Moldova, Social protection activities (2022-2025): Decentralized evaluation

The evaluation was undertaken to inform WFP’s preparations for a responsible withdrawal from Moldova, while also generating insights for WFP’s global operations. It was carried out between May 2025 and February 2026. It explored how WFP’s cash assistance and efforts to strengthen social protection capacity can complement each other and accelerate the transition from humanitarian assistance into technical support for government social assistance programmes as a strategy towards a responsible exit. The evaluation served both accountability and learning objectives.  It focused on assessing the relevance, coherence, efficiency, effectiveness, and responsible exit (sustainability). Overarching evaluation questions focused on:

1. To what extent are WFP interventions relevant to meeting the needs of the vulnerable Moldovans, refugees and of MLSP?
2. How coherent have WFP interventions been with broader social protection policies and programmes in Moldova and how has WFP ensured synergies between its cash-based transfers (CBT) and social protection capacity strengthening support?
3. To what extent have WFP ‘s capacity strengthening, food and cash assistance interventions been efficient to meet the needs of vulnerable Moldovans, refugees and national social protection system?
4. To what extent have WFP interventions contributed to, or are they expected to contribute to, strengthening the institutional capacities of the MLSP and addressing the essential needs of vulnerable population in Moldova?
5. How have WFP activities been designed and conducted to facilitate a responsible exit by WFP?

The evaluation covered cash-based transfers, technical assistance, capacity strengthening and coordination activities. Key evaluation findings included:

1. WFP’s presence in Moldova responded appropriately to emergency and pre-existing vulnerabilities, with needs-based support for refugees and Moldovans that promoted social cohesion.
2. WFP aligned well with national priorities, leveraging the social protection sector reforms (called ‘RESTART’) to support digitalization, cash-assurance and human resource strengthening, though some key activities, such as shock-responsive social protection, sat outside this framework and progressed more slowly amid policy delays in disaster risk management and refugee inclusion policies.
3. WFP delivered timely, secure and accessible cash-based transfers (CBT) in Moldova, with strong safeguards and alignment to national systems that improved efficiency, ownership and prospects for sustainability, relying in existing (i.e. national programme) targeting and criteria and transfer values.
4. WFP played a constructive role in refugee inclusion and shock-responsive social protection, focusing on Ajutor Social, gender-sensitive targeting and digital tools. However, fiscal, political and legislative constraints and limited IT capacity in MLSP as compared to other institutions,  constrained longer-term transformation.
5. WFP’s time-bound engagement in Moldova used a phased transition model developed in the absence of corporate guidance. Strong national systems, strategic partnerships, flexible funding and United Nations handovers enabled a shift from emergency delivery to capacity strengthening, , laying foundations for sustainable localisation although not entirely achieved at the time of the evaluation

The evaluation identified key lessons, notably that early alignment with national systems and integrated refugee and host population responses strongly shape WFP’s strategic trajectory, exit decisions, and refugee inclusion. Key recommendations from the evaluation included:

1. In advance of the planned WFP exit from Moldova, the Country Office should focus on embedding and sustaining system-strengthening activities within national institutions and capturing key learnings to inform corporate practice.
2. WFP HQ should draw on the lessons from Moldova to support the delivery of the WFP Strategic Plan for 2026-2029, including Strategic Outcome 1 (Effective emergency preparedness and response) and Strategic outcome 3 (Enabled government and partner programmes).