TOR – Final external evaluation of the “Strengthening the sustainability of an independent, free and pluralist media ecosystem in Ukraine” project Long-term contract

1.1/ Introduction and context

Since 2022, journalists covering Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine have been deliberately targeted, while media infrastructure has been repeatedly damaged or destroyed. The security situation and working conditions for journalists is continuously deteriorating, including due to an additional wave of Russian attacks on civil energy-supply infrastructures since October 2025. The security threat while reporting on the ground has also intensified with the growing use of drones, leading to an increasing number of journalists being killed or injured, as well as repeated attacks on media facilities in 2025. In addition, Russia continues perpetrating arbitrary arrests and detention, killings, ill-treatment, and forced labour of Ukrainian journalists. In 2025, Reporters sans frontières (RSF – Reporters Without Borders) recorded an increase in convictions of detained Ukrainian journalists in Temporarily occupied territories of Ukraine or Russian soil, where media professionals are being silenced and replaced with propagandists.

Adding to this already precarious situation, the suspension and withdrawal of USAID support worldwide from January 2025 severely affected the Ukrainian media, 90% of them having relied on US grants in full or part previously. Media outlets had to adopt survival strategies in all aspects of their management.

The year 2025 also marks the government reshuffle, including with the appointment of new Minister for Culture, Tetyana Berezhna. The priorities of the new government being centered on the military and the economy represent a new opportunity for advocacy for media economic resilience.

In this context, RSF has continuously striven to protect and defend journalists, media workers, and media to pursue their work in Ukraine while safeguarding the independence, plurality, and reliability of information produced and disseminated.Since its opening in 2022, the Kyiv Press Freedom Center has supported more than 2,100 journalists and 230 media outlets across Ukraine, helping them to continue covering Russia’s war of aggression, which has been raging for four years. Since the beginning of the “Strengthening the sustainability of an independent, free and pluralist media ecosystem in Ukraine” project, emergency assistance efforts under this project enabled 340 journalists, 57% of which are women, and 1 media outlet to sustain their war coverage.

RSF was also able to establish and nest the International Fund for the Reconstruction of the Ukrainian Media (IFRUM) together with 8 major Ukrainian media support organisations to contribute to mid and long term resilience of the Ukrainian media landscape.

Over the period, RSF also published press releases and posts across 4 social media platforms in order to sensitise the general public at the international level about the violations of press freedom in Ukraine. This action was combined with continuous strategic litigation to reduce the impunity of war crimes committed against journalists by the Russian military.

1.2/ Reporters sans frontières

Founded in 1985, Reporters sans frontières (RSF) defends the right to reliable information. Its mandate is based on article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”.

RSF strives to ensure that all human beings benefit from information that enables them to know, understand and form an opinion on the issues facing the world and their environment. To achieve this, the organisation is developing a holistic strategy, with 360° activities, to bring about global change. RSF acts on four levels: press freedom, relations between the public and journalists, the information market and the information space.

RSF also demonstrates creativity by developing systemic initiatives that address the causes of problems: the Journalism Trust Initiative (JTI) and the Partnership on Information and Democracy (I&D).

RSF has an international secretariat in Paris, 14 sections and offices around the world, more than 150 correspondents, 4 representatives and local partners in a wide range of countries. RSF is a registered association in France and has consultative status with the United Nations and UNESCO.

The project to evaluate is entitled “Strengthening the sustainability of an independent, free and pluralist media ecosystem in Ukraine”, funded by the Delegation of the European Union in Ukraine, in the framework of the “Ukraine Facility” mechanism.

The project began on 5 December 2024 and will end on 4 December 2026 (24-month implementation period).

The total budget for the project is 2,242,058.31€, of which 1, 998,658.00 € is funded by the European Union and 243,400.80 € are covered with other sources of funding.

The RSF team working on the project are: the Project and MEAL department, the International Coordination department, the Advocacy and Assistance department, the Communication department, the Editorial department, and the Journalism Trust Initiative (JTI) department.

In the framework of this project, RSF cooperates with two types of organisations (in addition to service providers):

• Local organisations defending press freedom, to ensure the relevance and implementation of some project activities;
• Other international non-governmental organisations with which RSF coordinates support to Ukrainian journalists.

This project is a continuation of two previous EU-funded projects implemented by RSF in Ukraine:

• “Towards an RSF Press Freedom Center in Lviv to fostering reliable media coverage of the crisis in Ukraine and the region” from 10 March 2022 to 9 March 2023 ;
• “Strengthening Press Freedom Centres in Ukraine” from 1 June 2023 to 30 November 2024.

The aim of this project is to consolidate and complement the actions implemented in the first two projects. Final external evaluations of the two projects were carried out, which enabled RSF to draw lessons learned and take them into account in designing and implementing its third EU-funded project in Ukraine.

2.1/ Objective of the project

The project aims to contribute to fostering access to independent and reliable media coverage of the crisis and its aftermath in Ukraine and the region for the general public and decision-makers in Ukraine and internationally.

2.2/ Target countries and target groups

The target country is Ukraine.

The project is designed to address the needs of journalists and media professionals – both ukrainians and foreign – covering the war in Ukraine as well as Ukrainian media outlets.

The final beneficiaries also include the general public that will benefit from reliable information and could therefore be able to better identify and avoid disinformation.

2.3/ Objectives and planned activities

Specific Objective: Contribute to providing and promoting a safer and more favorable environment for journalists, media professionals and media working in Ukraine and facing the long term consequences of the war.

The project includes three outputs:

• Output 1: Journalists, media professionals and media covering the war are better supported to continue their work in the long run of the conflict.
  • Activity 1.1: Provide journalists and media outlets covering the war with the necessary direct support to continue their work.
  • Activity 1.2: Provide journalists with the necessary training and psychological support to continue their work.
  
  
• Output 2: The capacities of media outlets are strengthened to ensure their long term sustainability to prepare the path for the recovery and reconstruction in Ukraine.
  • Activity 2.1: Strengthen the development of the Journalism Trust Initiative in the Ukrainian media landscape as a tool for better sustainability.
  • Activity 2.2: Advocate to raise awareness of the JTI standard to guarantee the identification of trustworthy sources of information.
  • Activity 2.3: Advocate for the inclusion of media sustainability in the agenda of the recovery and reconstruction of Ukraine.
  • Activity 2.4: Foster collective efforts of the media support and development community to enhance financial support to independent and transparent Ukrainian media.
  
  
• Output 3: General public and key stakeholders are informed about and mobilised against press freedom violations and disinformation.
  • Activity 3.1: Monitor, document and analyze press freedom violations and disinformation in Ukraine.
  • Activity 3.2: Develop specific advocacy and litigation strategies.
  • Activity 3.3: Denounce and raise public awareness about press freedom violations and the disinformation that is propagating from the war.
  
  

3.1/ Intended use of the evaluation and stakeholders

The aim of the evaluation is to enable RSF to identify and exploit the strengths of the project, as well as opportunities for improvement for the continuation of activities, engagement with the Delegation of the European Union in Ukraine, and outreach to new donors.

The main stakeholders who will use the results of the evaluation are:

• The Project officer and the MEAL officer, who will use the evaluation findings to identify and build on the strengths and room for improvement of its project, for the designing and implementation of future similar activities in Ukraine or other crisis-contexts.
• The RSF team in charge of implementing activities, who will use the results for future activities in Ukraine or other crisis-contexts.
• The donor, who will use the evaluation to obtain an assessment of the effectiveness of the project’s implementation.

The evaluation is to be designed, conducted and reported to meet the needs of these stakeholders. During the inception phase, the evaluators and RSF will agree on who will be responsible for keeping the various stakeholders informed about the evaluation process and results.

The evaluation will be initiated during the last months of the project and will be based on contributions from the project stakeholders. It will be carried out by a team of independent evaluators and will be supervised by the project monitoring teams. RSF’s partners will be consulted for data collection.

3.2/ Evaluation scope

The evaluation scope is limited to the activities implemented in the scope of the project in Ukraine between 5 December 2024 and 4 December 2026.

3.3/ Evaluation objectives and questions

RSF reserves the right to make small changes to the content of these ToR after their publication. These changes may concern the objectives of the evaluation and the evaluation questions. If changes have to be made, they will be discussed during the inception phase of the evaluation.

The objectives of this evaluation are to:

• Provide RSF with a critical analysis of the quality of the project implementation which will serve as a basis for RSF internal learning process ;
• Suggest areas of improvement for the designing, implementation, and monitoring of RSF’s future projects and activities in Ukraine ;
• Assess the sustainability and measure the preliminary impacts of the project, considering its future trajectory ;
• Provide the donor with an assessment of the effectiveness of the project implementation.
• Assess the extent to which the project design and implementation have integrated lessons learned and recommendations from previous projects and evaluations.

The evaluation questions are:

Relevance and coherence

• Were the programme, its activities and objectives relevant and coherent with the needs of the target groups and partners? To what extent did the support provided respond to the evolving needs of journalists operating in a war context?
• Were the different means of action deployed adapted to the political, security and cultural context of Ukraine and its evolution?
• Were the activities carried out and their observed results compatible with the expected impact and effects?
• Was the programme complementary to activities already carried out by other organisations, and did it bring added value?
• How efficient was the synergy with international and local organisations? How could it have been improved?
• To what extent did the project ensure continuity with previous RSF projects in Ukraine and integrate lessons learned and recommendations from previous evaluations?

Effectiveness and efficiency

• Have the resources mobilised (human, material, financial) for the program activities been adequate?
• To what extent were changes in context and identified risks monitored during the project, and how effectively did the project adapt to these changes and overcome external constraints, including through adjustments to activities?
• To what extent were the project results achieved?
• To what extent did RSF’s field presence enable a timely and effective response to the needs of the target groups, including in emergency situations? To what extent did it help strengthen links with project stakeholders?
• To what extent were beneficiaries aware of the range of services offered by the centre? To what extent were beneficiaries and other Ukrainian and international stakeholders aware of the tools and resources published by RSF? How effective were the communication and outreach efforts in informing them?

Impact and sustainability

• To what extent is the project expected to generate significant positive or negative, intended or unintended, effects both for RSF in terms of internal structuring and for the target groups?
• Has the project already had a positive impact on the Ukrainian media landscape (journalists, media professionals, media outlets)?
• To what extent has the project strengthened the sustainability of Ukrainian media outlets, including smaller and regional media outlets?
• To what extent does the program advance gender equality by ensuring equal participation and equitable benefits for all genders?
• To what extent has the project fostered collaboration and collective action among organisations supporting independent media in Ukraine?

Questions are expected to be commented on, developed and completed in the tender by the tenderer and further refined during the inception phase of the evaluation.

3.4/ Evaluation approach and methods

The evaluators are expected to describe and justify an appropriate evaluation approach and data collection methods in the proposition. The evaluators are to suggest a methodology that can provide credible answers to the evaluation questions. The evaluation design, methodology, methods for data collection and analysis are expected to be fully developed and presented in the inception report.

The evaluation of the project should be carried out in a participatory manner and be representative of all the stakeholders involved. It is expected that the evaluators will think through and facilitate the whole evaluation process, taking careful consideration of how the evaluation will be used. Applicants are therefore expected to present in their tender how the stakeholders are to participate in and contribute to the evaluation process. They must also present a methodology and data collection methods that create a space for reflection, discussion and learning among RSF teams.

Recommendations will be formulated to help RSF build on the strengths of its project implementation, and take into account the various observations and recommendations that may have been identified by the evaluation for the continuation of activities, engagement with the Delegation of the European Union in Ukraine, and outreach to new donors.

Gender-responsive approach, methods, tools and data analysis techniques should be used.

As sensitive or confidential issues are to be addressed in the evaluation, evaluators should ensure an evaluation design that does not put informants and stakeholders at risk during the data collection phase or the dissemination phase.

All the documents required for the evaluation will be made available to the evaluators after the signature of the contract.

3.5/ Organisation and evaluation management

The evaluation will be supervised by the MEAL officer with the support of the Project officer. Relevant documentation and contact details will be provided by them.

3.6/ Evaluation quality

The evaluation shall conform to OECD/DAC’s Quality Standards for Development Evaluation. In this regard, the applicants shall specify in the tender how they intend to ensure quality during the evaluation process.

3.7/ Time schedule and deliverables

It is expected that a timeline and work plan is included in the tender and further detailed in the inception report. The timeline and work plan must allow flexibility in implementation. The evaluation shall be carried out between July 2026 and January 2026. The timing of field visits (if any), surveys and interviews need to be set by the evaluator in coordination with RSF during the inception phase.

The timetable of the evaluation process is detailed below:

• Kick-off meeting – Beginning or mid-July 2026
• Draft inception report – 3 weeks after the kick-off meeting
• Inception meeting (presentation of the draft inception report and discussion of RSF feedbacks) – Between mid-August and end of August 2026 (TBD in the inception phase)
• Data collection – Between September 2026 and October 2026 (TBD in the inception phase)
• Debriefing meeting – Beginning of November 2026 (TBD in the inception phase)
• Draft evaluation report – 4 December 2026 at the latest
• Meeting to discuss RSF feedback -18 December 2026 at the latest
• Possible additional feedback on new version(s) of the draft report – Until 29 January 2027
• Final evaluation report approved by RSF – 29 January 2027 at the latest
• Restitution with a PowerPoint presentation – TBD

The inception report will form the basis for the evaluation process and shall be approved by RSF before starting to implement the evaluation.

The inception report should be written in English. The report will include:

• An updated work plan and timeline based on the documentation review and the kick-off meeting.
• Updated methodology, evaluation questions, data collection tools (questionnaires, interview guides, etc.), etc.
• A list of stakeholders who will be contacted and the estimated dates of meeting.

The final report shall not exceed 30 pages and be written in English. The executive summary shall not exceed 5 pages and be written in English and Ukrainian. The report, taking into account feedback from RSF, will include:

• An executive summary including the main conclusions and recommendations resulting from the evaluation (listed by order of priority) .
• A main report describing the context, objectives and methodology of the evaluation, the limitations, the detailed findings and results of the evaluation in relation to the objectives and evaluation questions, and the evaluators’ conclusions and recommendations (listed by order of priority).
• Appendix (list of documents, list of people interviewed, etc.)

The restitution in English should be based on a PowerPoint presentation to present the key findings and recommendations to RSF. The restitution should last approximately one hour, with a 30-minute presentation to allow time for questions and answers.

3.8/ Evaluation team qualification

Preference will be given to consultants with relevant expertise and experience who propose a participatory evaluation methodology.

The following skills will be sought:

• Specific expertise and experience related to the project:
  • Experience in evaluating projects implemented by NGOs and/or international organisations in crisis context
  • Expertise in journalism and/or media ecosystem
  • Knowledge of the Ukrainian context
  
  
• Skills and significant experience in project evaluation (methodology, interviewing, analysis, report writing, etc.)
• Experience of evaluation of EU-funded projects ;
• Fluent spoken and written English and Ukrainian ;
• Knowledge of French is an asset.

For this evaluation, RSF will give preference to bids submitted by teams of consultants. It is important that the skills of the individual evaluation team members are complementary. It is highly recommended that local evaluation consultants are included in the team, as they often have contextual knowledge that is of great value to the evaluation.

The evaluators must be independent from Reporters sans frontières, the evaluated project and activities, and have no stake in the outcome of the evaluation.

3.9/ Financial and human resources

The maximum budget available for this evaluation is €20,000 all taxes included. This amount must include all the costs required to carry out the evaluation.

The assessment can be carried out remotely or the evaluators can decide to carry out field mission(s), with the prior agreement of RSF. In the event of mission(s), the costs must be part of the total budget and the evaluators will be required to arrange the logistics including any necessary security arrangements.

How to apply

4/ Submission of the offer and selection

Consultants interested in the evaluation assignment should include the following documents in their application:

• A technical proposal detailing the understanding of the evaluation stakes, the proposed evaluation methodology, as well as the implementation schedule considered (workplan).
• A CV describing education and experience.
• A list describing previous evaluations or consultancies. Please give details of similar evaluation/consultancy contracts: donor and organisation that implemented the project, budget and duration of the project concerned, budget and duration of the evaluation/consultancy, main results, etc.
• A detailed financial proposal (estimate) with the total budget all taxes included.

Proposals must be submitted in English. Incomplete applications will not be considered.

Full applications should be sent by email to the following addresses before 01/06/2026 at 9.00 a.m (Paris time, CET)

• Charlie Troncy, MEAL officer: ctroncy@rsf.org
• Chloé Vernet, Project officer : cvernet@rsf.org

Proposals will be evaluated according to the following criteria:

• Technical and financial proposal
  • Understanding of the terms of reference
  • Evaluation questions
  • Proposed methodology
  
  
• Consultants’ expertise and experience
  • Lead Consultant
  • Associate consultant(s)
  • Complementarity of the team as a whole
  
  
• Budget and timetable
  • Proposed budget
  • Proposed duration, timeline and work plan
  
  
• Added value: specific tools, expertise, language etc.

The interviews with pre-selected applicants will be organised in June 2026.

Tagged as: Agriculture, Food Security and Livelihoods