Stakeholders, Interests and Power as Drivers of Communal ... · UNIVERSITY OF SARAJEVO FACULTY OF FORESTRY Stakeholders, Interests and Power as Drivers of Communal Forestry in AlbaniaDrivers

UNIVERSITY OF SARAJEVO

FACULTY OF FORESTRY

Stakeholders, Interests and Power as Stakeholders, Interests and Power as Stakeholders, Interests and Power as Stakeholders, Interests and Power as

Drivers of Communal Forestry in AlbaniaDrivers of Communal Forestry in AlbaniaDrivers of Communal Forestry in AlbaniaDrivers of Communal Forestry in Albania

Manjola SALLAManjola SALLAManjola SALLAManjola SALLA

Sarajevo, 2009Sarajevo, 2009Sarajevo, 2009Sarajevo, 2009

ii

International Master Program in Forest Policy and Economics

University of Sarajevo and University of Belgrade, 2007 – 2009

MASTER THESIS: Stakeholders, Interests and Power as Drivers of Communal Forestry in

Albania

September 2009, Tirana, Albania

Candidate: Manjola Salla

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Max Krott

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INI. INI. INI. INTRODUCTIONTRODUCTIONTRODUCTIONTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1111

1.1 HISTORY OF ALBANIAN FORESTS .................................................................................................. 2 1.1.1 Geography and Historical Background ............................................................................. 2 1.1.2 Innovative Practices, Opportunities and Challenges of Forest Policy ................................ 5 1.1.3 Communal Forestry in Albania: Present Status ................................................................. 6

1.2 A CASE STUDY FROM ALBANIA – COMMUNE OF GJINAR ............................................................... 7 1.3 AIMS OF THE RESEARCH ................................................................................................................ 9 1.4 HYPOTHESIS AND QUESTIONS ...................................................................................................... 10

II. THEORETICAL BACKII. THEORETICAL BACKII. THEORETICAL BACKII. THEORETICAL BACKGROUNDGROUNDGROUNDGROUND ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 11111111

2.1 COMMUNAL FORESTRY ............................................................................................................... 11 2.2 DEFINITIONS RELATED TO POWER AND THEIR FACTORS .............................................................. 12

2.2.1 Trust ............................................................................................................................... 14 2.2.2 Incentives ........................................................................................................................ 15 2.2.3 Irreplaceability ............................................................................................................... 15

2.3 INTERESTS .................................................................................................................................. 16

III. METHODOLOGYIII. METHODOLOGYIII. METHODOLOGYIII. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 17171717

3.1 SURVEY PROCEDURE ................................................................................................................... 17 3.1.1 Field Data Gathering ...................................................................................................... 18 3.1.2 Stakeholders’ identification ............................................................................................. 19 3.1.3 Interview Process and Method of Transcription ............................................................... 21

3.2 STUDY ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................ 22 3.2.1 Variable Operationalisation ............................................................................................ 23 3.2 .2 Measuring Information Related Variables ...................................................................... 23

IV. RESEARCH RESULTSIV. RESEARCH RESULTSIV. RESEARCH RESULTSIV. RESEARCH RESULTS .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25252525

4.1 STAKEHOLDERS IN COMMUNITY FORESTRY ................................................................................. 25 4.2 NETWORK ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................... 29 4.3 POWER PROCESS ......................................................................................................................... 35

4.3.1Trust ................................................................................................................................ 38 4.3.2 Incentives ........................................................................................................................ 41 4.3.3 Irreplaceability ............................................................................................................... 45 4.3.3 Communal Forestry Overview ......................................................................................... 46

4.4 METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES ................................................................................................ 48 4.5 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................. 50

V. SUMMARYV. SUMMARYV. SUMMARYV. SUMMARY........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 52525252

VI. REFERENCESVI. REFERENCESVI. REFERENCESVI. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 53535353

VII. ANNEXESVII. ANNEXESVII. ANNEXESVII. ANNEXES ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 61616161

iv

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIACRONYMS AND ABBREVIACRONYMS AND ABBREVIACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ATIONS ATIONS ATIONS

ANFIANFIANFIANFI Albanian National Forest Inventory

CFCFCFCF Communal Forestry / Community Forestry

CFPUAsCFPUAsCFPUAsCFPUAs Communal Forest and Pasture Users Associations

CFPMCFPMCFPMCFPM Communal forest and pasture management

CFPMpCFPMpCFPMpCFPMp Communal forest and pasture management plan

COMCOMCOMCOM Council of Ministers

CSPCSPCSPCSP Carbon Sequestration Project

DGFPDGFPDGFPDGFP Directorate General of Forests and Pastures

DFPPDFPPDFPPDFPP Directorate of Forest and Pasture Policies

DFSDFSDFSDFS Directorate of Forest Service in District

EUEUEUEU European Union

FAOFAOFAOFAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FPRIFPRIFPRIFPRI Forest and Pasture Research Institute

FSFSFSFS Forest sector

GDPGDPGDPGDP Gross Domestic Product

ILCILCILCILC International Land Coalition

INSTATINSTATINSTATINSTAT Institute of Statistics

LGULGULGULGU Local Government Unit

MEFWAMEFWAMEFWAMEFWA Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration

MIAMIAMIAMIA Ministry of Interim Affairs

MOAFMOAFMOAFMOAF Ministry of Agriculture and Food

NACFPNACFPNACFPNACFP National Association of Communal Forest and Pasture

NATIANATIANATIANATIA National Agency of Transfer of Immobile Assets

NEFANEFANEFANEFA National Environmental and Forestry Agency

NGONGONGONGO Non-Governmental Organization

NPONPONPONPO Non Profit Organization

NRDPNRDPNRDPNRDP Natural Resource Development Project

NTFPNTFPNTFPNTFP Non-Timber Forest Product

NWFPNWFPNWFPNWFP Non- Wood Forest Product

SNVSNVSNVSNV Netherlands Development Organization

v

LIST OF TABLES LIST OF TABLES LIST OF TABLES LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: List of Interviewed Stakeholders ........................................................................................... 20

TABLE 2: Division and classification of stakeholders into state and non state ones............................... 28

TABLE 3: Distribution of Communal Forests and Pastures to the User Groups Households ................. 39

TABLE 4: Involvement of forest users in forest – related activities ........................................................ 44

TABLE 5: Characterisitcs of communal forestry in the Commune of Gjinar .......................................... 47

LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 (a): Number of Contacts established among actors involved in the Communal Forestry process .......................................................................................................... 26 FIGURE 1 (b): Percentage of contacts established among actors involved in the Communal Forestry process ........................................................................................................... 27 FIGURE 2: Structure of the quality of information given in percentage (%) among 18 actors involve in CF process in Albania ....................................................................................... 29 FIGURE 3: Structure of the stakeholders’ trust given in percentage for all the actors involved in the CF process in Albania ................................................................................................. 31 FIGURE 4: Contribution of incentives in percentage % for 18 actors involved in the CF process in Albania ......................................................................................................................... 32 FIGURE 5: Irreplaceability of the actors involved in the process of CF in Albania, given in percentage ........................................................................................................................ 33 FIGURE 6: Values given in percentage for 18 power holders involved in the CF process ..................... 34 FIGURE 7: Power network for 18 actors involved in the CF prrocess in Albania ................................. 36 FIGURE 8: Organizational chart of the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration (MEF&WA) .............................................................................................. 37 FIGURE 9: Sample of Forest User Groups Rights in the Family Forest / Communal Forest ................. 40 FIGURE 10: Employment Situation and Financial Sources in the Commune of Gjinar ......................... 43 FIGURE 11: Forest and Pastures Users Association Organizational Chart .......................................... 45 FIGURE 12: Local Government Unit Organizational Chart ................................................................. 46

LIST OF LIST OF LIST OF LIST OF PICTURESPICTURESPICTURESPICTURES

PICTURES 1 - 4: Evidences from information based seminars and lobbying of the user rights and responsibilities in the Commune of Gjinar ................................................................ 42

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSACKNOWLEDGEMENTSACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research study has been written under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Max Krott at Georg

August University, Göttingen, Germany, and local mentor Prof. Ass. Hajri Haska from whom I

benefited greatly from their comments and suggestions. I would also like to thank Prof. Dr. Vezir

Muharremaj, Mr. Janaq Male, Mr. Haki Kola, Dr. Leonidha Peri, Dr. Nehat Collaku for their

extensive input and comments on the draft material.

I would also like to acknowledge the value derived from the interviews with different

stakeholder representatives, organizations and institutions interviewed, whose time allocated and

information gathered was really valuable and important for this research study.

I am grateful to my family, especially to my father who made possible the meetings at

community level in order to gather data at the chosen case study area.

A considerable debt of gratitude is owed to the Community Forestry Working Group,

Goettingen, Germany, Maryudi Ahmad, Helene Aurennhammer, in particular to Rosan Raj

Devkota who supported me with advices, recommendations, and materials as an excellent

starting route for the draft material. Special thanks go to his wife Sabita for the hospitality

offered during my stay in Germany.

Thanks to Tomi Toumassjukka and Dr. Mersudin Avdibegovic in believing and trusting by being

endurable and flexible with the deadlines by encouraging me in the finalization of the master

program.

Particular thanks go to my colleague Mrs. Jolanda Xhemali for her support during my master

thesis writing, my FOPER friends Enkeleda Pjetri, Mirgjana Gjermizi and Ervin Metaj.

Valuable comments were also provided by Prof. Dr. Ilir Kristo advising and helping me with the

statistical analysis of this research.

I am further grateful to every person and institution that is not mentioned in this study, for the

support and collaboration given.

CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION

MANJOLA SALLA Page 1

1. INTRODUCTION1. INTRODUCTION1. INTRODUCTION1. INTRODUCTION

There is a growing awareness among international donor agencies and partners in government

and civil society that policy reform should be based on a better understanding of country and

reform context. At the macro level of country and reform context, broad, upstream country

analysis that examines the political landscape can be complemented by more specific analysis of

the context for a particular type of reform.

This research study refers to the analysis of the stakeholders, their interests, and power as drivers

of communal forestry in Albania. It also deals with “social analysis” in forest policy

encompassing institutions and networking focusing on the rules and relations that underpin and

influence social, economical, and ecological outcomes. Social analysis looks at the social

relationships governing interaction at different organizational levels, including communities,

governmental and non-governmental institutions, donors, private companies, etc. It also builds

on an understanding of the role of social and cultural norms in governing relationships within

and between groups of social actors, with implication for the degree of inclusion and

empowerment of specific social groups.

A wide range of state and non state actors have been engaged in the communal forestry process.

There exists an ethical dimension in gathering information, interpreting them and making the

policy of a country. Stakeholders’ identification has been conducted by identifying the people,

groups and organizations that are important to consider when looking on the management,

development and sustainability of forest sector in the country. Stakeholders represent

institutions, and as such institutional assessment is really necessary to be included in this

research. Institutions determine the framework in which a policy reform might affect

stakeholders in a government, private sector and civil society, arenas these where stakeholders

interact more with one another. Hierarchical authority distinguishes each of these stakeholders

from one another. Changes in power, structures, and processes that govern the formal and

informal function of public institutions operate at macro - level, such as public service, at meso -

level such as decentralization and administrative authority and micro - level, communities

themselves. This channel encourages analysis of the likely impact on state actors and

communities’ behavior, the interaction of whom results from new alignments of rights,



obligations, incentives and sanctions (WB: 2007). Villagers in Albania have often stated that

“cutting an oak tree is equal as cutting an olive tree...” by showing the high value they give to the

oak forest in the country.

The division of the communal forests and pastures in plots is realized in three categories: per

family (the majority of it); as common or village forest, and; as forest being attributed to an

individual. The allocation is usually made according to the old boundaries of the properties as

they were before 1945. These borders, that have no legal - documented - value, are rigorously

respected by the villagers: no one is allowed to collect fodder or firewood or to cut standing trees

to someone else’s forest without permission. They are considered as a totally private property

and are protected very strongly. Nevertheless, the situation is quite different compared to before

1945, because of the number of inhabitant tremendously increased.

The great challenge when trying to assess the reform context is that often may different

stakeholders with interests and interactions shift and evolve over time (Brinkerhoff and Crosby

2002, 164). Stakeholder analysis aims to identify stakeholder characteristics, their interests,

nature composition, and degree of influence on existing forest policy and communal forestry

process in the country.

1.1 HISTORY OF ALBANIAN FORESTS1.1 HISTORY OF ALBANIAN FORESTS1.1 HISTORY OF ALBANIAN FORESTS1.1 HISTORY OF ALBANIAN FORESTS

1.11.11.11.1.1.1.1.1 Geography and Historical Background Geography and Historical Background Geography and Historical Background Geography and Historical Background

Albania has an area of 28,748 square km. It is situated in the south-eastern region of Balkan

Peninsula, and is predominantly mountainous but flat along its coastline with the Adriatic sea.

Albania is bordered by Greece in the south/southeast, Macedonia to the east, Serbia and Kosovo

to the northeast, as well as Montenegro to the northwest. Western Albania lies along the Adriatic

and Ionian Sea coastlines. Its population amounts approximately 3,619,778 inhabitants, where

98.6% are Albanians, Greeks 1.17%, others 0. 23% (Vlachs, Roma, Serbs, Montenegrins,

Macedonians, Balkan Egyptians, and Bulgarians). 70%, of the Albanian population is Muslim

(Sunni and Bektashi), 20% Orthodox, and 10% Roman Catholic. Official language is Albanian

and life expectancy is 74.95 years for males, and 80.53 years for females.



Located in the Balkan Peninsula, in south-eastern Europe, Albania is one of the oldest nations in

the region. It inherited many natural resources and an authentic culture and tradition. Historic

and political events left this small country on the Adriatic coast for 500 years, (from 14th

Century, 1352 until the last Venetians evacuated Durres in 1501) under the Ottoman Empire,

which did not stimulate development and prosperity.

Agriculture is the most important sector in Albania in terms of value added and employment. It

contributes 34% of Gross Domestic Production (GDP) in 2001 (World Bank, 2002). The forestry

contribution to this production is calculated as part of the agriculture sector. More than 60% of

Albania’s rural households own less than 0.8 ha of land. Out of this number, three quarters of the

households living in mountainous areas have less than 0.5 ha at hand. In many parts of the

country, climatic and soil conditions are favorable for forest and pasture growth.

The type of government in Albania is parliamentary democracy, and its constitution was adopted

by popular referendum in November 28, 1998. Its independence was achieved in November 28,

1912, from the Ottoman Empire. It is composed of the executive branch headed by the President

of the Republic of Albania, Prime Minister (head of government), Council of Ministers (cabinet).

The President serves a term of 5 years with the right to one re-election. Although the position is

largely ceremonial, the Constitution gives the President authority to appoint and dismiss some

high-ranking civil servants in the executive and judicial branches, and this authority can have

political implications. The President is also commander in chief of the armed forces, and chairs

the National Security Commission. The current President's term expires on July 23, 2012.

The Legislative branch is composed by Unicameral People's Assembly or Kuvendi Popullor-,

having 140 seats, in 4-year terms. The Speaker of Parliament (Jozefina Topalli) has two deputies,

who along with eight permanent parliamentary commissions assist in the process of legislating

Albanian affairs.

The third branch is the Judicial one. Albania's civil law system is similar to that of other

European countries. The court structure consists of a Constitutional Court, a Supreme Court, and

multiple appeal and district courts. The Constitutional Court is comprised of nine members

appointed by the Assembly for one 9-year term. The Constitutional Court interprets the



Constitution, determines the constitutionality of laws, and resolves disagreements between local

and federal authorities. The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeal and consists of 11

members appointed by the President with the consent of the Assembly for 9-year terms.

Climate, culture, and natural resources were once thought to be the keys to economic

development. Rapid industrialization, using explicit and implicit taxes on agriculture to fund

industrial investment, was for many years a much favored strategy. After the Great Depression

and through the 1960s, most policymakers favored import substitution combined with fostering

infant industries. In its days this view was endorsed, and the strategy supported, by external aid

and finance agencies.

The collapse of Albanian socialist regime in late 1991 marked the outset of state restructuring,

devolution of authority and transition to market economy. The initiatives for political and

administrative decentralization after the alteration of political system included a new

administrative-territorial division according to which 36 districts and 384 Local Government

Units (65 municipalities, 308 communes and 11 boroughs in Tirana Municipality) were

established. 47% of Albanian Population lives in local government units smaller than 10 000

inhabitants. The internal migration has created a situation where some local units are

experiencing increase of their number of inhabitants, while other local units are experiencing

reduction of their number.

Municipal and communal councils as representative local bodies and mayors as executive bodies

are elected through popular elections each 4 years. Regional councils are compound of members

of municipal and communal councils within the administrative territory of the region, which are

entitled to a preliminary approval by the Prefect. The head of Region is elected at the first

meeting of Regional councils. As part of reforms for democratization, the process of

decentralization was carried out in two phases: 1) during 1992-1998 the emphasis was on

political decentralization while 2) from 1999-onwards the reforms focused at fiscal

decentralization and strengthening of local fiscal autonomy.



1.1.1 Innovative Practices, Opportunities and Challenges of 1.1.1 Innovative Practices, Opportunities and Challenges of 1.1.1 Innovative Practices, Opportunities and Challenges of 1.1.1 Innovative Practices, Opportunities and Challenges of Forest Policy Forest Policy Forest Policy Forest Policy

In the 1930’s industrial harvesting began on an unsustainable level (Bosworth, 1975) and has

continued since then. In contrast to arable land, most of the forest and pasture land has always been

public. According to Ottoman law, all land was owned by the state. Communal ownership occurred

in areas that had certain autonomy from Ottoman rule. While arable land later became private,

forests remained state-owned and with open access. Forests belonging to religious institutions were

another form of communal ownership. This tenure system survived after independence, up to the

end of the World War II. The communists undertook agrarian reform for propaganda purposes soon

after coming to power in Albania. They confiscated large land holdings and all forests and pastures

owned by individuals, religious institutions, and communities. In 1946 all the forest and pasture

land became state-owned.

Over the last 60 years (communist and transition period) Albanian forestry has suffered

significant changes. It has reduced forest area with more than 300.000 ha and most forest have

been depredated because of over harvesting and over grazing. According to the evolution of

forestry sector from 1944 and afterwards, it dates that 3 ownership types were recognized in the

country: state, communal and private forestry. Forests during that period have been used in

common village forests, to fulfill communities’ necessities. But after 1945 the situation changed,

and the communist system undertook the agrarian reform in the country.

The majority of land resources consist in areas covered by forest and pastures (ca. 52% or 1.5

million ha). Albanian forests are the primary source of wood and of many non-timber forest

products that include medicinal and aromatic plants, food and beverages, fodder, perfumes,

cosmetics, fiber, gums, resins, and ornamentals and materials for dyeing and tanning, plant

protection, utensils and handicrafts (ILC – NACPF, 2008).

Forest and pasture types are diverse because of local weather patterns, ecological and topographic

conditions as well as millennia of anthropogenic influences. Considering specific climate and

vegetation criteria, naturalists have identified five phyto-climatic zones in Albania, which range

from the maquis in the coast to alpine grasslands at the elevations above 2000 m (Nako, 1969).

Such an extent of the forest and pasture land demonstrates the enormous potential that Albania

has for the development of forestry (Naka et al., 2000).



1.1.1.1.1.31.31.31.3 Communal Forestry in Albania: Present StatusCommunal Forestry in Albania: Present StatusCommunal Forestry in Albania: Present StatusCommunal Forestry in Albania: Present Status

After 1996, the government started the transfer of about 40% of state forests to local

governments on the bases of long-term use rights. Nowadays in many areas close to villages,

forests are regenerating and are protected by communities. Forests and pastures form an

important part of rural households (up to 40-50% of their incomes). The importance of the

pasture resource is reflected in the fact that 60% of the Albanian population is one way or

another involved in transhumant herding, mainly of sheep and goats. Livestock contributes half

of the total agricultural production value. The agro-pastoral system provides an important social

security function and saved many Albanians from starvation during the early years of transition.

Albania is also well known for the quality of non-wood forest products, such as medicinal plants,

etheric oil plants and tanifers.

According to Lemel (1998) one of the most fundamental initiatives meant to set the country on

the path to a free market was the privatization of real estate and its distribution to the country's

citizens. So, land was to be assigned to families, with total area per family calculated based on

the number of family members resident in the village on August 1991. However, in northern

Albania the land was distributed on a per family, not per capita, basis and entirely in reference to

“old boundaries” (Lemel, 1998).

Under these circumstances, Albanian farmers have tried to obtain all those natural resources

which bear a relatively low cost (not mentioning here the greatest part of these natural resources

that do not have any cost at all), out of which they get a sufficient level of satisfaction/utility to

meet the families’ perceived basic needs. According to Zeneli et al (2008) one natural resource

meeting those requirements is the everlasting partner of man, the forest, which in the case of

Albania occupies 36% of the total land area. Through the privatization of agricultural land and

the constant trend of livestock sub sector expansion, the pressure on Albania’s natural resources,

in particular in rural areas, has increased substantially. This pressure is exerted not only by the

fulfillment of local needs but also by profit interests, and this national natural asset continues to

be undervalued not only by the general public but also by regulatory “owners” and authorities; as

a consequence it will be misused.



Referring to the decentralization process in terms of legal framework and transfer of public

properties (including forests and pastures), is making immense progress. The process has been

organized in three phases: inventory, transfer and registration. According to our legislation

communal forest is defined as “Forest” in use/ownership” of commune, used by communes’

inhabitants for firewood, grazing, and other every day needs of villagers.

The promoters of ‘sustainable’ forests still raise a great number of issues which need to be

emphasized by the actors involved in the forests’ transfer process to Local Government Units

(LGU). The lack of infrastructure, uncommercialized environment, and natural resources

available in rural areas could be attractive for the residents by assuming that their support will

also enhance their living conditions, local infrastructure, and services. Nowadays these crucial

issues for the development of communities brought us decentralization. The growing demand for

decentralisation emanates from the documentation of widespread corruption and illegal practices

in different sectors of the Albanian economy, including also the forest sector. This has come as a

result of weak governance capacity to implement and enforce regulations over forest resource

management.

1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 A CASE STUDY FROM ALBANIA A CASE STUDY FROM ALBANIA A CASE STUDY FROM ALBANIA A CASE STUDY FROM ALBANIA –––– COMMUNECOMMUNECOMMUNECOMMUNE OF GJINAR OF GJINAR OF GJINAR OF GJINAR

The case study conducted in Gjinar, is an area situated in one of the communes of Elbasan

District / County, which lays in central Albania, with a population of 4976 inhabitants, spread in

11 villages of this commune (Table no. 1 indicates details on the population and families of this

area). According to the Albanian administrative division, Gjinar is one of the Local Government

Units out of 384 communes and municipalities, grouped in 36 districts and 12 prefectures or

circles (qark) in the country. Map No.1 shows the Administrative Divisions of Albania, with

borders of all units: Communes, Municipalities, Districts and Regions.

There are 1335 families living in the sorroundings of this Local Government Unit / commune,

out of wich 900 families are forest user groups,and the remainig 405 families live in urban areas,

but still have their houses in the countryside. The forest area covers 7431 ha of the whole

terrotory of Gjinar’s local government unit. 2964 ha have been transferred in ownership to

Gjinar’s LGU, out of which 400 ha are pastures and 2564 are forests. 973 ha are agricultural and



265 ha are abandoned land. 960 ha are strictly protected areas, which are lead by the state. There

is no private forest in this area, but predominant are communal forests and state forests.

The center of the commune is only 22 km far away from the city of Elbasan, 76 km from the

capital, 96 km from the main “Mother Teresa” Airport and 118 km from one of the most

important ports in the country. The average annual temperature is 4 – 110 C, and in January the

lowest temperatue is -0.8 - -8.20 C. The highest temperatures in July - August reaches 18 – 320 C,

and the lowest in winter reaches -12.6 - -16.80 C. there are 21 000 sunny hours and the annual

precipitation is between 1000 – 2000 ml. The main forest species are oak, black pine, beech, and

shrubs of 3-4 m high.

The commune is composed of 11 villages,which are: Gjinar, Pashkesh, Xibresh, Valesh, Serstan,

Bobrat, Derstil, Lleshan, Lukan, Maskarth, and Kafer. Particular in this area is the main orthodox

religion of the community,which although under 500 years of ottoman occupation they remained

the samewithout changing by force religion as it has happenedin other regions of Albania.



1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 AIMS OF TAIMS OF TAIMS OF TAIMS OF THE RESEARCHHE RESEARCHHE RESEARCHHE RESEARCH

This work aims to investigate the hierarchical power of stakeholders in communal forestry in

Albania. The analysis of the respective stakeholders will be based on the analysis of the network

matrix, considering trust, incentives, and irreplaceability as the most important drivers of

communal forestry in the country. This master thesis has also become part of a Comparative

International Project, where the researcher herself in May 2008 became part of the Community

Forestry Working Group, at Georg August University, Goettingen. Communal Forestry dates

since 1994 and during a period of 15 years it has undergone immense and significant

organizational changes, management structures, law development, power distribution, capacity

building, all leading to a complex and dynamic process of decentralization.

The forest owner is the stakeholder who has the immediate power of control over a certain forest

(Krott 2005, p. 44). In our case, special attention is given to stakeholders’ identification, coming

as a result of community based research information. The community chosen for the face to face

interviews indicates one of the first pilot areas where the forestland was divided among clans

according to old boundaries, and distributed equally among families within the respective clans.

Stakeholders have different degrees of power as they contend for the same resource (Peluso, et

al. 1994). So, stakeholders could be internal, external and interface ones. According to our

research, their power totally depends on trust, incentives and irrepleacibility.

Due to the data gathered from the interviews we were able to establish e “matrix network” and

analyze deeply the importance, power, formal and informal position in the chart of the respective

stakeholders. Analyzing the interaction of networks, frequency of contact among stakeholders,

their trust, incentives and irreplaceability concludes the most influential factors making some of

the actors powerful and unconquerable for the time being. In order to better explain the research

we have elaborated the following hypothesis and research questions, aiming to analyze and

answer.



1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 HYPOTHESIS AND QUESTIONSHYPOTHESIS AND QUESTIONSHYPOTHESIS AND QUESTIONSHYPOTHESIS AND QUESTIONS

In this research study will be examined hypothesis and questions as follow:

Hypothesis 1. As there do exist a certain number of stakeholders in the forestry sector, each of

them plays a respective role by making possible that: activities and outcomes in

communal forestry (CF) depend mostly on interests of the powerful external

stakeholders. Stakeholders in one hand pursue their interests on communal

forestry, and in the other exert power to influence the behavior of other

stakeholders.

Research Question 1.1. Who are the stakeholders and which interest do they have on

Communal Forestry? We will try to draw a number of actors being

involved in the transfer process of communal forestry in the country.

Research Question 1.2. How powerful are the stakeholders? Through the “network matrix”

there will be identified stakeholders’ position and analyzing their

importance in the respective communal forestry transfer process.

Hypothesis 2. Organization of Communal Forests and participation of the users are minor

factors. Stakeholders have very different degrees of power to control decisions

that have effects on policies and institutions. Their ‘potential’ to contribute or

‘importance’ in achieving a particular objective depends on the weight each of

them contains.

Research Question 2.1. What are the outcomes in economic, ecological and social dimensions

of communal forestry? Collective action and locally - initiated forest

conservation can lead to a successful range of outcomes affecting the

community and the forest nearby.

CHAPTER II – THEORETICAL BACKGROUND


2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

This chapter will introduce and deeply discuss some crucially important definitions, as policy

network, trust, incentives, irreplaceability and power which are strongly related with communal

forestry in Albania. Then the theoretical framework will be succeeded by a brief institutional

description, power factors, and power of the network of stakeholders, which are all applicable to

the Albanian case study.

2.1 COMMUNAL FORESTRY2.1 COMMUNAL FORESTRY2.1 COMMUNAL FORESTRY2.1 COMMUNAL FORESTRY

Definitions from different dictionaries state that “community” and “communal” lead us to the

same meaning; communal - of, by or belonging to the people of a community ; pertaining to a

commune or community and community means - a social group of any size whose members

reside in a specific locality, share government, and often have a common cultural and historical

heritage. In political terms community forestry is decentralization. The far reaching

decentralization policies, which have taken place in many parts of the globe, have made CF

highly relevant, shifting the forestry focus from national to regional and community levels

(Harrison and Suh, 2004:292). However, these practices also can be seen an extension of state

hegemony rather than genuine devolution of forest management by local forest users. By

creating or giving space in a new policy arena, state is doing trade – offs with local communities

to restore and conserve forest lands without providing even nominal incentives to them.

According to Krott (2005) the forest owner is the stakeholder who has the immediate power of

control over a certain forest. Forest workers and employees are those who utilize the forest on

the basis of a working relationship and thus participate in forestry production. Community

Forestry Working Group (2008) states that ‘communal forestry is a forestry which directly

involves local forest users in the common decision making and implementation of forestry

activities’. In addition we can say that a forest user group is a set of people with similar interests,

goals and concerns developing, using, and managing the forest in compliance with the

regulations in place. As human populations and their demands on forest resources grow, citizens

and officials search for solutions to the problems of forest degradation and deforestation. Many

factors contribute to make forests very challenging to govern effectively. Most of these



challenges emerge from the biophysical characteristics of forest resources. From that point of

view, community forestry has become a popular movement, challenging foresters to change their

thinking. The message is simple: people are the key to success rather than the cause of failure.

Community forestry is defined as “a village-level forestry activity, decided on collectively and

implemented on communal land, where local populations participate in the planning,

establishing, managing and harvesting of forest crops, and so receive a major proportion of the

socio-economic and ecological benefits from the forest” (Martel and Whyte, 1992). From this

definition, one can say that, like sustainable development, community forestry should be seen as

a process - a process of increasing the involvement of and reward for local people, of seeking

balance between outside and community interests and of increasing local responsibility for the

management of the forest resource. Communes and municipalities are the units of local

government and among others they are in charge of preparing the programs for local economic

development and the protection and development of forests, pastures and natural resources with

local character.

2.2 DEFINITIONS RELATED TO POWER AND THEIR FACTORS 2.2 DEFINITIONS RELATED TO POWER AND THEIR FACTORS 2.2 DEFINITIONS RELATED TO POWER AND THEIR FACTORS 2.2 DEFINITIONS RELATED TO POWER AND THEIR FACTORS

With the notion of policy networks, power is seen as being based on resources and dependencies.

Actors have power if they have resources that can be exchanged and so actor A is dependent on

actor B for particular resources. This dependence is seen to be mutual and state actors seem to

depend on pressure groups for certain resources and pressure groups depend on the state

(Rhodes, 1981).

According to SIDA, power analysis is a diagnostic tool that analyses actors, interest groups, and

structures to uncover where the real power in a society lies and how power is distributed

geographically, institutionally and socially. Importance could be given to the kind of power

exercised and the way it is perceived. Here crucial issues to be mentioned are the actors

involved, structures, processes, relations, and hierarchies.

Popitz (1992) recommends several aggregated suggestions and a differentiation between

authoritative power and instrumental power; an actor who is just a plausible threat – sender (e.g.



a reputable law attorney), exerts authoritative power, while the threat executor (e.g. the judge or

the lawmaker) exerts instrumental power. This definition permits the analysis of the power

accumulation process. Popitz has also distinguished internal and external power accumulation;

when a certain form of power produces power of the same form, this is an internal accumulation

of power; when it produces power of another form, it is external accumulation of power. Krott

(2005) defines power in two dimensions: firstly, as legally anchored (direct) power in national

law and secondly, as hidden (indirect) power of those, who profit from forestry and authorities

that make regulations.

Before investigating the individual stakeholders, we will analyze the networks, which they are

part of. By applying a network analysis developed by Hasanagas (2004) we will identify the

most powerful stakeholders of communal forestry.

The Theory of Organized Interest and New Institutionalism we have extracted figures that affect

power of actors in networks. Authors like (Krott (1990; 2001), Alemann (1996), Burkolter –

Trachtel (1981), Nollert (1997), Buskens (1999), Henning and Wald (2000) have all described

actors’ characteristics. The above mentioned authors sate that expertise, lobbying and

cooperation with the state, partner strength, financial resources and reputation are the power

factors that will be used as a respective theory to elaborate the results of this research.1

Other scholars as Jordan and Schubert (1992), Kreisi (in Börzel, 1997), Atkinson and Coleman

(1989) have described that other network factors that exert power are: institutionalization

(stability – instability); policy – making – arrangement (sectoral / intersectoral); structure

(corporatism / pluralism); number of actors (openness); relations between state and interests

groups (concertation / pressure); power concentration on state; capacity of the state to mobilize

interests of employers.

Henning and Wald (2000) have applied a calculation technique (matrix analysis) which enables

the aggregation of multiple data to concise structures. The number of actors, frequency of

meetings, trust on one another, incentives applied respectively and irreplaceability are the basic

1 Detailed information is given at the Theory of Bureaucracy and Theory of Management (Krott, 2005).



information gathered to analyze the network matrix, and explaining “who” and “how” do actors

affect on each others’ power and “who” results as one of the most powerful among them.

2.2.1 Trust2.2.1 Trust2.2.1 Trust2.2.1 Trust

According to Hasanagas (2004), indirect power could be operationalized as trust and the direct

power as incentive and irreplaceability. When an actor trusts another, then he is taking a risk, and

his output will depend on the performance of the other actors (the ones he is trusting) (Coleman,

1990)2. "In a reciprocal relationship, each individual contributes to the welfare of others with an

expectation that others will do likewise, but without a fully contingent quid pro quo" (Oakerson

1993, p. 143).

Thus, investments made in one time period in building trust and reciprocity can produce higher

levels of return in future time periods even though the individuals creating trust and reciprocity

are not fully conscious of the social capital they construct. Social capital may in fact, improve

with use so long as participants continue to keep prior commitments and maintain reciprocity and

trust.

The stronger trust is, the less control is exerted on the trustee by the trustor, and consequently the

easier it becomes for the trustee to guide the trustor’s actions (e.g. mobilization of bias)

(Hasanagas, 2004). Somehow, participants must find ways of creating mutually reinforcing

expectations and trust to overcome the perverse short-run temptations they face (E. Ostrom

1998a). Trust is a basic power component in “modern” societies that sustains conditions for rapid

development of cooperation in social networks (Buskens, 1999). In the game theory somebody

has to make the first move to get others to jump on board and get the job done (Bratt,1994).

2 Coleman’s vision of trust is followed also by Buskens (1999) defining trust in a similar way: the extent to which the trustor (the one who places trust) is willing to take the risk of trust being abused by the trustee.



2.22.22.22.2.2 Incentives.2 Incentives.2 Incentives.2 Incentives

Furthermore, our analytical models need to illuminate the incentives of participants whose

decisions encompass multiple arenas simultaneously (Hayami and Otsuka 1993). Changing the

incentives of national, government officials so that their work enhances rather than replaces the

efforts of local officials and citizens is a challenging and difficult task. Reducing the level of

corruption involved in externally funded projects is an essential but daunting task (Klitgaard

1988, 1991).

Hasanagas (2004) states that the process of incentives is gift giving, and for every gift the gift

giver expects a return that satisfies its own demand (balanced reciprocity). This return may

consist of votes, intermediation, political support, information or other services. Thus, ‘incentive’

has a double effect: it restricts certain opportunities on the side of the committed gift receiver

(restriction on free decision – making and political positioning). Investments in new institutions,

as well as new infrastructures, need to be based on knowledge that takes into account the

multiple incentives that are generated by institutions, as they interact with social norms and the

physical world in any particular setting (Ostrom, 2006).

2.22.22.22.2.3 Irreplaceability .3 Irreplaceability .3 Irreplaceability .3 Irreplaceability

Measures of irreplaceability can be used to determine priorities for action (Pressey 1998;

Richardson and Funk 1999; Pressey et al. 2004). The irreplaceable sites can be used to form the

core of the system, and the remainder of targets can then be met by negotiation (Pressey 1998;

Ferrier et al. 2000).

An actor which can gain trust, gives incentives (e.g. a sponsorship) or is irreplaceable in a

procedure (e.g. when it is an important contact person) can impose its own will (Etzioni 1975, cf.

Popitz 1992). Irreplaceability seems to be the most accurate term of expressing a crucial position

that an actor possesses in a fixed procedure (official or unofficial institutions) by which it can

influence the result and thus drastically favor or disfavor the interests of the other actors

(Hasanagas, 2004).



2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 INTERESTSINTERESTSINTERESTSINTERESTS

Interests are based on action orientation, adhered to by individuals or groups, and they designate

the benefits the individual or group can receive from a certain object, such as forest (Krott,

2005). In a policy community the number of participants will be limited by involving usually a

government agency or section within that agency. An actor A is irreplaceable for an actor B, if

the actor B cannot exclude the actor A from a procedure without a serious loss in the satisfaction

of its (B) interests.

We follow Vra et al. (1998) who proposed that identification of the stakeholders in the forest

sector allows us to create a mental map of the range of interests involved in resource

management situations. We identify interests of governmental and non-governmental

stakeholders and conflicts between them. Both groups might contribute at least partly to the

goals of public programs and herewith support “public interests”. However, only one part of the

interests is public. Another part is only informally pursued but it is as important in guiding the

action of a specific stakeholder. The expectations regarding possible benefits from the

community forest span the entire political, social, economic and ecological scope. In our model,

interests have always been traced back to certain stakeholders. Krott (2005) states that interests

are geared to the benefits gained by the political player or stakeholder. By revealing the key

interests he continues by explaining the three dimensions of “ecology, economy, and social

factors”, where each interest is embedded in these three areas: The ecological aspect of an

interest lies in its “material basis”; The economic aspect of an interest results from its interplay in

the economic system; and finally interests have also a social aspect, comprising “non-material”.

CHAPTER III – METHODOLOGY


3. METHODOLOGY3. METHODOLOGY3. METHODOLOGY3. METHODOLOGY

The results of this work have been produced using qualitative and quantitative forms of data

analysis having similarities and differences. Qualitative method is a research method that relies

less on numbers and statistics but more on interviews, observations, and small numbers of

questionnaires, focus groups, subjective reports and case studies. Both forms of data analysis

anchor statements about the social world in an inquiry that has adequacy. In qualitative research,

adequacy refers to the amount of data collected, rather than to the number of subjects as in

quantitative research. Quantitative analysis traces patterns of power hierarchy among

stakeholders, importance of incentives, contact frequency among each other and necessity and

presence of the respective stakeholders by providing us with the information stakeholders, who

are either replaceable or irreplaceable.

3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 SURVEY PROCEDURE SURVEY PROCEDURE SURVEY PROCEDURE SURVEY PROCEDURE

Generally, the research is conducted in two parts: desk and field research (Niemela, 1993).

According to Wollenberg (1998), the research aims to fill the gap between a conceptual

framework and reality. The main idea of conducting case studies is to achieve detail in depth

results, and to receive the full and permanent support of the limited cases location (Marying,

1996, in Kultzner, 2000, cited in Ruiz, 2005 and Caslev & Lury, 1987). This typical study is

based on cross sectional primary and secondary data (Niemela, 1993).

After the compilation and preparation of the questionnaire in cooperation with the Community

Forestry Working Group, it was ready to test the research Questions used for the case study. The

process of forest and pastures transfer in Albania started with a pilot project in three communes

of Elbasani district. It started in August 1994, including here also our case study area, Gjinar as

one of the pilot areas of the project. After the pilot phase in 1996, World Bank through Albanian

Forestry Project (1996-2004) supported the forest transfer to the communes.

The commune of Gjinar, in Elbasani District is one of the first communes since 1996, where

forests have been transferred to be used / managed by the community. So, this commune now is

in its advanced stage of CF Management. This case study had as a scoping mission to identify



key stakeholders involved in communal forestry process in Albania. The case study identifies the

most powerful stakeholders in CF. It is the chosen area and the time CF has taken place, which

offers more possibilities in identifying who are the most trustworthy stakeholders, the incentives

each of them applies and the irreplaceability.

The crucial question in conducting a case study is not whether the findings can be generalized to

a wider universe, but how well the researcher generates theory out of the findings (Mitchell

1983; Yin 1984). Thus the case study can be associated by both generation and theory testing.

Case studies typically combine data selection methods such archives, interviews, questionnaires,

and observations. Finally, case studies can be used to accomplish various aims: to provide

description (Kidder, 1982), test theory (Pinfield, 1986; Anderson, 1983), or generate theory (e.g.,

Gersick, 1988; Harris & Sutton, 1986).

3.1.1 Field Data Gathering 3.1.1 Field Data Gathering 3.1.1 Field Data Gathering 3.1.1 Field Data Gathering

The data gathered in the field was done through interviews and meetings. Revision of relevant

documents was done as a result of providing qualitative data. Primary data was collected by

personal and group interviews, process-verbal, personal observation, etc. A detailed list of

official documents, country reports, decisions of the council of ministers, recent revised laws,

country publications, newspaper articles, governmental decrees, and management plans are

found in the last chapter (References).

Information to answer the three research questions was gained through semi-structured

interviews through the snow ball method conducted in Albania during August 2008 – May 2009,

and the authors own observations, opinions gained in the field and the support of Gjinar local

government staff and forestry experts.

The emphasis tends to be upon an intensive examination of the setting. This social survey was

invariably concerned to be able to generalize the findings to larger populations, by choosing a

sample in order to conduct the investigation and therefore the external validity of the findings.



3.1.2 Stakeholders3.1.2 Stakeholders3.1.2 Stakeholders3.1.2 Stakeholders’’’’ identificationidentificationidentificationidentification

The objective of this research was to identify the stakeholders involved in the process of

communal forests as a “window of opportunity” for the country policies. The process of snow –

ball sampling used, assumes that there is a link between the initial subject and the other subjects

in the same target population, allowing a series of referrals to be made within a circle of

acquaintance (Berg, 1998). One subject gives the researcher the name of another subject, who in

turn provides the name of a third, and so on (Vogt, 1998). This until the subjects interviewed do

not disclose new names. During the transition period innovative practices of forest policy

became a trend for the society. The entire forest legislation changed in 1992. Decentralization

process of top – down approach was necessary to enter EU. So, forestry sector was one of those

sectors which suffered a deep long structured reform. Today forests are transferred to communes

and are in use by the respective communities.

In our research the first actor interviewed came from the basis of the community. Sometimes

focused interviews were used as the primary source of data. They are semi-standardized, and in

many respects, they are a combination of structured and open interviews. Subsequently, some

assumptions are reached, based on which is prepared the interview protocol (Hirsijärvi and

Hurme 1991). List of interviewees was prepared as a result of snow-ball method. Although the

final composition of interviewees varied slightly according to local circumstances, the main

groups of interviewees included: community; local user groups; local, regional and national

government units and directories; forestry administration (regional and national); forest

associations (local, regional and national ones); private companies (consultants); national and

international donor organizations (SNV, WB, etc); representatives of forestry projects; research

institutes; and other relevant interested actors. The total amount of interviews conducted was 30,

initiated in September 2008 – February 2009. The role of the interviews in the data collection

process was two-fold. They were used as key informants, but they were also asked to point out

additional supportive written material on the themes that were discussed. The use of several

sources of evidence is also supported by the principle of triangulation, which is generally

recommended for our respective case study research. A conclusion is likely to be more

convincing and accurate, if it is based on several different sources of information (Yin 1994).



In Table 1, is found a detailed list of interviewed stakeholders, the representing institution and

the position each of them holds respectively. As these interviews have taken place during a

period of one year, the location has centrally been at the site location of the case study area,

Gjinar, where all local governmental institutions act, Elbasan district where other meso level

decisions take place and the capital, Tirana where all macro level institutions are situated.

TABLE 1: List of Interviewed Stakeholders

No. of No. of No. of No. of

InterviewsInterviewsInterviewsInterviews

Stakeholder / organizationStakeholder / organizationStakeholder / organizationStakeholder / organization DateDateDateDate

Location Location Location Location

/ Region/ Region/ Region/ Region

Int. No.1 Community 01.08.2008 – 30.04.2009 Gjinar

Int. No. 2 Forest User 01.08.2008 – 30.04.2009 Gjinar

Int. No.3 Local Government Unit 01.08.2008 – 30.04.2009 Gjinar

Int. No. 4 Forest and Pastures Users Association 01.08.2008 – 30.04.2009 Gjinar

Int. No.5 Directory of Forestry Service 01.08.2008 – 30.04.2009 Elbasan

Int. No. 6 Focal Point 01.08.2008 – 30.04.2009 Elbasan

Int. No.7 Private Businesses 01.08.2008 – 30.04.2009 Elbasan

Int. No. 8 Regional Federation of Communal Forestry and Pastures 01.08.2008 – 30.04.2009 Elbasan

Int. No.9 Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration 01.08.2008 – 30.04.2009 Tirana

Int. No. 10 National Association of Communal Forests and Pastures 01.08.2008 – 30.04.2009 Tirana

Int. No.11 National Environmental and Forestry Agency (Former Forest

& Pastures Research Institute)

01.08.2008 – 30.04.2009 Tirana

Int. No. 12 Natural Resource Development Project 01.08.2008 – 30.04.2009 Tirana

Int. No.13 Ministry of Interior – National Agency of Transfer of

Immobile Assets

01.08.2008 – 30.04.2009 Tirana

Int. No. 14 Prefecture 01.08.2008 – 30.04.2009 Elbasan

Int. No.15 Netherlands Development Organisations 01.08.2008 – 30.04.2009 Tirana

Int. No. 16 World Bank 01.08.2008 – 30.04.2009 Tirana

Int. No.17 Non-Governmental Organisations 01.08.2008 – 30.04.2009 Elbasan

Int. No. 18 Other Donors - -

*Note: All interviews were conducted personally by the researcher. Author: Manjola SALLA



Quantitative data collected by different stakeholders, represent 18 actors coming from different

levels. This research method tends to be more statistically based, and makes much more use of

numerical data. Data analysis will be conducted by using excel formulas and response to open

questions will be analyzed by narrative analysis methods of social research.

The quantitative analysis will give a good overview over the power of the stakeholders relevant

on all levels, from local to international. The indicators for power – trust, incentives and

irreplaceability – can be easily measured using a questionnaire. The results will be a robust

estimation, which the most powerful stakeholders are. In a second step the individual

(qualitative) analysis of power sources will focus on the most powerful stakeholders only.

3.1.3 Interview Process and method of Transcription3.1.3 Interview Process and method of Transcription3.1.3 Interview Process and method of Transcription3.1.3 Interview Process and method of Transcription

The sampling of the interviewees was purposive with a sample size of about 30 people. Most of

the data were gathered during trips to Gjinar and Albania through face-to-face interviews,

personal contacts, documentation gathering, and direct observations. Other forms of

communications include phone calls, personal letters, and electronic mail messages. Interviews

were conducted with representatives of the institutions involved in Albanian forestry.

Interviews were also conducted with people from international organizations and companies

involved in Albanian forestry during the years. Most of the interviews were of an open-ended

nature, i.e., the respondents were asked for the facts as well as their opinion about the events.

During the interviews, every effort was made to preserve neutrality, i.e., not influencing the

response or opinions expressed by the subject. According to Babbie (1992), neutrality should be

the essential characteristic of the interviewer. Questions focused on issues such as the role of

participants in the forest policy process, factors that affect this process, changes in forest

legislation, institutional reform, and changes in forest land tenure. The data obtained were

organized using a conceptually clustered matrix (Miles and Huberman 1984). The columns in the

matrix brought together items with conceptual coherence. Comprehending the core of the issues

was an adamant goal. Assumptions, speculations, self-serving explanations, and pseudo-interests



were carefully scrutinized: was a person/group really interested/committed to the issue or was

he/she/it using it as a vehicle to promote another agenda?

3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 STUDY ANALYSISSTUDY ANALYSISSTUDY ANALYSISSTUDY ANALYSIS

Operationalisation links the language of theory with the language of empirical measures. Theory

is full of abstract concepts, assumptions, relationships, definitions, and casualty. They refer to

specific operations or things people use to indicate the presence of a construct that exist in

observable reality.

Data collection, tools and methods are done according to (Niemela, 1993). So, two data forms

have been gathered, cross-sectional primary and secondary data. Primary data is collected by

personal and group interviews by fact-finding and field observation. Secondary data is taken

from official reports, research publications, statistical bureaus, and so on, which is needed as a

complement to primary data and are important for supporting arguments of analysis. This is a

valuable research strategy because each research method has particular strengths and weakness

and use of more than one method helps to overcome the weakness (Babbie, 2002) and makes the

findings and conclusions more convincing.

The power (P) = f (Liberal Trust, Coercive Trust, Incentives, Irreplaceability) will be tested and

analyzed. Qualitative and quantitative approaches will follow accordingly.

The tools have the semi-structured personal interviews, for example (Bryman, 2004) that is

chosen based on the characteristics of the interviewees and the studied area conditions (Ruiz,

2005). The findings that emerge from the analysis of the available literature can be triangulated

with information of key informants. Key informants are people with in-depth knowledge of

particular issues and can be consulted to probe, confirm, or refute findings that emerge from

other analysis and methods.



3.2.1 Variable Operationalisation3.2.1 Variable Operationalisation3.2.1 Variable Operationalisation3.2.1 Variable Operationalisation

The definition of power previously presented has stated that power is a variable that depends on

the exchange relations: trust, irreplaceability and incentive. We have defined power of a

particular actor as the addition of the trust this actor gains, how irreplaceable this actor is seen by

all others, and the incentives that this particular actor gives in the network. This is seen in

equation 3.1:

Power = f (Liberal Trust, Coercive Trust, Incentives, Irreplaceability) (Eq. 3.1)

In the survey, the actors have been asked to assess all the other actors they have mentioned as

having had contact to regarding the above exchange relations. The scale with which these were

measured was as follows: Trust is defined in a scale of three possibilities 1 = weak / fair / basic /

having little trust, 2 = neutral / average / having trust to some extent and 3 = having complete /

full / total trust in the actor; Irreplaceability was dichotomously scaled 0 = the actor is not

irreplaceable for the others and 1 = the actor is considered as irreplaceable; finally Incentive was

also measured as a dichotomous variable 0 = the actor has not given any incentives to another

actor and 1 = the actor has given incentive to the other. Thus, Power (P) is a metric variable,

which is cross-assessed for every actor ranging from 1 (having little trust, not being irreplaceable

and giving no incentives) to 5 (having total trust, being irreplaceable and giving incentives).

3.2.2 Measuring information related variables3.2.2 Measuring information related variables3.2.2 Measuring information related variables3.2.2 Measuring information related variables

A concept not involved directly at power’s definition is the asymmetry of the information

exchange. The relationship of information to power is discussed further on in this research study.

The influence of information has been discussed by many authors, presenting a common ground

of discussion as a distinction between what general and scientific information is. This distinction

particularly is presented by Hanning and Wald (2000).

Descriptive statistics describe numerical data. They can be categorized by the number of

variables involved, where the univariate variable used in this research study describes the

numerical data with a frequency distribution. Every act of coding—whether by interviewer or



office coder—is a measurement, that is, the assignment of a numeral for an answer, according to

some rule. The rules are provided by the pre-coded question (to which only one answer is

possible), or by the coding frame for open questions, where the coder selects the appropriate

code for the answer. This can, of course, then lead to measurement error. The interviewer might

circle the wrong answer or the coder might ascribe the wrong code.

The scale measuring the quality of information obtained by the stakeholders involved in the

network of CF, is as follows: 1 = basic, just skimming and scanning a general information 2 =

average, incomplete information for the interested parties, and 3 = complete and detailed

information for all the actors.

CHAPTER IV – RESEARCH RESULTS


4. RESEARCH RESULTS4. RESEARCH RESULTS4. RESEARCH RESULTS4. RESEARCH RESULTS

4.1 STAKEHOLDERS IN COMMUNAL FORESTRY 4.1 STAKEHOLDERS IN COMMUNAL FORESTRY 4.1 STAKEHOLDERS IN COMMUNAL FORESTRY 4.1 STAKEHOLDERS IN COMMUNAL FORESTRY

In contemporary conditions of governance, networks have been widely drawn by extending

across the barriers between the public sector (or the state), the economy and civil society. Alert is

announced to all network analysts regarding the involvement of actors from three sectors. But,

we can mention here that these sectors cannot be treated as unitary. They are also fragmented

across tiers, scales, and functional sectors. One interesting feature of a network that tries to

combine actors from different backgrounds, perhaps explicitly to overcome a collective action

problem, is how these different pressures from the actors’ ‘home’ networks and this new network

affect each other. According to Healey et al. (1999, 2002) build on work by Innes et al. (1994)

have identified three different kinds of capital that could be activated in relationships between

actors: intellectual, social and political. Actors could hold such capital vis-à-vis other actors and

use these to achieve their ends and influence the decision making of others.

According to Rhodas (1988) state actors lack infrastructural power, where without a policy

community there is no mechanism to intervene in particular areas of policy. Second, with the

involvement of several government actors, no single agency or department is likely to be able to

act on its own. Third, if the area is political, then the department will be operating in a political

situation and is less able to take actions unobserved by the public, legislature or media.

Particular state leaders – especially Presidents, Prime Ministers - can chose to ignore policy

communities and impose policy against the wishes of the network. However, political actors

have to realize the costs of such an approach.

From the interviews conducted and data gathering contacts among actors were established for

different purposes. From the results shown in (Figure 1(a) and 1 (b)) there have been established

17 contacts between 18 stakeholders involved in the process of communal forestry. The result

have been figured out after 18 stakeholders through the snow-ball method were interviewed by

using the scales (0) having no contact at all and (1) for all the respective actors participating and

considering as relevant partners those with whom they communicated, collaborated and



exchanged information. Figure 1 (b) shows that 100% of the actors involved in the CF process

have contacts with LGU, DFS and FUG. It means that contacts have been set up with all the

stakeholders, excluding here themselves. Another important group of actors who have also been

mostly contacted are MEFWA, FPUA, WB, SNV and FP with a percentage of 75% - 90%.

Contacts with other actors as NRDP, Prefecture, NGOs, RFCFP, Consultants, MOI, Other

Donors, NACFP and Community have been contacted by varying from 9 to 11 involved actors.

National Environmental and Forestry Agency has been contacted only by 4 of the stakeholders

involved in the process.

FIGURE 1 (a): Number of contacts established among actors involved in the Communal Forestry process.



FIGURE 1 (b): Percentage of contacts established among actors involved in the Communal Forestry process.

Referring to the institutional division the greatest number of contacts is derived from micro level

institutions, respectively FUG and LGU, as well as the Directorate of Forest Service representing

the meso level institutions and policies. Another important group of stakeholders being contacted

by more than 12 actors out of 18, come both from the state and non state institutions, macro,

meso and micro level. Also, distinguished donors as SNV and WB are members of this group.

The division and classification of the stakeholders into state and non state ones, makes possible a

detailed identification of each institution and the place it represents and plays in different acting

levels of decision making processes. The bottom up approach, finds some of the stakeholders

more active in the policy arena of the country, although the same method and order were used to

identify and classify them accordingly. Table 1 gives a detailed summary of the stakeholders’

classification identifying 8 state governmental state actors and 10 non –state actors which are pro

active and are ranged important key respondents in community forestry process in Albania.



TABLE 2: Division and classification of stakeholders into state and non state ones.

No. Acting Level STAKEHOLDERS

Acting Level

No.

STATE NON STATE

1

MIC

RO

Local Government Unit Community MIC

RO

1

2

ME

SO

Focal Point Forest User 2

3 Directory of Forestry Service Forest and Pastures Users

Association 3

4 Prefecture Private Businesses ME

SO

4

5

MA

CR

O

National Environmental Agency of Albania (Former Forest & Pastures Research Institute)

Regional Federation of Communal Forestry and

Pastures 5

6 Natural Resource Development Project

National Association of Communal Forests and Pastures

MA

CR

O

6

7

Ministry of Interior – National Agency of Transfer of Immobile Assets

Netherlands Development Organisations

7

World Bank 8

8 Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water Administration

Non-Governmental Organisations

19

Other Donors 10

In a more detailed question, interviewees were asked to ascribe a number from 1 (basic

information), 2 (average information) and 3 (complete information) to describe the quality of

information that the 18 actors involved in the CF network receive regularly.

Data given on Figure 2, explains clearly that the most complete information regarding communal

forestry in Albania comes from NRDP, SNV and WB. The information offered is related to

detailed statistical data about CF in Albania, official reports, management plans, policy papers,

scientific papers, decisions of the council of ministers, situational analysis, and other important

data resulting since the beginning of communal forestry initiative. After these institutions, other

reliable actors are distinguished in embracing really complete information and problem solving

situations. These are MEFWD, LGU and NACPF, respectively with 73% and 54% for those

being in micro and macro levels. Noticing here from the quality of information results that these

state and non state institutions stay in the middle referring to the acquisition needed in the CF

process.



FIGURE 2: Structure of the quality of information given in percentage (%) among 18 actors involved in CF process in Albania.

Although there exist some place for the stakeholders to be informed and from the results it is

noticed that it is provided in different forms and measured by qualities, this is strongly related

with the know – how technology of information, lack of informative capacities and information

update within the institutions who owe a stake on the entire process, but not every decision

making is dependant at their role, power and opportunities offered.

4.2 NETWORK ANALYSIS4.2 NETWORK ANALYSIS4.2 NETWORK ANALYSIS4.2 NETWORK ANALYSIS

It has already been pointed out that the expression “A has power over B” is not a complete one

since A may be able to achieve B’s compliance with respect to x, but be incapable of getting B to

do y. Therefore, to specify the outcome (effect) of power Lasswell and Kaplan, Dahl

Cartwrights, Negal and some other authors have suggested specification of the outcome of power

by stating its domain and scope. The domain is the actor or actors over whom power is exercised,

and the scope is the state or property of the agent that is modified by the power holder.



According to the definition of power previously presented at the methodology design, is stated

that power is a variable that depends on the exchange relations: trust, irreplaceability and

incentive. The following equation applied composes power through the most important

composition elements.

Power = f (Liberal Trust, Coercive Trust, Incentives, Irreplaceability) (Eq. 4.1)

In order to follow the formulae, all power elements should be analyzed adequately one by one by

giving and emphasizing characteristics each of the stakeholders hold in pointing out the most

powerful actor being involved in the CF process.

As we have classified trust into liberal and coercive one. Liberal trust is mostly based on

expectation based trust, which is not as strong as coercive trust. While, coercive trust is mostly

based on “command and control” function and the most dominant mode of power factor in CF

cases. In the following variable trust is analyzed by getting absolute and relative trust values,

which are scaled from 1 (fair trust), 2 (neutral) and 3 (complete trust). 0 scale has not been

included, because none of the stakeholders involved in such a network has a certain amount of

trust on those whom they cooperate. This does not mean that trust toward some of them is fair,

but the actors themselves have valued that for certain reasons, conflict and unsolved issues raised

in CF in Albania give them the minimum of trust.

A better explanation of trust among stakeholders continues in Figure 3 by summing up the

percentage of each respective actor toward the others.

In a detailed in – depth analysis of the structure of stakeholders’ trust, 79% of the interviewed

actors believe on WB. More than 50%, identify NRDP as a trustworthy stakeholder in the

process, followed by 53% trust completely on LGU, 60% refer to MOI and MEFWA as the main

stakeholders by hoping that things will be enhanced only as a result of their governmental

decentralized policies. The prefecture is assessed by 64% of the actors as being completely

trustworthy. A group of actors being trusted by only 31 – 46% of the actors include SNV,

NACFP, Other Donors, Consultants’, NGOs, DFS and FP. They all represent different

institutional levels in the country, especially DFS and FP who pertain to the regional meso level,

and the others refer to private companies, associations, and donor agencies. There is an increase



of the number of actors by 54% having minimum trust on Focal Points. The remaining actors are

characterized from a very low level of contacts trusting completely to them.

FIGURE 3: Structure of stakeholders’ trust given in percentage for all the actors involved in the CF process in Albania.

Providing incentives for CF process in the country gives to the actors involved in the process a

certain weight of power. Although the contribution of incentives varies from one actor to the

other, as it is stated in the theoretical framework of this research study, Figures 4 and 5 provide

us by introducing detailed information of the situation achieved in the study. There are actors

who do not contribute at all in the process, although they have contacts they are scaled by using

0. Those who apply considerable incentives are scaled with 1. From the findings in Figure 4, the

absolute data value given refer to the number of contacts who think that the analyzed

stakeholders providing support, (either financial, information, knowledge based one, etc) to the

respective actors in the network are 17. From the table is figured out that all the contacts, 17

actors obtain incentives of different forms from LGU. Also high incentives are provided by the



MEFWA with a number of 15, WB with a number of 14 and SNV with a number of 13.

Referring to the data figures in percentage to the contribution of the above-mentioned

stakeholders is evaluated 100%. This evaluation comes as a result of the total number of actors

involved in the process and express a positive attitude toward the institutions mentioned.

Additional to these, 100% of the interviewed think that NGOs and NACFP contribute also with

incentives. 80 - 90% of the actors state that Prefecture (90%), MOI (90%), NRDP (83%), RFCFP

(81%), FPUA and Other Donors (80%) also have an impact by contributing in the forest policy.

From the observations and secondary data here we can distinguish especially financial sources

(NRDP), information (FPU, RFCFP) and policy formulation (MOI). Informative and technical

support is given by DFS with an opinion range of 64%. According to the actors’ opinions less

than 50% of them thinks that there is some contribution from the remaining group of actors

(FPRI, CONS, FP, FUG, COM).

FIGURE 4: Contribution of incentives in percentage % for 18 actors involved in the CF process in Albania

Irreplaceability is the other essential power component. Figures 10 and 11 show clearly findings

that LGU is 100% irreplaceable. This opinion is derived from all actors involved in the research

study. Other irreplaceable institutions with 80 – 93% of the actors’ opinions find out that

MEFWA, Community, DFS, FUG, Prefecture, and MOI cannot find substitutes. Distinguishable



here is that 7 of the representing bodies out of 8, with an evaluation of more than 80% are

governmental institutions. Community is the eighth irreplaceable body within this group of

actors.

FIGURE 5: Irreplaceability of the actors involved in the process of CF in Albania, given in percentage

NACFP and FPRI result irreplaceable from 50 – 55% of the interviewed, and organisms as WB

and FPUA, are replaceable for nearly more than 55% of the interviewed. More than 65% of the

actors think that RFCFP, NRDP, SNV, Other Donors, NGOs, Consultants and FP are

replaceable.

Power constituents are quite contributive in weighting power of 18 stakeholders involved in the

CF process in Albania. Mathematically as it is previously stated, the sum of power is obtained

calculating by adding trust, incentives, and irreplaceability. As scientific findings draw much of

their validity through the context of their application in policy narratives (Herrick, 2004),

analysis of the communication process between science and policy should be able to identify

some bottle-necks in the science/policy interface. So, in the interviews held, the maximum power

scale calculated by Eq. 3.1 results 5 and the minimum scale results 1. In Figure 6 the values

obtained show the total power value of components presented in percentage. It is quite evident



from the figures that LGU is powerful with 77% of the information received through all power

components. Powerful are also distinguished MEFWA with 67% of the results and DFS with

60%. The first 3 powerful actors involved in the process are all state ones, represented at local

(LGU), regional (DFS) and national level (MEFWA). WB is the forth ‘power’ of this network,

being evaluated with 59%. So, as the first power representing international organizations and

donor agencies the power gained is as a result of long term establishment in Albania. FUG and

SNV have gained the same power with 49%, FPUA and Prefecture with 42% and RFCFP

together with NACFP 36%, but the contributors for sure that have had different impacts on its

calculation.

FIGURE 6: Values given in percentages for 18 power holders involved in the CF process.

The level of resources and time required varies, but with an emphasis on desk research,

interviews, and qualitative analysis. Most of the information produced is likely to be contextual,

qualitative data. For this reason, it does not lend itself to cross – country comparison, but rather

comparison over time in a single country (Hyden, 2005). Networks are usually measured with

surveys. Most of these results have multiple interpretations. Qualitative explanations are

necessary because this method does not distinguish real causality from spurious causality

between variables (Bryman, 2001).



Through the use of qualitative network analysis we have examined a network matrix composed

of four groups, as; contacts, trust, incentives and irreplaceability who define the most powerful

stakeholder in the communal forestry transfer process in Albania.

4.3 POWER PROCESS4.3 POWER PROCESS4.3 POWER PROCESS4.3 POWER PROCESS

The scientific analysis described the complex political process of community forestry in great

detail. However, it could not identify key factors that drive the political process and its outcomes.

Nevertheless, the findings about strong influence of the external framework of state and civil

society on social choice make clear that internal factors of community forestry are probably not

the key factors. Analysis of the attributes of local users, such as what constitutes a “community”

(Agrawal and Gibson, 1999); interactions between forest users and the forests (Moran and

Ostrom, 2005); institutional settings for community forestry (Pye Smith et al,., 1994; Ostrom,

1999), power imbalance within intra – community level (Barrow et al., 2002, Thoms, 2008) and

the “effective” size of local groups for collective action in forest resource management (Agrawal

and Gibson, 1999; Gibson et al., 2000) all provide important insights but do not give sufficient

answers if the political framework dominates the activities and outcomes of community forestry.

As Marsh (1992a: 110) points out that unions‘ political role has reduced significantly since 1979.

Although the absolute number of contacts between government and unions might not have

declined, the pattern and quality of those contacts have changed significantly. Consequently, the

state is less able to implement policies because it has less influence over non state groups.

Contributors as trust, incentives, and irreplaceability have given a complex impact by making

some of the stakeholders gaining a completely different weight from the one that they have

separately. Figure No.7 shows clearly the network of 18 actors who are involved in the

Communal Forestry process in the country. By the accumulation of trust, incentives and

irreplacebility in the network, there have been identified some powerful stakeholders, bearing

different weights sources and unequal share of power factors within the network.

The network shows that Local Government Unit (LGU) leads the network by bearing the

maximum accumulation of power factors. Then the World Bank follows the range, but in



comparison with the LGU, it does not bear the maximum amount of the respective factors, but is

among the most trustworthy institutions and high incentives are provided by it regularly. WB is

followed by other important trustworthy stakeholders, as Prefecture, LGU, SNV, MEFWA and

MOI. In a detailed in – depth analysis of the structure of stakeholders’ trust, 79% of the

interviewed actors believe on WB. More than 50%, identify NRDP as a trustworthy stakeholder

in the process, followed by 53% trust completely on LGU, 60% refer to MOI and MEFWA as

the main stakeholders by hoping that things will be enhanced only as a result of their

governmental decentralized policies.

FIGURE 7: Power network for 18 actors involved in the CF process in Albania.

Still continuing to describe Figure number 7, Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water

Administration (MEF&WA) is a powerful institution in terms of irrepleacbility and incentives.

Providing incentives for CF process in the country gives to the actors involved in the process a

certain weight of power. Although the contribution of incentives varies from one actor to the

other, as it is stated in the theoretical framework of this research study. There are actors who do

not contribute at all in the process, although they have contacts they are scaled by using 0. From

the findings, essential support, (either financial, information, knowledge based one, etc) is



provided by the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Water Management, respectively the

Directory of Forests and Pasture Policies to the respective actors in the network. From the

observations and secondary data here we can distinguish especially financial sources (NRDP)

directed by DFPP, information (FPU, RFCFP) and policy formulation (MOI). Informative and

technical support is given by DFS. The Organization Chart of the Ministry of Environment,

Forestry and Water Administration (Figure 8) introduces in details the dependence of different

directories in the central, regional and local level. Also, through this organizational chart duties

and responsibilities are appointed, and it is shown that the final decision maker is the Council of

Ministers.

FIGURE 8: Organizational Chart of the Ministry of E nvironment, Forestry, and Water Administration (MEF&WA)



4.3.1 Trust4.3.1 Trust4.3.1 Trust4.3.1 Trust

According to (Koster, Male: 2009) the most important explanation for the quick transfer of June

2008 of communal forest is the social economic motivation to transfer the land (usually only

degraded or eroded forest and pastures) to the former owners who have very low incomes and

low opportunity costs for their labour. Communal forests and pastures represent to poor farmers

a secure source of livelihood wellbeing (ACER, 2001; Omuri et al. 2008).

In social sciences analysis, trust provides essential outcomes to the community. Trusting

stakeholders is essential for policy, political and polity reasons. Based on trust, important

decisions could be taken by different power levels. This is clearly identified while finding out

that in the commune of Gjinar the Forest Land and Pastures is distributed according to the old

boundaries. The old boundaries refer to the year 1944, where the forest was managed by clans.

Muharremaj (2008) states that unlike the lowland agricultural land, forest and pasture land in

mountainous areas was owned before 1945 privately by large rural population and managed often

collectively by villages, families or clans. So far, the “rural nomenclatua”, with a well

established organizational and political network to influence the decision making, choose the

transfer to the “common property” which was technically easier to implement and avoid land

fragmentation (Koster, Male,; 2009). Nowadays , through the transfer process in this commune,

it has been agreed by participation of the commune, DFS representative, expert of the

management plan and mostly trusting village councils, farmers and elderly people, who affect

the decision making by using the power of information, experience of previous management of

common pool resources, and knowledge power. According to the trust factor, in this area a total

surface land of 4201 ha, out of which 2332 ha are forests, 400 ha pastures and 231 ha

unproductive land has been distributed to 52 clans in the entire commune. (See Table No. 3 for a

detailed distribution among clans and Figure No. 9 for better distributive rights of Forest User

Groups in the Family Forest / Communal Forest ).



TABLE 3: Distribution of Communal Forests and Pastures to the User Groups Households.

Forest & Pastures Usage in (ha): No. Village No. of

Households No. of Clans Name of Clans Forests +

Unp.Land Pastures ha

1 Gjinar 295 9

1. Shqau 15 ha 9 ha 2. Peci 8 ha - 3. Binjaku 13 ha 7 ha 4. Topi 4 ha - 5. Qosja 11 ha 8 ha 6. Mufali 13 ha 11 ha 7. Ziu 5 ha - 8. Bezhani 18 ha 18 ha 9. Berdufi 7 ha 2 ha

TOTAL 94 ha 55 ha

2 Lleshan 213 10

1. Myrto 15 ha 7 ha 2. Muca 32 ha - 3. Amati 47 ha 14 ha 4. Brahimi 13 ha - 5. Tashi 25 ha - 6. Derstila 5 ha - 7. Lukani 9 ha - 8. Bicaku 60 ha 16 ha 9. Kumana 6 ha - 10. Preci 11 ha 9 ha TOTAL 231 ha 46 ha

3 Valesh 137 5

1. Toci 102 ha 17 ha

2. Bezhani 76 ha 13 ha

3. Dervishi 49 ha 5 ha

4. Panxhi 75 ha 11 ha 5. Cullhaj 65 ha 6 ha

TOTAL 372 ha 52 ha

4 Pashtresh 170 6

1. Berdufi 75 ha 8 ha 2. Muca 43 ha 11 ha 3. Qosja 54 ha 19 ha 4. Karaj 28 ha - 5. Cullhaj 31 ha 2 ha 6. Toci 24 ha - TOTAL 249 ha 40 ha

5 Derstil 96 1 1. Derstila 62 ha 68 ha TOTAL 62 ha 68 ha

6 Lukan 44 1 1. Hida 332 ha 10 ha TOTAL 332 ha 10 ha

7 Serstan 54 8 1. Balla 155 ha 10 ha 2. Panxhi 43 ha - 3. Boduri 125 ha 10 ha



4. Shati 50 ha 5 ha 5. Qosja 25 ha - 6. Berdufi 33 ha - 7. Shqau 49 ha - 8. Smajli 11 ha - TOTAL 434 ha 25 ha

8 Xibresh 46 2 1. Karaj 44 ha 11 ha 2. Toci 52 ha 7 ha TOTAL 96 ha 18 ha

9 Maskarth 82 3

1. Oga 35 ha 11 ha 2. Qose 14 ha 4 ha 3. Cullhaj 39 ha 12 ha TOTAL 88 ha 27 ha

10 Kafer 62 3

1. Dervishi 142 ha - 2. Shenplaku 100 ha 16 ha 3. Panxhi 80 ha - TOTAL 342 ha 16 ha

11 Pobrat 136 4

1. Amati 28 ha - 2. Muca 41 ha 14 ha 3. Pepa 76 ha 15 ha 4. Preci 59 ha 14 ha TOTAL 204 ha 43 ha

T O T A L 1335 52 - 2563 ha 400 ha

Source: Draft Management Plan of the Commune of Gjinar, September 2009.

FIGURE 9: Sample of Forest User Groups Rights in the Family Forest / Communal Forest

Source: Natural Resource Development Project, Tirana, Albania



The interview and analysis were structured by empowerment theory. Indicators of empowerment

included efficacy, control, new resources, participation, increased skills, proactive behavior,

critical awareness, sense of competence, shared leadership, meeting organizational goals, key

stakeholders in decision making, extended influence, connections to other community groups,

and responding to threats to quality of life.

4.3.2 Incentives4.3.2 Incentives4.3.2 Incentives4.3.2 Incentives

Incentives are not only financially provided, but also information related incentives and technical

assistance. The strength on this case study area was the decision-making process and project

implementation. Many open meetings fostered participation and decision making by properly

controlling communal forests in the area. There wasn't total agreement on what to do, but

decisions were not made behind closed doors. There were empowerment benefits at the

individual and organizational levels, with some evidence of potential community level

empowerment. (Pictures 1 - 4 from the meetings organized by SNV Albania)

Forest and pasture user rights are the backbone of the economy where subsistence depends in a

big percentage of the management of collective forest and pastures areas (Koster, Male,; 2008).

Enhancing and fostering community knowledge based techniques, through lobbing, bottom – up

involvement, cross over engagement between civil society and state institutions, increasing the

autonomy of the federations and being introduced to the low tech community based mapping

techniques, makes possible the identification of the land rights, land use and special natural

resources. So far, the users are provided with capacity and tools to manage the resources, by

making possible the implementation and realization of future management plans through

capacity building programs and technical support.



PICTURE1 – 4: Evidences from information based seminars and lobbying of the user rights and responsibilities in the Commune of Gjinar.

Meeting in Maskarth Village Meeting in Lukan Village

Source: SNV Capacity Buiilding Project (I.SALLA)

Level of Poverty in the Commune of Gjinar (CSP, 2008) indicates that 49.06 % of the population

is poor, and the value of consumption per month is 5541.21 Albanian leke (approximately 40

Euros∗). Land shortage is especially acute in communes and villages located above 800 meters

elevation on steeply sloping terrain, where holdings can be as low as 0.1 ha. Agriculture /

livestock plays the most important economic incentives in the Commune of Gjinar, with an

∗ 1 Euro = 134 Albanian Leke



estimation of 40%. (Figure 10: Employment situation and Financial Sources in the Commune of

Gjinar)

FIGURE 10: Employment Situation and Financial Sources in the Commune of Gjinar.

Employment in the study communas

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Qerret

Q. Mali

Shisht.

Bushtri

c

Tomin

Sllove

Ulez Klos

Gjinar

L. M

alPolis

Agriculture/livestock Non-farm Emigration Other Unemployed

Source: Social Assessment Carbon Sequestration project

Virtually all families possess at least one cow to supply their milk/dairy needs and to generate

cash through sale of one calf on average per year. Ownership of sheep and goats varies widely

according to availability of arable and grazing land and even more importantly according to the

presence of in the village of family members able to take the animals out to pasture. A key

element here is the perceived impact of temporary grazing access restrictions and possible herd

reductions. This may explain why we see the greatest levels of outright or unqualified support by

villagers in highland areas, due perhaps to greater pasture and forest land availability, among

those averaging 0.8 ha of arable land who are in a better position to grow their own fodder and,

those with more cows and fewer sheep and goats.

Strict grazing restrictions are applied to the site during the first 5-7 years of Carbon

Sequestration Project. Employment provided during the initial pilot period will however be long

enough to make the restrictions being applied to livestock grazing more palatable. Where

alternative pasture or grazing resources are in short supply, grasses germinating within fenced-



off areas will be available for cutting and collection, serving as fodder for winter stall feeding.

Cutting of the grass will also serve to protect the fledgling forests from fire hazard.

After year 5/6, other benefits increasing in significance with each passing year might include:

• Nuts and fruits - Chestnuts, walnuts, hazelnuts, cherries where these species are fostered

• Fodder derived from leaves of a variety of tree species or from branches (oak coppice),

to serve as supplemental livestock feed,

• Firewood

• Medicinal and aromatic plants

The villagers report that they are mostly engaged in forest-related activities, including collection

and sale of wood, collection of fodder for livestock, gathering of medicinal plants, and works

connected with the NRDP. Table 4 shows in details a summary of the involvement of forest

users in forest-related activities, especially for the Commune of Gjinar.

TABLE 4: Involvement of forest users in forest-related activities

Forest AreaForest AreaForest AreaForest Area Commune of GjinarCommune of GjinarCommune of GjinarCommune of Gjinar

Collect woodCollect woodCollect woodCollect wood Communal forest No

Collect and sell woodCollect and sell woodCollect and sell woodCollect and sell wood Mostly State forests Yes

Collection of fodder Collection of fodder Collection of fodder Collection of fodder State and communal Yes

Collection of medicinal plantsCollection of medicinal plantsCollection of medicinal plantsCollection of medicinal plants State and communal Yes

AntiAntiAntiAnti----erosion workserosion workserosion workserosion works Communal forest No



4.3.2 Irreplaceability 4.3.2 Irreplaceability 4.3.2 Irreplaceability 4.3.2 Irreplaceability

Based on the key respondents qualitative information, the forest is an irreplaceable source of

living and “air breathing” for the community. The main function of the forests is productive –

protective. This means that they provide to the society and especially to the communities that

live nearby constructive wood timber and fuel wood. Fauna is mostly predominately from the

wolves, hears, foxes, weasel, blackbirds, sparrows, magpies, carrion craw and other animals and

poultries that compose the biodiversity of the relevant case study area. According to this data,

stakeholders in the network think that Forest and Pastures Users Association (Figure 11) play an

important role in solving problems and finding solutions for all Forest Users.

FIGURE 11: Forest and Pastures Users Association Organizational Chart



So, FPUA in comparison with the Local Government Unit, which has absolute power in the

network, pretends to become an irreplaceable actor in the future of Communal Forestry in the

country. Local Government Unit as an independent decision making institution, where the mayor

is elected by the community, represents officially communities’ interests in every step of state

and non-sate problems. Figure 12 provides a detailed organizational scheme of this local

government body.

FIGURE 12: Local Government Unit Organizational Scheme

4.3.34.3.34.3.34.3.3 CCCCommunal ommunal ommunal ommunal FFFForestryorestryorestryorestry OOOOverview verview verview verview

During the field trip in the Commune of Gjinar, there were identified special characteristics of

CF process in the area. From the interviews with different stakeholders representing different

decision making levels, it was identified that institutions technical support and other essential

arrangements have taken place. Also social characteristics, environmental ones, and economic

and poverty alleviation characteristics were identified in order to have the adequate communal

forestry outcomes, beneficiary for the community and for those stakeholders interested in the

process. Table number 5, gives an overview of the characteristics of communal forestry in the

study area.



TABLE 5: Characteristics of communal forestry in the Commune of Gjinar Type of Characteristic Crucial features of Communal Forestry in

the Commune of Gjinar

Institutional technical support and other essential arrangements (key stakeholders involved in CF Process)

Forests and pastures are managed by clans / kinships

Substantial and main financial support is provided by the government (MEFWA)

The forests and pastures have been transferred to the Local Government Unit

Forest and Pastures’ Users’ Associations have been established for the management of CF in the country

Assistance for community organization and

gathering is done by SNV, SIDA, and other NGOs

Village councils represent villages’ interests and rights

Social Characteristics Empowerment of community living nearby the communal forests.

The community is informed and supported by different training programs on their rights and responsibilities over the communal forests and pastures (Mainly supported by SNV, SIDA)

Landscape amenity and livability of the area are enhanced

Strong involvement of local comunites in decision making processes related to the forests and pastures

Environmental Characteristics A major objective is protection of forests from illegal logging

Economic and poverty alleviation characteristics

An essential objective is providing livelihood activities for poor farmers / villagers in the commune

Other livelihood projects are associated with

Communal forests and pastures

Some of the timber produced for own use,

including here structural timber and fuel wood

NTFPs gathered in the forests provide a certain amount of revenues for the poor families.

Source: Data gathered during the field trip in Albania (2008 – 2009)



4.4.4.4.4444 METHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGESMETHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGESMETHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGESMETHODOLOGICAL CHALLENGES

While questionnaires were used to obtain quantitative and qualitative data on stakeholders

involved in Communal Forestry in the country, crucial challenges were presented to obtain

robust data information and evaluating adequately the answers given.

The stakeholders identified through the snow ball method, were not easily identified, because the

first interview was done at the community level. Asking the first community representative who

were the stakeholders involved in CF Process in Gjinar Commune, required also a brief

introduction of the definitions “stakeholder”, “actor” for them. Although these issues were

completely unknown at this level, the interpretation was compared with institutions,

organizations, and other possible companies, in order to receive at least quantitative data about a

certain number of involved stakeholders in CF.

Although respondents’ answers have been used as qualitative and quantitative data, for some of

the stakeholders was not easy to provide exactly the right weight for each of the stakeholders’

power factors. For the most powerful stakeholders, it was easily and quickly given the absolute

value for each of the power factors, but for the identification of the others in the network, vague

answers were provided for the sake of the interview. For example, Local Government Unit was

identified as one of the most powerful stakeholders, with absolute maximum values, but National

Environmental and Forestry Agency, former Forest Research Institute was known with the title it

used to have before 2007, and no clear responsibilities were identified.

Also a clear definition of trust (liberal and coercive trust), incentives and irreplaceability was

almost explained in every interview, otherwise misleading information could have been

provided by the respective stakeholders. Simple and adjusted questionnaire language was used,

followed by clarifications, in order to understand and evaluate more respondents ideas, as well as

to obtain physical documents related with the process of community forestry in the country, for

example as; documents, reports, procès-verbal, and other necessary official papers used during

the time.

The ‘small’ sampling size of one case study, tends to be criticized in the future by forest policy

researchers, as the results remain open to empirical criticism. Although the sample size was



‘small’, relevant preliminary results were obtained in order to be tested for further scientific

research in the area.

To ensure the reliability of data collected through participatory research methodologies, methods

were needed to be consistently applied and their reliability verified through data triangulation, or

cross checking data with that collected via other methods.



4.54.54.54.5 CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONS

Despite Methodological Challenges faced during data collection in the field, the most important

characteristics of CF process have been identified during the respective network analysis and

personal observations.

The main result of this work is strongly related with the identification of Communal Forestry

Stakeholders, their interests and their power capacity in the network of communal forestry

process in Albania. The transfer of forests to communes and in ownership / use of the user

groups, has empowered local communities immensely. Local communities have gained double

power, because the rights given to them by law by the government, and their rights to elect local

government leaders, tends to change their behavior and makes them ‘lords’ of the forests.

Although, power has influenced their behavior, there exist mediating actors or stakeholders who

act as alias to balance the generated power. Alias, between the communities, forests, forest user

groups, forest associations and central governmental institutions, act International Stakeholders,

which in this case are Natural Resource Development Project, Netherlands Development

Organization as well as the Local Government Unit which represents citizens’ rights. Also, user

rights and responsibilities have not yet clearly been defined and appointed between the

Communes, Directory of Forest Service and Forest and Pastures Users’ Association. So far, this

empowers more forest user groups, finding themselves as the major driving forces of communal

forestry in the country.

Fuel wood is used as the primary energy source for the greatest number of population in Albania,

where the fuel wood also keeps being used in the urban areas, although there exist other forms of

energy sources. The environmental impact of illegal harvesting is significant. Illegal logging

operations are done without any environmental protection measures, including measures for

slope and soil protection in rugged terrain, adherence to annual allowable cut standards, and

avoidance of sensitive habitats such as riparian stands and stream courses. At this point,

communities nearby the forest are the stakeholders who have gained power, even this cannot be

identified with the quantitative network analysis, but with the qualitative network analysis.



Although the results differ from each other, it is evident that governmental forestry institutions

advance with their power weight and frequency of contacts with the other stakeholders. In this

case we can evaluate that the state acts as an intermediator for all the interested actors. We find

also that inequalities within the network itself are visible and inevitable. From the results of the

network, it is noticed that power is concentrated in the hands of state actors, exactly from the

sector, which is nearer to the community, Local Government Unit. According to the network

results, Local Government Unit possesses maximum power weight. As a powerful state

institution nowadays, under certain power factors it produces more power and affects the

decisions of other internal and external stakeholders found in the network. Also, it determines the

outcomes of communal forestry in the area.

It is notable in the power network, that each stakeholder exerts power to influence the behavior

of the other stakeholders. Worthy to mention here, is the diverse weight each of power factors

(trust, incentives and irreplaceability) have gained during the quantitative network analysis. We

have to mention here World Bank through its Natural Resources Development Project, which is

fully trusted and the incentives have gained a maximum contribution value, but the power of

other stakeholders makes it a replaceable stakeholder, depending from other essential state

institutions, as the LGU or MEF&WA.

Line ministries as Ministry of Environment, Forestry & Water Administration and Ministry of

Interior depend on each others’ power to get final decisions.

Through these, it is noted that stakeholders’ potential to contribute in achieving a particular

objective, depend on the weight of each other.

CHAPTER V - SUMMARY


5555. . . . SUMMARYSUMMARYSUMMARYSUMMARY

Communal Forestry refers to the governance program based on decentralization. Forest policy

networks analyze power as the composition of liberal trust, coercive trust, incentives and

irreplaceability. The aim of the this study refers to the identification of the stakeholders involved

in the communal forestry process in Albania, and the power each of these stakeholders weights

in the network matrix. According to Krott (2005), the forest owner is the stakeholder who has the

immediate power of control over a certain forest. The interaction within a network matrix,

frequency of contacts and quality of information aim the basic power factors in the identification

of the Communal Forestry actors.

With the help of quantitative and qualitative network analysis, it has been possible to approve

that organization of communal forests and participation of the users are minor factors, although

stakeholders have different degrees of power to control decisions that have effects on policies

and institutions. Although they have gained double power, comparing to the period where have

been only state forests, it is essential to identify that the contribution to achieve a particular

objective depends on the weight each of them contain. All 18 stakeholders identified, are state

and non state actors. They represent different levels, and affect the network accordingly.

Also, another assumption is strongly related with the most powerful stakeholders and the power

they have influencing each others’ behavior and decisions. According to Hasanagas “Power = f

(Liberal Trust, Coercive Trust, Incentives, Irreplaceability)”. The most powerful stakeholder

s are situated in the periphery circle, and make the stakeholders of the inner circle seem to be

powerful within the group they represent, but unable and impossible in influencing decisions and

other policy outcomes.

Although the representing sample size was relatively small, there could be found empirical data

to conclude the first preliminary results, and having another “window of opportunity” to continue

further on with the identification and analysis of respective network in the whole national level.

CHAPTER VI - REFERENCES


6. REFERENCES6. REFERENCES6. REFERENCES6. REFERENCES

List of Laws and Legal Documents Consulted

Constitution and Laws

1. Albanian constitution 1991

2. Law on Forest and Pastures 1923

3. Law on Forest Protection Nr.3349 dated 03.10 .1961

4. Law Concerning Forest and Forest Service Police Nr 7623 dated 13.10. 1992

5. Law on Forest and Forest Service Nr 9385 dated 04.05.2005 amended with law Nr 9791

dated 23.07.2007

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

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

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

Lands”. 15 April 1993

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

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

Lands”. 30 April 1998

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

2000.

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

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

22 February 2001.

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

Protection”. 26 March 2001.

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

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

17. Ministers‘ Council Decision Nr. 22 “For the Establishment and Administration of

Procedures and Criteries of Communal Forests“ dated 09.01.2008.

18. Ministers‘ Council Decision Nr. 396 “Transfer Criteries and Use of Forests from Local

Government Units“ dated 21.06.2006.



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

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

1995.

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

of the Council of Ministers of 1999.

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

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

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

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

October 2002.

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

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

Economic Development. www.keshilleministrave.al.gov.

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

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

April 2004.

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

Decision No. 396 of 21 June 2006.

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

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



List of Literature CitedList of Literature CitedList of Literature CitedList of Literature Cited

1. ACER (Albanian Center for Economic Research) (2001): Illegal logging Independent

Study. Final Report prepared for Albanian Forestry Project. Pp 140.

2. Agrawal, A., & Ostrom, E., (2001): Collective Action, Property Rights, and

Decentralization in Resource Use in India and Nepal. Politics & Society, 29/4, 485–

514. [PDF]

3. Agrawal, A., Gibson, C., (1999; 2001): Communites and the Environment; Ethnicity,

Gender and the State in Community Based Conservation. New Brunswick, New Jersey

and London. Rutgers University Press.

4. Enchantment and Disenchantment: The role of Community in Natural Conservation.

World Development Volume 27, No.4, pp. 629 – 649.

5. Agrawal, A., Gibson, C., (1999): Enchantment and Disenchantment: The role of

Community in Natural Conservation. World Development Volume 27, No.4, pp. 629 –

649.

6. Babbie, E. R., (1992; 2004): The Practice of Social Research. Belmont CA. Thomson

Wadsworth.

7. Baginski, S, O., Blaikie, P., (2007): Forests, People and Power: the Political Ecology of

Reform in South Asia, Earthscan, London, UK.

8. Barrow, E., Clarke, J., Grundy, I., Jones, K. R., Tessema, Y., (July 2002): Analysis of

Stakeholder Power and Responsibilities in Community Involvement in Forest

Management in Eastern and Southern Africa. IUCN, Nairobi, Kenya.

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

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

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

10. Bray, David B., Antinori, C., & Torres-Rojo, Juan M., (2006): The Mexican model of

community forest management: The role of agrarian policy, forest policy and

entrepreneurial organization. Forest Policy and Economics, 8/4, 470-484. [PDF]

11. Brinkerhoff, D., Crosby, B., (2002): Managing Policy Reform: Concepts and Tools for

Decision Makers in Developing and Transitioning Countries. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian

Press.



12. Bryman, A., (2001): Social Research Methods. Oxford University Press, Oxford:

540phesis Publishers. Netherlands: 300p

13. Buskens, V., (1999): Social Networks and trust. Amsterdam T

14. Carl Von Essen (2009): Resource Protection and Bioenergy: Community – based

Forestry for Sustainable Natural Resource Management. Page 81 – 90, UFO Press,

Tirana.

15. Carol J. Pierce Colfer & Doris Capistrano (2005): The Politics of Decentralisation:

Forests , People and Power. Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR),

London, UK.

16. Carter, C. W., Turnock, D., (2002): Environmental Problems of East central Europe –

Albania by Dereck R. Hall 12(1): 251 – 282.

17. Coleman, J., (1990): Foundations of Social Theory. The Belknap Press of Harvard

University Press, Cambridge: 993p.

18. DFID (Department for International Development). 2003a. Tools for Development: A

Handbook for Those Engaged in Development Activity. London: DFID

19. Etzioni, A., (1988): The Moral Dimension. Toward a New Economic, New York: Free

Press

20. Evans, Julian (2001): The Forests Handbook, Volume2. Applying Forest Science for

Sustainable Management, Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford, UK.

21. Finger-Stich, Andéa (2005): Social Agency in Alpine Communal Forests: Local actors'

interactions with communal forests and participation in communal forestry in the French

and Swiss Alps. Dissertation at the Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg im Breisgau,

Germany.

22. Folke, Carl & Mäler, Karl–Göran (eds) Rights to Nature: Ecological, Economic,

Cultural, and Political Principles of Institutions for the Environment. Washington, DC;

Covelo, CA: Island Press. 127–156. [PDF]

23. GDFP (General Directorate of forest and Pastures – Albania) (2005): National Strategy

for the Development of Forestry and Pastures in Albania, pp. 38.

24. Grindle, M., Thomas, J., (1991): Public Choices and Policy Change: The Political

Economy of Policy Change in Developing Countries, Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins

University Press.



25. Harrison, S., Suh, J., (2005): Progress and prospects of community forestry in developing

and developed countries. Small scale forest economics, management and policy. 3 (3):

pp.287 – 302.

26. Hasanagas, D. N., (20014): Power Factor Typology Through Organizational and

Network Analysis – Using Environmental Policy Networks as an Illustration. Dissertation

at Georg August University.

27. Healey, P., D. Magalaes and A. Madanipour (1999): Institutional Capacity Building,

Urban Planning and Urban Regeneration Projects. Futura, 18 (3), 117 - 37

28. Henning, Ch., Wald, A., (2000): Zur theorie der Interessenvermittlung: Ein

Netzwerkansatz dargestellt am Beispiel der Gemeinsamen Europäischen Agrarpolitik

(On the theory of interests‘ intermediation: A network – analysis principle illustarted in

the case study of the Common European Agricultural Policy).

29. Hunter, Floyd (1953): Community Power Structure: A study of Decision Makers. The

University of North Carolina Press, New York, USA.

30. Innes, J., Gruber, M. Neuman and R. Thompson (1994): Coordinating Growth and

Environmental Management through Consensus Building. California Policy Seminar

Paper, Barkeley, CA: University of California.

31. Kola, H., Zeneli., G., (2208): Final Report on Enhancing Tenure Security Through

Support the Communities to Improve the Laws on Transfer of State Public Property

(Forest and Pasture) to the Communes, International Land Coalition (ILC) & National

Association of Communal Forests and Pastures (NACPF).

32. Kola, H., Zeneli, G., Male, J.,: (2009): Resource Protection and Bioenergy: Payments for

Environmental Services (PES) approach as potential to reduce land degraddation. Page

47 – 64, UFO Press, Tirana.

33. Koster, H., Male, J., (2009): Resource Protection and Bioenergy: Capacity Building for

better Land planning and Management of Communal Forest and Pastures. Page 65 – 80,

UFO Press, Tirana.

34. Krott, M (2005): Forest Policy Analysis, Springer, Dordrecht.

35. Magno, F., (2006): Forest Devolution and Social Capital, State Civil Society Relations in

the Philipinnes, pp 264 – 286



36. Maloney, W., Smith, G., & Stoker, G., (2000): Social Capital and Urban Governance:

Adding a More Contextualized 'Top-Down' Perspective. Political Studies, 48, 802-820.

[PDF]

37. March, J., Olsen, J., (1989, 1992): Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis

of Politics, New York, Free Press.

38. McAreavey, Ruth (2006): Getting Close to the Action: The Micro–Politics of Rural

Development. Sociologia Ruralis, 46/2, 85–103. [PDF]

39. McGee, R., Norton, A., (2000): “Participation in Poverty Reduction Strategies: A

Synthesis of Expereince with Participatory Approaches to Policy Design, Implementation

and Monitoring”. IDS Working paper 109, Institute of Development Studies, Brighton,

UK.

40. M. Goodwin, S. Duncan, and S. Halford, “Regulation Theory, the Local State, and the

Transition of Urban Politics,” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 11, no. 1

(February 1993): 67-88; and R. Rhodes, Beyond Westminster and Whitehall: The Sub-

Central Governments of Britain (London: Unwin Hyman, 1988).

41. Moran, F. E., Ostrom, E., (2005): Seeing the Forest and the Trees. Human – Environment

Interaction in Forest Ecosystems, the MIF Press London, England.

42. Muharremaj, Vezir (2008): Analysis of the Legal Framework on the Communal Forests

and Pastures in Albania. SNV Albania,pp. 191.

43. Muharremaj, Vezir (1996, 1997, 2000): Communal Forestry in Albania, (World Bank

Reports)

44. Naka, Kozma (1998): Making Albanian Forestry Work. Dissertation submitted to the

faculty of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University for the degree of Doctor in

Philosophy in Forestry.

45. Noran, M., Rein, M., Goodin, R.E., (2006): The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy.

Rhodes R.A.W., - Policy Network Analysis, Oxford University Press, UK.

46. Ostrom, E., & Schlager, E., (1996): The Formation of Property Rights. In: Hanna, Susan

S.,

47. Ostrom, Elinor., (1990): Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for

Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York:



48. Ostrom, Elinor (1999): Social capital: a fad or a fundamental concept? In: Dasgupta,

Partha & Serageldin, Ismail (eds) Social Capital: A Multifacted Perspective. 172-214.

[PDF]

49. Ostrom, Elinor (1999): Self – Governance and Forest Resources (CIFOR),(Occasional

paper 20) Pretty, J., & Ward, H., (2001): Social Capital and the Environment. World

Development, 29/2, 209-227. [PDF]

50. Ostrom, E., Schroeder, L., Wynne, S., (1993): Institutional incentives and sustainable

development. Infrastructure policies in perspective. West view Press, Oxford.

51. Ostrom, E., Parks, B. R., Whitaker, P. G., (1978): Patterns of metropolitan policing.

Ballinger publishing company, Cambridge Massachusetts.

52. Popitz, H., (1992): Phänomene der Macht (phenomena of power). J.C.B. Mohr,

Tuebingen: 279p

53. Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. Y., (1994): Making Democracy Work: Civic

Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ et al.: Princeton University Press.

54. Rhodes, R.A.W. (1981): Control and Power in Central – Local Government Relations.

University of Essex, Great Britain.

55. Rhodes, R., (1988): Governance as Theory: five prepositions‘. International Social

Science Journal, 2, 17 – 28.

56. Rietbergen – McCracken,J., Maginnis, S., sarre, A., (2007): The Forest Restoration

Handbook. International Tropical Timber Organisation, London, UK.

57. Rao, V., Wookock, M., (2003): “Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Approches in

Program Evaluation”. In Evaluating the Poverty and Distributional Impact of Economic

Policies (Techniques and Tools) ed. E. Bourgignon and L. Pereira da Silva, chapter 8.

Washington DC: World Bank

58. Rydin, Y., Falleth, E., (2006): Networks and Institutions in Natural Resource

Management, Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc, USA.

59. Selman, P., & Parker, J., (1997): Citizenship, Civicness and Social Capital in Local

Agenda 21. Local Environment, 2/2, 171–184.

60. SNV, (2008): Situational Analysis (Communal Forestry in Albania), (report)

61. Smajgl, A., Larson, S., (2007): Sustainable Resource Use: Institutional Dynamics and

Economics, London, UK.



62. Smith, J. M., (1992): Pressure, Power, and Policy. State Autonomy and Policy Networks

in Britain and the United States. University of Pittsburgh Press.

63. Utting. P., (1993): Trees, People, and Power. Social Dimensions of Deforestation and

Forest Protection in Central America, UNRISD, London, UK.

64. William Dillinger, Decentralization and Its Implications for Urban Service Delivery.

Urban Management Program Discussion Paper No. 16 (Washington, DC: The World

Bank, 1994), 8.

65. Wollenberg, E., Anderson, J., Lopez, C., (2005): Though all things differ: Pluralism as a

basis for Cooperation in Forests. Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR),

Bogor, Indonesia.

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

Report No. 15104-AL. 15 March 1996.

67. World Bank. 2002. Rural development strategy.

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

Europe and Central Asia Region.

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

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

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

February 2004.

71. World Bank., (2007): Tools for Institutional, Political, and Social Analysis of Policy

Reform, A sourcebook for Development Practitioners, Washington DC,USA.

72. Wrong, H. Denis., (2004): Power: Its forms, bases, and uses. With a new introduction by

the author.

73. Zurn, M., Walter, G., Dreher, S. and Beisheim, M., (2000): Postnationale Politik? Uber

den Politischen Umgang mit den Denationalisierungs – Herausforderungen Internet,

Klimawandel und Migration. Zeitschrift fur InternationaleBeziehungen 7(2): 297 – 329.

CHAPTER V II- ANNEXES


7777. . . . ANNEXESANNEXESANNEXESANNEXES

Appendix 1: For the creation of the Commission of Forests and Pastures of the

Village” (Template document)

REPUBLIC OF ALBANIA

LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT _______________ VILLAGE COUNCIL _________

DECISION

Nr._______ Date ___________

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

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

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

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



Appendix 2. Unofficial English Translation of the Final Draft Law Text: LAW No 9385, Date 04.05.2005 FOR THE FORESTS AND FOREST SERVICE On the basis of the articles 78 and 83, point 1 of the Constitution, with the proposal of the Council of Ministers THE PARLIAMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF ALBANIA DECIDED: CHAPTER I GENERAL DISPOSITIONS Article 1: Objective

1. The object of this law is the determination of the same rules for the relationships, tasks, the right and responsibilities of the state institutions, local governmental structures, NGO-s, private and business owners on the protection, administration, management and use of the national forest fund, the forest land and their natural and biological resources.

2. This law regulates also the protective, social, eco-tourist and economic activities that develops in the national forest fund and in other forest and non-forest resources, on the basis of the sustainable and multifunctional management principles, presented in the strategy and policies of the forest and pastures sector development, as well as in the organization and function scheme of the administration of the Albanian Forest Service, it also regulate juridical relations, responsibilities and tasks of this Service, for the establishment of a sustainable, professional forest service.

Article 2: Definitions and action fields

In applying this law, the following terms have these meanings: 1. “ Forest resources”, is the entirety of the natural elements of a forest area or forest land,

with a considerable value used for human needs. In the forest economy, as natural resources, there are included the land, water, non - forest and multifarious vegetation and those non – living nature and wild creatures.

2. "Forest and forest environment damage", is the destruction of the physico – chemical and structural characteristics of the forest eco-system, decrease of the biological productivity and of the variety of the eco -systems composing the national forest fund.

3. “ Trees or groups of forest trees”, is particular forest trees and in groups, wherever they exist, with a surface of 0,05 ha, protective belts, urban parks and tree groups planted in the small site used for grazing.

4. “Forest economy”, is a forest area divided in plots and sub-plots, as a basic unit for the orientation, organizing, planning and controlling the forest management which completes the continuity principle of the forest production.

5. “Forest eco-system”, is a dynamic complexity of communities: plants, animals, microbes and the non – living environment which interact as a functional unit.

6. Forest nursery”, is a land surface destined to grow and produce, for a certain period of time, seedlings of different types and sizes, originated from the seeds, scions, pieces, roots, tubers.

7. “Forest fund” are all the forest and non-forest surfaces, (properties), the associated forest and non-forest sources and the respective infrastructure, including the bare surfaces, which create a harmonic environment with the forests (clearings , rocks, dunes and sandy lands, protective forest belts, separate groups of trees and shrubs.



8. "Forest stand", is a forest surface, homogenous concerning the types composition, age, production class, density, environmental conditions and the silvio-cultural treatment way.

9. “Forest infrastructure” are the offices, buildings, store-places, warehouses forest road network, cable-cars, water-points, fountains, vehicles, motorcycles, radios and radio-communication antennas; barriers, water troughs, surroundings and fencings tables, different signalizing and indicative signs, and other facilities in the state forest fund estabished to welcome and inform the visitors.

10. "Inspector of forest police" is the employee with a respective forest education , with a uniform, armed and provided with a ID who has attributes recognized by this law of the forestry service in the center, of the RD and other structure, according to the organization of the forest service whose tasks are the implementation of the law, the management, protection, damage prevention, revealing of criminal actions and supervision of the national forest fund.

11. “Forest cadastre” is an official document in which are evidenced, presented, and updated the initial data specified for each forest economy unit or water-collecting points, the data for the periodical changes in volume and surface and the respective maps.

12. “Forest management” is the medium and long-term planning, at the forest economy level, or of water-collecting-points, which secures the realization of the demands for the protection of the forests, taking into consideration the ecological economic and social aspects. Here we can include the gathering of data, the determination of objectives, measures taken for each managing unit or for the entire economy and the continuous control of the results. the union of principles and the biology of the life unity of the forest and forest land, a clear definition of policies and measures with which will be intervened in their functional structure to guarantee the highest technical-economic effectiveness.

13. "Forest and forest land protection" is the activity that aims the prevention of degradation, generation, conservation and forest improvement of associated forest and non-forest resources and forest environment, by human and natural factors.

14. "Forests and forest environment pollution” is the change of their quality, as a result of the creation and access of the physical, chemical or biological factors of the natural or human resources from inside or outside the country.

15. “ Sub-plot” is a surface unit of a minimally sized 0.5 ha, which serves for the assessment of the stands, for planning and controlling of the same silvi-cultural treatments..

16. “Plot” is the division of the forest economy surface in sites, which serve as basic units in the orientation, organization, planning and controlling of the forest management.

17. “Management plan” is a basic document for the forests management, designed according to the forest economy units, with office and field operations, for recognizing and providing data on the land climate, fauna, biodiversity, forest stand etc, as well as measures foreseen for the sustainable administration and management of the forest fund, organization of the production and planning of the necessary interconnected silvi-cultural complex operations.

18. “Cultural cutting” is the entirety of operations of selecting, cleaning and thinning etc, which are periodically applied in a forest stand, from the time of creation up to the exploitation age, aiming at the improvement and insurance of the continuity of its production.



19. “Forest property” is a surface of the forest fund of different sizes, together with a respective infrastructure, which is a public property, owned by the central or local government, or it might be a private property.

20. “Protective forests” are forests whose destination is mainly for self- protection goals of the forest land and of lands situated round the urban areas, water-collecting basins, in order to fight and prevent the erosion phenomena, wind impacts, disorders in flows or water sources and ensuring the ecologic functions.

21. “Forest”, is the surface of land with a dense group of forest trees in a sustainable shape or with other rare forest vegetation, with a surface more than one dynym and with a coverage scale not less than 30%, which produces timber, has an impact on the sorrounding environment and ensures the forest functions.

22. “Forest governing” is the entirety of laws and the biology of the forest life and forest land, the clear determination of policies and measures by which it is going to intervene in structural functions in order to ensure an increase of the technico-economic usefulness.

23. “Forest roads”. are roads having different parameters from the country and nationals ones, serving for the circulation of the vehicles and other means and for the transportation of timber ,and other non-wooden products, for carrying out different operations as well as for the connection of forest areas with the country and national road network.

24. “Forest exploitation” means the interventions and the silvi-cultural treatments in the forest life, the harvesting of timber and other forest products, their processing and transportation during the exploitation age and when the natural regeneration is guaranteed.

25. “Standing wood sale” is the operation of assessment and sale of the standing trees or fell down ones.

26. “Shrubs” is the wood vegetation, with branched stalks by the basis and not too high, which can be distinguished from the grass vegetation because of the wood structure, and from the forests because of the short trunk and the lack of the main trunk.

27. “Silviculture” is the science that studies the principles of life and the development of the forest eco-systems, defining methods and techniques for their treatment , aiming at the increasing and the continuity of the forest production.

28. “Forest Lands” are land areas with trees, shrubs or other non-forest vegetation with a coverage scale from 5 to 30%, bare surfaces, clearings, eroded and non-productive lands, sandy lands, forest roads which have not entered the register of the landed property of the agriculture lands which are ecologically linked and functionally related with the national forest fund, which together guarantee the forest functioning.

29. “Forest treatment”, are silvi-cultural operations aiming mainly at the development, harvesting of the forest products and ensuring the natural regeneration of the forests, within the possibilities of a defined management way.

30. “Forest activities” are all the protective, managing, governing, economic and business activities of the timber harvesting and other forest and non-forest products, as well as other relaxing touristic, sportive and recreational activities and finally the research and scientific ones which are developed in the national forest fund.



CHAPTER II POLICIES, DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS AND FOREST MANAGEMENT PLANS

Article 3: Forest Policies Council

1.Sectoral policies aim at the implementation of the requirements of the Constitution of the Albanian Republic for forest and pastures and other natural, forest resources in accordance with the sustainable development principle. 2. For designing policies and development strategies of the forest and pasture sector in Albania, it is established the Policies Council for Forest and Pasture Sector Development, which functions as an inter-ministerial structure. The composition, functions, competencies and the internal organization of this Council is defined by the Prime Minister..

Article 4: Development programs

1. National forest fund management is based on the sustainable, multifunctional development principles of forests and pastures, included in the development strategy of the forests and pastures sector, in the national program and in the long-term action plans.

2. The development program of the forest and pasture sector is defined by the policy of forest management for the conservation and development of the national forest fund and for ensuring the conditions for its use and exploitation or even for public goals.. 3. The development program of the forestry sector is adapted and completed , in conformity to the changes of the social –economic situation in the country and to the change of the forest management conditions. 4. The Albanian Forest Service designs and processes the development program of the forest and pasture sector which is approved by the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Article 5: Management plans

1. The technical management the forest and pasture sector is done according to the management plans.

2. The management plans have to ensure: a) the sustainable development of the national forest fund, preservation and creation of the natural conditions for the forest species and their communities. b) protection, treatment and carrying out of the silvi-cultural and other operations, which aim at ensuring the ecological and social functions; building and maintaining the forest infrastructure, harvesting the forest products and the using of the national forest fund, in order to ensure the continuity of the production of timber and forest products, other sources and the new stock generation; c) forest and forest land management, in order to preserve their functions, the level of forest environment preservation and natural regeneration; ç) the sustainable use of the natural forest resources of the plots and forest economies, in conformity with the sustainable development of the creatures and their communities; 3. The management plans are designed by the juridical persons, public and private ones, provided with a licence by DGFS, according to the dispositions of this law and other sub-legal acts which have come into force..



4. The management plan of the public and private forest is reviewed by the technical commission established at the DGFS, whose decisions are compulsory to be implemented. CHAPTER III FOREST SERVICE

Article 6: Forest service functioning

1. The forest service functions on the basis of this law and other sub-legal acts issued by the respective structures being in charge of the implementation of this law. 2. The forest service has these functions: a). managing, b). controlling

Article 7: The Forest Service Organization.

1. The forest service is organized and acts on the basis of the professionalism, independence, transparency, public service principles and responsibility and correctness in implementing the legislation in force.

2. The Forest Service is organized as it follows: a) The DGFS as a central structure.. b). regional directorates of forests and pastures organized on circle basis. 3. The structure and the forest staff are defined by the command of the Prime Minister.. 4. Wages of the employees of the forest service, criteria and responsibilities for nomination. dismissal, demotion of the employees are defined with the decision of the Council of the Ministers.

Article 8: The Forest Advisory Board.

1. Close to the Minister of MAF, it is established the Forest Advisory Board whose tasks are:

a). To review the draft-programs on the development of the forestry sector; b). To review the annual budget for the forest and pasture sector. 2. The composition and functioning of the forest advisory board are defined by order of the Minister of MAF.

Article 9: Directorate General of Forest Service.

1. Directorate General of Forests and Pastures is a central institution and the highest administrative and technical structure depending on the Minister of the MOAF. It is directed by the General Director. The General Director of the DGSF is appointed by the Prime Minister with the proposal of the Minister of MOAF. 2. Directors of the Directories at the DGSF are appointed by the Minister of MAF with the proposal of the General Director.3. DGSF, with its subordinate structures, is responsible for ensuring the protection, sustainable management and well-administration of the national forest fund. 3. The employees of the forest service are provided with uniforms (having distinctive signs), ID’s arms (guns), road signs tables so that to stop vehicles and other technical means necessary for carrying out the duties. Assignment of regulations concerning wearing, the using and



substituting schedules of the uniform and other means and equipments are defined by the Council of Ministers.

Article 10: Tasks of the Directorate General of Forest Service.

The Directorate General of Forests Service, protection, administration and management of national forest fund, pastures, protected areas and national parks, natural environment, flora and wild life, medical plants, other forest and non-forest sources and of the infrastructure exerts controlling and managing tasks in conformity to the organization of its composing structures.

Article 11: Functions and tasks of the managing structure of forest service.

1. The managing structure of the forest service is a specialized organ of this service, having managing, technical and advisory attributes, as a part of the DGFS The managing structure benefits the status of the civil employee. 2. The managing structure of the forest service carries out technical and public services in the national forest fund and it has these tasks: a). the entire management of forests and forest lands; b). collection of data on the development of public and private forests; c). taking care on the preservation of the biologic balance in the national forest fund; ç). managing and administrating all the documentation for designing and implementing the management and inventorying plans, forest cadastre, projects, finances, movable or real estate and basic data on the forest fund and forest lands, operations and statistical generalizations; d). following up and processing of the management and inventorying plans of forests, pasture, wild life, flora, as well as the avoiding of diseases, pests and fires. dh). preparing projects for investments in forests, pastures. e). guiding and supervising the work for the improvement of the eroded areas and fighting the erosion, slides, avalanches; ë). designing and following the planning of the benefits of forest and non-forest products, forest access and logistic network. f). following up the cooperation, harmonization and carrying out of research activities in forests and pastures; g). following up the processing of the methodologies for data collection on the development of the forest and pasture sector, their processing and preparation of the data for public information; gj). following up the development of flora and wild fauna and propose the protection of the endangered and rare species; h). managing of the sportive and touristic hunting in the territory of the Albanian Republic, in collaboration with local government and the private owners. i). security of the technical assistance by advising the private and communal owners; j). organising trainings and advisory services for the private owners and specialized structures in the local government units. k). controlling and taking into consignment the operations carried in forests, pastures regardless of the financing source. l). taking care on the maintenance and functioning of the infrastructure of the national forest fund;



ll). preparing and implementing training programs for the foresters and on their professional capabilities ; m). support the development of the Albanian agro-forestry;

Article 12: Functions and tasks of the forest police.

1. The forest police is a specialized organ of the forest service, having technical and controlling functions, under the DGSF. The structure of the Forest Police when on duty has all the rights to have the same status with that of the State Police.

2. The Forest Police carries out these tasks: a. to control the implementation of the legal dispositions and the sub-legal acts in force for forests , pastures, protected areas, flora, wild life, hunting activities and other activities developed in the national forest fund by the private, public physical and juridical subjects, and it also proposes the removal of the license when the subjects act against these dispositions. b. to prevent, reveal and fight against the damaging, occupation, disuse changing, destruction and the degradation of the forests and the forest land, uncontrolled interventions in the forest fund and in the natural environment. c. to organize the work for preventing and putting out fires. ç. to prevent and take measures in case of illegal harvesting and trading of timber, forest and non-forest products, criminal acts in the forest and pasture sector, protected areas having a special function, flora, wild fauna, medicinal, aromatic, ethero-oily plants, natural tanifers, forest and non-forest products of the national fund ,as well as every other activity which is not in conformity with this law. d. to control the activities of the subjects that process and trade the products gained from the forest exploitation( logs, building materials, mine poles, barrel branches, coal, firewood etc) and half processed products (elements and plank) in processing centers saw mills in the stores and landings. dh. to stop the activity by each physical and juridical person who liquidate on the given deadlines or those who do not respect the contract agreement. e. to protect and support the activity of the managing administration of the forest service. ë. to accomplish in collaboration with the State Police organs, tax, Customs and financial organs, the construction police and with the other local government organs, the activities and functions foreseen by other laws. f. to control the implementation of the operations undertaken according to projects in forests, pastures, hunting reserves and protected areas. g. to suspend all the operations not in conformity with the, designed projects, and foreseen in contracts. gj. to control and supervise the documentation kept and completed by private and public, juridical and physical subjects who have their activities in the national forest fund. h. to control the implementation of the safety and healthy rules of the forest workers. i. to supervise the implementation of the legislation for the use and harvesting of forest product from the forest or non-forest resource, being in property or handed-over for use to the local government units or to private owners.



3. Inspectors of Forest Police have the rights to control, inspect and to take respective measures such as (proceeding, blocking, sequestrations etc) in case of infringements. Inspectors of Forest Police, while their job have the attributes of the Judicial Police.