Doru de Ivan

Ioana Alexe: I've been following what you do for a long time, with a lot of admiration, and some years ago I wanted to work with you. I am very curious how you came to have these approaches so different from the way architects generally think. I think you are an architect with a "light touch".
I actually wonder how you can refrain from not building something physical, but rather manage to build mindsets and still patiently. Where did you learn that?
Teodor Frolu: The story is not random. It starts, in fact, from an epiphany I had at the end of my first year of Architecture, when, in the study of form, we had to do a paper for the exam. I chose traditional architecture, which I was enamored with (and still am), so I spent a lot of time in the Village Museum. I happened to be friends with a Film Imaging student who agreed to take pictures with me. So all documentation became an exploration of detail through the photographic technique. We developed the photos ourselves and played with solarizations, reframing, macro. Something that we now do very easily on the computer, we did by hand and by "playing", that's how we ended up discovering new things. (I think it was then that I also saw Antonioni's "Blow up", which made a big impression on me and opened my interest in the image in photography and film.) The revelation was to discover that, in fact, a peasant house is integrated by absorbing the aesthetics, the energy, the DNA of the space in which it is located, so it is very easy to tell the difference between a house that is in the Delta and a house that is on the mountain top. They differ so much as the place they come from is so different that if you have a landscape culture, it's very easy to tell which place it belongs to.
From that moment on I started to be concerned with traditional architecture beyond the decorative, ornamental part. I started to be interested in the peasant intelligence in technical solutions, functionalities and organic connection with the place and the materials of the place.
For example, the mountain house has the porch lowered, the roof left, so it gives the feeling of protection, while the Dobrogea porch is very open, it lets you breathe, let the air and light circulate, let you see the horizon. It was then that my interest in this relationship between man and nature in traditional culture was sparked, which started with architecture, but later extended to other areas that I have explored in all my work, from gastronomy to clothing design, from crafts to peasant household management practices and resource exploitation.
I. A.: How did you get into architecture?
T. F.: I grew up in an old house in Bucharest (in the Timpuri Noi area) which had an attic full of old furniture and objects plus a wardrobe of clothes from the interwar period. There, in my attic, I discovered the world of work done responsibly, with good quality materials made "to last a lifetime" which has been lost in this consumerist world, where almost everything is perishable.
I have discovered the beauty of the craftsman's craftsmanship and the craftsman's skill in using the material. I started, inspired by them, to use them and give them new modern uses, transforming them. In high school I ended up dressing only in old clothes transformed by me and combined with other materials, I remodeled my room with reinterpreted old furniture. The story of exploring design continued in college with making jewelry out of old pieces that I would pick up at the butcher's and work with: alpaca forks and spoons, old brass galleys, mother of pearl buttons, etc. It was creative, interesting, and a good income for those times as a student.
As I speak now, I realize that this is the first time I'm recounting and tying together moments and experiences that have somehow intertwined and influenced each other.
That's how I gained an interest in and respect for heritage, for things that are done slowly and skillfully. At the same time, I was always concerned about innovation, the new, technologies.
When I first left the country in 1990, seeing Foster's Lloyd's and Nouvel's Institute du Monde Arabe was a lesson for me about technology and how big the difference was between the two architects in the level of detail. In London I discovered then, through the grant I won from the RIBA, what urban conversion of old buildings in contemporary architecture means. The London intership also left its mark, I chose the conversion of the Glucose Factory for my diploma, and later this passion was the basis of the Amsterdam Cafe on Covaci Street and the Bursa de Mursa de Mărfoms at the Flower Market.
I. A.: Who did yougraduatewith ?
T. F.: Romeo Belea. In '90-'91, there weren't many diploma tutors. It was the immediate choice because of my childhood story with him. I didn't work with him in college, I only went to him for my diploma. Oana, his daughter, was a classmate of mine since 3rd grade. Romeo Belea used to pick her up from school and I thought he was a really cool dad and I found out he was an architect.
I had a classmate who lived in a villa on Paris street, near Dorobanți. I went to her birthday party and when I walked into that house, I was impressed by the interior, the light and the surprise I had. I had an epiphany about what architecture means. Later I found out that it was Horia Creangă's Miclescu House, built in 1930. Then, I think it was around fourth grade, I decided I wanted to become an architect.
And I stuck to that choice even though my parents considered diverting me at some point to electronics.

I. A.: You were drawing?
T. F.: I painted beautifully when I was in school. I won a drawing competition on Bucharest, with chalk on the asphalt, on the city of the future, I think it was around 7th grade. I didn't start from scratch when I started studying drawing for the entrance exam.

I. A.: It follows from your stories that you were always present, reactive and involved.
T. F.: I always had a freedom from my family. Since the first grade I used to go from one side of Bucharest to the other to go to school, and this urban and explorer experience I think made me very daring and, at the same time, attentive to the context or details. Summers were spent with grandparents in the country and wandering around the puddle, the forest from morning till evening. That's probably also the reason for my closeness to the countryside and this direct relationship with nature and the land.
Another special experience was Club A, which was run entirely by students in a very free way for those times. We were doing our own festivals, designing programs, looking for interesting guests. It was a place that already had a history, a reputation and, above all, a cultural format in which it was operating, so you weren't starting from scratch. The club was for me one of the laboratories of my student days, a second school where I learned a lot. Unfortunately things deteriorated very badly after '87, when I also came into conflict with the new school management and came quite close to losing the year. That's when I stepped down as headmaster and took the school more seriously. But perhaps the most important thing I learned and experienced in the club was the idea of working together, working as a team for the benefit of and with a community. Club A was a community of architects, several generations came together and we learned empathy for people from each other. There we learned that space is about people and how it is used. The redevelopment of the club was my first work. I did it by volunteering with students, running around to furniture factories to 'sponsor' us, it was my baptism as an entrepreneur in a way. When the community's place was taken by the general public, the Club began to decline in its role and function as a social cultural laboratory.

I. A.: But how do you get people to join you in projects and how do you get them to work welltogether?
T. F.: First of all you have to have a good project that makes sense and have arguments for it. In a partnership things work if there is trust and mutual respect. We are not good at everything and that's what partnership is all about: bringing together diverse experience. And the most important thing is to give control to others. This is where I found myself with Ivan because he had pretty much the same values and principles.

I. A.: What was so special about Ivan? And what was he to you - friend, role model?
T. F.: He was, first of all, a hero of my childhood. Everyone was fascinated by him in '72 after the "broken paddle" story in Munich, when he came back with the Olympic gold medal. He was a Rahan of Olympic sports, I think it was that childhood image that made me want to do a comic strip of his childhood stories around 2012.
He was then a partner, maybe I need to explain a little what that means to me: a comrade, a teammate, with whom I "pushed" for something I believed in. We invested all our energy and availability of time in a common cause, which we built together from close to close. And of course in all this time and joint effort, a friendship, a brotherhood or whatever you want to call it, was also forged. That is why I believe that my true gesture of friendship to him is to finish what we set out to do together.

I. A.: But let's go back, please, to your training.
What did you do after college?
T. F.: In my professional career there was the period of 2 and a half years (1991-1993) when I discovered a new world working in the government, at the Department for the Promotion of Romania. It was by chance that I ended up there: Petre Roman had a young advisor, Mihnea Constantinescu, one of the few people in the administration who was highly respected in the political world for many years after that, unfortunately he also left us a few years ago.
He was very balanced and positive, an atypical character for those times. He became a career diplomat, head of cabinet of I don't know how many prime ministers, he was part of the Royal Council of King Michael I etc. We knew each other from Club A and he invited me when he got this job from the Prime Minister to set up a Romanian Image Department. Romania had just received the invitation to participate in the World Exhibition in Seville after more than 30-40 years. I trusted him although it was quite hard to make up my mind because I was coming from the demonstrations in University Square. I then discovered a government made up of two distinct and totally different groups. One dusty, communist and full of "elephants", but who were the most active and visible, and a second group of young people, like Mihnea, who wanted to change Romania. I was immediately won over by the offer and we got to work. Of course, things were much more complicated and tumultuous at that time, but two years of instability helped us to promote new ideas and gave me some professional and life experiences relevant to my later career. What a scandal I created then because I proposed (and did, in the end) a pavilion program with the then newly-appeared "Cațavencu" magazine. Some considered it blasphemous to do such a partnership in 1992.
In 1992 I had the opportunity to go to Seville and control a piece of the exhibition organization. I made the first multimedia application to present Romania with the Informatics Institute, in CC+, and I bought the first Video Wall that Romania had. I was the stand coordinator and I stayed in Seville for 2 months. I discovered that it was not an exhibition of stands, it was an exhibition of "country programs". When I got there carried away by the architecture part, I discovered that it's actually a much more complex thing involving media, events, communication, concept and that architecture is only a small part. In those two months I researched all the pavilions I liked, bought my first video camera and did interviews with all the creators or directors of the pavilions. In the Swiss Pavilion there was a composer who designed the program, elsewhere there was a group of artists combined with biologists, in the Chile Pavilion there was a glacier and the presentation was very touristy. In fact, I discovered a new world, the world of integrated communication.
When I came back home I made a long and well-documented report on what a country image strategy is, how it works, what tools to use. I gained the trust of the department, so the following year I was appointed coordinating director for Expo Taejon.
I put together a multidisciplinary team, the "Dream Team" of my professional sympathies, with Dorin Ștefan - architecture, Sorin Botoșeneanu and Bose Pastina - video, Mircea Kiraly - sound, and produced a pavilion that was for the first and only time (as far as I know) in the top 10 VIP Tour. Perhaps not coincidentally the theme of the exhibition was "tradition and technology", so I continued my preoccupation with this area of intersection between fields, working with research institutes as well as the Village Museum and the Peasant Museum for a new and extraordinary experience.
Dorin made some suspended aluminum structures, in collaboration with the helicopter factory in Brașov, on a 400 square meter area of fir tree floor. We designed a forest of aluminum pipes, each 6 meters high, with a built-in speaker, and four computers distributing various sounds from Romania so that the visitor was exposed to a sound maze experience. Computer sound cards had just come out and I remember the digital sound installation cost a fortune at the time. It was during the transition period of the Stolojan government when we were left alone to do our job without too many bosses and politicians around. In the meantime, the government changed and things went back to the familiar path of the Văcăroiu government. I resigned from the government, but at the insistence of the exhibition commissioner from the Ministry of Research, I stayed on as director of the Pavilion, just long enough to see the project through. We had one more incident with the politicians after that, with the head of the Romanian delegation, the Minister of Culture of the surprisingly large Romania party, who ruined all our good reputation in 10 minutes, when he thought of calling his friend from North Korea in the Romanian Pavilion!!!! It all ended in a big diplomatic scandal and with the intervention of the anti-terrorist team in the pavilion. We found out afterward that Minister Micu (I think that was his name) was Ceaușescu's ambassador to North Korea until '89 and the Koreans had published a book of his in appreciation of the great people and he wanted to see how the book was doing in the sales... It was 1993, in the fall. When I came back to the country after Taejon, I found out that some of the "Cațavencu" team had set up an advertising agency, DBF, and had just launched a tender for a World Bank grant for a national investment promotion program. After our collaboration in Seville, they learned from my stories about how to do an image campaign (other than through advertisements) and invited me to participate in the tender together. A press office was also in demand, so Crenguța Rosu, with whom I had worked in the government during the period of "revolutionary freedom", joined the team, as she was the director of the press office during the Stolojan cabinet.
The evaluation committee was a famous British PR firm, not the government or the politicians, so we won, being the only ones who came up with an integrated campaign, developing an information center and many other tools, which I had learned in the meantime that what we do intuitively is called PR and is a successful business in the world.
This is how DC Communication (Doru and Crengutza) was born at the end of 1994. We managed to register as a company in March 1995.
A few months later, we started working with ING Bank and won the tender for the European Commission's information program in Romania and from that moment on we started to grow, innovating for a growing communication market, working for very demanding clients who imposed very high standards on us. At the same time, working for the European Commission on the accession preparation program exposed us to a whole new area compared to the corporate side, namely: communicating for development, communicating values and the role of European funding instruments in building a new economy. The work with the Commission continued for almost 16 years, during which time we worked with various companies and consortia across Europe, developing this experience of communicating for development.
I. A.: Can we change society through architecture?
T. F.: You begin to understand that you can change a lot of things at community level, at societal level, using tools that exist on the market (funding, organizations or networks for collaboration, communication).
We have assumed the status that we are a development facilitator, we are not mercenaries at the service of the client (this is the reason why we have never accepted to work for politics). We do communication for the benefit of the community and, in fact, we can play a role in changing and transforming society.
The passion and belief in the importance of architecture turned into the idea that you can also change society through architecture. The partnership with Mario Kuibuș turned into Re-Act Now Studio with whom we developed many interesting projects. Amsterdam Grand Café was the first one where I was for the first time in a double role: on the client's side with 4 other Dutch partners and as a member of the design team. It was interesting to see from both sides how a project evolves. It was the first major investment in what would later become the Historical Center. The Amsterdam Café project failed as a business because of some bad decisions made by the administration in pedestrianizing the Old Town overnight. A decision applauded by the public turned out to be completely toxic to a fair and appropriate business like the Amsterdam Café. That's when I founded the first community association HERE - the Historic Downtown Investors Association. It was the first action from which we learned a lot about urban development, pedestrianization and master-plans. We took advantage of our relationship with the Dutch and brought in specialists who were in charge of the pedestrianization of Amsterdam that lasted 20 years, we worked with the British team that drew up the master-plan for the area, which was not respected by the city later and because of which we still have big problems today with the management and sustainability of businesses in the area. After this experience in the Old Town I realized how important it is to communicate and involve the community in urban development. That's how I discovered Space Syntax in London, which came with a revolutionary flow analysis tool and a paradigm shift in developing master-plans in historic tracts. It was something we needed in our professionalization in the field. By a stroke of luck, the return of Esenghiul Abdul in the country, who was already from Space's group of experts, allowed us to set up Space Syntax Romania, which had some relevant contributions in the following years in the elaboration of the PIDU strategies for Bucharest, PIDU sector 1 or for Slatina.
The triangle of specialties formed by communication, architecture and urban analysis helped us to professionalize and to start for the first time to initiate new development programs as a team, in consortium. This is how TUB - Transcentral Urban Bucharest, the first large-scale project based on collaboration and partnerships, public communication and civil society, was born.
TUB was Mario's idea, out of frustration that nothing major was happening in Bucharest. But this whole process, through which you can go from an idea to a project to be implemented, lasted 6 years and it was a project of management, public communication, public-media support that pushed the public administration towards us. And from the level of an idea it went into a very serious area in which we made very advanced studies of utilities traffic, of infrastructure, finally becoming an urban development strategy that starts from the repair of a valuable historical fabric destroyed by the interventions of the 80s.
I. A.: Is the PIDU still up to date? It is a project that has been on the table of four mayors without anything happening.
T. F.: It's very interesting that, although almost 10 years have passed since the PIDU strategy was launched, it is still as important for the city center because it enhances and restores historic Bucharest. If we look at some of the small interventions that have been made in recent years and the "route" promoted by the PIDU, we will be surprised to discover how visionary and up-to-date it has been as an urban development strategy. Brezoianu street is flourishing, the only segment of Calea Victoriei included in the TUB (Piața Amzei - Berthelot street) is a hot spot, a bicycle path on Calea Victoriei. Just think if this project is fully implemented what it would mean for the city, making more room for pedestrians at the expense of parked cars, more green space and tree alignments in the central area, relevant public squares.
In 2008 we initiated the EcoDâmbovița project, which also started from urban development opportunity analysis.
For us the Dâmbovița is not just a riverbank development project, it is a green axis (a diametrical one for cyclists not for cars) connecting the largest university area in the country with the city.
In 2013 together with Ivan, we started the Dâmbovița SmartRiver activation project at the National Library, where we rethought the citizen's relationship with the river, intervening on the project to rehabilitate the banks, proposing a new landscaping solution. Unfortunately, the Sector 3 administration has seen fit to turn the most attractive green space next to the riverbank into a restaurant terrace. I remain of the opinion that a more balanced solution of functions - HoReCa 30% and green space 70% - was more valuable for the city. We had another initiative that failed, but it remains valid as a proposal - it's called the Museum Triangle: Antipa, the Romanian Peasant Museum and the Geology Museum. A single joint exhibition between the three museums was organized by the French Institute, about Dobrogea, which you could enter with the same ticket. In each museum there was a room dedicated to Dobrogea, each one from the perspective of the specific museum in which it was set up. Hence the idea of connecting them at an urban level, but also as a relationship between natural, cultural, traditional and geological/geographical heritage. At present, we do not perceive the three museums as a valuable cultural pole and as an ecosystem about Romania at urban level.
Also in 2007, also thanks to our collaboration with the EC, together with them, we organized the first Slow Food traditional products fair at the MȚR and became a founding member of the Slow Food movement. Together with Vintilă Mihăilescu, I founded the "Radu Anton Roman" Association with which I developed the "Târgul țăranului" project until 2013, when the traditional produce markets returned to the streets of Bucharest.

I. A.: Is this where we come to the meeting with Ivan?
T. F.: In 2010, Liviu Mihaiu organized the event "De-ale gurii Dunării" - a gastronomy contest in the Delta, at Uzlina, and invited me and Vintilă Mihăilescu to be on the jury (we are from Slow Food) and Ivan, of course, the ambassador of the Delta.
He also contributed something else: in 2009 I had canoed for the first time from Tulcea to Sf. Gheorghe with a guide from the Neamt region and it was an experience in which I felt like I had discovered another world, even though I had been to the Delta before. When I met Ivan I told him about this canoeing adventure and how much I had enjoyed it and how I had discovered this kind of experience with some Germans and I was lamenting the fact that there was no local offer. It was clear to me that until you have had such an experience you cannot understand its value because it is very difficult to explain to someone that paddling through nature in a boat, tired from the effort, at some point it starts to rain and you are happy to feel the drop of water on your skin.
Ivan had resigned from the Olympic team and told me that he was just thinking of returning to the Delta and getting involved in something to do with local people. He didn't know exactly what he wanted to do, but (as he told me himself) he felt that things were not right, he saw that people were more disoriented, as if they had no desire to live, they didn't know what to do. I suggested to him to try to offer them this alternative of slow tourism in which an important factor of the experience is meeting the community.
That's how the collaboration started: to create a minimal infrastructure for this kind of tourist experience and to do it in the area Crișan - Mila 23. This is how the Ivan Patzaichin - Mila 23 Association was born in November 2010.

Working on the project we thought that we didn't want to fill the Delta with colorful plastic boats and that it would be nice to make a local boat - that's how Canotca came about. It takes on the look of a dinghy on the water, but can be used as a canoe (the locals used a small 11-keak dinghy - ribs - which was used for hunting, with a single oar or just a pushrod). I looked for a craftsman. Nobody was making lotci anymore. I found someone who had made them in the past and restarted the workshop, making a whole flotilla in the following years.
Driven by a passion to discover the Delta by paddling as a new tourism experience, I first invented the 'canoe', then I needed a brand and the 'Rowmania' movement was born. Like any movement we needed "promo", but in the same way, starting from the idea of contemporary valorization of tradition, we thought of making our own t-shirt, shorts and hat as a design and production. We knew Olah Gyarfas and really appreciated him for what he was doing in fashion and invited him to help us. We put him in the canoe for 3 days paddling (he had never been to the Delta before) and after 2 weeks he came back with proposals for a dream collection. That's how the fashion brand Patzaikin, www.patzaikin.com, was born, and 10 years of experiments and incredible developments followed. This is now the Industrial Hemp Cluster, www.caneparo.org.
This is where our story started, which has grown like a snowball, from close to close, from meetings (not by chance) with many talented people and with opportunities for exciting projects and collaborations.
I. A.: And have you managed to change things for the better in the Delta?
T. F.: Yes! Maybe not as much as we set out to do, but things are changing, I think.
We built the first canoe rental center at Crișan - a little floating house that we still have. At the same time we applied for a project - the "Ecotourism Triangle" for Crișan, Mila 23 and Caraorman, linking the three villages.
In Mila 23, because we had two members of the association who had won prizes in gastronomy competitions, we created the first Gastronomic Trail, which included five farms. Together with Vintilă Mihăilescu and Ivan we did "gastronomic curatorie" (it was terrible with so many dishes). The anthropological study with Vintilă's students from SNSPA also started from here, which resulted in a very interesting book, "At table with the people of the Delta".
Through a grant project, we developed one of the 5 households and rebuilt the stove, the dining place, the bathroom, and the old house was covered again with reed.
You were asking what has changed. In 2011 when we made the first canoes, everyone was wondering who would want to ride in them. If you look now, the number of tourists coming by kayak or people providing kayaks has increased a lot.
The idea of local gastronomy wasn't really developed either. People thought they were eating at the host where they were staying because it was cheaper, but the idea that you're coming for a culinary experience didn't exist.
Okay, that doesn't mean it's all good. There are bad parts too, I did a survey in 2021 and many of the local dining outlets have, due to demand, turned into some sort of traditional fast food (fish borscht, fried fish and a doughnut maybe!). Why? Because there are so many tourists coming to the Delta for one day. The local gastronomy spot needs to get out of this fast and cheap model, which is totally unconstructive. We are still trying to convince people that a more sophisticated menu, but in smaller quantities and more expensive, aimed at a smaller number of tourists is more economically advantageous and at the same time more interesting even for the housewife.
Then the local people's idea of traditional buildings changed. It was difficult to convince people to keep the old house. Now people have started to understand that it has a value and they keep it as a brand even if they build a new one next to it and they have started to put it in an economic context. They started to realize that it's better to make a thatched roof. They change, but they don't change fast.
In my opinion, the major problem is that everyone has stuck with the idea that if you have more places to stay it's better, and most are taking the big resorts in the Delta or elsewhere as their development model. For a short season of 4 months it seems, at first sight, that having more rooms increases the income during the peak period. The problem is that in the medium to long term you have problems with maintenance, repairs etc. It is much more efficient to increase the season and days of stay so that the number of days rented increases from there. And to have higher revenue from fewer rooms to maintain. This goal cannot be achieved by individual effort, but it is a strategic goal for the Delta and sustainable development.
I. A.: And how do we do that?
T. F.: Now if you go to the Delta you have 3 big destinations to visit: Letea, Sulina and Mila 23, where you can also have lunch. Caraorman has also been on the circuit lately, but you see very little of the whole Delta.
We are promoting a study done in 2010 by a group of Dutch experts with the Romanian Ecotourism Association in which they divided the Delta into 8 distinct regions with a different visitor offer based on a professional analysis. The Delta should no longer be perceived as a single destination that can be seen in a day (hence the temptation for the "Delta in a day" package that offers only "water and reeds" from the speed of a motorboat).
Then comes the local product that needs to be diversified. There should be as little fish as possible coming out of the Delta, with no value added by processing. We have created a new tourist product called "pesca-turism", which is little used, although we have also created a legal framework with the ARBDD for this. It needs time to be adopted. The local goes where there is demand. For there to be demand there has to be promotion and supply. Who breaks the vicious circle!
Pesca-tourism is an example of an experiential tourism product that capitalizes on traditional fishing in the Delta. Accompany the fisherman on his tour of the vintire (traditional fishing nets that are set up in several places) that he does every morning, watch him pull out different kinds of fish (experience the surprise of the catch live and learn a few varieties of fish), and then stop by the fishing refuge to watch the fish soup that you will never forget, slow-cooked in a pot and served separately from the fish stock, with a spicy mujdei and a golden mumolina made with Chilia corn. Why is such a tourist product sustainable? Because it relieves pressure on the fish stock in the ponds by capitalizing on cooked fish. It brings more income to the fisherman by using less caught fish. The journey from one creel to another is transformed into a unique nature experience if done with a traditional rowboat, paddled by a traditional rowboat. The environmental impact is minimal and the local heritage remains alive, useful, giving uniqueness and local brand to the product. From all this exploration of the traditions of the Delta another project has been consolidated, the www.traditiicreative.ro network, which has brought together with Vintilă Mihăilescu and myself many other enthusiasts of traditional culture and contemporary heritage makers. The red thread in all these projects is the same: the link between man and nature brought up to date through innovation and technology, using traditional culture as a creative resource, developing projects that are natively collaborative and developed in partnerships and communities.
For the Delta, all our experience of more than 12 years has been consolidated in a proposal for a major reform of the way the Reserve is managed through collaboration between the ARBDD and the local community. We managed to bring 15 million euros to the ARBDD through the PNRR by writing this project. We hope it will remain an integrated and collaborative project as we designed it. Until now, there has never been any question of realizing a slow alternative to visit the Delta. There has always been talk of restricting boats with big engines, of speed restrictions, but none of these initiatives has succeeded. We have proposed a different approach, not to try to reform the whole Delta overnight, but to do as in the case of the PID "a small pedestrian street" linking places, designed especially for rowing boats (but where any other boat can access if it is traveling under 10 km/h). This slow trail aims to link 50 moorings, which can offer different nature experiences, connecting the 8 different areas, on a visitor infrastructure that is as non-intrusive as possible and with real-time IOT impact monitoring tools. From this infrastructure proposal alone a new, but less polluting and intrusive business opportunity is created. We do not start from the idea of banning, but of providing alternatives through which we can make tourism more interesting and more economically efficient.
Infrastructure is the pretext that triggers a series of changes in the types of services where you put nature to work, create a diverse offer, but also a new management and administration system. A local cohesion project is one where you have something you can share with everyone for the benefit of all. This can now be done transparently using technology, with an app that gives you who-where-when information, so you can build trust between members of the community who are managing this infrastructure in partnership.
Another important project: we started the LAG - Local Action Group - Association. If you now see some wooden boats circulating with tourists, it's because we encouraged their purchase and provided funding.
Chilia had a working mill and, after the death of the old man in charge of it, we convinced the town hall to buy it and we funded them through the LAG to rebuild it.
Why is the mill important? Because in the Delta there are 20,000 hectares of wheat and no mill. If the mill is working, you could launch a brand of local flour and corn flour so that people don't buy flour from the supermarket but buy local flour. In addition to the added value in the gastronomic product, it could also be a brand that sells outside, so that the wheat doesn't leave by truck. You can develop jobs by capitalizing on local resources. We have the biggest area of reeds, but the reeds are leaving in sheeps, there isn't even a factory to produce reed insulation panels. These are investments that can develop a sustainable local micro-economy.
Also in the LAG strategy, we proposed three animal slaughtering points. There are 40,000 cows, 50,000 sheep and there is no slaughterhouse. It's either sold black market or live animals are taken by some hustlers because the locals are only interested in the subsidy. I proposed the creation of small associations of livestock breeders in the village to develop processing centers for local products. Things are slowly moving in this direction, but it takes time and resilience.
We invented this word - RESILIENCE!!!!
I come back to Ivan's question, what can we do so that people start to stop being so closed in, and alone, and every man for himself? That's what we can do: put other tools in place where people have something to work together. As long as there is only competition between them, of course there is no reason to work together. The moment they have such a structure, they start sharing roles. It recreates, in fact, a micro-economy and a community that has been lost, a new ecosystem in which both man and nature find their place.