Civil Society to Monitor and Contribute to Transparency and Anti-Corruption Policies in Moldova

There was a gap between the smaller and less-established members and the core group of better-resourced organizations. For its long-term viability, the network will be well-advised to seek to close this gap. What the Anti-Corruption Alliance should build national-level activities, which are beyond the capabilities of any individual member.

Disappointingly, neither the grantee nor the Anti-Corruption Alliance took the initiative to build on what might be learned from the ten sub-projects and ten organizations. An opportunity to share and jointly build on experience was lost, in particular in areas which are beyond the capabilities of individual members to organize and deliver.

The project’s initiative in providing assistance to the mass media through training and support to local and national coverage of corruption-related topics facilitated an increase in media coverage of the issue. The quality and number of media products delivered by the project was impressive.

A centrepiece of the grantee’s efforts to build the capacity of smaller NGOs – both members and non-members of the Anti-Corruption Alliance in Moldova – was the small grants programmes. By providing preliminary training, financial and advisory support to NGOs, the project assisted in enhancing their skills in project design and implementation, while also contributing to their self-confidence in undertaking advocacy with local government. Some valuable ideas and approaches to local level anti-corruption work were piloted in the course of the sub-projects, and many of these could be considered as the basis for future initiatives.

The project demonstrated how civil society could contribute to public policy on corruption. For example, the preparation and publication of three monitoring reports on progress made between late 2012 and December 2014 on the implementation of the government’s National Anti-Corruption Strategy (NACS) in Moldova were very effective. The reports facilitated more comprehensive, precise and reliable reporting on the progress made during the reporting period by the 36 state institutions responsible for implementation of the Strategy. It also encouraged and produced improved performance in achieving the benchmarks set out in the official national Action Plan.