Romania Shelterbelts and Sustainable Agriculture Biocarbon Fund Project The Romanian government promotes the establishment of forest shelterbelts near settlements, on crop land and along irrigation systems, as a way to improve microclimates and control droughts, which have become more prevalent over the recent decades. These objectives are among those of Law No. 289 .Forest Shelterbelts. (May 15, 2002), Governmental Resolution No. 547 (May 17, 2003) on the establishment of a national system of shelterbelts, and the draft .National Strategy and Action Programme Concerning Desertification, Land Degradation and Drought Prevention and Control. (2000). To support these objectives, and also mitigate global climate change, the BioCarbon Fund would purchase ERs generated by 2,000 ha of forest shelterbelts (windbreaks) in eight counties (Calarasi, Constanta, Dolj, Galati, Giurgiu, Ialomita, Olt, Teleorman). In order to establish these 2,000 ha, about 67,000 ha of agricultural land must be found, since these shelterbelts, ranging from 10 meters to 30 meters in width, typically cover 3 percent of agricultural land. Shelterbelts protect against wind and soil erosion. In addition, shelterbelts increase moisture retention, enhance biological diversity, and improve microclimatic conditions. Ultimately shelterbelts improve soil productivity and agricultural yields. Shelterbelts are an effective store of carbon as they build dense strips of vegetation, while they do not take land away from production.    Depending on the preferences of local communities on whose land the project would be implemented, measures could also be supported that enhance carbon sequestration through better agricultural techniques such as reduced tillage, while also achieving other environmental benefits. Species planted would include trees, e.g. Robinia pseudoacacia, Gleditschia triachantos, Prunus cerasifera, Prunus avium, Juglans regia, Eleagnus angustifolia, and possibly Quercus sp., and shrubs, e.g. Rosa canina and Crataegus monogyna. Compared to the PCF afforestation project, the cost of establishing shelterbelts is expected to be lower per ha: (1) the land is less degraded than the land afforested under the PCF project; and (2) more carbon would be sequestered per ha, increasing reimbursements to the financier. Financing    Financial resources to plant the shelterbelts would be found from a variety of sources, including, possibly, the national budget through the Ministry of Agriculture, Forests, Waters and Environment.s Land Reclamation Fund, the World Bank.s loan to  the Irrigation Rehabilitation and Reform Project, the Global Environmental Facility (GEF).s grant for the Agricultural Pollution Control Project, and local communities themselves. The proceeds of the sales of ERs to the BioCarbon Fund would then reimburse the financiers on an annual basis proportionally and to their share of the project costs and depending on the level of carbon sequestration realized by the project.    No Bank budget would be involved in the preparation or the supervision of the project. A part of the preparation costs would be borne by the PHRD Grant and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forests, Waters and Environment, while the balance of these costs and the supervision costs would be borne with the BioCarbon Fund. Institutional Arrangements    This project will need a different implementation arrangement than the first PCF Afforestation project to the extent that communities are more involved in this new project, primarily because they will decide whether to establish forest shelter belts on their own land, not state-owned land as in the PCF project. The project may benefit from implementation arrangements piloted by various previous projects, in particular the Irrigation Rehabilitation Project and the Agricultural Pollution Control Project. For instance, the communities and budget resources could finance establishment of the shelterbelts with technical assistance from the National Forest Administration (NFA). The ER purchase agreement could be signed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forests, Waters and Environment, who would serve as intermediary between the BioCarbon Fund and local communities.