L'objectif du projet de recherche décrit dans cet article était d'identifier les éléments-clés, d'un point de vue tant conceptuel qu'opérationnel, propres à favoriser le développement durable en Albanie. La région de la plaine côtière de Divjaka, avec ses potentialités agricoles et écologiques a servi de «laboratoire naturel». Etant une des régions les plus productives du pays, elle a été utilisée pour tester la cohérence et la faisabilité de la politique agricole albanaise actuelle, ainsi que pour concevoir et adapter des projets et des actions de développement et associer la méthodologie du diagnostic des systèmes agraires à d'autres méthodes appartenant à des disciplines connexes. Pour chaque cas, une comparaison des différents points de vue et des approches théoriques a été faite.
El objetivo del proyecto de investigación que se describe en este artículo fue identificar los conceptos y actuaciones que pueden facilitar el desarrollo sostenible en Albania. La costa plana de Divjaka, región de considerable potencial agrícola y medioambiental, sirvió de «laboratorio natural». Debido a que es una de las zonas más productivas del país, Divjaka se utilizó para probar la coherencia y viabilidad de las actuales políticas agrícolas del país, y para formular y adaptar proyectos de desarrollo y otras intervenciones. La metodología de diagnóstico se integró con otros métodos provenientes de disciplinas afines, y se compararon diferentes perspectivas y enfoques teóricos que se adoptaron para estudiar cada caso.
Massimo Canali
Agron Hetoja
Ilir Peqini
Andrea Segrè1
The purpose of the research project reported in this article was to identify a number of key elements, from both a conceptual and an operational point of view, that might facilitate sustainable development in Albania. The flat coastal region of Divjaka, with its susbtantial agricultural and environmental potential, acted as a "natural labouratory". As one of the most productive regions of the country, it was used to test the consistency and feasibility of the current national agricultural policy as well as to formulate and adapt development projects and interventions; and to integrate the diagnostic methodology of agrarian systems with other methods drawn from related disciplines. A comparison was made of the different perspectives and theoretical approaches applied in each case.
This article summarizes the results of a diagnostic
analysis2 conducted in Divjaka, a region located on the Albanian coastal plain
surrounded by Karavasta's lagoon and by the coniferous forests of the homonymous
national park. This region was selected mainly for three reasons. First, because
different studies show that the area includes the most explicit patterns of
advanced forms of market-oriented practices, particularly concerning vegetable
production; second, because the region is characterized by a very unique
ecosystem that could eventually evolve into an integrated development of
socio-economic, biophysical and agro-environmental determinants; and third,
because of the total absence, so far, of foreign technical assistance and
projects.
The aim of this article is, first, to present the diagnosis of the
current dynamics and the development action that needs to be undertaken in the region. Next it seeks to deduce some more general policy implications for the development of Albanian agriculture. The extension of the diagnostic analytical framework to other related fields, the third aim, is only briefly discussed, as it will be the specific objective of a second field survey planned for a later stage. It is worth noting, finally, that the field survey reported here was conducted during the second part of 1997 and therefore the analysis carried out was also useful to assess the condition of the farm sector after the collapse of the financial pyramid schemes.
The collapse of the financial pyramid schemes earlier in
1997 and the consequent turmoil halted the apparently fast pace of economic
growth in Albania.3 The macroeconomic framework worsened dramatically, with
increases in unemployment and inflation rates as well as government budget and
trade balance deficits.
Although measuring GDP is difficult owing to the
significant share of the informal sector, recent estimates show that
agriculture's position in the overall economy increased from 52.3 percent in
1996 to 59.1 percent in 1997. This figure, along with the increase in the share
of the labour force employed in agriculture (from 52.7 to 68.8 percent),
confirms that the crisis brought the country "back to the fields"4. Preliminary
estimates provided by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food indicate that
agricultural production increased slightly (+1 percent) as a result of the
combined effect of the decrease in livestock production and an increase of
vegetable production.
Thus, when compared with the other economic sectors in
1997 (the share of industry, construction, transport and services in GDP
registered a significant decline), agriculture maintained a degree of stability,
thereby showing the capacity of the sector to absorb shocks. However, it is
clear that deterioration of the macroeconomic framework brought about by the
crisis will certainly influence the sector in the short term. Moreover, the
"structural" problems that affected Albanian agriculture before 1997
remain.
The reform was implemented very rapidly and resulted in a sort of
perfect "liberal and free trade model". Former collective farms (both land and
non-land assets) and agroprocessing enterprises have been privatized, markets
and prices are fully liberalized, direct support practically does not exist,
there are no subsidies on agricultural exports, import tariff levels are very
low and quotas are not applied to exports or imports.
However, a number of undesirable effects have emerged since the beginning of the transition process, including outmigration from marginal, mountain, rural and even agricultural areas; natural resource and environmental degradation; demographic pressure on urban and peri-urban centres; and rural poverty.
FIGURE 1
Schematic representation of the Divjaka region
 |
The level and composition of agricultural trade have
evolved in response to the transformation of the Albanian economy and the
inflows of food aid. While the share of agricultural products in total exports
is diminishing and regards a limited number of products (i.e. medicinal herbs,
fish, tobacco and dried beans), imports of agrofood products consistently
increased its share in total imports5
Growth is constrained by the small
fragmented nature of family farms (there are about 450 000 small-scale farmers with an average of 1.2 ha divided into four to five parcels),6 the low productivity of farm technology and management systems, inadequate access to credit as well as input and output markets, an inadequate and poorly maintained road system, a lack of transport and market infrastructures and a predominantly subsistence approach to farming owing to risk aversion.
Divjaka is located on the Albanian coastal plain, about
40 km south of Durres, close to the mouth of the Shkumbinit River. A major part
the Divjaka region is a sandy plain stretching over more than 3 100 ha between
the Adriatic Sea and a formation of clayey hills that reach a height of 100 m.
On its southern side, the region is bordered by the lagoon of Karavasta,
covering 4 500 ha. Environmentally, this area is significant for its more than
200 species of wild birds, including many rare and globally threatened species
such as the remarkable Dalmatian pelican, the pygmy cormorant, the white-headed
duck, the spotted eagle and the pallid harrier. The predatory avifauna is able
to thrive because of the lagoon's rich fishery.
Between the lagoon and the shore, a large sand bar of dunes is covered with an ancient coniferous forest. Umbrella pine and wild pine are dominant, but oak, ash, elm, poplar and a dense undergrowth of Mediterranean shrubs also flourish. This
1 200 ha area between the mouths of the Shkumbinit and
Semanit Rivers forms the Divjaka National Park.
The climate of the region is
typically Mediterranean: mild and wet in winter, hot and dry in summer. The dry
season is from May to October. During the winter, cold winds frequently blow
very hard from the north.
Human settlement is concentrated and the population
is gathered in three villages: Divjaka, Xengu and Miza. Divjaka is the biggest,
with 6 400 people, and is the capital of the local municipality. Xengu and Miza
have about 600 and 1 500 inhabitants, respectively. The municipality also
includes four villages located in the inner hills, with a population of 2 400.
Divjaka, Xengu and Miza are situated along the main road that crosses the plain
from the north to the south, linking the region with Durres, Elbasan and
Lushnja, the district's capital. The road is paved only as far as
Divjaka.
The three villages are formed, for the most part, by independent
single-storey houses. Homes usually have electricity, but no running water. The
aqueduct, recently repaired by a Finnish NGO, supplies drinking-water to a
system of small public fountains. Divjaka has a primary and a secondary school,
a post office and a chemist's shop. The population of the region comprises 2 750
families, two-thirds of whom are Orthodox while the rest are Muslims. Divjaka
has an Orthodox Church, recently rebuilt on the site of the village's old church
which was destroyed in 1967.
Agriculture is by far the most important
activity in the region. The main products are potatoes, watermelons and
vegetables that reach Tirana and other urban markets. Thanks to the consistent
production of cash crops, living conditions in Divjaka are fairly good when
compared with the general situation of Albania's rural areas which, for the most
part, can only sustain a subsistence agriculture. Fishing is a secondary
activity: an exclusive concession of exploiting the lagoon has been granted to a
fishers' cooperative, whose production is mainly for export.
The Divjaka
region can be divided into four agro-environmental areas. In the area bordering
the lagoon, where the altitude is lower than 1 m above sea level, the ground is
frequently flooded during the wet season and soils are affected by salinity.
This area is not cultivated and is used only as pasture.
Between the zone of
salted soils and the main road, the altitude reaches 3 m. Here, fresh
groundwater is just a few metres beneath the surface, so farmers can easily draw
on it. Cash crops can be cultivated almost exclusively in this irrigable
zone.
Between the main road and the hills, the plain rises gradually. The
groundwater becomes deeper and scarcer and the soil structure is more balanced.
This area is not irrigable and is usually cultivated with crops for home
consumption and fodder: wheat, beans, maize, alfalfa and clover.
The hills
are planted with olive trees, some vineyards and orchards. These plantations date back to the socialist period and are in very bad condition while nearly all the fruit-trees should be renewed. In general, present owners are not in a position to exploit the tree crops profitably, so they use the land for pasture and some dry crops.
Divjaka's agriculture before
1946
Before the land reform of 1946, a natural forest occupied 70 percent
of Divjaka region. The arable land was cultivated with ancient tools and
techniques of Mediterranean agriculture. Peasant farmers produced grains and
dairy for home consumption and agricultural surplus was negligible and often
completely absent.
The local society consisted of extended family groups with
several generations living together and managing the common patrimony. Usually
households were composed of 7 to 15 members, but the most powerful groups
included as many as 40 to 50 members. Peasants had property rights on the land
they cultivated and land distribution was almost homogeneous. One-quarter of the
households owned less than 1.5 ha of land, but a large majority had 2 to 3 ha.
Only very few holdings were larger; the largest was 200 ha.
In 1946, the
communist government started the land reform with the aim of reducing
inequalities in the countryside and preparing suitable conditions for a complete
collectivization of the Albanian economy. The state expropriated land, buildings
and means of production and redistributed them without any kind of compensation.
In Divjaka, the reform assigned each family 5.3 ha of land, including woods and
arable surfaces. Families only had the right to use the land, whereas the
property belonged to the state. After the reform, Divjaka's agriculture did not
make any significant technical progress. Established quotas of agricultural
production had to be delivered to the state at institutional prices, but the
exchange terms were often unfair for the farmers. Moreover, the state imposed
its decisions on the cropping pattern.
The period of collective
agriculture
In 1954, the region was involved in agricultural
collectivization. From January 1954 to February 1957, all the land already
distributed with the reform was forced into three cooperatives, one for each
village, and former assignees became their dependants. In 1963 the three
cooperatives were merged into the Cooperative of Divjaka, forming a giant farm
of 3 000 ha which included the entire region. Collectivization brought
considerable changes to Divjaka's agriculture. Tractors, machinery, greenhouses,
cowsheds, chemicals and selected breeds were introduced. A large extent of the
land was deforested and reclaimed and the landscape of the region assumed its
current characteristics.
An impressive system of water management made the
whole plain irrigable. The system was fed by three reservoirs located in the
hills and by two powerful pumping stations drawing water from a big channel
flowing near the Shkumbinit River. An adducer channel running along all the
foothills dominated the plain and, from here, the water flowed down into the
network of channels and ditches crossing the plains.
Trained technicians
progressively substituted the villages' elders on the managing board of the
cooperative. The workforce was organized in three sectors specialized in
different types of production. Each sector was formed by three brigades, each of
which comprised 60 to 90 people.
The cooperative production system was a high
farming system integrated with the agro-industry of the country. Wheat occupied
40 percent of the arable surface and the rest was equally shared between spring
and forage crops. Although traditional crops such as wheat, maize and beans
still covered a major part of the land, new crops were introduced for industrial
processing, for example sunflower and cotton, while potatoes and vegetables
(watermelon, tomato and carrot) also became important. In the hills, the
deciduous woods had been cleared and substituted with olive groves, vineyards
and orchards.
All the produce was sold to the institutional markets and
taxation absorbed up to 25 percent of the cooperative's annual turnover. Despite
modernization efforts, the cooperative suffered all the limits of Albania's
planned economy. Only the isolation of the country and its need for
self-producing basic foodstuffs such as grains and dairy products justified the
cooperative cropping pattern, which was too extensive and not specialized enough
considering the potentialities of the region for intensive horticulture.
The
gigantic dimension of the farm and its rigid organization facilitated only the
first steps of the modernization process, and further evolution was not
possible. Hampered by its size and suffocated by the negative externalities of
the Albanian system, the cooperative could furnish no more than the limited
range of products adaptable to its true scale.
Mechanization and technical
progress could never been followed by adequate decreases of the labour force.
Until its dissolution in 1991, the cooperative continued to be almost the only
opportunity of employment in the region. Therefore, work productivity was always
very low and the advantages of technical improvements were often frustrated by
increasing underemployment.
Communism may have brought Albania out of an
archaic economy but it did not build a modern society. The system was incapable
of understanding and satisfying the diversified new needs emerging with the
social progress that the government itself promoted. Any news was simply ignored
and hidden beneath isolationism and oppression. The Cooperative of Divjaka was
one of the many manifestations of this contradiction: a traditional rural
society was made to work and was transformed for the development of a modern
agriculture, but was not allowed to enjoy the benefits.
Divjaka agriculture after
decollectivization
The sudden end of collectivist agriculture marked the
decline of communist rule in Albania. Beyond every formal or institutional
aspect, the ways in which this event took place could describe the situation of
the country at the beginning of the post-communist age. In the summer of 1991,
after a spontaneous redistribution of lands and livestock and in an atmosphere
of general confusion, the population attacked the collective farms and took away
everything they could use or sell.
This was the fate of the Cooperative of
Divjaka, whose facilities were looted and, for the most part, destroyed.
Twenty-two ha of greenhouses were completely dismantled in just a few hours and,
worse, the irrigation system was seriously damaged and rendered unusable.
Consequently, a considerable amount of irrigable surface was lost: particularly
on the flat land between the main road and the hills where the farmers cannot
draw groundwater.
In each village the land was divided among the households,
taking into account the number of cohabitants and the different quality of
soils: an average of 0.33 ha per family member were assigned in Divjaka, 0.4 ha
in Xengu and 0.35 ha in Miza. This led to the formation of 2 600 holdings with
an average size of about 1.4 ha. This surface is shared among five to six and
even more plots distributed throughout the four agro-ecological areas of the
region; therefore, a part of the land can be used only as pasture and the
distance between the farthest plots is normally several kilometres.
In the
villages of Divjaka and Xengu, which account for 82 percent of the land
distributed, each family received about 50 percent of its land in the irrigable
plain, 25 to 30 percent in the non-irrigable plain, 15 percent in the area of
salted soils and the rest in the hills with some olive trees. In Miza these
proportions varied because the surface available in the irrigable plain is
smaller.
Since 1991, these numerous fragmented microfarms have been dealing
with the chaotic evolution of the Albanian situation. In the Divjaka region, the
new opportunities arising from the free market have stimulated the development
of cash crops and a decrease in the area planted with wheat (-30 percent) and
forages (-15 percent), whereas sunflower has almost disappeared and cotton is no
longer cultivated.
With the aim of consuming more animal products, which were
very rare goods during the communist period, farmers have significantly
increased their livestock. Data from the whole municipality, which also includes
the four villages located in the hills, indicated that, from 1990 to 1996,
cattle doubled in number (from 2 110 to 4 340 head), small ruminants increased
by 40 percent (from 2 300 to 3 210 head) and poultry quadrupled (from 2 650 to
11 220).
In this period, livestock was one of easiest ways for farmers to
accumulate working capital. On the one hand, mechanization is still too
expensive for them and both the small size of plots and the ready availability
of family labour make it unprofitable. On the other hand, land prices remain
high because of the rural population density and because the uncertain legal
framework does not facilitate transactions.
Farms' working capital is very
poor. Normally, it consists of manual tools, a small kit for irrigation, some
animals, a small cowshed and one or two wells. Machinery is extremely rare.
Farmers cultivate manually, although they regularly rent machines for the
heavier jobs such as ploughing and harrowing. At present, in each farm it is
possible to identify two sectors: a market sector, consisting of cash crop
production; and a subsistence sector, consisting of production for household
consumption.
In general, the market sector is based on five crops that are
cultivated in the irrigated lands. Potato and watermelon are the most important;
they are planted in spring as first crops to be harvested at the beginning of
the dry season. On the same plots, carrot, cauliflower and cabbage are planted
as second crops for the autumn harvest.
The subsistence sector exploits the
drylands and could consist in several activities: dry crops, fodder crops,
animal husbandry and gardening. Wheat, beans, maize, vegetables, alfalfa,
clover, tree crops and pastures set the cropping pattern. The weight of the
market sector in each farm is an important element of differentiation. Usually,
households in market-oriented farms enjoy a better standard of living. On the
contrary, where the subsistence sector is dominant, households live in very poor
conditions unless they have other sources of income.
In the present
situation, farmers tend to develop the market sector by expanding their cash
crop area, but this encounters several constraints. The availability of
irrigable land is a first obstacle, as only half of the farmland is located on
the irrigable plain - this area is smaller in the southern part of the
region.
A second constraint is of a financial nature. The installation of an
irrigation system requires an investment that includes at least digging a well
and purchasing a pump. However, the majority of farmers have more than one plot
in the irrigable plain, so they have to dig more than one well. Moreover, cash
crops necessitate large payments in advance for seeds, chemicals and hiring
machinery. The harvest is not always certain: many wells often dry up when the
summer dry period begins early.
A third constraint concerns professional
skills. Nearly all the farmers were dependants of the former cooperative, where
they had specialized tasks. Therefore, not all the farmers are able to cultivate
cash crops, especially those who were not involved in agricultural production,
for example guardians or clerks. The living conditions of these people have
fallen dramatically with the transition.
Services for farmers are organized
by some wholesalers who sell seeds and chemicals, provide machinery for hire and
also purchase crop production by establishing partnerships with farmers. These
people belong to the local middle class and are an important reference point for
farmers. They have land too, so they can experiment with new products and new
techniques and give advice to farmers. From this point of view, they are almost
the only source of technical information. Nevertheless, local wholesalers
operate on a small scale with poor commercial facilities and they frequently
have difficulty in satisfying the needs of the farmers or giving them correct
information. Buyers are the other important component of the local market.
During the harvest, numerous buyers come into the region and negotiate directly
with each farmer, purchasing products by verbal agreement.
At present, cash crops allow reasonable living conditions for a number of households. In Albania's rural areas, the region of Divjaka can be considered to be in a good situation. As mentioned above, the extent of the farm market sector is the most important element of differentiation among the households and depends principally on three factors: availability of irrigable land, financial resources to exploit it and professional capabilities to cultivate cash crops. Using a simplified representation, it is possible to classify the farmers of the region into three groups:
These three groups may be viewed as a simplified farm typology of the region. The three types of farm have different farming systems that have been represented with three models. Each model aims to reproduce the conditions of a type of farm in terms of available lands, irrigated surfaces, land use and equipment7
Table 1 shows the structure of the farming system models.
TABLE 1
Structure of the farming system models
Farming system | ||||
Irrigated |
Partially irrigated |
Non-irrigated | ||
Working units |
2 |
2 |
2 | |
Farm size | ||||
Hypothetical max. farm size |
20 dy |
24 dy |
30 dy | |
Real farm size |
10-15 dy |
10-15 dy |
14-18 dy | |
(percentage) | ||||
Land location | ||||
Irrigable plain |
50 |
50 |
44 | |
Non-irrigable plain |
27 |
27 |
25 | |
Saline soil zone |
15 |
15 |
19 | |
Hills |
8 |
8 |
13 | |
Total farmland |
100 |
100 |
100 | |
Irrigation | ||||
Irrigated area |
50 |
27 |
- | |
Non-irrigated area |
50 |
73 |
100 | |
Total farmland |
100 |
100 |
100 | |
Land use | ||||
Cash crops |
50 |
27 |
9 | |
Crops for home consumption |
- |
23 |
34 | |
Alfalfa |
27 |
27 |
25 | |
Pasture |
23 |
23 |
31 | |
Total farmland |
100 |
100 |
100 | |
Equipment | ||||
Hand tools |
Hand tools |
Hand tools | ||
Spraying pump |
Spraying pump |
Spraying pump | ||
Motorpump |
Motorpump |
Cowshed | ||
2 wells |
1 well |
|||
Cowshed |
Cowshed |
| ||
Irrigated farm system. This model aims to represent the conditions of the first
group of farms. A farm in this model has 50 percent of its area in the irrigable
plain, the land of which is completely cultivated with cash crops. The rest of
the land is used for alfalfa (27 percent, corresponding to the area located in
the non-irrigable plain) and pasture (23 percent, corresponding to the hill and
salinized soil areas).
Considering the land use and equipment used (as indicated in Table 1), a family with two working units could cultivate up to 20 dy8 of land using this system. This is the hypothetical maximum farm size, but the real size of this kind of farm is about 10 to 15 dy.
Partially irrigated farm system. This model represents the majority of farms, i.e. those in the second group. In the model, the distribution of farmland among the four agro-ecological zones is the same as in the previous case, but the area cultivated with cash crops is only 27 percent of the total. The rest is cultivated with wheat and fodder crops (23 percent) and alfalfa (27 percent) and used for pasture (23 percent). The hypothetical maximum farm size for two working units is 24 dy, whereas the real size is 10 to 15 dy.
Non-irrigated farm system. This model represents the
third group of farms. A farm in this model does not have irrigated surfaces and
cash crops are cultivated on only 9 percent of the land by dry cropping. The
rest of the land is cultivated with crops for home consumption and fodder (34
percent), alfalfa (25 percent) and used for pasture (31 percent). The
hypothetical maximum farm size for two working units is 30 dy, whereas the real
farm size is 14 to 18 dy.
The aim of this elaboration is to evaluate the
level of income that each type of farm can attain. Thus it is necessary to know
the techniques used by farmers in the different situations described by the
models, yields obtained and prices of inputs and outputs.
When all these
elements have been defined, it is possible to calculate the farm system's income
on the basis of the structure of the models previously identified. This method
expresses the net income per family working unit as a function of the area
cultivated with the following equation:
NI / WU = (GI / WU - VC / WU) dy - FC
/ WU
where NI is the net income, WU is the number of family working units, GI is the gross income per dunum of the farming system, VC represents variable costs per dunum, dy is the area cultivated in dunum and FC is the fixed costs given by annual depreciation of equipment. Table 2 shows the economic results of the models.
TABLE 2A
Economic results of the farming system models
Farming system | |||
Irrigated |
Partially irrigated |
Non-irrigated | |
(leks/dy/working unit) | |||
Gross income | |||
Cash crops |
41 650 |
22 718 |
2 578 |
Products for self-consumption |
2 116 |
2 826 |
5 602 |
a) Total gross income |
43 766 |
25 544 |
8 180 |
Variable costs | |||
Cash crops |
7 303 |
3 983 |
703 |
Products for self-consumption |
797 |
898 |
1 376 |
b) Total variable costs |
8 100 |
4 881 |
2 079 |
Gross margin (a minus b) |
35 666 |
20 663 |
6 101 |
Fixed costs (leks/working unit) |
9 375 |
9 075 |
2 775 |
Note:
Net income/Working
unit = (Gross income - variable costs)/Working unit · dy - Fixed costs
IRRIGATED SYSTEM:
NI/WU = 35 666 leks/WU · dy
- 9 375 leks
PARTIALLY IRRIGATED SYSTEM:
NI/WU = 20 663 leks/WU · dy - 9 075 leks
NON-IRRIGATED SYSTEM:
NI/WU = 6 101 leks/WU · dy - 2 775 leks
TABLE 2B
Farming system | |||
|
|
Irrigated |
Partially irrigated |
Non-irrigated |
|
|
('000 leks/working unit) | ||
Reproduction threshold |
274 |
274 |
274 |
Actual Net income/ Working unit (indicative) |
400-500 |
200-300 |
50-150 |
Hypothetical maximum Net income/Working unit |
704 |
487 |
180 |
The net income per working unit of the models is
comparable with a reproduction threshold. This term indicates the minimum annual
income per working unit that could assure the farmers of the region an
acceptable standard of living.
The reproduction threshold depends on the
socio-economic conditions of each region. If farmers do not attain this minimum
income, they tend to change their farm system or, more frequently, they tend to
change activity and seek other work. In Albania, this often means clandestine
emigration.
These models have been elaborated assuming households composed of two parents and two children, which is the average in Divjaka. According to farmers' opinions, to attain reasonable living conditions an ordinary family would need 1 500 leks per day (little more than US$10). Therefore, in the model the reproduction threshold of the region amounts to 274 000 leks a year per working unit, corresponding to US$980 per family member9.
Figure 2 shows a graphical representation of the
models' equations. The curves describe the variation of the net income per
family working unit of each farming system, with the increase of the farm size
up to the hypothetical maximum size. The dotted line corresponds to the
reproduction threshold and the ellipses circumscribe the actual areas occupied
by the farms of the region in terms of net income per working unit and farm
size.
Figure 2 indicates that the irrigated system generates a net actual
income of about 400 000 to 500 000 leks per working unit, which is considerably
higher than the reproduction threshold. The partially irrigated system gives an actual income of 200 000 to 300 000 leks: about the same as the reproduction threshold. The non-irrigated system, with an actual income of 50 000 to 150 000 leks, is clearly below the reproduction threshold.
FIGURE 2
Graphical representation of the farming system equations
 |
The importance of cash crops for household budgets is
apparent in the farming system models, but it is also clear that the majority of
Divjaka's farmers cannot fully exploit this opportunity. The income of about
half of the farms, those related to the partially irrigated system, corresponds
approximately to the reproduction threshold. Although these families are now
living in acceptable conditions, their situation is uncertain because farm
activities do not allow the accumulation of financial resources. Thus family
budgets are extremely sensitive to market fluctuations: a decrease in output
prices could easily push farm incomes below the reproduction threshold, which
would mean a rapid deterioration in living standards. Besides, about 20 to 30
percent of the farms, those corresponding to the non-irrigated system, are
already in bad condition and in urgent need of aid.
Concerning the dynamics
of the cropping pattern, the general trend is towards the expansion of cash crop
cultivation, as this is the only way to obtain a reasonable income from
agriculture. It would also reduce production for home consumption further
(wheat, maize, beans) and probably cause a decline in animal husbandry and
related fodder crop cultivation.
The constraints opposed to this evolution
have already been mentioned. Financial and technical assistance could be used to
overcome them, by allowing easier access to irrigation and also by supplying
seeds and chemicals more cheaply, with the aim of implementing the cash crop
production of the partially irrigated and non-irrigated farms. In this case, the
corresponding curves in Figure 2 should rise, moving closer to the position of
the irrigated system's line.
Although these solutions are very urgent, they would only serve for an immediate readjustment. They will not be sustainable in the long term unless they are accompanied by appropriate actions that take into account other key issues of the region's development. Several arguments justify this statement:
The dynamics we have diagnosed threaten the
agro-environmental equilibrium of the region, without giving any durable
prospect of economic development. This area is rich in precious natural
resources, the destruction of which could jeopardize future opportunities. In
our opinion, the long-term development of Divjaka should be interpreted as a
problem of both agricultural and ecological recovery.
In this perspective,
the rehabilitation of the water management system is the first operation to be
undertaken. Such a project meets the expectations of all the local community. It
would supply water to the whole plain, enlarging the current irrigated surface
of 50 percent.
Cash crops could be extended according to the needs of the
farmers but would be distributed over a larger area. It would reduce the impact
on the environment, especially in the present cultivation area, and save
underground water. The increase of irrigable land and the rehabilitation of the drainage system could bring other positive effects, for example the possibility of introducing new crops, implementing rotations, reducing fragmentation of farms as well as the recovery of the saline soils zone and the hilly area that needs to be exploited by larger farms for a profitable use.
From the diagnostic to a
multidisciplinary approach
Taking the rehabilitation of the water management system as the first action to be undertaken in the region, one could consider - as the local community has done - the possibility of extending the already existant irrigation projects to this 10. However, the extension of this particular project would not necessarily mean an automatic benefit to Divjaka region. Discussions with local farmers (confirmed by other sources11) clearly emerged that the
Water Users' Association, typical of the participatory nature of the World Bank
project, does not actually function and does not improve the management of
rehabilitated canals.
One of the reasons that explain this is the Albanians' negative attitude towards any form of cooperation or association, as shown in different socio-anthropological studies12.
Therefore, if in principle the participatory form of the water users'
associations is probably one of the best ways for water resource management, for
it to be effective in Albania the issue should probably be addressed in another
form. Just because a model works in one place does not necessarily mean it will
work everywhere. Moreover, a good solution that could benefit one specific
sector (or subsector) could have negative effects on others.
In each
specific case, the appropriate, viable and sustainable solution(s) may be found
with the interaction of different but related disciplines. The diagnostic, or
better the agrarian system diagnosis, embryonically is already an analytical
framework that allows environmental, technical and socio-economic patterns to
interact. However, as the Water Users' Association example clearly shows, there
is a need for further investigations and, possibly, competencies.
Thus, generalizing, the results of the diagnostic should be coupled and cross-referenced with other methodological approaches derived from related disciplines. In particular, the viewpoints of three main disciplines, i.e. economics, sociology and ecology, should be integrated13. Economists will seek to maximize human welfare within the constraints of existing capital stock and technologies. Sociologists will emphasize the social organization patterns and factors. Ecologists will stress the preservation of the integrity of the ecological system. The real challenge would be not only to bring together expertise from each of these disciplines but also to solve a number of conceptual and methodological issues and to integrate different perspectives14.
This multidisciplinary and cooperative
analytical effort, which should be field-based, would not only suggest different
solutions but would also "measure" the viability and sustainability of the
actions envisaged before implementation.
An example of multidisciplinary
survey: from agrobiodiversity to ecotourism
Since Divjaka has not been included in donors' technical assistance and development projects, and considering the particular environmental characteristics of the region, given the multidisciplinary approach, an interesting project might be in the management of biodiversity 15.
To mitigate
biodiversity loss and to enhance the use of biological riches, a rapid
agrobiodiversity survey could be useful before any rural development project is
undertaken. Such relatively inexpensive surveys would document the current mix
of land use systems, assess the driving forces that shape them, identify major
players in conserving and managing biodiversity at the local level and assess
the richness and uniqueness of crops and livestock.
A multidisciplinary
agrobiodiversity survey team should visit the proposed development site to:
assess the current extent and richness of agriculturally related biodiversity
(e.g. traditional varieties of landraces in use, wild or weedy populations and
near relatives, types of livestock and breeds); explore the impact of the
proposed development project and biodiversity, both agricultural and wild; and
determine whether proposed agricultural development activities pay (or have
paid) sufficient attention to local needs, natural resources management
strategies and ways to enhance biodiversity within the proposed agricultural
systems.
Agricultural development projects need to be screened for their off-site impact. For example, all projects involving irrigation should have a component for watershed management that includes safeguarding mature vegetation communities, especially forest. In floodplain areas, tree farming, particularly with native fruit and nut species, should be promoted rather than beef production. In this manner synergies may be obtained between biodiversity conservation and agricultural development16.
Towards a concrete agricultural
trade policy action
In order to achieve long-term and sustainable
development of the region any activity should be grounded to the natural
conditions, should respond to the traditions/expectations expressed by the local
communities but should also be consistent and coherent at the national level. In
effect, the case studied can be considered as an exemplary exercise from a more
general policy perspective.
From the above paragraphs it appears that the
area investigated has not suffered much from the worsened macroeconomic
framework after the collapse of the pyramid schemes. The strongest "macro"
influence is instead derived from the current agricultural policy framework. At
present, the conditions found in Divjaka indicate that current policies do not
favour the development of agriculture, particularly cash crops. The above
sections call for and justify an active market policy to be pursued by the
government, including targeted market intervention and qualified import
protection in order to create a minimum of stability on the domestic
agricultural market.
Without a reasonable minimum of market stability, no sound structural policy can be pursued to overhaul the obsolete agricultural and rural structures in the process of transition. However, it is the modernization of those structures, which forms the key precondition for improved competitiveness and better living conditions in the agricultural and rural sector17.
During the period of intensive structural adjustment, a minimum of market stability is therefore essential. The free trade concept, theoretically the best tool for resource utilization and economic development, should not become an exclusive trade ideology or dogma to be applied indiscriminately. It is essential that the two principal groups of agricultural policy mechanisms, i.e. market policies and structural policies, be complementary. Both types of policy have to be active simultaneously and consistently. By ensuring this, provisional market protection 18, i.e. targeted policies aiming at a limited period
of market protection for specific subsectors, may create sufficient time for
structural measures to be active. The latter, in turn, may reduce the necessity
of providing renewed market protection in the future.
In this respect the relaunching of the request for accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO),19 with the elaboration of an adequate customs tariffication20 compatible with WTO
standards, and with the status of Developing Country, could be the first step
towards the balanced development of Albania's agricultural sector.
Agrarian Studies and Projects Association. 1997. The participative farming system approach: diagnosis and development proposals (case of Divjaka region). Tirana. 13 pp. (unpublished)
Anon. 1997. Preliminary results of the diagnostic analysis in Divjaka region. Phare-Ace Research Project P96-6020-R (ACE). Tirana. 45 pp. (unpublished)
Budavari, J. 1996. Agricultural and rural development policies between market orientation and protectionism in CEECs. In Analysis of agrofood sector developments in Central and Eastern European countries, p. 9-14. Rome, NAP.
Canali, M. 1994. La dinamica dei sistemi agrari; sistemi di produzione, territorio e sviluppo sociale. Bologna, Italy, CUSL.
FAO. 1992. Agrarian systems diagnosis. By P. Groppo. Rome.
Government of Albania. 1997. Albania: post-conflict rehabilitation - a framework of economic policies 1997-2000. Prepared by the Albanian authorities in collaboration with IMF and the World Bank. Tirana.
Government of Albania. n.d. Various working documents. Policy Advisory Unit (PAU), Ministry of Agriculture and Food. Tirana.
Segrè, A. 1997. Albania 1997: riflessioni sulle ragioni della crisi e sul ruolo delle istituzioni internazionali di finanziamento. Est-Ovest, XXVII(5) (Trieste, Italy).
Serageldin I. & Steer, A. 1994. Making development sustainable: from concepts to action. Washington, DC, World Bank.
Smith, N.J.H. 1996. Effects of land use systems on the use and conservation of biodiversity. In J.P. Srivastava, N.J.H. Smith and D.A. Forno, eds. Biodiversity and agricultural intensification, p. 52-73. Washington, DC, World Bank.
Teqja, Z., Beka, I. & Segrè, A. 1998. Il 1997 per l'agricultura albanese e le prospettive per il futuro: dalla crisi nuovi spunti per lo sviluppo e la politica agro-alimentare. In L'Albania, un'agricultura in transizione. Options Méditerranéennes, 15 (versione italiana), Paris, CIHEAM.
World Bank/EC/EBRD/IMF. 1997. Albania. directions for recovery and growth: an initial assessment.
1 M. Canali, in strict cooperation with A. Hetoja and I. Peqini, drafted the middle sections of this article, while A. Segrè, coordinator of the research project, wrote the first two sections and the last. The paper benefited from seminar participants' comments in Tirana where the preliminary results of the field surveys were presented and discussed. The authors are also indebted to the other members of the project's research team: H. Bogucanin, M. Bonazzi, A. Brandani, S. Giorgi, S. Gomez y Paloma, J. Mulic and V. Selak. Responsibility for the final content, however, rests with the authors.
2 For the analytical framework of the agrarian system diagnosis, see Groppo in FAO (1992) and Canali (1994), including the references quoted in their contributions.
3 Some hypotheses on the origin and sustainability of the pyramid schemes as well as on their socio-economic and political consequences in Albania are reported in Segrè (1997).
4 A deeper analysis of the impact of the crisis on agriculture can be found in Teqja, Beka and Segrè (1998).
5 It should be noted that a large part of agrofood imports originate from countries of the European Union and they therefore benefit from common agricultural policy (CAP) subsidies.
6 Uncertainty over property rights, administrative chaos and apathy emerged and hampered land consolidation. Some measures were adopted but an effective and functioning land market (leasing and sales) never developed, although some informal agrarian contracts are recorded.
7 Data utilized to elaborate the three models were gathered from a detailed analysis of 23 farms of the region.
8 1 dy = 1 dunum = 0.1 ha.
9 This amount is somewhat higher than the poverty threshold of US$800 established for Albania by the IMF.
10 R. Grittani. 1998. La cooperazione allo sviluppo: analisi della sostenibilitá degli investimenti effettuati in Albania dal progetto "Riabilitazione dell'irrigazione", University of Venice. (Ph.D. thesis).
11 The reference is to an in-progress Ph.D. thesis on the World Bank Project Water Users' Association, based on a survey of Divjaka's neighbouring districts.
12 See, for example, the analyses conducted by C. de Waal, anthropologist at the University of Cambridge, and E. del Re, social scientist at the University of Rome.
13 Of course one should particularly consider the subdisciplines, i.e. agro-food economics, rural sociology, anthropology, biology, geology and natural sciences in general.
14 An interesting proposal in relation to the environmentally sustainable development reported in Serageldin and Steer (1994).
15 The following example is taken from Smith (1996).
16 A possible link to ecotourism as a tool to enhance agrobiodiversity and to promote in situ conservation is also reported in Smith (1996).
17 See Budavari (1996) for more details on the search for a dynamic balance between a market orientation in the agrofood sector and an adequate trade regime in other Central and Eastern European countries.
18 Instead of requiring the "maintenance of a liberal trade regime" (Government of Albania, 1997, Table 1), which, in itself, does not mean much.
19 Since May 1992, Albania has been an observer, first to GATT, and then to WTO. A memorandum of understanding was presented in December 1994 in support of its application for full membership. A document providing broad and detailed information on trade in goods and services as well as the draft schedule for agriculture have been prepared and submitted to the WTO secretariat and member countries for consideration. At a later stage (February 1996) Albania provided an extensive reply to 250 questions from a number of WTO member countries. In April 1996, the first working party meeting was held in Geneva, marking the beginning of discussion on the country's accession. The second WTO working party meeting took place in October 1996 but the dramatic events of 1997 halted the accession process.
20 This requires a decision on what tariff levels to propose as a start to the negotiations and what the ceilings for each tariff line are to be under such commitments.
