Document of
The World Bank
Public Disclosure Authorized
Report No: ICR00001032
IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT
(TF-53023)
ON A
Public Disclosure Authorized
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY TRUST FUND GRANT
IN THE AMOUNT OF US$4.95 MILLION
TO THE
REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
FOR AN
AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION CONTROL PROJECT
Public Disclosure Authorized
19 January 2010
Europe and Central Asia Region
Sustainable Development Unit
Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova Country Unit
Public Disclosure Authorized
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
(Exchange Rate Effective 12/03/2009)
Currency Unit = MDL
MDL 1.00 = US$ 0.09
US$ 1.00 = MDL 11.13
FISCAL YEAR 2010
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ACSA
Agency for Consultancy and Training in Agriculture
APCP
Agricultural Pollution Control Project
CAPMU
Consolidated Agricultural Projects Management Unit
CAS
Country Assistance Strategy
CPS
Country Partnership Strategy
EU
European Union
GEF
Global Environment Facility
GEO
Global Environment Objective
ICA
Incremental cost analysis
ICR
Implementation Completion and Results Report
IDA
International Development Agency
MAFI
Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry
MECTD
Ministry of Ecology, Construction and Territorial Development
NGO
Non-Governmental Organization
PAD
Project Appraisal Document
PDO
Project Development Objective
PIU
Project Implementation Unit
RISP
Rural Investment and Services Project
SL
Supplemental Letter
TACIS
Technical Assistance for Community of Independent States
US$
United States Dollars
ii
Vice President: Philippe H. Le Houerou
Country Director: Martin Raiser
Sector Manager: John V. Kellenberg
Project Team Leader: Cora Melania Shaw
ICR Team Leader: Tijen Ar n
iii
MOLDOVA
Agricultural Pollution Control Project
CONTENTS
Data Sheet
A. Basic Information
B. Key Dates
C. Ratings Summary
D. Sector and Theme Codes
E. Bank Staff
F. Results Framework Analysis
G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs
H. Restructuring
I. . Disbursement Graph
1. Project Context, Global Environment Objectives and Design.................................... 1
2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes .............................................. 4
3. Assessment of Outcomes .......................................................................................... 11
4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome......................................................... 12
5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance ..................................................... 13
6. Lessons Learned........................................................................................................ 15
7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners........... 15
Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing.......................................................................... 17
Annex 2. Outputs by Component.................................................................................. 18
Annex 3. Economic and Financial Analysis ................................................................. 22
Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes............. 26
Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results ........................................................................... 28
Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results................................................... 31
Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR ..................... 32
Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders ....................... 41
Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents ...................................................................... 42
MAP
iv
A. Basic Information
Agricultural Pollution
Country: Moldova Project
Name:
Control GEF Project
Project ID:
P075995
L/C/TF Number(s):
TF-53023
ICR Date:
01/21/2010
ICR Type:
Core ICR
REPUBLIC OF
Lending Instrument:
SIL
Borrower:
MOLDOVA
Original Total
USD 5.0M
Disbursed Amount:
USD 5.0M
Commitment:
Revised Amount:
USD 5.0M
Environmental Category: B
Global Focal Area: I
Implementing Agencies:
Consolidated Agricultural Project Management Unit
Cofinanciers and Other External Partners:
B. Key Dates
Revised / Actual
Process
Date
Process
Original Date
Date(s)
Concept Review:
09/04/2002
Effectiveness:
04/09/2004
03/22/2004
Appraisal:
10/01/2003
Restructuring(s):
Approval:
02/26/2004
Mid-term Review:
03/26/2007
03/26/2007
Closing:
12/31/2009
12/31/2009
C. Ratings Summary
C.1 Performance Rating by ICR
Outcomes:
Satisfactory
Risk to Global Environment Outcome
Moderate
Bank Performance:
Moderately Satisfactory
Borrower Performance:
Satisfactory
C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance
Bank
Ratings
Borrower
Ratings
Quality at Entry:
Moderately Satisfactory Government:
Satisfactory
Implementing
Quality of Supervision:
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Agency/Agencies:
Overall Bank
Overall Borrower
Moderately Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Performance:
Performance:
i
C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators
Implementation
QAG Assessments
Indicators
Rating
Performance
(if any)
Potential Problem Project
Quality at Entry
No
None
at any time (Yes/No):
(QEA):
Problem Project at any
Quality of
No
None
time (Yes/No):
Supervision (QSA):
GEO rating before
Highly Satisfactory
Closing/Inactive status
D. Sector and Theme Codes
Original
Actual
Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing)
Agricultural extension and research
10
10
Central government administration
20
20
Forestry
10
10
General water, sanitation and flood protection sector 30
30
Irrigation and drainage
30
30
Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing)
Land administration and management
17
17
Other rural development
33
33
Pollution management and environmental health
33
33
Water resource management
17
17
E. Bank Staff
Positions
At ICR
At Approval
Vice President:
Philippe H. Le Houerou
Shigeo Katsu
Country Director:
Martin Raiser
Luca Barbone
Sector Manager:
John V. Kellenberg
Marjory-Anne Bromhead
Project Team Leader:
Cora Melania Shaw
Aleksandar Nacev
ICR Team Leader:
Cora Melania Shaw
ICR Primary Author:
Tijen Arin
ii
F. Results Framework Analysis
Global Environment Objectives (GEO) and Key Indicators(as approved)
The Project's Global Environmental Objective is to reduce, over the long-term, the
discharge of nutrients and other agricultural pollutants into the Danube River and Black
Sea through (i) collaboration with agro-industry and farmers benefiting from the Rural
Investment and Services Project (RISP) and (ii) interventions in a pilot watershed area.
Revised Global Environment Objectives (as approved by original approving authority)
and Key Indicators and reasons/justifications
The GEO was not revised. At mid-term, the target number of households installing
individual manure platforms were reduced from 1,200 to 450 and the target number of
communal platforms was reduced from eight to three as the initial communes were
making slow progress in establishing operationally and financially viable waste
management(GEO Indicator #4). Funds were formally reallocated to the faster disbursing
Component 1 Activities under RISP.
(a) GEO Indicator(s)
Original Target
Formally
Actual Value
Values (from
Revised
Achieved at
Indicator
Baseline Value
approval
Target
Completion or
documents)
Values
Target Years
Increased awareness of environmental issues in agro-industry and among
Indicator 1 : farmers.
58 percent of
Four percent of people
people surveyed
Value
surveyed aware of
A target was not
aware of
(quantitative or
environmental issues in set at appraisal.
environmental
Qualitative)
agriculture.
issues in
agriculture.
Date achieved 04/30/2002
12/31/2009
07/22/2009
Comments
While a percentage evaluation of the achievement is not possible due to the
(incl. %
absence of a target, the increase in public awareness of environmental issues in
achievement) agriculture is significant.
Increased number of agro-processors adopting mitigation measures and increased
Indicator 2 : area of agricultural land with resource conservation technologies and increased
production of organically-certified products.
No target set for
59 farms installed
farmers.
adequate manure
At least eight agro-
storage facilities.
industry plants
7 agro-processors
Value
with wastewater
installed WWTPs.
(quantitative or Baseline not available
treatment plants
Efficient irrigation
Qualitative)
(WWTP).
technology
No target set for
introduced on
application of
720ha of land
resource
exposed to soil
iii
conservation
erosion on 27
technologies.
farms.
Grassed waterways,
buffer strips, forest
belts on 253ha
(9farms)
Date achieved 03/22/2004
12/31/2009
07/22/2009
Comments
While the percentage of achievement cannot be measured since no target was set
(incl. %
at appraisal (the M&E framework at the time did not require performance
achievement) targets), the number of interventions is significant.
Demand for project interventions by farmers outside pilot watershed area (PWA)
Indicator 3 : and from other riparian countries.
Three village
platforms built in
two rayons outside
the PWA.
Value
Moreover, several
A target was not
(quantitative or 0
villages outside the
set at appraisal.
Qualitative)
PWA requested the
blueprints for
individual and
communal
platforms.
Date achieved 03/22/2004
12/31/2009
07/16/2009
While percentage of achievement cannot be measured due to lack of target,
Comments
replication by 3 villages with own funds is a significant achievement.
(incl. %
Serbia, Croatia and Romania with WB loan started APCPs, but attribution is
achievement) unrealistic.
Eight commune/village stores constructed together with 1,200 household manure
Indicator 4 : storage facilities
8 villages with
3 villages with
Value
Zero villages with
communal
communal platform
(quantitative or communal and individual platform and 1,200
and 450 individual
Qualitative)
platforms.
individual
platforms.
platforms.
Date achieved 03/22/2004
12/30/2009
07/22/2009
40% achievement. Additionally 218 other households built platforms at their
Comments
own cost. Government and Bank team agreed not to fund more communal
(incl. %
platforms due to low capacity to operate the first three. Funds were shifted to
achievement) similar activities on farms.
(b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s)
Original Target
Actual Value
Formally
Values (from
Achieved at
Indicator
Baseline Value
Revised
approval
Completion or
Target Values
documents)
Target Years
Indicator 1 : Equipment provided for manure handling and field application.
iv
Villages with communal Equipment
Equipment
Value
platforms have no
provided to
provided to villages
(quantitative or equipment for manure
villages with
with communal
Qualitative)
handling and field
communal
platforms.
application.
platforms.
Date achieved 03/22/2004
12/31/2009
07/22/2009
Comments
100% achievement. Additionally, the Ecological fund supported one of the
(incl. %
recipient communes in the purchase of a tractor and a trailer for increased
achievement) collection capacity.
Two embankments reinforced in wetland area; three concrete and 10 wooden
Indicator 2 : bridges installed to provide access.
Two embankments
Two embankments
Embankments damaged.
Value
reinforced, three
reinforced, three
Access to wetland for
(quantitative or
concrete and 10
concrete and 10
management purposes
Qualitative)
wooden bridges
wooden bridges
limited.
installed.
installed.
Date achieved 03/22/2004
12/31/2009
07/22/2009
Comments
(incl. %
100% achievement.
achievement)
A monitoring system to determine the impact of project interventions on soil
Indicator 3 : quality installed. Relevant laboratory staff trained.
Soil Institute (IPA)
received 15 units of
specialized
equipment for
measuring soil loss
Soil quality
in demonstration
Value
monitoring system
No soil quality
plots, and
(quantitative or
in place; relevant
monitoring in place.
laboratory
Qualitative)
laboratory staff
equipment and
trained.
training for testing
soils and providing
advice on farm
nutrient
management.
Date achieved 04/22/2009
12/31/2009
07/22/2009
Comments
(incl. %
100% achievement.
achievement)
Indicator 4 : Policy framework for non-source pollution meeting EU criteria.
A law on non-point
source pollution
Policy framework
Policy framework for
control was not
Value
for non-point
non-point source
enacted. However,
(quantitative or
source pollution
pollution not compliant
the Project
Qualitative)
meeting EU
with EU criteria.
supported several
criteria in place.
technical
publications related
v
to environmentally
friendly agriculture
which helped the
Law on Ecological
Farming and the
Law on Soil
Conservation to be
br
Date achieved 04/22/2009
12/31/2009
07/22/2009
Comments
50%. In the absence of a law on non-point source pollution it is difficult to speak
(incl. %
of a full legal framework which the indicator suggests.
achievement)
Indicator 5 : Adoption of Code of Good Agricultural Practices.
Value
No Code of Good
Code of Good
Code of Good
(quantitative or Agricultural Practices
Agricultural
Agricultural
Qualitative)
exists.
Practices adopted.
Practices adopted.
Date achieved 03/22/2004
12/30/2009
07/22/2009
Comments
(incl. %
100% achievement.
achievement)
Public and farmers aware of the potential to improve income while protecting the
Indicator 6 : environment.
36% of farmers in
Target not
areas were
Baseline value not
Value
specified in PAD
environmentally
specified in PAD Annex
(quantitative or
Annex 1 or other
friendly practices
1 or other formally
Qualitative)
formally adopted
were demonstrated
adopted M&E plan.
M&E plan.
adopted at least one
such practice.
Date achieved 04/22/2009
12/31/2009
12/31/2008
Comments
(incl. %
Lack of baseline makes it impossible to evaluate result in percentage terms.
achievement)
G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs
Actual
Date ISR
No.
GEO
IP
Disbursements
Archived
(USD millions)
1
04/21/2004
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
0.30
2
06/10/2004
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
0.30
3
12/16/2004
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
0.53
4
12/28/2004
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
0.66
5
05/14/2005
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
0.91
6
10/11/2005
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
1.67
7
12/07/2005
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
1.86
8
06/14/2006
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
2.50
vi
9
02/12/2007
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
3.50
10
06/01/2007
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
3.75
11
01/24/2008
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
4.39
12
05/01/2008
Highly Satisfactory
Highly Satisfactory
4.51
13
12/18/2008
Highly Satisfactory
Satisfactory
4.78
14
07/11/2009
Highly Satisfactory
Satisfactory
4.95
H. Restructuring (if any)
Not Applicable
I. Disbursement Profile
vii
1. Project Context, Global Environment Objectives and Design
1.1 Context at Appraisal
Thanks to favorable climatic and soil conditions, agriculture plays an important role in Moldova's
economy. 85 percent of the territory is agricultural land. During the early 2000s, the sector
contributed about 33 percent to the gross domestic product, accounted for 65 percent of exports,
employed 40 percent of the total estimated population of 4.3 million people, and 54 percent of the
population lived in rural areas. However, the sector declined markedly following the loss of
Soviet markets and the breakdown of the agricultural input supply system. As a result, rural
poverty soared. To address these challenges, Moldova has explored new markets, especially
among European Union (EU) countries, and new products, such as higher-value organic produce.
Agriculture has also been the major source of pollution for Moldovan water bodies that drain into
the Danube River and the Black Sea. During the 1980s, significant ecosystem decline was
observed in the Black Sea, in part caused by excessive nutrient loads in rivers (nitrogen and
phosphorus). In Moldova, illegal dumping of livestock manure on roadsides and riversides was a
major source of heightened nutrient loads. During 1960s-1980s, excessive application of heavily
subsidized mineral fertilizers also contributed to river pollution until the 1990s when access to
cheap fertilizers became restricted. However, it was expected that mineral fertilizers would be
used intensively again as the economy recovered. In addition, widespread wind erosion caused
large quantities of nutrient-rich topsoil to be washed into watercourses, adding to nutrient loads.
As a signatory to the Convention on Cooperation for the Protection and Sustainable Use of the
Danube River (Danube Convention), Moldova qualified for support for nutrient-reduction
measures under the GEF-led Partnership for Nutrient Reduction in the Black Sea Danube Basin,
established in 2000, to implement the Danube Convention.
The Project supported the 1999 Moldova Country Assistance Strategy (CAS), which aimed to
improve economic growth and thereby the prospects for reducing poverty and social hardship.
The CAS envisaged "support for reforms in agriculture and enterprise to stimulate a supply
response and promote private sector-led growth." Moldova was already implementing the Bank-
funded Rural Investment and Services Project, "...designed to foster post-privatization growth in
the agricultural sector by improving the access of new private farmers and rural businesses to
what they need to succeed--legal ownership status, knowledge, know-how, and finance." The
Project would complement RISP by promoting environment-friendly agricultural production
technologies that would also help boost agricultural exports, regain traditional export markets,
and tap into lucrative new markets in Western Europe. Reducing nutrient pollution in the Black
Sea Basin would yield regional and global environmental benefits--enhanced conservation of
marine biodiversity, recovery of Black Sea fisheries, and tourism and recreational benefits.
1.2 Original Global Environment Objectives (GEO) and Key Indicators (as approved)
The Project development objective (PDO) was to significantly increase the use of mitigation
measures by agro-industry and farmers to reduce nutrient discharge into the surface and ground
water bodies in Moldova. The global environmental objective (GEO) was to reduce, over the
long-term1 the discharge of nutrients and other agricultural pollutants into the Danube River and
Black Sea. The Supplemental Letter No. 1 attached to the GEF Grant Agreement specified ten
key performance indicators, agreed during negotiations:
1. Increased awareness of environmental issues in agro-industry and among farmers.
1 The phrase "over the long term" is not included in the Grant Agreement or the main text of PAD, but only in PAD Annex 1.
1
2. Increased number of agro-processors adopting mitigation measures and increased area of
agricultural land with resource conservative technologies and increased production of
organically-certified products.
3. Demand for Project interventions by farmers outside the pilot watershed area and from
other riparian countries.
4. Eight commune/village stores constructed together with 1,200 household manure storage
facilities.
5. Equipment provided for manure handling and field application.
6. Two embankments reinforced in wetland area; 3 concrete and 10 wooden bridges
installed to provide access.
7. A monitoring system to determine the impact of Project interventions on soil quality
installed. Relevant laboratory staff trained.
8. Policy framework for non-source pollution meeting EU criteria in place.
9. Adoption of Code of Good Agricultural Practices.
10. Public and farmers aware of the potential to improve income while protecting the
environment. 2
1.3 Revised GEO (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators, and
reasons/justification
The GEO was not revised.
During the Mid-Term Review, the "Manure Management Practices" activity under Sub-
component 1b was revised, reducing eight commune platforms to three; and 1,200 household
platforms to 450, due to difficulties establishing sustainable operating arrangements in two of
three communal platforms installed in the first two years of the Project, and declining livestock
numbers in the pilot Project area. These factors raised concern about the viability of additional
communal platforms. The remaining funds were reallocated, with Country Director approval, to
Sub-component (1a) "Activities under RISP" which was disbursing well, and had a healthy
pipeline of candidate sub-projects. The amendment was justified and contributed to achieving the
GEO and PDO since the nutrient-reducing investments under this sub-component appeared to be
operated sustainably by the private farmers and agro-industries that received them. The
amendment did not change the scope of the Project as it was one of several activities designed to
achieving the GEO and PDO. It was discussed in detail with the Government as documented in
the mission aide memoire and correspondence on funds reallocation.
Main Beneficiaries
The primary beneficiaries identified at appraisal were:
a) Nine communes in the Hincesti raion and two communes in the Leova raion, comprising
more than 43,200 people in 14,413 households who would benefit from a cleaner local
environment and improved drinking water quality
b) Enterprises with RISP loans across the country who would receive grants to fund part of
their nutrient reduction investments
c) Government of Moldova, through the Ministry of Ecology, Construction and Territorial
Development (MECTD)3 and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry (MAFI),
2 The PAD Section A was not updated to incorporate these indicators. However, the indicators were largely in line with PAD Annex 1.
3 This Ministry's name was later changed to Ministry of Environment. For consistency, this ICR refers to the Ministry as "Ministry of
Environment, Construction, and Territorial Development (MECTD)".
2
which would receive support for honoring its international commitments to reduce
pollution to the Danube River and Black Sea
Other Project beneficiaries included rural communities, local NGOs, advisory and extension
agencies, agricultural service providers, and rural entrepreneurs, who could access information on
low-cost environmentally sound technologies.
1.5 Original Components (as approved)
Component 1. Promotion of mitigation measures for reducing nutrient loads in water
bodies (US$9.66m with US$4.19m GEF, US$ 3.93m RISP, and US$1.53m recipient financing).
This component would contribute directly to the PDO and GEO by encouraging farmers and
agro-processors to adopt nutrient-reducing technologies through two sub-components:
(a) Collaboration with business development, rural support services, and rural finance
activities under RISP (US$6.29m with US$2.30m GEF, US$ 3.93m RISP, and US$0.06m
recipient financing), including:
(i) Providing grants totaling up to US$2.0 million to mitigate nutrient discharge from RISP-
borrowers, including individual farmers, farmers' organizations, co-operatives and agricultural
processors, to offset the incremental cost of nutrient reduction investments. Eligible business lines
would include livestock rearing; slaughtering and meat processing; crop production with large
nutrient discharge potential; juice and vegetable oil extraction; wine production vinery; and other
agro-processing that produces biomass waste.
(ii) Training rural advisory service providers and RISP credit officers in nutrient-reduction
practices and grant-provision mechanisms so they could inform credit recipients of grant
availability, eligibility criteria, and application procedures.
(b) Promotion of improved watershed management practices in the Lapusna basin (US$3.36m
with US$1.89m GEF and US$1.47m recipient financing) comprising 11 communes in Hincesti
and Leova raions, part of the Lapusna tributary of the Prut River ("Project pilot area"). The sub-
component would fund the following activities to reduce nutrient loads flowing into Prut River.
(i) Manure management through 1,200 individual household and eight community manure
platforms and equipment for manure collection and application to land. Community training and
awareness on composting, testing, and field application of manure would also be provided.
(ii) Promotion of environment-friendly agricultural practices through technical assistance and
funding of incremental operating costs that would improve agricultural production and reduce
nutrient discharge into water bodies, including: (a) nutrient management; (b) conservation tillage;
(c) integrated cropping management; (d) vegetated buffer areas; and (e) organic farming.
(iii) Shrub and tree planting including (a) forest belts to protect water bodies; (b) forest belts to
prevent soil erosion; (c) ecological reconstruction of forests; and (d) agro-forestry. The APCP
would provide planting material, equipment, and technical assistance. The State Forestry Service
"Moldsilva" would implement the program, with significant contributions from local
communities.
(iv) Wetland restoration and promotion of sustainable management practices to enhance the
nutrient filtration capacity of the wetland at the intersection of the Lapusna and Prut Rivers (near
the Sarata-Razesi community) and help restore degraded wetland to its former natural state.
Activities under the sub-component included: (a) planting forest vegetation with species that have
high capacity for nitrate uptake and retention in floodplain areas and terraces exposed to erosion;
(b) hydrologic enhancement practices, such as embankment reinforcements to stabilize water
levels, and small bridges for wetland access; (c) sanitation activities; and (d) raising awareness
among local people about the importance and fragility of wetland ecosystems.
3
(v) Monitoring soil, water quality and environmental impacts. An extensive soil and water
quality testing program would be established for the pilot area to monitor changes in surface and
groundwater quality in response to piloting improved agricultural and livestock practices. The
Project would strengthen the capacity of MECTD Water Quality Laboratory and Hydrology
Department of the Hydrometeorology State Service and the central and regional laboratories of
the State Environmental Inspectorate and Institute for Pedology and Soil Science to carry out
comprehensive soil and water quality testing. Internationally approved monitoring procedures,
including paired-watershed and upstream-downstream hydrologic and soil and water quality
monitoring designs would be used. A modeling activity would extend lessons learned from
Lapusna Basin to other watersheds in the country.
Component 2. Strengthening National Policy, Regulatory and Enforcement Capacity
(US$0.09m with US$0.07m GEF; US$0.02m recipient financing) would strengthen Government
legislative, regulatory, and institutional capacity in agricultural pollution control by assisting
MECTD and MAFI to develop a Code of Good Agricultural Practices (CGAP), to apply EU
Nitrate Directive (ND) principles to national legislation, to promote scientifically grounded
organic farming and land use management, and to develop certification procedures for domestic
and international marketing of organic products. CGAP and promotion of organic farming would
support the achievement of the PDO and GEO by helping farmers implement practices that
reduce nutrient loss while incorporating ND principles in national legislation would provide the
Government with incentives to encourage farmers to reduce agricultural pollution.
Component 3. Public Awareness and Replication Strategy (US$0.37m with US$0.28m GEF
and US$ 0.09m Recipient financing). Raising awareness of Project activities would support the
GEO and PDO by increasing the number of farmers and agro-processors using nutrient-reduction
technologies, and creating support for environmental protection; a replication strategy would
ensure long-term application. Public information campaigns would familiarize the public with
Project and its benefits and raise interest among RISP clients in undertaking nutrient-reducing
investments with project grant support. At the pilot Project area level, the Agency for
Consultancy and Training in Agriculture (ACSA), entrusted with RISP extension activities,
would target local officials, farmers, community groups, and NGOs. National efforts would
concentrate on Government agencies, national environmental or professional associations,
academia, NGOs, and the public. The Project would also fund national and regional workshops,
field trips, visits, training, international agricultural and environmental journal articles, and
promotion to replication of Project activities in Moldova and other Black Sea Basin countries.
Component 4. Project Management and Evaluation (US$0.62 m with US$0.42 m GEF and
US$ 0.20m recipient financing). The Project would support a Project Implementation Unit (PIU)
responsible for timely implementation of Project activities, achieving the PDO and GEO by
coordinating implementing agencies, procurement, financial management, and monitoring and
evaluation. The Consolidated Agricultural Projects Management Unit (CAPMU) based in MAFI
would provide fiduciary support including procurement and financial management.
1.6 Revised Components. Please refer to Section 1.3.
1.7 Other significant changes. No other significant changes occurred.
2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes
2.1 Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry
4
Project background analysis was generally adequate. The Trans-boundary Diagnostic Analysis
prepared under the precursor Black Sea Environmental Program provided rationale for Project
interventions; it revealed that 90 percent of nutrients discharged into the Moldovan Danube
system originated from agriculture including nutrients in eroded top soils from hilly land and poor
soil conservation techniques. A stakeholder survey indicated that residents ranked unauthorized
dumping of household and livestock waste as the primary environmental problem, followed by
polluted drinking water. Additional survey findings from wetland area stakeholders indicated
reliance on wetland resources and misperception about planned Project outcomes (that existing
resource use would be enhanced), but these were not fully integrated in Project design. Project
preparation benefitted from lessons learned during the Agricultural Pollution Control Project in
neighboring Romania, begun two years earlier, supporting similar interventions.
The Project reflected the following key lessons learned from rural environmental and agricultural
operations in the region:
a) Early involvement of local administrations, communities, and key decision makers in Project
preparation is essential in order to ensure ownership and successful implementation. Project
preparation identified key stakeholders and their priorities to help secure their commitment and
ownership. The Project preparation team held consultations with local Hincesti and Leova raion
officials, including Prefects and mayors of the eleven Project communes, who indicated their full
commitment. A Local Consultative Committee was established to coordinate local agencies, but
the Project could have done more to help local wetland area stakeholders fully understand and
support Project activities and intended outcomes.
b) Local communities need to see tangible benefits to adopting measures to reduce nutrient
loads. Improved agricultural practices selected for testing and demonstration were cost-effective,
low-input, and readily transferable, demonstrating potential to increase famers' incomes.
c) Build local ownership and sustainability by decentralizing responsibility for financial and
project management (e.g., Romania Danube Delta Biodiversity Project). During Project
preparation and implementation, the PIU worked closely with raion and commune
administrations in the pilot area, although the Project was designed to be managed by a Chisinau-
based PIU.
d) Disseminate information through credible and well-established local institutions to
encourage widespread adoption of new technologies and practices. The Project included a public
awareness campaign, training, and local and national demonstration programs delivered by
ACSA, with support from local soil and forest institutes, to disseminate information on site-
appropriate environment-friendly agricultural practices.
The rationale for Bank intervention was sound. The Bank was a founding member of the GEF
Partnership for the Danube and the Black Sea and the Implementing Agency for the GEF Fund
for Nutrient Reduction in the Danube and Black Sea. During preparation of the Moldova APCP,
the Bank was supporting preparation and implementation of similar operations in Bulgaria,
Georgia, Romania, Russia, and Turkey. This region-wide involvement enabled the Bank to
transfer experiences and best practices to Moldova, and build a regional support and peer network
for knowledge exchange among practitioners. Ongoing Bank support to Moldovan agriculture,
mainly through RISP, also put it in a good position to mainstream environmental concerns into
the sector.
The PDO was appropriate, but the GEO was very broad and difficult to measurable. The
Project performance indicators agreed during Negotiations correctly excluded an indicator of
nutrient reduction given that these may not be reliably measured during the Project's time frame.
It would have been appropriate for the GEO to be the same as the PDO.
5
Project design was generally sound. It incorporated experience from similar projects in the
region concerning agricultural pollution, tailoring them to Moldovan conditions. Design
complexity was appropriate: Pilot manure storage investments and other watershed management
activities were concentrated in a well-defined geographical area of about 50,000ha, which
allowed quantitative assessments of long-run nutrient reduction from Project interventions. The
communal manure management sub-component was technically straightforward, but posed some
organizational and financial challenges. The "Collaboration with RISP" sub-component built on
existing financial and business support networks. Organic farming activities built on EU TACIS
study recommendations that the Government owned, and corresponded to MAFI strategy to
expand Moldova's market reach in organic products. Project-promoted environment friendly
practices were simple and had been tested in neighboring Romania.
Project design overestimated financial and institutional capacities of some communes selected for
communal manure platforms. Realistic targets for communal manure platforms might have been
determined early on through more in-depth assessments of commune ability to maintain and
operate the platforms (manure collection, platform operation, and manure application).
Wetland restoration sub-component activities were straightforward and simple. The site was a
legally protected area under the Ramsar Convention. However, enforcement of protected area
access restrictions had been lax prior to the Project and a 2003 survey indicated that local
inhabitants had come to depend on wetlands to graze animals, raise fodder, collect firewood, and
pursue recreational activities, and they mistakenly thought that wetland restoration aimed to
enhance these benefits. If Project design had taken these survey findings into account, livestock
owners' opposition to reforestation activities may have been avoided during early
implementation. Furthermore, closer communication between the PIU and the local community
could have avoided later problems that arose when the community rehabilitated drainage systems
in an adjacent agricultural polder that deprived wetlands of water. This problem was resolved
through additional works.
Government prioritized agricultural pollution control and wetland ecosystem protection by
ratifying the Danube Convention. Government commitment was also evidenced by MECTD and
MAFI support to the Project design unit, and timely release of counterpart funds by the Ministry
of Finance during Project preparation. Local governments, including Hincesti and Leova Prefects
and their staffs, and the Mayors and Vice Mayors of the eleven pilot-area communes, understood
and supported Project interventions to improve local environmental conditions.
Most critical risks were adequately identified and rated; mitigation measures were adequate.
Notably, the critical risk, "Beneficiaries cannot develop new manure storage and handling
systems that are financially attractive," was assessed correctly as "substantial." Inadequate
financial resources for operational expenses plagued the first three communal platforms,
triggering a decision to cancel construction of any others. The mitigation measure, "...early
designs and pilots to develop low-cost manure-handling and storage systems that are financially
attractive to farmers," was partially effective. Deeper analysis of communes' financial and
administrative capacities could have revealed this situation earlier. However, the risk of conflicts
over restricted resource use in wetlands was not identified despite social survey finding of high
level of dependence on wetlands for livelihoods.
2.2 Implementation
The Project became effective on schedule. Thanks to prepared detailed designs and specifications,
the first batch of platforms was built in the first year. Disbursements were ahead of schedule
throughout implementation; the Project closed nearly six months ahead of schedule; no major
Project restructuring was necessary; the Project was never at risk. Some challenges during
6
implementation were overcome by timely interventions from the implementing agency, supported
by the Bank team. For example, during early implementation, manure transfer from household
platforms to communal platforms was slow and irregular, eroding waste management system
effectiveness, but the situation improved when public awareness campaigns were launched and
transportation equipment was provided to beneficiary communes. At the Mid-term Review
(MTR), Government and the Bank team agreed to reduce the number of Project-supported
commune and household platforms after observing slow progress among initial communes to
establish operationally and financially viable waste management. Funds were reallocated to the
RISP grant co-financing component, under which Project-supported nutrient-reducing facilities
were operated effectively. This was a prudent decision.
Wetland rehabilitation was affected by resource-use conflicts due to stricter enforcement of
access restriction by Government as a result of the emergence of a common border with the EU
and weak administrative coordination. Conflicts over access to wetlands delayed reforestation;
community activities to rehabilitate drainage works in the adjacent agricultural land limited water
flow to the wetlands; and the local environmental authority erred in providing permits for these
works. The Project responded adequately to the water flow issue by funding corrective works.
Improved communications between the PIU, Molsilva (which is entrusted with the management
of the Ramsar site) and the community focusing on correcting the stakeholders' expectation of
enhanced resource use possibilities would have been helpful. Development of an Access
Restriction Process Framework during Project preparation in anticipation of such conflicts would
have mitigated them by creating alternatives even though it was not the Project per se but the
Government's stricter enforcement of the protected area regulation which limited stakeholder
access to the wetlands.
Except for the above issues, Project implementation was smooth due to: (i) continuous support
and close supervision by Government authorities (MECFD and MAFI) and the Bank team; (ii)
substantial involvement of the Hincesti and Leova raion authorities in implementation; (iii) timely
availability of GEF, Government, and local funds; and (iv) a dedicated PIU.
2.3 Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Design, Implementation and Utilization
The key performance indicators in PAD Section A differed from the key performance indicators
listed in the Supplemental Letter (SL) to the GEF Project Grant Agreement (see Section 1.2
above) in that of the 10 SL indicators two overlapped with PAD Section A indicators, two were
modified, and the rest were new (See Annex 2 for a table comparing the two sets of indicators).
The SL indicators improved PAD Section A indicators: (i) given the short Project life, they
excluded indicators specifying water and soil quality improvements due to Project interventions;
and (ii) included key Project outputs that helped achieve the PDO and GEO. This section reviews
the SL indicators in conjunction with the Project Design Summary in Annex 1 of PAD. Indicators
monitored in Bank implementation status reports (ISRs) were a subset of the 10 key performance
indicators in the SL.
Design. About 7 of the 10 indicators were appropriate to measure progress towards the PDO and
the GEO. The others were either too complex (No. 2), attributed too much to the Project (No. 3),
or lacked realism (No. 8). Measurability was a problem with No.s 1, 2, 3, 8 and 10, due to lack of
specificity. PAD Annex 1 did not specify baseline values, targets, or a time frame to achieve the
targets, which was common before the Bank introduced the Result Framework Matrix in the PAD
format. Nevertheless, the binary nature of some of indicators made it clear that the baseline was
either "zero" (No. 4, 6) or "nonexistent" (No. 5, 7, 8, 9). Some indicators had embedded target
values (No. 4, 6 and 9); no time frame was provided.
7
Implementation. One of the PIU members was tasked to manage Project M&E. Substantial
progress data were collected during Project implementation through household surveys, RISP
APCP recipient questionnaires, Project-funded soil and water quality monitoring programs, status
reports provided by government and local agencies implementing individual Project activities,
and on-site PIU inspection. Data collected were reported in Project Progress Reports by CAPMU.
A significant effort was also made to measure the impact of the Project, including through an
Impact Assessment Review during the final year of implementation.
Utilization. Most data collected were evaluated and used to gauge Project progress towards the
GEO and PDO and refine implementation. For example, when the PIU noted that household use
of communal manure management systems was lower than targeted, it responded with a stronger
public awareness campaign. While not an indicator specified by the M&E plan, low commune
capacity to sustainably operate the three existing platforms led to the decision not to invest in
more platforms. However, it is unclear whether the public awareness campaign was adjusted to
reflect household survey results. Most monitoring activities ended at Project closure, because
most were related to Project outputs. However, the Soil and Forestry Institutes and Hydromet
received equipment and training to establish and maintain monitoring capacity beyond the
Project. Actual utilization will depend on the institutes' budget availability.
2.4 Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance
Financial Management. Regular Bank team financial management reviews
confirmed a satisfactory financial management system during the Project life. No
internal control issues were raised. Satisfactory internal controls and procedures
ensured reliable accounting records and safeguarded Project resources and assets.
The Project benefited from CAPMU's experience in financial management of Bank-
financed projects; CAPMU respected the financial covenants included in the Grant
Agreement and prepared and submitted financial reports punctually in the agreed
content and format. All audit reports contained unqualified (clean) opinions. The
final Project audit was submitted on June 23, 2009, with an unqualified opinion and
no accountability or internal control issues. Counterpart financing was satisfactory
during the Project life.
Procurement. The CAPMU procurement expert supported the PIU on all procurement
activities. The Bank team conducted prior review of contracts and regularly supervised smaller
contracts subject to post review. The CAPMU procurement officer maintained a fully functional
filing system. Procurement supervision missions concluded that Project procurement was
conducted in accordance with World Bank rules and procedures, and in line with Grant
Agreement provisions.
Disbursement. The Project disbursed ahead of schedule without deviations or
waivers from Bank disbursement policies and procedures.
Environmental Assessment. The Project was rated "category B." An Environmental
Assessment (EA) carried out during preparation concluded that Project impact would be
overwhelmingly positive--reducing illegal manure dumps on roadsides and riverbanks, and
leaching of nutrients and other pollutants into water bodies. Only Component 1, which involved
construction, had potential risks, such as manure leakage from communal storage facilities (in
case of defective construction), inappropriate manure spreading in the fields, or improper
cleaning of individual and communal platforms. The EA also pointed out that the wetland
restoration subcomponent would enhance wetland nutrient-filtration capacity and biodiversity.
The EA noted that subcomponent environmental concerns included potential introduction of
invasive species that could dominate the wetlands, or human overexploitation of wetland
8
resources. However, the EA failed to mention that the wetlands were a Ramsar site and to
highlight lax enforcement as a potential threat to the sustainability of project interventions. These
factors would have warranted the triggering of the Natural Habitats Operational Policy. In the
light of the social survey finding on local stakeholder dependence on wetland resources
preparation of an Access Restriction Process Framework would have been beneficial.
An Environmental Management Plan (EMP) laid out mitigation measures for these risks.
Notably, a comprehensive soil and water quality monitoring system included 32 piezometers to
detect pollution from platforms. The Project strengthened local laboratory capacity to carry out
related analyses. The EMP recommended monitoring wetlands flora, fauna, and water quality--
which discovered a healthy resurgence of some endangered species.
Compliance with OP 4.01 on EA was rated satisfactory throughout Project implementation. The
Bank team's comprehensive final safeguards review found compliance with all provisions laid
out in the EMP, and confirmed that: (a) the large and individual manure storage facility designs
were prepared under PIU engineering staff supervision; (b) the State Ecological Inspectorate
and/or Territorial Ecological Agency ensured that manure storage facilities construction met
environmental guidelines to prevent manure contamination of surface and ground water sources;
(c) facilities were built away from any surface water body; (d) the hydro-technical works and site
modifications in the wetland restoration area were properly implemented; (e) an extensive soil
and water monitoring program was implemented to prevent manure seepage to ground water; and
(f) a public awareness campaign promoted adoption of environment-friendly manure management
to reduce nutrient loads in water bodies.
With regard to (d), after Project-supported wetland rehabilitation works were completed, local
government carried out drainage works on communal agricultural land adjacent to the wetlands,
which put Project achievements at risk by reducing water flow to the restored wetland area.
Therefore, the APCP funded additional hydro-technical works to maintain water flow and prevent
flooding. The review concluded that these interventions were justified.
While the team carried out an in-depth safeguards review in the final semester of the Project,
periodic reporting in ISRs and mission aide memoires should have been used to justify the
safeguards compliance rating of the Project.
Social safeguards. No social safeguards were triggered. The final safeguards review and the
social survey revealed two concerns that relate to local people's misperceptions: first, that their
access to wetland resources such as pastures, fishing, and hunting was reduced; and second, that
the wetlands could flood or pose health risks due to excessive humidity. However, discussions
with local people, community representatives, Moldsilva representatives, and the APCP team
revealed that access to wetland resources was not limited by APCP activities; rather, it was a
consequence of Moldsilva's stricter enforcement of existing access regulations. These
misperceptions could have been avoided through better communication between Project
implementers and local communities, and stronger coordination with other agencies, which also
could have prevented the Sarata-Razesi community drainage system works that reduced water
flows to Project-rehabilitated wetlands.
2.5 Post-completion Operation/Next Phase
This section discusses sustainability and replicability of Project interventions.
Sustainability: All Project-supported goods and works were transferred to beneficiaries during
implementation:
· One hundred RISP borrowers received APCP grants for environmental investments, and
450 households received small platforms. It is anticipated that the platforms will be
9
maintained in good operating order: first, because the fine for illegal dumping, including
animal waste, is sufficient to deter such behavior; second, because farmers understand the
environmental benefits of platforms to their backyards and farms (Annex 5); and third,
farmers save money by using less mineral fertilizer and substituting composted manure.
Some 18 farmers received drip irrigation equipment that appear to have improved yields
sufficiently to provide incentives for maintenance. Seven agro-processors received grants for
wastewater treatment plants; enterprises must meet specified standards to receive operating
licenses, which is sufficient incentive to operate and maintain this equipment.
· The mayoralties of Lapusna, Carpineni, and Negrea steward communal platforms. Private
concessionaires operate the Lapusna and Carpineni platforms--collect manure from
household platforms, compost it on communal platforms, apply some to their fields and sell
the rest to cover costs. In Negrea, the mayoralty operates the platform in partnership with a
local farmers' association that covers operational costs to collect and transport manure from
household platforms to the communal platform; the commune pays for electricity and guards.
· The Soils and Hydro-meteorological Institutes' capacity is adequate to operate and
maintain Project-provided equipment for water and soil quality. The Project established a
water and soil quality program, but implementation will require institute budget allocations.
Moldova being an EU neighborhood country and riparian to a common river will likely
qualify it for support for water quality monitoring programs.
Replicability
Several factors point to good replication potential. First, villages and households have come to
appreciate the communal manure management system piloted by the Project in three villages. 218
households in these villages have already built individual manure platforms using their own
resources. Increased awareness of the importance of proper manure management, low cost of
individual platforms and fines for illegal dumping of manure bode well for more wide-spread
construction of individual platforms in villages that have communal platforms. Construction and
operation of communal platforms will require public financial resources, including from local
authorities, and institutional capacity. Ongoing initiatives by four villages in the Glodeni,
Telenesti and Orhei raions to build communal platforms and MECTD pledge to support them are
promising developments.
Second, the requirement that industrial enterprises meet effluent concentration limits with regard
to nutrients and other pollutants is a significant driver for agro-enterprises to install wastewater
treatment stations. In fact already during Project implementation two agro-processors financed
installation of wastewater treatment stations using Project designs and Project-trained consultants.
Environmental inspectors now conduct tours of recipient enterprises so entrepreneurs can see
facilities that comply with licensing requirements. Financial benefits associated with other
nutrient-reducing investments on RISP APCP farms will encourage other farmers to adopt such
benefits. RISP officials report that since project closure one loan recipient under RISP II has built
a manure platform using his resources. Training provided to loan officers in financial institutions
under the RISP will allow credit financing of nutrient-reducing investments in agro-processors
and farms under RISP II and other credit programs.
Third, with regard to good agricultural practices, capacity built among agricultural advisors
nationwide and the adoption of a Code of Good Agricultural Practices will ensure their
dissemination for years to come. Organic farming will also be encouraged by Moldova's close
proximity to European markets.
Finally, central and local Governments have strong interest in building on Project achievements
in manure management through a follow-up operation focusing on biogas digestion; they have
10
approached the Bank for support. The Bank and Moldovan counterparts are cooperating to
explore funding sources for this operation, including GEF and carbon finance.
3. Assessment of Outcomes
3.1 Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation
The Project objectives, design, and implementation remain highly relevant to Moldova's
development and environmental priorities. The Country Partnership Strategy (CPS) for 2009-12
highlights environmental concerns about soil degradation, surface water pollution from run-off
and agro-chemicals, and increased ground water pollution from poor manure management in rural
communities. The Project demonstrated effective and affordable measures to address these
problems; the next step is replicating these measures across the country. Furthermore, as the CPS
underlines, climate change and environmental degradation pose significant challenges.
Government has expressed intention to support adoption of biogas manure digestion to help
mitigate climate change, reduce pollution, and generate energy--goals that align with the Project
PDO and GEO. Furthermore, the Project contributed to Moldova's afforestation and biodiversity
conservation targets for the Millennium Development Goals. Finally, the National Strategy for
Sustainable Development of Agro-Industrial Complex (2008-15) includes environment-friendly
agricultural practices, confirming their relevance. Specifically, the Strategy highlights ecological
agriculture, reconstructing degraded soils, rehabilitating meadow vegetation, expanding
afforestation and shelterbelts, and restoring wetlands, as means to preserve soil quality, which is
key to agricultural productivity in Moldova.
3.2 Achievement of Global Environmental Objectives
A review of Project achievements against key performance indicators reveal that the GEO was
achieved. Specifically, awareness among farmers and the general public was increased from the
baseline of 4 percent to 58 percent in the Project pilot area; 100 RISP borrowers--private farms
and agro-processors have adopted nutrient-reducing technologies; three villages are operating
communal manure platforms in cooperation with more than 668 households, 218 of which built
platforms using their own funds. Three villages outside the Project pilot area built communal
platforms using their own funds and Project-promoted designs. The Project-end social survey
indicated that manure-disposal behavior changed significantly. Taken together, these indicators
suggest sustainable reduction of nutrient discharges from farms and agro-processors.
3.3 Efficiency
An incremental cost analysis (ICA) was carried out at appraisal. At ICR stage, an ex-post ICA
and a cost-effectiveness analysis were conducted (Annex 3).
At appraisal, the Baseline Scenario included US$3.93 million from the RISP, which provided
sub-loans to farms and agro-processors for investments that aimed to boost productivity, but not
directly aimed at environmental improvements. The GEF Alternative Scenario included the RISP
and the GEF Project for US$10.74 million. Under the GEF Alternative, improved farming
practices would reduce annual nutrient leakage by an estimated 280 tons N and 70 tons P; and the
reconstructed wetland area would retain/absorb 100 kg N and 10 kg P per hectare/year.
Ex-post analysis indicates that the GEF Alternative cost US$8.17 million, including RISP co-
financing of US$1.52 million, Government and recipient contributions of US$1.70 million, and
the US$4.95 million GEF grant. Average annual nutrient reduction estimates from the three
Project-supported communal platforms are 60 tons N and 40 tons P. However, these figures
underestimate Project impact, since they exclude nutrient reductions achieved by two additional
11
communes that built platforms with Project technical support, using their own funds.
Furthermore, platforms on the 59 RISP APCP farm reduce an annual estimated 134 tons N and 80
tons P. Hence, estimated annual nutrient reduction due to manure management is lower than the
appraisal estimate for N, but higher for P. The rehabilitated wetland annual nutrient retention
estimate is 17 tons N and 3 tons P, close to appraisal estimates. Finally, wastewater treatment
plants, built by the RISP APCP grant recipient agro-processors, reduce 1.5 tons N/year and 0.1
tons P/year.
Cost effectiveness analysis found that reducing one kg of N costs US$3.79 and P, US$3.36, for
communal manure management; and US$5.96 and US$5.69 for farm manure management on
RISP APCP farms. These values compare favorably with values in other countries in the region
and in the Chesapeake Bay, in the United States.
3.4 Justification of Overall Outcome Rating
Rating: Satisfactory
The GEO and PDO remain highly relevant for global environmental protection and local
agricultural development (value of manure as fertilizer, increased productivity from good
agricultural practices). The PDO was achieved; estimates of nutrient load reduction indicate that
the GEO will also be achieved in a highly cost effective manner.
3.5 Overarching Themes, Other Outcomes and Impacts
(a) Poverty Impacts, Gender Aspects, and Social Development
Not applicable.
(b) Institutional Change/Strengthening
The Project built capacity in several institutions to mitigate agricultural pollution: First, lending
institution staff are now aware of sectoral environmental issues that affect farmers and agro-
processors and can handle commercial loans for their investments; credit demand may be
expected to grow now that operating licenses are required; financial benefits accrue from avoided
fines, and increased yields and export opportunities. Second, the three recipient commune
mayoralties can provide lessons learned to other communes about implementing successful
manure and waste management systems.
(c) Other Unintended Outcomes and Impacts (positive or negative, if any). None.
3.6 Summary of Findings of Beneficiary Survey and/or Stakeholder Workshops
A national conference, "The Agricultural Pollution Control Project of Moldova: Results and
Perspectives," was held in May 2009, at the World Bank country office, attended by about 35
representatives of Environment and Agriculture Ministries, other implementing agencies, Project-
area mayors, and many beneficiaries. All workshop participants expressed satisfaction with
Project benefits related to the environment, economy, social sector, and climate change
mitigation; the replicability of pilot Project activities; and enhanced country capacity to maintain
them. Project-generated experience and knowledge is now used in the public and private sectors,
and participants indicated considerable national demand for scaling-up activities.
4. Assessment of Risk to Development Outcome
Rating: Moderate
Prospects are good for sustainable Project outcomes. Communal manure management
sustainability is evidenced by two communes in the Glodeni and Orhei raions, and 218
households that built manure platforms at their own expense, based on Project-supported designs.
12
Similarly, two agro-processors financed installation of wastewater treatment stations using
Project designs and Project-trained consultants.
The Hydrometeorological Service continues to monitor the three Project-installed water flow
stations and sample the 17 APCP village wells to gauge shallow water quality. Project-provided
equipment, including three mobile labs, and training, facilitate continued monitoring, but State
budget allocations are required for operating costs. The same is true for the Soil Institute.
Stronger enforcement of access restrictions will ensure sustainable Project outcomes in the
restored wetlands. The rehabilitated drainage infrastructure in the adjacent agricultural polder will
help local people increase crop revenues, thereby reducing some livelihood-seeking pressure on
wetland resources. (Project-funded corrective works now mitigate wetland risks from drainage.)
However, local communities may continue to challenge wetland access restrictions on recreation,
livestock grazing, and fodder raising, which means that a targeted public information campaign
and close cooperation with the community would be useful to identify alternatives, reduce
conflicts, and increase reserve sustainability.
5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance
5.1 Bank
(a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry
Rating: Moderately satisfactory
The Bank identified an area of support that was and remains relevant to Moldovan priorities in
environment, public health, and agriculture. Linking Project-supported agricultural pollution-
control activities and the ongoing RISP was innovative and integrated environmental and
agricultural sector goals. The Bank team helped transfer a simple-but-effective communal manure
management system from Romania to Moldova and establish regional cooperation to exchange
information and experiences.
The Bank team supporting Project preparation should have examined Project-selected communes'
financial and operational capacity to run manure management systems since this is of key
importance for the sustainability of Project investments. The team could have also paid more
attention to community expectations from Project-supported activities in the wetland area; and a
monitoring and evaluation system that included baselines and targets.
(b) Quality of Supervision
(including fiduciary and safeguards policies)
Rating: Satisfactory
The Bank team closely supervised Project implementation (using monthly video conferences in
addition to semi-annual missions), and maintained intensive and constructive dialogue with the
PIU, central and local government agencies, and other stakeholders identifying problems and
adopting corrective measures in a timely manner. For example, at MTR, the Bank team indicated
the need to strengthen the public awareness campaign to improve household manure transfer
frequency to the communal platform; and the team recommended actions to smooth cooperation
between the PIU and CAPMU, addressing implementation delays. The team reported issues
candidly and adjusted Project ratings accordingly. The team emphasized sustainability of Project
outcomes, as evidenced by its close review of operational arrangements, business plans, and
adequate financial commitments for communal manure management systems. The team
maintained a strong focus on measuring and documenting Project results, and supported
Government to carry out corrective works in the wetland to mitigate risks posed by drainage
works in adjacent agricultural land.
13
However, the team could have performed better (i) in detecting early stakeholder conflicts over
resource use in the wetlands and encouraging the PIU to strengthen dialogue about Project-
supported activities; and (ii) in reporting on safeguards compliance.
(c) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance
Rating: Moderately satisfactory
Bank support to the Government of Moldova in preparing and implementing the Project was a
significant factor in Project success. During Project preparation, closer attention to sustainability
and community perceptions could have prevented some problems during implementation. During
implementation, team performance was satisfactory despite a few areas that could have been
improved. However, overall rating is moderately satisfactory, as per the ICR guidelines that the
overall rating will be equal to the lower of two ratings.
5.2 Borrower
(a) Government Performance
Rating: Satisfactory
Government strongly supported the Project, and as it progressed, Steering Committee support
increased and cooperation among agencies improved, contributing to timely implementation of
Project activities. Timely counterpart financing availability throughout the Project contributed to
excellent disbursement performance. Local government agencies contributed significantly to
Project implementation; in the pilot area, the County Coordination Committee, led by the Head of
the Hincesti County Executive Council and comprising county department chiefs and mayors of
all area communes, was delegated significant responsibility. Based on pre-established selection
criteria, the Council selected communes for platform construction, and commune Mayoralties
chose households to receive small individual platforms. The Hincesti County Ecological Agency
was an important local stakeholder.
(b) Implementing Agency or Agencies Performance
Rating: Satisfactory
The highly supportive implementing agency, MECTD, enabled timely completion of Project
activities, supported the PIU on daily implementation issues, and helped resolve problems. For
example, MECTD was willing to help finance the corrective wetland civil works, assistance that
was not needed because the financial crisis resulted in unexpectedly low bids from local
contractors. MECTD made counterpart financing available on a timely basis, and through the
PIU, contributed to replicating Project activities through technical assistance to communes,
individual households, and agro-processors who were willing to use their own funds to install
manure platforms and wastewater treatment plants. Assistance included preparation of technical
designs, materials and technical specifications, and on-site consultation. The PIU's dedication to
achieving the PDO and GEO was an important factor in the Project's success.
While MECTD and in particular PIU performance was a key factor in ensuring the satisfactory
outcome of the project, the MECTD could have performed better in coordinating and
communicating with other agencies to protect the Lapusna wetland. The MECTD's Ecological
Inspectorate issued a permit to the Sarata-Razesi community for drainage rehabilitation works on
the agricultural polder adjacent to Lapusna wetland, financed by the Ecological Fund, and the
works reduced water flow to the protected wetlands.
The MAFI was highly supportive of Project implementation through CAPMU and its
representatives in the Project Steering Committee. The Minister of MAFI chairs the CAPMU
Board, which ensured that due diligence was efficient and effective, but some Project activities
14
that are within MAFI institutional mandate, such as promoting scientific organic farming, were
implemented with some delays.
(c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance
Rating: Satisfactory
Central and local Government agencies were highly supportive of the project, which contributed
to timely implementation and achievement of PDO and GEO.
6. Lessons Learned
a)
Implementing a communal animal waste management system:
i.
During selection and planning, verify sufficient finances, and that financially and
technically sound business plans exist for platform operations.
ii.
Increase fines before manure and waste management system are established to
discourage illegal dumping.
iii.
Raise required financial contributions to a minimum of 30 percent for commune and
households participants, to increase commitment and system sustainability.
b)
Sustainability and replicability of communal waste management depends on local
authorities' commitment.
c)
Train a PIU member in procurement procedures to aid understanding of fiduciary unit
requests and improve cooperation. If a PIU under a sectoral ministry is in charge of technical
aspects, and a fiduciary unit under another Ministry is in charge of procurement and financial
management, miscommunication/confusion about responsibilities will delay implementation.
d)
Timely fund allocation, irrespective of financing source, maintains implementation pace
and Project credibility among grant recipients and contractors.
e)
Plan for mitigating possible resource use conflicts and access restrictions when restoring
wetlands as a small component in a large nutrient reduction project. Be prepared to allocate more
time to social issues than the share of the activity in the overall project costs.
7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners
(a) Borrower/implementing agencies
The following comments were provided by the Ministry of Environment of the Republic of
Moldova on January 13, 2010 in a letter signed by Gheorghe alaru, Minister:
"The Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Moldova (ME) has reviewed the initial version
of the Agricultural Pollution Control Project Implementation Completion Report (APCP ICR)
prepared by the World Bank team and informs you on the following:
The ME accepts the APCP ICR with the following observation:
1. The APCP provided an innovative solution for the Republic of Moldova in achieving its
objective to reduce the discharge of nutrients in the underground and surface waters of
Moldova. Nevertheless the ME considers that the achievement of the Global
Environment Objective of the Project, i.e. "long term reduction of discharge of nutrients
and other agricultural pollutants in the waters of Danube River and Black Sea" is
jeopardized by the insufficient interest of the local public authorities in promoting the
technologies proposed by the Project.
2. The ME considers that ensuring the sustainability of APCP activities is related to the
competence of the local public authorities and private farms selected as pilot areas for
constructing the platforms storing and collecting animal wastes as well as the farms and
15
farmers trained in the good agricultural practices. At the same time, replicating Project
activities will be possible only with the support and acceptance of local public authorities.
3. The ME highly appreciates the synergy of APCP activities with the activities of the Rural
Investment and Services Project in implementing good agricultural practices.
In this context, the ME summarizes that the Agricultural Pollution Control Project has achieved
its main objectives and generally contributed to promoting the mitigation measures of
underground and surface waters pollution with nutrients by the agro-industrial sector and farmers
of the Republic of Moldova."
(b) Cofinanciers
Not applicable.
(c) Other partners and stakeholders
Not applicable.
16
Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing
(a) Project Cost by Component (in US$ Millions equivalent)
Appraisal Estimate
Actual (US$
Percentage of
Components
(US$ millions)
millions)
Appraisal
Promotion of Mitigation Measures
for Reducing Nutrient Loads in
Water Bodies - Grant for Agro-
8.80 6.85
77.8
Industries Supported by RISP -
Training
National Level Strengthening of
0.08 0.23
287.5
Policy and Regulatory Capacity
Public Awareness, Capacity
0.32 0.41
128.1
Building & Replication Strategy
Project Management Unit
0.55
0.69
125.5
Total Baseline Cost
9.75
8.17 83.8
Physical Contingencies
0.19
0.00
Price Contingencies
0.80
0.00
Total Project Costs
10.74 8.17
76.1
Project Preparation Facility (PPF)
0.00 0.00
Front-end fee IBRD
0.00
0.00
Total Financing Required
10.74
8.17 76.1
(b) Financing
Appraisal
Actual/Latest
Type of
Percentage of
Source of Funds
Estimate
Estimate
Cofinancing
Appraisal
(US$ millions)
(US$ millions)
Borrower
1.04
0.89
85.6
Local Communities
0.72
0.81
112.5
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT -
3.93 1.52 38.7
Associated IDA Fund (RISP)
Global Environment Facility (GEF)
4.95
4.95
100.0
Local Govts. (Prov., District, City)
0.10
0.00
0.0
TOTAL
10.74
8.17
76.1
17
Annex 2. Outputs by Component
Component 1 Promotion of mitigation measures for reducing nutrient loads in water
bodies
Component 1(a): Activities under RISP.
This sub-component was implemented in compliance with the Program Guidelines for
"Environmental Mitigation Grants" approved in 2003. 100 RISP borrowers received APCP grants
totaling US$2,540,490 equivalent, for nutrient pollution mitigation investments, including:
· US$1.7 million (67 percent) to 59 livestock farms to construct manure storage facilities
for a total annual storage capacity of 29,300m3. In 2006-08, this capacity allowed proper
management of 83,000 tons of manure, including use as fertilizer on 2,718 ha of
agricultural land. Consequently, leakage into water streams of about 280 tons of N and
225 tons of P was avoided.
· US$0.28 million (11 percent) to seven agro-processing enterprises to construct
wastewater treatment facilities with a total capacity of 290m3/day. Water quality tests
conducted at treatment facility entries and exits averaged a reduction of Ammonia
Nitrogen N(NH +
4 ) of about 13-14 kg/day, when working at full capacity.
· US$0.30 million (12 percent) to 25 crop farms to install efficient irrigation technology on
an erosion-prone land area of 720 ha. Early evidence suggests that yields increased and
farm profits rose due to efficient irrigation technology combined with environment-
friendly practices such as nutrient management, crop rotation, and selected seed use.
· US$25,400 (1.0 percent) to nine crop farms to introduce grassed water ways, forest
vegetation, forest plantation, and buffer strips on 253 ha of agricultural land. These
economically viable resource conservation technologies are a model for replication by
neighboring farms.
Component 1(b): Promotion of improved watershed management practices
This component was implemented in the Lapusnita Project pilot area (Hincesti and Leova raions)
and funded investments in: (i) manure management practices; (ii) environment-friendly
agricultural practices; (iii) shrub/tree planting; (iv) restoring wetlands and promoting sustainable
management practices; and (v) monitoring soil and water quality and environmental impacts.
(i) Manure Management Practices. The Project funded platform construction in Negrea,
Carpineni, and Lapusna communes with total storage capacity of 7,600 m3 (2,800 m3, 2,400 m3,
and 2,400 m3, respectively). Each communal platform has a shredder, a vacuum tank, a tractor with
trailer, and a manure spreader. The APCP also financed construction of 450 household platforms
in these communes; farmers used their own funds to construct 218 additional individual platforms.
After a slow start, communes improved platform management so that all platforms were well
managed by Project-end. During 2006-08, 18,000 tons of manure was collected and stored on
village platforms. In 2008, Project interventions resulted in manure storage for 46 percent of cattle,
16 percent of pigs, and 14 percent of sheep and goats that were raised in the watershed.
(ii) Promoting Environment-Friendly Agricultural Practices
In 2004, the Soil Institute initiated a program to test and demonstrate environment-friendly
agricultural practices, and maintained the program throughout the Project. The Project supported
the program by providing planting materials and specialized soil-loss measuring equipment.
Twelve testing/demo sites were established on 146 ha of Lapusnita watershed land --eight in
commune Negrea, and four in commune Pascani. Demonstrations included nutrient management,
18
conservation tillage, strip cropping, crop rotation, grassed waterways, and anti-erosion measures in
vineyards, orchards, and buffer strips. The program carried out twelve national training sessions
and field visits for about 300 local farmers and specialists.
The program resulted in some 3,000 farmers applying at least one environment-friendly
agricultural practice over a total area of 6,600 ha. A 2008 stakeholder survey found pilot-area
farmer adoption rates are higher than in other communities; and have increased over 2003. Farmers
apply more organic fertilizers (by 13 percent), forest belts (10 percent), strip cropping (9.0 percent)
and less mineral fertilizers (17 percent). Environment-friendly agricultural practices are used on
larger areas in the pilot watershed than in other locales in the country.
Training and replication: In addition to pilot-area activities, the Agency for Rural Development
(ACSA) established three demonstration sites in three regions of Moldova (South, Center, and
North) to provide on-farm training for farmers and leaders of farmers' associations. Some 2,700
participants completed training sessions and field visits, and the Soil Institute and ACSA intend to
continue demonstration activities on these sites after Project closing.
(iii) Shrub and Tree Planting
Some 680 hectares were planted, including: 156 ha of commune lands, 26 ha of wetlands, and
498 ha of degraded lands, in collaboration with the State Forestry Service, "Moldsilva." Degraded
lands were planted with acacia; forest belts along the Lapusnita River were planted with poplar
and willows; as was the ecological restoration of the wetland area. Walnut was planted in
shelterbelts on arable land. Total area of reconstructed forest is 424 ha, compared to 255 ha
envisaged. Satisfaction with these plantations motivated farmers to plant windbreaks using their
own funds. The increased demand for saplings led to development of tree nurseries.
(iv) Wetland restoration and promotion of sustainable management practices
The envisaged integrated management program for the wetland area was successfully
implemented, including: (a) zone delineated with marks and landmarks; (b) ecological
reconstruction of the forest on 26 ha, using tall saplings; (c) two concrete bridges with outflow
systems; and (d) ten wooden bridges to improve public access.
Moldsilva administers the wetland under conditions established in the Forestry Code and Law on
Natural Resources, Ramsar Convention, and national border rules. A Project-supported
biodiversity inventory by the Institute for Research and Forestry Management found that flora
and fauna began to regenerate after Project activities restored the wetland.
(v) Monitoring soil and water quality and environmental impacts.
The Project strengthened the capacity of the State Hydro-meteorological Center (SHC) and of the
Soil Institute to monitor water and soil quality, and nutrient reduction impacts of Project activities
such as manure management, tree planting, and applying the Code of Good Agricultural
Practices. The Project funded incremental costs to purchase equipment, and select and maintain
monitoring sites. To monitor water quality, the SHC applied the Project designed monitoring
strategy of "paired watersheds" and "upstream-downstream," installing eight monitoring stations
along the river and main tributaries, and selecting 17 shallow wells for surface water monitoring.
The SHC monitored nine chemical and two biological parameters; chemical testing revealed that
ammonium and nitrates concentrations have decreased at most monitored sections in the last two
years, because of Project interventions. The Balceana and Negrea tributaries continue to register
high nitrate concentrations, but levels of discharged nutrients are declining on the monitored
paired watersheds. The SHC is using the integrated water quality-monitoring program, the Project
approach used to train students, technical staff, and the local people.
19
Under the soil-monitoring program, the Soil Institute (IPA) measured soil loss at monitoring
points in the demonstration plots, using 15 units of specialized equipment provided by the
Project. Measurements show that soil erosion can be reduced by 35-64 percent, depending on the
practice. The Project also increased IPA capacity to test soils and provide farmers with nutrient
management advice using laboratory equipment such as spectrometer, flame-photometer,
colorimeter, soil mills, bi-distiller, pH-meter, electronic balances; and supplied a vehicle and
training to use the new equipment.
Component II - Strengthening the National Policy and Regulatory Capacity
The Project (i) contributed to drafting the Law on Ecological Farming and the Law on Soil
Conservation, in particularly to harmonize with the EU Nitrate Directive; and (ii) provided
finances to develop, publish, and disseminate 500 copies of the Code of Good Agricultural
Practices. The ACSA used Project funding to promote organic farming using training seminars
for farmers and leaders of farmer associations; and to support MAFI in capacity building to
certify organic farms, and publish and disseminate brochures.
The Project provided considerable support to the Government of Moldova to develop a new
Project based on experience gained--the Project on Biogas Digesters from animal waste, which is
designed to replicate APCP experiences throughout the country and assist the Republic of
Moldova to its reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol.
Component III - Public Awareness and Replication Strategy
The Project supported a broad public awareness campaign at the local, regional, national levels on
Project activities and benefits to help sustain and replicate Project activities. Public awareness
campaigns helped achieve behavioral changes necessary for Project success--among farmers in
Project demonstration areas, some 36 percent adopted the environment-friendly practices that
increased their incomes.
In October 2006, the PIU organized a Black Sea / Danube regional conference, and hosted staff
from similar projects in the region, to disseminate Project experiences and methodology for
measuring nutrient reduction. The PIU organized field trips and training for institutions involved
in replication, and for mayors and farmers from other regions in the country, and promoted
environment-friendly agricultural practices using publications, exhibitions, community activities,
and working with schoolchildren. These activities generated good will and interest in the Project
objectives among government officials and civil society. The December 2008 stakeholder survey
found that awareness of environmental issues had increased in the pilot area and nation-wide.
Component IV - Project Management
Project Administration: The PIU was fully staffed before Project effectiveness and the staff
composition remained unchanged during Project implementation. The PIU provided effective
technical leadership and efficient Project administration resulting in full achievement of Project
objectives and ahead-of-schedule disbursement of Project funds.
20
Comparison of Indicators in PAD Section A and the Supplemental Letter
PAD Section A
Supplemental Letter
1
Increased awareness of
1
Increased awareness of environmental issues in
environmental issues in agriculture
agro-industry and among farmers.
and agro-industry;
2
Increased percentage of farmers
2
Increased number of agro-processors adopting
and agro-processors / industries
mitigation measures and increased area of
implementing environment-
agricultural land with resource conservation
friendly practices;
technologies and increased production of
organically-certified products.
3
Improved soil and water quality in
3
Demand for project interventions by farmers
the pilot watershed area;
outside pilot watershed area and from other
riparian countries.
4
Adoption of a Code of Good
4
Eight commune/village stores constructed
Agricultural Practices;
together with 1,200 household manure storage
facilities.
5
Implementation of policy
5
Equipment provided for manure handling and
framework for non-point source
field application.
pollution commensurate with EU
criteria;
6
Improved quality of rural drinking
6
Two embankments reinforced in wetland area; 3
water.
concrete and 10 wooden bridges installed to
provide access.
7
7
A monitoring system to determine the impact of
project interventions on soil quality installed.
Relevant laboratory staff trained.
8
8
Policy framework for non-source pollution
meeting EU criteria in place.
9
9
Adoption of Code of Good Agricultural
Practices.
10
10 Public and farmers aware of the potential to
improve income while protecting the
environment.
Supplemental Letter (SL) Indicator No. 1 is the same as No. 1 in PAD Section A.
SL Indicator No. 9 is the same as No.4 in PAD Section A.
SL Indicators 2 and 8 are modified versions of PAD Indicators No. 2 and 5, respectively.
21
Annex 3. Economic and Financial AnalysisAn incremental cost analysis (ICA) was conducted
at appraisal as per GEF requirements. This Annex reviews the ICA against Project
implementation results. The Annex also reviews the cost effectiveness of nutrient reduction
impact of the Project in comparison with similar initiatives in the region and in the world.
Incremental Cost Analysis
a) ICA at Appraisal
ICA compared the baseline scenario with the GEF-Alternative scenario. The baseline scenario
included activities to promote Moldova's agricultural sector without GEF support. ICA noted the
IDA-funded Rural Investment Services Project (RISP), which aimed to address farmers' lack of
access to capital and advice on modern agricultural technologies, including practices that promote
conservation and sustainable natural resource use and increase productivity. Baseline scenario
cost was estimated at US$5.79 million, of which US$3.93 million would be the cost of RISP
loans to farms and agro-processors, complemented by APCP nutrient reduction grants and
Central and local governments and sub-grant recipients contributions (Table 1).
Table 1. Incremental cost matrix as of Project Appraisal and Completion (US$ million)*
Component
At Appraisal
At Completion
Baseline Incremental Cost
Total Baseline Incremental Cost
Total
Cost**
GEF
Other
Cost
GEF
Other
grant
grant
1. Promotion of
mitigation measures for
5.47 4.19 0 9.66 1.52 4.04 1.29
6.85
reducing nutrient loads
in water bodies
2. Strengthening
national policy and
0.02 0.07 0 0.09 0.00 0.05 0.18
0.23
regulatory capacity
3. Public awareness and
0.09 0.28 0 0.37 0.00 0.29 0.12
0.41
replication strategy
4. Project management
0.20
0.42
0
0.62
0.00
0.58
0.11
0.69
Total
5.79 4.95 0 10.74
1.52 4.95 1.70
8.17
Source: PAD, Annex 4 and CAPMU.
*Including physical and price contingencies;
**This column includes contributions by Government, local communities, and local governments (Annex 1) to
complement GEF resources and should have been accounted for under "incremental costs."
The GEF-alternative scenario, at an incremental cost of US$4.95 million4 would promote
environment-friendly agricultural practices to reduce nutrient flows into surface and ground
waters and barriers to adopt these practices. This scenario included wetland rejuvenation, and
better-managed and protected fragile riparian systems, pastures, and forests. ICA estimated that in
the Project better manure and farm nutrient-management practices would allow plants to take up
280tons of N and 70tons of P each year, preventing contamination of water bodies connected to
the Danube and the Black Sea. This estimate assumed that about 50,000 tons of wet manure out
of a total of 86,000 tons/year in the pilot area, would be collected on platforms (rather than
dumped illegally) and used as organic fertilizer. Also, the rehabilitated wetland would be
expected to absorb an additional 100kg N and 10kg P per hectare per year.
ICA at Completion
4It would have been more accurate to define the GEF Alternative Scenario as including activities funded by the GEF
and other financiers (central and local governments, grant recipients) since all these activities are incremental. Funds
from other financiers were made available to complement GEF-grant financing for water-borne nutrient reduction.
Hence, the incremental cost estimate should have been US$6.81m rather than US$4.95m (Table 1).
22
The RISP loans, which were complemented by APCP grants, amounted to US$1.53 million, not
US$ 3.93 million, as in the original estimate. The incremental cost at completion was US$6.65
million (including GEF grant of US$ 4.95million) (Table 1).
Nutrient Reduction due to Proper Manure Management
During Project implementation, the PMU monitored amounts of manure collected on municipal
platforms and individual platforms of RISP APCP grant-recipient farms. Table 2 summarizes
annual totals and the level of nutrient leakage avoided. The three Project-supported municipal
platforms were fully operational in 2009, when about 12,000 tons of manure were collected.
About 15,000 tons may be expected in a normal year, given platform capacity, but the 2007
drought reduced livestock holdings thereby significantly reducing the amount of manure collected
in 2009. The RISP APCP farm platforms, completed by 2008, collected nearly 35,000tons of
manure that year, and about 25,000 tons in 2009; 30,000tons per year is the expected annual
average.
Table 2 presents the quantities of nutrient leakage avoided. Normal annual N reduction due to the
three municipal platforms is expected to be about 60 tons and P reduction, 40 tons. In RISP
APCP farms, annual N reduction is 134 tons and P reduction, 80 tons. Calculations use nutrient
content values from the Institute for Pedology and Soil Science of Moldova (Table 3). Estimates
assume that (i) annual manure accumulation is applied to land as fertilizer eventually; (ii) without
platforms (no-Project scenario), all manure collected would be dumped on inappropriate sites,
including riverbanks and roadsides; and (iii) plant nutrient-uptake efficiency from broadcast
manure is 80 percent. Total estimated annual nutrient reductions due to the Project are about 200
tons of N and 110 tons of P.
Table 2. Manure collected and nutrient leakage avoided
Municipal Platforms
RISP APCP Recipient Farms
Nutrient leakage
Manure
Manure
Nutrient leakage avoided
Year
avoided
collected
collected
N (tons)
P (tons)
N (tons)
P (tons)
2005
3,000
13.44
7.92
-
2006
3,700
16.58
9.77
21,451
96.10
56.63
2007
5,900
26.43
15.58
26,467
118.57
69.87
2008
5,770
25.85
15.23
34,530
154.69
91.16
2009
12,000*
53.76
31.68
25,000*
112.00
66.00
Normal year
15,000
62.20
39.60
30,000
134.40
79.20
Source: APCP PIU
Table 3: Nutrient content in fresh manure (kg of nutrient / ton of manure)
Nutrient
N (kg/t)
P (kg/t)
5.6 3.3
Source: Moldova Institute for Pedology and Soil Science
Nutrient Reduction due to Wetland Rehabilitation
Estimated annual nutrient retention of rehabilitated land in the Lapusna wetland is about 17 tons
N and 3.0 tons P, which assumes an average annual flow through of 10,600,000m3 (Table 4).
Table 4: Calculation of annual N and P retention in the rehabilitated wetland area
Quality indexes*
Sampling
Average
Retention
Yearly Nutrient
Total retention
Retention capacity
mg/dm3
place
content
Capacity
Retention for
capacity
expressed in active
23
mg/dm3
place
content
Capacity
Retention for
capacity
expressed in active
mg/dm3
mg/dm3
Qm = 10.6 mil.
expressed in
substance N or P
m3 (tons)
active
(kg/ha and year)
substance N or
[Wetland area =
P (tons/year)
166 ha]
Water
0.9
entrance
Ammonia: NH4
0.1 1.3
1.0
6.0
Water
0.8
exit
Water
22.3
entrance
Nitrate: NO3
6.5 68.5 15.8
94.9
Water
15.8
exit
TOTAL N:
16.8
100.9
Water
2.1
entrance
Phosphate: PO4
0.8 8.9
2.9
17.7
Water
1.3
exit
TOTAL P:
2.9
17.7
Notes: 1) 1g of NH4 contains 0.78 g N, 1g of NO3 contains 0.23 g N, 1g of PO4 contains 0.33 g P
2) The average annual flow of Lapusnita river Qm = 10,600,000m3 (APCP - Monitoring program on water
quality in 2007, Technical Report. State Hydro-metereological Service, Monitoring Department on
Environmental Quality, Surface Water Quality Center)
3) Wetland area: 166ha
4) *: Agricultural Pollution Control Project - Tree and shrubs planting program and management of the
wetland area, February-December 2007
Source: APCP PIU
Nutrient Reduction due to Agro-processing Wastewater Treatment
Wastewater treatment plants built by the RISP APCP grant recipient agro-processors contribute
an estimated 1.5 t N/year and 0.1 t P/year to nutrient reduction, assuming annual operation of 200
days.
Cost Effectiveness Analysis
Cost effectiveness (CE) ratios were estimated for reductions in nutrient leakage (to ground and
surface waters) associated with (i) communal manure management systems in three beneficiary
communes and (ii) farm manure platforms built for APCP RISP beneficiary farmers.
The CE ratio for nutrient reduction is defined as the ratio of the annualized cost of constructing
and managing manure platforms over annual nutrient reductions achieved. Hence the CE ratio is
measured in terms of (US$/ kg of nutrient reduced). CE ratios are calculated for N and P.
Estimation of costs. Included are (i) initial investment costs (including those covered by the GEF
grant and recipient contributions, and Project management costs for this activity); and (ii)
operations and maintenance (O&M) costs. For communal manure management systems, costs
pertain to the entire system, i.e., communal platforms and household platforms. Data are available
for initial investment costs (i); for (ii), it was assumed that annual O&M costs equal 10 percent of
investment costs (including costs associated with transportation, safeguarding the communal
platforms, and maintenance of both types of platforms). Platform lifespan is assumed to be 20
years so costs are annualized over this period (Table 5.)
24
Table 5. Costs of manure management systems (US$ million)
Communal
manure
RISP APCP
management
farms
Investment costs
GEF grant
0.67
1.69
Recipient contributions
0.33
0.22
Share of Project management costs
0.08
0.16
Total investment costs
1.08
2.07
Annualized investment cost (r=0.1, 20 years)
0.13
0.24
Annual O&P costs
0.11
0.21
Total annual costs
0.24
0.45
Cost Effectiveness Ratios
Table 6 presents CE ratios calculated using above estimated annual costs and nutrient reductions.
Table 6. Cost effectiveness ratios
Cost of N reduction
Cost of P reduction
(US$ / kg N)
(US$ / kg P)
Communal manure
3.79 3.36
management
APCP RISP farms
5.96
5.69
Comparison of CE ratios with those achieved in other parts of the world
These CE ratios indicate that nutrient reduction was achieved at significantly lower
cost in Moldova than in other countries in the region and the world. Notably, in
Romania, communal manure management cost US$30 40 / kg. In Poland, the CE
ratios achieved by the Bank-funded Rural Environmental Protection Project in four
regions ranged from US$18.5/ kg N to US$24.8/ kg N. In the United States
Chesapeake Basin, the estimated median CE ratio for animal waste systems was
US$39/ kg N removed for animal waste systems and US$19.5/kg N removed for
combined nutrient management and animal waste systems (2003 values.) Lower CE
ratios in Moldova may be due to lower investment costs for platforms and
equipment.
25
Annex 4. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes
(a) Task Team members
Names
Title
Unit
Lending
Alexandre Nacev
Task Team Leader
ECSSD
Bogdan Contantinescu
Financial Management
ECSSD
David Freese
Finance Officer
CTRFC
Doina Petrescu
Sr. Agricultural Specialist
ECSSD
Elmas Arisoy
Procurement Specialist
ECSSD
Jitendra Srivastava
Consultant
ECSSD
Marjory-Anne Bromhead
Sector Manager
ECSSD
Meehta Sehgal
Consultant
ECSSD
Nora Dudwick
Social Scientist
ECSSD
Rohan Selvaratnam
Senior Program Assistant
ECSSD
Vitalay Kazakov
Financial Management
Zoe Kolovou
Lead Counsel
LEGOP
Supervision/ICR
Cora Melania Shaw
Sr. Agricultural Econ. / TTL
ECSSD
Aleksandar Nacev
Sr. Agriculturist / TTL
ECSSD
Anatol Gobjila
Sr. Operations Officer
ECSSD
Arben Maho
Procurement Analyst
ECSPS
Cesar Niculescu
Environmental Specialist
ECSSD
Elena Corman
Executive Assistant
ECCMD
Iwona Warzecha
Financial Management Spec.
ECSC3
John C. Cole
Consultant
ECSSD
John Kellenberg
Sector Manager
ECSSD
Jitendra P. Srivastava
Consultant
ECSSD
Lucian Bucur Pop
Sr. Social Development Spec.
ECSSD
Oksana Martsenyuk-
Operations Assistant
ECCU2
Kukharuk
Sharifa Kalala
Program Assistant
ECSSD
Solvita Klapare
Environmental Econ.
ECSSD
Stefan Nicolau
Consultant
ECSSD
Suzy Yoon-Yildiz
Sr. Operations Officer
ECCU2
Tijen Arin
Sr Environmental Econ.
ECSSD
Yulia Snizhko
Operations Analyst
ECCU2
26
(b) Staff Time and Cost
Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only)
Stage of Project Cycle
US$ Thousands (including
No. of staff weeks
travel and consultant costs)
Lending
FY02 9.06
60.28
FY03 17.30
75.72
FY04 12.13
53.59
Total:
38.49 189.59
Supervision/ICR
FY04 3.42
13.44
FY05 9.81
58.57
FY06 9.97
60.17
FY07 90.91
64.44
FY08 9.14
60.81
FY09 19.34
100.13
Total:
142.59 357.56
27
Annex 5. Beneficiary Survey Results
A December 2008 study elicited public opinion of Project impact in rural areas across Moldova
and in Lapustina, the Project pilot area. The study included two household surveys: Lapustina
with a sample size of 300; and rural areas outside Lapustina with a sample size of 506. Seven
focus group meetings were also carried out with local authorities, individual farmers, farmers
with parcels in associations, members of local agricultural associations, ACSA agents, APCP
grant recipients, and NGOs. Key study findings are summarized below, and where feasible, are
compared with similar studies from 2007 and 2002.
· About 42 percent of pilot-area survey participants characterized the state of environment in
the locality with very good and good ratings, compared to 22.1 percent from rural areas of the
Republic. Pilot-area focus group participants reported that many waste piles along riverbanks
and cliffs had been removed, fewer unauthorized dumpsites exist, and illegal dumping is in
decline. Reported environmental and behavioral improvements were more pronounced in the
pilot area than in other rural areas of the country.
· Unauthorized waste dumps were deemed the most acute environmental problem by 40
percent of respondents in the Project area, and 52.6 percent in other rural areas of Moldova,
lower numbers than in 2007 and 2002. Water pollution is perceived as less of a problem in
the pilot area than it is in other rural areas (Figure 1).
· In comparison with 2002, fewer Project-region respondents considered soil erosion, water
pollution, and drinking water pollution as acute environmental problems.
· Pilot-area respondents said crop residues and manure were the main water pollutants;
respondents from other rural areas of Moldova agreed but ranked household refuse slightly
higher on the list of pollutants (Table 1).
40.0
Unauthorized trash dump
52.6
33.3
Sanitary situation in the locality
40.9
27.0
Wood cutting and clearing
42.3
26.3
Poor quality of water
24.5
25.3
Water pollution
33.2
19.7
Earth slides
11.3
17.3
Air pollution
18.6
17.0
Pilot Area
Insufficiency of water
21.1
Rural, Moldova
16.0
Soil erosion
20.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
%
Figure 1.Priority environmental problem perceived by respondents
28
Table 1. To what extent do the factors below lead to pollution of waters in your locality? (%)
To a very
To a great
To a small
To a very
Not at all
great extent
extent
extent
small extent
Factors of pollution
r
e
a
l
,
v
a
r
e
a
l
,
v
a
r
e
a
l
,
v
a
r
e
a
l
,
v
a
r
e
a
l
,
v
a
A
o
A
o
A
o
A
o
A
o
t
r
a
r
a
r
a
r
a
r
a
u
l
d
t
l
d
t
l
d
t
l
d
t
l
d
o
u
o
u
o
u
o
u
o
i
l
o
R
i
l
o
R
i
l
o
R
i
l
o
R
i
l
o
R
P
M
P
M
P
M
P
M
P
M
Crop residue, animal
24,7
24,3
40,7
44,9
9,3
21,5
12,3
4,0
10,0
3,6
waste, especially manure
Refuse (glass, plastic and
13,0
22,9
35,7
49,0
13,7
20,4
15,7
4,9
17,3
0,6
metal)
Residual waters from
enterprises of agricultural
18,
10,7
15,8
26,7
19,8
20,0
23,1
7,3
17,2
27,0
raw material processing,
0
live-stock farms
Chemical fertilizers used
in agriculture especially
17,3
18,6
21,3
31,8
25,7
19,4
12,0
16,2
17,7
5,3
on eroded soils
unprotected from erosion
Soil erosion
8,7
11,1
31,3
32,0
26,7
26,1
18,0
18,0
7,3
3,4
* The difference up to 100 percent represents not know/no answer
· Lack of transport is the main waste management problem that local authorities face in
rural communities because Mayoralities lack resources to procure transportation.
· Some 51 percent of Pilot-area respondents say they accumulate discarded household
glass, plastic, and metal to send to the village waste platform.
· Some 62.7 percent of Pilot-area respondents say they always separate organic waste and
manure from household waste; in other rural areas, it is 53 percent.
· In 2008, 17.3 percent of Pilot-area respondents store crop residue and animal waste in
household platforms, up from 7.4 percent in 2007; and 20 percent transport waste to a
communal platform, up from 8.7 percent in 2007. However more people now report
burning their waste--11.3, up from 3.7 percent in 2007; and those who admit to illegal
dumping increased from 8.4 percent in 2007 to 9.7 percent in 2008.
· APCP objectives remain a priority for households in rural Moldova, and in the pilot area
in particular, with 70.9 percent and 75 percent respectively stating that accumulation of
livestock waste represents a priority problem.
· In 2008, 29.3 percent of pilot-area respondents, and 9.7 percent in other rural areas had
household manure platforms; 77.3 percent of pilot-area platform owners received Project
assistance and the rest built their own, as did all platform owners in other rural areas.
· Half of pilot-area respondents without a platform would like to build one; in other rural
areas, about 68 percent of those without platforms would like to have them.
· About 48 percent of pilot-area communities had communal platforms; 20 percent of other
rural communities had them; 90 percent of those without communal platforms in the pilot
area, and 87 percent in other rural areas, considered communal platforms a necessity.
· Most respondents (pilot area: 88.7 percent; other rural areas: 93.5 percent) were
unfamiliar with the Code of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP). In the pilot area,
Lapusna, Negrea and Sarat-Razesi village respondents were somewhat familiar with
GAP, but in Pascani, Secarani and Tochile-Raducani, no respondents had heard of GAP.
Half of the respondents who had heard of GAP could not elaborate what they knew about
it.
29
·
· Most respondents knew about good agricultural practices including composting,
managing organic wastes, nutrients, and organic fertilizers, and crop rotation.
· Since 2007, pilot-area and other rural area residents had increased their knowledge of
wind breaks, and using organic wastes and compost as fertilizers.
· Respondents reported progress during the past two years in applying good agricultural
practices.
· 77.8 percent of the respondents were satisfied with Project-supported activities in the
wetlands.
· Most types of wetland resources uses decreased since 2003 as a result of restrictions
imposed by border guards and the Forest agency (Figure 2).
· Respondents expressed frustration with access restrictions even in areas that are not
included in the formally protected area.
Figure 2. Use of wetland resources in 2003 and
2008
·
·
62.2
Recreation................................
·
62.3
·
55.6
·
Fire woods ................................
50.9
·
·
40.0
Haymaking................................
·
67.9
·
40.0
Pastures................................
50.9
15.6
Fishing ................................
56.6
2.2
2008
Hunting................................
39.6
2003
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
%
30
Annex 6. Stakeholder Workshop Report and Results
(if any)
31
Annex 7. Summary of Borrower's ICR and/or Comments on Draft ICR
This Annex includes: (a) An extract from the "Republic of Moldova, Agricultural Pollution
Control Project, Project Final Report, Chisinau, May 2009", and (b) Government of Moldova
comments on the draft ICR.
a)
An extract from the "Republic of Moldova, Agricultural Pollution Control Project,
Project Final Report, Chisinau, May 2009."
PROJECT ACHIEVEMENTS AND OUTPUTS
The Agricultural Pollution Control Project includes four main components:
1. Promotion of mitigation measures for reducing nutrient loads in water bodies, including
activities under RISP, including (a) Activities under RISP; (b) Promotion of improved watershed
management practices; (c) Manure management practices; (d) Promotion of environment-friendly
agricultural practices; (e) Shrub and tree planting; (f) Wetland restoration and promotion of
sustainable management practices; (g) Monitoring of soil and water quality and environmental
impacts.
2. Strengthening of the National Policy and Regulatory Capacity, which has supported the
Government in two main areas: (a) strengthening institutional and regulatory capacity for
agricultural nutrient pollution control promotion in the line with EU Nitrates Directive; and (b)
development of the Code of Good Agricultural Practices
3. Public Awareness and Replication Strategy, including activities developed at the national and
Project-pilot area level.
4. Project Management.
Component 1 Promotion of mitigation measures for reducing nutrient loads in water
bodies
Component 1(a): Activities under RISP.
This sub-component was implemented according to Program Guidelines, "Environmental
Mitigation Grant" approved in 2003, within the Project preparation stage. The Program was
prepared by team comprising Mr. Ion Raileanu, local civil engineer; Dr. Adel Shirmohammadi
and Dr. Robert L. Hill, University of Maryland, USA. This document sets criteria and indicators
for grant approval and implementation. Major amendments to the program are documented and
registered. According to Program Guidelines, five categories of agro-business developed in rural
areas were eligible for APCP Grant: (i) livestock farming; (ii) crop production, including
individual farms and farm associations; (iii) agro-processing industry; (iv) irrigation systems; and
(v) greenhouse farming.
Since the Project began, 100 RISP borrowers have benefited from APCP Grants, including: (a) 59
livestock farms for manure storage facilities; (b) seven agro-processing enterprises for wastewater
treatment facilities; (c) 25 crop farms for irrigation and soil protection; and (d) nine crop farms
for measures to reduce soil erosion and water pollution. Total invested APCP funds under this
sub-component: 31,025,112 MDL ($US2,540,490 equivalent).
32
Table 1: Investment by Category
Committed
Disbursed
Beneficiary
Total Project
Category
Grant
Grant
Contribution
Cost
(MDL)
(MDL
(MDL)
(MDL)
Livestock farms
20,676,429
20,676,429
2,667,067
23,343,496
Crop production
(tree/grass planting)
299,038
299,038
56,6
355,638
Irrigation 6,583,217
6,583,217
3,023,477
9,606,694
Agro-industry 3,466,428 3,466,428 3,082,678 6,549,106
Total: 31,025,112
31,025,112
8,829,822
39,854,934
1 US$ = 12.21 MDL
Up to 67 percent of APCP funds were granted for the mitigation facilities developed at the
livestock farms: 57 surface concrete storage platforms for solid manure (capacity ranges from 84
m3 to 1,750 m3) and two in-ground concrete basins for farms with manure washing systems. The
APCP/RISP beneficiaries contributed 9.0m MDL (22 percent) to total investment costs, primarily
for power and water supply, labor, platform road access, and increased costs for construction
materials and services. The cost per m3 of platforms construction increased 70 percent (from 540
Lei in 2004 to 801 Lei in 2008); the cost of construction materials such as cement, steel,
insulation, and construction services, increased 100 percent. According to the Grant Agreement,
the bill of quantities was not changed, therefore the beneficiary was to cover price fluctuations
and any additional costs.
The largest share of beneficiary contribution (47 percent) is for wastewater treatment stations and
31 percent for irrigation systems, due to the high cost of facilities and fixed Grant threshold (not
to exceed US$50,000). For example, in 2007, total investment costs for the drip irrigation system
for 100 ha of orchards procured by "Terra Tiana" company was 1,474,897 MDL. The APCP
grant was 632,765 MDL (41 percent) and beneficiary contribution, 871,132 MDL (59 percent).
Table 2: Committed Funds by Year
APCP Grant (MDL)
Category
2004 2005 2006 2007
2008 Total
Livestock
farms
2,474,517 4,704,688 10,818,499 2,680,725 -
20,678,429
Crop production
-
299,038 -
-
-
299,038
(tree/grass
planting)
Irrigation - - 1,648,618
4,044,388
890,211
6,583,217
Agro-industry -
-
3,466,428
-
-
3,466,428
Total:
2,474,517 5,003,726 15,933,545 6,725,113 890,211 31,027,112
In 2004, RISP activities were launched with nine livestock farms (Attachment 4). Platform
capacity ranges from 84 m3 installed at an individual sheep farm, "Dumitru Axenti" in Rion
Falesti and 1,750 m3 at a dairy cattle farm, "Vitagroteh" in Rion Telenesti. Approved grants
increased to 15 farms in 2005, and 28 in 2007, due to the transparency of the grant approval
process, good management, PIU replication activities, and public awareness campaigns. A 2006
deadline was anticipated for APCP funds for RISP activities, but the last grant was approved in
2007, because funds had been reallocated from the manure management system at commune
level.
Table 3: Manure Stored
33
Manure Stored (tn.)
Livestock Total
Animals
2006
2007
2008 Total
Cattle, including:
1,654
11,715
12,145
19,579
43,439
Dairy 454
Beef 994
Calves 202
Pigs, including:
6,197
3,145
6,777
6,595
16,517
Sows 624
Fattening 4033
Piglets 1540
Poultry 1,001,483
4,870
4,530
6,340
15,740
Sheep 4,129
1,661
2,325
1,204
5,190
Horses 26
Other 6,220
60
690
894
1,644
Total: 1,019,709
21,451
26,467
34,612
82,530
Total manure stored at platforms is 82,530 ton representing 794 tons of nutrients reduced. Cattle
farms produce the highest share (53 percent); manure from sheep and poultry has higher nutrient
content therefore its share of the total nutrient reduction is 47 percent.
Table 4: Use of Manure
Manure Used (tn)
Livestock
Total
Animals 2006 2007
2008 Total
Cows,
including:
1,654
10,515 11,915
16,626 30,056
Dairy 454
Beef 994
Calf 202
Pigs,
including:
6,197
2,505 6,346
4,703 13,554
Sows 624
Fattening 4033
Piglet 1540
Poultry
1,001,483
4,210 4,935
5,700 14,845
Sheep 4,129
1,396
2,125
768
4,289
Horses
26
Other 6,220
20
700
670
1,390
Total:
1,019,709
18,646 26,021
28,467 73,134
Up to 91 percent of manure stored at platforms was composted and applied as organic fertilizer
over 2,718 ha cultivated land. The ratio of quantity stored/ used differs by manure type: poultry,
89 percent; cattle,84 percent; and pigs, 71 percent, depending on storage or composting periods,
application practices, and equipment for solids or liquids.
34
Table 5: Manure Use by Crop
Crops 2006-07
2008
Total
Area
Quantity Area
Quantity Area
Quantity
(ha)
(tn.)
(ha)
(tn.)
(ha)
(tn.)
Technical/Industrial, incl:
409
12,893
298
12,088
884
24,981
Corn 409
12,893
298
12,088
884
24,981
Sunflower
Sugar beet
Cereals, incl:
963
30,259
353
13,929
1,727
44,188
Wheat 753
23,254
322
12,539
1,426
35,793
Barley 210
7,005
31
1,390
301
8,395
Rye
10
300
20
300
Alfalfa 15
295
30
1,825
45
2,120
Vegetables 19
695
22
695
Orchard 8
225
12
625
20
850
Vineyard
Other
Total: 1419
44,667
693
28,467
2,718 73,134
Most compost was applied to cereal crops: 44,188 tons; and corn: 24,981 tons. The Independent
Project Impact Assessment, reports that the Benefit/Cost Ratio (B/C Ratio) for manure (nutrient)
management practices without irrigation was 1.14-5.34; the internal rate of return (IRR) was 16-
33 percent. The cost/benefit ratio for manure management practices under irrigation was 1.57-
4.08; the internal rate of return was 52-124 percent. The 25 irrigation systems procured with
APCP support irrigated 718 ha. For example, the "Cibotari Feodor Farm: the B/C Ratio was 2.49
and IRR 73.39 percent.
Component 1(b): Promotion of improved watershed management practices
This component was developed in the watershed Project pilot area (Raion Hincesti and Leova),
comprising some 46,603 hectares of agricultural land, home to 43,238 people and 14,413
households. The APCP provided investments in: (i) manure management practices; (ii) promotion
of environment-friendly agricultural practices; (iii) shrub and tree planting; (iv) wetlands
restoration and promotion of sustainable management practices; (v) monitoring of soil and water
quality and environmental impacts.
(i) Manure Management Practices. This program provided funds for the installation of improved
manure storage facilities and equipment for manure collection and handling in three communes of
the Lapusnita Project pilot area. The investment program for the commune /village level manure
management consisted of construction of three platforms with total capacity of 7,600 m3,
including: 2,800 t in Negrea commune; 2,400 t in Carpineni; and 2,400 t in Lapusna.. Each
village-level platform was equipped with a shredder, vacuum tank, tractor, trailer and spreader.
The APCP also supported construction of 450 individual household platforms in these three
villages. Total investments under this program: $US 686,300.
35
Table 6: Investment by Commune Platform
Commune Capacity, Civil Works,
Equipment,
Plastic Basket,
m3
MDL
$USA
MDL
Negrea
2,800 2,098,835 41,000
14,760
Carpineni
2,400 2,658,450 45,390
-
Lapusna
2,400 1,878,534 45,390
-
Total:` 7,600
6,635,819
131,780 14,760
Civil works were carried out by local construction firms tendered in compliance with the World
Bank and national regulations. Grants were provided on a cost-sharing basis, including the
contribution of local authorities (commune Mayoralty): electricity and water supply; operating
costs (transport and fuel to collect, store, and handle manure; accommodation and remuneration
for personnel; improved platform access, among others.).
Total manure collected and stored on village platforms was 18,000 t; 67 percent was sold
(partially in Negrea commune) and applied as organic fertilizer on individual and farmer
associations land in the area. Half of 6,700 t of manure stored on household platforms was
transported to village platforms; the other half was applied as organic fertilizer on farmers' land.
(ii) Promotion of Environment-Friendly Agricultural Practices
The Soil Institute was contracted to implement testing and demonstrations of environment-
friendly agricultural practices; during the Project lifetime, the program established and
maintained 12 testing/demo sites on 146 ha of land in two communes in the Lapusnita watershed
(eight in commune Negrea and four in commune Pascani). Practices included nutrient
management, conservation tillage, strip cropping, crop rotation, grassed waterways, anti-erosion
measures in vineyards, orchards, and buffer strips. To support the demonstrations, the Project
provided planting materials and specialized equipment for soil loss measurements.
The program also sponsored 12 training sessions and field visits nation-wide for 291 local
farmers and specialists. As a result, up to 3,000 farmers have applied at least one environment-
friendly agricultural practice on a total area of 6,600 ha. The December 2008 study, by "OPINIA"
showed a high level of adoption of these agricultural practices among farmers, especially among
pilot-area farmers, increasing from 2003 levels. Farmers now use more organic fertilizers (13
percent), forest belts (10 percent), strip cropping (9.0 percent) and less mineral fertilizer (17
percent); the practices are used on larger areas of LPA, compared to other parts of the country,
clearly reflecting Project impact.
Training and replication: The Soil Institute the Agency for Rural Development (ACSA) also
established three demonstration sites in south, center, and north regions of Moldova to organize
seminars for farmers, and farmers' association leaders who were then expected to adopt the good
agricultural practices on their land. Some 2,700 people participated in the training sessions and
field visits and about 12,000 farmers adopted at least one practice. (total area: 21,600 ha) The two
agencies have signed contracts that should ensure Project interventions are continued, using the
training established with APCP support during five years of Project implementation.
(iii) Shrub and Tree Planting
Under the agro-forestry program, 680 hectares were planted, including: 156 ha of commune land;
26 ha of wetland; and 498 ha of degraded land, in collaboration with the State Forestry Service
"Moldsilva." Degraded lands were planted with acacia; poplar and willow species were used for
forest belts along the Lapusnita river and the ecological restoration of the wetland area; walnut
was planted in shelterbelts on arable land. Total area of reconstructed forest is 424 ha, slightly
less than the 255 ha envisaged. Communes are extremely happy with these plantations; farmers
now plant windbreaks; and seedling nurseries provide saplings.
36
(iv) Wetland restoration and promotion of sustainable management practices
The integrated management program for the wetland area was successfully implemented,
including: (a) zone delineation using marks and landmarks; (b) ecological reconstruction of forest
on 26 ha, using tall saplings; (b) two concrete bridges with outflow system; (b) ten wood bridges
to improve public access.
The Leova Forestry Enterprise administers the wetlands under terms established in the Forestry
Code and Law on Natural Resources. However, the PIU supported the forestry agency and local
authorities to develop an integrated action plan so the local population can ensure biodiversity
conservation and sustainable use of natural resources. In this context, the APCP played a decisive
role in resolving conflicts between landowners and the forestry agency that emerged when a
drainage system was reconstructed on 200 ha of arable land close to the wetlands. The PIU
conducted frequent consultations with the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources (MENR),
forestry agency, Mayoralty of Sarata Razesi, and villagers, seeking a common solution to prevent
damage to the wetland area. The last two Bank missions aided in this process. Consequently, it
was agreed to reallocate US$40,000 from the APCP fund for hydro-technical works were
commonly approved. These include: (a) partial redirection of water flow from Lapusna River
through the wetland through an underground pipe system; and (b) consolidation of the dam,
which would control water regime inside the area. These works have will maintain hydrological
regime balance, but additional interventions are required to ensure proper wetland functioning,
particularly in dry season.
(v) Monitoring of soil and water quality and environmental impacts.
The Project strengthened capacity in the State Hydrometeorological Center (SHC) and Soil
Institute to monitor water and soil quality, and nutrient reduction impacts of the Project (manure
management, tree planting, applying the Code of Good Agricultural Practices), by supporting
incremental costs to select and maintain monitoring sites and upgrade equipment.
The Hydrometeo selected the integrated water quality monitoring program, which was a training
tool for students, scientists, and local people, using the "paired watersheds" and "upstream-
downstream" monitoring strategy. Eight monitoring stations were installed: six along the river
and two on the main tributaries; 17 shallow wells were selected for monitoring underground
water. All samples were analyzed against nine chemical and two microbiological parameters.
Analyses have shown that Project interventions reduced ammonium and nitrate concentrations at
most of the monitoring sections over the last two years. Ammonium pollution is due to random
manure dumping which has been reduced in the pilot area. High ammonium and nitrate
concentrations are still recorded at the Balceana and Negrea tributaries. As for underground
water, four shallow wells of the Lapusnita watershed show nitrate pollution, and three show
ammonium pollution. Livestock have access to shallow wells and their feces and urine percolate
into the soil and reach underground water.
The soil monitoring program was carried out by the Soil Institute. As reported, strip cropping has
reduced soil loss by seven times while crop rotation (including alfalfa) by 90 percent. nitrogen
and phosphorus was lost by 6.7-8.6 and 7.8-10.1 times less than on the control sites. In vineyards,
alternative seeding of forage crops has decreased the nitrogen and phosphorus loss by 24 % and
23% respectively.
In conclusion, agricultural farming is to be conducted in an integrated manner, including the
whole package of conservation practices (minimum tillage; fissuring; strip cropping; crop
rotation; grassed waterways; etc.).Thus conservation farming records both environmental and
economic benefits: significant reduction of soil and, consequently, nitrogen and
37
phosphorus loss (as reported, the APCP interventions have contributed with 1,024 t of to
nutrient discharge reduction during the period of 2004-2008); higher production (ex:
yield increase for cover crops is of 83-121 % in comparison with conventional farming);
higher quality of agricultural products.
Component II - Strengthening of the National Policy and Regulatory Capacity
The Project supported the MAFI and the MENR in two main areas: (i) promotion of the Law on
Ecological Farming and the Law on Soil Conservation, particularly harmonizing with EU Nitrates
Directive; and (ii) development of the Code of Good Agricultural Practices, published and
disseminated in 500 copies. The PIU contracted ACSA to promote organic farming, which
includes: training seminars for farmers and leaders of farm associations; capacity-building
support to MAFI for certification; publication and dissemination of brochures and information.
Component III - Public Awareness and Replication Strategy
The Component aimed to inform, transfer knowledge and know-how; increase awareness among
local communities in the Lapusnita pilot area, and Moldovan farmers, and the public about
environmental and economic benefits of using environment-friendly agricultural practices to
reduce nutrient pollution.
The complex activities of the public awareness team were focused on meetings with Project
beneficiaries (local authorities, farmers, priests, schools, local NGOs etc), involvement of the
population in environmental, tree planting, and sanitation activities, preparation and distribution
of materials written in a simple and accessible language, lessons and practices on nutrients
reduction, environment-friendly agricultural practices and the impact of the water quality and
environment on health. The issues of the supplement, "Lapusnita" distributed nation-wide (31
issues with a circulation of over 200,000 copies ); and the TV and radio broadcasts at local and
national level helped establish a favorable public opinion toward APCP, which generated an
increased interest in APCP activities, leading to the pilot area visits by delegations of mayors
(Orhei, Criuleni, Calarasi, Comrat, Cimisila, etc), to see the works and replicate them. Favorable
public opinion caused the central stakeholder to increase attention to the Project, and declare
2007 "The Year of Sanitation."
The following activities were carried out to increase public awareness in the pilot area: meetings
with the public, mayors, household platforms owners, landowners (69); instructions, lessons, and
courses for farmers and mayors(31); study visits(36); working meetings with the local public
administration (20); ecological expeditions, with young people from Lapusnita River Basin (2);
Green Caravans, organization of ecological activities and schools contests in the Project area
(24); photo exhibitions at the events in the pilot area (10); surveys on Project activities and
identification of environmental issues(3); environmental lessons in educational institutions(15);
local events, participation in the Village Holidays, general public meetings in villages (25);
roundtables to present Project results, successes, and advantages (16); contests for farmers and
students with the theme, "Cleanest locality", "Best taken care of", "Greenest street", etc.,(6);
Lapusnita River Basin Forum (1); and installation of road signs to communal platforms.
The following replication activities took place: participation in national and international forums
(6); national and regional meetings with mayors and farmers from other regions of Moldova (50);
teaching farmers interested in APCP (18); working visits to the localities of Moldova (36); photo
exhibits presenting Project results; joint meeting for implementation of the trans-boundary Project
Romania-Moldova in the village of Branza, Cahul district; Environment NGOs' Forum; National
Conference of EMM and other national for a (18); regional seminars in Stefan-Voda, Balti,
38
Edinet, Falesti, Comrat, Soroca, Chisinau (10); national-level environmental lessons on nutrient
management and waste management (2); small Green Caravans of APCP in national schools (20);
travels for Project promotion: organization of mayors' visit to Negrea and demo sites from Orhei,
Glodeni, Stefan-Voda, Calarasi, Nisporeni, Cahul, etc., (4); regional fora (3); national forum (1);
and Web-page updating. In addition, the documentary "Lapusnita, a Clean River" and the
following video and radio spots were prepared and broadcast: Water--the Source of Life
(Lapusnita model); "Waste management"; "Environment-friendly Agricultural Practices", "Love
and care for the land of your village." Some 67 radio programs and 65 print articles were
developed at the national level, and 107 radio programs and 80 articles at the Project area level.
While behavioral change is not easy to measure, its effects can be observed in improved rural
ecological conditions in the pilot area, greater awareness about major national and local
ecological problems, decreased tolerance towards pollution and polluting activities. These were
observed by Project partners and by local people in the pilot zones.
The Project provided considerable support to the Government of Moldova in developing a new
Project based on the experience gained - the Project on Biogas Catchments from the animal
waste. The APCP provided local information, and significant technical assistance in developing
this new Project to replicate its experience throughout the country and to assist the Republic of
Moldova in meeting its obligations regarding the Kyoto Protocol on reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions.
Component IV - Project Management
Project Administration: The Project Implementation Unit (PIU) was fully staffed before Project
effectiveness and the structure of personnel and the specialists initially hired remained unchanged
during the Project implementation. The PIU staff provided effective technical and CAPMU
efficient Project administration, with the result that Project development objectives have been
achieved, expected Project outputs in many cases exceeded, and funds fully disbursed.
39
b.
Government of Moldova comments on the draft ICR5.
The Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Moldova (ME) has reviewed the initial version
of the Agricultural Pollution Control Project Implementation Completion Report (APCP ICR)
prepared by the World Bank team and informs you on the following:
TheME accepts the APCP ICR with the following observation:
1. The APCP has provided an innovative solution for the Republic of Moldova in achieving
its objective to reduce the discharge of nutrients in the underground and surface waters of
Moldova. Nevertheless the ME considers that the achievement the Global Environment
Objective of the Project, i.e. "long term reduction of discharge of nutrients and other
agricultural pollutants in the waters of Danube River and Black Sea" is jeopardized by
the insufficient interest of the local public authorities in promoting the technologies
proposed by the Project.
2. ME considers that ensuring the sustainability of APCP activities is related to the
competence of the local public authorities and private farms selected as pilot areas for
constructing the platforms storing and collecting animal wastes as well as the farms and
farmers trained in the good agricultural practices. In the same time, replicating APCP
activities will be possible only with the support and acceptance of local public authorities.
3. ME highly appreciates the synergy of APCP activities with the activities of the Rural
Investment and Services Project in implementing the good agricultural practices.
In this context, ME summarizes that the Agricultural Pollution Control Project has achieved its
main objectives and generally contributed to promoting the mitigation measures of underground
and ground waters pollution with nutrients by the agro-industrial sector and farmers of the
Republic of Moldova.
5 The signed Romanian original is dated January 13, 2010.
40
Annex 8. Comments of Cofinanciers and Other Partners/Stakeholders
Not applicable.
41
Annex 9. List of Supporting Documents
Nicolae, Talpa 2003. "Sociological Survey in the Wetland Pilot Area (Commune Tochile-
Raducani)". Commissioned by the Republic of Moldova Agricultural Pollution Reduction
Project. Chisinau.
OPINIA, 2002. "Baseline study of Households from Lapusna region. Analytical-scientific
report." Commissioned by the Republic of Moldova Agricultural Pollution Reduction Project.
Chisinau.
OPINIA, 2009. "Impact Assessment of the Agriucltural Pollution Control Project in the Lapusnita
Pilot Area." Commissioned by the Republic of Moldova Agricultural Pollution Reduction
Project. Chisinau.
42
IBRD 32932R
Dnestr
To Vinnytsya
To Chernivtsi
Moghiliov-
Moghiliov-
Moghiliov-
To Vinnytsya
MOLDOVA
Ocnita
Ocnita
Ocnita
Podolski
Podolski
Podolski
Briceni
Briceni
Briceni
U K R A I N E
Donduseni
Donduseni
Donduseni
To
Chernivtsi
Edinet
Edinet
Edinet
Soroca
Soroca
Soroca
Drochia
Drochia
Drochia
Camenca
Camenca
Camenca
Rīscani
Rīscani
Rīscani
Floresti
Floresti
Floresti
Nistru
Costesti
Costesti
Costesti
Soldanesti
Soldanesti
Soldanesti
Glodeni
Glodeni
Glodeni
Balti
Balti
Balti
Rībnita
Rībnita
Rībnita
Rezina
Rezina
Rezina
Balatina
Balatina
Balatina
Prut
Sīngerei
Sīngerei
Sīngerei
To Voznesens'k
Falesti
Falesti
Falesti
DF
0
10
20
30
40 Kilometers
Telenesti
Te
T lenesti
elenesti
Chiperceni
Chiperceni
Chiperceni
ROMANIA
ROMANIA
ROMANIA
0
10
20
30 Miles
Orhei
Orhei
Orhei
Sculeni
Sculeni
Sculeni
TRANSNISTRIA
TRANSNISTRIA
TRANSNISTRIA
Dubasari
Dubasari
Dubasari
To Pascani
Calarasi
Calarasi
Calarasi
Ungheni
Ungheni
Criuleni
Criuleni
Ungheni
Criuleni
DF
Grigoriopol
Grigoriopol
Straseni
Straseni
Grigoriopol
Straseni
Stauceni
Stauceni
Stauceni
To Zhmerynka
Nisporeni
Nisporeni
Nisporeni
CHISINAU
CHISINAU
CHISINAU
Pascani
Pascani
Pascani
This map was produced by the Map Design Unit of The World Bank.
The boundaries, colors, denominations and any other information
IAP
CP
shown on this map do not imply, on the part of The World Bank
Lapusna
Lapusna
Ialoveni
Ialoveni
Lapusna
Ialoveni
Anenii
Aneni
Anenii
Group, any judgment on the legal status of any territory, or any
endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.
Hīncesti
Noi
Bender
Bender
Bender
Tiraspol
Ti
T raspol
iraspol
Leuseni
Leuseni
Hīncesti
Hīncesti
Noi
Noi
Leuseni
Negrea
Negrea
Negrea
(T
( ighina)
Ti
(T ghina)
ighina)
Carpineni
Carpineni
Carpineni
Slobozia
Slobozia
Slobozia
CP
IAP
CP
MOLDOVA
Cainari
Ca
inari
Cainari
Causeni
Causeni
Causeni
To Birlad
AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION
Sarata-Razesi
Sarata-Razesi
Sarata-Razesi
To Odesa
WP
Cimislia
Cimislia
Cimislia
Ni
CONTROL PROJECT
str
Stefan-V
Stefan- oda
Vo
Stefan-V da
oda u
PROJECT PILOT RAYONS
Leova
Leova
Leova
DF
RAYONS WITH AT LEAST ONE APCP
RISP INVESTMENT
Basarabeasca
Basarabeasca
Basarabeasca
Comrat
Comrat
Comrat
CP
PROJECT COMMUNAL PLATFORMS
Cantemir
Cantemir
Cantemir
PROJECT TESTING AND
To
GAGAUZIA
GAGAUZIA
GAGAUZIA
IAP
DEMONSTRATION OF IMPROVED
Birlad
AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES
Ceadīr
Ceadī -r
Ceadīr
To Artsyz
UKRAINE
WP
PROJECT WETLAND PILOT SITE
Lunga
UKRAINE
Lunga
Lunga
P
PROJECT DEMONSTRATION FARMS
r
DF
u
OUTSIDE OF PILOT AREAS
t
Cahul
Cahul
Cahul
Taraclia
Ta
T raclia
araclia
MAIN CITIES AND TOWNS
AUTONOMOUS TERRITORIAL UNIT
GAGAUZIA
GAGAUZIA
GAGAUZIA
CAPITALS
RAYONS OR MUNICIPALITIES
Vulcanesti
Vu
V lcanesti
ulcanesti
CAPITALS*
NATIONAL CAPITAL
MAIN ROADS
To Imayil
RAILROADS
Black
AUTONOMOUS TERRITORIAL UNIT
BOUNDARIES
To Bucharest
and Constanta
Sea
RAYONS OR MUNICIPALITIES
BOUNDARIES
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES
*Names of the raions or municipalities
are identical to their capitals.
NOVEMBER 2009