Preliminary assessment of the fourth payment request of Romania

y of the Environment, Water Resources and Forestry tasks the Romanian National Forest Authority Romsilva with carrying out the project "Works to correct torrents to reduce the risks arising from torrential floods in basins located in the national forest estate administered by National Forest Authority ROMSILVA in Bacău, Buzău, Suceava, Neamț counties, Hunedoara, Prahova, Valcea, Vrancea”. The document is signed by both parties (chapter XXII). Pursuant to Article 1(2), the beneficiary (Romsilva) undertakes to implement the project in accordance with the provisions of the contract and is responsible for carrying out the project proposal included in the annex. For each of the 19 sub-projects, the design is approved by the Technical and Economic Committee for Opinion of Romsilva in endorsement reports (Evidence No. 3 to 21) in accordance with Article 9 of Government Decision No. 907/2016 on the stages of preparation and the framework content of the technical and economic documents relating to investment objectives/projects financed by public funds (Hotărârea privind etapele de elaborare şi conţinutul-cadru al documentaţiilor tehnico- economice aferente obiectivelor/proiectelor de investiţii finanţate din fonduri publice). The details of the project design for each sub-project are included in the feasibility studies (Evidence No. 22 to 40), which are a preliminary step towards achieving this milestone. The endorsement reports are the acual achievement of the milestone, approving the actions proposed in the feasibility studies. Where the feasibility study includes multiple scenarios, the endorsement report selects one of these scenarios to approve. Each sub-project was approved individually in the respective endorsement report, as follows: • For the sub-project Măieruș, the endorsement report (Evidence No. 3) on page 5 approves scenario I in the feasibility study (Evidence No. 22). • For the sub-project Grozea, the endorsement report (Evidence No. 4) on page 3 approves scenario I in the feasibility study (Evidence No. 23). • For the sub-project Izvorul Negru, the endorsement report (Evidence No. 5) on page 4 approves scenario I in the feasibility study (Evidence No. 24). • For the sub-project Pârâul Negru, the endorsement report (Evidence No. 6) on page 5 approves scenario I in the feasibility study (Evidence No. 25). • For the sub-project Strâmtura Scaune, the endorsement report (Evidence No. 7) on page 4 approves scenario I in the feasibility study (Evidence No. 26). • For the sub-project Martinu, the endorsement report (Evidence No. 8) on page 5 approves scenario I in the feasibility study (Evidence No. 27). • For the sub-project Casele Bisocii, the endorsement report (Evidence No. 9), approves scenario I in the feasibility study (Evidence No. 28) on page 5. • For the sub-project Tisău-Cheia, the endorsement report (Evidence No. 10), approves the feasibility study (Evidence No. 29) on page 5. • For the sub-project Fetița Mare, the endorsement report (Evidence No. 11), approves the feasibility study (Evidence No. 30) on page 5. • For the sub-project Grefenis and Schitu, the endorsement report (Evidence No. 12), approves the feasibility study (Evidence No. 31) on page 1. • For the sub-project Valea Rea, the endorsement report (Evidence No. 13), approves the feasibility study (Evidence No. 32) on page 1. • For the sub-project Bucșoița, the endorsement report (Evidence No. 14), approves scenario I in the feasibility study (Evidence No. 33) on page 6. • For the sub-project Pârâul Leșului, the endorsement report (Evidence No. 15), approves scenario I in the feasibility study (Evidence No. 34) on page 6. 24  • For the sub-project Scânteia, the endorsement report (Evidence No. 16), approves the feasibility study (Evidence No. 35) on page 4. • For the sub-project Valea Lungă, the endorsement report (Evidence No. 17), approves the feasibility study (Evidence No. 36) on page 4. • For the sub-project Izvorul Govorei, the endorsement report (Evidence No. 18), approves scenario I in the feasibility study (Evidence No. 37) on page 4. • For the sub-project Bistricioara, the endorsement report (Evidence No. 19), approves scenario I in the feasibility study (Evidence No. 38) on page 5. • For the sub-project Maghernița, the endorsement report (Evidence No. 20), approves scenario I in the feasibility study (Evidence No. 39) on page 4. • For the sub-project Fetig torrent correction, the endorsement report (Evidence No. 21) approves scenario I in the feasibility study (Evidence No. 40) on page 5. It shall include actions for the: Restoration of at least six damaged alluvium retention structures to install longitudinal measures, among others, fish ladders; Romania submitted feasibility studies (Evidence No. 22 to 40) including planned actions for the restoration of 25 damaged alluvium retention structures, of which 20 include the installation of fish ladders, thus exceeding the target. These works are undertaken through four sub-projects. The Commission verified that the target of the restoration of at least six damaged alluvium retention structures to install longitudinal measures, among others, fish ladders, has been achieved, by verifying the evidence for the sub-project Fetig, as this one sub-project contains 13 actions, enough to meet the target. For this sub-project, the feasibility study (Evidence No. 40) on page 24 sets out the details of the approved scenario, which is called “carrying out works to correct concrete strands (transversal works) and longitudinal works (bank defences) in dry masonry.” On page 26, it is proposed to restore 13 structures in the Fetig river basin. These restoration works consist of: i) removal of damaged masonry or concrete parts and cleaning of remaining surfaces; ii) restoration of radiation and replacement of parts of support walls; iii) terminal bed restoration; iv) recovery of the discharge; v) restoring the downstream ground of the works by concrete shackling reinforced with welded net. In addition, the design proposes to install fish ladders in six of the restored structures in table 10 on page 27. Construction of at least 30 new alluvial structures, including fish ladders and ecological flow, with a maximum height of 5m; Romania submitted feasibility studies (Evidence Nos. 22 to 40) including planned actions for the restoration of 204 new retention works with maximum height of 5m, including 59 with fish ladders, thus exceeding the target. These works are undertaken through 18 sub-projects. The Commission verified that the target of 30 new alluvial structures, including fish ladders and ecological flow, with a maximum height of 5m, has been achieved, by verifying the evidence for the sub-projects Casele Bisocii, Bucsoita, Fetig and Izvorul Negru, as these four sub-projects contain 30 actions, enough to meet the target. The table below references where confirmation of the number of works with fish ladders can be found in the evidence. Sub-project No. of new alluvial structures including fish Evidence No. Page 25  ladders Casele Bisocii 10 28 18 Bucsoita 14 33 25-26 Fetig 1 40 26 Izvorul Negru 5 24 20 Total verified sub-projects 30 The Council Implementing Decision states that the new alluvial structures shall include ecological flow. The Council Implementing Decision also states, in the description of Investment 5. Integrated flood risk mitigation systems in forest river basins, that “The objective of the investment is to […] protect the environment and biodiversity through environmental measures, in particular those relating to ensuring fish migration and ensuring ecological flow.” In water management, ecological flow (also known as e-flow or environmental flow) refers to “water that is left running in a fluvial ecosystem or the flow that is released within it, with the specific purpose of managing the condition of the ecosystem”2 or “the dynamic movement of water through a river or stream, and its associated hydrological, geomorphological, and ecological processes.”3 Therefore, ecological flow is not a physical addition to an individual alluvial structure. In light of the contextual interpretation of this requirement from the Council Implementing Decision, it is interpreted that the new alluvial structures must ensure ecological flow in the river in which they are built. As described in more detail below, the flow rate for the alluvial structures is included in the technical specifications of the project design and was assessed as satisfactory. On this basis, it is considered that this constitutive element of the milestone (ecological flow) is satisfactorily fulfilled. The feasibility studies of the sub-project include the calculated water flow indicators for each of the alluvial structures with fish ladders from the table above. The table below shows where this evidence is found: Sub-project Calculated flow rate indicators per alluvial structure found on: Evidence No. Page Casele Bisocii 28 46 Bucsoita 33 40 Fetig 40 34 Izvorul Negru 24 43 The optimal ecological flow in a river depends on many factors related to the river and its ecosystem and there is no one universal minimal required flow.4 To verify that the proposed structures support the right flow for the existing ecosystem, the Commission analysed the Do No Significant Harm (DNSH) analysis for the sub-projects (Evidence Nos. 41 to 59). The table below shows where evidence of the works preserving water flow quality for the existing ecosystem is found. On this basis, it is considered that this constitutive element of the milestone, namely that new alluvial structures include ecological flow, is satisfactorily fulfilled. 2 Rodríguez Tejeda, R.C., Valdés, Y.M. (2021). Environmental and Ecological Flows for Sustainability. In: Leal Filho, W., Azul, A.M., Brandli, L., Lange Salvia, A., Wall, T. (eds) Clean Water and Sanitation. Encyclopaedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-70061-8_115-1. 3 The Science Behind Ecological Flows. 4 Bhuiyan, C. Environmental flows: issues and gaps—a critical analysis. Sustain Sci 17, 1109–1128 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01092-4. 26 Sub-project Reference to works preserving water flow quality for ecosystem found on: Evidence No. Page Casele Bisocii 47 10 Bucsoita 52 5 Fetig 59 13 Izvorul Negru 43 22 The restoration of at least 4ha of land through reforestation, weeding, or building of twig fences; Romania submitted feasibility studies (Evidence Nos. 22 to 40) including planned actions for land restoration through reforestation / afforestation of a total surface of 11.06 hectares, as well as 0.23 hectares of land restoration through grassing. In addition, 1 885sqm (=0.1885 ha) of land restored through brush head plugs (twig fences) are included, as well as fences, wattle works, and similar elements with a length of 1 383 meters (without indication how many hectares of land are covered by these works). Thus, the submitted evidence contains actions exceeding the target. These works are undertaken through 16 different sub-projects. The Commission verified that the target of land restoration of at least 4ha of land through reforestation, weeding, or building of twig fences has been achieved, by verifying the evidence for the sub-projects Izvorul Negru, Fetița Mare and Grefeniș and Schitu, as these three sub-projects contain enough actions for forestation to meet the target. The table below references where proof of the achievement of the target can be found in the evidence. Sub-project Hectares restored Evidence No. Page Izvorul Negru 1.2215 24 22-25 Fetița Mare 1.5 30 19 Grefeniș and Schitu 1.3065 31 9 Total verified sub-projects 4.028 The Council Implementing Decision required that the project design include actions for the restoration of at least 4ha of land through reforestation, weeding or building of twig fences. The project design details in the feasibility studies refer, in certain instances, to both afforestation and reforestation actions. For instance, the Grefeniș and Schitu feasibility study (Evidence No. 31) on page 9 includes “afforestation/reforestation of land degraded by landslides of slopes and those affected by anthropogenic degradation over an area of 1.3065 ha, land forming part of the forest fund and reconstructing the integrity of stands affected by the aforementioned degradation phenomena”, without distinguishing between the areas subject to afforestation and those subject to reforestation. Whilst this constitutes a minimal substantive deviation from the requirement of the Council Implementing Decision, allowing both actions of afforestation and reforestation does not affect the progress towards achieving the measure, as its purpose is to reduce flood risk and protect the environment in river basins through a combination of techniques, including planting trees on land degraded by erosion. Both afforestation and reforestation consist of the establishment of tree vegetation on degraded land in order to restore ecologic functions, therefore contributing equally to achieving the objective of the measure. As of this, this minimal deviation does not change the nature of the measure and does not affect the progress towards achieving the investment that the milestone represents. On this basis, it is considered that this constitutive element of the milestone is satisfactorily fulfilled. The restoration of at least 30km of torrent bed. Romania submitted feasibility studies (Evidence Nos. 22 to 40) including planned actions for the restauration of 42.51 kilometers of torrent bed, thus exceeding the target. These works are 27 undertaken through 19 different sub-projects. The Commission verified that the target of restoration of at least 30 kilometers of torrent bed has been achieved, by verifying the evidence for the sub- projects Izvorul Negru, Fetița Mare, Bistricioara, Casele Bisocii, Fetig, Bucșoița, Părâul Leșului, Maghernița, Martinu and Tisău-Cheia, as these ten sub-projects contain enough actions to meet the target. The table below references where proof of the achievement of the target can be found in the evidence. Sub-project Km of torrent bed restored Evidence No. Page Izvorul Negru 2.467 24 101 Fetița Mare 3.1 30 58 Bistricioara 4.5 38 58 Casele Bisocii 4.9 28 41 Fetig 3.1 21 59 Bucșoița 3 33 58 Părâul Leșului 3 34 59 Maghernița 1.97 39 70 Martinu 2.89 8 4 Tisău-Cheia 2.75 29 54 Total verified sub-projects 31.677 Any measures identified in the framework of the assessment under Directive 2000/60/EC (Water Framework Directive) as necessary to ensure compliance with the Do No Significant Harm Technical Guidance (2021/C58/01) shall be integrated into the project design and strictly complied with at the stages of construction, modernisation, operation and decommissioning. Article 4 of the Water Framework Directive states that “Member States shall implement the necessary measures to prevent deterioration of the status of all bodies of surface water”. In addition, Annex V of the Water Framework Directive defines the general conditions for “good status” for rivers as “The values of the biological quality elements for the surface water body type show low levels of distortion resulting from human activity, but deviate only slightly from those normally associated with the surface water body type under undisturbed conditions”. Annex V also defines “good ecological potential” for heavily modified water bodies, se