Enhancing Tenure Security in Albanian Forest Land

ILC-NACFP:-Final Report on Enhancing Tenure Security on Communal Forest and Pastures in Albania
Financed by
Enhancing Tenure Security Through Support the Communities
to Improve the Laws on Transfer of State Public Property
(Forest and Pasture) to the Communes
FINAL REPORT
Authors
The report was prepared by:
Haki KOLA -
Gazmend Zeneli
Tirane January 2008

Acknowledgements and Working Team
Acknowledgements
There are too many people to mention here, whose kindness and help proved
so crucial in the completion of this work.The preparation of this Report would
not have been possible without the strong support given to the consultants
not only by the project experts and staff but alsow by SNV Tirana, Dibra and
Korca offices, Communal Forest and Pasture Regional Federation of Kukesi,
Puka, Elbasani and Dibra, FPUA-s of selected communes and regions, DFS,
DFPP and other Government Institutions, to Mr. Rexhep Uka, Idriz Xhumara,
Rahim Kaleci, members of parliament for they very good support and
participation on the activities of project implementations,
At the International Land Coalition (ILC) Bruce More and his fine staff were
extremely welcoming and helpful, especially Annalisa Mauro Barbara
Codispoti, Hedwige Croquette and Stefano Di Gessa.’ILC-s staff’s energy,
insights and warmth were outstanding. For Albanian NACFP this cooperation
is a good preparatory step to apply for being member of ILC and an open
door for more cooperation in the near future,
Working team:
 Mr.Thimaq Lako
 Mr. Abdulla Diku
 Mr. Rexhep Ndreu
 Mr. Pashk Prendi
 Mr. Trifon Cfarku
 Mr. Nevret Jahollari
 Mr. Janaq Male
 Mrs. Valbona Koka
 Mr. Ervin Cfarku
2
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CHAPTER 1. SETTING THE SCENE
1. INTRODUCTION
2. COMMUNES: THE BASIC ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT OF COMUNAL FORESTRY
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY
1. CHOICE OF THE REGIONS
2. MAJOR ASPECTS OF THE METHODOLOGY
3. STEPS FOLLOWED
3.1. Review of the existing literature, reports and materials
3.2. Field surveys and establishment of contact with local people and
representatives.
3.3. Preparations, sending out and evaluation of questionnaires
3.4. Building the local structures for project implementation (Commune and
village commissions)
3.5. Data collection
3.6. Demarcation of boundaries at village forest
3.7. Certification of users of forest and pastures
4. LOBBING AND ADVOCACY
5. SCHEDULE OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
CHAPTER 3. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION: MAIN FINDINGS
1. LAND TENURE AND COMMUNAL FORESTRY
1.1. Historical background of land tenure policies
3
1.2. Government and relevant sector policy(ies)

1.2.1. Legislature
1.2.2. Judiciary
1.2.3. Administration
1.3. Land tenure policy(ies)
1.4. The current status of land tenure
1.4.1. The status of inventory and transfer of state properties
1.4.2. Unresolved policy issues
1.4.3. Restitution of property rights to former owners
1.4.4. Taxation of land and property
1.4.5. Rural land administration
1.5. Progress on land reform in Albania
1.5.1. Rural land and property reform policies
1.5.2. Refused agricultural lands
1.5.3. Pastures and meadows
1.5.4. Forests
1.5.5. Transfer of communal forests and pastures
1.5.6. Protected Areas
1.5.7. Village lands and properties
1.5.8. Rural poverty and Land Holding
1.5.9. Inventory and transfer of state properties
1.6. Communal forestry [ (from the top to the bottom: Ministry, DFS,
Communes, Villages (fshati), Neighborhood (mehalla), Clan (fisi), Household
(shpija)]
2. HISTORICAL AND CURRENT MODES: SHARED AND ASSIGNED ACCESS TO

NATURAL RESOURCES
2.1. Transfer of State Forest and Pastures of Blerimi Commune (District of
Puka)
2.1.1. Geographical position
2.1.2.. History and tradition
2.1.3. Blerimi household’s structure
2.1.4. Why decentralization from state to communes forest management
2.1.5. From study to implementation: Transfer of forest and pasture
process
2.2. Transfer of State Forest and Pastures of Stebleva Commune (District of
Librazhd)
2.2.3. Stebleva household’s structure
4
2.2.4. From study to implementation: Transfer of forest and pasture

process
2.3. Transfer of State Forest and Pastures of Bazi Commune (District of Mat)
2.3.2. History and tradition
2.3.3. Bazi household’s structure
2.3.4. From study to implementation: The process of transfer of forest and
pastures
2.4. Transfer of State Forest and Pastures of Gore Commune (District of
Korca)
2.4.3. Gore household’s structure
2.4.4. From study to implementation: The process of transfer of forest and
pastures
CHAPTER 4. COMMUNAL FOREST: RELEVANCE AND SUSTAINABILITY

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

1. NACFP LOBBING ON LAND TENURE SECURITY
1.1. Chronology of Activities on Advocacy and Lobbying
1.2. Other activities
2. EVALUATION OF ADVOCACY AND LOBBY PROCESS
2.1. Aim and objectives of the evaluation process
2.2. The indicators used for evaluating advocacy process.
2.2.1. Activity indicators
2.2.2. Progress indicators
3. CONCLUSION ON ADVOCACY AND LOBBING
CHAPTER 6: LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1. LESSONS LEARNED
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
REFERENCES
5
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1: For the creation of the Commission of Forests and Pastures of the
Village” (Template document)
Appendix 2: “For establishing the commune’s commission for forests and

pastures”
Appendix 3: Approval of activities for transferring communal forests and pastures

in use of the village (Template document)
Appendix 4: Certificate of user’s right (Template document)
Appendix 5. “For Settling the Boundaries of Forests and Pastures for the Village
(Template document)”
Appendix 6: Sketch of a parcel division with the users’ names and signatures
Appendix 7: Population, Households structure, Agricultural land, and the

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

Livestock structure in the commune of Bazi

Livestock structure in the commune of Gore
Appendix 11: Order of MOEFWA on the Action Plan
Appendix 12: Letter of the Prime Minister
Appendix 13. List of users and the parcels used in the commune of Blerimi
Appendix 14. List of users and the parcels used in the commune of Bazi
Appendix 15. List of users and the parcels used in the Comunne of Gore
6
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AFP Albania Forestry Project

a.e.u Agricultural Economic Unit
ANFI Albanian National Forest Inventory
CFPUAs Communal Forest and Pasture Users Associations
CFPM Communal forest and pasture management
CFPMp Communal forest and pasture management plan
COM Council of Ministers
DGFP Directorate General of Forests and Pastures
DFPP Directorate of Forest and Pasture Policies
DFS Directorate of Forest Service in District
EU European Union
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
FPRI Forest and Pasture Research Institute
FS Forest sector
GDP Gross Domestic Product
ILC International Land Coalition
INSTAT Institute of Statistics
LGU Local Government Unit
MEFWA Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration
MIA Ministry of Interim Affairs
MOAF Ministry of Agriculture and Food
NACFP National Association of Communal Forest and Pasture
NATIA National Agency of Transfer of Immobile Assets
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NPO Non Profit Organization
NRDP Natural Resource Development Project
NTFP Non-Timber Forest Product
NWFP Non- Wood Forest Product
SNV Netherlands Development Organisation
US United States
USAID United States Agency for International Development
Editor’s note:
The project refers to the “Enhancing tenure security through support the communities
to improve the laws on Transfer of State Public Property (forest and pasture) to the
communes, contributing to enrich the forest policies with customary right in forest and
pasture land tenure.
NACFP refers to the National Association of Forest and Pastures, which has awarded
the present report.
The “Working Group” is the panel of expertise both national and local, mobilized by
the NACFP in order to carry out the project. Although none of the individuals is
committed to the assignment on a continuous basis, single experts are closely and
regularly interacting and enhancing information with communes, DFS, DFPP, Ministry
7
of Order, NRDP consultants, to the Local Government throughout the project

implementation.
For the commodity of the reader in this report “Forest” shall unless otherwise
specified, designate forest, shrubs as well as associated biocenosis
Communal Forest is “Forest” in use/ownership” of commune, used by the communes
inhabitants for firewood, grazing, and other every day needs of villagers
8
CHAPTER 1
SETTING THE SCENE
9
1. INTRODUCTION
Bounded on the west by the Adriatic Sea and sandwiched between former Yugoslavia
to the north and Greece to the south, Albania is a mainly hilly and mountainous country,
with a beautiful but rugged terrain. The GDP per capita is US$ 1,196. More than 60% of
Albania’s rural households own less than 0.8 ha of land. Out of this number, three
quarters of the households living in mountainous areas have less than 0.5 ha at hand.
Only 16% of the total land area lies below 100 m, 55% falls between 100 and 1,000 m
and 29% is above 1,000 m. As such, the land used for agriculture is often sloping, with
only ca. 44% of the agricultural land having a slope of less than 5%. In many parts of the
country, climatic and soil conditions are favorable for forest and pasture growth.
The majority of land resources consist in areas covered by forest and pastures (ca.
52% or 1.5 million ha). Traditionally in the Mediterranean region, forests have provided a
large variety of other products, with revenues sometimes exceeding the value of wood
(Scarascia-Mugnozza et al., 2000). Albanian forests are the primary source of wood and of
the many of non-timber forest products that include medicinal and aromatic plants, food and
beverages, fodder, perfumes, cosmetics, fiber, gums, resins, and ornamentals and materials
for dyeing and tanning, plant protection, utensils and handicrafts. Historically, forests in
Albania were spared the devastation that occurred in other Mediterranean countries. In
the 1930’s industrial harvesting began on an unsustainable level (Bosworth, 1975) and
has continued since then. In contrast to arable land, most of the forest and pasture land has
always been public. According to Ottoman law, all land was owned by the state. Communal
ownership occurred in areas that had certain autonomy from Ottoman rule. While arable
land later became private, forests remained state-owned and with open access. Forests
belonging to religious institutions were another form of communal ownership. This tenure
system survived after independence, up to the end of the World War II. The communists
undertook agrarian reform for propaganda purposes soon after coming to power in Albania.
They confiscated large land holdings and all forests and pastures owned by individuals,
religious institutions, and communities. About two-thirds of the total arable land was
redistributed to landless families. By 1948, most of the arable land had been divided into
small plots. However, the real aim of the regime was nothing less than the nationalization of
the land. Immediately after the agrarian reform, following the pattern of kolkhozes in the
former Soviet Union, began the forced collectivization of private land, a process that was
completed by the end of 1967.
In 1946 all the forest and pasture land became state-owned. This includes every form of
copse, wood or forest, from the dwarf oaks and pine woods that border villages, to the
dense forests on the high slopes of the mountain ranges. Under Communism, the State
Forestry Commission was responsible for every aspect of forestry: care of trees, disease
control, replanting, felling, transport and sale of timber and timber products. In every
district there were locals working for the forestry commission (Meta, 1992). The
10
transition of the country from a command to a market economy has accelerated the
degradation of the forest resource due to ambiguous property rights and lack of funding
for management and protection. Natural and human potential is not used efficiently
because of inadequate infrastructural, organizational, and financial structures and
arrangements. In contrast to the importance of forests, their contribution to the Albanian
economy, based primarily on wood production, seems to be very low—only 6 percent of
the total agricultural output in 1990 (World Bank 1996). The estimate does not include
significant amounts of forest products harvested individually or illegally and therefore
not recorded. Furthermore, marketable NTFPs such as medicinal and aromatic plants
(currently an important export item) are not included, since they are considered part of
the food industry. By taking all these into account, plus non-market values of the forest
ecosystems, the importance of the forests is considerably more than the above published
value. This undervaluation of the forest sector is one of the reasons for the neglect by
politicians and bureaucrats.
Forest and pasture types are diverse because of local weather patterns and ecological and
topographic conditions as well as millennia of anthropogenic influences. Despite differences
in vegetation, habitat types, and human usage, Albanian forests and pastures also have some
common features. Most of these ecosystems are particularly fragile, unstable, and
unsustainable because of the interaction of natural factors (steepness, summer droughts, and
torrential rains) and social forces (fire, grazing, and over-cutting). Considering specific
climate and vegetation criteria, naturalists have identified five phyto-climatic zones in
Albania, which range from the maquis in the coast to alpine grasslands at the elevations
above 2000 m (Nako, 1969). Such an extent of the forest and pasture land demonstrates
the enormous potential that Albania has for the development of forestry (Naka et al.,
2000).
Only 25% of Albanias’ 28 750 km2 total area is arable land. A great deal of resources
were expended during the communist period to enlarge the stock of arable land by
terracing vast expanses of hills and by draining swamps in an effort to achieve a central
goal of the regime: enhancing Albania's economic self-sufficiency (Rugg, 1994; Lemel,
1998). Following the break with the Soviet Union in 1961, the decision was made to
increase agricultural production and to reduce the emphasis on investment in industry.
Extension of arable land, retention of the rural population and reduction of private plots
were seen as the keys to fulfilling this goal. Arable land doubled between 1950 and 1989
as a result of massive terracing, marsh draining, irrigation works and desalination
projects. At the same time counteracting this increase, the government’s pro-natalist
policy had tripled the population. A favorite slogan in the 1960s was: “Let us take to the
hills and mountains, and make them as beautiful and fertile as the plains.” This was part
of the regime’s twin campaigns to promote regional equality and to extend the arable land
area as much as possible. By the 1980s land per head had actually dropped by 10 per
cent, so that in 1989 only 0.2 ha of arable land was available for cultivation per capita
11
(Sjoberg, 1989). As can be depicted from Figure 1, forest resources of the country have
paid so much in the last 5 decades, most of them being transformed in agricultural lands.
Figure 1: Changes in population, forest and pastures during the last decades
Figure 1a. Distribution of human population Figure 1b. Development of Forest and
in Albania according to the altitude. Pastures areas and the human population in
the period 1945-2005.
Population (%)
Altitude (m)
Source: Adopted from INSTAT 2001
The disintegration of the state and collective farms during the collapse of the communist
regime (1991-1992) was dramatic (Hall, 1999). With the approval of the “Law on land”
(July 19th, 1991) the arable land (used by cooperatives and the state farms) was to be
distributed to former workers of the above-mentioned units. However, by 1991, with
cooperatives and state farms teetering on the brink of collapse, the authorities no longer
had the luxury of choosing whether to dissolve them, only how to do so. One of the most
fundamental initiatives meant to set the country on the path to a free market was the
privatization of real estate and its distribution to the country's citizens (Lemel, 1998).
Land was to be assigned to families, with total area per family calculated based on the
number of family members resident in the village on August 1991. However, in northern
Albania the land was distributed on a per family, not per capita, basis and entirely in
reference to “old boundaries” (Lemel, 1998). This kind of privatization has led to an
excessive fragmentation. The number of farm holdings in Albania is about 420,000 with an
area averaging 1.5 ha split in 3.3 plots of varying quality. Although the privatization of the
land in Albania was completed physically and legally in 1992, there are still disputes and
12
uncertainties. A thread running throughout the story of Albania's rural land privatization
experience has been the failure of government authorities to enforce the law. Ownership-
related problems generally had in one way or another to do with insistence that pre-
collectivization ownership rights be restored. Such demands could lead to conflicts
between villagers, between entire villages and the state, and to a refusal to sign the deed
unless such rights were recognized
Under such circumstances, Albanian farmers try to obtain those natural resources that
bear a relatively low cost (not to say without cost at all), out of which they get a sufficient
level of satisfaction/utility to meet the families’ perceived basic needs. One natural
resources meeting those requirements is the everlasting partner of man, the forest, which
in the case of Albania occupies 36% of the total land area. Through the privatization of
agricultural land and the constant trend of livestock sub sector expansion, the pressure on
Albania’s natural resources, in particular in rural areas, has increased substantially. This
pressure is exerted not only by the fulfillment of local needs but also by profit interests,
and this national natural asset continues to be undervalued not only by the general public
but also by regulatory “owners” and authorities; as a consequence it will be misused.
Those difficulties were augmented by the claims of ex-land owners, which led to
many other problems that continue to the present day. On the other hand, the entry of
many agricultural products into Albania from neighboring countries found unprepared
and unprotected Albanian new owners. Under such circumstances, many members of the
labor force from those agricultural units turned their attention to the possibility of
emigration and working on farms and in other jobs in neighboring countries. Accordingly
part of the land in Albania was transformed into non-arable or abandoned land (that were
naturally converted to poor quality pastures).
Albanian forest and pastures resources have been degraded significantly over the last
50 years, particularly in areas close to rural communities. At the village level, adverse
human impact is manifest by unregulated and intense wood-harvesting to satisfy
household needs for fuel, timber and livestock fodder, and to exploit new commercial
opportunities in the domestic timber market.
The process of de-collectivization and political transition has been rough on forest
and pasture for several reasons: a) in many areas, rural people vandalized their own
production environment, ostensibly to release pent-up frustrations that accumulated under
socialism; b) a temporary power vacuum allowed people to utilize forest resources
basically at will, with entrepreneurs free to harvest timber and firewood for sale in urban
centers; and c) households were once again thrown back upon their own resources to
survive, creating an insecurity which not only promoted short term land use perspectives,
but also motivated farmers to increase their flocks of sheep and goats to graze upon the
hillsides.
13
Firewood production is actually a very complex social and ecological problem. Forest
harvesting in hilly slopes followed by non-controlled grazing, has lead to land
degradation which nowadays is a common phenomena. Data in the Figure 2, shows that
60% of families interviewed get the firewood directly from the forest. These are families
with low levels of income, often using plots of forest set aside for that purpose by the
communes.
Figure 2. Sources of firewood used in household in Albania
Source: Social Economic Survey, ACER, 2001
2. COMMUNES: THE BASIC ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT OF

COMUNAL FORESTRY
Administrative division of Albania includes 374 communes and municipalities,
grouped in 36 districts and 12 circles. Circles are government units of second level, made
of a number of communes and municipalities with geographic, traditional, economic and
social connection as well as common interest. The function of circle (regions) are the
construction and implementation of regional policies and their harmonization with state
policies on a circle level as well as any other function given by the law.
Communes and municipalities are the units of local government and among others
they are in charge of preparing the programs for local economic development and the
protection and development of forests, pastures and natural resources with local
character.
Communes are units where in 1992 the privatization of agriculture land was realized.
They have to manage the productive lands (300.000 ha) and refused lands (123.000 ha).
14
Considering the main criteria where the land reform was based and relatively uniform
size (an average 55 km 2 ), the communes can be considered as relatively homogenous
units in the land resources. Map No.1 shows the Administrative Divisions of Albania,
with borders of all units: Communes, Municipalities, Districts and Regions.
The process of forest and pastures transfer in Albania started with a pilot project in
three communes on Elbasani district in August 1994. After the pilot phase in 1996, World
Bank through Albanian Forestry Project (1996-2004) supported the forest transfer to the
communes. The Communal Forest and Pastures Management (CFPM) can be considered
as very successful in terms of achievements made but also for its pioneer role in this
sector. Never before has been the local forestry developed in Albania. During the
Ottoman period, the land and natural resources were recognized as God present and
during the communist period they belonged to the State. Nevertheless, traditional land
ownership has always been kept at village level and is today used for defining the
boundaries and users of the communal forests and pastures. The CFPMp is pioneer in
communal forestry as it developed the instruments and applied them to realize the
transfer of forests and pastures foreseen in the law. The proposed methodology has
proven to be supported by the communities and from 30 communes planed the transfer
was realized in 138 communes in the end of AFP.
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The common good is placed before private damage. (“E mira e përbashkët i
paravehet damit të veçanët”). (Kanuni i Lekë Dukagjinit) (Fox, 1989: 81-82)
The sentence taken from the Kanun (customary law governing the daily life for
centuries in Albania that held the culture together for generations, providing certain
uniqueness) (Hasluck, 1954) describes very well the moral and communal behavior of
Albanian. Those communal behavior and values determined perhaps the success of
Albanian to resist assimilation by others even though Albania occupies a strategic
location, historically and politically. Writing at the end of World War I, Barnes (1918)
stated that no people in Europe have proved themselves more resistant to efforts of
assimilation or change than northern Albanian mountaineers”.
Hasluck (1954) wrote: “Village Assemblies dealt with matters of exclusively village
interest. They regulated wood-cutting and irrigation rights, for example. …They took
steps to see that no one appropriated more than his fair share of forest, irrigation water or
grazing. In so doing they made a valuable contribution to the public peace”.
Before Communism, a district’s forest usage rights were spelt out by the Kanun,
which was enforced by village elders. The rights were based on the recognition of
specific areas as the property of a particular group of brothers (vllazni), beyond that of a
particular clan (fis). Beyond a certain distance the forest was the common property
15
(kujrit) of a village; beyond this of the bajrak (district). There were several layers of
government: clan chiefs, village elders, minor elders and the people themselves.
An important point emerging from this account of pre-Communist local government
is the close relationship between individual and community: The community sense was
fostered by every art the mountaineers knew. The humblest man was encouraged to
regard his village or group of villages as his personal property. If home, village or group
of villages prospered, he rejoiced as if he himself had been advanced (de Waals, 2004)
As seen from these litle passages, people in Albania had a long tradition of common
use and/or family use of forests and pastures. This early tradition, amongst others, has
been the motivation for the support of the program of the transfer of state forests and
pastures for communal use during the 1995-2004, an important component of the
Forestry Project funded by the World Bank and the Italian Government. By the end of
2005, the transfer process was completed for 140 communes (from the total of 309
communes). For a better use of the investments, the Communal Forest and Pasture Users
Associations (CFPUA) were established in all the Communes where the transfer process
was completed. Among the main achievements of this process, one can mention: (1)
participation of villagers on the transfer process and on management plans
implementation; (2) the change of attitudes of local communities and foresters toward
communal forests and pastures; (3) slowing down or stopping the further degradation of
natural resources and beginning of their rehabilitation; along with (4) the impact over
poverty reduction in the related areas.
However, mainly because of the property rights issues, not everything has gone as
expected. Property rights issues represent at the moment key challenges faced by Albania
in moving toward sustainable resource management and use and repairing some of the
enormous environmental damage done over the past 5-6 decades. As shown from many
studies, environmental degradation and impoverishment have been most profound where
rights are vaguely defined and where neither the State nor local community are in
positions to uphold rights, whether based on custom or through formal legal assignment.
Translating post-communist Albania’s declared commitments to a market economy,
and greater democratization into action has exposed tensions over two broad questions
related to property rights, namely the extent and speed at which central State ownership
and control over resources is to be divested from the State and central government to
lower level official and private actors, and the extent to which customary or traditional
property frameworks are either to be adapted and incorporated or displaced by formal
ones.
In pre-Communist era, the boundaries where clearly demarkered as recorded in Fox
(1989: 74): “The boundary stone has witnesses around it. There are six or twelve small
rocks that are buried in the earth around the boundary stone. When boundaries are fixed,
aside from the households concerned, there must also be present elders of the village,
16
elders of the bajrak, and as many young people and children as possible from the villages
of the district so that the boundary will be retained in memory. Every tract of land,
whether field or meadow, garden or vineyard, small forest or copse, woodland or pasture
or house grounds, village, bajrak or house, all are divided by boundaries” (Guri i kufinit
kà per rreth dishmitarë. Këta jânë a gjashtë a dymbdhetë paperdhokë (gurë të vogjel), të
cillt vorrohen nen dhé rreth e rreth prit të kufinit. Në të ngulun të kufijve, posë shpijave
nder fjalë, duhet të jenë edhè pleqt e katundit, pleqt e flamurit e saà mâ shum prej të rish
e fmish e edhè prej katundesh të rrethit, qi të mbahet në mend kufini. Se e cilla tokë, po
kje arë a livadh, kopshtë a vêshtë, prozhem a zabel, xânë a ograjé, a rrethi i shpis,
katundi me katund a Flamuri me Flamur e shpija me shpi, kan të damet me kufi).
Significantly, throughout the Communist period village families had continued to
transmit knowledge of traditional clan boundaries in the forest. This was despite the ban
on such customs and the fact that wood was supplied by the local Communist
administration. Although most of the demarking boundaries were known, many problems
arose in post-communsit era and fixing and demarcating boundaries between districts,
communes and villages has been a chronic problem. Ex co-operative boundaries which
served as the initial basis for communal boundaries, frequently failed to line up with the
pre-1945 boundaries of their component villages because the forest and pasture land were
not part of ex-cooperative boundaries. Prior to 1946, some villages held title to several
hectares of forest land that were later owned and managed by the state forest service.
After de-collectivization, there was no attempt to restore the original boundaries, between
Communes and Forest Service until project intervention raised the approach of
communal forestry. The philosophy of the transfer of State forests and pastures to
the communes has been the recognition of the needs of forests products and services
by the local population and their rights on their use. In addition, the transfer is
realized to the communes, which then conclude agreements with the village or individual
(family) users. This is another achievement as it represents an empowerment of the local
population and structures, thus is part of a decentralization process.
The work of the agency responsible for the implementation of the transfer covering
all the communes in the country (Agency the Inventorying and Transfer of State Public
Property) is based on the Laws No. 8744, and No. 8743 and Decision No. 500 of CM
(14.08.2001). Work on laying the groundwork for transferring State owned communal
forests and pastures in-ownership to communes is underway. Committees set up under
Decision No. 500 have been inventorying State properties transferable to local
governments, with pilot efforts underway to effect transfers in 5 municipalities and 2
communes. Deficiencies in legal, survey and mapping preparations have proven to be
bottlenecks.
The users of Forest and Pastures, organized in 144 commune associations, three
Regional Federation and National Association, have identified the support a top-down
approach coming form the Law No. 8744 as the main reason for hampering this process.
17
The law and procedures applied, have not taken into consideration the traditional use, real
users, village representatives, and has not set up any criteria and regulations for process
implementation in participatory way. There have been several reasons that have hindered
the progress, but perhaps the most important have been:
• Differences between DGFP and communes on how much and which land should
be eligible for transfer.
• Slowness of communes in preparing their inventory lists, often due to a fear that
they may end up worse off or simply because of a lack of capacity.
• The requirement that the DFP approve forests that the commune requests for
transfer, something that has occasionally been slow in coming. Communes have
also been tending to ask more than the MOAF is willing to authorize transfer for.
• Difficulties in setting communes boundaries in several cases, with the biggest
conflicts arising over pasture boundaries among villages and communes and over
control over water sources.
Lacking legal personality within the current local government framework, villages as
such, are excluded from land ownership and any say, except in an advisory capacity, on
how common village resources such as pastures should be used or allocated.
Based on the previous experiences gained during the last years, National Association
of Communal Forest and Pasture has undertaken this project aiming on sheding light on
the reasons why the process of transfer of forest and pasture from state to the communes
is going slow, identifing the bottlenecks and to propose the solutions to help solving
some of the above-mentioned. The overall objective is “preparation in participatory way
clear guidelines and criteria on fixing and demarcating boundaries between state owned
forest and communal forest and share of the rights and responsibilities between them,
guiding the local government and forest service in the same time how to resolve border
disputes between state and communes, neighboring communes and villages”.
Project objectives had been foreseen to be achieved through implementing two
components. The first component will strengthen the community-based approach to forest
and pasture management developed for 138 communes under the Albania Forestry
Project (AFP), as well as scale up coverage to include about 80 additional communes.
The second component will pilot integrated management of natural resources in three of
Albania’s seven watersheds, focusing on five regions located the northern areas of the
country. The component will introduce an approach to planning and management of
natural resources at the level of 30 micro-catchments (MCs)
18
Map No. 1: Administrative Divisions: Communes, Municipalities, Districts and Regions

in Albania
19
CHAPTER 2
METHODOLOGY
20
1. CHOICE OF THE REGIONS

In choosing the regions where the project was to be implemented, several factors such
as the geographical location, total area, area covered by forest, number of communes etc.
were taken into account. Apart form those above-mentioned criteria, a very important
role played the historical traditions especially in forest and pasture ownership and
management, as well as historical bias. Regions were chosen to be representative of the
whole country as can be seen in the Map 2.
Insert the Map of the country with the representative communes.
Puka District is part of Shkodra region and represents more or less the traditions of
Lezha, Shkodra, and Kukesi. Located in Albanian Alps, the commune of Blerimi
represents the typical northern village with scattered houses that are usually apart from
each other and accessible only by rugged footpaths. These footpaths are often not
passable in bad weather. When houses are found in clusters, they are usually inhabited by
families of the same clan. Good quality of agricultural land in this area is minimal, and
farms are small with high level of land fragmentation. This makes farming very difficult
since the use of large machinery for ploughing and harvesting is not cost-effective on
such small plots. Generally in northern areas the infrastructure such as roads and access
to market is relatively undeveloped. The area is commonly cited both in ethnographic
literature and by Albanian people today as having maintained more tribal customs than
other districts due to mountains locations and relative isolation from outside influence.
Field trips to the area provide evidence of cultural patterns that are distinct from middle
or south mountain Albania and especially from western plain.
Dibër, located in the mountainous northeast of Albania, is one of most poverty-
stricken regions of the country. In term of customs, family organization and traditional
use and management of forest, Dibra was chosen as an area dominated by “the Kanun of
Scanderbeg”. Some 16% of the area of the region is classified as agricultural land
(36,600 ha, or just 1.9 ha per family), and 63% as forests and pastures (147,900 ha),
about half of which (74,100 ha, or 3.9 ha per family) are designated as communal forests
and pastures. In this predominantly rural region, most of the population of 200,000
inhabitants earns their living from subsistence farming and herding. The communal forest
lands mostly located close to the villages are considered to offer great potential for
improving the incomes of rural communities.
Elbasani was chosen to represent mountain region of central Albania in both sides of
Shkumbini River. The river has serves more or less as the boundary between Gheg and
Toske. The topography is a combination of mountain, hills, and valleys and vast plain
areas with high levels of agricultural activities. The chosen commune was Stebleva
21
located in the east part of the region just in the boundary with Macedonia. The commune
shares the boundaries between the districts of Librazhdi and Bulqiza.
On the southern part of the country, the district of Korca was chosen as the one
displaying the characteristics of the whole region. The topography in this district is
various; plain fields, hills and mountain. Almost all the Korca plain areas are surrounded
by hills and mountains. An exception of this classification is the Commune of Gora (the
word Gore comes from the Slavic language and means mountain with forest). In
Albanian history and culture, Korca is known for the first school in Albanian language (7
mars 1871). In term of agriculture, Korca has been well-known for high level of tree crop
production especially apple trees as well as the agricultural and diary products. Typical
crops are wheat, maize and some vegetables. Sugar Beet was typical for the Korca plain
in the communist regime and ruins of sugar production factory are part of the plain
landscape. Animal farming is predominantly comprised of cows and sheep. Korca was
chosen due to the distinct differences from other parts of the country in forest and pasture
use and in the same time for his high level of emigration in Greece. Remittance income
accounts for large part of total house hold income in the district.
Short surveys were undertaken in the regions of Durresi and Mirdita to compare the
differences in tradition and the actual decisions taken by the village commissions in land
use.
2. MAJOR ASPECTS OF THE METHODOLOGY

The methodology associated with the transfer lied on two major aspects:
1. The organization of the implementing structure (Forestry Village Commissions, Forest
Users Associations, DFS communal forestry specialist, and Directorate for Communal
Forests and Pastures and Extension Services),
2. The development and implementation of communal forests and pastures management
plans.
The organization at village level of the local population introduces the management
of the forest at the level of the users themselves. For the time being, this will be more in
terms of delimiting the boundaries, appointing the users and defining the uses as well as
implementing the protection and improvement measures rather than planning the future
development of communal forests. This structure has an important role to play in
managing and resolving the conflicts where they occur, indirectly helping for a
sustainable management of communal forest resources.
The management plans are prepared by professionals. Besides the important work
done in describing every plot and subplot identified by the villagers, the representation of
the communal forests and pastures through digitalized maps provided almost a perfect
22
overall picture of the communes. But the interpretation of these plot descriptions by
villagers is not an easy task.
In addition, the first operations supporting the implementation of the management
plans are giving to them their real dimension of a working document. As most of the
communal forests and pastures are much degraded, the success of first measurements
confirms the rehabilitation potential with simple actions and demonstrates the value that
the forests may have in future, if correctly managed. This is an important issue in
changing the attitude of the locals as most people lack the experience of forest growth,
and are sometimes reluctant to accept the transfer of “a desert”, as some said.
Often taken for granted, the involvement of the DFS staff is playing a major role in
developing the transfer. But the major success of the CFPMp lies probably in the degree
of awareness amongst the rural population about the transfer process and what it implies.
The aim, the methodology and the executing bodies are to date known not only by the
population benefiting directly form the transfer, but these are also known in other
communes where the Program is not yet active. This creates a huge demand to in deeper
reforms: clarifying the legal concepts, definitions, duties, rights, obligations and
responsibilities; allowing commercial activities with communal forests and pastures
products and services; bringing more support to the protection of natural resources
(forests and soils); recognizing land property, etc.
3. STEPS FOLLOWED
To successfully achieve the overall objective of the project “The preparation in
participatory way of clear guidelines and criteria on fixing and demarcating boundaries
between state owned forest and communal forest and share of the rights and
responsibilities between them, guiding the local government and forest service in the
same time how to resolve border disputes between state and communes, neighboring
communes and villages” several actions were undertaken. These actions were performed
in a step-by-step way..
3.1. Review of the existing literature, reports and materials

Existing reports and materials were used for desk studies. Such materials were related
to training courses, workshops, annual reports, studies, providing a good source of
existing information. They include the evaluation study on (i) Social Assessment of
Communal Forest and Pasture AFP project (1996) (ii) Communal Forest and Pasture
Management of July 2001; (iii) Report on Effects of the Albanian Forestry Project on
Poverty Reduction, of November 2002, and (iv) various studies and reports.
23
3.2. Field surveys and establishment of contact with local people and
representatives
Working groups were established for each of the four communes under investigation.
After their familiarization with the project’s objectives, the work started by collecting all
the existing documentation and other materials to be used during the field works. The
main documents used by working groups were the old forest management plans which
were found at respective Directorates of Forestry Services of the districts. For the local
unit and village boundaries, maps which include the territory of communes and the
villages were collected. The working group used the following thematic maps:
 Topographic maps of the scale 1:25000 or 1:10000
 Agriculture cadastral maps used by the Commissions of Land Distribution
 Maps of forests and pastures of the management plans or inventory
 Different documents that contain earlier boundaries.
Based on these partial topographic maps, a new map was prepared containing the
following information:
 Local government unit and village boundaries, as they are traditionally known,
as well as based on different documents.
 Agricultural land boundaries according to villages (used by the Land
Distribution Commissions), extracted by the cadastral maps or those of the Real
Estate Registration Units, to ensure compatibility between the boundaries of
forests and pastures and agriculture land, with resident areas or other territories.
 Forests and pastures boundaries according to maps taken from the DFS and
local government unit defined in the preliminary agreement on the forests and
pastures that the local unit take in use or in ownership.
In cooperation with FPUA of communes and Directorates of Forestry Services of the
districts, series of vizites were organized in the territory of the communes. The aim of the
visits and short-surveys was to create a better idea about the real life conditions in the
villages and establishing contacts with local governments. During these visits, a
presentation of the objectives and main activities of the project on commune and village
level took place.
3.3. Preparations, sending out and evaluation of questionnaires

Questionnaires aiming to collect actor’s opinion on farmer knowledge of boundary of
village forest and pasture as well as suggestions/recommendations for future
implementation were prepared. The assessment team identified three main groups of
actors with whom these questionnaires were used: (i) the members of FPUAs; (ii) the
24
leadership of FPUA; and (iii) the DFS Offices. This type of survey based on
questionnaires was focused in the districts of Korce, Elbasan, and Diber.
3.4. Building the local structures for project implementation (Commune

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

The aim of this process was to get a better impression on the socio-economic status of
the villagers, forest and agriculture land, forest use and the inhabitants’ view of forest.
The collected data included:
 Geographical positions, site characteristics and road infrastructure.
 Population, gender, employment and demographic movement.
 Agricultural land and farming, cereals, fruit tress, and relation of agricultural,
pastures, forest in every day life of village.
 Livestock, structure of livestock, fodder and forage production, grazing and
implication on forest lands and forest development
 Natural resources; with special focus on village forest and pastures, tradition on
their management and use.
Based on above-mentioned data, one general assessment report was prepared for
every village and then for the whole commune.
25
3.6. Demarcation of boundaries at village forest

Demarcation of village boundaries was carried out by the working groups in close
collaboration with representatives from the DSF, the village commissions, and with
boundary villages’ commissions. The working groups started the ascertainment with the
well-known or documented boundaries, and walked along the boundaries discussing and
marking in the field and in the map the boundary lines. After agreeing on the boundaries,
the commission and the working group filled out and signed a “written agreement” in
several copies for all interested parties (village, registration office, local government unit,
district cadastre, office of real estate registration and the directorate of forest service).
Each copy of the written agreement was accompanied by a copy of the map with the
drawn boundaries. (See Appendices 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5)
The same procedure was followed for every village. In cases when the headman of
the village was not a member of the commission, he was always present during the
process of boundaries demarcation together with other individuals (elderly people) who
know them good enough.
3.7. Certification of users of forest and pastures

Division of the communal forests and pastures to the users was a decision taken by
the villages’ commissions. If they decided to divide them, users were identified and
certified by village commissions. As a rule, they collected the requests or traditional
claims of neighborhoods, clans, group families or separate families for the forests and
pastures they have used in the past, and then decided accordingly.
Two forest maps were the tools used by working groups in consultation with the
commission and individual users in the process of identification of users as family; the
forest village map scale 1:10 000 and the parcel sketch. In filling up the sketches, the
presence of most of representatives of families that has used traditionally the forest and
different was mandatory. As a rule, area was measured at the scale of the parcel, while
the division between users was only schematic without field measurement. Parts of the
forest and pastures used collectively by the whole village were defined in the same
manner. The results of these ascertainments and certifications are given in the
Appendices 3 and 4.
4. LOBBING AND ADVOCACY

Based on the project findings, an important the project implementation aspect was the
improvement of the legal framework, helping the acceleration of forest and pasture
transfer to communes, elucidation of ownership right and responsibilities in sustainable
26
forest use and increase of public awareness on this process. The methodology of this
process included:
 Seminar at regional level with explanation of the process.
 Discussion at commune level.
 Preparation and distribution of leaflets and posters at Communes’ offices, public
places, shops, schools etc.
 Media campaign through delivery of interviews on TV, articles in newspapers etc.
 Organization of National Conference on Reform in Albania Forestry.
 Meeting with National Agency on Inventory and Transfer of Immovable
Properties to the Local Government Units.
 Meeting with Deputy Minister of MEFWA.
 Formal and Informal meeting with parliament members.
 Preparation of draft for Law(s) to be amended and sending them to the
responsible Ministries.
5. SCHEDULE OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

The agreement between ILC and NACFP was signed on August 1, 2006. After
signing the agreement, NACFP started to organize its human resources in National and
Local level. Implementaion of the majority of the activities followed the action plan and
schedule presented in the project proposal (see below); however, in few cases it was
reviewed and changed taking into consideration the operational timetable, political
changes and different problems faced during the project implementation.
No Activities realized Implementation time (month)

1 1 1 1 1 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 16
A.1 Pilot project implementation in four selected communes

A Preparation of detailed work plan for each regional team
B Review the village boundaries and forest resources
C Preparation of ToRs for each commune selected
D Awareness-raising process on the revision of status of user rights
E Revision of forest and pasture boundaries on a village level
F Preparation of villages’ maps based on the revision users
G Preparation of agreements and contract of land use by users
H Work shop in micro-catchments level based in selected commune
A2 Preparing the draft legal documents on forest transfer
A3 Preparing the draft legal regulation for sustainable use
A4 National work shop with wide participation of main stake holders
A5 Lobbing for approval of proposed legislative documents
A5.1 Approval of the proposed legal documents
27
CHAPTER 3
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION: MAIN FINDINGS
28
The activities implemented under the Project were diverse and linked to specific issues such
as: assessing the ongoing process of forest and pasture transfer in region scale; selection of pilot
communes; selection of local experts on the level of district and commune; establishment of
working groups in each commune; presentation of the project to communes; establishment of
village commissions, including representatives from each stakeholder group within the
communes; training of working groups and village commissions to implement the project on the
village level; identification of current boundaries of forest and pasture transferred to the
communes; identification of traditional boundaries of the communes; identification of legal and
institutional constrains to fit in traditional boundaries; collection of the information on the
traditional use of forest and pasture; preparation and evaluation of the questionnaires for
identification traditional use of forest and pasture; defining historical and current modes of both
shared and assigned access to all resource areas; identification of the users group in each parcel
boundaries in village, through combination of topographic maps 1:25 000 with forest and
pastures cover maps; organization of regional or national workshops; advocacy and lobbying on
reviewing and/or amending certain laws and creation of legal spaces for preparation of new
regulations; etc.
1. LAND TENURE AND COMMUNAL FORESTRY

As human populations and their demands on forest resources grow, citizens and
officials search for solutions to the problems of forest degradation and deforestation.
Many factors contribute to make forests very challenging to govern effectively. Most of
these challenges emerge from the biophysical characteristics of forest resources. From
that point of view, community forestry has become a popular movement, challenging
foresters to change their thinking. The message is simple: people are the key to success
rather than the cause of failure.
Community forestry is defined as “a village-level forestry activity, decided on
collectively and implemented on communal land, where local populations participate in
the planning, establishing, managing and harvesting of forest crops, and so receive a
major proportion of the socio-economic and ecological benefits from the forest” (Martel
and Whyte, 1992). From this definition, one can say that, like sustainable development,
community forestry should be seen as a process - a process of increasing the involvement
of and reward for local people, of seeking balance between outside and community
interests and of increasing local responsibility for the management of the forest resource.
Rao (1991) writes: “The political dimension of community forestry makes it a venue for
people's struggle against domination and exploitation of the community's resources by
'outsiders'. Ecology, equity and social justice are part of this struggle”. These definitions
imply the importance of several actors and factors, and in this report, we’ll follow more a
less this order.
29
1.1. Historical background of land tenure policies

Historically, community forestry activities have been important to the livelihoods of
most rural people in Albania, even though formal state governments have not always
been supportive of such activities. This has a much a do with the Albanian roots.
Albanians generally trace their history back to the Illyrian tribes, which evolved from the
Stone Age to reach their power peak around 400 BC (Woods, 1918; Wallace, 1998). The
Illyrians resisted assimilation into the Roman culture, however, the roman land tenure
judicial regime was forced in plain zone (Haxhi, 1988). When the Roman Empire divided
into east and west, Albania became a part of the Byzantine Empire.
The first Byzantine agrarian law, called the Justinian law, was approved in the VII
century, later amended following the socio economic changes. Agrarian law contents one
summary of provisions arranging relations between villagers as small land owners, as
well between villagers and their overlords, and it was extended up to the IX century
(Haxhi, 1988). In the occupied part of the country the common ownership under the
agricultural land started to be disorganized from the VIII century. The law provides
disintegration of the common ownership and division of it to villagers. In case of the
communions, the law defined the equal taxes for all shareholders. If any member of
communions abandoned, the others were responsible for paying his tax. Based on this
law, all the families had the right to heritage their land. In addition, they could exchange
the arable land and had the rights of leasing and to use them for agricultural products. If
someone paid taxes to the empire cashbox, he was regognised as the owner of the land
even if he was runway (Anonymous, 1978).
Prior to the end of the Byzantine time, few changes occurred on the land tenure
relation. From 1081 it was documented the establishment of “Pronijet”; one system that
was well allocated massively in the XII century. “Pronijet” were compound by the land
of the owner and the land of the farmers, which was not a private estate and was named
“Bashtina”. Farmers were obliged to manage the land lord’s land and the part of the land
that was juridical depends (Bashtina). “Pronijet” as a land tenure regime was dominant
mainly in the plain zone and in the some main valleys of the country (Haxhi, 1988).
By the end of 1355, the Albanian feudal lords formed their own state. This period of
independence was short lived as the Ottoman Turks invaded in 1388, completing their
occupation in 1430. In the 15th century, the Ottomans extended the timar system
(whereby Ottoman soldiers [i.e. sipahis] managed tracts of land for the Sultan) from
south and central to north Albania causing population displacements and a change in
systems of land tenure (Pollo and Puto, 1981). With increased immigration, population
centers in the mountains may have become larger and access to resources, such as good
30
land, circumscribed. Generally, the response was agricultural intensification, perhaps

through terracing and irrigation (Schon and Galaty, 2006).
As Ottoman power began to decline in the 18th century, the central authority of the
empire in Albania gave way to the local authority of autonomy-minded lords. The most
successful of these lords were three generations of Pashas of the Bushati family, who
dominated most of northern Albania from 1757 to 1831, and Ali Pasha Tepelena of
Janina (now Ioánnina, Greece), who ruled over southern Albania and northern Greece
from 1788 to 1822. These Pashas created separate states within the Ottoman state until
they were overthrown by the sultan.
In 1831 Turkey officially abolished the Timar system. In the wake of its collapse,
economic and social power passed from the feudal lords to private landowning Beys and,
in the northern highlands, to tribal chieftains called Bajraktar, who presided over given
territories with rigid patriarchal societies that were often torn by blood feuds. Peasants
who were formerly serfs now worked on the estates of the Beys as tenant farmers. Land
tenure regime was based on military feudal ownership, with “kanunamente” (body of
Ottoman Laws based on the Kuran and the Sultan’s Codes, adapted especially for the
occupied part of the country, in concordance with some traditional customs). During that
time, a land inventory was performed and all the land was registered. All the land
(agricultural and other lands such as forest, pasture, meadows, rangelands), independently
from the owner, were declared as state owned. Judicially, the owner was called “God”
and was administered by Sultan. All the lands proclaimed “Mirie”. Land was distributed
according to the Ottoman feudal system, in which the holder of a Timar (estate) had to
report for military duty, bringing and supporting other soldiers. A wide range of taxes
was imposed, including the harač, a graduated poll tax on non-Muslims. The villagers
used the land called “Bashtina”, and apart from it, the villagers had the ownership right to
a small plot of land around the house not more than 1000 m2, called “erzi mylk”. This was
privately owned with the rights to heritage or sell without restrictions. The land gifted by
Sultan for different service was called Mylk and considered as private ownership. By the
end of 16th century, another form of land property was Vakefi (land donated from the state
to the religious institution). This land was excluded from the taxation (Haxhi, 1988).
As the landscape became more structured so too did the socio-political system. It was
at this time that the tribal system as recorded in the Kanuni i Lekë Dukagjinit probably
evolved, a dynamic, social response to the pressures and possibilities of life in a frontier
zone (Schon & Galaty, 2006). It was created as a result of the inner need of a whole
population, living in our territories, in order to defend the very existence of the nation in
the face of the threat of assimilation by "superior" civilizations of the invaders and
occupiers. The Kanuni i Lekë Dukagjinit was not transcribed in full until the early 20th
century by a Franciscan priest, Father Shtjefen Gjecov. Large households (shpia)
organized into neighborhoods (mehalla) share patrilineal descent from a common apical
31
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, Shala’s
nearest neighbor to the south, and several other tribes, to form the Dukagjin
‘confederacy’ (farë), one of ten tribal confederations in northern Albania (Durham, 1910;
Frazer and Durham,1912; Hasluck, 1954; Kastrati, 1955; Schon and Galaty, 2006).
At the beginning of the 20th century, the land ownership system in Albania was
dominated by the “çiflig”; land tenure system which was characteristic of the Ottoman
Empire where peasants were obliged to contribute labor and produce either for a private
landlord, for the state, or for religious institutions. After independence from the Turks in
1912, land distribution was very unequal. The vast majority of agricultural land was
controlled by five families each owning about 60,000 hectares of farmland and forests.
Further, the large estates were not substantially affected by two attempts at land reform
before 1945. In July 1924 a peasant-backed insurgency won control of Tirana and Fan
Noli became Prime Minister. He set out to build a Western-style democracy, including
major land reform and modernization, but there were no funds in the treasury and no
international recognition. His approach on forest land was to divide it between local
communities to fulfill their needs, the accessed by local community’s part, and the
remaining part to be owned and managed by the state (Pollo and Puto, 1981).
Between 1925 and 1945 during the King Zog’s ruling time and inter-war time, the
concentration of land ownership was only affected by the development of an embryonic
land market and the division of large estates through inheritance. Zog failed to resolve
Albania's fundamental problem, that of land reform, leaving the peasantry as
impoverished as before. Nevertheless, land ownership pattern remained much skewed,
with 3 percent of the population owning 27 percent of the land. Moreover, this inequality
was stronger in the most fertile and productive areas in the country. There, agriculture
was still predominantly organized in large estates owned by a few landlords, the pre-
Communist state and religious institutions. The majority of small and medium size
landholders operated on less fertile holdings in the hills and mountains (Haxhi, 1988).
In contrast to arable land, most of the forest and pasture land has always been public.
According to Ottoman law, all land was owned by the state. Communal ownership occurred
in areas that had certain autonomy from Ottoman rule. While arable land later became
private, forests remained state-owned and with open access. Forests belonging to religious
institutions were another form of communal ownership. This tenure system survived after
independence, up to the end of the World War II.
32
Forest policy began with the establishment of the country’s forest service in 1923.
Those hired to fill the available positions were Albanian foresters who had studied in
Western Europe (France, Italy, and Austria). Their approach was technocratic and
centralized, shaped by the idea of the national state, which the Albanian political class
was so desperate to build during the inter-war period. To provide revenues for the state
budget, in the late 1930s, the government began giving concessions to foreign companies,
a period that marks the beginning of industrial harvest of the forests in Albania. The
unsustainable rate of removals continued during the World War II to supply the Italian
and German armies. Because of difficulties in accessibility (roads were absent and rivers
are too turbulent to transport timber) forests in the northern and central part of Albania
were spared (Fernow, 1913). However, as in other parts of the Ottoman Empire, in
central and southern Albania, deforestation continued because of neglect on the part of
the authorities. The detrimental influence of forest destruction was repeatedly experienced
in floods and droughts.
After the communists came to power (end of 1944), the technocratic legacy combined
with the communist ideology became the basis of the forest policy. In 1946, as part of the
agrarian reform, all the forests in Albania were nationalized and with few exceptions, are
still state-owned. The communist government put emphasis on extraction of natural
resources, especially timber and firewood, to meet the demands of an expanding controlled
economy. The government's first major act to “build socialism” was swift,
uncompromising agrarian reform, which broke up the large landed estates of the southern
Beys and distributed the parcels to landless and other peasants. This destroyed the
powerful class of the Beys. Shortly after the agrarian reform, the Albanian government
started to collectivize agriculture, completing the job in 1967. As a result, peasants lost
title to their land. In addition, the leadership extended the new socialist order to the more
rugged and isolated northern highlands, bringing down the age-old institution of the
Kanun and the patriarchal structure of the family and clans, thus destroying the
semifeudal class of Bajraktars.
The communists claim that one of the great achievements of their administration was
the elimination of the Kanun. If true, this would have been a mighty achievement.
Though contained under communism, most of its elements have re-appeared in the past
ten years. In view of the Communist ban, one might have expected younger generation to
be unfamiliar with the Kanun at the beginning of the 1990s. However, in all except
prominent Communist families, the Kanun’s precepts were discussed within households
and passed on to younger family members, albeit covertly. The very fact of banning so
many important aspects of local culture probably contributed to cultural continuity, as did
the above-mentioned living arrangements (de Waal, 2004). The Kanun has eased
readjustment for many of the northerners as they come out of the socialist period as, for
example, original land borders were remembered accurately by all parties and so reverted
to original ownership with far less difficulty than privatization in other areas.
33
In October 1992 a new forest law was passed, which came into operation in 1993.
This law was passed against the advice of forest experts who argued that the new law
would lead to loss of state control and large-scale abuse. It was also fiercely contested by
northern communes leading to several problems. Widespread absence of authoritatively
demarcated administrative and inter-village boundaries has stymied land registration and
precipitated sharp disputes, particularly between villages over pasture and grazing rights.
These problems derive in large part from misalignments between pre-1945 village
boundaries and those drawn after 1990 within communes defined according to ex-
cooperative boundaries, not those of their constituent villages in the pre-communist era.
The coexistence of state ownership of the forest and customary law usage rights as
exercised by villagers did not pose a problem where domestic wood needs were
concerned. The traditional adherence to clan boundaries enabled villagers to meet their
domestic needs more efficiently than the cumbersome official system could have done.
By contrast, the coexistence of state and customary law, once a state decree granted
certain areas of the traditionally communal forest to licensed wood fellers, was a source
of conflict. This was not because there was any real doubt as to licensees’ rights, but
because sale of wood was the only means of financial survival for villagers, nearly all of
whom were unemployed. Had the original proposal put forward by the communes been
approved at the start of the 1990s, the forest might have been no less depleted, but at least
replanting and maintenance would have reduced damage (de Waal, 2004).
The alpine forests do not unfortunately enjoy this community involvement. Nor are
they protected by a state at once distant, weak and indifferent. Unscrupulous unlicensed
felling and sawmill businesses flourish, their activities large scale enough to buy them
protection from prosecution. Destruction of these forests is not the result of overlapping
rights or blurred boundaries, but rather state weakness or indifference that allows people
to break the law with impunity (de Waal, 2004).
1.2. Government and relevant sector policy(ies)

The role of the government in the forest sector can be described as: (i) defining
policies and legal frameworks, (ii) adopting tools and measures for their implementation,
(iii) managing and controlling the national forest estate, and (iv) supporting and
promoting education, training, research, and extension. Although most of these activities
may be ascribed to DFP, other government bodies are involved to different degrees at
different stages of the policy process. While the legislature is active during the
formulation and legitimization, the administration is more engaged in the agenda-setting
and implementation.
34
1.2.1. Legislature
Albania is a parliamentary democracy. The parliament (People’s Assembly) is
unicameral. There are 15 permanent standing committees or permanent commissions that
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
35
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 court’s ruling
 Cases in which it will be very difficult to determine what would happen after
the ruling
 Forestry issues that are rapidly changing and have yet to be addressed by the
legal system
 Narrow issues and low stakes.
1.2.3. Administration
The Council of Ministers is the highest institution responsible for the implementation of
policies by directing and controlling the activity of ministries and other state agencies. The
sector of forest and pastures acts under the auspices of the Ministry of Environment,
Forestry and Water Administration.
The local government consists of 12 prefectures, set up after the French model, but is
still frail following four decades of communist abrogation. Each prefecture is divided into
districts, which were the major administrative divisions during the communist regime.
Districts are further subdivided into cities and communes. The average area of communes is
9 000 ha and covers, on average, about nine villages. District, city, and commune councils
are elected by popular vote, but rely on the central government for funding, because their
power to impose taxes has remained only on paper.
Although communes are administrative divisions, the central government and
international donors have targeted them for the implementation of communal forest policies.
Law No. 7917 “For Pastures and Meadows” gives usufructuary rights to communes of
state-owned pastures and allows them to extend tenancy and user rights to local individuals
and groups. Based on this law, the World Bank begun implementation of its communal
forest and pasture component of the AFP on a trial basis in three communes in the district of
Elbasan. Preliminary results from improvement work such as regeneration cutting, planting,
and protective fencing have been satisfactory. This should not come as a surprise because
local people have benefited directly from participating in the project. Despite these
successes, expansion into other communes must proceed cautiously.
Prospects for improvement at all levels of the public administration are hampered by
large-scale corruption. Its eradication requires radical changes in all administrative
structures and operating procedures for any state agency to become an “equal opportunity
employer”. Decisions about recruitment, tenure, and promotion should be purged of
political affiliation, familial ties, province of origin, sex, religion, and other forms of
unfair discrimination.
36
1.3. Land tenure policy(ies)

Since 1991, Albania has pursued a process of land and property reform. The main
elements of state administrative reforms have included:
 organization of new units of administration to regulate and manage
agricultural lands, forests and pastures, urban development lands and properties,
and tourism-development lands and projects
 division of state-owned lands and properties between direct state agency
control and municipal ownership or right of use
 incorporation of new concepts and procedures of environmental regulation
and environmental impact assessment
 re-organization of related administrative systems, including local property
taxation, mortgage and finance mechanisms and valuation.
Over the last 16 years, substantial progress has been made in carrying forward the
civil law reforms and the programs of ownership transfer. Almost all families and some
juridical persons have received documentation giving ownership rights in land and
housing units, and most families and enterprises now occupy and use their land premises.
On the state side, progress in establishing the new administrative structure of regulation
and management of land has been slow because of the need to bring new concepts and
methodologies into the law and administrative practice. This has required re-training, re-
organization and public outreach. It has also required transfers of power and resources.
The next stages of reform, therefore, will need to confront these problems of mismatch
between the revised structures and laws, on paper, and functions and practice on the
ground. The key elements of a modern European land and property system are now in
place. Despite this progress, the framework of legal principles and supporting juridical,
administrative and institutional systems is not yet complete. The system does not yet
operate as efficiently, partly because the reforms have been applied in a categorical
manner – meaning that different legal definitions have been applied for agricultural land,
forest and pastures, and other lands and properties. These factors have slowed the
progress of reform, left the system vulnerable to the growth of informal and corrupt
practices and have created a highly complex system with many gaps and overlaps.
1.4. The current status of land tenure

Private ownership and subordinate rights of use and lease were to be created in the
first stage of transformation, and were to be distinguished among categories of land use
(and several others of smaller scale):
37
Agricultural fields (arable land), previously controlled by collective and state farms,
were to be divided into plots of equal size/value and distributed to the collective
members and farm employees in family ownership (" No. 7501; Law No. 8053). A
legal document (deed) called “tapi” gives evidence of ownership in the name of the
"head of household."
Families that were owners of land and property prior to 1945 have been able to
claim restitution of their non-agricultural properties, or alternatively to receive other
property or financial compensation (Law No. 7698; Law No. 9235).
State and municipal ownership also is distinguished among several land use
categories. In rural areas, these encompass forest, pasture and water-related lands (Law
No. 7623; Law No. 7917; Law No. 8093). In addition, the state has retained some land of
former state farms, "refused" agricultural lands (lands that eligible families have rejected)
(Law No. 8047). All state-owned properties are subject to inventory and a process of
division in which municipal governments may acquire ownership or right of use (Law
No. 8743; Law No. 8744). In particular, communes’ administration are acquiring control
of forests and pastures, located close to the villages, for subordinate use by their
residents. Taken together, programs of creating private property rights, state properties
and illegal actions have subdivided Albania into 4.5 million land parcels and separately-
owned immovable property units.
1.4.1. The status of inventory and transfer of state properties

The process of determining state-owned land and property holdings and their division
between state agencies and municipalities has been under way since 2001, but is being
completed slowly than expected. This process has been managed by the State Agency for
Transfer of Public Property, which sets the standards and oversees the work of the
communes and municipal administrations. The process involves an initial stage in which
the commune or city administration must inventory the state land and immovable objects
within its territory and designate those for which it seeks transfer. The list then circulates
among the state agencies. When an agreement is reached, it is adopted by the Council of
Ministers in a preliminary form and displayed for 90 days. After display and any possible
corrections, the Council of Ministers gives final approval of the transfers to the
municipality and the assignment of properties to state agencies. The final stage is
registration in the IPRS. Until May 2007 work was underway in 353 communes and
cities and 160 had obtained the Council of Ministers decree (CMD) on approval of the
inventory lists of local government units. The preliminary list has been approved in fifty
of these communal units while in twelf of them the final list has already been approved.
About 80% of land and other property objects are inventoried in all the country.
38
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
39
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.
40
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"
measurement—that is, the assembly of indicators of soil fertility, moisture and productive
capacity as the basis for the resource valuation of land. In theory, these methodologies
allow accurate guidance to be given on farming and forestry practices—choice of crops,
rotation schedules, fertilization, thinning, etc.—and on projects and programs to prevent
degradation and enhance soil quality. They also allow the fixing of baseline conditions in
the cadastre, against which the results of subsequent inspections can be measured, for
enforcement purposes.
Recent evaluation of the capabilities of the Cadastre office in the Directorate of
Forest and Pasture Policies in the MEFWA and the Land Administration and Protection
agencies under the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and Consumer Protection highlights
skepticism about the effectiveness of their methodologies and a need to build the
capability of the administrative staff.
1.5. Progress on land reform in Albania

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

During the past years of reform activity, five major policies have been introduced at
different stages in order to guide the allocation of ownership and control over rural land.
These policies are not consistent with each other but, within the categorical structure of
land and property relations, each has been given priority with respect to different
categories of rural land and property. The inconsistencies among them have caused
practical problems primarily at the borderlines and the points of their intersection and
overlap.
41
 The policy of equitable family ownership of agricultural land and farm assets
formed the basis of the initial land reform, under Law No. 7501. This principle
made it possible to accomplish the break up of collective and state farms quickly
and to diffuse the social and political unrest that had begun when the farm system
collapsed in 1989-1990 (Jungbluth and Lugg, 2002).
 The policy of retaining state ownership with subordinate citizen and enterprise use
was applied to forests, pastures and other rural lands, needing particular
environmental protection. Initially, the laws envisioned the continuation of central
state control over these lands while in recent years, the policy of decentralization of
authority has guided the division of these lands between local municipal (commune)
control and state agency control.
 The policy of restitution (without regard to an unequal result) has been an
alternative policy to equitable family ownership and state ownership. The initial law
authorized restitution of land and housing within villages as well as some forests
and pastures while agricultural fields were not to be given in restitution. This rule of
law was not applied strictly in practice and in some villages agricultural fields were
divided on the basis of pre-1945 holdings. In other villages former owners claimed
agricultural land but were resisted by "newcomers" and the communal officials
have held to the equitable division under Law No. 7501. In other villages, the
conflicting claims remain unresolved or conflicting documents, giving ownership
rights to the same land have issued to different families (Lemel, 1998). Similarly,
restitution of forest and pasture areas has been given in some places, not in others,
and many tracts have uncertain status because they may potentially be given as
alternative grants of land to former owners.
 The policy of re-consolidation of agricultural fields has gained prominence in
national policy as various studies have shown the inefficiency of small, fragmented
farm holdings. The Ministry of Agriculture has described the development strategy,
in which mechanized farms of substantial size will be linked vertically to food
processing enterprises. However, the Ministry has also recognized that re-
consolidation will have social consequences, dividing rural society into capitalist
and working classes and forcing more surplus labor to leave the farming sector
(MOAF, 2002). That’s why the policy of consolidation is moving gradually and is
seen as a long process to be achieved in the medium-term by leasing, rather than
sale of family farmland.
 Policies of environmental protection have guided the definition of protected areas
and the evolution of the systems of land use regulation and rural land management.
In the initial laws, land protection was described primarily in terms of limitations on
tenure rights. Certain land categories were withheld fully from private occupancy
and use and, for lands transferred to citizens and enterprises. In addition,
42
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 difereent plans and strategies, are being adopted by
the government to guide rural development and its evolving relationships with the
European Union and other international organizations. Strategy for Agricultural
Development (called the "Green Strategy") incorporates most of the contemporary
principles for balanced development, environmental protection and preservation in rural
areas (UNECE, 2000). At the detailed level in particular laws, regulations, administrative
processes and practice, these competing policies have not been reconciled. The
fundamental structure of categorized law and administration continues to be the
framework in which decisions are made by regional and local ministry staff, by local
government officers and by the various agencies of the civil law - judges, notaries,
registry clerks.
The categories of rural land provide the basis for all aspects of legal status and
administrative jurisdiction. This includes the eligibility of the land for private, state or
communal ownership and for subordinate rights of use or lease. The categories also
determine the level of government (state or local) and agencies of government given
primary responsibility for making decisions about the allocation of the land, its regulation
and management.
1.5.2. Refused agricultural lands

A separate sub-category of agricultural lands are the fields, refused to be taken in
private ownership from families during the initial division of collective and state farm
43
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 fulfill restitution claims.
Before deciding on the status of refused lands, it is necessary to inventory and assess
their quality, value and suitability for use. The law prohibits any sale or lease of these
lands prior to the determination of restitution claims, for which some of this land may
provide alternative land grants to satisfy restitution claims (Law No. 8312). After
determination of the restitution claims, these lands will become available for re-
distribution or sale to rural families. Since the quality of most of these lands is poor,
however, it is unclear whether rural families will want to take ownership and control
unless changes are made in the status of these lands. It may be necessary to re-categorize
some of these lands from agricultural to pasture or forest, or to categories of land for
housing or other development. If they remain in agricultural designation, it may be
necessary to exempt the land from taxation, reflecting its low productivity.
1.5.3. Pastures and meadows

The Law No. 7917 “For Pastures and Grazing Lands”, based on their
ownership/control, subdivides these land areas into three categories:
 state-owned lands, which are managed directly by the Directory of Forest Policy
through its subordinate regional Forestry Service Directorates
 state-owned lands, which are transferred into the control of commune
administrations and are made available for common use by local residents, and
 privately-owned pasture land.
For all the state owned lands, the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water
Administration has the initial jurisdiction to determine their categorical status and their
allocation (direct state control, communes or transfer to citizens and enterprises). The
Forestry Directorate can issue a contract for lease of pasture areas, up to ten years, to a
person or enterprise (Law No. 7917). If a pasture area has been transferred to a commune
or municipality, the law implies, but does not clearly state, that the local government can
issue a 10-year, subordinate contract, as well. The law also implies that the subordinate
rights to use communal pastures will be exercised as a common right of the local
44
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 achived between the forest directorate and the commune or municipality.
Second, it provides the guidelines for forest harvesting operations licenses, occupying
forestland for recreative purposes and exploitation of other resources. All uses are subject
to the forest management plans and the oversight of the forest directorate.
1.5.5. Transfer of communal forests and pastures

The process of forests and pastures inventory and determination of the areas to be
transferred into communal and municipal control has been underway for nearly ten years.
The Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration and the Ministry of
Agriculture and Food has overseen the work of several programs. These projects have
operated under the provisions of the two laws: Law No. 7917 “For Pastures and
45
Meadows” and Law No. 7623 “For Forests and Forest Police” and resulted in the
transfer of lands to communes and municipalities by right of use. It is anticipated that, in
the process of inventory and transfer of state owned lands under the Law No. 8744, the
rights of use will be transformed into ownership rights. However, based on the provisions
of Law No. 8743, this land will remain classified as public use properties and will not be
eligible for subsequent sale in ownership to families, individuals or enterprises by the
local administrations. It appears that the communes and municipalities will continue to
offer subordinate rights of common usage, leases or rights of use, as provided in the Law
No. 7917 “For Pastures and Meadows” and Law No. 7623 “For Forests and Forest
Police”.
The same process, overseen by the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water
Administration, has been used to transfer both forests and pastures to communal and
municipal control. In the "Green Strategy" the goal has been set to transfer 40 percent of
all forests (ca. 400,000 hectares) and 60 percent of all pastures (244,000) hectares to the
communes and municipalities (CoM, 1999). The procedure has involved the following
stages:
 The technical staff of the Forest Directorate works with the communal or municipal
officers to define the size and boundary lines of areas to be assigned to the
commune as a whole and to each village within it. This involves careful technical
work and negotiation. The historic traditions of families and clans in different
villages are taken into account, along with the recent changes in village and
communal administrative borders, as well as assessments of the topographic and
ecological situation and the boundary lines of private and state lands. The terms and
conditions of the right of use, by which the commune or municipality takes
possession and control of the lands is worked out. These agreements provide a 10-
year term, define the outer boundary lines of the tracts and set limitations on the
ability of the local administration to extend subordinate rights to village residents or
to other enterprises or persons. The agreements are subject to registration in the
IPRS; however, this did not apply in most of the cases.
 The technical staff of the Forest Directorate, with the local administration and
experts from the research institutes, prepare the forest and pasture management
plans. In light of international experience, public participation has been introduced
into this process. The plans define the level and types of use of sub-areas of the
communal forest or pasture. The plans take into consideration the locations and
quality of various plant and animal resources, the level of erosion or other
degradation and the carrying capacity of the resources for grazing and tree cutting.
These factors must be balanced against the number of families in the village, the
size of their livestock herds, their needs for firewood and other resources.
46
 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 regional directorate. In two projects, the User Associations have created a
simple agreement for each member family, which consists of a one-page document
spelling out the main responsibilities of use and a sketch of the land plot, within the forest
tract, assigned to the family. These agreements and the higher level agreements between
the Users' Associations and the communes are not prepared or recognized as civil law
property agreements and they are not registered. Thus they offer weak protection for the
families and do not preclude the commune from granting use of the communal forest or
pasture resources to persons or enterprises from outside the village.
It appears that many customary aspects of forest and pasture activity, which were
under the control of village elders, are not being respected in the management plans and
user agreements. Most important, the limited rights given to citizens and their user
associations to organize as profit-making businesses appear to limit their sustainability
(Lemel, 2005).
1.5.6. Protected Areas

In recent years, Albania has adjusted its administrative system of protected areas
to the standards of the World Conservation Union (IUCN), which makes provision for six
sub-categories:
 Strict protected areas
 National parks
 Nature monuments
 Managed natural areas (protecting plant or animal habitats)
 Landscape and seascape protection zones, and
 Managed resource protection zones.
These categories formed the basis of the Ecological Survey, carried out in 1995-96,
adding several new areas to the protected areas and adjusting existing areas to the new
47
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
48
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 Percentage
0.1-0.5 hectare 142,600 33.9
0.5-1 hectare 101,600 24.2
1-2 hectare 126,200 30.1
Above 2 hectare 19,600 11.8
Total farm units 420,000 100%
Source: MoAF (2002).
Based on the statistics of the Ministry, the active use of cultivated land has declined
since 1998 but there is more intensive use of the land, accounting for the increase in
production of vegetables, milk, eggs and other crops. Two are the main reasons causing
the decline in cultivated land. First, the out-migration of farm labor has left many farm
fields unattended or minimally managed under informal arrangements with family
members and neighbors. Second, farmers have abandoned low-quality fields, in particular
terraced hillsides. In both cases, the derelict fields tend to be used for grazing without
strict controls.
The policy of the Ministry, which reflects principles endorsed by United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization, and the World Bank, among others, is to assists the
market oriented farms and the family farms with development potential to gain control of
more land. This is foreseen initially by leasing and cooperative farming arrangements
without direct efforts to induce farmers to exchange or sell their land (World Bank,
2002). It is recognized that at present most rural families intend to keep ownership of
their land since other economic activities - international migration, migration to the urban
periphery- are not yet permanent. Sales and other transactions involving farmland have
also been hindered by the lack of an effective land tax, since there is no significant
carrying cost to holding land without active use and profit. Further, since there is
49
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
50
for agriculture, commerce, industry, and housing or are otherwise not needed for state
functions. This land and properties have an “equal juridical regime with private
property”. Law No. 8744 provides the conditions for the transfer of the public properties,
which fulfill local government functions, and the transfer of most categories of the non-
public lands to communal and municipal control.
In the framework of the Forestry Project, the fourth national inventory of forests and
pastures resources (the last inventory has been carried out in 1985) has taken place. In
this framework, an analysis of the status and trends in resource use across the country has
been performed. The inventory provided the government with an invaluable tool to assist
in planning for sustainable management of the forests and pastures and development
policies. The project established a geographical information system (GIS) to support the
forest management planning process. Agreement on how best to institutionalize, update
and maintain the national inventory and the GIS need to be further elaborated.
The process of inventory of state owned land and immovable property is described in
Law No. 8743, while the transfer of properties to the local governments is described in
the Law No. 8744. For administrative purposes, the two procedures have been combined.
In order to oversee the tasks and set the standards, the Council of Ministers has
established the Agency for Inventory and Transfer of Public Property, a subdivision of
the Ministry of Public Order. The agency is in charge of supervising the work of the
communal and municipal administrations, which are responsible of carrying out the
inventories and identifying the properties subject to transfer. The larger municipalities
have set up specialized planning units to carry out this task.
The inventory and transfer of land and immovable property to municipal administrations
is a nine-stage process:
 The commune compiles the inventory of all state properties within its territory. This
inventory is sent to the State Committee on Transfer of Public Property.
 The State Committee circulates this inventory among five ministries - Agriculture
and Food, Defense, Justice, Finance and Economy for their comments on the
sufficiency of the list.
 If the ministries agree, the Council of Ministers issues preliminary approval of the
inventory and this is returned to the commune.
 The commune proposes the division of the properties on the inventory list between
itself and the state. The new list (with proposal for division) is sent again to the
State Committee.
 The State Committee circulates the proposed division to the five ministries plus
Health and Education for their agreement or disagreement with the proposed
transfers. Disputes are worked out and the divided list is returned to the State
Committee.
51
 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.
52
1.6. Communal forestry [ (from the top to the bottom: Ministry, DFS,
Communes, Villages (fshati), Neighborhood (mehalla), Clan (fisi),
Household (shpija)]
Community forestry was initially defined, by FAO, as “any situation which intimately
involves local people in a forestry activity. It embraces a spectrum of situations ranging
from woodlots in areas which are short of wood and other forest products for local needs,
through the growing of trees at the farm level to provide cash crops and the processing of
forest products at the household, artisan or small industry level to generate income, to the
activities of forest dwelling communities” (FAO 1978).
While this definition focuses more on the fulfilment of needs of local people, Burley,
(2007) says: "Community forestry, social forestry and rural development forestry are
more or less equivalent and reflect Abraham Lincoln's view of democracy - government
of the people, by the people, for the people". Seeing as such, community forestry requires
adoption of 'bottom-up' decision-making. However, at least until recently, the approach
on decision-making concerning the communal forest in Albania has been different.
Transfer of state-owned lands to local governments has included forest and pastures.
These categories are separately defined and each of them is subdivided into four
categories of tenure such as: (i) small areas of pasture or forest that may be transferred
into private ownership by restitution (ii) forests and pastures located close to villages
remain in state ownership but transfer by right of use to the commune administrations;
the communes, in turn, make the forest and pasture areas available for subordinate use by
local residents, (iii) forests and pastures in remote locations remain in state ownership
with use rights granted directly by state agencies to timber-cutting enterprises and to
recreation and tourist facilities, and (iv) forests and pastures in areas of special protection
may be included in the national parks, reserves and other zones with unique management
regimes (CoM, 2000).
The Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration has broad
jurisdiction over these lands. The Directorate of Forests Policies in the MEFWA with its
36 district forest service Directorates and 130 forest sectors is responsible for forest and
pasture management. As subordinate of the directorate, the Section of Communal Forests
and Pastures and Extension Services assists the communes in forming leasing and use
agreements for local citizens (organized in association with natural resources
management) and in working out improvement plans for reforestation, pasture seeding,
etc. The Forest Service Police carry out inspections and enforce the laws and compliance
with conditions of use. A separate Directorate, that of Natural Resources, has jurisdiction
over Protected Areas including national parks, reserves and other categories of protected
areas. The Government has made considerable progress in the transfer of communal
forest and pastures to communes (with co-financing by the World Bank and USAID). It
has been reported that 140 communes now control 391,000 hectares, approaching the
53
eventual goal of 400,000 hectares of forest (40 percent) and 244,000 hectares (60
percent) of pasture in communal control.
The process of transfer goes through several stages. The size and boundary lines of
the areas are preliminary assigned to each commune and subordinate village. The
Commune takes the first steps in election the forest and pastures village commissions.
This commission is the main partner in the identification of village and household used
forest and pasture and in preparation of the management plan in cooperation with an
expert hired by commune. A second level of organization are the users' association,
which are organized on village level, and take subordinate rights to use the defined areas
for grazing, harvesting of firewood and herbal plants, and other activities. The users'
associations have representatives from several neighborhoods (mehalla) which might
include one ore more clan(s) (fisi) and several households (shpija). Social networks play
a key role in this organization where the relationships of trust and affection are
fundamental to the decision-making process, while norms, procedures, traditions,
customs and practices influence the choice of individuals.
The village decides whether or not to divide the communal forests and pastures. If the
village decides to divide them, then the village commission or a special group selected by
the village collects the requests or traditional claims of neighborhoods, clans, group
families or separate families about the forests and pastures they have used in the past. In
that case, standard application forms are to be filled out. Because of increasing in size
due to high birth-rates, what years ago have been recorded as one family, nowadays
might be more than one. It can happen that neighborhoods, clans, or separate families
may request to use two or more plots. Or, for the same plot might be requests by two or
more neighborhoods, clans or groups of separate families.
The evaluation of the outcome of this process of transfer revealed several problems.
First, no clear criteria exist for the definition of the boundaries between state forest and
communal forest and their powers in relation to the Forest Directorate are vaguely
defined. Second, the subordinate rights of the users’ associations are limited and not
documented. Third, the rights of the families within the users’ associations are not
clarified and, in most cases, family rights are not linked to subdivided areas of the forest
or pasture. Fourth, many customary aspects of forest and pasture activity formerly
controlled by village elders are not respected in the management plans and user
agreements. Finally, limitations on the right of citizens and their users’ associations to
organize as profit-making businesses appear to limit the sustainability of the enterprises.
54
2. HISTORICAL AND CURRENT MODES: SHARED AND

ASSIGNED ACCESS TO NATURAL RESOURCES
“Liberty and forest laws are incompatible,” remarked an English country vicar,
speaking on behalf of villagers shut out of woodland reserved for the exclusive use of the
king, in 1720 (Thompson, 1720). Indeed, the history of state forestry has been a history
of social conflict. In continental Europe, the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were
peppered with social protest movements against the state management of forests. These
protests inspired, among other things, Karl Marx’s first political writings (Marx, 1842)
and a memorable novel by Honore de Balzac capturing peasant hostility to forest officials
(de Balzac, 1900).
The same stands true for Albania where the problem of illegal logging has led in
many cases to conflicts between foresters and locals who see forest resources as crucial to
their economic survival. The problems of illegal logging are mainly of technical
characters, for instance, mass loggings on sides of roads, failure to meet the technical
conditions of harvesting, or misuse of timber assortments (cases where timber is
exploited for firewood).
However, when the local community was seen as part of the solutions rather than
cause of the problems, and when the tradition and customs are followed strictly, the
results has been very positive as shown in several cases in the communes investigated.
2.1. Transfer of State Forest and Pastures of Blerimi Commune (District of Puka)

Located in Albanian Alps, the commune of Blerimi represents the typical northern
village with scattered houses that are usually apart from each other and accessible only by
rugged footpaths. The Commune is situated in north-east of Puka town and the shortest
distance from the town is ca. 30 km. Its boundaries are:
North: Lake of Fierza Hydroplant
East: Goska River, Pass of mjetes, Pass of plepi
South: National road the pass, Chafa Malit – Mezi
West: Commune of Fierza
The National Road: Puka - Bajram Curri- Gjakova –Prishtina goes through the territory of
this commune. This offers relatively good access and possibility for tourism development
using its wonderful landscape, alpine climate and especially the thermal spa of Dardha
River.
55

The area is commonly cited both in ethnographic literature and by Albanian people
today as having maintained more tribal customs than other districts due to mountains
locations and relative isolation from outside influence. Field trips to the area provide
evidence of cultural patterns that are distinct from middle or south mountain Albania and
especially from western plain.
Edith Durham, the renowned British anthropologist who was known in her time as
“the Queen of the [Albanian] Highlanders”, traveling through Blerimi on her way to
Kosovo wrote: “We followed it up a stony valley, steeper and steeper, to its source at the
top of the pass, Chafa Malit. There is a joy that never palls–the first glimpse into the
unknown land. On the other side of the pass, a magnificent valley lay below us, thickly
wooded with beech, and beyond was the lands which two rival races each claim as their
birthright–one of the least-known corners of Europe. I hurried eagerly down the steep
descent on foot, by a rough track to Flet. Flet is Moslem, save for six families, all large;
one, consisting of fifty members, showed quite an imposing group of stone houses…..
Free of the pack train, we pushed on quickly down the valley of the Goska, past Han
Sakati, and by a steep descent to the Drin, which we successfully forded, led by a native
who stripped and carried my saddlebags on his head. It was a ticklish job, and can only
be crossed thus in very dry weather. Following Drin down a short way to its junction
with the Kruma, we struck up the valley of the Kruma, and were in the land of the Hashi.
A great wall-like cliff, rising on the stream's left bank, is known as the fortress of Lek
Dukagjin.….A church, but three years old, served occasionally by the priest of Dartha,
showed trim and white” (Durham, 1909).
Prior to the World War II, the Blerimi forest was used mainly for firewood and
grazing, and to a lesser extend, for timber or construction material. From the data
collected, in six out of seven villages, the forests were in ownership of families who used
them for every day life of villagers and called “Hamalla”. On the village of Truni, the
whole forests (ca. 1260 ha) were in communal ownership. By that time, the total forest
area in private or communal use for the whole Blerimi commune was ca. 4100 ha.
The Kanun i Lekë Dukagjinit has been the customary law regulating the life in the
area in pre-Communist era and the exclusiveness of private property had been extremely
marked:
“A man’s ownership of his house and land was so absolute that he and his might
emigrate temporarily or for good without losing their title to either house or land. Even if
the family absented itself for a hundred years, no-one might squat on its property. If the
emigrant, before leaving, sold his land “together with all that is on it”, and one leaving
for good usually did so, the piece constituting the site of the house remained his in spite
of the terms of sale, and so long as one stone stood on another” (Hasluck 1954: 23).
56
After World War II, the commune forests became state forests, and were used broadly
to open new agricultural lands. The forest and pasture was the only resource for
surviving, especially for grazing and firewood. Forest suffered extensive logging by the
state forest enterprise, production of firewood from the cooperatives and overgrazing, the
last being more severe in oak trees leading to a high degradation, visible even nowadays.
The actual shape of oak forest cannot be compared with the oak forest before Second
World War.
2.1.3. Blerimi household’s structure

In the commune of Blerimi, actually live 533 families with 2392 inhabitants scattered
in 7 villages: Dardhe, Qebik, Truni, Kulumri, Xath, Flet. The inhabitant of Dardhe and
Qebik are catholic, while those of Trun, Sakat, Kulumri, Xath and partly Flet, are
Muslims. It is a common case to get in the Blerimi commune a house with three
generations, an old man with his woman living with his son, daughter in law with their
children. In some of the houses the number of children is more than ten. This living
arrangements were encountered on visits to other villages in the district, as was the
traditional dress, particularly for women, who wear brightly coloured woven aprons and
headdresses over meticulously plaited braids. In contrast, widows cover themselves in
black, a tradition that is strictly adhered in the north. Women are responsible for house
keeping, cooking, take care for children and livestock breeding. Blerimi families have
many patriarchal characteristics. Generally each family has a patriarch. The patriarch is
not necessarily chosen by customary law, but more along the lines of gender and age,
usually the oldest male would assume the role. The majority of inhabitants have no idea
of the content of the law regarding their legal right to the forest, pastures, agricultural
land and property. Employment is mainly in private sector, and emigration. The private
sector employs ca. 50 workers. Emigration is high especially for young generation. More
than 25% of the families are supported with economic assistance by central government
budget.
Every family owned 0.3 hectare to 2.2 hectare agriculture land, privatized after 1991
based on the Law No.7501. The land is planted mainly with maize, beans, vegetables,
alfa-alfa. The level of mechanization is very low and the yield is low too. The main
concern is irrigation system, all degraded and out of function. The agricultural products
do not fulfill the need of villagers for cereals. Data on the Appendix 7 shows the
Population structure, Households structure, Agricultural land, and the Livestock structure
in the Blerimi commune.
57
2.1.4. Why decentralization from state to communes forest management

Through the privatization of agricultural land and the constant trend of livestock sub-
sector expansion, the pressure on natural resources, has increased substantially. This
pressure is exerted not only by the fulfillment of local needs but also by profit interests,
and this national natural asset continues to be undervalued not only by the general public
but also by regulatory “owners” and authorities; as a consequence it will be misused.
Under such circumstances, Blerimi’s farmers try to obtain those natural resources that
bear a relatively low cost (not to say without cost at all), out of which they get a sufficient
level of satisfaction/utility to meet the families’ perceived basic needs. One natural
resources meeting those requirements is the everlasting partner of man, the forest.
Firewood is still the primary means of fulfilling family needs including heating and
cooking in all villages of Blerimi Commune. Firewood covers 88% of household energy
needs during the winter and 73% during the summer.
In Blerimi commune, close to half of the population are in poverty, reflecting small
average land holdings (less than 0.5 hectare), low farm incomes (especially cash incomes
from marketed products), and very limited opportunities for off-farm employment.
Central government is using the state budget money for economic assistance to 25 % of
the Blerimi families. Non-farm income is critical for many farming households,
representing around one quarter to one fifth of total rural income. Although impossible to
quantify (because of absence of data), it is estimated that between 70 and 90 percent of
rural households are dependent on a different source of income other than farming, in the
main social cash transfers. The most widespread transfers are pensions and social
assistance, but these are of a small value. In terms of magnitude of non-farm income
rendered to recipient families the most important are remittances, followed by wage
employment, and non-farming business income. However, if consider the forest
resources, the fees possible to be collected from firewood, and high request of market for
wood material and medicinal plants, farm incomes could grow significantly in
importance in the future.
2.1.5. From study to implementation: The process of transfer of forest and pastures
Owned by government, overused sporadically by local communities and out of the
sight and care, this is the forest situation in the Blerimi Commune. Taking the
responsibility and aiming on sustainable use of these very important natural resources, all
participants in the meetings were convinced for the importance of defining the rights and
responsibilities and the boundaries in the village and family forest and arranging the
relation between the commune, village, family and forest.
58
The administrative commune territory is to be found in three forest management units

(forest economies)1:
1. Forest Management Unit “Dardhë-Qebik”
2. Forest Management Unit “Sakat-Lak Hithi”, and
3. Forest Management Unit “Goskë”.
Thus, the first problem to overcome was the division of forest from the above-
mentioned forest management units to use the existing references system. NACFP was
advised by GIS Albania and set up the methodology for digitizing the mapping
information and to link it with the attributes of forest plots.
Following the methodology, after building of local structures, Demarcation of village
boundaries was carried out by the working groups in close collaboration with
representatives from the DSF, the village commissions, and with boundary villages’
commissions. Following the transfer of state forest to the commune, in the case of
Blerimi the structure of the estate transferred is as shown in Table 2:
Table 2. The structure of forest area transferred to the commune

Forest (ha)
Abandoned &
In productive
Pastures (ha)
Urban land
Coppice with
mother trees
Fallow
High forest
Water
Total
(ha)
Coppice
Shrubs
Total
(ha)
5253 4097 340 2173 1584 0 13 299 801 44 0
At the village scale, the forest area and the mode of use is summarized on the Table 3.
The pasture area transferred was 12.7 ha and belongs to the villages of Dardhe (3.8 ha)
and the village of Trun (8.9 ha). In both villages, it was decided that these areas should be
used collectively.
Table 3. Forest area by each village, management and mode of use

Usage Usage Usage
(ha)Collectively used
Coppice with mother
Collectively used
Collectively used
Forest area (ha)
trees (ha)
High forest ha
Families (ha)
Families (ha)
Families (ha)
Coppice ha
(ha)
(ha)
Village
Dardhe 685.95 33.9 33.9 548.05 548.05 104 104
1
Albania’s forest and pastures estates are divided into elementary management units called forest economy.
Forest economy is clearly defined state forest area, managed in order to attain a set of explicit objectives
and according to a long-term management plan.
59
Qebik 220.5 2.7 2.7 162.3 162.3 55.5 55.5

Trun 1257.1 0 0 445.7 445.7 0 811.4 811.4 0
Sakat 562.1 0 0 69.1 69.1 493 493
Kulumri 363.95 7.25 7.25 283.95 283.95 72.75 72.75
Xath 309.45 30.75 30.75 268.45 268.45 10.25 10.25
Flet 697.89 265.86 265.86 395.09 395.09 36.94 36.94
Commune 4096.94 340.46 340.46 2172.64 445.7 1726.94 1583.84 811.4 772.44
The last step was the certification of users of the communal forests and pastures.
While six out of the seven villages of the commune decided to divide the area on
individual users, the villager of Trun decided to have everything in communal use. A
database was created using different entries as the keywords. Table 4 shows an example
of the user list and the parcels used from each of them.
Table 4. Communal forest users and parcels used

Total
Name of head of Forest area in
Number of area (ha)
No Village family (user of use for each
Parcel used by
forest) parcel (ha)
family
Nik Lulash
1 6.9
Dardhë Prendi 96/a 1.80
Nik Lulash
Dardhë Prendi 119 0.70
Nik Lulash
Nik Lulash
Nik Lulash
2 Dardhë Jak Ndue Nika 96/a 1.70 2.8
Dardhë Jak Ndue Nika 158 3.00
Dardhë Jak Ndue Nika 142 0.80
Mëhill Prend
3 3.5
Dardhë Jaku 96/a 1.70
Mëhill Prend
Dardhë Jaku 124 0.80
Mëhill Prend
Dardhë Jaku 149 1.00
4 Dardhë Kolë Gjon Kurti 96/a 1.60 24.6
Dardhë Kolë Gjon Kurti 127 2.60
60
When, the user of the parcel was more than one, a different database was created (Table
5). In addition, a sketch was drawn, where the parcel is divided by lines and in each
polygon there is a number, indicating the user (see also Appendix 6).
Table 5. List of Communal forest users based in forest parcels.

Forest area
Name of head of in use for
No Village Parcel number
family (user of forest) each parcel,
(ha)
1 Dardhë 96/a Nik Lulash Prendi 1.80
2 Dardhë 96/a Jak Ndue Nika 1.70
3 Dardhë 96/a Mëhill Prend Jaku 1.70
4 Dardhë 96/a Kolë Gjon Kurti 1.60
5 Dardhë 96/a Fran Ndoc Nika 1.60
6 Dardhë 96/a Zef Gjon Kola 1.20
7 Dardhë 96/a Mark Pjetër Ndoci 1.30
64 Dardhë 96/a Dionis Mark Gjeta 1.80
65 Dardhë 96/a Ndue Gjon Kola 1.80
66 Dardhë 96/a Prend Nikoll Marashi 1.80
78 Dardhë 96/a Palush Jak Marku 1.80
79 Dardhë 96/a Kol Bejte Syla 1.80
80 Dardhë 96/a Ndoc Mark Prendi 1.80
81 Dardhë 96/a Kol Gjok Marku 1.80
82 Dardhë 96/a Zef Nik Marashi 1.80
83 Dardhë 96/a Ndue Kol Deda 1.70
84 Dardhë 96/a Anton Frang Pjetra 1.70
A full list of all Communal forest users according to the village and a List of parcels used
collectively by Truni Village are given in the Appendix 12.
61
2.2. Transfer of State Forest and Pastures of Stebleva Commune (District of

Librazhd)

The Commune of Stebleve is part of the Librazhdi District (Region of Elbasani).
Located on the north-east of Librazhdi town the shortest distance from the town is ca. 17
km. The national road connects the commune with the town. Most of the villages
comprising the communes are located in high altitudes (up to 1200 m above the sea
level). The natural environment of the commune is complex and characterized by
mountains, hills, rivers and springs, pastures. The short summer which is hardly
distinguished by spring (May-August) and the low temperatures in winter are the main
limiting factors on the development of agriculture and livestock. The commune shares the
boundaries with:
 Commune of Zerqani and Commune Trebishti (District of Bulqiza) in the
North
 State boundaries with Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia in the
East
 Commune of Lunik (District of Librazhd) in the South, and
 Commune of Cermenike (District of Librazhd) in the West.

The landscape of the commune exhibits wonderful scenery. It offers an attractive
combination of agricultural soils, highland pastures and few forests, representing a
potential for tourism development. The landscape becomes even more attractive during
winter, but the lack of the appropriate infrastructure remains an obstacle for the
development of winter-sports and tourism.
The interviews with the locals and the review of the existing literature, showed that at
least from 1912 until prior to the World War II, the forest and pastures have been always
under communal use. An important decision-making body at the time was “meeting of
elders’ council” (mbledhjet e pleqesive). During these meetings, decisions were taken
concerning the use of forest and pastures from the villagers and from the neighboring
villages. A document dated 1937, described very well the way of use of the forest and
pastures use from the locals. An important aspect has been the relationship established
between the villagers of the Stebleva commune with those neighboring villages. The
existing data show that during the period 1937-1942, in the summer, the pastures in the
territory of the commune provided shelter and food for more than 28 000 farm animals.
62
The goods provided by the forest had also always the appreciation of the locals. Prior
to the collectivization, the forests have been treated as a common property administered
by each Village Council. Protection and management of forests was done according to
the Kanun’s rights. Families could only use them for grass cutting, not being entitled to
cut the trees. As can be depicted from the Table 6, the total forest area was ca. 2500 ha
while that of pastures ca. 4000 ha.
Table 6. Forest and pasture ownership in the commune of Stebeleva until 1945
No Village Ownership of Forest area (ha) Ownership of Pastures (ha)
Private Communal State Private Communal State
1. Stebleve 0 910 0 0 830 0
2. Borove 0 181 0 0 522 0
3. Llange 0 338 0 0 542 0
4. Zabzun 0 136 0 0 710 0
5. Sebisht 0 321 0 0 1384 0
6. Moglice 0 333 0 0 21 0
7. Prodan 0 198 0 0 0 0
Commune 0 2417 0 0 4009 0
After World War II, the communal forests became state forests, and were used
broadly to open new agricultural lands. The forest and pasture was the only resource for
surviving, especially for grazing and firewood. Forest suffered extensive logging by the
state forest enterprise, production of firewood from the cooperatives and overgrazing, the
last being more severe in oak trees leading to a high degradation, visible even nowadays.
2.2.3. Stebleva household’s structure

The commune of Stebleva is home of 1406 inhabitants, living in seven villages:
Stebleve, Borove, Zabzun, Llange, Sebisht, Moglice and Prodan at an average altitude
above 900 m a.s.l. The number of inhabitant has sharply decreased from 3256 in 2000 to
the 1406 in 2007. The main reason is the emigration of the young people and working
forces to urban areas or abroad. In average, every family owned 2-3 ha or 0.5 ha per
capita arable land, but the soil quality is relatively poor, which limits the yield. Exception
is the field of Studa (Fusha e Studes) which is relatively fertile. Another factor with
negative impact on the yield is the high altitude of the land, which limits the cultivation
of cereals and vegetables.
Distribution of arable land did not follow the Law No. 7501, but it was carried out
according to the traditional property borders. There are no legal disputes regarding the
land division or borderlines in villages of Stebleve Commune. The inhabitants managed
to solve their disputes in a consensual way at the village council. The arable land left
uncultivated for several years is gradually converted in pasture land and the council
distributes them for use to the village families. Following several interviews with the
63
peasants, it is clear that the inhabitants are ready to make use of the non distributed lands
and eventually use them for cultivating medicinal herbs (such as yellow gentian) or as
pastures, forests etc. The land is planted mainly with potatoes, beans, vegetables, and
alfa-alfa. The level of mechanization is very low leading to a low yield. The main
concern is irrigation system, all degraded and out of function. The agricultural products
do not fulfill the need of villagers for cereals. Data on the Appendix 8 show the
Population structure, Households structure, Arable land, and the Livestock structure in
the Stebleva commune.
The non-timber forest products constitute an important source of incomes for the
commune inhabitants. From the interviews and other information collected in the area, it
appears that income generated by the medicinal herbs are secondly listed after the income
generated by the agricultural and livestock activities. In some families, medicinal herbs
generate more incomes than emigration. The most widespread medicinal and aromatic
plant species are: Juniper (Juniperus communis), Dog rose (Rosa canina), St. John’s
Wort (Hypericum perforatum), Veratrum spp, and to a lesser extent, Yarrow (Achillea
millefolium) and yellow gentian (Gentiana lutea).
Following the very good tradition of communal forest and pastures use and aiming on
sustainable use of these very important natural resources, the local population is willing
to share the rights and get the responsibilities for them. The administrative commune
territory is to be found in three forest management units (forest economies):
 Forest Management Unit “Klenje-2”
 Forest Management Unit “Stebleve-Letem”, and
 Forest Management Unit “Prodan”.
Following the methodology, after building of local structures, demarcation of village
commissions. Following the transfer of state forest to the commune, in the case of
Stebleva, the structure of the estate transferred is as shown in Table 7.
In contrary to the Commune of Blerimi (Distict of Puka), where all but Trun, decided
for the transfer of user’s right to the individual families, a different mode of communal
forest and pasture use was chosen by the people of Stebleva. All the villages decided that
the pasture area of ca. 4000 ha should be used collectively. The same stands true as far as
the forest are concerned where in the majority of the villages, it was decided that all the
forest transferred to the village should be used collectively and not divided to individual
families.
64

Usage Usage
Individual Families
(ha)Individual Families
Group of families (ha)
Collectively used (ha)

Collectively used (ha)
Coppice (ha)
Village
No
High forest (ha)
(ha)
Forest area (ha)
1 Stebleve 932 734 691 42 0 197 132 65 0

2 Borove 181 91 91 0 0 90 90 0 0
3 Llange 338 338 338 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 Zabzun 136 136 107 29 0 0 0 0 0
5 Sebisht 287 125 125 0 0 160 160 0 0
6 Moglice 333 158 158 0 0 175 116 59 0
7 Prodan 198 128 128 0 0 56 70 70 0
Commune 1639 73 0 567 123 0
2406 1712 692
However, because of the peculiarities of each village, the mode of use was slightly
different.
Stebleve: In this village was decided that two forms of use should be applied:
collective use by the whole village and use by the clans (fise). An immense unsolved
problem is the demarcation of state forest and the relationship of community with state
forest. A second problem is the border with the village of Klenje and inclusion of forest
area ca. 400 ha and 150 ha pasture forest to this commune, while is pretended to be pat of
Stebleva. These problems remain to be solved between the DSF of Librazh and Bulqiza
and the commune of Stebleva for the transfer of parcel 39-55 of the Forest Management
Unit “Klenje 2”.
Borove: The village uses ca. 115 ha of forest. The village decided that the users’ right
should be given on the based of clans (fise) as shown in Table 8.
Table 8. Forest and pasture users in Borove

No Group of users or clan Parcels in use
1. Clan: Abazi, Musta, Balla 1, 2. 76c
2. Clan: Caka, Isaku, Cani 1, 2, 76°
3. Clan: Lacka, Isaku, Mali, Borici, Curri 1, 2, 73°
4. Clan: Golli, Beqiri, Tahiri, Kurti 1, 2, 75°
65
Sebisht: The village uses ca. 250 ha of forest. These are in the surrounding area in a
distance not longer than 3 km from the village. The village decided that the users’ right
should be given on the based of clans (fise) as shown in Table 9.
Table 9. Forest and pasture users in Sebisht

1. 3 4 118a
Clan: Cela (S. Cela)
3 4 119
2 Clan: Lila 3 4 , 111, 116b
3. Clan: Alla and Lami 3 4 117
4. Clan: Cela (M Cela) 3 4 118a
5. Clan: Trampa 1 4 11a
6. Clan: Alla and Muca 1 4 2c
7. Clan: Dumani and Balla 1 4 1b
Moglice-Prodan: These villages use together ca. 112 ha of forest. Most of them are
situated in the surrounding area in a walking distance 3-5 km from the villages. The
villages decided that the users’ right should be given based of family relationship- clans
(fise) as shown in Table 10.
Table 10. Forest and pasture users in Moglice-Prodan

1 Adi Sula
Perparim Sula
Bashkim Sula 3, 5, 106
Selim Tahiri
Haki Lika
2. Mentor Moglica
Bardhyl Moglica
3, 5, 107°
Mehmet Lika
Selman Sula
3. Sokol Brici
Boran Lika 3, 5, 108a
Shkelqim Ceka 3, 5, 109°
Rrahman Ceka
Zabzun-Llange: These villages use ca. 474 ha of forest; some of them are high forest
with protective function. These are in the surrounding area in a distance not longer than 5
km from the villages. The villages decided that the users’ right should be given on the
clans (fise) as shown in Table 11.
Table 11. Forest and pasture users in Zabzun-Llange
1. Clan: Doci 1, 3, 88°
2. Clan: Hasa and Toci 1, 3, 90b
3. Clan: Tupi 1, 3, 93c
4. Clan: Teta 1, 3, 94b
66
67
2.3. Transfer of State Forest and Pastures of Bazi Commune (District of Mat)

The Commune of Bazi is one of the communes’ constituent of the Mati District
(Region of Dibra). The commune is part of the Mati river catchments and is situated in
distance of ca. 12 km from the town of Burreli. The commune is home of ca. 3340
inhabitants, living in six villages: Rrethe Baz, Drita, Karice, Fush Baz, Baz, and
Bashkim. The division on actual six villages happened after the World War II and all
villages originate from two old villages: Baz and Karice. From the old Bazi village
originate four of them: (Bashkim, Fush Baz, Baz, Rrethe Baz) while the villages of
Karice and Drita (also know as Ferr-Karice) originate from Karica. The commune is
bordered by:
 Commune of Ulza (District of Mati) in the North
 Lake of Ulza and Commune of Rukaj (District of Mati) in the East
 Commune of Komsi (District of Mati) in the South, and
 Mountain of Scanderbeg (Forest Management Unit of Trodhen, Forest Management
Unit Komsi – Lake of German), in the West.

In term of customs, family organization and traditional use and management of forest,
the commune of Bazi was an area ruled by “the Kanun of Scanderbeg”. Forest and
pastures were managed in this way until the beginning of 1960, the time when the
agricultural cooperatives were established. During that time, two forms of forest and
pasture ownership have existed: the village (community) and private forest owned by
families. As in most of the villages of the North Albania, forests and pastures close to the
houses especially oak forests have been split in pieces called ograje. The family was only
entitled of the products (usufruct), but not to change designation or damage the forest.
The village forest was commonly used by the whole village; the part used for grazing is
called mera (the rest of the forest and pasture, which was considered as common property
of the village and was administered by the village elderly). The later served to the
inhabitants to complete their personal needs for grazing firewood and construction
material, but they were not entitled to sell anything in the market. The village contained
several clans (Fise or mehalla), but all the forest and pasture use was organized at village
level. An old say from the region, assemble the inhabitants of the village into two
categories: “brother from the blood” (vllazën gjaku) and “brother from the land” (vllazën
trojesh) because the common ownership was based on the village and not on clan (Fise
or mehalla). For example: Korie refers to that forest area that lies beyond individual clan
68
territory and is considered the property of the whole village. These boundaries are still
fresh in the memories of the old inhabitants, who remember very well the tradition on use
of common forest and pasture.
As in whole country, the collectivism had a very negative impact in management of
forest and pastures. Some of the forest land was cleansed out and used to open new
agricultural lands. This impact is still visible nowadays. 15 years after decollectivization,
forest which were in familiar use (private forest) grow very well and are in very good
shape; in contrary the common forest used collectively by the village is severely
degraded.
2.3.3. Bazi household’s structure

Agriculture constitutes one of the principal activities in Bazi commune. Most of the
arable land is of low fertility and a considerable part of the agricultural soils has been
obtained by converting former oak forest into agricultural land. The land obtained from
the conversion of former oak forest is usually cultivated with cereals (rye, oats, and
barley), but due to the low fertility, none of the village families is claiming the property.
The most fertile soils are located along the Mati River. Other soils surrounding the
village are generally less fertile and lack any possibility for irrigation. Because of the
climate and geology, Bazi Commune is exposed to a high erosion potential. This is
reflected in an increase of sediment deposition in the Mati the river basin and Ulza
Hydroplant reservoir. This excessive soil erosion has a socio-economic dimension and is
caused by: (a) the cultivation of highly eroded agricultural land; (b) the conversion of oak
forest land for inappropriate agricultural use; (c) the deforestation of fragile forested
lands; and (d) the overgrazing of forest and pasture lands by cattle, sheep and goats.
There are few fruit tree species growing in the courtyards surrounding the village houses
(apple trees, pears, plums, cherries, nuts, etc.), as well as a smaller amount of vineyards.
Data on the Appendix 9 show the Population structure, Households structure, Arable
land, and the Livestock structure in the Bazi commune.
As can be depicted from the Table 12 and Appendix 9, the arable land given to the
villagers is ca. 1100 ha, but more than half of it has been refused and is now abandoned
land. This land originates from forest or pasture land that had been converted to
agricultural use, land that had been used for fruit trees or vineyards during the communist
era and then denuded upon collapse of the regime in a spree of wild destruction. Reasons
for non-use or refusal to accept the land include qualms over quality, pressure from ex-
owners not to accept such land, fear of taxation or the desire to remain under the land
holding ceiling determining eligibility for social assistance. Some of the land is now used
in common as open-access pasture, while other areas may be either denuded or
overgrown with shrubs. In the meeting with the villagers they suggested the following
alternatives:
69
 Delegating authority to villages under their leadership to determine the fate of these
lands, bound by clear guidelines on ranges of appropriate use based on soil
characteristics/ quality grade, slope and location within which a range of options
would be permissible.
 Permitting villages to decide how to assign rights over such areas and over how
benefits of such development are to be distributed among members of the
community.
Table 12. Arable land and the abandoned land at the Commune of Baz
No Village Total arable Used arable Abandoned Abandoned
land (ha) land (ha) arable land arable land
(ha) (%)
1 Bazi 151 66 85 56
2 Karice 64 48 16 25
3 Rrethe Baz 279 109 170 61
4 Drita 219 219 118 219
5 Bashkim 180 57 123 68
6 Fush Baz 201 83 118 59
Commune 1094 464 630 58
As mentioned above, the locals have e long tradition of using and managing the
communal forest. They would like to go back to the tradition which improves their life
conditions by ensuring a sustainable use of the natural resources.
Following the methodology, after building of local structures, demarcation of village
commissions. Following the transfer of state forest to the commune, in the case of Bazi,
the structure of the estate transferred is shown in Table 13.
Several problems were recorded during the transfer process.
 Conflicts and misunderstandings during the village boundaries demarcations. Most
of these conflicts came from the fact that four villages are “daughters” of Bazi and
Karica created during the communist era.
 High degradation of common used communal forest.
 The lack of clear boundaries between the forest users.
However, the inhabitants managed to solve their disputes in a consensual way at the
village council and there are no legal disputes regarding the land division or borderlines
in villages of Bazi Commune.
70
Mode of use Mode of use Mode of use
(ha)Collective as village
Individual Families (ha)
Individual Families (ha)


High forest (ha)
Household (Families)
Forest area (ha)
Coppice. ( ha)
Shrub (ha)
Village
ha
No
1 Baz 1371.05 87.04 46.88 0 40.16 1227 414.96 0 812 57.01 57.01 0 0
2 Bashkim 83.49 0 0 0 0 83.49 0 0 83.49 0 0 0 0

3 Drita 142.94 0 0 0 0 142.94 0 0 142.94 0 0 0 0
4 F. Baz 85.35 0 0 0 0 85.35 0 0 85.35 0 0 0 0
5 Karice 843.62 114.9 0 0 114.9 646.87 454.03 0 192.8 81.9 81.9 0 0
6 Rr. Baz 398.17 0 0 0 0 398.17 0 0 398.2 0 0 0 0
Commune 2924.62 201.89 46.88 0 155 2583.8 868.99 0 1715 138.91 138.91 0 0
As can be depicted from the table, two forms of use are common in all the villages;
collective use by the whole village and private use by single families. Shrubs are
designated to be in collective use in all the villages, while for high forest and coppices the
mode of use differs among the villages. In Baz and Karice (two “mother” villages), there
is a tendency of collective use, while “newly” created villages tend more towards the use
by individual families. A full description of the forests according to the village used
collectively or privately in the commune of Bazi is given in the Appendix 13.
71
2.4. Transfer of State Forest and Pastures of Gore Commune (District of Korca)

The Commune of Gore includes 16 villages named Babjen, Desmira, Dolan, Dolanec,
Gribec, Mesmal, Lozhan, Marjan, Moçan, Qenckë, Senisht, Zvarisht, Selcë, Strelcë,
Tresovë, Velçan with ca. 3000 inhabitants. The name Gore means a mountain covered
with forest. The commune is situated in the north-western part of Korca and is part of the
Devolli Watershed. The average altitude is 800-1100 m a.s.l; the minimum altitude is 650
m while the maximum altitude is 1588 m a.s.l. The terrain is very diverse; from the plain
areas at the valley of Devolli to the high mountains. Communal forest of are parts of
three Forest Management Units (Forest Economies):
 Forest Management Unit of Lozhan
 Forest Management Unit of Selcë-Shalës
 Forest Management Unit of Mesmal-Velcan-Strelcë

Data collection about the social and economic situation of the commune inhabitants
has been an important part of the field work. The community of Gore Commune is well
organized. Few conflicts that have been recorded were solved through the mediation and
with the assistance of the village Council (the elderly Council), without going to the
court. The families have a strong social cohesion and they have maintained the traditional
knowledge and process to allocate their resources within the village, even within the
family.
As in whole country, the collectivism had a very negative impact in management of
forest and pastures. Some of the forest land was cleansed out and used to open new
agricultural lands. A big problem for the commune remains the refused (abandoned) land
where more than 1470 ha have been recorded as such. The abandoned land area is higher
in the villages of Strelcë, Mocan Lozhan (respectively 262 ha, 198 ha, and 171 ha), and
lower in the villages of Shalës, Babien and Dolanëc. This land originates from forest or
pasture land that had been converted to agricultural use, land that had been used for fruit
trees or vineyards during the communist era and then denuded upon collapse of the
regime in a spree of wild destruction. Reasons for non-use or refusal to accept the land
include qualms over quality, fear of taxation or the desire to remain under the land
holding ceiling determining eligibility for social assistance. Some of the land is now used
in common as open-access pasture, while other areas may be either denuded or
overgrown with shrubs.
72
As can be depicted from the table below (Table 14), the number of inhabitant has
sharply decreased in the last 20 years after the decollectivization. In 1989, shortly before
the political changes in Albania, the commune offered shelter to more than 6550 people,
while in 2007 only 2800 people lived in there. The main reason is the emigration of the
young people and working forces to urban areas or abroad (Greece and FYROM), putting
a steady drain on rural Albania.
Table 14: Demographic changes in the Gore Commune

Population based on registration of:
No. Village 1927 1969 1979 1989 2001 2007
1 Babien - 197 231 260 62 33
2 Desmirë 197 371 428 451 218 172
3 Dolan 170 279 317 342 158 142
4 Dolanëc 82 108 126 121 44 28
5 Gribec 248 282 335 286 32 53
6 Lozhan 380 579 646 646 321 299
7 Marjan 167 204 240 246 55 43
8 Mesmal 259 532 654 661 357 325
9 Mocan 175 253 282 333 161 132
10 Qenckë 151 163 173 171 88 86
11 Selcë 181 338 397 397 99 36
12 Senisht 180 324 330 327 169 147
13 Strelcë 891 1143 1272 1049 530 464
14 Tresovë 232 276 302 287 125 154
15 Velcan 362 - - - 185 189
16 Zvarisht 215 475 579 774 209 203
Commune 3975 5601 6396 6550 3079 2809
2.4.3. Gore household’s structure

Agriculture constitutes one of the principal activities in commune Gore. Most of the
arable land is of the low fertility and a considerable part of the agricultural soils has been
obtained by converting former oak forest into agricultural soils. The most fertile soils are
located along the Devolli River. Data on the Appendix 10 show the Population structure,
Households structure, Arable land, and the Livestock structure in the Gore commune.
The agricultural products are use mainly to fulfilling the family needs (potatoes beans,
vegetables) and for animal feeds (rye, oat and wheat). Cultivation of potatoes is an old
tradition. However, mainly due to the lack of mechanization, shortage of water and the
long distances for the transportation of products, every year the area cultivated with
potatoes is shrinking. Fruit trees are scattered in the entire commune. The main species
73
are apple tree, cherry tree, walnut etc. The natural conditions are almost optimal for the
animal husbandry. In Gore commune, the revenues provided by the livestock are the
main income for the farmers and this is higher than these derived from agriculture and
emigration.
The Gore’s villages are located mainly in forest area, and this affinity has resulted in
a maximum appreciation of forests by the community. Prior to the collectivization, the
forests have been treated as a common property administered by the Village Council. In
2002, after the completion of the forest and communal pastures management for the Gore
commune, forests and pastures are returned to the commune and village use. There are
five categories of firewood consumers in Gore Commune: household, public institutions,
private enterprises, charcoal burners, and limekiln operators. Of the five, households are
by far the most important category. Household constitute e comparatively complex
consumer category, because they act as both intermediaries and end consumers of
biomass fuel. Only 69 % of actual needs for firewood are fulfilled from the forest.
The locals have e long tradition of using and managing the communal forest. They
would like to go back to the tradition which improves their life conditions by ensuring a
sustainable use of the natural resources. Following the methodology, after building of
local structures, demarcation of village boundaries were carried out by the working
groups in close collaboration with representatives from the DSF, the village
commissions, and with boundary villages’ commissions. Following the transfer of state
forest to the commune, in the case of Gore, the structure of the estate transferred is shown
in Table 15.
In the meeting with the villagers, their main concern was the illegal logging,
especially in state owned beech and pine forest surrounding the commune. This forest
area traditionally belonged to the Gore Commune and the representatives of villages and
commune asked several time the Directorate of Forest Service of Korca to include this
forest into communal forest. As reasons for this request they listed:
 If the illegal logging will continue with the same pace, degradation of the upper part
of the mountain, will lead to the avalanches and erosion. This will in turn, affect
and damage the lower part of the slope where the most of the villages and arable
lands are located.
 The transfer to commune and division to families will in a very short time
significantly reduce illegal logging and forest degradation.
As can be depicted from the table, two forms of use are common in all the villages;
collective use by the whole village and private use by single households. Shrubs are
designated to be in collective use in all the villages, while for high forest and coppices the
74
mode of use differs among the villages. A full description of the forests and their mode of
use in the commune of Gore are given in the Appendix 15.
Mode of use (ha) Mode of use (ha) Mode of use (ha)

Forest area (ha)
Collective as village
High forest (ha)
Coppices ( ha)
Shrubs (ha)
Households
Households
Households
Village
Household
Individual
Individual
No
1 Babien 335.6 0 0 0 335.6 99.2 236.4 0 0 0

2 Desmirë 544.9 23.3 0 23.3 521.6 0 521.6 0 0 0
3 Dolan 242 0 0 0 237.5 0 237 4.5 0 4.5
4 Dolanëc 181.5 0 0 0 169.1 67.9 101.2 0 0 0
5 Gribec 412.3 0 0 0 377.3 311.8 65.5 0 0 0
6 Lozhan 820.2 0 0 0 429.7 313.2 116.5 285.5 285.5 0
7 Marian 289.7 0 0 0 289.7 121.6 168 0 0 0
8 Mesmal 125.4 0 0 0 125.4 0 125.4 0 0 0
9 Mocan 273.1 36.8 36.8 0 230 0 230 0 0 0
10 Qenckë 399.9 0 0 0 399.9 69 330.9 0 0 0
11 Selcë 120 0 0 0 87.2 0 87.2 32.8 32.8 0
12 Senisht 297.1 0 0 0 297.1 15.7 281.4 0 0 0
13 Strelcë 724.2 206.2 0 206.2 360.2 157.5 202.7 155.9 155.9 0
14 Tresovë 205.2 0 0 0 158.8 93.3 65.6 46.4 24.9 21.5
15 Velcan 149.6 0 0 0 121.3 46.9 74.4 28.3 28.3
16 Zvahrisht 231.3 4.8 0 4.8 223.6 13.1 210 0 0 0
Commune 5188.5 271.1 36.8 234.3 4364 1309.2 3053.8 553.4 527.4 26
75
CHAPTER 4
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION:
COMMUNAL FOREST: RELEVANCE AND

SUSTAINABILITY
76
1. FROM CONFLICT TO COLLABORATION

Community forestry is seen to comprise three main elements. These are: (1) the
provision of “fuel and other goods essential to meeting basic needs at the rural household
and community level”, (2) the provision of “food and the environmental stability
necessary for continued food production” and (3) the generation of “income and
employment in the rural community” (FAO, 1978). This definition thus encompasses a
broad spectrum of possible linkages between people and trees, or the outputs of trees, and
was as much concerned with people's dependence on existing forests as with
reforestation.
Communal ownership of the forests and pastures was prevalent in Albania before the
communist regime. The most notable example is the grazing on communal pastures where
the village shepherds tended the livestock of all the families. Forests near the villages,
especially those having fruit-bearing trees such as walnut and hazelnut, were often common
property divided on village lines. People from the village would come together to collect
and divide the harvest according to the number in each family. These traditions worked
because the community had the resource, internal cohesion, and commonality of interest to
practice sustainable forestry and pasturage.
The transfer of State forests and pastures to the communes was seen as being, by
definition, participatory and directed towards rural needs - in particular the needs of the
rural poor. From its inception, forestry for community development must therefore be
forestry for the people and involving the people. It must be forestry which starts at the
“grass roots” (FAO, 1978), a statement which has been also the motto during the
implementation of this project.
The transfer of forests, in the philosophy of the CFPMp, is not just to return forest,
but to give back the forest management the old tradition and responsibility to the people
who live there. The process is long and not a simple transfer of a forest and pasture area
“in use” to the Communes/villages; it is the process of the transfer of State competence
and responsibilities (forestry service) to the local government (Communes) and the
community (villagers). As such, this process does not stop at the formal transfer of forests
and pastures in use to the community, on the contrary, it lays the foundation for the start
of the management of the forests through the development and implementation of rules
rights and responsibilities and formulate them in a simple management plans by local
structures. This promotes a sustainable decentralized management of the natural
resources through the participatory involvement of the community. Therefore, CFPMp is
not just a method for communal forest management, but it is also part of the local
empowerment and capacity-building processes.
77
2. THE VILLAGERS’ PERSPECTIVE

When asked about their perception and opinion on the present institutional
arrangement (limited transfer of user rights), two main statements always came from the
villagers:
 What are you giving us through this transfer? The forest is ours, we have used it
for firewood, fodder and grazing for generations.
 Will the Government take the forest back from us as it is investing in the
management plan and its implementation?
Everywhere, villagers have a strong feeling about their ownership on the forest, that
they consider as their property, based very often on ancestral use or on even actual use.
This attitude is relatively independent of the actual status of the forest (transferred or not)
and refers to the land and to the products themselves and not to the “use”. It means too
that villagers are open to changes of uses, e.g. planting chestnuts, as long as it is in their
advantage and based on their decision.
Usually the ownership is regulated at family level; individuals of a family know their
limited and traditional rights on the land and the uses of the family property. This is for
example, shown by the stones delimiting the forest of Drita Village in Bazi Commune
(Dibra region). Villages have in general some common land, where the livestock of the
whole village can graze under the supervision of one villager.
This should not be mistaken with the area which may be considered by the
community as "privately" allocated but the community favor a transfer as common land
in order to avoid individual responsibility on it (case of Shëngjergj village). This is an
expression of a lack of confidence towards the future benefits of the process and a clear
attitude of “wait and see”, participating in the process in order to be able to take part in
future development but refraining of going to far in their formal engagement. Two major
arguments are involved in such a choice: the forest (and the land) stays as before property
of the State – only the users' rights being transferred and, the transfer is organized at
communal level, hence similar to the collectivization of the past.
The Communes (including the FUAs) are playing an important role in the transfer of
forests, but in the major cases, the ultimate responsibility lies with the farmer, who is the
real beneficiary of the forest transfer and management. From the farmers’ viewpoint,
Communes are an instrument to resolve the administrative problems and to mobilize
funds for the improvement of their forests and living conditions.
On common land where traditionally none of the families is recognized as owner,
farmers are more reluctant to invest for forest improvement. This is due to the difficulties
they have to participate in nature (provide work) and to distribute the forestry benefits,
excepted when those lands are jointly used for grazing. Here the incentives given by the
AFP and NRDP project are playing an important role to foster forestry protection. In the
78
case of Village of Greshdan (Maqellare Commune, Diber District) livestock is not

allowed to graze on some family forests (forests which are very well protected), but they
are sent to the common pastures, which are very degraded. In such cases, the CFPMp
faces difficulties to achieve major improvement.
Where a strong feeling exists amongst the villagers about their (ancestral) property of
the land- particularly in the north-, the transfer is perceived as recognition of their
property. They are willing to take care of their plots and defend them against outside
village intervention (Fajze Commune in the District of Has, or Zerqan Commune in the
District of Bulqize). This could lead even to refusing the participation in the CFPMp
activities (Sllove Commune in the District of Diber).
From the discussions with representatives of the villages, it is clear that in some cases
(e.g. Gjinari) they are not aware of their rights and obligations. Thus, we may reasonably
assume that they are not better informed about the laws. In fact, while talking with the
headmen of village, they are always make comparison with the distribution of
agricultural lands few years ago and yet not resolved conflicts.
In general farmers are not considering only the "forestry fund" but also the land
classified under the fund of agricultural land which has been cleared during the
communist regime. Particularly controversial remains the use and - hence the
rehabilitation- of the so called “refused land”. Farmers - who have often a traditional
ownership on this land - would be interested in getting some support to improve them for
agriculture or forestry as they are very often subject to erosion. An example of the
potential to reconvert degraded agricultural land into forestry is shown by an elderly
farmer of Luf village in Puke district who planted oaks by direct seeding.
Farmers are interested in the forest for the services it can bring to them, not only
through the direct use (firewood, fodder, and pasture for their self-consumption) but also
in terms of goods (and services) they can trade in order to assure their subsistence in the
village. In most places, they started already - without Program intervention- to protect a
part of the degraded forests, usually on former “family-owned” land. The insecurity about
the future users’ rights (uses, trade, and property) does not encourage individuals and to a
lesser amount the entire villages to “invest” in the protection of the forest. Places where
the forests and pastures have been spontaneously protected are usually those where
villagers will not allow any use, illegal or legal, without their consent.
During the project implementation in the four selected communes, it was clear that
farmers are growingly aware of the degradation of the forests and the impact on their
livelihood. When they have the resources, available manpower and not living in extreme
poverty, they will themselves initiate the protection and rehabilitation of their forests.
Nevertheless they will limit their activities to keep away intruder - men and animals -, but
they will not make improvement in terms of planting or erosion control. Once the forest
is reestablished, they will prune it for fodder (in the case of oak), thin it for sticks and
79
firewood and graze it eventually, according to their need and not a management plan. The
CFPMp is here an incentive to support these activities, to extend them and to bring proper
technical care (extension). Due to the fact that they already have a strong property feeling
about the forest, the interest into the Program is often – superficially – seen as an interest
into only paid labor.
Unfortunately, the State does not have the resources even to supervise the proper
management of all communal forests as these forests are divided up to the individual
plots. From the DFS viewpoint this division means in one side that they have to deal with
a large number of “partners”, and on the other, this was not the intended purpose of
transferring the responsibility to the local people.
In the case of dislocation, members of the family, usually male adults, are looking for
employment elsewhere and leave behind the rest of the family in the village. This
happens in the Communes of Blerim and that of Stebleva, where many people have gone
to take advantage of the construction boom in the South and West. Whole families may
migrate in town but as reported from Studen Village (Elbasan Region), members are still
coming back to cultivate their plot, hence not only producing for their subsistence but
also ensuring their claim on the land. In the case of dislocation, the workforce is
temporarily reduced but some income may arrive from outside the village resource base,
and the return to the village of the missing persons is expected. As a consequence, on one
hand, the possibility to take care of the natural resources is reduced and this leads to
neglect forest improvement, but also reduces the pressure on it. On the other hand, the
existence of extra-village income will allow (at least temporarily) to diminish the
pressure on the resources and the local economy. In any case, dislocation will not
improve the potential of economical opportunities within the village on a long term.
Emigration is characterized by the definitive departure of the persons. Usually, the
most educated persons have a comparative advantage in leaving the village as well as the
young adult’s group that represents the village's workforce. This is an impoverishment
for the village capacity to undertake actions in favor of the natural resources. When the
emigration takes place in a legal frame, the links with the family and the village are
maintained, and some income reach the village, but when the emigration is illegal,
usually the links with the family are broken and the returns are highly reduced. As a
consequence, the villages are loosing its people, who are in the best age to manage
intellectually and physically the communal forests.
3. THE ALLOCATION OF FOREST AND PASTURE RESOURCES

Mainly because of historical reasons (according to the Sherihat Law forests were
prone of the Sultan), the private forest area in Albania has been rather small and did not
exceed 5% the total forest area (63,000 ha). The recognition and restitution of private
80
forests to the ex-owners started after 1996, but the process has moved slowly. By the end
of 2000, only 6,300 ha or 10% of the private area was returned to the ex-owners (APFDP,
2000b).
The division of the communal forests and pastures in plots is realized in three
categories: per family (the majority of it); as common or village forest, and; as forest
being attributed to an individual. The allocation is usually made according to the old
boundaries of the properties as they were before 1945. These borders, that have no legal -
documented - value, are rigorously respected by the villagers: no one is allowed to collect
fodder or firewood or to cut standing trees to someone else’s forest without permission.
The phrase “to cut an oak tree is equal as to cut an olive tree...” often used by the
villagers, shows the high value they give to the oak forest. However, in the case that a
family can not fulfill its needs for fodder from its own part of forest, it can collect fodder
on other plot in common or family uses, with the permission of the owner. Grazing is
usually organized at village level. Regarding chestnut trees, they are a valuable property
kept from generation to generation. They are considered as a totally private property and
are protected very strongly.
Nevertheless, the situation is quite different compared to before 1945. Firstly, the
number of inhabitant has grown up tremendously (even if out migration now tends to
reduce their numbers in the rural areas). Secondly, the forest area is reduced, usually
being converted into agricultural land (which nowadays is not the responsibility of Forest
Service) through clear-cutting them in most places.
According to the social cohesion, the families (as the smaller unit) are represented by
one of their members, who has the authority to resolve the conflicts linked with the
allocation of natural resources. Usually, where this social cohesion is strong, the families
have maintained the traditional knowledge and process to allocate their resources within
the village, even within the family. Difficulties may arise in the relation with the
authorities to apply for improvement works, when the natural resources considered as the
village "property" are divided amongst different administrative districts. This is the case
of the village Stebleva where some of their perceived village area belongs to Bulqize
District, while the village is considered to be part of Librazhdi District. When this
cohesion is not so strong, the number of conflicts is higher and the process of resolving
them takes longer. Villagers are trying to follow the same approach as the one based on
the tradition but negotiating the users’ rights on base of their actual or past use of the
resource.
Particularly for the process related to the transfer of forests to Communes and the
villagers, the FUA have to set up in their statutes mechanisms to allow control and appeal
by any member of the association. The project emphasizes the participation of all
concerned. In fact, the FUA being established at the Commune level, beneficiaries
81
(village, families or individuals) are in most cases only represented by one or two
persons.
The establishment of FUA is an attempt to make the existing allocation of resources
system official and to bring it at the level of the communes and, beyond the purely
allocation process, to ensure proper management of the forests. It is worth to note that
FUAs are independent of the Communes or DFS.
The resolution of disputes is realized at village level by the "Council of Elder" or
more exactly "Village Council" composed by designated persons. This council is often
the body which will be set up as “Forest Village Commission”. The Chairman of this
Council is often the village representative at the FUA. This Council deals with all matters
concerning the village and not only with "forest and pastures users' rights". It is also the
body that will determine the plots' boundaries when the management plan will be
prepared, hence dealing with the aspects of land tenure and land ownership.
At the local level, the allocation of resources is not considered as a big issue but the
way it is legally recognized and the security carried with this recognition. In the forestry
sector, the State is reluctant to recognize fully a situation de facto on the ground, on
which it has little influence in the framework of a liberal society. In the actual situation, it
is unbelievable that the State will “fight each farmer”. This reluctance is justified by the
fact that the local level does not consider (even realize) the overall objectives at State
level, as, for example, maintaining the integrity of the forest and pasture domain. On the
other hand, farmers put little confidence in the State, particularly dealing with a long term
activity as forest management.
4. EXISTING INFORMAL TYPES OF OWNERSHIP

Although most of professional foresters see the forest through the wood (as a source
of timber), the villagers see it in a very different way. For farmers, sometimes timber is
the least interesting product of the forest, in large part as it was has been always the
privilege of the State or enterprises.
For the villagers, the forest is firstly a source of firewood for which there is a high
demand for cooking and, in winter for heating, not only in rural areas but also in cities.
Firewood is provided by the village forests, now "given-in-use", but also purchased from
State forests. Firewood represents a large market that is officially restricted to the
Forestry Service as provider. In few cases where Communes can sell firewood, the sale is
subject to the control of the Forestry Service. In that case, 30% of the value should be
paid to the State and 70% to the Commune Revenue Account. Due to legal difficulties
this system is not yet functioning for communal forests. In any case, the individuals do
not benefit from it. Nevertheless, exchanges in categories of uses (grazing rights against
firewood) have been reported between neighboring villages.
82
Fodder (from oak) is the second important product of the forest. Villagers are poling
and pruning oak trees to feed the animals in stables. The fresh material is also used but
sometimes branches and twigs are dried and kept as hay for a later usage.
Grazing is also an important use of the village forests and pastures. Goats
(decreasingly), sheep and cows are grazed on pastures and forests during the day. If there
is no shelter on summer pastures, usually in high altitudes, the whole flock may
transhumance every day if these pastures are not too far. Thus is i.e. the case of Rabdishti
Village (Melan Commune, Diber District) where the summer pastures are some 2½ hours
away from the farm. From the animal husbandry point of view, it is not to be
recommended but also it brings degradation to the forests along the way and particularly
to the soil, increasing the erosion risk.
Fruit (forest) trees are also important for the villagers. Especially nut trees such as:
chestnut, walnut, hazelnut are considered important not only for the fruits they bear
(Zeneli et al., 2005) and for which there is a market, but some of them produce very
valuable timber.
Aromatic and medicinal plants were before an important source of income for the
country (Zeneli et al., 2007). Today this sector is much reduced as a commercial activity.
Even if we have seen it being carried out in Peshkopi, the prices offered by the traders
sometimes are very low. Thus, it is not an interesting income generating activity for the
farmer, even if this trader is employing 10 persons. This activity can be done combining
another one, namely grazing livestock. Villagers do not see any potential in such products
except those who have the information about a middleman in the city or are directly in
contact with him. Moreover, the commercial potential and chain is not known at the
village or commune level, even trader are not aware of the marketing and handling
possibilities. For example, pines could eventually be managed to give resin and essential
oils, but farmers do not have a market for it.
Even if the formalities to transfer and manage the forest are mainly realized at district
and commune level, the major actors in the implementation of communal forests and
pastures plans are villagers themselves, more exactly the families and individuals who
have some (user) rights on the forest. This is the level where a better participation is
found due to a better interest in the forest considered as a base for livelihood.
First, the villages expect a formal recognition of their tenure on the forest and
property, for which there is no legal framework, as the forest is being "given-in-use" on
basis of a ten year contract. Secondly, the expectations are mainly limited to the activities
that cover the needs of the community (firewood, fodder and grazing), some commercial
activities usually not being possible in the short run due to the stage of degradation of the
forest. Nevertheless, villagers are hoping that they will be soon given the right to trade
legally forest products.
83
5. CUSTOMARY LAND RIGHT AND NEW LEGAL PROMISES

The history of family in Albania is a story of established customs and norms which
evolved from a feudal and rural past and is rooted in patriarchal social relations. The
mountain customs were, and in many cases still are, a reflection of a complex code of
unwritten law that was elaborated, cultivated and practiced with specific regard to the
social relations of the family. Albanian Customary law is contained with various Kanun
(or codes); the kanun of Lek Dukagjini (Gjecov 1989), the Kanun of Scanderbeg, and the
Kanun of Labëria or Idriz Suli (Elezi, 2004) being the most well-known.
Ethnographic studies carried out in the late nineteenth century and the first halves of
twentieth century have documented the strong clan features of Albanian Communities.
Albanian society has been characterized as patriarchal (Backer 1988) (where a male head
typically assumes the role of decision-maker) and patrilineal (where membership in
family group is traced through the male line). In the traditional society, woman gained
access to property through their relationship to either father or husband in context of
family. They have no right to property inheritance. In fact the right to inheritance did not
concern most women because they assumed, they would be provided for throughout their
lives. Furthermore, it was thought that if married woman claimed property from father’s
estate, her husband’s (who belonged to a different clan or fis) tie would be undermined
with the borders becoming less distinct.
Before the communist formation of large scale cooperatives, state farms and forest
enterprises and induced mass population movements, the rural Albanian structure was
organized along semi feudal lines. Villages in many parts of the country, especially in the
North Mountain Albania were distinguished by clan and extended families living in close
proximity, if not in the same dwelling unit (Durham, 1909). There was a strong sense of
family and clan solidarity. The idea of individual rights to property held no meaning in
that era; it was not a concept within the social reality of rural Albanians by the time. An
important point emerging from this account of pre-Communist local government is the
close relationship between individual and community. As noted by Hasluck (1954), “the
community sense was fostered by every art the mountaineers knew”.
The description of traditional Albanian society serves as historical reference by which
we can analyze what is occurring with regard to family and individual property rights in
contemporary Albania. After more than forty years with centrally managed, command
economy and the state as sole owner of immovable property, Albania is transferring it to
communities and in private hands. How this immovable property ownership right are
defined affects both women’s and men’s economic opportunities. Thus, the rules
established by the formal legal system and beliefs governing customary access to and
transfer of forest and pastures - and means by which they are interpreted and enforced-
are important to the development of the country.
84
6. FOREST REVENUE AND FEES

The transition period that Albania is going through these years from a collectivization
system and a centralized government to a pluralist and decentralized government has
created a vacuum in terms of legal, economic, and implementation instruments. This
vacuum led, particularly during and few years after the 1997, to the destruction of the
forests. Although it’s should be mentioned that before the transition, forest management
was only oriented towards the production functions (often overexploiting forests).
Nowadays forest degradation is such an important issue that the implementation
instruments do not represent a sound economic basis to rehabilitate its potential: i.e. the
revenues that can be generated within a management period do not cover the expenses of
forest improvements.
There is a big confusion among most people at different levels concerning the
financial aspects of forest management as the legal framework for collecting revenues
and fees for the ownership and use of the forests. Unfortunately the legal framework does
not exist as a single work but should be subtracted from different documents of different
levels (law, decree, decision, regulation, instruction) which deal with different aspects
(forests, pastures, medicinal plants) and jurisdiction (state or communal forests). Farmers
do realize the impact of the improvement activities. In several cases, they had already
started to protect the most degraded forests before the intervention of the project. Some
have even tended Oak forests through a very wise and controlled pruning and thinning for
fodder.
As it is only the users’ rights that are transferred to the Communes (the villages,
families, and individuals), the forest fund is still property of the State. A feeling of
mistrust amongst certain DFS staff is to be seen in the capacities of the Communes and
FUA-s to manage the forests and towards the willingness of the families and individuals
to protect them. The same mistrust exists among the villagers who fear the intervention of
the State to take the forest away or to impose taxes on their ownership.
In some districts, foresters have even reported “refused” land (which had been cleared
from forests) as belonging to the forest fund and in need of reforestation. Thus, some
DFS may feel responsible and are claiming "refused" land back.
7. THE FOREST TRANSFER: AN IRREVERSIBLE PROCESS

It is paradoxical to see that while the transfer has been introduced from the national
level - an initiative of the government - the feeling about the ownership on forest land
property at local level is very strong. On one hand, the government recognizes the role of
the local population in preserving the forests, but on the other hand is not yet ready to
fully accept the local ownership in the frame of a market economy. The same applies to
the local population, mutatis mutandis. They are thankful that their rights are somehow
85
recognized and would like to see this recognition transformed from “given-in-use” to
“given-in-ownership”, but on the other hand, they are not willing to commit themselves
to formal ownership, in fear of taxes on land property. One should remember the fate of
the (agricultural) orchards when a tax was put on fruit trees. This is one of the reasons
why management plans prepared for communal forestry are classifying users into three
groups: (apart from the private ownership defined in the Article 3 of the Law No. 7623)
families, groups of families and commons. Individuals are willing to participate in the
process, but do not want to go too far. For many of them, if it’s only the uses being
transferred, often according to traditional rules, they only wish to see a common
ownership recognized, hence a common responsibility but not a particular one.
Still, villagers request that the State shouldn’t interfere with management of their
forests but be a facilitator in bringing them the resources and technical advice to improve
“their” forests and pastures. The “given-in-use” forests and the subsequent management
plans are first, delimiting areas and identifying a user, and then the uses are defined.
Consequently, this implicit that is the ownership on the land being recognized and not the
ownership on the use. Even if the same area have different users for different uses (e.g.
firewood and fodder), only one owner – who can be a collective one - is recognized. He
then grants permission to the second user, with or without compensation.
This means that de facto DFP has no ownership on the forest but its legal and
technical authority and expertise is accepted. In this situation, the choice will be: agree or
disagree with it. In this stage would be is very difficult to disagree with the present state
without going back to a very strong and authoritative system. This system could be
envisaged if the resources were available and to ensure a proper forest management and a
proper livelihood of the rural population. In fact, "the government cannot fight everyone"
and need to build some confidence in its actions amongst the population. If this attitude
will be fully accepted by the Government and not only by DFP, this would be a major
opportunity for the Forestry Service to take the lead in forestry development and reforms.
The development of forestry will need not just the appropriate legal and institutional tools
but also allocating the appropriate resources to apply them. A proper management of the
forests and pastures has an economic impact (like the effect of watershed protection on
energy production through reduced sedimentation) that is not easily quantifiable in term
of financial returns and usually not considered in budgeting.
Considering the extreme degradation of the communal forests, the transfer process
can be achieved before that the ownership questions becomes acute. These questions are
already brought up and need to get the proper attention to develop adequate solutions: the
trade of communal forests and pastures products and services. This is the key element not
only to solve the questions of sustainability of communal forest management but also that
of the leadership of the DFP structure in communal forestry.
86
CHAPTER 5
LOBING AND ADVOCACY
87
Albania is developing rapidly, this means that the legal (and to some extent the
institutional) framework has to evolve at least as quickly. Particularly, in the case of the
transfer of forests and pastures to the Communes, the increased role given to the
Communes and the need to have an integrated approach to natural resources
management, make it a necessity keeping the hierarchy and the validity of the legal text
up-to-date and to propose improvements.
In support of the process of forest transfer and capacity building of the forest users, a
series of activities were undertaken. The aim was that through four surveys in communes
of Puke, Elbasan, Diber and Korca regions to highlight the traditions on the establishment of
forest and pastures lands boundaries in different levels from village to clans and families.
This is an old reality resisting in the centuries as pointed out a century ago by Edith
Durham (1909) “Tribe frontiers have never yet been mapped. They are very well known
to the people, who point out some tree or stone as one crosses the line. I am not able to
do more than roughly indicate their position”, but not considered by the central and local
state institutions. Based on the project findings and recommendations of the first phase of
the project, during the second phase the objective was the improvement of the legal frame
work, helping the acceleration of forest and pasture transfer to communes, clarification of
ownership right and responsibilities in forest use and their sustainable management.
The main activities realized during the period of project implementation are described in
the following:
 Lobbing process for transferring of ownership of forest and pastures to communes
to improve the management of forest and pastures
 The amendments on the laws and sub-laws in the definitions of roles and
responsibilities of all actors as owners or users of this natural resources
 The resolute 4 followed the resolute 1, 2, and 3 as part of the insisting request
coming from the villagers and FPUA- boards in the last 5 years and during 2007 in
Dibra Region were supported in the organized way from 15 FPUA-s of Kukesi and
Korca regional federations.
After the first phase closing the field work in communes, the project followed a
continuous process on preparing and approving the improved criteria and regulations in
process of forest transfer:
 Preparation of the draft documents.
 Discussion with the main stakeholders in an national workshop
 Lobbying and advocacy: to address major issues (decentralization, land issue, role
of forestry service) with the responsible parts of the (central & local) government.
This whole process has not been linear, but a continuous process going back and
forward. All steps taken were depended on the situation of the partners and on the pace of
movements of Ministry and Government. NACFP strategy on the process was to address
88
the issue as this will give a higher ownership of the process by the partners addressing
their needs and interest.
1. NACFP LOBBING ON LAND TENURE SECURITY

NACFP has informed regularly the MEFWA about the concerns of regional
federations to improve the legal framework and to avoid insecurities of the forest users in
land tenure. A good progress was the meeting of the NACFP and regional federations
with the Minister of Environment, Forest and Water Administration in November 2006.
After expressing their concerns, a rational with the explanations of the necessary changes
in the law, and a draft prepared by the NACFP in cooperation with Regional Federations
of CFP users was submitted to the Minister. Meanwhile, the Ministry organized a
workshop with the participation of representatives from the Ministry, Agricultural
University, Faculty of Forestry Sciences, representatives of regional federation and
NACFP, private companies involved in forest harvesting, and representatives from
communities.
During the workshop, representatives of NACFP explained in details all the
amendments proposed in the forest law. The new proposed law for Pastures and Grazing
received a lot of useful comments.
1.1. Chronology of Activities on Advocacy and Lobbying

 23 June 2006: National Conference “It’s Time for deep Reform in Albanian
Forestry” (NACFP- Movement “Mjaft”), DFP, Donors, Head of communes.
 August 2006: Kick off meeting for presentation of objectives of ILC project on land
tenure and user right issues on forest and pastures with a special focus on advocacy
and lobby on legal framework improvement in forest and pasture land.
 07 August 2006: The Minister of MEFWA sent the letter No. 1435/1 to NACFP
asking NACFP to participate in process of reviewing the existing forest law and
preparing and proposing the necessary amendments on CFPM.
 September 2006: Meeting of NACFP with National Association of Heads of
Communes, presenting the main concerns of FPUA-s on forest law related to the
CFPM and gaps on other laws such as these of Pastures medicinal plants.
 October 2006: Meeting with National Agency on Inventory and Transfer of
Immovable Properties to the Local Government Units (NAITIP), on the progress of
the transfer process and main constraints.
 October 2006: Meeting with Deputy Minister of MEFWA, presenting comments on
the CFPM part.
89
 November 2006: Workshop organized by MEFWA with broad participation of the

representatives of the private companies involved on forest harvesting operation,
FPUA-s, regional federations, Communes, NACFP, and DFP. The draft of new law
on the pastures and grazing and several amendments for the Forest Law No. 9385
(2005) were proposed. NACFP held two presentations: one about the draft Law for
pastures and another about the proposed amendments on forest law. A copy of
comments was submitted to the Minister.
 January 27, 2007: Day of Albanian Forest Service. NACFP raised the importance of
clear rights and responsibilities on CFPM and the possibilities on income
generations and Minister of MEFWA declares that Government will transfer to
communes 700 thousand hectare of forest.
 February 13-15, 2007: NACFP in cooperation with regional federations of Korce,
Kukes and Diber, prepared one special action plan on advocacy and lobbing on
forest law review. Action plan was approved with the participation of 8 Regional
Federations of Forest Users.
 February 15, 2007: The representatives of NACFP meet Minister of MEFWA, and
submit the comments and amendments prepared for forest Law No. 9385 (2005).
 February 20, 2007: NACFP was informed that the Reviewed Forest Law was
submitted to the Government without consider the recommendations of NACFP.
 February 23, 2007: Meeting with all regional federations and SNV, inform all
representatives for the progress and achievement of an agreement on the steps to be
undertaken for advocacy from MEFWA to the Prime Minister and Government.
 February 24, 2007: One request was submit to the Prime Minister asking for a
meeting.
 February 25, 2007: Letter sent to Prime Minister: “It’s time for deep reforms in
forestry”, with a review of forest law.
 February 26, 2007: Meeting with General Secretary of Council of Ministers, Dr.
Myqerem Tafaj.
 February 27, 2007: Meeting with Mr. Grigor Gjeci of the Ministry of Agriculture
and Security of Food. Discussion of draft strategy for rural development.
 February 28, 2007: Meeting with the Prime Minister Adviser, Mr. Skender Uku.
 March 1, 2007: Meeting with deputy Minister of Public Order.
 March 10, 2007: Meeting with resident mission of World Bank in Tirana.
Presentation of concerns on forest law.
 March 20-23, 2007: In cooperation and consultation with all representatives of
regional federations preparation of a resolution (No. 4) to the Minister MEFWA,
and cc to Parliament, Prime Minister, World bank and Sweden Agency for
Development (SIDA), with a request to accept the proposed by NACFP
90
 March 25, 2007: Publication of the resolution.

 March 26-30, 2007: Chronicles in different televisions on the importance of reforms
in forestry.
 May 4-10, 2007: Comments on draft amendments of forest law were submitted to
Head of Parliamentary groups, head of parliamentary commissions, the President of
the Republic, the heads of two main parliamentary political parties and different
donors.
 May 27-31, 2007: ILC- NACFP- International Workshop: “Sharing knowledge on
Participatory Mapping for Forest and Pasture Areas -Combining different mapping
techniques to address policy challenges in the management and use of forest and
pasture lands”. The Workshop brought together experiences from Nicaragua,
Indonesia and Bolivia, and the main stakeholders from the central institution and
donors of Albania as well as representatives of Private Forest Owner Association
from Kosovo and Macedonia. One resolution on achievement and concerns of
CFPM in Albania was prepared on behalf of participants and was submitted to the
legislative and executive representatives of Albania
 June 3, 2007: Meeting with the parliament representatives explaining the rational of
improvements in forest law asked by NACFP. In the meeting it was agreed to
prepare a summary of NACFP proposed amendments.
 June 4, 2007: NACFP representatives participated in the meeting of the commission
of Economy in Parliament in the debate for the amendments required by MEFWA
on the review of forest law. NACFP submitted to the commission and speaker of
parliament the summary of proposed amendments.
 June 5, 2007: letter to the Speaker of Parliament explaining the importance of
including the proposal of NACFP in forest law. A copy of the letter was sent to the
President of Republic, Prime Minister and heads of two main parliamentary parties.
 Continuous relationship with media and publications on daily newspapers. These
included:
 Daily Newspaper Shekulli: (The biggest Newspaper in the country):
 Pastures, our cursed alps, (waiting for a new law on pastures)
 State in mountain, communities in plain zones
 Reflection after forest fires
 Daily Newspaper Shqip:
 Why the forest should be privatized
 Daily Newspaper Korrieri:
 700 thousand new bunkers
 Daily Newspaper Zeri i popullit:
91
 Forest between smoke and reform

 The Eco-movement Newspaper “Ekolevizja”, which is published twice a
month, had 7 editorial articles on Land tenure issues and communal forest
and pastures management.
 “Green crown”, in all its 15 editions had articles discussing the project
issues.
 “Green circle”, (Region of Dibra) followed and supported the lobbing and
advocacy with articles such as “the Impact of wrong policies in forestry”,
“What are the FPPUA-s requests”, “Why privatization” etc.
 Public TV has shown several chronicles and news on the process, while
local TV of Kukes, Puka, Dibra, Korca had frequently shown chronicles
on the CFPM
1.2. Other activities

Korca, Kukesi, Dibra, and newly established federations of Shkodra, Elbasani, Lezha and
Berati have established the local structures and are supporting following activities:
 Working groups are established for the most of the FPUA-s in cooperation with
the communes.
 “Green Crown”, a monthly newspaper (ca. 1000 copies every editions) has
supported the awareness and information campaign. Meanwhile the newspaper
has published also different initiatives of councils of the communes on forest
management.
 Different posters and leaflets were distributed to communes and villages.
 Apart from the activities organized in pilot communes, the information workshops
are organized by NACFP in ten other communes with broad participation of local
people.
 The list with the farmers supporting the changes in law was prepared for all the
included communes.
 The resolute and message is finalized.
2. EVALUATION OF ADVOCACY AND LOBBY PROCESS

The evaluation of the advocacy and lobby process, initiative of Communal Forestry
Federations of Albania took place on October 3, 2007 in Tirana. The evaluation was a
participatory process where all the participants had the possibility to express and evaluate
according to the indicators. Participants were representatives of 8 regional federations
92
(Shkoder, Kukes, Diber, Lezhe, Tirana, Elbasani, Korca, and Berati) or members of the
board of the Albanian National Association of Communal Forestry. SNV advisors
together with some representatives of federations facilitated the process.
2.1. Aim and objectives of the evaluation process

The aim of the evaluation process was to:
 Collect and analyze all the information with the aim to asses if the objectives are
achieved.
 Compile an action plan at national level based on the conclusions and lessons
learned.
Report and files with all the information including publications, resolutes, memos etc.
prepared by the Federations were distributed to all participants. The idea was to provide
all possible recourses in order to have a good process. The participant from the region of
Diber Region did a very good power point presentation for all activities held in
framework of advocacy process. The presentation was based in the Road Map Advocacy
explaining the steps in which the advocacy process passed through the years.
2.2. The indicators used for evaluating advocacy process.

The aim of all the activities was to change the current policy and speed up the reform
process on the forestry sector.
2.2.1. Activity indicators:

Number and type of documents/publications produced for decision-makers and
those influence them: 4 Resolutions, 1 Memo, 3 Requests, and 3 amendments for the
forest law and pasture Law.
All these were sent to the MEFWA, Directorate of Forest Policies, Prime Minister,
President of Republic, Parliament, donors (SIDA, World Bank). (See Appendices 10 and
11)
Number of meetings/ lobbies/ held with decision-makers and influencers:
3 meetings with the Vice Minister of MEFWA, 2 meetings with the Minister
MEFWA, several meetings with DFP, 1 meeting with the Secretary of the Council of
Ministers, 2 meetings with advisors of the Prime Minister, Meeting with members of
Parliament, Meeting with National Agency of Inventory and Transfer of Immovable
Properties, Meeting with the World Banks representative in Albania etc.
Number of meetings with media representatives:
20 meetings with journalists
93
Numbers of meetings of the advocacy coalition:

5 meetings - Directorate of Forest service
3 meetings - “Mjaft” movement association
20 meetings -Communes
5 meetings - Qark structures
2.2.2. Progress indicators:

 The issue has been discussed 5 times at the MEFWA, 2 times with other
governmental structures and 2 times in the commission of Parliament.
 Political statements have been made in favor of the issue by the Minister of
Environment, Forest and Water Administration and Prime Minister.
 The NACFP is commited of preparing an action plan to accelerate the process of
transfer of forest and pasture to communes, improve the legal framework and
establish extension service and management structures in communes. Prime
Minister has approved the action plan to finalize the transfer of forest and pastures
in all the communes of the country setting as deadline the May 2008. The draft
decision for administration of communal forest and pastures and income
generation is under preparation.
 14 favorable articles about the issue were published in the media.
3. CONCLUSION ON ADVOCACY AND LOBBING

 Lobbing, advocacy and participation in sub-laws preparation and forest law
review was one very important learning process for the regional federations and
NACFP. In the same time it contributed on revision of the forestry law, and
some positive changes have occurred. Yet, there is a lot of space for change
especially in relation with property issues, and the role and competencies of the
local actors.
 The government is accelerating the process of forest transfer and is preparing a
decree on Communal forest administration. NACFP must monitor very carefully
the transfer process and legal acts on income generations preparation, especially
the process of clarifying rights ad responsibilities at different level, family,
village, commune, and DFS.
 Participate in lobby meeting is still a challenge for the federations because
different regions have different interests, traditions and way of managing the
forest.
94
 Albanian government structures have not established good mechanisms to assure

the participation of NGOs in decision-making.
 Elected people not always have information about the forestry sector.
 During policy changes, EU standard are not taken into consideration.
 More coordination between federations and FUAs is needed. The National
Federation has to play the leadership role.
 A better function of the networks is required.
 A better coordination with DFP is needed.
 Media has a crucial role for advocacy processes so a better communication and
more involvement of media are important.
 The support of ILC - SNV- SIDA has been very important factor in well-going of
this process.
95
CHAPTER 6
LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS
96
1. LESSONS LEARNED
Assessment of the progress of the NACFP pilot project on legally and substantially
enhancing tenure security of forest users in the transfer scheme of immobile resources
from central to local governments in Albania, revealed a number of emerging lessons.
From over ten years work in assisting rural communities and forest users to secure their
rights as part of the transfer process that accompanies decentralization in Albania, a lot of
expertise has been gathered on the potential of communal forestry for rural livelihoods as
complementary to private/state tenureship. However this in-between level continues to be
one of the most difficult to capture for policy makers and others in the rapidly evolving
environment that Albania represents today.
In most of the cases, the boundaries are well known and respected. In addition, there
are rules governing behavior such that felled wood or bundles of firewood marked by a
stone (or cross-shaped sign the Catholic region), can be left without risk of theft. It would
be sinful (“mëkat”) to touch this material as it is obviously the fruit of someone else’s
labor. These norms are observed especially throughout the Northern provinces;
presumably this is largely due to the importance attached to the Kanun’s ethos, which
recognizes that a community is more likely to thrive if all its members observe the
established code rather than conducting a war of all against all.
Reality shows that well-defined users’ rights not only are pivotal to better
environmental sustainability and preservation, but are also fundamental to ways out of
poverty for rural dwellers. It is therefore advisable for policy makers to start from the
rights regime that already exists and give them some forms of recognition within the
statutory framework.
Quite a lot of “extreme” positions have been heard during the consultation as “the
government will take us away the forest, once we have protected it and worked for it
because it has paid for it”. When such position concerns official bodies, the situation is
blocked due to a perceived unequal relation of power that no “legal” resolution can solve.
Here a dialog has to take place which, beyond the techniques to use, can only be based on
transparent information about the situation. Moreover, to avoid bad experiences and to
base a decision on sound basis, information has to be available for the decisions-makers
and all stakeholders, who will have to monitor the application of their decisions.
Participatory mapping turned out to be a key approach for better defined boundaries,
refreshing customary traditions, and conflict resolution. Capturing elders’ memory,
strengthening of rural organizations’ cohesion and awareness were some of the effective
approaches. In such a sense, participatory mapping seems to act as a bridge between
tradition and new technology.
On the other hand it is important to keep in mind that while mapping is an important
tool, it is however one of many aspects of communal forestry management. Management
97
plans can benefit substantially from participatory mapping techniques and lessons learnt
if they are able to combine local people’s knowledge and technical expertise. Instead of
designing the forest function based on the literature or books, foresters can rely more on
the traditional knowledge. The discourse on forestry has to move towards a more
accommodationist perspective. Foresters and peasant need to talk to, rather than talk past,
each other. A willingness to listen to and at least partially incorporate the other point of
view should replace the rigid and uncompromising attitude of the past. Within the
forestry profession itself, skeptics doubt the contemporary relevance of the custodial and
policing approaches previously followed. It is time that governments to more seriously
and sympathetically consider the rights of forest-dependent communities.
Management Plans of Communal forest should be “simpler” to better match villagers’
capacities and needs. Such plans at village level can more appropriately refer to the
customary use rights that regulate access and use of those resources. Management Plans
can then serve multiple purposes for rural communities:
 They are very effective on community reflection of its own natural resources;
 They can be a useful tool to establish and strengthen relationships between
communities in the process of boundaries definition;
 They can facilitate the transfer of NR from state to local government and
communities;
Although most of the time people talk about the rights of community or user’s right, it
time to shift to “the rights and responsibilities”. State should respond more sensitively to
the just claims of local communities, but the communities should also be aware of the
responsibilities.
The transfer process in Albania is currently incomplete. The transfer of forest and
pasture should be considered complete only with the registration of the title and the title-
holder’s possession of the registration document, together with an accompanying map.
This last step should be integrated into current Albanian legislation by working more
closely with IPRO (Immovable Property Registration Office). In this scenario, property
titles can pave the way for increasing farmers’ interests in managing natural resources in
a sustainable manner, and consequently in inducing sustainable income generation
activities.
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
Assigning secure clearly delineated ownership and/or use rights to local groups in
combination with technical support and advice to those groups is now accepted as critical
in reversing degradation of forests and pastures and their improved, sustainable
management. While impressive gains have been made in this direction, stakeholders have
reached an apparent consensus that this process should be taken further to create a
98
framework where management, control and the derivation of direct economic benefits are
all brought closer together than they now are. Currently, priorities and benefits are largely
determined at the communal level, rather than by villages and families, traditionally the
custodians of forest and pasture lands, with villages and families competing for the
appreciable, but still limited benefits of wages for work on reforestation and other
activities approved by commune-level. As far as benefits are concerned, rather than being
self-generating, these benefits derive from donor funds, raising issues of sustained
interest in maintenance and improvement once projects come to an end. Thus, it is
important:
 to complete the legal framework for the transfer of communal forests and pasture
lands to the ownership of villages and local government; and for their sustainable
management by local communities;
 to prepare policies that stimulate income generation from communal, village and
individual forests and pastures, including from non-timber forest products, and
propose ways of using incomes for the benefit of local communities;
 the transfer process should follow all the necessary steps, from community
participation in decision-making and the preparation of management plans, to
property registration at IPRO;
 to design and implement a joint pilot scheme by Ministry of Environment, Forest
and Water Administration, User’s Associations and villagers to derive policy
lessons that are applicable on a larger scale.
The transfer of forests to the Communes is not just supporting the development of
communal forest management, but it is also part of the capacity-building of local
government. The development of the local government responsibilities cannot take place
without an adaptation of the laws and regulations dealing with the transfer of forests and
pastures, when it would only be in the harmonization of the definitions used throughout
the documents.
Particular emphasis should be given to clarify land (forest) tenure in the frame of a
general, national system. It is impossible to realize investments related to property if the
tenure situation is not clear. Propositions have to be made to harmonize the different
systems, in their form and procedure, and to transfer the rights or to compensate for it on
forests and pastures.
The success of the project perhaps can be illustrated by the fact that: Communities of
Stebleva, Luniku and Rajca communes in the region of Elbasani are asking MEFWA to
include the part of their high forest, not allowed by the Government to be transferred in
the commune, to be part of one of the proposed national park. They see this movement as
the only way of surveillance of their forest”.
99
Management Constraints Potential strengths Weaknesses or risks

modality
Market/private Registration system Incentives to maintain or invest if tenure long Enclosure - particularly where ex-owners control much of area ---> need to pay close
Land market enough attention to defining easement rights
Exclusion of “newcomers”
Better control and management if aided
technically and rights backed up effectively Leasing short-term to outsiders may result in “mining” of resource without proper controls
either through local authorities or courts
Need to deal with externalities ---> establish bodies that represent interests of all impacted
by action of private parties
State/public Weak management supervision Protect broader public interests Policies and approaches may be at expense of customary local interests and rights
capacity
Tendency to put the resource before the people--technocratic approach
Unclear lines division in authority
and responsibility among various Concessions for development more likely to be made over the heads and with little benefit
agencies involved to locals
Turnover and lack of incentives Scope for corruption

Mixed Interaction between locals and Potential for balancing private/public interests
authorities needs to be reoriented
with greater weight given to local
residents
Commune Personnel Address issues or coordinate actions across Risk of submerging village interests in commune-wide ones
management Budget/finance base wider area
Inability to monitor or control to same extent as lower-level entitites such as villages or
Formal administrative and legal status families
permitting links to regional/central levels
Rationalized staff/overhead expenses over

several villages
Village Cannot own land because not legal In line with tradition Domination by family or group (old-timers versus newcomers)
person
Management and control by entity with De-population to point where cannot manage
Capacity greatest interest
Resources More appropriate interventions
100
REFERENCES
1. AFP. 2002. Market and marketing analysis of Forest based-products. Development

Researches Network & ECO-Consult. REF. ALB-FP-C1/01
2. Anonymous. 1978. Documents of Byzantine time (Century VII-VIII). (in Albanian,
Dokumente te periudhes bizantine (shekulli VII-XV). Tirane.
3. Barnes, J.C. 1918. The future of Albanian state. The Geographical Journal. 52(1): 12-27.
4. Bosworth, R.J.B. 1975. The Albanian forest of Signor Giacomo Vismara: A case study of
Italian economic imperialism during the foreign ministry of Antonio Di San Giuliano.
The Historical Journal. 18(3): 571-586.
5. Burley, J. 2007. Quoted from: www.rainforestinfo.org.au/
6. CoM. 1995. “Preparation and Approval of the Nomination List of the Owners of
Construction Sites and Houses. Decision No. 432 of the Council of Ministers. 14 August
1995.
7. CoM. 1999. “Adopting the Strategy of Agricultural Development in Albania”. Decision of
the Council of Ministers of 1999.
8. CoM. 2000. “Approval of the National Strategy on Biodiversity Protection”. Decision
No. 532 of the Council of Ministers. 5 October 2000.
9. CoM. 2002a. “Functioning of the District Sections of Land Administration and Protection
and the Local Offices of Land Administration and Protection”. Decision No. 532 of 31
October 2002.
10. CoM. 2002b. “Functioning of the Districts”. Decision No. 532 of 31 October 2002.
11. CoM. 2002c. Progress Report for Implementation of the National Strategy on Social and
Economic Development. www.keshilleministrave.al.gov.
12. CoM. 2004. “Approval of the National Strategy on forest development and institutional
reform in forest and pasture sector in the Republic of Albania”. Decision No. 247 of 23
April 2004.
13. CoM. 2006. “Criteria on transfer and use of forest from the local government units”.
Decision No. 396 of 21 June 2006.
14. CoM. 2001. “Inventory of immovable state properties and transfer of properties to the
local government units”. Decision No. 500 of 14 August 2001.
101
15. de Waal, C. 2004. Post-socialist Property Rights and Wrongs in Albania: an Ethnography
of Agrarian Change. Conservation and Society. 24(1): 19-50.
16. de Balzac, H. 1900. The peasantry. Volume XX of the Works of Honore de Balzac (New
York: E. R. Dumont, 1900).
17. Durham, M. E. 1909. High Albania. London: Edward Arnold. Reprinted in 2000. Phoenix
Press. 384 p.
18. Durham, M. E. 1910. High Albania and its customs in 1908. The Journal of the Royal
Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 40:453-472.
19. European Union. 2004. Stabilization and Association Country Report: Albania,
http://europa.eu.int.
20. FAO. 1978. Forestry for local community development. Forestry Paper 7, FAO, Rome.
21. Fernow, B. E. 1913. A brief history of forestry in Europe, United States, and other
countries. University of Toronto Press. Toronto.
22. Frazer, J.G., Durham, M. E. 1912. Albania and Montenegrin Folklore. Folklore 23:224-
229.
23. Hall, D. R. 1999. Representations of Place: Albania. The Journal of Geography. 165:
161-172.
24. Hasluck, M. 1954. The Unwritten Law in Albania. Edited by J. H. Hutton. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
25. Haxhi, P. 1988. Juridical regime of Land in Albania (In Albanian: Rregjimi juridik i tokes
ne Shqiperi. Tirane.
26. Horowitz D. L. 1977. The courts and social policy. The Brookings Institute. Washington,
DC.
27. IFDC. 2004. An Economic Impact Assessment of USAID/IFDC Assistance to Albanian
Agricultural Trade Associations. www.dec.org.
28. IPM-CRSP. 2002. In-Depth Report on Activities 1993-2001. Report prepared for USAID.
http://www.dec.org.
29. Jungbluth, F., Lugg, D. 2002. Albania Rural Development Strategy. World Bank and
Albanian Ministry of Agriculture and Food. pp 5-8.
30. Kastrati, Q. 1955. Some Sources on the Unwritten Law in Albania. Man. 23: 124-127.
31. Law No. 7501. “For Land”. 19 July 1991.
102
32. Law No. 7623. “For Forests and Forest Police”. 13 October 1992
33. Law No. 7698. “For Restitution and Compensation of Properties to Former Owners
Lands”. 15 April 1993
34. Law No. 7917. “For Pastures and Meadows”.13 April 1995
35. Law No. 8047. “For the Administration of Agricultural Land that Citizens have Refused
in Ownership”.14 December 1995.
36. Law No. 8053. “For Transferring Ownership of Agricultural Land without
Compensation”. 21 December 1995.
37. Law No. 8093. “For water resources”. 21 March 1996
38. Law No. 8312. “On Undistributed Agricultural Lands”. 26 March 1998
39. Law No. 8337. “For the Transfer of Ownership of Agricultural, Pasture and Meadow
Lands”. 30 April 1998
40. Law No. 8652. “For the Organization and Functions of Local Government”. 31 July
2000.
41. Law No. 8743. “For State Immovable Property”. 22 February 2001.
42. Law No. 8744. “For the Transfer of State Immovable Property to Local Governments”.
22 February 2001.
43. Law No. 8752. “For Creation and Functioning of Agencies for Land Administration and
Protection”. 26 March 2001.
44. Law No. 8906. “For Protected Areas”. 6 June 2002.
45. Law No. 9235. “For Restitution and Compensation of Property”. 29 July 2004.
46. Lemel, H. 1998. Rural Land Privatization and Distribution in Albania: Evidence from the
Field. Europe-Asia Studies. 50(1): 121-140.
47. Lemel, H. 2005. Compilation of Reports, Findings and Proposals on Land Tenure and
Organizational Issues. Natural Resources Development Project of the World Bank.
48. Martel, F., Whyte, W.F.1992. Quoted from: www.rainforestinfo.org.au/
49. Marx, K. 1842. Debate on the Law on Theft of Wood”. Reprinted in Karl Marx and
Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Volume I (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975).
50. Meta. M. 1992. Forest and Forest Policy in Albania. Journal of Forestry. 91(6): 27-28.
51. Ministry of Finance. 2004. Priorities under the National Strategy for Social and Economic
Development 2004-2006, www.minfin.gov.al
103
52. Ministry of the Environment. 2002. Updated National Environmental Action Plan.
53. MOAF (Albanian Ministry of Agriculture and Food). 2002. Annual Report.
54. Naka, K., Hammett, A. L., Stuart. W.B. 2000. Constraints and opportunities to forest
policy implementation in Albania. Forest Policy and Economics. 1(2): 153-163
55. Nako, I., 1969. Phyto-climatic zones of Republic of Albania. Bulletin of Agricultural
Sciences. Insituti i Larte Shteteror i Bujqesise. Tirane. 2: 1-24 (in Albanian).
56. Pollo, S., Puto. A. 1981. The History of Albania: From Its Origins to the Present Day.
London: Routledge and Keegan Paul.
57. Rao, Y.G. 1991. Quoted from: www.rainforestinfo.org.au/
58. Rugg, D. S. 1994. Communist Legacies in the Albanian Landscape. Geographical
Review. 84(1): 59-73.
59. Scarascia-Mugnozza, G., Oswald, H., Piussi, P., Radoglou, K. 2000. Forests of the
Mediterranean region: gaps in knowledge and research needs. Forest Ecology and
Management 132: 97-109.
60. Schon, R., Galaty, M.L. 2006. Diachronic frontiers: landscape archaeology in highland
Albania. Journal of world-systems research. XII, 2: 231-262.
61. Sjoberg, O. 1989. The Agrarian Sector in Albania during the 1980s. In: “Studies in
International Economics and Geography (Research Report No. 4). Stockholm: The
Economic Research Unit, Stockholm School of Economics.
62. Skende, H. 1850. The Albanians. Journal of the Ethnological Society of London (1848-
1856) 2:159-181.
63. Thompson, E. P. 1720. Whigs and Hunters: The Origins of the Black Act.
(Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1975).
64. UNECE, 2000. Albania National Report for the Joint Efc Timber Committee. UN
Economic Council for Europe, www.unece.org
65. Urban Institute. 2003. Quarterly report on the Albania Decentralization Initiative project
of USAID. www.dec.org.
66. Wallace. J. 1998. A (Hi)story of Illyria. Greece & Rome. 2nd Ser. 45(2): 213-225.
67. Woods, C.H. 1918. Albania and the Albanians. Geographical Review. 5(4): 257-273.
68. World Bank. 2002. Rural development strategy.
104
69. World Bank. 2003. Albania Poverty Assessment. Human and Development Sector Unit,
Europe and Central Asia Region.
70. World Bank. 1996. Albanian Forestry Project: Staff Appraisal Report of the World Bank.
Report No. 15104-AL. 15 March 1996.
71. World Bank. 2004. Albania: Sustaining Growth beyond the Transition. Report No.
29257-AL. 27 December 2004. www-wds.worldbank.org
72. World Bank. 2004b. Albania: Decentralization in Transition. Report No. 27885-AL.
February 2004.
73. Zeneli, G., Musabelliu, B., Naka, K., Kola, H. 2007. Stakeholder perspectives on
Commercial Medicinal and Aromatic Plants collection in Albania: Issues and approaches.
In: Thangadurai, D. (ed.): “Advances in Medicinal and Aromatic Plant Research”.
Bioscience Publications, India (in press).
74. Zeneli, G., Kola, H., Dida, M. 2005. Phenotypic variation in native walnut populations of
Northern Albania. Scientia Horticulturea. 105(1): 91-100.
105
Appendix 1: For the creation of the Commission of Forests and Pastures of the Village”
(Template document)
REPUBLIC OF ALBANIA
LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT _______________
VILLAGE COUNCIL _________
DECISION
Nr._______ Date ___________
“For the creation of the Commission of Forests and Pastures of the Village”
Based on Law Nr.9385, date 4.05.2005 “Forests and Forest Services”, law nr 7916 date
13/04/1995 “For Meadows and Pastures” and Law nr. 7844, date 22.02.2001 “ For
transferring state public real estate to the local government units”, The decision of Councils
of Ministers no________dated 21.06.2006, On criteria for forest transfer in use/ownership of
commune, the Village Council _____________ in it’s meeting dated _____________
DECIDED:
1. To approve the results of open voting for establishing the management

commission of forests and pastures belonging to the village ________________.
2. The Commission is comprised as follows:
1. _________________________ Head of Commission

2. _________________________ Member
3. _________________________ Member
4. _________________________ Member
5. _________________________ Member
6. _________________________ Member
7. _________________________ Member
This decision enters in force immediately.
FOR THE VILLAGE COUNCIL
HEAD OF COUNCIL
(___________________________)
106
Appendix 2: “For establishing the commune’s commission for forests and pastures”
REPUBLIC OF ALBANIA
COMMUNE _______________
DECISION
No._______ Date ___________
“For establishing the commune’s commission for forests and pastures ”
Based on Law No.9385, date 4.05.2005 “For forests and Forest Service”, law no
7916 date 13/04/1995 “For Meadows and Pastures” as well as in Law no. 7844, date
22.02.2001 “For transferring state public real estate to the local government units”, The
decision of Councils of Ministers no________dated 21.06.2006, On criteria for forest transfer
in use/ownership of commune; the Commune Council _____________ in it’s meeting
dated __________
DECIDED:
1. To establish the commission of dividing the forests and pastures boundaries

between villages.
2 . The commission is comprised as follows::
1._________________________ Head of COMMISSION

2. _________________________ Member
3. _________________________ Member
4. _________________________ Member
5. _________________________ Member
6. _________________________ Member
7. _________________________ Member
For the Commune’s Council _____________
SECRETARY HEAD OF COUNCIL
_____________________ ______________________
107
Appendix 3: Approval of activities for transferring communal forests and pastures in use of
the village (Template document)
REPUBLIC OF ALBANIA
COMMUNE OF __________________
DECISION
NO._____ Date _________
“For the approval of the documents for transferring the forests and pastures in use of
the local unit ______________”
Based on Law No.9385, date 4.05.2005 “For forests and forest service”, Law No:
7916 date 13/04/1995 “For meadows and pastures”; Law No. 7844, date 22.02.2001 “For
transferring state public real estate to the local government units”, The Council of Local
Government Unit Blerimi, in its meeting date 15.06.2007, after taking into consideration the
documents regarding the transferring of communal forests and pastures in use to this
Commune:
DECIDED:
1. To approve the transferring of forests and pastures to the local unit government
according the list of the parcels attached to the decision.
2. To approve the boundaries of forests and pastures which are transferred in use of the
villages of the local unit, according to the process-verbal signed by the members of work
groups and the Forests and Pastures Commission of the villages, which are an inclusive
part of this decision. These boundaries have been included in the respective maps attached
to this decision.
3. To approve the usage of communal forests and pastures by the users of the villages
according to the documents presented by the Villages’ Forests and Pastures Commissions,
approved by the Councils of the villages and included in the users’ list (approved by head
of village council), which are attached tot his decision and are an inclusive part of it.
4. To approve the decision on certify user rights and regulation of use of forests and
pastures according to the list attached to this decision
FOR THE COUNCIL OF LGU _________
SECRETARY HEAD OF COUNCIL
108
Appendix 4: Certificate of user’s right (Template document)
DECISION
NO.________ Date____________
TO CERTIFY THE USER RIGHTS IN FORESTS AND PASTURES
The commission for forests and pastures of _________ village, took into consideration the
request presented by Mr. _________, and based on Law No.9385, date 4.05.2005 “For
forests and forest service”, Law No: 7916 date 13/04/1995 “For meadows and pastures”;
Law No. 7844, date 22.02.2001 “For transferring state public real estate to the local
government units”,
D E C I D E D:
To certify the user right of Mr. _________ as head of the family _________, forests and
pastures according to the following list:
Parcels and average area used by household:

Total
Name of head of Parcel Forest area in
area (ha)
No Village family number by use for each
used by
(user of forest) Cadastre parcel
family
4
Conditions for using the forest/pasture

In the forests and pastures gives in use the family represented by the above-mentioned
person, is allows carrying out the following activities:
1. Grazing
2. Collecting medicinal plans (describe species and the quantities required to be collected)
3. Fire wood production
Conditions to be fulfilled by user for sustainable use of forest:

1. Take over the guarding and maintenance of all forests and pastures in use.
2. Will not allow grazing of cattle when the forest height is less than 3m, of goats when
forest height is under 2m and sheep when forest height is less than 1.5m.
109
3. When prune for leaves, there should be a period of minimum 3 years from one pruning to
the next one. During the pruning, not more than 2/3 of branches in the lower part of the
tree can be taken away without damaging the top of the tree.
4. Time to time, will leave in the forest trees with holes to help forest wild animals breeding.
5. Will never do any clear-cuttings in the whole area, as well as stump extraction.
6. To safeguard forests form damages caused by neighborhood’s livestock, will fence parts
of forest given in use.
7. Will ask from co-villagers not to damage the forest in use by grazing, doing the same
thing himself.
8. In the eroded parts will try to remove the cause of erosion by using simple means like
fences, dry walls, stop water flowing etc.
Implementation of the Law

The user will implement the conditions set in the commune’s forests and pastures
management plan, as well as provisions of the forests, meadows and pastures, hunting law
etc, and all other legal acts coming to force after the period of taking the right of ownership.
VILLAGE’S FORESTS AND PASTURES COMMISSION
1. User _________________ Signature

2. Headman of the village _________________ Signature
3. Representative of District’s DFS _________________ Signature
110
Appendix 5. “For Settling the Boundaries of Forests and Pastures for the Village” (Template
document)”
PROCCES – VERBAL
“FOR SETTLING THE BOUNDARIES OF FORESTS AND PASTURES FOR THE

VILLAGE”
Based on Law No.9385, date 4.05.2005 “For forests and forest services”, Law No. 7916
date 13/04/1995 “For Meadows and Pastures” as well as on Law no. 7844, date
22.02.2001 “For transferring state public real estate to the local government units”,
today, date _____________, it is signed this process-verbal, in village_______________ for
settling the forest and pasture areas which are transferred in use to the local unit
_____________ village _____________
The boundaries between village ______________ local unit_____________ district
___________ have been defined by a working group comprised as follows:
________________representative of the cadastre office of the commune– Head of Group
__________________representative of DFS____________ - Member
_________________representative of local unit whore the transferring in done – member
__________________representative of the boundary – member
__________________ Head of the Council of village where the transferring is done–
member
__________________ Head of the Council of the boundary village – member
__________________ ____________________________________
__________________ ____________________________________
__________________ ____________________________________
The work group after visiting on the spot and in collaboration with the old people form
the boundary villages (neighborhoods) , discussed the boundary between two villages and
included it in the map of scale 1: ___________ of the nomenclature _____________ and
agreed on defining the boundaries between two villages as follows:
_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
For the villages’ boundaries was taken into consideration the decision of the
commission of the agriculture land distribution. These details of the boundary are included in
the attached map which is an inclusive part of this process-verbal.
As per the above, the members of the work group agreed, drafted, read out loud and
signed as per their free will this process-verbal.
WORK GROUP
Rep. Of the Cadastre Office of the LGU___________ Rep.DFS_____________

Rep. i LGU______ ____________________ ___Rep. LGU____ __________
Rep. Village_______ ____________________ Rep. Village.______ __________
111
Appendix 6: Sketch of a parcel division with the users’ names and signatures
112
Appendix 7: Population, Households structure, Agricultural land, and the Livestock structure
in the commune of Blerimi
Table 1. Population and agricultural land
No Village Number Permanent Females Males Working Arable Per family Per capita
of Residents forces land (ha) (ha) (ha)
families
1 Dardhe 106 658 312 346 390 139 1.3 0.2
2 Qebik 50 266 129 137 160 65 1.3 0.2
3 Truni 66 260 128 132 160 46 0.7 0.1
4 Sakat 30 184 78 106 100 113 3.7 0.6
5 Kulumri 40 125 72 53 70 13 0.3 0.1
6 Xath 105 431 221 210 250 45 0.4 0.1
7 Flet 136 448 293 175 260 61 0.4 0.1
Commune 533 2392 1233 1159 1390 482
Source : Blerimi Commune
Table 2. Agricultural land use
No Village Agriculture Main cultivated species (ha)

land (ha)
Wheat Maize Vegetables Fruit trees Fodder
1 Dardhe 139 63 4 13 17
2 Qebik 65 46 3 9 7
3 Truni 46 30 3 7 6
4 Sakat 113 21 2 5 14
5 Kulumri 13 4 1 2 3
6 Xath 45 25 3 4 9
7 Flet 61 35 3 6 12
Commune 482 191 224 19 46
Source : Blerimi Commune
Table 3. Agricultural products
Agricultural products (00 Kg) Income

No Village
Wheat Maize Potatoes Vegetables Fruits Fodder 000/leke
1 Dardhe 3600 60 120 230 450 13415000
2 Qebik 20 2400 30 150 150 200 8870000
3 Truni 1800 90 120 200 250 7300000
4 Sakat 1200 80 190 280 300 5745000
5 Kulumri 240 30 140 190 150 1873000
6 Xath 1300 70 100 250 450 6115000
7 Flet 1800 90 110 300 400 7835000
Commune 20 11260 450 840 1600 1840 51153000
113
Table 4. Livestock structure and production
Structure of livestock (Head) Production (00 Kg) Revenues

No Village
Sheep Goat Cows Perisodactyl Milk Meat 000/leke
1 Dardhe 110 160 212 10 45 30 1950000
2 Qebik 30 20 100 4 13 10 1800000
3 Truni 120 170 120 15 54 33 2190000
4 Sakat 50 40 60 10 22 10 720000
5 Kulumri 50 30 80 5 22 10 720000
6 Xath 100 190 210 10 45 35 2200000
7 Flet 90 100 260 10 50 30 2000000
Commune 550 710 1042 64 251 158 11580000
Table 5. Grazing and fodder needs
Fulfillment of needs for grazing and fodder from: (in %)

Nr Village Communal Communal
Agricultural land State forest State pastures
forest pasture
1 Dardhe 42 40 - 18 -
2 Qebik 39 40 - 21 -
3 Truni 35 42 - 13 -
4 Sakat 65 35 - - -
5 Kulumri 41 40 - 19 -
6 Xath 40 50 - 10 -
7 Flet 36 50 - 14 -
Commune
114
in the commune of Stebleva
No Village Number of Permanent Arable land Per family Per capita (ha)
families Residents (ha) (ha)
1. Stebleve 62 199 100 1.3 0.48
2. Borove 37 146 62 1.7 0.34
3. Llange 78 394 53 0.5 0.13
4. Zabzun 48 263 51 1.1 0.16
5, Sebisht 72 273 48 0.5 0.17
6. Moglice 22 93 36 1.4 0.30
7. Prodan 6 35 21 3.3 0.53
Commune 325 1408 405 1.3 0.24
Source : Stebeleva Commune
Products (Kv)
No Village
Beans Cereals Potatoes Vegetables Milk Meat
1 Stebleve 30 150 900 80 465 90
2 Borove 40 100 450 60 1010 170
3 Zabzun 20 100 350 60 995 210
4 Llange 20 80 300 70 935 150
5 Sebisht 30 80 150 80 1230 210
6 Moglice 20 0 100 20 200 50
7 Prodan 10 0 50 5 85 20
Commune 180 510 2300 395 4920 900
115
Table 3. Livestock structure and grazing and fodder needs
Structure of livestock (Head) Fulfillment of needs for grazing and

fodder from: (in %)
pastureCommunal
forestCommunal
State pasture
Perisodactyl
State forest
No Village
Sheep
Cows
Goat
Commune
Table 4. Possible uses of abandoned land
No Village Abandoned Proposed by the users (ha)

land (ha) Arable Fodder/Forage Fruit Reforestation Remain
land orchards the same
1 Stebleve 333 - 300 - 33 -
2 Borove 58 - 50 - 8 -
3 Zabzun 130 - 100 - 30 -
4 Llange 158 - 128 - 30 -
5 Sebisht 73 - 60 - 13 -
6 Moglice 27 - 20 - 7 -
7 Prodan 34 - 20 - 14 -
Commune 813 - 677 - 136 -
116
in the commune of Bazi
No Village Permanen Females Males Working Arable land Per family Per capita
t forces (ha) (ha) (ha)
Residents
1 Baz 922 472 450 599 92 0.50 0.10
2 Karic 854 426 428 555 117 0.69 0.14
3 Rrethe baz 800 417 383 520 95 0.59 0.12
4 Drita 386 195 191 251 62 0.80 0.16
5 Bashkim 220 120 100 143 25 0.57 0.11
6 Fush Baz 154 74 80 100 21 0.68 0.14
Commune 3336 1704 1632 2168 412 0.64 0.12
Source: Bazi Commune
Table 2. Agricultural land use
No Village Agriculture Main cultivated species (ha)

land (ha)
Wheat Maize Fodder Fruit trees Others
1 Baz 151 10 22 6 0 113
2 Karic 64 11 17 19 0 17
3 Rrethe baz 279 14 40 10 1 214
4 Drita 219 8 23 17 3 168
5 Bashkim 180 6 8 3 0 163
6 Fush Baz 201 2 2 0 10 187
Commune 1094 51 112 55 14 862
Source : Bazi Commune

No Village
Wheat Maize Vegetables Fruits Fodder Others 000/leke
1 Baz 300 300 70 200 100 80 2920
2 Karic 300 350 30 150 50 70 2605
3 Rrethe baz 250 350 50 150 80 80 2610
4 Drita 150 200 10 100 30 50 1475
5 Bashkim 100 150 50 80 70 80 1380
6 Fush Baz 50 100 50 40 80 50 970
Commune 1150 1450 260 720 410 410 11960
117

No Village
1 Baz 380 140 182 35 560 80 4480
2 Karic 90 110 30 10 150 10 800
3 Rrethe baz 40 80 25 8 120 8 640
4 Drita 150 200 170 50 510 22 2300
5 Bashkim 160 300 200 70 650 120 6150
6 Fush Baz 250 350 210 80 780 200 9340
Commune 1070 1180 817 253 2770 440 23 710
Table 5. Grazing and fodder needs
Fulfillment of needs for grazing and fodder from: (in %)

Nr Village Communal Communal
Agricultural land State forest State pastures
forest pasture
1 Baz 40 40 0 10 10
2 Karic 40 40 0 10 10
3 Rrethe baz 45 45 0 5 5
4 Drita 35 45 0 10 10
5 Bashkim 35 20 0 30 15
6 Fush Baz 35 20 0 30 15
Commune
118
Appendix 10: Population, Households structure, Agricultural land, and the Livestock
structure in the commune of Gore
No Village Permanen Females Males Working Arable land Per family Per capita
t forces (ha) (ha) (ha)
Residents
1 Babien 33 18 15 7 123 8,79 0.268
2 Desmirë 172 79 93 41 154 4,16 1.117
3 Dolan 142 75 67 33 61 1,85 2.328
4 Dolanëc 28 14 14 8 41 5,86 0.683
5 Gribec 53 28 25 11 44 3,38 1.205
6 Lozhan 299 145 154 78 86 0,92 3.477
7 Marjan 43 23 20 10 124 8,86 0.347
8 Mesmal 325 155 170 95 65 0,79 5.000
9 Moçan 132 59 73 31 66 1,69 2.000
10 Qenckë 86 33 53 29 29 1,12 2.966
11 Selcë 36 27 9 3 64 4,92 0.563
12 Senisht 147 71 76 28 39 0,98 3.769
13 Strelcë 464 242 222 102 114 1,01 4.070
14 Tresovë 154 79 75 30 51 1,42 3.020
15 Velçan 189 96 93 45 77 1,64 2.455
16 Zvarisht 203 98 105 54 50 0,96 4.060
Commune 2506 1242 1264 605 1188 3.02 0.43
Source: Gore Commune
Table 2. Agricultural land use and incomes from agricultural products

No Village
Wheat Maize Potatios Vegetables Fruits Others 000/leke
1 Babien - 10 10 5 80 - 325
2 Desmirë 150 70 35 20 200 - 1295
3 Dolan - 150 40 60 200 - 1375
4 Dolanëc 30 15 4 3 50 - 275
5 Gribec - 10 6 5 60 - 249
6 Lozhan - 300 90 70 400 - 2590
7 Marjan - 12 10 10 60 - 290
8 Mesmal - 300 60 120 350 - 2088
9 Moçan 50 30 15 12 150 - 733
10 Qenckë 200 30 15 12 150 - 1033
11 Selcë - 50 30 5 100 - 565
12 Senisht 60 50 30 20 200 - 925
13 Strelcë 30 350 80 90 450 - 2965
14 Tresovë 50 70 20 30 100 - 775
15 Velçan - 80 40 30 150 - 822
16 Zvarisht 30 350 60 90 350 - 2585
Commune 600 1877 545 582 3050 - 18890
Source : Gore Commune
119

No Village
1 Babien 240 70 7 11 21 45 2100
2 Desmirë 270 290 38 35 70 130 3444
3 Dolan 130 50 28 20 38 53 1636
4 Dolanëc 30 17 9 5 12 19 580
5 Gribec 260 0 4 4 14 45 1316
6 Lozhan 320 70 67 60 95 123 3824
7 Marjan 180 - 8 8 15 27 816
8 Mesmal 400 90 90 75 115 125 3960
9 Moçan 170 - 15 16 24 40 1216
10 Qenckë 110 130 15 15 30 50 1520
11 Selcë 240 - 35 10 45 47 1496
12 Senisht 190 60 16 17 30 37 1156
13 Strelcë 800 200 130 90 176 250 7470
14 Tresovë 40 26 20 28 34 1064
15 Velçan 600 90 38 32 67 105 3208
16 Zvarisht 260 240 55 32 40 120 3520
Commune 4240 1307 599 465 840 1270 38326
Table 4. Firewood needs
Firewood needs (m3) Collected from (m3)

Number of
No Village Per family Total Communal
families
forest State forest
1 Babien 14 7 98 98 0
2 Desmirë 37 7 259 150 90
3 Dolan 33 7 231 231 0
4 Dolanëc 7 7 49 49 0
5 Gribec 13 7 91 91 0
6 Lozhan 93 7 651 651 0
7 Marjan 14 7 98 98 0
8 Mesmal 82 7 574 174 400
9 Moçan 26 7 182 182 0
10 Qenckë 13 7 91 91 0
11 Selcë 40 7 280 280 0
12 Senisht 113 7 791 280 511
13 Strelcë 36 7 252 252 0
14 Tresovë 47 7 329 129 300
15 Velçan 52 7 364 150 214
16 Zvarisht 39 7 273 273 0
Commune 659 112 4613 3179 1515
120
Appendix 11: Order of MOEFWA on the Action Plan
Republic of Albania
Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration
The Minister
Prot. No. 389/1
Tirana, October 29, 2007
Approved by
Minister
Lufter Xhuveli
Action- Plan for the Implementation of the Strategy for the Sustainable
Transfer and Management of Forests and Pastures in use/ownership of
communes
This action plan is developed in support of the strategy of the GOA and in line
with the instruction of the Prime Minister for the acceleration of the pace in the
transfer of forestry and pastures to the Local Government Units (LGUs). The
objective of the action plan is also to achieve the suggestions of the WB to this
end. The main objectives for the transfer of forests and pastures to the LGUs as
follows:
• Expanding and accelerating the government’s agenda for giving in

use/ownership of forests and pastures of the communes in order to
achieve the goal for the transfer of communal forests and pastures within
the first half of 2008 to all the communes of the country;
• In line with the pieces of legislation on forests, pastures, hunting and

medicinal plants, the objective would be to prepare by-laws for utilization
of communal forests and pastures by the communes;
• To introduce a system, and then further strengthen and simplify the

process for the transfer of forests and pastures from the state to the
communes;
121
• To re-design the Extension Service and put it under the Ministry of

Environment, Forestry and Water Administration in order to guide the
role of the foresters in the management and protection of the forests;
• To encourage the LGUs in establishing the local structures (land

management offices) and putting in place the staff for the management of
communal forests and pastures.
The Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration (MOEFWA)

and the District Forestry Service (DFS), in cooperation with the Agency for
Environment and Forestry (AEF), as well as the Natural Resources
Development Project (NRDP), according to the timeframe which is integral part
of the attached plan, will work closely with the commune administrations and
the Communal Forestry and Pastures User Associations in order to clearly
define the forest and pasture lots that will be transferred to the LGUs.
A joint working group of the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water

Administration and of the National Agency for the Transfer of Immovable
Properties will coordinate the agenda for program implementation envisaged in
the said action plan.
The forestry service of Albania will now play the role of the extension service,
namely to provide counseling to the LGUs for a fast and better coordinated
transfer of forests and pastures. In order to promote and better organize this
extension service, a working group will be established chaired by the Deputy
Minister of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration. The working
group will draft the recommendations and the work program to this end.
For personnel training in terms of extension services at the LGU level, there will
be a process for the identification of the said personnel, an assessment of the
training needs, and a training program will be prepared and implemented
supported by the NRDP.
122
Appendix 12: Letter of the Prime Minister
123
Appendix 13. List of users and the parcels used in the commune of Blerimi
Village DARDHE
Forest area in Total area

Name of head of Parcel
No Village use for each used by
family (user of forest) number
parcel (ha) family (ha)
Dardhë 96/a 1.80

Dardhë 119 0.70
1 Dardhë Nik Lulash Prendi 124 0.80 6.9
Dardhë 128 2.60
Dardhë 149 1.00
Dardhë 96/a 1.70
2 Dardhë Jak Ndue Nika 158 3.00 2.8
Dardhë 142 0.80
Dardhë 96/a 1.70
3 Dardhë Mëhill Prend Jaku 124 0.80 3.5
Dardhë 149 1.00
Dardhë 96/a 1.60
Dardhë 127 2.60
Dardhë 128 2.40
Dardhë 129 5.00
4 Dardhë Kolë Gjon Kurti 131 1.00 24.6
Dardhë 132 3.00
Dardhë 133 4.00
Dardhë 134 2.00
Dardhë 135 3.00
Dardhë 96/a 1.60
Dardhë 128 2.60
5 Fran Ndoc Nika 10.2
Dardhë 129 5.00
Dardhë 131 1.00
Dardhë 96/a 1.20
6 Zef Gjon Kola 3.8
Dardhë 128 2.60
Dardhë 96/a 1.30
7 Mark Pjetër Ndoci 3.8
Dardhë 128 2.50
Dardhë 138 3.00
Dardhë 141 3.00
Dardhë 142 0.80
8 Pashk Gjon Mehmeti 18.5
Dardhë 143 1.10
Dardhë 148 9.60
Dardhë 149 1.00
9 Dardhë Dedë Pjetër Marku 141 3.00 3
Dardhë 141 3.00
10 Astrit Fran Prendi 4.1
Dardhë 143 1.10
11 Dardhë Gjin Mark Deda 143 1.10 1.1
124

Dardhë 131 1.00

12 Mark Ukshim Pjetra 4
Dardhë 132 3.00
Dardhë 134 2.00
13 Dardhë Nikoll Zef Meta 142 0.80 3.9
Dardhë 143 1.10
14 Dardhë Filip Llesh Nika 134 2.00 2
Dardhë 125 2.00
15 Ilir Dod Markiqi 2.8
Dardhë 142 0.80
Dardhë 126 3.00
16 Prend Nikoll Marashi 5.8
Dardhë 127 2.80
Dardhë 128 2.60
17 Ilir Pal Marashi 5.6
Dardhë 132 3.00
18 Dardhë Nikoll Llesh Nika 128 1.60 1.6
Dardhë 128 2.60
Dardhë 133 4.00
19 Qerim Pjetër Ndoci 13.6
Dardhë 134 2.00
Dardhë 135 5.00
Dardhë 130 5.00
Prendush Pjetër
20 Dardhë 131 1.00 10
Ndreu
Dardhë 133 4.00
Dardhë 131 1.00
21 Dardhë Pal Jak Gjergji 132 3.00 8
Dardhë 133 4.00
22 Dardhë Nikoll Jak Marku 136 1.00 1
Dardhë 122 1.00
Dardhë 142 0.80
23 Zek Mark Syla 3.8
Dardhë 143 1.10
Dardhë 149 0.90
24 Dardhë Nik Çun Gjergji 122 1.10 1.1
25 Dardhë Ndoc Kol Syla 122 0.80 0.8
Dardhë 122 0.90
26 Mark Gjon Matoshi 1.5
Dardhë 123 0.60
27 Dardhë Filip Ndue Uka 122 0.70 0.7
Dardhë 122 0.70 1.5
28 Ded Ndue Deda
Dardhë 142 0.80
29 Dardhë Pashk Lulash Uka 124 0.80 0.8
Dardhë 124 0.70
30 Dardhë Ded Ndue Nika 125 2.00 5.7
Dardhë 126 3.00
31 Dardhë Pjetër Mark Nika 125 0.30 0.3
32 Dardhë Kol Frrok Dema 127 2.00 2
33 Dardhë Ded Pjetër Dema 121 2.00 2
34 Dardhë Fran Zef Dema 121 2.00 2
125

35 Dardhë Mëhill Nikoll Matoshi 121 2.00 2

Dardhë 122 5.00
Dardhë 123 0.60
36 Dardhë Pjetër Ndue Syla 142 0.80 8.5
Dardhë 143 1.10
Dardhë 149 1.00
Dardhë 122 1.00
Dardhë 123 0.60
37 Mëhill Ded Syla 3.6
Dardhë 143 1.10
Dardhë 149 0.90
Dardhë 122 1.00
38 Dardhë Pal Gjok Syla 142 0.80 2.7
Dardhë 149 0.90
39 Dardhë Mëhill Pjetër Gjeta 116 2.00 2
40 Dardhë Filip Zef Meta 119 0.60 0.6
41 Dardhë Jak Mash Marku 119 0.50 0.5
42 Dardhë Jak Ndue Gjoni 119 0.50 0.5
Dardhë 119 0.50
43 Dardhë Fran Zef Alia 122 1.00 2.4
Dardhë 149 0.90
44 Dardhë Prend Jak Gjoni 112 5.00 5
Dardhë 112 5.00
45 Lulash Nik Ceca 6
Dardhë 122 1.00
Dardhë 112 5.00
46 Marash Ndue Marjini 7
Dardhë 116 2.00
47 Dardhë Nikoll Prend Zeqa 112 5.00 5
Dardhë 116 2.00
48 Dile Ndue Mark Gjoni 2.5
Dardhë 119 0.50
Dardhë 110 4.00
49 Gjok Pjetër Nika 7
Dardhë 111 3.00
Dardhë 110 4.00
Dardhë 111 3.00
50 Ndue Frrok Marku 15
Dardhë 112 5.00
Dardhë 115 3.00
Dardhë 110 4.00
51 Pal Pjetër Uka 7
Dardhë 111 3.00
Dardhë 110 4.00
52 Stak Pjetër Nika 7
Dardhë 111 3.00
53 Dardhë Ndue Marash Zefi 110 4.00 15
Dardhë 111 3.00
Dardhë 112 5.00
Dardhë 122 0.70
Dardhë 123 0.60
126

Dardhë 142 0.80

Dardhë 149 0.9
Dardhë 110 4.00
Dardhë 111 3.00
54 Gjin Gjon Kadria 20
Dardhë 112 5.00
Dardhë 113 8.00
Dardhë 110 4.00
55 Pjetër Mëhill Gjoni 7
Dardhë 111 3.00
Dardhë 110 4.00
Dardhë 111 3.00
Dardhë 111 3.00
56 Pal Ndue Zogu 18.4
Dardhë 112 2.70
Dardhë 112 2.70
Dardhë 115 3.00
Dardhë 110 4.00
57 Dardhë Lush Martin Gjoni 11 2.80 9.7
Dardhë 111 2.90
Dardhë 99 6.00
58 Dardhë Mark Frrok Abazi 100 4.00 14
Dardhë 117 4.00
Dardhë 97 5.00
Dardhë 100 4.00
59 Dardhë Nik Prend Doda 119 0.50 12.5
Dardhë 121 2.00
Dardhë 122 1.00
Dardhë 97 4.80
60 Mëhill Nikoll Ndoci 6.8
Dardhë 98 2.00
Dardhë 97/a 4.70
61 Gjok Marash Doda 6.8
Dardhë 98 2.10
Dardhë 97 5.00
Dardhë 121 2.00
62 Mark Ndue Dema 8.6
Dardhë 123 0.60
Dardhë 124 1.00
Dardhë 97 5.00
Dardhë 128 2.00
Dardhë 129 5.00
63 Ndue Pal Nika 18
Dardhë 131 1.00
Dardhë 132 3.00
Dardhë 134 2.00
Dardhë 96/a 1.80
64 Dionis Mark Gjeta 5.8
Dardhë 118 4.00
Dardhë 96/a 1.80
65 Dardhë Ndue Gjon Kola 131 1.00 5.8
Dardhë 132 3.00
127

66 Dardhë Prend Nikoll Marashi 96/a 1.80 1.8

Dardhë 99 6.00
67 Gjon Syl Delia 10
Dardhë 100 4.00
Dardhë 99 6.00
68 Lazer Pal Nika 10
Dardhë 100 4.00
Dardhë 99 6.00
69 Zef Kol Syla 7
Dardhë 122 1.00
Dardhë 100 4.00
70 Dardhë Pjetër Mark Mëhilli 110 4.00 13
Dardhë 120 5.00
71 Dardhë Pal Mark Mehilli 100 4.00 4
Dardhë 100 3.80
Dardhë 112 5.00
72 Dardhë Jak Pjetër Nika 116 1.60 18.4
Dardhë 117 4.00
Dardhë 118 4.00
Dardhë 100 4.00
73 Palush Pjetër Gjini 8
Dardhë 118 4.00
Dardhë 98 2.00
Dardhë 119 0.50
74 Lush Prel Dema 5.1
Dardhë 121 2.00
Dardhë 123 0.60
75 Dardhë Ded Pjetër Dema 98 1.90 1.9
Dardhë 98 1.80
76 Marash Ukshin Nika 7.8
Dardhë 99 6.00
Dardhë 98 1.70
Dardhë 128 2.00
77 Dardhë Kol Ded Pjetra 129 5.00 15.5
Dardhë 130 4.80
Dardhë 134 2.00
Dardhë 96/a 1.80
Dardhë 97 5.00
Dardhë 98 1.90
Dardhë 120 4.70
78 Dardhë Palush Jak Marku 122 1.00 25.3
Dardhë 125 2.00
Dardhë 126 2.90
Dardhë 127 3.00
Dardhë 137 3.00
79 Dardhë Kol Bejte Syla 96/a 1.80 1.8
Dardhë 128 2.00
79 Kol Bejte Syla 7
Dardhë 129 5.00
80 Dardhë Ndoc Mark Prendi 96/a 1.80 1.8
81 Dardhë Kol Gjok Marku 96/a 1.80 18.5
128

Dardhë 97 4.60
Dardhë 120 4.10
Dardhë 126 3.00
Dardhë 127 3.00
Dardhë 136 2.00
Dardhë 96/a 1.80
Dardhë 98 2.00
Dardhë 99 5.40
82 Zef Nik Marashi 19.2
Dardhë 128 2.00
Dardhë 129 5.00
Dardhë 135 3.00
Dardhë 96/a 1.70
83 Dardhë Ndue Kol Deda 126 3.00 7.5
Dardhë 127 2.80
Dardhë 96/a 1.70
Dardhë 100 4.00
Dardhë 110 4.00
Dardhë 111 3.00
Dardhë 112 5.00
84 Anton Frang Pjetra 32.5
Dardhë 114 6.00
Dardhë 115 3.00
Dardhë 116 1.80
Dardhë 117 3.00
Dardhë 122 1.00
∑ = 611,6
129
Village QEBIK
Forest area
Name of head of Total area
Parcel in use for
No Village family (user of used by
number each parcel
forest) family (ha)
(ha)
Qebik 135 4.00

Qebik 158 3.00
1 Qebik Pjetër Kol Ndreca 145 2.00 12
Qebik 146 2.00
Qebik 144 1.00
Qebik 135 4.00
Qebik 137 4.60
2 Arben Ndoc Kola 12.8
Qebik 158 3.00
Qebik 139 1.20
Qebik 147 1.20
Qebik 135 3.80
Qebik 140 0.80
3 Nikoll Zef Meta 10.2
Qebik 139 1.20
Qebik 147 1.20
Qebik 148 2.00
4 Qebik Fran Mëhill Prendi 136 3.00 3
5 Qebik Gjok Ded Kola 134 5.00 5
Qebik 134 5.00
6 David Prek Kola 9
Qebik 135 4.00
Qebik 134 5.00
Qebik 135 4.00
Qebik 136 3.00
7 Nik Mark Marashi 20.8
Qebik 137 4.60
Qebik 138 3.00
Qebik 139 1.20
Qebik 144 1.00
7 Qebik Nik Mark Marashi 145 2.00 5
Qebik 146 2.00
Qebik 139 1.20
Qebik Shtjefën Gjergj 146 2.00
8 7.4
Qebik Marku 147 1.20
Qebik 1 4.00
Qebik 147 1.20
9 Qebik Shan Zef Tahiri 148 2.00 7.1
Qebik 1 3.90
Qebik 135 4.00
Qebik 136 3.00
10 Qebik Pashk Kol Palushi 148 2.00 13.7
Qebik 149 0.90
Qebik 1 3.80
130
Qebik 139 1.20

11 Qebik Mark Lec Gjoni 1 4.00 7.2
Qebik 148 2.00
Qebik 139 1.20
12 Qebik Pal Jak Marashi 1 4.00 7.2
Qebik 148 2.00
Qebik 136 3.00
Qebik 145 2.00
13 Pjetër Marash Doda 11.6
Qebik 146 2.00
Qebik 137 4.60
Qebik 137 4.60
14 Nikoll Mark Zefi 7.6
Qebik 138 3.00
Qebik 138 3.00
15 Qebik Gjin Ded Prendi 145 2.00 7
Qebik 146 2.00
Qebik 138 3.00
16 Gjin Mark Doda 3.6
Qebik 140 0.60
Qebik 138 3.00
17 Pal Markiqi
Qebik 140 0.60
Qebik 139 1.20
Qebik 140 0.60
Qebik 144 1.00
18 Palush Bib Gjeka 8
Qebik 146 2.00
Qebik 147 1.20
Qebik 148 2.00
Qebik 140 0.70
Qebik Mëhill Ndue 144 1.00
19 3.9
Qebik Maxhuni 147 1.20
Qebik 148 2.00
20 Qebik Astrit Frang Prendi 140 0.70 0.7
Qebik 140 0.90
Qebik 144 1.00
21 Prend Dod Gega 5.1
Qebik 147 1.20
Qebik 148 2.00
Qebik Gjovalin Pjetër 145 2.00
22 3.2
Qebik Marku 147 1.20
23 Qebik Zef Prend doda 147 1.20 1.2
24 Qebik Marash Dod Prendi 147 1.20 1.2
25 Qebik Sokol Prend Uka 147 1.10 1.1
sum of village 174.6
Average of
family 6.984
131
Village TRUNI
List of parcels used collectively by Truni Village
Name of site No of parcel North South East West Area (ha)

Shurthi 2a Liqeni kurriz kurriz Liqeni 17.10
" 3a Liqeni kurriz Prroskë kurriz 34.50
" 4b Liqeni kurriz kurriz Prroskë 60.10
" 5a kurriz kurriz kurriz Prroskë 39.00
Kodër Dëllinja 6a kurriz kurriz Prroskë kurriz 34.30
Verashta Trunit 7b kurriz kurriz Prroskë kurriz 39.60
Shurthi 8b kurriz kurriz kurriz Prroskë 31.90
Truni 9b Prroskë kurriz kurriz kurriz 38.70
" 10a Prroskë kurriz kurriz kurriz 24.90
" 11b kurriz kurriz Prroskë kurriz 46.30
" 12b kurriz Prroskë Prroskë kurriz 32.50
" 13a kurriz kurriz Prroskë Rrugë 27.80
" 14a Prroskë Rrugë kurriz kurriz 42.10
" 15a kurriz kurriz Prroskë Rrugë 25.90
" 16a kurriz Prroskë Prroskë Rrugë 27.20
Lumi Trunit 17a Prroskë Rrugë kurriz Prroskë 27.80
" 18a Prroskë Rrugë kurriz kurriz 21.60
Kodër Sakati 1 kurriz Prroskë kurriz Rrugë 26.80
Truni 2a kurriz kurriz kurriz kurriz 14.60
Kisha Trunit 3a kurriz kurriz kurriz kurriz 21.40
Truni 4a Prroskë kurriz kurriz kurriz 12.00
" 5a kurriz Prroskë kurriz kurriz 27.00
Truni Poshtë 8a kurriz Prroskë Prroskë kurriz 21.40
" 9a kurriz kurriz Prroskë kurriz 16.70
" 10b kurriz kurriz kurriz kurriz 18.30
" 11b kurriz Prroskë kurriz Prroskë 14.50
" 12a Prroskë kurriz Prroskë kurriz 15.90
" 14b kurriz Prroskë Liqeni kurriz 7.00
" 15a Prroskë kurriz kurriz Prroskë 17.40
" 20a Prroskë kurriz kurriz Prroskë 24.80
Prroi Brakës 29b kurriz Prroskë Prroskë kurriz 10.75
132
" 32a liqeni kurriz Liqeni kurriz 20.00

Truni 33b liqeni kurriz kurriz Prroskë 21.50
Prroi Brakës 34a kurriz kurriz kurriz Prroskë 24.50
" 35a kurriz T.bujqës kurriz Prroskë 31.00
" 36a kurriz T.bujqës kurriz Prroskë 18.25
" 38b kurriz liqeni kurriz kurriz 12.00
" 39a kurriz liqeni kurriz kurriz 17.00
" 40a liqeni kurriz kurriz kurriz 21.00
" 41a liqeni kurriz kurriz kurriz 12.00
" 43a kurriz liqeni Liqeni kurriz 10.00
Total of area hectare 1256.00
133
Village SAKAT
Forest area
Parcel in use for
No Village family (user of used by family
number each parcel
forest) (ha)
(ha)
Sakat 22 6.00
Sakat 23 5.00
Sakat 26 2.00
Sakat 27 10.00
Sakat 28 7.00
Sakat 63 4.00
Sakat 44 1.00
Sakat 37 7.00
Sakat 45 1.20
Sakat 46 0.80
1 Sakat Bajram dervishi 47 0.60 62.4
Sakat 48 1.80
Sakat 49 1.20
Sakat 50 1.20
Sakat 51 1.20
Sakat 52 2.00
Sakat 53 1.20
Sakat 54 2.00
Sakat 55 2.00
Sakat 57 4.00
Sakat 59 1.20
Sakat 22 6.00
Sakat 23 5.00
Sakat 27 10.00
Sakat 44 1.00
Sakat 45 1.20
Sakat 46 0.80
Sakat 47 0.60
Sakat 48 1.80
2 Azem dervishi 38.4
Sakat 49 1.20
Sakat 50 1.20
Sakat 51 1.20
Sakat 52 2.00
Sakat 53 1.20
Sakat 54 2.00
Sakat 55 2.00
Sakat 59 1.20
Sakat 22 6.00
3 Qamil Dervishi 13.6
Sakat 23 5.00
134
Sakat 45 1.20
Sakat 46 0.80
Sakat 47 0.60
Sakat 48 1.80
Sakat 49 1.20
Sakat 50 1.20
Sakat 51 1.20
...continue
3 Sakat 52 2.00 13.8
Qamil Dervishi
Sakat 53 1.20
Sakat 54 2.00
Sakat 55 2.00
Sakat 59 1.20
Sakat 22 6.00
Sakat 23 5.00
Sakat 45 1.20
Sakat 46 0.80
Sakat 47 0.60
Sakat 48 1.80
Sakat 49 1.20
4 Tahir Dervishi 27.4
Sakat 50 1.20
Sakat 51 1.20
Sakat 52 2.00
Sakat 53 1.20
Sakat 54 2.00
Sakat 55 2.00
Sakat 59 1.20
Sakat 24 4.00
Sakat 25 4.00
Sakat 45 2.00
Sakat 46 0.80
Sakat 47 0.60
Sakat 48 1.80
Sakat 49 1.20
5 Rexhep Myftari 25.2
Sakat 50 1.20
Sakat 51 1.20
Sakat 52 2.00
Sakat 53 1.20
Sakat 54 2.00
Sakat 55 2.00
Sakat 59 1.2
6 Sakat Sadik Hasani 24 4.00 54.2
Sakat 25 4.00
Sakat 26 2.00
Sakat 27 10.00
Sakat 28 7.00
Sakat 37 7.00
Sakat 63 4.00
Sakat 44 1.00
Sakat 45 1.20
Sakat 46 0.80
135
Sakat 47 0.60
Sakat 48 1.80
Sakat 49 1.20
Sakat 50 1.20
Sakat 51 1.20
Sakat 52 2.00
Sakat 53 1.20
Sakat 54 2.00
Sakat 55 2.00
6 Sakat ...Sadik Hasani 59 1.20 1.2
Sakat 24 4.00
Sakat 25 4.00
Sakat 45 1.00
Sakat 46 1.20
Sakat 47 0.60
Sakat 48 0.80
Sakat 49 1.20
7 Avni Myftari 23.6
Sakat 50 1.20
Sakat 51 1.20
Sakat 52 2.00
Sakat 53 1.20
Sakat 54 2.00
Sakat 55 2.00
Sakat 59 1.20
Sakat 24 4.00
Sakat 25 4.00
Sakat 45 1.00
Sakat 46 1.20
Sakat 47 0.80
Sakat 48 0.60
8 Sakat Vehbi Hasani 49 1.80 22.2
Sakat 50 1.20
Sakat 51 1.20
Sakat 53 1.20
Sakat 54 2.00
Sakat 55 2.00
Sakat 59 1.20
Sakat 24 4.00
9 Riza Hasani 8
Sakat 25 4.00
10 Sakat Sulejman Sula 26 2.00 43.4
Sakat 37 7.00
Sakat 63 4.00
Sakat 44 1.00
Sakat 45 1.20
Sakat 46 0.80
Sakat 47 0.60
Sakat 48 1.80
Sakat 49 1.20
Sakat 50 1.20
Sakat 51 1.20
136
Sakat 52 2.00
Sakat 53 1.20
Sakat 54 2.00
Sakat 55 2.00
Sakat 56 6.00
Sakat 58 7.00
Sakat 59 1.20
Sakat 26 2.00
Sakat 63 4.00
Sakat 44 1.00
Sakat 45 1.20
11 Ram hasani 12.6
Sakat 46 0.80
Sakat 47 0.60
Sakat 48 1.80
Sakat 49 1.20
Sakat 50 1.20
Sakat 51 1.20
Sakat 52 2.00
Sakat ...continue 53 1.20
11 16.8
Sakat Ram Hasani 54 2.00
Sakat 55 2.00
Sakat 56 6.00
Sakat 59 1.20
Sakat 44 1.00
Sakat 45 1.20
Sakat 46 0.80
Sakat 47 0.60
Sakat 48 1.80
Sakat 49 1.20
12 Sakat Sali Mami 50 1.20 16.6
Sakat 51 1.20
Sakat 52 2.00
Sakat 53 1.20
Sakat 54 2.00
Sakat 55 1.20
Sakat 59 1.20
13 Sakat Isa Halili 28 7.00 7
14 Sakat Ram Rexha 37 7.00 7
15 Sakat Rexhep Smali 44 1.00 1
16 Sakat Sadri Mehmeti 44 1.00 17.4
Sakat 45 1.20
Sakat 46 0.80
Sakat 47 0.60
Sakat 48 1.80
Sakat 49 1.20
Sakat 50 1.20
Sakat 51 1.20
Sakat 52 2.00
Sakat 53 1.20
Sakat 54 2.00
137
Sakat 55 2.00
Sakat 59 1.20
Sakat 44 1.20
Sakat 45 1.00
Sakat 46 0.80
Sakat 47 0.60
Sakat 48 1.80
Sakat 49 1.20
17 Sakat Shpëtim Mehmeti 50 1.20 17.4
Sakat 51 1.20
Sakat 52 2.00
Sakat 53 1.20
Sakat 54 2.00
Sakat 55 2.00
Sakat 59 1.20
18 Sakat Hajredin Shaqja 44 1.00 1
Sakat 45 1.20
Sakat 46 0.80
19 Sakat Skënder Hasani 47 0.60 5.6
Sakat 48 1.80
Sakat 49 1.20
Sakat 50 1.20
Sakat 51 1.20
Sakat ...continue 53 1.20
19 8.8
Sakat Skënder hasani 54 2.00
Sakat 55 2.00
Sakat 59 1.20
Sakat 45 1.00
Sakat 46 0.80
Sakat 47 0.60
Sakat 48 1.80
Sakat 49 1.20
20 Sakat Ajet Canaj 50 1.20 14.2
Sakat 51 1.20
Sakat 53 2.00
Sakat 54 1.20
Sakat 55 2.00
Sakat 59 1.20
21 Sakat Hazis hasani 45 1.20 25.40
Sakat 46 0.80
Sakat 47 0.60
Sakat 48 1.80
Sakat 49 1.20
Sakat 50 1.20
Sakat 51 1.20
Sakat 53 1.20
Sakat 54 2.00
Sakat 55 2.00
Sakat 59 1.20
Sakat 57 4.00
138
Sakat 58 7.00
Sakat 45 1.20
Sakat 46 0.80
Sakat 47 0.60
Sakat 48 1.80
Sakat 49 1.20
22 Sakat Hamit Cana 50 1.20 14.4
Sakat 51 1.20
Sakat 53 1.20
Sakat 54 2.00
Sakat 55 2.00
Sakat 59 1.20
23 Sakat Shaqir Myftari 57 4.00 4
∑ = 502,6
139
Village Kulumri
Name of head of Forest area in Total area

Parcel
No Village family (user of use for each used by
number
forest) parcel (ha) family (ha)
Kulumri 53 3.00
Kulumri 54 3.00
1 Kulumri Gëzim Avdia 55 2.70 12.7
Kulumri 70 2.00
Kulumri 71 2.00
Kulumri 53 3.00
Kulumri 54 3.00
Kulumri 55 2.70
2 Raif demnçaj 13.7
Kulumri 62 1.00
Kulumri 70 2.00
Kulumri 71 2.00
Kulumri 53.00 3.00
Kulumri 54 3.00
Kulumri 55 2.70
Kulumri 64 5.00
3 Qamil Demnçaj 21.6
Kulumri 66 2.90
Kulumri 69 1.00
Kulumri 70 2.00
Kulumri 71 2.00
Kulumri 54 3.00
4 Kulumri Hysen Demnçaj 55 2.70
Kulumri 71 2.00
Kulumri 60 3.00
Kulumri 61 3.00
Kulumri 62 4.00
Kulumri 64 3.00
Kulumri 66 2.90
5 Kulumri Kujtim Shpendi 67 4.00 35.6
Kulumri 68 5.00
Kulumri 70 2.00
Kulumri 53 3.00
Kulumri 54 3.00
Kulumri 55 1.70
Kulumri 53 3.00
Kulumri 54 3.00
6 Kulumri Hamit Bala 55 2.90 26.8
Kulumri 60 3.00
Kulumri 61 4.00
140
Kulumri 62 2.90
Kulumri 66 4.00
Kulumri 67 1.00
Kulumri 69 3.00
Kulumri 53 3.00
Kulumri 54 3.00
Kulumri 55 2.90
Kulumri 60 3.00
Kulumri 61 3.00
7 Basri Bala 33.8
Kulumri 62 4.00
Kulumri 64 3.00
Kulumri 66 2.90
Kulumri 67 4.00
Kulumri 68 5.00
Kulumri 53 3.00
Kulumri 54 3.00
Kulumri 55 2.90
8 Rasim Uka 19.6
Kulumri 64 3.00
Kulumri 65 5.00
Kulumri 66 2.70
9 Kulumri Alush Braha 53 3.00 3
Kulumri 54 3.00
Kulumri 55 2.90
Kulumri 60 3.00
Kulumri 61 3.00
...continue
9 Kulumri 62 4.00 28.8
Alush Braha
Kulumri 66 2.90
Kulumri 67 4.00
Kulumri 68 5.00
Kulumri 69 1.00
Kulumri 53 3.00
Kulumri 54 3.00
Kulumri 55 2.90
Kulumri 60 3.00
10 Asllan Bala 27.9
Kulumri 61 3.00
Kulumri 62 4.00
Kulumri 67 4.00
Kulumri 68 5.00
Kulumri 60 3.00
11 Kulumri Adem Brahimi 61 3.00 10
Kulumri 62 4.00
Kulumri 60 3.00
12 Kulumri Imer Dashi 61 3.00 10
Kulumri 62 4.00
Kulumri 60 3.00
13 Kulumri Qamil Brahimi 61 3.00 10
Kulumri 62 4.00
141
Kulumri 64 5.00
14 Kulumri Gani Ramadani 65 5.00 11
Kulumri 69 1.00
Kulumri 64 5.00
Kulumri 65 5.00
15 Haki demiraj 13
Kulumri 69 1.00
Kulumri 70 2.00
16 Kulumri Esat bala 66 2.90 2.9
Kulumri 67 4.00
17 Brahim Ademi 6.9
Kulumri 66 2.90
Kulumri 66 2.90
18 Myrteza Bala 7.9
Kulumri 68 5.00
Kulumri 69 1.00
19 Kulumri Sali demnçaj 70 2.00 5
Kulumri 71 2.00
20 Kulumri Sadik Meta 69 1.00 1
Kulumri 70 2.00
21 Bujar Fetahu 4
Kulumri 71 2.00
22 Kulumri Imer Demiraj 70 1.90 1.9
23 Kulumri Hakim demiraj 70 1.90 1.9
24 Kulumri Shpëtim demiraj 71 2.00 2
25 Kulumri Shaqir Ramadani 70 1.90 1.9
142
Village XATH
Forest area
Parcel in use for
number each parcel
forest) family (ha)
(ha)
1 XATH Qamil Vela 56 1.50 1.5

2 XATH Bajram Vela 56 1.50 1.5
XATH 56 1.50
3 Rexh Smaka 2.2
XATH 78 0.70
XATH 56 1.50
4 Riza vela 3.2
XATH 76 1.70
5 XATH Qazim Vela 56 1.50 1.5
6 XATH Xheladin smaka 56 1.50 1.5
7 XATH Astrit Smaka 56 1.50 1.5
XATH 56 1.50
8 Ajet Smaka 4.4
XATH 72 2.90
9 XATH Bafti Mulaku 56 1.50 1.5
10 XATH Ramadan Mulaku 56 1.50 1.5
11 XATH Rexhep Mulaku 56 1.50 1.5
12 XATH Musa Mulaku 56 1.50 1.5
13 XATH Gani Mulaku 56 1.50 1.5
14 XATH Xhevahir Mulaku 56 1.50 1.5
XATH 56 1.50
15 Adem Muha 2.5
XATH 74 1.00
XATH 56 1.50
16 Imer Mula 2.5
XATH 74 1.00
XATH 56 1.50
XATH 57 5.00
17 XATH Imer Delia 74 1.00 9.9
XATH 75 0.70
XATH 76 1.70
XATH 56 1.50
18 XATH Alush Velia 57 5.00 7.5
XATH 74 1.00
XATH 57 5.00
19 Hamit Vela 6
XATH 74 1.00
20 XATH Ajet Velaj 57 5.00 5
XATH 57 5.00
21 Hasan velaj 6
XATH 74 1.00
XATH 56 1.50
22 Alush Velaj 6.5
XATH 57 5.00
XATH 57 5.00
23 Latif Latifi 16.4
XATH 58 6.00
143
XATH 79 3.00
XATH 81 2.40
XATH 57 5.00
24 Shaban Latifi 6.4
XATH 81 1.40
25 XATH Jak Mëhilli 77 3.00 3
26 XATH Veli Velaj 57 5.00 5
27 XATH Ton Mëhilli 57 5.00 5
28 XATH Brahim Latifi 58 6.00 6
XATH 78 4.00
28 Brahim Latifi 7
XATH 79 3.00
XATH 58 6.00
29 Zamir Latifi 9
XATH 79 3.00
XATH 58 6.00
30 Xhelal Latifi 9
XATH 79 3.00
XATH 58 6.00
31 XATH Xhafer Latifi 79 3.00 15
XATH 80 6.00
XATH 80 6.00
XATH 81 2.40
32 Latif latifi 17.4
XATH 79 3.00
XATH 58 6.00
XATH 58 6.00
33 XATH Elez Latifi 79 3.00 15
XATH 80 6.00
XATH 72 2.90
34 Syle Smaka 3.6
XATH 73 0.70
XATH 72 2.90
35 Selman koleci 3.6
XATH 73 0.70
36 XATH Rustem latifi 73 0.70 0.7
37 XATH Ali latifi 73 0.70 0.7
XATH 73 0.70
XATH 75 0.70
38 XATH Hysen Latifi 76 1.70 8.1
XATH 74 1.00
XATH 78 4.00
XATH 73 0.70
39 XATH Azem latifi 74 1.00 2.4
XATH 75 0.70
XATH 73 0.70
40 Arif asllani 1.4
XATH 75 0.70
41 XATH Arben koleci 73 0.70 0.7
42 XATH Bajram Koleci 73 0.70 0.7
43 XATH Ismail vela 73 0.70 0.7
44 XATH Shaban Smaka 73 0.70 0.7
XATH 73 0.70
45 Musa muho 1.7
XATH 74 1.00
46 XATH Brahim Xhauri 74 1.00 2.7
144
XATH 76 1.70
XATH 73 0.70
47 Xhevahir Muho 2.4
XATH 76 1.70
XATH 74 1.00
48 XATH Jak Xhauri 75 0.70 3.4
XATH 76 1.70
49 XATH Faik uka 74 1.00 1
50 XATH Sami Asllani 74 1.00 1
XATH 73 0.70
XATH 74 1.00
51 Azem latifi 4.1
XATH 75 0.70
XATH 76 1.70
XATH 57 5.00
52 XATH Imer Delia 74 1.00 6.7
XATH 75 0.70
XATH 75 0.70
53 Arif Latifi 2.4
XATH 76 1.70
XATH 75 0.70
XATH 76 1.70
54 Eduart latifi 9.4
XATH 77 3.00
XATH 78 4.00
55 XATH Fadil velaj 75 0.70 0.7
56 XATH Shaban xhauri 77 3.00 3
XATH 77 3.00
57 Musa Xhauri 3.7
XATH 75 0.70
58 XATH Bajram Velaj 76 1.70 1.7
59 XATH Qamil vela 76 1.70 1.7
60 XATH Riza Velaj 76 1.70 1.7
XATH 57 5.00
61 Jak Mëhilli 8
XATH 77 3.00
62 XATH Kol Nika 77 3.00 3
63 XATH Muharrem Latifi 79 3.00 3
64 XATH Idriz Xhauri 81 2.40 2.4
65 XATH Myftar xhauri 81 2.40 2.4
66 XATH Xhelal Hoxha 81 2.40 2.4
67 XATH Abedin Hoxha 81 2.40 2.4
68 XATH Mustaf Hoxha 81 2.40 2.4
69 XATH Ismail xhauri 81 2.40 2.4
70 XATH Muharrem xhauri 81 2.40 2.4
71 XATH Shefqet Tahiri 81 2.40 2.4
72 XATH Shpëtim Tahiri 81 2.40 2.4
XATH 72 2.90
73 Arben koleci 3.6
XATH 73 0.70
74 XATH Shpëtim Koleci 72 2.90 2.9
75 XATH Hysen Koleci 72 7.90 7.9
76 XATH Agim smaka 72 2.90 2.9
77 XATH Ajet Smaka 72 2.90 3.6
145
XATH 73 0.70
78 XATH Ali smaka 72 2.90 2.9
79 XATH Ylber koleci 72 2.90 2.9
80 XATH Sami Koleci 72 2.90 2.9
146
Village FLET
Forest area
Parcel in use for
number each parcel
forest) family (ha)
(ha)
1 FLET kol Nika 59 7.60 7.6

FLET 59 7.60
2 Vatë Nika 32.1
FLET 60 24.50
3 FLET Pashuk Nika 59 7.60 7.6
FLET 59 7.60
4 Ndue Nika 10.6
FLET 85 3.00
5 FLET Dodë Caca 59 7.60 7.6
6 FLET Gjon Caca 59 7.60 7.6
7 FLET Mark Caca 59 7.60 7.6
7 FLET Mark Caca 76 4.00 4
8 FLET Mustaf Hoxha 60 16.90 16.9
9 FLET Smail Hoxha 60 16.90 16.9
10 FLET Smail Xhauri 61a 11.30 11.3
11 FLET Bajram selmani 61 11.30 11.3
12 FLET Skënder Uka 61 11.30 11.3
FLET 61 11.30
13 FLET Ali Islami 62 9.00 27.9
FLET 72 7.60
14 FLET Ramadan islami 62 9.00 9
15 FLET Marash pali 63 7.00 7
FLET 63 8.00
FLET 66 17.00
16 FLET Sadik Selmani 70 3.00 36
FLET 73 4.00
FLET 76 4.00
17 FLET Dod Pali 63 7.00 7
18 FLET Riza Zeqja 64 10.00 10
FLET 64 10.00
19 FLET Myftar Selmani 71 4.00 18
FLET 75 4.00
FLET 64 9.00
20 Qamil Sejdia 15
FLET 72 7.00
FLET 64 8.00
21 FLET Smail Zeqja 67 7.00 23
FLET 70 8.00
FLET 64 8.00
22 FLET Skënder Veseli 69 9.00 20
FLET 84 3.00
147
23 FLET Ramadan... 64 12.00 12

FLET 69 10.00
24 Riza Zeqja 19
FLET 70 9.00
25 FLET Dervish Islami 70 4.00 4
26 FLET Ismet Qypi 71 4.00 4
27 FLET Sali Hyseni 70 4.00 4
FLET 69 10.00
FLET 70 4.00
28 Qazim Hyseni 28
FLET 74 12.00
FLET 75 4.00
29 FLET Muharrem Ahmeti 70 4.00 4
FLET 70 4.00
FLET 74 13.00
FLET 76 4.00
30 Gjovalin Gjoni 36.7
FLET 90 13.00
FLET 86 0.70
FLET 87 3.00
FLET 73 4.50
31 Xhemal Hyseni 8.5
FLET 75 4.00
FLET 74 12.00
32 Ali Baftjari 16
FLET 75 4.00
FLET 75 4.00
33 Qamil Sejdia 8
FLET 76 4.00
34 FLET Gjergj Ndreca 76 4.00 4
35 FLET Stak Ndreca 76 4.00 4
FLET 76 4.00
FLET 77 7.00
FLET 80 4.00
36 Llesh Gjoni 29
FLET 81 6.00
FLET 89 5.00
FLET 87 3.00
37 FLET Luftim bardhi 77 7.00 7
FLET 77 7.00
FLET 80 5.00
38 Vlash gjoni 22.4
FLET 93 10.00
FLET 86 0.40
FLET 78 10.00
39 FLET Jak syla 79 7.00 22
FLET 89 5.00
FLET 78 7.00
40 FLET Mati Syla 79 5.00 12.3
FLET 86 0.30
41 FLET Uk Delia 82a 1.50 1.5
42 FLET Syl Delia 82 1.50 1.5
43 FLET Xhafer veseli 82a 1.50 1.5
44 FLET Israt tahiri 82 1.50 1.7
45 FLET Bujar tahiri 83 0.20 1.7
148
FLET 82 1.50
FLET 83 0.20
FLET 82 1.50
46 Ramadan Huli 1.6
FLET 83 0.10
47 FLET Sami Huli 82 1.50 1.5
FLET 82 1.50
48 Sherif Huli 1.6
FLET 83 0.10
FLET 82 1.50
49 Isa Huli 1.6
FLET 83 0.10
FLET 82 1.50
50 Sadri Huli 1.6
FLET 83 0.10
FLET 82 1.50
51 Sali Tahiri 1.6
FLET 83 0.10
52 FLET Shefqet Tahiri 83 0.30 0.3
53 FLET Halit Tahiri 83 0.20 0.2
54 FLET Dod Pali 84 3.00 3
55 FLET Ndue Pali 84a 3.00 3
56 FLET beslim Delia 84 3.00 3
57 FLET Marash Nika 84 3.00 3
58 FLET Gjergj Nika 85 3.00 3
59 FLET Dod Nika 85 3.00 3
FLET 86 0.10
60 Gjon Syla 3.1
FLET 87 3.00
61 FLET Sadik Sadriu 86 0.20 0.2
FLET 86 0.10
62 Skënder Alia 3.2
FLET 87 3.10
63 FLET Ndue Prendi 88 6.00 6
64 FLET Qamil Sejdia 64 10.00 10
65 FLET smail Arifi 83 0.10 0.1
66 FLET Tahir Sejdia 72 7.00 7
149
Appendix 13: List of users and the parcels used in the commune of Bazi
coverDensity % of land
Timber Volume (m3)

Species composition
Mode of Land use

Diameter (cm)
Form of forest
management
Height (m)
Age (year)
Area (ha)
Forest economy
Village
Code of parcel
No
1 Bashkim Baz 1a 64.62 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 3 2 17 50 0.5 297 Divide between families
2 Baz Baz 1b 23.36 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 2 2 12 50 0.5 380 Divide between families
3 Drita Baz 2a 32.10 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 4 17 90 0.9 883 Divide between families
4 Drita Baz 2b 9.70 Agricultural Agricultural Private with deed
6 Drita Baz 3a 2.28 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 4 17 100 1 0 Divide between families
10 Karicë Baz 4a 45.44 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 3 3 17 90 0.9 1154 Divide between families
11 Karicë Baz 4b 12.40 Agricultural Agricultural Private with deed
12 Karicë Baz 4b 7.15 Agricultural Agricultural Private with deed
13 Bashkim Baz 5a 9.74 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 6 4 20 100 1 747 Divide between families
14 Bashkim Baz 5a 9.13 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 6 4 20 100 1 0 Divide between families
14 Bashkim Baz 5b 74.19 Agricultural Private with deed
18 Karicë Baz 6b 3.83 Agricultural Private with deed
21 Karicë Baz 7a 37.95 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 4 17 100 1 1053 Divide between families
150
Species composition
Diameter (cm)
Form of forest
management
Height (m)
Age (year)
Area (ha)
Forest economy
Village
Code of parcel
No

24 Karicë Baz 8a 21.33 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 5 17 100 1 567 Divide between families
26 Karicë Baz 9 121.24 Agricultural Private with deed
27 Karicë Baz 10a 32.18 High forest Mixed oak+chestnut 3 3 17 60 0.6 547 Divide between families
29 Karicë Baz 10c 24.05 Agricultural Private with deed
30 Karicë Baz 11a 22.14 High forest Mixed pine+oak 2 1.5 8 30 0.3 38 Divide between families
31 Karicë Baz 11b 46.57 High forest Mixed oak+chestnut 4 4 21 80 0.8 1998 Divide between families
32 Karicë Baz 12a 13.96 High forest Mixed pine+oak 10 5 25 90 0.9 757 Divide between families
33 Karicë Baz 12b 30.77 Coppice Mixed oak+chestnut 4 4 19 80 0.8 1329 Divide between families
34 Karicë Baz 12c 28.09 Agricultural Private with deed
35 Karicë Baz 13a 22.48 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 2 3 15 60 0.6 467 Used collectively by village
36 Karicë Baz 13b 58.08 Shkurre Shrubs +ash+others 3 3 17 60 0.6 303 Used collectively by village
37 Karicë Baz 13c 0.98 Unproductive
40 Baz Baz 15 33.62 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 2 3 14 60 0.6 530 Used collectively by village
41 Karicë Baz 14b 6.16 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 2 2 14 50 0.5 14 Used collectively by village
43 Karicë Baz 16a 23.82 Shkurre Shrubs +ash+others 2 2 16 70 0.7 375 Used collectively by village
44 Karicë Baz 16b 1.71 Unproductive
Forest land with some
46 Karicë Baz 17b 2.28 vegetation
151
Timber Volume (m3)

Species composition
Mode of Land use

Diameter (cm)
Form of forest
management
Height (m)
Age (year)
Area (ha)
Forest economy
Village
Code of parcel
No

51 Karicë Baz 19a 48.05 Coppice Shrubs +ash+others 2 1.5 7 70 0.7 133 Used collectively by village
53 Baz Baz 20 21.31 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 4 15 60 0.6 368 Used collectively by village
60 Karicë Baz 23 28.78 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 8 7 43 90 0.9 1863 Used collectively by village
61 Karicë Baz 24 72.02 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 4 19 60 0.6 4200 Used collectively by village
64 Baz Baz 26a 32.96 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 8 7 45 60 0.6 2241 Used collectively by village
65 Baz Baz 26b 9.82 vegetation
66 Baz Baz 26b 2.95 Unproductive
152
Timber Volume (m3)

Species composition
Mode of Land use

Diameter (cm)
Form of forest
management
Height (m)
Age (year)
Area (ha)
Forest economy
Village
Code of parcel
No

74 Baz Baz 28a 40.94 High forest Oak + other broadleaves 20 10 67 90 0.9 4663 Used collectively by village
75 Baz Baz 28b 5.94 High forest Beech +others 22 16 127 60 0.6 1034 Used collectively by village
85 Baz Baz 32b 6.04 Agricultural Private with deed
86 Baz Baz 32c 1.14 vegetation
88 Baz Baz 33a 24.27 High forest Oak + other broadleaves 12 10 67 70 0.7 2272 Divide between families
153
Timber Volume (m3)

Species composition
Mode of Land use

Diameter (cm)
Form of forest
management
Height (m)
Age (year)
Area (ha)
Forest economy
Village
Code of parcel
No
101 Baz Baz 36b 5.87 Shkurre Shrubs +ash+others 2 2 16 40 0.4 0 Used collectively by village
103 Baz Baz 36c 4.98 Agricultural Private with deed
112 Baz Baz 40a 50.85 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 6 4 17 90 0.9 1007 Divide between families
117 Baz Baz 41b 7.99 Coppice shrubs +ash+others 3 4 24 80 0.8 34 Divide between families
154
Timber Volume (m3)

Species composition
Mode of Land use

Diameter (cm)
Form of forest
management
Height (m)
Age (year)
Area (ha)
Forest economy
Village
Code of parcel
No
121 Baz Baz 43b 20.65 Coppice Chestnut+oak 3 3 15 80 0.8 252 Divide between families
123 Baz Baz 44a 18.14 Coppice Mixed oak+chestnut 3 3 12 80 0.8 187 Divide between families
124 Baz Baz 44b 20.07 Coppice Chestnut+oak 6 6 15 60 0.6 419 Divide between families
125 Baz Baz 45a 2.62 Coppice Chestnut+oak 6 5 15 40 0.4 0 Divide between families
126 Baz Bazj 45a 4.01 Coppice Chestnut+oak 6 5 15 40 0.4 0 Divide between families
127 Baz Baz 45a 1.95 Coppice Chestnut+oak 6 5 15 40 0.4 0 Divide between families
128 Baz Baz 45a 12.42 Coppice Mixed oak+chestnut 6 5 15 40 0.4 356 Divide between families
130 Baz Baz 45c 12.89 Water area
131 Fush.Baz Baz 46 39.57 Coppice Chestnut+oak 6 6 18 80 0.8 2226 Divide between families
132 Fush.Baz Baz 47a 6.62 Coppice Chestnut+oak 6 6 17 60 0.6 135 Divide between families
133 Fush.Baz Baz 47b 9.79 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 6 6 15 50 0.5 200 Divide between families
134 Fush.Baz Baz 47c 35.74 vegetation
135 Fush.Baz Baz 48a 29.37 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 6 6 16 50 0.5 322 Divide between families
136 Fush.Baz Baz 48b 10.59 Agricultural Private with deed
140 Baz Baz 50b 28.68 Coppice Oak + shrubs 6 5 17 60 0.6 245 Divide between families
141 Baz Baz 51a 32.68 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 2.5 14 60 0.6 292 Divide between families
143 Baz Baz 51c 7.43 Water area
155
Timber Volume (m3)

Species composition
Mode of Land use

Diameter (cm)
Form of forest
management
Height (m)
Age (year)
Area (ha)
Forest economy
Village
Code of parcel
No
146 Baz Baz 52c 6.56 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 4.5 17 50 0.5 297 Divide between families
148 Baz Baz 52d 1.73 Unproductive
Baz Baz 52e 1.72 Water area
Bacu
150 Baz ket 53a 22.27 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 4 2.5 15 80 0.8 196 Divide between families
151 Baz Baz 53b 50.77 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 3 3 15 70 0.7 389 Divide between families
165 Rreth.Baz Baz 57b 7.25 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 3 4 17 80 0.8 0 Divide between families
169 Rreth.Baz Mbi 58a 26.66 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 3 4 17 40 0.4 444 Divide between families
156
Timber Volume (m3)

Species composition
Mode of Land use

Diameter (cm)
Form of forest
management
Height (m)
Age (year)
Area (ha)
Forest economy
Village
Code of parcel
No
Blat
170 Rreth.Baz Baz 58b 21.07 Agricultural Private with deed
172 Rreth.Baz Baz 59a 26.84 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 6 4.5 17 70 0.7 855 Divide between families
174 Rreth.Baz Baz 60a 61.95 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 3 3 14 70 0.7 813 Divide between families
177 Rreth.Baz Baz 61a 62.81 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 3 3 14 100 1 811 Divide between families
157
Timber Volume (m3)

Species composition
Mode of Land use

Diameter (cm)
Form of forest
management
Height (m)
Age (year)
Area (ha)
Forest economy
Village
Code of parcel
No
208 Drita Baz 68b 0.70 Agricultural 8 7 30 90 0.9 0 Divide between families
212 Drita Baz 69b 14.71 Agricultural Private with deed
214 Drita Baz 69c 1.66 Unproductive
215 Drita Baz 69d 2.39 water
158
Timber Volume (m3)

Species composition
Mode of Land use

Diameter (cm)
Form of forest
management
Height (m)
Age (year)
Area (ha)
Forest economy
Village
Code of parcel
No
221 Baz Baz 72a 1.11 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 3 2 10 100 1 0 Divide between families
222 Baz Baz 72a 32.52 Coppice Oak + other broadleaves 3 2 10 100 1 193 Divide between families
230 Rreth.Baz Baz 74 228.00 water
Total area 5023.17
Appendix 15. List of users and the parcels used in the Comunne of Gore
Average Standing
Average Average
Code of Area Species Type of annual timber
Village Local name Users Age height diameter Density
Parcel (ha) composition Management increment Volume
(m) (cm)
(m3) (m3)
Babjen Vathat e Qenckës Collective 1 90a 38.8 100 oak coppice 14 2.5 3 0.6 0.9 489
Babjen Agriculture 1 90b 9.4
Babjen Ara e Jasharit Collective 1 91a 15.0 100 oak coppice 14 2.5 3 0.6 0.6 125
159
Average Standing
Average Average
(m) (cm)
(m3) (m3)
Babjen Varet e Lumit. Collective 1 92a 32.5 100 oak coppice 16 2.5 3 0.7 1.0 520
Babjen Poshtë Babjenit Collective 1 93a 12.9 100 oak coppice 12 2 2 0.6 0.4 65
Babjen Dushku i Deçit Household 1 94a 25.4 100 oak coppice 16 2.5 3 0.6 0.7 266
Babjen Rirat e Babjenit Household 1 95a 37.4 100 oak coppice 16 2.5 3 0.6 0.8 460
Babjen Stallat e Babjenit Household 1 96a 25.6 100 oak coppice 19 3.5 4 0.8 3.7 1800
Babjen Lumi i Nagurait Household 1 87a 35.0 100 oak coppice 17 3 3 1 0.3 155
90 oak + 10 14 2 3 0.6
Babjen Lumi i Nagurait Household 1 87b 64.0 maple coppice 0.4 399
Babjen Agriculture 1 87c 138.7
Babjen Agriculture 1 87d 2.5
Babjen Përtej Babjenit Household 1 25/1a 5.2 100 oak coppice 20 3 2.5 0.7 0.6 65
Babjen Agriculture 1 26/1b 3.0
Babjen Agriculture 1 27/1b 10.6
Babjen Përtej Babjenit Household 1 28/1a 7.9 100 oak coppice 22 3 2 0.8 0.5 80
50 pine + 50 17 2 2 0.6
Desmire Maja e Qyqes Household 2 24c 35.3 oak mix coppice 0.1 35
Desmire Maja e Qyqes Household 2 21a 18.9 100 oak coppice 19 2 3 0.6 0.2 66
Desmire Agriculture 2 21c 8.3
Desmire Agriculture 2 22b 24.5
Desmire Agriculture 2 23 128.9
60 pine + 40 23 3 4 0.7
Desmire Maja e Desmirës Household 2 25c 23.3 oak high forest 0.6 306
Desmire Agriculture 2 25d 6.7
160
Average Standing
Average Average
(m) (cm)
(m3) (m3)
Lagjia e 17 3 3 0.6
Desmire Pashallarëve. Household 2 34c 3.5 100 oak coppice 0.3 16
80 oak + 20 20 4 5 0.7
Desmire Lumi i Velçanit Household 2 35a 31.7 other coppice 1.0 642
Desmire Maja Bertet Household 2 35b 3.9 100 oak coppice 96 30 12 0.6 0.3 105
Desmire Maja Bertet Household 2 36a 17.4 100 oak coppice 30 5.5 6 0.8 1.0 519
Rezerv. i 20 3 4 0.5
Desmire Dolanecit Household 2 36c 14.6 100 oak coppice 0.5 142
Desmire Lumi i Desmirës Household 2 37a 28.2 100 oak coppice 25 4 5 0.6 0.7 478
Desmire Shullëri i Furrës Household 2 38a 21.3 100 oak coppice 24 3 4 0.4 0.2 127
Desmire Maja e Qyqes Household 2 38c 5.0 100 oak coppice 22 3 4 0.4 0.3 30
Desmire Çuka e Vertajkes. Household 2 39b 13.1 100 oak coppice 20 4 5 0.6 1.2 315
80 oak + 20 16 4.5 5 0.6
Desmire Korija e Vakëfit Household 2 40a 15.5 other coppice 1.0 255
Desmire Çuka e Vertajkes. Household 2 8a 13.7 100 oak coppice 12 3 4 0.8 1.9 308
Desmire Hija e Padjës Household 2 8b 18.6 100 oak coppice 12 3 4 0.7 1.9 425
Shullëri Vër e 70 oak + 24 3 4 0.8
Desmire Ariut Household 2 9a 30.8 others coppice 0.0 32
Desmire Bregu i Puseve Household 2 10a 22.8 100 oak coppice 27 4 5 0.7 0.3 172
Desmire Bregu i Puseve Household 2 11a 29.9 100 oak coppice 26 4 5 0.8 0.1 76
161
Average Standing
Average Average
(m) (cm)
(m3) (m3)
Desmire Ara e Çaushit Household 2 12a 25.1 100 oak coppice 26 4 5 0.8 0.0 25
Desmire Ara e Çaushit Household 2 13a 30.6 100 oak coppice 26 3 4 0.8 0.1 114
Desmire Shullëri i Vogël. Household 2 14a 42.5 100 oak coppice 26 3 4 0.8 0.7 804
Desmire Shullëri i Vogël. Household 2 15a 37.2 100 oak coppice 26 3 4 0.9 0.9 867
Dolan Mbi shkollen Household 3 111a 74.0 100 oak coppice 21 2 2 0.5 0.2 354
Dolan Agriculture 3 111b 52.8
Dolan Lajth e Dolanit Household 3 128a 95.7 100 beech coppice 24 3 3 0.7 0.7 1613
Dolan Lajth e Dolanit Household 3 128b 4.5 hazelnut shrub 19 2 2 0.4 0.4 34
Dolan Agriculture 3 128c 64.1
Dolan Rebia Household 3 129a 54.6 100 oak coppice 14 1.6 1 0.4 0.0 29
Dolan Rebia Household 3 130a 13.2 100 oak coppice 18 1.3 1 0.5 0.1 13
Maja mbi 21 2.5 3 0.6
Dolanec Dolanec Household 4 20a 55.0 100 oak coppice 0.2 233
Dolanec Agriculture 4 20b 63.2
Dolanec Water area 4 20c 1.1
Dolanec Lumi Dolanecit Household 4 21b 6.7 100 oak coppice 18 2 3 0.6 0.1 14
Dolanec Shulleri i vogel Household 4 40b 13.3 100 oak coppice 26 4.5 5 0.6 0.6 219
Dolanec Lumi i Dardhes Collective 4 43 27.2 100 oak coppice 16 2.5 2.5 0.4 0.2 92
Dolanec Lumi i Tufes Household 4 44a 26.2 100 oak coppice 19 2.5 2 0.4 0.0 20
Dolanec Kodra Tepe Collective 4 45a 8.3 100 oak coppice 18 2.5 2.5 0.5 0.1 20
Dolanec Kodra Tepe Collective 4 45b 12.4
Dolanec Agriculture 4 45c 4.5
Korija e 24 3.5 4 0.3
Dolanec Dolanecit Collective 4 46a 10.2 100 oak coppice 0.1 32
162
Average Standing
Average Average
(m) (cm)
(m3) (m3)
Korija e 24 3.5 4 0.3
Dolanec Dolanecit Collective 4 46c 22.2 100 oak coppice 0.1 70
Gribec Kodra e Hijes Collective 5 42a 31.5 100 oak coppice 21 2 2 0.6 0.1 93
Gribec Agriculture 5 42b 14.4
Korija e 18 2 3 0.5
Gribec Dolanecit Collective 5 47a 28.9 100 oak coppice 0.4 201
Gribec Kodra e Hijes Household 5 48a 10.0 100 oak coppice 16 2 3 0.6 0.6 92
Gribec Kodra e Hijes Household 5 48b 18.6 100 oak coppice 16 2 3 1 0.6 186
Gribec Agriculture 5 48c 8.6
Gribec Bregu i Gribecit Household 5 49a 19.7 100 oak coppice 16 2 3 0.6 0.6 180
Gribec Guri i Çizmes Collective 5 50a 29.6 100 oak coppice 14 2 2 0.7 0.4 184
Gribec Collective 5 51a 16.9 100 oak coppice 16 2.5 2 0.6 0.9 239
Gribec Collective 5 52a 13.3 100 oak coppice 16 2.5 2 0.7 0.8 175
Gribec Guri i Bletes Collective 5 53a 25.5 100 oak coppice 19 2.5 3 0.8 1.1 532
Gribec Collective 5 53c 4.6
Gribec Collective 5 54a 41.1 100 oak coppice 19 2 3 0.9 1.7 1324
Gribec Collective 5 55a 26.6 100 oak coppice 16 2 3 0.8 0.8 351
Gribec Guri i Çizmes Collective 5 55b 14.6
Gribec Hija e Madhe Collective 5 56a 23.5 100 oak coppice 18 2.5 3 0.8 1.0 438
Gribec Gurët e Gjatë Household 5 57a 17.2 100 oak coppice 20 3.5 4 0.9 3.6 1251
Gribec Gurët e Gjatë Collective 5 58a 10.8 100 oak coppice 21 3 3 0.9 1.4 311
163
Average Standing
Average Average
(m) (cm)
(m3) (m3)
Gribec Gurët e Gjatë Collective 5 58b 11.6 100 oak coppice 16 2 3 0.8 0.8 153
Hija e 16 2 2 0.6
Gribec Kumbullava Collective 5 59a 16.5 100 oak coppice 0.2 61
Gribec Karshi Gribecit Collective 5 60a 7.8 100 oak coppice 14 2 2 0.7 0.5 51
Skuqkat e
Gribec Marjanit Collective 5 60c 15.8
Gribec Agriculture 5 61a 153.5
Skuqkat e 18 2 2 0.3
Gribec Marjanit Collective 5 62a 20.7 100 oak coppice 0.2 93
Përroi i 16 2 2 0.7
Gribec Manastirecit Collective 5 63a 7.5 100 oak coppice 0.4 44
Përmbi urën e 18 3 3 0.9
Lozhan Verbës Collective 6 1a 37.2 100 oak coppice 1.1 757
Lozhan Agriculture 6 1b 7.2
Lozhan inprod. 6 1c 5.1
Përmbi urën e 18 3 3 0.9
Lozhan Verbës Collective 6 27b 5.0 100 oak coppice 0.6 53
Grenda e 18 3 3 0.9
Lozhan shullërit Collective 6 28b 13.9 100 oak coppice 0.2 44
Grenda e 19 3 3 0.8
Lozhan shullërit Collective 6 133a 38.2 100 beech coppice 0.8 555
Lozhan Kroi i Dhimës Collective 6 133c 10.5 100Ah coppice 19 3 3 0.8 1.0 204
Lozhan Korijet Collective 6 134a 89.3 100 beech coppice 16 2.5 3 0.7 0.4 635
Lozhan inprod. 6 134c 21.9
Korijet e 18 3.5 4 0.9
Lozhan Lozhanit Household 6 135a 6.6 100 beech coppice 2.0 238
164
Average Standing
Average Average
(m) (cm)
(m3) (m3)
Lozhan Kollovas Household 6 135b 25.7
Lozhan Agriculture 6 135c 5.7
Lozhan Water area 6 135d 1.7
Lozhan Agriculture 6 135e 93.2
Lozhan Kollovas Collective 6 136a 8.0 100 beech coppice 21 4.5 5 0.7 4.3 714
Lozhan Kasambag Household 6 136b 1.4
Lozhan Ara e Gjatë Collective 6 137a 28.9 100 beech coppice 21 4.5 5 0.7 4.3 2579
Lozhan Vjezhdë Collective 6 178a 15.0 100 oak coppice 18 2 2 0.6 0.3 83
Lozhan Maja e Stanit. Household 6 179a 13.3 100beech coppice 21 3.5 4 0.6 0.9 264
Lozhan Maja e Stanit Collective 6 179b 23.9
80 oak + 20 21 2 2 0.7
Lozhan Faqja e Shalarit Collective 6 180a 15.2 other coppice 0.3 111
80 31 2 2 0.6
Lozhan Faqja e Shalarit Collective 6 180b 13.4 buxus+other shrub 0.2 102
90 buxus + 36 1.5 0.5 0.6
Lozhan Vëra e Ariut. Collective 6 181a 23.8 other shrub 0.0 15
90 buxus + 36 1.5 1 0.7
Lozhan Vëra e Ariut. Collective 6 182a 39.3 other shrub 0.0 51
Lozhan Burimas Household 6 183a 13.5 100 beech coppice 18 3 3 0.6 0.5 115
Lozhan Pylli Bajramit Household 6 184a 56.3 100 beech coppice 26 3 3 0.3 0.3 484
Lozhan Pylli i Sabriut Household 6 185a 26.8 100 beech coppice 24 5 6 0.8 2.7 1740
Lozhan Prroi i Thellë. Collective 6 186a 34.3 100 oak shrub 31 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 25
Lozhan Prroi i Krastës. Collective 6 187a 64.5 90 buxus + shrub 41 1.5 1 0.6 0.1 376
165
Average Standing
Average Average
(m) (cm)
(m3) (m3)
other
90 buxus + 36 1.5 1 0.6
Lozhan Përroi i Krastës Collective 6 188a 43.3 other shrub 0.2 306
80 buxus + 36 0.8 1 0.6
Lozhan Përroi i Krastës. Collective 6 189a 22.5 other shrub 0.1 53
80 buxus + 36 0.8 1 0.5
Lozhan Përroi i Krastës Collective 6 190a 44.4 other shrub 0.0 61
Lozhan Përroi i Krastës Collective 6 190b 11.4
Shullëri i 18 4.5 5 0.5
Lozhan Lozhanit Collective 6 191a 23.9 100 beech coppice 1.9 828
Shullëri i
Lozhan Lozhanit Collective 6 191b 13.4
Lozhan inprod. 6 191d 2.2
Lozhan Llahovinat Collective 6 192a 28.1 100 beech coppice 21 4.5 5 0.8 1.7 1015
Shulleri Vërë e 25 4 4 0.6
Marian Ariut Household 7 37b 10.4 100 oak coppice 0.3 88
Marian Bregu i Puseve Household 7 38a 1.0 100 oak coppice 22 3 4 0.8 0.2 4
Marian Bregu i Pusevet Household 7 38c 3.9 100 oak coppice 22 3 4 0.8 0.3 23
Marian Agriculture 7 38b 2.2
Marian Kodra Barbulinit. Household 7 41a 63.5 100 oak coppice 18 3 4 0.8 2.1 2374
Perroi i 18 2 2 0.5
Marian Manastirecit Collective 7 64a 10.0 100 oak coppice 0.3 59
Marian Perroi i Collective 7 65a 30.7 100 oak coppice 18 1.3 1 0.4 0.0 10
166
Average Standing
Average Average
(m) (cm)
(m3) (m3)
Manastirecit
Marian Perroi i Çorushit. Collective 7 66a 29.8 100 oak coppice 18 1.2 1 0.4 0.0 9
Marian Korija e Vakëfit. Collective 7 67a 4.7 100 oak coppice 18 4 5 0.9 2.5 208
Marian Perroi Batallutës Household 7 69a 48.4 100 oak coppice 21 2.5 3 0.8 1.1 1129
Marian Ahu i Marjanit Household 7 84a 40.9 100 oak coppice 18 3 3 0.8 1.7 1224
Marian Hija e Madhe. Collective 7 86a 17.0 100 oak coppice 18 4 4 0.9 2.6 791
Shulleri i 16 2 2 0.4
Marian Veroreve. Collective 7 86b 29.5 100 oak coppice 0.1 27
Marian Agriculture 7 86c 14.0
90 beech 23 3 3.5 0.6
Mesmal Perroi i madh. Household 8 164 24.8 +10 oak coppice 0.4 211
90 beech + 23 3.5 3 0.7
Mesmal Perroi i madh. Household 8 165 31.1 10 oak coppice 0.5 364
Mesmal Rabet Household 8 166 30.2 100 beech coppice 22 3.5 3 0.7 0.6 379
Mesmal Suarje Household 8 167a 22.9 100 beech coppice 28 5 5 1 2.3 1467
80 Beech + 18 2.5 3 0.55
Mesmal Suarje Household 8 167b 16.4 20 Maple coppice 0.4 115
Mesmal Agriculture 8 167c 72.6
80 oak + 20 12 4 5 0.9
Mocan Shullëri Household 9 24a 31.8 pine coppice 2.1 799
100black 24 5.5 12 0.8
Mocan Përroi i Moçarit Collective 9 25a 18.5 pine high forest 0.4 165
80 Pine + 20 23 4 6 0.8
Mocan Përroi i Moçarit Collective 9 25b 18.4 oak high forest 1.0 431
Shullëri I 13 2 3 0.8
Mocan Moçanit Household 9 30a 37.5 100 oak coppice 0.7 317
Mocan Agriculture 9 30b 157.9
167
Average Standing
Average Average
(m) (cm)
(m3) (m3)
Mocan Korija mbi Fshat Household 9 32a 22.7 100 oak coppice 12 3 3 0.9 0.7 178
Mocan Ground 9 32b 1.0
Mocan Hija Household 9 33 20.1 100 oak coppice 12 3 4 0.8 1.1 261
Tek Vadha e 11 4.5 3.5 0.75
Mocan Hijet Household 9 34a 30.8 100 oak coppice 3.9 1319
Mocan inprod. 9 34b 6.3
Mocan Çukllaz Household 9 74a 45.1 100 oak coppice 13 2 3 0.8 0.4 246
Mocan Agriculture 9 74b 84.8
Mocan Gllanica Household 9 76 42.0 100 oak coppice 12 2 3 0.8 0.7 349
Qencke Vrima e Ariut Household 10 70a 32.7 100 oak coppice 27 3 4 0.8 0.3 279
Qencke Vrima e Ariut Household 10 70b 14.2 100 oak coppice 26 3 3 0.8 0.2 90
Qencke Agriculture 10 70c 6.9
Qencke Pilapeci Household 10 71a 17.0 100 oak coppice 17 3.5 4 0.5 0.4 125
Qencke Pilapeci Collective 10 71b 16.5 100 oak coppice 22 4.5 5 0.6 0.7 254
Qencke Pilapeci Household 10 72a 17.7 100 oak coppice 23 4.5 5 0.6 0.7 299
Qencke Pilapeci Household 10 72b 15.0 100 oak coppice 17 3.5 4 0.5 0.4 111
Qencke Çukllaz Collective 10 73a 14.5 100 oak coppice 18 2.5 3 0.5 0.5 123
Qencke Agriculture 10 73b 56.2
Qencke Çuka e Veriut Collective 10 77a 7.2 100 oak coppice 19 3 3 0.8 0.8 110
Qencke Rirat e Qenckës. Household 10 78a 39.0 100 oak coppice 18 3.5 4 0.8 0.7 525
Qencke Rirat e Qenckës. Household 10 79a 31.8 100 oak coppice 22 2.5 3 0.8 0.6 421
Qencke Plepat e egër. Household 10 80a 23.3 100 oak coppice 22 3 4 0.8 1.3 660
Qencke Gropa e Gurit Household 10 81a 28.9 100 oak coppice 23 3.5 5 0.8 1.5 1000
Qencke Katundishte Collective 10 82 30.7 100 oak coppice 23 3 4 0.8 1.2 876
168
Average Standing
Average Average
(m) (cm)
(m3) (m3)
Qencke Mbi fidanishte Household 10 83a 32.1 100 oak coppice 19 3 4 0.8 1.1 646
Qencke Maja e Stanit Household 10 88a 13.1 100 oak coppice 18 3 4 0.7 1.7 404
Qencke Maja e Stanit Household 10 88b 26.8 100 oak coppice 20 3.5 4 0.7 1.8 976
Qencke Maja e Hambenit Household 10 89a 39.3 100 oak coppice 28 5.5 7 0.8 2.7 2970
Selce Vreshtat Household 11 179a 35.0 100 oak coppice 18 2 2 0.5 0.2 148
Selce Agriculture 11 179b 110.8
Selce Vreshtat Household 11 187a 52.2 100 oak coppice 18 2 2 1 0.2 230
80 buxus + 22 1.2 0.8 0.6
Selce Bregu i Bushit Collective 11 187b 32.8 others shrub 0.0 20
Selce Agriculture 11 187c 13.5
Senisht Belishta Household 12 97a 65.2 100 oak coppice 14 2 2 0.6 0.4 342
Senisht Agriculture 12 97b 6.1
Senisht Korijet e prera Household 12 98a 60.8 100 oak coppice 14 2 2 0.6 0.4 358
Senisht Hija e Reizit Household 12 99a 36.5 100 oak coppice 18 2 3 0.8 0.7 430
Senisht Ground 12 99c 7.3
Shulleri i 16 2 3 0.5
Senisht Vreshtave Household 12 100a 21.4 100 oak coppice 0.7 229
Senisht Ground 12 100c 1.0
80 beech+ 16 3.5 3 0.55
Senisht Ahishta e Keqe Household 12 101a 29.3 20 oak coppice 0.6 267
Senisht Jema Household 12 102a 35.9 100 beech coppice 21 3.5 4 0.8 1.2 926
Senisht Rahu i Cenos Household 12 103a 32.3 100 beech coppice 25 4 4 0.8 1.1 908
Senisht Kroi i Cankos Collective 12 106b 15.7 80 oak +20 coppice 20 3.5 3 0.55 0.5 166
169
Average Standing
Average Average
(m) (cm)
(m3) (m3)
beech
Senisht Agriculture 12 106c 1.8
Strelce Ura e Shelcës Household 13 1 43.7 100 oak coppice 28 2 3 0.6 0.2 248
Strelce Reparti Ushtarak. Collective 13 2a 25.7 100 oak coppice 30 2 3 0.9 0.3 214
Strelce Agriculture 13 2b 0.9
100 26 4 8 0.8
Strelce Kallotina Household 13 3a 34.1 blackpine high forest 1.5 1368
100 26 4 8 0.9
Strelce inprod. 13 4c 1.9
100 26 4 8 0.9
100blackpin 26 4 8 0.9
Strelce Kallotina Household 13 6a 30.9 e high forest 1.5 1240
100 26 4 8 0.7
Strelce Kallotina Household 13 7 35.8 blackpine high forest 1.5 1438
80 oak + 19 3 2 0.6
Strelce Krushanaves. Collective 13 42a 10.4 others coppice 0.3 66
Strelce Krushanaves. Collective 13 42b 4.2 90hornbean shrub 18 1 1 0.4 0.0 1
Strelce Krushanaves. Collective 13 43a 27.9 100 oak coppice 18 1.1 1 0.5 0.0 15
Strelce Krushanaves. Collective 13 43b 10.0 90 hornbean shrub 24 1 1 0.4 0.0 3
Strelce Agriculture 13 43c 2.4
Strelce Dushku i Trashë Collective 13 44a 25.3 100 oak coppice 24 1.5 1 0.5 0.0 20
Strelce Dushku i Trashë Collective 13 44b 7.2 90 hornbean shrub 24 1 0.8 0.4 0.0 2
Strelce Dushku i Trashë Collective 13 45a 26.9 100 oak coppice 19 1.5 1 0.6 0.0 20
Strelce Dushku i Trashë Collective 13 45b 5.8 90 hornbean shrub 26 1 1 0.4 0.0 2
Strelce Krastë Collective 13 46 17.5 90 hornbean shrub 26 1 0.8 0.4 0.0 3
Strelce Curupan Collective 13 47a 5.5 100 oak coppice 26 1.5 1 0.7 0.0 7
170
Average Standing
Average Average
(m) (cm)
(m3) (m3)
Strelce Curupun Collective 13 47b 19.7 60 hornbean shrub 26 3 2.5 0.6 0.4 222
Strelce Melenicë Collective 13 48 12.3 70 hornbean shrub 26 2 2 0.6 0.2 66
Strelce Përroi i Strelcës. Household 13 49 11.4 100 oak coppice 28 2 2 0.85 0.2 60
Strelce Nga Vreshtat Household 13 50a 35.4 100 oak coppice 28 1.5 2 0.3 0.1 143
80 buxus + 26 0.6 3 0.3
Strelce Nga Vreshtat Collective 13 50b 39.8 others shrub 0.1 79
80 buxus + 26 2 2 0.6
Strelce Pupul Collective 13 58a 39.4 others shrub 0.2 208
Strelce Curupan Household 13 60a 30.8 100 oak coppice 26 1.5 1 0.6 0.0 20
80 beech + 21 3 3 0.7
Strelce Livadhishte. Household 13 61 57.2 20oak coppice 0.4 530
80 beech + 21 3 4 0.7
Strelce Korijet e Petos Household 13 62a 24.1 20 oak coppice 1.0 531
Strelce Grabovic Collective 13 63a 9.0 100 oak coppice 18 1 1 0.6 0.0 6
Strelce Grabovic Collective 13 63b 26.8 80 hornbean coppice 26 2 2 0.8 0.2 160
90 beech + 21 4.5 3 0.8
Tresove Galishtë Collective 14 106a 45.5 10 oak coppice 1.8 1738
80 oak +20 20 4 3 0.7
Tresove Kroi i Cankos Household 14 106b 16.6 beech coppice 0.6 188
Tresove Agriculture 14 106c 27.2
80 oak + 20 21 4 5 0.7
Tresove Galishta Collective 14 107a 14.8 beech coppice 4.0 1256
Tresove Përroi i Shapianit Collective 14 107b 32.9 100 oak coppice 12 2.5 2 0.6 0.5 211
Tresove Greoti Collective 14 108a 24.9 70 hazelnut shrub 18 3 2 0.9 0.5 235
Tresove Greoti Household 14 108b 18.7 100 oak coppice 14 2 2 0.7 0.5 129
171
Average Standing
Average Average
(m) (cm)
(m3) (m3)
Tresove Greoti Household 14 109a 21.5 60 hazelnut shrub 16 2 2 0.9 0.2 57
Tresove Greoti Household 14 109b 30.3 100 oak coppice 13 2 2 0.5 0.5 209
Velcan Vinica Household 15 176a 74.4 100 oak coppice 18 3 4 0.75 0.9 1216
Velcan Agriculture 15 176b 21.9
Velcan Strane Collective 15 177a 46.9 100 oak coppice 18 2 3 0.5 0.6 517
Velcan Strane Collective 15 177b 16.7 40 hazelnut shrub 22 3 1 0.5 0.1 29
Velcan Agriculture 15 177c 185.0
Velcan Vreshtat Collective 15 178a 11.5 hazelnut shrub 24 1 0.8 0.6 0.0 3
Velcan Agriculture 15 178b 28.5
90 oak + 10 14 2 3 0.7
Zvahrisht Dheu i kuq Household 16 26a 21.4 maple coppice 0.3 95
Zvahrisht Agriculture 16 26b 5.9
90 oak +10 18 2.5 3 0.7
Zvahrisht Dheu i kuq Household 16 27a 37.5 other coppice 0.3 214
Zvahrisht Agriculture 16 27c 8.2
Grenda e 16 2 3 0.7
Zvahrisht Shullërit Household 16 28a 27.8 100 oak coppice 0.2 73
Zvahrisht inproductive 16 28c 3.1
Grenda e 14 2 3 0.8
Zvahrisht Shullërit Collective 16 110a 13.1 100 oak coppice 1.0 176
Zvahrisht Mbi shkollen Household 16 110b 43.3 100 oak coppice 14 2 3 0.8 1.0 580
Zvahrisht Agriculture 16 110c 61.7
Zvahrisht Mbi shkollen Household 16 131a 43.1 100 oak coppice 16 1.5 1 0.4 0.1 53
Zvahrisht Agriculture 16 131b 23.4
Zvahrisht Kroi i Dhimës Household 16 132a 4.8 100 beech high forest 116 16 32 0.8 1.7 949
Zvahrisht Pati Household 16 132b 26.3 100 beech coppice 16 2.5 3 0.8 3.2 1365
Zvahrisht Korijet e vogela Household 16 132c 11.0 100 oak coppice 16 2 2 0.8 0.3 52
Zvahrisht Agriculture 16 132d 21.2
Zvahrisht Agriculture 16 133a 116.8
TOTAL 8730.7 78086
172
173

Enhancing Tenure Security in Albanian Forest Land

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Enhancing Tenure Security in Albanian Forest Land

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Enhancing Tenure Security Through Support the Communities

to Improve the Laws on Transfer of State Public Property

(Forest and Pasture) to the Communes

Tirane January 2008

Acknowledgements and Working Team

CHAPTER 3. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION: MAIN FINDINGS

1. LAND TENURE AND COMMUNAL FORESTRY

1.1. Historical background of land tenure policies

1.2. Government and relevant sector policy(ies)

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

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

CHAPTER 4. COMMUNAL FOREST: RELEVANCE AND SUSTAINABILITY

CHAPTER 5. LOBING AND ADVOCACY

CHAPTER 6: LESSONS LEARNED AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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

Appendix 3: Approval of activities for transferring communal forests and pastures

Appendix 7: Population, Households structure, Agricultural land, and the

Appendix 9: Population, Households structure, Agricultural land, and the

Appendix 10: Population, Households structure, Agricultural land, and the

Appendix 11: Order of MOEFWA on the Action Plan

Appendix 12: Letter of the Prime Minister

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AFP Albania Forestry Project

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

SETTING THE SCENE

Source: Adopted from INSTAT 2001

Figure 2. Sources of firewood used in household in Albania

Source: Social Economic Survey, ACER, 2001

2. COMMUNES: THE BASIC ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT OF

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

1. CHOICE OF THE REGIONS

2. MAJOR ASPECTS OF THE METHODOLOGY

3.1. Review of the existing literature, reports and materials

3.3. Preparations, sending out and evaluation of questionnaires

3.4. Building the local structures for project implementation (Commune

3.5. Data collection

3.6. Demarcation of boundaries at village forest

3.7. Certification of users of forest and pastures

4. LOBBING AND ADVOCACY

5. SCHEDULE OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

No Activities realized Implementation time (month)

A.1 Pilot project implementation in four selected communes

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION: MAIN FINDINGS

1. LAND TENURE AND COMMUNAL FORESTRY

1.1. Historical background of land tenure policies

land, circumscribed. Generally, the response was agricultural intensification, perhaps

1.2. Government and relevant sector policy(ies)

1.3. Land tenure policy(ies)

1.4. The current status of land tenure

1.4.1. The status of inventory and transfer of state properties

1.4.2. Unresolved policy issues

1.4.3. Restitution of property rights to former owners

1.4.4. Taxation of land and property

authority of local governments to levy taxes on land and buildings, including on

1.4.5. Rural land administration

1.5. Progress on land reform in Albania

1.5.1. Rural land and property reform policies

agreements of ownership transfer, leasehold and rights of use had several

1.5.2. Refused agricultural lands

1.5.3. Pastures and meadows

1.5.5. Transfer of communal forests and pastures

1.5.6. Protected Areas

1.5.7. Village lands and properties