DOCSLIB.ORG

TE Improving the Financial Sustainability of the Carpathian

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
TE Improving the Financial Sustainability of the Carpathian Project Terminal Evaluation UNDP-supported, GEF -funded Project ‘Improving the Financial Sustainability of the Carpathian System of Protected Areas’ Romania GEF Project ID: 3849 UNDP PIMS ID: 3458 Designated Institution: Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Implementing Partner: National Forest Administration ‘Romsilva’ Focal Area: Biodiversity (GEF 4) Operational Programme: Financial sustainability August 2014 Evaluator Michael R Appleton Contents Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Acronyms and abbreviations used in the text ....................................................................................................... 4 Executive summary............................................................................................................................................... 5 Project summary and description ...................................................................................................................... 5 Evaluation results .............................................................................................................................................. 6 Summary of conclusions, recommendations and lessons ................................................................................. 6 Medium to long term recommendations for future directions underlining main objectives ............................. 9 ‘Lessons learned’ from addressing issues relating to relevance, performance and success ........................... 10 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 11 1.1 Purpose of the evaluation .................................................................................................................... 11 1.2 Scope and methodology ...................................................................................................................... 11 1.3 Structure of the evaluation report ....................................................................................................... 12 2 Project description and development context ............................................................................................. 12 2.1 Project start and duration .................................................................................................................... 12 2.2 Context ................................................................................................................................................ 12 2.3 Problems that the project sought to address ........................................................................................ 13 2.4 Overall objective of the project ........................................................................................................... 14 2.5 Main stakeholders ............................................................................................................................... 14 2.6 Overall approach ................................................................................................................................. 16 2.7 Expected results and indicators ........................................................................................................... 16 3 Findings ...................................................................................................................................................... 17 3.1 Project design/formulation .................................................................................................................. 17 3.1.1 Analysis of logical framework/results framework ...................................................................... 17 3.1.2 Assumptions and risks ................................................................................................................ 18 3.1.3 Lessons from other relevant projects (e. g. same focal area) incorporated into project design .. 19 3.1.4 Planned stakeholder participation ............................................................................................... 20 3.1.5 Replication approach .................................................................................................................. 20 3.1.6 UNDP comparative advantage .................................................................................................... 20 3.1.7 Linkages between project and other interventions within the sector .......................................... 20 3.1.8 Management arrangements ......................................................................................................... 21 3.2 Project Implementation ....................................................................................................................... 21 3.2.1 Implementation context .............................................................................................................. 21 3.2.2 Partnership arrangements with stakeholders ............................................................................... 22 3.2.3 Monitoring and evaluation .......................................................................................................... 22 3.2.4 Project Finance ........................................................................................................................... 25 3.2.5 Implementation by UNDP and implementation partners ............................................................ 28 3.3 Project Results .................................................................................................................................... 31 3.3.1 Evaluation of achievement of the Project Objective ................................................................... 31 3.3.2 Evaluation of Outcome 1. ........................................................................................................... 36 Terminal Evaluation: Improving the Financial Sustainability of the Carpathian System of Protected Areas 2 3.3.3 Evaluation of Outcome 2 ............................................................................................................ 48 3.4 Summary assessment based on UNDP evaluation criteria ................................................................. 52 3.4.1 Relevance .................................................................................................................................... 52 3.4.2 Effectiveness ............................................................................................................................... 52 3.4.3 Efficiency .................................................................................................................................... 52 3.4.4 Country ownership ...................................................................................................................... 53 3.4.5 Mainstreaming ............................................................................................................................ 53 3.4.6 Sustainability .............................................................................................................................. 53 3.4.7 Impact ......................................................................................................................................... 54 4 Conclusions, recommendations & lessons .................................................................................................. 55 4.1 Summary and overall evaluation ........................................................................................................ 55 4.2 Recommendations for short term measures to follow up/reinforce initial benefits from the project . 56 4.3 Medium to long term recommendations for future directions underlining main objectives ............... 57 4.4 ‘Lessons learned’ from addressing issues relating to relevance, performance and success ............... 57 Annexes .............................................................................................................................................................. 59 Annexe 1 Terms of reference ...................................................................................................................... 59 Annexe 2 Itinerary ....................................................................................................................................... 59 Annexe 3 List of persons consulted ............................................................................................................ 59 Annexe 4 List of documents reviewed ........................................................................................................ 61 Annexe 5 Evaluation Question Matrix ........................................................................................................ 62 Annexe 6 Questionnaire used and summary of results ............................................................................... 64 Annexe 7 Evaluation ratings table............................................................................................................... 69 Annexe 8 Evaluation Consultant Agreement Form..................................................................................... 72 Acknowledgements The author thanks all those consulted in the course of the evaluation process for their helpful responses and constructive contributions. Particular thanks
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Assessment of the Contribution of Ecosystems in Protected Areas to Sector Growth and Human Well Being in Romania
    An Assessment of the Contribution of Ecosystems in Protected Areas to Sector Growth and Human Well Being in Romania Improving the Financial Sustainability of the Carpathian System of Protected Areas (PAs) Final Report, October 2012 Bogdan Popa and Camille Bann 1 Contents Acronyms and abbreviations ......................................................................................................................... 4 List of figures ................................................................................................................................................. 5 List of tables .................................................................................................................................................. 7 Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................................... 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 9 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 18 1.1 Study context............................................................................................................................... 18 1.2 Objective of study ........................................................................................................................ 19 1.3 Overview of Approach ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Wetlands on Danube Delta Bioisphere Reserve
    Wetland conservation and sustainable use in Romania Dr. Grigore Baboianu, Executive director, Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Authority, Romania 11th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Wetlands Bucharest, Romania, 6-13 July 2012 “Wetlands: home and destination” Romania Total surface: 238,391 km2 Inhabitants: 19,042,936 (2011) Etnic Groups: Romanian 89%, Hungarian 7.5%, Gipsy 1.9%, German & others 1.6% Position: Central South-Eastern 450 N Latitude 250 E Longitude Climate: Temperate (8 -110 C) Rainfall: 400-600 l/y 11th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Wetlands Bucharest, Romania, 6-13 July 2012 Relief: Mountains (35%) - Carpathian, 910 km - Dobrogea Hills (35%) Plains (30%) Black Sea (245 km) Danube Delta (3,510 km2) 11th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Wetlands Bucharest, Romania, 6-13 July 2012 Wetlands in Romania In Romania there were inventoried: Lakes: 3,450 (2,650 km2 - 1,1%): mountain (glacial, carst, vulcanoes), floodplain, reservoirs, marine and coastal lagoons and lakes of Danube Delta. Rivers: 120,000 km: (Danube River (1,075 km), 28 rivers >162 km (8,096 km)) Swamps: 215 (52 km2) Map of wetlands distribution in Romania 11TH Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Wetlands Bucharest, Romania, 6-13 July 2012 Main use/role of wetlands: Flood Control Groundwater Replenishment Shoreline Stabilisation & Storm Protection Sediment & Nutrient Retention and Export Climate Change Mitigation Water Purification Reservoirs
    [Show full text]
  • Turizam I Hotelijerstvo
    UNIVERZITET U NOVOM SADU PRIRODNO-MATEMATIČKI FAKULTET DEPARTMAN ZA GEOGRAFIJU, TURIZAM I HOTELIJERSTVO Naučno-stručni časopis iz turizma TURIZAM br. 11 Savremene tendencije u turizmu, hotelijerstvu i gastronomiji 2007. YU ISSN 1450-6661 UNIVERZITET U NOVOM SADU PRIRODNO-MATEMATIČKI FAKULTET DEPARTMAN ZA GEOGRAFIJU, TURIZAM I HOTELIJERSTVO Naučno-stručni časopis iz turizma TURIZAM br.11 Savremene tendencije u turizmu, hotelijerstvu i gastronomiji 2007. Glavni i odgovorni urednik dr Miroslav Vesković, dekan Urednik dr Jovan Plavša Redakcija dr Jovan Romelić dr Lazar Lazić mr Tatjana Pivac mr Vuk Garača Igor Stamenković Vanja Dragičević Uglješa Stankov Departman za geografiju, Lektor i korektor turizam i hotlijerstvo Jasna Tatić Anadol Gegić Izdavač Prirodno-matematički fakultet Departman za geografiju, turizam i hotelijerstvo Trg Dositeja Obradovića 3 21000 Novi Sad tel + 381 (0)21 450 104, 450105 fax + 381 (0)21 459 696 Design & Prepress Lazarus, Kać Štampa Futura, Petrovaradin Tiraž 300 Štampanje časopisa pomogao Pokrajinski sekretarijat za nauku i tehnološki razvoj, Novi Sad. Održivi razvoj I turizam ..................67 Mr Tamara Kovačević SustainaBle Development Značaj Podunavačkih bara potencijalne Sadržaj and Tourism ...........................................67 turističke destinacije u regionalnom razvoju Zapadnog Pomoravlja ................... 131 Mr Vuk Garača Savremeni OBliCI U turizmu ..............5 Siniša S. Ratković Dr Nada I. Vidić Contemporary Forms in Tourism ..5 Sopotnički vodopadi u funkciji Turističke vrednosti muzejskih
    [Show full text]
  • The Importance of Protected Natural Areas
    http://proceedings.lumenpublishing.com/ojs/index.php/lumenproceedings International Conference « Global interferences of knowledge society », November 16-17th, 2018, Targoviste, Romania Global Interferences of Knowledge Society The Importance of Protected Natural Areas Constantin POPESCU, Maria-Luiza HRESTIC https://doi.org/10.18662/lumproc.137 How to cite: Popescu, C., & Hrestic, M.-L. (2019). The Importance of Protected Natural Areas. In M. Negreponti Delivanis (ed.), International Conference «Global interferences of knowledge society», November 16-17th, 2018, Targoviste, Romania (pp. 201-212). Iasi, Romania: LUMEN Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.18662/lumproc.137 © The Authors, LUMEN Conference Center & LUMEN Proceedings. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference International Conference « Global interferences of knowledge society », November 16-17th, 2018, Targoviste, Romania The Importance of Protected Natural Areas Constantin POPESCU1, Maria-Luiza HRESTIC2* Abstract Economic relationships lead to the determination of behavior towards resources, including those related to biodiversity. Economic relationships lead to the determination of behavior towards resources, including those related to biodiversity. Human interventions are not negative only by making maximum use of biological resources, but also through activities that do not directly target these categories. The main ways humans contribute to the degradation of biodiversity are: modification and destruction of habitats, voluntary and involuntary transfer of species, overexploitation in all areas, starting with resources. The purpose of this research is to highlight the importance of protected areas in the world, as well as in Romania, highlighting economic activities that help to preserve and protect nature and the natural environment, activities that are included in management plans for sustainable development.
    [Show full text]
  • Smart, Sustainable, Inclusive
    Continuing previous meetings: Forum Carpaticum 2010 (Krakow, Poland), Forum Carpaticum 2012 (Stará Lesná, Slovakia), Forum Carpaticum 2014 (Lviv, Ukraine), Forum Carpaticum 2016 (Bucharest, Romania) addresses the need to make a bridge of smart sustainable development in the Carpathians with scientists, stakeholders, institutions, NGOs, communities. The Carpathian Region – the Green Backbone of Europe – faces many opportunities as well as challenges to the future development of the area. The stakeholders, decision makers and research communities can use them wisely for the enhanced protection and sustainable development of the Carpathians. These overall goals meet well with the EU 2020 Cohesion Policy, which proposes “Smart”, “Sustainable” and “Inclusive” to be the keywords when addressing the main priorities for the near future. Forum Carpaticum 2016 „Future of the Carpathians: Smart, Sustainable, Inclusive“ proposes to concentrate on these priorities and to debate how they can be implemented in the Carpathian Region, during the following main thematic sessions: Smart Carpathians session aims to present and discuss the leading edge achievements in: recent and future information and communication technologies; emerging paradigms and methodological developments; front-rank research infrastructures, capacities and innovations; open knowledge, information and data systems applications, in particular those of Carpathian interest. Sustainable Carpathians is expected to cover the topics that consider: climate change adaptation, risk prevention
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Marketing Communication in Tourism – an Analysis
    Theoretical and Applied Economics Volume XX (2013), No. 6(583), pp. 7-34 Integrated marketing communication in tourism – an analysis. Case study: Muntenia and Oltenia Aurelia-Felicia STĂNCIOIU The Bucharest University of Economic Studies [email protected] Andreea BOTOŞ The Bucharest University of Economic Studies [email protected] Mihai ORZAN The Bucharest University of Economic Studies [email protected] Ion PÂRGARU Polytechnic University of Bucharest [email protected] Octavian ARSENE The Bucharest University of Economic Studies [email protected] Abstract. The multitude of factors interfering in the process of image formation and the way in which they act in a unique combination, similar to a genetic code for a consumer, influences the image study of a tourism destination in the direction of becoming a complex process. In the marketing activity of each destination, the analysis of the importance of destination’s resources represents an essential step, however, as the multifaceted tourism product presents (in combination with, as well as through other policies – price, distribution etc.) a strong diversification, the distinction between the real, objective situation of the destination’s resources and the lack of their communication, on the one hand, and the distinction between the real situation and the way in which the resources are “presented” (in the direction of maximising or minimising them), on 8 Aurelia-Felicia Stăncioiu, Andreea Botoș, Mihai Orzan, Ion Pârgaru, Octavian Arsene the other hand, can constitute
    [Show full text]
  • Assessing Public Perception on Protected Areas in Iron Gates Natural Park
    Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Procedia Environmental Sciences 32 ( 2016 ) 70 – 79 International Conference – Environment at a Crossroads: SMART approaches for a sustainable future Assessing public perception on protected areas in Iron Gates Natural Park Cristiana Maria Ciocăneaa*, Carmen Sorescub, Mirela Ianoșib, Vasile Bagrinovschia aUniversity of Bucharest, Centre for Environmental Research and Impact Studies, N. Bălcescu, no.1, Sector 1, Bucharest, 010041, Romania b Environmental Protection Agency Caras-Severin, Petru Maior, no.73, Resita, 320111, Romania Abstract Iron Gates Natural Park, situated in the south-western part of Romania is protected for its remarkable landscape, high biological diversity and unique habitats. The paper assesse the public perception on protected areas in Iron Gates Natural Park and explore perceptions of local residents and local authorities’ attitudes towards protected areas and conservation activities. Most respondents held a positive attitude towards protected areas and the analysis of their attitudes and perceptions revealed potential conflicts that might affect biodiversity conservation and protected area management. The main problems are the limited knowledge and a poor communication with authorities which implies a lack of local participation in conservation activities. Based on our studies, some recommendations are given for improvement of Iron Gates Natural Park management due to the importance of the local community involvement in conservation activities. ©© 2016 2016 The The Authors. Authors. Published Published by Elsevierby Elsevier B.V ThisB.V. is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (Peerhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/-review under responsibility of the organizing). committee of ECOSMART 2015. Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of ECOSMART 2015 Keywords: protected area; protected area management; public perception; 1.
    [Show full text]
  • From Geomorphosite Evaluation to Geotourism Interpretation
    GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites, Year VI, no. 2, vol. 12, November 2013, pp. 145-162 ISSN 2065-0817, E-ISSN 2065-1198 Article no. 12107-128 FROM GEOMORPHOSITE EVALUATION TO GEOTOURISM INTERPRETATION. CASE STUDY: THE SPHINX OF ROMANIA’S SOUTHERN CARPATHIANS Irina-Maria NECHEŞ* University of Bucharest, Faculty of Geography, Department of Human and Economic Geography, 1 Nicolae Bălcescu Blvd, 010041, Bucharest, Romania; e-mail: [email protected] Abstract: Geomorphosites are commonly regarded as landforms that are mainly defined by their scientific value. Prior to assuming the existence of a “geomorphosite”, however, the scientific value of landforms must be determined. The study comprises three major steps. The first of them implies the identification and classification of the intrinsic geo(morpho)logical characteristics of landforms, some of which are readily identifiable and quantifiable by tourists and scientists alike, whereas others are noticeable and deducible only by scientists. The second step employs a numerical methodology for assessing the scientific value of landforms which, once ascertained, also acquires a significant educational importance for geotourism. The third step and final goal is the development of a logical scheme for the scientific interpretation of a geomorphosite’s origin and evolution and its brief application on the most representative of the erosional landforms on the Bucegi plateau of Romania’s Southern Carpathians – the Sphinx. Key words: geomorphosites, landforms, intrinsic characteristics, geotourism, interpretation, the Sphinx, Southern Carpathians * * * * * * INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF GEOMORPHOSITES. A BRIEF HISTORY OF RESEARCH Large-scale tourism practices around the world determine a progressive overflowing and degradation of natural areas. One of the early measures undertaken in order to limit the negative impact of mass tourism was the establishment of protected natural areas and natural monuments, and the foundation of national parks and reserves.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduceţi Titlul Lucrării
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Annals of the University of Craiova - Agriculture, Montanology, Cadastre Series Analele Universităţii din Craiova, seria Agricultură – Montanologie – Cadastru (Annals of the University of Craiova - Agriculture, Montanology, Cadastre Series) Vol. XLIII 2013 RESEARCH ON THE IDENTIFICATION AND PROMOTION OF AGROTURISTIC POTENTIAL OF TERRITORY BETWEEN JIU AND OLT RIVER CĂLINA AUREL, CĂLINA JENICA, CROITORU CONSTANTIN ALIN University of Craiova, Faculty of Agriculture and Horticulture Keywords: agrotourism, agrotourism potential, agrotouristic services, rural area. ABSTRACT The idea of undertaking this research emerged in 1993, when was taking in study for doctoral thesis region between Jiu and Olt River. Starting this year, for over 20 years, I studied very thoroughly this area and concluded that it has a rich and diverse natural and anthropic tourism potential that is not exploited to its true value. Also scientific researches have shown that the area benefits of an environment with particular beauty and purity, of an ethnographic and folklore thesaurus of great originality and attractiveness represented by: specific architecture, traditional crafts, folk techniques, ancestral habits, religion, holidays, filled with historical and art monuments, archeological sites, museums etc.. All these natural and human tourism resources constitute a very favorable and stimulating factor in the implementation and sustained development of agritourism and rural tourism activities in the great and the unique land between Jiu and Olt River. INTRODUCTION Agritourism and rural tourism as economic and socio-cultural activities are part of protection rules for built and natural environment, namely tourism based on ecological principles, became parts of ecotourism, which as definition and content goes beyond protected areas (Grolleau H., 1988 and Annick Deshons, 2006).
    [Show full text]
  • Sedimentary Microplastic Concentrations from the Romanian
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Sedimentary microplastic concentrations from the Romanian Danube River to the Black Sea Iulian Pojar1, Adrian Stănică1*, Friederike Stock2, Christian Kochleus2, Michael Schultz1 & Chris Bradley3 A multitude of recent studies have detailed microplastic concentrations in aquatic and terrestrial environments, although questions remain over their ultimate fate. At present, few studies have detailed microplastic characteristics and abundance along a freshwater–marine interface, and considerable uncertainties remain over the modelled contribution of terrestrial and riverine microplastic to the world’s oceans. In this article, for the frst time, we detail sedimentary microplastic concentrations along a River–Sea transect from the lower reaches of a major continental river, the River Danube, through the Danube Delta, the Black Sea coast to the Romanian and Bulgarian inner shelf of the Black Sea. Our results indicate that isolated areas of the Danube Delta are still relatively pristine, with few microplastic particles in some of the sediments sampled. A multitude of recent studies have detailed microplastic concentrations in aquatic and terrestrial environments, although questions remain over their ultimate fate. At present, few studies have detailed microplastic charac- teristics and abundance along a freshwater–marine interface, and considerable uncertainties remain over the modelled contribution of terrestrial and riverine microplastic to the world’s oceans. In this article, for the frst time, we detail sedimentary microplastic concentrations along a River–Sea transect from the lower reaches of a major continental river, the River Danube, through the Danube Delta, the Black Sea coast to the Romanian and Bulgarian inner shelf of the Black Sea. Our results indicate that isolated areas of the Danube Delta are still relatively pristine, with few microplastic particles in some of the sediments sampled.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Background of the Trust
    Transylv. Rev. Syst. Ecol. Res. 16 ‒ special issue (2014), The “Iron Gates” Natural Park 211 SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL DYNAMIC OF RURAL AND URBAN LANDSCAPES IDENTIFIED IN THE “IRON GATES” NATURAL PARK Mihăiţă-Iulian NICULAE *, Mihai Răzvan NIŢĂ *, Gabriel VANĂU *, Cristiana CIOCANEA * and Athanasios GAVRILIDIS * * University of Bucharest, Centre for Environmental Research and Impact Studies, Nicolae Bălcescu Boulevard 1, Sector 1, CP 010041, Bucharest, Romania, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] DOI: 10.1515/trser-2015-0043 KEYWORDS: Rural and urban landscape, land use, land cover, landscape change, “Iron Gates” Natural Park, Romania. ABSTRACT In the present paper, we identified landscape typologies in the “Iron Gates” Natural Park from Romania and assessed their dynamic starting with 1990 to 2006. We evaluated the dynamic of landscapes based on land use and land covers changes as extracted from the Corine Land Cover databases. We found no major modifications in the distribution of landscapes, only 4.4% of the study area recording changes. Forestry landscapes have the highest ratio of change (on 1.5% from the total surface of the park), with significant decreases also recorded in landscapes of shrub and rare vegetation, as well as mixed agricultural landscapes. Among the active transformation processes, forestation (on 45% of the modified surface) and agricultural activities (20%) recorded the highest distribution. RÉSUMÉ: La dynamique spatiale et temporelle des paysages ruraux et urbains dans le Parc Naturel des “Portes de Fer”. L’article fait un inventaire des catégories de paysages qui se trouvent dans le Parc Naturel des “Portes de Fer” des Roumanie et analyse la dynamique de ces paysages de 1990 à 2006.
    [Show full text]
  • Romanian Association of Geomorphologists Revista De
    ROMANIAN ASSOCIATION OF GEOMORPHOLOGISTS REVISTA DE GEOMORFOLOGIE 18 editura universității din bucurești 2016 Revista de Geomorfologie 18/2016 Editor-in-Chief: Maria Rădoane, University of Suceava, Romania Guest Editors: Lóczy Dénes, University of Pecs, Hungary, Slavoljub Dragićević, University of Belgrade, Serbia Sandu Boengiu, University of Craiova, Romania Editorial Board Achim Beylich, Geological Survey of Norway (NGU), Geo-Environment Division, Norway Alfred Vespremeanu-Stroe, University of Bucharest Armelle Decaulne, Université de Nantes, Laboratoire GEOLITTOMER UMR - 6554 CNRSLETG, France Aurel Perșoiu, Institute of Speology Emil Racovita, Cluj Napoca Ciprian Mărgărint, Al I Cuza University of Iassy Dan Dumitriu, Al I Cuza University of Iassy Daniel Germain, Université du Québec à Montréal, Département de Géographie, Canada Dănuț Petrea, Babeș Bolyai University of Cluj Napoca Floare Grecu, University of Bucharest Francisca Chiriloaei, University of Suceava Hans-Balder Havenith, Université de Liège, Belgia Ian Evans, University of Durham, United Kingdom Ion Ioniță, Al I Cuza University of Iassy Jean-Philippe Malet, Université de Strasbourg, France Laura Comănescu, University of Bucharest Lucian Drăguț, West University of Timisoara Marta Jurchescu, Institute of Geography, Bucharest Mauro Soldati, Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Italy Mihai Micu, Institute of Geography, Bucharest Mircea Voiculescu, West University of Timisoara Nicolae Cruceru, Spiru Haret University Olimpiu Pop, University Babeș Bolyai of Cluj Napoca
    [Show full text]