Individual consultant to carry out final assessment and evaluation of the regional component of the project "Sustainable Fishery Development in Red Sea and Gulf of Aden"-SFISH — Program on Sustainable Fishery Development in Red Sea and Gulf of Aden (SFISH)

Terms of Reference Individual Consultant for Final Review of the “Sustainable Fisheries Development in Red Sea and Gulf of Aden” Project (SFISH Project) Program/Project Number: P178143 Activity Code: PERSGA-2403-CS-INDV Type of contract; and expected start/end dates of assignment Lump-sum, based on linked deliverables; During October 2026 -February 2027 Background 1.1. Context The Regional Organization for Conservation of the Marine Environment of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden (PERSGA) is an intergovernmental organization established since 1995. PERSGA institutional framework is based on the Regional Convention for the Conservation of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Environment (Jeddah Convention 1982), which joins seven member states, including Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. Rational use of marine resources and the protection of coastal marine environment from pollution and overexploitation are central objectives of Jeddah Convention (1982) and its derived Action Plan Regional Protocols and Action Plan. PERSGA runs regional programs and projects that support regional capacities and coordination to achieve these objectives. This consultancy is carried out in the framework of the implementation of the regional project “Sustainable Fisheries Development in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden”, referred to hereafter as SFISH project. The project is financed by the World Bank (WB), and executed by PERSGA for its regional component. In accordance with the M&E policies and procedures of WB, a Final Evaluation of the SFISH project is required. The project has started on August 2022 and is approaching its closing by March 2027. This TOR sets out the prospect for the project Final Evaluation. 1.2 Background on SFISH project (Regional Component) PERSGA is executing the SFISH project Regional Component, which composes the subject of this Final Evaluation TOR. This Component aims to strengthen regional collaboration in management of marine fisheries and aquaculture in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. Its focus is to improve and sustain regional collaboration through further development of PERSGA’s capacities for monitoring, assessment, knowledge management and sharing to support science-based management of fisheries in the RSGA. It supports the development of a regional platform for coordination of policies, legislation, management plans and measures for responsible fisheries and aquaculture and use of ecosystems approaches. It also supports regional level capacity building and technical assistance program on management of living marine resources responding to both anthropogenic and climate induced changes. This would include training, providing technical guidelines, support the development of policies, legislation, management plans and completion, ratification and implementation of relevant regional conventions, action plans and protocols. The project regional component interventions were designed to be through the following interlinked subcomponents: PERSGA Regional Information Management System (RIMS), monitoring network and institutional capacity . This subcomponent aims to strengthen the capacity of PERSGA, as a regional organization, to compile fisheries and related data collected or received from the countries and make this information available to all member states. It provides goods and services to improve IT hardware and software of the RIMS housed in PERSGA, and networking to allow it to perform integrated functions. The subcomponent also supports PERSGA system capacity for monitoring marine environment, including on climate change impact in the RSGA area, tracking pollution spills, and coordination of emergency response that have implications to protection of fisheries and their critical habitats. It also supports updating PERSGA institutional guidelines as needed, such as for finance and procurement policy and procedures, project cycle management, and environmental and social risks assessment and management. Regional platforms for capacity building and regional coordination of sustainable fisheries and aquaculture in the regional management mechanism . This subcomponent supports capacity development, technical assistance and setting up of platforms for effective coordination on fishery management at the regional level. It supports PERSGA to develop technical manuals for cost-effective approaches of harmonized fisheries data and information collection and management adapted to the region, incorporating supplementary guidelines for monitoring, and assessing IUU fishing, fish stock status etc., and a regional mechanism to share information with member states on fishery statistics and knowledge. It will also support PERSGA to develop technical guidelines to promote capacities to effectively coordinate efforts for fisheries management, policies, and legislation; protection and restoration of critical fish habitat; environmental and biosecurity best practices in aquaculture, building climate resilience and regional mechanism to interact with relevant international efforts. The activity will also include support to PERSGA in developing a Regional Plan of Action for combating IUU fishing (RPOA-IUU), and other specific action plans concerning conservation of vulnerable non target species such as sharks, turtles, seabirds and marine mammals. These action plans would provide an umbrella mechanism for cooperation and coordination of measures to combat IUU fishing, and other conservation measures related to RSGA fisheries. Enhanced knowledge management, communication strategies and awareness for citizen, private sector and development partner engagement in the regional sustainable fishery mechanism . This subcomponent includes technical assistance, consultations, and operating costs for supporting citizen, private sector and development partner engagement and raising awareness through effective communication on regional cooperation actions, including improved activities that demonstrate cooperation and coordination among the regional countries. It also supports the development of special awareness activities, including production and dissemination of educational materials (videos, media toolkits, brochures, pamphlets, etc.) addressing fishery issues due to anthropogenic actions and climate change, and communication workshops to enhance their engagement. Further detailed information on the project, and related project documents can be reached at the following link: https://sfish.persga.org/ Consultancy 2.1 Objectives of the Final Evaluation (FE) The objective of the FE is to provide an independent assessment of the project’s achievements, outcomes and potential longer-term impacts. As an end-of-project evaluation undertaken during the final implementation period, the FE will assess performance over the implementation period up to an evaluation cut-off date agreed during inception, with material implementation developments and final results updated through completion of the evaluation where any evidence becomes available. It will consider forward-looking in capturing lessons learned and providing evidence on the nature and extent of results, their likely sustainability, and implications for future programming. The evaluation will thus assess the project design, scope, implementation and achievements. It will collate and analyse lessons learnt, challenges faced and best practices obtained during implementation, which will inform the next programming strategy in response to its priorities, and make recommendations regarding the specific actions in this regard. These should emphasize, for example issues to be addressed in the future follow up interventions, significant outcomes and success stories for potential expansion and replication. 2.2 Scope and Approach of the FE The FE should provide evidence-based information that is credible, reliable and useful. The consultant is expected to follow a participatory and consultative approach ensuring close engagement with the Project team at PERSGA, and government counterparts of the member countries including PERSGA Focal Points, National Coordinators of the project, and key stakeholders. The review consultant is expected to conduct a field mission to view project interventions and achievements, and partake in meetings and workshop organized in the framework of the FE process. Interviews will be held with the following organizations and individuals at a minimum: PERSGA staff who have project responsibilities; Project National Coordinators Stakeholders, including the beneficiaries in at least two of the Participating Countries, The consultant will review all relevant sources of information, such as the project documents, project implementation progress reports, financial reports, activities’ reports, strategic and legal documents, World Bank aide memoires from support meetings, outputs and products and any other material that he / she considers useful for this evidence-based review and evaluation. The FE shall review and validate the project's Theory of Change (ToC). In this connection, the evaluation shall assess whether the assumptions and causal pathways underlying project design remained valid during implementation, and examine the extent to which project interventions, outputs, and intermediate results contributed to the achievement of intended outcomes and development objectives. The assessment should identify key enabling factors and constraints that influenced results achievement and sustainability. The Project FE will assess the effectiveness of the implementation strategy and the results. This will include the implementation modalities, responsibilities and co-financing roles, coordination and partnership arrangements, institutional strengthening, beneficiary participation, training and workshop attendance and outcomes, replication and sustainability of the project outcomes. The evaluation will include review of the project design and assumptions made at the beginning of the project development process; project management including the implementation strategies; project activities, so as to assess the extent to which the project results have been achieved, partnerships established, capacities built, and cross cutting issues of mainstreaming development issues. It will also assess whether the project implementation strategy has been optimum and recommend areas for improvement and learning for future programming interventions. To achieve the FE objectives following relevant World Bank and PERSGA guidelines, the consultant will consider the following categories of project performance. For each of the Relevance, Efficacy and Efficiency categories, and for the overall assessment, the consultant is required to apply the rating scales set out below. The sustainability and risks to development outcomes will be assessed descriptively, i.e. rating is not required; however, the main risks and enabling factors should be clearly identified and prioritized. Relevance The FE will assess the extent to which the project objectives, design and focus are relevant to the identified problem and needs. It will also assess how the project interventions approached are realistic, appropriate, and responsive to changes for achieving project objectives. Thus, the Relevance of objectives assesses: (i) the alignment with the partnership framework of the World Bank and PERSGA and pertaining development strategy at the time the operation is closed; (ii) appropriateness of the PDO given the client’s implementation capacity; and (iii) the extent to which the PDO was responsive to the changing circumstances. The explanation of the alignment of the PDO includes a description of the development problem the project sought to address and how this problem was addressed through the project’s interventions given the context and existing capacity. Rating : Considering the above, the Relevance of PDO will be rated using a four-point scale, including High, Substantial, Modest, and Negligible, as follows High: Full alignment with the priorities of the regional framework and development strategy; PDO was appropriately pitched and responsive to changing circumstances Substantial: Largely aligned with the priorities of the regional framework and development strategy, with minor shortcomings in appropriateness or responsiveness. Modest: Partial alignment with the priorities of the regional framework and development strategy, or notable shortcomings in appropriateness or responsiveness Negligible : Very limited alignment with the priorities of the regional framework and development strategy, with major shortcomings in appropriateness or responsiveness 2.2.2 Efficacy Assessing the project Efficacy is the core section in this Final Evaluation, as well as in the Learning and Results Note (LRN) for Investment Project Financing Operation of the World Bank. Efficacy is defined as the extent to which the project objectives were achieved, or are expected to be achieved, and that achievement is attributable to the activities or actions supported by the project, or to what extent the project’s activities contributed to the achievement of the objective(s). The PDO statement conveys the benefits (changes) expected to flow to the beneficiaries, expressed in terms of development outcomes, rather than stating financed activities and outputs. Thus, to examine the project Efficacy, the FE will consider several aspects, such as: Achievement of the Project development objectives: including through Results Framework (RF) Indicators, outputs and outcomes assessments. The RF can provide logical information to measure achievement of each expected outcome in the PDO statement through examining data on indicators document, observed achievements and compare them to baselines and targets. However, it is important to assess efficacy at the level of expected outcomes rather than just presenting data of the project’s results indicators. It will be useful to also look beyond the Results Framework to any other available data and evidence. Where applicable, the efficacy section would also discuss here achievement of cross-cutting and corporate objectives, such as contribution to institutional strengthening and other development objectives (e.g. relevant SDGs Project management performance by PERSGA: including through assessing management processes and appropriateness in supporting implementation and delivering results; Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) quality assessment; implementation strategies; responding to the needs of the beneficiaries; involving stakeholders; adaptive management to overcome obstacles/challenges, or grasping opportunity to upscale/ expand results; Rating : Considering the above, the project Efficacy will be rated using a four-point scale, including High, Substantial, Modest, and Negligible, as follows: High: The Project fully achieved or exceeded its objectives (or intended outcomes) or is likely to do so Substantial: The Project almost fully achieved its objectives (or intended outcomes) or is likely to do so Modest: The Project partly achieved its objectives (or intended outcomes) or is likely to do so Negligible : The Project barely achieved its objectives (or intended outcomes) or is likely to do so 2.2.3 Efficiency The FE will assess the efficiency of the project implementation with regard to: Utilizing the fund resources, where actual/ expected results justify costs incurred; Synergy and coordination with other overlapping and similar interventions (funded nationally and /or by other donors); Considering collaboration with the national institutions and development partners; Management structures, procedure and accountability; Performance in project management, coordination, procurement and financial management, reporting, stakeholder engagement, and responsiveness to implementation challenges. Rating : Considering the above, the project Efficiency will be rated using a four-point scale, including High, Substantial, Modest, and Negligible, as follows: High: Efficiency exceeds expectations Substantial: Efficiency is what would be expected in the project/ operation’s sector. Modest: Efficiency is below expectations in the project/ operation’s sector. Negligible : Efficiency is very low in comparison with both the benefits (if any) and with recognized norms in the project/ operation’s sector. 2.2.4 Overall Outcome This FE will assess the Overall Outcome in a very brief (1-2 sentences) description. This will be based on the integrated assessment of Relevance, Efficacy, and Efficiency above. Rating: Overall Outcome rating is derived by combining the assessments of Relevance, Efficacy, and Efficiency, using a 6-point scale, as follows: Highly Satisfactory: There were no shortcomings in the project’s achievement of its objectives, in its efficiency, or in its relevance Satisfactory : There were minor shortcomings in the project’s achievement of its objectives, in its efficiency, or in its relevance Moderately Satisfactory : There were moderate shortcomings in the project’s achievement of its objectives, in its efficiency, or in its relevance Moderately Unsatisfactory : There were significant shortcomings in the project’s achievement of its objectives, in its efficiency, or in its relevance Unsatisfactory: There were major shortcomings in the project’s achievement of its objectives, in its efficiency, or in its relevance. Highly Unsatisfactory: There were severe shortcomings in the project’s achievement of its objectives, in its efficiency, or in its relevance 2.2.5 Sustainability and Risks to Development Outcomes The FE will assess how sustainability issues were considered in the project design, planning and implementation, examining: The extent that the benefits of the project are likely to be sustained after the completion of this project; exit strategies, and approaches to phase out assistance provided by the project including contributing factors and constraints key risks that may affect maintenance of project outcomes after project closure, including institutional, financial, technical, and regional cooperation risks Key factors that will require attention in order to improve prospects of sustainability of Project outcome Success stories and potential for their replication/ scaling up of the approaches and outcomes Sustainability of capacities built at the individual and organizational level including a focus on IT systems, data collection and analysis and sustainability of regional data sharing. The extent to which technical manuals, guidelines, and training programs developed under the project incorporate and promote principles of resource efficiency in living marine resources, fisheries and aquaculture management. Assessment of Environmental and Social Performance: the Final Evaluation shall assess the extent to which project implementation complied with the Environmental and Social Framework (ESF) and relevant Environmental and Social Standards (ESSs), including the integration of ESF requirements into project regulatory procedures, implementation, and management. The assessment should review the effectiveness of stakeholder engagement and consultation processes, operation of grievance redress mechanisms, management of labor and working conditions risks, and the extent to which technical assistance activities were designed and implemented in a manner consistent with ESF principles and requirements. The evaluation should identify any environmental or social implementation challenges encountered, assess how they were addressed, and document lessons learned for future operations, main lessons and recommendations for harmonizing or comparable/ interventions in future, e.g. comprehensive proposals for future interventions based on the current evaluation findings. Document cross-cutting outcomes: Assess contributions to institutional strengthening, regional cooperation, capacity building, climate resilience, private sector engagement, and other relevant cross-cutting objectives supported by the project. 2.3 Key Evaluation Questions Articulating the above, the following core questions can guide assessments in the FE. The consultant may refine, add to and operationalize for the inception report and evaluation matrix, which will be subject to agreement with PERSGA: Theory of Change and contribution: To what extent did the project’s assumptions and causal pathways remain valid, and how did project interventions contribute to observed outcomes? Relevance: To what extent did the project objectives, design and interventions remain aligned with regional fisheries and aquaculture priorities, World Bank and PERSGA strategic priorities, beneficiary needs and changing circumstances? Efficacy: To what extent were the PDO and intended outcomes achieved, or are likely to be achieved by project closure, based on the Results Framework and other credible evidence? Efficiency: How efficiently were financial, human and institutional resources, implementation arrangements, procurement, financial management and partnerships used to deliver results? Implementation and management performance: How effective were project governance, coordination, M&E, stakeholder engagement, adaptive management and regional cooperation arrangements? Sustainability and risks: How likely are project benefits, institutional capacities, regional platforms, data systems, partnerships and other results to be sustained after project closure, and what are the principal risks? Environmental, social and cross-cutting performance: To what extent were relevant ESF/ESS requirements and cross-cutting objectives, including institutional strengthening, climate resilience, capacity building and private-sector engagement, effectively addressed? Lessons and future programming: What evidence-based lessons, scalable practices and recommendations should inform future regional fisheries and marine resource management interventions? 3. Expected Deliverables The following deliverables are expected (see schedule of deliverables below): 3.1 Inception report The FE consultant will prepare an inception report, which details his/her conception of the assessment, the approach and how the evaluation questions will be addressed. This is to ensure that the evaluator and the stakeholders have a shared view of the assessment. The inception report will include an evaluation matrix summarizing the evaluation design, methodology, questions, data sources, collection and analysis tools, and measures by which questions will be evaluated. The report will include the scope of work, work plan, timeframe after starting the evaluation process. The inception report should include a proposed schedule of tasks; activities and deliverables, with clear responsibilities for each task or product. The inception report will be discussed and agreed upon with PERSGA and project stakeholders. 3.2 Draft assessment report The FE consultant will prepare a draft Project Assessment Report, cognizant of the proposed format of the report and checklist used for the assessment (outlined in 3.3 below). The draft report will be submitted to PERSGA for review and comments by its review panel and stakeholders, and to validate that the evaluation considered all relevant information and meets the required approach and quality criteria. The report will be produced in English. PERSGA is responsible for ensuring timely arrangement for the review and validation of the report involving stakeholders’ remarks within the allocated time-frame. Within undertaking the assessment and preparation of the draft report, the consultant is expected to carry out field mission to the region in order to collect and confer data and information. The assessment report should provide extra detailed information as annexes, such as tables with Indicator> Baseline> Target> Actual> Assessment of Achievement, and other similar data. The appraisal should also discuss whether indicators were appropriate measures of the intended outcomes. 3.3 Final FE Report and regional workshop The consultant shall consider above comments on the draft report to develop the final assessment report. The content and the structure of the final analytical report with findings, recommendations and lessons learnt should cover the above scope of the evaluation and should meet the requirements of M & E for PERSGA and World Bank. Following clearance of the assessment report, the consultant will be invited to participate and present assessment findings and recommendations in the project FE regional workshop. The content is expected to include (at least) the following: Executive summary (2-4 pages) Introduction (1-2 page) Description of the evaluation approach and methodology (6-8 pages) Project context and rationale (4-6 pages) Achievement of outcomes against objectives Analysis regarding the project progress and achievements of the objectives, outputs and outcomes; challenges, impacts, etc., considering the scope outlined above (10-12 pages) Analysis of opportunities and options for guidance in relevant future interventions (6-8 pages) Other key findings; practices, lessons learned and potential success stories (4-6 pages): Lessons should be evidence-based, actionable, and relevant for future regional fisheries and marine resource management operations, with clear implications for successor interventions. PERSGA performance (2-4 pages) Conclusions and recommendations (4-6 pages) Appendices (charts, tables, terms of reference, itinerary, people interviewed, documents reviewed, further readings, etc) 3.4 Tentative schedule of the consultancy Deliverables Deliverable Time Frame Inception Report Within one week after signing of contract Review and agreement on Inception Report Within one week after submission of the report Draft Assessment Report (including field mission) Within six weeks after approval of the inception report Review of Draft Assessment Report Within two weeks after submission of the draft report Final Report with review comments addressed Within two weeks after receiving PERSGA comments on draft report Presentation of the key findings and recommendations in FE regional workshop Within a month from clearing the Final Report 4. Management, Coordination and PERSGA Inputs 4.1 Supervision and review of deliverables The consultant will report to the designated PERSGA Project Coordinator/official responsible for the SFISH Regional Component. PERSGA will designate a review panel for the assignment and will provide consolidated comments on deliverables within the review periods stated in Section 3.4. Acceptance of deliverables will be based on conformity with this TOR, the agreed inception report and evaluation matrix, and applicable PERSGA and World Bank requirements. 4.2 PERSGA inputs and facilitation PERSGA will facilitate the assignment by providing or arranging timely access, subject to applicable confidentiality requirements, to relevant project documentation and data, including the Project Appraisal/implementation documents, Results Framework data, progress and financial reports, procurement information, M&E records, aide-memoires, activity reports, technical outputs and other relevant project records. PERSGA will also facilitate contact with National Coordinators, Focal Points and other key stakeholders and support coordination of mission meetings and the regional workshop. 4.3 Independence, confidentiality and conflict of interest The consultant shall conduct the evaluation independently, impartially and with professional integrity. Any actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest shall be disclosed promptly to PERSGA. Information obtained through the assignment shall be treated confidentially where appropriate, and stakeholder views shall be presented in a manner that protects respondents where confidentiality has been requested. Evaluation findings and ratings shall be evidence-based and shall remain the professional responsibility of the consultant. 5. Type of contract, duty station and payment This contract falls under short-term consultant category system of PERGSA. It is on a lump sum basis, and payment will be in instalments linked with deliverables as specified below. The consultant will work from homebase, where he/she has access to the relevant technical literature, to prepare for the evaluation. The consultant will undertake a mission to PERSGA region to conduct field assessments and establish required arrangement and networking with review team at PERSGA, and undertaking interviews with relevant participants/beneficiaries, examine project outputs; review & update input information/data, and discuss, thematic approach, layout, analysis results, content, etc. of the draft document. The payment instalments will be owed as follows: 25% after adoption of the inception report 50% after undertaking the field mission and submission of the draft assessment report 25% after the approval of the final report, participation in the final evaluation workshop and submission of workshop report 6. Required qualifications/expertise and application procedure Advanced degree (preferable PhD) in marine environmental policies, living marine resources/ fisheries management, marine sciences, development policies, economic planning, economics, project management or other related fields. Extensive knowledge and expertise in the field of evaluation of development projects and programs, including working with international organizations and donors, relevant technical areas for at least 15 years. Experience with assessment of similar World Bank and PERSGA projects is preferable. Experience and familiarity with working in the region will be an added value. Knowledge and experience with result-based management and evaluation methodologies, applying indicators and reconstructing or validating baseline scenarios; Demonstrable analytical and reporting skills of international standards; Excellent English communication skills. Arabic and French are advantages. Qualified candidates are requested to submit their updated CVs, together with expression of interest (EOI) to PERSGA in Jeddah, Kingdome of Saudi Arabia, at the email address: sourcing@persga.org . Deadline for receiving application is 26 September 2026.