Denada Jushi
When the European Union announced a €1 billion package for the Western Balkans at the height of the energy crisis, the aim was clear: to help the region cope with the immediate shock, but at the same time to accelerate the transition towards a more sustainable and less crisis-dependent energy system.
But a few years later, the question that arises is simpler and more direct: what really changed?
Report prepared by CEE Bankwatch Network, the regional network that monitors public funding and large projects in Central and Eastern Europe, and published by PPNEA, gives a less optimistic answer. According to the report, only €163.1 million out of the total €1 billion package can be directly linked to advancing the Green Agenda in the Western Balkans.
Of the 500 million euros distributed as budget support to the region's governments, only 41.1 million euros are considered to have financed measures with long-term impact.
In practice, most of the funds did not go to transform the region's energy systems, but to keep energy bills under control and cushion the social crisis caused by rising prices.
Albania benefited from around 80 million euros from this package. But even here, according to the report, most of the interventions did not bring structural change to the energy sector.
About 90% of the fund for Albania was disbursed as early as May 2023, while the last tranche of 8 million euros was only given at the end of 2024. The very way the funds were distributed is one of the main criticisms of the report: the money was given mainly in advance and not strongly linked to performance or the actual achievement of objectives.
The Albanian plan was more of a crisis relief package than an energy transition package.
The main measures included subsidizing energy bills for households, support for vulnerable groups, and aid for small and medium-sized businesses. Meanwhile, measures related to renewable energy or energy efficiency accounted for a much smaller part of the package.
One of the strongest criticisms relates to what the report calls a lack of real new interventions.
According to Bankwatch, most of the measures financed in Albania had been launched before the EU package. This means that the European funds did not create new transformative policies, but mainly helped the government continue existing subsidy schemes at a lower financial cost.
Essentially, money helped to overcome the crisis, but not to change the system.
Questions also arise over how beneficiaries were selected. Support was not limited to needy families, but was extended to consumers and businesses. According to the report, it remains unclear whether the main beneficiaries were actually vulnerable citizens or state-owned energy production and trading companies that indirectly benefited from the subsidies.
At the same time, Albania continues to remain one of the most exposed energy systems in the region. The country relies almost entirely on hydropower, making it extremely vulnerable to droughts and climate change.
During 2022 alone, until October, Albania imported energy at a cost of around 360 million euros.
However, the European package was not used sufficiently to reduce this structural dependence through greater investments in energy efficiency or alternative renewable sources.
There have been some measures that the report considers positive. These include schemes for solar thermal panels for households, auctions for wind energy and the gradual expansion of solar energy. But even these, according to the report, remained limited in scale compared to the large volume of funds used to subsidize bills.
The solar thermal panel scheme is considered the most valuable long-term measure in Albania. Around 2 families benefited from it and approximately 8 million euros could be linked to measures that increase energy efficiency and have a more sustainable impact.
But here too there is a problem: many of these measures were planned before the EU package.
In contrast, over 100 families and businesses received support for paying their energy bills, but these measures did not create long-term resilience through energy savings or decentralized production.
The report also criticizes the lack of transparency. The action plans for Albania are not easily accessible and, according to the authors, it is almost impossible to identify exactly how the 80 million euros have been distributed and spent.
This creates a major accountability gap, especially considering that the structure of the package itself was built more on formal indicators than on detailed control of expenditures.
The report even argues that Albania technically met the indicators required by the EU, but this should not be read as a great success. Because most of the activities had started earlier, the achievement of the indicators was considered expected. The indicators functioned more as an administrative formality than as a real mechanism to test performance.
In the region, the picture is even more problematic.
In Serbia and Montenegro, the report also highlights the use of funds for measures that conflict with the green transition, including subsidies for fossil fuels and the creation of oil reserves.
In North Macedonia, energy subsidies were distributed generally to all consumers, losing focus on the most vulnerable groups.
Another key criticism relates to the design of the package itself. According to the report, 90% of the funds were provided upfront, while only 10% were conditional on the achievement of specific objectives. In a region where the European Union itself has repeatedly raised concerns about corruption, lack of transparency and weak rule of law, this approach is seen as problematic.
In conclusion, the report gives a mixed assessment of Albania, but with clearly critical tones. It is acknowledged that some measures, such as support for solar energy and some reforms in the renewable sector, have value. But overall, the package seems to have financed more the continuation of existing subsidy schemes than the creation of a sustainable energy transition.
The EU energy package helped the Balkans cope with the current crisis. But according to the report, it failed to build mechanisms that would make the region less vulnerable in the future.
And this is perhaps the strongest criticism of all: the Balkans continue to live more for the present than for the future.acqj.al
