After hours of debate, Parliament approved the new administrative-territorial reform today with 85 votes in favor. The reform failed to secure consensus from the opposition or even from some MPs within the governing coalition.
The majority's proposal aims to create larger and financially more stable local government units by reducing the number of municipalities from 61 to 46; however, the Parliamentary Committee's final report notes that territorial consolidation alone is insufficient to guarantee better services. The reform necessitates profound changes regarding the distribution of competencies, local government financing, and regional organization. Meanwhile, the opposition proposed an alternative model featuring over 92 municipalities, arguing that local government should remain closer to the citizens.
Twelve years after the 2014 reform—which reduced the number of local units from 373 to 61 municipalities—Albania is moving toward further territorial consolidation.
Under the new reform, 15 municipalities will lose their status as independent local self-government units, merging instead with larger neighboring municipalities. The reform is driven by the goal of cutting administrative costs, consolidating financial resources, and enhancing the capacity of municipalities to deliver public services. However, the 357-page final report by the Special Parliamentary Commission on Administrative-Territorial Reform indicates that the issues facing local government extend beyond the mere size of municipalities.
Following today's approval, Fushë-Arrëz merges with Pukë, Klos with Mat, and Rrogozhinë with Kavajë. In the Berat County, Dimal and Poliçan merge with Berat, while in the Fier County, Patos merges with Fier and Divjakë with Lushnjë.
In the south of the country, Selenicë merges with Vlorë, Këlcyrë with Përmet, Memaliaj with Tepelenë, and Libohovë with Gjirokastër. In the Korçë County, Maliq merges with Korçë, while in the Elbasan County, Cërrik and Belsh merge with Elbasan, and Përrenjas with Librazhd.
The goal is to create larger units capable of managing a territory and a broader economic base. The municipalities being merged will no longer have independent political leadership or budgets; instead, they will be administered by the structures of the respective municipalities.
A key issue remains whether this administrative consolidation will be accompanied by continued access to services for the communities that lose their own municipality. Financing: increased revenue from shared taxes and a revised transfer formula
One of the key issues highlighted in the report concerns the municipalities' reliance on central government funding.
The new reform proposes revising the financing formula to incorporate indicators such as terrain, the distribution of villages, road network length, population age, poverty levels, and fiscal capacity. It seeks to increase the share of unconditional transfers relative to conditional funding, thereby granting municipalities greater autonomy in setting spending priorities.
Another proposal involves returning a portion of personal income tax to municipalities based on the taxpayers' place of residence. Similarly, it is recommended that a clearly defined share of mining royalties and tourism-generated revenue be allocated to the localities where such revenue is produced.
The reform also calls for the full implementation of the property tax and mandates that revenue from the infrastructure impact fee be used primarily for investments rather than for salaries or routine operating expenses.
While these measures aim to strengthen financial autonomy, they remain recommendations requiring legislative amendments to fiscal and local finance laws.
Reform Costs and Implementation Risks
While the merger of municipalities aims to save on administrative expenses, the report acknowledges that implementing the reform will entail temporary costs. These are associated with staff reorganization, administrative training, the integration of digital systems, asset transfers, and the harmonization of contracts and financial obligations.
To cover these costs, the creation of a National Transition Fund with multi-year funding is recommended. The majority's report also identifies risks such as overlapping responsibilities, decision-making delays, employee uncertainty, and financial difficulties for the units involved in the process.
For this reason, a phased implementation is proposed: legal and institutional preparation during 2026–2027; the transfer of competencies, assets, and personnel in 2027–2028; consolidation during 2029–2030; and an evaluation of results by 2035.
This timeline indicates that altering the administrative map is merely the initial phase of a much longer process of institutional reorganization. Experts: Reducing the number of municipalities does not automatically guarantee better services
The parliamentary report itself acknowledges that territorial mergers must be justified by improvements in financial and functional sustainability, without unacceptably compromising citizens' access or community representation.
This is also the primary concern of independent experts consulted by *Monitor*.
Afrim Krasniqi, from the Institute for Political Studies, warns that the reform risks being influenced by political and electoral interests, whereas the debate should focus on the model of local governance.
Urban planner Gent Kaprata argues that the issue lies not merely in administrative boundaries, but in the functions, powers, and resources allocated to local government. In his view, the number of municipalities should be determined based on an analysis of these elements, rather than serving as the starting point of the reform.
Another concern relates to rural areas, where merging with larger centers could increase the distance between citizens and the decision-making process. Without a mechanism to guarantee the maintenance and improvement of services, administrative consolidation may fail to deliver the expected benefits for communities facing depopulation. The Opposition’s Proposal: Deepening Decentralization
Unlike the ruling majority, the Democratic Party proposed a revision of the administrative map aimed at increasing the number of municipalities to over 92 units, with options that could lead to more than 100 municipalities.
According to Luçiano Boçi, co-chair of the Territorial Reform Commission, the platform is based on four key criteria: demographics, economic and fiscal potential, distance to services, and territorial and historical identity.
The opposition argues that the 2014 reform distanced local government from many rural and mountainous communities, thereby weakening representation and access to services. One of the proposed alternatives envisions creating new municipalities in areas where the distance to the administrative center exceeds 15–20 kilometers—or requires a travel time of around 30 minutes—while also taking into account population size and economic potential. The Democratic Party also proposes an organizational structure featuring smaller municipalities and 6–8 functional regions, or alternatively, retaining the 12 existing counties with clearly defined powers regarding territorial planning, emergency management, and inter-municipal projects.
However, creating more municipalities would require sustainable funding and administrative reorganization to avoid increased costs and the fragmentation of services. Financially, the Democratic Party (DP) proposed increasing the unconditional transfer from approximately 1% of GDP to at least 2%, with a long-term target of 4%.
According to Boçi, this funding increase must be accompanied by a revision of the distribution formula to ensure that small municipalities and rural areas are not disadvantaged due to low population numbers.
The proposal is based on providing baseline funding for every municipality, factoring in territorial and topographical costs, and establishing an equalization mechanism for units with limited fiscal capacity.
This approach shares common ground with the financial recommendations of the parliamentary report, particularly regarding the need for a formula that reflects the actual cost of services.
The main point of divergence remains the organization of the territory: the ruling majority aims for fewer municipalities with more concentrated capacities, whereas the opposition advocates for a greater number of local units and a broader distribution of funding.
In both scenarios, the challenge lies in securing sufficient financial resources and genuine powers for local government. Without these changes, revising the administrative map may prove insufficient to improve services or stem the depopulation of rural areas./ Monitor
