albania communal forestry

8/3/2019 Albania Communal Forestry

1/33

From Conflict to Collaboration:Evaluating Progress Towards Communal Forestry inAlbania

Authors: Haki KolaGazmend Zeneli


2/33

Contents


3/33

List of abbreviations

Preface

Introduction

Historical context

Land tenure in Albania before communism

Land and property reforms since 1991

Diverse policies guiding land reform

The transfer process: From central government state to the communes

The transfer process: From the commune to the village, neighbourhood, clan andhousehold

The communist period

Evaluating the transfer process: the NACFP project Enhancing TenureSecurity Through Support the Communities to Improve the Laws onTransfer of State Public Property (Forest and Pasture) to the Communes

Rationale and objectives of the project

Project Methodology

Findings of the project

The economic value of forest and pastures to villagers

The role of communities and informal tenure in forest and pasture management

Challenges to rehabilitation and management

The relationship between communities and the state

Lessons and recommendations

Recommendations

Appendix: Land reform and administration in Albania since 1991


4/33

Introduction

As human populations and their demands on forest resources grow, citizens and officials searchfor solutions to the problems of forest degradation and deforestation. Many factors contribute tomake forests very challenging to govern effectively. In this context, community forestry has becomea popular movement, challenging foresters to change their thinking. The message is simple:People are the key to success rather than the cause of failure.

Community forestry is defined as a village-level forestry activity, decided on collectivelyand implemented on communal land, where local populations participate in the planning,establishing, managing and harvesting of forest crops, and so receive a major proportion of thesocio-economic and ecological benefits from the forest (Martel and Whyte, 1992). From thisdefinition, one can say that community forestry should be seen as a process, like sustainabledevelopment - a process of increasing the involvement of and reward for local people, of seekingbalance between external and community interests, and of increasing local responsibility for the

management of the forest resources. Rao (1991) writes: The political dimension of communityforestry makes it a venue for people's struggles against domination and exploitation of thecommunity's resources by 'outsiders'. Ecology, equity and social justice are part of this struggle.

Community forestry in the Albanian context is new and evolving. While Albania has a longhistory of customary, communal management of forest and pasture lands, these practices wereprohibited by the communist regime from 1945 to 1991. Forest and pasture management wascentralised and collectivised. With the transition from communism, there has been a resurgence ofcustomary forms of forest tenure and management, while the State has followed a general policy ofdivestment of land ownership and responsibilities to land users. In the case of forests and pasture,the State has retained formal ownership, but engaged in a process of managementdecentralisation, transfering use rights to communes, the lowest level of local government.

This study is based on an evaluative project, implemented by the National Association ofCommunal Forests and Pastures (NACFP) and supported by the International Land Coalition(ILC), that piloted a participatory approach to demarcating and mapping user rights anddeveloping management plans within the villages that make up a commune.

This project has demonstrated the potential for the transfer process to build on thecustomary tenure systems of communities, and on theirde facto management of forest resources,in order to promote the sustainable management of Albania's forests and pastures. However, it hasalso revealed the incomplete nature of this transfer process. While time-limited use rights andmanagement responsibilities have been transfered to local government, the main actors in andpotential beneficiaries of this management are the members of the rural villages that make upthese communes. There is a need for the forestry Service to become more accommodating ofvillage perspectives and more receptive to active community involvement in planning and

management. Ultimately, there is a need for not only use rights, but clearly defined ownershiprights over traditionally held forests to be transfered to villages, families and individuals. There is aneed to hive community-level actors more responsibility of forest management, including greaterlegal rights to market forest products.

On consequence of this partial transfer of rights, in which formal ownership remains vestedin the State, is a continuing lack of trust between the State and communities. While many Stateactors are sceptical about the ability and willingness of communities to manage natural resourcessustainably, community members often fear that the State plans to take back forest lands oncethey have been invested in and improved, or that recognition of land rights will lead to taxation.This mistrust has the effect of undermining the perception of tenure security and the incentives forsustainable management, even as the transfer process is giving previously informal rights adocumented legal status. There is a need to build trust between State agencies and communities

which can only be done through working together on forest management in a way that istransparent and sees the role of communities as an asset to be supported and built upon.

It is hoped that presenting the findings and conclusions of this project will we provide


5/33

valuable lessons for stakeholders in forest tenure reform processes in transition countries, andanywhere where the role of forest communities in forest management needs to be recognised andpromoted.


6/33

Historical context

Land tenure in Albania before communism

Historically, community forestry activities have been important to the livelihoods of most ruralpeople in Albania, even though the state has not always been supportive of such activities. Thishas a much a do with the Albanian traditions.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the land ownership system in Albania was dominatedby the iflig land tenure system characteristic of the Ottoman Empire. Peasants were obliged tocontribute labor and produce either for a private landlord, for the state, or for religious institutions.But the social-political system also had a particularly Albania aspect, namely the tribal system asrecorded in the Kanuni i Lek Dukagjinit. This system probably evolved as a dynamic, socialresponse to the pressures and possibilities of life in a frontier zone (Schon & Galaty, 2006), and asa response by the Albanian population to the pressures of assimilation.

According to the Kanuni i Lek Dukagjinit, large households (shpia), organized intoneighborhoods (mehalla), share patrilineal descent from a common apical ancestor therebyforming exogamous segmented clans (fisi). Several neighborhoods and fisitogether compose asingle village. Political power is vested in the person of the family patriarch (zot i shpi). Familyheads are appointed or elected to a village council (kuvend) that makes decisions of importance tothe whole community. A single council member is elected headman orkryeplak. In Ottoman times,several villages and fisimight be politically joined in a bajrak(a banner) led by a bajraktar(abanner chief ). Bajraks formed loose tribal confederations; e.g. those of the Shala tribe joinedShosh, Shalas nearest neighbor to the south, and several other tribes, to form the Dukagjinconfederacy (far), one of ten tribal confederations in northern Albania (Durham, 1910; Frazer andDurham,1912; Hasluck, 1954; Kastrati, 1955; Schon and Galaty, 2006).

After independence from the Turks in 1912, land distribution was very unequal. The vastmajority of agricultural land was controlled by five families each owning about 60,000 hectares offarmland and forests. Furthermore, the large estates were not substantially affected by twoattempts at land reform before 1945. This inequality was strongest in the most fertile andproductive areas in the country. There, agriculture was still predominantly organized in largeestates owned by a few landlords, the pre-Communist state and religious institutions. The majorityof small and medium size landholders operated on less fertile holdings in the hills and mountains(Haxhi, 1988).

In contrast to arable land, most of the forest and pasture land has always been public.According to Ottoman law, all land was owned by the state. Communal ownership occurred inareas that had certain autonomy from Ottoman rule. While arable land later became private,forests remained state-owned and with nominal open access. Forests belonging to religious

institutions were another form of communal ownership. This tenure system survived afterindependence, up to the end of the World War II.

Although forests were officially mostly state-owned, in practice their use was regulated bythe customary norms. A districts forest usage rights were spelt out by the Kanun, which wasenforced by village elders. The rights were based on the recognition of specific areas as theproperty of a particular group of brothers (vllazni), beyond that of a particular clan (fis). Beyond acertain distance the forest was the common property (kujrit) of a village; beyond this of the bajrak(district). Hasluck (1954) wrote: Village Assemblies dealt with matters of exclusively villageinterest. They regulated wood-cutting and irrigation rights, for example. They took steps to seethat no one appropriated more than his fair share of forest, irrigation water or grazing. In so doingthey made a valuable contribution to the public peace.

This system of customary tenure included an elaborate system of boundary demarcation,

as recorded by Fox (1989: 74): The boundary stone has witnesses around it. There are six ortwelve small rocks that are buried in the earth around the boundary stone. When boundaries arefixed, aside from the households concerned, there must also be present elders of the village,


7/33

elders of the bajrak, and as many young people and children as possible from the villages of thedistrict so that the boundary will be retained in memory. Every tract of land, whether field ormeadow, garden or vineyard, small forest or copse, woodland or pasture or house grounds, village,bajrak or house, all are divided by boundaries.

Forest policy began with the establishment of the countrys forest service in 1923. Thosehired to fill the available positions were Albanian foresters who had studied in Western Europe(France, Italy, and Austria). Their approach was technocratic and centralized, shaped by the idea

of the national state, which the Albanian political class was so desperate to build during the inter-war period. In the late 1930s, to provide revenues for the state budget, the government begangiving concessions to foreign companies, a period that marks the beginning of industrial harvest ofthe forests in Albania. The unsustainable rate of removals continued during the World War II tosupply the Italian and German armies. The detrimental influence of forest destruction was repeatedlyexperienced in floods and droughts. Because of difficulties in accessibility (roads were absent andthe rivers are unnavigable), forests in the northern and central parts of Albania were largelyspared.

The communist period

After the communists came to power (end of 1944), the technocratic legacy combined with thecommunist principles became the basis of the forest policy. In 1946, as part of the agrarian reform, allthe forests in Albania were nationalized. With few exceptions, they are still state-owned. Thecommunist government put emphasis on the extraction of natural resources, especially timber andfirewood, to meet the demands of an expanding planned economy. The government's first major actto build socialism was swift, uncompromising agrarian reform, which broke up the large landedestates in the south and distributed the parcels to landless and other peasants. Shortly after theagrarian reform, the Albanian government started to collectivize agriculture, completing the job in1967. As a result, peasants lost title to their land. In addition, the leadership extended the newsocialist order to the more rugged and isolated northern highlands, bringing down the age-oldinstitution of the Kanun and the patriarchal structure of the family and clans, thus destroying the

semifeudal class ofBajraktars.The communists claim that one of the great achievements of their administration was the

elimination of the Kanun. If true, this would have been a mighty achievement. Though containedunder communism, most of its elements have re-appeared in the past ten years. In view of thecommunist ban, one might have expected younger generation to be unfamiliar with the Kanun atthe beginning of the 1990s. However, in all except prominent communist families, the Kanunsprecepts were discussed within households and passed on to younger family members, albeitcovertly. The very fact of banning so many important aspects of local culture probably contributedto cultural continuity (de Waal, 2004). The Kanun has eased readjustment for many of thenortherners as they come out of the socialist period. For example, where original land boundarieswere remembered accurately by all parties, reversion to original ownership was much less difficultthan privatization in other areas.

The disintegration of the state and collective farms during the collapse of the communistregime (1991-1992) was dramatic (Hall, 1999). By 1991, with cooperatives and state farms teeteringon the brink of collapse, the authorities no longer had the luxury of choosing whether to dissolve them,only how to do so. With the approval of the Law on land (July 19 th, 1991) the arable land (used bycooperatives and the state farms) was to be distributed to former workers of the above-mentionedunits. This law began a process of land and property reforms that have included both landprivatisation, which has focused on arable land, and the decentralisation of control over statelands, focused on forests and pastures in mountain areas. Taken together, programs of creatingprivate property rights, state properties and illegal actions have subdivided Albania into 4.5 millionland parcels and separately-owned immovable property units.


8/33

Land and property reforms since 1991

Since 1991, Albania has pursued a process of land and property reform. Yet even now, thesituation of rural land and property relations remains in transition with competing fundamentalpolicies, land rights and administrative status defined in categorical terms; unfinished programs ofownership transfer; and incomplete evolution of the principles and institutes of civil law. Thereappears to be forward momentum in the activities of land reform. However, it is unclear whetherthe reforms are, in fact, being absorbed and solidified in government administration or in ruralsocial and political life.

Diverse policies guiding land reform

During the past years of reform activity, several major policies have been introduced at differentstages in order to guide the allocation of ownership and control over rural land. These policies arenot consistent with each other but, within the categorical structure of land and property relations,each has been given priority with respect to different categories of rural land and property. Theinconsistencies among them have caused practical problems primarily at the borderlines and thepoints of their intersection and overlap.

The policy promoting equitable land ownership: The goal of equitable family ownershipof agricultural land and farm assets formed the basis of the initial land reform in 1991,under Law No. 7501. This principle made it possible to accomplish the break up ofcollective and state farms quickly and to diffuse the social and political unrest that hadbegun when the farm system collapsed in 1989-1990 (Jungbluth and Lugg, 2002). Arableland previously controlled by collective and state farms, was divided into plots of equal

size/value and distributed to the collective members and farm employees in familyownership (Law No. 7501; Law No. 8053). A legal document (deed) called tapi givesevidence of ownership in the name of the "head of household.

The policy of retaining state ownership with subordinate citizen and enterprise usewas applied to forests, pastures and other rural lands needing particular environmentalprotection. Initially, the laws envisioned the continuation of central state control over theselands while in recent years, the policy of decentralization of authority has guided thedivision of these lands between local municipal (commune) control and state agencycontrol.

The policy of restitution (without regard to an inequality) has been an alternative policy to

equitable family ownership and state ownership. The initial law authorized restitution of landand housing within villages as well as some forests and pastures while agricultural fieldswere not to be given in restitution (Law No. 7698; Law No. 9235). This rule of law was notapplied strictly in practice and in some villages agricultural fields were divided on the basisof pre-1945 holdings. In other villages, the claims of former owners to agricultural land wereresisted by "newcomers" and the communal officials have held to the equitable divisionunder Law No. 7501. In other villages, the conflicting claims remain unresolved orconflicting documents, giving ownership rights to the same land have issued to differentfamilies (Lemel, 1998). Similarly, restitution of forest and pasture areas has been given insome places, not in others, and many tracts have uncertain status because they maypotentially be given as alternative grants of land to former owners.

The policy of re-consolidation of agricultural fields has gained prominence in nationalpolicy as various studies have shown the inefficiency of small, fragmented farm holdings.The Ministry of Agriculture has described a development strategy, in which mechanizedfarms of substantial size will be linked vertically to food processing enterprises. However,


9/33

the Ministry has also recognized that re-consolidation will have social consequences,dividing rural society into capitalist and working classes and forcing more surplus labour toleave the farming sector (MOAF, 2002). Thats why the policy of consolidation is movinggradually and is seen as a long process to be achieved in the medium-term by leasing,rather than sale of family farmland.

Policies of environmental protection have guided the definition of protected areas and

the evolution of the systems of land use regulation and rural land management. In the initiallaws, land protection was described primarily in terms of limitations on tenure rights. Certainland categories were withheld fully from private occupancy and use. Alternatively,agreements of ownership transfer, leasehold and rights of use had several restrictions andwere conditional. More recently, with introduction of such principles as sustainabledevelopment and biodiversity protection, the policies envision a multi-faceted system ofmanagement, planning and regulation. Rather than strict division of categorized lands, thenew management and regulatory strategies involved areas such as wetlands, watersheds,coastal zones, in which several types of land and multiple resources co-exist anddevelopment is to be balanced with preservation, conservation and limited use (Ministry ofthe Environment, 2002).

Most recently, a new policy strategy of poverty reduction has emerged in response tostudies that have measured the impacts of other policies on rural families, children, womenand society in general (World Bank, 2003). Such studies have found that for many families,the size, location and quality of their agricultural holdings is inadequate and they are unableto benefit from the resources of forests, pasture and other lands controlled by the state.Rural family well-being is also linked, through migration, to the status of land and propertyholdings in urban areas and to international economic relations.

These various policies, found in different plans and strategies, are being adopted by thegovernment to guide rural development and its evolving relationships with the European Union andother international organizations. The Strategy for Agricultural Development (called the "GreenStrategy") incorporates most of the contemporary principles for balanced development,

environmental protection and preservation in rural areas (UNECE, 2000). At the detailed level, inparticular laws, regulations, administrative processes and practice, these competing policies havenot been reconciled. The fundamental structure of categorized law and administration continues tobe the framework in which decisions are made by regional and local ministry staff, by localgovernment officers and by the various agencies of the civil law - judges, notaries, registry clerks,etc.. The categories of rural land provide the basis for all aspects of legal status and administrativejurisdiction. This includes the eligibility of the land for private, state or communal ownership and forsubordinate rights of use or lease. The categories also determine the level of government (state orlocal) and agencies of government given primary responsibility for making decisions about theallocation of the land, its regulation and management (see Appendix).

The transfer process: From central government state to the communes

The transfer of state-owned lands to local governments has included forest and pastures. Thesetwo land categories are each divided into four subcategories: (i) small areas of pasture or forestthat may be transferred into private ownership by restitution; (ii) forests and pastures located closeto villages that must remain in state ownership, but for which use rights may be transferred to thecommune administrations (the communes, in turn, make the forest and pasture areas available forsubordinate use by local residents); (iii) forests and pastures in remote locations that must remainin state ownership with use rights granted directly by state agencies to timber-cutting enterprisesand to recreation and tourist facilities; and (iv) forests and pastures in areas of special protectionthat may be included in the national parks, reserves and other zones with unique management

regimes (CoM, 2000).The process of forests and pastures inventory and the determination of the areas to be

transferred into communal and municipal control has been under way for nearly ten years. TheMinistry of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration and the Ministry of Agriculture and


10/33

Food has overseen the work of several programs.These projects have operated under theprovisions of the two laws: Law No. 7917 For Pastures and Meadowsand Law No. 7623 ForForests and Forest Policeand resulted in the transfer of use rights to communes andmunicipalities. It is anticipated that, in the process of inventory and transfer of state owned landsunder the Law No. 8744, these use rights will be transformed into ownership rights. However,based on the provisions of Law No. 8743, this land will remain classified as public use propertiesand will not be eligible for subsequent sale to families, individuals or enterprises by the local

administrations. It appears that the communes and municipalities will continue to offer subordinaterights of common usage, leases or individual use, as provided in Laws No. 7917 and No. 7623.

The transfer process has been overseen by the Ministry of Environment, Forestry andWater Administration (MEFWA), with co-financing by the World Bank and USAID. In the "GreenStrategy" the goal has been set to transfer 40 percent of all forests (ca. 400,000 hectares) and 60percent of all pastures (244,000) hectares to the communes and municipalities (CoM, 1999).These goals are reported to have been largely achieved, with 140 communes now in control of391,000 hectares of forest and 244,000 hectares of pasture.

The procedure has involved the following stages:

The technical staff of the Forest Directorate works with the communal or municipal officersto define the size and boundary lines of areas to be assigned to the commune as a whole

and to each village within it. This involves careful technical work and negotiation. Thehistoric traditions of families and clans in different villages are taken into account, alongwith the recent changes in village and communal administrative borders, as well asassessments of the topographic and ecological situation and the boundary lines of privateand state lands. The terms and conditions of the right of use, by which the commune ormunicipality takes possession and control of the lands is worked out. These agreementsprovide a 10-year term, define the outer boundary lines of the tracts and set limitations onthe ability of the local administration to extend subordinate rights to village residents or toother enterprises or persons. The agreements are subject to registration in the IPRS;however, this did not apply in most of the cases.

The technical staff of the Forest Directorate, with the local administration and experts from

the research institutes, prepare the forest and pasture management plans. In light ofinternational experience, public participation has been introduced into this process. Theplans define the level and types of use of sub-areas of the communal forest or pasture. Theplans take into consideration the locations and quality of various plant and animalresources, the level of erosion or other degradation and the carrying capacity of theresources for grazing and tree cutting. These factors must be balanced against the numberof families in the village, the size of their livestock herds, their needs for firewood and otherresources.

In some projects, local citizens have been organized into users' associations, which acquirethe subordinate rights for grazing, harvesting of firewood and herbal plants and otheractivities. The user association works out the specific rights and responsibilities of its

members as part of the common use.

In a recent evaluation of the outcome of this process, Lemel (2005) reports many weaknesses anda variety of approaches. It appears that there are not clearly defined standards to guide thecommunes in the ways the subordinate agreements with citizens should be structured. One Orderof the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration set the limit of one-year to thecontracts on forest use issued by communes. In addition, in every single case, the contract mustbe approved by the manager of the district forest service Directorate.In two projects, the UserAssociations have created a simple agreement for each member family, which consists of a one-page document spelling out the main responsibilities of use and a sketch of the land plot, within theforest tract, assigned to the family. These agreements and the higher level agreements betweenthe Users' Associations and the communes are not prepared or recognized as civil law property

agreements and they are not registered. Thus they offer weak protection for the families and do notpreclude the commune from granting use of the communal forest or pasture resources to personsor enterprises from outside the village.


11/33

It appears that many customary aspects of forest and pasture activity, which were under thecontrol of village elders, are not being respected in the management plans and user agreements.Most important, the limited rights given to citizens and their user associations to organize as profit-making businesses appear to limit their sustainability (Lemel, 2005).

The transfer process: From the commune to the village, neighbourhood,clan and household

Communes form a tier of local government covering several villages. The transfer of control overforest and pastures from central government to communes is therefore a form of managementdecentralisation within government structures. The decentralisation of management and control, ifnot ownership, however, goes on further within the commune.

The process of transfer again goes through several stages. After the size and boundarylines of the areas are preliminary assigned to each commune and subordinate village, theCommune takes the first steps in election the forest and pastures commissions at the village level.These commissions are the main partners in the identification of village and household used forestand pasture and in preparation of the management plan in cooperation with an expert hired by

commune. A second level of organization is formed by the users' associations, which are organizedon village level, and take subordinate rights to use the defined areas for grazing, harvesting offirewood and herbal plants, and other activities. The users' associations have representatives fromseveral neighbourhoods (mehalla) which might include one ore more clans (fisi) and severalhouseholds (shpija). Social networks play a key role in this organization where the relationships oftrust and affection are fundamental to the decision-making process, while norms, procedures,traditions, customs and practices influence the choice of individuals.

The village decides whether or not to divide the communal forests and pastures. If thevillage decides to divide them, then the village commission or a special group selected by thevillage collects the requests or traditional claims of neighbourhoods, clans, group families orseparate families about the forests and pastures they have used in the past. In this case, standardapplication forms are to be filled out. Because of population growth, what years ago might havebeen recorded as one family, nowadays might be more than one. It can happen thatneighbourhoods, clans, or separate families may request to use two or more plots, or for the sameplot to be requested by two or more neighbourhoods, clans or separate families.

The evaluation of the outcome of this process of transfer revealed several problems. First,no clear criteria exist for the definition of the boundaries between state forest and communal forestand the powers of communes in relation to the Forest Directorate are vaguely defined. Second,the subordinate rights of the users associations are limited and not documented. Third, the rightsof the families within the users associations are not clarified and, in most cases, family rights arenot linked to subdivided areas of the forest or pasture. Fourth, many customary aspects of forestand pasture activity formerly controlled by village elders are not respected in the managementplans and user agreements. Finally, limitations on the right of citizens and their users associations

to organize as profit-making businesses appear to limit the sustainability of the enterprises.


12/33

Evaluating the transfer process: the NACFP projectEnhancing Tenure Security Through Support theCommunities to Improve the Laws on Transfer of StatePublic Property (Forest and Pasture) to the Communes

Rationale and objectives of the project

Albania's long tradition of using and managing forests and pastures as forms of common propertywas one of the motivations for transfering state forests and pastures for communal use during the1995-2004. This transfer process was an important component of the Albania Forestry Project(AFP) funded by the World Bank and the Italian Government. By the end of 2005, the transferprocess was completed for 140 communes (from the total of 309 communes). For a better use ofthe investments, the Communal Forest and Pasture Users Associations (CFPUA) were establishedin all the Communes where the transfer process was completed. Among the main achievements ofthis process, one can mention: (1) participation of villagers in the transfer process and in designingand implementing management plans; (2) a change of attitudes of local communities and foresterstoward communal forests and pastures; (3) slowing down or stopping the further degradation ofnatural resources and beginning their rehabilitation; and (4) an impact on poverty reduction in theareas concerned.

However, not everything has gone as expected, mainly because of the property rightsissues. The process has exposed tensions over two broad questions related to property rights,namely the extent and speed at which central State ownership and control over resources is to bedivested from the State and central government to lower level official and private actors, and the

extent to which customary or traditional property frameworks are either to be adapted andincorporated, or displaced by formal ones.The users of forest and pastures, organized in 144 commune associations, three Regional

Federations and National Association, have identified the top-down approach set out in Law No.8744 as the main reason for the difficulties identified. The law and procedures applied have nottaken into consideration traditional use, real users, and village representatives, and has not set upany criteria and regulations for implementing the process in participatory way. Within thisoverarching problem, several factors have hindered progress. The most important have been:

Differences between the Directorate General of Forests and Pastures (DGFP) andcommunes on how much and which land should be eligible for transfer.

Slowness of communes in preparing their inventory lists, often due to a fear that they may

end up worse off or simply because of a lack of capacity. The requirement that the district-level Directorate of Forests and Pastures (DFP) approve

commune requests for transfer, something that has occasionally been slow in coming.Communes have also tended to ask for more than the Ministry of Agriculture and Food(MOAF) is willing to authorize.

Difficulties in setting communal boundaries in several cases, with the biggest conflictsarising over pasture boundaries among villages and communes and over water sources.

Lacking legal personality within the current local government framework, villages as suchare excluded from land ownership and any say, except in an advisory capacity, on howcommon village resources such as pastures should be used or allocated.

The National Association of Communal Forest and Pasture implemented the following project:Enhancing Tenure Security Through Support the Communities to Improve the Laws on Transfer of


13/33

State Public Property (Forest and Pasture) to the Communes, in order to shed further light on thereasons why the process of transfer of forest and pasture from state to the communes has beenslow. The project sought to identify bottlenecks and propose solutions to help solve some of theabove-mentioned difficulties.

The overall objective of the project has been:

Preparation in participatory way, of clear guidelines and criteria for local government and

forest services, on fixing and demarcating boundaries between state owned forest andcommunal forest, on the sharing of rights and responsibilities between them, and on how toresolve border disputes between the state and communes, between neighbouringcommunes and between villages.

The project was implemented in four communes selected in order to represent a geographical,economic and cultural cross-section of the main heavily forested areas of Albania. The selectedcommunes were: Blerim, in the Northern Albanian Alps; Baz, in the north-central region;Stebleve, in the east; and Gore, in the south-east.

Project Methodology

The project was not just an evaluative study, but an exercise in learning by doing, specificallythrough piloting a participatory approach to the definition of use rights and the development ofmanagement plans within the communal level. The project was implemented according to thefollowing steps:

Review of the existing literature: Existing reports and materials related to trainingcourses, workshops, annual reports and other studies were used for desk studies.

Preparation of initial maps: Working groups were established for each of the fourcommunes under investigation to draw up initial maps. These were based on existingtopographic maps, cadastral maps used by the Commissions of Land Distribution, maps offorests and pastures from the commune management plans or inventories as well as the

Directorate of Forest Services, and other documents describing earlier boundaries. Thenew maps showed the boundaries of local government units and villages (as they aretraditionally known, as well as based on different documents), the boundaries of eachvillage's agricultural land, and the boundaries of forest and pasture areas.

Field surveys and establishment of contact with local people and representatives: Incooperation with the Forest and Pasture User Associations (FPUAs) of the communes andthe Directorates of Forestry Services (DFS) of the districts, a series of visits and shortsurveys were organized in the communes. The aim was to attain a better idea about thereal life conditions in the villages, to present the objectives and activities of the project, andto establish contact with local representatives.

Questionnaire surveys: Questionnaires were send to the members and leaders of FPUAs

and to the DFS Offices. They aimed to assess local knowledge of village forest and pastureboundaries as well as suggestions and recommendations for future implementation.

Building the capacity of commune and village commissions: Communities participatedin this process through commune-level commissions (responsible for verifying villageboundaries) and village commissions (responsible for defining the boundaries and users ofparcels within the village). Commissions were comprised of 5-7 people who representedthe users groups and were elected in the general meeting of the village. They received aone-day training on the identification and legalization of village forest and pasturesboundaries and the certification of the use and users of the forest.

Baseline data collection: The aim of this process was to get a better impression on thesocio-economic status of the villages. Data was collected on geography, demographics,

agriculture and natural resources, with a special focus on forest and pastures and thetraditions of their management and use. A report was prepared for each village andcommune.


14/33

Demarcation of village boundaries: The demarcation of village boundaries was carriedout by the working groups in close collaboration with representatives from the DSF, thevillage commissions, and with the commissions of neighbouring villages. The workinggroups started with the well-known or documented boundaries, and walked along theboundaries discussing and marking in the field and on the map the boundary lines. Afteragreeing on the boundaries, the commissions and the working group filled out and signed awritten agreement in several copies for all interested parties (village, local government

unit, district cadastre office, office of real estate registration and the Directorate of ForestService). Each copy of the written agreement was accompanied by a copy of the map withthe drawn boundaries. The same procedure was followed for every village. In cases wherethe headman of the village was not a member of the commission, he was always presentduring the process of demarcation together with other individuals (elderly people) who hada good knowledge of the boundaries.

Certification of users of forest and pastures: The allocation of the communal forests andpastures to the users was a decision taken by the village commissions. If they decided todivide these communal resources, users were identified and certified. As a rule, theycollected the requests or traditional claims of neighbourhoods, clans, family groups andseparate families, and then decided accordingly. This process used both 1:10 000 forest

village maps and sketch maps of parcels. In drawing the sketch maps, the presence ofmost of representatives of the families that has traditionally used the forest was mandatory(see Fig. 1). As a rule, surveying only took place at the scale of the parcel, while thedivision between users was only schematic but not measured. Forest and pastures usedcollectively by the whole village were defined in the same manner.

Policy advocacy: Based on the evaluation of this process, an important aspect of theproject was advocacy on improving the legal framework. This aimed to accelerate thetransfer of forest and pasture to communes, to clarify ownership rights and responsibilitiesin sustainable forest use, and to increase public awareness of the process. Advocacyactivities included seminars at regional level; discussions at commune level; the distributionof leaflets and posters at Communes offices, public places, shops, schools etc.; a media

campaign through TV interviews, newspaper articles, etc.; the organization of the NationalConference on Reform in Albanian Forestry; meeting with the National Agency on Inventoryand Transfer of Immovable Properties to the Local Government Units; meeting with DeputyMinister of MEFWA; formal and informal meetings with members of parliament; and thepreparation of draft amendments to laws and sending them to the responsible Ministries.


15/33

Figure 1: Sketch map of a parcel showing the between different users and the users names andsignatures.


16/33

Findings of the project

It is a paradox of the current reform process that while the transfer has been introduced from thenational level - an initiative of the government - the feelings about the ownership of forest lands atlocal level are very strong. It is a top-down process, but one that meets with strong demand frombelow. But while government and local people may, in this case, be said to be moving from conflictto collaboration, this process is far from complete. Both sides have moved forward, but withconsiderable reservations. On one hand, the government recognizes the role of the localpopulation in preserving the forests, but on the other hand is not yet ready to fully accept localownership in the frame of a market economy. The same applies to the local population, mutatismutandis. They are thankful that their rights are somehow recognized and would like to see thisrecognition transformed from given-in-use to given-in-ownership. But on the other hand, theyare not willing to commit themselves to formal ownership, largely for fear of land taxes. This is oneof the reasons why management plans prepared for communal forestry are classifying users into

three groups (aside from private ownership as defined in Law No. 7623, Article 3), namely:families, groups of families and commons. Individuals are willing to participate in the process, butdo not want to commit themselves too much. It is a common attitude that if it is only use rights thatare transferred, and if they are transferred according to traditional rules, then it is sufficient torecognise only rights in common, therefore implying only a common responsibility.

The project process, including the surveys, participatory mapping and certificationactivities, revealed a great deal about how communities use the forest, about how the transferprocess is seen from the perspective of both villagers and state actors, and about how the processbuilds on the customary tenure systems that exist. The following summary of the main findings ofthe project focuses on the economic value of forest to villagers, the role of customary tenuresystems, the outstanding challenges that exist to effective forest management, and on theperceptions of state actors and villages regarding the transfer process. More specificrecommendations will be given in the final chapter.

The economic value of forest and pastures to villagers

Although most of professional foresters see the forest through the wood (as a source of timber),villagers see it in a very different way. For farmers, timber is sometimes the least interestingproduct of the forest, in large part because it has always been a resource reserved for the State orenterprises.

For villagers, the forest is a source of the following Non-timber forest products:

Firewood is the most important resource for which there is a high demand for cooking andheating, not only in rural areas but also in cities. Firewood is provided by village forests,now "given-in-use", but is also purchased from State forests. Firewood represents a largemarket that is officially restricted to the Forestry Service as provider. In the few cases whereCommunes can sell firewood, the sale is subject to the control of the Forestry Service. Inthat case, 30% of the value should be paid to the State and 70% to the Commune RevenueAccount. Due to legal difficulties, this system is not yet functioning for communal forests,and in any case does not benefit individuals. Nevertheless, firewood is sometimes bartered(in exchange for grazing rights, for example) between neighbouring villages.

Fodder(from oak) is the second important product of the forest. Villagers are pollardingand pruning oak trees to feed the animals in stables. The fresh material is also used butsometimes branches and twigs are dried and kept as hay for a later usage.

Grazing is also an important use of village forests and pastures. Goats, sheep and cowsare grazed on pastures and forests during the day.


17/33

Forest fruit trees are also important for the villagers. Nut trees such as chestnut, walnutand hazelnut are considered important not only for the fruits they bear (Zeneli et al., 2005)and for which there is a market, but also for valuable timber.

Aromatic and medicinal plants were once an important source of income for the country(Zeneli et al., 2007). Today this sector is much reduced as a commercial activity and pricesare very low. Villagers do not see any potential in such products unless they have

information about a middleman in the city. Moreover, the commercial potential and chain isnot known at the village or commune level, and even traders are not aware of the marketingand handling possibilities.

Village use of forest and pasture resources is focused on subsistence. This is partly due to legalbarriers, such as the prohibition of an open market in firewood, partly due to the degradation offorest resources, and partly due to the lack of links to markets. This lack of economic opportunitiesis also one reason for the degree of migration from rural areas, chiefly of the younger and better-educated workforce. Such migration reduces pressure on forest resources, but also means theloss of the people best able to manage communal forests, both intellectually and physically. Wheremigration is within Albania, village members often seek to retain and cultivate cultivate their plot,hence not only producing for subsistence needs but also ensuring their claim on the land. Legal

emigration also allows links to be maintained with the villages, and is a good source of remittances,improving the financial resources of the village, but illegal emigration tends to result in a severageof links.

The role of communities and informal tenure in forest and pasturemanagement

In the communities surveyed, customary ownership is usually regulated at the family level. Theindividuals of a family know their limited and traditional rights to land and how it is to be used. Thisis shown, for example, by the stones delimiting the forest of Drita Village in Bazi Commune (Dibra

region). Villages generally also have some common land where the livestock of the whole villagecan graze under the supervision of one villager.

The sub-division of the communal forests and pastures that have been transfered fromstate control reflects this reality. The majority of plots are allocated on a per family basis; a lesserarea is allocated as common or village forest or as forest being attributed to an individual. Theallocation is usually made according to the old boundaries of the properties as they were before1945. These borders, that are undocumented and have no legal value, are rigorously respected bythe villagers. No one is allowed to collect fodder or firewood or to cut standing trees to someoneelses forest without permission. The phrase to cut an oak tree is equal as to cut an olive tree...,often used by the villagers, shows the high value they give to the oak forest. Where a family isunable to fulfil its needs for fodder from its own part of forest, it can collect fodder from commonland or from another family plot with the permission of the owner. Grazing is usually organized atvillage level. Chestnut tress, by contrast, are regarded as valuable private property that is passedfrom generation to generation and are protected very strongly.

The process of plot allocation has varied depending on the level of social cohesion invillages. Where social cohesion is strong, families have maintained the traditional knowledge andpractices that allow the allocation of their resources within the village, and even within the family.Where cohesion is not so strong, the number of conflicts is higher and the process of resolvingthem takes longer. In such cases, villagers are try to follow the same approach as the one basedon the tradition, but tend to negotiate use rights on the basis of their actual or past usage of theresource.

The resolution of disputes is realized at village level by the "Council of Elders", or moreexactly "Village Council", made up of designated persons. In practice, this council is often the body

which takes up the role of Forest Village Commission. The Chairman of this Council is often thevillage representative at the FUA. This Council deal with land tenure issues and is the body thatdetermines plot boundaries when the management plan is prepared, though it also deals with allmatters concerning the village.


18/33

What villagers view as their forest is not determined by official categories, but bytraditional ownership. They take into account not only state forests but also land cleared during thecommunist regime and now classified as agricultural. Particularly controversial remains the use,and hence the rehabilitation, of so called refused land that has been allocated under the post1991 reforms but turned down, and now rests in state hands with an uncertain status. Farmersoften have a traditional claim to this land and would be interested in receiving support to improvethem for agriculture or forestry as they are very often subject to erosion. In some case problems

arise, for example in apply for improvement works, where villages in one district actually have atraditional claim to land over the border in another district.

Where a strong feeling exists amongst the villagers about their (ancestral) ownership of theland, particularly in the north, the transfer of state forests is perceived as recognition of theirproperty. They are willing to take care of their plots and defend them against intervention fromoutside the village to the point, on occasion, of even refusing to participate in project activities.

Challenges to rehabilitation and management

The transition period that Albania has been going through from a collectivized and centralized

system to a pluralist and decentralized government, has created a vacuum in terms of legal,economic, and implementation instruments. This vacuum has facilitated the degradation of forestresources, particularly during 1997 the for a few years after. However, even before the transition,forest management was oriented only towards the production functions, often to the extent of over-exploitation). Nowadays, forest degradation is such that existing instruments do not have thecapacity to rehabilitate forests to their full potential. In particular, the revenues that can begenerated from forests within a management period cannot cover the needed investments in forestimprovement. It should also be remembered that proper management of forests and pastures hasan indirect economic impact (like the effect of watershed protection on hydro-electric energyproduction through reduced sedimentation) that is not easily quantifiable in term of financial returnsand usually not considered in budgeting. A key challenge is to enable the better realisation of valuefrom forest resources, including for users at the village level. In relation to this, a key question

concerns the trade of products and services from communal forests and pastures.Another key challenge is the complexity of the legal framework. There is a big confusion

among most people at different levels concerning the financial aspects of forest management andthe legal framework for collecting revenues and fees from the ownership and use of forests.Unfortunately the legal framework relating to forests and pastures does not exist as a single workbut is drawn from documents of different type (law, decree, decision, regulation, instruction), whichdeal with different resource categories (forests, pastures, medicinal plants), and levels ofjurisdiction (state or communal forests).

The transfer of use and management rights of state forests to the commune level has alsoonly gone so far in giving legal rights and responsibilities to those with the greatest interest in forestmanagement: farmers. While the formalities to transfer and manage the forest are mainly realizedat district and commune level, the major actors in the implementation plans for communal forests

and pastures plans are villagers, and more exactly the families and individuals who have some userights to the forest. This is the level where participation is best due to a direct interest in the forestas a source of livelihood.

Farmers are interested in the forest for the services it can bring to them, not only throughthe direct use (firewood, fodder, and pasture for their self-consumption) but also in terms of goods(and services) they can trade in order to assure their subsistence in the village. In most places,they have already started, without program intervention, to protect areas of degraded forests. Thisusually occurs on former family-owned land. The insecurity about the future users rights (uses,trade, and property) does not encourage individuals and communities to invest in the protection ofthe forest.

Farmers are also reluctant to invest in forest improvement on what are customarily

considered common lands. This is due to the costs involved (principally labour) and to difficultieswith the distribution of benefits, except when lands are jointly used for grazing. Here the incentivesgiven by the Albania Forestry Project and the Natural Resource Development Project have playedan important role in fostering forestry protection. In the case of Greshdan village (Maqellare


19/33

Commune) livestock is not allowed to graze in family forests which are very well protected, but aregrazed instead on common pastures which are very degraded. In such cases, it was difficult for theproject to realise improvements.

During the project implementation in the four selected communes, it was clear that farmersare increasingly aware of the degradation of the forests and the impact on their livelihood. Whenthey have the necessary resources and manpower, they will themselves initiate the protection andrehabilitation of their forests. Nevertheless they tend to limit their activities to keeping away

intruders - men and animals - but no not make improvements in terms of planting or erosioncontrol. Once the forest is re-established, they may prune it for fodder (in the case of oak), thin itfor sticks and firewood and eventually graze it. They are likely to do so according to their needsand not a management plan. Communal management plans therefore present an opportunity tosupport these activities, to extend them and to bring in proper technical support.

The surviving traditions of land tenure in Albanian villages are thus a substantial asset inpromoting the sustainable management of forest and pastures, but this is not to say that there isno need for support. Where community cohesion is weak, there is a need for Forest UserAssociations to set up mechanisms to allow control and appeal by any member of the association.The establishment of the Forest User Associations is an attempt to make the existing informalallocation of resources official and to extent it to the level of the communes. Beyond the process ofland allocation, it also aims to ensure the proper management of the forests.

The relationship between communities and the state

The current process of transfer of state forest use rights can be seen as a process ofrapprochement between the state and rural communities. The state does not have the resources toimplement an effective top-down system of forest management. It therefore needs to divulge, andtherefore decentralize, some of its responsibilities of forests and pastures. If this attitude were to befully accepted by the Government and not only by the Directorate of Forest and Pasture Policies, itwould be a major opportunity for the Forestry Service to take the lead in forestry development andreforms. Such a development of forestry will need appropriate legal and institutional tools, and also

the appropriate resources to apply them.This process of building collaboration has to build confidence between state actors and

villagers; at present there still remains substantial levels of distrust and reservations about the newarrangements. In the forestry sector, the State is reluctant to recognize fully a de facto situation onthe ground, over which it has little influence in the framework of a liberal society. From theviewpoint of the Directorate of Forest Services, the division of communal forests into individualplots means that they faced with having to deal with a large number of partners. This is not seenas having been the intended purpose of transferring responsibilities to local people. As it is onlyuse rights that are transferred to the Communes (and hence to villages, families, and individuals),the forest remains formally the property of the State. A feeling of mistrust amongst certain DFSstaff is to be seen towards the capacities of the Communes and Forest User Associations tomanage the forests, and towards the willingness of families and individuals to protect them.

This mistrust is reciprocated by villagers. When asked their opinion on the presentinstitutional arrangement (limited transfer of user rights), two main statements very often camefrom the villagers:

What are you giving us through this transfer? The forest is ours, we have used it forfirewood, fodder and grazing for generations.

If the government is investing in the management plan and its implementation, does thismean the Government wants to take the forest back from us?

Everywhere, villagers have a strong feeling that the forest is their property, based very often onancestral use or on even actual use. This attitude is relatively independent of the actual legal

status of the forest (transferred or not) and refers to the land and to the products themselves andnot to their use. This means that villagers are open to changes of use, e.g. planting chestnuts, aslong as it is in their advantage and based on their decision.

However, villagers are sometimes reluctant to fully formalise their customary tenure rights.


20/33

In some cases, villages have favoured formal registration of land as common land, even ifownership of the land within the community is customarily allocated to families and individuals.This may represent a desire to avoid individual responsibility for land and reflects a lack ofconfidence in the future benefits of the transfer. It reflects an attitude of wait and see;communities may participate in the process in order to be able to take part in future development,but refrain from going too far in their formal engagement. There are two main reasons for suchreservations on the part of villagers. Firstly, the land remains property of the State with only time-

limited use rights being transferred. Secondly, the transfer is organized at communal level, and isthus reminiscent of the collectivization of the past.

From villagers viewpoint, communes are an instrument to resolve the administrativeproblems and to mobilize funds for the improvement of their forests and living conditions. Villagersrequest that the State should not interfere with management of their forests but be a facilitator inbringing them the resources and technical advice to improve their forests and pastures. The legaland technical authority and expertise of the Directorate of Forest Resources is accepted.

At the local level, it is not the allocation of resources that is considered a big issue, but thelegal recognition of resource allocation and the security that comes with this recognition. Villagersthus request the formal recognition of their tenure of the forest and pastures. At present there is nolegal framework for this; the forest is being "given-in-use" on basis of a ten year contract. While thecurrently interest is mainly in subsistence activities (related to firewood, fodder and grazing),villagers are hoping that they will be soon given the right to trade legally forest products.


21/33

Lessons and recommendations

Assessment of the progress of the NACFP pilot project on legally and substantially enhancingtenure security of forest users in the transfer scheme of immobile resources from central to localgovernments in Albania revealed a number of emerging lessons. From over ten years work inassisting rural communities and forest users to secure their rights as part of the transfer processthat accompanies decentralization in Albania, a lot of expertise has been gathered on the potentialof communal forestry for enhancing rural livelihoods, and as complementary form of tenure toprivate or State ownership. However the nature and value of this in-between level of tenurecontinues to be one of the most difficult to capture for policy makers and others in the rapidlyevolving environment that Albania represents today.

Local traditions are an asset to forest management and poverty reductionThis evaluation has demonstrated how the traditions and actual use practices of local people can

be an asset to the transfer process and to forest management. In most cases, informal boundariesare well known and respected. In addition, there are rules governing behaviour such that felledwood or bundles of firewood marked by a stone (or cross-shaped sign the Catholic region), can beleft without risk of theft. It would be sinful (mkat) to touch this material as it is obviously the fruitof someone elses labour. These norms are observed especially throughout the Northernprovinces, presumably due to the importance attached to the Kanuns ethos, which recognizes thata community is more likely to thrive if all its members observe the established code. Within thevillage context, these norms are effective at defining and regulating use rights.

Reality shows that well-defined users rights are not only pivotal to better environmentalsustainability and preservation, but are also fundamental to ways out of poverty for rural dwellers. Itis therefore advisable for policy-makers to start from the rights regime that already exists, and to

enhance their recognition within the statutory framework.

Trust still needs to be builtDuring the consultations, quite a lot of sceptical opinions were expressed, such as: Thegovernment will take the forest away from us, once we have protected it and worked for it, becauseit has paid for it. Such a perception of unequal power relations regarding access to forestresources implies a perception of tenure insecurity that can not be overcome simply by a legaltransfer of rights. Trust must be built in order to create the perception of security that is essential tosustainable resource management. Here a dialogue has to take place which needs to be based ona transparent sharing of information about the situation. Moreover, to avoid bad experiences and tomake sure decisions have a sound basis, information has to be available for all decisions-makersand for all the stakeholders who will have to monitor the implementation of their decisions.

Participatory mapping can bridge the gap between tradition and new technologiesParticipatory mapping turned out to be a key approach for better defined boundaries,

refreshing customary traditions, and conflict resolution. It allowed elders memories to be recordedand helped to strengthen the cohesion and awareness of rural organizations. In this way,participatory mapping seems to act as a bridge between tradition and new technology. But it isimportant to keep in mind that while mapping is an important tool, it is only one of many aspects ofcommunal forestry management. Management plans can benefit substantially from participatorymapping techniques and lessons learnt if they are able to combine local peoples knowledge andtechnical expertise.

Better communication is needed between foresters and villagers

Forestry has to become more accommodating of traditional knowledge. Foresters and farmersneed to talk to, rather than talk past, each other. A willingness to listen to and at least partiallyincorporate the other point of view should replace the rigid and uncompromising attitudes of the


22/33

past. Within the forestry profession itself, sceptics doubt the contemporary relevance of thecustodial and policing approaches previously followed. It is time that governments also gave moreserious consideration to the rights of forest-dependent communities and to the positive role theycan play in managing forest resources.

Management planning needs to be more accessible to communitiesCommunal Forest Management Plans need to be simpler to better match villagers capacities andneeds. Such plans at village level can more appropriately refer to and build on the customary userights that de facto regulate access to and use of resources. Management plans can then servemultiple purposes for rural communities:

They can be very effective in helping communities to reflect on the management of theirown natural resources;

They can be a useful tool to establish and strengthen relationships between communities inthe process of boundary definition; and

They can facilitate the transfer of ownership and use rights from state to local governmentand communities.

We need to think in terms of responsibilities, as well as rightsAlthough most of the time people talk about the rights of the community or users rights, it time toshift to rights and responsibilities. The State should respond more sensitively to the just claims oflocal communities, but the communities should also be aware of the responsibilities their claimsimply.

The transfer process is incompleteThe transfer process in Albania is currently incomplete. The transfer of forest and pasture shouldbe considered complete only with the registration of the title and the title-holders possession of theregistration document, together with an accompanying map. This last step should be integratedinto current Albanian legislation by working more closely with the Immovable Property Registration

Office (IPRO). In this scenario, property titles can pave the way for increasing farmers interests inmanaging natural resources in a sustainable manner, and consequently in inducing sustainableincome generation activities.

Recommendations

Assigning secure clearly delineated ownership and/or use rights to local groups in combination withtechnical support and advice to those groups is now accepted as critical in reversing degradationof forests and pastures and in ensuring their improved, sustainable management. While impressivegains have been made in this direction, stakeholders have reached an apparent consensus thatthis process should be taken further to create a framework where management, control and thederivation of direct economic benefits are all brought closer together than they now are. Currently,priorities and benefits are largely determined at the communal level, rather than by villages andfamilies who are traditionally the custodians of forest and pasture lands. Currently, villages andfamilies are left to compete for the appreciable, but still limited benefits of wages for work onreforestation and other activities approved at the commune-level. Rather than being self-generating, these benefits derive from donor funds, raising issues of sustained interest inmaintenance and improvement once projects come to an end. Thus, it is important:

To complete the legal framework for the transfer of communal forests and pasture lands tothe ownership of villages and local government, and for their sustainable management bylocal communities;

To prepare policies that stimulate income generation from communal, village and individual

forests and pastures, including from non-timber forest products, and propose ways of usingincomes for the benefit of local communities;

To ensure that the transfer process follows all the necessary steps, from community


23/33

participation in decision-making and the preparation of management plans, through toproperty registration at the IPRO; and

To design and implement a joint pilot scheme by Ministry of Environment, Forest andWater Administration, Users Associations and villagers to derive policy lessons that areapplicable on a larger scale.

The transfer of forests to the Communes is not just supporting the development of communalforest management, but is also part of the capacity-building of local government. The developmentof the local government responsibilities cannot take place without a revision of the laws andregulations dealing with the transfer of forests and pastures, if only in the harmonization of thedefinitions used throughout the documents. Particular attention should be given to clarifying landtenure in the frame of a general, national system. It is impossible to realize investments related toproperty if the tenure situation is not clear. Proposals have to be developed for the harmonizationof the different systems and procedures, and for the transfer of rights to forests and pastures.


24/33

Appendix: Land reform and administration in Albania since1991

This material has not yet been edited!

Should this appendix be included?

1.2. Government and relevant sector policy(ies)The role of the government in the forest sector can be described as: (i) defining policies and

legal frameworks, (ii) adopting tools and measures for their implementation, (iii) managing andcontrolling the national forest estate, and (iv) supporting and promoting education, training,research, and extension. Although most of these activities may be ascribed to DFP, othergovernment bodies are involved to different degrees at different stages of the policy process. Whilethe legislature is active during the formulation and legitimization, the administration is more

engaged in the agenda-setting and implementation.

1.2.1. LegislatureAlbania is a parliamentary democracy. The parliament (Peoples Assembly) is unicameral.

There are 15 permanent standing committees or permanent commissions that deal with respectivelaws and administrations. The committee involved in forest policy is the Parliamentary Commission ofAgriculture and Food. Although almost all political parties have expressed concern aboutenvironmental degradation, low priority is given to the resolution of the problem. The two parties thathave run on an environmental platform, the Agrarian Ecological Party and the Green Party, are toosmall to have a significant impact on forest policies.

Despite this generally grim picture, the parliament is a very important participant in theforest policy process, especially at the current transitional stage when every law of the land isgoing through radical change. Considering the constraints, the role of the legislature with regard toforest and pastures was categorized as positive by most interviewees, but they had expressedconcerns about the implementation of the laws already passed. Forest policy-makers must beaware that the parliament is a complex institution. Deputies come from a variety of backgroundsand have distinct motivations and characteristics. Some of them are more adept at forest technicalissues than others. Loyalty to the party remains the most important factor in the decision-makingprocess of the Albanian legislators. Other factors influencing voting decisions include parochialism,personal beliefs/goals, and nepotism.

1.2.2. JudiciaryThe judicial system consists of district courts, six courts of appeal, and the Supreme Court. The

Constitutional Court (a separate body) reviews cases requiring interpretation of constitutionallegislation or acts. Judges are appointed and dismissed by the High Council of Justice, headed bythe President of the Republic. The Ministry of Justice has the mandate to supervise and reform thejudiciary and the power to overturn the court rulings. All these arrangements in the judiciary raisequestions about the neutrality of the government in the judicial process.While the Constitution provides an independent judiciary, in reality the judiciary has been subject topolitical pressures, insufficient resources, lack of experience, political patronage, and corruption.This turmoil and uncertainty means that it will take some time for the judiciary to work underacceptable normality and regain public confidence, which has also affected the Albanian forestry.On top of it, forest and pasture issues, except disputes over ownership, have low priority in thecourts agenda. This does not mean that the forest policy-makers can ignore the judiciary in theformulation of policies. On the contrary, a well-developed and working judicial system is crucial for

successful implementation of any policy, but for the time when such a system is missing, policiesthat rely less on judiciary would be preferable. Some situations where it is appropriate to avoid theinvolvement of the courts on forestry issues (adopted from Horowitz 1977) are:Cases where there is insufficient incentive for the parties in question to abide and implement a


25/33

courts rulingCases in which it will be very difficult to determine what would happen after the rulingForestry issues that are rapidly changing and have yet to be addressed by the legal systemNarrow issues and low stakes.

1.2.3. AdministrationThe Council of Ministers is the highest institution responsible for the implementation of policies

by directing and controlling the activity of ministries and other state agencies. The sector of forest andpastures acts under the auspices of the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration.The local government consists of 12 prefectures, set up after the French model, but is still frailfollowing four decades of communist abrogation. Each prefecture is divided into districts, whichwere the major administrative divisions during the communist regime. Districts are furthersubdivided into cities and communes. The average area of communes is 9 000 ha and covers, onaverage, about nine villages. District, city, and commune councils are elected by popular vote, butrely on the central government for funding, because their power to impose taxes has remainedonly on paper.

Although communes are administrative divisions, the central government and internationaldonors have targeted them for the implementation of communal forest policies. Law No. 7917 ForPastures and Meadows gives usufructuary rights to communes of state-owned pastures and allowsthem to extend tenancy and user rights to local individuals and groups. Based on this law, the WorldBank begun implementation of its communal forest and pasture component of the AFP on a trial basisin three communes in the district of Elbasan. Preliminary results from improvement work such asregeneration cutting, planting, and protective fencing have been satisfactory. This should not come asa surprise because local people have benefited directly from participating in the project. Despite thesesuccesses, expansion into other communes must proceed cautiously.

Prospects for improvement at all levels of the public administration are hampered by large-scale corruption. Its eradication requires radical changes in all administrative structures andoperating procedures for any state agency to become an equal opportunity employer. Decisionsabout recruitment, tenure, and promotion should be purged of political affiliation, familial ties,province of origin, sex, religion, and other forms of unfairdiscrimination.

1.4.1. The status of inventory and transfer of state propertiesThe process of determining state-owned land and property holdings and their division betweenstate agencies and municipalities has been under way since 2001, but is being completed slowlythan expected. This process has been managed by the State Agency for Transfer of PublicProperty, which sets the standards and oversees the work of the communes and municipaladministrations.The process involves an initial stage in which the commune or city administrationmust inventory the state land and immovable objects within its territory and designate those forwhich it seeks transfer. The list then circulates among the state agencies. When an agreement isreached, it is adopted by the Council of Ministers in a preliminary form and displayed for 90 days.After display and any possible corrections, the Council of Ministers gives final approval of thetransfers to the municipality and the assignment of properties to state agencies. The final stage is

registration in the IPRS. Until May 2007 work was underway in 353 communes and cities and 160had obtained the Council of Ministers decree (CMD) on approval of the inventory lists of localgovernment units. The preliminary list has been approved in fifty of these communal units while intwelf of them the final list has already been approved. About 80% of land and other propertyobjects are inventoried in all the country.

1.4.2. Unresolved policy issuesAs noted above, several reform programs have made substantial progress, but no program

is completed and unresolved policy issues remain. National Strategy for Social and EconomicDevelopment (NSSED) is the main policy document of this framework, giving guidance tosubordinate, sector plans and strategies and to the formulation of budgets (Ministry of Finance,2004).

Reform of land and property has not been the subject of its own comprehensive policydocument. However, the main elements of land reform transition to civil law and market relations,modern management of state lands and properties, environmentally sustainable use of land


26/33

resources are found in various parts of the inter-related policy documentation. For example, the"Green Strategy for agricultural development and the strategies for poverty reduction in rural andmountain areas emphasize the completion of land reform as a way to support citizen welfare andeconomic opportunities (World Bank, 2004).

1.4.3. Restitution of property rights to former ownersThe unresolved issue of restitution/compensation has been the major obstacle preventing

completion of tenure reform. The debate over the restitution of agricultural land began in 1993when the original Law No. 7698exempted this category. The law provided that former ownerswhose grant provided by the Law No. 7501 was not equal to their ancestral property rights couldbe compensated either by an alternative grant of land or else by a financial entitlement.Continued delay in resolving the restitution and compensation issues causes a circular dilemma,hindering land and property rights in many regions. On one side, the number, location andboundaries of state properties cannot be specified until restitution parcels and private parcels(under Law No. 7501 and other laws) have been determined. On the other side, until state propertyis specified, it is impossible to specify which lands will be available for alternative grants to formerowners. The lack of information about alternatives and values causes the former owners to resistmaking the choice between continuing their claims and accepting potential compensation.

1.4.4. Taxation of land and propertyLand and property taxation has been envisioned as a potentially significant source of revenue forlocal self-government, but is not yet playing an important role. Law No. 7805 (1994) authorizedtaxation of land and buildings on the basis of a fixed rate per square meter of building, and perhectare of land depending on use category. However, taxation of land on the basis of this law waslater exempted. Similarly, a law on taxation of agricultural land was authorized and thensuspended. Law No. 8982 (2002) re-defined the authority of local governments to levy taxes onland and buildings, including on agricultural land. Also subject to local taxation is the transfer of theright of ownership in immovable property and the hookup of a new building to infrastructure.

1.4.5. Rural land administration

In rural areas, there has been an effort to consolidate the regulation and management of thedifferent regimes of law covering agricultural fields, pastures and meadows, forests, lands relatedto water bodies, and specially-protected lands into two systems. Two hierarchical administrativestructures have been created. Under the auspices of Ministry of Agriculture and Food which dealsmainly with agricultural lands, a two-level structure for Land Administration and Protection hasbeen created (Law No. 8752; CoM, 2002). Within the Ministry, the sections of Land Managementand Land Protection operate in 12 offices under regional (qark) supervision, and 36 LandManagement and Protection Offices are linked to the communal administrations.Forest Directorate operates under auspices of the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and WaterAdministration. The directorate has jurisdiction over (1) the upland forests and pastures remainingin direct state control, (2) communal forests and pastures, and (3) specially protected areas. TheForest Directorate has field personnel in 36 district and 103 local offices called forest sectors, while

a separate unit of Forest Police has inspection and enforcement powers. At Ministerial level, thisstructure deals with private, state and communal lands without distinction in methodology.The tasks of management and regulation of the two organizations are much the same. In the caseof the regional Forest Directorate, Sections create the management plans for the areas within theirdirect jurisdiction and they negotiate, finalize and archive the leases, use rights and licenses givento enterprises and individuals, and for communal forest and pastures assist the communes inpreparing management plans and creating the subordinate use rights for local citizens. A forestcadastre has been authorized to keep the records. In the case of Land Administration andProtection, its Sections are authorized to create a land cadastre. They are expected to monitor: (1)the use of land by any owner for compliance with environmental protection requirements, (2) landuse and quality preservation regulations, and (3) other conditions or restrictions included in aleasing or use agreement (CoM, 2002a). They must investigate complaints about the non-use or

misuse of land, and initiate enforcement procedures that can lead to a withdrawal of land rightsfrom the violator.The Forest Directorate has received external assistance in organizing planning, regulatory and


27/33

management systems. The new Land Administration and Protection units have not yet receivedcomparable assistance, although the Ministry would be amenable to it.The critical elements of the land management system are the methodologies for data collectionand analyziation and maintaining the cadastres. The Land Administration and Protection staff areexpected to study and record information on the physical attributes of land; in particular, its fertility.This should distinguish their work from the IPRS, which assembles legal data, and from the ForestDirectorate, which is primarily concerned with resources (flora and fauna) rather than land. In

practice, of course, there is overlap, duplication of effort and competition for data sources and"customers." The methodologies for land management remain the Communist-era techniques of"bonitimi" measurementthat is, the assembly of indicators of soil fertility, moisture and productivecapacity as the basis for the resource valuation of land. In theory, these methodologies allowaccurate guidance to be given on farming and forestry practiceschoice of crops, rotationschedules, fertilization, thinning, etc.and on projects and programs to prevent degradation andenhance soil quality. They also allow the fixing of baseline conditions in the cadastre, against whichthe results of subsequent inspections can be measured, for enforcement purposes.Recent evaluation of the capabilities of the Cadastre office in the Directorate of Forest and PasturePolicies in the MEFWA and the Land Administration and Protection agencies under the Ministry ofAgriculture and Food and Consumer Protection highlights skepticism about the effectiveness oftheir methodologies and a need to build the capability of the administrative staff.

1.3. Land tenure policy(ies) [administration]The main elements of state administrative reforms have included:

organization of new units of administration to regulate and manage agriculturallands, forests and pastures, urban development lands and properties, and tourism-development lands and projects

division of state-owned lands and properties between direct state agency controland municipal ownership or right of use

incorporation of new concepts and procedures of environmental regulation andenvironmental impact assessment

re-organization of related administrative systems, including local property taxation,

mortgage and finance mechanisms and valuation.Over the last 16 years, substantial progress has been made in carrying forward the civil lawreforms and the programs of ownership transfer. Almost all families and some juridical personshave received documentation giving ownership rights in land and housing units, and most familiesand enterprises now occupy and use their land premises. On the state side, progress inestablishing the new administrative structure of regulation and management of land has been slowbecause of the need to bring new concepts and methodologies into the law and administrativepractice. This has required re-training, re-organization and public outreach. It has also requiredtransfers of power and resources. The next stages of reform, therefore, will need to confront theseproblems of mismatch between the revised structures and laws, on paper, and functions andpractice on the ground. The key elements of a modern European land and property system arenow in place. Despite this progress, the framework of legal principles and supporting j

albania communal forestry

Documents