This evaluation covered the maritime safety and security component of the Enhancing the Maritime Safety and Security and the Fight Against Terrorism in the Gulf of Guinea project. This component was implemented in partnership with the Institut de Sécurité Maritime Interrégional (ISMI).  

The two main outcomes of the project component were:

1. Increased outreach of ISMI to military, police, civilian and port personnel engaged in maritime operations from West and Central Africa; and
2. Strengthened capabilities and motivation of military and police personnel from West Africa engaged in maritime operations. 

The evaluation assessed the project’s relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, likelihood of impact, and likelihood of sustainability to serve learning and accountability purposes. The evaluation covered the intervention period from April 2023 to December 2024. 

The evaluation followed a mixed-methods approach. The evaluation methods and tools included a desk review, participant surveys, semi-structured interviews, two field visits to Abidjan and Dakar, and focus group discussions with diverse stakeholders. 

Limitations encountered by the evaluation were:

1. Absence of contact with end beneficiaries (communities near ports);
2. Evaluation undertaken in parallel with ongoing implementation of project activities;
3. Low participant survey response rate (16 per cent); and
4. Self-evaluations not containing all information required by UNITAR.  

The project’s relevance was highly satisfactory. The project was closely aligned with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, UNITAR’s Strategic Framework 2022-2025, and the German Federal Foreign Office (GFFO) policy guidelines for Africa. The project was also aligned with the needs and priority areas of the beneficiaries and institutions with regard to maritime safety and security and with evolving regional and international contexts. However, the project was limited in its relevance to gender equality and women’s empowerment (GEEW), yet it supported the Leave No One Behind (LNOB) principle.  

The project was coherent (satisfactory) with relevant international frameworks, such as the G7++ Friends of the Gulf of Guinea (FoGG) framework, national and institutional protocols, and other projects implemented by UNITAR in the area. It did not overlap with projects funded by the European Union (EU) or other bilateral interventions. Nonetheless, the evaluation did not find any instances of concrete coordination or collaboration with these actors. It was also found that, at present, there is no centralized mechanism for coordinating or sharing information about the training provided to port personnel through various interventions in the GoG. 

The project demonstrated satisfactory effectiveness. It achieved the intended outcomes and outputs, however, the formulation of outcomes could have been improved from a results perspective. The main factor identified as hindering performance was the timing of the grant funds. On the other hand, the participants' selection process, the number and quality of training sessions, and training design and methodology were identified as enabling factors for project performance.

Despite the project’s efforts, ensuring adequate gender participation proved to be a significant challenge throughout its implementation. 

The project also demonstrated satisfactory efficiency with a high adaptive management capacity from the implementing partner (IP) and the project management team. The project implementation arrangements were found to be cost-effective. Moreover, the project ensured excellent visibility for the donor. The training schedule was found adequate by training participants. 

The project's likelihood of impact was assessed as satisfactory. The evaluation observed changes in behaviour and practices among beneficiaries following the training and increased awareness of maritime security challenges in the ports of the GoG. However, within the short-implementation timeframe, it was difficult to assess higher level impact. The drivers of change identified were the project’s regional approach and the networking opportunities among participants. Hindering factors of change were the focused scope of the training sessions and the absence of formalized post-training follow-up mechanisms. As an unexpected outcome, the project contributed to participants’ career progression.

The sustainability of the project was also found satisfactory, with a low risk of turnover from the port and maritime sector. A challenge to sustainability found was the rapid evolution of the legal and regulatory framework in port security, which could be mitigated by local specialized expertise in the region. 

Seven recommendations were issued by the evaluation: 

• R1: On training relevance (short term): UNITAR, in collaboration with its partners, should provide and regularly update training on topics that were found to be relevant to participants’ needs and in line with global security trends and regulatory frameworks. These could include:
  • Increasing cybersecurity training, as this area is critical for ports to meet evolving technological requirements. There is a need for more comprehensive coverage of this training to ensure the preparedness of ports to address emerging cyber threats effectively.
  • Developing more in-depth training on bulk goods and maritime pollution to address the growing demand and need for expertise in this area.
  • Addressing the issue of IUU fishing by providing operational training for inspectors, as well as training for regulators and cooperatives.
• R2: On training coherence (medium to long term): UNITAR and its partners should enhance coordination with other organizations that are implementing training on maritime safety and security in the region through the establishment of communication channels or any other collaborative initiatives. This approach will promote information sharing, harmonize activities and minimize duplication of efforts, thereby enhancing the efficiency and impact of training programmes.
• R3: On strengthening local and regional institutional capacities and collaboration (medium term): UNITAR, with support from its partners, should encourage and strengthen efforts at promoting collaboration, the exchange of good practices and the sustainable impact among stakeholders from ports across the region and engage in joint initiatives, such as Training of Trainers (ToT). This could include:
  • Developing and implementing a dedicated programme to certify trainers and establish a robust pool of specialized regional experts in port safety and security, focusing on fostering local expertise, addressing immediate training needs, ensuring timely delivery of sessions and reducing dependency on external experts. Additionally, prioritizing the rescheduling and expansion of the ToT programme and the frequency of training sessions to build long-term regional expertise and cultivate true specialists across various fields in port security.
  • Expanding training programmes to include operational personnel, such as dockworkers and stevedores, in the long term, to strengthen their skills and broaden the programme's overall impact after the initial focus on management and mid-level employees.
• R4: On gender (medium to long term): UNITAR, with support from its partners, should promote gender inclusion by implementing targeted outreach strategies beyond the selection criteria and introducing strategies or mechanisms to encourage greater participation of women in future training programmes. This could include the organization of dedicated training for women as well as developing specific content on maritime safety and women and/or looking for collaboration with maritime-specific organizations, such as the Women’s International Shipping & Trading Association (WISTA).
• R5: On competency framework and participants’ skill sets (short term): UNITAR, with support from its partners, should create a competency framework and establish or strengthen tiered training levels, such as beginner, intermediate and advanced, to effectively address the diverse skill sets of participants. This should be accompanied by a refined selection criterion to ensure participants meet the required baseline knowledge and are better suited for the training. Ideally, the selection criteria would be more efficient if supported by a pre-training questionnaire to assess the level of expertise of participants. While a pre-training test makes sense, its impact is limited as participants were appointed by port authorities. This could complement the already existing distinction between Level 1 and Level 2 training.
• R6: On learning reinforcement (medium to long term): UNITAR should establish a comprehensive capacity-building framework in future phases, including follow-up training sessions, refresher courses and online modules, to sustain competencies developed during the project. Coaching should be considered as a more long-term objective. This could include establishing a continuous learning and adaptation framework to address the rapidly evolving nature of port security and ensure stakeholders maintain a high level of readiness. UNITAR could establish a continuous learning and adaptation framework by developing e-learning platforms, organizing periodic refresher courses, providing on-the-job coaching and conducting simulation exercises. These activities would help stakeholders to stay updated on evolving port security challenges and maintain high levels of readiness. However, it is important to acknowledge that while UNITAR has significant capacity to act, the scope of its efforts is ultimately influenced by the availability of funding and the priorities established by the donor.
• R7: On results framework, monitoring and follow-up mechanisms (short term): UNITAR should ensure the alignment of implementing partners with UNITAR’s Certification Policy by, for instance: awarding certificates of completion when objective knowledge assessments are successfully deployed; working to strengthen the partner’s evaluation practices, including aligning Level 1 and introducing Levels 2 and 3 of the Kirkpatrick-Phillips Training Evaluation approach; improving the formulation and tracking of outcome indicators; introducing participant monitoring tools to track progress; identifying areas for improvement; and measuring long-term impact. 

• L1. The regional approach of the project is key to fostering collaboration and the exchange of best practices among stakeholders, a model that created the platform for long-term impact and sustainability.
• L2. Port security is dynamic and continuously shaped by advancements in technology, geopolitical shifts and evolving security threats. Therefore, regular updates to training curricula are essential to keep pace with these changes.
• L3. A structured framework for continuous learning and adaptation is essential to ensure stakeholders are well-equipped to address emerging challenges effectively.
• L4. Proactive measures, such as targeted outreach and recruitment and gender-sensitive training materials, are essential to foster gender balance and promote greater diversity in maritime security.
• L5. A thorough selection process that identifies participants’ knowledge levels is important for the successful delivery of training.
• L6. A timely and scheduled selection process is key to ensuring greater participation of port staff, given the key nature of their work in the supply chain. However, the effectiveness of this process largely depends on the availability of funds and the length of the implementation timeline.
• L7. Developing local expertise is crucial for the sustainability of such initiatives as it addresses immediate training needs, strengthens the resilience of port personnel by fostering endogenous training capabilities, and ensures the long-term continuity of capacity-building efforts in the region.
• L8. Focusing primarily on management-level participants was crucial, especially at the beginning of the project. While targeting operational-level personnel, such as dockworkers and stevedores, is important, it is better suited for mid- to long-term implementation. This approach effectively prioritizes strategic engagement but also underscores the need for greater inclusivity to broaden the programme’s overall impact.
• L9. The two-year timeline presented limitations in fully addressing systemic challenges, highlighting the value of establishing a long-term capacity-building framework and incorporating follow-up mechanisms to ensure sustainable progress. However, in training and project management, timelines are primarily determined by the availability of funds. Training should, by default, adopt a long-term vision.