
given the availability of
land for purchase, the
current arrangement is
appropriate, as it would
enable households to
pursue a land based
solution on their own.
This divergence from the
principle is therefore not
considered to be
significant.
7. For those without formal legal rights to
A person who occupies state land for 30
Expropriation Law, Art
The law does not clearly
The lack of recognition
The Bank should be appraised in a timely
lands or claims to such land that could be
years or more can obtain ownership.
26, 28
address the entitlements of
of the status of landless
manner if there are any situations in which
61
Bank Policy (OP 4.00)
Romania's Equivalent Requirements
Differences between
Differences that are
System improvements that would be
Requirements
OP 4.00 and
significant and
undertaken by the Government of
Romania's
material to the Pilot
Romania before implementation of
Objectives and Operational Principles
Romania's
requirements.
Projects and would
the project activities
as stated in Romania's corresponding
corresponding laws,
need to be addressed
(Objective and Operational
laws, rules, regulations, procedures,
rules, regulations,
Principles)
and sector guidelines.
procedures, and sector
guidelines.
lands or claims to such land that could be
Other residents without formal legal title
people without land
is a gap between
affected persons have no tenancy
recognized under the laws of the country,
to affected land can be compensated for
ownership,
Romanian law and
arrangements or rights to title and informed
provide resettlement assistance in lieu of
lost assets (value added) and relocation
principle 7. It is not
of proposed actions to be taken. Each case
compensation for land to help improve or
assistance as prejudice.
likely to be an issue in
should subsequently be monitored by
at least restore their livelihoods.
the proposed pilot
independent monitors.
projects, and therefore
the gap is not
significant.
8. Disclose draft resettlement plans,
Proposals for expropriation and
Resettlement Law, Art.
Romanian laws do not
The gap is not
None required
including documentation of the
Location Permits and Technical Designs
11, 12, 18.
require the preparation o f
significant.
consultation process, in a timely manner,
are prepared in the local language and
resettlement plans or their
before appraisal formally begins, in an
made available in the respective county
disclosure, but the
accessible place and in a form and
or local council office and the
Preliminary Investigation
language that are understandable to key
expropriator's office and are posted in
File for expropriation and
stakeholders.
the official gazette and local
the Technical Design
newspapers. The minutes of the
constitute a reasonable
expropriation decision and minutes of
proxy for a resettlement
the Commission established to review
plan. Disclosure of each is
and assess objections are also disclosed
adequate and consistent
in administrative offices.
with principle 8.
9. Apply the principles described in the
The laws and procedures apply equally
No difference
None required
None required
involuntary resettlement section of this
to all expropriation required for an
Table, as applicable and relevant, to
investment.
subprojects requiring land acquisition.
10. Design, document, and disclose before
This issue is irrelevant to the pilot
Irrelevant
None required
None required
appraisal of projects involving involuntary
projects.
restriction of access to legally designated
parks and protected areas, a participatory
process for: (a) preparing and
implementing project components; (b)
establishing eligibility criteria; (c) agreeing
on mitigation measures that help improve
or restore livelihoods in a manner that
maintains the sustainability of the park or
protected area; (d) resolving conflicts; and
(e) monitoring implementation.
11. Implement all relevant resettlement
Expropriation must be completed before
) Constitution, Art. 44,
No differences
None required
None required
plans before project completion and
a Construction License is issued to
para. 3, 6; Expropriation
provide resettlement entitlements before
begin civil works.
Law, Art. 1, 31.
displacement or restriction of access For
62
Bank Policy (OP 4.00)
Romania's Equivalent Requirements
Differences between
Differences that are
System improvements that would be
Requirements
OP 4.00 and
significant and
undertaken by the Government of
Romania's
material to the Pilot
Romania before implementation of
Objectives and Operational Principles
Romania's
requirements.
Projects and would
the project activities
as stated in Romania's corresponding
corresponding laws,
need to be addressed
(Objective and Operational
laws, rules, regulations, procedures,
rules, regulations,
Principles)
and sector guidelines.
procedures, and sector
guidelines.
displacement or restriction of access. For
projects involving restriction of access,
impose the restrictions in accordance with
the timetable in the plan of actions.
12. Assess whether the objectives of the
No follow-up assessment required
Romanian law and
If compensation is at
Fund independent monitors to report
resettlement instrument have been
beyond financial audit.
practices do not require
market value and claims
periodically on expropriation activities and
achieved, upon completion of the project,
monitoring or assessment
and payments for
their impacts. Bank should supervise
taking account of the baseline conditions
of the impact of
prejudice are adequate,
regularly and recommend steps to resolve
and the results of resettlement monitoring.
expropriation. This is a
it is assumed that
problems that emerge. Carry out an
significant difference .t
expropriation impacts
assessment at completion.
will be negligible. The
assumption has not been
tested, however.
63
Annex III List of Persons Met
September 2005 Study Mission
Ministry of Environment and Water Management (MEWM)
Mr. Constantin Popescu
Secretary of State, Environment Department
Ms. Lucia Ana Varga
Secretary of State, Water Resources Department
Mr. Attila Korodi
Secretary of State, European Integration Department
Mr. Silviu Stoica
General Director, Environment Department
Mr. Gheorghe Constantin
Director, Water Resources Department
Ms. Adriana Baz
Director, Natural Habitat, Biodiversity and Biosecurity Division,
Environment Department
Ms. Liliana Chirila
Director, SOP Environment, Structural Instruments Management
Department
Ms. Angela Filipas
Director,
Ms. Maria Theodorescu
Counselor, Environment Department
Ms. Daniela Pineta
Counselor, Environment Department
National Administration "Apele Romane" ("Romanian Waters")
Mr. Petru Serban
Director, Department of Management and Operation of
Hydrographic Basins
National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA)
Mr. Ioan Gherhes
President
Bucharest Regional Environmental Protection Agency (REPA)
Ms. Simona Catrina
Executive Director
Ms. Ana Maria Nistorescu
Manager, Environmental Policies Implementation Department
Ms. Roxana Costache
Manager, IPCC Implementation Department
Bucharest Local Environmental Protection Agency (LEPA)
Ms. Sanda Petrisor
Director, EU Implementation
National Environmental Guard
Mr. Silvian Ionescu
General Director (Comisar)
Mr. Ion Vasilescu
Regional Director Sibiu
Mr. Dan Sachelarescu
Director, Justice Department
Environmental Protection National Research and Development Institute (ICIM)
Ms. Mariana Ghineraru
General Director
Ms. Violeta Visan
Senior Researcher, EIA Department
64
Ministry of Transport, National Railway Company "CFR" S.A
Mr. Traian Preoteasa
General Director
Mr. Orlando Craciun
Deputy General Director, Department of EU Integration
Mr. Vlad Manu
Director, Foreign Financing Department
Mr. Tiberiu Angelescu
Director, Foreign Financing Department
Ms. Aurora Smarandescu
Manager, Technical/Environmental Department
Ms. Irian Axenie
Manager, Foreign Financing Department
Railway Study and Design Institute (ISPCF - S.A.)
Mr. Stefan Bucioaca
General Manager, Technical Department
Ms. Nina Mihailescu
Manager, Environment Department
Mr. Radu Constantin
Engineer Technical Control, Environment Department
Ms. Daniela Stancu
Engineer, Environmental Department
Design Institute for Roads, Maritime and Air Transport (IPTANA S.A.)
Ms. Liliana Bara
Director, Environment Department
Mr. Marian Constantinescu Deputy General Director, Roads and Maritime Department
Ministry of European Integration
Mr. Adrian Ciocanea
Secretary of State
Ministry of Culture
Mr. Virgil Nitulescu
Secretary of State
Mr. Adrian Craciunescu
Consilier
European Union, Delegation of the European Commission in Romania
Ms. Jeni Ionita
ISPA Team Leader
Ms. Adriana Micu
Task Manager Environment
Bucharest City Hall
Mr. Calin-Radu Ancuta
Manager, European Integration Department
Mr. Mircea Alexandrescu
Executive Director, Environment Department
Mr. Valeriu Ilie
Deputy Executive Director, Transport, Roads and Traffic
Management Department
Mr. Stefan Agache
Prefect
Mr. Stefan Horia Stupcanu Urbanization Department, Bucharest Municipality
Brasov City Hall
Ms. Gabriela Plopeanu
Manager Environment Program, EU Integration Department
Brasov County Council
Mr. Mihai Sarbu
Architect
Mr. Virgil Mihailescu
Manager, Cultural Department
Brasov Regional Roads and Bridges Department
Mr. Mircea Olariu
Technical Director
65
Targu Mures City Hall
Mr. Dorin Florea
Mayor
Targu Mures Local Environmental Protection Agency (LEPA)
Mr. Dan Stefanescu
Director
Ms. Gabriela Boca
Manager, Monitoring Department
Targu Mures Local Water Administration "Apele Romane"
Ms. Monica Gheorghe
Counselor
Targu Mures Roads Department
Mr. Gheorghe Ispas
Director
Arad City Hall
Mr. Razvan Popa
Executive Director, Technical Department
Mr. Tamas Petru
Director, Economic Department
Ms. Magda Matzeil
Counselor, Economic Department
Arad Water Company
Mr. Marius Toma
Technical Director
Ms. Lia Botezatu
ISPA Team Leader
Timisoara Regional Environmental Protection Agency (REPA)
Ms. Francisca Schultz Manager, Authorizations and Controls Department
Arad Local Environmental Protection Agency (LEPA)
Ms. Dana Danoiu
Director Executiv
Ms. Gabriela Vesa
Manager, Authorizations and Controls Department
Ms. Orasan Adina
Counselor, Authorizations and Controls Department
Ms. Marina Ilisie
Manager, Monitoring Department
Other Government
Mr. Stefan Daniel Dragulin Vice President, Calarashi County Council
Mr. Corneliu Ion Totoian
Property Assessor
Additional Experts
Mr. Ionut Apostol
Executive Director, TERRA Mileniul III
Ms. Serena Adler
General Director, AWMS Independent Environmental Services
Mr. Cristian Popa-Dumitru Senior Consultant, RomAir Consulting Ltd.
Mr. Mihnea Crihan
Technical Consultant, RomAir Consulting Ltd.
Ms. Adina Luta
Financial Consultant, RomAir Consulting Ltd.
Mr. Frits Jakma
Consultant, Jakma Water Consulting
66
November 2005 Study Mission on Cultural Property
Ministry of Culture and Religious Affairs (MCRA)
Mr. MirceaVictor Angelescu Counselor
Ministry of Environment and Water Management (MEWM)
Ms. Angela Filipas
Director,
Ms. Maria Theodorescu
Counselor, Environment Department
Ms. Daniela Pineta
Counselor, Environment Department
National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA)
Ms. Mihaela Petcu
Director General
National Office of Historic Monuments
Ms. Anca Bogdan
Director
Pro Patrimonio Foundation (NGO)
Ms. Maria Berza
Executive Vice-President for Romania
Ms. Ms. Mioara Lujanschi Director
Brasov City Hall
Ms. Gabriela Plopeanu
Manager Environment Program, EU Integration Department
Brasov County Council
Mr. Mihai Sarbu
Architect
Ms. Dana Jenei
Art Historian, Direction of Cultural Heritage, Department for
Historical Monuments
UNESCO National Commission of Romania
Mr. Alexandru Mironov
General Secretary
Mr. Srban Ursu
Science Program Specialist
67
Annex IV - December 12, 2005 Public Consultation
IV A - Summary Minutes
A half-day public discussion on the proposal to pilot the use of Romanian systems to address
environmental and social safeguard issues in two proposed World Bank supported projects
(under Bank Operational Policy 4.00), was organized by the Romanian Ministry of Environment
and Water Management (MEWM) and the World Bank (WB) on December 12, 2005. The
meeting attracted about 35 specialists including municipal government representatives,
environmental authorities (MEWM, National Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), regional
and local EPAs), the local design institutes for roads and railways, as well as NGO groups,
private sector consultants, and other members interested in the subject. The meeting was held in
Bucharest at the council hall of the MEWM headquarter. The invitation, the proposed agenda
and the list of participants are attached.
Background
The meeting was an important step in consultation with stakeholders as required by the World
Bank OP/BP for piloting country systems. The informative and informal meeting discussed the
primary conclusions of the noted draft report for which an Executive Summary had been sent to
the attendees in advance and posted on the MEWM web site. The full draft report (comprising
the detailed technical and policy analyses which supported the conclusions of the Executive
Summary) were then under review by a Working Group organized by the MEWM to ensure
factual representation and the Government view on the proposed study. Their comments will be
incorporated and a revised draft will be available for public review in early January 2006. This
disclosure date will be in advance of formal World Bank project appraisal, thereby meeting the
World Bank's policy on this point.
Introduction/Opening Section
Opening remarks for the MEWM were given by Mr. Attila Korodi, Secretary of State for EU
Integration; touching on the overall goals of two WB proposed project investments for piloting,
the situation of the country's needs in the water and transport sector (expansion and
rehabilitation of sewerage networks, railway and secondary roads rehabilitation), and the
proposed funds to cover these needs. It was underlined the necessity of increasing the country's
capacity on implementing systems related to the assessment of the impact on environment,
cultural property and safety of dams. The role of the National Environmental Guard (GNM) as
an independent agency within the MEWM, with the respect to project compliance was also
highlighted.
Opening Remarks for the World Bank were presented by Mr. Ron Hoffer, ECA Regional
Safeguard Coordinator, who recognized the tremendous amount of work that is underway in
Romania on all fronts to transpose and adopt EU systems. It was underlined that Romania is
making great strides in strengthening environmental and social protection to meet the
requirements of both the EU environmental acquis, as well as the interest of citizens and
business. He emphasized that the discussed pilot program will not lead to a lowering of standards
68
or the WB's supervision of project implementation, but allows Romania to substitute the Bank's
process on some areas of environmental and social safeguards to achieve comparable positive
end points. It was underlined that international best practices will continue to be followed but in
a way that supports the good direction that Romania is going. Furthermore, the agenda was
presented and the main presentations were announced while the public was invited to listen and
comment on any discussed aspects. The introduction section closed with an invitation to the
members of the public to introduce themselves.
Background Presentation on the Use of New World Bank Policy on Country Systems
Presentations on (i) background on Bank's policy piloting the use of Romanian System to
address Safeguards and (ii) comparison of systems, approach to equivalence and to assess
adequacy were made by Mr. Ron Hoffer before the participants articulated their own
perspectives. The principal observations related to the potential safeguards policies triggered by
the two proposed pilot projects - Environmental Assessment, Involuntary Resettlement, Cultural
property and Safety of dams were presented and conclusions related to the overall study goal
were listed.
Overview of Romanian EA systems
Ms. Angela Filipas, Director of the EIA Division in the MEWM, highlighted the new key
developments in the Romanian legislation, almost entirely transposed to the EU, related to the
application of the EIA in the country.
Progress on EU Accession
Mr. Attila Korodi briefed on the progress of the country to the EU accession, highlighting in
particular the legislation update related to the solid waste management and IPPC.
Overview of World Bank Romania Municipal Services Project
The consulting firm (Romair Ltd.) that developed the feasibility studies for the proposed
investments under the Municipal Services Project briefly presented the main objective of the
project, the envisaged investments and affiliated costs as well as the benefits achieved by the
affected population.
Questions and Answers Section
Following the presentations, Mr. Hoffer invited questions and comments from members of the
public. The following issues were raised:
(i)
A representative of the REPA asked where the storm waters are envisaged to be
discharged. The reply included explanation based on the feasibility study findings.
(ii)
A representative of the MEWM (Biodiversity Conservation Department) asked for
explanation on the two types of natural habitats defined by the World Bank in the
new operational policy OP/BP 4.00-Table A1. A follow-up question requested
69
information on the classification of those sites that are not included in the Natura
2000 network. Information on these points was provided by the World Bank.
(iii)
A question was raised on the status of highway bypasses with World Bank financing
in the Targu Mures area. It was clarified that these are supported by a different World
Bank project and progress on technical and safeguards aspects was satisfactory.
(iv)
A comment was made on the new approval of Romanian Order 60 (GD 918) related
to shorten the period of certain documents during the approval of the EA process. It
was confirmed that these are not related to the public consultation schedule but rather
to the timing allowed to read and send comments on the main documentation. It was
also underlined that according to the Romanian law each environmental project and
its impact will be evaluated differently based on the site characteristics.
Action Points/Next Steps
All comments received from the meeting and comment period on the Executive Summary, as
well as input from the MEWM Working Group and other Ministries will be incorporated in the
revised full Report. Comments from the public on the Executive Summary of the draft study will
be accepted by the MEWM until December 22, 2005. During the week of January 9, 2006, the
Final Report will be entirely disclosed in Romania (listed on the MEWM website). In the same
time, the Final Report will be disclosed in the World Bank's Infoshop achieving the Bank's
public disclosure requirements. Following the public disclosure, the Municipal Services Project
team is allowed to proceed with project appraisal. The Report will be updated if there are any
significant comments or corrections on the full draft.
Closing Remarks
Mr. Ron Hoffer (WB) and Director Silviu Stoica (MEWM) thanked everybody for participating
and contributing to the meeting.
70
IV B - List of Participants
No. Name
Institution/Organization
1
Atila Korodi
MEWM, Secretary of State
2
Constantin Popescu
MEWM, Secretary of State
3
Marian Constantinescu
IPTANA, Bucharest
4
Ana-Maria Nistorescu
REPA, Bucharest
5
Vasilica Daescu
ICIM Bucharest
6
Mariana Badea
ICIM Bucharest
7
Carmen Calatan
NEPA Bucharest
8
Doina Cioaca
NEPA Bucharest
9
Daniela Stancu
ISPCF Bucharest
10
Danut Stefanescu
REPA, Targu Mures
11 Narcis
Jeler
MEWM
12
Gabriela Pietrareanu
ICIM Bucharest
13
Octavian Ciobota
Ecological Foundation Romania
14
Ioan Ignat
City Hall Arad
15
Gheorghe Ghiocel
RomAir Consulting
16 Daniela
Radulescu
National Agency "Apele Romane"
17 Fritz
Schweiger
Posch&Partners
18
Cristian Popa
RomAir Consulting
19
Marius Nistor
EPTISA Romania
20
Nina-Maria Rahailescu
ISPCF Bucharest
21 Adela
Tanasoiu
NCMNR
22 Mihaela
Balan
NCMNR
23
Cristina Rucareanu
EPTISA Romania
24 Adrian
Chesaru
MEWM
25
Lacramioara Cristogel
Brasov City Hall
26
Luminita Mlenajek
ICIM Bucharest
27
Aurora Smarandescu
SNCFR Bucharest
28 Luminita
Danciu
MEWM
29 Fritz
Jakma
EPTISA
30 Iordan
Catalina
MEWM
31 Adriana
Baz
MEWM
32 Angela
Filipas
MEWM
33
Serena Adler
Director, AWMS
World Bank
34 Ron Hoffer
ECSSD, Washington
35 Stan Peabody
ECSSD, Washington
36 Sudipto Sarkar
ECSIE, Washington
37 George
Moldovean
ECCRO
38 Alexandra
Caracoti
ECCRO
39 Ruxandra Floroiu
ECSSD, Washington
71
wb95028
P:\!UNITS\ECSSD\KALALA\HOFFER\Report\report.doc
01/11/2006 3:02:00 PM
72