A Test for Lithuanian Local Government “Gentlemen”

“In two months, the administration of state-owned land throughout Lithuania will be transferred to the municipalities. A few months later, municipal elections will take place, allowing residents to elect their mayors—their 60 “princes”—who will then govern these lands.

Along with state-owned land in rural areas, municipalities will also assume certain land management functions; they will delineate state land plots and advise residents on matters concerning land leasing, usufruct, and general land use. Already, the “gentlemen” of the Association of Local Authorities in Lithuania (LSA) and various individual mayors are actively courting the Minister of Environment, urging her to allocate as much funding as possible to the municipalities—while simultaneously pushing to be exempted from oversight and any form of external supervision.

And these local government officials certainly do not lack appetite. They are requesting new computers, telephones, copiers, monitors, desks, chairs, and various cabinets and cupboards. In a survey conducted by the LSA, two-thirds of the municipalities requested one to two additional vehicles each, ostensibly to “ensure uninterrupted operations.” If the vehicles were to be transferred from a state institution, the municipalities also demanded an annual operating budget of 5,000 euros per vehicle. Alternatively, if new vehicles were to be purchased, they would require a targeted grant. This would take the form of a special targeted grant for the administration of state-owned land. A specific figure was even mentioned: 4.5 million euros. The core message from the municipal representatives is this: "delegated functions require funding from the state budget (in the form of a special targeted grant)," because without it, "a paralysis of processes" would ensue.

What kind of paralysis are they warning about? What sort of institutional functions are at risk of grinding to a halt?

Presumably, this refers to the disruption of services for residents in the regions regarding land management matters, as the local branches of the state land management authority will cease to exist. Municipalities will now be responsible for receiving residents and providing consultations on issues such as land leasing, land use rights, various types of formal consents, and other land-related matters. Municipal specialists will be tasked with making decisions regarding the cadastral data of newly formed land plots; they will carve up unallocated state land into individual plots, calculate portions of land for lease or use, and so on. It makes sense—after all, local government is closer to the people. A real test lies ahead for municipal officials.

The Special Investigation Service (STT), having conducted an assessment within the municipalities, identified numerous corruption risks this year related to the use and administration of state-owned land. According to the STT, identical requests are handled differently across various municipalities—depending entirely on who submitted the request. There are no clear criteria, and decisions are subject to manipulation. In the Kaunas City Municipality, the Special Investigation Service (STT) identified four instances where construction was permitted despite failure to comply with mandatory setback requirements. All these authorizations were granted to a close relative of the mayor who is also a member of the municipal council. In other identical cases, requests from less influential applicants were rejected. In cities and towns, some state-owned land remains uninventoried, and information regarding available plots is withheld. Even specific, isolated transactions are kept hidden—for instance, state land lease agreements within the territory of the Plungė Manor.

In the 2026 Lithuanian Corruption Map study, business leaders identified municipalities as the most corrupt institutions. The frequency with which municipalities were cited as corrupt entities increased by 17 percentage points. Among company executives who had dealings with local government, 11% reported being asked for a bribe, and two-thirds of all surveyed business leaders view municipalities as lacking transparency.

Violations by local governments in the management of state-owned land number in the tens and hundreds. During the first nine months of this year, 142 cases were identified where proposed municipal transactions failed to comply with legal requirements. There are dozens of instances of irregularities involving the transfer of state-owned land for free use.

Errors in granting state-owned land plots for temporary use occur regularly in various districts. Municipalities frequently fail to fulfill their obligation to notify the state—or the relevant state institution—about transactions involving state-owned land located within protected areas. Such violations have been documented in the Plungė and Vilnius districts.

You might say: "He who does nothing makes no mistakes." After all, there must be some freedom to act, a certain level of trust, and tolerance for errors. But where should the limits of such discretion lie?

I recall an old joke from the 90s about Petka and Chapaev, in which Chapaev sends Petka to London. Some time later, Petka returns, wearing a magnificent fur coat and decked out in luxury watches, rings, and chains. Chapaev asks:

"How did you manage to pull this off?"

"Well, you see," Petka explains, "I went to a gentlemen's club in London. We were playing poker. The cards were dealt, and we placed our bets. Then, it was time to show our hands. One man says, 'I’ve got a straight,' another says, 'I’ve got three of a kind'—they announce their hands and discard their cards face down. They just state what they have and toss the cards away. True gentlemen trust one another. A gentleman’s word is his bond." “And that’s when, you see, Chapayev, I started getting a ‘good run of cards.’”

The test for the “gentlemen” of local government has begun. It will be up to the politicians to decide the limits of discretion—and just how sharp the “four-eyed” oversight will be. It would be good that this political experiment in strengthening local government does not turn into not only a "paralysis of land management processes", but also a "multiplication file of the spiral of self-destruction" of 60 principalities."