Final Evaluator Migg- Nepal

Terms of reference:

Final Evaluator Media for Inclusive Green Growth (MIGG) - Nepal (June 2026 - January 2027).

INTERNEWS OVERVIEW

Internews is an international non-profit organization whose mission is to empower local civil society worldwide to give people the news and information they need, the ability to connect and the means to make their voices heard. For more information about the organization please visit: www.internews.com.

PROJECT

Media for Inclusive Green Growth (MIGG) in Nepal for 36 months, February 2024 - January 2027

Implemented by Internews Europe as part of the Earth Journalism Network (EJN) in partnership with Nepal Forum of Environmental Journalists (NEFEJ) and Antenna Foundation Nepal (AFN) and funded by European Commission (DG INTPA)

Evaluation Purpose

The final evaluation will provide an independent assessment of whether and to what extent the MIGG project and its results met its intended outcomes over its full implementation period. It serves three audiences with distinct needs: the European Commission requires accountability evidence for the specific and broader contribution of the project to the proposed goal; Internews Europe requires findings to inform future media development programming in Nepal - including identifying examples for potential replication - and across the EJN Asia-Pacific portfolio; and the implementing partners, NEFEJ and AFN, require a critical assessment of what their approaches to environmental journalism capacity building and civic dialogue have produced, and their achievement with the support of this project. To be credible and useful to all three, the evaluation must engage with the quality and durability of change produced, not only whether planned activities were delivered.

Evaluation Scope and Focus

The evaluation covers the full project period across all seven provinces of Nepal, with proportionate depth reflecting the distribution and intensity of activities. It will be assessed against the OECD-DAC criteria, with Effectiveness and Efficiency, Impact and Relevance, and Sustainability weighted most heavily - these are where the project's theory of change is most substantively tested.

The project's theory of change rests on three interconnected conditions: if journalists, media outlets, social media influencers, and local radio stations produce high-quality, evidence-based, inclusive, and solution-oriented content on green growth and natural resource management (NRM); and if the media facilitates engagement and partnerships among citizens, civil society, policymakers, and the private sector through structured dialogue; and if the voices, needs, and concerns of vulnerable and marginalised groups are genuinely included and amplified - then residents of Nepal, especially women, youth, ethnic minorities, and other marginalised groups, will have access to the information and engagement opportunities they need to contribute to transparent and accountable NRM governance. The project's four outputs must be read as an interconnected system contributing to a single outcome: increased media influence (with the public, civil society, policymakers, and the private sector) to promote accountability in natural resource management and give voice to vulnerable groups. Three of the outputs work on the supply side including building the capacity of journalists and media outlets, social media influencers, and local radio stations to produce quality, evidence-based Natural Resource Management (NRM) content. The fourth creates the spaces where that content connects with its intended audiences: the subnational and national dialogues that bring together civil society, policymakers, academics, and the public around NRM issues. The evaluation's task is to assess whether these elements collectively produced the intended outcome and to what extent they have been fully realised as originally intended - whether strengthened capacity and increased engagement opportunities translated into meaningful media influence with the public, civil society, policymakers, and the private sector on NRM accountability, and whether the voices of vulnerable groups were genuinely amplified in the process.

The evaluation may be procured in June 2026, while the project is in its close-out phase and data is being finalised, enabling the evaluator to engage with the team and evidence as it consolidates. Primary data collection will take place in two rounds: the first in July/August 2026, once the majority of activities are complete and a full database of fellowships and dialogues is available, and the second in October/November 2026, once all remaining activities including the national multi-stakeholder dialogue and the final fellowship stories are complete and the full evidence base is available. This window is important: beginning too early risks an incomplete picture of the project's most significant activities; delaying significantly beyond January 2027 risks loss of access to key stakeholders before they move on. Splitting data collection into two rounds also opens up an interesting methodological opportunity: interviewing the same cohort across both rounds, even a small one, may allow the evaluation to track whether and how things shift over the course of close-out, adding a light longitudinal dimension.

What the Evaluation Should Establish

Beyond what the project's routine monitoring data can confirm, the evaluation needs to address several things that require independent inquiry and interpretive assessment.

Whether the capacity building model produced real change in journalistic practice: Journalists trained under the project were expected to carry that learning forward as trainers and mentors for a wider cohort - some of whom were subsequently engaged as trainers for the fellowship cohort that produced the project's final stories. The model also extended to content creators trained on journalistic and fact-checking tools and the evaluation should assess whether this produced a measurable shift in the quality and accuracy of NRM content they produce and disseminate to their audiences. The evaluation needs to assess whether a change in how journalists approach NRM reporting is visible and durable, and whether the cascade itself held -including whether journalists continue to report on NRM issues after the project ends, and whether they demonstrate increased confidence and agency in covering this beat independently.

Whether the content produced represents a meaningful shift: The project's core proposition is that supported journalists would produce coverage that is more evidence-based, more inclusive of marginalised voices, and more solutions-oriented than what preceded it. This is an evaluable claim, but only if the evaluation actually looks at the work produced and applies critical analytical judgement to it, rather than treating publication as sufficient evidence of quality.

Whether the multi-stakeholder dialogues produced change beyond the room: Convening dialogues is not the same as producing dialogue outcomes. The evaluation should assess whether the provincial and national dialogues generated traceable effects, in how participants engaged with NRM issues subsequently, in policy processes, in media coverage, or in the networks formed between civil society, journalists, and government actors. This is the most difficult but also the most important dimension of Result 2 to examine rigorously.

Whether GESI mainstreaming reached the substance of the work: Participation figures will tell part of the story. The more important question is whether the voices of women, youth, and ethnic minority communities are present in the content produced as sources, as experts, and whether the dialogues engaged with their specific concerns on natural resource governance in any substantive way.

Whether what was built will persist. This operates at three levels that the evaluation should treat separately: individual journalists and whether changed practice is embedded; media outlets supported through grants and whether they are more capable and viable; and the networks and relationships between journalists, civil society, academics and policymakers that the project facilitated and that are most likely to carry forward its broader governance ambitions.

Suggested Evaluation Approach and Methodology:

Given the approximate EUR 8,000 budget, the approach must be concentrated and Nepal-anchored. A Nepal-based lead evaluator is strongly preferred; in particular contextual and linguistic fluency is important for the evaluation.

Internews welcomes evaluators who bring methodological creativity and independent thinking to the design. The questions this evaluation needs to answer about the quality of journalism produced, the depth of civic dialogue outcomes, the durability of changed practice, and whether the voices of marginalised communities are amplified, do not lend themselves to a single standard approach. We actively encourage the use of innovative evaluation frameworks and would welcome combination of evaluation approaches or methods that assemble methods deliberately and responsively across the inquiry, mixing qualitative and quantitative strands where each genuinely adds something. What matters is that the methodological choices are driven by the evaluation questions and are proportionate to the context and budget, not by convention.

The journalism quality question may require the evaluator to engage directly with the content produced, in particular, the fellowship stories, radio programmes, in-depth field stories and social media content, rather than relying solely on stakeholder perceptions of quality. Similarly, the policy and civic dialogue question may require an approach capable of tracing change through complex, multi-actor processes where the project was one influence among several; frameworks that start from what actually changed and work back to the project's contribution tend to be more analytically defensible here than those that measure against a predetermined results chain. Ideally, mixed methods approaches that combine with targeted primary data collection from journalists, dialogue participants, community audiences, and policymakers are likely to produce the most complete picture.

Deliverables, Timeline and Submission

The selected evaluator will be expected to deliver the following outputs in close coordination with Internews Europe and implementing partners. All deliverables must be submitted in English and follow Internews evaluation standards and templates, which will be shared with the selected evaluator at the start of the assignment.

Deliverables

• Inception report with evaluation matrix outlining the finalised evaluation questions, methodology, data collection tools, and workplan, to be reviewed and approved by Internews before data collection begins.
• Round 1 finding note - a detailed summary of key findings and emerging insights following the first round of data collection.
• Draft final evaluation report - submitted for review and feedback by Internews and implementing partners.
• Validation session with stakeholders - present and validate key findings with stakeholders.
• Final evaluation report - incorporating all feedback received, constituting the primary deliverable of this assignment.
• Evaluation debriefing - a short presentation of key findings to Internews Europe and implementing partners, to be delivered following submission of the final report.

Timeline

The evaluation will run across two data collection rounds:

• June 2026: Procurement and contracting.
• July/August 2026: Round 1 data collection and findings note.
• October/November 2026: Round 2 data collection.
• December2026/January 2027: Draft and final report submission.

QUALIFICATIONS

To perform this job successfully, an individual must be able to perform each essential duty satisfactorily. The requirements listed below are representative of the knowledge, skill, and/or ability required. Reasonable accommodation may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions.

Required

• At least 7 years' experience conducting evaluation for development projects with a focus on media and environmental issues.
• Experience with qualitative and quantitative M&E data collection and analysis methods.
• Experience using social network analysis method.
• --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vacancy Timeline:

Deadline for applications: 26/06/2026

MISCELLANEOUS:

Interested applicants are invited to submit a proposal package including: A technical proposal outlining their proposed approach to the evaluation and how they interpret this scope. CV(s) of the evaluator(s) or team, highlighting relevant experience in development evaluation and the Nepal context. Two examples of previous evaluation work of similar nature. A financial proposal within the available budget of EUR 8,000.