Note to Readers: While the assessment focused on humanitarian coordination within the RRP framework, it is important to note that several organisations positioned their needs, gaps and capacities within Moldova’s broader EU-accession and development context. These EU-related references emerged organically during interviews and reflected how CSOs interpret the evolving donor landscape, shifting financing instruments and the transition from emergency-style funding to development-oriented support.
Civil society coordination in Moldova has evolved before and after February 2022, shaped by emergency response as well as geographic, sectoral, and political factors. Prior to the escalation of the war in Ukraine, coordination among CSOs and with the state institutions was mainly project-driven, lacking cross-cutting structures and uneven across regions.

The reescalation of the war in Ukraine in 2022 triggered mobilisation of civil society, grassroots groups, and authorities, although, initial response was characterised by chaotic coordination, particularly in regions outside Chișinău. The organisations which were involved into formal, informal, expertise-based networks and had trusted relationships with local communities and authorities were able to mobilise faster.

Over time, the Refugee Coordination Model (RCM) has become more accessible for the local CSOs, but engagement remains uneven: well-established and mainly national CSOs demonstrate greater awareness of such mechanisms and involvement compared to smaller and regional organisations. Although, all CSOs report some sort of constraints for involvement into coordination mechanisms on a regular basis - from human capacity to limited accessibility, including language barriers. Additionally, participation is reported to be restricted to CSOs’ management staff, leaving field workers less informed.

Overall, while Chișinău-based organisations and those with niche expertise maintain stronger connections with national authorities and sectoral alliances/ networks, regional CSOs, particularly in the South and Transnistria keep coordinating mostly locally, without consistent inclusion into broader coordination mechanisms and donor engagement. Coordination is functional mainly within specific thematic areas (e.g.
Child protection, legal support, temporary protection, etc.) and at the community-level, but lack formalized, functional cross-CSOs channels and/or LPA-CSO mechanisms.

Download Report