1. Background of the project 

a) Context Overview 

Pakistan continues to experience increasingly frequent and severe climate-related shocks, particularly droughts affecting arid and semi-arid regions such as Sindh Province. These shocks are not isolated events but part of a broader pattern of climate variability that is progressively eroding the resilience of vulnerable populations. 

In districts such as Umerkot District, where livelihoods are heavily dependent on rainfall-sensitive agriculture and livestock, prolonged dry spells and erratic rainfall have significantly reduced agricultural yields, constrained water access, and increased food insecurity. As a result, households often resort to negative coping strategies, including reducing food intake, selling productive assets, or taking on unsustainable debt. 

Conventional humanitarian responses tend to be reactive, arriving after impacts have already materialized. This limits their ability to prevent harm and protect livelihoods. In contrast, anticipatory action approaches aim to act earlier, based on forecast information so that support reaches households before the worst effects of a shock occur. 

b) Project Overview 

In 2024, Tearfund initiated a multi-country pilot programme to test an insurance-backed anticipatory action model designed to enable earlier and more effective drought responses. The programme combines: 

● A parametric drought insurance mechanism, with predefined triggers and payouts ● A satellite-based risk monitoring system 

● Pre-agreed Anticipatory Action Plans (AAPs) outlining early response measures 

In Pakistan, the insurance policy was triggered in May 2025, following significantly below-average rainfall. This resulted in a payout of $350,000, reflecting severe drought conditions. The response was implemented through Tearfund’s local partner, Society for Safe Environment and Welfare of Agrarians, Pakistan (SSEWA-PAK), targeting vulnerable communities in District Umerkot, Province of Sindh. 

c) Intervention Design and Implementation 

The anticipatory response was designed to address both immediate needs and early livelihood protection, combining two complementary intervention pathways: 

Food, Livestock and Wash Package (1,300 households) 

Households received a combination of food assistance, water tankering, hygiene items, and basic WASH support. These interventions aimed to stabilize consumption, reduce water stress, and limit health risks during the early stages of drought.

Additional support included hygiene promotion and livestock health interventions, reflecting the interconnected nature of household resilience in drought-affected settings. In particular, Livestock vaccination and deworming campaigns were implemented in the same geographic areas as the Food, Livestock and WASH package, targeting the 1,300 households as part of the integrated response. These activities aimed to protect livestock assets, which are critical to household resilience in drought-affected settings. 

During implementation, an additional 200 households were reached exclusively through livestock vaccination and deworming services. These households did not receive any other components of the project, representing a distinct group with single-activity exposure. 

Agricultural Support Package (1,000 households) 

Households received wheat seeds intended to support continued agricultural production despite adverse climatic conditions, thereby contributing to livelihood protection and reducing longer-term vulnerability. 

d) Targeting Approach and Potential Comparison Logic 

The project targeted 2,500 vulnerable households, selected based on exposure to drought, livelihood dependency, and socio-economic vulnerability as following: 

● Households receiving multi-sector support (1,300 HHs) 

● Households receiving agricultural support (1,000 HHs) 

● Households receiving livestock-only support (200 HHs) 

This distinction is critical for accurately interpreting coverage, intensity of assistance, and outcome-level changes. 

While all targeted households received assistance, variation in intervention type (Food/WASH vs Agricultural support), as well as variation in timing, intensity, and local context, creates an opportunity for a quasi-comparative analysis. 

In addition, the evaluation will explore the feasibility of identifying: 

● Non-assisted but similar households within the same or neighboring communities, and/or ● Differences between early and later recipients, where relevant 

This enables the evaluation to move beyond simple output verification and to assess the added value of anticipatory action, while recognizing the operational constraints of humanitarian programming. 

e) Project Partners 

The project was implemented through a partnership model involving Tearfund, a national implementing partner, and key local stakeholders. 

● Implementing Partner: SSEWA-PAK 

● Funding and Technical Partner: Tearfund 

● Other Stakeholders: Local community leaders, volunteers, local authorities . 

Tearfund DRF Evaluation ToR 2/14

2. Evaluation Goal and Objectives 

The evaluation seeks to assess how and to what extent the anticipatory action response reduced the impact of drought on vulnerable households, with particular attention to timeliness, effectiveness, and comparative outcomes. 

The evaluation should take into consideration the project duration, existing resources, and the political and environmental constraints. This evaluation will also identify strengths and weaknesses in the project design, strategy, and implementation as well as lessons learned and good practices. 

The main objectives of this evaluation are to: 

● Assess the relevance and appropriateness of the anticipatory action design 

● Evaluate the timeliness of the response relative to drought conditions 

● Assess the effectiveness of interventions in addressing immediate needs and protecting livelihoods ● Evaluate the efficiency of project implementation, including resource utilization, timeliness of activities, and adherence to planned budgets. 

● Compare outcomes across different intervention modalities and population groups ● Explore the extent to which the response reduced negative coping strategies 

● Assess coverage, inclusion, and potential exclusion 

● Identify unintended positive or negative impacts arising from the project. 

● Generate practical, forward-looking recommendations 

● Document lessons learned, success stories, and good practices in order to maximize the benefits of the benefits of experience gained through the project. 

● Identify areas where strategic collaboration could add value in a second phase of operations. ● Where feasible, the evaluation will incorporate quasi-comparative analysis to strengthen conclusions about programme contribution. 

3. Evaluation Questions 

The evaluation will address the following key questions: 

Relevance 

This section examines whether the anticipatory action approach was appropriately designed in relation to context, risks, and needs. 

● To what extent was the anticipatory action approach appropriate to the context and needs? ● How well did the design reflect local risks, vulnerabilities, and livelihood systems? ● Was the support provided appropriate for: 

○ Building resilience to drought? 

○ Meeting immediate needs of affected populations? 

● Were the pre-identified risks, assistance thresholds, and response mechanisms: ○ Based on sound evidence and local knowledge? 

○ Aligned with actual community vulnerabilities? 

● How accurately did the trigger mechanisms and targeting criteria reflect real risks faced by affected communities? 

● Was the insurance payout triggered at the right time and at an appropriate level to reduce the impact of drought? 

Coherence 

This section explores alignment with broader systems and coordination structures. ● How does the anticipatory action, insurance-backed approach align with: 

○ Local, provincial, and national disaster risk financing strategies? 

○ Broader risk layering approaches in the region? 

● Was the payment trigger consistent with government drought declarations and measures? ● How well did the response align with: 

○ Government disaster preparedness and response systems? 

○ Other humanitarian actors’ interventions? 

● How effective were Tearfund and partners’ anticipatory planning processes? 

○ Was the level of detail in the plans appropriate? 

○ Were plans adapted appropriately after the trigger? 

Coverage, Inclusion, and Effectiveness 

This section combines outcome performance with equity and inclusion considerations. ● To what extent did the interventions achieve intended outcomes (food security, water access, livelihood protection)? 

● How did outcomes differ between intervention modalities? 

● How well did the anticipatory response meet the needs of the target population during the drought? 

● Did needs and outcomes differ by: gender, age, disability or any other vulnerability characteristic? ● To what extent did the support enable households to: 

○ Maintain adequate food consumption (across the seven food groups in WFP’s Food Consumption Score)? 

○ Access sufficient water and essential services? 

● What were the most important elements of support from the perspective of affected households? ● What were the outcomes of the two types of response (Food/WASH vs Agricultural), including: food security, livelihood protection and negative coping strategies? 

● Quasi-comparison integration: 

○ Was one package more effective than the other in mitigating drought impacts? ○ What differences can be observed between groups receiving different types of support? ● Did the response mitigate potential losses due to drought, particularly for the most vulnerable households? 

● Were there any unintended or unexpected outcomes? 

● Were any vulnerable groups unintentionally excluded, due to: data limitation, access constraints and operational challenges? 

● Were communities aware about the acceptable and unacceptable behavior from staff?● Were communities aware about the feedback categories they can use? 

Efficiency and Timeliness 

This section focuses on operational performance and resource use. 

● Was the anticipatory action response sufficiently timely in relation to drought onset? ● What processes and systems enabled or constrained timely delivery? 

● Was the level of support appropriate for household needs? 

● Did the project strike the right balance between breadth (number of households reached) and Depth (level of support provided)? 

● Were Tearfund’s quality standards met? 

● To what extent was assistance delivered early relative to drought onset? 

● How did early action influence household outcomes compared to what might have occurred otherwise? 

Impact, Interconnectedness, and Sustainability 

This section explores higher-level and longer-term changes. 

● Did the response contribute to longer-term resilience to drought? 

● To what extent did the anticipatory nature of the response (early action) influence these outcomes? ● Were people impacted differently by a) the drought itself and b) the response provided? 

4. Evaluation Scope 

The evaluation will focus on the anticipatory response implemented between June and October 2025 in District Umerkot, Province of Sindh, Pakistan. It will cover direct beneficiary households under both intervention modalities. 

The evaluation will primarily assess: 

● Implementation processes 

● Outputs and early outcomes 

● Comparative performance and added value 

The evaluation will consider gender, protection, and inclusion aspects, ensuring that the perspectives of women, children, persons with disabilities, and marginalized groups are adequately captured. 

After examining the findings according to the evaluation criteria listed in the above section, lessons learned and recommendations should be drawn based on the context and realities on the ground. The consultant should provide information on the economic/political/financial conditions that should exist, staff and partner capacities, required stakeholder participation, and other factors that should be in place to inform the design of future operations. Developing the measurement and analytical framework to refine and operationalize the questions posted above, will be done in close cooperation between the Evaluation Coordination Team and the consultant. 

5. Evaluation Users 

This evaluation will be used to: 

● Support accountability of Tearfund Pakistan vis-à-vis the donor, partners, and project participants on the outcomes of the action and the usage of the funds provided through the provision of the evaluation report. 

● Support learning on the management of the project through the process of the evaluation and the discussion of the evaluation results. 

● The findings will be used to refine programme design, improve targeting and timing, and strengthen future anticipatory responses. 

The evaluation will serve as a learning resource providing evidence for planning, programming, and replication of similar interventions for the following local and international stakeholders: ● Tearfund (Pakistan team, ENA regional Team as well as Global Teams): to inform future programming decisions, assess partner performance, and ensure accountability. 

● SSEWA-PAK (the implementing partner): to strengthen implementation practices, accountability, and future programming. 

● Local stakeholders and community members: to ensure their voices are heard and considered in future project design and delivery. 

● Donors (current and potential) and associates/affiliates/partners (Start Ready and others ): to highlight achievements and learning from the project and to inform where possible, strategic decisions regarding funding and partnerships in Pakistan . 

6. Evaluation Methodology 

The evaluation will adopt a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative data to build a robust, triangulated understanding of outcomes. The methodology should be practical and field-adapted, while incorporating light quasi-comparative elements to strengthen evidence on programme contribution. 

Key components include: 

1. Desk Review: Review of project documentation, including: 

● DRF Design Statement of Work, results frame, M&E framework, Pakistan Anticipatory Action Plan ● Water Balance Index monitoring report showing trigger points 

● Local government drought reports and agriculture advice 

○ Data on yields and prices for key indicator crop (chilli), plus wheat and any other relevant crops, if available and relevant; 

○ Data on rainfall and temperature in the district and how the GoP assesses levels of agricultural drought; 

● Baseline data - drought community consultation survey, FGD and KII data from 2024 ● Evaluation of a similar insurance-backed anticipatory-action response in Malawi 

2. Beneficiary Survey: A structured survey will be conducted with beneficiary households across both intervention groups. Where feasible, a comparison between different types of assistance between different assisted households. The survey will assess key outcome indicators such as: a) food consumption and dietary diversity b) water access, coping strategies and c) livelihood activities. 

3. Key Informant Interviews (KIIs): Semi-structured interviews with: 

● Key Tearfund (both in Pakistan, regional and global) and SSEWA-PAK staff (programmes, finance, logistics) 

● Local and national government officials working on disaster management & response and disaster risk financing 

● Ministry of Agriculture and MET services: Local administration, government offices and personnel working on disaster management, agriculture, livestock, water, irrigation and social services. ● Community leaders in areas involved in the project 

4. Focus Group Discussions (FGDs): FGDs with a cross-section of beneficiaries, disaggregated by gender, age, and vulnerability status, to gather perceptions on stated evaluation criteria. FGDs will be conducted with beneficiaries, disaggregated by gender and vulnerability group, to explore a) perceptions of assistance, b) changes in household conditions and c) coping strategies and resilience. 

5. Quasi-Comparative Analysis Approach: The evaluation will not employ experimental or randomized designs. However, it is expected to apply basic quasi-comparative techniques, such as: ● Comparing mean outcomes across groups 

● Identifying patterns and differences between intervention types 

● Using recall-based questions (with caution) to understand pre/post conditions ● Exploring plausible contribution rather than strict attribution 

The emphasis should be on credible, transparent comparisons, not statistical complexity. 

Data Analysis and Triangulation: Findings from different sources will be cross-verified to ensure consistency and validity. The report should triangulate data from primary and secondary sources. The primary data are from quantitative and qualitative sources (listed above) that provide information from various beneficiary perspectives; the secondary data will be drawn from a review of key project documents. 

Data analysis should combine descriptive statistical analysis of survey data and thematic analysis of qualitative data. 

Findings should be triangulated across quantitative results, qualitative insights and monitoring data. Particular attention should be paid to: 

● Differences between groups 

● Consistency of findings across data sources 

● Explanation of observed outcomes 

Ethical Considerations: The evaluation will adhere to ethical standards, including obtaining informed consent, ensuring confidentiality, and safeguarding the dignity and safety of participants, especially women, children, and vulnerable groups. The consultant will provide the cleaned primary data set to TF and grants the office rights of storage and further usage. The consultant is expected to: 

● Provide an inception report to be reviewed by TF prior to data collection. 

● Provide a time schedule, a breakdown by location, and a breakdown of resources needed for primary data collection in the locations covered under this project. 

7. Quality of Evidence 

Tearfund would recommend that the OECD-DAC criteria of Relevance, Efficiency, Effectiveness, Coherence, Impact, and Sustainability are used as reference points for the evaluation. In addition, Tearfund has its own Quality Standards (namely Behaviours, Empowerment, Impartiality & Targeting, Resilience, Accountability Protection, Gender, and Technical Quality) which can also be used to provide key questions for the evaluation to answer. Further, Tearfund evaluations are routinely assessed using the Bond evidence principles (Voice and Inclusion, Appropriateness, Triangulation, and Contribution and Transparency) and consequently, evaluators should take these into account when devising a suitable methodology. 

8. Ethics 

The external ToR for the evaluator will adapt and incorporate key elements of Tearfund's approach to research ethics, outlined in this guidance: https://learn.tearfund.org/en/resources/tools-and-guides/doing-research-ethically 

The evaluator will work with the TF team to complete an ethics risk assessment ahead of data collection and the proposal should outline key ethical considerations and how these will be addressed. 

9. Deliverables and Outputs 

All collected data is legally owned by TF and the consultant is expected to hand over all data sets and notes of the interviews to the organization. The Consultant shall maintain in confidence and protect all information provided to him/her by TF, its employees, its partners, and beneficiaries. The consultant may only disclose information to the extent necessary to perform the evaluation. 

10. Evaluation Schedule 

The evaluation is expected to be conducted in its entirety within the period of 1 May till 31 May 2026 with the completed, approved final version of the evaluation report (including all annexes and supplementary and complementary documentation and materials) to be submitted to Tearfund by/before 30 June 2026 . The individual/firm selected for this assignment is expected to develop a realistic schedule based on this timeframe, taking care to include the following key milestones: 

● Review of primary and secondary literature provided by Tearfund ; 

● Submission of detailed inception report including data collection tools; 

● Submission of first draft of the evaluation report; 

● Submission of final draft of the evaluation report; 

● Conduct a virtual dissemination session with Tearfund and its partner(s). 

11. Evaluation Leadership and Execution 

The Evaluation will be conducted under the overall guidance and supervision of the Evaluation Coordination Team composed of Tearfund and SSEWA-PAK staff and supported by the Tearfund Management, SSEWA-PAK Management, Tearfund DMEAL Advisor - ENA and Country Director Tearfund. The evaluation 

will be conducted by an external, qualified evaluation team. Tearfund will advertise a Request for Proposal along with TORs on appropriate platform(s) and will shortlist/finalize External Evaluators in accordance with Teafund Logistics guidelines. 

External Evaluation Team: The evaluation coordination team will seek independent consultant/consultancy firms who have the ability to mobilize a local experience team of data collectors with adequate knowledge of the area, conditions, and culture. The selected firm will be expected to propose a detailed team configuration that meets the demand of the assignment. 

12. Consultant/s Eligibility (for Team/Evaluation Lead) 

NOTE: Tearfund reserves the right to demand changes in the composition of the evaluation team and the nomination of the team lead based on its internal assessment of the candidate firm’s credentials and suitability for the assignment. 

13. Proposal Requirements & Evaluation 

Interested firms or individual consultants are invited to submit a comprehensive proposal, comprising bothtechnical and financial components, along with their professional profile to [email protected] must be received no later than Wednesday, 22 April 2026. 

Technical Proposal Requirements: 

● Demonstrated understanding of the specific assignment 

● Proposed evaluation design and methodological approach 

● Detailed sampling strategy 

● Strategies for mitigating risks during data collection 

● Comprehensive work plan including a clear timeline 

● Organizational structure of the team and defined roles 

● Evidence of relevant experience and history of similar assignments 

● Anonymized samples of prior work to demonstrate output quality 

The technical proposal should include: 

● Understanding of the assignment 

● Proposed methodology and evaluation design 

● Proposed sampling strategy 

● Risk mitigation strategies for data collection 

● Work plan and timeline 

● Team composition and roles 

● Relevant experience and previous similar assignments 

● Sample of previous work conducted. Reports could be shared anonymously. The main purpose of this requirement is to assess the quality of work of the consultant/consultancy firm. 

The financial proposal should include a detailed budget breakdown, including: 

● Professional fees 

● Data collection costs 

● Travel or logistics (if applicable) 

● Data analysis and reporting 

13. Budget 

The consultation fees available for this end-of-project evaluation will include cost of recruitment of data collectors/data entry clerks and data collection, data entry, translation fees, communication, and report writing. A detailed budget breakdown needs to be submitted by the consultant. 

14. Conflict of Interest 

The Consultant must be impartial and independent from all aspects of management or financial interests in Tearfund and SSEWA-PAK . The Consultant should not be employed by, serve as a Board member of SSEWA-PAK or have any financial or close business relationships with Tearfund and SSEWA-PAK. The Consultant should declare any potential conflicts of interest which may affect or compromise their ability to conduct neutral and independent service. Such conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 

● Business interests in a community where a TF partner(s) is delivering the DRF programme. ● Business interests or financial gains from TF or its partners through other activities or projects where applicable. 

● Financial, family, political and business affiliation with an organisation with whom TF has a partnership. 

In such a scenario or similar, the service provider is expected to declare the conflict of interest to the Tearfund Pakistan Country Team. Declaration of conflict of interest will not be viewed negatively but will be considered in the programming of activities. Failure to declare a conflict of interest may be considered and may lead to a review of the expected deliverables from the monitor or the service provider, thus with a possible negative impact on the contract of the monitor or service provider. 

15. Annexes 

Annex A: Tearfund Quality Standards 

Tearfund aims to work to the highest possible standards with integrity and transparency, across all aspects of our work. We have identified a set of corporate Quality Standards in support of our vision and the delivery of our strategy. The eight standards summarise all of the relevant external and internal accountability and quality standards, codes, guidelines, and principles to which we are committed. They exist to save time and ensure quality, meaning that new partners and staff can quickly get up to speed with Tearfund’s expectations and commitments to quality simply by familiarising themselves with these standards. 

The eight commitments are non-negotiable; meaning that they are of primary importance in all Tearfund work and must be prioritised in any work we are doing: 

Annex B: Tearfund Quality Standards Evaluation Checklist 

BehavioursWhere project staff interacted directly with communities, have you considered asking the communities if they are satisfied with the way they were treated by staff throughout the project?