Consultancy Service: Mid Term Evaluation AU-IBAR Strategic Plan 2024-2028 (FIRMS ONLY)
Background
The African Union Inter-African Bureau for Animal Resources (AU-IBAR) is a specialised technical office of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Blue Economy, and Sustainable Environment (ARBE) of the African Union Commission (AUC). It is mandated to lead the development and utilisation of animal resources (Livestock, fisheries and wildlife). The SP aims to strengthen governance, animal production systems, animal health and welfare, market access, and institutional coordination across Africa's animal resources sector.
The AU-IBAR Strategic Plan 2024–2028 provides the overarching framework for the development and implementation of programmes and projects aimed at realising an Africa in which animal resources contribute significantly to integration, prosperity, food and nutrition security, economic growth, resilience, and peace. The Strategic Plan was developed in alignment with the African Union Agenda 2063 Aspirations, particularly Aspiration 1 (A Prosperous Africa Based on Inclusive Growth and Sustainable Development) and Aspiration 6 (An Africa Whose Development is People-Driven), as well as the African Union Reform Agenda and the AU Strategic Plan 2024–2028.
The Strategic Plan is further informed by, and contributes to the implementation of, several continental policy and strategic frameworks relevant to the animal resources sector. These include the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) and the Malabo Declaration on Accelerated Agricultural Growth and Transformation for Shared Prosperity and Improved Livelihoods; the Kampala CAADP Declaration on Building Resilient and Sustainable Agrifood Systems in Africa; the Livestock Development Strategy for Africa (LiDeSA); the Animal Health Strategy for Africa (AHSA); the Animal Welfare Strategy for Africa (AWSA); the Policy Framework and Reform Strategy for Fisheries and Aquaculture in Africa (PFRS); the Policy Framework for Pastoralism in Africa (PFPA); the Africa Blue Economy Strategy (ABES); the AU Framework for Sustainable Development of Fisheries and Aquaculture; the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA); the AU Climate Change and Resilient Development Strategy and Action Plan; and relevant One Health frameworks aimed at strengthening prevention and control of transboundary animal diseases, zoonoses, and antimicrobial resistance.
As the Strategic Plan reaches its midpoint, AU-IBAR intends to undertake a Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) to assess progress made during the implementation period (2024–mid-2026), identify achievements and challenges, evaluate the effectiveness of implementation arrangements, and generate recommendations for improving performance during the remaining implementation period (2026–2028).
The following are the objectives, outcomes and impacts of the AU-IBAR Strategic Plan 2024-2028
Table 1: Strategic Objectives, outcomes and impact plan 2024-2028
| Strategic Objective | Outcome | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Strategic Objective 1: Strengthen governance and the enabling environment for sustainable animal resources development. | Effective policies and regulatory frameworks promote stability and support coordinated animal resource management. | Strengthened governance structures at continental, regional and national levels, with coherent policies, practices to foster sustainable animal resource management |
| Strategic Objective 2: Improve access, productivity, resilience, and sustainability of animal production systems. | Access to quality inputs, financial investment and resilient practices for sustainable productivity gains. | Increased productivity and resilience across animal value chains for food and nutrition security and livelihoods |
| Strategic Objective 3: Strengthen animal health, animal welfare, biosecurity, and disease prevention and control. | Reduced incidence of animal diseases through preventive measures and strong health systems. | Effective disease control measures and robust health systems that minimise outbreaks, aligned with the One Health approach |
| Strategic Objective 4: Enhance market access, value addition, and trade competitiveness of Africa's animal resources. | Increased trade compliance and reduced technical barriers to create new economic opportunities. | Enhanced economic opportunities led by a strong private sector |
| Strategic Objective 5: Strengthen institutional capacity, partnerships, knowledge management, and service delivery. | Enhanced data sharing, training, and coordination capabilities that drive knowledge-based decision-making and enable collaborative progress | Increased use of innovation, technology, and best practices for effective growth of Africa's animal resources |
Purpose of the Mid–Term Evaluation
The overall purpose of the Mid-Term Evaluation is to provide an independent assessment of the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, sustainability, and emerging impact of the AU-IBAR Strategic Plan 2024–2028 and to inform strategic adjustments for the remainder of the implementation period.
The evaluation will:
- Take stock of the key achievements and results (Benefits and Outcomes)
- Assess progress towards strategic outputs, outcomes, and impact (Indicator Matrix).
- Determine the contribution of programmes and projects towards the achievement of the AU-IBAR Strategic Plan.
- Assess implementation of the AU-IBAR Livestock; Fisheries and Aquaculture and Aquatic Biodiversity Programmes to determine their contribution to the achievement of AU-IBAR Strategic Plan goals, the Livestock Development Strategy for Africa (LiDeSA), Policy Framework and Reform Strategy for Fisheries and Aquaculture (PFRS) the Africa Blue Economy Strategy (ABES), the CAADP Kampala Declaration, and Agenda 2063; and provide forward-looking recommendations on how the sector can further strengthen its role in advancing its contribution.
- Determine the extent to which planned interventions remain relevant to AU Member States and stakeholders (assess the strategic relevance).
- Examine the effectiveness and efficiency of implementation mechanisms.
- Assess the adequacy of partnerships, resource mobilisation, coordination mechanisms, organisational learning and progress tracking.
- Identify good practices, lessons learned, risks, and emerging opportunities.
- Identify gaps and recommend practical ways of bridging the gaps and effectively inform further adaptation and course correction of the Strategic Plan, programmes and activities, in the remaining period.
- Provide actionable recommendations for improving implementation and achieving the Strategic Plan targets by 2028.
The evaluation will specifically:
- Assess Strategic Relevance: Examine whether the Strategic Plan remains aligned with the following: AU Agenda 2063; AU Strategic Plan 2024–2028; CAADP priorities, particularly the Kampala Declaration; AU animal resources frameworks and strategies; emerging continental and global development priorities; and the needs of AU Member States, RECs, and stakeholders.
- Assess Effectiveness: Determine: Progress towards planned outputs and outcomes; Achievement of annual and cumulative performance targets; Factors facilitating or hindering implementation.
- Assess Efficiency: Review: Utilisation of financial, human, and technical resources; Cost-effectiveness of interventions; Adequacy of management and implementation arrangements; Monitoring, evaluation, learning, and reporting systems.
- Assess Coherence and Coordination: Evaluate: Internal coherence across programme areas; Alignment with AU Commission priorities; Collaboration with RECs, Member States, development partners, academia, private sector, and civil society.
- Assess Sustainability and plausible contribution: Examine: Institutional sustainability of interventions; Capacity strengthening outcomes; Policy influence and uptake; Likelihood of achieving long-term strategic outcomes.
- Generate Lessons and Recommendations: Identify: Best practices; Lessons learned; Corrective measures; Strategic priorities for the remaining implementation period.
Scope of the Evaluation
- Time scope: The evaluation shall cover January 2024 – July 2026 (or the latest available reporting period).
- Geographic scope: Continental level; Regional Economic Communities (RECs) and Sampled AU-MSs.
- Programmatic Scope: The evaluation will assess all Strategic Objectives and Key Result Areas of the Strategic Plan 2024–2028, including: i) Governance and enabling environment for animal resources; ii Access and resilience in animal production systems iii) Animal health, animal welfare, and disease control; iv) Market access and trade competitiveness; v) Institutional coordination, knowledge management, partnerships, and service delivery.
- Stakeholder Scope: The table below shows the stakeholder categories, their interest in the Mid Term Evaluation and some of the data collection methods that can be considered
Table 2: Stakeholders to be Engaged and the Possible Methods of Engagement
| Stakeholder Category | Stakeholder Group | Internal/External | Interest/Benefit from the MTE | Proposed Engagement During Data Collection |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Programme Governance | African Union Member States | External | Assess programme relevance, effectiveness, and sustainability, and identify opportunities to strengthen implementation and policy uptake at the national level. | Key Informant Interviews (KIIs), Online Survey, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) where appropriate |
| Regional Economic Communities (RECs) | External | Assess regional coordination, harmonisation, implementation support and identify lessons for regional integration. | KIIs, FGDs | |
| African Union Organs and Specialised Institutions | Internal | Assess alignment with AU policies, institutional performance, strategic positioning and value addition of the programme. | KIIs, Document Review | |
| Programme Management | AU-IBAR Management | Internal | Review programme performance, implementation efficiency, management arrangements, risks, lessons learned and strategic direction for the remaining implementation period. | KIIs, Document Review |
| Programmes and Projects Unit (PPU) and Technical Staff | Internal | Validate implementation progress, outputs, challenges, adaptive management measures and lessons learned. | KIIs, FGDs, Internal Workshops | |
| Development and Technical Partners | Development and Technical Partners | External | Assess partnership effectiveness, technical support provided, coordination mechanisms and programme outcomes. | KIIs |
| Funding and Donor Agencies | External | Assess accountability, value for money, achievement of expected results and inform future investment decisions. | KIIs, Document Review | |
| Academic, Research and Training Institutions | External | Provide independent technical perspectives, evidence on capacity development and research outcomes. | KIIs, Surveys | |
| Implementation Partners | Implementing Partner Institutions | External | Share implementation experiences, identify operational challenges and document good practices. | KIIs, FGDs |
| Private Sector and Civil Society | Private Sector Actors | External | Assess programme contribution to market development, investment climate and value chain strengthening. | KIIs, Surveys |
| Livestock, fisheries and aquatic biodiversity Platforms and Professional Networks | External | Provide sector-wide perspectives, emerging opportunities and recommendations for scaling programme interventions. | FGDs, KIIs | |
| Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) | External | Assess inclusiveness, community engagement, social impact and sustainability of programme interventions. | FGDs, KIIs | |
| Non-State Actors (NSAs) | External | Provide independent perspectives on programme implementation, stakeholder engagement and accountability. | FGDs, KIIs | |
| Programme Beneficiaries | Producers, Farmer Organisations, Livestock Keepers, Fishers and Other End Beneficiaries (where applicable) | External | Share experiences regarding programme relevance, effectiveness, outcomes and sustainability at beneficiary level. | FGDs, Surveys, Case Studies |
Required Qualifications of the Consultancy Firm’s Evaluation Team
Team Leader
- Advanced degree (Master's or PhD) in Agricultural Economics, Veterinary Sciences, Fisheries and blue economy, Development Studies, Monitoring and Evaluation, Public Policy, or related field.
- At least 10 years' experience in conducting strategic evaluations.
- Demonstrated experience in African Union institutions, livestock, fisheries, animal health, or agricultural development.
- Strong knowledge of Results-Based Management (RBM) and OECD-DAC evaluation criteria.
- Ability to work under pressure and to respect deadlines.
- Excellent report writing skills in English.
Evaluation Specialists
Expertise in:
- Monitoring and evaluation of strategies, programmes, and policy: Capacity to design, implement, and refine systems that track progress, measure outcomes, and ensure accountability across programmes and projects, blending technical rigor with strategic insight to generate reliable evidence, strengthen decision making, and build donor confidence.
- Livestock and animal resources development: Capacity to design and implement strategies that enhance productivity, resilience, and sustainability across livestock systems and broader animal resource sectors, integrating animal health, breeding, rangeland management, and value chain transformation to strengthen food security, livelihoods, and trade.
- Fisheries and aquaculture: Capacity to design, manage, and transform aquatic resource systems by integrating governance, production, and value chain development to enhance food security, livelihoods, and sustainability, combining technical knowledge of aquatic ecosystems with strategic insight into policy, trade, and resilience.
- Institutional development and governance: Capacity to strengthen organisational structures, policies, and leadership systems that ensure resilience, accountability, and effective service delivery, integrating institutional capacity building with governance reforms to support sustainable development, inclusive participation, and donor confidence.
- Statistics and data analysis: Capacity to apply quantitative and qualitative methods to collect, interpret, and present data in ways that strengthen evidence‑based decision‑making, enhance accountability, and integrate technical rigour in statistical modelling with practical insight into programme monitoring, policy evaluation, and impact measurement.
- Language Proficiency: Excellent written English or French. Final report to be submitted in English
Qualifications and Experience
- Advanced degree (Master's or PhD) in Agricultural Economics, Veterinary Sciences, Fisheries and blue economy, Development Studies, Monitoring and Evaluation, Public Policy, or related field.
- At least 10 years' experience in conducting strategic evaluations.
- Demonstrated experience in African Union institutions, livestock, fisheries, animal health, or agricultural development.
- Strong knowledge of Results-Based Management (RBM) and OECD-DAC evaluation criteria.
- Ability to work under pressure and to respect deadlines.
- Excellent report writing skills in English
The Evaluation Criteria
The evaluation shall use the OECD-DAC evaluation criteria of Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Coherence, Sustainability and Impact (or emerging impact). In addition, the Mid-term evaluation shall incorporate Gender equality and women's empowerment; youth inclusion; right-based approach; climate resilience; One Health approaches; and Results-based management and value-for-money criteria, as appropriate.
Key Evaluation Questions (To be refined with the successful consultant)
| Evaluation Criterion | Evaluation Questions |
|---|---|
| Relevance | • To what extent does the Strategic Plan remain responsive to the evolving needs and priorities of AU Member States, Regional Economic Communities (RECs), and other key stakeholders? • How well are the Strategic Plan objectives aligned with Agenda 2063, AU Strategic Plan, the CAADP Kampala Declaration, and other relevant African Union policy and strategic frameworks? • To what extent do the Strategic Plan interventions address emerging challenges and opportunities in the animal resources sector? • Specifically, to what extent were the AU-IBAR Livestock; Fisheries and Aquaculture; and Aquatic Biodiversity Programmes relevant with both the Strategic Plan and Member States' development priorities? |
| Effectiveness | • To what extent has AU-IBAR achieved the Strategic Plan's intended outputs, outcomes, and strategic objectives at the mid-term? • Which interventions have delivered the most significant results, and why? • What internal and external factors have facilitated or constrained the achievement of planned results? • How effective have programme management, partnerships, and implementation approaches been in delivering results? • Specifically, to what extent were the AU-IBAR Livestock; Fisheries and Aquaculture and Aquatic Biodiversity Programmes effective to both the Strategic Plan and Member States development priorities? |
| Efficiency | • To what extent have financial, human, and technical resources been used economically and efficiently to achieve planned results? • Are the institutional and implementation arrangements appropriate and fit for purpose? • How effective are the planning, monitoring, evaluation, reporting, and knowledge management systems in supporting programme implementation? • Were activities implemented within the planned timeframes and budgets? • Specifically, how efficient were the AU-IBAR Livestock; Fisheries and Aquaculture and Aquatic Biodiversity Programmes? |
| Coherence | • To what extent are AU-IBAR programmes internally coherent and mutually reinforcing? • How well are AU-IBAR interventions coordinated with those of AU institutions, RECs, development partners, and other stakeholders to avoid duplication and maximise synergies? • To what extent do partnerships contribute to improved programme delivery and achievement of strategic objectives? • Specifically, to what extent were the AU-IBAR Livestock; Fisheries and Aquaculture and Aquatic Biodiversity Programmes coherent with both the Strategic Plan and Member States' development aspirations? |
| Sustainability | • To what extent are the results of the broad Strategic Plan, and specifically the AU-IBAR Livestock; Fisheries and Aquaculture and Aquatic Biodiversity Programmes, likely to be sustained beyond AU-IBAR's direct support? • What institutional, technical, and policy capacities have been strengthened to sustain programme outcomes? • What factors are likely to enhance or undermine the sustainability of results? |
| Impact | • What evidence exists of changes in policies, institutions, systems, or practices that can reasonably be attributed to AU-IBAR interventions, broadly and AU-IBAR Livestock, Fisheries and Aquaculture and Aquatic Diversity Programmes, specifically? • What contribution has the Strategic Plan made to strengthening animal resources governance, food security, livelihoods, trade, or resilience in Africa? • What unintended positive or negative effects have emerged during implementation? |
| Learning and Adaptive Management | • What good practices and lessons have emerged during implementation of the Strategic Plan? • What implementation challenges have been encountered, and how have they been addressed? • What strategic, operational, and institutional adjustments are required to strengthen implementation during the remaining Strategic Plan period (2026–2028)? • What recommendations should inform the design of future AU-IBAR strategic programming? |
Methodology
The evaluation is expected to adopt a mixed-methods approach that combines complementary qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis techniques. These may include a comprehensive desk review of relevant documentation, including the AU-IBAR Strategic Plan 2024–2028, annual work plans, progress and financial reports, performance monitoring data, project evaluations, partnership agreements, relevant African Union policy documents, and other materials identified by the evaluation team. Primary data collection should include key informant interviews with AU-IBAR leadership, Unit Coordinators, African Union Commission officials, Regional Economic Community (REC) representatives, development partners, and Member State representatives; online surveys targeting Member States, RECs, implementing partners, and beneficiaries; and focus group discussions with selected stakeholder groups, where appropriate. The evaluation should also develop case studies to document significant achievements, innovative practices, and lessons learned. Data analysis should integrate quantitative analysis of performance indicators with qualitative thematic analysis and, where appropriate, contribution analysis to assess the extent to which observed results can reasonably be attributed to the implementation of the Strategic Plan.
Proposal Assessment Criteria
| Criteria / Sub-Criteria | Revised Key Assessment Elements | Score (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Understanding of ToR & Context | 20 | |
| Clarity of understanding | Demonstrates a clear and comprehensive understanding of the AU-IBAR Mandate, Strategic Plan 2024–2028, the MTE purpose, scope, and evaluation requirements. | 10 |
| Alignment with objectives | Clear linkage to the TOR objectives, OECD-DAC criteria, AU Agenda 2063, CAADP/Kampala Declaration, LiDeSA, PFRS, ABES, and other relevant AU frameworks.Clear linkage to the TOR objectives, OECD-DAC criteria, AU Agenda 2063, CAADP/Kampala Declaration, LiDeSA, PFRS, ABES, and other relevant AU frameworks. | 10 |
| 2. Methodological Approach | 35 | |
| Evaluation design | Robust mixed-methods and theory-based evaluation approach combining desk review, quantitative and qualitative data collection, stakeholder consultations, case studies, and triangulation. | 10 |
| Evaluation Matrix quality | Clear and logical linkage between evaluation criteria, key evaluation questions, data collection methods, and analytical approaches. | 10 |
| Data collection tools | Appropriateness of proposed KIIs, online surveys, FGDs, document review, and case-study approaches for engaging the stakeholder groups identified in the TOR. | 5 |
| Analytical framework | Robust approach to assessing progress, contribution, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, sustainability, emerging impact, and plausible contribution to Strategic Plan results. | 5 |
| Risk & limitations analysis | Identification of potential methodological, data, stakeholder access, geographic, and implementation constraints, with practical mitigation measures. | 5 |
| 3. Team Composition & Expertise | 20 | |
| Team leader | Strong experience in leading strategic evaluations and policy evaluation with demonstrated knowledge of results-based management and OECD-DAC evaluation criteria. | 10 |
| Technical expertise mix | Appropriate combination of expertise in evaluation, economics, animal resources/livestock, fisheries and aquaculture value chains, aquatic biodiversity, institutional development and governance, socio-economic analysis, and statistics/data analysis. | 3 |
| Regional experience & assessing Multi-level governance structures | Proven experience in Africa and demonstrated understanding of AU institutions, Member States, RECs, and multi-level institutional and governance arrangements relevant to animal resources development. | 5 |
| Language capacity | English proficiency with French as an added value, consistent with the TOR language requirements. | 2 |
| 4. Work Plan & Organization | 10 | |
| Realistic work plan | Clear and feasible sequencing of inception, desk review, tool development, data collection, analysis, preliminary findings, reporting, validation, and finalisation within the 12-week assignment. | 5 |
| Field deployment strategy | Clear and practical strategy for engaging AU-IBAR stakeholders. | 5 |
| 5. Quality Assurance & Reporting | 5 | |
| Quality Assurance mechanisms | Clear internal quality assurance, evidence triangulation, validation, methodological review, and stakeholder validation mechanisms consistent with the TOR and AU evaluation standards. | 3 |
| Reporting structure | Clear compliance with the TOR deliverables and required evaluation report structure, including findings, cross-cutting issues, lessons, good practices, conclusions, recommendations, and management response matrix. | 2 |
| 6. Experience & Past Performance | 5 | |
| Similar assignments | Demonstrated experience undertaking strategic/mid-term evaluations of programmes, strategies, or policies relevant to livestock, fisheries and aquaculture, aquatic biodiversity, animal resources, or agricultural development. | 3 |
| Sample reports quality | Demonstrated analytical depth, clarity, evidence-based findings, and quality of evaluation reporting, including practical and actionable recommendations. | 2 |
| 7. Proposal Presentation | 5 | |
| Clarity of proposal | Logical, structured, professional, and coherent presentation demonstrating a clear understanding of the TOR, proposed methodology, work plan, outputs, and evaluation requirements. | 5 |
| Overall Total Score | 100 |
Deliverable
The evaluation is planned to be executed within a three-month period. The consultant/team shall submit:
Table 3: Deliverables and Timelines
| Deliverable | Timeline |
|---|---|
| i. Inception Report including methodology, work plan, and evaluation matrix | 2 weeks after contract signing |
| ii. Data Collection Tools | Week 3 |
| iii. Preliminary Findings Presentation | Week 8 |
| iv. Draft Mid-Term Evaluation Report detailing, among others, progress on strategic plan implementation; the contribution of Fisheries; Aquaculture; and Aquatic Biodiversity Programs | Week 10 |
| v. Validation of Report | Week 11 |
| vi. Final Mid-Term Evaluation Report | Week 12 |
| vii. PowerPoint Presentation | Week 12 |
Expected Minimum Structure of the Evaluation Report
1. Executive Summary
2. Introduction
3. Evaluation Purpose and Objectives
4. Methodology and Limitations
5. Findings
o Relevance
o Effectiveness
o Efficiency
o Coherence
o Sustainability
o Emerging Impact
6. Cross-Cutting Issues
7. Lessons Learned
8. Good Practices
9. Conclusions
10. Recommendations
11. Management Response Matrix
12. Annexes
Duration and Level of Effort
The assignment is expected to be undertaken by a legally registered, qualified consultancy firm over 12 weeks, with an estimated effort of 45–60 consultancy days, depending on the scope of field validation and stakeholder consultations.
Required Qualifications of the Consultancy Firm’s Evaluation Team
Team Leader
- Advanced degree (Master's or PhD) in Agricultural Economics, Veterinary Sciences, Fisheries and blue economy, Development Studies, Monitoring and Evaluation, Public Policy, or related field.
- At least 10 years' experience in conducting strategic evaluations.
- Demonstrated experience in African Union institutions, livestock, fisheries, animal health, or agricultural development.
- Strong knowledge of Results-Based Management (RBM) and OECD-DAC evaluation criteria.
- Ability to work under pressure and to respect deadlines.
- Excellent report writing skills in English
Evaluation Specialists
Expertise in:
- Monitoring and evaluation of strategies, programmes, and policy: Capacity to design, implement, and refine systems that track progress, measure outcomes, and ensure accountability across programmes and projects, blending technical rigor with strategic insight to generate reliable evidence, strengthen decision making, and build donor confidence.
- Livestock and animal resources development: Capacity to design and implement strategies that enhance productivity, resilience, and sustainability across livestock systems and broader animal resource sectors, integrating animal health, breeding, rangeland management, and value chain transformation to strengthen food security, livelihoods, and trade.
- Fisheries and aquaculture: Capacity to design, manage, and transform aquatic resource systems by integrating governance, production, and value chain development to enhance food security, livelihoods, and sustainability, combining technical knowledge of aquatic ecosystems with strategic insight into policy, trade, and resilience.
- Institutional development and governance: Capacity to strengthen organisational structures, policies, and leadership systems that ensure resilience, accountability, and effective service delivery, integrating institutional capacity building with governance reforms to support sustainable development, inclusive participation, and donor confidence.
- Statistics and data analysis: Capacity to apply quantitative and qualitative methods to collect, interpret, and present data in ways that strengthen evidence‑based decision‑making, enhance accountability, and integrate technical rigour in statistical modelling with practical insight into programme monitoring, policy evaluation, and impact measurement.
- Language Proficiency – Excellent written English or French. Final report to be submitted in English
Qualifications and Experience
- Advanced degree (Master's or PhD) in Agricultural Economics, Veterinary Sciences, Fisheries and blue economy, Development Studies, Monitoring and Evaluation, Public Policy, or related field.
- At least 10 years' experience in conducting strategic evaluations.
- Demonstrated experience in African Union institutions, livestock, fisheries, animal health, or agricultural development.
- Strong knowledge of Results-Based Management (RBM) and OECD-DAC evaluation criteria.
- Ability to work under pressure and to respect deadlines.
- Excellent report writing skills in English.
Management and Reporting Arrangements
The consultant/team leader will report directly to the Director of AU-IBAR or to the Director’s designated representative. AU-IBAR will commission the evaluation, and a Mid-Term Evaluation Steering Committee will manage it. The Steering Committee will: review deliverables; facilitate access to stakeholders; provide quality assurance; and approve final outputs.
Ethical Considerations
The evaluation shall be conducted in accordance with the African Union Evaluation Standards and Guidelines, the UNEG Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation, and other internationally recognised standards for evaluation quality. The evaluation team shall adhere to the following ethical principles throughout the assignment:
- Independence and impartiality in the design, implementation, analysis, and reporting of the evaluation.
- Confidentiality and anonymity of respondents, ensuring that information provided by participants is treated with strict confidence and that individuals cannot be identified without their explicit consent.
- Informed consent, ensuring that all participants are adequately informed about the purpose of the evaluation, the voluntary nature of their participation, and their right to decline or withdraw at any stage without adverse consequences.
- Data protection and secure data management, including the secure collection, storage, transmission, use, and disposal of interview, survey, and other evaluation data in accordance with applicable data protection requirements and AU policies.
- Conflict of interest disclosure, requiring all evaluation team members to disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that could compromise the independence or credibility of the evaluation.
- Do-no-harm principle, ensuring that evaluation processes are designed and implemented in a manner that avoids causing physical, psychological, social, reputational, or other forms of harm to participants or affected stakeholders.
- Gender-responsive and inclusive evaluation principles, ensuring that gender equality, equity, inclusion, and the perspectives of diverse stakeholder groups are appropriately integrated throughout the evaluation process.
- Compliance with African Union evaluation standards and internationally recognised evaluation ethics and quality standards, including the application of professional integrity, methodological rigour, transparency, and accountability in all aspects of the evaluation.
Application Instructions
Applicants are required to submit separate Technical and Financial Proposals. The Technical Proposal should include, but is not limited to, an interpretation of the TORs, objectives, the approach to the assignment, the proposed methodology and work plan, activities to be carried out, expected outputs, an outline of the Report content page, a clear timeframe for carrying out the assignment, and three references for similar assignments undertaken, with email and phone contacts.
Evaluation and Scoring Proposals
The evaluation of the Minimum Academic Qualifications and Expertise, the Technical Proposal, the Financial Proposal, and the Experience and Core Competencies will be used to assess the quality of the Application and to score proposals.
Declaration Form on Exclusion Criteria
All Applicants will sign and stamp the mandatory Declaration Form on Exclusion Criteria as a requirement for submitting their application. Failure to do so will nullify the application.
Gender Mainstreaming
The AU Commission is an equal-opportunity employer, and qualified women are strongly encouraged to apply.
Submission of Proposals
Applications should be submitted through email to: procurement@au-ibar.org with a copy to albert.obiero@au-ibar.org and should include the title “Mid-Term Evaluation and Review of The AU-IBAR Strategic Plan 2024–2028” in the subject of the email.
Applications should include the following:
- Copies of valid business licenses and/certificate of incorporation showing legal status, date of registration and principal place of business.
- Detailed curriculum vitae (CV) and brief cover letters for all the team members.
- Copies of academic and professional certification documents for all the team members.
- Declaration on exclusion criteria (see format attached) from all the team members.
- Identification documents from all the team members
A Personal Data Protection and Privacy Statement is attached as information for the applicants.
APPLICATION DEADLINE
Applications should be submitted to the address given above by 20th October 2026 at 23:45hrs Nairobi Local Time.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| Terms of Reference (English Version) | 164.86 KB |
| AU-IBAR Declaration Form | 198.4 KB |