Cf Pm Report

7/30/2019 Cf Pm Report

1/69

CFPMp Evaluation Report July 2001

Table of Contents

Table of Contents................................................................................................................................a

Abbreviations and acronyms.............................................................................................................c

Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................i

Summary of findings and Recommendations..................................................................................iii

1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................1

2 Project implementation and results achieved.................................................................................22.1 Assessment of the objective and the design of the CFMp..............................................................................32.2 Assessment of the implementation of the component.....................................................................................4

3 Relevance and sustainability of the CFPMp....................................................................................63.1 The villagers perspective ..............................................................................................................................63.2 The impact of paid labour...............................................................................................................................83.3 The available work force ................................................................................................................................93.4 The allocation of forest and pasture resources .............................................................................................10

3.5 Existing informal types of ownership ..........................................................................................................123.6 Needs for basic research ...............................................................................................................................123.7 The quality and accuracy of the management plans.....................................................................................133.8 The villagers and the management plans......................................................................................................153.9 The involvement of private foresters............................................................................................................163.10 Forest revenue and fees...............................................................................................................................173.11 The phasing out funding after the third year...............................................................................................193.12 The role of DFS staff ..................................................................................................................................203.13 The cooperation between the associations and the DFS.............................................................................213.14 The needs for capacity building .................................................................................................................213.15 The monitoring and evaluation system of the programme..........................................................................223.16 The existence of a plan - act - reflect - learn cycle .................................................................................23

4 Lessons Learned.............................................................................................................................244.1 The transfer an irreversible process..............................................................................................................244.2 The DFS and communal forests management..............................................................................................254.3 The land use dimension.................................................................................................................................264.4 The importance of communication...............................................................................................................27

5 Recommendations..........................................................................................................................295.1 General recommendations.............................................................................................................................295.2 Specific recommendations............................................................................................................................33

6 Proposed long term vision.............................................................................................................416.1 The results of the workshop..........................................................................................................................416.2 The future of communal forests and pastures...............................................................................................42

7 Concrete proposals and outline for a possible follow-up project...............................................44

7.1 Problem.........................................................................................................................................................447.2 Proposal for a follow-up project...................................................................................................................467.3 Institutional framework and responsibility...................................................................................................567.4 Project benefits..............................................................................................................................................577.5 Risks............................................................................................................................................................. .587.6 Legal framework...........................................................................................................................................59

Bibliography.......................................................................................................................................60

ANNEXES

Table of Contents................................................................................................................................aAbbreviations and acronyms.............................................................................................................c

Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................i

ECO-Consult, Oberaula a


2/69


3/69


Abbreviations and acronyms

AFP Albania Forestry ProjectAPFDP Albania Private Forestry Development ProgramAUT Agriculture University of TiranaCFPMp Communal Forests and Pastures Management Programme component "B" of the

AFPDCFPE Directorate for Communal Forests and Pastures and Extension ServicesCTA Chief technical advisorDFS District Forestry ServiceDGFP Directorate General for Forests and PasturesEIA Environment Impact AssessmentFAO Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations

FAO-TA FAO Technical assistanceFUA Forest Users AssociationHa hectareMAF Ministry of Agriculture and Food

NGO Non-Governmental OrganisationNTFP non-timber forest productsPMU Project Management UnitPEMUProgramme Environmental Management UnitPPF Project Preparation FacilityREC Regional Environmental Centre for Central and Eastern EuropeSAR Staff Appraisal ReportTA Technical assistanceUSAID United States Agency for International DevelopmentUSD US dollar

ECO-Consult, Oberaula c


4/69


Executive Summary

The objective of the mission was subdivided in four main aspects:

(i) to realise the evaluation of the activities carried out by the CFPMp particularly fromthe point of view of their sustainability,

(ii) to formulate recommendations for the current phase,

(iii) to provide inputs for a possible follow-up project and

(iv) to formulate a long term concept for the sustainable management of communal forestsand pastures.

Stakeholders in 9 Districts have been visited and the available documentation in English some in Albanian with the help of PMU personnel - has been used to prepare this report.

The CFPMp can be considered as very successful in terms of achievements made but also forits pioneer role in this sector. Never local forestry has been developed in Albania before.During the Ottoman period, the land and natural resources were recognised as God presentand during the communist period they belonged to the State. Nevertheless, traditional landownership 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 realise the transfer of forests and pastures foreseen in the law. The proposed methodologyhas proven to be adapted to the Programme purpose and the objectives set up at the beginningwere realistic: transferring the forests and pastures to 30 communes with the establishment ofusers' organisations and the corresponding management plans. Today, the Programme isworking in 107 communes: the 30 initial communes have been raised to 90 and theimplementation of the management plan of several communes which were prepared with thesupport of the APFDP taken over at the closure of this project. These additional transfers will

be possible in the timeframe of the project thanks to the earlier experience and the importantawareness it created for the process, but for these newly transferred forests and pastures, thesupport for an initial implementation of the management plan will not be possible for every

commune and for a period of three years. This increase in number of communes covered bythe Programme was possible thanks of a reallocation of funds.

The philosophy of the transfer of State forests and pastures to the communes is a recognitionof the needs of forests products and services by the local population and their rights on theiruse. In addition, the transfer is realised to the communes, which then conclude agreementswith 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 decentralisation process.

The methodology associated with the transfer lies on two major aspects:

The organisation of the implementing structure (Forestry Village Commissions, Forest

Users Associations, DFS communal forestry specialist, and Directorate for CommunalForests and Pastures and Extension Services),

ECO-Consult, Oberaula i


5/69


The development and implementation of communal forests and pastures managementplans.

The organisation at village level of the local population introduces the management of theforest at the level of the users themselves. For the time being more in terms of delimiting the

boundaries, appointing the users and defining the uses as well as implementing the protectionand improvement measures as in really planning the future development of communal forests.

Though it has an important role too to play in managing and resolving the conflicts wherethey occur, thus on a more sustainable way.

The management plans are prepared by professionals. Besides the important work done indescribing every plot and subplot identified by the villagers, the representation of thecommunal forests and pastures through digitalised maps is providing a perfect overall pictureof the communes. But the interpretation of these plot descriptions by villagers is not easy.

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 forestsand pastures are very degraded, the first improvements realised are confirming therehabilitation potential with simple measures and demonstrating the value that the forests may

have in future if correctly managed. This is important as most people lack the experience offorest growth, only of degradation, and are sometimes reluctant to accept a transfer of adesert as some said.

Often taken for granted, the involvement of the DFS staff is playing a major role indeveloping the transfer. Not only they are very important actors in raising the awareness ofthe local population but they are also deeply involved in the preparation of the management

plans (even if those are prepared by contracted consultants) as they possess the knowledge

about the forests. This is principally the case of the sector forester. Tendering the preparationof the management plans, monitoring of development and the approval of the final documentare tasks of the DFS staff too. In consequence, they are similarly involved in theimplementation of the management plans as coordinators and supervisor of improvementactivities realised.

But the major success of the CFPMp lies probably in the grade of awareness amongst therural population about the transfer process and what it implies. Not only the population which

benefits from the transfer knows about its aim, methodology and executing bodies, but this isalso known in other communes where the Programme is not yet active. This creates a hugedemand to extend the number of communes considered, but also in terms of expectations

about the development of the Programme in deeper reforms: clarifying the legal concepts,definitions, duties, rights, obligations and responsibilities; allowing commercial activities withcommunal forests and pastures products and services; bringing more support to the protectionof natural resources (forests and soils); recognising land property, etc.

In front of this success, the main recommendation is to pursue the activities and extend themwhen possible, in time and area concerned. A proposal for such extension in time, scope andareas is made in Chapter 7. This proposal is based on the good results of the AFP and put theemphasis on erosion control and development of skills in order to made a major contributionfor erosion control, topic which is at the centre of the proposed project.

The next section will present the findings and difficulties linked with the implementation ofthe transfer of forests and pastures to the communes.

ECO-Consult, Oberaula ii


6/69


Summary of findings and Recommendations

Not only the transfer is realised from the State to the Communes, but users themselves aredefining their forests and pastures boundaries, at village and family level, and are deciding on

the use of these. This is accompanied with the development of local (Forest Users)Associations and management plans. Thus, this represents an empowerment of the localpopulation and its structures, private and public.

It is important to note that villagers have a very strong perception of their ownership on theforest, often based on the tradition. This tradition considers individual or common landownership at the village level for housing, agriculture and forestry purposes. In such a

perception of local tenure, the transfer of forests and pastures "given-in-use" do not

correspond to the expectations of the local population, who would like to see the forestsgiven-in property. Nevertheless, once the transfer effective, there is some reluctance for theusers to confirm the transfer by a certificate or even a registration from the immovable

property office.

5.2.10 Review of the Regulation 308

The organisational structure to implement the transfer, to prepare the management plans andto implement them is based on the development of Forest Users Association at communal

level, composed of representatives of Forestry Village Commissions, usually the elected headof villages. These bodies are recent, composed of local persons who have the confidence oftheir people but are not necessarily educated to run such kind of organisation and to developsuch activities. In consequence, the FUAs are relatively weak in term of managerialcapacities, which cannot be compensated by contracting administrative personal as their

revenues are very limited, often nonexistent. This creates a problem too for the remunerationof the communal forester.

5.2.4 Organise exchanges between FUAs

5.2.5 Conduct pilot business training for the FUAs

During the preparation of management plans, the participation of villagers is particularlyrequested for the definition of boundaries, hence the resolution of conflicts about them, aswell as the appointment of uses and users. This occurs when the contracted organisationdevelops the plot descriptions according to the format given for the management plans. Sector

and communal foresters are the key persons who are involved in the implementation and in ashort time they will still be more with the revision of the management plans. Being preparedby foresters, the management plans are more or less sophisticated technical documents thatcannot be understood by villagers, with the exception of the maps. With an increasedrecognition of their rights and the development of the relevant associations, villagers will gain

slowly more ownership on the management plans and participate in their elaboration, thus inthe monitoring and evaluation of its implementation. Though an important work of extensionwill be needed.

5.2.7 Simplify the current forest management plan guidelines

5.2.8 Reduce the number of administrative steps needed

The implementation of the management plans is done accordingly to the conditions set forsupport by the Programme. Fencing and thinning operations are the major works done: they

ECO-Consult, Oberaula iii


7/69


are a priority to rehabilitate the forest resource but erosion control works, not so muchdeveloped by the Programme, are very important long term investments that villagers cannotimplement on their own resources. The awareness about the transfer being well developed, itis necessary to induce more responsibility for the communal forests and pastures amongst the

users themselves. Once the rehabilitation of the forest being underway, the awareness should

be raised for thinning and pruning of oak stands without support from the Programme, thevillagers getting the products of these activities. Support should not be discontinued but itsemphasis put on long term investment, like erosion control.

5.2.1. Put emphasis on erosion control

5.2.3. Develop an awareness campaign on pursuing the activities

A permanent awareness campaign cannot be made without having good documented supportmaterials. These should be of two different kinds: documents and pilot demonstrations. Acommunal forester handbook is certainly needed. It needs to be regularly updated according

to the changes in the legislation framework, the experience on the field and the modificationsin the implementing conditions (e.g. support). Next to a handbook, the experience in livestockmanagement should be summarised taking into account its integrated character: agriculture forestry grazing.

5.2.2 Prepare a sector / communal forester handbook

5.2.11 Summarise the experience in pasture and livestock management

Pilot demonstrations should be aimed at showing to the villagers the advantages principallyfrom the financial point of view -, of the different management objectives like fodder

production, fuelwood, grazing and even timber production. This could also include indirect

benefits, for example for tourism activities or watershed protection. Next to them, the lessonsdrawn from a monitoring and evaluation system should be used.

5.2.9 Realise pilot demonstrations of the financial return

Quite important for the evaluation of the advance in communal forestry, but also for getting afeedback on the activities carried on from the awareness campaigns to the preparation of the

management plan and their implementation, it is necessary to develop a monitoring andevaluation system which will provide all levels, from the field to the DGFP (and then back tothem throughout the country), the necessary information to follow the progress made, identifythe bottlenecks and define solutions for them. This should be partly based on a proper

documentation system, which will be the memory of the Programme.

5.2.6 Develop a Monitoring and Evaluation system for communal forestry

5.2.13 Develop an documentation system for the CFPMp

For the time being there is some legal, institutional and administrative obstacles whichimpede the trade of communal products and services by and for the Communes. With very

few exceptions this is not yet an acute problem as the majority of communal forests andpastures are very degraded and will not soon produce surpluses to be marketed. Nevertheless,solutions to this situation should be developed as soon as possible and put in place.

5.2.10 Review of the Regulation 308

ECO-Consult, Oberaula iv


8/69


Steps taken by DGFP to develop its ownership on the CFPNp has to be pursued and madeeffective. It will reinforce the sustainability of the measures but also lessen the burden onPMU staff.

5.2.14. Develop the DGFP ownership on the CFPMp

ECO-Consult, Oberaula v


9/69


1 Introduction

The objective of the five week (June 11 to July 18) visit to Albania was to conduct a "reviewof the overall approach" of the Communal Forests and Pastures Management programme(CFPMp) in order to:

(i) formulate recommendations for the current phase,(ii) develop propositions for a possible follow-up project, and(iii) formulate a long term concept for the sustainable management of communal forests

and pastures.

The main focus was to determine ways to achieve a sustainable development of communalforests, where the social and economic conditions of the local population involved are playinga major role. The lines of thoughts were diverging from a purely technical approach, which is

mainly based on the development and implementation of forest and pasture managementplans, to converge towards a more comprehensive approach considering rural developmentand poverty alleviation. The detailed terms of reference, including a overview of the project,

can be found in Annex 1.

A great importance was given to field visits in different districts (see List of activities inAnnex 2), meeting as much as possible stakeholders considering villagers and head of village,village forestry commissions, Forest Users Associations, communal representatives andDistrict Forestry Officers as well as NGOs when present.

I wish to extend my sincere thanks to the PMU, DGFP and DFS staff as well as the members

of the FUAs and Village Forestry Commissions we visited for their generous support, adviceand assistance throughout my stay in Albania. I was made to feel welcome and comfortablefrom the first day. In particular I want to thank Mr. Vasilaq Mine, Director of the

DCFP/DGFP and Mr. Hilmar Foellmi, AFP CTA and Mr. Haki Kola, Director of PMU fortheir support as well as M. Janaq Male, Deputy Director PMU who shared an office with me,

participated to the field trips, and patiently endured countless interruptions in order to explainthe intricacies of Albanian life and forestry. The contributions of many participants have beenof the greatest importance in understanding the problems, the framework conditions, as wellas in developing the ideas presented in this report (see Annex 3).

This report has been prepared in Albania by Michel Midr (international expert ECO

Consult, Germany) with the help of Valbona Ylli (local expert PMU) and Klodian Deliallisi(translator/interpret PMU) without whom the work would not have been completed.

ECO-Consult, Oberaula 1


10/69


2 Project implementation and results achieved

Presently, a little over 1 million hectares (36% of the total land area of 2.9 million hectares) is

designated as forest land and about 450,000 hectares (16% of total land area) as pastures.[APFDP, 2000c]. Pastures and forests have been degraded significantly over the last 30 to 40years due to the communist government policy to establish terraces to plant fruit trees inforest areas and exploiting the forests above the annual allowable cut as well as, morerecently, the absence of a strong power during the countrys transition to democracy andmarket economy, which induced massive illegal logging. This degradation of the resource

base is particularly intense in areas close to villages and communities. The degradation ismainly caused by important human pressure on forest resources (i.e. uncontrolled wood

cutting and overgrazing) which are often the only resource available.

The Albanian Forestry Project (AFP) started in 1997 jointly financed by the World Bank and

the Italian Government for a period of 5 years, entails the four following investmentcomponents:

A - Institutional Development

B - Improved State Forest Management. In November 1999 the former Forest RoadRehabilitation and Maintenance component has been integrated into this one. Part of theForest Roads funds (2 million) have been allocated to the component C).

C - Management of Communal Forest and Pasture Areas

D - Protected Areas Management

The present report concerns only the component C: Communal Forests and PasturesManagement supporting the transfer of State forests to the communes and their management

and a possible extension of it.

Albania has 315 Communes and over 2800 villages. Each communes has an averagepopulation of 6500 people and an average of 9 villages, where a portion of them (those in thehills and mountains) has forested areas [APFDP, 2000d].

The Forestry Law adopted in 1992 made provisions in its Art. 4 on the transfer of the usufructof State forests and pastures to communes, which have to be applied according to theRegulation No 308, dated 26.1.1996. The Directorate General for Forests and Pastures

(DGFP) identified about 200,000 ha of forests and 250,000 ha of pastures that can bepotentially transferred to the communes [World Bank, 1996]. This is done on the basis of an

agreement between the forest administration and the interested communes, the preparation ofa ten year management plan, usually financed by the project, and an initial investment of up toUS$ 30,000 per year per Commune for a maximum period of three years.

Forest and pasture lands remain the State property. These resources are transferred fromDGFP (Ministry of Agriculture and Food) to the Commune (Ministry of Local Government),which then issue in use agreements with their village councils (management of commonforests and pastures) and families (exclusive rights of use and management). Forest areas are

not titled to the villages or families, but they are issued 10-year in use agreements with theprovision that they adhere to approved management plans. Certificates confirming theseagreements can be given.

This transfer is aimed to: (i) stop further degradation and begin the development of forests andpastures by involving Communes, municipalities and villages in their sustainable management



11/69


and therefore in the protection of the overall environment; and (ii) increase communities andfarmers benefit from utilisation of these natural resources. [DGFP, 1999]

The component Communal Forests and Pastures Management programme (CFPMp) is infull operation and has been considered as one of the most successful project component [AFP,

1999c]

2.1 Assessment of the objective and the design of the CFMp

The main documents to review the overall approach are the Staff Appraisal Report (SAR), the

last Progress Reports, and Supervision Aide-Mmoires. These documents are dealing with thewhole Project, where the CFPMp is only a part of it. Other components may play a role whenthey have transversal activities (e.g. institutional development) or impact (e.g. improved stateforest management). Numerous visits in the field (see Annex 2) are the base of theappreciation of the project implementation and results achieved.

The Communal Forests and Pasture Management programme has two objectives. The firstobjective is to rehabilitate and increase the productivity of silvo-pastoral areas close tovillages and communities in order to meet the fuel wood requirements of the local populationas well as the fodder requirements for their livestock. In relation to this objective, the

component also aims at developing the sustainable use of non-wood forest products foradditional income generation and supporting the protection and restoration of naturalecosystems in these areas, in order to enhance rural landscape and preserve biodiversity. Thesecond objective of the component is to initiate and develop communal management of theseareas through the active participation of the users, with a clear allocation of the resource baseto local beneficiaries, in order to achieve sustainable management of the most degraded

pastures and forests of Albania. In relation to this second objective, the component also aimsat strengthening the capacity of local governments to manage natural resources.

The SAR [p. 22] foresaw the support of participative management of communal forests and

pastures in 30 communes, involving:

(a) implementation of a pilot project in three selected communes in Central Albania, withfunding provided under a Project Preparation Facility (PPF);

(b) development of improved management and investment plans for areas of State forests andpastures that would be transferred to communes, using a participatory approach;

(c) funding of selected communal investment projects in restoration of degraded areas andpasture improvement, planting of fodder and fuel wood trees, and fencing for protectionand rehabilitation of highly degraded coppice and shrub forests; and

(d) establishment of a data base on communally managed forests and pastures, andpreparation of studies on the production and marketing potential for non-timber forestproducts.

The methodology proposed in the SAR, in its Annex D, #19, has been thoroughly applied andis still the reference for the development of transfer and management of communal forests.The early management plans realised were relatively simple and village based. Based onthis experience, detailed Terms of References for preparing forests and pasturesmanagement plans were developed. These Terms of References are focusing on theCommune level, the organisation of the Forestry Users Association and Village Forestry

Commissions, thus developing instruments (methodology and forms) to ensure theparticipation of the villagers and the resolution of conflicts at local level.



12/69


The selection of the communes is demand driven districts. The development of the process istaking the following (summarised) steps:

1. Awareness raising (identifying actors)2. Establishment of FUA and Village Forest Commission (organisation)3. Designation of boundaries (conflict resolution)4. Development of a communal forest management plan (approval)5. Implementation of the management plan (contract)

In the steps started with the development of management plans, the activities initially planned(SAR, Annex D, #20) for the rehabilitation and the improvement of forests and pastures(fencing, thinning, planting, erosion control, pasture improvement, etc.) are implementedwithout necessity to extend their range, excepted maybe in time (more than three years) andimportance (larger areas), which confirms the good initial evaluation of the needs andsolutions as well as the efficiency of very simple measures.

2.2 Assessment of the implementation of the component

2.2.1 Activities

Initially, it was planned to work in 30 Communes, but from the end of 1999 (just after twoyears of implementation), the good results of the component allowed to extend this target toanother 60 Communes, for which the management plans will be prepared (see Annex 10a for

the list of Communes and progress). The implementation phase for these 60 additionalCommunes will be reduced into two or one year (three or two if the Programme is extendedfor one year).

From annex 10a, we can see that the time to develop awareness, organise the communitiesand prepare the management plans has been reduced from three years to only one. It was alsoevident during the field trip, that the communities know already the process, are alreadyorganised at village level and, very often some villages in a Commune have already started

protecting the forest.

From annex 10a, it can also be seen that the project is working on more Communes as

planned: on total 107 Communes are (or will be) supported by the Programme; this is due tothe fact that AFP is implementing in several Communes the management plans developed by

the APFDP. This is an additional impact, showing the interest in assuring a continuation ofthe activities undertaken in communal forests.

Until now 28 management plans for communal forests and pastures have been prepared by theCFPMp. 37 are currently under implementation as 9 management plans were prepared withthe support of APFDP. In addition, 36 are under preparation and until completion of thecurrent project it is foreseen to have developed a total of 90 management plans. The differentactivities carried out and their importance are detailed in Annex 10c.

The cost to prepare the management plans is varying according to the size of the Communeconsidered, thus the number of villages composing it too (see Annex 10b for costs, area and

type of forests). On average a management plan is prepared for an area of 3,000 ha and costsaround USD 10,000. It is to note that private enterprises are paying 20% VAT and around30% social security contribution. A reduced number of management plans have been prepared



13/69


by the District Forest Service (DFS) for whose only the running costs have been provided bythe Programme, reducing it to around USD 2,000, the difference being in fact a non accountedcontribution of the Albanian Government.

Annexes 10c, 11 and 12 are presenting respectively the realisation implemented and their

costs, the detailed budget for 2001 and the foreseen budget for 2002 as well as the situation ofdisbursement. Compared with tables 3.3 p. 24, 3.4 p. 28 and 3.6 p. 32 of the SAR, it is clearthat the CFPMp is one of the most efficient component of the Programme, having made

perfect use of its budget. Additional funding reallocated from the Forest Roads and from theunallocated budget line is allowing the CFPMp to work on three times the initial number ofCommunes.

2.2.2 Supporting services

The implementation of the supporting activities foreseen by the SAR (# 21 to 23) has been

following a slower development curve compared to the field activities. It is only recently thatthe DGFP has established a Directorate for Communal Forests and Pastures and Extension atDGFP, late but giving to communal forestry more importance as it is perfectly due asinitially foreseen (communal forests and pastures unit).

In the District Forestry Offices, the situation is relatively similar: some have alreadydesignated a forest engineer to be dedicated to communal forests and pastures management,when others like in Elbasan - are waiting the transfer to be completed and an additionalforester appointed to the district office.

It is necessary to point out that the technical assistance provided by SNV on the Swiss budget

is very efficient in promoting todays activities, but also in analysing new fields of work as forexample the NTFP or women participation. As this technical assistance is oriented towardfield activities and located in Diber District. In addition, it is important to mention that sincethe Supervision mission by the end of 1999, the FAO-TA based at DGFP in Tirana has been

allowed to contribute to the CFPMp. This provides a synergy effect with other components,mainly State forests management and institutional building.



14/69


3 Relevance and sustainability of the CFPMp

The transfer of forests in the philosophy of the CFPMp is not just to return forest, but to give

back the forest management responsibility to the people who live there. The process is longand not a simple transfer of a forest and pasture area in use to the Communes / villages, it isthe process of the transfer of State competence and responsibilities (forestry service) to thelocal government (Communes) and the community (villagers). This is thus a process that doesnot stop at the formal transfer of forests and pastures in use to the community; on thecontrary, it lays the foundation for the start of the management of the forests through thedevelopment and implementation of management plans by local structures. This promotes asustainable decentralised management of the natural resources through the participatory

involvement of the community. Therefore, CFPMp is not just a method for communal forestmanagement, but it is also part of the local empowerment and capacity-building processes.

3.1 The villagers perspective

The perception and opinion of villagers about the present institutional arrangement

(limited transfer of user rights)

Two main statements are always coming from the villagers:

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

will the Government take the forest back from us as it is investing in the managementplan and its implementation.

Everywhere, villagers have a strong feeling about their ownership on the forest, that theyconsider as their property, based very often on ancestral use or on even actual use. Thisattitude is relatively independent of the actual status of the forest (transferred or not) andrefers to the land and to the products themselves and not to the use. It means too thatvillagers are open to changes of uses, e.g. planting chestnuts, as long as it is in their advantageand 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 two brothers at Regjaj village in Golaj Commune(Has District). 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 favour a transfer as common land in order to avoidindividual responsibility on it (case of Shngjergj village). This is an expression of a lack ofconfidence 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 insuch choice: the forest (and the land) stays as before property of the State only the users'rights being transferred and, the transfer is organised at communal level, hence similar to thecollectivisation 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



15/69


beneficiary of the forest transfer and management. The Communes are more for the farmersan instrument to resolve the administrative problems and to mobilise funds for theimprovement of their forests and living conditions.

On common land where no traditional particular or family is recognised as owner, farmers are

more reluctant to invest for forest improvement. This is due to the difficulties they have toparticipate in nature (provide work) and to distribute the forestry benefits, excepted whenthose lands are jointly used for grazing. Here the incentives given by the project are playingan important role to foster forestry protection. In the case of Greshdan Village (MaqellareCommune, Diber District) livestock is not allowed to graze on some family forests (forestswhich are very well protected), but sent them to the common pastures, which are verydegraded. 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. Theyare willing to take care of their plots and defend them against outside (the village)

intervention (Fajze Commune, Has District or Zerqan Commune, Bulqize District). This canlead even to refusing participating in the CFPMp activities (Sllove Commune, Diber District).

From discussion with representatives of the villages to the FUA, it is clear that in some cases(e.g. Gjinari) they are not aware of the statutes of the association hence of their rights andobligations. Thus we may reasonably assume that they are not better informed about the laws.In fact, speaking with the head of village, they are always making comparison with thedistribution of agricultural lands a few years ago and the still not resolved conflicts.

In general farmers are not considering only the "forestry fond" but also the land classifiedunder the fond of agricultural land which as been cleared during the communist regime.

Particularly of debate is the use and hence the rehabilitation of the so-called "refusedlands" which have been abandoned by agriculture being unsuitable for it, but which are notfalling under the responsibility of the DFS. Farmers who have often a traditional ownershipon those lands - would be interested in getting some support to improve them for agricultureor forestry - as they are very often subject to erosion. An example of the potential to reconvertdegraded agricultural land into forestry is shown by a elderly farmer of Luf village in Pukedistrict who planted oaks by direct seeding.

Farmers are interested in the forest for the services it can bring to them, not only through thedirect use, firewood, fodder, 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, theystarted already without Programme intervention to protect a part of the degraded forests,usually on family-owned lands. The insecurity about the future users rights (uses, trade,and property) do not encourage individuals and less villages to invest in the protection ofthe forest. Places where the forests and pastures have been spontaneously protected are placeswhere villagers will not allow any use, illegal or legal, without their consent.

During the whole mission, it was clear that farmers are growingly aware of the degradation ofthe forests and the impact on their livelihood. When they have the resources, manpoweravailable and not 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 orerosion control, once the forest is again established, they will prune it for fodder (in the caseof oak), thin it for sticks and firewood and graze it eventually, according to their need and not



16/69


a management plan. The CFPMp is here an incentive to support these activities, to extendthem and to bring proper technical care (extension). Due to the fact that they already have astrong property feeling about the forest, the interest into the Programme is often superficially seen as an interest into only paid labour.

See Annex 5 to 7 for more details about the villagers view.

3.2 The impact of paid labour

The impact on programme sustainability of paid labour for silvo-pastoral management

activities

Paid labour in communal forests has several impacts, some of which are negative, but muchmore important are the multi-level benefits it brings. If paid labour is all a benefit for theforest and farmers, this is a mere continuation of the State run forest system, even if they arein this way supported in their livelihood and are developing a sense of ownership for the

forests.

Forest protection and improvements are realised, which has a direct impact on soil protectionand the landscape, in a short term and in a medium term on fuelwood, fodder and medicinal

plants production and, in some favourable cases, timber production in a long term. With the

project, larger areas receive a proper management.

There is no doubt that farmers welcome activities subsidised by the project as they perceivesuch activities as a (additional) source of income. In fact, in some areas, employment by theState in forestry sector (in State or Communal forests) is the only source of local employment,reducing poverty and emigration. This has the great advantage that people are somehow

informally trained in managing the forest and have a greater awareness about its value. Thevillagers of Shngjergj (Kaliva Commune, Mirdite District) claimed to be all of them "forestworkers since a long time". But as this way of acting is similar to what they have known inthe past, paid labour is somehow perpetuating the State run system (top-down) instead of

initiating a self-responsibility feeling. This is true with some nuances: elderly people havingknown how it was before are more open to self-determination, while adults are more oftenlooking for examples; and young people are missing references.

As a source of income, the activities run by the Programme contribute to brake the outflow ofvillagers, leaving the village to find employment usually illegally elsewhere. In the case ofSllove Commune, during the one year period needed for the preparation of the communalforests management plan, around thousand people (some 20%) left the Commune.

Nevertheless, a certain ownership is developing through such activities, particularly whenthey are implemented on "private" given-in-use forests. The farmers are here dissociating theforest land for which they have a strong feeling of property, the forest itself, which is

providing them some of their subsistence needs, and the State offering them employment.Employment when being carried out in their village, reinforce their perception of belonging tothe place and the place to them. In such conditions, they are willing to keep the results of theirwork from the greed of outsiders including the State. This was, for example, reported fromfarmers in Regjaj village (Golaj Commune, Has District). It is a general opinion even ifvillagers are weighting differently the three mentioned aspects; for example, in Gjinari village(Elbasan District) where the project has now a long history of intervention, people are giving

more importance first to the returns given by "paid labour" as it is on short term a directsupport to the households, then have a more ambiguous position about tenure (own perception



17/69


vs. State law, conflicts) and finally the benefits of protection are considered at long term as anuncertain reward for their participation.

It is also true that the works financed by the project have as well an impact in raising theawareness of the villagers about their forests. The changes succeeding only after a couple of

years, show them how the forest can evolve the way elder people have told them it was in thepast.

There is no doubt with the different examples seen that forest logging in "private"(communal) forests have been severely limited even suppressed as well as forest fires inthe areas where the project is supporting the activities, for example in Malzi village of KukesDistrict.

For the Forest Service, paid labour is a mean to keep their authority in the sector, beingrecognised as the State representatives in charge and, hence, to keep the integrity of the forestand pasture domain. This was strongly advocated in Elbasan Forest District Office. Yet these

activities can bring another burden on the shoulder of the DFS, as this institution is seen as anemployer. A feeling is developing (more exactly is not changing) that the forestry serviceshould finance, in future and under any circumstances, the improvement activities, throughthe project or directly. But the State does not even have the resources even to supervise the

proper management of all communal forests as these forests are divided up to the individualplots which means for the DFS having a large number of "partner", for one side and on theother, this was not the intended purpose of transferring the responsibility to the local people.

Co-ordinated measures, like the activity started with the World Food Programme, to bringfood packages to the workers, is welcomed. Such measure shows the beneficiaries that thereare other advantages brought by their participation in the Programme. This should be used as

a reward for their efforts but not as an incentive to start organising themselves. In such case,the feeling that extra benefits are automatically part of the package may place the forestservice in a difficult position. The Programme may bring the information about the possibilityof such advantage but it should be the FUA, the villagers themselves, who are applying andcoordinating the request, hence broadening the field of activity of their association.

In conclusion, it is important to recognise that if some limited improvement may also takeplace without the project support according to the labour available (mainly elder peopleoutside the agricultural season) the magnitude of these works will be reduced: neither theState nor the Communes have at the moment the resources to continue the activities started.

Yet as some improvement measures have been taken without incentives (Luf village in PukeDistrict) or before the project intervention (Fajze village in Has District) and, considering theawareness of the environmental degradation expressed during the meetings, it is likely that the

protection activities started with the project will continue on a limited basis without itssupport.

3.3 The available work force

The impact of out migration.

Out migration is a consequence of poverty and poor economic opportunities. It is necessary todistinguish between dislocation and emigration.

In the case of dislocation, members of the family, usually male adults, are looking foremployment elsewhere and leave behind the rest of the family in the village. This happens to



18/69


Shngjergj village in Mirdite district, where most of absent people have gone to takeadvantage of the construction boom in the South and West. Whole families may migrate intown but as reported from Llixhat e Hidrait village (Elbasan district), members are stillcoming 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 tothe village of the missing persons is expected. As a consequence, on one hand, the possibilityto take care of the natural resources is reduced, which leads to neglect forest improvement,

but also reduces the pressure on it, on the other hand, the existence of extra-village incomewill allow (at least temporarily) to diminish the pressure on the resources and the localeconomy. In any case, dislocation will not improve the potential of economical opportunitieswithin the village on a long term.

Emigration is characterised by the definitive departure of the persons. Usually, the most

educated persons have a comparative advantage in leaving the village as well as the youngadults group that represents the village's workforce. This is an impoverishment for the village

capacity to undertake actions in favour of the natural resources. When the emigration takesplace in a legal frame, the links with the family and the village are maintained, and someincome reach the village, but when the emigration is illegal, usually the links with the familyare broken and the returns are highly reduced. As a consequence, the village is loosing its

people, who are in the best age to manage intellectually and physically the communal forests.

In this context, the Programme "paid labour" have an enormous impact in stabilising the workforce in the village and in the forest, contributing to a lower migration in town and a lower

illegal migration abroad. Nevertheless, the impact of the CFPMp in terms of employment isstill small as the salary paid is low and affecting only a portion of the population.

On the other hand, if the village does not have enough persons to be employed by theProgramme (shortage of labour may occur when the forestry activities compete with theagricultural occupation of the villagers) it recruits labour in neighbouring villages, in whichcase the Programme impact is spread.

3.4 The allocation of forest and pasture resources

The capacity of communes, villages and families to delimit the allocation of forest and

pasture resources

The private forest area in Albania, due to the Sherihat Law of the Osman empire, has been

rather small and did not exceed 5% o the total forest area (63,000 ha). (...) The recognitionand restitution of private forests to the ex-owners started after 1996. Thus only 6,300 ha or

10% of the private area was returned to the ex-owners until June 2000. [APFDP, 2000b]

The division of the communal forests and pastures in plots is realised in three categories: perfamily, the most of it, as common or village forest, and as forest being attributed to anindividual. The allocation is usually made according to the old boundaries of the properties asthey were before 1945. These borders, that have no legal documented value, arerigorously respected by the villagers: no one is allowed to collect fodder or firewood, or to cutstanding trees, to someone else forest without permission. The expression itself to cut an oaktree is equal as to cut an olive tree... often used by the villagers, shows the high value theygive to the oak forest. However, in the case that a family can not fulfil its needs for fodder

from its own part of forest, it can collect fodder on other plot in common or family uses, withthe permission of the owner. Grazing is usually organised at village level. Regarding chestnut



19/69


trees, they are a valuable property kept from generation to generation. They are considered asa totally private property and are protected very strongly.

Nevertheless, the situation is quite different compared to before 1945: the number ofinhabitant has grown up tremendously, even if out migration now tends to reduce their

numbers in the rural areas, and the forest area is reduced, usually having been converted intoagricultural land (which today is not the responsibility of DGFP) through clear cutting them inmost places.

According to the social cohesion, the families (as the smaller unit) are represented by one oftheir members, who has the authority to resolve the conflicts linked with the allocation ofnatural resources. Usually, where this social cohesion is strong, the families have maintainedthe traditional knowledge and process to allocate their resources within the village, evenwithin the family. Difficulties may arise in the relation with the authorities to apply forimprovement works, when the natural resources considered as the village "property" aredivided amongst different administrative districts. This is the case of the village Shngjergj

where some of their perceived village area belongs to Lezhe District, when the village isconsidered to be part of Mirdite District. When this cohesion is not so strong, the number ofconflicts is higher and the process of resolving them is longer. Villagers are trying to followthe same approach as the one based on the tradition but negotiating the users rights on baseof 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 anymember of the association. The project emphasises the participation of all concerned. In fact,the FUA being established at the Commune level, beneficiaries (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 systemofficial 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 ofthe Communes or DFS.

The resolution of disputes is realised 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 villagerepresentative 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 organ that will determine the plots'boundaries when the management plan will be prepared, hence dealing with the aspects ofland tenure and land ownership.

At the local level, the allocation of resources is not considered as a big issue but well the wayit is legally recognised and the security carried with this recognition. In the forestry sector, theState is reluctant to recognise fully a situation de facto on the ground, on which it has littleinfluence in the framework of a liberal society. In the actual situation, it is unbelievable thatthe State will fight each farmer. This reluctance is justified by the fact that the local leveldoes not consider (even realise) 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 forestmanagement.



20/69


3.5 Existing informal types of ownership

If we consider the forest as a source of timber, the villagers see it in a very different way. For

farmers, timber is classified as the lowest interesting product of the forest, in large part as itwas 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 forcooking and, in winter 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. Firewoodrepresents a large market that is officially restricted to the forestry service as provider. In fewcases where Communes can sell firewood, the sale and the product of it are subject to thecontrol of the forestry service, 30% of the value should be paid to the State and 70% to theCommune Revenue Account (or DGFP), but for communal forests this system is not yet

functioning due to legal difficulties. In any case, the individual do not benefit from it.Nevertheless, exchanges in kind of uses (grazing rights against firewood) have been reportedbetween neighbouring villages.

Fodder (from Oak) is the second important product of the forest. Villagers are poling andpruning oak trees to feed the animals in stables. The fresh material is used but sometimesbranches and twigs are dried and kept like 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 onsummer pastures usually in altitude, the whole flock may transhume every day if these

pastures are not to far. It is the case of Rabdishti Village (Melan Commune, Diber District)where the summer pastures are some 2 hours away from the farm. From a animal husbandry

point of view, it is not to be recommended but also it brings degradation to the forests alongthe way and particularly to the soil, increasing the erosion risk.

Fruit (forest) trees are also important for the villagers. There are nut trees: chestnut, walnut,hazelnut, etc. Not only they are important for the fruits for which there is a market but alsothese trees produce valuable timber.

Aromatic and medicinal plants were before an important source of income for the country.Today this sector is very reduced as a commercial activity. Even if we have seen it done in

Peshkopi, the prices displayed by a trader are so low that it is not an interesting incomegenerating 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 anypotential in such products except those who have the information about a middleman in thecity or are directly in contact with him. Moreover, the commercial potential and chain is notknown at the village or commune level, even trader are not aware of the marketing andhandling possibilities. For example, pines could eventually be managed to give resin andessential oils but farmers do not have a market for it.

3.6 Needs for basic research

for the development of adapted techniques

In view of the extension of forest degradation, simple very well known methods can beapplied. They comprise protection against overexploitation (firewood and grazing) as well as

protection against fire. This last has to be studied more, not from the technical aspect, but



21/69


from the social point of view to set up fire prevention and combat plans developing aownership attitude by the population for the forests and its protection.

It is also apparent that it is necessary to revise the norms applied in forestry for labour butparticularly for the technical specification of the works done. In the case of rehabilitation

works or erosion control, the norms should be different as for normal reforestation works: thequality and density of plants, the methods employed and tendering have to be adapted to thelocal conditions. This may also have an incidence on the nursery aspects involved: e.g.reduced size of seedlings locally produced from local seeds, etc.

As the support of the communal forests and pastures cannot be permanent (project phasingout, reduced possibilities for the governmental intervention), it is necessary to base the actualefforts on some (future) incentives intrinsic to the forest itself. Studies and pilot

demonstrations of the financial return of communal forests and pastures management haveto be developed. This will include the need to develop management practices which areeconomically viable for communal / individual forests. This may imply the need to adapt

laws, regulations and standards to this particular objective. There is often an agreementamongst villagers that the DFS should be concentrating their work on this last point.

Another important aspect to give attention to are marketing possibilities (formal andinformal) for farmers' products from the forest. In the first line, commercial activities withsecondary products like medicinal herbs, but also products linked to the basic needs of thefarmers (firewood and fodder) have to be considered, while timber will be taken into accountin the long term. A system should be progressively developed as to diverge from the purelyallocation of natural resources towards a more accounting process where monetary values areused. Where the accounts will be held is not clear for the time being: At the communal level,

at the Commune or the FUA (as actually done), or at the village or individual level, this willdepend on the dynamic that each party will bring into the process. The family / individual

plots are may be too small to be able to generate regularly an income which may be reinvestedinto the forest. So it is our opinion that the FUA has good chances to develop as a marketingunit but it is partly depending in the strengthening of the Commune as an administrative (andeconomical) centre as well as the development of the managerial capabilities of theassociation.

Wood products from communal forests will not develop soon as a strong market due to the

large local need for firewood and the degradation of the village forests,. At the moment, theDFS is acting as intermediary between villages to supply them in great part from the State

forest with fuelwood.

3.7 The quality and accuracy of the management plans

Several management plans have been reviewed, usually their quality is very high in terms ofdescribing the forest and the general context (village users) but they are less as a forecastinginstrument. It is may be too early to reach this last point as communal forestry is just startingand is not yet producing commercial goods and services.

The quality of the management plans produced by the Programme is very high. It is clear thatstrong improvements have been made from the first one (Gjinari Commune Elbasan

District), which was financed before the actual start of the Programme on the ProjectPreparation Facility, to the recent ones. In the case of Gjinari, the document was developed at

village level and based on the former old State management plan without investing much in



22/69


new survey. This had the advantage to reduce the time and costs of preparing it but it reducesthe involvement of the local population too. On the contrary, recent management plans, likethe one for Maqellare (Diber District) or Bushtrice (Kukes District) Communes are a verythick document where not only an extensive description of the socio-economical environment

is done but also of the plots, including a copy of the different agreements accompanying the

transfer of the forest: establishment of FUA and Forestry Village Commissions, agreementbetween the DFS, Commune, villages and families or individuals concerning the given-in-use of each parcel. The same improvements are seen for the management plans made by theformer APFDP project from Blinisht Commune made first to Ungrej Commune made later,

both in Lezhe District. APFDP collaborated closely with the AFP for communal forestry.

There is no major differences in quality between management plans prepared by the DFS(Bushtrice Commune in Diber District) or by private companies (Maqellare Commune, inDiber District too). The first is more focused on the objective of the document, while the

second is introducing data of (a few) inventoried plots; the first draw its information of pastknowledge, while the second is trying to cover all the topics given in the Terms of

Reference for management plans preparation.

A major difference exist though between the management plans prepared by the AFP andthose that have been done with the support of the APFDP in terms of information collectedfor each plot (see Annex 13). APFDP approach used a description form that requires muchless data information and gives a better overview of the situation, while the form developed

by APF contains more information in a format proper to be encoded, but which is requiressome training in interpretation. The former is more targeted to an use in the field and by

non-forester i.e. villagers, when the latter is very academic, only for use by highly educatedforesters. The APFDP form has a special space for a small sketch of the plots limits and theneighbouring ones. The AFP form presents a table for the activities to be planned during themanagement validity period, even if this table is usually nearly left empty. In a ten year periodnot many operations will be conducted on a single plot. For this last point, the summary tablesgiven, e.g. Maqellare management plan, for the 10-year management and 3-year projectinvestment planning are enough to have an overview for the Commune (per village) and forthe Villages (per plots) of the operations to be carried out.

The AFP form is compatible with State forest management plan. It varies also slightly from

management plan to management plan (see Bushtrice vs. Maqellare plot description in Annex13).

The management plans have the basics needed to manage the forest but lack being aprogramming tool for two reasons:

1. Planning is only possible when the resources to implement the activities areavailable,

2. The operations to be carried out in the case of communal forestry are reduced due to theextreme degradation of most of the plots.

Most management plans are developed as a condition for the transfer of the forests from theState to the Commune and are thus prepared in this context. When the availability of funds for

rehabilitation is known, which is the case for three years in communal forests, the forestplanner will introduce the work to be done. In the case of Maqellare, the works to be

implemented during the three years period supported by AFP is clearly presented in a separatetable. Thus planning forest operations is done according to the availability of funds and not bythe necessity to realise the operation. This is a direct consequence of the scarcity of financial



23/69


resources: when the resources are available, the most urgent works are done; when not, theplasticity of the forest growth will allow to delay for some time the operation until they areurgent.

It has to be mentioned that as the forests are heavily degraded, there is not much activities to

be planned for the management plan period: only to protect them without much improvementpossibilities, some thinning may be done from the 6th year. Hence, the forestry operationsforeseen are limited in the management plans prepared under the project. This will be quitedifferent for the next generation of management plans, where more products are expected to

be available and more care activities will have to be planned, including conversion of plotsused today for fodder or firewood into timber production. In other words, the management

plans of today are fundamental for the management plans of tomorrow, when communalforestry will take its complete meaning. In the mean time, several legal and economic aspectshave to be solved as well as the managerial capacities of the Commune and local users

associations.

The main challenge for the CFPMp and DGFP is to find a balance between the (biological)needs of the forest to recover the degradation suffered and the (economical) needs of theneighbouring villages and the country as a whole. The first is a long term process, while thesecond is a short term necessity. The forest has to contribute to the immediate welfare of therural population, where paid labour is part of this contribution.

3.8 The villagers and the management plans

The usefulness of management plans, level of villagers participation in their elaboration

and their understanding and monitoring of the plans

Since most of communal forests are degraded, management plans will be based on all thefunctions of the forest and not only on wood production function, giving the priority to forest

protection against further degradation, and to the improvement operations. A number of

products like, poles, fuel wood, twigs and fodder, can be obtained through tending serviceslike cleaning, thinning, etc. and benefit directly the villagers.

Even if the formalities to transfer and manage the forest are mainly realised at district andcommune 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 betterinterest in the forest considered as a base for livelihood.

At this stage, the management plan, in addition to its simply technical and organisationalcharacter, has an accentuated social character. In fact, mechanisms to consult the local

population for the preparation of management plans have been developed in the Terms ofReference and are getting applied. These mechanisms are mainly concerned with usersidentification and uses expected. First, the expectation of the villagers is in a formalrecognition 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 expectationsare mainly limited to the activities that cover the needs of the community (fuelwood, fodderand grazing), some commercial activities usually not being possible in the short run due to thestage of degradation of the forest. Nevertheless, villagers are hoping that they will be soongiven the right to trade legally forest products.



24/69


In addition to their degradation, individual plots are small which means that they do notjustify an intensive management, and moreover, the villagers do not possess a forestryeducation. Both arguments are in favour of a simple management tool. Villagers know of theexistence of the management plans at the Commune or the FUA, but do not know its

content. Usually they have seen the maps which is probably the main product for them -, but

do not have a copy of them. Their perception of the management plan is more like a formalitythat has to be fulfilled in order to get the support of the DFS or the CFPMp; their perceptionof the operations to be carried out is the traditional use that everybody knows. Withouthaving the link between forest management and income earning through its production beingclearly defined in the mind of the forests-in-use "owners", they will continue to consider themanagement plans as a DFS tool.

Moreover, at this stage, the only person who is able to take ownership on the managementplan is the Commune or FUA forester because he is the person who is mainly involved in its

application: preparing requests for improvements, organising and controlling the work doneby the villagers. Villagers do not have usually the sufficient knowledge to see and decide on

the need and intensity of improvement, thinning for example.

In these conditions, it is too early to ask the villagers to monitor the implementation of themanagement plans. The management plans developed now have to be used not only tomanage the forests but also to build the capacities of villagers to participate more actively inits preparation i.e. revision at the end of its 10-years period of validity.

3.9 The involvement of private foresters

Private forestry companies and NGOs have been much involved in the preparation of the

management plans. Their selection is made through a tendering process on the bases of anoffer presented according to the terms of references for the preparation of the management

plans and considering the specific conditions of the Commune.

Very often the team presented to realise the management plan is composed of foresters, whohave been working for several years in the forestry service. They do have a good knowledgeof the legal and institutional set up but have usually very few relations with the communitiesinvolved.

If their ability to conduct a project, develop forestry measures, and prepare a whole documentincluding maps is relatively high, their ability to involve local communities in a participatory

process varies from contractor to contractor. NGOs are often more oriented to socio-economicaspects compared to private companies. But it is necessary to point out that sometimes thelimit between NGO and private companies is very vague as their staff is composed nearly of

the same persons.

The role of private forester in developing the management plans is very important as it wouldbe impossible for the forest services to prepare these plans in the number and time given.Nevertheless, it is already necessary to put some thoughts, not to restart everything from thebeginning for the revision of the management plans. The first management plans realised arenearly at the middle of their validity period. The process to review the management plans canmake use of private foresters but the role of the DFS, particularly of the sector's forester, and

the FUAs should be increased and, the intensity of work required decreased.



25/69


26/69


apply to the persons who are adhering to the Statutes i.e. are members of the association.This could include returns from the Law No 8302 and DGFP Instruction No. 2 which definesthat incomes generated by the forests are split between the State (30 %) and DGFP vs. theCommune (70 %).

For many users, Law No 8302 applies only to commercial activities generated by Stateforests, eventually for trade of goods and services of communal forests, but never to their ownuse of their "given-in-use" forests. Though farmers are reporting to be ready to pay taxes onsales not on land. Moreover, reports from several villages indicate that villagers are buyingfuelwood to the State protecting in this way "their" communal forests. This should becarefully monitored in order to avoid fixing the objectives of the management of the Stateforest to produce firewood but well according to the best potential of the forests.

Forest taxes and fees should be clarified quickly. Even if in most cases forests will notproduce very soon large amount of returns, due to its severe degradation, Communes, villagesand villagers have to know what are their rights and obligations of using the forests. Fees or

incomes on grazing, medicinal plants collection, hunting, etc. do not represent amounts whichwill allow reinvestment at the Commune level, even less at village or individual level; these

products are sold by farmers with little processing or not at all, hence with no value added.

Another tendency in the forest use, which may have some financial impact on the forests isthe increasing number of people using other sources of energy, mainly electricity and gas.This is due to the urbanisation, the allowances sent from the emigrants and the need of a

better quality of life. This may lead to review the management plans (today oriented towardsrehabilitation and fuelwood production) to fix more often timber production objectives infuture. This will create a demand for funding to realise the conversion, putting at a longer

term the main revenue of the forests.

Some intend (Elbasan District) have been made to grant to the FUAs forestry works in theState forests like, thinning and pruning (but could be extended to fire protection), becauseusually private forest enterprises are anyway recruiting their workers in the neighbourhood.Contracting FUAs can be possible only in some particular cases. This has been made based onagreement between the DFS and the Association, without tendering process due to their poorability to meet the conditions of a tender, particularly years of existence, track of records, andfinancial viability. The financial advantages do not seem to be very interesting but the

experience gained (managerial and technical) and the effect of maintaining local workersemployed are the main benefits of it, at this stage. DFS in Elbasan suggested to give the

responsibility of collecting grazing fees on summer pastures to the FUAs or other could seeeven the possibility for the FUAs to develop itself as a middle-man for the collection ofmedicinal and aromatic plants.

At this stage though, the FUAs are still very young and have a lack of managerial experienceand are not allowed to be active in marketing forest products and services for their own

benefit. They have been created for the purpose of transferring the forests to the Communeand they are strongly dependent on the investment made in rehabilitating them, now done

thanks to the support of the AFP.



27/69


3.11 The phasing out funding after the third year

From the forestry point of view, the impact of the project is at the same time very limited and

tremendous. Very limited just due to the size of the forest area of the country; but very largein term of:

1. awareness of the foresters being employed in the forestry service, in the private sector, ineducation or research,

2. awareness of the local population on the rehabilitation potential, and3. improvements done in the forest stands.

In this context, the phasing out of the project activities is only a limiting factor inrehabilitating more areas, in improving the organisation of the villages and Communes and inincreasing the employment generated by the forestry works.

But as written above, the villagers are dissociating the use of the forest, the transfer and the

management of it. They have always used the forest and, the transfer is only a limited

recognition of their perceived rights. In this perspective, they see the investment activities ofthe Programme being limited to three years (two or even one probably for the lastmanagement plans) only in terms of employment or unemployment. The benefits they mayobtain from the forest improvements are limited (no economic use is allowed to them) andexpected in the far future for most of the communes. The forest is often in such a state ofdegradation usually, that a period of ten years will be at least needed to see the first productfrom it, if the forest is maintained protected. In other words, the improvements made, being

limited into three years, will not cover a rotation cycle: technically, an unbalance will existsbetween the different plots and from a socio-economic aspect, the rehabilitated forests willnot yet provide any returns.

Farmers do realise the impact of the improvement activities, very often they had alreadystarted to protect the very degraded forests before the intervention of the project. Some haveeven tended Oak forests through a very wise and controlled pruning and thinning for fodder.But their economic resources as well as the incertitude about their ownership and obligationsdo not allow them to invest in plantations or erosion control works. Thus after the three yearinvestment period, major improvement activities will not take place if no external (to the

village) financing mechanisms are found. The FUAs and Communes do not have, at least forthe time being, the resources or some income generating activities to finance the works; theState is in the same situation.

Though, much more of concern, is the phasing out of the project itself. After a difficult start,the CFPMp has reached an implementation velocity that allows to work in much moreCommunes as initially foreseen. The success itself (the awareness about the possible forestryimprovements as well as about the activities of the Programme itself) has raised an hugedemand for expanding the activities of transfer, preparation of management plans, but also theforest improvements amongst most of the Albanian Communes. It is to feared that without

any follow-up after the project completion, the unfulfilled expectations may turn in a sourfeeling of unaccomplished promises, hence limiting the interest into the forest to the basic andimmediate needs.



28/69


3.12 The role of DFS staff

The perceived functions and responsibilities of DFS staff and their recommendations

toward the current approach

The role of DFS staff is a major topic for any meeting concerning the management ofcommunal forests and pastures. The opinions vary tremendously according to the persons andits position relatively to the forestry system as well as his/her degree of open-mindedness tothe new concept of communal involvement and to the role of the other functions than

production of the forests. To give an example of the last point, DFS staff are dividedconcerning the role (or not) they should have in the sector of aromatic plants.

Everybody agrees that the role of the forestry service is the (forestry) law, even if in futureCommunes and FUAs may have an important role in implementing the law. This meansimproving it and enforcing it. Asked about their attitude in front of the possible interpretation

of the laws and resolutions, DFS staff favoured a pragmatic approach based on the

conciliation, the actual use of the communal forests by villagers and the requirement of thelaw. For example, the area given-in-use to families very often exceed the limit of one hectareforeseen at Art. 4 of the "Forestry and Forest Service Police" Law No. 7623, dated13.10.1992.

In terms of communal forestry, only a few villagers are referring to the provision of advisoryservices for the preparation of management plans, and their implementation by DFS. DFS isseen to be in charge of approving and controlling the implementation of the management

plans, which is a direct result of the structure given to the development of communal forestry.Nevertheless, most people are expecting DFS to give technical support to the FUAs and tofund works to be done, but do not support the idea of the forestry service interfering with the

process.

The role of the sector's forester is a little more ambigu

Cf Pm Report

Documents

Transcript of Cf Pm Report