 I tried to compare the situation in Moldova and Romania concerning the legal framework, but also how the legislation works in favor of preservation and good management, or how to build good management according to the European Convention, but also how it was implemented and how it is used as a good tool for improving the national legislation. So just to compare how the roots of the implementing the Valeta Convention in Moldova and Romania, you could compare the chronology, so when the Convention was signed by both countries, so in 1996 in Romania and 1998, so it's a good per course, so just two years difference, but then Romania ratified in 1997 and Moldova ratified just three years later in 2001, you could see from the signature to the ratifying in the parliament, it's a long way, it's a bureaucratic thing, but also the minister of culture, the government should be more interested and to lobby in the parliament to vote and ratified in finally the international treaty, in this case Valeta Convention, so in Moldova it was three years, but it's not enough because from ratifying and in trying to force it's another stage, but also it's important to take in account, so we could see that Romania in fact became part of Valeta Convention in 1998 and Moldova just in 2002, but also it's not enough even if the constitution in both cases are mentioning that as soon as the country, the state signed the treaty, the treaty is more important than the national law, but it doesn't work because it should be the international treaty, in our case the Valeta Convention should be transformed in the national law and then the Valeta Convention will work and will be a real legal tool to preserve or to create or to improve the frame in each country. That's why it's in another stage of implementing the Valeta Convention in both countries, so in 2000 Romania actually approved the law for the first time the law concerning archeology and archeological heritage preservation and Moldova just in 2010 and probably still today Moldova could be absent of this because in 2005 it was the initiative of the scholars and in 2009 it was the initiative of NGO to push on the project, to prepare, to improve the project, to bring together the experts around Europe and to try to prepare a really good, okay, hopefully a really good project of law and lobbying in the parliament. So we succeed because it was the change of the political situation in Moldova and in 2010 the Democrats, but actually it was the first case when the left parties and the right parties voted together for the one project unanimously. So you could see it's a good example when the heritage or archeological heritage could bring together different parties together and vote and support. So also it's not enough. But anyway probably it was a good, it's a good example when the party could sit together and vote together for the common past in a way to protect or to create or to improve the legal framework. So in Romania, in Moldova, we have many similarities, not just the language is common and the history is common, but also we have also the structure, the management. So the ministry, I think it's centralized more or less. The ministry of culture in both countries it's the main body, executive body responsible for the cultural heritage including archeological and also the archeological commission, the national archeological commissions in both countries are consultive bodies for the ministry of culture and then it's coming who is the main body and the ministry of culture responsible for heritage and archeological heritage in special. So in Romania it is an institute, the National Institute of Heritage which should bring the archeology to but it's not covering enough because I think it's, we could say at all Corina, say exactly because it's a remain of the previous time, of the socialist time when the academy it's considering or the institutions of the academy they're considering that the main body responsible for research in the country and the Institute of Archeology it's considering that it's the main important institute who has to deal with archeology but Corina showed that the slide because at many other institutions and universities and the national museums or the county museums are playing a huge role in preservation, in excavation or in preventive archeology. So it's a little bit different than it was before and now the law in Romania for example concerning the contract archeology from one point Valeta it's encouraging from another point the national law it's saying nothing and it's a good question how to accept in this economic open market the contract archeology. So in Romania it's a special case and in Moldova the contract archeology doesn't exist because still today it's a conservative approach including according to the law the state institutions are responsible for everything. So which is not so democratic I think. So we have according to the law we succeed to create the new agency for the first time the agency dealing with the archeology. So it's called ANA, National Archeological Agency. Now under new reformation of the government institutions probably they will bring together two agencies in one because in 2005 it was created the agency for the monuments and in 2010 2011 actually became inactive National Archeological Agency and probably now as a new intention to reform the different government structures they will bring two agencies together and will create the new one dealing with the heritage and probably two different departments. Anyway I think we succeed having the Valeta Convention on base of the law and archeology and try to implement in practice the convention in Republic of Moldova. So as a result of this new changes we could see the law to approve the law is not enough because the law should be very flexible. The one we thought before one it's theoretical approach and another it's daily life and another it's a practice how to implement. So as we could see in Romania already couple of times the law was updated hopefully improved change but changes not always are in favor of improving the law because the politicians are trying to change the law depending on the own interests of the lobby groups and in Moldova it's a case in 2015 the parliament changed the law but not to improve the law but to take some duties from the archeological agency because it's too much and if the construction companies especially would like to do something they are too much dependent on agency to get the right or to get this authorization. So that's why just they tried to cut some duties of the agency. In Romania something similar happened but now let's say it's under discussion already I think three times in Romania it was four already times that the different working groups to build the new or to build the code the culture age code which should cover archeological issues too but because the politicians are not so interested probably and because of so many political changes one government is coming and does not have the interest to support the previous initiatives that's why now it's on agenda but the progress it's still under discussion. In Moldova we succeed it's another way so the government lobby in the parliament concerning the heritage in tangible and so on and material and dematerial and I think it's good but how the legislation and the law works in practice it's another issue and Corina very well pointed. So what we succeed last year we lobby in the parliament the changes in the criminal and administrative codes because the tool to preserve of course it should be how to punish the guys or the companies or the institutions who pay the law. So we succeed to do some changes in the criminal code and for the first time we have so huge list of different issues fine or punishment according to different so for example whether it's the general article on theft special point it's added concerning the archeological sites or archeological crimes and also which we succeed to lobby in the parliament not just the archeological sites well known sites but also the possible archeological sites or the possible archeological goods in the area. So it's a little bit specific issue but anyway I think it's a good example that they accepted and you could see looting not just general looting of the goods but including looting of the archeological goods from the site or the robbery or different other situations. So in each article from the criminal code where it's something related to the issues concerning criminology or let's say different other things we succeed to include the mentioned concerning the archeological stuff too. And also we succeed to add additional articles in the criminal code concerning the damaging and destruction of the culture property and also the punishment and so on and conducting an ateroids without any authorization of activities in especially this is against construction and the companies which are they're trying to do a lot of things without any things concerning archeology and preservation and also sailing and the so trying to fight against illegal traffic and sale of archeological goods or culture goods in general and also the issue concerning the metal detector we try to take the Romanian experience so it's generally it's prohibited without authorization but now the mechanism itself how to implement it's not developed unofficially in Moldova which is very small country we have more than 2000 users of the metal detectors of course illegally. And the problem it's a huge one and the question when it was discussing how to prevent and how to work and who is responsible it's very specific one. So this is another changes in the contravation code in Romania for example they didn't change the criminal code it's just under the general law if it's looting or something else it's nothing mention about the culture goods or archeological goods and in Romania mostly the policy are using the contravention code and contravention issues so we succeed to change this code too and you could see just few example if it's the regime of protection was break by some person or by some company they should be of course fine between it's not so huge one but anyway according to the Moldovan economic realities I think it's enough. This is the question how to implement this legal issues. So the responsible bodies who are responsible for issues concerning the preservation from the management but also if something illegal it was accounted who is responsible to deal with such question. And under discussion Moldova in 2015 and 16 the police or minister of internal affairs always say no it's not our duty please take away. So it was a huge debate and in finding it in the parliament when it was discussed and it was approved the police it's including because they are responsible to take care. So who could be. And finally the agency is responsible for something and then the national archeological agency it was something else and different other departments or the directorates from the region are responsible for one but the main body who has to register the case and then to send to the prosecutor's office of course it should be the police. So but it was a ping-pong between the lobby group from the minister of culture and ministry of internal affairs because they always say no it's not our duty please exclude the responsibility of minister of internal affairs on this issue. Now of course it's under the duty but it doesn't work as Corina mentioned so how we could now develop or how we could implement. Of course the bureaucracy it's the main issue. Centralized system in small country it's good and also it's not good because just to be everything centralized in the center in the government it's not good. How we have to divide the responsibility between the administrative bodies not from the central level but also from the local from the regional level too. Monitoring who is doing and how he's doing the monitoring of the legal framework implementing the law but also to monitor the situation in the each side according to the general register of the site in Moldova or the national repertory in Romania. So evaluation when how and also what we have to do of the evaluation reports. These are in favor of preservation or just formal reporting and putting the paper somewhere on the table and forgetting about the reports. So how to transform the evaluation process in real tool of preservation and improving the management. So publication and access also Valeta Convention is trying to push and to encourage to ensure the access to the results of excavations or to the archive documents concerning or goods on archaeology but not just the place it's a huge problem also the access because in some cases in small museums or in some collections or in all the excavations the guys who were responsible for the excavation they considered it's like an own property. So it's mine it's not the state it's not the public it's mine. I will publish when I don't know many people are already retired they didn't publish but they also did not give the access to the results. So this is a huge problem how to transform the Valeta how to transform the national legal framework in the practice. So it's question probably of education of changing mentality which is not so easy and taking a time. So conservation and preservation it's another issue and the Valeta I think it's showing very well and the national legislation in both cases the each archaeological project has to include the conservation and preservation issues too but in practice I think it's not happening because it's not so easy. So the main problem still actual for example illegal activities and this is a case from Kishinaw from the capital the company huge company construction company they're not taking care so much so it's they destroyed for example in the center of Kishinaw the downtown remains from 17 18th century for example huge remains a huge area and they built the new huge building of the Moldova gas company so which is Moldova Russian company mostly Russian. Okay the metal detecting it's still I already mentioned the question it's still actual and many it's becoming more and more attractive for dealers because it's a good business not because they're very much interested in preservation or in learning something from the past. No it's a good business we have different stuff from different periods which is selling illegally on the market and the biggest collectors which is strange in Moldovan case are former police officer are former prosecutors are former judges and how to fight against them because it's a huge network and actually it's impossible to find the best solution it's easy if the people from the minister of internal affairs or from the prosecutor offer will do the job but they're not so much interested it's not so important always is the question so it's not important we could so illegal traffic also it's actual just few years ago in Amsterdam it was a case so from in diplomatic back from Moldova sent to Europe at the Amsterdam airport custom stop and you could see some huge head of hercules like this and it's very heavy so and a lot of other stuff just you could imagine using the diplomatic bag so the diplomatic post issues from Moldova sending to Amsterdam and this is Romanian case with the bracelets you remember probably it was a huge scandal in Romania still under discussion and solved still today they return using this repatriation law but it's specific case I will not go deeply in this because it's probably it's another conference and also a lot of coins which are discovered in Romania and sailed in different areas around the world in some cases the National Museum repatriated a couple of hundreds I think coins but it's very small quantity which huge traditional number yes so conclusions just few so it's not enough to have a well developed legislation even if we are part of the different international frameworks because it's a question of implementation how which country and has better experience Holland, England, France, I don't know because the network of dealers concerning for the illegal traffic it's a huge and covering all countries around the world and the way usually it's from the poor country sending to the rich countries so the collectors mostly are settled or are citizens of the richest countries so this is a huge issue for the future discussions lack of continuity in reforming the legal framework which I mentioned not just in legal framework but also in developing the management issues for example in our case or in Romania case if the different political party it's coming to the power usually they're just cutting or the stopping what the previous one did it's not good we'll change and that's why in Romania for example they didn't finish the good databases which started four or five databases and no one is finished just stopped okay it's impossible to finish but right to develop them they started a good job and actually the health of the state they stopped because no money another government the administrative changes one institute was included in another one so the continuity of reforming I think it's a way of success and doing real reforms and doing a real job in our area of heritage lack of efficient communication and you mentioned very well so I'll not stop here because your case even in Austria in small city it's impossible to understand each other why also the interest economic issues business issues and also ownership and others I think political things too so probably the state bodies but the state bodies are people are citizens and always I'm asking myself people who are doing politics they also were in the kindergarten in the school in the university they're between us and when they're becoming important political guys they're not hearing, they're not understanding they're not dealing really with the cultural heritage issues just few of them around Europe and we could find good examples but in general politicians are not so much interested even if they decided at the European level to declare next year European year of heritage it's good but it's not enough because heritage is part of our daily life heritage it's every year everywhere it's not just occasionally of something it's important that will stress probably attention around Europe to deal with the heritage and to try to share more experience and Valetta Convention encouraging to share the experience to communicate to use best practices and try to help each other probably by this way we could succeed in the near future and to improve the management of archaeological resources not just in Europe but probably around the world so I'll stop here thank you so much for your attention and we have time to discuss