The Early Warnings for All (EW4All) initiative aims to ensure that every person is protected by multi-hazard early warning systems. Current monitoring arrangements, including the EW4All dashboard and the Global Status of Multi-Hazard Early Warning Systems (MHEWS) reports, largely capture the existence, coverage, comprehensiveness and capacity of Early Warning Systems (EWS). However, there remains a recognized gap in measuring the effectiveness of EWS, including the extent to which warnings are relevant, accurate, timely, accessible and actionable, and ultimately support protective action and reduced impacts.

Building on the initial work conducted, WMO is now seeking to advance the development of an EWS Effectiveness Index from conceptual scoping towards a more operational and testable methodological proposal. The initial work reviewed existing knowledge and methodologies and proposed a conceptual framework for assessing early warning effectiveness, distinguishing between different possible levels of measurement: attribution of outcomes to warnings; lives protected; responses to warnings; perceptions and intentions; quality of warning outputs; and capacities, policies and systems in place.

The initial work concluded that attribution and outcome-based measures are conceptually desirable but difficult to apply in a standardized and globally comparable way, given limitations in data availability, attribution and comparability. It identified the output level of the early warning value chain as a more feasible entry point for developing an effectiveness index, while still moving beyond capacity-based monitoring. This approach focuses on the quality of the information and services produced along the early warning value chain, including their relevance, accuracy, timeliness, accessibility, actionability and responsiveness.

The next phase will therefore adopt a layered methodological approach, with the quality of warning outputs as the primary and operationally testable level of measurement for the proposed EWS Effectiveness Index. This approach will allow the index to move beyond capacity-based monitoring while remaining feasible, comparable and grounded in available or collectible data. Other levels of effectiveness, such as user response, perceptions, protective action and reduced impacts, should be considered as complementary or contextual layers, where data are available, and as possible areas for future methodological expansion.

The work will focus on identifying and developing a practical set of indicators to measure EWS effectiveness at the output level, assessing their feasibility and data requirements, and validating the proposed indicators with relevant experts and stakeholders. The work should remain multi-hazard and people-centred, covering hydrometeorological hazards and geohazards as appropriate, and should consider the roles of National Meteorological and Hydrological Services (NMHSs), geohazard monitoring agencies, civil protection authorities, EW4All pillar leads and other relevant actors across the warning value chain.

The consultant will work under the supervision of the Chief of Planning, Foresight and Performance and in close collaboration with the EW4All M&E Working Group. The consultant is expected to engage with experts across the early warning value chain, including consultation with the EW4All pillar leads, to develop, test and validate a proposed set of indicators for measuring EWS effectiveness at the output level

• Review the initial analytical work, conceptual model and related EW4All M&E materials, and synthesize the key implications for measuring EWS effectiveness at the output level;

• Identify and develop a proposed set of output-level indicators to assess the quality and effectiveness of warnings, including the extent to which they are relevant, accurate, timely, accessible, actionable, and able to support effective response. For each proposed indicator, define the rationale, effectiveness dimension addressed, unit of measurement, possible calculation method, interpretation, assumptions, and limitations.

• Map the proposed indicators to the relevant stages of the early warning value chain and, where appropriate, to the EW4All pillars and cross-cutting enabling functions, ensuring that the framework captures the contribution of different actors across the system.

• Identify how other levels of effectiveness, including user response, perceptions, protective action and reduced impacts, could be reflected as complementary or contextual layers, where data are available, and clarify how these layers could support interpretation, validation, case studies or future expansion of the Index.

• Assess the availability, quality, comparability, accessibility, update frequency and sustainability of potential data sources for each proposed indicator as well as identify key data gaps, requirements and methodological constraints.

• Conduct targeted consultations with experts across the early warning value chain, including EW4All pillar leads and other relevant institutional actors, as appropriate. Prepare and support a virtual expert validation meeting, document feedback on the relevance, feasibility, technical soundness and acceptability of the proposed indicators, and revise the framework accordingly.

• Develop options for scoring, weighting, and aggregating the proposed indicators, including possible sub-indices.

• Prepare a practical protocol for testing the framework in selected countries or contexts.