Conservation and Compliance: A Case Study in Kosovo’s Bjeshkët e Nemuna National

Park

A thesis presented to

the faculty of

the Voinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs of Ohio University

In partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

Master of Science

Meghan Nora Little

May 2019

© 2019 Meghan Nora Little. All Rights Reserved. 2

This thesis titled

Conservation and Compliance: A Case Study in Kosovo’s Bjeshkët e Nemuna National

Park

by

MEGHAN NORA LITTLE

has been approved for

the Program of Environmental Studies

and the Voinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs by

Geoffrey Buckley

Professor of Geography

Mark Weinberg

Dean, Voinovich School of Leadership and Public Affairs

3

ABSTRACT

LITTLE, MEGHAN NORA, M.S., May 2019, Environmental Studies

Conservation and Compliance: A Case Study in Kosovo’s Bjeshkët e Nemuna National

Park

Director of Thesis: Geoffrey Buckley

Global estimates indicate an average of thirteen million hectares of forest loss each year. In response to the ever-increasing threats to terrestrial biodiversity, protected areas such as national parks have become the main tool for nature conservation across the globe. However, a closer look at protected areas shows that compliance with regulations is a significant challenge, compromising the ability of conservation efforts to fulfill their goals and protect the ecosystems as intended. If protected areas are to remain a central conservation tool, more empirical research is needed to identify and understand drivers of noncompliance.

This thesis takes an in-depth look at Bjeshkët e Nemuna National Park in Kosovo.

Home to over 255 endemic species, the park was established in 2012 to protect the country’s most biodiverse region. I use qualitative methodology to understand why noncompliant logging remains a prevalent issue in the park. I have found that citizens’ perceptions of the government as corrupt and ineffective strongly influence their willingness to abide by the laws. These perceptions are a result, in part, of the transition process from communism to capitalism and from war to peace. 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My sincerest thanks to my thesis committee: Dr. Geoff Buckley, Dr. Risa

Whitson, and Dr. Geoff Dabelko for your consistent encouragement, feedback, and support. It has truly been a pleasure to work with each of you.

Special thanks to Ellen and Fatos from the Environmentally Responsible Action

Group for guiding me to my research question, connecting with many of my interviewees, and for supporting me through the process while in Kosovo.

To my interpreter Era Hyseni for her enthusiasm and skill, my host-mother

Lendita for sharing her home and delicious food, and Dr. Danny Twilley and Todd

Walters for their support with travel and local connections. To Alex Sargent and Linsey

Edmunds for laying the groundwork that made this thesis a reality.

Finally, I would like to thank my interviewees who took the time and the risk to speak with me about this challenging topic.

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Abstract ...... 3 Acknowledgments ...... 4 List of Tables...... 7 List of Figures ...... 8 Introduction ...... 9 Chapter 1: Literature Review ...... 12 The National Park Idea ...... 12 An International Expansion...... 14 Challenges within Park Boundaries ...... 15 Noncompliance in Protected Areas ...... 17 Compliance Theory ...... 19 Combatting Noncompliance ...... 20 Chapter 2: The Kosovo Context ...... 23 History of Kosovo ...... 23 Current Context ...... 28 Natural Resources ...... 29 Chapter 3: Research Methodology ...... 36 Methodological Background ...... 36 Methodological Process ...... 38 Analysis ...... 45 Chapter 4: Results...... 47 Legitimacy and Trustworthiness of Management Authority ...... 48 Effectiveness and Justice of Governance ...... 52 Socially Normative Noncompliance ...... 54 Transition from Communism to Capitalism ...... 57 Weakening Law Enforcement ...... 58 Corruption ...... 60 Local Perceptions of National Park ...... 71 6

From Foresters to Rangers ...... 75 Chapter 5: Conclusions ...... 79 Solutions...... 82 Future Research ...... 86 References ...... 89 Appendix A: Local Community Interview Protocol ...... 98 Appendix B: Management Interview Protocol ...... 99 Appendix C: NGO/External Parties Interview Protocol ...... 100 Appendix D: English Consent Form ...... 101 Appendix E: Albanian Consent Form ...... 103

7

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1: Descriptions of Interviewees ...... 40

8

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1: Political map of Kosovo …… ………………………………………………... 24 Figure 2: 1996 map of Yugoslavia…………………………………………………...... 24 Figure 3: Map of localities of endemic species in Kosovo …… ……………………….. 30 Figure 4: Bjeshkët e Nemuna draft zoning map ……… ………………………...…….. 32 Figure 5: View of the park ………………………………...…… ………………….….. 42 Figure 6: Illegally built cabin inside the park ………… …..……………………….….. 42 Figure 7: Truck used for driving through the bumpy park road … …..…………….….. 43 Figure 8: Logged trees inside Bjeshkët e Nemuna National … …..…………….……... 66

9

Introduction

In the twenty-first century, wild spaces where plants and animals can exist unimpeded by human activities are on the decline. With the continuous expansion of urban areas and human development, protected areas have become one of the cornerstones of environmental conservation. According to the International Union for the

Conservation of Nature, a protected area is “a clearly defined geographical space, recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values” (Deguignet et al., 2014, 9). In the last twenty years, the number of recognized protected areas has doubled each decade, and in 2014 the global community boasted

209,000 protected areas spanning 193 countries (Deguignet et al., 2014).

While the expansion of protected areas has made significant contributions to nature conservation, the success of these areas is reliant on people’s compliance with the regulations. Unfortunately, recent research indicates that noncompliance is “often the rule rather than the exception” (Arias, 2015, 134). Noncompliance refers to the lack of adherence to resource use and conservation rules. Noncompliant resource use in protected areas is one of the most prevalent illegal activities in the world (Arias, 2015).

Noncompliance takes place at multiple scales for diverse reasons, ranging from locals harvesting firewood for subsistence purposes to internationals supplying commercial wildlife trade markets (Arias, 2015; Markus-Johansson et al., 2010).

My research focuses on noncompliant logging in Bjeshkët e Nemuna National

Park in Kosovo. Illegal logging is a significant problem throughout southeastern Europe, 10 and regional reports estimate that Kosovo loses around 100,000 m3 of tree cover per year to illegal logging (Markus-Johansson et al., 2010). In an effort to protect the region’s most biodiverse area, the government established Bjeshkët e Nemuna National Park in the mountainous western portion of the country (Behxhet, Avni Hajdari, Zenel Krasniqi, and Zeqir Veselaj, 2013; Zeqir and Behxhet, 2015).

While lauded as a critical step towards protecting the region’s diverse forest ecosystems, initial evidence suggests that the park designation has not had a significant impact on resource use patterns. Despite regulations, new swaths of logged areas continue to appear in the protected zones (E. Frank-Lajqi, personal communication,

February 8, 2018). More independent research is needed to investigate the factors driving these activities within the park. Understanding what drives noncompliant logging can provide useful insights for establishing effective management strategies.

The objective of this study is to better understand the relationship between protected areas and their affected communities using Bjeshkët e Nemuna National Park as a case study. I explore the particular context within which this protected area exists and aim to understand the role that social, political, and historical factors play in regard to compliance. In order to address these issues, this thesis poses the following research questions:

1. What are the drivers of noncompliant logging in Bjeshkët e Nemuna National Park? 2. How does the specific context within which Bjeshkët e Nemuna National Park exists influence the drivers of noncompliance? 11

This thesis is organized into five chapters. In chapter one, I address literature that provides useful background information for the research topic of noncompliance in protected areas. I explore where the national park concept was born, how it has grown throughout the United States and beyond, and challenges associated with noncompliance.

I discuss compliance theory literature, which posits why people obey laws, and consider various approaches to combatting noncompliance in protected areas. Chapter two reviews the political history of the Kosovo region from the beginning of the twentieth century to today. I evaluate the ecology of the Bjeshkët e Nemuna region and specifics of the national park. In the next chapter, chapter, three, I present the methodology used to conduct this research. Using interview-based qualitative methods, I analyzed the data with grounded theory coding to elucidate patterns and themes related to perceived drivers of noncompliant logging. The fifth chapter presents my results, starting with the most fundamental drivers and moving toward more auxiliary components. In the concluding chapter, I summarize these results and consider both the practical and theoretical implications of my findings for Kosovo as well as for the broader topic of the effectiveness of protected areas. I offer potential solutions in Kosovo as well as opportunities for future research to build upon this work.

12

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

The National Park Idea

As the pioneer of the national park idea, the United States serves as a valuable starting point for understanding the goals, values, and functions of these protected areas.

Yellowstone National Park, established in 1872, was the first of its kind. At this time, the

United States was undergoing a paradigmatic revolution in regard to nature, by seeing value in its wildness (Nash, 2001). Advocates and writers like John Muir, Henry David

Thoreau, and John James Audubon promoted public appreciation and advocacy for protecting wild spaces. At the same time, national parks were seen as a low-cost approach to utilizing land with no agricultural or mining potential (Wilson, 2014).

It was not until 1916, forty-four years after Yellowstone’s creation, that the

National Park Service (NPS) was established, formalizing a budget and management structure for the national parks. With the birth of the NPS came official language outlining the values and functions of the park system. As stated in Section 1 of the

National Park Service Act of 1916, “The service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks… which purpose is to conserve the scenery and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations” (Wilson, 2014, 83).

Several scholars have illustrated the conceptual tension underlying this mission: preservation versus recreation. Historical geographer Lary Dilsaver refers to the NPS as

“philosophically divided,” working towards dual, opposing goals. In the park service’s 13 early years, the recreational value of the national parks was established immediately, while the preservation philosophy developed at a much slower rate. This trajectory was likely a survival tactic on the park service’s part, drawing tourists to gain support and distinguish themselves from the Forest Service (Tweed and Dilsaver, 2016).

Additionally, sufficient scientific data to support effective preservation approaches were limited at the time (Dilsaver, 1992, 2004). Regardless, national parks established a firm foothold in tourism by the mid-1900s, often at the expense of preservation goals. It wasn’t until the 1960s that the NPS developed science-driven priorities (Dilsaver, 1992).

The 1990s provide numerous examples of the shift towards a deeper understanding and advocacy for ecological systems, such as the re-introduction of wolves and other native species in Yellowstone and Great Smoky Mountains National Park (Young, 2006).

Today, the National Park Service faces modern challenges and opportunities connected to these goals. The establishment of nature tourism in national parks has been so successful that current literature highlights the park’s modern challenge of being

“loved to death.” Grand Canyon National Park, the White Mountains of New Hampshire, and the Colorado Fourteeners are poignant examples of protected areas that struggle with this danger, experiencing significant negative impacts from extensive visitation numbers

(Blake, 2002). According to Nash (2001, 317), “Even appropriate kinds of recreational use can, in sufficient quantity, destroy the wildness of a place.” On the preservation side, the park service has embraced a leadership role in addressing climate change.

Recognizing the interconnectedness of nature, the agency sees engagement and education around sustainability and climate change as necessary for the preservation of all earth’s 14 systems, including protected and non-protected areas. Water efficiency projects, solar power generation, and hybrid shuttle busses and bicycling opportunities are some of the steps the agency has taken to serve as a global model for environmental stewardship

(Smith, Karosic, and Smith, 2015). The popularity of U.S. national parks has had an enormous impact not only through visitor education and recreation in the parks themselves, but they have also given rise to a global movement whereby protected areas serve as conservation tools.

An International Expansion

“This national park concept has been described as ‘America’s best idea’, and, so the mythology goes, was exported to the remainder of the world.” (Graf von Hardenberg, Kelly, Leal, and Wakild, 2017, 17)

The national park model born in the United States has spread to an international platform. Developed countries in Europe, having depleted their much of their natural resources, began looking abroad for nature recreation and hunting, referred to as “nature importing” (Nash, 2001). Alongside the spread of colonialism, Africa became the testing ground for an internationally-driven national park movement (Duffy, 2010b). As sport hunting grew in Africa, it became apparent that even the vast African wilderness needed protection from the destructive impacts of recreation and resource use by both locals and

Europeans. This led to the creation of South Africa’s Kruger National Park in 1902 and the Belgian Congo’s Albert National Park in 1925. Both of these parks and their proponents built their models after those in the United States (Nash, 2001).

The national park idea continued to grow throughout the twentieth century.

Today, protected areas have become the dominant mechanism for conserving 15 biodiversity. A 2016 study estimates that 14.7% of the planet’s terrestrial and inland waters are designated as protected areas, and the international “Aichi Biodiversity

Target,” followed by both the United Nations and the European Union, aims for 17%

(Deguignet et al., 2014; European Environment Agency, 2015; Therville, Mathevet,

Bioret, and Antona, 2018).

Challenges within Park Boundaries

The national park system has famously been referred to as “America’s best idea.”

It has resulted in the protection of wildlife, critical habitat, natural beauty, and outdoor recreation for millions in the midst of ever-expanding development and industrialization

(Dilsaver, 2009). But it has not come without its shortcomings and challenges. Among these is the idea of national parks as “unpeopled” landscapes. As the first national park,

Yellowstone has served as a model both within the United States and abroad (Duffy,

2010b). The government established the park in an area with no federally-recognized pre- existing sedentary land uses, establishing what historical geographers refer to as antecedent boundaries (Dilsaver and Wyckoff, 2005). This set a precedent for parks as spaces where people could visit, but not inhabit nor extract natural resources. Since

Yellowstone, virtually every national park has contained settlements within its borders.

Nation states have therefore had to either work around or disregard local communities, establishing what are known as subsequent and superimposed boundaries, respectively

(Dilsaver and Wyckoff, 2005).

Literature on park acquisition discusses the challenges with boundary creation and how to deal with local communities. Environmental historian Karl Jacoby provides an 16 example of superimposed boundaries with the establishment of the Adirondack Park in

1885; legislators drew a line around a collection of state and private lands, proclaiming it a park and forest reserve to be governed by a new set of environmental regulations. Little thought was given to the rights and practices of the 16,000 residents living within the boundaries. The Forest Commission eventually expelled these occupants, going so far as to burn down the homes of those who refused to leave (Jacoby, 2003).

As seen in the Adirondack example, the concept of “protected areas” has a history of being established by outsiders without consent or input from the affected local communities. Oftentimes, the idea for a national park is imported from one area of the country to another, or even from one continent to another. For example, Alaskan national parks were champions by proponents in the conterminous United States, and demand for western national parks came from wealthy easterners. In Europe, urban residents pushed for national parks in rural areas (Nash, 2001). On an international scale, Americans and

Europeans have unduly influenced natural resource use in African and Asian countries through the creation of national parks (Duffy, 2010a).

Today, international organizations define and prioritize conservation goals on a global scale. The resulting policies are then implemented in localities near citizens who are not necessarily involved or invested in the fundamental ideology of conservation.

This international-level approach to establishing protected areas creates a dynamic where external authorities determine appropriate resource use for communities in or near protected areas without an understanding of the local social, economic, and political context (Duffy, 2010a). 17

The importation of the national park ideology, both historically and today, creates a fundamental conflict of interest between citizens living in or near protected areas and those advocating for conservation of the areas’ natural resources (Duffy, 2010b; Jacoby,

2003; Nash, 2001; Satyanarayana et al., 2012). As such, in most cases, the establishment of protected areas does not lead to full compliance with environmental regulations. In fact, the magnitude of illegal resource use was identified as an environmental crime crisis by the United Nations in 2014. Estimates link 50% of tropical deforestation to illegal logging, and UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) estimates illegal wildlife trade and environmental crime to be worth USD 70-213 billion annually (Gavin,

Solomon, & Blank, 2010; Nellemann et al., 2014). Due to the prevalence of this issue, illegal exploitation and trade of forest and wildlife products has been recognized as a significant threat to environmental conservation by a range of international bodies, including UNEP, CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of

Wild Fauna and Flora), and INTERPOL (International Crime Police Organization).

Noncompliance in Protected Areas

Illegal resource use can be defined as “subsistence and commercial resource use that violates regulations” (Gavin, Solomon, and Blank, 2010). Illegal use of resources in protected areas in particular is referred to as noncompliance. (In this paper, I use

“noncompliant” and “illegal” interchangeably, as the logging relevant to this research takes place within a national park.) Noncompliance has been a challenge since the birth of national parks, but it is only in the last few decades that it has attracted growing attention from scholars and become a focal point in conservation dialogue (Wilson, 18

2014). This topic has gained attention from researchers, park managers, and international development interests, as they have come to understand the crucial role that compliance plays in worldwide conservation efforts (Zube and Busch, 1990).

Noncompliance can take many forms, and the motivations for engaging in noncompliant behavior are extremely diverse. In some contexts, activities practiced by rural communities for generations are suddenly considered illegal, resulting in a lack of awareness regarding regulations (Duffy, 2010a; Jacoby, 2003). Nash frames this idea in a relatable perspective: “The restrictions on grazing and farming in an African park or preserve are as perplexing to the natives as a law that prevents a New Yorker from living in and using ten square blocks in midtown Manhattan would be” (Nash, 2001, 344). In these settings, rural communities witness “previously acceptable practices [turned into] into illegal acts: hunting or fishing redefined as poaching, foraging as trespassing, the setting of fires as arson, and the cutting of trees as timber theft” (Jacoby, 2003, 2).

In their piece on illegal harvesting of natural resources, Muth and Bowe (1998) develop a typology to summarize and classify motivations for illegal take. They break down motivators into ten typologies or categories. The two most commonly-referenced motivators are subsistence and commercial use (Bell, Hampshire, & Topalidou, 2007).

Subsistence harvesting, also referred to as harvesting for household consumption, is illegal take for noncommercial sharing with family or friends. While this form of resource use is traditionally associated with economically marginal households, research shows that it can take place across income levels. Harvesting for commercial gain, on the other hand, is illegal take for the purpose of economic benefit (Muth & Bowe, 1998). 19

Above and beyond these two, the authors identify eight more categories of motivations for illegal take. While the focus of the study is animal poaching in North America, there are several motivators relevant to illegal logging in southeastern Europe. Among these are harvesting as rebellion, harvesting as a traditional right of use, and disagreement with specific regulations. Harvesting as rebellion is a form of protest against the state “in an attempt to wrench from the state what he believes is rightfully his” (Muth & Bowe, 1998,

18). Similarly, harvesting as a traditional right of use is founded in a belief that traditional rights of access or use have been unjustly prohibited. People may continue to harvest out of resentment towards changes in land-use designation that take away privileges previously available to them. More specifically, disagreement with particular regulations can motivate noncompliant take. One example of this is recreational fishers who felt the regulations should be more explicitly focused on the commercial sector, justifying their actions with the stipulation that they were taking “their fair share” (Muth & Bowe, 1998,

19).

Compliance Theory

As the preceding section shows, the reasons why people do or do not comply with conservation regulations are complex. The same can be said for law compliance in general. In his book, Why people obey the law, Tom Tyler (1990) investigates what factors influence compliance. He breaks down law abidingness into instrumental versus normative perspectives; instrumental approaches involve penalties and other forms of legal deterrence, while normative compliance is enforced through personal and group morality; citizens are motivated not only by reward and punishment, but also personal 20 ethical views and social relations. Fishbein and Ajzen (2010) developed the Reasoned

Action Model to be used for predicting and changing behavior. They suggest that three sets of beliefs drive compliance: behavioral, associated with positive or negative consequences; normative, or social pressures to comply or not comply; and control beliefs, related to the perceived skills and resources needed to be noncompliant. Tyler and several others promote the normative component as particularly important in dictating compliance, as people typically behave according to social norms (Arias, 2015;

Tyler, 1990). Normative perspectives can be broken down further into compliance through morality (believing that the law is just) and compliance through legitimacy

(believing the law has the right to dictate behavior). In the case of federally-mandated protected areas, such as national parks, the rules and regulations are often exogenous, coming from governmental authorities. As such, without consideration or incorporation of local communities’ opinions and needs, establishing compliance through morality and legitimacy can be compromised. These unseen drivers of compliance are important to understand when evaluating the effectiveness of natural resource regulations in protected areas.

Combatting Noncompliance

Lack of consideration of local populations is prevalent throughout the history of national parks, both in terms of the impact the park has on people as well as the impact local people have on the park. Policy responses to noncompliance have varied greatly.

The traditional approach has been to increase enforcement, with one of the most violent examples being the 1980s shoot-to-kill policy toward poachers in Kruger National Park. 21

In other cases, low compliance and poor conservation outcomes have led to a reconsideration of the role of local communities in protected areas (Agrawal and Gibson,

1999). As Agrawal and Gibson state, “The past several decades of planned development and top-down conservation practices have made one fact amply clear: the capacity of states to coerce their citizens into unpopular development and conservation programs is limited” (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999, 632). In their article on park-people relationships,

Zube and Busch state that park authorities and conservation bodies have realized that

“local populations can no longer be ignored in the establishment, planning and management of national parks and other protected landscapes” (Zube and Busch, 1990,

128). This shift can be seen in the growth of community-based approaches. The policies of the Blue Ridge Mountains national forests in the 1960s and 1970s provide an early example of this method within the United States. While their neighbor, Great Smoky

Mountains National Park, forced families to relocate outside of park boundaries and forbid all forms of resource use, the national forests took the opposite approach. The government gradually acquired the forests from those willing to sell and encouraged hunting within national forest lands. Furthermore, the forest service gave perquisites to cooperative neighbors, provided free or inexpensive permits for firewood and other forest products, and favored small-scale, family-sized timber operations. While tensions certainly still existed between the US Forest Service and local communities, so too did positive relationships and close ties (Newfont, 2012). Another prominent positive example is the 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. This act protected

104 million acres of land, forty-four million of which were granted to Alaska’s natives 22 for settlements and subsistence practices. According to historical literature, this was the first time in United States history that native economic use was incorporated into wilderness preservation (Nash, 2001).

Zube and Busch’s study (1990) shows the growing practice of incorporating community: locals have been allowed to practice traditional land uses, receive services from park management, participate in tourism activities, and reside in the park. In the

1990s, Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) was lauded as the answer to the park-people problem. This management model views local people not as criminals and hindrances to successful conservation, but rather as a necessary part of any sustainable solution (Newfont, 2012). It aims to build relationships between resource users and the environment through their participation in decision-making (Agrawal and

Gibson, 1999).

Despite the growing attention from scholars on local compliance and the crucial role it plays in conservation efforts, research seeking to measure, monitor, and understand noncompliance in protected areas is lacking. Gathering reliable data is a challenge given the covert nature of illegal activities involved, and fear of retribution may lead to misreporting (Solomon, Gavin, and Gore, 2015). Recent literature suggests that accurate research answering the “what, where, when, who, and why” of noncompliance is critical to designing more effective conservation interventions (Gavin et al., 2010; Solomon et al., 2015). 23

CHAPTER 2: THE KOSOVO CONTEXT

In order to understand the multifarious drivers of illegal logging in Kosovo, the country’s unique historical background must be examined. As discussed in the literature review on compliance, people’s perceptions of the law and the regulating institution play an important role in understanding noncompliance. In Kosovo, these perceptions are greatly influenced by the political and cultural history of the area. Furthermore, an understanding of the ecology of the area provides important context regarding what the national park aims to protect and therefore what is at risk of being lost should unregulated logging continue.

History of Kosovo

Kosovo is a young nation located in the southeastern portion of Europe known as the Balkans (see Figures 1 and 2). For the majority of the twentieth century, Kosovo was a province of the Serbian republic in the federation of Yugoslavia. Made up of six officially recognized nations (Croats, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Muslims, Serbs, and

Slovenes), Yugoslavia was a diverse state with ten officially recognized ethnic groups.

The largest of the ethnic groups were the Albanians, a majority of whom lived in Kosovo.

The Kosovo area has had a mixed population for centuries. Throughout the twentieth century it has consisted of mostly Albanians and Serbians. The region holds an important place in the consciousness of both nationalities; Serbs declare it the heartland of their

Orthodox Church dating back to the eleventh century, while the Albanians claim they were there prior and pinpoint the beginning of their national revival to the area (Poulton, 24

Figure 1: Political map of Kosovo Source: University of Texas Libraries

Figure 2: 1996 map of Yugoslavia Source: University of Texas Libraries 25

1991). As such, it has long been a place rife with tension between the two groups, the pendulum swinging back and forth over the centuries between the Albanians and

Serbians as either oppressors or oppressed. They are two peoples with few commonalities: Serbians are Orthodox and Kosovar Albanians are Muslim, the two speak entirely unrelated languages, and they hold different cultural values, Albanians tending towards older and stricter customs, while Serbians lean towards modernization (Mojzes,

2011).

Since the mid-1900s, tensions have slowly increased between the two groups.

During the period between World Wars I and II, tens of thousands of Orthodox Slav peasants who moved into Kosovo were given land and benefits, instigating the emigration of over half a million Albanians. However, Kosovar Albanians saw positive advancements in the late 1960s and in Yugoslavia’s 1974 constitution, both Kosovo and

Serbia’s northern province of Vojvodina were granted rights as semi-autonomous provinces within the Serbian republic (Poulton, 1991). Throughout the 1970s, Albanians gained most positions of power within the province, dominating political, economic, and cultural life (Mojzes, 2011).

Still, despite the province’s improvements under the 1974 constitution and the resource wealth of the area, Kosovo remained the least developed part of Yugoslavia and suffered from high rates of unemployment. In 1984, for example, 29.1% of the Kosovo population was unemployed (compared to a 12.7% average throughout Yugoslavia and

1.8% in Slovenia) and of those, 70% were 25 years and under (Poulton, 1991). With high educational attainment but no job opportunities, many young adults began calling for 26 changes. At the same time, Kosovar Serbians felt increasingly oppressed, victims of murder, rape, and ethnic cleansing at the hands of Albanians. The 1980s were a time of rising hostility, riots, and imprisonments among Kosovar Albanians. In 1985, the tides of power shifted, and Serbians began taking leadership positions in government, the police force, and schools. In 1987, Slobodan Milosevic took power in Serbia and used his position to fuel rising nationalist fervor among Serbians and hatred towards Albanians.

His government changed the constitution to limit Kosovo’s autonomy in February 1989

(Mojzes, 2011; Poulton, 1991).

In September 1991, a group of Kosovo deputies met in secret to establish the

Kacanak constitution, pronouncing Kosovo an independent republic. Serbia declared the move a criminal act, and began systematically repressing the Albanian people, closing

Albanian language media sources and reducing the use of Albanian language in schools.

That same month, Serbia ratified a new constitution which completely revoked Kosovo’s autonomy.

Throughout the late 1990s, Milosevic continued to rule Kosovo with an iron fist, further strengthening the solidarity of the Albanians. In the meantime, tensions between

Serbians and ethnic groups in the other republics led to war with Slovenia, Croatia, and

Bosnia and Herzegovina, respectively, the latter being by far the bloodiest conflict, killing somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 people (Mojzes, 2011). By 1996, the wars had come to an end, and as the violence quelled throughout the rest of the Balkans,

Kosovar Albanians decided it was time to take more aggressive action towards their fight for independence. After years of nonviolent resistance led by leader and writer Ibrahim 27

Rugove, a small band of rebels known as the Kosovo Liberation Army began committing violent acts of terrorism on Kosovar Serbs, to which Milosevic’s forces responded in kind. The killings, tortures, arrests, and human rights abuses on both ends continued to grow. After talks failed at a meeting between Serbian, Albanian, and international leadership in February 1999, the United States military led a NATO air force bombing campaign against Serbia. The bombing lasted 78 days (March 24-June 11, 1999) and killed almost 500, mostly Serbians. The American Association for the Advancing of

Science’s report, “Killings and Refugees Flow in Kosovo March-June 1999” estimated that somewhere between 9,000 to 12,000 Kosovars were killed by Serbians at this time, with 850,000 forced out of their homes (Mojzes, 2011).

While Albanians suffered the most, both sides committed horrible acts of violence and cruelty. In the weeks and months following the bombing, an estimated 95% of

Albanians returned to Kosovo, and many Kosovar Serbs and non-Albanians fled for fear of retaliation. The stated goal of the bombing was to protect Albanians and preserve the multi-ethnic composition of Kosovo. But by the end of 1999, Kosovo was the most ethnically homogenous it had ever been, with Albanians outnumbering Serbs 9:1. The province was not returned to Serbia; NATO and Russian forces established an international interim government, known as the United Nations Interim Administration in

Kosovo (UNMIK). The next ten years saw sporadic instances of violence and aggression between Albanians and non-Albanians, mostly Serbs. Places of worship and other sacred sites were a common target between the Orthodox Serbs and Muslim Albanians (Mojzes,

2011). In 2008, Kosovo declared its independence, asserting full sovereignty from Serbia 28 and establishing “a democratic, secular, and multiethnic republic” (Oisín Tansey, 2009,

153).

Current Context

Today, Kosovo is recognized by most countries throughout the world, though a handful refuse to accept its independence, including Serbia, Russia, China, and five

European Union (EU) member states. (“Kosovo-Serbia legally binding agreement means mutual recognition, says President Thaci,” 2018). With unemployment at 33% and youth unemployment neat 60%, Kosovo has the second poorest citizens in Europe. In 2017, the per capita GDP (PPP) was $10,400 (“Europe :: Kosovo — The World Factbook - Central

Intelligence Agency,” n.d.). In an effort to grow the economy and gain recognition, the

Kosovar government strives to join the EU as a member state (Department of

Environment Protection, 2009). In order to do so, the country must follow the guidelines for accession dictated by the European Union. Conditions for membership place strong pressure on countries to follow democratic principles. Furthermore, conditions include environmental aims to “promote sustainable development and protect the environment for present and future generations” (“Chapters of the acquis - European Neighbourhood

Policy and Enlargement Negotiations - European Commission,” 2016). Following the biodiversity conservation goals of the EU, Kosovo has expanded its protected areas in recent decades, starting with Sharri National Park in 1984 and Bjeshkët e Nemuna in

2012. These expansions brought Kosovo’s total protected areas up to 10.03% of its territory (Behxhet et al., 2013). 29

Natural Resources

The Balkan peninsula is a mountainous region. Historically, this characteristic prevented foreign rulers from successfully assimilating and unifying the peoples, allowing groups to retain their separate identities and cultures (Poulton, 1991). The two dominant mountain ranges are the Dinaric Alps and the Balkan Mountains. Kosovo is a small land-locked country of 10,887 square kilometers (slightly larger than the state of

Delaware) with about 42% forested area (Markus-Johansson, Mesquita, Nemeth, &

Dimovski, 2016). Sharing borders with Albania, Macedonia, Serbia, and Montenegro,

Kosovo is a flat fluvial basin surrounded by several mountain ranges reaching up to 2,500 meters in elevation (“Europe: Kosovo — The World Factbook - Central Intelligence

Agency,” n.d.). The country’s forests are rich with beech, plane tree, black pine, white pine, chestnut, Canadian poplar, laurel, mulberry, ash, juniper, and fir (“Forests - State

Portal of the Republic of Kosovo,” 2019). The Bjeshkët e Nemuna Mountains are part of the Albanian Alps complex in the western portion of the country. The mountains hold significant cultural and tourist values, unique geomorphology and hydrology, and extraordinary floristic diversity. The area is home to rare and endangered mammal, bird, and plant species, with a total of 255 endemic species and subspecies of the Balkans (see figure 3) (Behxhet et al., 2013). Initiatives to protect these ecosystems began in 1970, and after failed attempts in 2003 and 2006, Bjeshkët e Nemuna National Park was officially designated in December 2012 (Behxhet et al., 2013). 30

Figure 3: Map of localities of endemic species in Kosovo Source: Kosovo Environmental Protection Agency State of Nature Report 2006-7

According to Law No. 04/L-086 on National Park Bjeshkët e Nemuna, the park covers 62,488 hectares, or about 154,000 acres spanning across five municipalities: Pejë,

Gjavokë, Deçan, Ishtog, and Junik (Assembly Republic of Kosovo, 2012). The law outlines management strategies within the park according to three zones (see figure 4):

• Zone I areas are strictly protected. They include exceptional natural features,

rare species, and endangered plants and animals. 31

• Zone II are active management areas which can support practices such as

ecotourism and traditional agriculture.

• Zone III are referred to as sustainable use areas. These areas allow for

construction, recreational facilities, tourism, and the “economic use of nature

resources according to the Law on Protection of Nature and in compliance

with relevant laws and Spatial Plan of National Park” (Assembly Republic of

Kosovo, 2012, 3).

• Surrounding the park boundary is a 50 meter-wide “buffer zone,” which

serves to protect the park from adverse impacts (Assembly Republic of

Kosovo, 2012).

32

Figure 4: Bjeshkët e Nemuna draft zoning map Blue = Zone I, Green = Zone II, Red = Zone III Sources: 2015 Kosovo Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning’s Draft Spatial Plan for Bjeshkët e Nemuna

Bjeshkët e Nemuna is frequently called a “paper park,” referring to the perception that the boundaries exist solely on paper, lacking enforceable regulations and management on the ground (Behxhet et al., 2013). Since its inception, the park has struggled due to a lack of funding and a reluctance on the part of park staff and government officials to enforce new regulations (E. Fran-Lajqi, personal communication,

February 8, 2018). The European Commission’s 2018 Report on Kosovo states that no progress has been made towards alignment with the nature protection conditions of the acquis, specifying that “Effective protection for designated protected areas is not in place. 33

Illegal construction in protected areas needs to be combatted effectively. Infrastructure plans need to ensure that nature protection obligations are respected” (European

Commission, 2018, 68). Contributing to this issue is the lack of approved Management and Spatial plans. As stated in the aforementioned Law No. 04/L-086, the Spatial plan is used to determine protection regimes, while the Management plan outlines acceptable activities and actions (Assembly Republic of Kosovo, 2012). These two documents are crucial for effective park management.

Given these challenges, it is not surprising that logging and other forms of noncompliance, including construction and development, continue despite the establishment of the national park. Illegal logging, which refers to “wood harvesting, processing, transporting, and trading in violation of the law,” is widely recognized as an issue throughout southeastern Europe (Bouriaud, Nichiforel, Nunes, Pereira, &

Bajraktari, 2014, p. 426). Demand for wood for heating is considered a core driver of illegal logging in this region (Markus-Johansson et al., 2010). Despite this widespread issue, little reliable data exist on the recent patterns, rates, and drivers of deforestation in these forests (Kuemmerle, Hostert, Radeloff, Perzanowski, & Kruhlov, 2007; Markus-

Johansson et al., 2010).

A 2010 report on the state of illegal logging in southeastern Europe estimates that

100,000 m3 of forestland is cut illegally each year in Kosovo (Markus-Johansson et al.,

2010). Similarly, a report issued by the Kosovo government claims that around 40% of public forest land and 29% of private land are logged illegally as a result of ineffective forest management and poor planning (Department of Environment Protection, 2009). A 34 small handful of speculative and empirical data exists on the drivers of illegal logging in

Kosovo. The 2010 regional report by Markus-Johansson et al. implicates socioeconomic conditions as the main driver, while a 2013 academic article points to market-oriented behavior by well-organized groups. Using interview-based data, the latter article estimates 60-80% of the amount of illegally cut timber comes from profit-seeking activities, while only 10% is driven by poverty, and 10-30% from forest owners themselves neglecting to acquire the appropriate permits (Bouriaud et al., 2014).

Despite the varying theories regarding who is logging for what motivations, it is clear that the high demand for fuelwood is a driving force in Kosovo, just as it is across the southeast European region. As of 2014, fuelwood represented 20% of Kosovo’s energy consumption. Fuelwood is used by 85% of urban and 100% of rural households.

Domestic demand is estimated at over 1.5 hm3 (cubic hectometers) while the legal supply, including exports, is 0.3 hm3 (Bouriaud et al., 2014).

Illegal resource use not only impacts conservation efforts, but also good governance, local economies, livelihoods, and safety (Nellemann et al., 2014). A 2016 report on illegal logging in the region notes the “significant untapped potential” of the forest sector in the Balkans, which could contribute substantially to social and economic development were it not for the widespread illegal logging (Markus-Johansson, Mesquita,

Nemeth, & Dimovski, 2016, 9). According to Bouriaud et al. (2014), two of the most prominent challenges with sustainable fuelwood production are the changing institutional context in Kosovo and the unbalanced ratio between supply and demand. 35

Academically, resource use in modern-day Kosovo is a relatively under- researched topic area, and scholarly articles are limited regarding Bjeshkët e Nemuna

National Park, of which only a handful are in English (Behxhet et al., 2013; Zeqir,

Behxhet, Avni, & Zenel, 2012). In order to develop appropriate interventions that support local communities and environmental conservation, more empirical research is needed to understand the challenges of illegal logging in Bjeshkët e Nemuna National Park.

36

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Methodological Background

I employed qualitative research methods to understand the complex drivers of noncompliant logging in Bjeshkët e Nemuna. I used several studies to guide my research, most notably, Gavin, Solomon, and Blank’s article Measuring and monitoring illegal use of natural resources, which compiles and examines empirical studies on noncompliance

(2010). As the authors explain, research in this subject area aims to answer the who, what, where, when, and why of noncompliant resource use. The question of why, referred to as the “driver of noncompliance,” is considered both the most challenging and the most critical question to answer in order to address the underlying issue of noncompliant resource use and work towards effective solutions (Solomon et al., 2015).

Qualitative research seeks to elucidate individual experiences and social structures, examining how the latter may be constructed, maintained, legitimized, or resisted. This methodology recognizes that the structures themselves, whether cultural, economic, political, or environmental, can enable or constrain certain behaviors, while individuals simultaneously have the capacity to reproduce or resist these structures

(Winchester, 2016). It is through this lens that I examine both the social structures and the individual actions related to illegal logging in Kosovo.

Within this methodological frame, my research treats Bjeshkët e Nemuna as a qualitative case study, delving into the nuances and contexts that influence illegal logging in this specific locale. In academia, case study research is referred to as both a methodology (a theory of research, including how and to what advantage something can 37 be researched) and a method (a mechanism of data collection) (Baxter, 2005).

Methodologically, case studies provide opportunities to interrogate existing concepts or to develop new ones. Case study research explores a particular phenomenon or process in order to solve practical problems or broaden academic understanding, or both. The key is to provide depth and contextualized understanding (Baxter, 2005). As such, my research aims to explain the phenomenon of noncompliant logging in Bjeshkët e Nemuna National

Park in order to illuminate the fundamental social structures driving the perpetuation of this illegal activity. Furthermore, I seek to understand how these structures are maintained or resisted and how this may influence future challenges or opportunities for conservation in the park. It is my hope that by providing a richly detailed analysis of the situation in Kosovo, this research will contribute to the efforts of those working to protect the Bjeshkët e Nemuna forest ecosystem. Simultaneously, I seek to broaden academic understanding of why noncompliant resource use continues to undermine environmental protection. The goal is not to produce generalizable results, as the findings are highly contextual to time, place, history, and culture, but to elucidate components which are transferable to other contexts outside the case (Baxter, 2005).

It is worth noting that my research utilizes a constructivist paradigmatic framework. A research paradigm is the perspective through which the researcher views, interprets, and places value on the world, and is characterized by distinct ontologies, epistemologies, and measures of quality and rigor. Constructivist research values multiple realities, which are socially and experientially based. Findings are created between and among the researcher and participants. Rigor is based on information-richness, or quality, 38 of the interview (as opposed to merely quantity of interviews) and the trustworthiness and authenticity of the research. Some strategies used to ensure trustworthiness throughout the research process have included the following: documenting each stage of the research through regular memoing; weekly check-ins with the director of the partner NGO, the

Environmentally Responsible Action Group, to discuss my findings throughout my time in-country; utilization of multiple sources of information by gathering diverse perspectives (interviewing politicians, NGOs, and affected community members); and checking my process and interpretations with each of my committee members (Bradshaw

& Stratford, 2016).

Methodological Process

During the summer of 2018, I traveled to Kosovo to conduct the fieldwork portion of this research. Because the study involved human participants, my data collection required approval from the Ohio University Institutional Review Board (IRB). This process ensures adequate protection for the rights and privacy of the interviewees. All participants were given a consent form in either English or Albanian, based on their personal preference, which outlined the goals of the research and their rights to end their participation at any point (see Appendices D and E).

I conducted key informant interviews during the months of June and July 2018.

Study sites included the city of Peja, Kosovo’s capital city Prishtina, the municipalities of

Deçan and Junik, and the national park. Some interviewees were selected prior to the beginning of the fieldwork with the support of my contacts at the ERA Group. Using a blend of opportunistic and criterion sampling of participants, these preselected 39 interviewees assisted in locating subsequent informants. All interviewees were selected based on their knowledge of, or connection to, Bjeshkët e Nemuna creation, management, and resource use.

Potential participants were divided into three subcategories:

• Local community members: Kosovar citizens living in and around the park

(five participants)

• Park Management: Government officials working for the park, related

municipalities, or the state of Kosovo (seven participants)

• NGOs: External parties involved in sustainable forest management,

environmental conservation, and national park research (four participants)

Park Management participants included high-ranking officials from the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning, Kosovo Institute for Nature Protection, Kosovo

Environmental Protection Agency, National Park Directorate, and the municipality of

Junik. For purposes of anonymity, the specific positions and agencies for which they work were not identified.

I connected with most interviewees through the local messaging app Viber, which proved considerably more successful than email for establishing communication.

Interviews were semi-structured, meaning that I was able to flexibly follow a set of prepared questions. This structure allowed me to plan according to prescribed topics and themes with the flexibility to redirect and rephrase based on the interests and responses of the interviewee. Interview protocols included open-ended questions related to opinions about park creation and management, conservation, and potential solutions, as well as 40 personal experiences pertaining to employment opportunities, logging, and community impacts (see Appendices A, B, and C). These questions illuminated complex perceptions, motivations, and behaviors. I was able to collect a diversity of opinions and experiences, revealing common patterns of thought as well as divergent views corresponding to perceived drivers of noncompliant logging in Bjeshkët e Nemuna (Baxter, 2005). Some noteworthy interviewees included the Director of the Kosovo Environmental Protection

Agency, the community leader of the largest village located inside the national park, as well as two men who discussed their illegal logging motivations (see Table 1). The interview protocols for each subcategory can be viewed in the appendix.

Table 1: Descriptions of Interviewees Pseudonym of Position Institution/Organization Interviewee Rural and Economic Ágë Dragusha Forestry-Focused NGO Development Adviser Almir Bojaxhiu Community Member Junik Municipality Azem Nushi Community Leader Rugove Valley Borsak Hoxha Chief Inspector Government Ministry Ellen Frank- Environmentally Responsible Director Lajqi Action Group (NGO) Environmentally Responsible Fatos Lajçi Executive Director Action Group (NGO) Flakrim Beqiri Director Government Inspection Agency Florian Director Government Agency Mehmeti Gjergj Rexhepi Community Member Junik Municipality Ibrahim Maraj Chief Executive Officer Government Agency Ilirian Hasimja Head of Division Government Ministry Director for Economic Liridash Lekaj Municipality within national park Development Mahmut Lajqi Park Ranger Bjeshkët e Nemuna National Park Pasina Marku Gap Analyst Forestry-Focused NGO Seman Thaçi Community Member City of Peja Veran Selimaj Inspectorate Government Ministry 41

Interviews were conducted either completely in English or a mix of English and

Albanian. Language barriers posed a significant challenge, as I do not speak Albanian, and high-functioning English speakers in this region are uncommon. Furthermore, speaking only to individuals with significant English language skills would limit the scope of voices and perspectives needed for my research. To overcome this complication,

I conducted some interviews with the support of an interpreter, Era Hyseni, a local high schooler who is nationally recognized for her English-speaking skills. As a non-affiliated research staff member, Era completed Ohio University’s CITI training and the Individual

Investigator Agreement in order to serve as an approved research assistant.

Interviews typically lasted between 30 and 60 minutes. The locations were selected by the interviewees, allowing greater control on the part of the participant and putting them in comfortable settings of their choosing. Most interviews were audio- recorded using my personal cellphone, with the exception of one interview, in which the participant felt more comfortable speaking without a recording device. The support of the audio-recordings allowed me to focus on the content discussed, making for a more conversational session.

There were a few exceptions to the parameters outlined above. Two interviews consisted of full-day expeditions in the national park with the interviewee (see figures 5,

6, and 7). During these excursions, I asked conversational questions including those from the interview protocols. These meetings were not audio-recorded due to the length of the 42

Figure 5: View of the park

Figure 6: Illegally built cabin inside the park

43

Figure 7: Truck used for driving through the bumpy park road

session. Instead, relevant comments and quotes were detailed in the Notes application on my cellphone and written out that evening in the form of field notes.

Interview data were transcribed during the summer and early fall of 2018. The

English-speaking portions of each of the recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim, ensuring the existence of a written copy. In addition to interview transcripts and fieldnotes, memoing was frequently used to process and reflect on daily observations, thoughts, and concerns, as well as to develop new insights. Research on noncompliant 44 resource use is a challenge due to the covert nature of the activities under study. The sensitivity of the subject provides strong incentives for withholding information, which accounts for the paucity of research on the topic (Gavin et al., 2010; Solomon et al.,

2015). I applied several techniques during my fieldwork to work around this challenge.

First, because the topics involved illegal activities, pseudonyms were used to protect the privacy of all participants. My assurance that their personal information would remain hidden allowed them to speak more freely without fear of repercussions. However, some of the interviewees held public positions related to park management. For these participants, I mentioned that their titles would be included, as that information was significant to the research. Nonetheless, pseudonyms were used for these participants as well, allowing for some level of anonymity. Second, I identified myself early on as a student, making it clear that I was not affiliated with any type of regulatory agency, and I arranged my interview questions so that more sensitive topics fell at the end of the interview, allowing for time to build rapport with the interviewee (Fontana & Frey, 2000;

Gavin et al., 2010). As Fontana and Frey mention in their handbook on qualitative research, “Gaining trust is essential to an interviewer’s success” (Fontana & Frey, 2000,

367). The fact that my interpreter and I are both young females may have worked in our favor, as we were perceived as approachable and unintimidating to interviewees (Fontana

& Frey, 2000). Similarly, Kosovar people generally have a strong fondness for

Americans, as they attribute their freedom from Serbia to former US President Bill

Clinton, a point that was frequently brought up in conversation. I believe this common affection for Americans increased our interviewees’ willingness to participate. Finally, 45 when possible, I utilized friendly connections to build rapport with interviewees. One example of this was helping a German-Kosovar graduate student collect insect samples for his research after learning that he was staying with a family friend whose house was inside the national park. After work, I was invited to family dinner, at which point I met his host, who I asked for an interview after spending a full evening together. By the time we interviewed, we had spent hours together in a familial setting, allowing him to feel more comfortable sharing with me why and how he logs illegally in the park.

Analysis

Interviews were analyzed using grounded theory coding. The coding process allows the researcher to reexamine the data from an analytical perspective, narrowing the transcripts down into manageable sizes, which can then be used to extract and identify important themes. Grounded theory coding emphasizes the use of the data itself as the foundation upon which research themes and conceptual categories are developed (as opposed to applying preconceived categories/codes). As such, the theory is “grounded” in the data. First, I used a process called line-by-line initial coding in order to identify main actions and topics throughout the interview transcripts. These initial codes were extricated from the transcripts and analyzed again for the next phase, referred to as focused coding. Focused coding entails sifting through initial codes to begin synthesizing and finding the most significant codes. Examples of some of my focused codes include employment opportunities, law enforcement, and sense of ownership. Finally, the third phase involved axial coding, in which I organized codes into categories and 46 subcategories, focusing on the relationships between various codes to bring the data together into a more cohesive whole (Baxter, 2005; Charmaz, 2006).

47

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

In this section I draw from interviews, field notes, and observations to discuss the main drivers of noncompliant logging in Bjeshkët e Nemuna National Park. I argue that a perceived lack of legitimacy and trustworthiness in the government, along with socially normative influences are the fundamental drivers of continued noncompliance, with the first shaping the second. Diving deeper into these two drivers, I assert that transitioning from the government of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to the Republic of

Kosovo has had lingering impacts that encourage noncompliant behavior. This is due to the country’s transition from a centrally-planned communist to a democratic capitalist government, as well as a transition from strict to weak nature law enforcement. All of these factors have opened the door for corruption to take hold within the government, which further solidifies citizens’ lack of trust in the government, fueling socially normative noncompliance.

Economic factors also play a role in driving noncompliant logging. While logging is certainly not the only option for people in the study area to meet their economic needs, it is one available option. Despite the regulations, some people are ultimately choosing to disregard them and log in areas or quanitities that are illegal, and economic need plays a fundamental role in this decision. Some people choose to do so out of personal need for cooking and heating, while others are logging for commercial purposes. At both scales, they are choosing to do so for money. While economic factors are not the focus of this research, it is worth mentioning the important role they play in driving people to continue 48 to log inside the national park, particularly in light of the current unemployment rate of

33% (“Europe :: Kosovo — The World Factbook - Central Intelligence Agency,” n.d.).

Legitimacy and Trustworthiness of Management Authority

My data suggest that a perceived lack of legitimacy and trustworthiness in the government is a fundamental driver of noncompliant logging. Legitimacy refers to the right of a governing body to rule and the recognition of this right among those governed

(Tyler, 1990). Perceptions of legitimacy are a result of trust in the government in relation to its effectiveness, transparency, and inclusiveness, as well as its reputation for procedural and distributive justice (Turner et al., 2016). My interview data reveal that people perceive Kosovo’s governing bodies as lacking in effectiveness, transparency, and justice, which, in turn, undermines the legitimacy of national park management.

Trust is critical for eliciting compliance in a wide variety of situations, from workplace settings to tax compliance (Turner et al., 2016). In regard to Bjeshkët e

Nemuna, individuals who log, citizens living inside the national park and surrounding communities, and personnel in charge of park management all display a lack of trust in the government. While no one referred to “trust” explicitly, this sentiment was conveyed in many conversations as people talked about lack of participation in the decision-making process of establishing the park and the approach with which the government transitioned the land into the hands of the federal government. At the local level, one of the reasons that trust appears to be lacking is because local citizens feel like their land was taken from them. They feel that they were not adequately involved in the decision-making 49 process. When I asked one individual if he was consulted when the national park was being established, he responded:

Yes… I didn’t agree on that system they wanted to do. The reason why I didn’t agree with the national park was that my property was then part of the National Park. All duties that I have with owning that land, I pay them, but I have no right to use my own private, my own private land that I am even paying for taxes… I can do nothing on it anymore (G. Rexhepi, personal communication, July 7, 2018).

This excerpt comes from an interview with Gjergj, a man whose property falls within the Zone III, or “sustainable use,” section of the national park (refer to figure 4).

The land that he owns remains his private property, but is subject to Zone III rules and regulations. Law on National Park Bjeshkët e Nemuna states that the third zone may be used for the “needs of inhabitants in the territory of National Park and the use of pasture and economic use of nature resources” in compliance with the Spatial Plan. The Spatial

Plan has still not been approved, meaning that it remains unclear if Gjergj’s sentiments are correct. In the next chapter I will discuss the role of the Spatial and Management

Plans, and the implications for their continued lack of approval.

The fact that local citizens were minimally involved in the decision-making process contributes to this feeling of having one’s land and opportunities taken away by the government. Above, Gjergj says that yes, he was consulted, but the decision they came to was not one he supported. In the following passage, we hear another opinion from Azem, a leader and representative of Rugove Valley, the largest community inside the national park:

We never really signed anything to say that we are giving our property to the park. We have had different protests and petitions to say that we are against this. Towards governmental organizations. And then when [I] went 50

to the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning, then they said, you accepted this. And then [I said], I want something to prove to me that we did approve this, and who signed this? Who said that we approved this? And then he brought me the participation lists. For that, someone has to go to prison. I would imprison them, and the key, I would throw in the sea (A. Nushi, personal communication, June 26, 2018).

The sense of being cheated and tricked is apparent in this excerpt. Azem believes that the signatures collected to approve the national park were not legitimate and he feels strongly that those in power should be held accountable for their actions. He is explicitly opposed to “giving their property to the park” and feels that this happened despite his and his fellow community members’ opposition. This lack of participation in the park’s establishment and the feeling that the government falsified signatures from the community convey a strong sense of distrust in the government.

Similar sentiments are expressed by Ágë Dragusha, who works for an NGO called

Connecting Nature Values and People (CNVP):

From the beginning they didn’t start good. They had to… have a lot of debates, not one or two, to have lot of discussions, group by group, and to ask them, what are you thinking about if in the future we have national park. And [here] will be [the borders], what do you think, we will benefit from that, or what do you think? They were not asked (A. Dragusha, personal communication, June 26, 2018).

Ágë believes that locals who were personally impacted by the rules and regulations of the national park were not part of the decision-making process. Instead, she suggests that the governing bodies hosted mock debates and discussions in an attempt to create an appearance of community-based decision-making without actually listening to the opinions of the community and adjusting plans based on their feedback. 51

The level of distrust in government among the Kosovar people was notable. This was the case for Gjergj, who witnesses much illegal activity due to his home being located high up in the park. “You might have seen the system of how it is being cut, it is horrible. And nobody’s taking action. The first one who arrives there, cuts it, logs it, builds his hut up there and nothing happens” (G. Rexhepi, personal communication, July

7, 2018). The “nobody” that he’s referring to are the rangers. He feels that there are no repercussions for those who illegally log and build in protected zones. Viewed in this light, it is easy to imagine why one would feel compelled to disregard the laws. There is the sense that the faster you log on public land, the more you have to gain. When it seems that everyone else is getting away with it, following the rules has no apparent benefits.

This mentality was expressed by those affected by the national park as well as those in charge of its management. In an interview with the director of a critical government agency dealing with environmental protection, he asserts that corruption is pervasive and challenging to combat, stating that Kosovo is “a small country of corrupted people” (I.

Maraj, personal communication, June 13, 2018). The low level of trust in government was evident at all levels of power, from community members living inside the park to the man who directs the entire agency. I contend that the lack of participation in the decision- making process of the park’s establishment correspond to a lack of trust. These sentiments relate to citizens’ perceptions of the government’s effectiveness, transparency, and ability to act justly, which I will discuss in further detail below. 52

Effectiveness and Justice of Governance

Perceptions of the effectiveness of the Kosovo government influence its perceived legitimacy. One significant challenge faced by the government when it comes to effectively enforcing regulations in the national park is the lack of approved management and spatial plans. These documents detail what is and is not allowed in the park; the spatial plan determines the protection regimes that will be enforced, while the management plan outlines what activities and actions are allowed (Krasniqi, 2012).

Both the management and spatial plans are meant to be created and approved shortly after a park is declared. However, Bjeshkët e Nemuna National Park continues to wait for the government to approve both plans. This creates something of a legal “gray area,” as economic activities in the park should technically be halted until the plans are approved. However, the national park directorate claims that they don’t know what’s acceptable because there are no plans, opening the door for logging and building to continue in the park with unclear legal repercussions. Azem Nushi of the Rugove Valley community leadership discusses the ineffectiveness of the park administration:

And they will always show you something about an activity that they were supposed to [do] but they never really did. And if you go to the directory of the national park, they will show you a strategy, a development strategy that hasn’t even been approved by the municipality… And they have done things based on the strategy when it hasn’t been approved. And they had to reverse it because [we] were asking, ‘where did you find this’ and then they didn’t have an explanation and they have to go back (A. Nushi, personal communication, June 26, 2018).

As Azem highlights, the national park directorate, the municipalities, and the communities inside the park all impact or are impacted by decisions made at the federal level. It’s easy to imagine how frustrating this would quickly become to live in a place 53 where management decisions are made far away by people who are neither impacted by the decisions nor in charge of overseeing their follow-through. Examples like this emphasize the perceived ineffectiveness of national park management.

Another important contributing factor is the lack of procedural justice. Procedural justice can be defined as a measure of how equitably the governing body enforces rules and the degree to which all parties are involved in the decision-making process (Turner et al., 2016). Locals believe that management does not enforce rules fairly, allowing the biggest offenders to get away unscathed, while punishing those who have the most need and the smallest impact on the forest. This point came up multiple times in different conversations. Fatos Lajçi is the co-founder and Executive Director of the

Environmentally Responsible Action Group. He contends that those who get into legal trouble are typically people who have minimal impact on the forest. These individuals are more vulnerable and therefore easier to prosecute. He says the national park director arrests the small players, or the poor people that log a few trees in order to fill the directorate’s quota and show they’re doing something. But not the people involved in the organized crime. “They’re too well-connected to get in trouble” (F. Lajçi, personal communication, July 6, 2018).

Fatos’s statement emphasizes the belief that well-connected people with money and social capital can avoid penalties. At the same time, those who must log for their own needs get caught. This perception of discriminatory enforcement undermines the legitimacy of the National Park Directorate. The illegitimacy of the government appears 54 to activate social norms that encourage noncompliant behavior, which I discuss in detail in the following section.

Socially Normative Noncompliance

Normative influences play an integral role in determining whether a person will comply with established laws (Arias, 2015; Tyler, 1990; Zaloznaya, 2017). I argue that the distrust and delegitimization of the governing authority outlined above encourages noncompliant behavior and, further, that this behavior is considered socially and morally acceptable. Seman Thaçi lives in the city of Peja with his wife and four children. He grew up in Pepaj, a community high up in the mountains near the Montenegrin border. His family owned and operated a wood shop in his community throughout the 1990s. He tells me how they would always buy their wood from others; they would not cut from their own land to supply lumber to their shop (in the following quote, “M” refers to myself, the interviewer, and “E” is Era, who is translating for Seman):

M: So you owned 13 hectares of private land, but you would buy the wood from where? E: I bought it from others, and someone maybe had cut that wood from my own forest. (He and I laugh about this) You can ask Fatos as well, people do that. M: Just go into other people’s land? E: Yeah (S. Thaçi, personal communication, July 4, 2018)

Seman suggests that it is socially acceptable to cut timber from others’ lands, making a joke about how he could have bought lumber from someone who illegally logged from his private forest. This idea is supported in the Bouriaud et al. article (2014), which claims that loggers who obtain permits will often log more than what they’ve been allotted, moving preferably into public land or the private land of absentee owners. 55

Ellen Frank-Lajqi is the co-founder and Director of the Environmentally

Responsible Action Group. Born in Massachusetts, she originally visited Kosovo in 2003 as a student volunteer to organize the first cross-border trek between Kosovo, Albania, and Montenegro. After experiencing the rich biodiversity and cultural values of the area,

she co-founded ERA with Fatos that summer with the goal of raising environmental consciousness, awareness, and responsibility in the area. Since graduating college in

2005, she has lived and worked in Peja. She shares Seman’s perspective, expanding on the social norm in the following excerpt:

Maybe they think they have a right. I notice this a lot, a lot of times the people feel they have a right to do that thing, and that’s why they break the law: they feel they have a right to that forest. Whether they legally have a right or not, maybe it’s a historic right, maybe it’s a perceived right, but if they feel like its theirs to take... You see it not just in cutting or hunting, you see it also even in the schools and the medicine, they feel, when there’s state aid, that they’re stupid for not stealing that for their own personal businesses. It’s like, ‘oh you’re just stupid, why wouldn’t you take that, it’s for free…’ And I think that same kind of cultural, social aspects you see also, ‘oh but you’re stupid if you don’t take the free wood that’s right next to your house. Why are you cutting your own wood when that free stuff is right there?’ (E. Frank-Lajqi, personal communication, July 5, 2018)

The preceding passage casts light on a phenomenon where it is considered socially acceptable to break the law and take things that are not yours. Not only is it considered acceptable but intelligent, even, to utilize available resources. As an American living in Kosovo for fifteen years, Ellen has a unique perspective – one that allows her to observe social norms in a newly-democratic capitalist structure where communist and socialist principles held sway for over four decades. She sees that the pattern of taking state and public goods exists not only in relation to the forests and timber resources, but 56 also in schools, hospitals, municipalities, and various other organizations. In contrast, the quote below reveals what happens if you adhere to the law and uphold the rules. She speculates how a park ranger must feel working in a system where noncompliance is the norm and de facto regimes override de jure rules and regulations:

If you have such a low salary, and you’re going to have personal problems because everyone knows each other, so you’re going to have people like threatening you or knocking on your door or coming to all your networks… What’s your personal incentive to do that? Why would you want to risk yourself? If you don’t have the structure to back you up… I guess people don’t feel like putting themselves out there. There’s really no motivation to do their job, because someone else after them is probably going to let [the noncompliant logger] go, and then they’re the bad guy. I think being perceived as the bad guy here is something that people really don’t like. And sometimes doing your job makes you the bad guy (E. Frank-Lajqi, personal communication, July 5, 2018).

According to compliance theorists, normative beliefs play an important role in dictating whether one complies with the law. People typically behave according to social norms

(Arias, 2015; Tyler, 1990). If the social norms within the national park directorate are to allow noncompliant logging to continue, the likeliness that a ranger will do so is much higher than if, for example, everyone around them followed the rules and them alone chose to break them. Ellen suggests that it is not only normative to allow noncompliance to continue, but that it explicitly goes against norms to follow the rules and reprehend noncompliers. In the following chapters, I delve into why these cultural norms exist today in Kosovo. I argue that it is a result of recent shifts in economic and political structures, and the lingering legacy of communism and strictly enforced nature laws.

57

Transition from Communism to Capitalism

Politically post-transitional societies have a tendency to struggle with corruption, law enforcement, and individual trust in the government as a whole (Belloni & Strazzari,

2014). As seen in the quote below, fighting for political freedom and self-governance does not always result in more just societies.

It seems that everyone said they were fighting the war for freedom, but it looked like they were just fighting to be able to do the same things that the Serbs were doing. But now they’re doing it to their own people… You had to know someone if you wanted to get your document or access to your rights… but it’s the same crap today. But now you have an Albanian sitting in the chair doing it… You fought the war just so you could do the same exact things that you were complaining the Serbians were doing? But then… did they want that, they wanted to do the things that the Serbs were doing? Or did they just do it naturally because that’s what they learned? So now they’re unconsciously repeating, they think that’s what you’re supposed to do in that position (E. Frank-Lajqi, personal communication, July 5, 2018).

The preceding quote underscores the challenges associated with shifting a country’s political and economic regimes. In this section, I maintain that the perceptions of governmental legitimacy and associated social norms in Kosovo’s context are influenced by the legacy of communism under Yugoslav rule. There are two fundamental means by which this legacy influences perceptions today. First, interviewees opined that nature law enforcement was strict in Yugoslavia. The transition from strict to weak enforcement may be expanding opportunities for illegal logging. Second, Kosovo can be categorized as a post-conflict transitional society, having undergone a double transition from war to peace and from communism to a democratic system. These transitions can take time to root themselves in everyday society and may have unintended impacts, such 58 as the establishment of corruption. In the following chapters, I will discuss the perceptions and implications of weakening law enforcement and corruption in Kosovo.

Weakening Law Enforcement

Interviewees identified poor law enforcement as the biggest challenge related to noncompliant logging. As discussed in the previous sections, there are complex social and psychological factors contributing to this phenomenon. It is important to examine how these perceptions and social norms came to be, and I credit this in part to the weakening of law enforcement since the disintegration of Yugoslavia.

In the months after the NATO bombings ended, over 800,000 Albanians returned to Kosovo in one of the fastest refugee returns in history (Mojzes, 2011). Gjergj attests that this was when illegal logging took hold in the Bjeshkët e Nemuna mountains: “Right after the war… whoever wanted and could destroy [the forest], did. This is when it started, right after the war when they came back from Albania” (G. Rexhepi, personal communication, July 7, 2018). In contrast, he outlines what work was like prior to the

1990s:

It was the former Yugoslavia. Where they put a mark to be cut, that one was cut. The other one you didn’t cut… They made the decision to cut one parcel from the beginning to the end, one lane. It was cut, it was logged. Woods were taken out and they were reforested with pines. That was the biggest duty. There were lots of workers, they were paid well... It wasn’t necessary for the forest to be destroyed. After the war, the situation, the economic situation was really hard. The people started doing as they wanted. Who had money, gave some money and cut wherever he wanted. And nature and the forest were of course degraded (G. Rexhepi, personal communication, July 7, 2018).

59

According to Gjergj, during the Yugoslav era, not only was there greater order but there were consequences for breaking the rules. While the reasons for strict nature protection may be debated, the implementation was unwavering. Gjergj also chooses to emphasize that workers were paid well. For this reason, he states, there was no need to illegally cut the forest, suggesting that people feel compelled to cut illegally now for economic purposes. Below, Fatos shares his opinion why wildlife and their ecosystems were protected:

The hills to our left used to be strictly protected during Yugoslavia days. They would protect them for the brown bear, which the state leaders would come and shoot from raised structures. No one dared cut illegally in those days, or hunt illegally, because you knew you would get in trouble, go to jail (F. Lajçi, personal communication, July 6, 2018).

Fatos stresses the role that instrumental perspectives played in deterring illegal cutting within Yugoslavia. People behaved in response to well-enforced penalties associated with breaking the law. Despite the questionable motivations for protecting the forest, both men emphasize the effectiveness with which the law was enforced.

Fatos says the government also compensated farmers for wildlife-related losses.

He tells me a story about a cow that was recently killed by a brown bear. The national park won’t pay the farmer for the lost cow. Fatos believes they absolutely should; if the farmers are not allowed to shoot the bear, and the bear damages their property by killing a cow, they should be compensated. If a bear killed someone’s cow in Yugoslavia, he says the state would pay double the price of the cow. People knew not to kill a bear back then. He considers this the EPA Director’s fault and responsibility. The EPA should include a payment policy in the management plan and follow through with such requests 60

(F. Lajçi, personal communication, July 6, 2018). This story highlights the Yugoslavian government’s effectiveness and demonstrates some level of procedural justice in terms of equitable rule enforcement. Regardless of personal opinions about the government as a whole, the stories outlined in this section show the environmental benefits of strict enforcement. Transitioning from this high level of law enforcement to what is taking place today appears to influence citizens’ willingness to break the rules. Bouriaud et al.

(2014) reiterate the impact of poor enforcement in their article on property rights and illegal logging in Kosovo: “The weak support of the institutions against trespassers

‘encourages opportunism, by increasing the relative payoffs from illegitimate versus legitimate activity’” (427).

Corruption

The perception of the government as corrupt is prevalent within Kosovar society.

In this section, I examine the issue of corruption and corruption perceptions in Kosovo and the role it plays in driving noncompliant logging. As discussed in the section on legitimacy and trustworthiness of the management authority, citizens’ perceptions of the government play a crucial role in determining compliance levels. Corruption came up in many interviews as a central challenge. Corruption perceptions appear to be integrally connected to the weak law enforcement discussed in the previous section.

During my full-day interview with Fatos, he stressed how the history of oppression and communism impact the way people currently treat the environment, their relationships with other Albanians, and their rights regarding the environment. “The land doesn’t belong to the state anymore, it belongs to us, to me, to you. Why build and pay 61 taxes on private property when I can get away with doing it on public land?” (F. Lajçi, personal communication, July 6, 2018). This comment elucidates the subconscious impact that transitioning from communism to capitalism can have on how people relate to private versus state ownership. Fatos is referring to the common practice of building cabins on public land in the national park. Now that people have a distinction between what is theirs and what is the states, they see an opportunity to take advantage of state- owned resources when possible in order to protect their own personal resources and avoid paying taxes.

Fatos also observes that Kosovar Albanians have a common sense of brotherhood, of standing together and supporting each other against the enemy, which is deeply ingrained in their culture. This bond is likely related to their conflict-ridden past, having fought together against Serbians multiple times over the last century. This familial dynamic influences the way people relate to rules and authority figures today. As Fatos underlines, this sense of “having each other’s backs” has different implications when

Kosovar Albanians are the ones making and enforcing the rules: “When we are the ones in power now, that’s not so much neighborly kindness, that’s corruption” (F. Lajçi, personal communication, July 6, 2018).

In the eastern European context, corruption is increasingly blamed when discussing development challenges. Before discussing corruption in Kosovo specifically,

I will define and identify types of corruption that can take place in democratic societies.

According to A. Jain’s “Corruption: A Review,” corruption refers to using the power of public office for personal gain in a way that violates the rules of the game (2001). There 62 are various types of corruption. Grand corruption is when political elites exploit their power to make economic policies and bureaucratic corruption is when appointed bureaucrats deal with either their superiors or the public in a corrupt way. Bureaucratic corruption can be subdivided into petty and judicial corruption. Petty is the most common form of corruption. It occurs when the public has to bribe bureaucrats either to receive a service or speed up a process. Judicial corruption is when bribes can lower the cost of legal penalties or the chance of getting caught (Jain, 2001).

Interviewees suggested that bureaucratic corruption drives noncompliant logging, namely in the form of petty and judicial corruption. In particular, they refer to the small- scale petty corruption in which park rangers engage. For example, Gjergj discusses the rampant illegal logging and house building going on uninhibited in the park, claiming the rangers’ behavior emboldens people to break the rules. “The first one who arrives there, cuts it, logs it, builds his hut up there and nothing happens. It’s even the rangers. It’s even the ranger who give way to the secret logging. Because it’s a corrupt system” (G.

Rexhepi, personal communication, July 7, 2018). Even the high-ranking government officials admit as much, stating that the rangers “sometimes cooperate with thieves.” In my interview with Ibrahim Maraj, he mimes the action of taking money from someone and putting it in his breast pocket, concluding “Why not? Corruption” (I. Maraj, personal communication, June 13, 2018).

Later in the interview with Gjergj, he mentions that he was offered a position as a park ranger but turned it down because he did not want to take part in the corrupt system and contribute to the deforestation. “I love the nature a lot,” he said, remarking that for 63 this reason, for his love of the woods, he turned down the offer (G. Rexhepi, personal communication, July 7, 2018).

It is interesting to note the contradiction in his stance. He says that he did not want to become a ranger because he did not want to degrade the forest. However, throughout the interview he acknowledges that he too logs illegally. In Belloni and

Strazzari’s article, Corruption in post-conflict Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo: a deal among friends, the authors uncover a comparable contradiction, stating that in Bosnia, the average citizen condemns grand corruption, viewing it as detrimental to the public trust, while condoning petty corruption as necessary in order to allow day-to-day society to flow smoothly (2014). In the same way, one can imagine that living in a society you deem corrupt may allow you to simultaneously condemn the rangers for encouraging deforestation while personally acting in a way that contributes to the very same deforestation in order to meet your own personal needs. In their book, Corruption,

Natural Resources and Development (2017), scholars Williams and Le Billon refer to this as an “endemically corrupt” context. In this setting, “the rewards and costs of engaging in corruption are such that it should be understood as the expected behavior rather than an aberration from the norm… There is little to no incentive to abstain from it” (Williams &

Le Billon, 2017, 4). Gjergj supports this idea when he mentions the corruption from

“people around but also a lot from people above.” He feared that if he accepted the position, he would find himself being offered bribes from loggers, other rangers and fellow government employees, and even his bosses (G. Rexhepi, personal communication, July 7, 2018). 64

Fatos says that the director of the national park faces the same challenges from his employees and from his boss. “Poor [name], he has no power. He is simple administration” (F. Lajçi, personal communication, July 6, 2018). He contends that the director has no incentive to stop illegal activities, because his boss is profiting as well and gives him no motivation to make changes. Fatos says the rangers hide information from him, so it’s very difficult for him to have accurate information on the scale of logging.

Pressed on the topic, Fatos seems unclear as to whether the park director wants to enforce the rules, but he seems sure that even if he does, or did at some point, he has no real ability to do so.

Along with petty corruption, judicial corruption was frequently mentioned in reference to logging in the national park. In an interview with an important government agency official that oversees the national park, after admitting that the rangers in his department sometimes take bribes from loggers, he states that judges can be bought out to let people go or to reduce their charge, allowing the logging to continue: “The problem is sometimes the judge[s] are corrupt. They give small penalties and they repeat them… there are lot of problems, it is not easy” (I. Maraj, personal communication, June 13,

2018).

Fatos says that there are familial ties between some of the loggers and the prosecutors involved with their trials. While driving through the park, he tells me a story from last January when he and a co-worker were stopped by the rangers and told the road was too dangerous to drive on. He decided to continue regardless and saw that they were logging illegally past the area where they tried to stop him. He brings me to this area to 65 show me the logged patches of forest, and instead we encounter active illegal logging taking place. We see logged trees and a car on the side of the road (see figure 8). Fatos tells me not to take pictures, for fear that they will see. When we hear a tractor, Fatos apologizes, turns the car around and heads back down the road, saying he doesn’t want to get mixed up in this. “They know my face,” he says (F. Lajçi, personal communication,

July 6, 2018). Fatos hadn’t thought they would be logging there at the time of year when we visited (early July). On the way back to town, he explains that those men are involved in large-scale industrial logging. He says they drive through the entry gate (known by

Kosovars as a laura) in Deçan, where they will likely encounter only one ranger. This wood goes to a saw mill in the city and gets shipped to different locations from there.

Fatos explains how these men continue to get away with logging: the leader of this group’s cousin is the main prosecutor in Peja. Prosecutors sent one of these loggers to jail once, and when he got out, he went to the homes of the police that put him in jail and threatened them. “Who has more power?” Fatos asks (F. Lajçi, personal communication,

July 6, 2018). When the police themselves can be threatened by those arrested, there seems to be a power imbalance. It would certainly be more difficult to uphold the law when your personal safety may be threatened as a result. 66

Figure 8: Logged trees inside Bjeshkët e Nemuna National Park

One of the notable impacts of corruption is the accompanying social injustice.

Corruption allows the biggest offenders to get away, while punishing those who have arguably the most need for the wood and the smallest impact on the forest. This idea came across on multiple occasions in interviews, including with Almir Bojaxhiu, who lives in the township of Junik. Almir, like his good friend Gjergj, logs illegally during the month of September. He says he logs for wood to cook and heat his home, as well as to sell to others. He relates his personal experience being caught and prosecuted for logging:

Me with my horse, they catch, while those trucks… they don’t. I’m just, I’m one of six people who goes, we go up there and we cut it and we fight for a living. And even you see my nose, how it is destroyed from wood falling and breaking my nose... My biggest wish was with the insertion of the national park, that it is very strict but also very fair (A. Bojaxhiu, personal communication, July 7, 2018).

67

Gjergj agrees. He states, “What bothers me is that those people who need it to live, this is where they catch them, where they go after them, while 90% of the people who cause most of the destruction of the forest, who doesn’t even need the forest to live, they are unharmed, they are not considered.” He adds, “And I want the people to be equal. The poor and the rich. If they don’t punish the rich men over there, they shouldn’t consider punishing the poor men over here” (G. Rexhepi, personal communication, July

7, 2018).

When I asked Gjorgj why he thinks certain people get punished while others don’t, he replied, “Korrupsioni. They have the things to give, and I don’t” (G. Rexhepi, personal communication, July 7, 2018). Gjergj and Almir cast light on the idea that those who have the means to bribe rangers tend to be the same people who perform large-scale illegal logging. This contrasts with individuals who log out of personal need: they typically have minimal impacts on the forest and do not necessarily have the financial means to offer bribes. This perception was reiterated by Ellen. She says it’s not just a lack of enforcement, but rather enforcement for some and not for others. The lower people on the totem pole are the ones getting caught, while no one is catching those involved with the organized crime. “So it’s enforcement only for select few to show that you’re doing something just enough to cover whatever your quotas are… Everyone’s supposed to be the same but not really, and those at the higher [level] don’t have to play by the same rules” (E. Frank-Lajqi, personal communication, July 5, 2018).

Ellen’s comments are reminiscent of the point made by Fatos on the role procedural justice plays in delegitimizing the government. He mentions the same exact 68 idea: that the law is enforced for the purpose of filling quotas and to appear effective.

Those involved with organized crime know they can get away unscathed, while the small players usually get caught. One example of this is provided by Gjergj and Almir, who explain that in autumn, five days before the legal logging season ends, private people are illegally prohibited from logging, allowing only the large-scale loggers working for companies to go into the forest to log. “This is there the big corruption starts, where the biggest devastation starts… They forbid us… so the way is free for the companies to go to those places” (G. Rexhepi, personal communication, July 7, 2018).

When discussing the high-ranking officials in the government, including some of whom I interviewed, Seman openly states: “they’re criminals basically, the state recognizes them and they do stuff to cut the forest” (S. Thaçi, personal communication,

July 4, 2018). While some of the loggers are poor and depend on the logging to make a living, he says: “The profit doesn’t go to the poor people… it goes to them, these big people” (S. Thaçi, personal communication, July 4, 2018). When I question him as to how people get away with it, he says it’s like a “big chain, because these people will give for example a permit to someone… they can bring a truck with ten meter cubes of wood, but with that same permit, they will use to bring three trucks. And that’s how they’re kind of stealing everything. So in the eyes of the law, they’re not stealing because they did have the permit, but they misuse these things” (S. Thaçi, personal communication, July 4,

2018). The casual tone Seman uses to describe the “criminals” in government underscores the normalcy of the perception of the government as corrupt. Not only are there corrupt actors involved, but the system itself is a chain of corruption at every level. 69

And the end result, according to Seman, is that the government officials reap the benefits while the citizens suffer.

The perception of a corrupt government is not limited to my interviewees. The

United Nations Development Programme released a survey in July 2018 showing that only one third of Kosovar citizens are happy with the country’s top officials and key state institutions. According to this study, corruption is one of the top three problems that

Kosovar citizens face, along with high unemployment and poverty (“Just one third of citizens happy with Kosovo’s top officials,” 2018).

Increasingly, scholars are investigating the causes and consequences of corruption from both a theoretical and empirical standpoint. Jain’s overview of corruption literature suggests that corruption can influence income distribution within a country. Furthermore, he notes that the transition of assets from public to private can create opportunities for corruption (Jain, 2001). Belloni and Strazzari explore this idea further in their article on corruption in post-conflict Kosovo (2014). They contend that the transition process from both war to peace and communism to democracy created ample opportunity for corruption to flourish. Conflict can open space for criminal operators to take hold in society and the economy in particular. Thus, in post-conflict Kosovo, international actors involved in the country’s transition may have accepted some level of corruption in the name of stability, recognizing that strict law enforcement to eradicate corruption could lead to a resurgence of conflict. This context, the authors argue, has allowed corruption to become a structural component of governance: the standard operating procedure, as opposed to the exception (Belloni & Strazzari, 2014). Scholars Williams and Le Billon 70 support this viewpoint. They assert that corruption should be recognized as a form of governance in itself, not merely a deviance from good governance that can be remedied with tougher controls. “Natural resource sectors not only provide fertile ground for various forms of corrupt practices; corruption is often embedded in natural resource management systems themselves” (Williams & Le Billon, 2017, 1). These corrupt practices, they contend, “can undermine resource management policies, reduce revenue collection, damage the environment, erode trust in the state, and exacerbate socioeconomic inequalities” (Williams & Le Billon, 2017, 1), all of which we have seen in relation to Kosovo.

Since the turn of the twenty-first century, the international community has taken greater notice of corruption in the Balkan countries. Transparency International, the largest global anti-corruption watchdog, supports the claims of Kosovar citizens in its annual Corruption Perception Index. This index scores public sector corruption in 180 countries around the world. In 2017, Kosovo received a rating of 39 out of 100, with zero being highly corrupt and 100 very clean. The international community cites corruption as a limiting factor in Kosovo’s bid for EU status. In 2003, the European Union prioritized the fight against corruption as a key requirement in the western Balkans’ track towards membership. More recently, the European Commission stated in 2016 that visa liberalization for Kosovo would move forward once the country met a list of reforms, which includes strengthening its track record on corruption (“Nine steps remaining for visa liberalization for Kosovo,” 2018). Statements and reports such as these highlight the 71 growing recognition of corruption as a key issue in Kosovo and the emphasis that international bodies are placing in the fight against it.

Local Perceptions of National Park

While the corruption, lack of participation, and lack of effectiveness of the national park management play a fundamental role in driving the persistence of noncompliant logging, there are also some more tangible components contributing to the problem. For one, there have been few economic opportunities linked with the national park, leading local communities to associate the park mainly with restrictions and regulations. Ágë Dragusha of Connecting Nature Values and People (CNVP) notes that people “are not believing that they will benefit something from [the] national park” (A.

Dragusha, personal communication, June 26, 2018). She underscores the inadequate communication between the government and local communities since the beginning. As discussed in the section on perceived legitimacy, Ágë highlights that instead of asking the community what they would think if a national park was created, authorities only brought together community meetings once they had made the decision. As such, the national park directorate assumed what the local communities wanted based on limited dialogue.

She says the locals now are “thinking only negatively” about the park. The national park is not negative if it is appropriately managed, she explains, which the citizens do not feel has happened. Azem Nushi, the community leader from Rugove Valley, shares a similar perspective:

We thought that our properties would be compensated. And we thought that we could perform different activities in the park. We thought that the touristic paths, that we would find those and take care of things ourselves. But for the previous five years, besides monitoring the wild animals 72

because of a project, we haven’t seen any other thing happening in the park (A. Nushi, personal communication, June 28, 2018).

This comment relates back to Azem’s earlier excerpts regarding the lack of participation his community had in the decision-making process. Years later, the community continues to feel frustrated by the lack of follow-through on the part of the national park. They were told that the park would bring in new opportunities and sources of income for their community, which Azem feels has not happened. Fundamentally, people’s need for employment opportunities plays an important role in dictating their perspective of the park. If they see the park as a generator of economic opportunities, they are more likely to feel positively, and on the contrary, if they feel the park takes away opportunities to make money, they will have a negative opinion towards it. Ultimately the people living in this valley need money, and Azem’s statement asserts that they feel their choices for how to make money have only been limited by the park.

The global model for protected areas encourages the development of ecotourism as an alternative for local communities that may have depended on resource extraction for employment. In the Bjeshkët e Nemuna region, the locals do not feel like this has taken place. Later in the conversation, Azem mentions trail marking projects that locals were involved with, but he explicitly states that this was not a project led by the national park directorate, but rather by the municipality and other entities. Politicians say they want to implement projects and train local people, but Azem believes this is just talk.

Ultimately the reason the park was created was not to benefit the local people and the forest, he says, but for political reasons. As for the local people, he remarks, “All they 73 have seen is that they are not able to use their forests anymore” (A. Nushi, personal communication, June 28, 2018).

In conjunction with the lack of employment opportunities on public land, Pasina

Marku, who works for CNVP says that locals feel like the national park took their private land (P. Marku, personal communication, June 25, 2018). Unlike Azem, who says he was not consulted prior to park creation, Gjgerj says he was consulted as part of the establishment process, but even so, he didn’t support the system they wanted to implement. “If we look closely at it, I can do nothing on [my land] anymore. But I have to pay the taxes for the ground, for the lands myself (G. Rexhepi, personal communication, July 7, 2018). He contends that if they wanted to, the national park directorate could legally demolish his home. He feels like the park officials restricted his ability to use his own land for economic gain, while also allowing them to do whatever they deem appropriate to his property.

Another interesting dynamic that came up in conversation was the relationship between the municipalities and the national park. Liridash Lekaj works for the municipality of Junik, one of the five townships whose westernmost property falls within the boundaries of the park. The municipalities manage the land up to the national park boundary, at which point their jurisdiction ends. The national park land overlaps with municipal territory, though it appears the park property rights supersede that of the townships. This continues to be a gray area for management staff as well as locals. While the municipalities are not legally involved in park oversight, Liridash says it would be beneficial if there was more communication and collaboration between them and the park 74 directorate. He discloses that he doesn’t have a good working relationship with the park directorate. Unofficially, he says, the municipality knows everything that’s happening in the park. Officially, however, they never receive illegal activity reports, future management plans, or any other information. He mentions that he has caught people illegally logging at night. He called the police, who proceeded to tell him that he did not have the authority to manage activities in the park. He chose to bring them to the police station nonetheless, and he believes the park director has been uncooperative with him ever since (L. Lekaj, personal communication, June 22, 2018).

Interestingly, the director of a government agency reported the opposite trend to be true, stating that locals living in the park are very happy with the park and the employment opportunities it has provided. He tells a story about when he went to eat at a local restaurant in the mountains. After spending an hour at the restaurant, people learned that he was the director and came over to him to ask questions about the future of the park. They told him that they have so many tourists coming through that they need to build more space to keep up with demand. “You were against [the] national park,” he responded, saying that the private and municipal properties would be removed from the park, as community leaders had formally requested through paperwork submitted to the

EPA. “And they [said], please don’t do that because we are very happy, we [have] lot of tourists because of national park” (I. Maraj, personal communication, June 13, 2018).

According to this recollection, the locals begged him to keep the national park, remarking that they were turning a profit. 75

This story contrasts with accounts from most other respondents, who, as seen in many of the previous excerpts, expressed almost exclusively negative feelings about the impact the park has had on them and their livelihoods. To further highlight this stark contrast, when I asked Seman the question, “Can you think of an example [of] someone you know who’s directly benefitted from the national park?” he responded, “No. No one has benefitted. The directors and all these big people have profited. And if people say that they’ve benefitted, then they’re hiding behind a political party or something, because that’s a lie” (S. Thaçi, personal communication, July 4, 2018). Seman’s bold negation that anyone has benefitted from the park aligns with the perspectives of most interviewees. Furthermore, he emphasizes that those who would say they’ve benefitted must be part of the corruption, suggesting that no honest citizen would say their livelihood has improved thanks to the park. While Ibrahim Maraj’s statement suggest that the park is overwhelmingly viewed favorably, there seems to be a disconnect between his perspective and the perspective of Seman and most of my respondents.

From Foresters to Rangers

Another observable driver of noncompliant logging is the fact that the rangers working for Bjeshkët e Nemuna National Park were formerly foresters. The park director said that he is the only new staff member since the park’s establishment. This is because every other staff member simply transferred from the Forestry Agency to the

Environmental Protection Agency. This job changeover from one department to another contributes to the argument made in the previous section, that people feel like new employment opportunities are lacking: 76

The national park is not a main employer… it only has the forest jobs that were there before. There were no new jobs in this structure. Now in a national park I feel like there should be other things, there should be research and education and the tourism aspects and the trail maintenance, and all of the stuff related to a national park that they don’t do, they only continue to do the forest stuff (E. Frank-Lajqi, personal communication, July 5, 2018)

Ellen’s statement underscores the reality addressed earlier, that people’s opinion of the park is closely linked to the impact it has on economic prospects. In addition to the lack of new employment opportunities, the job conversion also creates a challenging social dynamic in which the staff that once oversaw logging in the Bjeshkët e Nemuna mountains are now in charge of preventing logging and conserving the forest. As Fatos relates, “These guys they destroyed the [forest] first. Now they are pretending to protect it” (F. Lajçi, personal communication, July 6, 2018).

Pasina Marku sympathizes with the rangers, stating that they don’t really understand what they’re supposed to be doing now, that they don’t understand what conservation is. Others, such as Seman Thaçi, feel that the rangers know what they should be doing, and they are intentionally breaking the law:

Before, the Forest Agency would look over the park, and now… the rangers do. The same thieves that used to cut the mountain before are doing it now as well. And they say they protect the land, in quotes, because they would cut down the forest, but they would say that that area was burned or something, but they will lie (S. Thaçi, personal communication, July 4, 2018).

Seman holds a similar opinion as Fatos, claiming that they choose to continue to cut the forest and get away with falsifying accounts regarding forest management. As seen in these exceprts, some people believe that the main challenge is a lack of understanding, while others contend it is a calculated act. Regardless of individual motives, it is 77 reasonable to believe that enforcing non-use of the forest would be fundamentally challenging for someone who has worked in the forestry industry for years. Coupled with the potential to make extra money by allowing the illegal activity creates a strong incentive for logging to continue. The head of one of the nature protection divisions within a government ministry admits as much in our interview. Highlighting the lack of competency within the directorate, he says that the park director came from a background in journalism, while the others “are just foresters which just work in the ex-forestry agency.” He says they claim to support conservation, adding, “And you know the approach of foresters for nature conservation, it’s not good…” When I mention the common accusation that a lot of people get paid to simply turn a blind eye to the logging, he replies, “Yeah, you stay for the longer, you will see everything” (I. Hasimja, personal communication, June 13, 2018).

Ellen believes that the foresters were moved out of the Kosovo Forestry Agency

(KFA), for another reason as well: there was an issue with corruption before the national park was established, and the job shift was a way for the Ministry of Agriculture,

Forestry, and Rural Development (which houses the KFA) to wipe their hands clean of the issue. She says that instead of firing them and causing an uproar, they compromised by transferring them to park ranger positions:

Now when the establishment happened, as you have probably heard from many people, all of the rangers who were inside the KFA… were so corrupt and were stealing and cutting illegally, and the reason why they wanted to transfer the competencies from the KFA to the national park was because of the bad and illegal things that were happening with this group of people (E. Frank-Lajqi, personal communication, July 5, 2018).

78

Ellen’s statement elucidates the larger systemic challenge with corruption and the government’s lack of either capacity or willingness to effectively address the issue. While this story is unproven, it demonstrates common perceptions of the government as corrupt and ineffective. It also explicitly emphasizes corruption within the forestry realm of the government.

All of the components discussed play a fundamental role in driving noncompliant logging in Bjeshkët e Nemuna National Park. From social norms and perceptions of the government to lack of appropriate competencies within the national park staff, each piece discussed is connected to the next in establishing a structure within which logging continues. In the next section, I discuss potential implications of these findings as well as opportunities for further research.

79

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS

This thesis research sought to identify the drivers of noncompliant logging in

Bjeshkët e Nemuna National Park and understand how the specific context of the area influences these drivers. Theoretically, this research seeks to better understand the relationship between protected areas and their affected communities by using Bjeshkët e

Nemuna National Park as a case study. Through the use of interviews and participant observations, I explored various drivers, uncovering more complex social and historical factors regarding how people perceive and regard governmental authority. These dynamics provide a frame through which to understand the modern-day reality for

Kosovo citizens in relation to conservation efforts in the national park.

The findings of this research suggest that perceptions of the Kosovo government as lacking in legitimacy and trustworthiness reduce socially normative compliance. In the initial phases of park creation, the government allowed little opportunity for local input, leading communities to feel resentful and distrustful towards the park from the start.

“They took our lands” is a phrase I heard often from local community members living in the area.

Ineffective park management and a reputation for weak procedural justice reinforce the lack of trust in the government. Since establishing the protected area in

2012, the government has failed to approve both the Management and Spatial plans: two essential legal documents outlining what is and is not allowed in the park. With unclear regulations and legal repercussions, the ability of the park directorate to enforce rules is jeopardized, allowing more opportunities for illegal activity. Subsequently, locals believe 80 the rules are enforced unfairly, stating that people with more financial and social capital are less likely to get caught. People contend that park staff target more vulnerable loggers simply to fill their quotas and create the appearance of adequate enforcement.

These negative perceptions of the governing authority undermine its perceived legitimacy, encouraging noncompliant behavior. While law enforcement is an important tool for promoting compliance, so too are personal ethical views and social relations related to laws; people tend to behave according to social norms and personal morality. In

Kosovo, distrust in the government has created a situation in which it is socially acceptable to break the law and take what is not legally yours. People even view it as intelligent to utilize available resources regardless of legitimate ownership.

I maintain that this social norm in Kosovo is influenced in part by the country’s past. The double transition from communism to capitalism and from war to peace appears to have left a legacy regarding how people relate to land ownership, land use, and governing authority. In the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, law enforcement was firm; there was greater order and there were consequences for breaking the rules. This drastically differs from the present day, wherein interviewees identified law enforcement as severely lacking. Transitioning from strict to weak law enforcement in Kosovo appears to decrease the inclination to abide by the rules.

In addition to the economic and political transition, Kosovo has also recently shifted from war to peace. In the past three decades, the people have suffered oppression under the Serbian regime in Yugoslavia, endured the bloody Balkan wars and conflict with Serbian forces in the 1990s, and lived under a temporary United Nations 81 government for a decade until officially establishing independence in 2008. Post-conflict as well as post-transitional (in Kosovo’s case, post-communist) settings open the door for corruption to take hold in a society (Belloni & Strazzari, 2014).

A key finding of this research was the role that corruption plays in undermining resource management in Kosovo. Corruption was a central theme throughout interviews, cited as both a cause and effect of socially normative noncompliance and the negative perceptions of government. Interviewees mostly referenced petty corruption, a category of bureaucratic corruption in which the public must bribe civil servants in order to receive a service or speed up a process. From high level politicians in the capital to rangers in the field, no one was exempt from accusations of corruption. These allegations are supported by international and intergovernmental organizations including the UN and EU, that have put forth efforts to stem corruption through aid conditionality and political rewards and punishments (Belloni & Strazzari, 2014; “Nine steps remaining for visa liberalization for

Kosovo,” 2018).

This research investigates one specific study of noncompliance in a protected area in an attempt to contribute to the theoretical knowledge regarding this widespread issue on a global scale. As mentioned in the methodology section, the goal is to illuminate components which may be transferable to other contexts outside this specific case. These findings provide insights into how the history and social context of a particular place can influence compliance patterns in associated protected areas. Investigating the effectiveness of national parks in a place like Kosovo is important, as it is markedly different than the western context within which protected areas were originally 82 conceived. This research helps to develop a more comprehensive understanding of how effectively protected areas are implemented in different parts of the world.

Furthermore, this case study provides insights into what is actually happening on the ground in Kosovo’s national park and offers context-specific theories regarding why this is the case. Developing an in-depth, context-specific understanding of the challenges faced in Bjeshkët e Nemuna National Park can provide useful insights for other post- communist and post-conflict countries working to implement conservation. While

Kosovo’s post-communist situation is unique, it is not unprecedented; many states in eastern Europe and Asia face similar situations since the dissolution of both Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. Other countries such as Albania, North Korea, and Venezuela, where varying levels of past and current communist rule exists, may have lessons that can be learned from Kosovo. Furthermore, Kosovo’s post-conflict setting can offer valuable insights for other post-conflict areas or regions of the world currently struggling with conflict and unrest, such as parts of the Middle East.

Solutions

My research question is based upon a strong desire to find solutions to this complex challenge. Understanding what drives noncompliant activity in protected areas is the first piece to the puzzle. While this question has loomed in the back of my mind since beginning the research, it remains the most difficult piece to discuss. On the surface level, there are some clear steps that can and should be taken to improve park operations and enforcement. 83

First, the Management and Spatial plans for the park must be approved and implemented. The lack of legal documentation to guide efforts in the park is detrimental for everyone involved and further decreases the perceived legitimacy of the national park directorate.

Second, while the laws on environmental protection and the national park are thorough and well-written, political will to enforce them is lacking. Within the national park directorate, there is a need for augmentation and change in the human resources.

Bjeshkët e Nemuna currently employs 38 staff members, all of whom were transferred from the Forest Agency to the Environmental Protection Agency. The fact that their main responsibilities transitioned from logging oversight to logging prevention creates a fundamental challenge. Some interviewees believed the rangers’ ineffectiveness was based on a lack of understanding, while others claimed they intentionally broke the rules.

Regardless, it is clear that hiring new staff members who are trained in the job responsibilities and invested in conservation will have a positive impact. Within the

Ministry, the roles and responsibilities of those in management and inspection positions must be clear and understood by all relevant institutions, and they must be held accountable for performing those responsibilities. In conversation with various individuals in park management positions, I heard different responses to the question,

“Who is responsible for inspecting environmental crimes in the national park?”

According to the Law on Nature Protection, inspectional supervision is to be carried out by the nature protection inspector within the environmental inspectorate (Assembly

Republic of Kosovo, 2010). When I spoke with this particular inspector, he shared that he 84 had not seen any cases of illegal logging in the year since he began in his position. When

I asked the national park directorate if I could see any reports from the inspectorate, the reply was, “They haven’t really inspected much in this area” (F. Mehmeti, personal communication, June 20, 2018). This lack of enforcement and inspection strongly disincentivizes compliance.

Finally, and most importantly, involving local communities and other stakeholders in national park operations and management could play an important role in ameliorating the relationship between local communities and management. A potential solution could be the use of co-management practices. Co-management is a partnership in which government agencies, local communities, resource users, nongovernmental organizations, and other stakeholders negotiate “the authority and responsibility for the management of a specific area or set of resources” (“International Union for

Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources,” 1996). As Alexandra Sargent outlines in her piece, “Cooperative Management for National Parks: Lessons for Bjeshkët e

Nemuna” (2016), co-management could support conflict resolution between resource users and the state, and allow opportunities for shared knowledge and united efforts between the diverse stakeholders who are not otherwise connected. As Liridash from the municipality of Junik aptly states, “Nobody can protect this park like community” (L.

Lekaj, personal communication, June 22, 2018).

The potential benefits of co-management in Kosovo’s context cannot be overstated. As of February 2019, the government has revisited Law No. 04/L-086 on

National Park Bjeshkët e Nemuna for revisions, opening the potential to adjust park 85 boundaries to exclude the communities (E. Frank-Lajqi, personal communication,

February 26, 2019). Given the common sentiment that the local people were not adequately involved in decision-making during park establishment, this step could provide an opportunity for a new working relationship with the local communities. Since the government is now reassessing this establishment law, local communities and municipalities could be engaged stakeholders, informing new policy based on their vision for the area and their land.

Community-based approaches to natural resource management are a worldwide trend for national parks. Park authorities and conservation bodies have recognized that

“the capacity of states to coerce their citizens into unpopular… conservation programs is limited” (Agrawal & Gibson, 1999, 632). As this thesis emphasizes, Kosovo’s government needs to build its reputation as legitimate, effective, and fair if it hopes to encourage socially normative compliance. Use of collaborative and inclusive co- management practices allows the government the opportunity to present itself not as the enemy but as a partner with the same goals. Co-management offers opportunities not only for Kosovo’s national parks, but for protected areas all over the world working to increase compliance levels.

While I believe these changes would positively impact the national park, I do not think they will fully and effectively solve the problem of noncompliant logging. The larger social, economic, and political structures that enable and encourage these behaviors will remain unaltered. While individuals have the capacity to choose for themselves to follow the regulations, they are functioning within a context in which 86 noncompliant behavior is both expected and encouraged. Additionally, if people perceive the government as effective, if they believe they will get in trouble for acting illegally, they are less likely to do so. Only once the structures themselves have been adjusted to discourage illegal activity will real effects be seen. In other words, people need to have some level of trust in the government and should feel personally motivated to follow the rules either because of their individual morals or because of social pressures.

Future Research

A number of findings in this thesis suggest opportunities for future research. To begin, corresponding research into the “who, what, where, and when” regarding noncompliant logging would provide valuable information to present a well-rounded snapshot of the current situation in Bjeshkët e Nemuna. While my research gathered some answers to these questions, it was a peripheral component, lacking the methodological rigor necessary to state the findings with any level of certainty. There is a growing body of literature outlining best methods to study each of these questions, including “Understanding and managing compliance in the nature conservation context” by Adrian Arias (2015) and “Measuring and Monitoring Illegal Use of Natural

Resources” by Gavin et al. ( 2010). Furthermore, given the central role of perceptions of government and regulating institutions in this study, research focused on this specific component would be advantageous. This may include investigating how pervasive these perceptions are within Kosovar society, whether there are different patterns of distribution of corruption perceptions through various communities, and how this relates to actions regarding illicit behavior, including, but not limited to, illegal logging. Finally, 87 understanding why people comply with rules is equally, if not more important than understanding why people do not comply. As Arias remarks, the two are not necessarily opposites. For example, “if some people fish illegally in an area because they believe the area holds more fish, it would be invalid to assume that those who comply do so because they think that there are less fish in the closed area. Management interventions can have better chances succeeding when the factors influencing compliance are understood”

(Arias, 2015, 136). It would be valuable indeed to understand what drives people to respect the national park rules, be it a result of social pressures, fear of negative consequences, lack of necessary skills and tools, compliance through personal morality, etc.

As Kosovo progresses toward EU membership and away from its violent past, the relationship between the environment, the government, and its citizens will continue to evolve. The relative newness of the country and its political structure need not be a challenge; this is an opportunity to move in a new direction toward developing legitimacy and trustworthiness in the governing authorities. Studies such as this, while limited, are necessary for building a greater understanding of the nuanced relationship between protected areas and the social, political, economic and historical settings in which they exist. These factors all converge to influence levels of compliance. In light of the significant global rise in protected areas as a tool for biodiversity conservation, it is crucial that we understand why some are more successful than others. Understanding what drives both compliance and noncompliance in different protected areas across the 88 globe is critical to establishing policy and management practices that effectively protect ecosystems as they were intended.

89

REFERENCES

Agrawal, A., & Gibson, C. (1999). Role of Community in Natural Resource

Conservation.pdf. World Development, 27(4), 629–649.

Arias, A. (2015). Understanding and managing compliance in the nature conservation

context. Journal of Environmental Management, 153, 134–143.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.02.013

Assembly Republic of Kosovo. Law No.03/L –233 OF NATURE PROTECTION. ,

(2010).

Assembly Republic of Kosovo. Law on National Park- Bjeshket e Nemuna.pdf. , Pub. L.

No. 04/L-086 (2012).

Baxter, J. (2005). Case Studies in Qualitative Research. In Qualitative research methods

in human geography (Second). South Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University

Press.

Behxhet, M., Avni Hajdari, Zenel Krasniqi, & Zeqir Veselaj. (2013). National park

“Bjeshkët e Nemuna” the biggest.pdf. International Journal of Ecosystems and

Ecology Sciences, 3(4), 733–738.

Bell, S., Hampshire, K., & Topalidou, S. (2007). The political culture of poaching: a case

study from northern Greece. Biodiversity and Conservation, 16(2), 399–418.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-005-3371-y

Belloni, R., & Strazzari, F. (2014). Corruption in post-conflict Bosnia-Herzegovina and

Kosovo: a deal among friends. Third World Quarterly, 35(5), 855–871.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2014.921434 90

Blake, K. S. (2002). Colorado fourteeners and the nature of place identity. Geographical

Review, 92(2), 155–179.

Bojaxhiu, A. (2018, July 7). Personal Communication.

Bouriaud, L., Nichiforel, L., Nunes, L., Pereira, H., & Bajraktari, A. (2014). A property

rights-based analysis of the illegal logging for fuelwood in Kosovo. Biomass and

Bioenergy, 67, 425–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.05.028

Bradshaw, M., & Stratford, E. (2016). Qualitative Research Design and Rigor. In

Qualitative Methods in Human Geography. New York: Oxford University Press.

Chapters of the acquis - European Neighbourhood Policy And Enlargement Negotiations

- European Commission. (2016, June 6). Retrieved March 12, 2018, from

European Neighbourhood Policy And Enlargement Negotiations website:

/neighbourhood-enlargement/policy/conditions-membership/chapters-of-the-

acquis_en

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through

Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage Publishing.

Deguignet, M., Juffe-Bignoli, D., Harrison, J., MacSharry, B., Burgess, N. D., &

Kingston, N. (2014). 2014 UN list of protected areas. Retrieved from United

Nations Environment Programme website: https://www.unep-

wcmc.org/system/dataset_file_fields/files/000/000/263/original/2014_UN_List_of

_Protected_Areas_EN_web.PDF?1415613322

Department of Environment Protection. (2009). Strategy and action plan for biodiversity

2011-2020.pdf. Retrieved from http://www.ammk- 91

rks.net/repository/docs/Strategy_and_Action_Plan_for_Biodiversity_2011-

2020.pdf

Dilsaver, L. M. (1992). Stemming the flow: The evolution of controls on visitor numbers

and impact in National Parks. In The American Environment: Interpretations of

past geographies (pp. 235–255). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Dilsaver, L. M. (2004). Cumberland Island National Seashore: a history of conservation

conflict. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.

Dilsaver, L. M. (2009). Research perspectives on national parks. Geographical Review,

99(2), 268–278.

Dilsaver, L. M., & Wyckoff, W. (2005). The political geography of national parks.

Pacific Historical Review, 74(2), 237–266.

Dragusha, Á. (2018, June 26). Personal Communication.

Duffy, R. (Ed.). (2010a). Global Action, local costs. In Nature Crime (pp. 45–78).

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5vkt2w.8

Duffy, R. (Ed.). (2010b). Introduction. In Nature Crime (pp. 1–14). Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5vkt2w.6

Europe :: Kosovo — The World Factbook - Central Intelligence Agency. (n.d.). Retrieved

January 12, 2019, from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-

factbook/geos/kv.html

European Commission. (2018). Kosovo* 2018 Report.

European Environment Agency. (2015, February 19). Nationally designated protected

areas [Indicator Assessment]. Retrieved April 11, 2018, from European 92

Environment Agency website: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-

maps/indicators/nationally-designated-protected-areas/nationally-designated-

protected-areas-assessment-3

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: the Reasoned

Action approach (1st ed.). New York: Taylor and Francis.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J. (2000). The Interview: From Structured Questions to Negotiated

Text. In Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 361–376). Thousands Oaks, CA:

Sage Publishing.

Forests - State Portal of the Republic of Kosovo. (2019). Retrieved February 24, 2019,

from https://www.rks-gov.net/EN/f267/environment-and-nature/forests

Frank-Lajqi, E. (2018a, February 8). Personal Communication.

Frank-Lajqi, E. (2018b, July 5). Personal Communication.

Frank-Lajqi, E. (2019, February 26). Personal Communication.

Gavin, M. C., Solomon, J. N., & Blank, S. G. (2010). Measuring and Monitoring Illegal

Use of Natural Resources. Conservation Biology, 24(1), 89–100.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01387.x

Graf von Hardenberg, W., Kelly, M., Leal, C., & Wakild, E. (2017). The Nature State:

Rethinking the history of conservation. New York, NY: Routledge.

Hasimja, I. (2018, June 13). Personal Communication.

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. (1996). Nature,

188(4752), 716–717. https://doi.org/10.1038/188716b0 93

Jacoby, K. (2003). Crimes against nature: squatters,poachers, thieves, and the hidden

history of American conservation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Jain, A. K. (2001). Corruption: A Review. Journal of Economic Surveys, 15(1), 71–121.

https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6419.00133

Just one third of citizens happy with Kosovo’s top officials. (2018, July 4). Retrieved

July 5, 2018, from http://www.intellinews.com/just-one-third-of-citizens-happy-

with-kosovo-s-top-officials-144596/

Kosovo-Serbia legally binding agreement means mutual recognition, says President

Thaci. (2018, April 5). Retrieved April 6, 2018, from FOCUS Information

Agency website: http://focus-fen.net/news/2018/04/05/429148/kosovo-serbia-

legally-binding-agreement-means-mutual-recognition-says-president-thaci.html

Krasniqi, J. (2012, December 13). On National Park “BJESHKËT E NEMUNA.”

Republic of Kosovo.

Kuemmerle, T., Hostert, P., Radeloff, V. C., Perzanowski, K., & Kruhlov, I. (2007).

POST‐SOCIALIST FOREST DISTURBANCE IN THE CARPATHIAN

BORDER REGION OF POLAND, SLOVAKIA, AND UKRAINE. Ecological

Applications, 17(5), 1279–1295. https://doi.org/10.1890/06-1661.1

Lajçi, F. (2018, July 6). Personal Communication.

Maraj, I. (2018, June 13). Personal Communication.

Marku, P. (2018, June 25). Personal Communication.

Markus-Johansson, M., Mesquita, B., Nemeth, A., & Dimovski, M. (2016). Illegal

Logging in South Eastern Europe Regional Report. 117. 94

Markus-Johansson, M., Mesquita, B., Nemeth, A., Dimovski, M., Monnier, C., & Kiss-

Parciu, P. (2010). Illegal logging in south eastern Europe regional report.

Retrieved from Regional Environmental Center website:

http://kosovoforests.org/wp-

content/uploads/2013/04/Illegal_Logging_in_South_Eastern_Europe_Regional_R

eport_EN_OCT_2010.pdf

Mehmeti, F. (2018, June 20). Personal Communication.

Mojzes, P. (2011). Balkan Genocides: Holocaust and Ethnic Cleansing in the Twentieth

Century. United Kingdom: Rowman & Littlefield.

Muth, R. M., & Bowe, J. F. (1998). Illegal harvest of renewable natural resources in

North America: Toward a typology of the motivations for poaching. Society &

Natural Resources, 11(1), 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941929809381058

Nash, R. F. (2001). Wilderness and the American Mind (4th ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale

University Press.

Nellemann, C., Henriksen, R., Raxter, P., Ash, N., Mrema, E., & Pravettoni, R. (Eds.).

(2014). The environmental crime crisis: threats to sustainable development from

illegal exploitation and trade in wildlife and forest resources: a rapid response

assessment. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme.

Newfont, K. (2012). Blue Ridge Commons. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia

Press. 95

Nine steps remaining for visa liberalization for Kosovo. (2018, June 28). Retrieved June

29, 2018, from Prishtina Insight website: https://prishtinainsight.com/nine-steps-

remaining-for-visa-liberalization-for-kosovo/

Nushi, A. (2018, June 26). Personal Communcation.

Oisín Tansey. (2009). Kosovo: Independence and Tutelage. Journal of Democracy,

20(2), 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.0.0068

Poulton, H. (1991). The Balkans - Minorities and States in conflict. Great Britain:

Minority Rights Publications.

Rexhepi, G. (2018, July 7). Personal Communication.

Sargent, A. (2016, December). Cooperative Management in National Parks: Lessons for

Bjeshkët e Nemuna.

Satyanarayana, B., Bhanderi, P., Debry, M., Maniatis, D., Foré, F., Badgie, D., …

Dahdouh-Guebas, F. (2012). A Socio-Ecological Assessment Aiming at Improved

Forest Resource Management and Sustainable Ecotourism Development in the

Mangroves of Tanbi Wetland National Park, The Gambia, West Africa. AMBIO,

41(5), 513–526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0248-7

Smith, L., Karosic, L., & Smith, E. (2015). Greening U.S. National Parks: Expanding

traditional roles to address climate change. The Professional Geographer, 67(3),

438–446.

Solomon, J. N., Gavin, M. C., & Gore, M. L. (2015). Detecting and understanding non-

compliance with conservation rules. Biological Conservation, 189, 1–4.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.04.028 96

Thaçi, S. (2018, July 4). Personal Communication.

Therville, C., Mathevet, R., Bioret, F., & Antona, M. (2018). Navigating protected areas

as social-ecological systems: integration pathways of French nature reserves.

Regional Environmental Change, 18(2), 607–618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-

017-1231-4

Turner, R. A., Addison, J., Arias, A., Bergseth, B. J., Marshall, N. A., Morrison, T. H., &

Tobin, R. C. (2016). Trust, confidence, and equity affect the legitimacy of natural

resource governance. Ecology and Society, 21(3). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-

08542-210318

Tweed, W. C., & Dilsaver, L. M. (2016). Challenge of the big trees. Staunton, VA:

George F. Thompson Publishing.

Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. Chelsea, Michigan: Yale University.

Williams, A., & Le Billon, P. (2017). Corruption, Natural Resources and Development.

Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Wilson, R. (2014). National Parks. In America’s public lands: From Yellowstone to

Smokey Bear and beyond (pp. 63–104). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Winchester, H. (2016). Qualitative Research and its Place in Human Geography. In

Qualitative Research Methods. New York: Oxford University Press.

Young, T. (2006). False, cheap and degraded: when history, economy and environment

collided at Cades Cove, Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Journal of

Historical Geography, 32(1), 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhg.2004.06.001 97

Zaloznaya, M. (2017). The Politics of Bureaucratic Corruption in Post-Transitional

Eastern Europe. Cambridge University Press.

Zeqir, V., & Behxhet, M. (2015). Overview of nature protection progress in Kosovo.

Landscape Online, 45, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3097/LO.201545

Zeqir, V., Behxhet, M., Avni, H., & Zenel, K. (2012). Biodiversity conservation status in

the Republic of Kosovo with focus on biodiversity centres.

Zube, E. H., & Busch, M. L. (1990). Park-people relationships: an international review.

Landscape and Urban Planning, 19(2), 117–131.

98

APPENDIX A: LOCAL COMMUNITY INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

I am doing research as a graduate student at Ohio University within the Environmental

Studies Program in order to complete my master’s degree. My research uses Bjeshkët e

Nemuna as a case study to examine the impact of new regulations on protected areas and surrounding communities. This research will contribute to a deeper understanding of how to best promote conservation without disadvantaging local civilians. Information and comments that you provide may be quoted directly but will not attributed to you by name.

The results of this research will be made available upon completion of my degree in May

2019.

1. What is your relationship with Bjeshkët e Nemuna National Park, either personal or professional? 2. Before the national park, how did you use the area? Did it change after 2012? 3. Can you tell me about the diverse ways your family earned an income in the last year? 4. What do you think were the key drivers/reasons for the creation of the Bjeshkët e Nemuna National Park? 5. Do you support the national park? Is there a need for forest conservation in this region? Why? 6. What does conservation mean to you? 7. Can you tell me about anyone you know who has directly benefitted from the national park? How about anyone who has suffered due to the national park?

99

APPENDIX B: MANAGEMENT INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

I am doing research as a graduate student at Ohio University within the Environmental

Studies Program in order to complete my master’s degree. My research uses Bjeshkët e

Nemuna as a case study to examine the effectiveness of national park regulations towards conservation goals. I’m specifically looking at how these new regulations have affected loggers and others using forest resources. This research will contribute to a deeper understanding of how to best promote conservation without disadvantaging local civilians. Information and comments that you provide may be quoted directly but will not attributed to you by name. The results of this research will be made available upon completion of my degree in May 2019.

1. What is your relationship with Bjeshkët e Nemuna National Park, either personal or professional? 2. What do you think were the key drivers/reasons for the creation of Bjeshkët e Nemuna? 3. Is there a need for forest conservation in the Bjeshkët e Nemuna region? Why? 4. What does conservation mean to you? 5. Do you think the national park is an effective conservation tool? 6. How prevalent is noncompliant logging in Bjeshkët e Nemuna? Why is this the case? 7. Talk to me about a particular measure that you took to alleviate noncompliant logging. What were the challenges? Was there any backlash to this? 8. Some people argue that involving locals in the decision-making processes for the park (community-based natural resource management) is the best approach for effective resource management, while others say outside enforcement is necessary, what do you think of that? 9. To what extent are community members involved in the decision-making process about management in Bjeshkët e Nemuna? 10. What do you think are the best ways to improve compliance towards logging in the park? What prevents this from happening?

100

APPENDIX C: NGO/EXTERNAL PARTIES INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

I am doing research as a graduate student at Ohio University within the Environmental

Studies Program in order to complete my master’s degree. My research uses Bjeshkët e

Nemuna as a case study to examine the effectiveness of national park regulations towards conservation goals. I’m specifically looking at how these new regulations have affected loggers and others using forest resources. This research will contribute to a deeper understanding of how to best promote conservation without disadvantaging local civilians. Information and comments that you provide may be quoted directly but will not attributed to you by name. The results of this research will be made available upon completion of my degree in May 2019.

1. What is your relationship with Bjeshkët e Nemuna National Park, either personal or professional? 2. What do you think were the key drivers/reasons for the creation of Bjeshkët e Nemuna? 3. Is there a need for forest conservation in the Bjeshkët e Nemuna region? Why? a. What does conservation mean to you? 4. Why do you think noncompliant logging continues to occur? 5. Talk to me about the changes you’ve seen in logging patterns since 2012. What measures have been taken to enforce regulations? How well have these worked? What data exists to support these claims? 6. What do you think are the best ways to improve compliance towards logging regulations in the national park? What prevents this from happening? 7. Do you think the national park is an effective conservation tool? What changes do you think would allow the park to better meet its conservation goals?

101

APPENDIX D: ENGLISH CONSENT FORM

Ohio University Adult Consent Form Without Signature

Title of Research: Impacts of Bjeshkët e Nemuna National Park Research Team: Meghan Little, Graduate Student, Ohio University, USA Geoffrey Buckley, Advisor, Ohio University, USA IRB Number: 18-E-228

You are being asked by an Ohio University researcher to participate in research. For you to be able to decide whether you want to participate in this project, you should understand what the project is about, as well as the possible risks and benefits in order to make an informed decision. This process is known as informed consent. This form describes the purpose, procedures, possible benefits, and risks of the research project. It also explains how your personal information/biospecimens will be used and protected. Once you have read this form and your questions about the study are answered, you will be asked to participate in this study. You should receive a copy of this document to take with you.

Summary of Study

This research study uses Bjeshkët e Nemuna National Park as a case study to better understand the impact of new regulations on protected areas and their surrounding communities. Interviews will be audio recorded with your permission should you choose to participate.

Explanation of Study

If you agree to participate, you will be asked questions pertaining to your experiences and perceptions relating to the national park. This will include topics related to forest conservation, environmental regulations and land use, and park management. With your permission, I will audio record the interview. Audio recordings will be transcribed and then will be destroyed upon completion of the research project. You should not participate in this study if you are not above the age of eighteen. Your participation in the study will last approximately one hour.

Risks and Discomforts: No risks or discomforts are anticipated.

Benefits: You may not benefit personally by participating in this study.

Confidentiality and Records

Your study information will be kept confidential by limiting access to information gained from the interview to the primary researcher and researcher’s advisory committee. 102

Identifying information such as names and addresses will not be retained, and audio recordings of the interview will be destroyed after they are transcribed, by May 2019.

Additionally, while every effort will be made to keep your study-related information confidential, there may be circumstances where this information must be shared with:

* Federal agencies in the United States, for example the Office of Human Research Protection, whose responsibility is to protect human subjects in research;

* Representatives of Ohio University (OU), including the Institutional Review Board, and a committee that oversees the research at OU; Dr. Geoffrey Buckley, Dr. Geoffrey Dabelko, and Dr. Risa Whitson.

Future Use Statement

Identifiers might be removed from data collected, and after such removal, the data may be used for future research studies or distributed to another investigator for future research studies without additional informed consent from you or your legally authorized representative.

Contact Information

If you have any questions regarding this study, please contact myself, Meghan Little ([email protected], or 413-241-4141) or my advisor, Geoff Buckley ([email protected], or 740-593-9846).

By agreeing to participate in this study, you are agreeing that:

• you have read this consent form (or it has been read to you) and have been given the opportunity to ask questions and have them answered; • you have been informed of potential risks and they have been explained to your satisfaction; • you understand Ohio University has no funds set aside for any injuries you might receive as a result of participating in this study; • you are 18 years of age or older; • your participation in this research is completely voluntary; • you may leave the study at any time; if you decide to stop participating in the study,

there will be no penalty to you and you will not lose any benefits to which you are otherwise entitled.

Version Date: 05/22/2018 103

APPENDIX E: ALBANIAN CONSENT FORM

Forma e pëlqimit të të rriturve të Universitetit të Ohios pa nënshkrim

Titulli i hulumtimit: Ndikimet e Parkut Kombëtar të Bjeshkëve të Nemuna Ekipi hulumtues: Meghan Little, Studente Pasuniversitare, Universiteti i Ohajos, USA Geoffrey Buckley, Universiteti i Ohajos, USA IRB Numër: 18-E-228

Juve po ju kërkohet të merrni pjesë në kërkim. Që ju të jeni në gjendje të vendosni nëse doni të merrni pjesë në këtë projekt, ju duhet të kuptoni se çfarë është projekti, si dhe rreziqet dhe përfitimet e mundshme, në menyrë që të merrni një vendim të informuar. Ky proces njihet si pëlqim i informuar. Ky formular përshkruan qëllimin, procedurat, përfitimet e mundshme dhe rreziqet. Gjithashtu, ai shpjegon se si do të përdoren dhe mbrohen të dhënat tuaja personale. Pasi të keni lexuar këtë formular dhe keni marrë përgjigje për pyetjet tuaja në lidhje me studimin, do t'ju kërkohet të merrni pjesë në këtë studim. Një kopje e këtij dokumenti do t’ju jepet nëse dëshironi ta merrni me vete.

Shpjegimi i studimit Ky hulumtim studimor përdor Parkun Kombëtar të Bjeshkëve të Nemuna si një rast studimor për të kuptuar më mirë ndikimin e rregullave të reja në zonat e mbrojtura dhe komunitetet e tyre përreth. Intervistat do të regjistrohen në audio me lejen tuaj nëse ju vendosni të merrni pjesë.

Nëse pranoni të merrni pjesë, do t'ju parashtrohen pyetje që kanë të bëjnë me përvojat dhe perceptimet tuaja në lidhje me parkun kombëtar. Kjo do të përfshijë tema që lidhen me ruajtjen e pyjeve, rregulloret mjedisore dhe përdorimin e tokës, si dhe menaxhimin e parkut. Me lejen tuaj, unë do të regjistroj me zë intervistën. Regjistrimet audio do të transkriptohen dhe pastaj do të shkatërrohen. Ju nuk duhet të merrni pjesë në këtë studim nëse nuk jeni mbi moshën tetëmbëdhjetë vjeç. Pjesëmarrja juaj në studim do të zgjasë rreth tridhjetë minuta. Nëse ka ndonjë pyetje që ju nuk dëshironi ti përgjigjeni, ju mund të mos i përgjigjeni.

Rreziqet dhe shqetësimet: Nuk priten rreziqe apo shqetësime.

Përfitimet: Ky studim është i rëndësishëm për shkencën / shoqërinë sepse do të përmirësojë kuptimin tonë mbi praktikat e menaxhimit të Liqenit të Shkodrës dhe potencialisht të përmirësojë shërbimet mjedisore dhe ekonomike në pellgun e liqenit. Ju mund të mos përfitoni personalisht duke marrë pjesë në këtë studim.

Privatësia dhe regjistrimet Informacioni juaj i dhënë për studimin do të mbahet konfidencial duke kufizuar aksesin në informacionin e mbledhura nga anketimi tek hulumtuesi kryesor dhe komiteti 104 këshillimor i hulumtuesit. Informacionet identifikuese të tillë si emrat dhe adresat nuk do të merren dhe regjistrimet audio të intervistës do të shkatërrohen pasi ato të transkriptohen, deri në mund 2019. Përveç kësaj, ndërkohë që do të bëhet çdo përpjekje për të ruajtur privatësinë e informacionit tuaj lidhur me studimin, mund të ketë rrethana ku ky informacion duhet të ndahet me:

* Agjencitë federale te Shteteve të Bashkuar të Amerikës, për shembull Zyra për Mbrojtjen e Kërkimeve Njerëzore, përgjegjësia e të cilëve është të mbrojë subjektet njerëzore në kërkime; * Përfaqësues të Universitetit të Ohajos (OU), duke përfshirë Bordin Institucional të Reçensës, dhe një komision që mbikëqyr kërkimet në OU; Dr. Geoffrey Buckley, Dr. Geoffrey Dabelko dhe Dr. Risa Whitson.

Deklarata e Përdorimit të Ardhshëm

Identifikuesit mund të hiqen nga të dhënat e mbledhura dhe pas një heqjeje të tillë, të dhënat mund të përdoren për studime të ardhshme kërkimore ose të shpërndahen tek një hetues tjetër për studime të ardhshme kërkimore pa pëlqimin e informuar shtesë nga ju ose përfaqësuesi juaj i autorizuar ligjërisht.

Informacioni i kontaktit

Nëse keni ndonjë pyetje në lidhje me këtë studim, ju lutem kontaktoni kërkuesen, Meghan Little ([email protected] apo me telefon +1-413-241-4141) ose këshilluesin, Dr. Geoffrey Buckley ([email protected], apo +1-740-593-9846).

Nëse keni ndonjë pyetje në lidhje me të drejtat tuaja si pjesëmarrës në hulumtim, ju lutemi kontaktoni Dr. Chris Hayhoë, Drejtor i Pajtueshmërisë Kërkimore, Ohio University, + 1-740-593-0664 ose hayhoë@ohio.edu.

Duke rënë dakord të merrni pjesë në këtë studim, ju jeni duke rënë dakord që: • * Ju keni lexuar këtë formular pëlqimi (ose është lexuar për ju) dhe ju është dhënë mundësia për të bërë pyetje të cilat kanë marrë përgjigje; • * Ju jeni informuar për rreziqet e mundshme dhe ato janë shpjeguar në masë të kënaqshme për ju; • * Ju e kuptoni që Universiteti i Ohajos nuk ka mjete të caktuara për ndonjë dëm që mund t’ju ndodhë si pasojë e pjesëmarrjes në këtë studim; • * Ju jeni 18 vjeç ose më i vjetër; • * Pjesëmarrja juaj në këtë hulumtim është tërësisht vullnetare; • * Ju mund ta lini studimin në çdo kohë; Nëse vendosni të ndërprisni pjesëmarrjen në studim, nuk do të keni asnjë penalitet dhe ju nuk do të humbni asnjë përfitim për të cilin ju keni të drejtë. Data e versionit: 18/6/2018 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Thesis and Dissertation Services ! !