Who manages Butrint?

  • Shqip
  • English
  • The change in the management structure of one of the most important archeological sites in the country, that of Butrint, has raised doubts about the dangers that threaten it. Numerous documents examined by “Investigative Network Albania” suggest that the state authorities can only exercise a weak and insignificant control over the private Foundation entrusted with Butrint for the next 10 years.

    Author: Artan Rama

    Last fall, I asked the Ministry of Culture for the agreements for the new administration of Butrint. However, the Ministry handed over only one agreement, the one in which the signatories, the Ministry and the Albanian-American Development Foundation had agreed to maintain the confidentiality of some data of a technical nature, during the transfer to each other. Browsing the agreement, I realized that there was no data there. That is, it was only a promise between the parties. It was the most insignificant document!

    The public was informed about the new direction of the Site by a special foundation, whose founders may not be, exclusively, representatives of the state authority. The foundation (known as the Foundation for the Management of Butrint) was registered in court as a non-profit organization and had as its founder, besides the Ministry of Culture, the only authorized representative: the branch of the Albanian-American Development Foundation here in Tirana, or in short: AADF. AADF is a branch of the Albanian-American Development Foundation, the latter, established in the United States of America by the American Enterprise Fund, behind which stands a group of businessmen whose activity is dedicated to financial activities and markets. In Albania, the AADF was registered as a non-profit organization, the purpose of which is based on the use of a part of the profits for charitable purposes, naturally in exchange for exemption from taxes, as well as the benefit of other fiscal facilities.

    When I approached the Ministry, most of the work was done. But I decided to research from the latest agreement: the “Grant Agreement” between the Butrint Management Foundation and the AADF. It was about the funds that AADF would transfer to the account of the new foundation.

    I addressed the Ministry with a new request.

    The Ministry refused, initially with the argument that it was not a party to the agreement. There was a complaint to the Commissioner for the Right to Information. His intervention was superficial, as always. He avoided his implication by referring to a provision of the law “On the right to information”, according to which, in the absence of information, it was delegated. He advised the staff of the Ministry to delegate the request to the parties. But the Ministry raised another obstacle. The Chief of Cabinet, Ergis Sefa, who had started his career in government with the financial support of the AADF, through the “Lead Albania” program, according to which, selected young people were offered the opportunity, against 1-year financial support, to work in high positions in the management staff of state institutions refused, saying: “We cannot delegate requests for information to non-public authorities”.

    An even more disturbing problem emerged: the Foundation for the Management of Butrint, the authority that would administer the Site in the next ten years, was in danger of being out of control, because it was not classified as a public authority. The Ministry of Culture insisted, more than once, saying that the Foundation did not comply with this status.

    “A non-profit organization cannot be a public legal entity”, says Dorina Asllani, lawyer and law lecturer at “Aleksandër Moisiu” University in Durrës. “The law on NGOs excludes public authorities from this category. Meanwhile, in the Civil Code, the establishment of NgOs by legal entities is foreseen, but without expressly specifying whether public authorities can do this. “However,” – she continues, – “there is no legal restriction that public services that fall within the scope of activities of non-profit entities, are fulfilled by the latter.”

    The Executive Director of the Res Publica Center, lawyer Dorjan Matlija, goes further. “Although these functions have been given to a non-profit foundation, the Board of Directors exercises public functions and the government remains responsible. Such similarities bring to our attention joint-stock companies, established by state institutions, where the state owns the majority of the capital, thus it controls decision-making. Other institutions, among them the Albanian Radio Television, are also similar”.

    Further, researching the acts of establishment of the Foundation, we read: The income generated by the Foundation is not considered public funds. In another document it is stated that … the income generated by the Foundation is not subject to the High State Control.

    “Probably, the activity of the foundation risks not even being subject to the law “On the right to information”, – Mrs. Asllani states. – However, this remains to be seen in the future”, she concludes.

    The Right to Information Commissioner continues to hold in abeyance the decision regarding access to the Grant Agreement, while the parties themselves, the Butrint Management Foundation and the AADF refused to respond to other requests for information, part of which was interest in this agreement. For Matlija, this attitude causes frustration. “It is sad that the Ministry declares a priori, that the Foundation is not a public authority, positioning it as an island isolated from state control.

    The history of the site in the last thirty years after the fall of the communist regime of Hoxha, has been a battle for its separation from the unsuccessful and old model of administration until now. Initially as Minister of Culture, Edi Rama supported the efforts for more autonomy, promoted by the then foundation, Fondacioni Butrinti. But paradoxically, from 2013 onwards, when he gained more power as Prime Minister, Butrinti remained the same as it had been: ignored and mismanaged.
    The Prime Minister finally gave in, exchanging responsibility for the failure with the promise of a way and a new management plan.

    But does this new way risk serving a small group of interests? The lack of transparency is by no means a guarantee for the elimination of this risk.

    The games with UNESCO

    Six years after 1997, the site of Butrint, which had gained the status of an archaeological park in 2000, was still on the list of endangered heritage, along with several African countries. UNESCO (World Heritage Committee) recommended that the cultural property management plan be coordinated with the management plan of a Ramsar natural site. This is because Butrint was located in the heart of a wild wetland landscape that stood out for its rich and undisturbed biological diversity.

    Things improved when, in late 2005, the Albanian government responded to the concerns of the World Heritage Center (UNESCO) regarding illegal constructions near the Site.

    In an effort to stop them, it declared Butrint a National Park, under the name “Butrint Wetland Complex”. Under these circumstances, Butrint was fortified and the protected territory expanded many kilometers beyond the main site.


    Expansion of Butrint territory, map approved in 2005

    The cultural wealth, above ground and below ground, was included in the central area of the new park and marked on the map with the symbol A3. The World Heritage Center reacted, removing the Site from the list of endangered heritage. Two years later, in 2007, the Committee called the territory around A3 a buffer zone, the boundaries of which coincided exactly with those of the park. According to the guidelines of the World Heritage Center, the so-called “protection zone”, although not part of the nomination, is necessary to protect the Cultural Property. However, any change in the area in the future must also receive the approval of the Committee. For this reason, both of these properties: the listed World Heritage property (archaeological site) and the protective area (buffer zone), were registered as an integral part of the same diverse natural habitat.

    When in October 2019, the Albanian-American Development Foundation proposed to the Ministry of Culture the establishment of a non-profit organization to administer Butrint, behind which there was also a real business plan, it limited its interest only to the main site A3. Traditionally, the A3 attracted attention and was massively accessed by tourists, thus collecting almost all the revenue generated by the Park. But now, A3 was part of the territory of the Butrint National Park and, based on the new, newly promoted protected areas legislation, the territorial entirety of the Park was under the responsibility of another ministry: the Ministry of Tourism and Environment. The creation of this duality of authorities, at a time when the profitable part of the Park was proposed to be separated in favor of only one of them, naturally produced a conflict between the two ministries: Culture and Environment, on the ratio of revenue sharing and, consequently, the sharing of responsibilities between them.

    The respective interest groups clashed in 2018, since discussions on the design of the Butrint Park management plan had begun, in a process commissioned by the AADF. Although the plan considered the entire territory of the Park, its implementation would be administered by two different authorities. The heads of the Protected Areas in the Ministry of Tourism and Environment had requested equal treatment of cultural and environmental assets. “The archaeological site has always been a priority, while we requested that the buffer zone should not be seen as dependent on the main site, but as two mixed properties”, says Lorela Lazaj, Director of the Regional Agency of Protected Areas (Vlora County). According to a senior official of the Ministry of Environment, who informed me on condition of anonymity, AADF representatives, during the talks, did not accept his proposal to reach an agreement for the use of part of his revenues, provided by tickets (up to 30%), in favor of projects and environmental services, useful for the Park.

    The issue of control over the two properties was raised again in 2019, when the draft management plan for Butrint was presented to the experts of the World Heritage Center in Paris, through our Permanent Mission to UNESCO, around the same time that the AADF submitted to the Ministry of Culture the request for the indirect administration of Butrint.

    On January 24, 2020, the parties, with the participation of the AADF, sat opposite each other, in two consecutive meetings, to discuss the Plan. But after the end of the discussions, the situation continued to remain unclear…

    On 28 February, the World Heritage Center requested further clarification, specifically, regarding its recommendation advising the Albanian government to create a single authority to administer both: A3 and, simultaneously, the National Park (protection area). The Center urged the government to get involved seriously and immediately.


    The World Heritage Center seeks clarification on the authority that will administer Butrint

    The government responded on March 18, through another letter: “The Ministry of Culture can not establish a foundation to administer assets that are not under its administration,” it said in the response.

    It was therefore understood that the foundation (non-profit organization) proposed to administer A3, would not include Butrint National Park. The AADF and the Ministry of Culture did not change their position even later, when the agreement for the transfer of Butrint was presented to the Assembly. According to them, the new law “On Cultural Heritage” (the drafting of which, although supported by AADF itself) did not allow such an opportunity; the Ministry could not negotiate agreements on assets that exceeded its jurisdiction.

    But the argument was also helped by an earlier act, when a separate government decision in 2014 separated the administration of area A3 from the remaining administration of the National Park, to hand it over exclusively to the Ministry of Culture. It was only about 614 ha of the archaeological area, not even a tenth of the total territory of the National Park. In 2018, the amended law “On Cultural Heritage” also gave the right to non-profit legal entities to administer cultural heritage assets. A3 was one of these assets. These decisions, gradually, one after the other, marked the beginning of the end of a joint administration and most likely, may create further development, but what is more important: the beginning of the instability of the territorial integrity of the Park. Ironically, the National Park, by removing the A3 , or simply the “buffer zone”, which was created to guarantee the sustainability of the Site, risks being devalued, now that the separation of the Site to a new administration may leave it without support and full of responsibility.


    The 2014 decision separating the administration of the A3 area from the National Park

    And there are risks as well.

    Thus, in February 2021, the Agency for the Development of Strategic Investments (AIDA) recommended to the Investment Committee (KIS) the granting of 128 ha from the central area of the Butrint National Park, for the construction of a new complex with 636 rooms. Earlier in January, an article by Richard Hodges, the visionary British archaeologist and one of the drafters of the Butrint Management Plan, drew attention to the threats to the National Park from the effects of Climate Change. According to the opinions expressed in the article titled: “Facing Climate Change in Butrint”, not only the City, but also the surrounding territory, could be seriously affected by the rise in the level of the Mediterranean Sea in the not too distant future, with the result that the monuments and the surrounding lands are covered by water.

    This is the main challenge which Butrint will face today, as well as the new administration. The lesson taught by the World Heritage Centre, that the future of the Site depended on maintaining the habitat around it, was equally valuable.

    The Heritage Center (UNESCO) continued with the examination of the uncertainties, sending, through the Director, Mrs. Mechtild Rössler, a second letter on June 24. The situation, rather than demotivating, turns into a comic situation, because the National Council for the Management of Cultural Assets, a collegial body, apparently independent, but with a majority of bureaucrats in its composition, subordinate to the Minister of Culture, had approved the draft management plan, since two and a half months before. According to the archived minutes of the meeting, only one of the members of the Council had asked the other participating members to re-evaluate UNESCO’s concerns before approving the project, but the intervention of the Minister of Culture, Mrs. Margariti had put a lid on a possible discussion: “We don’t expect to have revisions from them”, she said.

    The ministry continued the “game”, keeping silent about the approval of the management plan, and on July 22, the government announced the approval of the plan. Meanwhile, the correspondence with the World Heritage Center continued undisturbed, as if nothing had happened. What good could it bring to the reflection of further remarks, at a time when the plan was approved?!

    But the Center’s experts raised another concern: What was the name of the government body that would administer the World Heritage property? The question was not a curiosity. In 1989, Albania signed the Paris Convention, an international convention that addressed growing concerns over the destruction of cultural and natural heritage. Of course, the Center wanted to ensure that the proposal for the transfer of Butrint to non-profit legal entities did not violate the provisions of this Convention, especially Article 4, which provided: “Each member state of this Convention agrees that the duty to protect, conserve and for the transmission of the natural and cultural heritage to future generations, located in its territory, belongs in the first place to this state”.

    To understand more, let’s go back to the answer of March 18, which illuminated another fact.


    The structure of how the administration of the Butrint Site would work

    The Ministry asserted that according to the new project plan, the administration of the Site would be carried out by an inter-ministerial structure under the direction of the Prime Minister’s Office, called: Butrint National Park Authority, whose powers and legal relationship would be determined in the future. According to the organization chart that accompanied the response, the Foundation for the Management of Butrint was listed under the authority in question, but at the same level as other ministries. It was a response out of nowhere, as the dependence of the Site on the Prime Minister’s Office was not mentioned anywhere in the almost 200 pages of the draft plan.

    What were they telling UNESCO?!

    A year and a half later, on the eve of the final approval of the Agreement (May 2022), the Authority in question, the so-called inter-ministerial body, whose responsibilities and powers, under the direction of the Prime Minister, would lead the administration of Butrint, was dissolved through correspondence.

    Let’s go back to the discussions about the draft plan.

    The dialogue with the Center was abruptly terminated in March 2020. Until September, the World Heritage Center requested, no less than three times, to visit Albania.

    Together with her ICOMOS experts, it was ready to help, closely ascertaining the situation of the Site. Meanwhile, the government did not respond earlier than a year had passed. It ignored the invitation, continuing to exchange details of relative importance on past and forgotten issues.

    From there, things progressed rapidly.

    On February 24, 2021, the Ministry of Culture and the Albanian-American Development Foundation (AADF) concluded the cooperation agreement that paved the way for the registration of the special foundation and then, the drafting of the final administration agreement, only for sub-area A3. In a few months, other well-coordinated agreements, acts and legal challenges were met without delay, to finalize a process whose journey stretched back over a decade.


    The cooperation agreement for the establishment of the foundation for the management of Butrint

    When the final document
    (Administrative Agreement) was submitted to the Assembly at the end of April 2022 , only the title, but not the content, was deposited in the virtual library of draft laws. Thus, a part of the majority deputies approved it without reading a single line from dozens and dozens of pages. If the authors of the agreement intended a voting process where the voter does not understand what he is voting for, they could not have programmed a more successful process. But let’s shed a little more light on what the deputies voted for, but did not read; whose developed non-transparent procedure multiplied interest and increased public vigilance.

    The route of an unusual invitation

    Many can easily state that the assembly of partners of a business company and the board of directors of a non-profit foundation are not the same thing. No doubt, no! While the first is part of a system which is motivated by profit for the benefit of the individual, the second aims at the opposite: non-profit charity for the benefit of the community. But what one cannot easily understand is how the same man can belong to both profit and charity at the same time.

    Lawyer Flonja Boriçi is one such person.

    Noone, more than her, has ever before experienced the magic of the dramatic transition from the noisy and real world of the financial markets to the ideal and magical microworld of the ancient Homeric city. On June 11, 2021, Flonja Boriçi was appointed to the Board of Directors of the Foundation for the Management of Butrint by the founders of the foundation, while for a decade she had founded and managed her legal company, also known internationally: “Tashko&Pustina”.

    In August, the agreement for the new administration of sub-area A3, exclusively, by the Foundation for the Management of Butrint came into force.

    Together with the Minister of Culture, Mrs. Elva Margariti, Flonja was appointed a member of the highest decision-making body of this Foundation, the Board of Directors.

    The other two members were AADF co-directors: Martin Mata and Aleksandër Sarapuli. The fifth and final member, the only one with direct stewardship experience at a World Heritage Site, was archaeologist Richard Hodges. In the next ten years, Flonja Boriçin will start a new career for which she has neither the training nor the experience.

    After graduating in law, she earned a Master of Laws in Commercial Law. Her career and that of the studio she founded stood out in the industry and energy sector of the country, combining services, not only in the private commercial sector, but also partnering with international financial institutions. Finally, in partnership with consortia of international companies, Tashko&Pustina has become part of the multidisciplinary advisory teams commissioned by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in order to provide assistance to the Ministry of Infrastructure and Energy for the development of concession competitions in the field of renewable energy (Karavasta and Spitalle ). On the company’s website there is also information about the announcement of the tender for the Vlora Airport concession, the construction of which seriously damages the Vjosë-Nartë Protected Landscape, a wild wetland ecosystem, as delicate as the National Park of Butrint, within which is located the famous central sub-area A3.

    How did it happen that Flonja Boriçi, at the height of the booming of a distinguished career, within a motivating and profitable environment, directed her attention towards a calmer and slightly disturbed environment, such as Butrinti, giving the professional career philanthropic colors and a new identity?

    “I was asked if I could deal with Butrint and I accepted”, – simply and briefly affirms Mrs. Boriçi, when we met in May in her studio, in the “Twin Towers” Commercial Center on the main Boulevard. There was not much knowledge about the Park. As for the part outside A3, she was not very certain: “Maybe the AADF wanted to take the whole Park, but we didn’t give it to them”, she continued. It is not easy to document her trajectory, the move from the gates of business to the gates of Butrint, as a member of the decision-making board, but some data illuminates the path from which you can start to arrive at the answer.

    The story begins on April 6, 2020, the day when the National Council for the Management of Cultural Assets approved the Butrint Management Plan. That day it had made another decision: the proposal for inclusion of an external expert, who would help negotiate agreements for the creation and operation of the special foundation. The selection criteria and qualifications of the expert were to be determined at the next meeting.

    In the next meeting, no criterion was mentioned! No expert!

    Not even in the next one!

    Three months later, in July, the Ministry called on “Credins” Bank. “We didn’t have enough money to pay the expert. It was an unforeseen service in the budget of the Ministry”, says Ergis Sefa, Chief of Cabinet of Mrs. Margariti, – “so we thought to benefit them through a bank, which would be able to pay the expert”. Credins accepted the role and made €48,000 available for the service, through the signing of a sponsorship contract, where the Ministry of Culture was in the role of “Beneficiary”. But who would perform that service and who would benefit from that money? Think a little… – Yes! Correct!

    The Law firm Tashko&Pustina was selected by the Bank, in a closed process, in the capacity of
    the
    consultant, against a payment of €48,000 (which later rose to € 50,000). Although signing a sponsorship contract was, formally, a legal action, the costs of which were exchanged for fiscal benefits in favor of the Bank, it raised some concerns.


    Sponsorship contract in favor of Tashko&Pustina law firm

    From a technical point of view, the use of outside money, outside of the state budget, for public services, can be seen as an achievement. But on the other hand, avoiding an open competition, under the pretext that non-public funds are being used, avoids the competition, predetermining the Consultant. However, the Ministry could condition the acceptance of the money from the donor with the holding of a competition, but it did not.

    The second concern is related to the selection criteria. Tashko&Pustina did not offer any experience in the administration of matters pertaining to heritage, art, history or archaeology. The process was “closed” in the vault of a private bank, which spent money in exchange for the selection it desired, in favor of a studio the focus of which was the activities and dynamics between financial companies and the concession agreements of these companies with the state authority.

    The bank, however, was not alone and, moreover, not equally responsible in front of the public institution.

    The Ministry itself had no less than two opportunities to conduct a process that respected an open competition, but it did not use any of them. First, it could use the generated revenue, which was administered by more than 90%, by the Park Administration Office, which was under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Culture itself. In eleven years, since the issue of the decision legitimizing the use of these funds for the performance of services to the Park, about 2.2 million US dollars had been collected in the coffers of the autonomous financial administration of Butrint. Despite the fact that up to that moment, the money had failed to be used, there had been accumulated enough to be used for the performance of such services, where legal-administrative ones could not be excluded. The second possibility was through the presentation of the financial need of the Ministry of Finance, for the possibility of reallocating additional funds. The latter remains a common practice of using public funds in accordance with the dynamics of unforeseen or emergency needs throughout the budget year.

    In the circumstances when the bank sponsorship option turned out to be a winner, Flonja may have felt, indeed, grateful.

    “Thank you for contacting our office with your plans…”, was the opening statement of the letter through which, on behalf of Tashko & Pustina , she addressed Credins Bank, accepting the negotiation of agreements. And she started work immediately.

    The contract ended in two years, on July 31, 2022.

    But on June 11, 2021, without completing the contract, she was appointed a member of the Board of Directors of the new Foundation, the documentation of which was still being prepared. Now, she was not just a draftsman, but henceforth, also a decision-maker; two responsibilities, within the same person.

    But are we dealing with a mismatch?

    In article 7 of the law “On the profession of lawyer”, it is stated: “The lawyer, while practicing the profession, cannot perform, … any function or duty
    other in public bodies”. So, if Ms. Boriçi on the Board of Directors performs a function, or a state duty, does this representation create a conflict in her activity as a lawyer?

    “The appointment does not conflict with Article 7”, – answers the General Secretary of the Ministry of Culture, Mrs. Zerina Bruçi, whose career for the 2019-2020 season was also supported by the “Lead Albania” scholarship, a program funded by the AADF. “The foundation”, – she continues, “is a non-profit organization the activity of which is not influenced by the state”. But lawyer Matlija sees it differently. “In my opinion”, – he says, “the members of the Board of Directors exercise public functions, since the body to which they belong is controlled by the Ministry of Culture. Which means that we have entered the terrain of an incompatibility regarding the dual nature of Mrs. Flonja Boriçi, incompatibility which has to do with her profession as a lawyer and not with her function as a board member”.

    On the other hand, how does Flonja Borici fulfill her obligations as a representative of the state, in the role of a board member, even more so when in Article 11.6 of the Cooperation Agreement for the Establishment of the FMB, members are required to make a decision stripped of any kind of authority from the Founders? If so, how does the Founder (Ministry of Culture) ensure that the decision-making of its representatives is in favor of the state interest? How far are the limits of the Foundation’s autonomy and what mechanism guarantees the smooth running of the Cultural Property in favor of state interests? Browsing through the multitude of legal written documentation of the new foundation, it is hard to see a concrete guarantee.

    On November 16, 2021, the members of the National Council for the Management of Cultural Property, in an atmosphere of celebration and liberation, raised their hands in favor of the Agreement on the Administration of Sub Area A3. Let’s hope that they were sufficiently informed and aware of what they approved that day, as long as the minutes of the meeting expose at least two serious untruths; the first, when during the presentation of the draft, the lawyer of Tashko & Pustina asserts that the Foundation will procure the services, based on the law “On public procurements”, while it is completely the opposite (the Foundation is exempted from the rules of public procurement – Cooperation Agreement ) and the second, when the General Secretary of the Ministry of Culture informs that UNESCO has approved the Butrint administration model and that a successful communication was developed between the parties… In fact, the World Heritage Center was not familiar with the Agreement, as our Permanent Mission in UNESCO did not dispose of it, at least until June of the following year.


    The cooperation agreement, according to which the Foundation determines the procurement procedures itself

    There was no advertising for the inaccuracies. Council members voted unanimously.

    On May 23 (2022) the Agreement passed in the Assembly. There were no surprises. The majority MPs avoided the debate on the Agreement and some of them did not even bother to read it.

    As a result, in the next ten years Butrint will be administered, no longer by the Albanian state, but by a board of five members, whose organization let it be understood that there will be no room for real discussions or debates between them, since in order to avoid discussions, the founders have proposed the adoption of decisions by a simple majority (half+1).

    But the problem extends beyond the number. It is still not clear to whom the majority belongs! Three of the members have been proposed by a non-profit organization, while only two, in the minority, from the state side.

    It is extremely difficult to understand how, at least one of the latter two, invited by a bank, Mrs. Flonja Boriçi, will decide in favor of the interests of the state during the decision-making process. What mechanism forces it to do so? And if the government, hypothetically, does not agree with the board’s decisions, can it intervene; can it stop them, can it cancel them?

    After 21 months of interruption and silence, UNESCO returned to communication in June. It repeated the request for permission a group of its experts to visit the Site, as well as requested the inclusion of several others in the Board of Directors of the new foundation, in the capacity of observers. But in two years, much had changed. The approval by the Assembly and the entry into force of the Agreement has increased the government’s tolerance. It was agreed for a three-day visit at the end of October. On the other hand, the Minister of Culture and at the same time the Chairman of the Board of Directors of FMB, Mrs. Elva Margariti, accepted the request of the Heritage Center for inclusion in the Board, (but) only as an observer and without the right to vote.

    Meanwhile, the Center has not yet expressed a position on the Agreement for the Administration of A3. Surprisingly, the Assistant Director General of UNESCO, Mr. Ernesto Ottone Ramirez confirmed that he was familiar with the documentation for the establishment of the new foundation only last week
    , despite the fact that it was a document signed a year and a half ago.

    The mission to disengage A3 has entered a new phase: the gradual transposition to the new administration. It seems that everything has been accomplished, not without success, for the parties.

    But one question remains, anyway. Is the newly created Foundation a public body? The Ministry says no! If this is the case, Albania risks having violated Article 4 of the Paris Convention, by handing over the administration to a private body, over which (and it should be emphasized that) the state authority can only exercise a weak and insignificant control.

    Who benefits then, from the lack of control?


    Ky shkrim është pjesë e projektit që mbështetet financiarisht nga Zyra e Mardhënieve me Publikun e Ambasadës së SH.B.A. në Tiranë. Opinionet, gjetjet, konkluzionet dhe rekomandimet e shprehura janë te autor-it/ve dhe nuk përfaqesojnë domosdoshmërisht ato të Departamentit të Shtetit. / This article is part of a project that is financially supported by the Public Relations Office of the US Embassy in Tirana. The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the Department of State.