Abdulla Diku: The good intentions and dangers of misuse of the “Mountains Package”
Martine Wolff: The “Mountain Package” is a real social bomb
From the Podcast to the Official Gazette: The History of the Draft Law
Law No. 20/2025 on the Mountain Package Officially Released in Full
MPs who voted for and against the “Mountain Package” and those who did not vote
The article that makes you the owner of the mountains without ever being in the mountains
How to become owner with a photo, or even without it
According to the 2011 Census estimates, approximately 19,000 people lived in the settlements within the area now designated as the “Albanian Alps” National Park. By the 2023 Census, that number had dropped to fewer than 10,000. This represents a population decline of over 47%. A similar trend is evident in other mountainous regions, particularly in the north-northeastern part of the country, where entire villages have been abandoned, and some Administrative Units, such as Shllaku1, are left with only about 90 residents. The situation is even more concerning when broken down by age group: kindergartens and schools are closing, and the majority of young and working-age people have emigrated, leaving behind only the elderly and a few remaining parents to survive in isolation. While the situation in the south is not significantly better2, the northern mountain areas are especially alarming, mirroring a global trend — the growing attraction of metropolitan areas.
In this context, an initiative like the “Mountain Package” (see the Law on pp. 6–9)3 should first address the root causes behind the mass abandonment of mountain areas. While the general trend of rural youth migrating to bustling cities is not unique, Albania’s situation differs from Western countries—where social cohesion has long deteriorated—or even from parts of Asia, where tradition remains largely authoritarian. According to residents, the state has been absent from these mountain regions for over three decades. During this time, most communities have lacked basic services such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure. Other critical needs include employment, public safety, sanitation, and telecommunications. Employment, however, has become a secondary concern for a simple reason: since the early 1990s4, the mountains have been largely depopulated, leaving few people behind, even to care for the elderly or maintain household gardens.
However, in the first article, the stated purpose of the law—“attracting investments and promoting economic development” through the “transfer of ownership of state-owned real estate to individuals and/ or legal entities”—fails to address two of the main causes behind the abandonment of mountainous areas: healthcare and education. These are especially critical factors for young people and their parents, who often leave primarily for their children’s education.
Of course, the Albanian Constitution guarantees such fundamental rights, and subsequent laws require institutions to provide services to every citizen, regardless of where they live. However, in practice, the transition period and the rule of law have existed as two parallel realities that only intersect on paper.
Furthermore, defining the law’s purpose as “promoting economic or tourist development” seems either out of touch with reality or, at worst, an intentional misrepresentation. The problem in mountain areas is not a lack of economic or tourism potential, but rather a lack of institutional support5
From north to south, many mountain villages have consistently ranked among the country’s most sought-after tourist destinations for years.
Former farmers and herders have become successful entrepreneurs in tourism and other economic activities that have contributed to the development of these areas. No. 37, June 2025
1) INSTAT, “Censi i popullsisë dhe banesave në Shqipëri 2023: Shkodra”, 2024
3) “Ligj nr. 20/2025, dt. 13.3.2025 Për paketën e maleve”, at “Fletorja Zyrtare, Nr. 69, dt. 18 Prill 2025
4) Bernd Fischer, “Albanian highland tribal society and family structure in the process of twentieth century transformation”, at “East European Quarterly”, XXXIII, No. 3, September 1999
– Muriq, Vukël, Kelmend, Malësi e Madhe. A typical cultural landscape of the Albanian Alps along the banks of the Nikç branch of the Cem River. Photo: Rand Eppich
and dangers of misuse of the “Mountains Package”
Mr. Diku. What, in your opinion, are the most urgent issues that need to be addressed to promote the development of the country’s mountainous areas?
Albania’s mountainous areas face significant challenges that impede sustainable development, including a lack of road and digital infrastructure, insufficient basic services such as healthcare and education, and depopulation driven by emigration. To promote the revitalization of these regions, it is essential to invest in infrastructure improvements, support traditional agriculture, develop sustainable mountain tourism, and strengthen the capacities of local communities. An integrated approach that combines nature conservation with economic development can bring long-term benefits by creating conditions for dignified living and transforming the natural and cultural assets of these areas into a driving force for the country’s overall development. Theoretically, the “Mountain Package” is a newly designed legal initiative to promote economic and social development in Albanian mountain areas. This law offers citizens who have used state-owned land for more than 10 years the opportunity to become its owners for a symbolic fee of 1 euro. To qualify, applicants must submit a business plan and begin investing within a specified timeframe. The law also provides exemptions from some taxes for 10 years, including VAT, profit tax, real estate tax, and infrastructure impact tax.
While the law is theoretically a positive step toward the development of mountain areas, aiming to curb emigration and encourage investment in tourism and agribusiness, its success will depend on proper implementation and effective monitoring to ensure that investments are sustainable and aligned with the needs of local communities. Authorities must ensure transparency and prevent unfair advantages, ensuring that the beneficiaries are genuinely those interested in the development of mountain areas. Practical implementation will be very challenging, as even with centuries-old agricultural land, well-defined borders, there have been dozens or even hundreds of conflicts. Imagine the potential land issues that generally have no clear boundaries and are marked by inherited or ongoing disputes. Regardless of the good intentions behind this Package, there is a risk that a businessman or someone connected to power could seize control of village territories in mountainous areas, resulting in the decline of local communities and increased social tensions.
Could this law help stop or slow the wave of depopulation in mountain areas?
On paper, this law seems an opportunity to restore hope to rapidly empty villages. Families who have remained in the mountains could finally feel secure in their land, allowing them to plan small businesses—such as guesthouses or farms—without fearing high taxes. However, the success of this initiative will depend entirely on how the law is implemented. If the land ends up in the hands of people with no ties to the area, or if roads, schools, and financial support continue to be lacking, the initiative could ultimately fail.
The future of this Package hinges on the honesty with which it is implemented and the genuine willingness to support mountain communities. If these conditions are met, the “Mountain Package” could be more than just a law—it could represent a real opportunity for new life in some of the country’s most neglected areas.
However, several risks need to be carefully considered:
(i) The risk of misuse: If land ends up in the hands of individuals with no connection to the area or no genuine intention of development, speculation may outweigh real progress.
(ii) Lack of supporting infrastructure: Ownership rights and fiscal incentives alone are not enough without good roads, schools, healthcare, and other public services.
(iii) The need for technical and financial assistance: Many mountain families lack the capital and knowledge to develop sustainable business plans. Without concrete support, the law may benefit outsiders more than the local communities.
What is positive and what is negative in this law?
Positive aspects include: (1) Land ownership for residents, (2) Fiscal incentives for 10 years, (3) Promotion of rural development and prohibition of emigration, and (4) Development of sustainable tourism and agribusiness.
Negative aspects include: (1) Risk of benefits from individuals outside the area, (2) Lack of supporting infrastructure, (3) Business plan requirements may be an obstacle for ordinary families, and (4) Risk of environmental degradation. The law has potential, but it will only be effective if supported by strong implementation mechanisms, transparency, technical assistance for communities, and investment in infrastructure. Without these elements, it risks failing to achieve its intended impact.
The article that makes you owner of the mountains without ever being in the mountains
Article 3* Definitions
For the purposes of this law, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
a) “Ownership transfer contract” is the agreement concluded between the seller of the state-owned immovable property, represented by the head of the ministry responsible for the economy or a person authorized by him, as the state owner, and the buyer, represented by the non-owner possessor, whose name appears in the property’s registry as the non-owner possessor of the asset, with the object being the transfer of ownership through sale at the symbolic price of 1 (one) euro;
b) “Investor” is a natural or legal person, registered in the commercial register, in accordance with domestic or foreign legislation, as applicable, who carries out an investment in accordance with the provisions of this law and submits a request in agreement with the non-owner possessor for the realization of an investment project;
c) “Non-owner possessor” is an individual, natural or legal person identified during the implementation of this law, who has exercised and continues to exercise continuous and uninterrupted possession for at least 10 (ten) years over state-owned immovable property, using it as if they were the owner. For the purposes of this law, individuals who do not currently use the property but can prove a connection to it, despite lacking ownership title under existing legislation, and who seek to develop it through investment, shall also be considered non-owner possessors;
ç) “Area prioritized for mountain economy development” (hereinafter “development area”) is an area approved under this law, which due to landscape features, natural resources, cultural heritage, or the totality of outdoor activities offered, represents potential for economic development and the promotion of investments. Such development may be achieved through special support, aimed at economic recovery, employment generation, living condition improvements, efficient use of natural resources, ecosystem protection, territorial value enhancement, consolidation of property rights, facilitation of administrative procedures, and implementation of favorable economic instruments, in accordance with international and modern principles of development in mountain areas.
2023 Theth. Unregulated mass tourism has resulted in the degradation of the authentic cultural landscape in this village of the Albanian Alps. Photo: Christopher Kane
The “Final Hit” to the mountainous communities
Data easily accessible from the National Business Center (QKB), as well as platforms like Booking.com and Airbnb, confirm a significant number of businesses operating in sectors such as commerce, agriculture, livestock, hospitality, gastronomy, transportation, and even telecommunications—not to mention the many informal enterprises that also exist in these regions.
Even those who do not own formal businesses, but possess various assets such as houses, land, pastures, stables, barns, livestock, poultry, motor vehicles, and agricultural or livestock products, have come to understand that they are not considered poor. In one way or another, people have sought to improve the aspects of life within their control, primarily their economic well-being.
In this context, the ongoing abandonment of mountain settlements is largely due to the absence of essential services, a situation exacerbated by the highly centralized Territorial Administrative Reform of 20141. This, combined with the global migration trend toward large urban centers, has contributed significantly to depopulation in these areas. Therefore, an initiative with the grand title “Mountain Package” should directly address the real challenges that mountain communities are facing. In the same spirit as the Law on Legalizations2, this law also contributes to the legitimization of illegality—an unfortunate hallmark of Albania’s more than thirtyyear transition period. Specifically, point “c” of Article 3 recognizes as potential owners those individuals who have possessed a given property, under the terms of this law, for at least ten uninterrupted years without holding a title deed. The remainder of the article appears more like a decorative attempt to justify what, in the worst case, is the occupation of public property, and in the best case, the legalization of unlawful construction.
Examples from some of the most popular destinations in mountainous Albania—such as Valbona and especially Thethi (see photo on p.2)—illustrate how uncontrolled, tourism-driven development has not only altered the landscape but also undermined the authority of the state, which is now left with no option but to legalize hundreds of illegal structures. Article 6 is one of the most ambiguous parts of the law, as it fails to clarify whether all four criteria listed in point 2 are required to accompany a request for the privatization of a specific property. Following the logic of point “c” in Article 3, a non-owner possessor can become the legal owner simply by presenting a photograph or unverified testimony from residents or local authorities, without the number or credibility of such witnesses. At this point, the law borders on the absurd, given how easily such “evidence” can be produced. To make matters even more farcical, point 3 of the same article nullifies point 2: the absence of documentation neither suspends the procedure nor invalidates the request.
Even more concerning, according to the third paragraph of point 2 in Article 10, a request is not denied even if a third party submits ownership claims—also based solely on hearsay—just like the possessor seeking to become the legal owner.
On the other hand, despite the 45-day deadline set by this law (Article 10, point 1), the reality of depopulated mountain areas—where most residents have emigrated not only to Europe but even across the Atlantic—makes it hard to believe that an elderly person, forgotten in a remote village without infrastructure or public transport, will be able to access or even become aware of public notices posted in some corner of a Municipal or
Administrative Unit office. It is even less likely that this person would then be able to inform family members scattered across the globe about the fate of their properties. In this way, just through these two points of the same article, the requirement to provide any documentation proving a claimant’s relationship to or possession of the property is effectively eliminated. Therefore, the implementation of this article carries a high risk of sparking dissatisfaction and social conflict within families and local communities, reminiscent of the controversies surrounding the infamous Law 75013
It is unclear which territories fall under the jurisdiction of the ‘Mountain Package. By failing to clearly define what constitutes a mountainous area eligible for designation as a development zone (Article 4), the law permits the implementation of such projects to be proposed anywhere the so-called “golden five hundred” see fit. Furthermore, by not explicitly excluding Protected Areas, the law strongly implies that its influence could extend to those regions, including National Parks.
In this way, the “Mountain Package” confirms the worst fears of environmental advocates4: that the rezoning of National Parks5, along with the persistent efforts6 to amend the Law on Protected Areas7 by a group of 12 Socialist MPs8 (9 of whom will no longer be in the Assembly after the May 11, 2025 elections9, despite their major role in drafting the law), was part of a calculated strategy. The ultimate goal appears to be the transfer of these national assets into the hands of oligarchs closely tied to the government through corrupt relationships10
It is well known that most mountain communities in Albania—particularly in the north and northeast—have strongly opposed Article 8 of Law No. 7501, dated
Overlay map of cannabis cultivation areas and designated Protected Areas. (www.asig.al)
2021. A herd of livestock making its way along the trails to the alpine pastures, Qafa e Pejës, in the Albanian Alps. Photo: Nina Martinelli
July 19, 1991, “On Land”, which effectively denied11 their centuries-old land heritage. While some mountaineers still retain knowledge of traditional land boundaries, passed down through generations and, in rare cases, documented on paper, the law classifies these lands as state property. At best, their legal ownership documents cover only the plot on which their home is built and perhaps a small surrounding area, such as a yard or a bit of agricultural land. Yet it is also widely acknowledged that local communities know the boundaries of their mountains, forests, and cliffs down to the finest detail—almost instinctively. This means that in a territory continuously inhabited for centuries, it is difficult to find any land—whether forest, pasture, or meadow—that is not claimed by someone, even if those individuals cannot prove ownership with documents from any period in the history of the Albanian state.
As in many parts of the world where indigenous communities lack formal documentation for lands inherited over millennia12, in Albania, such property is treated as state-owned land, subject to the provisions of this law. Viewed through this lens, Article 8, and particularly point “b,” opens the door to privatization for a symbolic payment of just 1 euro—land has been acquired and safeguarded through history at the very real cost of the lives and sacrifices of previous generations. By targeting “forests,” “pastures,” and “meadows,” the law sets the stage for the irreversible and unimaginable transformation of some of the most beautiful parts of Albania—areas that constitute a cultural landscape, representing the long-standing interaction between humans and nature. These are
and beneficiaries of such legislation, as evidenced by the impact on the Albanian Riviera and beyond (see photo below).
A similar approach was taken by the government with the Law on Medical Cannabis14, under which 6 out of 10 designated cadastral areas for cannabis cultivation are located near Protected Areas—some of them national parks, Ramsar sites, and even areas not far from UNESCO World Heritage Sites15. The most concerning cases are areas 1, 3, 9, and especially 6, where cannabis plots are set to surround the Vjosa River and its National Park16 (see map on p. 3).
This precedent suggests that the same fate may await Albania’s mountainous regions under the “Mountain Package.”
If, until now, the most beautiful rivers and valleys of northern Albania have been devastated—and continue to be17—by dozens of hydroelectric plants built in violation of existing laws, citizen protests, and even court rulings18, it is not hard to imagine what lies ahead for the remaining untouched mountain landscapes.
As an extension—or reinforcement—of the previously mentioned law19, the “Mountain Package” aims to streamline administrative procedures while easing the fiscal burden on the so-called “first” 500 beneficiaries of the legislation. Following this same logic— and practice—these beneficiaries may even be granted the power to expropriate private property in the name of the “public interest,” justified as “strategic investment.”
Naturally, these beneficiaries are unlikely to be the villagers of the mountainous areas, who, among other challenges, lack the financial resources necessary for such undertakings.
This law was not designed with the mountaineers of the north or south in
national assets that must not, and should not, be alienated for the private gain of one individual, or five hundred.
Paradoxically, Article 3, point 4 of the Law on Strategic Investments13 has already revealed the real intentions
mind20. They will continue to survive as they always have—sometimes paying tribute to prevailing powers, in other instances resisting them by any means available. Most mountain residents remain unaware that this law even exists.
1) “Ligj Nr. 115/2014 Për Ndarjen Administrativo-Territoriale të Njësive të Qeverisjes Vendore në Republikën e Shqipërisë”, at “Fletorja Zyrtare”, Nr. 137, Dt. 1 Shtator 2014 2) Qendra e Botimeve Zyrtare, “Përmbledhje legjislacioni për legalizimet”, 2018 3) Ligj Nr.7501, dt. 19.7.1991 “Për tokën” 4) https://www.reporter.al/2024/02/27/ligji-per-zonat-e-mbrojtura-krijon-hapesira-per-korrupsion-thone-organizatat/ 5) “VKM Nr. 59, datë 26.1.2022 Për miratimin e ndryshimit të statusit dhe të sipërfaqes së ekosistemeve natyrore Park Kombëtar (Kategoria II) të zonave të mbrojtura mjedisore”, at “Fletorja Zyrtare” nr. 16, Dt. 1 Shkurt 2022 6) https://www.reporter.al/2024/02/12/projektligji-per-zonat-e-mbrojtura-shkel-direktivat-e-be-se/ 7) https://citizens.al/2024/02/23/zonat-e-mbrojtura-nje-tragjedi-shqiptare/ 8) Grupi Parlamentar i Partisë Socialiste, “Depozitim projektligji Per disa shtesa dhe ndryshime në Ligjin Nr. 81/2017 “Per Zonat e Mbrojtura” Nr. 5385, Dt. 20.11.2023 (https://shqiptarja.com/uploads/ckeditor/6560fcc28cdccsss.pdf) 9) https://shqiptarja.com/lajm/parlamenti-i-ri-82-deputetet-qe-do-te-mungojne-nga-shtatori 10) https://citizens.al/2023/12/07/qeveria-mbeshtet-hapur-projektligjin-per-te-lejuar-ndertimet-ne-zonat-e-mbrojtura/ 11) Article 8 of Law No. 7501, dated July 19, 1991, “On Land,” states: “In the allocation of land for ownership and use to legal or natural persons, prior ownership, as well as the size and boundaries of the land before collectivization, shall not be recognized.”
12) The “Yirrkala Bark Petitions” of 1963 represent the first petition by the Yolngu Aboriginal people to be officially recognized by the Australian Parliament. Following this, a number of petitions were submitted by other Indigenous peoples across the continent. However, it was not until the 1990s that some of these communities were granted land rights—often to no more than half of the land they had claimed (Parliamentary Education Office).
In the United States, from 1823—when the Supreme Court denied Indigenous peoples the right to land—until 2021, Native Americans have lost 99% of the land they once held. (Lizzie Wade, “Native tribes have lost 99% of their land in the United States” at “Science”, October 28th, 2021).
13) “Ligj nr. 55 2015, datë 28.5.2015 Për investimet strategjike në Republikën e Shqipërisë, at “Fletorja Zyrtare” Nr. 113, Dt. 1 Korrik 2015
14) Ligj nr. 61/2023,dt. 21.7.2023 “Për kontrollin e kultivimit dhe përpunimit të bimës së cannabis-it dhe prodhimit të nënprodukteve të saj për qëllime mjekësore dhe industriale”, at “Fletorja Zyrtare”, Nr. 124, Dt. 21 Gusht 2023
15) Vendim Nr. 149, date 6.3.2025 Për miratimin e zonave kadastrale në të cilat lejohet kultivimi i bimës së cannabis-it për qëllime industriale (https://www.nacc.gov.al/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Vendim-i-KM-Nr.149date-6.3.2025-1.pdf)
17) https://www.reporter.al/2023/09/21/hidrocentrali-i-skavices-pranimi-i-ankeses-nga-gjykata-kushtetuese-rikthen-shpresen-tek-mjedisoret/ 18) https://www.reporter.al/2022/01/20/hec-et-ne-valbone-qeveria-ben-nje-sy-qorr-ndaj-vendimit-te-gjykates-se-larte/ 19) “Ligj nr. 55 2015, datë 28.5.2015 Për investimet strategjike në Republikën e Shqipërisë, at“Fletorja Zyrtare” Nr. 113, Dt. 1 Korrik 2015 20) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycTKZqnZ0p0&list=PLMK7p5myFjH4JG4ULbnlWSBfzyV93LPWE&index=909
How to become owner with a photo, or even without it
Article 6* Application
1. After the entry into force of the decision of the Council of Ministers declaring the development zone, entities shall submit an application to the local self-government unit for recognition as non-owner possessors, accompanied by a survey plan of the possessed area, prepared by a licensed geodetic expert.
2. The non-owner possessor shall also submit with the application any supporting documents or information regarding the possession, as defined under letter “c” of Article 3, if available, including but not limited to:
a) tax documents for economic activity on the property;
b) utility bills related to the property;
c) declarations/ testimonies from residents and local authorities confirming continuous and uninterrupted use of the property for at least 10 years;
ç) photographs, orthophotos, or other material evidence proving possession; or
d) documentation proving their connection to the property.
3. The absence of documentation for the possession does not suspend the administrative procedure for recognition as a “non-owner possessor” and does not result in the rejection of the application, as long as no third-party claims or evidence are presented during the public posting period, as defined in Article 10 of this law, and if no legal issues are found with the property’s status during the verification process, pursuant to Article 7 of this law.
4. Detailed rules on the method of submitting applications and internal administrative procedures for the implementation of this article by municipalities shall be determined by an instruction issued by the mayor, depending on the specific circumstances of each zone.
*) “Ligj nr. 20/2025, dt. 13.3.2025 Për paketën e maleve”, at “Fletorja Zyrtare, Nr. 69, dt. 18 Prill 2025
2023. The Green Coast Resort Complex, Palasë, Vlorë. Photo: www.citizens.al
How to become owner with a photo, or even without it
Article 15* Incentives
Subjects that acquire ownership of surfaces under this law, complete the development project, and carry out the declared activity, benefit from the following incentives for a 10year period:
a) Exemption from the infrastructure impact tax;
b) Exemption from the immovable property tax;
c) Exemption from Value Added Tax (VAT);
ç) Exemption from income tax.
In any case, the incentives under point 1 of this article may not be granted to more than 500 (five hundred) subjects who acquire ownership under this law throughout the territory of the country. If the total number of ownership transfer requests exceeds this number, the “first come, first served” principle applies, based on the date of submission of the ownership transfer request.
Requests that do not meet the other legal requirements are removed from the queue.
The rules and procedures for how to benefit from the incentives in this article shall be defined by instruction of the Minister responsible for finance. *) “Ligj nr. 20/2025, dt. 13.3.2025 Për paketën e
Martine Wolff Eco-Anthropologist
What about such a law for shepherds, their flocks, and the high mountain pastures?
real social bomb
a
The “Mountain Package” is
This law1 proposes a collective commitment to the sustainable development of our mountainous regions, recognizing that these areas possess exceptional natural and cultural heritage. Activities connected to nature could foster rural development, bring economic resources, increase employment opportunities, improve living conditions, and make more efficient use of natural resources—while protecting ecosystems and territorial values.
I am an eco-anthropologist and an inhabitant of the Albanian Alps. Such a law raises many questions for me. What does true sustainable development mean? Does it respect the people living in these areas and their cultural identity? This law may indeed acknowledge the existence of a rich eco-cultural heritage in these regions. I think it does not consider the vulnerability of this heritage, nor its sustainability. We cannot do allow anyone to do just anything, in any way we they choose!
Let’s stop deceiving ourselves. This law uses the pretext of so-called economic development, while ignoring the underlying social dimension. Providing appropriate support necessarily requires acknowledging the existence of social and territorial capital, which must also be considered. These elements must be integrated into any vision of creating economic capital—otherwise, true sustainable development will remain out of reach.
How can we claim to improve the living conditions of those who inhabit these lands? It is the shepherds and their flocks who, over centuries, have shaped these landscapes and all their beauty. They must first be recognized as the true inhabitants of these places. They are not just guardians of flocks, but of the entire surrounding nature. In the face of today’s global challenges, they have been recognized as guardians of the future. I am referring here, among other things, to the United Nations International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists (IYRP 2026), which the whole world2 is presently preparing— dedicated to rangelands and pastoralist communities.
Who are we to talk about the “more efficient exploitation” of natural resources? The world is heading toward disaster because it sought to exploit without limits and failed to live in harmony with nature, in balance with all that it gives us. How can mass tourism, such as we now see in Theth, or the creation of industrial developments, possibly protect ecosystems and their territorial values?
This law speaks of mountains, forests, meadows, and pastures. It is the shepherd who shapes the mountains and the mountains that shape the shepherds. Our transhumant shepherds are living witnesses. Their ways of
dt.
being and acting reveal how deeply the plains and the mountains nourish one another. Given its topography, Albania is a particularly vivid example.
Albania: A land of transhumant shepherds
Transhumance is based on the mobility of pastoral communities and their herds. It is more than a search for fresh grass; it is a unique way of occupying the land. The movements of these communities structure a territory. Transhumance is a space of shared mobility, following the rhythm of the seasons. It shapes an entire way of life, determines a social and cultural existence imbued with spiritual values. It forges relationships between humans, animals, and ecosystems. Transhumance embodies a whole system of economic and social relationships that define the territory. Its history and functioning shed light on the symbolic ties linking humans and animals to their natural environment. A multifunctional system deeply rooted in its territory,territory; transhumance shapes landscapes recognized as cultural landscapes. Beyond offering high-quality biological products, it provides numerous ecological services and regenerates biodiversity. It can also be viewed as a distinct social organization for managing environmental resources. This practice ensures the maintenance of pastures, renews pastoral resources, and preserves high-quality open landscapes. The shepherd is not only the guardian of the herd, but also of the natural environment.
Transhumance paths and pastures
From this foundation emerges the transhumance routes, called stigjet in Albanian—places of encounter, circulation, and exchange. These are true corridors for the movement of herds, as well as associated plant and animal species. These trails also facilitate the spread of cultural practices carried by transhumant communities. They are deeply spiritual. Their ancestors walked these same paths, drank from the same water sources, rested in the same places. Every path is marked by the events that took place there. These paths facilitate movement between huts and strengthen group solidarity. This is how traditional knowledge accumulated, shaping unique ways of being, thinking, representing, and acting—creating a distinct eco-socio-cultural identity. And thus, we can say that the pasture is a true traditional institution. It is the site of social, economic, and spiritual life, enriched by social exchanges, collective celebrations, and rituals. Pasturelands serve as a regulatory system for access to natural resources. They hold an essential place in the mountain economy, at the intersection of ecological, agroeconomic, and cultural dimensions.
United Nations General Assembly, A/76/L.36 “International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists, 2026”, 26 January 2022 (editor’s note)
2022, Greçë, Kelmend, Albanian Alps. Shepherds continue to involve their entire families in the seasonal treks to the mountains. Photo: Marta Hium
maleve”, at “Fletorja Zyrtare”, Nr. 69, dt. 18 Prill 2025
1) “Ligj nr. 20/2025,
13.3.2025 Për paketën e maleve”, at “Fletorja Zyrtare, Nr. 69, dt. 18 Prill 2025 (editor’s note) 2)
Pursuant to Articles 78, 81 point 1, 83 point 1, and 155 of the Constitution, upon the proposal of the Council of Ministers,
THE ASSEMBLY OF THE REPUBLIC OF ALBANIA HAS DECIDED:
CHAPTER I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article
1 Purpose
This law aims to attract investments and promote economic or touristic development in areas prioritized for the development of mountain economies, through the transfer of ownership of state-owned immovable property to individuals and/or natural and legal persons who are non-owner possessors, for the purpose of investing in projects that enable economic recovery, employment stimulation in the area, improvement of living conditions, efficient use of natural resources, protection of ecosystems and territorial values, in accordance with the principles of transparency and the protection of the public interest.
Article 2 Object
The object of this law is to define the procedures, criteria, rules, and procedural deadlines for the approval and development of areas prioritized for mountain economy development, procedures for the transfer of ownership of state-owned immovable property to non-owner possessors at a symbolic price of 1 (one) euro, and specific rules for investors, guaranteeing its use for sustainable investment and territorial development.
Article 3 Definitions
For the purposes of this law, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
a) “Ownership transfer contract” is the agreement concluded between the seller of the stateowned immovable property, represented by the head of the ministry responsible for the economy or a person authorized by him, as the state owner, and the buyer, represented by the non-owner possessor, whose name appears in the property’s registry as the non-owner possessor of the asset, with the object being the transfer of ownership through sale at the symbolic price of 1 (one) euro;
b) “Investor” is a natural or legal person, registered in the commercial register, in accordance with domestic or foreign legislation, as applicable, who carries out an investment in accordance with the provisions of this law and submits a request in agreement with the nonowner possessor for the realization of an investment project;
c) “Non-owner possessor” is an individual, natural or legal person identified during the implementation of this law, who has exercised and continues to exercise continuous and uninterrupted possession for at least 10 (ten) years over state-owned immovable property, using it as if they were the owner. For the purposes of this law, individuals who do not currently use the property but can prove a connection to it, despite lacking ownership title under existing legislation, and who seek to develop it through investment, shall also be considered non-owner possessors;
ç) “Area prioritized for mountain economy development” (hereinafter “development area”) is an area approved under this law, which due to landscape features, natural resources, cultural heritage, or the totality of outdoor activities offered, represents potential for economic development and the promotion of investments. Such development may be achieved through special support, aimed at economic recovery, employment generation, living condition improvements, efficient use of natural resources, ecosystem protection, territorial value enhancement, consolidation of property rights, facilitation of administrative procedures, and implementation of favorable economic instruments, in accordance with international and modern principles of development in mountain areas.
Article 4
Determination of areas with development priority
1. The Minister responsible for local governance, upon a reasoned request by the competent municipality, may propose to the Council of Ministers the declaration of the territory of the municipality or its mountainous part as a development area. The Council of Ministers’ decision shall contain the boundaries of the area and the types of activities approved for development therein under this law.
2. The request for declaration of a development area is mainly motivated by the need to stimulate and realize the area's economic, industrial, or touristic development potential. This request is justified by the presence of non-owner possessors in the territory and difficulties encountered in granting development and construction permits due to unresolved private property ownership relations.
3. Following the declaration of the development area, the State Cadastre Agency (hereinafter ASHK) immediately initiates the primary registration of cadastral zones included in the development area, if not previously completed, in accordance with applicable cadastral legislation. If the area has already undergone initial registration, ASHK shall undertake, if necessary, improvements to the property registry as per the same legislation.
4. Detailed rules on documentation and procedures for declaring a priority development area shall be determined by instruction of the Minister responsible for local governance.
Article 5
Right to be recognized as a “non-owner possessor”
After the declaration of the development zone, entities (natural persons, legal entities, or individuals) who possess state property within this zone without ownership title acquire the right to be recognized as “non-owner possessors,” by decision of the respective municipal council, in accordance with the procedure set forth in this chapter.
Article 6 Application
1. After the entry into force of the decision of the Council of Ministers declaring the development zone, entities shall submit an application to the local self-government unit for recognition as non-owner possessors, accompanied by a survey plan of the possessed area, prepared by a licensed geodetic expert.
2. The non-owner possessor shall also submit with the application any supporting documents or information regarding the possession, as defined under letter “c” of Article 3, if available, including but not limited to:
a) tax documents for economic activity on the property;
b) utility bills related to the property;
c) declarations/testimonies from residents and local authorities confirming continuous and uninterrupted use of the property for at least 10 years;
ç) photographs, orthophotos, or other material evidence proving possession; or
d) documentation proving their connection to the property.
3. The absence of documentation for the possession does not suspend the administrative procedure for recognition as a “non-owner possessor” and does not result in the rejection of the application, as long as no third-party claims or evidence are presented during the public posting period, as defined in Article 10 of this law, and if no legal issues are found with the property’s status during the verification process, pursuant to Article 7 of this law.
4. Detailed rules on the method of submitting applications and internal administrative procedures for the implementation of this article by municipalities shall be determined by an instruction issued by the mayor, depending on the specific circumstances of each zone.
Article 7
Verifications carried out by the municipality
The competent municipality shall, within 30 (thirty) days, begin the on-site identification of the areas subject to the submitted applications, verifying the possession status of the property by the entities, and shall draw up the respective record.
2. In addition to the on-site identification, the municipality shall request information on the legal status of the property, whether it is involved in transitional ownership processes, and whether it has been inventoried by the State Cadastre Agency. It shall also request information from the Property Treatment Agency on whether the property has been subject to a decision for return or physical compensation in favor of former owners, in accordance with relevant legislation. These institutions must respond to the municipality within 20 (twenty) days from the administration of the request, pursuant to the applicable legislation.
Article 8
Criteria related to the property
1. The surface area of the property, subject of the applicant’s request, regardless of its type, must simultaneously meet the following criteria:
a) It must be state property. The procedures under this law also apply to state-owned land that is inventoried under the administrative responsibility of central institutions, as well as land transferred to the ownership or use of local self-government units, provided that the area claimed by the subject does not include the footprint of state-owned buildings. In such cases, the procedure under this chapter continues only after obtaining consent from the managing institution. By exception, this law also applies to cases of surfaces recorded as state-owned in the immovable property register, for which the applicant possesses ownership documents that are not registrable under the Civil Code and/or the applicable cadastral legislation, provided that there are no conflicting ownership titles from third parties, even if such titles are also unregistrable;
b) It must not be inalienable public property. For the purposes of this law and the current legislation on state immovable properties, property types such as “forest,” “pasture,” and “meadow” are not considered inalienable and may be subject to ownership transfer procedures under this law;
c) It must not be used for the operational needs of the Armed Forces, as per the legislation in force regarding the powers and command authority of the Armed Forces in the Republic of Albania; ç) It must not be subject to real rights of third parties;
d) It must not be under ownership acquisition procedures based on Law no. 20/2020 or other special laws that provide for administrative acquisition of ownership. Cases in which requests for transfer of ownership have been rejected under this legislation are treated in accordance with the provisions of this law;
dh) It must not be subject to a return or physical compensation decision in favor of former owners, pursuant to the relevant legislation.
2. The criteria outlined in point 1 of this article shall be verified by the local self-government unit.
Article 9
Full or partial rejection of the application
1. If, after collecting information from the State Cadastre Agency (ASHK) and the Property Treatment Agency, and verifying the land and subject-related conditions under this law, the municipality determines that the surface area defined in the survey plan, in whole, does not meet any of the conditions stated in Article 8 of this law, or if documentation shows that the subject does not fulfill the conditions under letter “c” of Article 3 of this law, it shall notify the applicant of the impossibility of continuing the recognition procedure as a “non-owner possessor” under this law.
2. By exception, if only part of the area in the survey plan fails to meet the conditions, the
municipality shall request the applicant to declare within 30 (thirty) days whether they agree to proceed with the procedure only for the remaining part, based on a revised survey plan prepared or commissioned by the municipality. If the applicant does not respond within this timeframe, it is presumed that they have declined to proceed with the remaining portion.
Article 10
Posting and approval by the municipal council
1. After completing the procedure defined in Article 9 of this law, for the properties or portions thereof that meet the conditions, the municipality shall post a public notice for 45 (forty-five) days at its premises, in another public location within the zone, and on its official website. The notice shall include a list of applicants with the respective surface areas, a description of their locations, and the corresponding survey plans.
2. If during the public notice period, third parties submit ownership claims supported by property acquisition documents (even if unregistered in the property register), or if they provide evidence or information that the applicant does not meet the conditions under letter “c” of Article 3 of this law, the municipality shall inform the applicant that the recognition procedure as a “non-owner possessor” cannot proceed under this law.
By exception, if only a portion of the survey plan area is contested by third parties, or there is evidence/indication that the possession conditions have not been met, the municipality shall ask the applicant to declare within 30 (thirty) days whether they agree to continue the procedure only for the uncontested part, based on a revised survey plan prepared or commissioned by the municipality. If the applicant does not respond within this timeframe, it is presumed they have declined to proceed with the remaining portion.
Third-party claims that are not based on ownership documents or evidence relating to the qualifications of the “non-possessory owner,” as defined in letter “c” of Article 3, do not prevent continuation of the procedure.
3. After the public notice period ends, the municipality shall draft a list of applicants seeking recognition as “non-owner possessors” and their respective survey plans, which are submitted to the municipal council for approval within 30 (thirty) days. The municipal council shall decide within 20 (twenty) days from the submission of the documentation.
Once the list of non-owner possessors is approved, the municipality or the non-owner possessor submits a request to the State Cadastre Agency (ASHK), in accordance with applicable cadastral legislation, for the registration of the non-owner possessor in the property register for each respective property.
4. In cases where new applicants submit a request for recognition as “non-owner possessors,” the municipality shall prepare new lists or individual documentation for the subject, if applicable, following the same procedures outlined in this chapter.
CHAPTER III TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP, DEVELOPMENT, AND FACILITATIONS
Article 11
Approval of the development permit by territorial development authorities
1. A non-owner possessor, recognized as such by decision of the municipal council and whose name appears in the property register of the state-owned immovable property, regardless of not having acquired ownership title yet, has the right to submit a request for obtaining a development permit for the entire surface or part of it, by applying to the National Territorial Development Agency.
2. In the cases provided for by this law, the development permit shall be approved, regardless of whether the area is located in a zone that does not yet have approved territorial planning documents, or even if such documents exist but do not foresee constructions as per the intended use. The evaluation of the development permit request is based on the preliminary project of the planned development, which must be submitted with the request by the possessor or by an investor with whom they have signed an agreement.
3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the current legislation on planning and territorial development, the competent authority for approving the development permit in such circumstances is the National Council for Territory and Water (KKTU).
The surfaces treated under the provisions of this law are, in all cases, subject to the requirement of development permit approval, in accordance with this article. For these surfaces, the exceptions from the obligation to obtain a development permit, as provided by the legislation on territorial planning and development, do not apply.
4. The request shall be reviewed in compliance with the legislation on planning and territorial development, except for the requirement of holding an ownership title and other issues specifically regulated by this law, which do not prevent the approval of the development permit for the purposes of this law. If a development permit is granted only for a part of the surface for which the applicant is recognized as a non-owner possessor, the latter has the right to reapply for a development permit for the remaining parts.
Article 12
Request for purchase submitted to the responsible ministry
1. After obtaining the development permit, the non-owner possessor has the right to submit a request to the ministry responsible for the economy for the purchase of the surface included in the development permit at the symbolic value of 1 (one) euro, accompanied by: a) the decision of the municipal council recognizing them as a non-owner possessor; b) the development project, along with the decision approving the development permit; c) the agreement signed with the investor, if the possessor does not intend to develop the area themselves.
2. The ministry responsible for the economy shall review the request within 30 (thirty) days from its submission, based on the documentation specified in point 1 of this article, and shall notify the applicant about the acceptance or rejection of the request. If the above conditions are not met, the ministry shall provide the applicant with a reasoned explanation for the rejection.
3. The procedures for ownership transfer under this law shall be carried out only for the portion
of the surface area included in the footprint of the development permit. For other portions of the surface for which the applicant is recognized as a non-owner possessor but which are not subject to development, the applicant retains the right to request recognition as the owner in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code, provided that the relevant conditions are met or once they are fulfilled.
Article 13 Sales Contract
1. Upon acceptance of the request, the ministry responsible for the economy invites the nonowner possessor to sign a conditional sales contract at the symbolic price of 1 (one) euro, with the condition being the acquisition of the usage certificate.
2. The conditional sales contract shall be registered in accordance with the cadastral legislation. Ownership of the surface is recorded in the immovable property register only after the condition has been fulfilled.
3. The ministry responsible for the economy, upon notification from the competent development control authority, has the right to unilaterally terminate the contract if construction works have not commenced within three (3) years from the date of signing. The unilateral termination is reflected in the immovable property register.
Article 14 Construction Permit
1. After registration of the sales contract, the owner and the investor who has entered into an agreement with them have the right to apply for a construction permit for the surface or part thereof included in the contract, in accordance with this law and the current legislation on planning and territorial development, provided that the latter does not conflict with this law. The construction permit is approved by the National Council for Territory and Water (KKTU).
2. If, during the review of the construction permit request, it is found that the surface or the project for which the permit is requested is smaller than the area defined in the contract, the approval process is suspended until the contract is modified. In this case, the ministry responsible for the economy shall sign a modified contract only for the surface for which the construction permit is being requested.
3. The competent authority for development control shall monitor the implementation of the construction permit and inform the ministry responsible for the economy. The construction permit loses its validity if construction work does not begin within two (2) years from its approval.
Article 15 Incentives
1. Subjects that acquire ownership of surfaces under this law, complete the development project, and carry out the declared activity, benefit from the following incentives for a 10-year period:
a) Exemption from the infrastructure impact tax;
b) Exemption from the immovable property tax;
c) Exemption from Value Added Tax (VAT);
ç) Exemption from income tax.
2. In any case, the incentives under point 1 of this article may not be granted to more than 500 (five hundred) subjects who acquire ownership under this law throughout the territory of the country. If the total number of ownership transfer requests exceeds this number, the “first come, first served” principle applies, based on the date of submission of the ownership transfer request. Requests that do not meet the other legal requirements are removed from the queue.
3. The rules and procedures for how to benefit from the incentives in this article shall be defined by instruction of the Minister responsible for finance.
CHAPTER IV FINAL PROVISIONS
Article 16 Right to Appeal
Against administrative decisions issued by the competent authorities under and in accordance with the provisions of this law, individuals as well as interested natural and/or legal persons may file an administrative appeal within 30 days with the institution that issued the decision, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Administrative Procedures, and subsequently may also file a judicial appeal under the rules of the law on administrative courts and the adjudication of administrative disputes.
Article 17 Bylaws
1. The minister responsible for local government and the minister responsible for finance are tasked with approving, within 6 months from the entry into force of this law, guidelines concerning the documentation and procedure for declaring a priority development zone, as well as the procedures for accessing the incentives provided for in Articles 4 and 15 of this law.
2. Mayors are tasked with approving, within 6 months from the entry into force of this law, the guidelines regarding the application procedure and internal administrative processes for implementation under Article 6 of this law.
Article 18
Entry into force
This law enters into force 15 (fifteen) days after its publication in the Official Gazette.
Approved on the date 13.3.2025.
SPEAKER
Elisa Spiropali
From the Podcast to the Official Gazette: The History of the Draft Law
The idea behind the draft law known as the “Mountain Package” was reportedly announced personally by the Prime Minister during his first visit to Theth1 in the spring of last year and later in his podcast2. He described it as a state program aiming to facilitate loans for mountain residents to build or improve guesthouses to boost tourism.
“It’s either a ‘mountain package’ or a ‘mountain notebook’ program—I’m not exactly sure what to call it yet. We’re moving towards finalizing it and will support the network of guesthouses in the mountains.
We’re currently in talks with the banks to arrange loans, with the state shouldering the main financial burden3,” the Prime Minister said.
According to media reports, during the subsequent consultations, the Prime Minister continued to justify the purpose of the law by referring to “support for the network of mountain guesthouses4”—a phrase that was not included in the draft law approved by the government5 nor in the final version passed by the Assembly6. This narrative was also echoed by several media outlets, which, citing “sources close to the working group,” claimed that “the two groups favored to benefit will be young people and women7”—a statement likewise absent from the text of the law.
During the public discussion, experts expressed skepticism about the potential benefits of the “Law on the Mountains” for highland communities, noting that beneficiaries would need to provide documentation proving land use for at least 10 years8—something that seems nearly impossible given the informality that has characterized Albania’s post-transition period.
The law was also criticized for its clientelist approach9 and the potential negative environmental impacts it could cause. While some experts viewed the law as a “positive step” toward the development of mountain areas, they acknowledged that these regions continue to suffer from a serious lack of essential services such as healthcare, education, infrastructure, electricity, and more10
The Association of Municipalities viewed the law—with its apparent tailoring for 500 new beneficiaries11 with suspicion, warning that it could meet the same fate as the abandoned 100 Villages project.
“On their part, representatives of tourism business associations proposed that the law should also include the Protected Areas12.”
Meanwhile, the first official reactions to the draft law came from civil society organizations13 and opposition parties, which reported the government’s initiative to the Central Election Commission (KQZ), denouncing it as a clientelist law designed to benefit a category of oligarchs by enabling them to acquire public property for private investment—following the previous “Strategic Investor” model14. Although the KQZ partially accepted the complaint, it was ultimately rejected upon review by the Complaints and Sanctions Commission (KAS)15 within the KQZ, and the law proceeded through the legislative process, moving from parliamentary committees16 to the plenary session17
Several opposition MPs criticized the draft law during both parliamentary committee discussions and the plenary session, arguing that it was a commissioned and corrupt piece of legislation.
2) Edi Rama Podcast, “Zonjat nga dy maja”, 7 Qershor 2024 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr7vA6FcrsQ&list=PL47UUW9FVnW3sThfkBrP6TEARHplI8AuJ&index=38)
13) Vendim nr 83, dt. 11.02.2025 Për shqyrtimin administrativ bazuar në denoncimin me Nr. 4 ID, datë 06.02.2025, të regjistrit të denoncimeve, të Koalicionit për Reforma, Integrim dhe Institucione të Konsoliduara/KRIIK
14) Partia Demokratike e Shqipërisë, “Konstatim i kryerjes së veprimtarive të ndaluara nga neni 91/4 i Kodit Zgjedhor, konkretisht propozimi dhe miratimi i akteve ligjore për privatizimin dhe dhënien e pasurive, para periudhës zgjedhore”, 25 Shkurt 2025
15) Komisioni i Ankimimeve dhe Sanksioneve, “Procesverbali i zbardhur i seancës publike të Komisionit të Ankimimeve dhe Sanksioneve”, Dt. 17.02.2025
17) Komisioni i Ankimimeve dhe Sanksioneve, “Vendim nr. 7, Dt. 19.02.2024, Për shqyrtim e kërkesës ankimore Nr. 1, datë 14.02.2025, depozituar nga Kuvendi i Republikës së Shqipërisë”
Livestock farming is at the heart of this system. It involves an alternation between time spent in the plains and in alpine pastures. In summer, when food and water resources are depleted in the lowlands, the herds move to the high pastures. This oscillation between plains and mountains enables the regeneration of highquality forage. Pastures allow these communities to survive and to move forward. They are both ecosystems, and cultural conservatories, and reservoirs of biodiversity.
But what will happen under such a law?
Construction in these pasturelands will not only destroy the practice of transhumance forever and, but also block the movement and encounters once facilitated by the stigjet. Ecosystems will be gravely damaged. Rich biodiversity will vanish. The pastures will cease to exist. The beauty of these cultural landscapes will survive only in memory. Nature will close in on itself, solidarity will fade, and people will be deeply shaken in their cultural identity. Even tourism will finish to disappear. Such a law is a social bomb, an ecocide, and an ethnocide. Let’s stop lying to ourselves and let us dare to face the truth.
What kind of sustainable development do we want?
Our shepherds and their flocks are the true heroes of these high pastures; they are their guardians. Let us begin by recognizing them for who they truly are, and give them their due dignity and rightful place. They are the true owner of these lands— lands they have cared for and defended with their own blood during over so many centuries. Let’s stop evicting them and confiscating their land. Albania must urgently create legal recognition for transhumant shepherds and give back to them what is rightfully theirs. I invite everyone to join us in this fight. Let us all proclaim together: To let graze is to build a sustainable society.
April 30th, 2024, Theth, Shkodër. During his visit to Dukagjin, the Prime Minister unveils key elements of the ‘Mountain Package’. Photo: www.kryeministria.al
Martine Wolff
From the Podcast to the Official Gazette: The History of the Draft Law
During its passage in the Parliament, the Minister of State for Local Government claimed that the law would assist emigrants who wish to invest in their ancestral lands19. However, the law clearly states that it will legalize the acquisition of public/ state-owned land through the privatization process.
One of the minister’s deputies added that the 500 beneficiaries would be highlanders who plan to build alpine goat farms and develop agrotourism20
During the discussion in the Parliamentary Committee on Productive Activity, Trade and Environment21, the rapporteur on the issue—as well as another deputy from the Ministry of Economy—assured that the 100 Villages from a previous government program had been selected for the implementation of this law, and that the law would be amended once the number of beneficiaries exceed 50022
Meanwhile, the Minister of Economy stated in the Parliament that “the residents of these areas will be the ones to apply,” adding that “without them, there is no risk of someone else coming and taking the land in the mountains.”²³
However, “The Mountain Package” was ultimately approved by the Albanian Parliament during the session held on March 13th, 2025, with only 73 votes in favor, 1 against, and 1 abstention24. The law was subsequently published in the Official Gazette on April 18, 202525. According to Article 18, the law enters into force 15 days after its publication in the Gazette. However, the Prime Minister states it would take effect only after the parliamentary elections26. Despite the opposition’s complaint to the KQZ, the law was prominently featured in the Prime Minister’s electoral campaign27 leading up to the May 11 vote.
al/2025/01/18/paketa-e-malevemusabelliu-per-atsh-ne-perjashtimnga-kater-taksa-per-500agroturizme-dhe-ferma-malore/ 23) Kuvendi i Shqipërisë, Seanca plenare dt. 13 Mars 2025 (https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=1E0MyC1PxwY&ab_ channel=BulevardNews) 24) “Ligj Nr. 20/2025 Për paketën e maleve”, dt. 13.3.2025 (https:// parlament.al/lajme/%203c8d78f5d5fe-4dd9-b4ef-02ed2764ce01) 25) Fletorja Zyrtare e Republikës së Shqipërisë, Nr. 69, Dt. 18 Prill 2025 26) https://www.panorama.com. al/toke-me-1-euro-pa-taksa-per10-vjet-dhe-certifikate-pronesiepas-investimit-ja-kur-do-te-hyjene-fuqi-paketa-e-maleve-si-do-tefunksionoje-skema-per-investitoretne-zonat-e-thella/ 27) https://konica.al/2025/04/ paketa-e-maleve-rama-thirrjecunave-te-londres-investoni/
MPs who voted for and against the “Mountain Package” and those who did not vote
XI
Despite initial opposition, the opposition did not exercise its right to vote against the “Mountain Package”. With the exception of a few MPs who argued their stance against it, its main force – the Democratic Party – was not present at the March 13th, 2015 session, when Parliament approved the “Mountain Package”. According to the official minutes of the Parliament of Albania for the aforementioned session (see the list), the law received only one vote against – and that vote came from an opposition MP, as well as one abstention from a member of the majority’s list. In this way, this law followed the tradition of most laws approved by Parliament with around 74 majority votes, without the participation of the 63 opposition MPs, confirming that even such a fundamental law for a significant part of the territory and its citizens is used by parties solely for their own politics. Because a voice against would have meant a vote against. And in this case, there would have been 63 votes against this law. Or perhaps even the opposition is calculating which of its clients will benefit from this law?
*) Kuvendi i Shqipërisë, “Pëmbledhje e rezultatit të votimit 13-Mar-25, Nr. 12: Votim në
parim projektligji ‘Për paketën e maleve’” (https://kuvendiwebfiles.blob.core.windows.net/ webfiles/202503171203068760Flet%C3%AB%20votimi.pdf )
MP
Vote result
Mirela Pitushi In favor
Eduard Shalsi In favor
Bledar Çuçi In favor
Klodiana Spahiu In favor
Paulin Sterkaj In favor
Luan Duzha In favor
Etilda Gjonaj In favor
Edi Rama Not voting
Erion Braçe Not present
Elisa Spiropali In favor
Olta Xhaçka In favor
Anila Denaj In favor
Agron Çela Not voting
Belinda Balluku Not voting
Ogerta Manastirliu In favor
Blendi Klosi In favor
Qani Xhafa Not voting
Etjen Xhafaj In favor
Petrit Doda Not voting
Pandeli Majko In favor
Erisa Xhixho Not voting
Ferdinant Xhaferaj Not voting
Agron Duka Not voting
Sali Berisha Not voting
Oerd Bylykbashi Not voting
Kastriot Piroli Not voting
Lindita Buxheli In favor
Hatixhe Konomi In favor
Erjon Meka In favor
Petrit Vasili Not voting
Tritan Shehu Not voting
Ramadan Likaj Not voting
Gazment Bardhi Not voting
Bledjon Nallbati Not voting
Agron Gjekmarkaj Not voting
Meri Markiçi In favor
Elda Hoti Not voting
Ulsi Manja In favor
Lulzim Basha Not voting
Fatmir Xhafaj In favor
Klotilda Bushka In favor
Xhelal Mziu Not voting
Vullnet Sinaj In favor
Asllan Dogjani Not voting
Sorina Koti Not voting
Saimir Hasalla In favor
Merita Bakiu Not voting
Dasantila Tahiraj In favor
Edmond Spaho Not voting
Emilja Koliqi Not voting
Shkëlqim Bullari In favor
Aurora Mara In favor
Eduard Ndreca In favor
Bujar Leskaj Against
Lindita Metaliaj Not voting
Evis Kushi In favor
Plarent Ndreca In favor
Antoneta Dhima In favor
Edona Bilali In favor
Blerina Gjylameti In favor
Agron Shehaj Not voting
Petro Koçi In favor
Ludovik Hasani Not voting
Pranvera Resulaj In favor
Mesila Doda Not voting
Monika Kryemadhi Not voting
Niko Kuri Abstain
Nasip Naço In favor
Luljeta Bozo In favor
Alban Xhelili In favor
Nusret Avdulla In favor
Shpresa Marnoj In favor
Saimir Korreshi Not voting
Toni Gogu In favor
Taulant Balla In favor
Ornaldo Rakipi In favor
Mimi Kodheli In favor
Vangjel Dule Not voting
Tomor Alizoti Not voting
Ina Zhupa Not voting
Kreshnik Çollaku Not voting
Gëzim Ademaj Not voting
Gledis Çeliku In favor
BardhyI Kollçaku In favor
Albana Vokshi Not voting
Frrok Gjini In favor
Andrea Mano Not voting
Eralda Sano Not voting
Seladin Jakupllari Not voting
Shpëtim Idrizi Not voting
Ermonela Valikaj In favor
Laert Duraj In favor
Xhemal Qefalia In favor
Kasëm Mahmutaj Not voting
Isuf Çelaj Not voting
Lavdrim Krrashi In favor
Flamur Noka Not voting
Anduel Tahiraj In favor
Andia Ulliri Not voting
Flamur Hoxha Not voting
Flutura Açka Not voting
llir Metaj In favor
Jorida Tabaku Not voting
Lefter Gështenja Not voting
Arbi Agalliu Not voting
Fatmir Mediu Not voting
Gertjan Deda In favor
Niko Peleshi In favor
Helidon Bushati Not voting
Luan Baçi Not voting
Tatiana Piro Not voting
Klevis Xhoxhi In favor
Gerta Duraku In favor
Arkend Balla In favor
Ilda Dhori Not voting
llir Topi In favor
Enslemvera Zake In favor
Zheni Gjergji Not voting
Orjola Pampuri Not voting
Teuta Ramaj In favor
Baftjar Zeqaj In favor
Enkelejd Alibeaj Not voting
Orjela Nebijaj Not voting
Milva Ekonomi In favor
Greta Bardeli Not voting
llir Ndraxhi In favor
Lindita Nikolla In favor
lsmet Beqiraj In favor
Fadil Nasufi In favor
Dashamir Shehi Not voting
Edi Paloka Not voting
Dhurata Tyli Not voting
Dashnor Sula Not voting
Bujar Çela In favor
Arben Pëllumbi In favor
Damian Gjiknuri In favor
Mirela Furxhi In favor
Florene Spaho In favor
llirian Pendavinji In favor
Denis Deliu In favor
Interview with forestry engineer
The good intentions and dangers of misuse of the “Mountains Package”
Special articles in this law simplify the privatization of land considered state property by allowing ownership to be proven with minimal documentation, sometimes just a photograph or written proof. How do you think residents of mountainous areas might perceive this practice? Do you believe there is a risk that potential investors’ claims could conflict with the traditional boundaries of properties, which locals may not have documented with official ownership certificates?
The facilitation of documentation for privatizing state land in mountainous areas, as outlined in the “Mountain Package,” may provide meaningful benefits to local communities. Many have worked these lands for decades, but have been unable to register them due to a lack of documents or complex procedures. This new approach offers hope for the legal recognition of their traditional rights, creating a sense of security that could encourage investment in agribusiness, tourism, and other sustainable activities.
However, relying on simple evidence, such as a photograph or a written statement, can open the door to abuse and property disputes. In many mountainous areas, property boundaries are traditionally known only orally or according to local customs, making it difficult for residents to defend their rights against claims from outsiders or investors. This situation risks creating social conflict and legal uncertainty that could undermine the very purpose of the law. Therefore, the process must be supported by clear criteria, transparency, and robust
mechanisms to verify genuine ownership. The involvement of local communities, access to legal aid, and an effective dispute resolution system are crucial to ensure the law benefits legitimate mountain dwellers rather than speculators.
Will mountain dwellers be the real beneficiaries of this law?
In principle, the aim of the “Mountain Package” is
precisely to make mountain dwellers the primary beneficiaries, providing them the opportunity to acquire ownership of land they have used for decades and to invest sustainably in their communities. This represents a chance to curb depopulation, strengthen the local economy, and revitalize mountain villages. However, in practical terms, there is no guarantee that they will be the true beneficiaries, for several key reasons.
Many of the residents lack the financial resources, technical knowledge, and easy access to information needed to draft business plans or meet the law’s criteria. Meanwhile, more powerful and organized investors—often from outside the area—can take advantage more easily, especially without strict controls and transparency. The risk is that the land ends up in the hands of those who see it merely as a short-term profit opportunity, rather than as an asset to be preserved and developed for the community’s benefit. Therefore, to ensure that residents become the true beneficiaries, it is essential to provide accompanying measures such as legal aid, technical support, prioritization of local experience in the privatization process, and an effective system for verifying genuine ownership. Only through these measures can the law fulfill its social and developmental mission.
What impact could the investments legitimized by the “Mountain Package” have on the forests, pastures, and meadows of mountain areas?
The “Mountain Package” offers new opportunities for investment in mountain regions, but its impact on forests, pastures, and meadows will depend on how these investments are implemented and monitored. If carried out carefully and aligned with sustainability principles, such investments can contribute to better preservation and management of these natural resources. Residents who obtain ownership rights may feel more motivated to protect and sustainably develop the land, encouraging agritourism, ecological agriculture, and the traditional use of natural resources. However, there is also a risk that, without strict oversight, investments could lead to environmental degradation. Allowing ownership to be legitimized with minimal documentation may open the door to the claiming of forests and pastures, resulting in deforestation, the concretization of landscapes, and harm to biodiversity. Replacing natural ecosystems with construction projects without clear regulations would undermine sustainable development goals. For this reason, it is essential that the “Mountain Package” is accompanied by clear environmental guidelines, robust monitoring mechanisms, and active involvement of local communities in decision-making. Only by implementing these measures can the law guarantee economic development and the longterm preservation of Albania’s mountainous natural heritage.
No. 37, June 2025
Abdulla
May 29th, 2025.
Abdulla Diku. Photo: Scan TV
Developed with financial support from the Prespa Ohrid Nature Trust (PONT).
