Albania’s natural environment, rich in biodiversity and unique ecosystems, is once again at the heart of a legal battle. The Albanian Ornithological Society (AOS) and EcoAlbania, two organizations with a long-standing commitment to environmental protection, have filed a critical request with Albania’s Constitutional Court. The object of this request is the annulment and suspension of Law No. 21/2024 “On some additions and amendments to Law No. 81/2017 on Protected Areas”. It is a legal act that, according to the organizations, severely undermines the integrity of protected areas and conflicts with both the Albanian Constitution and the country’s international obligations.
The Constitutional Court’s plenary session, initially postponed from June 26 to June 27 following the submission of documents by all parties, brought to light the core arguments and positions of each stakeholder involved in the case.
What does Law 21/2024 contain and why is it problematic?
The existing Law on Protected Areas (Law No. 81/2017) had established strict limitations on construction and development within these ecologically valuable areas. The newly adopted Law No. 21/2024 introduces sweeping changes that effectively open the door to infrastructure and tourism-related developments inside protected areas thus posing a serious threat to Albania’s biodiversity and fragile ecosystems.
According to AOS and EcoAlbania’s petition, Law 21/2024:
- • Significantly weakens legal protection: It removes or softens previously strict bans on construction and development in areas of high ecological importance, allowing governmental decisions that could prioritize private interests over the public good.
- • Violates international standards: As an EU candidate country, Albania is obligated to align its legislation with the EU acquis, including the Habitats and Birds Directives. The new law diverges from these standards and is inconsistent with international conventions such as Ramsar, Bern, and the Convention on Biological Diversity.
- • Lacks transparency and public consultation: The adoption process was opaque and excluded public participation. The final draft, prepared by the Council of Ministers, was never subject to genuine public consultation, thus violating both constitutional obligations and the Aarhus Convention on public participation in environmental decision-making.
- • Undermines protection categories and buffer zones: The law dilutes the protection status of certain categories, such as “Protected Landscapes,” and removes requirements for buffer zones around strictly protected reserves and measures essential to safeguarding these ecosystems from external threats.
- • Creates legal uncertainty and erodes public trust: Frequent and vague legal changes generate insecurity and weaken the trust of citizens and local communities who often live in harmony with nature.
The Voices of Stakeholders in the Plenary Session
1. Petitioning Members of Parliament (1/5 of the Assembly): The petitioning MPs emphasized that the legislative changes violate the Constitution due to the lack of proper public consultation, as required by Article 56. They warned that removing restrictions on construction in protected areas paves the way for environmental degradation under the guise of tourism development. They argued that the only future “limit” on such development would be political will, risking the long-term loss of all protected areas in the country.
2. Përfaqësuesi i Dy Organizatave (AOS dhe Eco Albania): Përfaqësuesi i organizatave theksoi se procesi ligjvënës ka shkelur jo vetëm parimet procedurale të transparencës, por edhe standardet ndërkombëtare mjedisore. Ai nënvizoi se zonat e mbrojtura nuk janë vetëm pasuri natyrore, por edhe hapësira për kërkimin shkencor të garantuar nga Kushtetuta, funksion që do të zhbëhet nëse ato preken nga ndërtime dhe infrastrukturë turistike.
3. Representative of the Parliament: Parliament’s representative denied any procedural violations, asserting that the draft law underwent a full review process and that civil society organizations had the opportunity to provide input. He maintained that the law aims at sustainable development rather than promoting resort construction and insisted that the spirit of the 2017 law was preserved in line with European and IUCN standards.
4. Representative of the Council of Ministers: According to the government’s representative, the constitutional claims raised were unfounded, and the new law strikes a balance between economic development and environmental protection. He claimed that consultations were carried out in compliance with legal standards and that the Ministry of Tourism and Environment had held meetings with relevant stakeholders during the drafting process.
New Evidence and Rebuttals
In response to claims that the consultation process had taken place, the representatives from the organizations argued that the so-called “consultation” amounted merely to isolated email exchanges between an organization head and public institutions; far from a real, inclusive public process.
2019 under the Ministry of Environment and has since undergone a series of controversial stages. Although initially presented as a science-based and participatory process, decisions in later phases often ignored input from environmental groups and academia. In December 2020, the National Territorial Council (KKT) approved a plan that significantly reduced several protected areas, including Prespa, Butrint, and the Buna-Velipojë wetlands prompting strong reactions from civil society and international actors. Following sustained pressure, a revised map was adopted in November 2022, and two new national parks were declared in 2023: the Albanian Alps and the Vjosa River. However, the adoption of Law 21/2024 in February 2024 marked a turning point, legalizing interventions in protected areas in the name of elite mass tourism. This law is now under constitutional review following a joint appeal from EcoAlbania, AOS, and 28 MPs.
Why the Constitutional Court’s Decision Matters
AOS and EcoAlbania emphasize the critical role of the Constitutional Court in this process. “The Court must restore trust in the rule of law and participatory democracy—especially when it comes to environmental protection, which represents a vital public interest,” said Olsi Nika, Executive Director of EcoAlbania. Law 21/2024 is not just the product of a flawed process, he warned, but a direct threat to the long-term preservation of Albania’s natural heritage.
Environmental organizations are calling for swift and decisive action by the Constitutional Court, demanding the repeal and suspension of Law 21/2024. The protection of Albania’s natural assets is not merely a legal issue—it is a moral obligation to future generations to preserve the country’s unparalleled biodiversity.
EcoAlbania and AOS remain steadfast in their commitment to defending Albania’s public interest and natural heritage. They will continue monitoring developments closely and engaging in every possible legal and advocacy effort both nationally and internationally. Following the plenary session, during which all parties presented their arguments and evidence, the Constitutional Court has now withdrawn to deliberate. A final decision on the constitutionality of Law 21/2024 is expected to be issued in July 2025. This ruling will have far-reaching implications, not only for the future of protected areas and their ecological integrity but also for how Albania ensures public participation in environmental decision-making and balances development with sustainability.
