News from CSOs

As Meta announces end to U.S. fact-checking, program partners warn of a setback for accuracy online and potential global consequences

Dear Mr. Zuckerberg,
Nine years ago, we wrote to you about the real-world harms caused by false information on Facebook. In response, Meta created a fact-checking program that helped protect millions of users from hoaxes and conspiracy theories. This week, you announced you’re ending that program in the United States because of concerns about “too much censorship” — a decision that threatens to undo nearly a decade of progress in promoting accurate information online.
The program that launched in 2016 was a strong step forward in encouraging factual accuracy online. It helped people have a positive experience on Facebook, Instagram and Threads by reducing the spread of false and misleading information in their feeds. We believe — and data shows — most people on social media are looking for reliable information to make decisions about their lives and to have good interactions with friends and family. Informing users about false information in order to slow its spread, without censoring, was the goal. Fact-checkers strongly support freedom of expression, and we’ve said that repeatedly and formally in last year’s Sarajevo statement. The freedom to say why something is not true is also free speech.
But you say the program has become “a tool to censor,” and that “fact-checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created, especially in the U.S.” This is false, and we want to set the record straight, both for today’s context and for the historical record.
Meta required all fact-checking partners to meet strict nonpartisanship standards through verification by the International Fact-Checking Network. This meant no affiliations with political parties or candidates, no policy advocacy, and an unwavering commitment to objectivity and transparency. Each news organization undergoes rigorous annual verification, including independent assessment and peer review. Far from questioning these standards, Meta has consistently praised their rigor and effectiveness. Just a year ago, Meta extended the program to Threads.
Your comments suggest fact-checkers were responsible for censorship, even though Meta never gave fact-checkers the ability or the authority to remove content or accounts. People online have often blamed and harassed fact-checkers for Meta’s actions. Your recent comments will no doubt fuel those perceptions. But the reality is that Meta staff decided on how content found to be false by fact-checkers should be downranked or labeled. Several fact-checkers over the years have suggested to Meta how it could improve this labeling to be less intrusive and avoid even the appearance of censorship, but Meta never acted on those suggestions. Additionally, Meta exempted politicians and political candidates from fact-checking as a precautionary measure, even when they spread known falsehoods. Fact-checkers, meanwhile, said that politicians should be fact-checked like anyone else.
Over the years, Meta provided only limited information on the program’s results, even though fact-checkers and independent researchers asked again and again for more data. But from what we could tell, the program was effective. Research indicated fact-check labels reduced belief in and sharing of false information. And in your own testimony to Congress, you boasted about Meta’s “industry-leading fact-checking program.”
You said that you plan to start a Community Notes program similar to that of X. We do not believe that this type of program will result in a positive user experience, as X has demonstrated. Research shows that many Community Notes never get displayed, because they depend on widespread political consensus rather than on standards and evidence for accuracy. Even so, there is no reason Community Notes couldn’t co-exist with the third-party fact-checking program; they are not mutually exclusive. A Community Notes model that works in collaboration with professional fact-checking would have strong potential as a new model for promoting accurate information. The need for this is great: If people believe social media platforms are full of scams and hoaxes, they won’t want to spend time there or do business on them.
That brings us to the political context in the United States. Your announcement’s timing came after President-Elect Donald Trump’s election certification and as part of a broader response from the tech industry to the incoming administration. Mr. Trump himself said your announcement was “probably” in response to threats he’s made against you. Some of the journalists that are part of our fact-checking community have experienced similar threats from governments in the countries where they work, so we understand how hard it is to resist this pressure.
The plan to end the fact-checking program in 2025 applies only to the United States, for now. But Meta has similar programs in more than 100 countries that are all highly diverse, at different stages of democracy and development. Some of these countries are highly vulnerable to misinformation that spurs political instability, election interference, mob violence and even genocide. If Meta decides to stop the program worldwide, it is almost certain to result in real-world harm in many places.
This moment underlines the need for more funding for public service journalism. Fact-checking is essential to maintaining shared realities and evidence-based discussion, both in the United States and globally. The philanthropic sector has an opportunity to increase its investment in journalism at a critical time.
Most importantly, we believe the decision to end Meta’s third-party fact-checking program is a step backward for those who want to see an internet that prioritizes accurate and trustworthy information. We hope that somehow we can make up this ground in the years to come. We remain ready to work again with Meta, or any other technology platform that is interested in engaging fact-checking as a tool to give people the information they need to make informed decisions about their daily lives.
Access to truth fuels freedom of speech, empowering communities to align their choices with their values. As journalists, we remain steadfast in our commitment to the freedom of the press, ensuring that the pursuit of truth endures as a cornerstone of democracy.

Respectfully,
15min – Lithuania
AAP FactCheck – Australia
AFP – France
Africa Check – South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Senegal
AkhbarMeter Media Observatory – Egypt
Animal Político-El Sabueso – México
Annie Lab – Hong Kong SAR
Aos Fatos – Brazil
Beam Reports – Sudan
Belarusian Investigative Center – Czech Republic
BOOM – India
Check Your Fact – United States of America
Chequeado – Argentina
Civilnet.am – Armenia
Colombiacheck – Colombia
Congo Check : Congo, Congo DR, Central African Rep
Cotejo.info – Venezuela
CORRECTIV – Germany
Delfi Melo detektorius – Lithuania
Demagog – Poland
Demagog.sk – Slovakia
DFRAC – India
Doğruluk Payı – Türkiye
Dubawa – Nigeria
Ecuador Chequea – Ecuador
Ellinika Hoaxes – Greece
Estadão Verifica – Brazil
Facta – Italy
FactCheckHub – Nigeria
Fact-Check Cyprus – Cyprus
FactCheck Georgia – Georgia
FactCheck.kz – Kazakhstan
Factcheck Lab – Hong Kong
FactCheckZW – Zimbabwe
FactCheck.org – United States of America
FactCheckNI – Northern Ireland
Factcheck.Vlaanderen – Belgium
Factchequeado – United States of America
Factly – India
FactReview – Greece
FactSpace West Africa – Ghana
Factnameh – Iran
Faktisk.no – Norway
Faktograf – Croatia
Faktoje.al – Albania
Factual.ro – Romania
Fakt Yoxla – Azerbaijan
Fatabyyano – Jordan
Full Fact – United Kingdom
Fundación Maldita.es – Spain
Greece Fact Check – Greece
Gwara Media – Ukraine
Hibrid.info – Kosovo
India Today Fact Check – India
Internews Kosova KALLXO – Kosovo
Istinomer – Serbia
Istinomjer – Bosnia & Herzegovina
Japan Fact-check Center – Japan
Källkritikbyrån – Sweden
KOMPAS.com – Indonesia
La Silla Vacía – Colombia
Lead Stories – United States of America
Les Surligneurs – France
Lupa – Brazil
Mafindo – Indonesia
Maharat Foundation – Lebanon
Mala Espina – Chile
MediaWise – United States of America
Metamorphosis – North Macedonia
MyGoPen – Taiwan
Myth Detector – Georgia
NepalFactCheck.org – Nepal
Newschecker – India
Newtral – Spain
Observador – Portugal
Open – Italy
Pagella Politica / Facta news – Italy
Polígrafo – Portugal
PolitiFact – United States of America
Pravda – Poland
PressOne.PH – Philippines
Probe – Philippines
Provereno – Estonia
Rappler – Philippines
Raskrinkavanje – Bosnia & Herzegovina
Raskrinkavanje.me – Montenegro
Razkrinkavanje.si – Slovenia
RMIT Lookout – Australia
Snopes – United States of America
Taiwan FactCheck Center – Taiwan
Tech4Peace – Iraq
Telugu Post – India
Teyit – Türkiye
The Quint – India
The Stage Media-Liberia – Liberia
TjekDet – Denmark
Tirto.id – Indonesia
The Journal FactCheck – Ireland
The Logical Indian – India
VERA Files – Philippines
Verificat – Spain
Verify – Syria

Editor’s note: Fact-checking organizations continue to sign this letter, and we’re updating the list as they do.

Between 2021 and 2024, North Macedonia faced significant inflation growth driven by multiple factors. Supply chain disruptions and pressures on specific markets (such as edible oil) caused price increases as early as the second half of 2021. However, the main price shock came after the Russian invasion of Ukraine at the end of February 2022, an event that triggered tectonic geopolitical and economic shifts, significantly impacting the prices of energy and essential raw materials. Compared to the price level at the beginning of 2021, by the end of 2024, the general price level in North Macedonia had increased by 35%, while food prices had risen by 46.8%.
In response to this inflationary pressure, the Government introduced a series of measures to mitigate the negative impacts on consumption and the living standards of the population. Between 2021 and 2024, measures included freezing the prices of certain basic products and/or limiting trade margins to prevent further price increases. A total of nine key decisions were made by December 2024, three of which targeted margin limitations, while the others focused on price controls. Some measures applied to specific food products, while others covered a broader range of food items.
The findings of the analysis show that price control measures for food had a mild aggregate effect and a strong immediate effect. During periods without such measures, the average month-on-month food inflation rate was 0.5%. Under these measures, food inflation averaged as low as -1%, indicating that food prices decreased during the intervention. Thus, the estimated effect is relatively significant. However, this effect diminishes after the first month of implementation (if the measure lasted longer than one month). This indicates that while the measures achieve their strongest expected effect on reducing food prices in the first month, the impact quickly weakens, likely due to market adjustments (e.g., rising prices of alternative products not covered by the measures).
Another finding suggests that price control measures only temporarily suppress inflation, as prices tend to increase again once the measure expires. Inflation returns almost entirely to its pre-measure dynamics, without evidence of overshooting.
Finance Think recommends that food price control measures be used only in cases of exceptionally high inflation. In all other situations, they should be replaced with structural or market-based measures, such as:

Consistent and impartial enforcement of the Law on Unfair Trading Practices.
Strengthening the capacity and tools of the Commission for Protection of Competition.
Overhauling the agricultural subsidies system to increase domestic production.
Targeted budget support for the most vulnerable segments of the population.

Our latest 📖 Policy Brief 7⃣1⃣ answers the question: Do government #measures to limit food prices have an effect ⁉1️⃣ Measures to limit food prices have a strong effect only in the first month of implementation, reducing inflation by up to -1%! 📉2️⃣ After the first month, the effect dissipates due to market adjustments, such as increases in the prices of alternative products. ⚖️3️⃣ Inflation returns to its previous dynamics immediately after the measures are lifted, but there is no overshooting. 🔄4️⃣ Finance Think recommends using such measures only during periods of very high inflation. In other cases, structural and market-based measures are needed. 🛠️🖇 Full brief: shorturl.at/KApmC#Inflation #Prices #TemporaryEffect #FinanceThink

The EFCSN strongly condemns Meta’s CEO’s statements linking fact-checking with censorship
Platforms retracting from the fight against mis- and disinformation allows for election interference
The EFCSN encourages the European Union to stand strong in the face of such political pressure and not be deterred in its efforts to stop the spread of mis- and disinformation on VLOPs

7 January 2025 – The European Fact-Checking Standards Network (EFCSN) is disappointed by Meta’s decision to end its Third Party Fact-Checking Program “starting in the United States” and strongly condemns its CEO’s statements linking fact-checking with censorship. “This seems more a politically motivated move made in the context of the incoming administration of Donald Trump in the United States than an evidence-based decision”, says Clara Jiménez Cruz, Chair of the EFCSN. The EFCSN encourages the European Union to stand strong in the face of such political pressure and not be deterred in its efforts to stop the spread of mis- and disinformation on Very Large Online Platforms.
Fact-checking is not censorship, far from that, fact-checking adds speech to public debates, it provides context and facts for every citizen to make up their own mind. Fact-checking has been proven to be effective in countering misinformation time and again. Equating fact-checking with censorship is a false and malicious claim. Fact-checkers do not ‘censor’ anyone. Our members investigate and publish the evidence of claims potentially being false. It has always been Meta’s decision what to do with the content fact-checkers label, not ours.
The EFCSN takes issue with the characterisation of fact-checkers and journalists by Meta CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, in his announcement. In the justification for ending the program, Zuckerberg says, “Fact checkers have just been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created.” This is patently false. Fact-checkers are held to the highest journalistic standards of non-biased reporting, transparency, integrity and accountability, with organisations like the EFCSN upholding these standards through an independently conducted audit. Linking fact-checking with censorship is especially harmful as such false claims are already one of the driving forces behind harassment and attacks on fact-checkers. Furthering these claims can only exacerbate an already dire issue affecting fact-checkers across the world.
With several European countries heading to the polls in 2025, platforms retracting from the fight against mis- and disinformation allows and potentially even invites election interference, especially from foreign actors. The EU in particular must stand strong in the enforcement of its own laws, even in the face of pressure from other countries.
What the facts (and Meta) say on the impact of the Third Party Fact-checking program

In the announcement, Meta also equated the system of labelling fact-checked disinformation with censorship, stating “A program intended to inform too often became a tool to censor.” This is actually the opposite of the functioning of a labeling system. Labels on misinformation empower users to make informed decisions themselves about which content to interact with and share. In fact, just last year, in the lead up to the EU’s 2024 Parliament Elections, Meta emphasised the effectiveness of its labeling system, stating: “Between July and December 2023, for example, over 68 million pieces of content viewed in the EU on Facebook and Instagram had fact checking labels. When a fact-checked label is placed on a post, 95% of people don’t click through to view it.”
Meta has also previously celebrated its Third Party Fact-Checking Program as successful and beneficial to users, stating, “We know this program is working and people find value in the warning screens we apply to content after a fact-checking partner has rated it.” In the latest press release, Meta’s CEO alludes to “too many mistakes and too much censorship”; but Meta’s own most recent DSA transparency report shows that Fact-Checked demoted content by mistake only affected 3,15% of the total of complaints of demotion on Facebook.
The Community Notes model proposed as an alternative to the Third Party Fact-Checking Program also has weaknesses. Community Notes could best be used to counter false claims when they are based on proper expertise and fact-checking work. In the context of the 2024 US election, Poynter found that X’s Community Notes had at best an extremely marginal effect on combating election disinformation. In another investigation EFCSN member organization Science Feedback found that most of the content on X (formerly Twitter) that fact-checkers found to be false or misleading had no visible signs of having been moderated..
The European Fact-Checking Standards Network is an association of fact-checking organizations who commit to the standards of independence, transparency, and journalistic quality outlined in the European Code of Standards for Independent Fact-Checking Organisations. With over 50 verified members across Europe, the EFCSN is the voice of European fact-checkers.

During the month of December 2024, we conducted a series of activities in the municipalities of Prilep and Dolneni to address and respond to ethnic and religious hate speech that exists in online communication between young people/students from primary and secondary schools.

In this regard, three workshops were organized in two primary and one secondary school in the municipalities of Prilep and Dolneni, where students of different ethnic and religious backgrounds had the opportunity to learn and interactively engage in discussions on the topics of interreligious and interethnic diversity, critical thinking and media literacy as powerful tools for opposing hate speech both online and offline.

The workshops were held in the period from 23rd-25th of December 2024 and included students aged 12-18 in the three schools. The content and implementation were delivered by an externally engaged expert, Monika Taleska, in cooperation with the school staff.

The lectures took place in the following order:

1. Lecture at the Primary School “Ismail Qamili” – village Crnilishte, municipality of Dolneni.

Date: 23rd of December 2024

Topics covered by the lecture:

– Research on media literacy: understanding how the media shape opinions and attitudes.

– The psychology behind hate speech and its impact on individuals and communities.

– Practical exercises: Evaluating media content for bias and misinformation.

2. Lecture at the Primary School “Dobre Jovanoski”, Prilep

Date: 24th of December 2024

Topics covered by the lecture:

– Introduction to hate speech: definition, examples and legal implications.

– The role of the media in the spread and fight against hate speech.

– Interactive session: Identifying hate speech with online and offline scenarios.

– Tips for critical thinking and evaluating information sources.

3. Lecture at SOEPTU “Kuzman Josifoski Pitu” Municipality of Prilep

Date: 25th of December 2024

Topics covered by the lecture:

– Intersection of hate speech and freedom of expression.

– Case studies: Real-life examples of the consequences of hate speech.

– Media literacy skills: Recognizing fake news and combating disinformation.

– Group discussion: How can young people contribute to a more respectful online environment?

Next, on 27th of December 2024, was organized a New Year’s networking event at the office of the Association LET Station in Prilep.

The timing of the event was deliberately chosen to capitalize on the spirit of renewal and shared optimism for the future, creating a significant platform to address the critical issue of hate speech in schools, particularly on ethnic and religious grounds.

The event was attended by around 30 people, including: youth representatives (students from primary and secondary schools in Prilep and Dolneni), school staff and educators who previously played a key role in organizing workshops aimed at fostering tolerance and understanding, and representatives from various religious institutions, ensuring the inclusion of different perspectives and promoting interfaith dialogue.

The event began with a warm welcome by the organizers, who highlighted the importance of the initiative in light of the growing concern about hate speech and its harmful impact on youth and community cohesion. Participants shared personal stories, insights and examples of the challenges they face in dealing with hate speech. These stories fostered empathy and understanding among those present, who highlighted practical approaches that have proven successful in different contexts.

Also, was prepared a “New Year’s Resolution for Zero Hate Speech” making efforts for a collective commitment to promote zero tolerance for hate speech in schools and communities whose representatives participated in the event. This moment served as a powerful visual representation of unity and shared responsibility in addressing hate speech.

Schools were encouraged to display the resolution prominently as a reminder of their commitment to fostering a safe and inclusive environment and to engage students, parents, and community members in discussions about hate speech and its consequences.

The New Year’s networking event marked a significant step towards building a culture of respect, tolerance, and inclusion in the municipalities of Prilep and Dolneni. By engaging diverse stakeholders and emphasizing collective action, the event laid the foundation for ongoing efforts to combat hate speech and create a positive environment where every student can thrive.

The activity is part of the Encouraging Collective Action for Religious Freedom in the Western Balkans project, which is being implemented in collaboration with NDI North Macedonia.

The members of the REC Network Advisory Board on December 19, 2024, convened for an important meeting to discuss past activities and future strategies for the network. Participants included Directors, Mihallaq Qirqo from REC Albania, Lejla Suman from REC Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Rifat Ünal Sayman from REC Türkiye, and Milena Manova Ilikj, President of REC North Macedonia. The meeting focused on reviewing the activities undertaken by REC Network member organizations in 2024 and planning strategic priorities for 2025.

One of the central topics of discussion was the need to enhance collaboration across the network by developing a unified annual report format. This initiative aims to standardize reporting across RECs and improve transparency and efficiency. Additionally, efforts to establish common administrative standards and policies were highlighted as a crucial step toward streamlining operations within the REC network.
To further strengthen collaboration, it was decided that the next Advisory Board meeting will be organized as an in-person workshop in Istanbul during the second quarter of 2025. In preparation for this workshop, working groups will be established during the first quarter of the new year to ensure effective planning and productive outcomes. These groups will focus on specific tasks related to the network’s strategic goals and administrative alignment.
Members of the REC Network:
•Albania: Resource Environmental Center
•Bosnia and Herzegovina: Resource Environmental Center
•North Macedonia: Resource Environmental Center
•Türkiye: Resource Environment and Climate Association
This collaborative effort underscores the commitment of the REC Network to foster cooperation, establish shared standards, and strengthen its impact across member countries.

December 23, 2024 – Tetovo, MacedoniaOn December 23, 2024, at the Art Gallery in Tetovo, CED opened a week-long exhibition with over 33 photographs taken by primary school students from the municipalities of Tearce and Tetovo. This exhibition is part of the project “Unity in Diversity: Youth-Led Intercultural Dialogue,” supported by NDI North Macedonia.To bring this exhibition to life, young people and volunteers from CED organized a series of workshops in schools focusing on interfaith collaboration. The best artworks were awarded, along with the mentoring teachers who guided the creative process. The exhibition will remain open throughout the week for all visitors at the Tetovë Art Gallery. You are invited to experience the powerful message of cooperation and intercultural dialogue conveyed through the art.The project aims to promote intercultural cooperation and understanding among youth through a range of engaging activities. Interactive workshops will encourage dialogue, teamwork, and mutual respect, while an open call for essays and artworks on the theme of “Intercultural Cooperation” will provide a creative platform for young voices. Educational sessions will raise awareness about the importance of intercultural collaboration, address stereotypes, and share successful practices. A final event will celebrate the submitted works, acknowledge outstanding contributions, and allow young participants to present their ideas. To maximize the project’s impact, a media campaign will showcase its outcomes, utilizing social media, articles, videos, and interviews to raise public awareness.This initiative aims to strengthen communication between diverse cultures, promote school-led activities that reduce stereotypes, and empower youth from various communities to engage in collaborative actions across religious and national divides.

Finance Think has published the study “Empowering Western Balkan Economies: Attractiveness and Transparency of State Aid in the Region.” The link to the full analysis is available here.
The goal of this study is to examine the types, amounts, and measures of state aid provided by the governments of the six Western Balkan countries to domestic and foreign companies, aiming to foster innovation, technological advancement, productivity, and more.
State aid in the Western Balkan countries ranges from below 0.5% of GDP in Kosovo and Albania to 5.9% of GDP in Serbia (2022 data). North Macedonia allocates state aid amounting to 1.9% of GDP or €253 million (Figure 1).

In general, all countries have numerous state aid measures targeting three segments: farmers, domestic companies, and foreign companies. To some extent, these measures are similar across the countries, especially those aimed at farmers and foreign companies operating in free economic zones. Low transparency and lack of information regarding the measures and the amounts of allocated aid are additional commonalities among the analyzed countries.
More specifically, the results show that state aid allocated to farmers accounts for more than half of the total state aid in four countries (Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and North Macedonia). On the other hand, this aid cannot be linked to increased agricultural and livestock production, suggesting the need to reassess the purpose, model, and distribution methods of such aid. For example, in North Macedonia, a significant reduction in livestock production aid has been observed over the past two years, while meat production has consistently increased. Although aid for plant production support varies from year to year, vegetable production remains relatively stable.
State aid targeting domestic companies varies between countries, particularly in terms of the sectors being supported. More than half of the aid for domestic companies in Albania is directed toward manufacturing and tourism. Serbia is the only country allocating a larger portion of state aid to the development of small and medium-sized enterprises. In North Macedonia, over 90% of the aid is allocated across all sectors, with the remainder targeting manufacturing, energy, and tourism. Similar trends are observed in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo.
State aid should not function as a form of social assistance for companies. It should lead to increased productivity, innovation, competitiveness, job creation, and technological development for both the recipient company and the economy as a whole. An increased amount of state aid allocated to innovation correlates with an improved ranking of the Macedonian economy in the Global Innovation Index. The introduction of aid for new start-ups and spin-off companies is associated with an increased number of newly established companies. On the other hand, despite the continuous increase in aid for new employment, training, and employee specialization, labor productivity in the country has not improved.
All Western Balkan countries, except Kosovo, offer a wide range of attractive measures to attract and support foreign investors. The state aid scheme for foreign investors in North Macedonia is rated the most transparent, straightforward, and attractive compared to other countries. All foreign companies, regardless of location, can utilize the measures outlined in the Law on Financial Support of Investments, which, according to the analysis, account for two-thirds of state aid allocated to foreign investors. For the other analyzed countries, data on aid for foreign investors is incomplete (Serbia and Albania) or non-existent (Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro), highlighting the need for increased transparency among the institutions responsible for managing and overseeing this type of aid.
The recommendations from the analysis are focused on three segments:

Improving regional cooperation to align state aid policies, enabling a more integrated market that can attract cross-border investments and stimulate regional development. This can be achieved through joint initiatives, sharing best practices, and creating regional funds addressing common challenges.
Focusing state aid on strategic sectors by promoting innovation, digitalization, and sustainability. In the future, aid should target sectors such as green technologies, renewable energy, and digital infrastructure, positioning the countries as competitive players in the global market.
Enhancing transparency and accountability of relevant institutions by introducing more robust mechanisms for monitoring and reporting the types and amounts of state aid allocated.

On December 18, 2024, the second part of the Kick-off Meeting for the NBS4RESILIENCE project was successfully held online. Organized by the Development Agency of the City of Prijedor (PREDA) as the lead partner, this meeting gathered project partners from across the Adriatic-Ionian region to further align on project implementation, governance, and strategic planning.Key Discussions and OutcomesCo-Creation of Climate Resilient NBS in the IPA ADRION RegionLed by Mr. Darko Ferčej (ISD, Slovenia), this session focused on the role of Climate Resilient Forums (CRFs) as a core mechanism for engaging stakeholders in developing and implementing Nature-Based Solutions (NBS). These forums will:
Serve as local advisory bodies for public decision-makers
Facilitate the co-creation of climate resilience action plans
Act as catalysts for changing mindsets and increasing citizen participation in climate adaptation efforts
Support pilot projects in six countries targeting climate risks such as floods, erosion, extreme heat, and wildfires

✔ Integration of NBS4RESILIENCE into Standards, Policies, and GovernanceMr. Tadej Žurman (POR, Croatia) presented an overview of WP3, focusing on integrating climate resilience into ISO and TC standards, and developing governance models that incorporate Nature-Based Solutions into policy frameworks. The main objectives of this work package include:
Drafting policy recommendations for integrating NBS into climate transition strategies
Establishing a governance guidebook to support public authorities in implementing NBS
Developing proposals for incorporating NBS into international climate resilience standards

✔ Establishing the Steering CommitteeThe governance structure of the project was solidified through the establishment of the Steering Committee, which will oversee the project’s progress and provide strategic guidance. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) will be finalized by February 2025, outlining the framework for cooperation and the long-term sustainability of the project’s outcomes.Next Steps and Implementation MilestonesFollowing the successful Kick-off phase, the NBS4RESILIENCE project is now moving into the implementation phase, focusing on key actions that will drive climate resilience across the IPA ADRION region.The first major milestone is the finalization of the Climate Resilient Forum (CRF) Guide, led by PP3 – ISD, Slovenia. This guide will serve as a practical framework for establishing and operating CRFs, ensuring effective stakeholder engagement in nature-based climate solutions.From March to May 2025, the project will initiate the launch of Climate Resilient Forums (CRFs) in participating cities. These forums will function as collaborative platforms, bringing together local governments, businesses, academia, and civil society to address specific climate challenges and co-develop nature-based solutions.Simultaneously, partners will intensify engagement with policymakers to promote the integration of Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) into existing local and national strategies. This will support the adoption of long-term climate resilience policies, ensuring that project outcomes contribute to sustainable environmental governance.Additionally, the project will organize capacity-building workshops tailored for public institutions, businesses, and civil society organizations. These sessions will enhance participants’ knowledge and equip them with the necessary skills to implement NBS-driven climate adaptation measures effectively.Learn more about the project: www.interreg-ipa-adrion.eu