Decentralization of Dialogue in Kosovo: The Role of Municipalities in the EU-Facilitated Dialogue between Kosovo and Serbia
It often sounds like a cliché to say that municipalities are the first door where citizens can address their problems, but when taken seriously, this helps us understand the centrality of local governance and the way municipalities operate. The placement of a parking lot can affect the daily routine of a parent waiting for their child after school; the bus schedule can reshape how a working day is organized; or a few more or less seconds at a traffic light can prove decisive in an emergency. These seemingly small decisions illustrate the importance of municipalities in shaping citizens’ everyday lives and their trust in institutions.
The same logic applies to interethnic coexistence: the way institutions function, how representative and present municipalities are in dialogue processes, how inclusive pol- icies are designed and implemented, and the quality of municipal programs all have a direct impact on building trust and fostering cooperation between communities.
In the context of normalization between Serbia and Kosovo, however, the presence of municipalities at the negotiating table has always been absent. Although municipalities are the frontline of service delivery and citizen trust, they remain excluded from the EU-facilitated dialogue, the main channel for normalization between the two countries. Agreements often touch directly on municipal competences, such as policing, civil reg- istries, and energy, yet municipalities are not visibly represented at the table.
The guiding question of this policy brief is therefore: To what extent have municipali- ties been present in the EU-facilitated dialogue, and what does their absence mean for implementation and legitimacy? This question is essential for advancing an inclusive and multiethnic society in Kosovo, as local actors stand at the frontline of interethnic relations. For citizens, municipal decisions are not merely technical; they shape daily life and perceptions of shared spaces and social security. For minority communities in particular, the functionality of these mechanisms is directly linked to fair representation and the protection of rights.
This policy brief argues that the decentralization of dialogue in Kosovo can serve as a genuine tool for integration only if the role and presence of municipalities are strength- ened and directly represented in discussions between the two states. The international community especially the European Union as the main facilitator of the dialogue should ensure greater municipal involvement in the negotiation process. Bringing municipalities closer to the drafting of agreements would not only improve their practicality and en- forceability on the ground but also strengthen the legitimacy of the dialogue by making it more responsive to citizens’ everyday needs.
With respect to methodology, this policy brief relies exclusively on document analysis as its research method. The analysis covers both primary and secondary sources in order to trace how municipalities have (or have not) been included in the EU-facilitated dia- logue and how their absence affects implementation.
• Primary sources include official agreements reached between Kosovo and Serbia from 2011 to 2023, as published by the European Union, the Government of Kosovo, and the Government of Serbia. In addition, EU press releases and statements from the European External Action Service (EEAS) were examined to capture the official framing of the dialogue process.
• Secondary sources consist of reports, policy papers, and analyses produced by civil society organizations and think tanks such as the Kosovar Centre for Security Studies (KCSS), Belgrade Centre for Security Policy CSP), the Balkans Policy Research Group (BPRG), Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (FES), and other relevant actors.
Together, these sources provide the basis for assessing both the formal role assigned to municipalities in dialogue-related agreements and the broader perceptions of their absence in shaping implementation and legitimacy on the ground.
