Fifteen municipalities are expected to disappear under Albania’s proposed new territorial map. While the government presents the reform as a matter of efficiency and consolidation, communities that may lose municipal status fear that services will move farther away, local representation will weaken, and already shrinking peripheral areas will become even more marginal.
By Xhesika Tollia
Tirana Times, October 07, 2026 – More than a decade after Albania redrew the boundaries of local government, the country’s territorial map is again under review. In 2014, the promise was that larger municipalities would be stronger, more efficient and closer to citizens. More than ten years later, similar arguments are being used to justify another round of mergers.
This time, 15 municipalities risk losing their status and being absorbed into larger units, reducing the total number of municipalities from 61 to 46. At the time of writing, the draft was expected to be voted on in Parliament after nine months of work by a commission that ended without a joint majority-opposition proposal. The opposition described the continuation of the process as “unilateral” after its request to extend the commission’s mandate was rejected.
But the debate has moved well beyond Parliament. In several municipalities facing merger, residents have protested, mayors have publicly objected, and local council members have called for their municipalities to remain independent.
A reform that changes more than boundaries
For at least 225,000 citizens directly affected by the proposal, the reform is not simply about redrawing lines on a map. The territories in which they live would lose the status of independent local self-government units. Residents would no longer elect a mayor and municipal council solely for their community. Decisions on budgets, investment planning and administration would move to the larger municipality into which they are incorporated.
The concern is that integration into a larger centre may push decision-making farther away, reduce the political weight of smaller territories in the distribution of investments, and make some services less accessible.
The 2015 territorial reform had already merged smaller units on the grounds that fragmentation produced weak administrations with limited financial capacity. Yet the problems the reform was intended to address did not disappear with the old boundaries. Dependence on central-government transfers and major differences in municipalities’ own-source revenues remain part of the argument for another wave of consolidation.
For smaller towns, many of which have already been affected by emigration and population decline, losing municipal status is therefore seen as more than an administrative change. It raises a broader question: does territorial consolidation strengthen local government, or does it risk accelerating the political and economic marginalisation of the periphery?
The fear of being abandoned
On 2 October, residents from Memaliaj travelled around 180 kilometres to Tirana to protest outside Parliament against the proposed merger of their municipality with Tepelenë. Their demonstration followed weeks of local opposition after the draft was published at the end of July.
Memaliaj is not an isolated case. In Divjakë, protests continued for 51 consecutive days against a merger with Lushnjë. In Poliçan, residents protested against joining Berat; the local Socialist Party chair resigned publicly, while some citizens burned their party membership cards and signed a petition.
The common demand is that a reform affecting representation, services and local identity should not be decided without meaningful consultation with the people who will live with its consequences.
Imeldi Sokoli, a member of the Shkodër Municipal Council, argues that the consultation process has been too limited. He says the reform should have been gradual and open, with several levels of public discussion and another round of hearings before final decisions are made. In his view, the current process is “incomplete and closed” to the views of other actors.
The concern becomes more concrete when measured in distance and time. Ardit Facja, a Socialist councillor in Përrenjas who has opposed the proposed merger with Librazhd, argues that residents of remote villages would have to travel farther for administrative services.
“The reform should bring local government closer to the citizen, not move it farther away,” he says. For residents of villages such as Stravaj, Qukës and Rrajcë, he argues, a service that must be obtained in Librazhd means more kilometres, more time and more cost.
Population decline makes the issue more sensitive. According to Albania’s 2023 Census, the country had about 2.4 million resident inhabitants, roughly 420,000 fewer than in 2011. In peripheral areas, that decline is visible not only in statistics but also in closed homes, emptier streets and communities increasingly dominated by older residents.
Agron Haxhimali, head of the Institute for the Municipalities of Albania, cautions against claiming that municipal mergers automatically cause depopulation. However, he argues that the risk increases if a merger is accompanied by the withdrawal of administration, investment and public services from peripheral areas.
Digitalisation is often presented as a way to reduce the need for physical administrative counters. Yet for older residents and people with limited digital access, moving services online does not necessarily mean easier access. Haxhimali stresses that digital services can simplify applications and paperwork, but they cannot replace the physical presence of local government in road maintenance, waste collection, social services, inspections, emergency response and direct communication with citizens.
Bigger territory, but not necessarily more autonomy
The debate over municipal size also exposes a deeper tension in Albania’s decentralisation process. A report by the Institute for Local Governance describes decentralisation as unfinished and points to centralising tendencies.
The new proposal presents larger municipalities as a way to create functional areas and improve economic and financial efficiency. But Haxhimali argues that size should not be confused with autonomy.
“A larger municipality is not necessarily a more autonomous municipality,” he says.
OECD data cited in the debate show that Albania already has municipalities with an average population larger than the averages of the European Union and the Western Balkans. This raises the question of whether the central problem is really the number of municipalities or the powers and resources available to them.
Sokoli points to a similar contradiction: the draft changes municipal boundaries but does not substantially change the functions and competences of local government. In other words, the map changes, but not necessarily the way local government performs its responsibilities.
Haxhimali gives the water and sewerage sector as an example. Management was regionalised into 14 companies in which the responsible ministry holds the majority of shares. His argument is that local autonomy depends on real competences and financial resources. If municipalities gain territory while losing functions or decision-making space, their geographical size increases without necessarily strengthening local self-government.
Between Brussels and electoral calculations
European integration is also being used in the domestic debate. Yet the European Union’s emphasis has been on effective decentralisation, local autonomy and a clear division of responsibilities between central and local government rather than simply on reducing the number of municipalities.
The European Commission has previously raised concerns about local autonomy in Albania, including after a wave of resignations and dismissals in local administrations following public calls from the central government for management changes. Those developments were discussed in relation to the European Charter of Local Self-Government.
The timing of the new territorial reform has also fuelled political suspicion because the changes are being debated only months before the next local elections.
Valmir Visha, a political science lecturer, argues that territorial maps are never politically neutral. In his view, both European-integration arguments and electoral calculations are shaping the positions of the two main political forces.
Poliçan illustrates the concern. If it is merged with Berat, two municipalities with very different population sizes will share one mayor, one council and one budget. Visha warns that local leaders may be encouraged to direct more investment toward the more populous area, where more votes are concentrated, potentially leaving smaller communities with even less influence.
What would make the reform more credible?
The debate suggests that a credible territorial reform cannot be judged only by whether it produces fewer municipalities. The evidence and concerns raised by residents and experts point to several tests that go beyond the map itself.
First, consultation must be meaningful, not merely procedural. Communities that lose municipal status should have a clear opportunity to understand the proposed changes, challenge them and influence the final decision.
Second, territorial consolidation should be accompanied by guarantees that essential services and local administrative presence will remain accessible in peripheral areas. Digitalisation can complement that presence, but it cannot fully substitute it.
Third, changes in boundaries should be linked to a clearer discussion of competences, finances and local autonomy. Larger territories without adequate resources or decision-making powers may create bigger administrations without stronger self-government.
Finally, the impact of mergers should be assessed after implementation, particularly in smaller towns. Travel time for services, investment patterns, responsiveness of local administration and the political representation of former municipalities would provide a more meaningful measure of success than the number of units remaining on the map.
The real test comes after the map changes
If the proposal is approved, Albania will have 46 municipalities instead of 61. Memaliaj, Poliçan, Përrenjas, Këlcyra and Divjakë will still exist as towns, but they may no longer have a municipality, mayor and council of their own.
More than a decade after the previous territorial reform, Albania is again redrawing the boundaries of local power. The success of the reform will not ultimately be measured by how many municipalities disappear from the map.
It will be measured by what happens afterwards: how far citizens must travel to receive a service, how quickly local administrations respond, whether smaller communities continue to receive investment, and whether they retain a meaningful voice in decisions taken from a larger centre.
In the end, territorial reform is not only about the size of municipalities. It is about how close – or how distant – local government remains from the citizen.
__________________
This text was produced within the framework of the MediaLit project, implemented by the Centre for Civic Education (CGO) in partnership with the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia, the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in North Macedonia, the Tirana Centre for Journalistic Excellence in Albania, and the Atlantic Initiative in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The project is funded by the European Union and co-financed by the Ministry of Regional and Investment Development and Cooperation with NGOs of the Government of Montenegro. The content of this text is the sole responsibility of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views of CGO, the partner organisations, the European Union, or the Ministry.
The post Who Loses Power When the Map Changes? appeared first on Tirana Times.
