ANALYSIS OF THE PUBLIC INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO 2026-2029

This document provides an in-depth analysis of the public investment portfolio in Albania, based on the Priority Policy Paper for two consecutive planning cycles: 2026–2028 and 2027–2029. These two periods include 86 and 121 projects, respectively, with a total official value of 11.25 billion euros and 14.83 billion euros, according to the relevant decisions of the Council of Ministers. At first glance, this figure reflects a high development ambition, but the analysis of the structure and feasibility of this portfolio reveals a number of systemic problems.

First, there is a deep gap between planning and real financial capacity. While sectoral strategies foresee around 7.38 billion euros of investments, the total project portfolio amounts to around 16.6 billion euros. This difference of over 9 billion euros is not simply a technical overshoot, but a clear indicator of structural over-programming. In essence, Albania is planning more than twice what it can realistically finance and implement, creating unfounded expectations and weakening the credibility of public planning.

Second, the problem of project maturity is fundamental. Of the 2027–2029 portfolio, only about 36% of the total value consists of projects that can be considered fully ready for implementation. The rest remains in incomplete preparatory stages, significantly limiting the possibility of effective execution. Considering the historical annual implementation capacity, which stands at around 680 million euros per year, it becomes clear that to complete this portfolio at the current pace would take more than two decades. This indicates not only a lack of prioritization, but also a disconnect between planning and implementation mechanisms.

Third, the structure of the portfolio itself shows that the current system produces more project lists than a filtered and manageable chain of investments. About 73% of projects do not change status from one period to the next, reflecting a clear institutional stagnation. In fact, some strategic projects in the energy sector have suffered a decrease in their status, which signals feasibility problems and a revision of initial expectations. At the same time, up to 80% of projects are classified as high priority, creating an inflation of priorities that makes structured budgetary decision-making practically impossible.

In this context, the message for policymakers is clear. The problem does not lie in the lack of projects, but in the lack of filtering and linking them to real sources of financing. An effective portfolio requires rigorous selection, clear phasing and a mandatory link between projects and budgetary capacities. The positive experience in several sectors, where digital models have been applied with mature projects and verifiable progress, shows the direction to follow. Replicating this model across the system would be a necessary step to move from a culture of formal planning to a culture of real and sustainable implementation.