enhancing tenure security on communal forest of albanian

ILC-NACFP:-Final Report on Enhancing Tenure Security on Communal Forest and Pastures in Albania

Financed by

Enhancing Tenure Security Through Support the Communities

to Improve the Laws on Transfer of State Public Property

(Forest and Pasture) to the Communes

FINAL REPORT

Authors

The report was prepared by: Haki KOLA - Gazmend Zeneli

Tirane January 2008


2

Acknowledgements and Working Team

Acknowledgements There are too many people to mention here, whose kindness and help proved so crucial in the completion of this work.The preparation of this Report would not have been possible without the strong support given to the consultants not only by the project experts and staff but alsow by SNV Tirana, Dibra and Korca offices, Communal Forest and Pasture Regional Federation of Kukesi, Puka, Elbasani and Dibra, FPUA-s of selected communes and regions, DFS, DFPP and other Government Institutions, to Mr. Rexhep Uka, Idriz Xhumara, Rahim Kaleci, members of parliament for they very good support and participation on the activities of project implementations, At the International Land Coalition (ILC) Bruce More and his fine staff were extremely welcoming and helpful, especially Annalisa Mauro Barbara Codispoti, Hedwige Croquette and Stefano Di Gessa.’ILC-s staff’s energy, insights and warmth were outstanding. For Albanian NACFP this cooperation is a good preparatory step to apply for being member of ILC and an open door for more cooperation in the near future,

Working team: Mr.Thimaq Lako Mr. Abdulla Diku Mr. Rexhep Ndreu Mr. Pashk Prendi Mr. Trifon Cfarku Mr. Nevret Jahollari Mr. Janaq Male Mrs. Valbona Koka Mr. Ervin Cfarku


3

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER 1. SETTING THE SCENE 1. INTRODUCTION 2. COMMUNES: THE BASIC ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT OF COMUNAL FORESTRY 3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY 1. CHOICE OF THE REGIONS 2. MAJOR ASPECTS OF THE METHODOLOGY 3. STEPS FOLLOWED

3.1. Review of the existing literature, reports and materials 3.2. Field surveys and establishment of contact with local people and representatives. 3.3. Preparations, sending out and evaluation of questionnaires 3.4. Building the local structures for project implementation (Commune and village commissions) 3.5. Data collection 3.6. Demarcation of boundaries at village forest 3.7. Certification of users of forest and pastures

4. LOBBING AND ADVOCACY 5. SCHEDULE OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CHAPTER 3. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION: MAIN FINDINGS

1. LAND TENURE AND COMMUNAL FORESTRY

1.1. Historical background of land tenure policies


4

1.2. Government and relevant sector policy(ies) 1.2.1. Legislature 1.2.2. Judiciary 1.2.3. Administration

1.3. Land tenure policy(ies) 1.4. The current status of land tenure

1.4.1. The status of inventory and transfer of state properties 1.4.2. Unresolved policy issues 1.4.3. Restitution of property rights to former owners 1.4.4. Taxation of land and property 1.4.5. Rural land administration

1.5. Progress on land reform in Albania 1.5.1. Rural land and property reform policies 1.5.2. Refused agricultural lands 1.5.3. Pastures and meadows 1.5.4. Forests 1.5.5. Transfer of communal forests and pastures 1.5.6. Protected Areas 1.5.7. Village lands and properties 1.5.8. Rural poverty and Land Holding 1.5.9. Inventory and transfer of state properties

1.6. Communal forestry [(from the top to the bottom: Ministry, DFS, Communes, Villages (fshati), Neighborhood (mehalla), Clan (fisi), Household (shpija)]

2. HISTORICAL AND CURRENT MODES: SHARED AND ASSIGNED ACCESS TO NATURAL RESOURCES

2.1. Transfer of State Forest and Pastures of Blerimi Commune (District of Puka)

2.1.1. Geographical position 2.1.2.. History and tradition 2.1.3. Blerimi household’s structure 2.1.4. Why decentralization from state to communes forest management 2.1.5. From study to implementation: Transfer of forest and pasture process

2.2. Transfer of State Forest and Pastures of Stebleva Commune (District of Librazhd)

2.2.1. Geographical position 2.2.2.. History and tradition 2.2.3. Stebleva household’s structure


5

2.2.4. From study to implementation: Transfer of forest and pasture process

2.3. Transfer of State Forest and Pastures of Bazi Commune (District of Mat) 2.3.1. Geographical position 2.3.2. History and tradition 2.3.3. Bazi household’s structure 2.3.4. From study to implementation: The process of transfer of forest and pastures

2.4. Transfer of State Forest and Pastures of Gore Commune (District of Korca) 2.4.1. Geographical position 2.4.2. History and tradition 2.4.3. Gore household’s structure 2.4.4. From study to implementation: The process of transfer of forest and

pastures CHAPTER 4. COMMUNAL FOREST: RELEVANCE AND SUSTAINABILITY 1. FROM CONFLICT TO COLLABORATION 2. THE VILLAGERS’ PERSPECTIVE 3. THE ALLOCATION OF FOREST AND PASTURE RESOURCES 4. EXISTING INFORMAL TYPES OF OWNERSHIP 5. CUSTOMARY LAND RIGHT AND NEW LEGAL PROMISES 6. FOREST REVENUE AND FEES 7. THE FOREST TRANSFER: AN IRREVERSIBLE PROCESS CHAPTER 5. LOBING AND ADVOCACY 1. NACFP LOBBING ON LAND TENURE SECURITY

1.1. Chronology of Activities on Advocacy and Lobbying 1.2. Other activities

2. EVALUATION OF ADVOCACY AND LOBBY PROCESS 2.1. Aim and objectives of the evaluation process 2.2. The indicators used for evaluating advocacy process.

2.2.1. Activity indicators 2.2.2. Progress indicators

3. CONCLUSION ON ADVOCACY AND LOBBING CHAPTER 6: LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. LESSONS LEARNED 2. RECOMMENDATIONS

REFERENCES


6

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1: For the creation of the Commission of Forests and Pastures of the Village” (Template document)

Appendix 2: “For establishing the commune’s commission for forests and pastures”

Appendix 3: Approval of activities for transferring communal forests and pastures in use of the village (Template document) Appendix 4: Certificate of user’s right (Template document) Appendix 5. “For Settling the Boundaries of Forests and Pastures for the Village (Template document)”

Appendix 6: Sketch of a parcel division with the users’ names and signatures

Appendix 7: Population, Households structure, Agricultural land, and the Livestock structure in the commune of Blerimi Appendix 8: Population, Households structure, Agricultural land, and the Livestock structure in the commune of Stebleva

Appendix 9: Population, Households structure, Agricultural land, and the Livestock structure in the commune of Bazi

Appendix 10: Population, Households structure, Agricultural land, and the Livestock structure in the commune of Gore

Appendix 11: Order of MOEFWA on the Action Plan

Appendix 12: Letter of the Prime Minister

Appendix 13. List of users and the parcels used in the commune of Blerimi

Appendix 14. List of users and the parcels used in the commune of Bazi

Appendix 15. List of users and the parcels used in the Comunne of Gore

Field Code Changed


7

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AFP Albania Forestry Project a.e.u Agricultural Economic Unit ANFI Albanian National Forest Inventory CFPUAs Communal Forest and Pasture Users Associations CFPM Communal forest and pasture managementCFPMp Communal forest and pasture management plan COM Council of Ministers DGFP Directorate General of Forests and Pastures DFPP Directorate of Forest and Pasture Policies DFS Directorate of Forest Service in DistrictEU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FPRI Forest and Pasture Research Institute FS Forest sector GDP Gross Domestic Product ILC International Land Coalition INSTAT Institute of Statistics LGU Local Government Unit MEFWA Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration MIA Ministry of Interim Affairs MOAF Ministry of Agriculture and FoodNACFP National Association of Communal Forest and Pasture NATIA National Agency of Transfer of Immobile AssetsNGO Non-Governmental Organization NPO Non Profit Organization NRDP Natural Resource Development Project NTFP Non-Timber Forest Product NWFP Non- Wood Forest Product SNV Netherlands Development Organisation US United States USAID United States Agency for International Development Editor’s note:

The project refers to the “Enhancing tenure security through support the communities to improve the laws on Transfer of State Public Property (forest and pasture) to the communes, contributing to enrich the forest policies with customary right in forest and pasture land tenure.

NACFP refers to the National Association of Forest and Pastures, which has awarded the present report.

The “Working Group” is the panel of expertise both national and local, mobilized by the NACFP in order to carry out the project. Although none of the individuals is committed to the assignment on a continuous basis, single experts are closely and regularly interacting and enhancing information with communes, DFS, DFPP, Ministry


8

of Order, NRDP consultants, to the Local Government throughout the project implementation.

For the commodity of the reader in this report “Forest” shall unless otherwise specified, designate forest, shrubs as well as associated biocenosis

Communal Forest is “Forest” in use/ownership” of commune, used by the communes inhabitants for firewood, grazing, and other every day needs of villagers


9

CHAPTER 1

SETTING THE SCENE


10

1. INTRODUCTION Bounded on the west by the Adriatic Sea and sandwiched between former Yugoslavia

to the north and Greece to the south, Albania is a mainly hilly and mountainous country, with a beautiful but rugged terrain. The GDP per capita is US$ 1,196. More than 60% of Albania’s rural households own less than 0.8 ha of land. Out of this number, three quarters of the households living in mountainous areas have less than 0.5 ha at hand. Only 16% of the total land area lies below 100 m, 55% falls between 100 and 1,000 m and 29% is above 1,000 m. As such, the land used for agriculture is often sloping, with only ca. 44% of the agricultural land having a slope of less than 5%. In many parts of the country, climatic and soil conditions are favorable for forest and pasture growth.

The majority of land resources consist in areas covered by forest and pastures (ca. 52% or 1.5 million ha). Traditionally in the Mediterranean region, forests have provided a large variety of other products, with revenues sometimes exceeding the value of wood (Scarascia-Mugnozza et al., 2000). Albanian forests are the primary source of wood and of the many of non-timber forest products that include medicinal and aromatic plants, food and beverages, fodder, perfumes, cosmetics, fiber, gums, resins, and ornamentals and materials for dyeing and tanning, plant protection, utensils and handicrafts. Historically, forests in Albania were spared the devastation that occurred in other Mediterranean countries. In the 1930’s industrial harvesting began on an unsustainable level (Bosworth, 1975) and has continued since then. 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 in areas that had certain autonomy from Ottoman rule. While arable land later became private, forests remained state-owned and with open access. Forests belonging to religious institutions were another form of communal ownership. This tenure system survived after independence, up to the end of the World War II. The communists undertook agrarian reform for propaganda purposes soon after coming to power in Albania. They confiscated large land holdings and all forests and pastures owned by individuals, religious institutions, and communities. About two-thirds of the total arable land was redistributed to landless families. By 1948, most of the arable land had been divided into small plots. However, the real aim of the regime was nothing less than the nationalization of the land. Immediately after the agrarian reform, following the pattern of kolkhozes in the former Soviet Union, began the forced collectivization of private land, a process that was completed by the end of 1967.

In 1946 all the forest and pasture land became state-owned. This includes every form of copse, wood or forest, from the dwarf oaks and pine woods that border villages, to the dense forests on the high slopes of the mountain ranges. Under Communism, the State Forestry Commission was responsible for every aspect of forestry: care of trees, disease control, replanting, felling, transport and sale of timber and timber products. In every district there were locals working for the forestry commission (Meta, 1992). The


11

transition of the country from a command to a market economy has accelerated the degradation of the forest resource due to ambiguous property rights and lack of funding for management and protection. Natural and human potential is not used efficiently because of inadequate infrastructural, organizational, and financial structures and arrangements. In contrast to the importance of forests, their contribution to the Albanian economy, based primarily on wood production, seems to be very low—only 6 percent of the total agricultural output in 1990 (World Bank 1996). The estimate does not include significant amounts of forest products harvested individually or illegally and therefore not recorded. Furthermore, marketable NTFPs such as medicinal and aromatic plants (currently an important export item) are not included, since they are considered part of the food industry. By taking all these into account, plus non-market values of the forest ecosystems, the importance of the forests is considerably more than the above published value. This undervaluation of the forest sector is one of the reasons for the neglect by politicians and bureaucrats.

Forest and pasture types are diverse because of local weather patterns and ecological and topographic conditions as well as millennia of anthropogenic influences. Despite differences in vegetation, habitat types, and human usage, Albanian forests and pastures also have some common features. Most of these ecosystems are particularly fragile, unstable, and unsustainable because of the interaction of natural factors (steepness, summer droughts, and torrential rains) and social forces (fire, grazing, and over-cutting). Considering specific climate and vegetation criteria, naturalists have identified five phyto-climatic zones in Albania, which range from the maquis in the coast to alpine grasslands at the elevations above 2000 m (Nako, 1969). Such an extent of the forest and pasture land demonstrates the enormous potential that Albania has for the development of forestry (Naka et al., 2000).

Only 25% of Albanias’ 28 750 km2 total area is arable land. A great deal of resources were expended during the communist period to enlarge the stock of arable land by terracing vast expanses of hills and by draining swamps in an effort to achieve a central goal of the regime: enhancing Albania's economic self-sufficiency (Rugg, 1994; Lemel, 1998). Following the break with the Soviet Union in 1961, the decision was made to increase agricultural production and to reduce the emphasis on investment in industry. Extension of arable land, retention of the rural population and reduction of private plots were seen as the keys to fulfilling this goal. Arable land doubled between 1950 and 1989 as a result of massive terracing, marsh draining, irrigation works and desalination projects. At the same time counteracting this increase, the government’s pro-natalist policy had tripled the population. A favorite slogan in the 1960s was: “Let us take to the hills and mountains, and make them as beautiful and fertile as the plains.” This was part of the regime’s twin campaigns to promote regional equality and to extend the arable land area as much as possible. By the 1980s land per head had actually dropped by 10 per cent, so that in 1989 only 0.2 ha of arable land was available for cultivation per capita


12

(Sjoberg, 1989). As can be depicted from Figure 1, forest resources of the country have paid so much in the last 5 decades, most of them being transformed in agricultural lands.

Figure 1: Changes in population, forest and pastures during the last decades Figure 1a. Distribution of human population in Albania according to the altitude.

Figure 1b. Development of Forest and Pastures areas and the human population in the period 1945-2005.

Population (%)

Altitude (m)

Source: Adopted from INSTAT 2001 The disintegration of the state and collective farms during the collapse of the communist

regime (1991-1992) was dramatic (Hall, 1999). With the approval of the “Law on land” (July 19th, 1991) the arable land (used by cooperatives and the state farms) was to be distributed to former workers of the above-mentioned units. However, by 1991, with cooperatives and state farms teetering on the brink of collapse, the authorities no longer had the luxury of choosing whether to dissolve them, only how to do so. One of the most fundamental initiatives meant to set the country on the path to a free market was the privatization of real estate and its distribution to the country's citizens (Lemel, 1998).

Land was to be assigned to families, with total area per family calculated based on the number of family members resident in the village on August 1991. However, in northern Albania the land was distributed on a per family, not per capita, basis and entirely in reference to “old boundaries” (Lemel, 1998). This kind of privatization has led to an excessive fragmentation. The number of farm holdings in Albania is about 420,000 with an area averaging 1.5 ha split in 3.3 plots of varying quality. Although the privatization of the land in Albania was completed physically and legally in 1992, there are still disputes and


13

uncertainties. A thread running throughout the story of Albania's rural land privatization experience has been the failure of government authorities to enforce the law. Ownership-related problems generally had in one way or another to do with insistence that pre-collectivization ownership rights be restored. Such demands could lead to conflicts between villagers, between entire villages and the state, and to a refusal to sign the deed unless such rights were recognized

Under such circumstances, Albanian farmers try to obtain those natural resources that bear a relatively low cost (not to say without cost at all), out of which they get a sufficient level of satisfaction/utility to meet the families’ perceived basic needs. One natural resources meeting those requirements is the everlasting partner of man, the forest, which in the case of Albania occupies 36% of the total land area. Through the privatization of agricultural land and the constant trend of livestock sub sector expansion, the pressure on Albania’s natural resources, in particular in rural areas, has increased substantially. This pressure is exerted not only by the fulfillment of local needs but also by profit interests, and this national natural asset continues to be undervalued not only by the general public but also by regulatory “owners” and authorities; as a consequence it will be misused.

Those difficulties were augmented by the claims of ex-land owners, which led to many other problems that continue to the present day. On the other hand, the entry of many agricultural products into Albania from neighboring countries found unprepared and unprotected Albanian new owners. Under such circumstances, many members of the labor force from those agricultural units turned their attention to the possibility of emigration and working on farms and in other jobs in neighboring countries. Accordingly part of the land in Albania was transformed into non-arable or abandoned land (that were naturally converted to poor quality pastures).

Albanian forest and pastures resources have been degraded significantly over the last 50 years, particularly in areas close to rural communities. At the village level, adverse human impact is manifest by unregulated and intense wood-harvesting to satisfy household needs for fuel, timber and livestock fodder, and to exploit new commercial opportunities in the domestic timber market.

The process of de-collectivization and political transition has been rough on forest and pasture for several reasons: a) in many areas, rural people vandalized their own production environment, ostensibly to release pent-up frustrations that accumulated under socialism; b) a temporary power vacuum allowed people to utilize forest resources basically at will, with entrepreneurs free to harvest timber and firewood for sale in urban centers; and c) households were once again thrown back upon their own resources to survive, creating an insecurity which not only promoted short term land use perspectives, but also motivated farmers to increase their flocks of sheep and goats to graze upon the hillsides.


14

Firewood production is actually a very complex social and ecological problem. Forest harvesting in hilly slopes followed by non-controlled grazing, has lead to land degradation which nowadays is a common phenomena. Data in the Figure 2, shows that 60% of families interviewed get the firewood directly from the forest. These are families with low levels of income, often using plots of forest set aside for that purpose by the communes.

Figure 2. Sources of firewood used in household in Albania

Source: Social Economic Survey, ACER, 2001

2. COMMUNES: THE BASIC ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT OF COMUNAL FORESTRY

Administrative division of Albania includes 374 communes and municipalities, grouped in 36 districts and 12 circles. Circles are government units of second level, made of a number of communes and municipalities with geographic, traditional, economic and social connection as well as common interest. The function of circle (regions) are the construction and implementation of regional policies and their harmonization with state policies on a circle level as well as any other function given by the law.

Communes and municipalities are the units of local government and among others they are in charge of preparing the programs for local economic development and the protection and development of forests, pastures and natural resources with local character.

Communes are units where in 1992 the privatization of agriculture land was realized. They have to manage the productive lands (300.000 ha) and refused lands (123.000 ha).


15

Considering the main criteria where the land reform was based and relatively uniform size (an average 55 km 2 ), the communes can be considered as relatively homogenous units in the land resources. Map No.1 shows the Administrative Divisions of Albania, with borders of all units: Communes, Municipalities, Districts and Regions.

The process of forest and pastures transfer in Albania started with a pilot project in three communes on Elbasani district in August 1994. After the pilot phase in 1996, World Bank through Albanian Forestry Project (1996-2004) supported the forest transfer to the communes. The Communal Forest and Pastures Management (CFPM) can be considered as very successful in terms of achievements made but also for its pioneer role in this sector. Never before has been the local forestry developed in Albania. During the Ottoman period, the land and natural resources were recognized as God present and during the communist period they belonged to the State. Nevertheless, traditional land ownership has always been kept at village level and is today used for defining the boundaries and users of the communal forests and pastures. The CFPMp is pioneer in communal forestry as it developed the instruments and applied them to realize the transfer of forests and pastures foreseen in the law. The proposed methodology has proven to be supported by the communities and from 30 communes planed the transfer was realized in 138 communes in the end of AFP.

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The common good is placed before private damage. (“E mira e përbashkët i

paravehet damit të veçanët”). (Kanuni i Lekë Dukagjinit) (Fox, 1989: 81-82) The sentence taken from the Kanun (customary law governing the daily life for

centuries in Albania that held the culture together for generations, providing certain uniqueness) (Hasluck, 1954) describes very well the moral and communal behavior of Albanian. Those communal behavior and values determined perhaps the success of Albanian to resist assimilation by others even though Albania occupies a strategic location, historically and politically. Writing at the end of World War I, Barnes (1918) stated that no people in Europe have proved themselves more resistant to efforts of assimilation or change than northern Albanian mountaineers”.

Hasluck (1954) wrote: “Village Assemblies dealt with matters of exclusively village interest. They regulated wood-cutting and irrigation rights, for example. …They took steps to see that no one appropriated more than his fair share of forest, irrigation water or grazing. In so doing they made a valuable contribution to the public peace”.

Before Communism, a district’s forest usage rights were spelt out by the Kanun, which was enforced by village elders. The rights were based on the recognition of specific areas as the property of a particular group of brothers (vllazni), beyond that of a particular clan (fis). Beyond a certain distance the forest was the common property (kujrit)


16

of a village; beyond this of the bajrak (district). There were several layers of government: clan chiefs, village elders, minor elders and the people themselves.

An important point emerging from this account of pre-Communist local government is the close relationship between individual and community: The community sense was fostered by every art the mountaineers knew. The humblest man was encouraged to regard his village or group of villages as his personal property. If home, village or group of villages prospered, he rejoiced as if he himself had been advanced (de Waals, 2004)

As seen from these litle passages, people in Albania had a long tradition of common use and/or family use of forests and pastures. This early tradition, amongst others, has been the motivation for the support of the program of the transfer of state forests and pastures for communal use during the 1995-2004, an important component of the Forestry Project funded by the World Bank and the Italian Government. By the end of 2005, the transfer process was completed for 140 communes (from the total of 309 communes). For a better use of the investments, the Communal Forest and Pasture Users Associations (CFPUA) were established in all the Communes where the transfer process was completed. Among the main achievements of this process, one can mention: (1) participation of villagers on the transfer process and on management plans implementation; (2) the change of attitudes of local communities and foresters toward communal forests and pastures; (3) slowing down or stopping the further degradation of natural resources and beginning of their rehabilitation; along with (4) the impact over poverty reduction in the related areas.

However, mainly because of the property rights issues, not everything has gone as expected. Property rights issues represent at the moment key challenges faced by Albania in moving toward sustainable resource management and use and repairing some of the enormous environmental damage done over the past 5-6 decades. As shown from many studies, environmental degradation and impoverishment have been most profound where rights are vaguely defined and where neither the State nor local community are in positions to uphold rights, whether based on custom or through formal legal assignment.

Translating post-communist Albania’s declared commitments to a market economy, and greater democratization into action 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 be divested 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 and incorporated or displaced by formal ones.

In pre-Communist era, the boundaries where clearly demarkered as recorded in Fox (1989: 74): “The boundary stone has witnesses around it. There are six or twelve small rocks that are buried in the earth around the boundary stone. When boundaries are fixed, aside from the households concerned, there must also be present elders of the village,


17

elders of the bajrak, and as many young people and children as possible from the villages of the district so that the boundary will be retained in memory. Every tract of land, whether field or meadow, garden or vineyard, small forest or copse, woodland or pasture or house grounds, village, bajrak or house, all are divided by boundaries” (Guri i kufinit kà per rreth dishmitarë. Këta jânë a gjashtë a dymbdhetë paperdhokë (gurë të vogjel), të cillt vorrohen nen dhé rreth e rreth prit të kufinit. Në të ngulun të kufijve, posë shpijave nder fjalë, duhet të jenë edhè pleqt e katundit, pleqt e flamurit e saà mâ shum prej të rish e fmish e edhè prej katundesh të rrethit, qi të mbahet në mend kufini. Se e cilla tokë, po kje arë a livadh, kopshtë a vêshtë, prozhem a zabel, xânë a ograjé, a rrethi i shpis, katundi me katund a Flamuri me Flamur e shpija me shpi, kan të damet me kufi). Significantly, throughout the Communist period village families had continued to transmit knowledge of traditional clan boundaries in the forest. This was despite the ban on such customs and the fact that wood was supplied by the local Communist administration. Although most of the demarking boundaries were known, many problems arose in post-communsit era and fixing and demarcating boundaries between districts, communes and villages has been a chronic problem. Ex co-operative boundaries which served as the initial basis for communal boundaries, frequently failed to line up with the pre-1945 boundaries of their component villages because the forest and pasture land were not part of ex-cooperative boundaries. Prior to 1946, some villages held title to several hectares of forest land that were later owned and managed by the state forest service. After de-collectivization, there was no attempt to restore the original boundaries, between Communes and Forest Service until project intervention raised the approach of communal forestry. The philosophy of the transfer of State forests and pastures to the communes has been the recognition of the needs of forests products and services by the local population and their rights on their use. In addition, the transfer is realized to the communes, which then conclude agreements with the village or individual (family) users. This is another achievement as it represents an empowerment of the local population and structures, thus is part of a decentralization process.

The work of the agency responsible for the implementation of the transfer covering all the communes in the country (Agency the Inventorying and Transfer of State Public Property) is based on the Laws No. 8744, and No. 8743 and Decision No. 500 of CM (14.08.2001). Work on laying the groundwork for transferring State owned communal forests and pastures in-ownership to communes is underway. Committees set up under Decision No. 500 have been inventorying State properties transferable to local governments, with pilot efforts underway to effect transfers in 5 municipalities and 2 communes. Deficiencies in legal, survey and mapping preparations have proven to be bottlenecks.

The users of Forest and Pastures, organized in 144 commune associations, three Regional Federation and National Association, have identified the support a top-down approach coming form the Law No. 8744 as the main reason for hampering this process.


18

The law and procedures applied, have not taken into consideration the traditional use, real users, village representatives, and has not set up any criteria and regulations for process implementation in participatory way. There have been several reasons that have hindered the progress, but perhaps the most important have been:

• Differences between DGFP and communes 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 DFP approve forests that the commune requests for transfer, something that has occasionally been slow in coming. Communes have also been tending to ask more than the MOAF is willing to authorize transfer for.

• Difficulties in setting communes boundaries in several cases, with the biggest conflicts arising over pasture boundaries among villages and communes and over control over water sources.

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

Based on the previous experiences gained during the last years, National Association of Communal Forest and Pasture has undertaken this project aiming on sheding light on the reasons why the process of transfer of forest and pasture from state to the communes is going slow, identifing the bottlenecks and to propose the solutions to help solving some of the above-mentioned. The overall objective is “preparation in participatory way clear guidelines and criteria on fixing and demarcating boundaries between state owned forest and communal forest and share of the rights and responsibilities between them, guiding the local government and forest service in the same time how to resolve border disputes between state and communes, neighboring communes and villages”.

Project objectives had been foreseen to be achieved through implementing two components. The first component will strengthen the community-based approach to forest and pasture management developed for 138 communes under the Albania Forestry Project (AFP), as well as scale up coverage to include about 80 additional communes. The second component will pilot integrated management of natural resources in three of Albania’s seven watersheds, focusing on five regions located the northern areas of the country. The component will introduce an approach to planning and management of natural resources at the level of 30 micro-catchments (MCs)


19

Map No. 1: Administrative Divisions: Communes, Municipalities, Districts and Regions in Albania


20

CHAPTER 2

METHODOLOGY


21

1. CHOICE OF THE REGIONS In choosing the regions where the project was to be implemented, several factors such

as the geographical location, total area, area covered by forest, number of communes etc. were taken into account. Apart form those above-mentioned criteria, a very important role played the historical traditions especially in forest and pasture ownership and management, as well as historical bias. Regions were chosen to be representative of the whole country as can be seen in the Map 2.

Insert the Map of the country with the representative communes. Puka District is part of Shkodra region and represents more or less the traditions of

Lezha, Shkodra, and Kukesi. Located in Albanian Alps, the commune of Blerimi represents the typical northern village with scattered houses that are usually apart from each other and accessible only by rugged footpaths. These footpaths are often not passable in bad weather. When houses are found in clusters, they are usually inhabited by families of the same clan. Good quality of agricultural land in this area is minimal, and farms are small with high level of land fragmentation. This makes farming very difficult since the use of large machinery for ploughing and harvesting is not cost-effective on such small plots. Generally in northern areas the infrastructure such as roads and access to market is relatively undeveloped. The area is commonly cited both in ethnographic literature and by Albanian people today as having maintained more tribal customs than other districts due to mountains locations and relative isolation from outside influence. Field trips to the area provide evidence of cultural patterns that are distinct from middle or south mountain Albania and especially from western plain.

Dibër, located in the mountainous northeast of Albania, is one of most poverty-stricken regions of the country. In term of customs, family organization and traditional use and management of forest, Dibra was chosen as an area dominated by “the Kanun of Scanderbeg”. Some 16% of the area of the region is classified as agricultural land (36,600 ha, or just 1.9 ha per family), and 63% as forests and pastures (147,900 ha), about half of which (74,100 ha, or 3.9 ha per family) are designated as communal forests and pastures. In this predominantly rural region, most of the population of 200,000 inhabitants earns their living from subsistence farming and herding. The communal forest lands mostly located close to the villages are considered to offer great potential for improving the incomes of rural communities.

Elbasani was chosen to represent mountain region of central Albania in both sides of Shkumbini River. The river has serves more or less as the boundary between Gheg and Toske. The topography is a combination of mountain, hills, and valleys and vast plain areas with high levels of agricultural activities. The chosen commune was Stebleva


22

located in the east part of the region just in the boundary with Macedonia. The commune shares the boundaries between the districts of Librazhdi and Bulqiza.

On the southern part of the country, the district of Korca was chosen as the one displaying the characteristics of the whole region. The topography in this district is various; plain fields, hills and mountain. Almost all the Korca plain areas are surrounded by hills and mountains. An exception of this classification is the Commune of Gora (the word Gore comes from the Slavic language and means mountain with forest). In Albanian history and culture, Korca is known for the first school in Albanian language (7 mars 1871). In term of agriculture, Korca has been well-known for high level of tree crop production especially apple trees as well as the agricultural and diary products. Typical crops are wheat, maize and some vegetables. Sugar Beet was typical for the Korca plain in the communist regime and ruins of sugar production factory are part of the plain landscape. Animal farming is predominantly comprised of cows and sheep. Korca was chosen due to the distinct differences from other parts of the country in forest and pasture use and in the same time for his high level of emigration in Greece. Remittance income accounts for large part of total house hold income in the district.

Short surveys were undertaken in the regions of Durresi and Mirdita to compare the differences in tradition and the actual decisions taken by the village commissions in land use.

2. MAJOR ASPECTS OF THE METHODOLOGY The methodology associated with the transfer lied on two major aspects:

1. The organization of the implementing structure (Forestry Village Commissions, Forest Users Associations, DFS communal forestry specialist, and Directorate for Communal Forests and Pastures and Extension Services), 2. The development and implementation of communal forests and pastures management plans.

The organization at village level of the local population introduces the management of the forest at the level of the users themselves. For the time being, this will be more in terms of delimiting the boundaries, appointing the users and defining the uses as well as implementing the protection and improvement measures rather than planning the future development of communal forests. This structure has an important role to play in managing and resolving the conflicts where they occur, indirectly helping for a sustainable management of communal forest resources.

The management plans are prepared by professionals. Besides the important work done in describing every plot and subplot identified by the villagers, the representation of the communal forests and pastures through digitalized maps provided almost a perfect


23

overall picture of the communes. But the interpretation of these plot descriptions by villagers is not an easy task.

In addition, the first operations supporting the implementation of the management plans are giving to them their real dimension of a working document. As most of the communal forests and pastures are much degraded, the success of first measurements confirms the rehabilitation potential with simple actions and demonstrates the value that the forests may have in future, if correctly managed. This is an important issue in changing the attitude of the locals as most people lack the experience of forest growth, and are sometimes reluctant to accept the transfer of “a desert”, as some said.

Often taken for granted, the involvement of the DFS staff is playing a major role in developing the transfer. But the major success of the CFPMp lies probably in the degree of awareness amongst the rural population about the transfer process and what it implies. The aim, the methodology and the executing bodies are to date known not only by the population benefiting directly form the transfer, but these are also known in other communes where the Program is not yet active. This creates a huge demand to in deeper reforms: clarifying the legal concepts, definitions, duties, rights, obligations and responsibilities; allowing commercial activities with communal forests and pastures products and services; bringing more support to the protection of natural resources (forests and soils); recognizing land property, etc.

3. STEPS FOLLOWED To successfully achieve the overall objective of the project “The preparation in

participatory way of clear guidelines and criteria on fixing and demarcating boundaries between state owned forest and communal forest and share of the rights and responsibilities between them, guiding the local government and forest service in the same time how to resolve border disputes between state and communes, neighboring communes and villages” several actions were undertaken. These actions were performed in a step-by-step way..

3.1. Review of the existing literature, reports and materials Existing reports and materials were used for desk studies. Such materials were related

to training courses, workshops, annual reports, studies, providing a good source of existing information. They include the evaluation study on (i) Social Assessment of Communal Forest and Pasture AFP project (1996) (ii) Communal Forest and Pasture Management of July 2001; (iii) Report on Effects of the Albanian Forestry Project on Poverty Reduction, of November 2002, and (iv) various studies and reports.


24

3.2. Field surveys and establishment of contact with local people and representatives

Working groups were established for each of the four communes under investigation. After their familiarization with the project’s objectives, the work started by collecting all the existing documentation and other materials to be used during the field works. The main documents used by working groups were the old forest management plans which were found at respective Directorates of Forestry Services of the districts. For the local unit and village boundaries, maps which include the territory of communes and the villages were collected. The working group used the following thematic maps:

Topographic maps of the scale 1:25000 or 1:10000 Agriculture cadastral maps used by the Commissions of Land Distribution Maps of forests and pastures of the management plans or inventory Different documents that contain earlier boundaries.

Based on these partial topographic maps, a new map was prepared containing the following information:

Local government unit and village boundaries, as they are traditionally known, as well as based on different documents.

Agricultural land boundaries according to villages (used by the Land Distribution Commissions), extracted by the cadastral maps or those of the Real Estate Registration Units, to ensure compatibility between the boundaries of forests and pastures and agriculture land, with resident areas or other territories.

Forests and pastures boundaries according to maps taken from the DFS and local government unit defined in the preliminary agreement on the forests and pastures that the local unit take in use or in ownership.

In cooperation with FPUA of communes and Directorates of Forestry Services of the districts, series of vizites were organized in the territory of the communes. The aim of the visits and short-surveys was to create a better idea about the real life conditions in the villages and establishing contacts with local governments. During these visits, a presentation of the objectives and main activities of the project on commune and village level took place.

3.3. Preparations, sending out and evaluation of questionnaires Questionnaires aiming to collect actor’s opinion on farmer knowledge of boundary of

village forest and pasture as well as suggestions/recommendations for future implementation were prepared. The assessment team identified three main groups of actors with whom these questionnaires were used: (i) the members of FPUAs; (ii) the


25

leadership of FPUA; and (iii) the DFS Offices. This type of survey based on questionnaires was focused in the districts of Korce, Elbasan, and Diber.

3.4. Building the local structures for project implementation (Commune and village commissions)

The implementation of this project was foreseen through a participatory approach. As such, we considered crucial the participation of local community. Thus, one of the first steps was the establishment of local structures for project implementation which represent the main partner of consultancy in the first stage of the transfer process. These structures include forest and pastures commissions at commune level (responsible for setting the boundaries villages of the same commune) and at village level (responsible for defining the users and setting the boundaries between and within the parcels and users of the same parcel). The commissioners were trained in one-day training, on the issues dealing with the identification and legalization of the village boundaries on forest and pastures, and the certification of the use and users of the forest. Commissions were comprised of 5-7 people who represented the users groups and were elected in the general meeting of the village.

3.5. Data collection The aim of this process was to get a better impression on the socio-economic status of the villagers, forest and agriculture land, forest use and the inhabitants’ view of forest. The collected data included:

Geographical positions, site characteristics and road infrastructure. Population, gender, employment and demographic movement. Agricultural land and farming, cereals, fruit tress, and relation of agricultural,

pastures, forest in every day life of village. Livestock, structure of livestock, fodder and forage production, grazing and

implication on forest lands and forest development Natural resources; with special focus on village forest and pastures, tradition on

their management and use. Based on above-mentioned data, one general assessment report was prepared for every village and then for the whole commune.


26

3.6. Demarcation of boundaries at village forest Demarcation of village boundaries was carried out by the working groups in close

collaboration with representatives from the DSF, the village commissions, and with boundary villages’ commissions. The working groups started the ascertainment with the well-known or documented boundaries, and walked along the boundaries discussing and marking in the field and in the map the boundary lines. After agreeing on the boundaries, the commission and the working group filled out and signed a “written agreement” in several copies for all interested parties (village, registration office, local government unit, district cadastre, office of real estate registration and the directorate of forest service). Each copy of the written agreement was accompanied by a copy of the map with the drawn boundaries. (See Appendices 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5)

The same procedure was followed for every village. In cases when the headman of the village was not a member of the commission, he was always present during the process of boundaries demarcation together with other individuals (elderly people) who know them good enough.

3.7. Certification of users of forest and pastures Division of the communal forests and pastures to the users was a decision taken by

the villages’ commissions. If they decided to divide them, users were identified and certified by village commissions. As a rule, they collected the requests or traditional claims of neighborhoods, clans, group families or separate families for the forests and pastures they have used in the past, and then decided accordingly.

Two forest maps were the tools used by working groups in consultation with the commission and individual users in the process of identification of users as family; the forest village map scale 1:10 000 and the parcel sketch. In filling up the sketches, the presence of most of representatives of families that has used traditionally the forest and different was mandatory. As a rule, area was measured at the scale of the parcel, while the division between users was only schematic without field measurement. Parts of the forest and pastures used collectively by the whole village were defined in the same manner. The results of these ascertainments and certifications are given in the Appendices 3 and 4.

4. LOBBING AND ADVOCACY Based on the project findings, an important the project implementation aspect was the

improvement of the legal framework, helping the acceleration of forest and pasture transfer to communes, elucidation of ownership right and responsibilities in sustainable


27

forest use and increase of public awareness on this process. The methodology of this process included:

Seminar at regional level with explanation of the process. Discussion at commune level. Preparation and distribution of leaflets and posters at Communes’ offices, public

places, shops, schools etc. Media campaign through delivery of interviews on TV, articles in newspapers etc. Organization of National Conference on Reform in Albania Forestry. Meeting with National Agency on Inventory and Transfer of Immovable Properties to

the Local Government Units. Meeting with Deputy Minister of MEFWA. Formal and Informal meeting with parliament members. Preparation of draft for Law(s) to be amended and sending them to the responsible

Ministries.

5. SCHEDULE OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION The agreement between ILC and NACFP was signed on August 1, 2006. After

signing the agreement, NACFP started to organize its human resources in National and Local level. Implementaion of the majority of the activities followed the action plan and schedule presented in the project proposal (see below); however, in few cases it was reviewed and changed taking into consideration the operational timetable, political changes and different problems faced during the project implementation.

No Activities realized Implementation time (month) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

A.1 Pilot project implementation in four selected communes

A Preparation of detailed work plan for each regional team

B Review the village boundaries and forest resources

C Preparation of ToRs for each commune selected

D Awareness-raising process on the revision of status of user rights

E Revision of forest and pasture boundaries on a village level

F Preparation of villages’ maps based on the revision users

G Preparation of agreements and contract of land use by users

H Work shop in micro-catchments level based in selected commune

A2 Preparing the draft legal documents on forest transfer

A3 Preparing the draft legal regulation for sustainable use

A4 National work shop with wide participation of main stake holders

A5 Lobbing for approval of proposed legislative documents

A5.1 Approval of the proposed legal documents


28

CHAPTER 3

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION: MAIN FINDINGS


29

The activities implemented under the Project were diverse and linked to specific issues such as: assessing the ongoing process of forest and pasture transfer in region scale; selection of pilot communes; selection of local experts on the level of district and commune; establishment of working groups in each commune; presentation of the project to communes; establishment of village commissions, including representatives from each stakeholder group within the communes; training of working groups and village commissions to implement the project on the village level; identification of current boundaries of forest and pasture transferred to the communes; identification of traditional boundaries of the communes; identification of legal and institutional constrains to fit in traditional boundaries; collection of the information on the traditional use of forest and pasture; preparation and evaluation of the questionnaires for identification traditional use of forest and pasture; defining historical and current modes of both shared and assigned access to all resource areas; identification of the users group in each parcel boundaries in village, through combination of topographic maps 1:25 000 with forest and pastures cover maps; organization of regional or national workshops; advocacy and lobbying on reviewing and/or amending certain laws and creation of legal spaces for preparation of new regulations; etc.

1. LAND TENURE AND COMMUNAL FORESTRY As human populations and their demands on forest resources grow, citizens and

officials search for solutions to the problems of forest degradation and deforestation. Many factors contribute to make forests very challenging to govern effectively. Most of these challenges emerge from the biophysical characteristics of forest resources. From that point of view, community forestry has become a 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 collectively and 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 the socio-economic and ecological benefits from the forest” (Martel and Whyte, 1992). From this definition, one can say that, like sustainable development, community forestry should be seen as a process - a process of increasing the involvement of and reward for local people, of seeking balance between outside and community interests and of increasing local responsibility for the management of the forest resource. Rao (1991) writes: “The political dimension of community forestry makes it a venue for people's struggle against domination and exploitation of the community's resources by 'outsiders'. Ecology, equity and social justice are part of this struggle”. These definitions imply the importance of several actors and factors, and in this report, we’ll follow more a less this order.


30

1.1. Historical background of land tenure policies Historically, community forestry activities have been important to the livelihoods of

most rural people in Albania, even though formal state governments have not always been supportive of such activities. This has a much a do with the Albanian roots. Albanians generally trace their history back to the Illyrian tribes, which evolved from the Stone Age to reach their power peak around 400 BC (Woods, 1918; Wallace, 1998). The Illyrians resisted assimilation into the Roman culture, however, the roman land tenure judicial regime was forced in plain zone (Haxhi, 1988). When the Roman Empire divided into east and west, Albania became a part of the Byzantine Empire.

The first Byzantine agrarian law, called the Justinian law, was approved in the VII century, later amended following the socio economic changes. Agrarian law contents one summary of provisions arranging relations between villagers as small land owners, as well between villagers and their overlords, and it was extended up to the IX century (Haxhi, 1988). In the occupied part of the country the common ownership under the agricultural land started to be disorganized from the VIII century. The law provides disintegration of the common ownership and division of it to villagers. In case of the communions, the law defined the equal taxes for all shareholders. If any member of communions abandoned, the others were responsible for paying his tax. Based on this law, all the families had the right to heritage their land. In addition, they could exchange the arable land and had the rights of leasing and to use them for agricultural products. If someone paid taxes to the empire cashbox, he was regognised as the owner of the land even if he was runway (Anonymous, 1978).

Prior to the end of the Byzantine time, few changes occurred on the land tenure relation. From 1081 it was documented the establishment of “Pronijet”; one system that was well allocated massively in the XII century. “Pronijet” were compound by the land of the owner and the land of the farmers, which was not a private estate and was named “Bashtina”. Farmers were obliged to manage the land lord’s land and the part of the land that was juridical depends (Bashtina). “Pronijet” as a land tenure regime was dominant mainly in the plain zone and in the some main valleys of the country (Haxhi, 1988).

By the end of 1355, the Albanian feudal lords formed their own state. This period of independence was short lived as the Ottoman Turks invaded in 1388, completing their occupation in 1430. In the 15th century, the Ottomans extended the timar system (whereby Ottoman soldiers [i.e. sipahis] managed tracts of land for the Sultan) from south and central to north Albania causing population displacements and a change in systems of land tenure (Pollo and Puto, 1981). With increased immigration, population centers in the mountains may have become larger and access to resources, such as good land, circumscribed. Generally, the response was agricultural intensification, perhaps through terracing and irrigation (Schon and Galaty, 2006).


31

As Ottoman power began to decline in the 18th century, the central authority of the empire in Albania gave way to the local authority of autonomy-minded lords. The most successful of these lords were three generations of Pashas of the Bushati family, who dominated most of northern Albania from 1757 to 1831, and Ali Pasha Tepelena of Janina (now Ioánnina, Greece), who ruled over southern Albania and northern Greece from 1788 to 1822. These Pashas created separate states within the Ottoman state until they were overthrown by the sultan.

In 1831 Turkey officially abolished the Timar system. In the wake of its collapse, economic and social power passed from the feudal lords to private landowning Beys and, in the northern highlands, to tribal chieftains called Bajraktar, who presided over given territories with rigid patriarchal societies that were often torn by blood feuds. Peasants who were formerly serfs now worked on the estates of the Beys as tenant farmers. Land tenure regime was based on military feudal ownership, with “kanunamente” (body of Ottoman Laws based on the Kuran and the Sultan’s Codes, adapted especially for the occupied part of the country, in concordance with some traditional customs). During that time, a land inventory was performed and all the land was registered. All the land (agricultural and other lands such as forest, pasture, meadows, rangelands), independently from the owner, were declared as state owned. Judicially, the owner was called “God” and was administered by Sultan. All the lands proclaimed “Mirie”. Land was distributed according to the Ottoman feudal system, in which the holder of a Timar (estate) had to report for military duty, bringing and supporting other soldiers. A wide range of taxes was imposed, including the harač, a graduated poll tax on non-Muslims. The villagers used the land called “Bashtina”, and apart from it, the villagers had the ownership right to a small plot of land around the house not more than 1000 m2, called “erzi mylk”. This was privately owned with the rights to heritage or sell without restrictions. The land gifted by Sultan for different service was called Mylk and considered as private ownership. By the end of 16th century, another form of land property was Vakefi (land donated from the state to the religious institution). This land was excluded from the taxation (Haxhi, 1988).

As the landscape became more structured so too did the socio-political system. It was at this time that the tribal system as recorded in the Kanuni i Lekë Dukagjinit probably evolved, a dynamic, social response to the pressures and possibilities of life in a frontier zone (Schon & Galaty, 2006). It was created as a result of the inner need of a whole population, living in our territories, in order to defend the very existence of the nation in the face of the threat of assimilation by "superior" civilizations of the invaders and occupiers. The Kanuni i Lekë Dukagjinit was not transcribed in full until the early 20th century by a Franciscan priest, Father Shtjefen Gjecov. Large households (shpia) organized into neighborhoods (mehalla) share patrilineal descent from a common apical ancestor thereby forming exogamous segmented clans (fisi). Several neighborhoods and fisi together compose a single village. Political power is vested in the person of the family patriarch (zot i shpi). Family heads are appointed or elected to a village council (kuvend)


32

that makes decisions of importance to the whole community. A single council member is elected ‘headman’ or kryeplak. In Ottoman times, several villages and fisi might be politically joined in a bajrak (a ‘banner’) led by a bajraktar (a ‘banner chief ’). Bajraks formed loose tribal confederations; e.g. those of the Shala ‘tribe’ joined Shosh, Shala’s nearest neighbor to the south, and several other tribes, to form the Dukagjin ‘confederacy’ (farë), one of ten tribal confederations in northern Albania (Durham, 1910; Frazer and Durham,1912; Hasluck, 1954; Kastrati, 1955; Schon and Galaty, 2006).

At the beginning of the 20th century, the land ownership system in Albania was dominated by the “çiflig”; land tenure system which was characteristic of the Ottoman Empire where peasants were obliged to contribute labor and produce either for a private landlord, for the state, or for religious institutions. After independence from the Turks in 1912, land distribution was very unequal. The vast majority of agricultural land was controlled by five families each owning about 60,000 hectares of farmland and forests. Further, the large estates were not substantially affected by two attempts at land reform before 1945. In July 1924 a peasant-backed insurgency won control of Tirana and Fan Noli became Prime Minister. He set out to build a Western-style democracy, including major land reform and modernization, but there were no funds in the treasury and no international recognition. His approach on forest land was to divide it between local communities to fulfill their needs, the accessed by local community’s part, and the remaining part to be owned and managed by the state (Pollo and Puto, 1981).

Between 1925 and 1945 during the King Zog’s ruling time and inter-war time, the concentration of land ownership was only affected by the development of an embryonic land market and the division of large estates through inheritance. Zog failed to resolve Albania's fundamental problem, that of land reform, leaving the peasantry as impoverished as before. Nevertheless, land ownership pattern remained much skewed, with 3 percent of the population owning 27 percent of the land. Moreover, this inequality was stronger in the most fertile and productive areas in the country. There, agriculture was still predominantly organized in large estates owned by a few landlords, the pre-Communist state and religious institutions. The majority of 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 in areas that had certain autonomy from Ottoman rule. While arable land later became private, forests remained state-owned and with open access. Forests belonging to religious institutions were another form of communal ownership. This tenure system survived after independence, up to the end of the World War II.

Forest policy began with the establishment of the country’s forest service in 1923. Those hired to fill the available positions were Albanian foresters who had studied in Western Europe (France, Italy, and Austria). Their approach was technocratic and


33

centralized, shaped by the idea of the national state, which the Albanian political class was so desperate to build during the inter-war period. To provide revenues for the state budget, in the late 1930s, the government began giving concessions to foreign companies, a period that marks the beginning of industrial harvest of the forests in Albania. The unsustainable rate of removals continued during the World War II to supply the Italian and German armies. Because of difficulties in accessibility (roads were absent and rivers are too turbulent to transport timber) forests in the northern and central part of Albania were spared (Fernow, 1913). However, as in other parts of the Ottoman Empire, in central and southern Albania, deforestation continued because of neglect on the part of the authorities. The detrimental influence of forest destruction was repeatedly experienced in floods and droughts.

After the communists came to power (end of 1944), the technocratic legacy combined with the communist ideology became the basis of the forest policy. In 1946, as part of the agrarian reform, all the forests in Albania were nationalized and with few exceptions, are still state-owned. The communist government put emphasis on extraction of natural resources, especially timber and firewood, to meet the demands of an expanding controlled economy. The government's first major act to “build socialism” was swift, uncompromising agrarian reform, which broke up the large landed estates of the southern Beys and distributed the parcels to landless and other peasants. This destroyed the powerful class of the Beys. Shortly after the agrarian reform, the Albanian government started to collectivize agriculture, completing the job in 1967. As a result, peasants lost title to their land. In addition, the leadership extended the new socialist order to the more rugged and isolated northern highlands, bringing down the age-old institution of the Kanun and the patriarchal structure of the family and clans, thus destroying the semifeudal class of Bajraktars.

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 contained under communism, most of its elements have re-appeared in the past ten years. In view of the Communist ban, one might have expected younger generation to be unfamiliar with the Kanun at the beginning of the 1990s. However, in all except prominent Communist families, the Kanun’s precepts were discussed within households and passed on to younger family members, albeit covertly. The very fact of banning so many important aspects of local culture probably contributed to cultural continuity, as did the above-mentioned living arrangements (de Waal, 2004). The Kanun has eased readjustment for many of the northerners as they come out of the socialist period as, for example, original land borders were remembered accurately by all parties and so reverted to original ownership with far less difficulty than privatization in other areas.

In October 1992 a new forest law was passed, which came into operation in 1993. This law was passed against the advice of forest experts who argued that the new law


34

would lead to loss of state control and large-scale abuse. It was also fiercely contested by northern communes leading to several problems. Widespread absence of authoritatively demarcated administrative and inter-village boundaries has stymied land registration and precipitated sharp disputes, particularly between villages over pasture and grazing rights. These problems derive in large part from misalignments between pre-1945 village boundaries and those drawn after 1990 within communes defined according to ex-cooperative boundaries, not those of their constituent villages in the pre-communist era.

The coexistence of state ownership of the forest and customary law usage rights as exercised by villagers did not pose a problem where domestic wood needs were concerned. The traditional adherence to clan boundaries enabled villagers to meet their domestic needs more efficiently than the cumbersome official system could have done. By contrast, the coexistence of state and customary law, once a state decree granted certain areas of the traditionally communal forest to licensed wood fellers, was a source of conflict. This was not because there was any real doubt as to licensees’ rights, but because sale of wood was the only means of financial survival for villagers, nearly all of whom were unemployed. Had the original proposal put forward by the communes been approved at the start of the 1990s, the forest might have been no less depleted, but at least replanting and maintenance would have reduced damage (de Waal, 2004).

The alpine forests do not unfortunately enjoy this community involvement. Nor are they protected by a state at once distant, weak and indifferent. Unscrupulous unlicensed felling and sawmill businesses flourish, their activities large scale enough to buy them protection from prosecution. Destruction of these forests is not the result of overlapping rights or blurred boundaries, but rather state weakness or indifference that allows people to break the law with impunity (de Waal, 2004).

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 and controlling the national forest estate, and (iv) supporting and promoting education, training, research, and extension. Although most of these activities may be ascribed to DFP, other government bodies are involved to different degrees at different stages of the policy process. While the legislature is active during the formulation and legitimization, the administration is more engaged in the agenda-setting and implementation.

1.2.1. Legislature Albania is a parliamentary democracy. The parliament (People’s Assembly) is

unicameral. There are 15 permanent standing committees or permanent commissions that


35

deal with respective laws and administrations. The committee involved in forest policy is the Parliamentary Commission of Agriculture and Food. Although almost all political parties have expressed concern about environmental degradation, low priority is given to the resolution of the problem. The two parties that have run on an environmental platform, the Agrarian Ecological Party and the Green Party, are too small to have a significant impact on forest policies.

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

1.2.2. Judiciary The 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 constitutional legislation or acts. Judges are appointed and dismissed by the High Council of Justice, headed by the President of the Republic. The Ministry of Justice has the mandate to supervise and reform the judiciary and the power to overturn the court rulings. All these arrangements in the judiciary raise questions about the neutrality of the government in the judicial process.

While the Constitution provides an independent judiciary, in reality the judiciary has been subject to political 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 under acceptable 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 the courts’ agenda. This does not mean that the forest policy-makers can ignore the judiciary in the formulation 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, policies that rely less on judiciary would be preferable. Some situations where it is appropriate to avoid the involvement of the courts on forestry issues (adopted from Horowitz 1977) are:


36

Cases where there is insufficient incentive for the parties in question to abide and implement a court’s ruling

Cases in which it will be very difficult to determine what would happen after the ruling

Forestry issues that are rapidly changing and have yet to be addressed by the legal system

Narrow issues and low stakes.

1.2.3. Administration The 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 and pastures 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 frail following four decades of communist abrogation. Each prefecture is divided into districts, which were the major administrative divisions during the communist regime. Districts are further subdivided into cities and communes. The average area of communes is 9 000 ha and covers, on average, about nine villages. District, city, and commune councils are elected by popular vote, but rely on the central government for funding, because their power to impose taxes has remained only on paper.

Although communes are administrative divisions, the central government and international donors have targeted them for the implementation of communal forest policies. Law No. 7917 “For Pastures and Meadows” gives usufructuary rights to communes of state-owned pastures and allows them to extend tenancy and user rights to local individuals and groups. Based on this law, the World Bank begun implementation of its communal forest and pasture component of the AFP on a trial basis in three communes in the district of Elbasan. Preliminary results from improvement work such as regeneration cutting, planting, and protective fencing have been satisfactory. This should not come as a surprise because local people have benefited directly from participating in the project. Despite these successes, 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 and operating procedures for any state agency to become an “equal opportunity employer”. Decisions about recruitment, tenure, and promotion should be purged of political affiliation, familial ties, province of origin, sex, religion, and other forms of unfair discrimination.


37

1.3. Land tenure policy(ies) Since 1991, Albania has pursued a process of land and property reform. The main elements of state administrative reforms have included:

organization of new units of administration to regulate and manage agricultural lands, 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 control and municipal ownership or right of use

incorporation of new concepts and procedures of environmental regulation and environmental 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 law reforms and the programs of ownership transfer. Almost all families and some juridical persons have received documentation giving ownership rights in land and housing units, and most families and enterprises now occupy and use their land premises. On the state side, progress in establishing the new administrative structure of regulation and management of land has been slow because of the need to bring new concepts and methodologies into the law and administrative practice. This has required re-training, re-organization and public outreach. It has also required transfers of power and resources. The next stages of reform, therefore, will need to confront these problems of mismatch between the revised structures and laws, on paper, and functions and practice on the ground. The key elements of a modern European land and property system are now in place. Despite this progress, the framework of legal principles and supporting juridical, administrative and institutional systems is not yet complete. The system does not yet operate as efficiently, partly because the reforms have been applied in a categorical manner – meaning that different legal definitions have been applied for agricultural land, forest and pastures, and other lands and properties. These factors have slowed the progress of reform, left the system vulnerable to the growth of informal and corrupt practices and have created a highly complex system with many gaps and overlaps.

1.4. The current status of land tenure Private ownership and subordinate rights of use and lease were to be created in the

first stage of transformation, and were to be distinguished among categories of land use (and several others of smaller scale): Agricultural fields (arable land), previously controlled by collective and state farms,

were to be divided into plots of equal size/value and distributed to the collective members and farm employees in family ownership (" No. 7501; Law No. 8053). A


38

legal document (deed) called “tapi” gives evidence of ownership in the name of the "head of household."

Families that were owners of land and property prior to 1945 have been able to claim restitution of their non-agricultural properties, or alternatively to receive other property or financial compensation (Law No. 7698; Law No. 9235).

State and municipal ownership also is distinguished among several land use categories. In rural areas, these encompass forest, pasture and water-related lands (Law No. 7623; Law No. 7917; Law No. 8093). In addition, the state has retained some land of former state farms, "refused" agricultural lands (lands that eligible families have rejected) (Law No. 8047). All state-owned properties are subject to inventory and a process of division in which municipal governments may acquire ownership or right of use (Law No. 8743; Law No. 8744). In particular, communes’ administration are acquiring control of forests and pastures, located close to the villages, for subordinate use by their residents. Taken together, programs of creating private property rights, state properties and illegal actions have subdivided Albania into 4.5 million land parcels and separately-owned immovable property units.

1.4.1. The status of inventory and transfer of state properties The process of determining state-owned land and property holdings and their division

between state agencies and municipalities has been under way since 2001, but is being completed slowly than expected. This process has been managed by the State Agency for Transfer of Public Property, which sets the standards and oversees the work of the communes and municipal administrations.

The process involves an initial stage in which

the commune or city administration must inventory the state land and immovable objects within its territory and designate those for which it seeks transfer. The list then circulates among the state agencies. When an agreement is reached, 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 the transfers 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 160 had obtained the Council of Ministers decree (CMD) on approval of the inventory lists of local government units. The preliminary list has been approved in fifty of these communal units while in twelf of them the final list has already been approved. About 80% of land and other property objects are inventoried in all the country.

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

program is completed and unresolved policy issues remain. National Strategy for Social


39

and Economic Development (NSSED) is the main policy document of this framework, giving guidance to subordinate, 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 policy document. 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 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 and mountain areas emphasize the completion of land reform as a way to support citizen welfare and economic opportunities (World Bank, 2004).

1.4.3. Restitution of property rights to former owners The 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 1993 when the original Law No. 7698 exempted this category. The law provided that former owners whose grant provided by the Law No. 7501 was not equal to their ancestral property rights could be 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 and boundaries 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 property is specified, it is impossible to specify which lands will be available for alternative grants to former owners. The lack of information about alternatives and values causes the former owners to resist making the choice between continuing their claims and accepting potential compensation.

1.4.4. Taxation of land and property Land and property taxation has been envisioned as a potentially significant source of

revenue for local self-government, but is not yet playing an important role. Law No. 7805 (1994) authorized taxation of land and buildings on the basis of a fixed rate per square meter of building, and per hectare of land depending on use category. However, taxation of land on the basis of this law was later exempted. Similarly, a law on taxation of agricultural land was authorized and then suspended. Law No. 8982 (2002) re-defined the authority of local governments to levy taxes on land and buildings, including on agricultural land. Also subject to local taxation is the transfer of the right of ownership in immovable property and the hookup of a new building to infrastructure.


40

1.4.5. Rural land administration In rural areas, there has been an effort to consolidate the regulation and management

of the different regimes of law covering agricultural fields, pastures and meadows, forests, lands related to water bodies, and specially-protected lands into two systems. Two hierarchical administrative structures have been created. Under the auspices of Ministry of Agriculture and Food which deals mainly with agricultural lands, a two-level structure for Land Administration and Protection has been created (Law No. 8752; CoM, 2002). Within the Ministry, the sections of Land Management and Land Protection operate in 12 offices under regional (qark) supervision, and 36 Land Management and Protection Offices are linked to the communal administrations.

Forest Directorate operates under auspices of the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration. The directorate has jurisdiction over (1) the upland forests and pastures remaining in direct state control, (2) communal forests and pastures, and (3) specially protected areas. The Forest 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, this structure 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 case of the regional Forest Directorate, Sections create the management plans for the areas within their direct jurisdiction and they negotiate, finalize and archive the leases, use rights and licenses given to enterprises and individuals, and for communal forest and pastures assist the communes in preparing management plans and creating the subordinate use rights for local citizens. A forest cadastre has been authorized to keep the records. In the case of Land Administration and Protection, 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) land use and quality preservation regulations, and (3) other conditions or restrictions included in a leasing 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 rights from the violator.

The Forest Directorate has received external assistance in organizing planning, regulatory and management systems. The new Land Administration and Protection units have not yet received comparable assistance, although the Ministry would be amenable to it.

The critical elements of the land management system are the methodologies for data collection and analyziation and maintaining the cadastres. The Land Administration and Protection staff are expected to study and record information on the physical attributes of


41

land; in particular, its fertility. This should distinguish their work from the IPRS, which

assembles legal data, and from the Forest Directorate, 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" measurement—that is, the assembly of indicators of soil fertility, moisture and productive capacity as the basis for the resource valuation of land. In theory, these methodologies allow accurate guidance to be given on farming and forestry practices—choice of crops, rotation schedules, fertilization, thinning, etc.—and on projects and programs to prevent degradation and enhance soil quality. They also allow the fixing of baseline conditions in the cadastre, against which the 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 Pasture Policies in the MEFWA and the Land Administration and Protection agencies under the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and Consumer Protection highlights skepticism about the effectiveness of their methodologies and a need to build the capability of the administrative staff.

1.5. Progress on land reform in Albania The situation of rural land and property relations remains in transition with competing fundamental policies, land rights and administrative status defined in categorical terms; unfinished programs of ownership transfer; and incomplete evolution of the principles and institutes of civil law. However, there appears to be forward momentum in the activities of land reform. It is unclear whether the reforms are, in fact, being absorbed and solidified in government administration or in rural social and political life.

1.5.1. Rural land and property reform policies During the past years of reform activity, five major policies have been introduced at different stages in order to guide the allocation of ownership and control over rural land. These policies are not 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. The inconsistencies among them have caused practical problems primarily at the borderlines and the points of their intersection and overlap.

The policy of equitable family ownership of agricultural land and farm assets formed the basis of the initial land reform, under Law No. 7501. This principle made it possible to accomplish the break up of collective and state farms quickly


42

and to diffuse the social and political unrest that had begun when the farm system collapsed in 1989-1990 (Jungbluth and Lugg, 2002).

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

The policy of restitution (without regard to an unequal result) has been an alternative policy to equitable family ownership and state ownership. The initial law authorized restitution of land and housing within villages as well as some forests and pastures while agricultural fields were not to be given in restitution. This rule of law was not applied strictly in practice and in some villages agricultural fields were divided on the basis of pre-1945 holdings. In other villages former owners claimed agricultural land but were resisted by "newcomers" and the communal officials have held to the equitable division under Law No. 7501. In other villages, the conflicting claims remain unresolved or conflicting documents, giving ownership rights to the same land have issued to different families (Lemel, 1998). Similarly, restitution of forest and pasture areas has been given in some places, not in others, and many tracts have uncertain status because they may potentially be given as alternative grants of land to former owners.

The policy of re-consolidation of agricultural fields has gained prominence in national policy as various studies have shown the inefficiency of small, fragmented farm holdings. The Ministry of Agriculture has described the development strategy, in which mechanized farms of substantial size will be linked vertically to food processing enterprises. However, the Ministry has also recognized that re-consolidation will have social consequences, dividing rural society into capitalist and working classes and forcing more surplus labor to leave the farming sector (MOAF, 2002). That’s why the policy of consolidation is moving gradually 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 initial laws, land protection was described primarily in terms of limitations on tenure rights. Certain land categories were withheld fully from private occupancy and use and, for lands transferred to citizens and enterprises. In addition, agreements of ownership transfer, leasehold and rights of use had several restrictions and were conditional. More recently, with introduction of such principles as sustainable development and biodiversity protection, the policies


43

envision a multi-faceted system of management, planning and regulation. Rather than strict division of categorized lands, the new management and regulatory strategies involved areas such as wetlands, watersheds, coastal zones, in which several types of land and multiple resources co-exist and development is to be balanced with preservation, conservation and limited use (Ministry of the Environment, 2002).

Most recently, a new policy strategy of poverty reduction has emerged in response to studies that have measured the impacts of other policies on rural families, children, women and 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 unable to 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 property holdings in urban areas and to international economic relations.

These various policies found in difereent plans and strategies, are being adopted by the government to guide rural development and its evolving relationships with the European Union and other international organizations. Strategy for Agricultural Development (called the "Green Strategy") incorporates most of the contemporary principles for balanced development, environmental protection and preservation in rural areas (UNECE, 2000). At the detailed level in particular laws, regulations, administrative processes and practice, these competing policies have not been reconciled. The fundamental structure of categorized law and administration continues to be the framework in which decisions are made by regional and local ministry staff, by local government officers and by the various agencies of the civil law - judges, notaries, registry clerks.

The categories of rural land provide the basis for all aspects of legal status and administrative jurisdiction. This includes the eligibility of the land for private, state or communal ownership and for subordinate rights of use or lease. The categories also determine the level of government (state or local) and agencies of government given primary responsibility for making decisions about the allocation of the land, its regulation and management.

1.5.2. Refused agricultural lands A separate sub-category of agricultural lands are the fields, refused to be taken in

private ownership from families during the initial division of collective and state farm lands. Generally, this land encompasses mountain fields, remote from villages, and poor quality, terraced hillsides, which have been degraded by erosion. This land remains under state ownership with control exercised by the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and


44

Water Administration of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food (Law No. 8047). Communal administrations have taken control of this land by right of use (Law No. 8312).

In the process of inventory and transfer of state lands, the communes will take

ownership of these lands, with power to transfer them into private ownership or into subordinate rights of use by citizens. The refused lands may also be available for transfer in restitution or as alternative land grants to fulfill restitution claims.

Before deciding on the status of refused lands, it is necessary to inventory and assess their quality, value and suitability for use. The law prohibits any sale or lease of these lands prior to the determination of restitution claims, for which some of this land may provide alternative land grants to satisfy restitution claims (Law No. 8312).

After

determination of the restitution claims, these lands will become available for re-distribution or sale to rural families. Since the quality of most of these lands is poor, however, it is unclear whether rural families will want to take ownership and control unless changes are made in the status of these lands. It may be necessary to re-categorize some of these lands from agricultural to pasture or forest, or to categories of land for housing or other development. If they remain in agricultural designation, it may be necessary to exempt the land from taxation, reflecting its low productivity.

1.5.3. Pastures and meadows The Law No. 7917 “For Pastures and Grazing Lands”, based on their

ownership/control, subdivides these land areas into three categories: state-owned lands, which are managed directly by the Directory of Forest Policy

through its subordinate regional Forestry Service Directorates state-owned lands, which are transferred into the control of commune

administrations and are made available for common use by local residents, and privately-owned pasture land.

For all the state owned lands, the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water

Administration has the initial jurisdiction to determine their categorical status and their allocation (direct state control, communes or transfer to citizens and enterprises). The Forestry Directorate can issue a contract for lease of pasture areas, up to ten years, to a person or enterprise (Law No. 7917).

If a pasture area has been transferred to a commune

or municipality, the law implies, but does not clearly state, that the local government can issue a 10-year, subordinate contract, as well. The law also implies that the subordinate rights to use communal pastures will be exercised as a common right of the local villagers (Law No. 7917).

The same law specifies that a commune or municipality must

manage the pastures under its control accordingly to the management plan. The commune is obliged to monitor the condition of the pastures, periodically assess their carrying


45

capacity, and register changes in the pasture use and conditions in the cadastre. A small amount of pastures has been transferred to private ownership in the program of restitution.

In practice, the regime of common use of pastures does not appear to be effectively managed and conflicting policies are evident. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food has reported that the total amount of pastureland is insufficient to supply the fodder needs of all the livestock and that forest resources are being used to fill up the gap. Seen from the perspective of food supply and agribusiness, the Ministry reports the substantial increase in livestock as a positive trend (MOAF, 2002; IFDC, 2004).

From the standpoint of

environmental quality and resource protection, there is significant concern about the deterioration of the pastures from overgrazing, the resulting soil erosion and the removal of forest cover to expand grazing lands.

1.5.4. Forests The Law No. 7623 “For Forests and Forest Police”, subdivides the forests into three

categories: state forests, owned and managed by state state forests, owned by the state and given in use to communes and municipalities

for the common use of their residents; and forests on privately owned land.

The law specifies two types of authority for subordinate grants of rights to forest land and forest resources. First, it states that from the areas of communal forests, each family can be granted an area of 0.4 to 1.0 hectare. However, in this case, an agreement is necessary to be achived between the forest directorate and the commune or municipality. Second, it provides the guidelines for forest harvesting operations licenses, occupying forestland for recreative purposes and exploitation of other resources. All uses are subject to the forest management plans and the oversight of the forest directorate.

1.5.5. Transfer of communal forests and pastures The process of forests and pastures inventory and determination of the areas to be

transferred into communal and municipal control has been underway for nearly ten years. The Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has overseen the work of several programs.

These projects have

operated under the provisions of the two laws: Law No. 7917 “For Pastures and Meadows” and Law No. 7623 “For Forests and Forest Police” and resulted in the transfer of lands to communes and municipalities by right of use. It is anticipated that, in the process of inventory and transfer of state owned lands under the Law No. 8744, the


46

rights of use will be transformed into ownership rights. However, based on the provisions of Law No. 8743, this land will remain classified as public use properties and will not be eligible for subsequent sale in ownership to families, individuals or enterprises by the local administrations. It appears that the communes and municipalities will continue to offer subordinate rights of common usage, leases or rights of use, as provided in the Law No. 7917 “For Pastures and Meadows” and Law No. 7623 “For Forests and Forest Police”.

The same process, overseen by the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration, has been used to transfer both forests and pastures to communal and municipal control. In the "Green Strategy" the goal has been set to transfer 40 percent of all forests (ca. 400,000 hectares) and 60 percent of all pastures (244,000) hectares to the communes and municipalities (CoM, 1999). The procedure has involved the following stages:

The technical staff of the Forest Directorate works with the communal or municipal officers to 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. The historic traditions of families and clans in different villages are taken into account, along with the recent changes in village and communal administrative borders, as well as assessments of the topographic and ecological situation and the boundary lines of private and state lands. The terms and conditions of the right of use, by which the commune or municipality takes possession and control of the lands is worked out. These agreements provide a 10-year term, define the outer boundary lines of the tracts and set limitations on the ability of the local administration to extend subordinate rights to village residents or to other 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 of international experience, public participation has been introduced into this process. The plans define the level and types of use of sub-areas of the communal forest or pasture. The plans take into consideration the locations and quality of various plant and animal resources, the level of erosion or other degradation and the carrying capacity of the resources for grazing and tree cutting. These factors must be balanced against the number of families in the village, the size of their livestock herds, their needs for firewood and other resources.

In some projects, local citizens have been organized into users' associations, which acquire the subordinate rights for grazing, harvesting of firewood and herbal plants and other activities. The user association works out the specific rights and responsibilities of its members as part of the common use.


47

In a recent evaluation of the outcome of this process, Lemel (2005) reports many weaknesses and a variety of approaches. It appears that there are not clearly defined standards to guide the communes in the ways the subordinate agreements with citizens should be structured. One Order of the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration set the limit of one-year to the contracts on forest use issued by communes. In addition, in every single case, the contract must be approved by the manager of the regional directorate.

In two projects, the User Associations 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 the forest tract, assigned to the family. These agreements and the higher level agreements between the 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 not preclude the commune from granting use of the communal forest or pasture resources to persons or enterprises from outside the village.

It appears that many customary aspects of forest and pasture activity, which were under the control 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).

1.5.6. Protected Areas In recent years, Albania has adjusted its administrative system of protected areas

to the standards of the World Conservation Union (IUCN), which makes provision for six sub-categories:

Strict protected areas National parks Nature monuments Managed natural areas (protecting plant or animal habitats) Landscape and seascape protection zones, and Managed resource protection zones.

These categories formed the basis of the Ecological Survey, carried out in 1995-96, adding several new areas to the protected areas and adjusting existing areas to the new categories. This work was carried forward in 2000, with the adoption by the government of the National Strategy on Biodiversity (CoM, 2000).

Ownership of land within the protected zones can encompass private and state ownership; however, in most of the sub-categories, the land has been kept under state ownership and most often falls into the categories of forests and pastures. The


48

jurisdictional authority and procedures for administration of these areas is defined in the Law No. 8906 (“For Protected Areas”). It requires that each zone be managed by an Administrative Unit, which is defined by a Council of Ministers decree. Generally, the broad policies and regimes of land use in these areas are set by the MEFWA which is also responsible for the administration and management of these territories. Representatives of local government and civil society organizations can also be elected members of the Administrative Unit. Article 15 of this law (Law No. 8906), provides that the MEFWA or the local government, in cooperation with third parties, may draft a management plan for each zone. The plans should contain the objectives of protection, mechanisms of regulation and management, and permitted activities within the area.

1.5.7. Village lands and properties Within the village boundary lines, houses with accompanying garden plots have been

transferred into ownership of their residential occupants. This has taken place by the preparation of an inventory and list of house owners in each village, prepared in accordance with a special decree of the Council of Ministers (CoM, 1995). Trade and service lands are susceptible to ownership by their tenant enterprises or other juridical persons under the programs of "privatization," however, few such transfers of land ownership have taken place. Vacant village land, designated for trade and services or housing remains in state ownership, with the village having the right to determine its allocation in conjunction with development projects.

For purposes of development, each village is defined as an urban settlement with a "yellow line" boundary, beyond which the construction of housing and other non-agricultural buildings and structures is prohibited. Due to the large-scale movement of the population to the low land areas, certainly there is need to extend the yellow line in most of the villages, especially on those villages that at the same time are commune centers. Within the "yellow line" the development of new housing and other trade and service buildings are subject to the rules and regulations, outlined in the Law “For Urban Planning”.

1.5.8. Rural poverty and Land Holding The Ministry of Agriculture and Food has closely looked up at the problem of

fragmentation of the farm fields and the negative impacts on production and family income. Based on the statistics, the Ministry has defined three groups of farms by their production capacities. The first category comprises 21% of all farms and those are the small farms insufficient to meet family subsistence needs. These farms produce cereals and livestock forage but they are located in remote areas and have no opportunity to link to markets. These farms are a primary source of migrating families. The second category


49

included farms that provide subsistence for families with some potential to generate profits from sale of products. This category constitutes 64 percent of the total number of farms. These have a more mixed production, but remain dominated by cereal and livestock forage crops. The third category, market oriented farms, constitutes 15 percent. These tend to be involved in vegetable, livestock and orchard/vineyard/olive production.

Table 1. Structure of Agricultural Land Holding, 2002 Farm groups Number of farms Percentage 0.1-0.5 hectare 142,600 33.9 0.5-1 hectare 101,600 24.2 1-2 hectare 126,200 30.1 Above 2 hectare 19,600 11.8 Total farm units 420,000 100%

Source: MoAF (2002).

Based on the statistics of the Ministry, the active use of cultivated land has declined

since 1998 but there is more intensive use of the land, accounting for the increase in production of vegetables, milk, eggs and other crops. Two are the main reasons causing the decline in cultivated land. First, the out-migration of farm labor has left many farm fields unattended or minimally managed under informal arrangements with family members and neighbors. Second, farmers have abandoned low-quality fields, in particular terraced hillsides. In both cases, the derelict fields tend to be used for grazing without strict controls.

The policy of the Ministry, which reflects principles endorsed by United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, and the World Bank, among others, is to assists the market oriented farms and the family farms with development potential to gain control of more land. This is foreseen initially by leasing and cooperative farming arrangements without direct efforts to induce farmers to exchange or sell their land (World Bank, 2002). It is recognized that at present most rural families intend to keep ownership of their land since other economic activities - international migration, migration to the urban periphery- are not yet permanent. Sales and other transactions involving farmland have also been hindered by the lack of an effective land tax, since there is no significant carrying cost to holding land without active use and profit. Further, since there is substantial property transfer tax, this has discouraged formal, legal transactions (World Bank, 2002).

The reluctance of farm families to engage in any long-term arrangements - sale, lease, exchange of fields - has been confirmed in several studies in which farmers and their


50

families have been interviewed. In the long term, it appears inevitable that young people will continue to migrate out of the village and, over time, will lose their emotional and social security ties to the land. In the short to medium term it appears that the best strategy may be to help families gain income from off-farm activities- forestry, tourism, handicraft industries. These activities require the completion of the programs of forest and pasture land transfer and the evolution of stronger legal and economic mechanisms to guarantee families stable, long-term access to resources and clarification of their rights, responsibilities and costs.

1.5.9. Inventory and transfer of state properties The program of inventory and transfer of state properties to local governments

reflects the policies of improved state management and decentralization of authority to local governments, which the national administration of Albania has elaborated in several domestic and international policy documents. In 2000, Albania became a signatory of the European Charter of Local Self Government.

The Council of Ministers has adopted the

Strategy on Decentralization and Local Autonomy (World Bank, 2004b). This strategy is

a subordinate policy document to the National Strategy on Social and Economic development, in which the principle of decentralization is stated (CoM, 2002c). Decentralization of authority and the transfer of assets to municipal level governments is a key commitment of the government in its European Stabilization (EU, 2004). The basic principle of local government ownership of immovable property is stated in the law “For Local Self Government”, but implementation is relegated to separate legal act (Law No. 8652)

Two laws define the program of state land inventory and its division between state and local governments. Law No. 8743 (2001) defines the categories of land and properties that remain in state ownership and the authorities and processes for their management. Law No. 8744 (2001) defines the process by which the properties are identified as eligible and then transferred to communal and municipal administrations.

Law No. 8743 has created two categories of state owned properties. Public properties are lands, buildings and infrastructure objects, which "fulfill basic and undivided state functions". These include the coastal line and other land along water bodies, land with historical or archaeological significance, national defense installations, land with natural resources, forests and pastures kept in state ownership and other infrastructure- highways, bridges, etc.

Non-public properties include lands and immovable objects that are useful

for agriculture, commerce, industry, and housing or are otherwise not needed for state functions. This land and properties have an “equal juridical regime with private property”. Law No. 8744 provides the conditions for the transfer of the public properties, which fulfill local government functions, and the transfer of most categories of the non-public lands to communal and municipal control.


51

In the framework of the Forestry Project, the fourth national inventory of forests and pastures resources (the last inventory has been carried out in 1985) has taken place. In this framework, an analysis of the status and trends in resource use across the country has been performed. The inventory provided the government with an invaluable tool to assist in planning for sustainable management of the forests and pastures and development policies. The project established a geographical information system (GIS) to support the forest management planning process. Agreement on how best to institutionalize, update and maintain the national inventory and the GIS need to be further elaborated.

The process of inventory of state owned land and immovable property is described in Law No. 8743, while the transfer of properties to the local governments is described in the Law No. 8744. For administrative purposes, the two procedures have been combined. In order to oversee the tasks and set the standards, the Council of Ministers has established the Agency for Inventory and Transfer of Public Property, a subdivision of the Ministry of Public Order. The agency is in charge of supervising the work of the communal and municipal administrations, which are responsible of carrying out the inventories and identifying the properties subject to transfer. The larger municipalities have set up specialized planning units to carry out this task. The inventory and transfer of land and immovable property to municipal administrations is a nine-stage process:

The commune compiles the inventory of all state properties within its territory. This inventory is sent to the State Committee on Transfer of Public Property.

The State Committee circulates this inventory among five ministries - Agriculture and Food, Defense, Justice, Finance and Economy for their comments on the sufficiency of the list.

If the ministries agree, the Council of Ministers issues preliminary approval of the inventory and this is returned to the commune.

The commune proposes the division of the properties on the inventory list between itself and the state. The new list (with proposal for division) is sent again to the State Committee.

The State Committee circulates the proposed division to the five ministries plus Health and Education for their agreement or disagreement with the proposed transfers. Disputes are worked out and the divided list is returned to the State Committee.

The State Committee prepares the draft decision on the division of the properties and returns the list to the commune.

In the commune, the list is publicaly displayed for 90 days to receive objections or corrections.

The division of properties is approved by the Council of Ministers.


52

Registration of the immovable properties in the IPRS. The law originally set a timetable of two years for the completion of the process,

however, implementation has moved slowly. The State Committee for Inventory and Transfer of State Property was organized only in 2002. By May 2007, this work was underway in 353 communes and cities and 160 had obtained the Council of Ministers decree (CMD) on approval of the inventory lists of local government units. In 50 of these are approved the preliminary list and in 12 is approved the final list. About 80% of land and other property objects are inventoried in all the country.

Several reasons have been given for the slow progress. First, it appears that the State Committee has given priority to working with the ministries, clarifying their property claims and has delayed working with the local governments. On their part, many local governments have been reluctant to push for the transfer of properties on which there has been deferred maintenance for many years (Urban Institute, 2003).

Because of this, it

appears to be a substantial flaw in the process. Many communes, municipalities and the State Committee are carrying out the inventories on the basis of data taken from the different ministries. Inventory working groups in most communes work with the records provided by the rural land administration office of MoAF. Since these records were compiled prior to first registration, they do not contain the accurate boundary lines of properties, fixed and coordinated with survey points, or the code numbers assigned to insure linkage of property data to the maps.

More difficulties will be faced when the properties, approved for transfer, will be presented at the end for registration. There will be many discrepancies - boundary line overlaps and gaps, inconsistent identification of owners, unreconciled survey points - and it will not be possible to register many of the properties without another process of resolving the differences. If, at that time, the state and municipalities assert the predominance of their boundary lines and state ownership rights over the registry data (including overlapping private properties) this will undermine the status of the IPRS as guarantor of civil law rights.

1.6. Communal forestry [(from the top to the bottom: Ministry, DFS, Communes, Villages (fshati), Neighborhood (mehalla), Clan (fisi), Household (shpija)]

Community forestry was initially defined, by FAO, as “any situation which intimately involves local people in a forestry activity. It embraces a spectrum of situations ranging from woodlots in areas which are short of wood and other forest products for local needs, through the growing of trees at the farm level to provide cash crops and the processing of forest products at the household, artisan or small industry level to generate income, to the activities of forest dwelling communities” (FAO 1978).


53

While this definition focuses more on the fulfilment of needs of local people, Burley, (2007) says: "Community forestry, social forestry and rural development forestry are more or less equivalent and reflect Abraham Lincoln's view of democracy - government of the people, by the people, for the people". Seeing as such, community forestry requires adoption of 'bottom-up' decision-making. However, at least until recently, the approach on decision-making concerning the communal forest in Albania has been different.

Transfer of state-owned lands to local governments has included forest and pastures. These categories are separately defined and each of them is subdivided into four categories of tenure such as: (i) small areas of pasture or forest that may be transferred into private ownership by restitution (ii) forests and pastures located close to villages remain in state ownership but transfer by right of use to the commune administrations; the communes, in turn, make the forest and pasture areas available for subordinate use by local residents, (iii) forests and pastures in remote locations remain in state ownership with use rights granted directly by state agencies to timber-cutting enterprises and to recreation and tourist facilities, and (iv) forests and pastures in areas of special protection may be included in the national parks, reserves and other zones with unique management regimes (CoM, 2000).

The Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration has broad jurisdiction over these lands. The Directorate of Forests Policies in the MEFWA with its 36 district forest service Directorates and 130 forest sectors is responsible for forest and pasture management. As subordinate of the directorate, the Section of Communal Forests and Pastures and Extension Services assists the communes in forming leasing and use agreements for local citizens (organized in association with natural resources management) and in working out improvement plans for reforestation, pasture seeding, etc. The Forest Service Police carry out inspections and enforce the laws and compliance with conditions of use. A separate Directorate, that of Natural Resources, has jurisdiction over Protected Areas including national parks, reserves and other categories of protected areas. The Government has made considerable progress in the transfer of communal forest and pastures to communes (with co-financing by the World Bank and USAID). It has been reported that 140 communes now control 391,000 hectares, approaching the eventual goal of 400,000 hectares of forest (40 percent) and 244,000 hectares (60 percent) of pasture in communal control.

The process of transfer goes through several stages. The size and boundary lines of the areas are preliminary assigned to each commune and subordinate village. The Commune takes the first steps in election the forest and pastures village commissions. This commission is the main partner in the identification of village and household used forest and pasture and in preparation of the management plan in cooperation with an expert hired by commune. A second level of organization are the users' association, which are organized on village level, and take subordinate rights to use the defined areas


54

for grazing, harvesting of firewood and herbal plants, and other activities. The users' associations have representatives from several neighborhoods (mehalla) which might include one ore more clan(s) (fisi) and several households (shpija). Social networks play a key role in this organization where the relationships of trust 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 the village decides to divide them, then the village commission or a special group selected by the village collects the requests or traditional claims of neighborhoods, clans, group families or separate families about the forests and pastures they have used in the past. In that case, standard application forms are to be filled out. Because of increasing in size due to high birth-rates, what years ago have been recorded as one family, nowadays might be more than one. It can happen that neighborhoods, clans, or separate families may request to use two or more plots. Or, for the same plot might be requests by two or more neighborhoods, clans or groups of 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 forest and their powers in relation to the Forest Directorate are vaguely defined. Second, the subordinate rights of the users’ associations are limited and not documented. Third, the rights of the families within the users’ associations are not clarified and, in most cases, family rights are not linked to subdivided areas of the forest or pasture. Fourth, many customary aspects of forest and pasture activity formerly controlled by village elders are not respected in the management plans 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.


55

2. HISTORICAL AND CURRENT MODES: SHARED AND ASSIGNED ACCESS TO NATURAL RESOURCES

“Liberty and forest laws are incompatible,” remarked an English country vicar, speaking on behalf of villagers shut out of woodland reserved for the exclusive use of the king, in 1720 (Thompson, 1720). Indeed, the history of state forestry has been a history of social conflict. In continental Europe, the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were peppered with social protest movements against the state management of forests. These protests inspired, among other things, Karl Marx’s first political writings (Marx, 1842) and a memorable novel by Honore de Balzac capturing peasant hostility to forest officials (de Balzac, 1900).

The same stands true for Albania where the problem of illegal logging has led in many cases to conflicts between foresters and locals who see forest resources as crucial to their economic survival. The problems of illegal logging are mainly of technical characters, for instance, mass loggings on sides of roads, failure to meet the technical conditions of harvesting, or misuse of timber assortments (cases where timber is exploited for firewood).

However, when the local community was seen as part of the solutions rather than cause of the problems, and when the tradition and customs are followed strictly, the results has been very positive as shown in several cases in the communes investigated.

2.1. Transfer of State Forest and Pastures of Blerimi Commune (District of Puka)

2.1.1. Geographical position Located in Albanian Alps, the commune of Blerimi represents the typical northern

village with scattered houses that are usually apart from each other and accessible only by rugged footpaths. The Commune is situated in north-east of Puka town and the shortest distance from the town is ca. 30 km. Its boundaries are:

North: Lake of Fierza Hydroplant East: Goska River, Pass of mjetes, Pass of plepi South: National road the pass, Chafa Malit – Mezi West: Commune of Fierza The National Road: Puka - Bajram Curri- Gjakova –Prishtina goes through the territory of

this commune. This offers relatively good access and possibility for tourism development using its wonderful landscape, alpine climate and especially the thermal spa of Dardha River.


56

2.1.2.. History and tradition The area is commonly cited both in ethnographic literature and by Albanian people

today as having maintained more tribal customs than other districts due to mountains locations and relative isolation from outside influence. Field trips to the area provide evidence of cultural patterns that are distinct from middle or south mountain Albania and especially from western plain.

Edith Durham, the renowned British anthropologist who was known in her time as “the Queen of the [Albanian] Highlanders”, traveling through Blerimi on her way to Kosovo wrote: “We followed it up a stony valley, steeper and steeper, to its source at the top of the pass, Chafa Malit. There is a joy that never palls–the first glimpse into the unknown land. On the other side of the pass, a magnificent valley lay below us, thickly wooded with beech, and beyond was the lands which two rival races each claim as their birthright–one of the least-known corners of Europe. I hurried eagerly down the steep descent on foot, by a rough track to Flet. Flet is Moslem, save for six families, all large; one, consisting of fifty members, showed quite an imposing group of stone houses….. Free of the pack train, we pushed on quickly down the valley of the Goska, past Han Sakati, and by a steep descent to the Drin, which we successfully forded, led by a native who stripped and carried my saddlebags on his head. It was a ticklish job, and can only be crossed thus in very dry weather. Following Drin down a short way to its junction with the Kruma, we struck up the valley of the Kruma, and were in the land of the Hashi. A great wall-like cliff, rising on the stream's left bank, is known as the fortress of Lek Dukagjin.….A church, but three years old, served occasionally by the priest of Dartha, showed trim and white” (Durham, 1909).

Prior to the World War II, the Blerimi forest was used mainly for firewood and grazing, and to a lesser extend, for timber or construction material. From the data collected, in six out of seven villages, the forests were in ownership of families who used them for every day life of villagers and called “Hamalla”. On the village of Truni, the whole forests (ca. 1260 ha) were in communal ownership. By that time, the total forest area in private or communal use for the whole Blerimi commune was ca. 4100 ha.

The Kanun i Lekë Dukagjinit has been the customary law regulating the life in the area in pre-Communist era and the exclusiveness of private property had been extremely marked:

“A man’s ownership of his house and land was so absolute that he and his might emigrate temporarily or for good without losing their title to either house or land. Even if the family absented itself for a hundred years, no-one might squat on its property. If the emigrant, before leaving, sold his land “together with all that is on it”, and one leaving for good usually did so, the piece constituting the site of the house remained his in spite of the terms of sale, and so long as one stone stood on another” (Hasluck 1954: 23).


57

After World War II, the commune forests became state forests, and were used broadly to open new agricultural lands. The forest and pasture was the only resource for surviving, especially for grazing and firewood. Forest suffered extensive logging by the state forest enterprise, production of firewood from the cooperatives and overgrazing, the last being more severe in oak trees leading to a high degradation, visible even nowadays. The actual shape of oak forest cannot be compared with the oak forest before Second World War.

2.1.3. Blerimi household’s structure In the commune of Blerimi, actually live 533 families with 2392 inhabitants scattered

in 7 villages: Dardhe, Qebik, Truni, Kulumri, Xath, Flet. The inhabitant of Dardhe and Qebik are catholic, while those of Trun, Sakat, Kulumri, Xath and partly Flet, are Muslims. It is a common case to get in the Blerimi commune a house with three generations, an old man with his woman living with his son, daughter in law with their children. In some of the houses the number of children is more than ten. This living arrangements were encountered on visits to other villages in the district, as was the traditional dress, particularly for women, who wear brightly coloured woven aprons and headdresses over meticulously plaited braids. In contrast, widows cover themselves in black, a tradition that is strictly adhered in the north. Women are responsible for house keeping, cooking, take care for children and livestock breeding. Blerimi families have many patriarchal characteristics. Generally each family has a patriarch. The patriarch is not necessarily chosen by customary law, but more along the lines of gender and age, usually the oldest male would assume the role. The majority of inhabitants have no idea of the content of the law regarding their legal right to the forest, pastures, agricultural land and property. Employment is mainly in private sector, and emigration. The private sector employs ca. 50 workers. Emigration is high especially for young generation. More than 25% of the families are supported with economic assistance by central government budget.

Every family owned 0.3 hectare to 2.2 hectare agriculture land, privatized after 1991 based on the Law No.7501. The land is planted mainly with maize, beans, vegetables, alfa-alfa. The level of mechanization is very low and the yield is low too. The main concern is irrigation system, all degraded and out of function. The agricultural products do not fulfill the need of villagers for cereals. Data on the Appendix 7 shows the Population structure, Households structure, Agricultural land, and the Livestock structure in the Blerimi commune.


58

2.1.4. Why decentralization from state to communes forest management Through the privatization of agricultural land and the constant trend of livestock sub-

sector expansion, the pressure on natural resources, has increased substantially. This pressure is exerted not only by the fulfillment of local needs but also by profit interests, and this national natural asset continues to be undervalued not only by the general public but also by regulatory “owners” and authorities; as a consequence it will be misused. Under such circumstances, Blerimi’s farmers try to obtain those natural resources that bear a relatively low cost (not to say without cost at all), out of which they get a sufficient level of satisfaction/utility to meet the families’ perceived basic needs. One natural resources meeting those requirements is the everlasting partner of man, the forest. Firewood is still the primary means of fulfilling family needs including heating and cooking in all villages of Blerimi Commune. Firewood covers 88% of household energy needs during the winter and 73% during the summer.

In Blerimi commune, close to half of the population are in poverty, reflecting small average land holdings (less than 0.5 hectare), low farm incomes (especially cash incomes from marketed products), and very limited opportunities for off-farm employment. Central government is using the state budget money for economic assistance to 25 % of the Blerimi families. Non-farm income is critical for many farming households, representing around one quarter to one fifth of total rural income. Although impossible to quantify (because of absence of data), it is estimated that between 70 and 90 percent of rural households are dependent on a different source of income other than farming, in the main social cash transfers. The most widespread transfers are pensions and social assistance, but these are of a small value. In terms of magnitude of non-farm income rendered to recipient families the most important are remittances, followed by wage employment, and non-farming business income. However, if consider the forest resources, the fees possible to be collected from firewood, and high request of market for wood material and medicinal plants, farm incomes could grow significantly in importance in the future.

2.1.5. From study to implementation: The process of transfer of forest and pastures Owned by government, overused sporadically by local communities and out of the

sight and care, this is the forest situation in the Blerimi Commune. Taking the responsibility and aiming on sustainable use of these very important natural resources, all participants in the meetings were convinced for the importance of defining the rights and responsibilities and the boundaries in the village and family forest and arranging the relation between the commune, village, family and forest.


59

The administrative commune territory is to be found in three forest management units (forest economies)1: 1. Forest Management Unit “Dardhë-Qebik” 2. Forest Management Unit “Sakat-Lak Hithi”, and 3. Forest Management Unit “Goskë”.

Thus, the first problem to overcome was the division of forest from the above-mentioned forest management units to use the existing references system. NACFP was advised by GIS Albania and set up the methodology for digitizing the mapping information and to link it with the attributes of forest plots.

Following the methodology, after building of local structures, Demarcation of village boundaries was carried out by the working groups in close collaboration with representatives from the DSF, the village commissions, and with boundary villages’ commissions. Following the transfer of state forest to the commune, in the case of Blerimi the structure of the estate transferred is as shown in Table 2:

Table 2. The structure of forest area transferred to the commune

Total (ha)

Forest (ha)

Past

ures

(ha)

In p

rodu

ctiv

e (h

a)

Aba

ndon

ed &

U

rban

land

Fallo

w

Wat

er

Tota

l

Hig

h fo

rest

Cop

pice

with

m

othe

r tre

es

Cop

pice

Shru

bs

5253 4097 340 2173 1584 0 13 299 801 44 0

At the village scale, the forest area and the mode of use is summarized on the Table 3. The pasture area transferred was 12.7 ha and belongs to the villages of Dardhe (3.8 ha) and the village of Trun (8.9 ha). In both villages, it was decided that these areas should be used collectively.

Table 3. Forest area by each village, management and mode of use

Vill

age

Fore

st a

rea

(ha)

Hig

h fo

rest

ha Usage

Cop

pice

w

ithm

othe

r tre

es (h

a) Usage

Cop

pice

ha

Usage

Col

lect

ivel

y us

ed (h

a)

Fam

ilies

(ha)

Col

lect

ivel

y us

ed (h

a)

Fam

ilies

(ha)

Col

lect

ivel

y us

ed (h

a)

Fam

ilies

(ha)

Dardhe 685.95 33.9 33.9 548.05 548.05 104 104 Qebik 220.5 2.7 2.7 162.3 162.3 55.5 55.5

1 Albania’s forest and pastures estates are divided into elementary management units called forest economy. Forest economy is clearly defined state forest area, managed in order to attain a set of explicit objectives and according to a long-term management plan.


60

Trun 1257.1 0 0 445.7 445.7 0 811.4 811.4 0 Sakat 562.1 0 0 69.1 69.1 493 493 Kulumri 363.95 7.25 7.25 283.95 283.95 72.75 72.75 Xath 309.45 30.75 30.75 268.45 268.45 10.25 10.25 Flet 697.89 265.86 265.86 395.09 395.09 36.94 36.94 Commune 4096.94 340.46 340.46 2172.64 445.7 1726.94 1583.84 811.4 772.44

The last step was the certification of users of the communal forests and pastures. While six out of the seven villages of the commune decided to divide the area on individual users, the villager of Trun decided to have everything in communal use. A database was created using different entries as the keywords. Table 4 shows an example of the user list and the parcels used from each of them.

Table 4. Communal forest users and parcels used

No Village Name of head of

family (user of forest)

Number of Parcel

Forest area in use for each parcel (ha)

Total area (ha) used by family

1 Dardhë Nik Lulash

Prendi 96/a 1.80 6.9

Dardhë Nik Lulash

Prendi 119 0.70

Dardhë Nik Lulash

Prendi 124 0.80

Dardhë Nik Lulash

Prendi 128 2.60

Dardhë Nik Lulash

Prendi 149 1.00

2 Dardhë Jak Ndue Nika 96/a 1.70 2.8 Dardhë Jak Ndue Nika 158 3.00 Dardhë Jak Ndue Nika 142 0.80

3 Dardhë Mëhill Prend

Jaku 96/a 1.70 3.5

Dardhë Mëhill Prend

Jaku 124 0.80

Dardhë Mëhill Prend

Jaku 149 1.00

4 Dardhë Kolë Gjon Kurti 96/a 1.60 24.6 Dardhë Kolë Gjon Kurti 127 2.60 Dardhë Kolë Gjon Kurti 128 2.40 Dardhë Kolë Gjon Kurti 129 5.00 Dardhë Kolë Gjon Kurti 131 1.00 Dardhë Kolë Gjon Kurti 132 3.00 Dardhë Kolë Gjon Kurti 133 4.00 Dardhë Kolë Gjon Kurti 134 2.00 Dardhë Kolë Gjon Kurti 135 3.00


61

When, the user of the parcel was more than one, a different database was created (Table 5). In addition, a sketch was drawn, where the parcel is divided by lines and in each polygon there is a number, indicating the user (see also Appendix 6). Table 5. List of Communal forest users based in forest parcels.

No Village Parcel number Name of head of family (user of forest)

Forest area in use for

each parcel, (ha)

1 Dardhë 96/a Nik Lulash Prendi 1.802 Dardhë 96/a Jak Ndue Nika 1.703 Dardhë 96/a Mëhill Prend Jaku 1.704 Dardhë 96/a Kolë Gjon Kurti 1.605 Dardhë 96/a Fran Ndoc Nika 1.606 Dardhë 96/a Zef Gjon Kola 1.207 Dardhë 96/a Mark Pjetër Ndoci 1.30

64 Dardhë 96/a Dionis Mark Gjeta 1.8065 Dardhë 96/a Ndue Gjon Kola 1.8066 Dardhë 96/a Prend Nikoll Marashi 1.8078 Dardhë 96/a Palush Jak Marku 1.8079 Dardhë 96/a Kol Bejte Syla 1.8080 Dardhë 96/a Ndoc Mark Prendi 1.8081 Dardhë 96/a Kol Gjok Marku 1.8082 Dardhë 96/a Zef Nik Marashi 1.8083 Dardhë 96/a Ndue Kol Deda 1.7084 Dardhë 96/a Anton Frang Pjetra 1.70

A full list of all Communal forest users according to the village and a List of parcels used collectively by Truni Village are given in the Appendix 12.


62

2.2. Transfer of State Forest and Pastures of Stebleva Commune (District of Librazhd)

2.2.1. Geographical position The Commune of Stebleve is part of the Librazhdi District (Region of Elbasani).

Located on the north-east of Librazhdi town the shortest distance from the town is ca. 17 km. The national road connects the commune with the town. Most of the villages comprising the communes are located in high altitudes (up to 1200 m above the sea level). The natural environment of the commune is complex and characterized by mountains, hills, rivers and springs, pastures. The short summer which is hardly distinguished by spring (May-August) and the low temperatures in winter are the main limiting factors on the development of agriculture and livestock. The commune shares the boundaries with:

Commune of Zerqani and Commune Trebishti (District of Bulqiza) in the North State boundaries with Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia in the East Commune of Lunik (District of Librazhd) in the South, and Commune of Cermenike (District of Librazhd) in the West.

2.2.2. History and tradition The landscape of the commune exhibits wonderful scenery. It offers an attractive

combination of agricultural soils, highland pastures and few forests, representing a potential for tourism development. The landscape becomes even more attractive during winter, but the lack of the appropriate infrastructure remains an obstacle for the development of winter-sports and tourism.

The interviews with the locals and the review of the existing literature, showed that at least from 1912 until prior to the World War II, the forest and pastures have been always under communal use. An important decision-making body at the time was “meeting of elders’ council” (mbledhjet e pleqesive). During these meetings, decisions were taken concerning the use of forest and pastures from the villagers and from the neighboring villages. A document dated 1937, described very well the way of use of the forest and pastures use from the locals. An important aspect has been the relationship established between the villagers of the Stebleva commune with those neighboring villages. The existing data show that during the period 1937-1942, in the summer, the pastures in the territory of the commune provided shelter and food for more than 28 000 farm animals.

The goods provided by the forest had also always the appreciation of the locals. Prior to the collectivization, the forests have been treated as a common property administered


63

by each Village Council. Protection and management of forests was done according to the Kanun’s rights. Families could only use them for grass cutting, not being entitled to cut the trees. As can be depicted from the Table 6, the total forest area was ca. 2500 ha while that of pastures ca. 4000 ha.

Table 6. Forest and pasture ownership in the commune of Stebeleva until 1945

No

Village Ownership of Forest area (ha) Ownership of Pastures (ha)Private Communal State Private Communal State

1. Stebleve 0 910 0 0 830 0 2. Borove 0 181 0 0 522 0 3. Llange 0 338 0 0 542 0 4. Zabzun 0 136 0 0 710 0 5. Sebisht 0 321 0 0 1384 0 6. Moglice 0 333 0 0 21 0 7. Prodan 0 198 0 0 0 0 Commune 0 2417 0 0 4009 0

After World War II, the communal forests became state forests, and were used broadly to open new agricultural lands. The forest and pasture was the only resource for surviving, especially for grazing and firewood. Forest suffered extensive logging by the state forest enterprise, production of firewood from the cooperatives and overgrazing, the last being more severe in oak trees leading to a high degradation, visible even nowadays.

2.2.3. Stebleva household’s structure The commune of Stebleva is home of 1406 inhabitants, living in seven villages:

Stebleve, Borove, Zabzun, Llange, Sebisht, Moglice and Prodan at an average altitude above 900 m a.s.l. The number of inhabitant has sharply decreased from 3256 in 2000 to the 1406 in 2007. The main reason is the emigration of the young people and working forces to urban areas or abroad. In average, every family owned 2-3 ha or 0.5 ha per capita arable land, but the soil quality is relatively poor, which limits the yield. Exception is the field of Studa (Fusha e Studes) which is relatively fertile. Another factor with negative impact on the yield is the high altitude of the land, which limits the cultivation of cereals and vegetables.

Distribution of arable land did not follow the Law No. 7501, but it was carried out according to the traditional property borders. There are no legal disputes regarding the land division or borderlines in villages of Stebleve Commune. The inhabitants managed to solve their disputes in a consensual way at the village council. The arable land left uncultivated for several years is gradually converted in pasture land and the council distributes them for use to the village families. Following several interviews with the peasants, it is clear that the inhabitants are ready to make use of the non distributed lands and eventually use them for cultivating medicinal herbs (such as yellow gentian) or as


64

pastures, forests etc. The land is planted mainly with potatoes, beans, vegetables, and alfa-alfa. The level of mechanization is very low leading to a low yield. The main concern is irrigation system, all degraded and out of function. The agricultural products do not fulfill the need of villagers for cereals. Data on the Appendix 8 show the Population structure, Households structure, Arable land, and the Livestock structure in the Stebleva commune.

The non-timber forest products constitute an important source of incomes for the commune inhabitants. From the interviews and other information collected in the area, it appears that income generated by the medicinal herbs are secondly listed after the income generated by the agricultural and livestock activities. In some families, medicinal herbs generate more incomes than emigration. The most widespread medicinal and aromatic plant species are: Juniper (Juniperus communis), Dog rose (Rosa canina), St. John’s Wort (Hypericum perforatum), Veratrum spp, and to a lesser extent, Yarrow (Achillea millefolium) and yellow gentian (Gentiana lutea).

2.2.4. From study to implementation: The process of transfer of forest and pastures Following the very good tradition of communal forest and pastures use and aiming on

sustainable use of these very important natural resources, the local population is willing to share the rights and get the responsibilities for them. The administrative commune territory is to be found in three forest management units (forest economies):

Forest Management Unit “Klenje-2” Forest Management Unit “Stebleve-Letem”, and Forest Management Unit “Prodan”.

Following the methodology, after building of local structures, demarcation of village boundaries was carried out by the working groups in close collaboration with representatives from the DSF, the village commissions, and with boundary villages’ commissions. Following the transfer of state forest to the commune, in the case of Stebleva, the structure of the estate transferred is as shown in Table 7.

In contrary to the Commune of Blerimi (Distict of Puka), where all but Trun, decided for the transfer of user’s right to the individual families, a different mode of communal forest and pasture use was chosen by the people of Stebleva. All the villages decided that the pasture area of ca. 4000 ha should be used collectively. The same stands true as far as the forest are concerned where in the majority of the villages, it was decided that all the forest transferred to the village should be used collectively and not divided to individual families.



65

No

Vill

age

Fore

st a

rea

(ha)

Hig

h fo

rest

(ha)

Usage Usage

Col

lect

ivel

y us

ed

(ha)

Gro

up o

f

fam

ilies

(ha)

Indi

vidu

al

Fam

ilies

(ha)

Cop

pice

(ha)

Col

lect

ivel

y us

ed (h

a)

Gro

up o

f fa

mili

es (h

a)

Indi

vidu

al

Fam

ilies

(ha)

1 Stebleve 932 734 691 42 0 197 132 65 0 2 Borove 181 91 91 0 0 90 90 0 0 3 Llange 338 338 338 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Zabzun 136 136 107 29 0 0 0 0 0 5 Sebisht 287 125 125 0 0 160 160 0 0 6 Moglice 333 158 158 0 0 175 116 59 0 7 Prodan 198 128 128 0 0 56 70 70 0

Commune 2406 1712 1639 73 0 692 567 123 0

However, because of the peculiarities of each village, the mode of use was slightly different.

Stebleve: In this village was decided that two forms of use should be applied: collective use by the whole village and use by the clans (fise). An immense unsolved problem is the demarcation of state forest and the relationship of community with state forest. A second problem is the border with the village of Klenje and inclusion of forest area ca. 400 ha and 150 ha pasture forest to this commune, while is pretended to be pat of Stebleva. These problems remain to be solved between the DSF of Librazh and Bulqiza and the commune of Stebleva for the transfer of parcel 39-55 of the Forest Management Unit “Klenje 2”.

Borove: The village uses ca. 115 ha of forest. The village decided that the users’ right should be given on the based of clans (fise) as shown in Table 8. Table 8. Forest and pasture users in Borove No Group of users or clan Parcels in use 1. Clan: Abazi, Musta, Balla 1, 2. 76c 2. Clan: Caka, Isaku, Cani 1, 2, 76° 3. Clan: Lacka, Isaku, Mali, Borici, Curri 1, 2, 73° 4. Clan: Golli, Beqiri, Tahiri, Kurti 1, 2, 75°

Sebisht: The village uses ca. 250 ha of forest. These are in the surrounding area in a

distance not longer than 3 km from the village. The village decided that the users’ right should be given on the based of clans (fise) as shown in Table 9.


66

Table 9. Forest and pasture users in Sebisht No Group of users or clan Parcels in use 1. Clan: Cela (S. Cela) 3 4 118a

3 4 1192 Clan: Lila 3 4 , 111, 116b 3. Clan: Alla and Lami 3 4 117 4. Clan: Cela (M Cela) 3 4 118a 5. Clan: Trampa 1 4 11a 6. Clan: Alla and Muca 1 4 2c 7. Clan: Dumani and Balla 1 4 1b

Moglice-Prodan: These villages use together ca. 112 ha of forest. Most of them are situated in the surrounding area in a walking distance 3-5 km from the villages. The villages decided that the users’ right should be given based of family relationship- clans (fise) as shown in Table 10.

Table 10. Forest and pasture users in Moglice-Prodan No Group of users or clan Parcels in use 1 Adi Sula

3, 5, 106 Perparim Sula Bashkim Sula Selim Tahiri Haki Lika 2. Mentor Moglica

3, 5, 107° Bardhyl Moglica Mehmet Lika Selman Sula 3. Sokol Brici

3, 5, 108a 3, 5, 109°

Boran Lika Shkelqim Ceka Rrahman Ceka

Zabzun-Llange: These villages use ca. 474 ha of forest; some of them are high forest with protective function. These are in the surrounding area in a distance not longer than 5 km from the villages. The villages decided that the users’ right should be given on the clans (fise) as shown in Table 11.

Table 11. Forest and pasture users in Zabzun-Llange No Group of users or clan Parcels in use 1. Clan: Doci 1, 3, 88° 2. Clan: Hasa and Toci 1, 3, 90b3. Clan: Tupi 1, 3, 93c 4. Clan: Teta 1, 3, 94b


67

2.3. Transfer of State Forest and Pastures of Bazi Commune (District of Mat)

2.3.1. Geographical position The Commune of Bazi is one of the communes’ constituent of the Mati District

(Region of Dibra). The commune is part of the Mati river catchments and is situated in distance of ca. 12 km from the town of Burreli. The commune is home of ca. 3340 inhabitants, living in six villages: Rrethe Baz, Drita, Karice, Fush Baz, Baz, and Bashkim. The division on actual six villages happened after the World War II and all villages originate from two old villages: Baz and Karice. From the old Bazi village originate four of them: (Bashkim, Fush Baz, Baz, Rrethe Baz) while the villages of Karice and Drita (also know as Ferr-Karice) originate from Karica. The commune is bordered by:

Commune of Ulza (District of Mati) in the North Lake of Ulza and Commune of Rukaj (District of Mati) in the East Commune of Komsi (District of Mati) in the South, and Mountain of Scanderbeg (Forest Management Unit of Trodhen, Forest Management

Unit Komsi – Lake of German), in the West.

2.3.2. History and tradition In term of customs, family organization and traditional use and management of forest,

the commune of Bazi was an area ruled by “the Kanun of Scanderbeg”. Forest and pastures were managed in this way until the beginning of 1960, the time when the agricultural cooperatives were established. During that time, two forms of forest and pasture ownership have existed: the village (community) and private forest owned by families. As in most of the villages of the North Albania, forests and pastures close to the houses especially oak forests have been split in pieces called ograje. The family was only entitled of the products (usufruct), but not to change designation or damage the forest. The village forest was commonly used by the whole village; the part used for grazing is called mera (the rest of the forest and pasture, which was considered as common property of the village and was administered by the village elderly). The later served to the inhabitants to complete their personal needs for grazing firewood and construction material, but they were not entitled to sell anything in the market. The village contained several clans (Fise or mehalla), but all the forest and pasture use was organized at village level. An old say from the region, assemble the inhabitants of the village into two categories: “brother from the blood” (vllazën gjaku) and “brother from the land” (vllazën trojesh) because the common ownership was based on the village and not on clan (Fise or mehalla). For example: Korie refers to that forest area that lies beyond individual clan


68

territory and is considered the property of the whole village. These boundaries are still fresh in the memories of the old inhabitants, who remember very well the tradition on use of common forest and pasture.

As in whole country, the collectivism had a very negative impact in management of forest and pastures. Some of the forest land was cleansed out and used to open new agricultural lands. This impact is still visible nowadays. 15 years after decollectivization, forest which were in familiar use (private forest) grow very well and are in very good shape; in contrary the common forest used collectively by the village is severely degraded.

2.3.3. Bazi household’s structure Agriculture constitutes one of the principal activities in Bazi commune. Most of the

arable land is of low fertility and a considerable part of the agricultural soils has been obtained by converting former oak forest into agricultural land. The land obtained from the conversion of former oak forest is usually cultivated with cereals (rye, oats, and barley), but due to the low fertility, none of the village families is claiming the property. The most fertile soils are located along the Mati River. Other soils surrounding the village are generally less fertile and lack any possibility for irrigation. Because of the climate and geology, Bazi Commune is exposed to a high erosion potential. This is reflected in an increase of sediment deposition in the Mati the river basin and Ulza Hydroplant reservoir. This excessive soil erosion has a socio-economic dimension and is caused by: (a) the cultivation of highly eroded agricultural land; (b) the conversion of oak forest land for inappropriate agricultural use; (c) the deforestation of fragile forested lands; and (d) the overgrazing of forest and pasture lands by cattle, sheep and goats. There are few fruit tree species growing in the courtyards surrounding the village houses (apple trees, pears, plums, cherries, nuts, etc.), as well as a smaller amount of vineyards. Data on the Appendix 9 show the Population structure, Households structure, Arable land, and the Livestock structure in the Bazi commune.

As can be depicted from the Table 12 and Appendix 9, the arable land given to the villagers is ca. 1100 ha, but more than half of it has been refused and is now abandoned land. This land originates from forest or pasture land that had been converted to agricultural use, land that had been used for fruit trees or vineyards during the communist era and then denuded upon collapse of the regime in a spree of wild destruction. Reasons for non-use or refusal to accept the land include qualms over quality, pressure from ex-owners not to accept such land, fear of taxation or the desire to remain under the land holding ceiling determining eligibility for social assistance. Some of the land is now used in common as open-access pasture, while other areas may be either denuded or overgrown with shrubs. In the meeting with the villagers they suggested the following alternatives:


69

Delegating authority to villages under their leadership to determine the fate of these lands, bound by clear guidelines on ranges of appropriate use based on soil characteristics/ quality grade, slope and location within which a range of options would be permissible.

Permitting villages to decide how to assign rights over such areas and over how benefits of such development are to be distributed among members of the community.

Table 12. Arable land and the abandoned land at the Commune of Baz

No Village Total arable land (ha)

Used arable land (ha)

Abandoned arable land

(ha)

Abandoned arable land

(%)1 Bazi 151 66 85 56 2 Karice 64 48 16 25 3 Rrethe Baz 279 109 170 61 4 Drita 219 219 118 219 5 Bashkim 180 57 123 68 6 Fush Baz 201 83 118 59

Commune 1094 464 630 58

2.3.4. From study to implementation: The process of transfer of forest and pastures As mentioned above, the locals have e long tradition of using and managing the

communal forest. They would like to go back to the tradition which improves their life conditions by ensuring a sustainable use of the natural resources.

Following the methodology, after building of local structures, demarcation of village boundaries was carried out by the working groups in close collaboration with representatives from the DSF, the village commissions, and with boundary villages’ commissions. Following the transfer of state forest to the commune, in the case of Bazi, the structure of the estate transferred is shown in Table 13.

Several problems were recorded during the transfer process. Conflicts and misunderstandings during the village boundaries demarcations. Most

of these conflicts came from the fact that four villages are “daughters” of Bazi and Karica created during the communist era.

High degradation of common used communal forest. The lack of clear boundaries between the forest users.

However, the inhabitants managed to solve their disputes in a consensual way at the village council and there are no legal disputes regarding the land division or borderlines in villages of Bazi Commune.


70


No

Villa

ge

Fo

rest

are

a (h

a)

Hig

h fo

rest

(ha)

Mode of use

C

oppi

ce.

( ha)

Mode of use

Shru

b (h

a) Mode of use

Col

lect

ive

as

villa

ge (

ha)

Gro

up o

f fa

milie

s (h

a)

Indi

vidu

al

Fam

ilies

(ha)

Col

lect

ive

as

villa

ge (

ha)

Gro

up o

f fa

milie

s (h

a)

Hou

seho

ld

(Fam

ilies)

ha

Col

lect

ive

as

villa

ge (

ha)

Gro

up o

f fa

milie

s (h

a)

Indi

vidu

al

Fam

ilies

(ha)

1 Baz 1371.05 87.04 46.88 0 40.16 1227 414.96 0 812 57.01 57.01 0 0

2 Bashkim 83.49 0 0 0 0 83.49 0 0 83.49 0 0 0 0

3 Drita 142.94 0 0 0 0 142.94 0 0 142.94 0 0 0 0

4 F. Baz 85.35 0 0 0 0 85.35 0 0 85.35 0 0 0 0

5 Karice 843.62 114.9 0 0 114.9 646.87 454.03 0 192.8 81.9 81.9 0 0

6 Rr. Baz 398.17 0 0 0 0 398.17 0 0 398.2 0 0 0 0

Commune 2924.62 201.89 46.88 0 155 2583.8 868.99 0 1715 138.91 138.91 0 0

As can be depicted from the table, two forms of use are common in all the villages; collective use by the whole village and private use by single families. Shrubs are designated to be in collective use in all the villages, while for high forest and coppices the mode of use differs among the villages. In Baz and Karice (two “mother” villages), there is a tendency of collective use, while “newly” created villages tend more towards the use by individual families. A full description of the forests according to the village used collectively or privately in the commune of Bazi is given in the Appendix 13.


71

2.4. Transfer of State Forest and Pastures of Gore Commune (District of Korca)

2.4.1. Geographical position The Commune of Gore includes 16 villages named Babjen, Desmira, Dolan, Dolanec,

Gribec, Mesmal, Lozhan, Marjan, Moçan, Qenckë, Senisht, Zvarisht, Selcë, Strelcë, Tresovë, Velçan with ca. 3000 inhabitants. The name Gore means a mountain covered with forest. The commune is situated in the north-western part of Korca and is part of the Devolli Watershed. The average altitude is 800-1100 m a.s.l; the minimum altitude is 650 m while the maximum altitude is 1588 m a.s.l. The terrain is very diverse; from the plain areas at the valley of Devolli to the high mountains. Communal forest of are parts of three Forest Management Units (Forest Economies):

Forest Management Unit of Lozhan Forest Management Unit of Selcë-Shalës Forest Management Unit of Mesmal-Velcan-Strelcë

2.4.2. History and tradition Data collection about the social and economic situation of the commune inhabitants

has been an important part of the field work. The community of Gore Commune is well organized. Few conflicts that have been recorded were solved through the mediation and with the assistance of the village Council (the elderly Council), without going to the court. The families have a strong social cohesion and they have maintained the traditional knowledge and process to allocate their resources within the village, even within the family.

As in whole country, the collectivism had a very negative impact in management of forest and pastures. Some of the forest land was cleansed out and used to open new agricultural lands. A big problem for the commune remains the refused (abandoned) land where more than 1470 ha have been recorded as such. The abandoned land area is higher in the villages of Strelcë, Mocan Lozhan (respectively 262 ha, 198 ha, and 171 ha), and lower in the villages of Shalës, Babien and Dolanëc. This land originates from forest or pasture land that had been converted to agricultural use, land that had been used for fruit trees or vineyards during the communist era and then denuded upon collapse of the regime in a spree of wild destruction. Reasons for non-use or refusal to accept the land include qualms over quality, fear of taxation or the desire to remain under the land holding ceiling determining eligibility for social assistance. Some of the land is now used in common as open-access pasture, while other areas may be either denuded or overgrown with shrubs.


72

As can be depicted from the table below (Table 14), the number of inhabitant has sharply decreased in the last 20 years after the decollectivization. In 1989, shortly before the political changes in Albania, the commune offered shelter to more than 6550 people, while in 2007 only 2800 people lived in there. The main reason is the emigration of the young people and working forces to urban areas or abroad (Greece and FYROM), putting a steady drain on rural Albania. Table 14: Demographic changes in the Gore Commune

No. Village Population based on registration of:

1927 1969 1979 1989 2001 2007

1 Babien - 197 231 260 62 332 Desmirë 197 371 428 451 218 1723 Dolan 170 279 317 342 158 1424 Dolanëc 82 108 126 121 44 285 Gribec 248 282 335 286 32 536 Lozhan 380 579 646 646 321 2997 Marjan 167 204 240 246 55 438 Mesmal 259 532 654 661 357 3259 Mocan 175 253 282 333 161 13210 Qenckë 151 163 173 171 88 8611 Selcë 181 338 397 397 99 3612 Senisht 180 324 330 327 169 14713 Strelcë 891 1143 1272 1049 530 46414 Tresovë 232 276 302 287 125 15415 Velcan 362 - - - 185 18916 Zvarisht 215 475 579 774 209 203

Commune 3975 5601 6396 6550 3079 2809

2.4.3. Gore household’s structure Agriculture constitutes one of the principal activities in commune Gore. Most of the

arable land is of the low fertility and a considerable part of the agricultural soils has been obtained by converting former oak forest into agricultural soils. The most fertile soils are located along the Devolli River. Data on the Appendix 10 show the Population structure, Households structure, Arable land, and the Livestock structure in the Gore commune. The agricultural products are use mainly to fulfilling the family needs (potatoes beans, vegetables) and for animal feeds (rye, oat and wheat). Cultivation of potatoes is an old tradition. However, mainly due to the lack of mechanization, shortage of water and the long distances for the transportation of products, every year the area cultivated with potatoes is shrinking. Fruit trees are scattered in the entire commune. The main species


73

are apple tree, cherry tree, walnut etc. The natural conditions are almost optimal for the animal husbandry. In Gore commune, the revenues provided by the livestock are the main income for the farmers and this is higher than these derived from agriculture and emigration.

2.4.4. From study to implementation: The process of transfer of forest and pastures The Gore’s villages are located mainly in forest area, and this affinity has resulted in

a maximum appreciation of forests by the community. Prior to the collectivization, the forests have been treated as a common property administered by the Village Council. In 2002, after the completion of the forest and communal pastures management for the Gore commune, forests and pastures are returned to the commune and village use. There are five categories of firewood consumers in Gore Commune: household, public institutions, private enterprises, charcoal burners, and limekiln operators. Of the five, households are by far the most important category. Household constitute e comparatively complex consumer category, because they act as both intermediaries and end consumers of biomass fuel. Only 69 % of actual needs for firewood are fulfilled from the forest.

The locals have e long tradition of using and managing the communal forest. They would like to go back to the tradition which improves their life conditions by ensuring a sustainable use of the natural resources. Following the methodology, after building of local structures, demarcation of village boundaries were carried out by the working groups in close collaboration with representatives from the DSF, the village commissions, and with boundary villages’ commissions. Following the transfer of state forest to the commune, in the case of Gore, the structure of the estate transferred is shown in Table 15.

In the meeting with the villagers, their main concern was the illegal logging, especially in state owned beech and pine forest surrounding the commune. This forest area traditionally belonged to the Gore Commune and the representatives of villages and commune asked several time the Directorate of Forest Service of Korca to include this forest into communal forest. As reasons for this request they listed:

If the illegal logging will continue with the same pace, degradation of the upper part of the mountain, will lead to the avalanches and erosion. This will in turn, affect and damage the lower part of the slope where the most of the villages and arable lands are located.

The transfer to commune and division to families will in a very short time significantly reduce illegal logging and forest degradation.

As can be depicted from the table, two forms of use are common in all the villages; collective use by the whole village and private use by single households. Shrubs are designated to be in collective use in all the villages, while for high forest and coppices the


74

mode of use differs among the villages. A full description of the forests and their mode of use in the commune of Gore are given in the Appendix 15. Table 15. Forest area by each village, management and mode of use

No

Vill

age

For

est a

rea

(ha)

Hig

h fo

rest

(ha)

Mode of use (ha)

Cop

pice

s ( h

a) Mode of use (ha)

Shru

bs (

ha) Mode of use (ha)

Col

lect

ive

as v

illag

e

Indi

vidu

al

Hou

seho

lds

Col

lect

ive

as v

illag

e

Hou

seho

ld

Hou

seho

lds

Col

lect

ive

as v

illag

e

Indi

vidu

al

Hou

seho

lds

1 Babien 335.6 0 0 0 335.6 99.2 236.4 0 0 0

2 Desmirë 544.9 23.3 0 23.3 521.6 0 521.6 0 0 0

3 Dolan 242 0 0 0 237.5 0 237 4.5 0 4.5

4 Dolanëc 181.5 0 0 0 169.1 67.9 101.2 0 0 0

5 Gribec 412.3 0 0 0 377.3 311.8 65.5 0 0 0

6 Lozhan 820.2 0 0 0 429.7 313.2 116.5 285.5 285.5 0

7 Marian 289.7 0 0 0 289.7 121.6 168 0 0 0

8 Mesmal 125.4 0 0 0 125.4 0 125.4 0 0 0

9 Mocan 273.1 36.8 36.8 0 230 0 230 0 0 0

10 Qenckë 399.9 0 0 0 399.9 69 330.9 0 0 0

11 Selcë 120 0 0 0 87.2 0 87.2 32.8 32.8 0

12 Senisht 297.1 0 0 0 297.1 15.7 281.4 0 0 0 13 Strelcë 724.2 206.2 0 206.2 360.2 157.5 202.7 155.9 155.9 0 14 Tresovë 205.2 0 0 0 158.8 93.3 65.6 46.4 24.9 21.5 15 Velcan 149.6 0 0 0 121.3 46.9 74.4 28.3 28.3 16 Zvahrisht 231.3 4.8 0 4.8 223.6 13.1 210 0 0 0

Commune 5188.5 271.1 36.8 234.3 4364 1309.2 3053.8 553.4 527.4 26


75

CHAPTER 4

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION:

COMMUNAL FOREST: RELEVANCE AND SUSTAINABILITY


76

1. FROM CONFLICT TO COLLABORATION Community forestry is seen to comprise three main elements. These are: (1) the

provision of “fuel and other goods essential to meeting basic needs at the rural household and community level”, (2) the provision of “food and the environmental stability necessary for continued food production” and (3) the generation of “income and employment in the rural community” (FAO, 1978). This definition thus encompasses a broad spectrum of possible linkages between people and trees, or the outputs of trees, and was as much concerned with people's dependence on existing forests as with reforestation.

Communal ownership of the forests and pastures was prevalent in Albania before the communist regime. The most notable example is the grazing on communal pastures where the village shepherds tended the livestock of all the families. Forests near the villages, especially those having fruit-bearing trees such as walnut and hazelnut, were often common property divided on village lines. People from the village would come together to collect and divide the harvest according to the number in each family. These traditions worked because the community had the resource, internal cohesion, and commonality of interest to practice sustainable forestry and pasturage.

The transfer of State forests and pastures to the communes was seen as being, by definition, participatory and directed towards rural needs - in particular the needs of the rural poor. From its inception, forestry for community development must therefore be forestry for the people and involving the people. It must be forestry which starts at the “grass roots” (FAO, 1978), a statement which has been also the motto during the implementation of this project.

The transfer of forests, in the philosophy of the CFPMp, is not just to return forest, but to give back the forest management the old tradition and responsibility to the people who live there. The process is long and not a simple transfer of a forest and pasture area “in use” to the Communes/villages; it is the process of the transfer of State competence and responsibilities (forestry service) to the local government (Communes) and the community (villagers). As such, this process does not stop at the formal transfer of forests and pastures in use to the community, on the contrary, it lays the foundation for the start of the management of the forests through the development and implementation of rules rights and responsibilities and formulate them in a simple management plans by local structures. This promotes a sustainable decentralized management of the natural resources through the participatory involvement of the community. Therefore, CFPMp is not just a method for communal forest management, but it is also part of the local empowerment and capacity-building processes.


77

2. THE VILLAGERS’ PERSPECTIVE When asked about their perception and opinion on the present institutional

arrangement (limited transfer of user rights), two main statements always came from the villagers:

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

Will the Government take the forest back from us as it is investing in the management plan and its implementation?

Everywhere, villagers have a strong feeling about their ownership on the forest, that they consider as their property, based very often on ancestral use or on even actual use. This attitude is relatively independent of the actual status of the forest (transferred or not) and refers to the land and to the products themselves and not to the “use”. It means too that villagers are open to changes of uses, e.g. planting chestnuts, as long as it is in their advantage and based on their decision.

Usually the ownership is regulated at family level; individuals of a family know their limited and traditional rights on the land and the uses of the family property. This is for example, shown by the stones delimiting the forest of Drita Village in Bazi Commune (Dibra region). Villages have in general some common land, where the livestock of the whole village can graze under the supervision of one villager.

This should not be mistaken with the area which may be considered by the community as "privately" allocated but the community favor a transfer as common land in order to avoid individual responsibility on it (case of Shëngjergj village). This is an expression of a lack of confidence towards the future benefits of the process and a clear attitude of “wait and see”, participating in the process in order to be able to take part in future development but refraining of going to far in their formal engagement. Two major arguments are involved in such a choice: the forest (and the land) stays as before property of the State – only the users' rights being transferred and, the transfer is organized at communal level, hence similar to the collectivization of the past.

The Communes (including the FUAs) are playing an important role in the transfer of forests, but in the major cases, the ultimate responsibility lies with the farmer, who is the real beneficiary of the forest transfer and management. From the farmers’ viewpoint, Communes are an instrument to resolve the administrative problems and to mobilize funds for the improvement of their forests and living conditions.

On common land where traditionally none of the families is recognized as owner, farmers are more reluctant to invest for forest improvement. This is due to the difficulties they have to participate in nature (provide work) and to distribute the forestry benefits, excepted when those lands are jointly used for grazing. Here the incentives given by the AFP and NRDP project are playing an important role to foster forestry protection. In the


78

case of Village of Greshdan (Maqellare Commune, Diber District) livestock is not allowed to graze on some family forests (forests which are very well protected), but they are sent to the common pastures, which are very degraded. In such cases, the CFPMp faces difficulties to achieve major improvement.

Where a strong feeling exists amongst the villagers about their (ancestral) property of the land- particularly in the north-, the transfer is perceived as recognition of their property. They are willing to take care of their plots and defend them against outside village intervention (Fajze Commune in the District of Has, or Zerqan Commune in the District of Bulqize). This could lead even to refusing the participation in the CFPMp activities (Sllove Commune in the District of Diber).

From the discussions with representatives of the villages, it is clear that in some cases (e.g. Gjinari) they are not aware of their rights and obligations. Thus, we may reasonably assume that they are not better informed about the laws. In fact, while talking with the headmen of village, they are always make comparison with the distribution of agricultural lands few years ago and yet not resolved conflicts.

In general farmers are not considering only the "forestry fund" but also the land classified under the fund of agricultural land which has been cleared during the communist regime. Particularly controversial remains the use and - hence the rehabilitation- of the so called “refused land”. Farmers - who have often a traditional ownership on this land - would be interested in getting some support to improve them for agriculture or forestry as they are very often subject to erosion. An example of the potential to reconvert degraded agricultural land into forestry is shown by an elderly farmer of Luf village in Puke district who planted oaks by direct seeding.

Farmers are interested in the forest for the services it can bring to them, not only through the 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 started already - without Program intervention- to protect a part of the degraded forests, usually on former “family-owned” land. The insecurity about the future users’ rights (uses, trade, and property) does not encourage individuals and to a lesser amount the entire villages to “invest” in the protection of the forest. Places where the forests and pastures have been spontaneously protected are usually those where villagers will not allow any use, illegal or legal, without their consent.

During the project implementation in the four selected communes, it was clear that farmers are growingly aware of the degradation of the forests and the impact on their livelihood. When they have the resources, available manpower and not living in extreme poverty, they will themselves initiate the protection and rehabilitation of their forests. Nevertheless they will limit their activities to keep away intruder - men and animals -, but they will not make improvement in terms of planting or erosion control. Once the forest is reestablished, they will prune it for fodder (in the case of oak), thin it for sticks and


79

firewood and graze it eventually, according to their need and not a management plan. The CFPMp is here an incentive to support these activities, to extend them and to bring proper technical care (extension). Due to the fact that they already have a strong property feeling about the forest, the interest into the Program is often – superficially – seen as an interest into only paid labor.

Unfortunately, the State does not have the resources even to supervise the proper management of all communal forests as these forests are divided up to the individual plots. From the DFS viewpoint this division means in one side that they have to deal with a large number of “partners”, and on the other, this was not the intended purpose of transferring the responsibility to the local people.

In the case of dislocation, members of the family, usually male adults, are looking for employment elsewhere and leave behind the rest of the family in the village. This happens in the Communes of Blerim and that of Stebleva, where many people have gone to take advantage of the construction boom in the South and West. Whole families may migrate in town but as reported from Studen Village (Elbasan Region), members are still coming back to cultivate their plot, hence not only producing for their subsistence but also ensuring their claim on the land. In the case of dislocation, the workforce is temporarily reduced but some income may arrive from outside the village resource base, and the return to the village of the missing persons is expected. As a consequence, on one hand, the possibility to take care of the natural resources is reduced and this leads to neglect forest improvement, but also reduces the pressure on it. On the other hand, the existence of extra-village income will allow (at least temporarily) to diminish the pressure on the resources and the local economy. In any case, dislocation will not improve the potential of economical opportunities within the village on a long term.

Emigration is characterized by the definitive departure of the persons. Usually, the most educated persons have a comparative advantage in leaving the village as well as the young adult’s group that represents the village's workforce. This is an impoverishment for the village capacity to undertake actions in favor of the natural resources. When the emigration takes place in a legal frame, the links with the family and the village are maintained, and some income reach the village, but when the emigration is illegal, usually the links with the family are broken and the returns are highly reduced. As a consequence, the villages are loosing its people, who are in the best age to manage intellectually and physically the communal forests.

3. THE ALLOCATION OF FOREST AND PASTURE RESOURCES Mainly because of historical reasons (according to the Sherihat Law forests were

prone of the Sultan), the private forest area in Albania has been rather small and did not exceed 5% the total forest area (63,000 ha). The recognition and restitution of private


80

forests to the ex-owners started after 1996, but the process has moved slowly. By the end of 2000, only 6,300 ha or 10% of the private area was returned to the ex-owners (APFDP, 2000b).

The division of the communal forests and pastures in plots is realized in three categories: per family (the majority of it); as common or village forest, and; as forest being attributed to an individual. The allocation is usually made according to the old boundaries of the properties as they were before 1945. These borders, that have no legal - documented - value, are rigorously respected by the villagers: no one is allowed to collect fodder or firewood or to cut standing trees to someone else’s 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. However, in the case that a family can not fulfill its needs for fodder from its own part of forest, it can collect fodder on other plot in common or family uses, with the permission of the owner. Grazing is usually organized at village level. Regarding chestnut trees, they are a valuable property kept from generation to generation. They are considered as a totally private property and are protected very strongly.

Nevertheless, the situation is quite different compared to before 1945. Firstly, the number of inhabitant has grown up tremendously (even if out migration now tends to reduce their numbers in the rural areas). Secondly, the forest area is reduced, usually being converted into agricultural land (which nowadays is not the responsibility of Forest Service) through clear-cutting them in most places.

According to the social cohesion, the families (as the smaller unit) are represented by one of their members, who has the authority to resolve the conflicts linked with the allocation of natural resources. Usually, where this social cohesion is strong, the families have maintained the traditional knowledge and process to allocate their resources within the village, even within the family. Difficulties may arise in the relation with the authorities to apply for improvement works, when the natural resources considered as the village "property" are divided amongst different administrative districts. This is the case of the village Stebleva where some of their perceived village area belongs to Bulqize District, while the village is considered to be part of Librazhdi District. When this cohesion is not so strong, the number of conflicts is higher and the process of resolving them takes longer. Villagers are trying to follow the same approach as the one based on the tradition but negotiating the users’ rights on base of their actual or past use of the resource.

Particularly for the process related to the transfer of forests to Communes and the villagers, the FUA have to set up in their statutes mechanisms to allow control and appeal by any member of the association. The project emphasizes the participation of all concerned. In fact, the FUA being established at the Commune level, beneficiaries


81

(village, families or individuals) are in most cases only represented by one or two persons.

The establishment of FUA is an attempt to make the existing allocation of resources system official and to bring it at the level of the communes and, beyond the purely allocation process, to ensure proper management of the forests. It is worth to note that FUAs are independent of the Communes or DFS.

The resolution of disputes is realized at village level by the "Council of Elder" or more exactly "Village Council" composed by designated persons. This council is often the body which will be set up as “Forest Village Commission”. The Chairman of this Council is often the village representative at the FUA. This Council deals with all matters concerning the village and not only with "forest and pastures users' rights". It is also the body that will determine the plots' boundaries when the management plan will be prepared, hence dealing with the aspects of land tenure and land ownership.

At the local level, the allocation of resources is not considered as a big issue but the way it is legally recognized and the security carried with this recognition. In the forestry sector, the State is reluctant to recognize fully a situation de facto on the ground, on which it has little influence in the framework of a liberal society. In the actual situation, it is unbelievable that the State will “fight each farmer”. This reluctance is justified by the fact that the local level does not consider (even realize) the overall objectives at State level, as, for example, maintaining the integrity of the forest and pasture domain. On the other hand, farmers put little confidence in the State, particularly dealing with a long term activity as forest management.

4. EXISTING INFORMAL TYPES OF OWNERSHIP Although most of professional foresters see the forest through the wood (as a source

of timber), the villagers see it in a very different way. For farmers, sometimes timber is the least interesting product of the forest, in large part as it was has been always the privilege of the State or enterprises.

For the villagers, the forest is firstly a source of firewood for which there is a high demand for cooking and, in winter for heating, not only in rural areas but also in cities. Firewood is provided by the village forests, now "given-in-use", but also purchased from State forests. Firewood represents a large market that is officially restricted to the Forestry Service as provider. In few cases where Communes can sell firewood, the sale is subject to the control of the Forestry Service. In that case, 30% of the value should be paid to the State and 70% to the Commune Revenue Account. Due to legal difficulties this system is not yet functioning for communal forests. In any case, the individuals do not benefit from it. Nevertheless, exchanges in categories of uses (grazing rights against firewood) have been reported between neighboring villages.


82

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

Grazing is also an important use of the village forests and pastures. Goats (decreasingly), sheep and cows are grazed on pastures and forests during the day. If there is no shelter on summer pastures, usually in high altitudes, the whole flock may transhumance every day if these pastures are not too far. Thus is i.e. the case of Rabdishti Village (Melan Commune, Diber District) where the summer pastures are some 2½ hours away from the farm. From the animal husbandry point of view, it is not to be recommended but also it brings degradation to the forests along the way and particularly to the soil, increasing the erosion risk.

Fruit (forest) trees are also important for the villagers. Especially nut trees such as: chestnut, walnut, hazelnut are considered important not only for the fruits they bear (Zeneli et al., 2005) and for which there is a market, but some of them produce very valuable timber.

Aromatic and medicinal plants were before an important source of income for the country (Zeneli et al., 2007). Today this sector is much reduced as a commercial activity. Even if we have seen it being carried out in Peshkopi, the prices offered by the traders sometimes are very low. Thus, it is not an interesting income generating activity for the farmer, even if this trader is employing 10 persons. This activity can be done combining another one, namely grazing livestock. Villagers do not see any potential in such products except those who have the information about a middleman in the city or are directly in contact with him. Moreover, the commercial potential and chain is not known at the village or commune level, even trader are not aware of the marketing and handling possibilities. For example, pines could eventually be managed to give resin and essential oils, but farmers do not have a market for it.

Even if the formalities to transfer and manage the forest are mainly realized at district and commune level, the major actors in the implementation of communal forests and pastures plans are villagers themselves, more exactly the families and individuals who have some (user) rights on the forest. This is the level where a better participation is found due to a better interest in the forest considered as a base for livelihood.

First, the villages expect a formal recognition of their tenure on the forest and property, for which there is no legal framework, as the forest is being "given-in-use" on basis of a ten year contract. Secondly, the expectations are mainly limited to the activities that cover the needs of the community (firewood, fodder and grazing), some commercial activities usually not being possible in the short run due to the stage of degradation of the forest. Nevertheless, villagers are hoping that they will be soon given the right to trade legally forest products.


83

5. CUSTOMARY LAND RIGHT AND NEW LEGAL PROMISES The history of family in Albania is a story of established customs and norms which

evolved from a feudal and rural past and is rooted in patriarchal social relations. The mountain customs were, and in many cases still are, a reflection of a complex code of unwritten law that was elaborated, cultivated and practiced with specific regard to the social relations of the family. Albanian Customary law is contained with various Kanun (or codes); the kanun of Lek Dukagjini (Gjecov 1989), the Kanun of Scanderbeg, and the Kanun of Labëria or Idriz Suli (Elezi, 2004) being the most well-known.

Ethnographic studies carried out in the late nineteenth century and the first halves of twentieth century have documented the strong clan features of Albanian Communities. Albanian society has been characterized as patriarchal (Backer 1988) (where a male head typically assumes the role of decision-maker) and patrilineal (where membership in family group is traced through the male line). In the traditional society, woman gained access to property through their relationship to either father or husband in context of family. They have no right to property inheritance. In fact the right to inheritance did not concern most women because they assumed, they would be provided for throughout their lives. Furthermore, it was thought that if married woman claimed property from father’s estate, her husband’s (who belonged to a different clan or fis) tie would be undermined with the borders becoming less distinct.

Before the communist formation of large scale cooperatives, state farms and forest enterprises and induced mass population movements, the rural Albanian structure was organized along semi feudal lines. Villages in many parts of the country, especially in the North Mountain Albania were distinguished by clan and extended families living in close proximity, if not in the same dwelling unit (Durham, 1909). There was a strong sense of family and clan solidarity. The idea of individual rights to property held no meaning in that era; it was not a concept within the social reality of rural Albanians by the time. An important point emerging from this account of pre-Communist local government is the close relationship between individual and community. As noted by Hasluck (1954), “the community sense was fostered by every art the mountaineers knew”.

The description of traditional Albanian society serves as historical reference by which we can analyze what is occurring with regard to family and individual property rights in contemporary Albania. After more than forty years with centrally managed, command economy and the state as sole owner of immovable property, Albania is transferring it to communities and in private hands. How this immovable property ownership right are defined affects both women’s and men’s economic opportunities. Thus, the rules established by the formal legal system and beliefs governing customary access to and transfer of forest and pastures - and means by which they are interpreted and enforced- are important to the development of the country.


84

6. FOREST REVENUE AND FEES The transition period that Albania is going through these years from a collectivization

system and a centralized government to a pluralist and decentralized government has created a vacuum in terms of legal, economic, and implementation instruments. This vacuum led, particularly during and few years after the 1997, to the destruction of the forests. Although it’s should be mentioned that before the transition, forest management was only oriented towards the production functions (often overexploiting forests). Nowadays forest degradation is such an important issue that the implementation instruments do not represent a sound economic basis to rehabilitate its potential: i.e. the revenues that can be generated within a management period do not cover the expenses of forest improvements.

There is a big confusion among most people at different levels concerning the financial aspects of forest management as the legal framework for collecting revenues and fees for the ownership and use of the forests. Unfortunately the legal framework does not exist as a single work but should be subtracted from different documents of different levels (law, decree, decision, regulation, instruction) which deal with different aspects (forests, pastures, medicinal plants) and jurisdiction (state or communal forests). Farmers do realize the impact of the improvement activities. In several cases, they had already started to protect the most degraded forests before the intervention of the project. Some have even tended Oak forests through a very wise and controlled pruning and thinning for fodder.

As it is only the users’ rights that are transferred to the Communes (the villages, families, and individuals), the forest fund is still property of the State. A feeling of mistrust amongst certain DFS staff is to be seen in the capacities of the Communes and FUA-s to manage the forests and towards the willingness of the families and individuals to protect them. The same mistrust exists among the villagers who fear the intervention of the State to take the forest away or to impose taxes on their ownership.

In some districts, foresters have even reported “refused” land (which had been cleared from forests) as belonging to the forest fund and in need of reforestation. Thus, some DFS may feel responsible and are claiming "refused" land back.

7. THE FOREST TRANSFER: AN IRREVERSIBLE PROCESS It is paradoxical to see that while the transfer has been introduced from the national

level - an initiative of the government - the feeling about the ownership on forest land property at local level is very strong. On one hand, the government recognizes the role of the local population in preserving the forests, but on the other hand is not yet ready to fully accept the local ownership in the frame of a market economy. The same applies to the local population, mutatis mutandis. They are thankful that their rights are somehow


85

recognized and would like to see this recognition transformed from “given-in-use” to “given-in-ownership”, but on the other hand, they are not willing to commit themselves to formal ownership, in fear of taxes on land property. One should remember the fate of the (agricultural) orchards when a tax was put on fruit trees. This is one of the reasons why management plans prepared for communal forestry are classifying users into three groups: (apart from the private ownership defined in the Article 3 of the Law No. 7623) families, groups of families and commons. Individuals are willing to participate in the process, but do not want to go too far. For many of them, if it’s only the uses being transferred, often according to traditional rules, they only wish to see a common ownership recognized, hence a common responsibility but not a particular one.

Still, villagers request that the State shouldn’t interfere with management of their forests but be a facilitator in bringing them the resources and technical advice to improve “their” forests and pastures. The “given-in-use” forests and the subsequent management plans are first, delimiting areas and identifying a user, and then the uses are defined. Consequently, this implicit that is the ownership on the land being recognized and not the ownership on the use. Even if the same area have different users for different uses (e.g. firewood and fodder), only one owner – who can be a collective one - is recognized. He then grants permission to the second user, with or without compensation.

This means that de facto DFP has no ownership on the forest but its legal and technical authority and expertise is accepted. In this situation, the choice will be: agree or disagree with it. In this stage would be is very difficult to disagree with the present state without going back to a very strong and authoritative system. This system could be envisaged if the resources were available and to ensure a proper forest management and a proper livelihood of the rural population. In fact, "the government cannot fight everyone" and need to build some confidence in its actions amongst the population. If this attitude will be fully accepted by the Government and not only by DFP, this would be a major opportunity for the Forestry Service to take the lead in forestry development and reforms. The development of forestry will need not just the appropriate legal and institutional tools but also allocating the appropriate resources to apply them. A proper management of the forests and pastures has an economic impact (like the effect of watershed protection on energy production through reduced sedimentation) that is not easily quantifiable in term of financial returns and usually not considered in budgeting.

Considering the extreme degradation of the communal forests, the transfer process can be achieved before that the ownership questions becomes acute. These questions are already brought up and need to get the proper attention to develop adequate solutions: the trade of communal forests and pastures products and services. This is the key element not only to solve the questions of sustainability of communal forest management but also that of the leadership of the DFP structure in communal forestry.


86

CHAPTER 5

LOBING AND ADVOCACY


87

Albania is developing rapidly, this means that the legal (and to some extent the institutional) framework has to evolve at least as quickly. Particularly, in the case of the transfer of forests and pastures to the Communes, the increased role given to the Communes and the need to have an integrated approach to natural resources management, make it a necessity keeping the hierarchy and the validity of the legal text up-to-date and to propose improvements.

In support of the process of forest transfer and capacity building of the forest users, a series of activities were undertaken. The aim was that through four surveys in communes of Puke, Elbasan, Diber and Korca regions to highlight the traditions on the establishment of forest and pastures lands boundaries in different levels from village to clans and families. This is an old reality resisting in the centuries as pointed out a century ago by Edith Durham (1909) “Tribe frontiers have never yet been mapped. They are very well known to the people, who point out some tree or stone as one crosses the line. I am not able to do more than roughly indicate their position”, but not considered by the central and local state institutions. Based on the project findings and recommendations of the first phase of the project, during the second phase the objective was the improvement of the legal frame work, helping the acceleration of forest and pasture transfer to communes, clarification of ownership right and responsibilities in forest use and their sustainable management. The main activities realized during the period of project implementation are described in the following:

Lobbing process for transferring of ownership of forest and pastures to communes to improve the management of forest and pastures

The amendments on the laws and sub-laws in the definitions of roles and responsibilities of all actors as owners or users of this natural resources

The resolute 4 followed the resolute 1, 2, and 3 as part of the insisting request coming from the villagers and FPUA- boards in the last 5 years and during 2007 in Dibra Region were supported in the organized way from 15 FPUA-s of Kukesi and Korca regional federations.

After the first phase closing the field work in communes, the project followed a continuous process on preparing and approving the improved criteria and regulations in process of forest transfer:

Preparation of the draft documents. Discussion with the main stakeholders in an national workshop Lobbying and advocacy: to address major issues (decentralization, land issue, role

of forestry service) with the responsible parts of the (central & local) government. This whole process has not been linear, but a continuous process going back and

forward. All steps taken were depended on the situation of the partners and on the pace of movements of Ministry and Government. NACFP strategy on the process was to address


88

the issue as this will give a higher ownership of the process by the partners addressing their needs and interest.

1. NACFP LOBBING ON LAND TENURE SECURITY NACFP has informed regularly the MEFWA about the concerns of regional

federations to improve the legal framework and to avoid insecurities of the forest users in land tenure. A good progress was the meeting of the NACFP and regional federations with the Minister of Environment, Forest and Water Administration in November 2006. After expressing their concerns, a rational with the explanations of the necessary changes in the law, and a draft prepared by the NACFP in cooperation with Regional Federations of CFP users was submitted to the Minister. Meanwhile, the Ministry organized a workshop with the participation of representatives from the Ministry, Agricultural University, Faculty of Forestry Sciences, representatives of regional federation and NACFP, private companies involved in forest harvesting, and representatives from communities.

During the workshop, representatives of NACFP explained in details all the amendments proposed in the forest law. The new proposed law for Pastures and Grazing received a lot of useful comments.

1.1. Chronology of Activities on Advocacy and Lobbying 23 June 2006: National Conference “It’s Time for deep Reform in Albanian

Forestry” (NACFP- Movement “Mjaft”), DFP, Donors, Head of communes. August 2006: Kick off meeting for presentation of objectives of ILC project on land

tenure and user right issues on forest and pastures with a special focus on advocacy and lobby on legal framework improvement in forest and pasture land.

07 August 2006: The Minister of MEFWA sent the letter No. 1435/1 to NACFP asking NACFP to participate in process of reviewing the existing forest law and preparing and proposing the necessary amendments on CFPM.

September 2006: Meeting of NACFP with National Association of Heads of Communes, presenting the main concerns of FPUA-s on forest law related to the CFPM and gaps on other laws such as these of Pastures medicinal plants.

October 2006: Meeting with National Agency on Inventory and Transfer of Immovable Properties to the Local Government Units (NAITIP), on the progress of the transfer process and main constraints.

October 2006: Meeting with Deputy Minister of MEFWA, presenting comments on the CFPM part.


89

November 2006: Workshop organized by MEFWA with broad participation of the representatives of the private companies involved on forest harvesting operation, FPUA-s, regional federations, Communes, NACFP, and DFP. The draft of new law on the pastures and grazing and several amendments for the Forest Law No. 9385 (2005) were proposed. NACFP held two presentations: one about the draft Law for pastures and another about the proposed amendments on forest law. A copy of comments was submitted to the Minister.

January 27, 2007: Day of Albanian Forest Service. NACFP raised the importance of clear rights and responsibilities on CFPM and the possibilities on income generations and Minister of MEFWA declares that Government will transfer to communes 700 thousand hectare of forest.

February 13-15, 2007: NACFP in cooperation with regional federations of Korce, Kukes and Diber, prepared one special action plan on advocacy and lobbing on forest law review. Action plan was approved with the participation of 8 Regional Federations of Forest Users.

February 15, 2007: The representatives of NACFP meet Minister of MEFWA, and submit the comments and amendments prepared for forest Law No. 9385 (2005).

February 20, 2007: NACFP was informed that the Reviewed Forest Law was submitted to the Government without consider the recommendations of NACFP.

February 23, 2007: Meeting with all regional federations and SNV, inform all representatives for the progress and achievement of an agreement on the steps to be undertaken for advocacy from MEFWA to the Prime Minister and Government.

February 24, 2007: One request was submit to the Prime Minister asking for a meeting.

February 25, 2007: Letter sent to Prime Minister: “It’s time for deep reforms in forestry”, with a review of forest law.

February 26, 2007: Meeting with General Secretary of Council of Ministers, Dr. Myqerem Tafaj.

February 27, 2007: Meeting with Mr. Grigor Gjeci of the Ministry of Agriculture and Security of Food. Discussion of draft strategy for rural development.

February 28, 2007: Meeting with the Prime Minister Adviser, Mr. Skender Uku. March 1, 2007: Meeting with deputy Minister of Public Order. March 10, 2007: Meeting with resident mission of World Bank in Tirana.

Presentation of concerns on forest law. March 20-23, 2007: In cooperation and consultation with all representatives of

regional federations preparation of a resolution (No. 4) to the Minister MEFWA, and cc to Parliament, Prime Minister, World bank and Sweden Agency for Development (SIDA), with a request to accept the proposed by NACFP


90

March 25, 2007: Publication of the resolution. March 26-30, 2007: Chronicles in different televisions on the importance of reforms

in forestry. May 4-10, 2007: Comments on draft amendments of forest law were submitted to

Head of Parliamentary groups, head of parliamentary commissions, the President of the Republic, the heads of two main parliamentary political parties and different donors.

May 27-31, 2007: ILC- NACFP- International Workshop: “Sharing knowledge on Participatory Mapping for Forest and Pasture Areas -Combining different mapping techniques to address policy challenges in the management and use of forest and pasture lands”. The Workshop brought together experiences from Nicaragua, Indonesia and Bolivia, and the main stakeholders from the central institution and donors of Albania as well as representatives of Private Forest Owner Association from Kosovo and Macedonia. One resolution on achievement and concerns of CFPM in Albania was prepared on behalf of participants and was submitted to the legislative and executive representatives of Albania

June 3, 2007: Meeting with the parliament representatives explaining the rational of improvements in forest law asked by NACFP. In the meeting it was agreed to prepare a summary of NACFP proposed amendments.

June 4, 2007: NACFP representatives participated in the meeting of the commission of Economy in Parliament in the debate for the amendments required by MEFWA on the review of forest law. NACFP submitted to the commission and speaker of parliament the summary of proposed amendments.

June 5, 2007: letter to the Speaker of Parliament explaining the importance of including the proposal of NACFP in forest law. A copy of the letter was sent to the President of Republic, Prime Minister and heads of two main parliamentary parties.

Continuous relationship with media and publications on daily newspapers. These included:

Daily Newspaper Shekulli: (The biggest Newspaper in the country): Pastures, our cursed alps, (waiting for a new law on pastures) State in mountain, communities in plain zones Reflection after forest fires

Daily Newspaper Shqip: Why the forest should be privatized

Daily Newspaper Korrieri: 700 thousand new bunkers

Daily Newspaper Zeri i popullit:


91

Forest between smoke and reform The Eco-movement Newspaper “Ekolevizja”, which is published twice a

month, had 7 editorial articles on Land tenure issues and communal forest and pastures management.

“Green crown”, in all its 15 editions had articles discussing the project issues.

“Green circle”, (Region of Dibra) followed and supported the lobbing and advocacy with articles such as “the Impact of wrong policies in forestry”, “What are the FPPUA-s requests”, “Why privatization” etc.

Public TV has shown several chronicles and news on the process, while local TV of Kukes, Puka, Dibra, Korca had frequently shown chronicles on the CFPM

1.2. Other activities Korca, Kukesi, Dibra, and newly established federations of Shkodra, Elbasani, Lezha and Berati have established the local structures and are supporting following activities:

Working groups are established for the most of the FPUA-s in cooperation with the communes.

“Green Crown”, a monthly newspaper (ca. 1000 copies every editions) has supported the awareness and information campaign. Meanwhile the newspaper has published also different initiatives of councils of the communes on forest management.

Different posters and leaflets were distributed to communes and villages. Apart from the activities organized in pilot communes, the information workshops

are organized by NACFP in ten other communes with broad participation of local people.

The list with the farmers supporting the changes in law was prepared for all the included communes.

The resolute and message is finalized.

2. EVALUATION OF ADVOCACY AND LOBBY PROCESS The evaluation of the advocacy and lobby process, initiative of Communal Forestry

Federations of Albania took place on October 3, 2007 in Tirana. The evaluation was a participatory process where all the participants had the possibility to express and evaluate according to the indicators. Participants were representatives of 8 regional federations


92

(Shkoder, Kukes, Diber, Lezhe, Tirana, Elbasani, Korca, and Berati) or members of the board of the Albanian National Association of Communal Forestry. SNV advisors together with some representatives of federations facilitated the process.

2.1. Aim and objectives of the evaluation process The aim of the evaluation process was to:

Collect and analyze all the information with the aim to asses if the objectives are achieved.

Compile an action plan at national level based on the conclusions and lessons learned.

Report and files with all the information including publications, resolutes, memos etc. prepared by the Federations were distributed to all participants. The idea was to provide all possible recourses in order to have a good process. The participant from the region of Diber Region did a very good power point presentation for all activities held in framework of advocacy process. The presentation was based in the Road Map Advocacy explaining the steps in which the advocacy process passed through the years.

2.2. The indicators used for evaluating advocacy process. The aim of all the activities was to change the current policy and speed up the reform

process on the forestry sector.

2.2.1. Activity indicators: Number and type of documents/publications produced for decision-makers and

those influence them: 4 Resolutions, 1 Memo, 3 Requests, and 3 amendments for the forest law and pasture Law.

All these were sent to the MEFWA, Directorate of Forest Policies, Prime Minister, President of Republic, Parliament, donors (SIDA, World Bank). (See Appendices 10 and 11)

Number of meetings/ lobbies/ held with decision-makers and influencers: 3 meetings with the Vice Minister of MEFWA, 2 meetings with the Minister

MEFWA, several meetings with DFP, 1 meeting with the Secretary of the Council of Ministers, 2 meetings with advisors of the Prime Minister, Meeting with members of Parliament, Meeting with National Agency of Inventory and Transfer of Immovable Properties, Meeting with the World Banks representative in Albania etc.

Number of meetings with media representatives: 20 meetings with journalists


93

Numbers of meetings of the advocacy coalition: 5 meetings - Directorate of Forest service 3 meetings - “Mjaft” movement association 20 meetings -Communes 5 meetings - Qark structures

2.2.2. Progress indicators: The issue has been discussed 5 times at the MEFWA, 2 times with other

governmental structures and 2 times in the commission of Parliament. Political statements have been made in favor of the issue by the Minister of

Environment, Forest and Water Administration and Prime Minister. The NACFP is commited of preparing an action plan to accelerate the process of

transfer of forest and pasture to communes, improve the legal framework and establish extension service and management structures in communes. Prime Minister has approved the action plan to finalize the transfer of forest and pastures in all the communes of the country setting as deadline the May 2008. The draft decision for administration of communal forest and pastures and income generation is under preparation.

14 favorable articles about the issue were published in the media.

3. CONCLUSION ON ADVOCACY AND LOBBING Lobbing, advocacy and participation in sub-laws preparation and forest law

review was one very important learning process for the regional federations and NACFP. In the same time it contributed on revision of the forestry law, and some positive changes have occurred. Yet, there is a lot of space for change especially in relation with property issues, and the role and competencies of the local actors.

The government is accelerating the process of forest transfer and is preparing a decree on Communal forest administration. NACFP must monitor very carefully the transfer process and legal acts on income generations preparation, especially the process of clarifying rights ad responsibilities at different level, family, village, commune, and DFS.

Participate in lobby meeting is still a challenge for the federations because different regions have different interests, traditions and way of managing the forest.


94

Albanian government structures have not established good mechanisms to assure the participation of NGOs in decision-making.

Elected people not always have information about the forestry sector. During policy changes, EU standard are not taken into consideration. More coordination between federations and FUAs is needed. The National

Federation has to play the leadership role. A better function of the networks is required. A better coordination with DFP is needed. Media has a crucial role for advocacy processes so a better communication and

more involvement of media are important. The support of ILC - SNV- SIDA has been very important factor in well-going of

this process.


95

CHAPTER 6

LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS


96

1. LESSONS LEARNED Assessment of the progress of the NACFP pilot project on legally and substantially

enhancing tenure security of forest users in the transfer scheme of immobile resources from central to local governments in Albania, revealed a number of emerging lessons. From over ten years work in assisting rural communities and forest users to secure their rights as part of the transfer process that accompanies decentralization in Albania, a lot of expertise has been gathered on the potential of communal forestry for rural livelihoods as complementary to private/state tenureship. However this in-between level continues to be one of the most difficult to capture for policy makers and others in the rapidly evolving environment that Albania represents today.

In most of the cases, the boundaries are well known and respected. In addition, there are rules governing behavior such that felled wood or bundles of firewood marked by a stone (or cross-shaped sign the Catholic region), can be left without risk of theft. It would be sinful (“mëkat”) to touch this material as it is obviously the fruit of someone else’s labor. These norms are observed especially throughout the Northern provinces; presumably this is largely due to the importance attached to the Kanun’s ethos, which recognizes that a community is more likely to thrive if all its members observe the established code rather than conducting a war of all against all.

Reality shows that well-defined users’ rights not only are pivotal to better environmental sustainability and preservation, but are also fundamental to ways out of poverty for rural dwellers. It is therefore advisable for policy makers to start from the rights regime that already exists and give them some forms of recognition within the statutory framework.

Quite a lot of “extreme” positions have been heard during the consultation as “the government will take us away the forest, once we have protected it and worked for it because it has paid for it”. When such position concerns official bodies, the situation is blocked due to a perceived unequal relation of power that no “legal” resolution can solve. Here a dialog has to take place which, beyond the techniques to use, can only be based on transparent information about the situation. Moreover, to avoid bad experiences and to base a decision on sound basis, information has to be available for the decisions-makers and all stakeholders, who will have to monitor the application of their decisions.

Participatory mapping turned out to be a key approach for better defined boundaries, refreshing customary traditions, and conflict resolution. Capturing elders’ memory, strengthening of rural organizations’ cohesion and awareness were some of the effective approaches. In such a sense, participatory mapping seems to act as a bridge between tradition and new technology.

On the other hand it is important to keep in mind that while mapping is an important tool, it is however one of many aspects of communal forestry management. Management


97

plans can benefit substantially from participatory mapping techniques and lessons learnt if they are able to combine local people’s knowledge and technical expertise. Instead of designing the forest function based on the literature or books, foresters can rely more on the traditional knowledge. The discourse on forestry has to move towards a more accommodationist perspective. Foresters and peasant need to talk to, rather than talk past, each other. A willingness to listen to and at least partially incorporate the other point of view should replace the rigid and uncompromising attitude of the past. Within the forestry profession itself, skeptics doubt the contemporary relevance of the custodial and policing approaches previously followed. It is time that governments to more seriously and sympathetically consider the rights of forest-dependent communities.

Management Plans of Communal forest should be “simpler” to better match villagers’ capacities and needs. Such plans at village level can more appropriately refer to the customary use rights that regulate access and use of those resources. Management Plans can then serve multiple purposes for rural communities:

They are very effective on community reflection of its own natural resources; They can be a useful tool to establish and strengthen relationships between

communities in the process of boundaries definition; They can facilitate the transfer of NR from state to local government and

communities; Although most of the time people talk about the rights of community or user’s right, it

time to shift to “the rights and responsibilities”. State should respond more sensitively to the just claims of local communities, but the communities should also be aware of the responsibilities.

The transfer process in Albania is currently incomplete. The transfer of forest and pasture should be considered complete only with the registration of the title and the title-holder’s possession of the registration document, together with an accompanying map. This last step should be integrated into current Albanian legislation by working more closely with IPRO (Immovable Property Registration Office). In this scenario, property titles can pave the way for increasing farmers’ interests in managing natural resources in a sustainable manner, and consequently in inducing sustainable income generation activities.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS Assigning secure clearly delineated ownership and/or use rights to local groups in

combination with technical support and advice to those groups is now accepted as critical in reversing degradation of forests and pastures and their improved, sustainable management. While impressive gains have been made in this direction, stakeholders have reached an apparent consensus that this process should be taken further to create a


98

framework where management, control and the derivation 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 and families, traditionally the custodians of forest and pasture lands, with villages and families competing for the appreciable, but still limited benefits of wages for work on reforestation and other activities approved by commune-level. As far as benefits are concerned, rather than being self-generating, these benefits derive from donor funds, raising issues of sustained interest in maintenance 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 to the ownership of villages and local government; and for their sustainable management by local 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 using incomes for the benefit of local communities;

the transfer process should follow all the necessary steps, from community participation in decision-making and the preparation of management plans, to property registration at IPRO;

to design and implement a joint pilot scheme by Ministry of Environment, Forest and Water Administration, User’s Associations and villagers to derive policy lessons that are applicable on a larger scale.

The transfer of forests to the Communes is not just supporting the development of communal forest management, but it is also part of the capacity-building of local government. The development of the local government responsibilities cannot take place without an adaptation of the laws and regulations dealing with the transfer of forests and pastures, when it would only be in the harmonization of the definitions used throughout the documents.

Particular emphasis should be given to clarify land (forest) tenure in the frame of a general, national system. It is impossible to realize investments related to property if the tenure situation is not clear. Propositions have to be made to harmonize the different systems, in their form and procedure, and to transfer the rights or to compensate for it on forests and pastures.

The success of the project perhaps can be illustrated by the fact that: Communities of Stebleva, Luniku and Rajca communes in the region of Elbasani are asking MEFWA to include the part of their high forest, not allowed by the Government to be transferred in the commune, to be part of one of the proposed national park. They see this movement as the only way of surveillance of their forest”.


99

Management modality

Constraints Potential strengths Weaknesses or risks

Market/private Registration system Land market

Incentives to maintain or invest if tenure long enough Better control and management if aided technically and rights backed up effectively either through local authorities or courts

Enclosure - particularly where ex-owners control much of area ---> need to pay close attention to defining easement rights Exclusion of “newcomers” Leasing short-term to outsiders may result in “mining” of resource without proper controls Need to deal with externalities ---> establish bodies that represent interests of all impacted by action of private parties

State/public Weak management supervision capacity Unclear lines division in authority and responsibility among various agencies involved Turnover and lack of incentives

Protect broader public interests Policies and approaches may be at expense of customary local interests and rights Tendency to put the resource before the people--technocratic approach Concessions for development more likely to be made over the heads and with little benefit to locals Scope for corruption

Mixed Interaction between locals and authorities needs to be reoriented with greater weight given to local residents

Potential for balancing private/public interests

Commune management

Personnel Budget/finance base

Address issues or coordinate actions across wider area Formal administrative and legal status permitting links to regional/central levels Rationalized staff/overhead expenses over several villages

Risk of submerging village interests in commune-wide ones Inability to monitor or control to same extent as lower-level entitites such as villages or families

Village Cannot own land because not legal person Capacity Resources

In line with tradition Management and control by entity with greatest interest More appropriate interventions

Domination by family or group (old-timers versus newcomers) De-population to point where cannot manage


100

REFERENCES

1. AFP. 2002. Market and marketing analysis of Forest based-products. Development

Researches Network & ECO-Consult. REF. ALB-FP-C1/01

2. Anonymous. 1978. Documents of Byzantine time (Century VII-VIII). (in Albanian,

Dokumente te periudhes bizantine (shekulli VII-XV). Tirane.

3. Barnes, J.C. 1918. The future of Albanian state. The Geographical Journal. 52(1): 12-27.

4. Bosworth, R.J.B. 1975. The Albanian forest of Signor Giacomo Vismara: A case study of

Italian economic imperialism during the foreign ministry of Antonio Di San Giuliano. The

Historical Journal. 18(3): 571-586.

5. Burley, J. 2007. Quoted from: www.rainforestinfo.org.au/

6. CoM. 1995. “Preparation and Approval of the Nomination List of the Owners of

Construction Sites and Houses. Decision No. 432 of the Council of Ministers. 14 August

1995.

7. CoM. 1999. “Adopting the Strategy of Agricultural Development in Albania”. Decision of

the Council of Ministers of 1999.

8. CoM. 2000. “Approval of the National Strategy on Biodiversity Protection”. Decision

No. 532 of the Council of Ministers. 5 October 2000.

9. CoM. 2002a. “Functioning of the District Sections of Land Administration and Protection

and the Local Offices of Land Administration and Protection”. Decision No. 532 of 31

October 2002.

10. CoM. 2002b. “Functioning of the Districts”. Decision No. 532 of 31 October 2002.

11. CoM. 2002c. Progress Report for Implementation of the National Strategy on Social and

Economic Development. www.keshilleministrave.al.gov.

12. CoM. 2004. “Approval of the National Strategy on forest development and institutional

reform in forest and pasture sector in the Republic of Albania”. Decision No. 247 of 23

April 2004.

13. CoM. 2006. “Criteria on transfer and use of forest from the local government units”.

Decision No. 396 of 21 June 2006.

14. CoM. 2001. “Inventory of immovable state properties and transfer of properties to the

local government units”. Decision No. 500 of 14 August 2001.


101

15. de Waal, C. 2004. Post-socialist Property Rights and Wrongs in Albania: an Ethnography

of Agrarian Change. Conservation and Society. 24(1): 19-50.

16. de Balzac, H. 1900. The peasantry. Volume XX of the Works of Honore de Balzac (New

York: E. R. Dumont, 1900).

17. Durham, M. E. 1909. High Albania. London: Edward Arnold. Reprinted in 2000. Phoenix

Press. 384 p.

18. Durham, M. E. 1910. High Albania and its customs in 1908. The Journal of the Royal

Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 40:453-472.

19. European Union. 2004. Stabilization and Association Country Report: Albania,

http://europa.eu.int.

20. FAO. 1978. Forestry for local community development. Forestry Paper 7, FAO, Rome.

21. Fernow, B. E. 1913. A brief history of forestry in Europe, United States, and other

countries. University of Toronto Press. Toronto.

22. Frazer, J.G., Durham, M. E. 1912. Albania and Montenegrin Folklore. Folklore 23:224-

229.

23. Hall, D. R. 1999. Representations of Place: Albania. The Journal of Geography. 165:

161-172.

24. Hasluck, M. 1954. The Unwritten Law in Albania. Edited by J. H. Hutton. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

25. Haxhi, P. 1988. Juridical regime of Land in Albania (In Albanian: Rregjimi juridik i tokes

ne Shqiperi. Tirane.

26. Horowitz D. L. 1977. The courts and social policy. The Brookings Institute. Washington,

DC.

27. IFDC. 2004. An Economic Impact Assessment of USAID/IFDC Assistance to Albanian

Agricultural Trade Associations. www.dec.org.

28. IPM-CRSP. 2002. In-Depth Report on Activities 1993-2001. Report prepared for USAID.

http://www.dec.org.

29. Jungbluth, F., Lugg, D. 2002. Albania Rural Development Strategy. World Bank and

Albanian Ministry of Agriculture and Food. pp 5-8.

30. Kastrati, Q. 1955. Some Sources on the Unwritten Law in Albania. Man. 23: 124-127.

31. Law No. 7501. “For Land”. 19 July 1991.


102

32. Law No. 7623. “For Forests and Forest Police”. 13 October 1992

33. Law No. 7698. “For Restitution and Compensation of Properties to Former Owners

Lands”. 15 April 1993

34. Law No. 7917. “For Pastures and Meadows”.13 April 1995

35. Law No. 8047. “For the Administration of Agricultural Land that Citizens have Refused

in Ownership”.14 December 1995.

36. Law No. 8053. “For Transferring Ownership of Agricultural Land without

Compensation”. 21 December 1995.

37. Law No. 8093. “For water resources”. 21 March 1996

38. Law No. 8312. “On Undistributed Agricultural Lands”. 26 March 1998

39. Law No. 8337. “For the Transfer of Ownership of Agricultural, Pasture and Meadow

Lands”. 30 April 1998

40. Law No. 8652. “For the Organization and Functions of Local Government”. 31 July

2000.

41. Law No. 8743. “For State Immovable Property”. 22 February 2001.

42. Law No. 8744. “For the Transfer of State Immovable Property to Local Governments”.

22 February 2001.

43. Law No. 8752. “For Creation and Functioning of Agencies for Land Administration and

Protection”. 26 March 2001.

44. Law No. 8906. “For Protected Areas”. 6 June 2002.

45. Law No. 9235. “For Restitution and Compensation of Property”. 29 July 2004.

46. Lemel, H. 1998. Rural Land Privatization and Distribution in Albania: Evidence from the

Field. Europe-Asia Studies. 50(1): 121-140.

47. Lemel, H. 2005. Compilation of Reports, Findings and Proposals on Land Tenure and

Organizational Issues. Natural Resources Development Project of the World Bank.

48. Martel, F., Whyte, W.F.1992. Quoted from: www.rainforestinfo.org.au/

49. Marx, K. 1842. Debate on the Law on Theft of Wood”. Reprinted in Karl Marx and

Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Volume I (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975).

50. Meta. M. 1992. Forest and Forest Policy in Albania. Journal of Forestry. 91(6): 27-28.

51. Ministry of Finance. 2004. Priorities under the National Strategy for Social and Economic

Development 2004-2006, www.minfin.gov.al


103

52. Ministry of the Environment. 2002. Updated National Environmental Action Plan.

53. MOAF (Albanian Ministry of Agriculture and Food). 2002. Annual Report.

54. Naka, K., Hammett, A. L., Stuart. W.B. 2000. Constraints and opportunities to forest

policy implementation in Albania. Forest Policy and Economics. 1(2): 153-163

55. Nako, I., 1969. Phyto-climatic zones of Republic of Albania. Bulletin of Agricultural

Sciences. Insituti i Larte Shteteror i Bujqesise. Tirane. 2: 1-24 (in Albanian).

56. Pollo, S., Puto. A. 1981. The History of Albania: From Its Origins to the Present Day.

London: Routledge and Keegan Paul.

57. Rao, Y.G. 1991. Quoted from: www.rainforestinfo.org.au/

58. Rugg, D. S. 1994. Communist Legacies in the Albanian Landscape. Geographical

Review. 84(1): 59-73.

59. Scarascia-Mugnozza, G., Oswald, H., Piussi, P., Radoglou, K. 2000. Forests of the

Mediterranean region: gaps in knowledge and research needs. Forest Ecology and

Management 132: 97-109.

60. Schon, R., Galaty, M.L. 2006. Diachronic frontiers: landscape archaeology in highland

Albania. Journal of world-systems research. XII, 2: 231-262.

61. Sjoberg, O. 1989. The Agrarian Sector in Albania during the 1980s. In: “Studies in

International Economics and Geography (Research Report No. 4). Stockholm: The

Economic Research Unit, Stockholm School of Economics.

62. Skende, H. 1850. The Albanians. Journal of the Ethnological Society of London (1848-

1856) 2:159-181.

63. Thompson, E. P. 1720. Whigs and Hunters: The Origins of the Black Act.

(Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1975).

64. UNECE, 2000. Albania National Report for the Joint Efc Timber Committee. UN

Economic Council for Europe, www.unece.org

65. Urban Institute. 2003. Quarterly report on the Albania Decentralization Initiative project

of USAID. www.dec.org.

66. Wallace. J. 1998. A (Hi)story of Illyria. Greece & Rome. 2nd Ser. 45(2): 213-225.

67. Woods, C.H. 1918. Albania and the Albanians. Geographical Review. 5(4): 257-273.

68. World Bank. 2002. Rural development strategy.


104

69. World Bank. 2003. Albania Poverty Assessment. Human and Development Sector Unit,

Europe and Central Asia Region.

70. World Bank. 1996. Albanian Forestry Project: Staff Appraisal Report of the World Bank.

Report No. 15104-AL. 15 March 1996.

71. World Bank. 2004. Albania: Sustaining Growth beyond the Transition. Report No.

29257-AL. 27 December 2004. www-wds.worldbank.org

72. World Bank. 2004b. Albania: Decentralization in Transition. Report No. 27885-AL.

February 2004.

73. Zeneli, G., Musabelliu, B., Naka, K., Kola, H. 2007. Stakeholder perspectives on

Commercial Medicinal and Aromatic Plants collection in Albania: Issues and approaches.

In: Thangadurai, D. (ed.): “Advances in Medicinal and Aromatic Plant Research”.

Bioscience Publications, India (in press).

74. Zeneli, G., Kola, H., Dida, M. 2005. Phenotypic variation in native walnut populations of

Northern Albania. Scientia Horticulturea. 105(1): 91-100.


105

Appendix 1: For the creation of the Commission of Forests and Pastures of the Village” (Template document)

REPUBLIC OF ALBANIA

LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT _______________ VILLAGE COUNCIL _________

DECISION

Nr._______ Date ___________

“For the creation of the Commission of Forests and Pastures of the Village” Based on Law Nr.9385, date 4.05.2005 “Forests and Forest Services”, law nr 7916 date 13/04/1995 “For Meadows and Pastures” and Law nr. 7844, date 22.02.2001 “ For transferring state public real estate to the local government units”, The decision of Councils of Ministers no________dated 21.06.2006, On criteria for forest transfer in use/ownership of commune, the Village Council _____________ in it’s meeting dated _____________

DECIDED: 1. To approve the results of open voting for establishing the management commission of forests and pastures belonging to the village ________________.

2. The Commission is comprised as follows: 1. _________________________ Head of Commission

2. _________________________ Member 3. _________________________ Member 4. _________________________ Member 5. _________________________ Member 6. _________________________ Member 7. _________________________ Member This decision enters in force immediately. FOR THE VILLAGE COUNCIL HEAD OF COUNCIL (___________________________)


106

Appendix 2: “For establishing the commune’s commission for forests and pastures”

REPUBLIC OF ALBANIA COMMUNE _______________

DECISION No._______ Date ___________

“For establishing the commune’s commission for forests and pastures ”

Based on Law No.9385, date 4.05.2005 “For forests and Forest Service”, law no 7916 date 13/04/1995 “For Meadows and Pastures” as well as in Law no. 7844, date 22.02.2001 “For transferring state public real estate to the local government units”, The decision of Councils of Ministers no________dated 21.06.2006, On criteria for forest transfer in use/ownership of commune; the Commune Council _____________ in it’s meeting dated __________

DECIDED:

1. To establish the commission of dividing the forests and pastures boundaries between villages.

2 . The commission is comprised as follows::

1._________________________ Head of COMMISSION 2. _________________________ Member 3. _________________________ Member 4. _________________________ Member 5. _________________________ Member 6. _________________________ Member 7. _________________________ Member

This decision enters in force immediately.

For the Commune’s Council _____________ SECRETARY HEAD OF COUNCIL

_____________________ ______________________


107

Appendix 3: Approval of activities for transferring communal forests and pastures in use of the village (Template document)

REPUBLIC OF ALBANIA

COMMUNE OF __________________

DECISION NO._____ Date _________

“For the approval of the documents for transferring the forests and pastures in use of

the local unit ______________” Based on Law No.9385, date 4.05.2005 “For forests and forest service”, Law No: 7916 date 13/04/1995 “For meadows and pastures”; Law No. 7844, date 22.02.2001 “For transferring state public real estate to the local government units”, The Council of Local Government Unit Blerimi, in its meeting date 15.06.2007, after taking into consideration the documents regarding the transferring of communal forests and pastures in use to this Commune:

DECIDED: 1. To approve the transferring of forests and pastures to the local unit government according

the list of the parcels attached to the decision. 2. To approve the boundaries of forests and pastures which are transferred in use of the

villages of the local unit, according to the process-verbal signed by the members of work groups and the Forests and Pastures Commission of the villages, which are an inclusive part of this decision. These boundaries have been included in the respective maps attached to this decision.

3. To approve the usage of communal forests and pastures by the users of the villages according to the documents presented by the Villages’ Forests and Pastures Commissions, approved by the Councils of the villages and included in the users’ list (approved by head of village council), which are attached tot his decision and are an inclusive part of it.

4. To approve the decision on certify user rights and regulation of use of forests and pastures according to the list attached to this decision

This decision enters in force immediately. FOR THE COUNCIL OF LGU _________ SECRETARY HEAD OF COUNCIL


108

Appendix 4: Certificate of user’s right (Template document)

DECISION

NO.________ Date____________

TO CERTIFY THE USER RIGHTS IN FORESTS AND PASTURES The commission for forests and pastures of _________ village, took into consideration the request presented by Mr. _________, and based on Law No.9385, date 4.05.2005 “For forests and forest service”, Law No: 7916 date 13/04/1995 “For meadows and pastures”; Law No. 7844, date 22.02.2001 “For transferring state public real estate to the local government units”,

D E C I D E D: To certify the user right of Mr. _________ as head of the family _________, forests and pastures according to the following list: Parcels and average area used by household:



Parcel number by Cadastre

Forest area in use for each

parcel

Total area

(ha) used by

family 4

Conditions for using the forest/pasture In the forests and pastures gives in use the family represented by the above-mentioned person, is allows carrying out the following activities: 1. Grazing 2. Collecting medicinal plans (describe species and the quantities required to be collected) 3. Fire wood production Conditions to be fulfilled by user for sustainable use of forest: 1. Take over the guarding and maintenance of all forests and pastures in use. 2. Will not allow grazing of cattle when the forest height is less than 3m, of goats when

forest height is under 2m and sheep when forest height is less than 1.5m.


109

3. When prune for leaves, there should be a period of minimum 3 years from one pruning to the next one. During the pruning, not more than 2/3 of branches in the lower part of the tree can be taken away without damaging the top of the tree.

4. Time to time, will leave in the forest trees with holes to help forest wild animals breeding. 5. Will never do any clear-cuttings in the whole area, as well as stump extraction. 6. To safeguard forests form damages caused by neighborhood’s livestock, will fence parts

of forest given in use. 7. Will ask from co-villagers not to damage the forest in use by grazing, doing the same

thing himself. 8. In the eroded parts will try to remove the cause of erosion by using simple means like

fences, dry walls, stop water flowing etc. Implementation of the Law The user will implement the conditions set in the commune’s forests and pastures management plan, as well as provisions of the forests, meadows and pastures, hunting law etc, and all other legal acts coming to force after the period of taking the right of ownership. VILLAGE’S FORESTS AND PASTURES COMMISSION

1. User _________________ Signature 2. Headman of the village _________________ Signature 3. Representative of District’s DFS _________________ Signature


110

Appendix 5. “For Settling the Boundaries of Forests and Pastures for the Village” (Template document)”

PROCCES – VERBAL

“FOR SETTLING THE BOUNDARIES OF FORESTS AND PASTURES FOR THE

VILLAGE” Based on Law No.9385, date 4.05.2005 “For forests and forest services”, Law No. 7916 date 13/04/1995 “For Meadows and Pastures” as well as on Law no. 7844, date 22.02.2001 “For transferring state public real estate to the local government units”, today, date _____________, it is signed this process-verbal, in village_______________ for settling the forest and pasture areas which are transferred in use to the local unit _____________ village _____________ The boundaries between village ______________ local unit_____________ district ___________ have been defined by a working group comprised as follows: ________________representative of the cadastre office of the commune– Head of Group __________________representative of DFS____________ - Member _________________representative of local unit whore the transferring in done – member __________________representative of the boundary – member __________________ Head of the Council of village where the transferring is done– member __________________ Head of the Council of the boundary village – member __________________ ____________________________________ __________________ ____________________________________ __________________ ____________________________________

The work group after visiting on the spot and in collaboration with the old people form the boundary villages (neighborhoods) , discussed the boundary between two villages and included it in the map of scale 1: ___________ of the nomenclature _____________ and agreed on defining the boundaries between two villages as follows: ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ For the villages’ boundaries was taken into consideration the decision of the commission of the agriculture land distribution. These details of the boundary are included in the attached map which is an inclusive part of this process-verbal. As per the above, the members of the work group agreed, drafted, read out loud and signed as per their free will this process-verbal. WORK GROUP Rep. Of the Cadastre Office of the LGU___________ Rep.DFS_____________ Rep. i LGU______ ____________________ ___Rep. LGU____ __________ Rep. Village_______ ____________________ Rep. Village.______ __________


111

Appendix 6: Sketch of a parcel division with the users’ names and signatures


112

Appendix 7: Population, Households structure, Agricultural land, and the Livestock structure in the commune of Blerimi Table 1. Population and agricultural land

No Village Number of

families

Permanent Residents

Females Males Working forces

Arable land (ha)

Per family (ha)

Per capita (ha)

1 Dardhe 106 658 312 346 390 139 1.3 0.2 2 Qebik 50 266 129 137 160 65 1.3 0.2 3 Truni 66 260 128 132 160 46 0.7 0.1 4 Sakat 30 184 78 106 100 113 3.7 0.6 5 Kulumri 40 125 72 53 70 13 0.3 0.1 6 Xath 105 431 221 210 250 45 0.4 0.1 7 Flet 136 448 293 175 260 61 0.4 0.1 Commune 533 2392 1233 1159 1390 482

Source : Blerimi Commune Table 2. Agricultural land use

No Village Agriculture land (ha)

Main cultivated species (ha)

Wheat Maize Vegetables Fruit trees Fodder 1 Dardhe 139 63 4 13 17 2 Qebik 65 46 3 9 7 3 Truni 46 30 3 7 6 4 Sakat 113 21 2 5 14 5 Kulumri 13 4 1 2 3 6 Xath 45 25 3 4 9 7 Flet 61 35 3 6 12 Commune 482 191 224 19 46

Source : Blerimi Commune

Table 3. Agricultural products

No Village Agricultural products (00 Kg) Income 000/leke Wheat Maize Potatoes Vegetables Fruits Fodder

1 Dardhe 3600 60 120 230 450 13415000 2 Qebik 20 2400 30 150 150 200 8870000 3 Truni 1800 90 120 200 250 7300000 4 Sakat 1200 80 190 280 300 5745000 5 Kulumri 240 30 140 190 150 1873000 6 Xath 1300 70 100 250 450 6115000 7 Flet 1800 90 110 300 400 7835000 Commune 20 11260 450 840 1600 1840 51153000


113

Table 4. Livestock structure and production

No Village Structure of livestock (Head) Production (00 Kg) Revenues 000/leke Sheep Goat Cows Perisodactyl Milk Meat

1 Dardhe 110 160 212 10 45 30 1950000 2 Qebik 30 20 100 4 13 10 1800000 3 Truni 120 170 120 15 54 33 2190000 4 Sakat 50 40 60 10 22 10 720000 5 Kulumri 50 30 80 5 22 10 720000 6 Xath 100 190 210 10 45 35 2200000 7 Flet 90 100 260 10 50 30 2000000

Commune 550 710 1042 64 251 158 11580000 Table 5. Grazing and fodder needs

Nr Village Fulfillment of needs for grazing and fodder from: (in %)

Agricultural land Communal forest

Communal pasture State forest State pastures

1 Dardhe 42 40 - 18 - 2 Qebik 39 40 - 21 - 3 Truni 35 42 - 13 - 4 Sakat 65 35 - - - 5 Kulumri 41 40 - 19 - 6 Xath 40 50 - 10 - 7 Flet 36 50 - 14 -

Commune


114

Appendix 8: Population, Households structure, Agricultural land, and the Livestock structure in the commune of Stebleva Table 1. Population and agricultural land No Village Number of

families Permanent Residents

Arable land (ha)

Per family (ha)

Per capita (ha)

1. Stebleve 62 199 100 1.3 0.48 2. Borove 37 146 62 1.7 0.34 3. Llange 78 394 53 0.5 0.13 4. Zabzun 48 263 51 1.1 0.16 5, Sebisht 72 273 48 0.5 0.17 6. Moglice 22 93 36 1.4 0.30 7. Prodan 6 35 21 3.3 0.53 Commune 325 1408 405 1.3 0.24 Source : Stebeleva Commune Table 2. Agricultural products

No Village Products (Kv) Beans Cereals Potatoes Vegetables Milk Meat

1 Stebleve 30 150 900 80 465 90

2 Borove 40 100 450 60 1010 170

3 Zabzun 20 100 350 60 995 210

4 Llange 20 80 300 70 935 150

5 Sebisht 30 80 150 80 1230 210

6 Moglice 20 0 100 20 200 50

7 Prodan 10 0 50 5 85 20

Commune 180 510 2300 395 4920 900

Source : Stebeleva Commune


115

Table 3. Livestock structure and grazing and fodder needs

No Village

Structure of livestock (Head)

Fulfillment of needs for grazing and fodder from: (in %)

Shee

p

Peris

odac

tyl

Cow

s

Goa

t

Com

mun

al

past

ure

Com

mun

al

fore

st

Stat

e pa

stur

e

Stat

e fo

rest

1. Stebleve 130 50 330 70 60 20 20 0 2. Borove 100 40 310 60 30 20 30 20 3. Llange 100 70 400 70 20 20 40 20 4. Zabzun 120 50 340 130 50 10 20 20 5. Sebisht 140 70 460 130 30 50 10 10 6. Moglice 30 25 70 70 0 80 10 10 7. Prodan 30 5 70 70 20 50 10 20 Commune 650 310 2000 600

Source : Stebeleva Commune Table 4. Possible uses of abandoned land No Village Abandoned

land (ha) Proposed by the users (ha)

Arable land

Fodder/Forage Fruit orchards

Reforestation

Remain the same

1 Stebleve 333 - 300 - 33 - 2 Borove 58 - 50 - 8 - 3 Zabzun 130 - 100 - 30 - 4 Llange 158 - 128 - 30 - 5 Sebisht 73 - 60 - 13 - 6 Moglice 27 - 20 - 7 - 7 Prodan 34 - 20 - 14 - Commune 813 - 677 - 136 -


116

Appendix 9: Population, Households structure, Agricultural land, and the Livestock structure in the commune of Bazi Table 1. Population and agricultural land

No Village Permanent Residents


Arable land (ha)

Per family (ha)

Per capita (ha)

1 Baz 922 472 450 599 92 0.50 0.10 2 Karic 854 426 428 555 117 0.69 0.14 3 Rrethe baz 800 417 383 520 95 0.59 0.12 4 Drita 386 195 191 251 62 0.80 0.16 5 Bashkim 220 120 100 143 25 0.57 0.11 6 Fush Baz 154 74 80 100 21 0.68 0.14

Commune 3336 1704 1632 2168 412 0.64 0.12 Source: Bazi Commune Table 2. Agricultural land use

No Village Agriculture land (ha)

Main cultivated species (ha)

Wheat Maize Fodder Fruit trees Others 1 Baz 151 10 22 6 0 113 2 Karic 64 11 17 19 0 17 3 Rrethe baz 279 14 40 10 1 214 4 Drita 219 8 23 17 3 168 5 Bashkim 180 6 8 3 0 163 6 Fush Baz 201 2 2 0 10 187

Commune 1094 51 112 55 14 862 Source : Bazi Commune

Table 3. Agricultural products

No Village Agricultural products (00 Kg) Income 000/leke Wheat Maize Vegetables Fruits Fodder Others

1 Baz 300 300 70 200 100 80 2920 2 Karic 300 350 30 150 50 70 2605 3 Rrethe baz 250 350 50 150 80 80 2610 4 Drita 150 200 10 100 30 50 1475 5 Bashkim 100 150 50 80 70 80 1380 6 Fush Baz 50 100 50 40 80 50 970 Commune 1150 1450 260 720 410 410 11960


117



1 Baz 380 140 182 35 560 80 4480 2 Karic 90 110 30 10 150 10 800 3 Rrethe baz 40 80 25 8 120 8 640 4 Drita 150 200 170 50 510 22 2300 5 Bashkim 160 300 200 70 650 120 6150 6 Fush Baz 250 350 210 80 780 200 9340

Commune 1070 1180 817 253 2770 440 23 710 Table 5. Grazing and fodder needs

Nr Village Fulfillment of needs for grazing and fodder from: (in %)

Agricultural land Communal forest

Communal pasture State forest State pastures

1 Baz 40 40 0 10 10 2 Karic 40 40 0 10 10 3 Rrethe baz 45 45 0 5 5 4 Drita 35 45 0 10 10 5 Bashkim 35 20 0 30 15 6 Fush Baz 35 20 0 30 15

Commune


118

Appendix 10: Population, Households structure, Agricultural land, and the Livestock structure in the commune of Gore Table 1. Population and agricultural land

No Village Permanent Residents


Arable land (ha)

Per family (ha)

Per capita (ha)

1 Babien 33 18 15 7 123 8,79 0.268 2 Desmirë 172 79 93 41 154 4,16 1.117 3 Dolan 142 75 67 33 61 1,85 2.328 4 Dolanëc 28 14 14 8 41 5,86 0.683 5 Gribec 53 28 25 11 44 3,38 1.205 6 Lozhan 299 145 154 78 86 0,92 3.477 7 Marjan 43 23 20 10 124 8,86 0.347 8 Mesmal 325 155 170 95 65 0,79 5.000 9 Moçan 132 59 73 31 66 1,69 2.000

10 Qenckë 86 33 53 29 29 1,12 2.966 11 Selcë 36 27 9 3 64 4,92 0.563 12 Senisht 147 71 76 28 39 0,98 3.769 13 Strelcë 464 242 222 102 114 1,01 4.070 14 Tresovë 154 79 75 30 51 1,42 3.020 15 Velçan 189 96 93 45 77 1,64 2.455 16 Zvarisht 203 98 105 54 50 0,96 4.060

Commune 2506 1242 1264 605 1188 3.02 0.43 Source: Gore Commune Table 2. Agricultural land use and incomes from agricultural products

No Village Agricultural products (00 Kg) Income 000/leke Wheat Maize Potatios Vegetables Fruits Others

1 Babien - 10 10 5 80 - 325 2 Desmirë 150 70 35 20 200 - 1295 3 Dolan - 150 40 60 200 - 1375 4 Dolanëc 30 15 4 3 50 - 275 5 Gribec - 10 6 5 60 - 249 6 Lozhan - 300 90 70 400 - 2590 7 Marjan - 12 10 10 60 - 290 8 Mesmal - 300 60 120 350 - 2088 9 Moçan 50 30 15 12 150 - 733

10 Qenckë 200 30 15 12 150 - 1033 11 Selcë - 50 30 5 100 - 565 12 Senisht 60 50 30 20 200 - 925 13 Strelcë 30 350 80 90 450 - 2965 14 Tresovë 50 70 20 30 100 - 775 15 Velçan - 80 40 30 150 - 822 16 Zvarisht 30 350 60 90 350 - 2585

Commune 600 1877 545 582 3050 - 18890 Source : Gore Commune


119



1 Babien 240 70 7 11 21 45 2100 2 Desmirë 270 290 38 35 70 130 3444 3 Dolan 130 50 28 20 38 53 1636 4 Dolanëc 30 17 9 5 12 19 580 5 Gribec 260 0 4 4 14 45 1316 6 Lozhan 320 70 67 60 95 123 3824 7 Marjan 180 - 8 8 15 27 816 8 Mesmal 400 90 90 75 115 125 3960 9 Moçan 170 - 15 16 24 40 1216

10 Qenckë 110 130 15 15 30 50 1520 11 Selcë 240 - 35 10 45 47 1496 12 Senisht 190 60 16 17 30 37 1156 13 Strelcë 800 200 130 90 176 250 7470 14 Tresovë 40 26 20 28 34 1064 15 Velçan 600 90 38 32 67 105 3208 16 Zvarisht 260 240 55 32 40 120 3520

Commune 4240 1307 599 465 840 1270 38326 Source : Gore Commune Table 4. Firewood needs

No Village Number of families

Firewood needs (m3) Collected from (m3) Per family Total Communal

forest State forest 1 Babien 14 7 98 98 0 2 Desmirë 37 7 259 150 90 3 Dolan 33 7 231 231 0 4 Dolanëc 7 7 49 49 0 5 Gribec 13 7 91 91 0 6 Lozhan 93 7 651 651 0 7 Marjan 14 7 98 98 0 8 Mesmal 82 7 574 174 400 9 Moçan 26 7 182 182 0

10 Qenckë 13 7 91 91 0 11 Selcë 40 7 280 280 0 12 Senisht 113 7 791 280 511 13 Strelcë 36 7 252 252 0 14 Tresovë 47 7 329 129 300 15 Velçan 52 7 364 150 214 16 Zvarisht 39 7 273 273 0

Commune 659 112 4613 3179 1515 Source : Gore Commune


120

Appendix 11: Order of MOEFWA on the Action Plan

Republic of Albania

Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration The Minister

Prot. No. 389/1 Tirana, October 29, 2007 Approved by Minister Lufter Xhuveli Action- Plan for the Implementation of the Strategy for the Sustainable Transfer and Management of Forests and Pastures in use/ownership of communes This action plan is developed in support of the strategy of the GOA and in line with the instruction of the Prime Minister for the acceleration of the pace in the transfer of forestry and pastures to the Local Government Units (LGUs). The objective of the action plan is also to achieve the suggestions of the WB to this end. The main objectives for the transfer of forests and pastures to the LGUs as follows:

• Expanding and accelerating the government’s agenda for giving in use/ownership of forests and pastures of the communes in order to achieve the goal for the transfer of communal forests and pastures within the first half of 2008 to all the communes of the country;

• In line with the pieces of legislation on forests, pastures, hunting and

medicinal plants, the objective would be to prepare by-laws for utilization of communal forests and pastures by the communes;

• To introduce a system, and then further strengthen and simplify the

process for the transfer of forests and pastures from the state to the communes;


121

• To re-design the Extension Service and put it under the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration in order to guide the role of the foresters in the management and protection of the forests;

• To encourage the LGUs in establishing the local structures (land

management offices) and putting in place the staff for the management of communal forests and pastures.

The Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration (MOEFWA) and the District Forestry Service (DFS), in cooperation with the Agency for Environment and Forestry (AEF), as well as the Natural Resources Development Project (NRDP), according to the timeframe which is integral part of the attached plan, will work closely with the commune administrations and the Communal Forestry and Pastures User Associations in order to clearly define the forest and pasture lots that will be transferred to the LGUs. A joint working group of the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration and of the National Agency for the Transfer of Immovable Properties will coordinate the agenda for program implementation envisaged in the said action plan. The forestry service of Albania will now play the role of the extension service, namely to provide counseling to the LGUs for a fast and better coordinated transfer of forests and pastures. In order to promote and better organize this extension service, a working group will be established chaired by the Deputy Minister of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration. The working group will draft the recommendations and the work program to this end. For personnel training in terms of extension services at the LGU level, there will be a process for the identification of the said personnel, an assessment of the training needs, and a training program will be prepared and implemented supported by the NRDP.


122

Appendix 12: Letter of the Prime Minister


123

Appendix 13. List of users and the parcels used in the commune of Blerimi

Village DARDHE

No Village Name of head of family (user of forest)

Parcel number


Total area used by

family (ha)

1

Dardhë

Nik Lulash Prendi

96/a 1.80

6.9

Dardhë 119 0.70 Dardhë 124 0.80 Dardhë 128 2.60Dardhë 149 1.00

2 Dardhë

Jak Ndue Nika 96/a 1.70

2.8

Dardhë 158 3.00 Dardhë 142 0.80

3 Dardhë

Mëhill Prend Jaku 96/a 1.70

3.5

Dardhë 124 0.80 Dardhë 149 1.00

4

Dardhë

Kolë Gjon Kurti

96/a 1.60

24.6

Dardhë 127 2.60 Dardhë 128 2.40 Dardhë 129 5.00 Dardhë 131 1.00 Dardhë 132 3.00 Dardhë 133 4.00 Dardhë 134 2.00 Dardhë 135 3.00

5

Dardhë

Fran Ndoc Nika

96/a 1.60

10.2

Dardhë 128 2.60 Dardhë 129 5.00 Dardhë 131 1.00

6 Dardhë Zef Gjon Kola 96/a 1.20 3.8 Dardhë 128 2.60

7 Dardhë Mark Pjetër Ndoci 96/a 1.30 3.8 Dardhë 128 2.50

8

Dardhë

Pashk Gjon Mehmeti

138 3.00

18.5

Dardhë 141 3.00 Dardhë 142 0.80 Dardhë 143 1.10 Dardhë 148 9.60 Dardhë 149 1.00

9 Dardhë Dedë Pjetër Marku 141 3.00 3


124


Parcel number


Total area used by

family (ha)

10 Dardhë Astrit Fran Prendi 141 3.00 4.1 Dardhë 143 1.10

11 Dardhë Gjin Mark Deda 143 1.10 1.1

12 Dardhë Mark Ukshim Pjetra 131 1.00 4 Dardhë 132 3.00

13 Dardhë

Nikoll Zef Meta 134 2.00

3.9

Dardhë 142 0.80Dardhë 143 1.10

14 Dardhë Filip Llesh Nika 134 2.00 2

15 Dardhë Ilir Dod Markiqi 125 2.00 2.8 Dardhë 142 0.80

16 Dardhë Prend Nikoll Marashi 126 3.00 5.8 Dardhë 127 2.80

17 Dardhë Ilir Pal Marashi 128 2.60 5.6 Dardhë 132 3.00

18 Dardhë Nikoll Llesh Nika 128 1.60 1.6

19

Dardhë

Qerim Pjetër Ndoci

128 2.60

13.6


20 Dardhë

Prendush Pjetër Ndreu

130 5.0010

Dardhë 131 1.00 Dardhë 133 4.00

21 Dardhë

Pal Jak Gjergji 131 1.00

8

Dardhë 132 3.00 Dardhë 133 4.00

22 Dardhë Nikoll Jak Marku 136 1.00 1

23

Dardhë

Zek Mark Syla

122 1.00

3.8


24 Dardhë Nik Çun Gjergji 122 1.10 1.1 25 Dardhë Ndoc Kol Syla 122 0.80 0.8

26 Dardhë Mark Gjon Matoshi 122 0.90 1.5 Dardhë 123 0.60

27 Dardhë Filip Ndue Uka 122 0.70 0.7

28 Dardhë Ded Ndue Deda 122 0.70 1.5 Dardhë 142 0.80

29 Dardhë Pashk Lulash Uka 124 0.80 0.8 30 Dardhë Ded Ndue Nika 124 0.70 5.7


125


Parcel number


Total area used by

family (ha)

Dardhë 125 2.00 Dardhë 126 3.00

31 Dardhë Pjetër Mark Nika 125 0.30 0.3 32 Dardhë Kol Frrok Dema 127 2.00 2 33 Dardhë Ded Pjetër Dema 121 2.00 2 34 Dardhë Fran Zef Dema 121 2.00 2 35 Dardhë Mëhill Nikoll Matoshi 121 2.00 2

36

Dardhë

Pjetër Ndue Syla

122 5.00

8.5

Dardhë 123 0.60 Dardhë 142 0.80 Dardhë 143 1.10 Dardhë 149 1.00

37

Dardhë

Mëhill Ded Syla

122 1.00

3.6


38 Dardhë

Pal Gjok Syla 122 1.00

2.7


39 Dardhë Mëhill Pjetër Gjeta 116 2.00 2 40 Dardhë Filip Zef Meta 119 0.60 0.6 41 Dardhë Jak Mash Marku 119 0.50 0.5 42 Dardhë Jak Ndue Gjoni 119 0.50 0.5

43 Dardhë

Fran Zef Alia 119 0.50

2.4


44 Dardhë Prend Jak Gjoni 112 5.00 5

45 Dardhë Lulash Nik Ceca 112 5.00 6 Dardhë 122 1.00

46 Dardhë Marash Ndue Marjini 112 5.00 7 Dardhë 116 2.00

47 Dardhë Nikoll Prend Zeqa 112 5.00 5

48 Dardhë Dile Ndue Mark Gjoni 116 2.00 2.5 Dardhë 119 0.50

49 Dardhë Gjok Pjetër Nika 110 4.00 7 Dardhë 111 3.00

50

Dardhë

Ndue Frrok Marku

110 4.00

15 Dardhë 111 3.00 Dardhë 112 5.00 Dardhë 115 3.00


126


Parcel number


Total area used by

family (ha)

51 Dardhë Pal Pjetër Uka 110 4.00 7 Dardhë 111 3.00

52 Dardhë Stak Pjetër Nika 110 4.00 7 Dardhë 111 3.00

53

Dardhë

Ndue Marash Zefi

110 4.00

15

Dardhë 111 3.00 Dardhë 112 5.00 Dardhë 122 0.70 Dardhë 123 0.60 Dardhë 142 0.80Dardhë 149 0.9

54

Dardhë

Gjin Gjon Kadria

110 4.00

20


55 Dardhë Pjetër Mëhill Gjoni 110 4.00 7 Dardhë 111 3.00

56

Dardhë

Pal Ndue Zogu

110 4.00

18.4


57 Dardhë

Lush Martin Gjoni 110 4.00

9.7 Dardhë 11 2.80 Dardhë 111 2.90

58 Dardhë

Mark Frrok Abazi 99 6.00

14

Dardhë 100 4.00 Dardhë 117 4.00

59

Dardhë

Nik Prend Doda

97 5.00

12.5

Dardhë 100 4.00Dardhë 119 0.50 Dardhë 121 2.00 Dardhë 122 1.00

60 Dardhë Mëhill Nikoll Ndoci 97 4.80 6.8 Dardhë 98 2.00

61 Dardhë Gjok Marash Doda 97/a 4.70 6.8 Dardhë 98 2.10

62 Dardhë

Mark Ndue Dema 97 5.00

8.6

Dardhë 121 2.00 Dardhë 123 0.60


127


Parcel number


Total area used by

family (ha)

Dardhë 124 1.00

63

Dardhë

Ndue Pal Nika

97 5.00

18


64 Dardhë Dionis Mark Gjeta 96/a 1.80 5.8 Dardhë 118 4.00

65 Dardhë

Ndue Gjon Kola 96/a 1.80

5.8

Dardhë 131 1.00 Dardhë 132 3.00

66 Dardhë Prend Nikoll Marashi 96/a 1.80 1.8

67 Dardhë Gjon Syl Delia 99 6.00 10 Dardhë 100 4.00

68 Dardhë Lazer Pal Nika 99 6.00 10 Dardhë 100 4.00

69 Dardhë Zef Kol Syla 99 6.00 7 Dardhë 122 1.00

70 Dardhë

Pjetër Mark Mëhilli 100 4.00

13

Dardhë 110 4.00 Dardhë 120 5.00

71 Dardhë Pal Mark Mehilli 100 4.00 4

72

Dardhë

Jak Pjetër Nika

100 3.80

18.4

Dardhë 112 5.00Dardhë 116 1.60 Dardhë 117 4.00 Dardhë 118 4.00

73 Dardhë Palush Pjetër Gjini 100 4.00 8 Dardhë 118 4.00

74

Dardhë

Lush Prel Dema

98 2.00

5.1


75 Dardhë Ded Pjetër Dema 98 1.90 1.9

76 Dardhë Marash Ukshin Nika 98 1.80 7.8 Dardhë 99 6.00

77 Dardhë

Kol Ded Pjetra 98 1.70

15.5

Dardhë 128 2.00 Dardhë 129 5.00


128


Parcel number


Total area used by

family (ha)

Dardhë 130 4.80 Dardhë 134 2.00

78

Dardhë

Palush Jak Marku

96/a 1.80

25.3

Dardhë 97 5.00 Dardhë 98 1.90 Dardhë 120 4.70 Dardhë 122 1.00 Dardhë 125 2.00 Dardhë 126 2.90 Dardhë 127 3.00 Dardhë 137 3.00

79 Dardhë Kol Bejte Syla 96/a 1.80 1.8

79 Dardhë Kol Bejte Syla 128 2.00 7 Dardhë 129 5.00

80 Dardhë Ndoc Mark Prendi 96/a 1.80 1.8

81

Dardhë

Kol Gjok Marku

96/a 1.80

18.5


82

Dardhë

Zef Nik Marashi

96/a 1.80

19.2


83 Dardhë

Ndue Kol Deda 96/a 1.70

7.5

Dardhë 126 3.00 Dardhë 127 2.80

84

Dardhë

Anton Frang Pjetra

96/a 1.70

32.5

Dardhë 100 4.00 Dardhë 110 4.00Dardhë 111 3.00 Dardhë 112 5.00 Dardhë 114 6.00 Dardhë 115 3.00 Dardhë 116 1.80 Dardhë 117 3.00 Dardhë 122 1.00

∑ = 611,6


129


Parcel number


Total area used by

family (ha)


130

Village QEBIK



Parcel number


each parcel (ha)

Total area used by

family (ha)

1

Qebik

Pjetër Kol Ndreca

135 4.00

12

Qebik 158 3.00 Qebik 145 2.00 Qebik 146 2.00 Qebik 144 1.00

2

Qebik

Arben Ndoc Kola

135 4.00

12.8

Qebik 137 4.60 Qebik 158 3.00 Qebik 139 1.20

3

Qebik

Nikoll Zef Meta

147 1.20

10.2

Qebik 135 3.80 Qebik 140 0.80 Qebik 139 1.20Qebik 147 1.20 Qebik 148 2.00

4 Qebik Fran Mëhill Prendi 136 3.00 3 5 Qebik Gjok Ded Kola 134 5.00 5

6 Qebik David Prek Kola 134 5.00 9 Qebik 135 4.00

7

Qebik

Nik Mark Marashi

134 5.00

20.8

Qebik 135 4.00 Qebik 136 3.00 Qebik 137 4.60 Qebik 138 3.00Qebik 139 1.20

7 Qebik

Nik Mark Marashi 144 1.00

5

Qebik 145 2.00 Qebik 146 2.00

8

Qebik Shtjefën Gjergj

Marku

139 1.20

7.4


9 Qebik

Shan Zef Tahiri 147 1.20

7.1 Qebik 148 2.00 Qebik 1 3.90

10 Qebik

Pashk Kol Palushi 135 4.00

13.7

Qebik 136 3.00 Qebik 148 2.00


131

Qebik 149 0.90 Qebik 1 3.80

11 Qebik

Mark Lec Gjoni 139 1.20

7.2

Qebik 1 4.00 Qebik 148 2.00

12 Qebik

Pal Jak Marashi 139 1.20

7.2

Qebik 1 4.00 Qebik 148 2.00

13

Qebik

Pjetër Marash Doda

136 3.00

11.6


14 Qebik Nikoll Mark Zefi 137 4.60 7.6 Qebik 138 3.00

15 Qebik

Gjin Ded Prendi 138 3.00

7

Qebik 145 2.00 Qebik 146 2.00

16 Qebik Gjin Mark Doda 138 3.00 3.6 Qebik 140 0.60

17 Qebik Pal Markiqi 138 3.00 Qebik 140 0.60

18

Qebik

Palush Bib Gjeka

139 1.20

8

Qebik 140 0.60 Qebik 144 1.00 Qebik 146 2.00 Qebik 147 1.20 Qebik 148 2.00

19

Qebik Mëhill Ndue

Maxhuni

140 0.70

3.9


20 Qebik Astrit Frang Prendi 140 0.70 0.7

21

Qebik

Prend Dod Gega

140 0.90

5.1

Qebik 144 1.00 Qebik 147 1.20Qebik 148 2.00

22 Qebik Gjovalin Pjetër Marku

145 2.00 3.2 Qebik 147 1.20

23 Qebik Zef Prend doda 147 1.20 1.2 24 Qebik Marash Dod Prendi 147 1.20 1.2 25 Qebik Sokol Prend Uka 147 1.10 1.1

sum of village 174.6

Average of

family 6.984


132

Village TRUNI List of parcels used collectively by Truni Village

Name of site No of parcel North South East West Area (ha)

Shurthi 2a Liqeni kurriz kurriz Liqeni 17.10 " 3a Liqeni kurriz Prroskë kurriz 34.50 " 4b Liqeni kurriz kurriz Prroskë 60.10 " 5a kurriz kurriz kurriz Prroskë 39.00

Kodër Dëllinja 6a kurriz kurriz Prroskë kurriz 34.30 Verashta Trunit 7b kurriz kurriz Prroskë kurriz 39.60

Shurthi 8b kurriz kurriz kurriz Prroskë 31.90 Truni 9b Prroskë kurriz kurriz kurriz 38.70

" 10a Prroskë kurriz kurriz kurriz 24.90 " 11b kurriz kurriz Prroskë kurriz 46.30 " 12b kurriz Prroskë Prroskë kurriz 32.50 " 13a kurriz kurriz Prroskë Rrugë 27.80 " 14a Prroskë Rrugë kurriz kurriz 42.10 " 15a kurriz kurriz Prroskë Rrugë 25.90 " 16a kurriz Prroskë Prroskë Rrugë 27.20

Lumi Trunit 17a Prroskë Rrugë kurriz Prroskë 27.80 " 18a Prroskë Rrugë kurriz kurriz 21.60

Kodër Sakati 1 kurriz Prroskë kurriz Rrugë 26.80 Truni 2a kurriz kurriz kurriz kurriz 14.60

Kisha Trunit 3a kurriz kurriz kurriz kurriz 21.40 Truni 4a Prroskë kurriz kurriz kurriz 12.00

" 5a kurriz Prroskë kurriz kurriz 27.00 " 6a kurriz Prroskë kurriz kurriz 31.30 " 7a kurriz Prroskë kurriz kurriz 21.70

Truni Poshtë 8a kurriz Prroskë Prroskë kurriz 21.40 " 9a kurriz kurriz Prroskë kurriz 16.70 " 10b kurriz kurriz kurriz kurriz 18.30 " 11b kurriz Prroskë kurriz Prroskë 14.50 " 12a Prroskë kurriz Prroskë kurriz 15.90 " 13b kurriz kurriz Prroskë kurriz 20.30 " 14b kurriz Prroskë Liqeni kurriz 7.00 " 15a Prroskë kurriz kurriz Prroskë 17.40 " 16b kurriz kurriz Prroskë kurriz 32.10 " 17a kurriz kurriz kurriz Prroskë 16.50 " 18a kurriz kurriz kurriz Prroskë 29.20 " 19a kurriz kurriz Prroskë kurriz 21.10 " 20a Prroskë kurriz kurriz Prroskë 24.80 " 21b kurriz kurriz kurriz kurriz 25.30

Prroi Brakës 29b kurriz Prroskë Prroskë kurriz 10.75


133

" 30a kurriz kurriz Prroskë kurriz 22.00 " 31b kurriz kurriz Prroskë kurriz 19.50 " 32a liqeni kurriz Liqeni kurriz 20.00

Truni 33b liqeni kurriz kurriz Prroskë 21.50 Prroi Brakës 34a kurriz kurriz kurriz Prroskë 24.50

" 35a kurriz T.bujqës kurriz Prroskë 31.00 " 36a kurriz T.bujqës kurriz Prroskë 18.25 " 38b kurriz liqeni kurriz kurriz 12.00 " 39a kurriz liqeni kurriz kurriz 17.00 " 40a liqeni kurriz kurriz kurriz 21.00 " 41a liqeni kurriz kurriz kurriz 12.00 " 42b kurriz kurriz kurriz kurriz 10.00 " 43a kurriz liqeni Liqeni kurriz 10.00

Total of area hectare 1256.00


134

Village SAKAT



Parcel number


each parcel (ha)

Total area used by family

(ha)

1

Sakat

Bajram dervishi

22 6.00

62.4

Sakat 23 5.00 Sakat 26 2.00 Sakat 27 10.00 Sakat 28 7.00 Sakat 63 4.00 Sakat 44 1.00 Sakat 37 7.00 Sakat 45 1.20 Sakat 46 0.80 Sakat 47 0.60 Sakat 48 1.80 Sakat 49 1.20 Sakat 50 1.20 Sakat 51 1.20 Sakat 52 2.00 Sakat 53 1.20 Sakat 54 2.00Sakat 55 2.00 Sakat 57 4.00 Sakat 59 1.20

2

Sakat

Azem dervishi

22 6.00

38.4

Sakat 23 5.00 Sakat 27 10.00Sakat 44 1.00 Sakat 45 1.20 Sakat 46 0.80 Sakat 47 0.60 Sakat 48 1.80 Sakat 49 1.20Sakat 50 1.20 Sakat 51 1.20 Sakat 52 2.00 Sakat 53 1.20 Sakat 54 2.00 Sakat 55 2.00


135

Sakat 59 1.20

3

Sakat

Qamil Dervishi

22 6.00

13.6

Sakat 23 5.00 Sakat 45 1.20 Sakat 46 0.80 Sakat 47 0.60

3

Sakat

...continue Qamil Dervishi

48 1.80

13.8

Sakat 49 1.20 Sakat 50 1.20 Sakat 51 1.20 Sakat 52 2.00 Sakat 53 1.20 Sakat 54 2.00 Sakat 55 2.00 Sakat 59 1.20

4

Sakat

Tahir Dervishi

22 6.00

27.4

Sakat 23 5.00 Sakat 45 1.20 Sakat 46 0.80 Sakat 47 0.60 Sakat 48 1.80 Sakat 49 1.20 Sakat 50 1.20 Sakat 51 1.20 Sakat 52 2.00 Sakat 53 1.20 Sakat 54 2.00 Sakat 55 2.00 Sakat 59 1.20

5

Sakat

Rexhep Myftari

24 4.00

25.2

Sakat 25 4.00 Sakat 45 2.00 Sakat 46 0.80 Sakat 47 0.60 Sakat 48 1.80 Sakat 49 1.20Sakat 50 1.20 Sakat 51 1.20 Sakat 52 2.00 Sakat 53 1.20 Sakat 54 2.00 Sakat 55 2.00Sakat 59 1.2

6

Sakat

Sadik Hasani

24 4.00

54.2

Sakat 25 4.00 Sakat 26 2.00 Sakat 27 10.00


136

Sakat 28 7.00 Sakat 37 7.00 Sakat 63 4.00 Sakat 44 1.00 Sakat 45 1.20 Sakat 46 0.80 Sakat 47 0.60 Sakat 48 1.80 Sakat 49 1.20 Sakat 50 1.20 Sakat 51 1.20 Sakat 52 2.00 Sakat 53 1.20 Sakat 54 2.00Sakat 55 2.00

6 Sakat ...Sadik Hasani 59 1.20 1.2

7

Sakat

Avni Myftari

24 4.00

23.6

Sakat 25 4.00 Sakat 45 1.00 Sakat 46 1.20 Sakat 47 0.60 Sakat 48 0.80 Sakat 49 1.20 Sakat 50 1.20 Sakat 51 1.20 Sakat 52 2.00 Sakat 53 1.20 Sakat 54 2.00 Sakat 55 2.00 Sakat 59 1.20

8

Sakat

Vehbi Hasani

24 4.00

22.2

Sakat 25 4.00Sakat 45 1.00 Sakat 46 1.20 Sakat 47 0.80 Sakat 48 0.60 Sakat 49 1.80 Sakat 50 1.20Sakat 51 1.20 Sakat 53 1.20 Sakat 54 2.00 Sakat 55 2.00 Sakat 59 1.20

9 Sakat

Riza Hasani 24 4.00

8 Sakat 25 4.00

10 Sakat Sulejman Sula 26 2.00 43.4 Sakat 37 7.00


137

Sakat 63 4.00 Sakat 44 1.00 Sakat 45 1.20 Sakat 46 0.80 Sakat 47 0.60 Sakat 48 1.80Sakat 49 1.20 Sakat 50 1.20 Sakat 51 1.20 Sakat 52 2.00 Sakat 53 1.20 Sakat 54 2.00Sakat 55 2.00 Sakat 56 6.00 Sakat 58 7.00 Sakat 59 1.20

11

Sakat

Ram hasani

26 2.00

12.6

Sakat 63 4.00 Sakat 44 1.00 Sakat 45 1.20 Sakat 46 0.80 Sakat 47 0.60 Sakat 48 1.80 Sakat 49 1.20

11

Sakat

...continue Ram Hasani

50 1.20

16.8

Sakat 51 1.20 Sakat 52 2.00 Sakat 53 1.20Sakat 54 2.00 Sakat 55 2.00 Sakat 56 6.00 Sakat 59 1.20

12

Sakat

Sali Mami

44 1.00

16.6

Sakat 45 1.20 Sakat 46 0.80 Sakat 47 0.60 Sakat 48 1.80 Sakat 49 1.20 Sakat 50 1.20 Sakat 51 1.20 Sakat 52 2.00 Sakat 53 1.20 Sakat 54 2.00 Sakat 55 1.20 Sakat 59 1.20

13 Sakat Isa Halili 28 7.00 7 14 Sakat Ram Rexha 37 7.00 7


138

15 Sakat Rexhep Smali 44 1.00 1

16

Sakat

Sadri Mehmeti

44 1.00

17.4

Sakat 45 1.20 Sakat 46 0.80 Sakat 47 0.60 Sakat 48 1.80 Sakat 49 1.20 Sakat 50 1.20 Sakat 51 1.20 Sakat 52 2.00 Sakat 53 1.20 Sakat 54 2.00 Sakat 55 2.00 Sakat 59 1.20

17

Sakat

Shpëtim Mehmeti

44 1.20

17.4

Sakat 45 1.00 Sakat 46 0.80 Sakat 47 0.60 Sakat 48 1.80 Sakat 49 1.20 Sakat 50 1.20 Sakat 51 1.20 Sakat 52 2.00 Sakat 53 1.20 Sakat 54 2.00 Sakat 55 2.00Sakat 59 1.20

18 Sakat Hajredin Shaqja 44 1.00 1

19

Sakat

Skënder Hasani

45 1.20

5.6

Sakat 46 0.80 Sakat 47 0.60 Sakat 48 1.80Sakat 49 1.20

19

Sakat

...continue Skënder hasani

50 1.20

8.8

Sakat 51 1.20 Sakat 53 1.20 Sakat 54 2.00 Sakat 55 2.00 Sakat 59 1.20

20

Sakat

Ajet Canaj

45 1.00

14.2

Sakat 46 0.80 Sakat 47 0.60 Sakat 48 1.80 Sakat 49 1.20 Sakat 50 1.20 Sakat 51 1.20


139

Sakat 53 2.00 Sakat 54 1.20 Sakat 55 2.00 Sakat 59 1.20

21

Sakat

Hazis hasani

45 1.20

25.40

Sakat 46 0.80 Sakat 47 0.60 Sakat 48 1.80 Sakat 49 1.20Sakat 50 1.20 Sakat 51 1.20 Sakat 53 1.20 Sakat 54 2.00 Sakat 55 2.00 Sakat 59 1.20Sakat 57 4.00 Sakat 58 7.00

22

Sakat

Hamit Cana

45 1.20

14.4

Sakat 46 0.80 Sakat 47 0.60 Sakat 48 1.80 Sakat 49 1.20 Sakat 50 1.20 Sakat 51 1.20 Sakat 53 1.20 Sakat 54 2.00 Sakat 55 2.00 Sakat 59 1.20

23 Sakat Shaqir Myftari 57 4.00 4 ∑ = 502,6


140

Village Kulumri

No Village Name of head of family (user of

forest)

Parcel number


Total area used by

family (ha)

1

Kulumri

Gëzim Avdia

53 3.00

12.7

Kulumri 54 3.00 Kulumri 55 2.70 Kulumri 70 2.00 Kulumri 71 2.00

2

Kulumri

Raif demnçaj

53 3.00

13.7

Kulumri 54 3.00 Kulumri 55 2.70 Kulumri 62 1.00 Kulumri 70 2.00 Kulumri 71 2.00

3

Kulumri

Qamil Demnçaj

53.00 3.00

21.6

Kulumri 54 3.00 Kulumri 55 2.70Kulumri 64 5.00 Kulumri 66 2.90 Kulumri 69 1.00 Kulumri 70 2.00 Kulumri 71 2.00

4 Kulumri

Hysen Demnçaj 54 3.00

Kulumri 55 2.70 Kulumri 71 2.00

5

Kulumri

Kujtim Shpendi

60 3.00

35.6

Kulumri 61 3.00 Kulumri 62 4.00 Kulumri 64 3.00Kulumri 66 2.90 Kulumri 67 4.00 Kulumri 68 5.00 Kulumri 70 2.00 Kulumri 53 3.00 Kulumri 54 3.00 Kulumri 55 1.70

6 Kulumri Hamit Bala 53 3.00 26.8

Kulumri 54 3.00


141

Kulumri 55 2.90 Kulumri 60 3.00 Kulumri 61 4.00 Kulumri 62 2.90 Kulumri 66 4.00 Kulumri 67 1.00 Kulumri 69 3.00

7

Kulumri

Basri Bala

53 3.00

33.8

Kulumri 54 3.00 Kulumri 55 2.90 Kulumri 60 3.00 Kulumri 61 3.00 Kulumri 62 4.00 Kulumri 64 3.00 Kulumri 66 2.90Kulumri 67 4.00 Kulumri 68 5.00

8

Kulumri

Rasim Uka

53 3.00

19.6

Kulumri 54 3.00 Kulumri 55 2.90 Kulumri 64 3.00 Kulumri 65 5.00 Kulumri 66 2.70

9 Kulumri Alush Braha 53 3.00 3

9

Kulumri

...continue Alush Braha

54 3.00

28.8

Kulumri 55 2.90 Kulumri 60 3.00 Kulumri 61 3.00 Kulumri 62 4.00 Kulumri 66 2.90 Kulumri 67 4.00 Kulumri 68 5.00Kulumri 69 1.00

10

Kulumri

Asllan Bala

53 3.00

27.9

Kulumri 54 3.00 Kulumri 55 2.90 Kulumri 60 3.00 Kulumri 61 3.00 Kulumri 62 4.00 Kulumri 67 4.00 Kulumri 68 5.00

11 Kulumri

Adem Brahimi 60 3.00

10



142

12 Kulumri

Imer Dashi 60 3.00

10


13 Kulumri

Qamil Brahimi 60 3.00

10

Kulumri 61 3.00Kulumri 62 4.00

14 Kulumri

Gani Ramadani 64 5.00

11


15

Kulumri

Haki demiraj

64 5.00

13

Kulumri 65 5.00 Kulumri 69 1.00 Kulumri 70 2.00

16 Kulumri Esat bala 66 2.90 2.9

17 Kulumri Brahim Ademi 67 4.00 6.9 Kulumri 66 2.90

18 Kulumri Myrteza Bala 66 2.90 7.9 Kulumri 68 5.00

19 Kulumri

Sali demnçaj 69 1.00

5


20 Kulumri Sadik Meta 69 1.00 1

21 Kulumri Bujar Fetahu 70 2.00 4 Kulumri 71 2.00

22 Kulumri Imer Demiraj 70 1.90 1.9 23 Kulumri Hakim demiraj 70 1.90 1.9 24 Kulumri Shpëtim demiraj 71 2.00 2 25 Kulumri Shaqir Ramadani 70 1.90 1.9


143

Village XATH



Parcel number


each parcel (ha)

Total area used by

family (ha)

1 XATH Qamil Vela 56 1.50 1.5 2 XATH Bajram Vela 56 1.50 1.5

3 XATH Rexh Smaka 56 1.50 2.2 XATH 78 0.70

4 XATH Riza vela 56 1.50 3.2 XATH 76 1.70

5 XATH Qazim Vela 56 1.50 1.5 6 XATH Xheladin smaka 56 1.50 1.5 7 XATH Astrit Smaka 56 1.50 1.5

8 XATH Ajet Smaka 56 1.50 4.4 XATH 72 2.90

9 XATH Bafti Mulaku 56 1.50 1.5 10 XATH Ramadan Mulaku 56 1.50 1.5 11 XATH Rexhep Mulaku 56 1.50 1.5 12 XATH Musa Mulaku 56 1.50 1.5 13 XATH Gani Mulaku 56 1.50 1.5 14 XATH Xhevahir Mulaku 56 1.50 1.5

15 XATH Adem Muha 56 1.50 2.5 XATH 74 1.00

16 XATH Imer Mula 56 1.50 2.5 XATH 74 1.00

17

XATH

Imer Delia

56 1.50

9.9

XATH 57 5.00 XATH 74 1.00 XATH 75 0.70 XATH 76 1.70

18 XATH

Alush Velia 56 1.50

7.5

XATH 57 5.00 XATH 74 1.00

19 XATH Hamit Vela 57 5.00 6 XATH 74 1.00

20 XATH Ajet Velaj 57 5.00 5

21 XATH Hasan velaj 57 5.00 6 XATH 74 1.00

22 XATH Alush Velaj 56 1.50 6.5


144

XATH 57 5.00

23

XATH

Latif Latifi

57 5.00

16.4

XATH 58 6.00 XATH 79 3.00 XATH 81 2.40

24 XATH Shaban Latifi 57 5.00 6.4 XATH 81 1.40

25 XATH Jak Mëhilli 77 3.00 3 26 XATH Veli Velaj 57 5.00 5 27 XATH Ton Mëhilli 57 5.00 5 28 XATH Brahim Latifi 58 6.00 6

28 XATH Brahim Latifi 78 4.00 7 XATH 79 3.00

29 XATH Zamir Latifi 58 6.00 9 XATH 79 3.00

30 XATH Xhelal Latifi 58 6.00 9 XATH 79 3.00

31 XATH

Xhafer Latifi 58 6.00

15

XATH 79 3.00 XATH 80 6.00

32

XATH

Latif latifi

80 6.00

17.4

XATH 81 2.40 XATH 79 3.00 XATH 58 6.00

33 XATH

Elez Latifi 58 6.00

15

XATH 79 3.00 XATH 80 6.00

34 XATH Syle Smaka 72 2.90 3.6 XATH 73 0.70

35 XATH Selman koleci 72 2.90 3.6 XATH 73 0.70

36 XATH Rustem latifi 73 0.70 0.7 37 XATH Ali latifi 73 0.70 0.7

38

XATH

Hysen Latifi

73 0.70

8.1

XATH 75 0.70XATH 76 1.70 XATH 74 1.00 XATH 78 4.00

39 XATH

Azem latifi 73 0.70

2.4

XATH 74 1.00 XATH 75 0.70

40 XATH Arif asllani 73 0.70 1.4 XATH 75 0.70

41 XATH Arben koleci 73 0.70 0.7


145

42 XATH Bajram Koleci 73 0.70 0.7 43 XATH Ismail vela 73 0.70 0.7 44 XATH Shaban Smaka 73 0.70 0.7

45 XATH Musa muho 73 0.70 1.7 XATH 74 1.00

46 XATH Brahim Xhauri 74 1.00 2.7 XATH 76 1.70

47 XATH Xhevahir Muho 73 0.70 2.4 XATH 76 1.70

48 XATH

Jak Xhauri 74 1.00

3.4

XATH 75 0.70 XATH 76 1.70

49 XATH Faik uka 74 1.00 1 50 XATH Sami Asllani 74 1.00 1

51

XATH

Azem latifi

73 0.70

4.1

XATH 74 1.00 XATH 75 0.70 XATH 76 1.70

52 XATH

Imer Delia 57 5.00

6.7

XATH 74 1.00XATH 75 0.70

53 XATH Arif Latifi 75 0.70 2.4 XATH 76 1.70

54

XATH

Eduart latifi

75 0.70

9.4

XATH 76 1.70 XATH 77 3.00 XATH 78 4.00

55 XATH Fadil velaj 75 0.70 0.7 56 XATH Shaban xhauri 77 3.00 3

57 XATH Musa Xhauri 77 3.00 3.7 XATH 75 0.70

58 XATH Bajram Velaj 76 1.70 1.7 59 XATH Qamil vela 76 1.70 1.7 60 XATH Riza Velaj 76 1.70 1.7

61 XATH Jak Mëhilli 57 5.00 8 XATH 77 3.00

62 XATH Kol Nika 77 3.00 3 63 XATH Muharrem Latifi 79 3.00 3 64 XATH Idriz Xhauri 81 2.40 2.4 65 XATH Myftar xhauri 81 2.40 2.4 66 XATH Xhelal Hoxha 81 2.40 2.4 67 XATH Abedin Hoxha 81 2.40 2.4 68 XATH Mustaf Hoxha 81 2.40 2.4 69 XATH Ismail xhauri 81 2.40 2.4


146

70 XATH Muharrem xhauri 81 2.40 2.4 71 XATH Shefqet Tahiri 81 2.40 2.4 72 XATH Shpëtim Tahiri 81 2.40 2.4

73 XATH Arben koleci 72 2.90 3.6 XATH 73 0.70

74 XATH Shpëtim Koleci 72 2.90 2.9 75 XATH Hysen Koleci 72 7.90 7.9 76 XATH Agim smaka 72 2.90 2.9

77 XATH Ajet Smaka 72 2.90 3.6 XATH 73 0.70

78 XATH Ali smaka 72 2.90 2.9 79 XATH Ylber koleci 72 2.90 2.9 80 XATH Sami Koleci 72 2.90 2.9


147

Village FLET



Parcel number


each parcel (ha)

Total area used by

family (ha)

1 FLET kol Nika 59 7.60 7.6

2 FLET Vatë Nika 59 7.60 32.1 FLET 60 24.50

3 FLET Pashuk Nika 59 7.60 7.6

4 FLET Ndue Nika 59 7.60 10.6 FLET 85 3.00

5 FLET Dodë Caca 59 7.60 7.6 6 FLET Gjon Caca 59 7.60 7.6 7 FLET Mark Caca 59 7.60 7.6 7 FLET Mark Caca 76 4.00 4 8 FLET Mustaf Hoxha 60 16.90 16.9 9 FLET Smail Hoxha 60 16.90 16.9 10 FLET Smail Xhauri 61a 11.30 11.3 11 FLET Bajram selmani 61 11.30 11.3 12 FLET Skënder Uka 61 11.30 11.3

13 FLET

Ali Islami 61 11.30

27.9

FLET 62 9.00 FLET 72 7.60

14 FLET Ramadan islami 62 9.00 9 15 FLET Marash pali 63 7.00 7

16

FLET

Sadik Selmani

63 8.00

36

FLET 66 17.00 FLET 70 3.00 FLET 73 4.00 FLET 76 4.00

17 FLET Dod Pali 63 7.00 7 18 FLET Riza Zeqja 64 10.00 10

19 FLET

Myftar Selmani 64 10.00

18

FLET 71 4.00 FLET 75 4.00

20 FLET Qamil Sejdia 64 9.00 15 FLET 72 7.00

21 FLET

Smail Zeqja 64 8.00

23

FLET 67 7.00 FLET 70 8.00


148

22 FLET

Skënder Veseli 64 8.00

20

FLET 69 9.00 FLET 84 3.00

23 FLET Ramadan... 64 12.00 12

24 FLET Riza Zeqja 69 10.00 19 FLET 70 9.00

25 FLET Dervish Islami 70 4.00 4 26 FLET Ismet Qypi 71 4.00 4 27 FLET Sali Hyseni 70 4.00 4

28

FLET

Qazim Hyseni

69 10.00

28

FLET 70 4.00 FLET 74 12.00 FLET 75 4.00

29 FLET Muharrem Ahmeti 70 4.00 4

30

FLET

Gjovalin Gjoni

70 4.00

36.7

FLET 74 13.00 FLET 76 4.00FLET 90 13.00 FLET 86 0.70 FLET 87 3.00

31 FLET Xhemal Hyseni 73 4.50 8.5 FLET 75 4.00

32 FLET Ali Baftjari 74 12.00 16 FLET 75 4.00

33 FLET Qamil Sejdia 75 4.00 8 FLET 76 4.00

34 FLET Gjergj Ndreca 76 4.00 4 35 FLET Stak Ndreca 76 4.00 4

36

FLET

Llesh Gjoni

76 4.00

29

FLET 77 7.00 FLET 80 4.00 FLET 81 6.00 FLET 89 5.00 FLET 87 3.00

37 FLET Luftim bardhi 77 7.00 7

38

FLET

Vlash gjoni

77 7.00

22.4

FLET 80 5.00 FLET 93 10.00 FLET 86 0.40

39 FLET

Jak syla 78 10.00

22

FLET 79 7.00 FLET 89 5.00

40 FLET Mati Syla 78 7.00 12.3 FLET 79 5.00


149

FLET 86 0.30 41 FLET Uk Delia 82a 1.50 1.5 42 FLET Syl Delia 82 1.50 1.5 43 FLET Xhafer veseli 82a 1.50 1.5 44 FLET Israt tahiri 82 1.50 1.7

45 FLET

Bujar tahiri 83 0.20

1.7

FLET 82 1.50 FLET 83 0.20

46 FLET Ramadan Huli 82 1.50 1.6 FLET 83 0.10

47 FLET Sami Huli 82 1.50 1.5

48 FLET Sherif Huli 82 1.50 1.6 FLET 83 0.10

49 FLET Isa Huli 82 1.50 1.6 FLET 83 0.10

50 FLET Sadri Huli 82 1.50 1.6 FLET 83 0.10

51 FLET Sali Tahiri 82 1.50 1.6 FLET 83 0.10

52 FLET Shefqet Tahiri 83 0.30 0.3 53 FLET Halit Tahiri 83 0.20 0.2 54 FLET Dod Pali 84 3.00 3 55 FLET Ndue Pali 84a 3.00 3 56 FLET beslim Delia 84 3.00 3 57 FLET Marash Nika 84 3.00 3 58 FLET Gjergj Nika 85 3.00 3 59 FLET Dod Nika 85 3.00 3

60 FLET Gjon Syla 86 0.10 3.1 FLET 87 3.00

61 FLET Sadik Sadriu 86 0.20 0.2

62 FLET Skënder Alia 86 0.10 3.2 FLET 87 3.10

63 FLET Ndue Prendi 88 6.00 6 64 FLET Qamil Sejdia 64 10.00 10 65 FLET smail Arifi 83 0.10 0.1 66 FLET Tahir Sejdia 72 7.00 7


150

Appendix 13: List of users and the parcels used in the commune of Bazi

No

Vill

age

Fore

st

econ

omy

Cod

e of

pa

rcel

Are

a (h

a)

Form

of

fore

st

man

agem

ent

Spec

ies

com

posi

tion

Dia

met

er

(cm

)

Hei

ght (

m)

Age

(yea

r)

Den

sity

% o

f la

nd c

over

Tim

ber

Vol

ume

(m3)

Mod

e of

L

and

use

1 Bashkim Baz 1a 64.62 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 3 2 17 50 0.5 297 Divide between families 2 Baz Baz 1b 23.36 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 2 2 12 50 0.5 380 Divide between families 3 Drita Baz 2a 32.10 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 4 17 90 0.9 883 Divide between families 4 Drita Baz 2b 9.70 Agricultural Agricultural Private with deed 5 Drita Baz 2b 0.61 Agricultural Agricultural Private with deed 6 Drita Baz 3a 2.28 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 4 17 100 1 0 Divide between families 7 Drita Baz 3a 35.78 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 4 17 100 1 1456 Divide between families 8 Drita Baz 3b 25.83 Agricultural Agricultural Private with deed 9 Drita Baz 3b 7.84 Agricultural Agricultural Private with deed

10 Karicë Baz 4a 45.44 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 3 3 17 90 0.9 1154 Divide between families 11 Karicë Baz 4b 12.40 Agricultural Agricultural Private with deed 12 Karicë Baz 4b 7.15 Agricultural Agricultural Private with deed 13 Bashkim Baz 5a 9.74 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 6 4 20 100 1 747 Divide between families 14 Bashkim Baz 5a 9.13 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 6 4 20 100 1 0 Divide between families 14 Bashkim Baz 5b 74.19 Agricultural Private with deed 15 Karicë Baz 6a 15.37 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 6 4 17 90 0.9 1735 Divide between families 16 Karicë Baz 6a 22.65 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 6 4 17 90 0.9 0 Divide between families 17 Karicë Baz 6a 19.33 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 6 4 17 90 0.9 0 Divide between families 18 Karicë Baz 6b 3.83 Agricultural Private with deed 19 Karicë Baz 6b 2.66 Agricultural Private with deed 20 Karicë Baz 6b 77.06 Agricultural Private with deed 21 Karicë Baz 7a 37.95 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 4 17 100 1 1053 Divide between families 22 Karicë Baz 7b 2.02 Agricultural Private with deed 23 Karicë Baz 7b 37.11 Agricultural Private with deed 24 Karicë Baz 8a 21.33 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 5 17 100 1 567 Divide between families


151

No

Vill

age

Fore

st

econ

omy

Cod

e of

pa

rcel

Are

a (h

a)

Form

of

fore

st

man

agem

ent

Spec

ies

com

posi

tion

Dia

met

er

(cm

)

Hei

ght (

m)

Age

(yea

r)

Den

sity

% o

f la

nd c

over

Tim

ber

Vol

ume

(m3)

Mod

e of

L

and

use

25 Karicë Baz 8b 36.96 Agricultural Private with deed 26 Karicë Baz 9 121.24 Agricultural Private with deed 27 Karicë Baz 10a 32.18 High forest Mixed oak+chestnut 3 3 17 60 0.6 547 Divide between families 28 Karicë Baz 10b 48.03 Agricultural Private with deed 29 Karicë Baz 10c 24.05 Agricultural Private with deed 30 Karicë Baz 11a 22.14 High forest Mixed pine+oak 2 1.5 8 30 0.3 38 Divide between families 31 Karicë Baz 11b 46.57 High forest Mixed oak+chestnut 4 4 21 80 0.8 1998 Divide between families 32 Karicë Baz 12a 13.96 High forest Mixed pine+oak 10 5 25 90 0.9 757 Divide between families 33 Karicë Baz 12b 30.77 Coppice Mixed oak+chestnut 4 4 19 80 0.8 1329 Divide between families 34 Karicë Baz 12c 28.09 Agricultural Private with deed 35 Karicë Baz 13a 22.48 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 2 3 15 60 0.6 467 Used collectively by village 36 Karicë Baz 13b 58.08 Shkurre Shrubs +ash+others 3 3 17 60 0.6 303 Used collectively by village 37 Karicë Baz 13c 0.98 Unproductive 38 Karicë Baz 13c 2.28 Unproductive 39 Karicë Baz 14a 45.47 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 3 3 15 50 0.5 155 Used collectively by village 40 Baz Baz 15 33.62 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 2 3 14 60 0.6 530 Used collectively by village 41 Karicë Baz 14b 6.16 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 2 2 14 50 0.5 14 Used collectively by village 42 Karicë Baz 14c 4.51 Unproductive 43 Karicë Baz 16a 23.82 Shkurre Shrubs +ash+others 2 2 16 70 0.7 375 Used collectively by village 44 Karicë Baz 16b 1.71 Unproductive 45 Karicë Baz 17a 50.43 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 6 5 18 30 0.3 2347 Used collectively by village

46 Karicë Baz 17b 2.28 Forest land with some vegetation


48 Karicë Baz 17c 2.12 Unproductive 49 Karicë Baz 18a 47.11 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 6 6 35 60 0.6 1520 Used collectively by village 50 Karicë Baz 18b 3.50 Unproductive 51 Karicë Baz 19a 48.05 Coppice Shrubs +ash+others 2 1.5 7 70 0.7 133 Used collectively by village


152

No

Vill

age

Fore

st

econ

omy

Cod

e of

pa

rcel

Are

a (h

a)

Form

of

fore

st

man

agem

ent

Spec

ies

com

posi

tion

Dia

met

er

(cm

)

Hei

ght (

m)

Age

(yea

r)

Den

sity

% o

f la

nd c

over

Tim

ber

Vol

ume

(m3)

Mod

e of

L

and

use

52 Karicë Baz 19b 5.35 Unproductive 53 Baz Baz 20 21.31 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 4 15 60 0.6 368 Used collectively by village 54 Karicë Baz 21a 32.44 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 10 7 43 70 0.7 1649 Used collectively by village 55 Karicë Baz 21b 3.69 Unproductive 56 Karicë Baz 22a 43.81 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 10 7 45 70 0.7 3137 Used collectively by village 57 Karicë Baz 22b 3.01 Unproductive 58 Karicë Baz 22b 4.25 Unproductive 59 Karicë Baz 22b 3.07 Unproductive 60 Karicë Baz 23 28.78 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 8 7 43 90 0.9 1863 Used collectively by village 61 Karicë Baz 24 72.02 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 4 19 60 0.6 4200 Used collectively by village 62 Karicë Baz 25a 57.27 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 8 6 45 70 0.7 3515 Used collectively by village


64 Baz Baz 26a 32.96 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 8 7 45 60 0.6 2241 Used collectively by village

65 Baz Baz 26b 9.82 Forest land with some vegetation

66 Baz Baz 26b 2.95 Unproductive 67 Baz Baz 27a 12.78 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 12 9 45 60 0.6 2802 Used collectively by village 68 Baz Baz 27a 0.70 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 12 9 45 60 0.6 0 Used collectively by village 69 Baz Baz 27a 2.78 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 12 9 45 60 0.6 0 Used collectively by village 70 Baz Baz 27a 7.51 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 12 9 45 60 0.6 0 Used collectively by village 71 Baz Baz 27a 7.27 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 12 9 45 60 0.6 0 Used collectively by village



74 Baz Baz 28a 40.94 High forest Oak + other broadleaves 20 10 67 90 0.9 4663 Used collectively by village 75 Baz Baz 28b 5.94 High forest Beech +others 22 16 127 60 0.6 1034 Used collectively by village 76 Baz Baz 29a 5.10 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 12 7 43 70 0.7 256 Used collectively by village 77 Baz Baz 29a 6.30 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 12 7 43 70 0.7 0 Used collectively by village


153

No

Vill

age

Fore

st

econ

omy

Cod

e of

pa

rcel

Are

a (h

a)

Form

of

fore

st

man

agem

ent

Spec

ies

com

posi

tion

Dia

met

er

(cm

)

Hei

ght (

m)

Age

(yea

r)

Den

sity

% o

f la

nd c

over

Tim

ber

Vol

ume

(m3)

Mod

e of

L

and

use


79 Baz Baz 30a 39.21 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 12 7 44 70 0.7 3519 Used collectively by village 80 Baz Baz 30b 7.94 Unproductive 81 Baz Baz 30b 11.33 Unproductive 82 Baz Baz 31a 33.16 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 12 8 43 70 0.7 2987 Used collectively by village 83 Baz Baz 31b 11.25 Unproductive 84 Baz Baz 32a 44.06 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 10 8 45 60 0.6 3781 Used collectively by village 85 Baz Baz 32b 6.04 Agricultural Private with deed

86 Baz Baz 32c 1.14 Forest land with some vegetation


88 Baz Baz 33a 24.27 High forest Oak + other broadleaves 12 10 67 70 0.7 2272 Divide between families



91 Baz Baz 34a 2.56 High forest Oak + other broadleaves 10 10 57 80 0.8 1553 Divide between families 92 Baz Baz 34a 4.22 High forest Oak + other broadleaves 10 10 57 80 0.8 0 Divide between families 93 Baz Baz 34a 2.29 High forest Oak + other broadleaves 10 10 57 80 0.8 0 Divide between families 94 Baz Baz 34a 6.83 High forest Oak + other broadleaves 10 10 57 80 0.8 0 Divide between families


96 Baz Baz 35a 63.03 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 8 6 24 60 0.6 3235 Used collectively by village




100 Baz Baz 36a 36.01 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 6 4 15 60 0.6 808 Used collectively by village 101 Baz Baz 36b 5.87 Shkurre Shrubs +ash+others 2 2 16 40 0.4 0 Used collectively by village


154

No

Vill

age

Fore

st

econ

omy

Cod

e of

pa

rcel

Are

a (h

a)

Form

of

fore

st

man

agem

ent

Spec

ies

com

posi

tion

Dia

met

er

(cm

)

Hei

ght (

m)

Age

(yea

r)

Den

sity

% o

f la

nd c

over

Tim

ber

Vol

ume

(m3)

Mod

e of

L

and

use

102 Baz Baz 36b 10.77 Shkurre Shrubs +ash+others 2 2 16 40 0.4 23 Used collectively by village 103 Baz Baz 36c 4.98 Agricultural Private with deed 104 Baz Baz 37a 43.56 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 12 7 43 50 0.5 3306 Used collectively by village


106 Baz Baz 38a 4.78 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 12 7 44 40 0.4 1055 Used collectively by village 107 Baz Baz 38a 3.20 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 12 7 44 40 0.4 0 Used collectively by village 108 Baz Baz 38a 5.92 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 12 7 44 40 0.4 0 Used collectively by village 109 Baz Baz 38b 40.37 Shkurre Shrubs +ash+others 2 2 18 40 0.4 53 Used collectively by village 110 Baz Baz 39a 11.71 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 6 4 19 60 0.6 618 Used collectively by village


112 Baz Baz 40a 50.85 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 6 4 17 90 0.9 1007 Divide between families 113 Baz Baz 40b 1.50 Agricultural Private with deed 114 Baz Baz 40b 4.66 Agricultural Private with deed 115 Baz Baz 40b 4.32 Agricultural Private with deed 116 Baz Baz 41a 44.42 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 6 11 70 0.7 1399 Divide between families 117 Baz Baz 41b 7.99 Coppice shrubs +ash+others 3 4 24 80 0.8 34 Divide between families 118 Baz Baz 42a 52.50 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 3 3 15 90 0.9 689 Divide between families 119 Baz Baz 42b 1.96 Agricultural Private with deed 120 Baz Baz 43a 26.36 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 3 3 15 80 0.8 363 Divide between families 121 Baz Baz 43b 20.65 Coppice Chestnut+oak 3 3 15 80 0.8 252 Divide between families


123 Baz Baz 44a 18.14 Coppice Mixed oak+chestnut 3 3 12 80 0.8 187 Divide between families 124 Baz Baz 44b 20.07 Coppice Chestnut+oak 6 6 15 60 0.6 419 Divide between families 125 Baz Baz 45a 2.62 Coppice Chestnut+oak 6 5 15 40 0.4 0 Divide between families 126 Baz Bazj 45a 4.01 Coppice Chestnut+oak 6 5 15 40 0.4 0 Divide between families 127 Baz Baz 45a 1.95 Coppice Chestnut+oak 6 5 15 40 0.4 0 Divide between families


155

No

Vill

age

Fore

st

econ

omy

Cod

e of

pa

rcel

Are

a (h

a)

Form

of

fore

st

man

agem

ent

Spec

ies

com

posi

tion

Dia

met

er

(cm

)

Hei

ght (

m)

Age

(yea

r)

Den

sity

% o

f la

nd c

over

Tim

ber

Vol

ume

(m3)

Mod

e of

L

and

use

128 Baz Baz 45a 12.42 Coppice Mixed oak+chestnut 6 5 15 40 0.4 356 Divide between families 129 Baz Baz 45b 104.43 Agricultural Private with deed 130 Baz Baz 45c 12.89 Water area 131 Fush.Baz Baz 46 39.57 Coppice Chestnut+oak 6 6 18 80 0.8 2226 Divide between families 132 Fush.Baz Baz 47a 6.62 Coppice Chestnut+oak 6 6 17 60 0.6 135 Divide between families 133 Fush.Baz Baz 47b 9.79 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 6 6 15 50 0.5 200 Divide between families

134 Fush.Baz Baz 47c 35.74 Forest land with some vegetation

135 Fush.Baz Baz 48a 29.37 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 6 6 16 50 0.5 322 Divide between families 136 Fush.Baz Baz 48b 10.59 Agricultural Private with deed 137 Baz Baz 49a 8.92 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 6 5 17 70 0.7 48 Divide between families 138 Baz Baz 49b 60.34 Agricultural Private with deed 139 Baz Baz 50a 84.06 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 6 5 17 80 0.8 865 Divide between families 140 Baz Baz 50b 28.68 Coppice Oak + shrubs 6 5 17 60 0.6 245 Divide between families 141 Baz Baz 51a 32.68 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 2.5 14 60 0.6 292 Divide between families 142 Baz Baz 51b 31.20 Agricultural Private with deed 143 Baz Baz 51c 7.43 Water area 144 Baz Baz 52a 7.19 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 4.5 17 50 0.5 0 Divide between families 145 Baz Baz 52a 24.63 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 4.5 17 50 0.5 227 Divide between families 146 Baz Baz 52c 6.56 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 4.5 17 50 0.5 297 Divide between families 147 Baz Baz 52b 42.05 Agricultural Private with deed 148 Baz Baz 52d 1.73 Unproductive

Baz Baz 52e 1.72 Water area 149 Baz Baz 53a 2.60 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 2.5 15 80 0.8 0 Divide between families

150 Baz Bacuket 53a 22.27 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 2.5 15 80 0.8 196 Divide between families

151 Baz Baz 53b 50.77 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 3 3 15 70 0.7 389 Divide between families 152 Baz Baz 54a 37.16 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 3 3 15 70 0.7 355 Divide between families 153 Baz Baz 54b 0.55 Agricultural Private with deed


156

No

Vill

age

Fore

st

econ

omy

Cod

e of

pa

rcel

Are

a (h

a)

Form

of

fore

st

man

agem

ent

Spec

ies

com

posi

tion

Dia

met

er

(cm

)

Hei

ght (

m)

Age

(yea

r)

Den

sity

% o

f la

nd c

over

Tim

ber

Vol

ume

(m3)

Mod

e of

L

and

use

154 Baz Baz 54b 1.77 Agricultural Private with deed 155 Baz Baz 55a 40.66 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 3 3 17 90 0.9 440 Divide between families 156 Baz Baz 55b 14.24 Agricultural Private with deed 157 Baz Baz 55b 27.85 Agricultural Private with deed 158 Baz Baz 56a 61.51 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 6 4 17 30 0.3 665 Divide between families 159 Baz Baz 56b 1.55 Agricultural Private with deed 160 Baz Baz 56b 1.72 Agricultural Private with deed 161 Baz Baz 56b 3.65 Agricultural Private with deed 162 Baz Baz 56b 2.50 Agricultural Private with deed 163 Baz Baz 56b 22.08 Agricultural Private with deed 164 Baz Baz 57a 24.95 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 6 4 17 30 0.3 270 Divide between families 165 Rreth.Baz Baz 57b 7.25 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 3 4 17 80 0.8 0 Divide between families 166 Baz Baz 57c 16.54 Agricultural Private with deed 167 Baz Baz 57c 5.74 Agricultural Private with deed 168 Baz Baz 57c 8.28 Agricultural Private with deed

169 Rreth.Baz Mbi Blat 58a 26.66 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 3 4 17 40 0.4 444 Divide between families

170 Rreth.Baz Baz 58b 21.07 Agricultural Private with deed 171 Rreth.Baz Baz 58b 3.77 Agricultural Private with deed 172 Rreth.Baz Baz 59a 26.84 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 6 4.5 17 70 0.7 855 Divide between families 173 Rreth.Baz Baz 59b 31.25 Agricultural Private with deed 174 Rreth.Baz Baz 60a 61.95 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 3 3 14 70 0.7 813 Divide between families 175 Rreth.Baz Baz 60b 1.13 Agricultural Private with deed 176 Rreth.Baz Baz 60b 27.85 Agricultural Private with deed 177 Rreth.Baz Baz 61a 62.81 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 3 3 14 100 1 811 Divide between families 178 Rreth.Baz Baz 61b 0.49 Agricultural Private with deed 179 Rreth.Baz Baz 61b 0.43 Agricultural Private with deed 180 Rreth.Baz Baz 62a 54.34 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 4 17 70 0.7 910 Divide between families


157

No

Vill

age

Fore

st

econ

omy

Cod

e of

pa

rcel

Are

a (h

a)

Form

of

fore

st

man

agem

ent

Spec

ies

com

posi

tion

Dia

met

er

(cm

)

Hei

ght (

m)

Age

(yea

r)

Den

sity

% o

f la

nd c

over

Tim

ber

Vol

ume

(m3)

Mod

e of

L

and

use

181 Rreth.Baz Baz 62b 1.72 Agricultural Private with deed 182 Rreth.Baz Baz 62b 0.61 Agricultural Private with deed 183 Rreth.Baz Baz 63a 2.04 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 3 24 100 1 0 Divide between families 184 Rreth.Baz Baz 63a 18.13 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 3 24 100 1 409 Divide between families 185 Rreth.Baz Baz 63a 8.55 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 3 24 100 1 0 Divide between families 186 Rreth.Baz Baz 63b 7.01 Agricultural Private with deed 187 Rreth.Baz Baz 63b 40.34 Agricultural Private with deed 188 Rreth.Baz Baz 64a 7.01 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 3 8 100 1 0 Divide between families 189 Rreth.Baz Baz 64a 37.38 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 3 8 100 1 644 Divide between families 190 Rreth.Baz Baz 64b 1.12 Agricultural Private with deed 191 Rreth.Baz Baz 64b 36.04 Agricultural Private with deed 192 Rreth.Baz Baz 65a 16.93 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 6 4 12 100 1 661 Divide between families 193 Rreth.Baz Baz 65b 14.35 Agricultural Private with deed 194 Rreth.Baz Baz 65b 46.02 Agricultural Private with deed 195 Rreth.Baz Baz 66a 1.05 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 3 10 100 1 0 Divide between families 196 Rreth.Baz Baz 66a 22.61 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 3 10 100 1 372 Divide between families 197 Rreth.Baz Baz 66b 26.86 Agricultural Private with deed 198 Rreth.Baz Baz 66b 29.47 Agricultural Private with deed 199 Rreth.Baz Baz 67a 31.84 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 3 10 100 1 491 Divide between families 200 Rreth.Baz Baz 67a 0.90 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 3 10 100 1 0 Divide between families 201 Rreth.Baz Baz 67b 0.69 Agricultural Private with deed 202 Rreth.Baz Baz 67b 11.54 Agricultural Private with deed 203 Rreth.Baz Baz 67b 0.52 Agricultural Private with deed 204 Rreth.Baz Baz 67b 7.94 Agricultural Private with deed 205 Rreth.Baz Baz 67b 22.82 Agricultural Private with deed 205 Rreth.Baz Baz 67b 29.10 Agricultural Private with deed 206 Drita Baz 68a 2.01 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 3 12 90 0.9 0 Divide between families 207 Drita Baz 68a 29.21 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 3 12 90 0.9 474 Divide between families


158

No

Vill

age

Fore

st

econ

omy

Cod

e of

pa

rcel

Are

a (h

a)

Form

of

fore

st

man

agem

ent

Spec

ies

com

posi

tion

Dia

met

er

(cm

)

Hei

ght (

m)

Age

(yea

r)

Den

sity

% o

f la

nd c

over

Tim

ber

Vol

ume

(m3)

Mod

e of

L

and

use

208 Drita Baz 68b 0.70 Agricultural 8 7 30 90 0.9 0 Divide between families 209 Drita Baz 68b 21.66 Agricultural 8 7 30 90 0.9 0 Divide between families 210 Drita Baz 68b 9.36 Agricultural 8 7 30 90 0.9 0 Divide between families 211 Drita Baz 69a 34.11 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 4 12 90 0.9 674 Divide between families 212 Drita Baz 69b 14.71 Agricultural Private with deed 213 Drita Baz 69b 40.04 Agricultural Private with deed 214 Drita Baz 69c 1.66 Unproductive 215 Drita Baz 69d 2.39 water 216 Drita Baz 70a 3.11 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 3 10 100 1 145 Divide between families 217 Drita Baz 70a 4.33 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 3 10 100 1 0 Divide between families 217 Drita Baz 70b 119.58 Agricultural Private with deed 218 Rreth.Baz Baz 71a 2.48 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 6 5 12 90 0.9 0 Divide between families 219 Rreth.Baz Baz 71a 9.40 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 6 5 12 90 0.9 523 Divide between families 220 Rreth.Baz Baz 71b 61.68 Agricultural Private with deed 221 Baz Baz 72a 1.11 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 3 2 10 100 1 0 Divide between families 222 Baz Baz 72a 32.52 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 3 2 10 100 1 193 Divide between families 223 Baz Baz 72b 1.15 Agricultural Private with deed 224 Baz Baz 72b 0.32 Agricultural Private with deed 225 Baz Baz 72b 0.50 Agricultural Private with deed 226 Baz Baz 72b 3.87 Agricultural Private with deed 227 Baz Baz 72b 25.47 Agricultural Private with deed 228 Baz Baz 73a 60.41 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 3 14 90 0.9 916 Divide between families 229 Baz Baz 73b 3.84 Agricultural Private with deed 230 Rreth.Baz Baz 74 228.00 water

Total area 5023.17


159

Appendix 15. List of users and the parcels used in the Comunne of Gore

Village Local name Users Code of Parcel

Area (ha)

Species composition

Type of Management Age

Average height

(m)

Average diameter

(cm) Density

Average annual

increment (m3)

Standing timber

Volume (m3)

Babjen Vathat e Qenckës Collective 1 90a 38.8 100 oak coppice 14 2.5 3 0.6 0.9 489 Babjen Agriculture 1 90b 9.4 Babjen Ara e Jasharit Collective 1 91a 15.0 100 oak coppice 14 2.5 3 0.6 0.6 125 Babjen Agriculture 1 91b 3.1 Babjen Varet e Lumit. Collective 1 92a 32.5 100 oak coppice 16 2.5 3 0.7 1.0 520 Babjen Agriculture 1 92b 12.7 Babjen Poshtë Babjenit Collective 1 93a 12.9 100 oak coppice 12 2 2 0.6 0.4 65 Babjen Agriculture 1 93b 15.4 Babjen Dushku i Deçit Household 1 94a 25.4 100 oak coppice 16 2.5 3 0.6 0.7 266 Babjen Agriculture 1 94b 7.7 Babjen Rirat e Babjenit Household 1 95a 37.4 100 oak coppice 16 2.5 3 0.6 0.8 460 Babjen Agriculture 1 95b 20.3 Babjen Stallat e Babjenit Household 1 96a 25.6 100 oak coppice 19 3.5 4 0.8 3.7 1800 Babjen Agriculture 1 96b 0.8 Babjen Lumi i Nagurait Household 1 87a 35.0 100 oak coppice 17 3 3 1 0.3 155

Babjen Lumi i Nagurait Household 1 87b 64.0 90 oak + 10

maple coppice 14 2 3 0.6

0.4 399 Babjen Agriculture 1 87c 138.7 Babjen Agriculture 1 87d 2.5 Babjen Përtej Babjenit Household 1 25/1a 5.2 100 oak coppice 20 3 2.5 0.7 0.6 65 Babjen Përtej Babjenit Household 1 26/1a 21.4 100 oak coppice 18 3 3.5 0.7 1.3 500 Babjen Agriculture 1 26/1b 3.0 Babjen Përtej Babjenit Household 1 27/1a 14.4 100 oak coppice 22 2 1.5 0.6 0.1 32 Babjen Agriculture 1 27/1b 10.6 Babjen Përtej Babjenit Household 1 28/1a 7.9 100 oak coppice 22 3 2 0.8 0.5 80

Desmire Maja e Qyqes Household 2 24c 35.3 50 pine + 50

oak mix coppice 17 2 2 0.6

0.1 35 Desmire Maja e Qyqes Household 2 21a 18.9 100 oak coppice 19 2 3 0.6 0.2 66


160


Area (ha)

Species composition


Average height

(m)

Average diameter

(cm) Density

Average annual

increment (m3)

Standing timber

Volume (m3)

Desmire Agriculture 2 21c 8.3 Desmire Maja e Qyqes Household 2 22a 46.2 100 oak coppice 18 2 2 0.8 0.1 92 Desmire Agriculture 2 22b 24.5 Desmire Agriculture 2 23 128.9

Desmire Maja e Desmirës Household 2 25c 23.3 60 pine + 40

oak high forest 23 3 4 0.7

0.6 306 Desmire Agriculture 2 25d 6.7

Desmire Lagjia e Pashallarëve. Household 2 34c 3.5 100 oak coppice

17 3 3 0.6 0.3 16

Desmire Agriculture 2 34b 3.7

Desmire Lumi i Velçanit Household 2 35a 31.7 80 oak + 20

other coppice 20 4 5 0.7

1.0 642 Desmire Maja Bertet Household 2 35b 3.9 100 oak coppice 96 30 12 0.6 0.3 105 Desmire Agriculture 2 35c 9.9 Desmire Maja Bertet Household 2 36a 17.4 100 oak coppice 30 5.5 6 0.8 1.0 519

Desmire Rezerv. i Dolanecit Household 2 36c 14.6 100 oak coppice

20 3 4 0.5 0.5 142

Desmire Agriculture 2 36b 3.3 Desmire Lumi i Desmirës Household 2 37a 28.2 100 oak coppice 25 4 5 0.6 0.7 478 Desmire Agriculture 2 37b 7.6 Desmire Shullëri i Furrës Household 2 38a 21.3 100 oak coppice 24 3 4 0.4 0.2 127 Desmire Maja e Qyqes Household 2 38c 5.0 100 oak coppice 22 3 4 0.4 0.3 30 Desmire Maja e Qyqes Household 2 39a 15.8 100 oak coppice 20 4 5 0.6 1.2 380 Desmire Çuka e Vertajkes. Household 2 39b 13.1 100 oak coppice 20 4 5 0.6 1.2 315 Desmire Agriculture 2 39c 5.5

Desmire Korija e Vakëfit Household 2 40a 15.5 80 oak + 20

other coppice 16 4.5 5 0.6

1.0 255 Desmire Agriculture 2 40c 6.8 Desmire Çuka e Vertajkes. Household 2 8a 13.7 100 oak coppice 12 3 4 0.8 1.9 308 Desmire Hija e Padjës Household 2 8b 18.6 100 oak coppice 12 3 4 0.7 1.9 425 Desmire Agriculture 2 8c 2.5


161


Area (ha)

Species composition


Average height

(m)

Average diameter

(cm) Density

Average annual

increment (m3)

Standing timber

Volume (m3)

Desmire Shullëri Vër e Ariut Household 2 9a 30.8

70 oak + others coppice

24 3 4 0.8 0.0 32

Desmire Agriculture 2 9b 2.4 Desmire Bregu i Puseve Household 2 10a 22.8 100 oak coppice 27 4 5 0.7 0.3 172 Desmire Agriculture 2 10b 38.1 Desmire Bregu i Puseve Household 2 11a 29.9 100 oak coppice 26 4 5 0.8 0.1 76 Desmire Agriculture 2 11b 10.2 Desmire Ara e Çaushit Household 2 12a 25.1 100 oak coppice 26 4 5 0.8 0.0 25 Desmire Agriculture 2 12b 10.0 Desmire Ara e Çaushit Household 2 13a 30.6 100 oak coppice 26 3 4 0.8 0.1 114 Desmire Agriculture 2 13b 15.7 Desmire Shullëri i Vogël. Household 2 14a 42.5 100 oak coppice 26 3 4 0.8 0.7 804 Desmire Agriculture 2 14b 14.1 Desmire Shullëri i Vogël. Household 2 15a 37.2 100 oak coppice 26 3 4 0.9 0.9 867 Desmire Agriculture 2 15b 2.3 Dolan Mbi shkollen Household 3 111a 74.0 100 oak coppice 21 2 2 0.5 0.2 354 Dolan Agriculture 3 111b 52.8 Dolan Lajth e Dolanit Household 3 128a 95.7 100 beech coppice 24 3 3 0.7 0.7 1613 Dolan Lajth e Dolanit Household 3 128b 4.5 hazelnut shrub 19 2 2 0.4 0.4 34 Dolan Agriculture 3 128c 64.1 Dolan Rebia Household 3 129a 54.6 100 oak coppice 14 1.6 1 0.4 0.0 29 Dolan Agriculture 3 129b 7.7 Dolan Rebia Household 3 130a 13.2 100 oak coppice 18 1.3 1 0.5 0.1 13 Dolan Agriculture 3 130b 24.6

Dolanec Maja mbi Dolanec Household 4 20a 55.0 100 oak coppice

21 2.5 3 0.6 0.2 233

Dolanec Agriculture 4 20b 63.2 Dolanec Water area 4 20c 1.1 Dolanec Lumi Dolanecit Household 4 21b 6.7 100 oak coppice 18 2 3 0.6 0.1 14 Dolanec Shulleri i vogel Household 4 40b 13.3 100 oak coppice 26 4.5 5 0.6 0.6 219


162


Area (ha)

Species composition


Average height

(m)

Average diameter

(cm) Density

Average annual

increment (m3)

Standing timber

Volume (m3)

Dolanec Lumi i Dardhes Collective 4 43 27.2 100 oak coppice 16 2.5 2.5 0.4 0.2 92 Dolanec Lumi i Tufes Household 4 44a 26.2 100 oak coppice 19 2.5 2 0.4 0.0 20 Dolanec Agriculture 4 44b 13.2 Dolanec Kodra Tepe Collective 4 45a 8.3 100 oak coppice 18 2.5 2.5 0.5 0.1 20 Dolanec Kodra Tepe Collective 4 45b 12.4 Dolanec Agriculture 4 45c 4.5

Dolanec Korija e Dolanecit Collective 4 46a 10.2 100 oak coppice

24 3.5 4 0.3 0.1 32

Dolanec Agriculture 4 46b 16.4

Dolanec Korija e Dolanecit Collective 4 46c 22.2 100 oak coppice

24 3.5 4 0.3 0.1 70

Gribec Kodra e Hijes Collective 5 42a 31.5 100 oak coppice 21 2 2 0.6 0.1 93 Gribec Agriculture 5 42b 14.4

Gribec Korija e Dolanecit Collective 5 47a 28.9 100 oak coppice

18 2 3 0.5 0.4 201

Gribec Agriculture 5 47b 2.9 Gribec Kodra e Hijes Household 5 48a 10.0 100 oak coppice 16 2 3 0.6 0.6 92 Gribec Kodra e Hijes Household 5 48b 18.6 100 oak coppice 16 2 3 1 0.6 186 Gribec Agriculture 5 48c 8.6 Gribec Bregu i Gribecit Household 5 49a 19.7 100 oak coppice 16 2 3 0.6 0.6 180 Gribec Agriculture 5 49b 5.0 Gribec Guri i Çizmes Collective 5 50a 29.6 100 oak coppice 14 2 2 0.7 0.4 184 Gribec Agriculture 5 50b 26.8 Gribec Collective 5 51a 16.9 100 oak coppice 16 2.5 2 0.6 0.9 239 Gribec Agriculture 5 51b 4.2 Gribec Collective 5 52a 13.3 100 oak coppice 16 2.5 2 0.7 0.8 175 Gribec Agriculture 5 52b 10.8 Gribec Guri i Bletes Collective 5 53a 25.5 100 oak coppice 19 2.5 3 0.8 1.1 532 Gribec Agriculture 5 53b 5.5 Gribec Collective 5 53c 4.6 Gribec Collective 5 54a 41.1 100 oak coppice 19 2 3 0.9 1.7 1324


163


Area (ha)

Species composition


Average height

(m)

Average diameter

(cm) Density

Average annual

increment (m3)

Standing timber

Volume (m3)

Gribec Agriculture 5 54b 4.5 Gribec Collective 5 55a 26.6 100 oak coppice 16 2 3 0.8 0.8 351 Gribec Guri i Çizmes Collective 5 55b 14.6 Gribec Agriculture 5 55c 13.1 Gribec Hija e Madhe Collective 5 56a 23.5 100 oak coppice 18 2.5 3 0.8 1.0 438 Gribec Agriculture 5 56b 3.2 Gribec Gurët e Gjatë Household 5 57a 17.2 100 oak coppice 20 3.5 4 0.9 3.6 1251 Gribec Agriculture 5 57b 11.1 Gribec Gurët e Gjatë Collective 5 58a 10.8 100 oak coppice 21 3 3 0.9 1.4 311 Gribec Gurët e Gjatë Collective 5 58b 11.6 100 oak coppice 16 2 3 0.8 0.8 153 Gribec Agriculture 5 58c 10.6

Gribec Hija e Kumbullava Collective 5 59a 16.5 100 oak coppice

16 2 2 0.6 0.2 61

Gribec Agriculture 5 59b 7.5 Gribec Karshi Gribecit Collective 5 60a 7.8 100 oak coppice 14 2 2 0.7 0.5 51 Gribec Agriculture 5 60b 41.1

Gribec Skuqkat e Marjanit Collective 5 60c 15.8

Gribec Agriculture 5 61a 153.5

Gribec Skuqkat e Marjanit Collective 5 62a 20.7 100 oak coppice

18 2 2 0.3 0.2 93

Gribec Agriculture 5 62b 38.7

Gribec Përroi i Manastirecit Collective 5 63a 7.5 100 oak coppice

16 2 2 0.7 0.4 44

Gribec Agriculture 5 63b 23.4

Lozhan Përmbi urën e Verbës Collective 6 1a 37.2 100 oak coppice

18 3 3 0.9 1.1 757

Lozhan Agriculture 6 1b 7.2 Lozhan inprod. 6 1c 5.1

Lozhan Përmbi urën e Verbës Collective 6 27b 5.0 100 oak coppice

18 3 3 0.9 0.6 53


164


Area (ha)

Species composition


Average height

(m)

Average diameter

(cm) Density

Average annual

increment (m3)

Standing timber

Volume (m3)

Lozhan Grenda e shullërit Collective 6 28b 13.9 100 oak coppice

18 3 3 0.9 0.2 44

Lozhan Grenda e shullërit Collective 6 133a 38.2 100 beech coppice

19 3 3 0.8 0.8 555

Lozhan Agriculture 6 133b 6.7 Lozhan Kroi i Dhimës Collective 6 133c 10.5 100Ah coppice 19 3 3 0.8 1.0 204 Lozhan Korijet Collective 6 134a 89.3 100 beech coppice 16 2.5 3 0.7 0.4 635 Lozhan Agriculture 6 134b 21.2 Lozhan inprod. 6 134c 21.9

Lozhan Korijet e Lozhanit Household 6 135a 6.6 100 beech coppice

18 3.5 4 0.9 2.0 238

Lozhan Kollovas Household 6 135b 25.7 Lozhan Agriculture 6 135c 5.7 Lozhan Water area 6 135d 1.7 Lozhan Agriculture 6 135e 93.2 Lozhan Kollovas Collective 6 136a 8.0 100 beech coppice 21 4.5 5 0.7 4.3 714 Lozhan Kasambag Household 6 136b 1.4 Lozhan Ara e Gjatë Collective 6 137a 28.9 100 beech coppice 21 4.5 5 0.7 4.3 2579 Lozhan Agriculture 6 137b 20.8 Lozhan Vjezhdë Collective 6 178a 15.0 100 oak coppice 18 2 2 0.6 0.3 83 Lozhan Agriculture 6 178b 1.8 Lozhan Maja e Stanit. Household 6 179a 13.3 100beech coppice 21 3.5 4 0.6 0.9 264 Lozhan Maja e Stanit Collective 6 179b 23.9 Lozhan Agriculture 6 179c 5.6

Lozhan Faqja e Shalarit Collective 6 180a 15.2 80 oak + 20

other coppice 21 2 2 0.7

0.3 111

Lozhan Faqja e Shalarit Collective 6 180b 13.4 80

buxus+other shrub 31 2 2 0.6

0.2 102

Lozhan Vëra e Ariut. Collective 6 181a 23.8 90 buxus +

other shrub 36 1.5 0.5 0.6

0.0 15 Lozhan Agriculture 6 181b 1.3


165


Area (ha)

Species composition


Average height

(m)

Average diameter

(cm) Density

Average annual

increment (m3)

Standing timber

Volume (m3)

Lozhan Vëra e Ariut. Collective 6 182a 39.3 90 buxus +

other shrub 36 1.5 1 0.7

0.0 51 Lozhan Agriculture 6 182b 3.1 Lozhan Burimas Household 6 183a 13.5 100 beech coppice 18 3 3 0.6 0.5 115 Lozhan Agriculture 6 183b 1.2 Lozhan Pylli Bajramit Household 6 184a 56.3 100 beech coppice 26 3 3 0.3 0.3 484 Lozhan Agriculture 6 184b 4.9 Lozhan Pylli i Sabriut Household 6 185a 26.8 100 beech coppice 24 5 6 0.8 2.7 1740 Lozhan Agriculture 6 185b 7.1 Lozhan Prroi i Thellë. Collective 6 186a 34.3 100 oak shrub 31 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 25 Lozhan Agriculture 6 186b 1.3

Lozhan Prroi i Krastës. Collective 6 187a 64.5 90 buxus +



Lozhan Përroi i Krastës Collective 6 188a 43.3 90 buxus +



Lozhan Përroi i Krastës. Collective 6 189a 22.5 80 buxus +



Lozhan Përroi i Krastës Collective 6 190a 44.4 80 buxus +


0.0 61 Lozhan Përroi i Krastës Collective 6 190b 11.4

Lozhan Shullëri i Lozhanit Collective 6 191a 23.9 100 beech coppice

18 4.5 5 0.5 1.9 828

Lozhan Shullëri i Lozhanit Collective 6 191b 13.4

Lozhan Agriculture 6 191c 40.4 Lozhan inprod. 6 191d 2.2 Lozhan Llahovinat Collective 6 192a 28.1 100 beech coppice 21 4.5 5 0.8 1.7 1015 Lozhan Agriculture 6 192b 53.9 Lozhan Agriculture 6 192c 3.4


166


Area (ha)

Species composition


Average height

(m)

Average diameter

(cm) Density

Average annual

increment (m3)

Standing timber

Volume (m3)

Marian Shulleri Vërë e Ariut Household 7 37b 10.4 100 oak coppice

25 4 4 0.6 0.3 88

Marian Bregu i Puseve Household 7 38a 1.0 100 oak coppice 22 3 4 0.8 0.2 4 Marian Bregu i Pusevet Household 7 38c 3.9 100 oak coppice 22 3 4 0.8 0.3 23 Marian Agriculture 7 38b 2.2 Marian Kodra Barbulinit. Household 7 41a 63.5 100 oak coppice 18 3 4 0.8 2.1 2374 Marian Agriculture 7 41b 18.4 Marian Agriculture 7 61b 89.8

Marian Perroi i Manastirecit Collective 7 64a 10.0 100 oak coppice

18 2 2 0.5 0.3 59

Marian Agriculture 7 64b 19.7

Marian Perroi i Manastirecit Collective 7 65a 30.7 100 oak coppice

18 1.3 1 0.4 0.0 10

Marian Agriculture 7 65b 17.7 Marian Perroi i Çorushit. Collective 7 66a 29.8 100 oak coppice 18 1.2 1 0.4 0.0 9 Marian Agriculture 7 66b 17.4 Marian Korija e Vakëfit. Collective 7 67a 4.7 100 oak coppice 18 4 5 0.9 2.5 208 Marian Agriculture 7 67b 93.3 Marian Perroi Batallutës Household 7 69a 48.4 100 oak coppice 21 2.5 3 0.8 1.1 1129 Marian Agriculture 7 69b 20.1 Marian Ahu i Marjanit Household 7 84a 40.9 100 oak coppice 18 3 3 0.8 1.7 1224 Marian Agriculture 7 84b 15.6 Marian Hija e Madhe. Collective 7 86a 17.0 100 oak coppice 18 4 4 0.9 2.6 791

Marian Shulleri i Veroreve. Collective 7 86b 29.5 100 oak coppice

16 2 2 0.4 0.1 27

Marian Agriculture 7 86c 14.0

Mesmal Perroi i madh. Household 8 164 24.8 90 beech +10 oak coppice

23 3 3.5 0.6 0.4 211

Mesmal Perroi i madh. Household 8 165 31.1 90 beech +

10 oak coppice 23 3.5 3 0.7

0.5 364 Mesmal Rabet Household 8 166 30.2 100 beech coppice 22 3.5 3 0.7 0.6 379


167


Area (ha)

Species composition


Average height

(m)

Average diameter

(cm) Density

Average annual

increment (m3)

Standing timber

Volume (m3)

Mesmal Suarje Household 8 167a 22.9 100 beech coppice 28 5 5 1 2.3 1467

Mesmal Suarje Household 8 167b 16.4 80 Beech +

20 Maple coppice 18 2.5 3 0.55

0.4 115 Mesmal Agriculture 8 167c 72.6

Mocan Shullëri Household 9 24a 31.8 80 oak + 20

pine coppice 12 4 5 0.9

2.1 799

Mocan Përroi i Moçarit Collective 9 25a 18.5 100black

pine high forest 24 5.5 12 0.8

0.4 165

Mocan Përroi i Moçarit Collective 9 25b 18.4 80 Pine + 20

oak high forest 23 4 6 0.8

1.0 431

Mocan Shullëri I Moçanit Household 9 30a 37.5 100 oak coppice

13 2 3 0.8 0.7 317

Mocan Agriculture 9 30b 157.9 Mocan Korija mbi Fshat Household 9 32a 22.7 100 oak coppice 12 3 3 0.9 0.7 178 Mocan Ground 9 32b 1.0 Mocan Hija Household 9 33 20.1 100 oak coppice 12 3 4 0.8 1.1 261

Mocan Tek Vadha e Hijet Household 9 34a 30.8 100 oak coppice

11 4.5 3.5 0.75 3.9 1319

Mocan inprod. 9 34b 6.3 Mocan Çukllaz Household 9 74a 45.1 100 oak coppice 13 2 3 0.8 0.4 246 Mocan Agriculture 9 74b 84.8 Mocan Gllanica Household 9 76 42.0 100 oak coppice 12 2 3 0.8 0.7 349 Qencke Vrima e Ariut Household 10 70a 32.7 100 oak coppice 27 3 4 0.8 0.3 279 Qencke Vrima e Ariut Household 10 70b 14.2 100 oak coppice 26 3 3 0.8 0.2 90 Qencke Agriculture 10 70c 6.9 Qencke Pilapeci Household 10 71a 17.0 100 oak coppice 17 3.5 4 0.5 0.4 125 Qencke Pilapeci Collective 10 71b 16.5 100 oak coppice 22 4.5 5 0.6 0.7 254 Qencke Agriculture 10 71c 6.2 Qencke Pilapeci Household 10 72a 17.7 100 oak coppice 23 4.5 5 0.6 0.7 299 Qencke Pilapeci Household 10 72b 15.0 100 oak coppice 17 3.5 4 0.5 0.4 111 Qencke Agriculture 10 72c 6.7


168


Area (ha)

Species composition


Average height

(m)

Average diameter

(cm) Density

Average annual

increment (m3)

Standing timber

Volume (m3)

Qencke Çukllaz Collective 10 73a 14.5 100 oak coppice 18 2.5 3 0.5 0.5 123 Qencke Agriculture 10 73b 56.2 Qencke Çuka e Veriut Collective 10 77a 7.2 100 oak coppice 19 3 3 0.8 0.8 110 Qencke Agriculture 10 77b 12.4 Qencke Rirat e Qenckës. Household 10 78a 39.0 100 oak coppice 18 3.5 4 0.8 0.7 525 Qencke Agriculture 10 78b 5.4 Qencke Rirat e Qenckës. Household 10 79a 31.8 100 oak coppice 22 2.5 3 0.8 0.6 421 Qencke Agriculture 10 79b 9.7 Qencke Plepat e egër. Household 10 80a 23.3 100 oak coppice 22 3 4 0.8 1.3 660 Qencke Agriculture 10 80b 18.9 Qencke Gropa e Gurit Household 10 81a 28.9 100 oak coppice 23 3.5 5 0.8 1.5 1000 Qencke Agriculture 10 81b 23.4 Qencke Katundishte Collective 10 82 30.7 100 oak coppice 23 3 4 0.8 1.2 876 Qencke Mbi fidanishte Household 10 83a 32.1 100 oak coppice 19 3 4 0.8 1.1 646 Qencke Agriculture 10 83b 23.9 Qencke Maja e Stanit Household 10 88a 13.1 100 oak coppice 18 3 4 0.7 1.7 404 Qencke Maja e Stanit Household 10 88b 26.8 100 oak coppice 20 3.5 4 0.7 1.8 976 Qencke Agriculture 10 88c 12.1 Qencke Maja e Hambenit Household 10 89a 39.3 100 oak coppice 28 5.5 7 0.8 2.7 2970 Qencke Agriculture 10 89b 22.4 Selce Vreshtat Household 11 179a 35.0 100 oak coppice 18 2 2 0.5 0.2 148 Selce Agriculture 11 179b 110.8 Selce Vreshtat Household 11 187a 52.2 100 oak coppice 18 2 2 1 0.2 230

Selce Bregu i Bushit Collective 11 187b 32.8 80 buxus +

others shrub 22 1.2 0.8 0.6

0.0 20 Selce Agriculture 11 187c 13.5 Senisht Belishta Household 12 97a 65.2 100 oak coppice 14 2 2 0.6 0.4 342 Senisht Agriculture 12 97b 6.1 Senisht Korijet e prera Household 12 98a 60.8 100 oak coppice 14 2 2 0.6 0.4 358 Senisht Agriculture 12 98b 11.2


169


Area (ha)

Species composition


Average height

(m)

Average diameter

(cm) Density

Average annual

increment (m3)

Standing timber

Volume (m3)

Senisht Hija e Reizit Household 12 99a 36.5 100 oak coppice 18 2 3 0.8 0.7 430 Senisht Agriculture 12 99b 35.6 Senisht Ground 12 99c 7.3

Senisht Shulleri i Vreshtave Household 12 100a 21.4 100 oak coppice

16 2 3 0.5 0.7 229

Senisht Agriculture 12 100b 82.7 Senisht Ground 12 100c 1.0

Senisht Ahishta e Keqe Household 12 101a 29.3 80 beech+

20 oak coppice 16 3.5 3 0.55

0.6 267 Senisht Agriculture 12 101b 24.5 Senisht Jema Household 12 102a 35.9 100 beech coppice 21 3.5 4 0.8 1.2 926 Senisht Agriculture 12 102b 16.3 Senisht Rahu i Cenos Household 12 103a 32.3 100 beech coppice 25 4 4 0.8 1.1 908 Senisht Agriculture 12 103b 6.4

Senisht Kroi i Cankos Collective 12 106b 15.7 80 oak +20

beech coppice 20 3.5 3 0.55

0.5 166 Senisht Agriculture 12 106c 1.8 Strelce Ura e Shelcës Household 13 1 43.7 100 oak coppice 28 2 3 0.6 0.2 248 Strelce Reparti Ushtarak. Collective 13 2a 25.7 100 oak coppice 30 2 3 0.9 0.3 214 Strelce Agriculture 13 2b 0.9

Strelce Kallotina Household 13 3a 34.1 100

blackpine high forest 26 4 8 0.8

1.5 1368 Strelce Agriculture 13 3b 9.4



1.5 2374 Strelce Agriculture 13 4b 41.3 Strelce inprod. 13 4c 1.9



1.5 1857 Strelce Agriculture 13 5b 6.4

Strelce Kallotina Household 13 6a 30.9 100blackpin

e high forest 26 4 8 0.9

1.5 1240


170


Area (ha)

Species composition


Average height

(m)

Average diameter

(cm) Density

Average annual

increment (m3)

Standing timber

Volume (m3)

Strelce Agriculture 13 6b 7.9

Strelce Kallotina Household 13 7 35.8 100


1.5 1438

Strelce Krushanaves. Collective 13 42a 10.4 80 oak +

others coppice 19 3 2 0.6

0.3 66 Strelce Krushanaves. Collective 13 42b 4.2 90hornbean shrub 18 1 1 0.4 0.0 1 Strelce Krushanaves. Collective 13 43a 27.9 100 oak coppice 18 1.1 1 0.5 0.0 15 Strelce Krushanaves. Collective 13 43b 10.0 90 hornbean shrub 24 1 1 0.4 0.0 3 Strelce Agriculture 13 43c 2.4 Strelce Dushku i Trashë Collective 13 44a 25.3 100 oak coppice 24 1.5 1 0.5 0.0 20 Strelce Dushku i Trashë Collective 13 44b 7.2 90 hornbean shrub 24 1 0.8 0.4 0.0 2 Strelce Dushku i Trashë Collective 13 45a 26.9 100 oak coppice 19 1.5 1 0.6 0.0 20 Strelce Dushku i Trashë Collective 13 45b 5.8 90 hornbean shrub 26 1 1 0.4 0.0 2 Strelce Krastë Collective 13 46 17.5 90 hornbean shrub 26 1 0.8 0.4 0.0 3 Strelce Curupan Collective 13 47a 5.5 100 oak coppice 26 1.5 1 0.7 0.0 7 Strelce Curupun Collective 13 47b 19.7 60 hornbean shrub 26 3 2.5 0.6 0.4 222 Strelce Agriculture 13 47c 3.9 Strelce Melenicë Collective 13 48 12.3 70 hornbean shrub 26 2 2 0.6 0.2 66 Strelce Përroi i Strelcës. Household 13 49 11.4 100 oak coppice 28 2 2 0.85 0.2 60 Strelce Nga Vreshtat Household 13 50a 35.4 100 oak coppice 28 1.5 2 0.3 0.1 143

Strelce Nga Vreshtat Collective 13 50b 39.8 80 buxus +

others shrub 26 0.6 3 0.3

0.1 79 Strelce Agriculture 13 50c 5.2

Strelce Pupul Collective 13 58a 39.4 80 buxus +

others shrub 26 2 2 0.6

0.2 208 Strelce Agriculture 13 58b 6.2 Strelce Curupan Household 13 60a 30.8 100 oak coppice 26 1.5 1 0.6 0.0 20 Strelce Agriculture 13 60b 3.3

Strelce Livadhishte. Household 13 61 57.2 80 beech +

20oak coppice 21 3 3 0.7

0.4 530 Strelce Korijet e Petos Household 13 62a 24.1 80 beech + coppice 21 3 4 0.7 1.0 531


171


Area (ha)

Species composition


Average height

(m)

Average diameter

(cm) Density

Average annual

increment (m3)

Standing timber

Volume (m3)

20 oak Strelce Agriculture 13 62b 1.9 Strelce Grabovic Collective 13 63a 9.0 100 oak coppice 18 1 1 0.6 0.0 6 Strelce Grabovic Collective 13 63b 26.8 80 hornbean coppice 26 2 2 0.8 0.2 160 Strelce Agriculture 13 63c 1.1

Tresove Galishtë Collective 14 106a 45.5 90 beech +

10 oak coppice 21 4.5 3 0.8

1.8 1738

Tresove Kroi i Cankos Household 14 106b 16.6 80 oak +20

beech coppice 20 4 3 0.7

0.6 188 Tresove Agriculture 14 106c 27.2

Tresove Galishta Collective 14 107a 14.8 80 oak + 20

beech coppice 21 4 5 0.7

4.0 1256 Tresove Përroi i Shapianit Collective 14 107b 32.9 100 oak coppice 12 2.5 2 0.6 0.5 211 Tresove Greoti Collective 14 108a 24.9 70 hazelnut shrub 18 3 2 0.9 0.5 235 Tresove Greoti Household 14 108b 18.7 100 oak coppice 14 2 2 0.7 0.5 129 Tresove Agriculture 14 108c 55.7 Tresove Greoti Household 14 109a 21.5 60 hazelnut shrub 16 2 2 0.9 0.2 57 Tresove Greoti Household 14 109b 30.3 100 oak coppice 13 2 2 0.5 0.5 209 Tresove Agriculture 14 109c 135.0 Velcan Vinica Household 15 176a 74.4 100 oak coppice 18 3 4 0.75 0.9 1216 Velcan Agriculture 15 176b 21.9 Velcan Strane Collective 15 177a 46.9 100 oak coppice 18 2 3 0.5 0.6 517 Velcan Strane Collective 15 177b 16.7 40 hazelnut shrub 22 3 1 0.5 0.1 29 Velcan Agriculture 15 177c 185.0 Velcan Vreshtat Collective 15 178a 11.5 hazelnut shrub 24 1 0.8 0.6 0.0 3 Velcan Agriculture 15 178b 28.5

Zvahrisht Dheu i kuq Household 16 26a 21.4 90 oak + 10

maple coppice 14 2 3 0.7

0.3 95 Zvahrisht Agriculture 16 26b 5.9

Zvahrisht Dheu i kuq Household 16 27a 37.5 90 oak +10

other coppice 18 2.5 3 0.7

0.3 214


172


Area (ha)

Species composition


Average height

(m)

Average diameter

(cm) Density

Average annual

increment (m3)

Standing timber

Volume (m3)

Zvahrisht Agriculture 16 27c 8.2

Zvahrisht Grenda e Shullërit Household 16 28a 27.8 100 oak coppice

16 2 3 0.7 0.2 73

Zvahrisht inproductive 16 28c 3.1

Zvahrisht Grenda e Shullërit Collective 16 110a 13.1 100 oak coppice

14 2 3 0.8 1.0 176

Zvahrisht Mbi shkollen Household 16 110b 43.3 100 oak coppice 14 2 3 0.8 1.0 580 Zvahrisht Agriculture 16 110c 61.7 Zvahrisht Mbi shkollen Household 16 131a 43.1 100 oak coppice 16 1.5 1 0.4 0.1 53 Zvahrisht Agriculture 16 131b 23.4 Zvahrisht Kroi i Dhimës Household 16 132a 4.8 100 beech high forest 116 16 32 0.8 1.7 949 Zvahrisht Pati Household 16 132b 26.3 100 beech coppice 16 2.5 3 0.8 3.2 1365 Zvahrisht Korijet e vogela Household 16 132c 11.0 100 oak coppice 16 2 2 0.8 0.3 52 Zvahrisht Agriculture 16 132d 21.2 Zvahrisht Agriculture 16 133a 116.8

TOTAL 8730.7 78086