Moldova’s civil society operates within one of the more open legal frameworks in the region. Organisations can register and work freely. There are no restrictions on foreign funding, because a 2025 opposition “foreign agents” bill modelled on Russia and Georgia failed. The governing majority has also largely avoided hostile rhetoric towards CSOs. The EU accession process has been the main driver of reform, bringing a new access-to-information law, a new volunteering law and a draft law on public participation. Practice lags behind the law. Russian interference around the September 2025 elections prompted a series of security measures that were often rushed through without consultation. They include a new power to suspend CSOs and penalties for funding people’s participation in protests. None has yet been used against genuine CSOs, but they are a risk for the future. The sudden end of US funding, which covered up to 80% of some organisations’ budgets, exposed how much the sector depends on foreign donors.
Civic Environment Report 2026: Moldova
Mixed – Enabling Leaning
| Standard | Score | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| Cluster A — Institutional and Political Environment and Narratives of CSOs | 3 | cluster average |
| A1 Equal treatment | 3 | Mostly enabling |
| A2 Political recognition as partners | 3 | Mostly enabling |
| A3 Refrained authorities from smearing | 3 | Mostly enabling |
| A4 No weaponization of state powers and good governance principles | 3 | Mostly enabling |
| A5 Transparent and open public institutions | 3 | Mostly enabling |
| Cluster B — Legal and Financial Framework for CSOs | 3 | cluster average |
| B1 Free establishment and operation | 4 | Enabling |
| B2 CSOs enjoy a safe space and protection from arbitrariness | 3 | Mostly enabling |
| B3 Liberality of resourcing | 3 | Mostly enabling |
| B4 Enabling fiscal environment | 2 | Restrictive leaning |
| B5 Free expressions of criticism | 3 | Mostly enabling |
| Cluster C — Public Engagement and Perceptions towards the Work of CSOs | 2.6 | cluster average |
| C1 Citizens' trust | 3 | Mostly enabling |
| C2 Pluralistic presentation in media | 2 | Restrictive leaning |
| C3 Free engagement | 3 | Mostly enabling |
| C4 CSOs embedded in communities | 2 | Restrictive leaning |
| C5 Freedom of assembly | 3 | Mostly enabling |
| Cluster D — CSOs as Policy Makers | 2.4 | cluster average |
| D1 Right to participate in decision-making including in the policy cycle | 3 | Mostly enabling |
| D2 Timely consultations and equal participation | 2 | Restrictive leaning |
| D3 Policies encourage cooperation with CSOs | 3 | Mostly enabling |
| D4 Free advocacy and watchdogging | 2 | Restrictive leaning |
| D5 Government listens | 2 | Restrictive leaning |
| Composite index (average of cluster scores) | 2.75 | between restrictive leaning and mostly enabling |