Dulja Alternatives for Refused Land

8/3/2019 Dulja Alternatives for Refused Land

1/27

Alternative solutions for efficient use of refused land in Shngjergj Commune inAlbania

Lead and Contact Author: Dr. Xhevaire Dulja

Agricultural University of Tirana, Faculty of Economy and Agribusiness, Department of Agricultural Economy and Policies

Koder Kamez, Tirana, Albania

Email: [email protected]

Cell: +355 (0) 69 21 77 532

Prof. Dr. Galantina Canco

Agricultural University of Tirana, Faculty of Economy and Agribusiness, Department of Agribusiness Management



Cell: + 355 (0) 68 25 33 071

Dr. Ledia Thoma (Boshnjaku) Agricultural University of Tirana, Faculty of Economy and Agribusiness, Department of Agribusiness Management



Cell: +355 (0) 68 20 97 859

Prof. Dr. Henrieta Themelko

Agricultural University of Tirana, Faculty of Economy and Agribusiness, Department of Agricultural Economy and Policies


Email: hthemelko @yahoo.com

Cell: +355 68 20 15 014
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/27


Abstract

The main goal of study was to produce recommendations to the government and extensionservices for interventions to an efficiently use of abandoned land in hilly and mountainous areasof Albania. The present research selected a mountainous area in district of Tirana. Cultivation of three groups of Medicinal and Aromatic Plant (MAP) species suitable to the territory wereproposed followed by their cost-profit analyses. Through questionnaires fulfilled with thefarmers, research collected information on farmer readiness to cultivate MAPs, their preferencesfor certain species, sources of information for taking decisions on farm and tested theirknowledge on MAP cultivation techniques.

Key-words: medicinal, aromatic, refused, land, Albania.


3/27


Executive Summary

Agricultural land, in Albania, is scarce considering the fact that 76% of Albania s land consistsof forest and pastures (Albanian Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Protection, 2010a).Independently of land scarcity, poverty and unemployment rate in the rural areas, still we findunutilized agricultural land especially in marginal areas. Cultivation of this land with cash cropsor other traditional plants, many times is not possible because they are very exigent, unsuitable tothis land or difficult to be marketed or low income-generating and labor-intensive plants.

The present study was undertaken to find a solution and offer recommendations topolicy-makers and extensionists, harmonizing together all above-mentioned characteristicstogether with good acceptance by farmers. Medicinal and Aromatic Plant (MAP) cultivation isproposed to be a good alternative. We arrived to this conclusion after a cross-study of writtenliterature with information collected from interviews with experts and local people combinedwith cost-profit analyses. In the framework of the study were selected seven species divided inthree groups: annual, four-five year and perennial species. The annual species (fennel and anise)need to be planted every-year and are not known in the area. The second groups (sage, andoregano ) have better revenues (especially sage) and seemed to have more acceptance by thefarmers because of the revenues, moderated need for initial investment and low request formanual labor. The last group of MAPs (sweet bay and linden ) are long-live, generate lessincome, need higher initial investment and starts to produce after four or five years of establishment of orchards. There are cultivated in association with common thyme tocompensate incomes especially in the first years.

Furthermore, this study tried to explore and create an overview on the farmer s profile, tounderstand their level of knowledge on MAPs and cultivation techniques, farmer s informationsources as well as their decision-making bases.

Conclusion drawn after this study could offer to the decision-makers some indications onhow to orient the policies and to the extensionists or other advisors on the content of theiradvices and communication channels.


4/27

1


Introduction

Problem statementAlbania is mainly a mountainous and hilly territory, with an average altitude of 704 m above thesea level. About 76% of Albania s land consists of forest and pastures and only 24 % of the total(696 thousand ha) is agricultural land (Albanian Ministry of Agriculture, Food and ConsumerProtection, 2010a).

Table 1: Land structure in AlbaniaSurface (000 ha) Surface (%)

Agricultural land 696 24Forest, Pastures and meadows 1 464 51Other 714 25Total 2 875 100Source: Albanian Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Protection, 2010a

Through the land reform, that took place with the changing of political and economical system inthe early 90s , based on the law no.7501 entitled On land , Albanian farmers became owners of the agricultural land. According to this law, rural families received equally by size and qualitythe land of cooperatives that was formerly owned by the former socialist regime.

The actual official data shows that most of agricultural land belongs to 353 486 farmswhich are very small farms with an average surface of 1.14 ha and fragmented in 4.1 parcels perfarm. According to the same data, actually are 402 287 families living in these farms with anaverage of 1.1 families per farm (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and consumer Protection 2010a).

The rural population in Albania comprises about 50% of the total population. Accordingto official data, about 72% (1 004 254 out of 1 626 019 inhabitants) of rural population inAlbania is between 15 65 years old and belongs to the total labor force (Albanian Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Protection, 2010a). Calculations referred to the previous data

show that agricultural land per each labor force is about 0.6 ha. Based on data presented it isevident that agricultural land is a very scarce resource in Albania and rural population has verylittle land to farm and make a profitable return.

However, some land was rejected by farmers since it had little or no potential for profitbecause of poor soil and other undesirable characteristics. This land together with undeliveredland coming from agricultural state enterprises in Albania is often categorized as refused landa term which is similar to abandoned marginal land. The total area of refused land in Albania


5/27


6/27

3

General overview on MAPs

According to the study of Center for the Promotion of Imports from Developing

Countries, there is a growing demand for herbs and medicinal plants by pharmaceutical,cosmetic and perfume, together with food and beverage industries (2008a; 2008b and 2008c).MAPs remain still an important resource for health care and food consumption. At theinternational level, since 2000 exports from exporting countries keep increasing. In 2008,exports from Albania and Bulgaria scored over 8,367 Mt, for a value of 23 m. USD (UnitedStates Statistics Division)

About 50 000 and 70 000 species of medicinal plants are respectively used in thetraditional and modern medicine (Schippmann et al. 2006) and about 80% of world populationbases its health care system on medicinal plants in the absence of alternative systems at thedisposal of all population (Bennerman et al. 1983). Circa 3000 species of MAPs arecommercialized at international level (Lange and Schippmann, 1997), while only 100 of them

are cultivated regularly in agricultural production system (European Herbs Growers Association,2006). Cultivation of some MAP species is realized mainly for economical and environmentalreasons. Sometimes cultivation of these species ensures more incomes than the wild collectionand for some other species it is necessary for protection from the extinction (plants of the redlist).

Balkan countries are a major source of raw material and half finished MAP products formany EU and US industries and among the Balkan countries, Albania and Bulgaria are the mainsuppliers (United States Statistics Division). Albania has a very rich flora with more than 3,200species that make up about 29% of European and 47% of Balkan flora. About 350 Albanian wildspecies are collected and sold as MAPs in the international market (Ministry of Environment2010). Albania is considered a privileged country because of the high quantity and quality

(chemical content) of raw material available mostly of wild and natural origin and because of many years of the experience, efforts, tradition and the infrastructure established with EU andUS buyers in the international market ( Albanian Essence Producers and CultivatorsAssociation, 2010). Especially four wild MAP species such as savory, sage, white oregano andthyme have very peculiar quality characteristics compared to the same species produced in othercountries (United States Agency for International Development, 2010) .

Albania has for more than 45 years, a relatively long experience, that is dealing with wildMAP collection and exports to the international market. Domestic market in Albania is verysmall and the international market remains a good opportunity for exporting companies (UnitedStates Agency for International Development, 2010) and rural population especially those livingin the marginal area. During the last decade, the market for MAPs in Albania has experiencedsignificant growth. There are about nine important processing and exporting companies locatedin different regions of the country to buy MAPs for exports (Albanian Essence Producers andCultivators Associat ion, 2010; United States Agency for International Development, 2010). In2009 the quantity of MAPs produced and marketed was 6,007 tons with a value of 11.5 million(Albanian Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Protection, 2010). MAPs are one of thecategories of agricultural products most exported from Albania to USA and European countries(Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Protection, 2010).


7/27

4

Tab.2. Albanian Exports and Imports of MAPs (in 000)

2008 2009tons in All in tons in All in

Albanian Exports 9,042 2.057089 16.746 6 1.507.336 11.404,6

Albanian imports 0,4 47.271 384,71 0,36 66.855,11 501

[Source: Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Protection; Ministry of Economy]

Description of pilot area

Shngjergj is the most hilly and mountainous commune of Tirana district and about 50 km far

from the capital. It has twelve small villages that in years are become smaller because of emigration and internal migration.

Table 3: Number of families and inhabitants in the villages of Shngjergj communeVillage Number of inhabitants Number of families

1 Shngjergj* 417 1532 Vrri * 887 2563 Ur * 509 1764 Shngjin 270 955 Shnmri* 494 1766 Facesh 92 32

7 Biz 148 628 Fag 349 1229 Parpunj 48 2010 Vakumone 146 4411 Dom 44 1812 Derje 41 17

Commune 3445 1180* Villages with higher number of inhabitants and familiesSource: Registry office of Shngjergj commune, 2011

From the interviews with the farmers it was evidenced still a high willing to migrate mainly to

the big cities (unpublished own data).The average size of the farm and the cultivated land per capita is respectively 3.9 and

1.34 ha. From the quantity of 3.9 ha, only about 1 ha is cultivated for human consumption(vegetables and fruits). The rest is used as meadows and forage for animals. The maineconomical activity of the population of commune is farming in mixed farms of animalhusbandry, vegetables and fruits. Most of the farms produce for self consumption while the


8/27

5

poorest families and less-landed ones are based on collection of wild PAMs in the forests aroundthe area.

Commune of Shngjergj has the highest quantity of abandoned agricultural land in Tiranadistrict. Actually, refused land in this commune is of the category IX and X which refers to theworst quality of land. According to official data provided by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food

and Consumer Protection (2010b), the total area of refused land in blocks of about 10 ha orlarger in Tirana District is 825 ha out of which 609 ha are located in mountainous areas of Shngjergj commune and spread out in 7 villages (Table 4). However, the quantity of refusedand abandoned land is higher than the data presented here because detailed official data areavailable only for land in massive blocks.

Table 4: Availability of refused land in Tirana District

No. COMMUNEBlocks 10 ha or larger Number of

villages holdingblocks

LandCategory

Number Total area (Ha)

1 Krrabe 1 15 1 VII2 Dajt 2 50 2 VII

3 Preze 4 59 1 VII4 Vaqar 6 72 2 VII

5 Petrele 2 20 2 VII - VIII

6 Shngjergj 18 609 7 IX - X

Total 33 825 15

Source: Albanian Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Protection, 2010b

Based on decision of Albania Minister s Council nr. 531, dt. 01.08.1998, the refused landpassed to the administration of municipalities and communes. Communes can give this land totheir farmers in use according to the number of family members or for rent according to farmersreadiness.

Research ProceduresThis research includes both primary and secondary data collection and analysis. Secondary datawere obtained from different publications of national and international organizations (public and

private). They include official statistics, official book and journal publications, scientificmagazines, internet sources, etc. These data were necessary to:

a) Determine the study area. Data were collected from publications of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Protection and Tirana Agriculture Directorate on theavailability of refused land at national and commune level.


9/27

6

b) Establish a profile of Albanian rural area and population of the pilot study site. Publication of both Institute of Statistics and Ministry of Agriculture, Food andConsumer Protection at national level and other domestic and international researchdocuments and articles, will among others sources helped to answer some basic questionswith regard to the farm size, land available to each farm member, unemployment

situation in rural Albania, number of farm families living in the study area, etc.c) Analyzes cost-profit of suitable plants for the area and creation of three MAP scenarios

available to the farmers based on data of national and international literature andinterviews (Aiello, 2011; D Andre, 2011 a; D Andre, 2011b; Canco, 2001; Primavera,2011; Vender, 2011; Vondolina and Vender, 2011). The product of these analyses, threemain scenarios with seven plants, was presented to the farmers through cards along withthe questionnaires to test their preferences for cultivation.

However, secondary data were crossed with the primary data that were both qualitative andquantitative methods.

Qualitative dataFirstly, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the Mayer, experts and employee of

Shngjergj Commune in order to collect all the necessary information related to: a) proceduresfarmers have to go through in order to use this type of land; b) number of farm families living ineach village; and, c) other demographic, social, and economic data possessed by this institutionnecessary to the research.

Interviews also were conducted with land and MAP experts on species suitable to beplanted on the refused land located at Shngjergj Commune. Their opinions and data also helpedto estimate MAP prices, theirs cultivation costs and profitability of selected ones. Three groupsof plants were studied: annual, four to five- annual and multiannual plants in order to fit to

different farm conditions and farmer preferences.

Quantitative dataThe quantitative primary data were collected with the help of 205 questionnaires fulfilled withthe families selected in a randomized way in four biggest villages of Shngjergj Commune:Shngjergj, Vrri, Ur and Shnmri (Table 3).Questionnaires were used as a basis for fulfilling the second objective of the research: socio-

economical analyses of farm families of the commune of Shngjergj. Through the questionnairesis drawn information on farming family s profile, their readiness and the preferences forcultivation of selected MAPs, market channels for MAPs, farmer s knowledge about wild MAPsand cultivation techniques, sources of information for their decisions and role of extension

services in the area. Statistical elaboration of data collected through the questionnaires was donewith the program SPSS.


10/27

7

Results and Discussion

Cost-profit analyses

The cost-profit analyses of three different scenarios with seven plants were prepared in order togive different alternatives and higher possibility of choices to the farmers. Different scenarioswere necessary in order to fit to farmers knowledge, experiences, preferences and farmconditions. After literature review and interviews with national and international MAP experts(Primavera, 2011), MAP collectors, MAP exporters (Albanian Essence Producers andCultivators Association, 2010) and commune agronomist there were selected three scenarios:

Two annual MAPs that are fennel (Foeniculum vulgare var. dulce) and anise(Pimpinella anisum) ; Three species with medium-term duration of production cycle that are sage

(Salvia officinalis), common thyme (Thymus vulgaris) and white oregano(Origanum vulgaris) (four to five annual); and finally perennial plants such as bay (Laurus nobilis) and linden (Tilia sp.)

associated with common thyme.

Agronomical criteria were the first and the economical and social criteria were the otherones considered for selection of the species. Species selected had to adapt to climate and difficultsoil conditions of the area. They had to be relatively profit generating and demanded ones witha tendency for an increasing demand in the market. Different plants with different productioncycles can offer different costs, profits, time of pay-off and labor demand.

Plants of first scenario (annual plants) in general have productive cycles of six months;the second scenario offers four or five year species and the third scenario offer perennial trees of long production cycle (more than 30 years).

The calculations for the revenues are based on prices collected as primary data from theinterviews with different MAP processing and exporting companies (Albanian EssenceProducers and Cultivators Association, 2010 ; Primavera, 2011). Costs are calculatedconsidering official data from Year book (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Protection, 2010a) and from Albania in figures ( Institute of Statistics, 2010).According to cost-profit tables (Table 5; Appendices A; B and C) there was possible to go dipperwith analyses and comparisons between different scenarios and species.

.


11/27

8

Table 5: Cost-profit analyses of fennel and anise-Annual MAP (000 /ha) Fennel

(000 /ha) Anise

(000 /ha) Consumption* Seed

Costs 0,79 0,79 0,93

Mechanized operations 0,25 0,25 0,27Manual labor 0,23 0,23 0,15Inputs 0,31 0,31 0,51

Revenues 3,00 5,50 3,36Profit margin 2,21 4,71 2,43Profit margin + Manual labor 2,44 4,94 2,94* Seed used for consumption, not as multiplication material

The criteria for further comparisons are: costs of establishment, average profit margin,time of pay-off of the establishment costs, total annual average costs with its voices, manuallabor and sustainability of the investment over time.

Initial costsIn general costs of initial establishment for annual plants are lower than costs of other twoscenarios. In consecutive order from the cheapest to the most expensive scenarios the initial costsare: annual, 4-5 annual and perennial associations. The exception for thyme, which has initialcosts comparable to annual plants, comes from the lower quantity than other 4-5 year species of seeds necessary to establish the plantation. Perennial trees associated with thyme, are the mostexpensive plantations and the last combination with bay tree is the most expensive one (Table 6).

Table 6: Establishment and average costs for seven species

Plant species Cost Establ.*Aver. CostM.O.+I.**

Aver. Cost(M.O.+Inp+M.L.)***

Fennel 561,3 561,0 789,0Anise 777,3 777,0 927,0Sage 995,0 291,3 638,1Thyme 642,8 215,2 412,5Oregano 848,6 225,5 470,1Linden+Thyme Association 1666,1 200,5 1525,5Bay + Thyme Association 2696,4 239,4 1225,9

* Cost of establishment (initial);** Average annual cost including Mechanized Operations and Input Costs;*** Average annual cost including Mechanized Operations, Input Costs and Manual Labor


12/27

9

The reason of the last is the highest number of plants per hectare because most of theinitial investment consists of expenses for purchasing of the multiplication material (seed oryoung plants from nursery) and planting operations. Distances between trees in the bayplantation are much lower than those of linden increasing visibly the initial its costs. In general,costs for establishing plantations with the same plants in the future tend to be much lower, as

long as seeds will be produced locally after the first time.

Average annual costsAverage annual cost is calculated dividing total respective costs with years of production cyclefor annual and 4-5 year species (first and third scenarios) and with 12 years for perennialassociation (time when production becomes stable).

Average annual costs of three scenarios, placed in increasing order are as following:thyme, oregano and sage (4-5 years); fennel and anise (annual); and then bay and lindenassociation with thyme (perennial). When, in the average annual cost we do not consider themanual labor costs the situation seems different: all plants of second and third scenario have

almost the same costs (Table 6) and much lower than costs of first scenario. As it is evident fromthe table manual labor costs in two last scenarios are higher.

Graph 1: Initial and average annual costs

M.L.-Manual LaborM.O. Mechanise OperationsInp.-Input

Manual labor in both scenarios is mainly for harvesting and in third scenario for planting andharvesting. This means that in the third scenario, after the initial investment with years thespecific weight of costs and initial investment decreases.


13/27

10

Time of pay-off The first scenario of annual plants is able to pay-off and ensure profit every year of

cultivation (Table 7). Four to five year species (second scenario) need higher initial investmentand are able to pay off and ensure profit since the first year like the annual species. Perennialtrees alone ensure longer duration of the investment and a very stable profit after ten years of

establishment. The drawback of these cultivations can be considered high costs of orchardestablishment and tardy pay-off (after the 5-th year). The last drawback can be correctedpracticing associations with shadow-supporting plants such as common thyme. Linden-tree andbay-tree associated with common thyme can pay off after the second year of orchardestablishment.

Profit marginBased on average annual profit, the seven species are placed in a decreasing order as

following: sage, oregano, linden association, bay association, anise, fennel and lastly thyme.Fennel can go to the first place for average profit margin if sold for multiplication material.Considering that most of manual labor costs belongs to harvesting or other activities for which

farm do not spend financial resources but occupy free unemployed own working forces this canbe calculated as farm income (Table 7 and Graph 2).

Table 7: Average annual profit margin and time of pay-off for seven species

Plant speciesAver.Cost

M.L. Av. Prof. Marg.Aver. Prof. Marg.

+ Cost M.L.Pay off

Year DurationFennel 228,0 2210,0 (4710,0)* 2440,0(4938,0)* 1 annualAnise 150,0 2432,0 2582,0 1 annualSage 346,8 3862,7 4209,5 1 5 yearsThyme 197,3 1862,5 2059,8 1 4 years

Oregano 244,6 3429,9 3674,5 1 5 yearsLinden+Thyme Association 1325 3284,9 4609,9 2 perennealBay + Thyme Association 986,5 2919,4 3905,9 2 perenneal

* Figures in the brackets belong to production for multiplication material (seed)

Then the order is: linden association, sage, bay association, oregano, anise fennel, andthyme. In case calculation was done for a period longer than 12 years, average annual profitmargins for perennials tend to increase because they have not the same revenues during all theyears. The first year revenues and profits are low but then, in the following years they increaseconcluding that after ten years their production tends to become stable. From the other side, needto be considered decrease of specific weight of cost belonging to initial investments because ithas to be divided for higher number of years.


14/27

11

Graph 2: Average annual profit margins and manual labor costs for seven MAP species

Considering all comparisions done, not a single specie can be sugested to the farmers.Fennel can be sugested as annual plant (when there is market for seed); Sage and then organo asfive year plants and both linden and bay associations as perennial plants. Average annual profitmargin of perennial species can be increased in years. Cultivation of refused low-fertility landin the mountainous area of Shengjergj with MAPs is cost effective (own study).

Socio Economic Farms Profile in Shengjergj Commune

Farm structure and revenue sourcesThe average number of family members in Shengjergj Commune is 4,89. More than 80% of local farmers family are composed of 4 (25%), 5 (21%) or 6 (20%) members. Within familystructure, almost all family members, excluding the ones under 16 years old, are engaged inagriculture and out of them about 48% are males and the rest (52%) females. The engagement inagricultural activities of both groups is almost equal, specifically: 80% males and 78% femalesof target groups belonging to work age are engaged in various agricultural activities (field work,

domestic agricultural engagement or agricultural production marketing). In almost 20% of thecases, the farmers report that even members less than 16 years old are, in a modest way, engagedin agricultural work in field and at home. Based on survey results, family males are mostlyengaged in field work as well as in production marketing (79% and 63% of the farmersinterviewed accept that males in working age are very much engaged in the field work andproduction marketing respectively), whereas females are mostly engaged in agricultural activitieswhich can be performed at home as well as in field work (88% and 67% respectively) (Graph3).


15/27

12

Graph 3: Engagement in different agricultural activities of farm family members

The average area owned by the farmers interviewed in this commune is 5.5 ar or (0, 55ha), and the average number of parcels is 4.4. Thus, farm size in Shengjergj is as much as of the national average in Albania. Such a big difference can be explained by the fact that at themoment the agricultural land ownership was refused due to the hard mountainous terrain, lowpossibilities in developing the most key agricultural activities such as plowing, irrigation andplants cultivation and/or even of the long- distances from the farmers house. What they confirmis also in tune with the generated output from the data processing of the questionnaire. About34% (69) of interviewed farmers confirm that they have not used their own land last yearbecause of above-cited reasons. (a- the quality of the land is not suitable for the plants I wouldlike to cultivate (36%); b- the land is too far from my residence (settlement) (29%), c I am notable to carry out services like irrigation (6%). On the other hand, based on the fact thatagricultural activities are the first priority of our targeted group (like in all rural areas inAlbania), about 28 % of the interviewed confirm that they have made use of land of otherfamilies in the area. Some of last families have moved to live in urban areas; some cannot affordto cultivate the land.

In our case study area there seem to dominate the mixed farms, which comprise as manyas 88% out of the total. Out of this category, dominates farms with crops, livestock and fruit treeswhich comprise 46% out of the total. The range (variety) of crops, which farmers report to sell ispretty limited and include two types of vegetables: tomatoes and potatoes and less, cereals likecorn and wheat.

A considerable number of interviewed farmers report that the primary source of incomesis livestock and concretely, animal production of live animals like cattle and sheep as well as allkinds of dairy products such as milk, cheese, white cheese, butter, eggs, etc. The table belowprovides details on income sources (from selling) of the farm families in Shengjergj areaaccording to the type of the farm. While going through the table below, it becomes evident thatlivestock products play a key role as income source compared to vegetables, corn s and fruittrees including vineyard. Thus, about 169 (79%) of the target area farms have the livestock included in their structure. Out of these, 122 (75%) are able to insure incomes from selling the


16/27

13

livestock products. Out of these, 44 (36%) of the farms insure incomes only by selling livestock products (live animals and / or dairy products). On the other hand, only 50 % and 40% of farms,which has in their structure crops and fruit trees including vineyard insure income fromrespective produce. At this point, it is quite understandable that the rest of the production of mixed farm in the study area is intended for self consumption (the one which is not sold in the

market).

Table 8: Data on farm structure and revenue generation

Structure of mixed farmsFarms Mixed sales Revenues sourceonly:

Number % Number % Number %

Livestock 169 79 122 75 44 36Vegetables 198 97 100 50 23 23

Fruit trees including vineyard 118 58 48 40 9 18

Experiences with MAPs p rior to 90s, when the state -owned agricultural cooperativesworked only according to geographic position and land characteristics, demonstrate thatShengjergji Commune was distinguished for cultivating and storing a great variety of MAPs.With the transformation of the political system, with the privatization of the land andintroduction of market economy, farmers were mostly getting engaged in cultivating the cropsand livestock breeding due to the market demands priority. At the same time, farmers in this areaneglected cultivation of MAP since the market demand for a certain period became scarce.On the other hand, the cultivation of MAPs in the area became more and more limited also dueto migration (in and out of the Country) of the families experienced in the field.

In nowadays, while it appears that the demand for MAP species is deeply growing, theformer tradition is obvious only in collection of wild MAPs. Out of 205 farmers interviewed inShengjergj Commune, 98 (48%) confirm that they have collected MAPs last year in refused (notowned) and forest territory and have sold the products to the approached interested individualson spot. From the processing of interviews data, it comes out that during last year in the fourvillages farmers families have collected more than fifteen MAP species. Species like mountaintea ( Sideritis sp. ), wild thyme ( Thymus serpyllum ), junipers ( Juniperus communis and Juniperusnigra ), salep ( Orchis sp.) and elderberry (Sambucus nigra ) are reported to have been collected inthe four case-study villages. Only in Verri village of Shengjergj Commune about 61% of interviewed families have collected last year 17 MAP species, whereas in Burimas Village, it isreported to have been collected 6 MAP species, perhaps because of the lack of experience in thefield.Table 9 provides a summary of number of farmers families that have collected wild MAPs aswell as a summary of species collected from the farmers families in each case study area.


17/27

14

Table 9: Families collects MAPs and MAP species

Village Farmersinterviewed Families Nr. * MAP species

Shn Meri 50 24 (48)Wild thyme, junper, hawthorn, sage, dog rose,salep orchid, mountain tea sideritis, poppy,

elderberry;

Ur 46 19 (41)Wild thyme, juniper, hawthorn, sage, dog rose,salep orchid , mountain tea sideritis, elderberry,wild fern, balsam herb, iris;

Vrri 64 39 (61)

Wild thyme, juniper, hawthorn, sage, dog rose,salep orchid , mountain tea sideritis, elderberry,wild fern, balsam herb, iris, mallow, lemonbalm, chamomile, oregano, mint;

Burimas 45 16 (36) Wild thyme, juniper, mallow, salep orchid,mountain tea sideritis, elderberry.Total 205 98 (48)*Figures in brackets refers to the percentage over the total

Farmer perceptions on MAPs and their commercializationSeventy percent of interviewed think that it is easier to find market for MAP species than otherplants; 55% think it easier to cultivate them; 53% think MAP cultivation is not related to thetradition and 61 % think that it represent a good opportunity for additional income.

Graph 4: Perceptions on MAPs.

There is a high number of farmers they think that cultivation of MAPs requests additional laborforces and other capacities which they do not posses.


18/27

15

Knowledge and readiness on MAP cultivationDespite this level of collection of MAP species in the study area, only 31% of farmersinterviewed confirm to possess a good level of knowledge on the cultivation of MAP species(Graph 5).

Graph 5: Farmers level of knowledge on MAP cultivation

.At the same time, farmers interviewed demonstrate a relatively low level of readiness to

cultivate proposed MAP species (Graph 6) even though the vast majority of the farmersinterviewed agreed that cultivation of MAP species represents a good opportunity to increasetheir family revenues and it is easier to cultivate and market them.

Graph 6: Farmers preferences for MAPs to be cultivated (Commune)

This is probably due to the fact that the same farmers confirm: not to have neither sufficientlabor force nor other capital and financial capabilities to cultivate such species; .not well and fairmarketing. Even they think it is easier than vegetables or other species to cultivate MAPs, they


19/27

16

are not satisfied with the revenues. There is not a collection or storing center in the commune;there are not contracts between them and buyers; above all, selling prices are very low. Farmerscannot influence selling prices of MAPs and buyers decide prices and whether to buy or not.

However, for farmers answered positively for species they prefer to plant the first place belongs

to Sage, followed by oregano (4-5 annual plant scenario); almost the same level of preferenceswas demonstrated for linden and bay association with thyme (perennial plant scenario); lastpreference were annual plants and thyme (in case fennel is sold for seedling it goes at the samelevel of third scenario). As it is seen, driving forces for selection of species and scenario is theireconomic performance and familiarization of farmers with plants. Oregano, Thyme and Salviaare found in their wild form in the area and farmers collect them to ensure incomes.

Data regarding single villages, generaly speaking, coppy sumirised data presented onGraph 6. Respective graphs for single villages are presented into the Appendix D (Graph 7).

Conclusions

Considering climate conditions and soil characteristics of pilot mountainous area of Shengjergjand the international market demand for MAP species, three different time-scenarios werestudied: annual; 4-5 annual and perennial. Species suitable to be planted are considered seven:fennel, anise, sage, oregano, common thyme, linden and bay. Based on on-desk cost-profitanalyses, four MAP species result to be more profitable. Listed in a decreasing order thesespecies are: sage, oregano and linden and bay association. Plants which seem to be lessprofitable are annual plants such as fennel and anise and four-annual specie of common thyme.The annual species need more fertile soil and higher mechanization than other multiannualplants; they have relatively low initial costs, immediate pay-off but low profit (exception of

fennel for seed). From the other side common thyme has the same characteristics of sage andoregano but lower profit because of low production. Linden and bay association has lower profitespecially first years, produce for longer period and pay off later (after 5 years); When firstyears are associated with common thyme, time of pay-off is shorten (after 2 years) and havehigher profit margins being comparable with sage and oregano.

Most of the farms interviewed in the pilot area were mixed with low incomes. Farmers werenot satisfied with their incomes and were opened to find alternatives to increase them even(according to them) finding such alternatives was difficult because of little land, disadvantageoussoil and terrain conditions, big distance from the market and absence of local marketingstructures along with unfair prices.

Regarding level of farmers engagement on different farm activities that consider gender

issues it was concluded that males were engaged mainly on field and marketing activities whilefemales were mainly engaged in agricultural activities at home and then in field.Level of Knowledge of farmers on MAP cultivation is low to moderate (41% and 28 %

respectively). They base their decisions mainly on their experience and knowledge. It was not aneffective advising service by private or public extension services.

Acceptance of the interviewed farmers for MAP cultivation was low: about 34 % of interviewed had high acceptance for sage; 32% for oregano and 28% for linden. Regarding


20/27

17

marketing of MAP species including wild ones which people were collecting in the area, therewas not a well established market infrastructure. MAP marketing was spontaneous throughdifferent intermediaries without any contracts and protectionist practices to farmers. They werenot satisfied with the prices because, the prices were low. These prices were offered byintermediaries and not by transforming companies putting here another chain and reducing

farmers profit margin.

Recommendations

To Policy -makers:

Since the area was relatively poor, policy makers have to intervene to contribute to improvementof quality of life of farmers in the pilot areas.

One of the first activities recommended for life improvement could be establishment of legal

framework and procedures for giving refused land to farmers to put it under efficiency.Recommended forms could be all or one of the following: for rent, in use or property.

Since international market for MAPs is still growing and Albania has good internationalpresence in this market, policy makers need to intervene and support creation of local marketinfrastructure helping famers to arrive to processing and exporting companies and improvefarmers negotiating power. Negotiation power of farmers is recommended to be increasedthrough their collaboration and cooperation.

It is recommended to promote cooperation between farmers in producing and marketing MAPsbecause in this way they can reduce their costs (sharing them), be sure to arrive to the market and

increase negotiating power on the price of selling with transforming companies.

To Extensionists

Before an innovation diffusion campaign or advice (cultivation of MAP selected) it is necessaryto be established different MAP spot trials to check their adoption to local conditions andharmonization of all technical and socio-economical issues.

These trials have to be designed to serve as a test for the community and mean time asdemonstration fields.

It is recommended that farmers be trained on MAP cultivation and be advised for cooperationand collaboration between them for producing and marketing of MAPs.


21/27

18

Acknowledgment:The present research became possible by Albania/Hawaii Higher Education and EconomicDevelopment Project (AHEED). Many acknowledgments are dedicated to AHEED projectwhich supported us technically and economically during realization of this research.

Many acknowledgments are directed to Dr. Catherine Chan-Halbrendt for her continuous supportto our working group starting at the first stages of writing and applying for the present researchproject.


22/27

References

Aiello, N., 2011. Scheda colturale di Finocchio aromatico (Foeniculum vulgare Miller). In:Consiglio per la Ricerca e la sperimentazione in Agricoltura: Unit di ricerca per il

Monitoraggio e la Pianificazione forestale. Italy. http://www.pianteofficinali.org(accessed January 15, 2011).

Albanian Essence Producers and Cultivators Association, 2010. Personal communication.Albania.

Bennerman R. Burton J. Chen W. C., 1983. Eds. Traditional Medicine and Health Care Coverage. WorldHealth Organization Geneva, Switzerland

Canco, Galantina, 2001. Disa alternativa t prdorimit t tokave kodrinore n Picall, Tiran.Buletini i shkencave bujqsore 1: 11-18. Albania.

Center for the Promotion of Imports from Developing Countries 2008a. The EU market forherbal infusions. Market survey. Rotterdam. Netherlands. www.cbi.eu/marketinfo. (accessed June 10, 2010)

Center for the Promotion of Imports from Developing Countries 2008b. The spices andherbs marketing the EU. Market survey. Rotterdam. Netherlands. .www.cbi.eu/marketinfo. (accessed June 10, 2010).

Center for the Promotion of Imports from Developing Countries 2008c. Natural ingredients forpharmaceuticals. Market survey. Rotterdam. Netherlands. www.cbi.eu/marketinfo. (accessed June 10, 2010)

D Andrea, L., 2011a. Scheda colturale di anice. In: Consiglio per la Ricerca e la sperimentazionein Agricoltura: Unit di ricerca per il Monitoraggio e la Pianificazione forestale. Italy.http://www.pianteofficinali.org (accessed January 15, 2011).

D Andre a, L., 2011b. Scheda colturale di maggiorana. In: Consiglio per la Ricerca e lasperimentazione in Agricoltura: Unit di ricerca per il Monitoraggio e la Pianificazione

forestale. Italy. http://www.pianteofficinali.org (accessed January 15, 2011).European Herbs Growers Association, 2006. Guidelines for good wild crafting practice of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants. Working copy no.5.3.

Institute of Statistics, 2010. Albania in Figures. Tirana.Lange, D. and Schippmann, U., 1997. Trade survey of medicinal plants in Germany: A

contribution to international species conservation. Bundesamt fr Naturschutz, Bonn.Ministry of Agriculture, Food and consumer Protection 2010a. Year Book 2009. TiranaMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Protection 2010b. Lista e tokave t pandara.

Albania.http://www.mbumk.gov.al/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=91&Itemid=612&lang=sq. (accessed November 08, 2010).

Ministry of Environment 2010. Personal communication. Albania.Primavera, A., 2011. Personal communication. Italy.Registry Office of Shngjergj commune, 2011, Primary Data. Albania.

Schippmann, U., Leaman, D. and Cunningham, A. b ., 2006. Cultivation and wild collection of medicinal and aromatic plants under sustainability aspects. In: Bogers, R.J., L. E. Crakerand D. Lange (eds.). Medicinal and aromatic plants. Springer, Dordrecht. WageningenUR Frontis Series no. 17.

United States Agency for International Development, 2010. Albania medicinal and aromatic
http://www.pianteofficinali.org/http://www.cbi.eu/marketinfohttp://www.cbi.eu/marketinfohttp://www.cbi.eu/marketinfohttp://www.pianteofficinali.org/http://www.pianteofficinali.org/http://www.mbumk.gov.al/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=91&Itemid=612&lang=sqhttp://www.mbumk.gov.al/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=91&Itemid=612&lang=sqhttp://www.mbumk.gov.al/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=91&Itemid=612&lang=sqhttp://www.mbumk.gov.al/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=91&Itemid=612&lang=sqhttp://www.pianteofficinali.org/http://www.pianteofficinali.org/http://www.cbi.eu/marketinfohttp://www.cbi.eu/marketinfohttp://www.cbi.eu/marketinfohttp://www.pianteofficinali.org/


23/27

plants: value chain assessment. Albania.United States Department of Agriculture, 1995. Herbs, a small-scale agriculture alternative. USA.

http://sfp.ucdavis.edu/pubs/brochures/herbs.html (accessed January 10, 2011).United States Statistics Division. In: United States Agency for International Development, 2010.

Albania medicinal and aromatic plants: value chain assessment.

Vender, C. 2011. Scheda colturale di salvia. In: Consiglio per la Ricerca e la sperimentazione inAgricoltura: Unit di ricerca per il Monitoraggio e la Pianificazione forestale. Italy.http://www.pianteofficinali.org (accessed January 15, 2011).

Voltolina, G. and Vender, C. 2011. Scheda colturale di timo. In: Consiglio per la Ricerca e lasperimentazione in Agricoltura: Unit di ricerca per il Monitoraggio e la Pianificazioneforestale. Italy. http://www.pianteofficinali.org (accessed January 15, 2011).
http://sfp.ucdavis.edu/pubs/brochures/herbs.htmlhttp://www.pianteofficinali.org/http://www.pianteofficinali.org/http://www.pianteofficinali.org/http://www.pianteofficinali.org/http://sfp.ucdavis.edu/pubs/brochures/herbs.html


24/27

Appendix A

Table. 10: Cost-profit analyses of Sage ( Salvia officinalis )- Five annual MAP (000 /ha) 1st Year 2 nd Year 3 rd Year 4 th Year 5 th Year

Costs 1,26 0,47 0,47 0,64 0,36Mechanized operations 0,18 0,07 0,07 0,07 0,05

Manual labor 0,26 0,40 0,40 0,36 0,31Inputs 0,82 0,00 0,00 0,21 0,00

Revenues 2,14 5,36 5,36 5,36 4,29Profit margin 0,88 4,89 4,89 4,72 3,93

Profit margin + Manual labor 1,14 5,29 5,29 5,08 4,24

Table. 11: Cost-profit analyses of Common Thyme ( Thymus vulgaris var. album )- Five annualMAP (000 /ha) 1st Year 2 nd Year 3 rd Year 4 th Year

Costs 0,84 0,26 0,23 0,33Mechanized operations 0,16 0,03 0,03 0,03Manual labor 0,20 0,23 0,20 0,16Inputs 0,48 0,00 0,00 0,14

Revenues 1,40 2,70 2,70 2,30Profit 0,56 2,44 2,47 1,970Profit margin + Manual labor 0,76 2,67 2,67 2,14

Table. 12:Cost-profit analyses of White Oregano ( Origanum vulgaris )- Five annual MAP(000 /ha)

1st Year

2nd Year

3rd Year

4 th Year

5 th Year

Costs 1,01 0,29 0,31 0,45 0,28Mechanized operations 0,17 0,03 0,04 0,04 0,04

Manual labor 0,16 0,26 0,27 0,27 0,24Inputs 0,68 0,00 0,00 0,14 0,00Revenues 2,50 4,38 4,75 4,13 3,75Profit 1,49 4,09 4,44 3,67 3,47Profit margin + Manual labor 1,65 4,35 4,71 4,57 3,71


25/27

Appendix B

Table. 13:Cost-profit analyses of Linden (Tilia sp.) associated with Common thyme (000 /ha)

1st Year 2 nd Year

3rd Year

4th Year

5th Year

6th Year

7th Year

8th Year

9Year

10 th Year

11 th Year

12 th Year

Costs 1,87 0,24 0,21 0,53 0,28 0,83 1,04 1,51 1,82 2,29 3,23 3,85Mechanized operations 0,17 0,02 0,02 0,04 0,04 0,04 0,08 0,10 0,11 0,13 0,17 0,20Manual labor 0,6 0,22 0,19 0,49 0,64 0,79 0,96 1,41 1,71 2,16 3,06 3,65Inputs 1,10 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,2 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

Revenues 1,40 2,00 2,00 3,03 3,19 3,76 3,39 5,08 6,21 7,90 9,60 10,16Profit -0,47 1,76 1,78 2,50 2,32 2,93 2,35 3,57 4,39 5,61 6,37 6,31Profit + Manual labor 0,13 1,98 1,97 2,99 2,96 3,72 3,31 4,98 6,10 7,78 9,43 9,96


26/27

Appendix C

Table. 14:Cost-profit analyses of Bay (Laurus nobilis) associated with Common thyme (000 /ha) 1st

Year2nd

Year3rd

Year4th

Year5th

Year6th Year

7th Year

8th Year

9Year

10 th Year

11 th Year

12 th Year

Costs 2,86 0,62 0,48 0,45 0,96 1,12 1,18 1,17 1,34 1,41 1,41 1,41Mechanized operations 0,17 0,02 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,09 0,08 0,08 0,08 0,08 0,08 0,08Manual labor 1,06 0,42 0,45 0,59 0,3 1,03 1,10 1,19 1,26 1,33 1,33 1,33Inputs 1,63 0,18 0,00 0,00 0,20 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00

Revenues 1,40 2,84 3,36 3,19 3,61 4,47 4,40 5,21 5,43 5,54 5,14 5,14Profit -1,46 2,20 2,88 2,56 2,65 3,35 3,22 3,94 4,08 4,12 3,73 3,73Income (Profit + Manual labor) -0,40 2,62 3,33 2,75 3,08 4,38 4,32 5,13 5,34 5,45 5,06 5,06


27/27

Appendix D

Graph 7: Farmers preferences for MAPs to be cultivated (Villages)

Documents

Dulja Alternatives for Refused Land