Albanian j. agric. sci. 2019; (Special edition) Agricultural University of Tirana

RESEARCH ARTICLE (Open Access)

Participatory approach for a better Governance of Protected areas: The case of Llogara National Park in

ANILA BOSHNJAKU1, LEDIA THOMA2

1Faculty of Economy and Agriobusiness, Department of Economics and Rural Development Policies, Tirana, Albania, [email protected]

2Faculty of Economy and Agribusiness, Department of Agribusiness Management, Tirana, Albania, [email protected]

Abstract Despite the engagement and involvement of Albania in international conventions related to sustainable development and environmental protection that promote the concept of participatory planning and management of protected areas, it turns out that interest groups and local communities are not adequately and qualitatively involved in decision-making processes, and even have insufficient information. In this paper we : i) analyze the current situation regarding stakeholder participation in decision-making processes in the National Park Llogara; ii) identify the problems faced regarding stakeholder participation in the Park Management; iii) propose actions to involve actors to take part in the consultative dialogue for promoting their role for a more qualitative management of the Park. The analyses is based on a combination of data gathered from the review of recent documentation and publications, meetings as well as data from interviews conducted with representatives of different interest groups. The responses and discussions that led to semi-structured interviews were used for the assessment and analysis of interest groups and at a later stage for Power Influence Mapping Matrix The analyses shows that local actors are not sufficiently involved in Park management processes, park values are not sufficiently recognized by the actors, public institutions have not followed all the necessary legal and institutional steps to incorporate of actors in Park management. Local actors are ready and willing to set up institutionalized platforms to contribute and influence the park management and governance. Based on the results obtained, the paper provides recommendations on how further involvement of stakeholders in the Park management processes can be promoted, how to properly enforce the implementation of legal and regulatory framework related to transparency and participatory principles related to decision making that impact the Park management Key words: protected area, participation, community involvement, governance of natural resources, stakeholders analyses, National Park Llogara

I Introduction: and Protected areas The Managment of PAs in Albania is a duty management in Albania of the National Agency of Protected Areas (NAPA) 2. The Agency is created by a Government Decree in Albania is one of the countries in SEE that 2015 3 [2]. The main aim of the Agency is has shown a distinguished interest in proclaiming management, protection, development, expansion and PAs. In 2019, protected areas of different categories operation of the surfaces of protected areas in our cover around 17 % of Albania’s land surface. There country. NAPA manages the network of protected exist around 800 PAs overall the country (including areas and other natural networks as Natura2000 under natural monuments), covering a surface of around management plans drawn up. NAPA operates at 1 460,000 ha [1]. Although, most were originally set up national level, but there exists 12 regional agencies at to protect natural habitats, wildlife or more recently local level, 12 Regional Authorities of Protected biodiversity, they are increasingly expected to provide Areas, RAPAs) Management and employment for wider benefits to human society. Albania’s protected are centralized. Since the creation

2 http://www.akzm.gov.al/us/ 1Available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/al/al-nr-05-en.pdf 3Available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/al/al-nr-05-en.pdf

Challenges in Biotechnological and Environmental Approaches, April 23 - 24 171 Boshnjaku and Thoma 2019 of the NAPA (2015), local and foreign citizens are biodiversity conservation 5 ,6 [4, 5] , Wesselink and al. becoming more familiar with the concept of protected [6]7, defined participation as any type of inclusion of areas and are learning more about Albania’s protected nonstate actors, both members of the public or areas. organized stakeholdres, in any stage of policy making . Different reasons have been identified for this such II Why a dialogue with stakeholders? as : participations assure legitimity of decision The involvment of communitties is very making, increase public credibility, assure access to important for an effective manangment of protected information, allows contribute of all stakeholdres to aresa. It has to do with processes of active decision, imrpve communication among stakeholders, participation in planning, decision-making and local avoid possible conflicts . development. This processes are very important for After 1980, different studies stressed the showing respects to values, meets interests and needs inclusion of local stakeholders in natural resources of different groups from local community and government [7] . The Programme of Work on stakeholders. Protected Areas (PoWPA) of the Convention on Involvement (sometimes also referred to as Biodiversity has recognized the stakeholdres participation or engagement) and collaboration are participation as a key factor of protection of the area vital for successful, adaptive protected area [4]. In addition the 2020 Biodiversity of the EU has management and governance. Participation makes a clearly stressed the importance of stakeholders basic principle of protected area planning since it has involvment in natural resources managment and been recognised that without participation by the governance [8]. beneficiaries of the plan, implementation and III. Governance of PAs outcomes will often fail 4 [3]. It requires participatory planning and considering of questions: engaging with Governance of Pas plays a sine qua non role whom, why, how and when? in the effectiveness for their functioning. Governance identified how the PA is administrated and the II.1 Participation and equity in global policy associated power and Decision making arrangements. documents It is about how is making the decision for PA The Aarhus Convention promotes the rights development and management and the way how the of access to information, public participation in decisions for is made. Governance is about how the decision-making and access to justice in power is exercised and if and how citizens or the other environmental matters (https://goo.gl/mvnHma)). The Stakeholders have their say [9]. The role of the quality Convention on Biodiversity – Program of Work in of governance in Pas management and development is Protected Areas (CBD – PoWPA) and in particular the very well recognized by Global conservation policies Programme Element 2: Governance, Participation, as well as by Albanian Government policies and Equity and Benefit Sharing (https://goo.gl/tKm3CA) strategies regarding nature conservation [10]. Idea is and other relevant documents, strongly promote the to make evident if the PA administration incorporates concept of participatory planning and collaborative the principle of good governance such as management of protected areas. accountability, fairness, equity, participation, Participation of Local stakeholdres in effectiveness for achieving biodiversity conservation governance of Protected Areas is considered to be aims. In this study we tried to analyse the application important to natural resources managment and

5Available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/al/al-nr-05-en.pdf 6Available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/al/al-nr-05-en.pdf 4Available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/al/al-nr-05-en.pdf 7Available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/world/al/al-nr-05-en.pdf

Challenges in Biotechnological and Environmental Approaches, April 23 - 24 172 Participatory approach for a better Governance of Protected areas: The case of Llogara National Park in Albania of the principle of participation in the case of NP In Albania participatory processes are in early Llogara. phase of development. This is a result of a long period Governance is characterized based on the key of authoritative governance at country level which is action holding authority and responsibility for the reflected in the behaviour of both managers and main decisions affecting a PA. There are 4 types of stakeholders. The capacities of both sides for Governance. [11] cooperation and inclusion needs to be developed. i) public governance: PA is governed by The Management Committees (MC) for the Government (central or local Llogara National Park have been established by level) ii) shared governance: various right Government Decrees. It is at the early stages of holders and stakeholders together functioning. The MC is composed of: representatives iii) private government: governance by from the municipality within the administrative private individuals and organizations territory in which the protected area is found, iv) governance by local community institutions at regional level institutions with a direct Currently, global best practices related to PA relationship to protected areas (i.e. agriculture, governance emphasize the importance of intensive tourism and infrastructure) and CSOs. The challenge collaboration with all stakeholders. PA managers is law enforcement. should involve stakeholders in the governance of III Community involvement in National Park protected areas, taking into account that a Llogara participatory approach improves the effectiveness of PA governance, creating a favourable environment for III.1 The National Park of Llogara improving effectiveness through developing new The National Park of Llogara, is the canvas of opportunities and reducing threats. a beautiful natural mosaic. It has an area of 1010 ha, Participatory approach in Albania located in South of Vlora city, traversing the national Participatory approach is a relatively new road Vlore - Saranda. It was declared a National Park concept for PAs in Albania. All the PAs have been in November 1966, and belongs to the II category of established by government and managed by public protection according to IUCN. This Park is one of the institutions with very little participation from other main tourist attractions of Vlora, due to the stakeholder groups, especially local ones. There are combination of natural and cultural elements. Visitors recently established legal provisions for the along the way to the Park, experience the wonderful participation of stakeholders in the establishment and feeling that and of Llogara Park provide, management of PAs, According to the Law on fresh air, wonderful views of coniferous trees, and Protected Areas, national parks are obliged to cold water from the mountains. There is also, a establish management committees to follow the historical site with a panoramic point, called "Caesar's implementation of management plans of protected Slopes". Inside the park there is also a Natural areas. Law No 81-2017 recognizes the importance of Monument of a " Flag". This pine has the shape stakeholder involvement in the management of of the flag, as a result of the action of strong southeast protected areas. Article 41 of this law requires that a winds and belongs to the type. The flora management committee be set up as an advisory body is made up of several species: Macedonian , black to follow the implementation of the protected areas pine, bush, broomstick and highland. Among the management plans. In their composition they must be endemic species we can mention: basin flowers representatives of all stakeholders at central and local (Hypericum haplopylloides), Ionic whale bird (Acis level; municipalities, institutions covering agriculture, ionica) and chalcedony lily (Lilium calchedonicum tourism, etc., CSOs, representatives of businesses, etc. L.). Wild Fauna: The Park is the habitat of wolf,

Challenges in Biotechnological and Environmental Approaches, April 23 - 24 173 Boshnjaku and Thoma 2019 gazelle, rabbit, fox, squirrel and wild boar. Along the The data collected through desk review, territory of the park, there are easily accessible tourist documentations, face-to-face interviews and meetings operators who provide hotel and gastronomy services, lead to the production and preparation of the listing the area with all seasons tourism potential. Stakeholders Analysis Matrix and Power Mapping Extensive tourist information is offered to you by (presented in Figure 1). The analyses shows which Llogara Visitors Center. groups are involved as influential or influenced by decision-making in the protected area. It shows the IV Methodology link and cooperation between the regional, national In order to further analyse the involvment of actors, their interest, their influence and their strength the stakeholders kin Park Managment we initially in the National Park Llogara. The group of interest conducted a stakeholders analyses as a tool to identify identified are divided into eight main categories: 1. individuals or groups that are likely to affect or be Public Authorities; Regional Agency of Protected affected by conservation efforts [12]. Areas (RAPA), 2. Local Governments: Regional Secondary data were then collected to Environmental Directorates, Prefectures, Agriculture, ascertain the socioeconomic background of the Police etc.3. Municipality of Vlora and Administrative various stakeholders and to determine their expressed Unit . 4. Local communities of villages around views regarding the PAs. Llogara Park, farmers, residents, etc; 5 Local In order to fulfil the primary of this research, Businesses: Restaurants, Bars, Hotels, 6. Civil Society 40 questionnaires are conducted with representatives Organizations through various causes and sensitive from each stakeholder group (public institutions, organizations that raises; intellectuals, academics, etc., universities, NGOs, residents and business 7. Media (National or Local Radio Television) as well representatives). The questionnaires are used as a as Social Networks; 8. Developers or Investors, guide during interviews to encourage the discovery of Donors, Regional Development Agencies, etc. unexplored themes. This allowed interviewees to speak freely and raise important issues. 40 interviews were conducted within two months, covering all stakeholder groups. The questionnaire is composed of questions, evaluating the answers in a Likert scale from 5 (completely true) to 1 (completely inaccurate). A dedicated space is used for detailed explanations/comments recorded during the interviews which together with key questions are used as a tool to understand more in depth their role, position and potential engagement. The average time for conducting an interview was about 45 minutes. The interviews are carried out in Vlora, Orikum and Llogara. Face to face interviews are carried out with RAPAs, local government, local community representatives, Figure 1: Power Influence Map schools, and businesses representatives living in The role of stakeholders based on the legal and around the National Park requirements related to participatory approach is shown in the Figure 2.

Challenges in Biotechnological and Environmental Approaches, April 23 - 24 174 Participatory approach for a better Governance of Protected areas: The case of Llogara National Park in Albania

4. Community - 5. Local businesses : 3 -Local Government farmerpeople Restorantet, Bars, ho which is directly involved living in and near tels, touristic in Park Managment the area agencies, empoyers

2. Local public institutions related to Platform for environment, agric dialogue 6. CSOs , academia . ulture, tourism .

1. Regional 7. Media and social 8. Developerrs - media Administration of investors PNP

Figure 2: Role of stakeholders in National Park managment

invited to participate in public hearings of the V Data analyses Municipality Council with regard to the management The questionnaire is developed with of National park of Llogara. More than half of the representatives of all stakeholders groups. Actually, 8 respondents (26) are not aware about the existence of business persons, 14 public institutions officers, 4 a forum / committee for the management of the pedagogues, 8 residents in the area and 6 NGOs national park of Llogara, but the vast majority of the representatives, Youth Forum for Environment respondents (33 out of 40) report to have information included, were part of the sample. on values and benefits of the park. Their main source 26 of the interviewees have information about of information with this regard seem to be media and PA legal framework. However, the majority of them RAPA and local NGOs activities. As for the represent public institutions (municipality and municipality role in park management, only 8 out of RAPA), university and local NGOs while businesses 40 interviewees, all them public institutions and residents seem not to be informed about the representatives, confirm that they do have information respective legislation. Only 5 out 40 interviewees about the role of the municipality in the park report to have been part of the consolations sessions management. More than half of the respondents think while drafting the law “On protected areas in the that park activities have not been considered while Republic of Albania” all part of public administration. drafting General Local Plans of Vlora Municipality. However, 28 of the interviewees report to be informed However, despite the low involvement of about the management practices in National Park of different categories of stakeholders in the Llogara. Only 10 individuals part of public management of national park of Llogara, the vast administration and local NGO report to have been majority of the interviewees wish to be part of the

Challenges in Biotechnological and Environmental Approaches, April 23 - 24 175 Boshnjaku and Thoma 2019 management process of National Park of Llogara necessary to increase the awareness of communities (Table 1). on their role in decision-making and management The analyses shows that formalized dialogue processes and their representation in forums that have between the managers of the Protected Area and local to set a dialogue platform with park managers communities is not at the required level. It is therefore Table 1: Descriptive analyses estimates

Variable Category Frequency Interviewees categories Business 8 Public Institutions 14 IA 4 NGO 4 Residents 8 Youth Forum for Environment 2 Q1. Informed about PA legal framework Yes 26 No 14 Q2. Involvement in Consultation sessions on drafting the law Yes 5 No 35 Q3. Informed about Llogara Park management Yes 28 No 12 Q7. Invited to participate in public meeting Yes 10 No 30 Q8. Knowledge about the forum Yes 16 No 24 Q9. Information about the municipality role Yes 8 No 32 Q10. Info about values and benefits of the Park Yes 33 No 7 Q10.1 Source of information AZM Activities 16 Media 6 NGO's activities 15 Other 3 Q12. General plans Yes 22 No 15 Don't know 3 Q13.Willingness to be involved Yes 35 No 3 No answer 2

From interviews and meetings with discussions, special focus was also placed on the stakeholder representatives, their involvement in the problems that today are of concern to Llogara Park. management and influence they had was discussed. As a result of these discussions the following issues Also the power they have in making decisions or how were identified: • Illegal logging in the Park, fires, they can exert their influence on a better governance destruction of the landscape, loss of biodiversity. of the Llogara Park. During the meetings and Non-sustainable development in the park (improper

Challenges in Biotechnological and Environmental Approaches, April 23 - 24 176 Boshnjaku and Thoma 2019 construction, illegal activities), lack of park As perceived by the respondents, RAPA and maintenance, etc. local NGOs are very much and/or moderately 50

40 3 6 2 7 10 10 9 30 3 4 3 5 4 8 20 7 10 4 20 8 9 17 11 10 20 13 15 7 14 0 2 5 2 2 Protected Municipality Buinsesses University Inhabitants NGO Areas Agency

Very much involved Moderately Slightly involved Not at all involved No answer

The main problems of the park as identified involved in the management process of the park, by the respondents are: while municipality, university and inhabitants are 1. Waste disposal /hygiene slightly or not all involved in the respective process 2. Park lightening (Figure 3). 3. Lack of waste disposal bins About 2/3 of the interviwees (26) evaluate as 4. Fires 5. Lack of environmental paths „very good“ the performance of RAPA implementing the requirements of the law „On protected areas“ Other detected problems of less importance while only 10 out of 40 respondents give the same include: evaluation for municipality. On the other side, no  Lack of investments „fair' or „poor“ scores are given to RAPA to this  Lack of collaboration local government – NGOs regard, while for the municipality such scores are  Lack of an information unit / point given by 12 interviewees (Figure 4). functioning all the year long

Figure 3: Interviewees’ opinion on stakeholders’ involvement in Park management

Municipalty 10 18 10 2

RAPA 26 14 0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

very good good fair poor

Figure 4: Interviewees’ evaluation of the Municipality and RAPA activities

Challenges in Biotechnological and Environmental Approaches, April 23 - 24 177 Boshnjaku and Thoma 2019

30

25

20

15

10

5

0 RAPA Municipality

very much interested Neutral

Figure 5: Interest of public institutions to involve other categories of stakeholders in the process of park management

Inhabitants and business, NGOs and The stakeholder's are asked about their university representatives give quite positive scores to involvement in the governance of the NP. The opinion the willingness of RAPA and Municipality to involve of 56% of them is that there is a need to improve the other stakeholders in the management of the park. All management approach of the PAs (28% completely the above mentioned groups representatives see true and 28% partially true). Only 9% of the RAPA as very interested to involve them in this stakeholders consider that the protected areas are process while in case of the municipality 17 evaluate managed in an appropriate way. They think that this this institution as very much interested and 9 of them management approach is relatively new and the are neutral (Figure 5) positive outcomes will be visible in a more mid and long term time.

Figure 6: Stakeholders’ involvement in NP’s governance

VI. Findings and conclusions say they would strongly like to see their future and other generations linked to the Park and its Representatives of the community living or development. However, the improvement of standards working in and around the Llogara National Park area and a sustainable development in this protected area

Challenges in Biotechnological and Environmental Approaches, April 23 - 24 178 Boshnjaku and Thoma 2019 presents challenges and opportunities. Actually, the wiz.....6..35i39j0i67j0j0i131j0i20i263j0i1 31i67j0i10j0i10i30j0i30j0i5i10i30j0i5i30j cooperation among stakeholders and the level of 35i304i39j0i13j0i13i10j0i13i10i30j0i13i3 involvement of the community in the management of 0.di5T54HBRIo the National Park is not sufficiently developed. The 3. Graeme L. Worboys, Michael following options for improvement have been Lockwood, Ashish Kothari, Sue Feary, Ian Pulsford, (2015). Protected identified in the Llogara National Park: Area Governance and Management.  Creating a forum with the participation of IUCN (International Union for representatives of different interest groups will Conservation of Nature). play the role of a dialogue platform to better 4. G, N, Dudley, T... Governance of manage the area. Protected Areas; from understanding to action , Best practices protected aresa  Adoption of the Park Management Plan, for a guidelines . Series No,20 IUCN Gland sustainable development of activities in the area Swivcerland. which will improve the residents’ livelihood, but 5. Borrini-Feyerabend Convention on at the same time preserve the park's values, Biological Diversity (CBD) 1992 ( Convention on Biological Diversity : text maintain it and bring more tourism. and annexes , Convention on Biologocal  Increasing citizens' awareness of their power for Diversity Interim Secretariat, Geneva, achieving the goal of being heard and empowered Switzerland. in making decisions or drafting development 6. [6] Wesselink , A. J Paavola, O. Fritsch, O Reen, (2011) ; Rationale for plans. public particiption in environmntal policy  Expanding the number of people engaged to and governance: Environment and ensure community or other stakeholder planning representation, using innovative engagement 7. Hutton , J, W, M. Adams and J,C, methods focused on reaching contact with young Murombetzi 2005 Back to the barriers? Changing arratives in biodiversity people, women and other vulnerable or conservation Forum for Development disadvantaged groups; Studies 2 341-370.  Increase pressure on the public institutions to 8. European Union (2011). The EU ensure participation of Interest Groups in Biodiversity strategy to 2020. Publications Office of the EU, development or physical development plans Luxemburg. including the plan for improving the region and 9. Graham et al; „Principles for good surrounding areas of Llogora, roads, schools, governance in the 21rst Century „Policy social centers, health care and park activities. Brief No 5, August 2003 10. National Biodiversity Strategy of Albania References (2012-2020) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 1. Natura 2000; Initial assessment of 312234232_National_Biodiversity_Strate Protected areas in Albania, using the gy_of_Albania_2012-2020/download Managmnet Efectivenness Tracking Tool 11. IUCN ( International Union for 2. Law on Protected Areas (al) Conservation of Nature ), (1994). https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1 Guidelines for applying protected areas GCEA_enHR790HR790&ei=WpbOXID4 managment cathegories. IUCN, Gland I8uXkwW_8b7oBA&q=logji+i+zonave+t Switzerland e+mbrojtura+&oq=logji+i+zonave+te+mb 12. Freeman, R,E 1984 ; Strategic managment rojtura+&gs_l=psy- . A stakeholder approach , Basic books, ab.3..0i22i30l2.234218.242955..244539... NYm USA 1.0..1.189.6892.0j52...... 0....1..gws-

Challenges in Biotechnological and Environmental Approaches, April 23 - 24 179