From Conflict to Collaboration:

Evaluating Progress Towards Communal Forestry in Albania

Authors:

Haki Kola Gazmend Zeneli

Contents

List of abbreviations

Preface Introduction Historical context

Land tenure in Albania before communism

Land and property reforms since 1991

Diverse policies guiding land reform The transfer process: From central government state to the communes The transfer process: From the commune to the village, neighbourhood, clan and household The communist period

Evaluating the transfer process: the NACFP project Enhancing Tenure Security Through Support the Communities to Improve the Laws on Transfer of State Public Property (Forest and Pasture) to the Communes
Rationale and objectives of the project Project Methodology

Findings of the project

The economic value of forest and pastures to villagers The role of communities and informal tenure in forest and pasture management Challenges to rehabilitation and management The relationship between communities and the state

Lessons and recommendations

Recommendations

Appendix: Land reform and administration in Albania since 1991

Introduction

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. In this context, 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 community forestry should be seen as a process, like sustainable development - a process of increasing the involvement of and reward for local people, of seeking balance between external and community interests, and of increasing local responsibility for the management of the forest resources. Rao (1991) writes: The political dimension of community forestry makes it a venue for people's struggles against domination and exploitation of the community's resources by 'outsiders'. Ecology, equity and social justice are part of this struggle. Community forestry in the Albanian context is new and evolving. While Albania has a long history of customary, communal management of forest and pasture lands, these practices were prohibited by the communist regime from 1945 to 1991. Forest and pasture management was centralised and collectivised. With the transition from communism, there has been a resurgence of customary forms of forest tenure and management, while the State has followed a general policy of divestment of land ownership and responsibilities to land users. In the case of forests and pasture, the State has retained formal ownership, but engaged in a process of management decentralisation, transfering use rights to communes, the lowest level of local government. This study is based on an evaluative project, implemented by the National Association of Communal Forests and Pastures (NACFP) and supported by the International Land Coalition (ILC), that piloted a participatory approach to demarcating and mapping user rights and developing management plans within the villages that make up a commune. This project has demonstrated the potential for the transfer process to build on the customary tenure systems of communities, and on their de facto management of forest resources, in order to promote the sustainable management of Albania's forests and pastures. However, it has also revealed the incomplete nature of this transfer process. While time-limited use rights and management responsibilities have been transfered to local government, the main actors in and potential beneficiaries of this management are the members of the rural villages that make up these communes. There is a need for the forestry Service to become more accommodating of village perspectives and more receptive to active community involvement in planning and management. Ultimately, there is a need for not only use rights, but clearly defined ownership rights over traditionally held forests to be transfered to villages, families and individuals. There is a need to hive community-level actors more responsibility of forest management, including greater legal rights to market forest products. On consequence of this partial transfer of rights, in which formal ownership remains vested in the State, is a continuing lack of trust between the State and communities. While many State actors are sceptical about the ability and willingness of communities to manage natural resources sustainably, community members often fear that the State plans to take back forest lands once they have been invested in and improved, or that recognition of land rights will lead to taxation. This mistrust has the effect of undermining the perception of tenure security and the incentives for sustainable management, even as the transfer process is giving previously informal rights a documented legal status. There is a need to build trust between State agencies and communities which can only be done through working together on forest management in a way that is transparent and sees the role of communities as an asset to be supported and built upon. It is hoped that presenting the findings and conclusions of this project will we provide

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

Historical context

Land tenure in Albania before communism

Historically, community forestry activities have been important to the livelihoods of most rural people in Albania, even though the state has not always been supportive of such activities. This has a much a do with the Albanian traditions. At the beginning of the 20th century, the land ownership system in Albania was dominated by the iflig land tenure system characteristic of the Ottoman Empire. Peasants were obliged to contribute labor and produce either for a private landlord, for the state, or for religious institutions. But the social-political system also had a particularly Albania aspect, namely the tribal system as recorded in the Kanuni i Lek Dukagjinit. This system probably evolved as a dynamic, social response to the pressures and possibilities of life in a frontier zone (Schon & Galaty, 2006), and as a response by the Albanian population to the pressures of assimilation. According to the Kanuni i Lek Dukagjinit, 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) 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, Shalas nearest neighbor to the south, and several other tribes, to form the Dukagjin confederacy (far), one of ten tribal confederations in northern Albania (Durham, 1910; Frazer and Durham,1912; Hasluck, 1954; Kastrati, 1955; Schon and Galaty, 2006). 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. Furthermore, the large estates were not substantially affected by two attempts at land reform before 1945. This inequality was strongest 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 nominal 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. Although forests were officially mostly state-owned, in practice their use was regulated by the customary norms. A districts 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) of a village; beyond this of the bajrak (district). 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. This system of customary tenure included an elaborate system of boundary demarcation, as recorded by Fox (1989: 74): The boundary stone has witnesses around it. There are six 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,

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. Forest policy began with the establishment of the countrys 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 centralized, shaped by the idea of the national state, which the Albanian political class was so desperate to build during the interwar period. In the late 1930s, to provide revenues for the state budget, 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. The detrimental influence of forest destruction was repeatedly experienced in floods and droughts. Because of difficulties in accessibility (roads were absent and the rivers are unnavigable), forests in the northern and central parts of Albania were largely spared.

The communist period

After the communists came to power (end of 1944), the technocratic legacy combined with the communist principles became the basis of the forest policy. In 1946, as part of the agrarian reform, all the forests in Albania were nationalized. With few exceptions, they are still state-owned. The communist government put emphasis on the extraction of natural resources, especially timber and firewood, to meet the demands of an expanding planned economy. The government's first major act to build socialism was swift, uncompromising agrarian reform, which broke up the large landed estates in the south and distributed the parcels to landless and other peasants. 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 Kanuns 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 (de Waal, 2004). The Kanun has eased readjustment for many of the northerners as they come out of the socialist period. For example, where original land boundaries were remembered accurately by all parties, reversion to original ownership was much less difficult than privatization in other areas. The disintegration of the state and collective farms during the collapse of the communist regime (1991-1992) was dramatic (Hall, 1999). 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. 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. This law began a process of land and property reforms that have included both land privatisation, which has focused on arable land, and the decentralisation of control over state lands, focused on forests and pastures in mountain areas. 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.

Land and property reforms since 1991

Since 1991, Albania has pursued a process of land and property reform. Yet even now, 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. There appears to be forward momentum in the activities of land reform. However, it is unclear whether the reforms are, in fact, being absorbed and solidified in government administration or in rural social and political life.

Diverse policies guiding land reform

During the past years of reform activity, several 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 promoting equitable land ownership: The goal of equitable family ownership
of agricultural land and farm assets formed the basis of the initial land reform in 1991, under Law No. 7501. This principle made it possible to accomplish the break up of collective and state farms quickly and to diffuse the social and political unrest that had begun when the farm system collapsed in 1989-1990 (Jungbluth and Lugg, 2002). Arable land previously controlled by collective and state farms, was divided into plots of equal size/value and distributed to the collective members and farm employees in family ownership (Law No. 7501; Law No. 8053). A legal document (deed) called tapi gives evidence of ownership in the name of the "head of household.

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 inequality) 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 (Law No. 7698; Law No. 9235). 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, the claims of former owners to agricultural land 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 a 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 labour to leave the farming sector (MOAF, 2002). Thats 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. Alternatively, 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 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 different 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. The 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, etc.. 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 (see Appendix).

The transfer process: From central government state to the communes

The transfer of state-owned lands to local governments has included forest and pastures. These two land categories are each divided into four subcategories: (i) small areas of pasture or forest that may be transferred into private ownership by restitution; (ii) forests and pastures located close to villages that must remain in state ownership, but for which use rights may be transferred 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 that must 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 that may be included in the national parks, reserves and other zones with unique management regimes (CoM, 2000). The process of forests and pastures inventory and the determination of the areas to be transferred into communal and municipal control has been under way for nearly ten years. 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 use rights to communes and municipalities. It is anticipated that, in the process of inventory and transfer of state owned lands under the Law No. 8744, these use rights will be transformed into ownership rights. However, based on the provisions of Law No. 8743, this land will remain classified as public use properties and will not be eligible for subsequent sale to families, individuals or enterprises by the local administrations. It appears that the communes and municipalities will continue to offer subordinate rights of common usage, leases or individual use, as provided in Laws No. 7917 and No. 7623. The transfer process has been overseen by the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration (MEFWA), with co-financing by the World Bank and USAID. 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). These goals are reported to have been largely achieved, with 140 communes now in control of 391,000 hectares of forest and 244,000 hectares of pasture. The procedure has involved the following stages: The technical staff of the Forest Directorate works with the communal or municipal 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. 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 district forest service Directorate. In two projects, the User Associations have created a simple agreement for each member family, which consists of a onepage 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 profitmaking businesses appear to limit their sustainability (Lemel, 2005).

The transfer process: From the commune to the village, neighbourhood, clan and household
Communes form a tier of local government covering several villages. The transfer of control over forest and pastures from central government to communes is therefore a form of management decentralisation within government structures. The decentralisation of management and control, if not ownership, however, goes on further within the commune. The process of transfer again goes through several stages. After 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 commissions at the village level. These commissions are the main partners 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 is formed by the users' associations, which are organized on village level, and take subordinate rights to use the defined areas for grazing, harvesting of firewood and herbal plants, and other activities. The users' associations have representatives from several neighbourhoods (mehalla) which might include one ore more clans (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 neighbourhoods, clans, group families or separate families about the forests and pastures they have used in the past. In this case, standard application forms are to be filled out. Because of population growth, what years ago might have been recorded as one family, nowadays might be more than one. It can happen that neighbourhoods, clans, or separate families may request to use two or more plots, or for the same plot to be requested by two or more neighbourhoods, clans or separate families. The evaluation of the outcome of this process of transfer revealed several problems. First, no clear criteria exist for the definition of the boundaries between state forest and communal forest and the powers of communes in relation to the Forest Directorate are vaguely defined. Second, the subordinate rights of the users associations are limited and not documented. Third, the 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.

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

Rationale and objectives of the project

Albania's long tradition of using and managing forests and pastures as forms of common property was one of the motivations for transfering state forests and pastures for communal use during the 1995-2004. This transfer process was an important component of the Albania Forestry Project (AFP) funded by the World Bank and the Italian Government. By the end of 2005, the 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 in the transfer process and in designing and implementing management plans; (2) a 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 their rehabilitation; and (4) an impact on poverty reduction in the areas concerned. However, not everything has gone as expected, mainly because of the property rights issues. The process has exposed tensions over two broad questions related to property rights, namely the extent and speed at which central State ownership and control over resources is to 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. The users of forest and pastures, organized in 144 commune associations, three Regional Federations and National Association, have identified the top-down approach set out in Law No. 8744 as the main reason for the difficulties identified. The law and procedures applied have not taken into consideration traditional use, real users, and village representatives, and has not set up any criteria and regulations for implementing the process in participatory way. Within this overarching problem, several factors have hindered progress. The most important have been:

Differences between the Directorate General of Forests and Pastures (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 district-level Directorate of Forests and Pastures (DFP) approve commune requests for transfer, something that has occasionally been slow in coming. Communes have also tended to ask for more than the Ministry of Agriculture and Food (MOAF) is willing to authorize. Difficulties in setting communal boundaries in several cases, with the biggest conflicts arising over pasture boundaries among villages and communes and 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.

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

State Public Property (Forest and Pasture) to the Communes, in order to shed further light on the reasons why the process of transfer of forest and pasture from state to the communes has been slow. The project sought to identify bottlenecks and propose solutions to help solve some of the above-mentioned difficulties. The overall objective of the project has been: Preparation in participatory way, of clear guidelines and criteria for local government and forest services, on fixing and demarcating boundaries between state owned forest and communal forest, on the sharing of rights and responsibilities between them, and on how to resolve border disputes between the state and communes, between neighbouring communes and between villages. The project was implemented in four communes selected in order to represent a geographical, economic and cultural cross-section of the main heavily forested areas of Albania. The selected communes were: Blerim, in the Northern Albanian Alps; Baz, in the north-central region; Stebleve, in the east; and Gore, in the south-east.

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

Review of the existing literature: Existing reports and materials related to training courses, workshops, annual reports and other studies were used for desk studies. Preparation of initial maps: Working groups were established for each of the four communes under investigation to draw up initial maps. These were based on existing topographic maps, cadastral maps used by the Commissions of Land Distribution, maps of forests and pastures from the commune management plans or inventories as well as the Directorate of Forest Services, and other documents describing earlier boundaries. The new maps showed the boundaries of local government units and villages (as they are traditionally known, as well as based on different documents), the boundaries of each village's agricultural land, and the boundaries of forest and pasture areas. Field surveys and establishment of contact with local people and representatives: In cooperation with the Forest and Pasture User Associations (FPUAs) of the communes and the Directorates of Forestry Services (DFS) of the districts, a series of visits and short surveys were organized in the communes. The aim was to attain a better idea about the real life conditions in the villages, to present the objectives and activities of the project, and to establish contact with local representatives. Questionnaire surveys: Questionnaires were send to the members and leaders of FPUAs and to the DFS Offices. They aimed to assess local knowledge of village forest and pasture boundaries as well as suggestions and recommendations for future implementation. Building the capacity of commune and village commissions: Communities participated in this process through commune-level commissions (responsible for verifying village boundaries) and village commissions (responsible for defining the boundaries and users of parcels within the village). Commissions were comprised of 5-7 people who represented the users groups and were elected in the general meeting of the village. They received a one-day training on the identification and legalization of village forest and pastures boundaries and the certification of the use and users of the forest. Baseline data collection: The aim of this process was to get a better impression on the socio-economic status of the villages. Data was collected on geography, demographics, agriculture and natural resources, with a special focus on forest and pastures and the traditions of their management and use. A report was prepared for each village and commune.

Demarcation of village boundaries: The demarcation of village boundaries was carried out by the working groups in close collaboration with representatives from the DSF, the village commissions, and with the commissions of neighbouring villages. The working groups started with the well-known or documented boundaries, and walked along the boundaries discussing and marking in the field and on the map the boundary lines. After agreeing on the boundaries, the commissions and the working group filled out and signed a written agreement in several copies for all interested parties (village, local government unit, district cadastre office, 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. The same procedure was followed for every village. In cases where the headman of the village was not a member of the commission, he was always present during the process of demarcation together with other individuals (elderly people) who had a good knowledge of the boundaries. Certification of users of forest and pastures: The allocation of the communal forests and pastures to the users was a decision taken by the village commissions. If they decided to divide these communal resources, users were identified and certified. As a rule, they collected the requests or traditional claims of neighbourhoods, clans, family groups and separate families, and then decided accordingly. This process used both 1:10 000 forest village maps and sketch maps of parcels. In drawing the sketch maps, the presence of most of representatives of the families that has traditionally used the forest was mandatory (see Fig. 1). As a rule, surveying only took place at the scale of the parcel, while the division between users was only schematic but not measured. Forest and pastures used collectively by the whole village were defined in the same manner. Policy advocacy: Based on the evaluation of this process, an important aspect of the project was advocacy on improving the legal framework. This aimed to accelerate the transfer of forest and pasture to communes, to clarify ownership rights and responsibilities in sustainable forest use, and to increase public awareness of the process. Advocacy activities included seminars at regional level; discussions at commune level; the distribution of leaflets and posters at Communes offices, public places, shops, schools etc.; a media campaign through TV interviews, newspaper articles, etc.; the organization of the National Conference on Reform in Albanian Forestry; meeting with the National Agency on Inventory and Transfer of Immovable Properties to the Local Government Units; meeting with Deputy Minister of MEFWA; formal and informal meetings with members of parliament; and the preparation of draft amendments to laws and sending them to the responsible Ministries.

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

Findings of the project

It is a paradox of the current reform process that while the transfer has been introduced from the national level - an initiative of the government - the feelings about the ownership of forest lands at local level are very strong. It is a top-down process, but one that meets with strong demand from below. But while government and local people may, in this case, be said to be moving from conflict to collaboration, this process is far from complete. Both sides have moved forward, but with considerable reservations. 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 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 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, largely for fear of land taxes. This is one of the reasons why management plans prepared for communal forestry are classifying users into three groups (aside from private ownership as defined in Law No. 7623, Article 3), namely: families, groups of families and commons. Individuals are willing to participate in the process, but do not want to commit themselves too much. It is a common attitude that if it is only use rights that are transferred, and if they are transferred according to traditional rules, then it is sufficient to recognise only rights in common, therefore implying only a common responsibility. The project process, including the surveys, participatory mapping and certification activities, revealed a great deal about how communities use the forest, about how the transfer process is seen from the perspective of both villagers and state actors, and about how the process builds on the customary tenure systems that exist. The following summary of the main findings of the project focuses on the economic value of forest to villagers, the role of customary tenure systems, the outstanding challenges that exist to effective forest management, and on the perceptions of state actors and villages regarding the transfer process. More specific recommendations will be given in the final chapter.

The economic value of forest and pastures to villagers

Although most of professional foresters see the forest through the wood (as a source of timber), villagers see it in a very different way. For farmers, timber is sometimes the least interesting product of the forest, in large part because it has always been a resource reserved for the State or enterprises. For villagers, the forest is a source of the following Non-timber forest products:

Firewood is the most important resource for which there is a high demand for cooking and
heating, not only in rural areas but also in cities. Firewood is provided by village forests, now "given-in-use", but is also purchased from State forests. Firewood represents a large market that is officially restricted to the Forestry Service as provider. In the 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, and in any case does not benefit individuals. Nevertheless, firewood is sometimes bartered (in exchange for grazing rights, for example) between neighbouring villages.

Fodder (from oak) is the second important product of the forest. Villagers are pollarding
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 village forests and pastures. Goats, sheep and cows
are grazed on pastures and forests during the day.

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

Aromatic and medicinal plants were once an important source of income for the country
(Zeneli et al., 2007). Today this sector is much reduced as a commercial activity and prices are very low. Villagers do not see any potential in such products unless they have information about a middleman in the city. Moreover, the commercial potential and chain is not known at the village or commune level, and even traders are not aware of the marketing and handling possibilities. Village use of forest and pasture resources is focused on subsistence. This is partly due to legal barriers, such as the prohibition of an open market in firewood, partly due to the degradation of forest resources, and partly due to the lack of links to markets. This lack of economic opportunities is also one reason for the degree of migration from rural areas, chiefly of the younger and bettereducated workforce. Such migration reduces pressure on forest resources, but also means the loss of the people best able to manage communal forests, both intellectually and physically. Where migration is within Albania, village members often seek to retain and cultivate cultivate their plot, hence not only producing for subsistence needs but also ensuring their claim on the land. Legal emigration also allows links to be maintained with the villages, and is a good source of remittances, improving the financial resources of the village, but illegal emigration tends to result in a severage of links.

The role of communities and informal tenure in forest and pasture management
In the communities surveyed, customary ownership is usually regulated at the family level. The individuals of a family know their limited and traditional rights to land and how it is to be used. This is shown, for example, by the stones delimiting the forest of Drita Village in Bazi Commune (Dibra region). Villages generally also have some common land where the livestock of the whole village can graze under the supervision of one villager. The sub-division of the communal forests and pastures that have been transfered from state control reflects this reality. The majority of plots are allocated on a per family basis; a lesser area is allocated as common or village forest or 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 are undocumented and have no legal value, are rigorously respected by the villagers. No one is allowed to collect fodder or firewood or to cut standing trees to someone elses forest without permission. The phrase to cut an oak tree is equal as to cut an olive tree..., often used by the villagers, shows the high value they give to the oak forest. Where a family is unable to fulfil its needs for fodder from its own part of forest, it can collect fodder from common land or from another family plot with the permission of the owner. Grazing is usually organized at village level. Chestnut tress, by contrast, are regarded as valuable private property that is passed from generation to generation and are protected very strongly. The process of plot allocation has varied depending on the level of social cohesion in villages. Where social cohesion is strong, families have maintained the traditional knowledge and practices that allow the allocation of their resources within the village, and even within the family. Where cohesion is not so strong, the number of conflicts is higher and the process of resolving them takes longer. In such cases, villagers are try to follow the same approach as the one based on the tradition, but tend to negotiate use rights on the basis of their actual or past usage of the resource. The resolution of disputes is realized at village level by the "Council of Elders", or more exactly "Village Council", made up of designated persons. In practice, this council is often the body which takes up the role of Forest Village Commission. The Chairman of this Council is often the village representative at the FUA. This Council deal with land tenure issues and is the body that determines plot boundaries when the management plan is prepared, though it also deals with all matters concerning the village.

What villagers view as their forest is not determined by official categories, but by traditional ownership. They take into account not only state forests but also land cleared during the communist regime and now classified as agricultural. Particularly controversial remains the use, and hence the rehabilitation, of so called refused land that has been allocated under the post 1991 reforms but turned down, and now rests in state hands with an uncertain status. Farmers often have a traditional claim to this land and would be interested in receiving support to improve them for agriculture or forestry as they are very often subject to erosion. In some case problems arise, for example in apply for improvement works, where villages in one district actually have a traditional claim to land over the border in another district. Where a strong feeling exists amongst the villagers about their (ancestral) ownership of the land, particularly in the north, the transfer of state forests is perceived as recognition of their property. They are willing to take care of their plots and defend them against intervention from outside the village to the point, on occasion, of even refusing to participate in project activities.

Challenges to rehabilitation and management

The transition period that Albania has been going through from a collectivized and centralized system to a pluralist and decentralized government, has created a vacuum in terms of legal, economic, and implementation instruments. This vacuum has facilitated the degradation of forest resources, particularly during 1997 the for a few years after. However, even before the transition, forest management was oriented only towards the production functions, often to the extent of overexploitation). Nowadays, forest degradation is such that existing instruments do not have the capacity to rehabilitate forests to their full potential. In particular, the revenues that can be generated from forests within a management period cannot cover the needed investments in forest improvement. It should also be remembered that proper management of forests and pastures has an indirect economic impact (like the effect of watershed protection on hydro-electric energy production through reduced sedimentation) that is not easily quantifiable in term of financial returns and usually not considered in budgeting. A key challenge is to enable the better realisation of value from forest resources, including for users at the village level. In relation to this, a key question concerns the trade of products and services from communal forests and pastures. Another key challenge is the complexity of the legal framework. There is a big confusion among most people at different levels concerning the financial aspects of forest management and the legal framework for collecting revenues and fees from the ownership and use of forests. Unfortunately the legal framework relating to forests and pastures does not exist as a single work but is drawn from documents of different type (law, decree, decision, regulation, instruction), which deal with different resource categories (forests, pastures, medicinal plants), and levels of jurisdiction (state or communal forests). The transfer of use and management rights of state forests to the commune level has also only gone so far in giving legal rights and responsibilities to those with the greatest interest in forest management: farmers. While the formalities to transfer and manage the forest are mainly realized at district and commune level, the major actors in the implementation plans for communal forests and pastures plans are villagers, and more exactly the families and individuals who have some use rights to the forest. This is the level where participation is best due to a direct interest in the forest as a source of livelihood. 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 have already started, without program intervention, to protect areas of degraded forests. This usually occurs on former family-owned land. The insecurity about the future users rights (uses, trade, and property) does not encourage individuals and communities to invest in the protection of the forest. Farmers are also reluctant to invest in forest improvement on what are customarily considered common lands. This is due to the costs involved (principally labour) and to difficulties with the distribution of benefits, except when lands are jointly used for grazing. Here the incentives given by the Albania Forestry Project and the Natural Resource Development Project have played an important role in fostering forestry protection. In the case of Greshdan village (Maqellare

Commune) livestock is not allowed to graze in family forests which are very well protected, but are grazed instead on common pastures which are very degraded. In such cases, it was difficult for the project to realise improvements. During the project implementation in the four selected communes, it was clear that farmers are increasingly aware of the degradation of the forests and the impact on their livelihood. When they have the necessary resources and manpower, they will themselves initiate the protection and rehabilitation of their forests. Nevertheless they tend to limit their activities to keeping away intruders - men and animals - but no not make improvements in terms of planting or erosion control. Once the forest is re-established, they may prune it for fodder (in the case of oak), thin it for sticks and firewood and eventually graze it. They are likely to do so according to their needs and not a management plan. Communal management plans therefore present an opportunity to support these activities, to extend them and to bring in proper technical support. The surviving traditions of land tenure in Albanian villages are thus a substantial asset in promoting the sustainable management of forest and pastures, but this is not to say that there is no need for support. Where community cohesion is weak, there is a need for Forest User Associations to set up mechanisms to allow control and appeal by any member of the association. The establishment of the Forest User Associations is an attempt to make the existing informal allocation of resources official and to extent it to the level of the communes. Beyond the process of land allocation, it also aims to ensure the proper management of the forests.

The relationship between communities and the state

The current process of transfer of state forest use rights can be seen as a process of rapprochement between the state and rural communities. The state does not have the resources to implement an effective top-down system of forest management. It therefore needs to divulge, and therefore decentralize, some of its responsibilities of forests and pastures. If this attitude were to be fully accepted by the Government and not only by the Directorate of Forest and Pasture Policies, it would be a major opportunity for the Forestry Service to take the lead in forestry development and reforms. Such a development of forestry will need appropriate legal and institutional tools, and also the appropriate resources to apply them. This process of building collaboration has to build confidence between state actors and villagers; at present there still remains substantial levels of distrust and reservations about the new arrangements. In the forestry sector, the State is reluctant to recognize fully a de facto situation on the ground, over which it has little influence in the framework of a liberal society. From the viewpoint of the Directorate of Forest Services, the division of communal forests into individual plots means that they faced with having to deal with a large number of partners. This is not seen as having been the intended purpose of transferring responsibilities to local people. As it is only use rights that are transferred to the Communes (and hence to villages, families, and individuals), the forest remains formally the property of the State. A feeling of mistrust amongst certain DFS staff is to be seen towards the capacities of the Communes and Forest User Associations to manage the forests, and towards the willingness of families and individuals to protect them. This mistrust is reciprocated by villagers. When asked their opinion on the present institutional arrangement (limited transfer of user rights), two main statements very often 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. If the government is investing in the management plan and its implementation, does this mean the Government wants to take the forest back from us? Everywhere, villagers have a strong feeling that the forest is their property, based very often on ancestral use or on even actual use. This attitude is relatively independent of the actual legal status of the forest (transferred or not) and refers to the land and to the products themselves and not to their use. This means that villagers are open to changes of use, e.g. planting chestnuts, as long as it is in their advantage and based on their decision. However, villagers are sometimes reluctant to fully formalise their customary tenure rights.

In some cases, villages have favoured formal registration of land as common land, even if ownership of the land within the community is customarily allocated to families and individuals. This may represent a desire to avoid individual responsibility for land and reflects a lack of confidence in the future benefits of the transfer. It reflects an attitude of wait and see; communities may participate in the process in order to be able to take part in future development, but refrain from going too far in their formal engagement. There are two main reasons for such reservations on the part of villagers. Firstly, the land remains property of the State with only timelimited use rights being transferred. Secondly, the transfer is organized at communal level, and is thus reminiscent of the collectivization of the past. From villagers viewpoint, communes are an instrument to resolve the administrative problems and to mobilize funds for the improvement of their forests and living conditions. Villagers request that the State should not 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 legal and technical authority and expertise of the Directorate of Forest Resources is accepted. At the local level, it is not the allocation of resources that is considered a big issue, but the legal recognition of resource allocation and the security that comes with this recognition. Villagers thus request the formal recognition of their tenure of the forest and pastures. At present there is no legal framework for this; the forest is being "given-in-use" on basis of a ten year contract. While the currently interest is mainly in subsistence activities (related to firewood, fodder and grazing), villagers are hoping that they will be soon given the right to trade legally forest products.

Lessons and recommendations

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 enhancing rural livelihoods, and as complementary form of tenure to private or State ownership. However the nature and value of this in-between level of tenure continues to be one of the most difficult to capture for policy makers and others in the rapidly evolving environment that Albania represents today. Local traditions are an asset to forest management and poverty reduction This evaluation has demonstrated how the traditions and actual use practices of local people can be an asset to the transfer process and to forest management. In most cases, informal boundaries are well known and respected. In addition, there are rules governing behaviour 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 (mkat) to touch this material as it is obviously the fruit of someone elses labour. These norms are observed especially throughout the Northern provinces, presumably due to the importance attached to the Kanuns ethos, which recognizes that a community is more likely to thrive if all its members observe the established code. Within the village context, these norms are effective at defining and regulating use rights. Reality shows that well-defined users rights are not only 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 to enhance their recognition within the statutory framework. Trust still needs to be built During the consultations, quite a lot of sceptical opinions were expressed, such as: The government will take the forest away from us, once we have protected it and worked for it, because it has paid for it. Such a perception of unequal power relations regarding access to forest resources implies a perception of tenure insecurity that can not be overcome simply by a legal transfer of rights. Trust must be built in order to create the perception of security that is essential to sustainable resource management. Here a dialogue has to take place which needs to be based on a transparent sharing of information about the situation. Moreover, to avoid bad experiences and to make sure decisions have a sound basis, information has to be available for all decisions-makers and for all the stakeholders who will have to monitor the implementation of their decisions. Participatory mapping can bridge the gap between tradition and new technologies Participatory mapping turned out to be a key approach for better defined boundaries, refreshing customary traditions, and conflict resolution. It allowed elders memories to be recorded and helped to strengthen the cohesion and awareness of rural organizations. In this way, participatory mapping seems to act as a bridge between tradition and new technology. But it is important to keep in mind that while mapping is an important tool, it is only one of many aspects of communal forestry management. Management plans can benefit substantially from participatory mapping techniques and lessons learnt if they are able to combine local peoples knowledge and technical expertise. Better communication is needed between foresters and villagers Forestry has to become more accommodating of traditional knowledge. Foresters and farmers 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 attitudes of the

past. Within the forestry profession itself, sceptics doubt the contemporary relevance of the custodial and policing approaches previously followed. It is time that governments also gave more serious consideration to the rights of forest-dependent communities and to the positive role they can play in managing forest resources. Management planning needs to be more accessible to communities Communal Forest Management Plans need to be simpler to better match villagers capacities and needs. Such plans at village level can more appropriately refer to and build on the customary use rights that de facto regulate access to and use of resources. Management plans can then serve multiple purposes for rural communities: They can be very effective in helping communities to reflect on the management of their own natural resources; They can be a useful tool to establish and strengthen relationships between communities in the process of boundary definition; and They can facilitate the transfer of ownership and use rights from state to local government and communities. We need to think in terms of responsibilities, as well as rights Although most of the time people talk about the rights of the community or users rights, it time to shift to rights and responsibilities. The State should respond more sensitively to the just claims of local communities, but the communities should also be aware of the responsibilities their claims imply. The transfer process is incomplete 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-holders 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 the Immovable Property Registration Office (IPRO). 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.

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 in ensuring 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 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 who are traditionally the custodians of forest and pasture lands. Currently, villages and families are left to compete for the appreciable, but still limited benefits of wages for work on reforestation and other activities approved at the commune-level. Rather than being selfgenerating, 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; To ensure that the transfer process follows all the necessary steps, from community

participation in decision-making and the preparation of management plans, through to property registration at the IPRO; and To design and implement a joint pilot scheme by Ministry of Environment, Forest and Water Administration, Users 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 is also part of the capacity-building of local government. The development of the local government responsibilities cannot take place without a revision of the laws and regulations dealing with the transfer of forests and pastures, if only in the harmonization of the definitions used throughout the documents. Particular attention should be given to clarifying land 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. Proposals have to be developed for the harmonization of the different systems and procedures, and for the transfer of rights to forests and pastures.

Appendix: Land reform and administration in Albania since 1991

This material has not yet been edited! Should this appendix be included? 1.2. Government and relevant sector policy(ies) The role of the government in the forest sector can be described as: (i) defining policies and legal frameworks, (ii) adopting tools and measures for their implementation, (iii) managing 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 (Peoples Assembly) is unicameral. There are 15 permanent standing committees or permanent commissions that 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: Cases where there is insufficient incentive for the parties in question to abide and implement a

courts 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 largescale 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. 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 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. 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 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" measurementthat 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 practiceschoice 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. 1.3. Land tenure policy(ies) [administration] The main elements of state administrative reforms have included: organization of new units of administration to regulate and manage agricultural lands, forests and pastures, urban development lands and properties, and tourismdevelopment 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. 1.5.2. 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 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 fulfil 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 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 achieved between the forest directorate and the commune or municipality. Second, it provides the guidelines for forest harvesting operations licenses, occupying forestland for recreation purposes and exploitation of other resources. All uses are subject to the forest management plans and the

oversight of the forest directorate. 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 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 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 0.1-0.5 hectare 142,600 0.5-1 hectare 101,600 1-2 hectare 126,200 Above 2 hectare 19,600 Total farm units 420,000 Source: MoAF (2002).

Percentage 33.9 24.2 30.1 11.8 100%

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 lowquality 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 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 nonpublic lands to communal and municipal control. 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 ninestage 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. 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.

Bibliography