End of Project Evaluation 
Final Report
Enhancing Participatory Governance and 
Accountability (EPGA) 
Prepared by:
2
Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES 4
LIST OF FIGURES 6
ACRONYMS 7
KEY TERMS 7
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8
2. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 11
2.1 EPGA PROJECT OUTCOME 1 12
2.2 EPGA PROJECT OUTCOME 2 13
2.3 EPGA PROJECT OUTCOME 3 14
2.4 IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS 15
3. EVALUATION PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES 16
4. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 18
4.1 STUDY DESIGN 18
4.1.1 STUDY DESIGN SUMMARY 18
4.1.2 COMMENTS ON REVISIONS TO STUDY DESIGN 18
4.1.3 DESK REVIEW 18
4.1.4 QUANTITATIVE SURVEY 20
4.1.5 QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION 20
4.2 SAMPLING PROCEDURES 22
4.2.1 QUANTITATIVE SURVEY 22
4.2.2 FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS 22
4.2.3 KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT 23
4.2.4 NATIONAL LEVEL AND PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS 23
4.3 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES AND DATA ANALYSIS 24
4.3.1 QUANTITATIVE SURVEY 24
4.3.2 QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION 24
4.4 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS 24
4.5 LIMITATIONS 25
5. ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS 26
5.1 RELEVANCE 26
5.1.1 END VALUES FOR PROJECT IMPACT AND OUTCOME INDICATORS 26
5.1.2 APPROPRIATENESS AND USEFULNESS OF PROJECT INDICATORS 41
5.1.3 APPROPRIATENESS OF PROJECT DESIGN 41
5.2 EFFICIENCY 51
5.2.1 ACHIEVEMENT OF PLANNED OBJECTIVES AND CONSTRAINTS 51
5.2.2 ADEQUACY OF PLANNED RESOURCES 53
3
5.2.3 DELIVERY OF PROJECT FUNDS AND ACTIVITIES 54
5.3 EFFECTIVENESS 55
5.3.1 EFFECTIVENESS OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS 55
5.3.2 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT AND PROJECT OWNERSHIP 56
5.4 IMPACT 57
5.4.1 INTENDED AND UNINTENDED IMPACT 57
5.4.2 USE OF TECHNOLOGY 60
5.5 SUSTAINABILITY 62
5.4.1 SUSTAINABILITY OF PROJECT INTERVENTIONS 62
5.4.2 INSTITUTIONAL SUSTAINABILITY 63
6. CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED 64
7. RECOMMENDATIONS 65
7.1 PROGRAMMATIC RECOMMENDATIONS 65
7.2 OPERATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS 67
8. ANNEXES 69
ANNEX 1: EVALUATION TOR 69
ANNEX 2: DATA COLLECTION TOOLS 76
ANNEX 2.1: BENEFICIARY SURVEY 76
ANNEX 2.2: WOMEN AND YOUTH FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION/INTERVIEW GUIDE 78
ANNEX 2.3: COMMUNITY COMMITTEE MEMBER DISCUSSION/INTERVIEW GUIDE 81
ANNEX 2.4: CSO MEMBER DISCUSSION/INTERVIEW GUIDE 83
ANNEX 2.5: IMPLEMENTING PARTNER INTERVIEW GUIDE 85
ANNEX 3: LIST OF INTERVIEWS 87
ANNEX 4: SURVEY PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS 88
ANNEX 4.1: GENDER AND AGE DISTRIBUTION 88
ANNEX 4.2: HOUSEHOLD SIZE DISTRIBUTION 88
ANNEX 4.3: ENGAGEMENT IN AGRICULTURAL SECTOR 88
ANNEX 4.4: ENGAGEMENT IN LEADERSHIP 89
ANNEX 4.5: SURVEY PARTICIPANT BY SURVEY TYPE 89
ANNEX 5: SUPPLEMENTAL QUANTITATIVE SURVEY DATA TABLES 90
ANNEX 6: PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK 93
4
List of Tables 
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF EPGA PROJECT IMPACT AND OUTCOME INDICATORS.....................................................9
TABLE 2: GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE OF THE EPGA PROJECT .................................................................................12
TABLE 3: EVALUATION CRITERIA ..........................................................................................................................16
TABLE 4: EVALUATION QUESTIONS .....................................................................................................................16
TABLE 5: LIST OF KEY PROGRAM DOCUMENTS REVIEWED..................................................................................18
TABLE 6: LIST OF KEY EXTERNAL DOCUMENTS REVIEWED...................................................................................19
TABLE 7: QUALITATIVE DATA SOURCES................................................................................................................21
TABLE 8: QUANTITATIVE SURVEY SAMPLING.......................................................................................................22
TABLE 9: FGD/KII SAMPLING ................................................................................................................................23
TABLE 10: LOCAL GOVERNMENT KIIS ...................................................................................................................23
TABLE 11: PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS AWARE OF AGRICULTURAL POLICIES IN THEIR DISTRICT.......................26
TABLE 12: MAIN AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY BY DISTRICT AS PER NISR AGRICULTURAL SURVEY (2017) AND
PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS AWARE OF AGRICULTURAL POLICIES IN THEIR DISTRICT, BY DISTRICT.........27
TABLE 13: INDICATOR 2.A PERCENTAGE OF TARGET BENEFICIARIES WHO ARE SATISFIED WITH THEIR ROLE IN 
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AGRICULTURAL RELATED POLICIES .................................................................27
TABLE 14: REPORTED MECHANISMS FOR PARTICIPATION IN IMPLEMENTATION OF AGRICULTURAL POLICIES.28
TABLE 15: INDICATOR 2.B PERCENTAGE OF TARGET BENEFICIARIES WHO ARE SATISFIED WITH THEIR ROLE IN 
MONITORING OF IMPLEMENTATION OF AGRICULTURAL RELATED POLICIES ............................................29
TABLE 16: REPORTED MECHANISMS FOR PARTICIPATION IN MONITORING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 
AGRICULTURAL POLICIES ............................................................................................................................31
TABLE 17: INDICATOR 2.C PERCENTAGE OF TARGET BENEFICIARIES WHO ARE SATISFIED WITH THEIR ROLE IN 
MONITORING OF BUDGETS ON AGRICULTURAL RELATED POLICIES ..........................................................32
TABLE 18: REPORTED MECHANISMS FOR PARTICIPATION IN MONITORING THE BUDGETS OF AGRICULTURAL 
RELATED POLICIES.......................................................................................................................................33
TABLE 19: INDICATOR 1-1.A PERCENTAGE OF TARGET CITIZENS WHO ARE CONFIDENT OF THEIR 
CONTRIBUTION IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURAL POLICY ..........................................................35
TABLE 20: INDICATOR 1-1.B PERCENTAGE OF TARGET CITIZENS WHO ARE CONFIDENT OF THEIR ROLE IN 
BUDGET MONITORING................................................................................................................................36
TABLE 21: INDICATOR 3-1.A PERCENTAGE OF TARGET CITIZENS WHO CONSIDER THAT LOCAL AUTHORITIES 
RESPOND TO THEIR EXPRESSED PRIORITIES WITH REGARD TO SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE ...................37
TABLE 22: PERCENT OF PARTICIPANTS REPORTING PRIORITIES RESPONDED TO IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS.......38
TABLE 23: INDICATOR 3-1.B PERCENTAGE OF CSOS WHO CONSIDER THAT LOCAL AUTHORITIES RESPOND TO 
THEIR EXPRESSED PRIORITIES WITH REGARD TO SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE.........................................39
TABLE 24: SUMMARY OF CSO RESPONSES TO INDICATOR 3-1.B .........................................................................39
TABLE 25: AGRICULTURE POLICY ISSUES RESPONDED TO BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN THE PREVIOUS 12 MONTHS
....................................................................................................................................................................40
TABLE 26: IMPACT INDICATOR 1-NUMBER OF PUBLIC POLICIES INTRODUCED, ADOPTED, REPEALED, CHANGED 
OR IMPLEMENTED CONSISTENT WITH CITIZEN INPUT ...............................................................................40
TABLE 27: OUTCOME INDICATOR 1.2 FREQUENCY OF INTERACTIONS BETWEEN CITIZENS AND LOCAL 
AUTHORITIES ON AGRICULTURAL POLICIES AND BUDGET .........................................................................40
TABLE 28: OUTCOME INDICATOR 1.2 NUMBER OF ISSUES RELATED TO AGRICULTURAL POLICY RAISED BY 
CITIZENS AND ADDRESSED BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS ........................................40
TABLE 29: OUTCOME INDICATOR 2.1 NUMBER OF DECISIONS TAKEN BY TARGET DISTRICT AND SECTOR 
LEADERS WITH CSO’S INPUTS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS............................................................................40
TABLE 30: OUTCOME INDICATOR 2.2 NUMBER OF DECISIONS MADE AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL WITH CSO’S 
INPUTS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS ...............................................................................................................40
TABLE 31: PERCENTAGE PARTICIPATION BY FEMALES AND MALES, YOUTHS AND ADULTS IN THE EPGA PROJECT 
BY DISTRICT*...............................................................................................................................................42
TABLE 32: PERCENTAGE PARTICIPATION BY FEMALES AND MALES, YOUTHS AND ADULTS IN COMMUNITY 
COMMITTEES BY DISTRICT..........................................................................................................................43
TABLE 33: PERCENT OF SURVEY PARTICIPANTS REPORTING SEEING OR READING POSTERS ..............................44
TABLE 34: PERCENT OF SURVEY PARTICIPANTS REPORTING SEEING OR READING POSTERS ..............................46
TABLE 35: POLICY ISSUES RAISED DURING NATIONAL-LEVEL DIALOGUE MEETINGS...........................................49
TABLE 36: ACHIEVEMENT AGAINST PLANNED ACTIVITIES FOR PROJECT OUTCOME 1........................................51
TABLE 37: ACHIEVEMENT AGAINST PLANNED ACTIVITIES FOR PROJECT OUTCOME 2........................................52
5
TABLE 38: ACHIEVEMENT AGAINST PLANNED ACTIVITIES FOR PROJECT OUTCOME 3........................................53
6
List of Figures
FIGURE 1: TRÓCAIRE’S GLOBAL THEORY OF CHANGE ..........................................................................................11
FIGURE 2: OUTCOME 1, OUTPUTS AND ACTIVITIES AS PER THE EPGA PROJECT PROPOSAL ...............................13
FIGURE 3: OUTCOME 2, OUTPUTS AND ACTIVITIES AS PER THE EPGA PROJECT PROPOSAL ...............................14
FIGURE 4: OUTCOME 3, OUTPUTS AND ACTIVITIES AS PER THE EPGA PROJECT PROPOSAL ...............................15
FIGURE 5: IMPACT AND OUTCOME LEVEL PROJECT INDICATORS MEASURED ....................................................20
FIGURE 6: PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS AWARE OF AGRICULTURAL POLICIES IN THEIR DISTRICT BY AGE AND 
GENDER.......................................................................................................................................................26
FIGURE 7: PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS AWARE OF AGRICULTURAL POLICIES IN THEIR DISTRICT, BY DISTRICT..27
FIGURE 8: INDICATOR 2.A PERCENTAGE OF TARGET BENEFICIARIES WHO ARE SATISFIED WITH THEIR ROLE IN 
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AGRICULTURAL RELATED POLICIES BY AGE AND GENDER ..............................28
FIGURE 9: INDICATOR 2.A PERCENTAGE OF TARGET BENEFICIARIES WHO ARE SATISFIED WITH THEIR ROLE IN 
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AGRICULTURAL RELATED POLICIES BY DISTRICT .............................................28
FIGURE 10: REPORTED MECHANISMS FOR PARTICIPATION IN IMPLEMENTATION OF AGRICULTURAL POLICIES 
BY AGE AND GENDER..................................................................................................................................29
FIGURE 11: REPORTED MECHANISMS FOR PARTICIPATION IN IMPLEMENTATION OF AGRICULTURAL POLICIES 
BY DISTRICT.................................................................................................................................................29
FIGURE 12: INDICATOR 2.B PERCENTAGE OF TARGET BENEFICIARIES WHO ARE SATISFIED WITH THEIR ROLE IN 
MONITORING OF IMPLEMENTATION OF AGRICULTURAL RELATED POLICIES BY AGE AND GENDER.........30
FIGURE 13: INDICATOR 2.B PERCENTAGE OF TARGET BENEFICIARIES WHO ARE SATISFIED WITH THEIR ROLE IN 
MONITORING OF IMPLEMENTATION OF AGRICULTURAL RELATED POLICIES BY DISTRICT........................30
FIGURE 14: REPORTED MECHANISMS FOR PARTICIPATION IN MONITORING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 
AGRICULTURAL RELATED POLICIES .............................................................................................................31
FIGURE 15: REPORTED MECHANISMS FOR PARTICIPATION IN MONITORING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 
AGRICULTURAL RELATED POLICIES BY DISTRICT.........................................................................................31
FIGURE 16: INDICATOR 2.C PERCENTAGE OF TARGET BENEFICIARIES WHO ARE SATISFIED WITH THEIR ROLE IN 
MONITORING OF BUDGETS ON AGRICULTURAL RELATED POLICIES BY AGE AND GENDER.......................32
FIGURE 17: INDICATOR 2.C PERCENTAGE OF TARGET BENEFICIARIES WHO ARE SATISFIED WITH THEIR ROLE IN 
MONITORING OF BUDGETS ON AGRICULTURAL RELATED POLICIES BY DISTRICT......................................33
FIGURE 18: REPORTED MECHANISMS FOR PARTICIPATION IN MONITORING THE BUDGETS OF AGRICULTURAL 
RELATED POLICIES BY AGE AND GENDER....................................................................................................34
FIGURE 19: REPORTED MECHANISMS FOR PARTICIPATION IN MONITORING THE BUDGETS OF AGRICULTURAL 
RELATED POLICIES BY DISTRICT...................................................................................................................34
FIGURE 20: INDICATOR 1-1.A PERCENTAGE OF TARGET CITIZENS WHO ARE CONFIDENT OF THEIR 
CONTRIBUTION IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURAL POLICY BY AGE AND GENDER .......................35
FIGURE 21: INDICATOR 1-1.A PERCENTAGE OF TARGET CITIZENS WHO ARE CONFIDENT OF THEIR 
CONTRIBUTION IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF AGRICULTURAL POLICY BY DISTRICT ......................................35
FIGURE 22: INDICATOR 1-1.B PERCENTAGE OF TARGET CITIZENS WHO ARE CONFIDENT OF THEIR ROLE IN 
BUDGET MONITORING BY AGE AND GENDER ............................................................................................36
FIGURE 23: : INDICATOR 1-1.B PERCENTAGE OF TARGET CITIZENS WHO ARE CONFIDENT OF THEIR ROLE IN 
BUDGET MONITORING BY DISTRICT ...........................................................................................................36
FIGURE 24: INDICATOR 3-1.A PERCENTAGE OF TARGET CITIZENS WHO CONSIDER THAT LOCAL AUTHORITIES 
RESPOND TO THEIR EXPRESSED PRIORITIES WITH REGARD TO SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE BY AGE AND 
GENDER.......................................................................................................................................................37
FIGURE 25: INDICATOR 3-1.A PERCENTAGE OF TARGET CITIZENS WHO CONSIDER THAT LOCAL AUTHORITIES 
RESPOND TO THEIR EXPRESSED PRIORITIES WITH REGARD TO SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE BY DISTRICT
....................................................................................................................................................................37
FIGURE 26: PERCENT OF PARTICIPANTS REPORTING PRIORITIES RESPONDED TO IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS BY 
TOPIC BY AGE AND GENDER .......................................................................................................................38
FIGURE 27: PERCENT OF PARTICIPANTS REPORTING PRIORITIES RESPONDED TO IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS BY 
TOPIC BY DISTRICT ......................................................................................................................................38
FIGURE 28: PERCENT OF PARTICIPANTS REPORTING PRIORITIES RESPONDED TO IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS ....39
FIGURE 29: PERCENT OF SURVEY PARTICIPANTS REPORTING SEEING OR READING POSTERS ............................45
FIGURE 30: PERCENT OF SURVEY PARTICIPANTS REPORTING LISTENING TO EPGA RADIO PROGRAMS BY AGE 
AND GENDER...............................................................................................................................................46
7
FIGURE 31: PERCENT OF SURVEY PARTICIPANTS REPORTING LISTENING TO EPGA RADIO PROGRAMS BY 
DISTRICT......................................................................................................................................................46
Acronyms
CEJP Episcopal Commission for Justice and Peace
CSO Civil Society Organization
DAC Development Assistance Committee
EPE End of Project Evaluation
EPGA Enhancing Participatory Governance and Accountability
FGD Focus Group Discussion
GDPR General Data Protection Regulations
JADF Joint Action Development Forum
KII Key Informant Interview
MDC Mobile Data Collection
MEL Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning
MINAGRI Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources
OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
PIRS Performance Indicator Reference Sheet
PSTA 4 Strategic Plan for Agriculture Transformation 2018-24
RAB Rwanda Agricultural Board
RDO Rwanda Development Organization
SEDO Social Economic and Development Officer
SMART Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound
ToC Theory of Change
ToT Training of Trainers
UNICOOPAGI The Union des Cooperatives Agricoles Intégrées
VAC Village Agricultural Committee
Key Terms
Girinka One cow per family program, with the aim of reducing childhood
malnutrition and increasing household income of poor farmers.
Imihigo Government performance contracts used for periodic appraisals.
Smart Nkunganire A supply chain management system to digitalize the end to end value
chain of the Agro-Input Subsidy program.
Survey CTO A mobile data collection platform.
Twigire Muhinzi An agricultural extension model that is a combination of Farmer Field
Schools and the Farmer Promoter approach.
Umuganda A monthly community workday for all Rwandan citizens that takes place
on the last Saturday of each month and can be a platform for
addressing community issues.
8
1. Executive Summary
The Enhancing Participatory Governance and Accountability in Rwanda project is a three year
project (April 2017 to April 2020) implemented by Trócaire and funded by USAID with the specific
objective of promoting the effective participation of citizens, especially women and youth, and 
CSOs in the development, implementation and monitoring of agricultural policy and budget in five 
districts in order to ensure that they respond to the priorities of vulnerable people and contribute 
to sustainable and inclusive development in Rwanda. In accordance with Trócaire’s global Theory
of Change (ToC), the project aimed to empowered citizens, particularly women and youths, to be
able to engage in agricultural policy and budget monitoring through capacity development, develop
local village level structures to support community-based advocacy, strengthen the capacity of civil
society to support citizen engagement and sensitize local government in participatory governance.
The project was implemented by Trócaire, in partnership with the Rwanda Development
Organization (RDO), the Episcopal Justice and Peace Commission (CEJP) and the Union des
Cooperatives Agricoles Intégrées (UNICOOPAGI), implemented the EPGA project in 63 villages,
across 14 sectors in five districts of Rwanda. The districts covered by the project are Gakenke and
Rulindo Districts in Northern Provence and Nyanza, Nyamagabe and Nyaruguru in Southern
Province.
The purpose of the final evaluation was to measure progress in achieving the project objectives
since the start of the EPGA project and provide an opportunity to highlight key successes, lessons
learned and recommendations. In addition, the evaluation also assessed the project status against
the following OCED/DAC criteria: 1) Relevance of the project design, 2) Efficiency of the project
delivery, 3) Effectiveness of management structures, 4) Impact and 5) Sustainability. The final
evaluation employed a mixed-methods approach, with a focus on generating comprehensive
quantitative and qualitative information. A quantitative survey of 362 project beneficiaries was
undertaken using tablet-based data collection. Qualitative data collection included Focus Group
Discussions and Key Informant Interviews with project beneficiaries including Women, Youth,
Community Committee members, members of civil society organizations, local government, project
implementing partners and Trócaire staff. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent
government measures to limit the spread, all field work ceased after one week of data collection,
with the remaining data collection taking place by phone.
At the baseline, those surveyed reported that limited knowledge in the area of modern farming 
techniques and limited access to agricultural information prevented their participation in the 
implementation and monitoring of agricultural policies.1 However, findings from the final 
evaluation highlight that the project contributed to a visible increase in engagement of citizens and 
CSOs in advocacy on agricultural policy implementation as a result of improved knowledge of 
agricultural policies and rights to participation. End values for impact and outcome level indicators 
demonstrate an increase in citizen satisfaction and confidence with the role that they play in the 
implementation of and the monitoring of implementation and budgets for agricultural policies. Of 
those surveyed, 95% were satisfied with the roles they played in both the implementation of and 
monitoring of agricultural policies as compared to 93% and 77%, respectively, at baseline and 91% 
were confident in their contribution toward the development of agricultural policies as compared 
to 81% at baseline. Both satisfaction and confidence were highest for male participants, with both 
male youth and adults reporting 97% satisfaction and 95% confidence with the role that they play 
whereas female adults reported 96% satisfaction and 90% confidence and female youth reported 
91% satisfaction and 88% confidence in the role that they played in implementation of policies. Of 
those surveyed, 64% reported attending meetings where policies were discussed and 61% 
reported attending meetings where they were able to comment on policies. Only 3% of surveyed 
participants reported that there were no opportunities for participation. While no male youth 
reported a lack of opportunities for participation, 5% of female youth reported that there were no 
opportunities for their participation, reflecting societal norms surrounding the role of women in 
rural communities.
1 Trócaire (2017) Baseline survey for “Enhancing participatory governance and accountability” project
9
While citizens reported that budgets were too complex for them to understand, they still reported 
high satisfaction with their role in monitoring of budgets with 83% of those surveyed reporting 
satisfaction, an increase from 5% at baseline, and 75% reporting being confident in their role in 
monitoring budgets, but from 29% at baseline. Male youth reported the greatest satisfaction and 
confidence at 91% and 86% respectively, while female youth reported the lowest at 83% and 62%, 
with female youth noting that they still lacked sufficient understanding and confidence to 
contribute, which is also reflected in societal gender roles where women are not encouraged to 
participate.
With increased engagement with local leaders through community, sector and district level 
meetings to resolve issues related to implementation of agricultural policies as well as the two
dialogue meetings that were able to address policy implementation issues at a national level, both
CSOs and citizens reported that they felt that local authorities responded to their priorities, with 
88% of citizens reporting that the local authorities responded to their priorities, as compared to 
57% at baseline and CSOs reporting that local authorities respond to their priorities 88% of the 
time as compared to 48% at baseline.
Table 1: Summary of EPGA Project Impact and Outcome Indicators 
Impact and Outcome Indicators Data
Source
Adult
(>30 Yrs)
Youth
(18-30 Yrs) Total
Female Male Female Male
Indicator 2.A Percentage of target
beneficiaries who are satisfied with their role
in the implementation of agricultural related
policies
Target 55% 50% 77% 70%
Baseline 59% 66% 94% 100% 93%
Midterm 81% 86% 48% 58% n/a
Final 96% 97% 91% 97% 95% 
Indicator 2.B Percentage of target
beneficiaries who are satisfied with their role
in monitoring of implementation of
agricultural related policies
Target 65% 50% 94% 94%
Baseline 51% 37% 92% 93% 77%
Midterm 83% 84% 66% 88% n/a
Final 94% 97% 95% 95% 95% 
Indicator 2.C Percentage of target
beneficiaries who are satisfied with their role
in monitoring of budgets on agricultural
related policies
Target 23% 20% 23% 25%
Baseline 5% 5% 5% 8% 5%
Midterm 34% 38% 36% 33% n/a
Final 81% 87% 83% 91% 83% 
Indicator 1-1.A Percentage of target citizens
who are confident of their contribution in the
development of agricultural policy
Target 62% 62% 86% 93%
Baseline 58% 58% 84% 92% 81%
Midterm 66% 68% 73% 69% n/a
Final 90% 95% 88% 95% 91% 
Indicator 1-1.B Percentage of target citizens
who are confident of their role in budget
monitoring
Target 25% 20% 60% 65%
Baseline 18% 13% 47% 58% 29%
Midterm 53% 50% 50% 54% n/a
Final 77% 76% 62% 86% 75% 
Indicator 3-1.A Percentage of target citizens
who consider that local authorities respond
to their expressed priorities with regard to
sustainable agriculture
Target 60% 55% 65% 80%
Baseline 58% 48% 54% 77% 57%
Midterm 72% 77% 76% 81% n/a
Final 92% 87% 79% 86% 88% 
CSOs
Indicator 3-1.B Percentage of CSOs who
consider that local authorities respond to
their expressed priorities with regard to
sustainable agriculture
Target 52%
Baseline 48%
Midterm n/a
Final 88% 
10
The project’s success lies in educating citizens on their rights to participate in the agricultural policy 
dialogue, developing a forum for their advocacy on a local level through the establishment of 
Community Committees, developing a receptive local leadership through awareness of 
participatory governance and creating opportunities for advocacy to take place at district and 
national levels. In addition, the use of mobile data collection to capture advocacy needs and 
outcomes ensured that the project could more swiftly identify common issues and concerns that 
were not able to be resolved at a local level and bring them to a national audience. As a result, 
policies, such as timely access to improved seeds and fertilizers were addressed at the national 
level through National Dialogues, the impact of which can be seen at the level of the farmers who 
are now reporting greater yields and greater confidence in their role in advocating for policy 
implementation. By increasing engagement, and awareness of rights there is space now available 
for ensuring policies are more responsive to needs.
The report also presents a number of recommendations based on the findings including:
• The need for further training and capacity building opportunities for citizens and CSOs throughout
the life of the project, with extra time allocated to understanding budgets;
• Increased integration of program components that meet the specific needs and priorities of youth
and women, taking into account and addressing societal norms that may limit participation;
• The recognition of the contribution of the Community Committees by government as a needed
forum for sharing of needs and priorities surrounding the development and implementation of
agricultural policies;
• The need to investigate means for the sustainable continuation of mobile data collection,
including increasing the capacity of implementing partners and CSOs to continue using mobile
platforms for developing evidenced-based policy recommendations beyond the life of the project;
and
• The recognition that rural citizens want opportunities to participate in policy discussions and the
government should be encouraged to shift the focus of policy making from a top-down approach
to a more collaborative, participatory approach that engages with CSOs and rural citizens in the
identification and formulation of agricultural policies.
11
2. Introduction and Background 
Rwanda’s economy is strongly dependent upon agriculture as it is a significant driver of economic
growth in the country. However, Rwanda is one of the most densely populated countries in the
world, with a population density of 498.72 people per square kilometer. Agriculture is dominated
by small-scale subsistence farms relying on traditional practices that leave them vulnerable to
climate change and other shocks. Currently, 96% of rural households are directly reliant upon
agriculture as their main or only source of income, cultivating an average of 0.6 hectares3. With an
annual growth rate of 2.6%4, there will be increasing pressure for sustainable land use. In order to
develop a resilient agricultural sector, farmers, particularly small-scale farmers, need access to
technology and practices to sustain agricultural growth.
Women and youth are the most vulnerable populations, as 92% of women in rural areas engage
in the agricultural sector, as compared to 77% of men, and working age youth make up 77% of the
rural population.5 Women are also most vulnerable to climate change and external shocks as they
often have no other source of income. While some mechanisms have been put in place through
recent government decentralization processes to ensure women and youth engage in decision
making, they often lack the skills and an enabling environment to do so. 
The Enhancing Participatory Governance and Accountability in Rwanda is a three year project (April
2017 to April 2020) co-funded by USAID and Trócaire with the specific objective of promoting the
effective participation of citizens, especially women and youth, and CSOs in the development, 
implementation and monitoring of agricultural policy and budget in five districts in order to ensure 
that they respond to the priorities of vulnerable people and contribute to sustainable and inclusive 
development in Rwanda. In accordance with Trócaire’s global Theory of Change (ToC) which
proposes that change happens at and across four key levels: individual, community, civil society,
and institutional levels, the project aimed to strengthen the existing governance structures in five
districts, targeting 3,675 citizens by providing them with training on their roles and responsibilities
in terms of policy and budget monitoring and advocacy, primarily related to agriculture. In addition,
the project planned to increase the capacity of 50 CSOs to analyze policies and budgets, with a
focus on agricultural programs to
ensure that they take into account
the needs of vulnerable
populations, particularly women
and youth. Finally, the project
planned to improve the capacity of
local authorities in the five target
districts to better engage with
citizens and civil society so that
they can better respond to their
priorities during planning and
budgeting activities. The project
results framework can be found in
Annex 6.
Trócaire, in partnership with the
Rwanda Development
Organization (RDO), the Episcopal Justice and Peace Commission (CEJP) and the Union des
Cooperatives Agricoles Intégrées (UNICOOPAGI), implemented the EPGA project in 63 villages,
across 14 sectors in five districts of Rwanda. The districts covered by the project were Gakenke
and Rulindo Districts in Northern Provence and Nyanza, Nyamagabe and Nyaruguru in Southern
Province.
2 World Bank https://databank.worldbank.org/ 3 MINAGRI (June 2017) National Agriculture Policy 4 World Bank https://databank.worldbank.org/ 5 MINAGRI (June 2017) National Agriculture Policy
Figure 1: Trócaire’s Global Theory of Change
12
Table 2: Geographic Coverage of the EPGA Project
Province District Sector Cells Villages 
Northern Province
Gakenke
Mataba 3 3
Minazi 4 4
Janja 4 4
Rulindo
Base 3 3
Cyungo 3 3
Rukozo 4 4
Southern Province
Nyanza Nyagisozi 5 5
Rwabicuma 6 6
Nyamagabe
Gatare 5 5
Kitabi 5 5
Uwinkingi 6 6
Nyaruguru
Mata 5 5
Kivu 5 5
Ruramba 5 5
Total: 5 Districts 14 Sectors 63 Cells 63 Villages
2.1 EPGA Project Outcome 1
The first expected outcome of the EPGA project was for empowered citizens, particularly women
and youths, to be able to engage in agricultural policy and budget monitoring in 5 districts and hold
public authorities accountable. Trócaire proposed to achieve this outcome by building awareness
and capacity of citizens around their roles and rights and by forming Community Committees6 at
the village level responsible for advocacy around sustainable agricultural policy and budgeting.
This outcome is in line with Trócaire’s first two pillars of their Global ToC supporting empowered
individuals and resilient and sustainable communities.
Individual Level Change: In the first year of the project, 3,595 local citizens and 830 village and
cell leaders were trained on their roles and responsibilities for agricultural policy and budget
monitoring. This was accompanied by advocacy messages including posters and booklets detailing
citizens’ rights and responsibilities, radio broadcasts and translation of the most relevant policy
documents to make them accessible at the community level. Citizens were also invited to
participate in exchange meetings with local leaders on agricultural planning. A documentary film
on the role of citizen participation was made in Year 3 of the project.
 
Community Level Change: In the first year of the project, 63 Community Committees were formed,
one within each target village. Five members were selected from the local village for each
Community Committee and were intended to serve for three years in their position. Community
Committee members were trained on their role and responsibilities and were supported to conduct
feedback meetings with the citizens in their communities. Each Community Committee was
supplied with a smartphone with SurveyCTO software installed. Monitoring data collected by the
Committee was entered on the smartphone and is shared with Trócaire and implementing partners
in real time. 
6 The terms Village Agricultural Committee (VAC) and Community Committee were used interchangeably in the program
documents and in discussions. However, the VAC is a government institution made up of local leaders, whereas the
Community Committee is made up of farmers and is the group formed by the EPGA project.
13
Figure 2: Outcome 1, Outputs and Activities as per the EPGA Project Proposal
Outcome 1: Empowered citizens, particularly women and youths, who are able to engage in agricultural
policy and budget monitoring in 5 districts and hold public authorities accountable
Output 1.1: Increased knowledge of
3675 citizens and 819 (900) local
authorities on their role and
responsibilities in terms of
agriculture policy and budget
monitoring related to agriculture in
terms of policy and budget
monitoring related to agriculture
Activity 1.1.1: One training of 3675 citizens especially women
and youth and 819 village and cell leaders, on their roles and
responsibilities in terms of policy and budget monitoring and
Advocacy regards to agriculture issues.
Activity 1.1.2: 12 feedback meetings conducted by community
committee members
Activity 1.1.3: Organize six exchange meetings between citizens
and local leaders around citizen participation in planning
especially in agriculture planning
Output 1.2: Increased awareness of
3675 citizens’ roles and
responsibilities through production
and dissemination of information
and education materials
Activity 1.2.1: Translate and design user friendly 5000 copies of
summarized versions of agricultural policies over 3 years
Activity 1.2.2: Produce and distribute 14,000 posters on
citizens’ rights and responsibilities, 5000 copies of booklets on
citizen’s role and responsibilities in terms of policy and budget
monitoring regards to agriculture
Activity 1.2.3: Produce and disseminate 36 radio broadcasts
and 1 documentary film on citizen participation in policy
monitoring especially in the domain of agriculture and budget
monitoring
Output 1.3: 63 Community
committees made up of five people
are established and operational
Activity 1.3.1: Establish 63 community committees at village
level for policy and budget monitoring and advocacy with regard
to sustainable agriculture
Activity 1.3.2: Organize one training for community committees
on policy, budget monitoring and advocacy
Output 1.4: Improved mechanism of
exchange of information between
community committees, partner
program staff and Trócaire
Activity 1.4.1: 72 telephones with adequate software for
collecting and sharing information are purchased and distributed
to each of 63 community committees, and 9 staff on agricultural
policy and budget monitoring
Activity 1.4.2: One training community committees, and program
staff on telephone software operations
2.2 EPGA Project Outcome 2
The second project outcome is increased capacity of CSOs to engage in policy analysis, budget
monitoring and advocacy and ability to use a collective approach to influence decisions related to
sustainable agriculture. This outcome is in line with Trócaire’s third pillar of their Global ToC for a
strong and representative civil society. Under the project, CSOs were trained on policy budget,
monitoring and advocacy and were supplied with training materials and a strategy guide in order
to better support their stakeholders.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
14
Figure 3: Outcome 2, Outputs and Activities as per the EPGA Project Proposal
Outcome 2: Increased capacity of civil society to engage in policy analysis, budget monitoring and
advocacy and ability to use collective approach to influence decisions related to sustainable agriculture
Output 2.1: Training manual
developed for CSOs covering policy
and budget monitoring and
advocacy; Strategy guide in policy
and budget monitoring and
advocacy and recommendation
papers about priority needs with
regards to agriculture policies and
programs are produced
Activity 2.1.1: Develop a training manual on policy and budget
monitoring and advocacy
Activity 2.1.2: Develop a strategy guide in policy and budget
monitoring and advocacy and guidelines for agriculture
Output 2.2: 50 Civil Society
Organizations in five Districts have
sufficient capacity for policy
analysis, budget monitoring and
advocacy and are aware of
participative approach for decision
influencing
Activity 2.2.1: One, five-day training of the trainers targeting the
three implementing partners and Trócaire staff on policy and
budget monitoring and advocacy
Activity 2.2.2: One training of civil society organizations based in
the districts on policy and budget monitoring and advocacy with
focus on agricultural policy and gender analysis and integration
Activity 2.2.3: Conduct three policy dialogue meetings and
advocacy activities at district level between communities, civil
society and public authorities
Activity 2.2.4: Conduct two policy dialogue meetings and
advocacy at national level with stakeholders including civil
society and national government officials
Activity 2.2.5: Facilitate six exchanges of experiences and
learning among stakeholders intervening in agriculture and
policy monitoring through JADF and other networks in country
and in neighboring countries
Activity 2.2.6: Document and disseminate lessons learnt and
best practices in local governance, policy and budget monitoring
Activity 2.2.7: Conduct one research on the involvement of
citizens particularly women in local governance, policy and
budget monitoring in agriculture area
Output 2.3: Increased engagement
on participatory governance and
agricultural policy
Activity 2.3.1: Organize 2 radio broadcasts on agricultural
policies by using most popular radio stations
2.3 EPGA Project Outcome 3
The final expected outcome is increased knowledge of local authorities on participatory
governance and are committed to address citizen’s concerns corresponds with Trócaire’s fourth
pillar of just and accountable institutions. Under this outcome, Trócaire developed a training
module and 844 local government actors at the sector and district level participated in a two-day
a training on participatory governance in order to better support citizen and CSO engagement in
sustainable agriculture. Accountability meetings were also organized at the district level to follow￾up on the expressed needs of citizens.
15
Figure 4: Outcome 3, Outputs and Activities as per the EPGA Project Proposal
Outcome 3: Increased knowledge of local authorities on participatory governance and are committed to
address citizens' concerns
Output 3.1: Increased knowledge of
local authorities on participatory
governance and are committed to
address citizens’ concerns
Activity 3.1.1: One training of local authorities and community
leaders in participatory planning and budgeting
Activity 3.1.2: Develop 100 participatory governances modules
targeted at local authority officials
Activity 3.1.3: Organize six accountability meetings with local
authorities at district level to follow up the implementation of
recommendations submitted by CSOs concerning the expressed
needs of citizens
2.4 Implementing Partners
The EPGA project was implemented in collaboration with three implementing partners: RDO, CEJP
and UNICOOPAGI. In addition to implementation, partners also contributed to project monitoring
as members of the Project Steering Committee.
RDO: The Rwanda Development Organization is a national non-governmental organization founded
in 1995 to support Rwandan initiatives in social and economic development. The mission of RDO
is to empower communities through human and institutional capacity development, food security
and nutrition and social promotion and protection for vulnerable groups. RDO supported the EPGA
project through training of CSOs on issue-based advocacy and organizing policy dialogues at the
national level.
CEJP: The Episcopal Commission for Justice and Peace is a commission of the Catholic Church of
Rwanda. CEJP was the lead EPGA project partner in Nyanza, Gakenke and Rulindo Districts working
in the areas of governance. CEJP specifically works to ensure the accountability of local leaders
and public institutions towards citizens, particularly women and youth, through transparent
governance, accountability of public authorities and inclusiveness of public policy and budgeting
processes.
UNICOOPAGI: The Union des Cooperatives Agricoles Intégrées is a union of agricultural 
cooperatives headquartered in Nyamagabe District in Southern Province. UNICOOPAGI was formed 
in 1991 to foster community development by empowering farmers. As an implementing partner, 
UNICOOPAGI supported mobilization and capacity building in Nyamagabe and Nyaruguru Districts. 
16
3. Evaluation Purpose and Objectives
The purpose of the final evaluation is to measure progress in achieving project objectives since the 
start of the EPGA project and provide an opportunity to highlight key successes, lessons learned 
and recommendations. In addition, the evaluation also assessed the project status against the 
following OECD/DAC criteria:
Table 3: Evaluation Criteria
Relevance of the project design Establishing the extent to which the project meets
predefined indicators and their validity and relevance to
partners, and key stakeholders.
Efficiency of the project delivery Establishing how available inputs have been utilized with
the highest possible effect, the quality of program
management and the factors affecting efficiency.
Effectiveness of the project
delivery (Management)
Establishing the degree to which the project has been able
to achieve the objectives as outlined in the project
document and the factors affecting effectiveness in
delivery.
Impact of the project Examining what impact the project is having on both direct
and indirect beneficiaries.
Sustainability of the project Measuring whether the benefits of the project are likely to
continue after the project and the factors likely to affect
the project’s sustainability.
The evaluation was designed in order to address the following evaluation questions as pre-defined 
by Trócaire. 
 
Table 4: Evaluation Questions 
# Evaluation 
Criteria Evaluation Questions 
1 Relevance of
the project
design
1.1 What are the actual project end values for the impact and outcome
indicators as set out in the project results framework?
1.2 How appropriate and useful were the indicators described in the project
results framework in assessing the project’s progress? Were the targeted
indicator values realistic and could they be easily tracked?
1.3 What are the recommendations and rationale for changes in program
design?
2 Efficiency of
the project
delivery
2.1 Has the project been able to achieve its planned objectives? What were the
main constraints to achieving the planned objectives?
2.2 Were the planned resources adequate? What steps were taken to ensure
that the project participants got the most out of the resources that were
deployed?
2.3 Have project funds and activities been delivered in a timely manner?
17
# Evaluation 
Criteria Evaluation Questions 
3 Effectiveness
of the project
delivery
(specifically
management
arrangements)
3.1 Did project management facilitate good results and efficient delivery?
3.2 Is there a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities by all parties
involved?
3.3 Did Trócaire provide a conducive environment for partners to effectively
implement the project? Did project implementing partners receive
appropriate technical and administrative support from Trócaire and USAID?
3.4 How effectively did the project management monitor project performance
and results?
3.5 How have stakeholders been involved in project implementation? How
effective has the project been in establishing community and national level
ownership?
4 Impact of the
project
4.1 What have been the intended and unintended impact in the target
population that can be directly or indirectly attributed to the project?
4.2 How did use of technology enable the project to achieve intended results?
What has been the intended and unintended use of technology by the target
population?
4.3 Do rural people and farmers have a greater voice in agricultural policy
decisions? How is that visible? How has government policy or strategy
changed at the micro, meso or macro level for project participants?
5 Sustainability
of the project
5.1 What are the project interventions that are likely to remain in the community
after the project lifetime? What measures have been taken to ensure this?
18
4. Evaluation Methodology
4.1 Study Design
4.1.1 Study Design Summary
The final evaluation employed a mix-methods approach, with a focus on generating comprehensive
quantitative and qualitative information.
The methodology included:
Desk Review • Program documents including annual reports, studies and Lessons
Learnt, government reports and relevant research and reports
Quantitative • Survey of program participants
Qualitative 
• Focus group discussions (FGDs) with female participants, youth
participants, VAC members and CSOs.
• Phone-based interviews with female participants, youth participants, VAC
members and CSOs.
• Key informant interviews (KIIs) with district, sector and cell officials
• Semi-structured interviews with project staff, implementing partner staff
and government partners
4.1.2 Comments on Revisions to Study Design
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and policies put in place in the country of Rwanda to limit the 
spread of the virus announced mid-way through field based data collection, the study design was 
modified to ensure the continuation of data collection while remaining in compliance with 
government policies and protecting both Trócaire beneficiaries and the data collection team. 
Revisions to the design are noted where applicable and included the use of telephone-based 
surveys and interviews to replace in-person data collection. 
4.1.3 Desk Review
A literature review of existing program documents and relevant external documents was
undertaken in order to inform the design and the analysis of findings. In addition, a review of
program implementation reports, monitoring data and studies were used to respond to the key
evaluation questions and validate the quantitative and qualitative data collected as a part of this
evaluation.
The documents reviewed included:
• Key Program Documents: Project proposal, baseline report, midterm evaluation, research
reports, case studies, lessons learnt documents and donor reports, specifically:
Table 5: List of Key Program Documents Reviewed 
RDO (2020) Enhancing Participatory Governance and Accountability Project: Lessons Learnt and 
Best Practice
Trócaire (2016) EPGA Technical Proposal 
Trócaire (2016) Rwanda Country Strategic Plan 2016 – 2020
Trócaire (2017) Baseline survey for “Enhancing participatory governance and accountability” 
project
Trócaire (2017) EPGA Year 1 Annual Report to USAID
Trócaire (2019) EPGA Year 3 Annual Report to USAID
19
Trócaire (2019) Key Recommendations from the National Policy Dialogue on Agriculture 
Conducted on December 6th
Trócaire (2019) Midterm Evaluation Report 2019
Trócaire (2020) Case study: Assessing the impacts of the use of SurveyCTO and the response of 
the Rwandese government
Trócaire (2020) The Involvement of citizens, particularly women, in local agricultural 
governance, policy and budget monitoring in Rwanda: A study from Nyamagabe, Nyaruguru, 
Nyanza, Gakenke and Rulindo Districts
Trócaire (December 2019) Agricultural issues paper to inform national policy dialogue; 
Trócaire (November 2017) The Role of Citizens and Local Entities in Policy and Budget 
Monitoring and Advocacy Related to Agriculture, English Version
Trócaire (2018) EPGA Year 2 Annual Report to USAID
• Government and Policy Documents: relevant research, national policy documents, government
statistics, and agricultural policy documents, specifically:
Table 6: List of Key External Documents Reviewed 
ActionAid Rwanda (October 2015) Annual Analysis of Rwanda's Agricultural Budget Expenditure 
2015-16
Franzel, S., Kinyua, H., Rucibigango, M., Davis, K., and Makh, S. (2019) Youth in Extension and 
Advisory Services: Rwanda. Developing Local Extension Capacity Project
Gender Monitoring Office (March 2019) The State of Gender Equality in Rwanda from Transition 
to Transformation
International Alert (2018) Towards Sustainable Agriculture: An analysis of farmers' participation
in agricultural programmes in Rwanda
MINAGRI (June 2017) National Agricultural Policy
MINAGRI (June 2018) Strategic Plan for Agriculture Transformation 20018-24
MINECOFIN (2012) Vision 2020
MINECOFIN (2017) 7 Years Government Programme: National Strategy for Transformation 
(NST1) 2017-2024
Ministry of Gender and Family Promotion (July 2010) National Gender Policy
Never Again Rwanda (2018) Local Government Imihigo Process: Understanding the Factors 
Contributing to Low Citizen Participation
NISR (2017) Agricultural Household Survey
ODI (2006) How Civil Society Can Be More Effective
Republic of Rwanda (2003) Rwandan Constitution
Republic of Rwanda (May 2019) Beijing +25 Rwanda Country Report
RGB (2018) Rwanda Governance Scorecard, 5th Edition
Rwanda Governance Board (June 2018) Rwanda Governance Review: Good Governance and 
Decentralization in Rwanda
The New Times (14 February 2017) Govt seeks more youth engagement in agriculture
UNESCO Rwanda Country Statistics (http://uis.unesco.org/en/country/rw)
USAID, FHI360 and ICNL (2018) The 2018 CSO Sustainability Index for Rwanda
World Bank Databank (https://databank.worldbank.org/)
20
4.1.4 Quantitative Survey
The quantitative survey was designed to gather the data necessary to measure impact and 
outcome level indicators as per the EPGA Results Framework and be comparable with data 
collected during the baseline and midterm evaluations. 
Figure 5: Impact and Outcome Level Project Indicators Measured 
Impact Indicator 2: Percentage of target beneficiaries who are satisfied with their role in the
implementation and monitoring of agriculture policy and related budget.
Based on the challenge of measuring this indicator, the EPGA project refined the indicator into
three separate measures at the baseline:
1. Percentage of target beneficiaries who are satisfied with their role in the implementation
of agricultural related policies.
2. Percentage of target beneficiaries who are satisfied with their role in monitoring of
implementation of agricultural related policies.
3. Percentage of target beneficiaries who are satisfied with their role in monitoring of
budgets on agricultural related policies.
 
Outcome Indicator 1.1-1: Percentage of target
citizens who are confident of their
contribution in the development of
agricultural policy and budget monitoring.
Based on the challenge of measuring this
indicator, the EPGA project refined the
indicator into two separate measures:
1. Percentage of target citizens who are
confident of their contribution in the
development of agricultural policy.
2. Percentage of target citizens who are
confident of their role in budget
monitoring.
 
Outcome Indicator 3.1-1: Percentage of
citizens, especially women and youth, and
members of civil society who consider that
local authorities respond to their expressed
priorities with regard to sustainable
agriculture.
The EPGA project refined the indicator into
two separate measures:
1. Percentage of target citizens who
consider that local authorities
respond to their expressed priorities
with regard to sustainable agriculture.
2. Percentage of CSOs who consider that
local authorities respond to their
expressed priorities with regard to
sustainable agriculture.
Where feasible, quantitative survey questions measuring the aforementioned indicators were
identical or similar to those asked during midterm evaluation to ensure comparability of findings. 
The quantitative beneficiary survey can be found in Annex 2.1.
4.1.5 Qualitative Data Collection
The qualitative component of the evaluation consisted of FGDs and telephone-based interviews
with program beneficiaries and Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) with Trócaire staff, implementing
partners and local government partners. Qualitative data was collected to address the following
evaluation questions:
 
21
Table 7: Qualitative Data Sources 
Evaluation Questions
FGD/ Interviews Interviews
Women Youth VAC7 CSO Local
Gov.
Imp.
Partners Trócaire
1. Relevance
1.1 What are the actual project end values for the 
impact and outcome indicators as set out in the 
project results framework?
Measured via quantitative survey 
1.2 How appropriate and useful were the
indicators described in the project results
framework in assessing the project’s progress?
Were the targeted indicator values realistic and
could they be easily tracked?
 
 
1.3 What are the recommendations and rationale
for changes in program design? 
2. Efficiency
2.1 Has the project been able to achieve its 
planned objectives? What were the main 
constraints to achieving the planned objectives? 
 
 
2.2 Were the planned resources adequate? What 
steps were taken to ensure that the project 
participants got the most out of the resources that 
were deployed?
 
 
2.3 Have project funds and activities been
delivered in a timely manner? 
3. Effectiveness 
3.1 Did project management facilitate good 
results and efficient delivery? 3.2 Is there a clear understanding of roles and 
responsibilities by all parties involved? 3.3 Did Trócaire provide a conducive environment 
for partners to effectively implement the project? 
Did project implementing partners receive 
appropriate technical and administrative support 
from Trócaire and USAID?
 
3.4 How effectively did the project management 
monitor project performance and results? 3.5 How have stakeholders been involved in
project implementation? How effective has the
project been in establishing community and
national level ownership?
 
4. Impact
4.1 What have been the intended and unintended 
impact in the target population that can be directly 
or indirectly attributed to the project? 
4.2 How did use of technology enable the project 
to achieve intended results? What has been the 
intended and unintended use of technology by the 
target population?
 
4.3 Do rural people and farmers have a greater
voice in agricultural policy decisions? How is that
visible? How has government policy or strategy
changed at the micro, meso or macro level for
project participants?
 
5. Sustainability
5.1 What are the project interventions that are
likely to remain in the community after the project
lifetime? What measures have been taken to
ensure this? 
 
 
7 “VAC” refers to Community Committees established as a component of the EPGA project
22
4.2 Sampling Procedures
4.2.1 Quantitative Survey
The survey reached 362 respondents from the 3,675 primary beneficiaries, for a 95% confidence 
interval and 5% margin of error. The sample size calculation used was:
𝑛 = 𝑁𝑥
((𝑁 − 1)𝑒2 + x) 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑥 = 𝑍𝑎2(𝑝(100 − 𝑝))
where n is the sample size, N is the total population (3,675), e is the margin of error (5%), Za is 
the factor that corresponds with the desired significance level, in this case a 95% significance level 
has a Za of 1.96, and p is the level of prevalence, assumed to be 50%.
Participants were selected using stratified sampling, first identifying two sectors per district at 
random for inclusion in the survey framework, then using a random number to select participants 
from the list of beneficiaries per sector proportional to the total number of beneficiaries per sector. 
Lists of beneficiaries were provided for each district by Trócaire implementing partners. As a result 
of changes in the sampling design from in-person surveys to telephone-based surveys halfway 
through the data collection and the inability of the survey team to obtain working telephone 
numbers for some beneficiaries, the proportion of participants responding to the survey in Rulindo 
District was less than for other districts. 
Table 8: Quantitative Survey Sampling 
District Sector 
Total 
Number 
Beneficiaries 
Number of 
Beneficiaries 
Planned 
In-Person 
Surveys 
Conducted 
Phone-Based 
Surveys 
Conducted 
Nyaruguru Mata 221 35 36
Ruramba 357 42 42
Nyamagabe Kitabi 355 42 43
Uwinkingi 424 50 50
Nyanza Rwabicuma 446 53 57
Nyagisozi 367 44 41
Gakenke Mataba 221 26 26
Minazi 295 35 32
Rulindo Base 247 29 19
Cyungo 241 29 16
Total 3,247 383* 228 134 
Total Surveys: 362 
*348 participants were needed to obtain a 95% confidence interval with a 5% margin of error in 
line with Trócaire’s evaluation guidance. A 10% oversampling was planned, and ultimately 383 
participants were selected to ensure sufficient level of response.
4.2.2 Focus Group Discussions 
Focus group discussions were conducted at the sector level in those sectors selected to participate 
in the quantitative survey. Participants were randomly selected from the pool of survey 
participants. FGDs were conducted with four project target groups: women, youth, Community 
Committee or “VAC” members and CSO members. Given time constraints and the project’s 
emphasis on women and youth, male beneficiary FGDs were not conducted. FGDs were conducted 
with 6-8 participants from each category in mixed gender groups, aside from the “women” FGDs 
which consisted of female participants only. 
With the change in sampling design, FGDs were revised to KIIs with participants from the same 
four project target groups. In each remaining district, five participants per target group were 
randomly selected from the list of beneficiaries for participation in the KII. FGD question guides 
were minimally revised for the interview format to ensure comparability of findings between FGDs 
and KIIs. See Annexes 2.2-2.4.
23
Table 9: FGD/KII Sampling
District Sector 
Women Youth VAC8 CSO 
FGD Phone 
KII FGD Phone 
KII FGD Phone 
KII FGD Phone 
KII 
Nyaruguru Mata 1 1
Ruramba 1 1
Nyamagabe Kitabi 1 1 1
Uwinkingi 1
Nyanza Rwabicuma 1 1
Nyagisozi 3 5
Gakenke Mataba 3 2 3
Minazi 1 1 2 2
Rulindo Base 3
Cyungo 1
Total: 2 7 3 3 2 14 3 2 
4.2.3 Key Informant Interviews with Local Government
Local government partners were invited to participate in KIIs at the sector and district levels. Local 
government partners includes the Sector Economic Development Officer (SEDO), the Sector 
Agronomist and the District Agronomist. With changes to the sampling design, in-person interviews 
were revised to take place by telephone mid-way through data collection.
Table 10: Local Government KIIs
District Sector 
SEDO Sector Agronomist District 
Agronomist 
In 
person Phone In 
Person Phone In 
Person Phone 
Nyaruguru Mata 1 n/a Ruramba 1
Nyamagabe Kitabi 1 1 Uwinkingi 1
Nyanza Rwabicuma 1 1 1 Nyagisozi
Gakenke Mataba 1 1 1
Minazi
Rulindo Base 1
Cyungo 1
Total: 3 2 3 2 2 1 
4.2.4 National Level and Project Implementation Key Informant Interviews
Trócaire identified national level actors to participate in KIIs to contribute to the final evaluation. 
Unfortunately, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing government policy of restricted 
movement in Rwanda, it was not possible to conduct national level interviews with the Ministry of 
Agriculture and Animal Resources (MINAGRI) and Rwanda Agricultural Board (RAB) or with 
identified INGOs and USAID. A combination of telephone-based and in-person interviews were 
conducted with implementing partners: RDO, CEJP and UNICOOPAGI.
8 “VAC” refers to Community Committees established as a component of the EPGA project
24
4.3 Data Collection Procedures and Data Analysis
4.3.1 Quantitative Survey
Quantitative Survey questions were developed in English and translated into Kinyarwanda. The 
survey was then digitized using KoBo Toolbox and loaded onto tablets for use by the data collection 
team. The data collection team participated in a training on the tools and Trócaire’s informed 
consent procedures followed by testing of the survey tool. Data was uploaded and exported to 
Excel for quality assurance purposes, daily analysis and troubleshooting. All data analysis was 
conducted in Excel. The Survey Form can be found in Annex 2.1.
4.3.2 Qualitative Data Collection
Guides for FGDs and KII with local government were developed in English and translated into
Kinyarwanda. The data collection team was trained on the FGD and KII forms and participated in
a testing of the FGD and KII tools. FGDs were conducted with a maximum of eight and minimum
of six participants. FGDs and KIIs were conducted in Kinyarwanda and documented by note-taking.
Responses to each question were transcribed into English and compiled into individual Excel
spreadsheets for each respondent category for analysis. Responses were then reviewed and coded
for major themes and outcomes. Guides for FGDs and KIIs can be found in Annex 2.2-2.4.
As previously noted, FGDs were revised to take place as KIIs in five of the ten districts mid-way
through data collection. The interviews and remaining KIIs with local government were conducted
by telephone in Kinyarwanda using a revised version of the original FGD and KII guides. Revisions
are noted in the FGD forms. The data collection team documented and entered responses into the
existing Excel spreadsheets.
Interviews with implementing partners took place in-person and via telephone interviews in either
English or Kinyarwanda following an interview guide (see Annex 2.5). Notes were taken in English
and responses compiled into an Excel spreadsheet for analysis.
4.4 Ethical Considerations 
Data collection complied with Trócaire’s policy for informed consent in accordance with
international good practice regarding research ethics and protocols including General Data
Protection Regulations (GDPR). Enumerators were trained in obtaining informed consent and all
researchers were required to participate in and pass a research ethics short course to conduct
field research on behalf of Three Stones. This research ethics course includes informed consent
and child protection considerations. All protocols and policies regarding participant selection and
data collection were agreed upon with Trócaire Rwanda and were observed in the training and
throughout the duration of the fieldwork.
In order to ensure responsible data collection specific consideration was given to:
• Administrative confidentiality of those participating in research;
• Physical safeguards for those conducting research;
• Data protection and secure maintenance procedures for personal information; and
• Age- and ability-appropriate assent processes based on reasonable assumptions about
comprehension of individuals involved in the research, including in the development of data
collection tools.
The evaluation team aimed to adequately account for how age, gender and disability present
dynamic factors of vulnerability amongst the project beneficiaries. Data collection tools were
developed to be gender-sensitive and inclusive and data collection was carried out using a
multidisciplinary team composed of female and male consultants and local enumerators, including
those familiar with working with varying disabilities. Inclusivity is of primary concern so both gender￾sensitive and accessible language and methodologies were considered in the data collection
instruments. Data is disaggregated by age and gender to allow for deeper analysis and
understanding of these dynamic factors.
25
4.5 Limitations
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the evaluation methodology was revised mid-way through data 
collection to incorporate phone-based surveys and interviews. All attempts were made to ensure 
comparable data collection between both survey delivery mechanisms. In order to ensure a 
sufficient number of respondents, additional beneficiaries were randomly selected for inclusion in 
the survey in the event of non-response. An analysis of responses shows that while gender 
distribution by age was similar for both in-person and phone-based surveys, reported survey 
respondent household size was smaller with 44% of phone-based interview respondents reporting
household sizes of 4 or less, while 36% of in-person survey respondents reporting household sizes 
of 4 or less. According to the beneficiary files, the majority of beneficiaries had a listed phone 
number. However, actual phone use was dependent upon the ability to maintain a phone, 
specifically the availability of electricity to charge a phone. Therefore, the use of phones may have
created a bias towards beneficiaries with sufficient income to maintain a phone. Please see Annex 
4.5 for additional information on beneficiary characteristics between in-person and phone-based 
survey participants.
At the national level, MINAGRI, RAB and INGO participants were unavailable to participate in 
interviews due to their response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The lack of participation on the part 
of national level stakeholders may result in a loss of nuanced or meaningful recommendations for 
Trócaire. However, the evaluation did include a review of key government policies and research 
conducted by both government and relevant INGOs and incorporated findings where relevant. 
26
5. Analysis of Findings
This section presents an analysis of the findings from both the quantitative survey and qualitative 
data collection as they respond to the evaluation questions as defined by Trócaire in the Evaluation 
TOR (Annex 1).
5.1 Relevance
5.1.1 End Values for Project Impact and Outcome Indicators9
5.1.1.1 Impact Indicator 2: Percentage of target beneficiaries who are satisfied with their role in
the implementation and monitoring of agriculture policy and related budget.
Prior to asking beneficiaries about their involvement in the implementation and monitoring of 
agricultural policies and budgets, the evaluation sought to establish the respondents’ awareness 
of agricultural policies. Nearly all beneficiaries surveyed (99%) were able to provide at least one 
example of an agricultural policy being implemented in their district with 96% of those surveyed 
able to provide two examples. 
 
Table 11: Percent of Respondents Aware of Agricultural Policies in their District
Adult
(>30 Yrs.)
Youth
(18-30 Yrs.)
Total Total
Total
Female Male Female Male Female Male Adult Youth
Fertilizer Policy 92% 89% 93% 95% 92% 90% 91% 94% 92%
Seed Policy 92% 91% 91% 86% 91% 90% 91% 90% 91%
Land Use Policy 78% 78% 71% 77% 77% 78% 78% 73% 77%
Irrigation Policy 19% 14% 14% 18% 17% 15% 17% 15% 17%
Art. Insemination Pol. 14% 16% 10% 18% 13% 17% 15% 13% 14%
Girinka Policy 14% 14% 14% 0% 14% 11% 14% 10% 13%
 
Figure 6: Percent of Respondents Aware of Agricultural Policies in their District by Age and 
Gender
Source: EPGA Final Evaluation Survey Results March 2020 
When analyzing survey data by district, there were notable differences in policies mentioned.
Respondents in Nyanza district were more likely to mention the artificial insemination policy (32%)
as compared to the other project districts, contrasting their reliance on livestock as their main
agricultural activity (see Table 9 below). In addition, the percent of participants mentioning the
irrigation policy was greater in Northern Province project districts, Gakenke (33%) and Rulindo
(31%), as compared to the districts in Southern Province (average of 11%).
 
9 Tables of survey respondent characteristics may be found in Annex 4 and additional data tables from the beneficiary
survey may be found in Annex 5
14% 14% 19%
78%
92% 92%
14% 16% 14%
78%
91% 89%
14% 10% 14%
71%
91% 93%
18% 18%
77%
86%
95%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Girinka Policy Artificial
Insemination
Policy
Irrigation Policy Land Use Policy Seed Policy Fertilizer Policy
Adult Female Adult Male Youth Female Youth Male
27
Table 12: Main Agricultural Activity by District as per NISR Agricultural Survey (2017) and
Percent of Respondents Aware of Agricultural Policies in their District, by District
Main Agricultural Activity10 Fertilizer
Policy
Seed
Policy
Land
Use
Policy
Irrigation
Policy
Artificial
Insem.
Policy
Girinka
Policy
Mention
at least
1 policy
Crops
Only
Livestock
Only
Crops &
Livestock
Gakenke 8% 0 92% 93% 97% 90% 33% 9% 14% 100%
Nyamagabe 12% .2% 88% 94% 96% 68% 8% 2% 13% 99%
Nyanza 25% 2% 73% 92% 98% 85% 14% 32% 12% 99%
Nyaruguru 10% 0% 90% 87% 73% 67% 12% 10% 15% 100%
Rulindo 22% 2% 76% 94% 91% 83% 31% 14% 9% 100%
Total 92% 91% 77% 17% 14% 13% 99%
 
Figure 7: Percent of Respondents Aware of Agricultural Policies in their District, by District
Source: EPGA Final Evaluation Survey Results March 2020 
5.1.1.1.1 Participation in Implementation of Agricultural Related Policies
There was a demonstrated increase between the Midterm and Final Evaluation in the percentage 
of target beneficiaries who are satisfied with their role in the implementation of agricultural related 
policies. Overall, 95% of beneficiaries surveyed (95% female and 97% male) said that they are 
satisfied with their role in the implementation of agricultural related policies. The change is
especially dramatic for both male and female youth with an increase in satisfaction from 48% to 
91% for female youth and an increase from 58% to 97% for male youth between the Midterm and 
Final Evaluations. Overall 93% of youth beneficiaries surveyed were satisfied with their roles. As 
noted in the baseline, a lack of understanding of agricultural policies and improved agricultural 
limited participation in engagement with the implementation of policies,11 however FGDs and KIIs 
with youth conducted during the final evaluation found that youth reported increased confidence 
in their understanding of policies and improved agricultural practices.
Table 13: Indicator 2.A Percentage of target beneficiaries who are satisfied with their role in the 
implementation of agricultural related policies
Adult
(>30 Yrs)
Youth
(18-30 Yrs)
Total Total
Total
Female Male Female Male Female Male Adult Youth
Target 55% 50% 77% 70%
Baseline 59% 66% 94% 100% 91% 97% n/a 96% 93%
Midterm 81% 86% 48% 58% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Final 96% 97% 91% 97% 95% 97% 96% 93% 95% 
10 NISR (2017) Agricultural Household Survey 11 Trócaire (2017) Baseline survey for “Enhancing participatory governance and accountability” project
10%
2%
32%
9% 14%
87%
94% 92% 93% 94%
15% 13% 12% 14% 12% 8% 9%
14%
33% 31%
67% 68%
85% 90%
83%
73%
96% 98% 97% 91%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Nyaruguru Nyamagabe Nyanza Gakenke Rulindo
Artificial Insemination Policy Fertilizer Policy Girinka Policy
Irrigation Policy Land Use Policy Seed Policy
28
Figure 8: Indicator 2.A Percentage of target beneficiaries who are satisfied with their role in the 
implementation of agricultural related policies by Age and Gender
Sources: EPGA Final Evaluation Survey Results March 2020, EPGA Midterm Evaluation Survey Results March 2019, 
EPGA Baseline Survey Results October 2017
Figure 9: Indicator 2.A Percentage of target beneficiaries who are satisfied with their role in the 
implementation of agricultural related policies by District
Source: EPGA Final Evaluation Survey Results March 2020 
Reported mechanisms for participation included attending meetings where policies were 
discussed (64% of beneficiaries surveyed), participating in meetings where able to comment on 
agricultural policies (61% of beneficiaries surveyed) and participating in trainings to support 
implementation of policies (48% of beneficiaries surveyed). Only 3% of surveyed beneficiaries (4% 
for females) reported that there were no opportunities for participation. 
Table 14: Reported Mechanisms for Participation in Implementation of Agricultural Policies
Adult
(>30 Yrs)
Youth
(18-30 Yrs)
Total Total
Total
Female Male Female Male Female Male Adult Youth
Attended mtg. where
policies discussed 66% 60% 62% 68% 65% 62% 64% 64% 64%
Attended mtg. where
able to comment 59% 71% 53% 55% 57% 68% 50% 40% 61%
Trained to support
implementation 52% 47% 34% 55% 48% 49% 63% 54% 48%
No opportunities for
participation 3% 2% 5% 0% 4% 2% 3% 4% 3%
59% 66%
94% 100%
81% 86%
48% 58%
96% 97% 91% 97%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Female Male Female Male
Adult Youth
Baseline Midterm Final
12%
25% 18% 9% 14%
72% 52% 55%
44%
66%
16% 24% 27%
47%
20%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Gakenke Nyamagabe Nyanza Nyaruguru Rulindo
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Not satisfied
29
Figure 10: Reported Mechanisms for Participation in Implementation of Agricultural Policies by 
Age and Gender
Source: EPGA Final Evaluation Survey Results March 2020 
Figure 11: Reported Mechanisms for Participation in Implementation of Agricultural Policies by 
District
Source: EPGA Final Evaluation Survey Results March 2020 
5.1.1.1.2 Participation in Monitoring of Implementation of Agricultural Related Policies
There was an increase in the percentage of beneficiaries reporting satisfaction with their role in 
monitoring the implementation of agricultural related policies, with 95% of all beneficiaries 
surveyed reporting that they are satisfied compared to 77% at baseline. Reported participation in 
the monitoring of the implementation of agricultural policies was also high, with 97% of 
beneficiaries surveyed (96% female and 98% male) reporting that they participated in at least one 
mechanism for monitoring the implementation of agricultural policies. Across districts, Nyanza 
reported the highest levels of satisfaction at 97% while Nyaruguru reported the highest levels of 
being ‘very satisfied’ at 51%. 
Table 15: Indicator 2.B Percentage of target beneficiaries who are satisfied with their role in 
monitoring of implementation of agricultural related policies
Adult
(>30 Yrs)
Youth
(18-30 Yrs)
Total Total
Total
Female Male Female Male Female Male Adult Youth
Target 65% 50% 94% 94%
Baseline 51% 37% 92% 93% 78% 74% n/a 91% 77%
Midterm 83% 84% 66% 88% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Final 94% 97% 95% 95% 94% 97% 95% 95% 95% 
66% 59% 52%
3%
60% 71%
47%
2%
62% 53%
34%
5%
68%
55% 55%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Attended Meetings Where
Policies are Discussed
Attended Meetings Where
Able to Comment on
Agricultural Priorities
Trained to Support
Implementation of Policies
No Opportunities for
Participation
Adult Female Adult Male Youth Female Youth Male
47%
74%
43%
68% 59%
47%
3%
73%
54% 48%
3%
60% 59% 56%
4%
63% 66%
40%
6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Attended mtg. where
policies discussed
Attended mtg. where able
to comment
Trained to support
implementation
No opportunities for
participation
Gakenke Nyamagabe Nyanza Nyaruguru Rulindo
30
Figure 12: Indicator 2.B Percentage of target beneficiaries who are satisfied with their role in 
monitoring of implementation of agricultural related policies by Age and Gender
Sources: EPGA Final Evaluation Survey Results March 2020, EPGA Midterm Evaluation Survey Results March 2019, 
EPGA Baseline Survey Results October 2017
Figure 13: Indicator 2.B Percentage of target beneficiaries who are satisfied with their role in 
monitoring of implementation of agricultural related policies by District 
Source: EPGA Final Evaluation Survey Results March 2020 
When asked how participants participate in the monitoring of the implementation of agricultural 
policies, the majority of respondents, 84% (85% female and 82% male) participated in community 
forums (including Umuganda, parent’s meetings and evening sessions). Male beneficiaries 
surveyed were more likely to report participating in accountability meetings (53%) and 
performance contract implementation (21% as compared to female beneficiaries (46% and 13% 
respectively). Adult male beneficiaries were also more likely than youth male beneficiaries to 
participate in performance contract implementation (23% for adult and 14% for youth males). At 
the district level, participants in Nyanza were more likely (90%) to participate in community forums 
compared to those in other districts, but less likely to participate in accountability meetings (38%). 
Rulindo participants reported greater participation in accountability meetings (60%) as compared 
to other districts. 
51%
37%
92% 93% 83% 84%
66%
94% 88% 97% 95% 95%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Female Male Female Male
Adult Youth
Baseline Midterm Final
5% 6% 3% 5% 6%
71% 66% 68%
44%
69%
24% 28% 29%
51%
26%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Gakenke Nyamagabe Nyanza Nyaruguru Rulindo
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Not satisfied
31
Table 16: Reported Mechanisms for Participation in Monitoring the Implementation of 
Agricultural Policies
Adult
(>30 Yrs)
Youth
(18-30 Yrs)
Total Total
Total
Female Male Female Male Female Male Adult Youth
Participated in
community forums 84% 81% 86% 86% 85% 82% 83% 86% 84%
Participated in
accountability mtgs. 49% 54% 38% 50% 46% 53% 50% 41% 48%
Collected information
by visiting activities 22% 22% 21% 23% 21% 22% 22% 21% 22%
Part. in performance
contracts 12% 23% 16% 14% 13% 21% 16% 15% 15%
Completed
monitoring report 14% 13% 9% 18% 13% 14% 13% 11% 13%
Completed a
scorecard 10% 9% 9% 23% 10% 14% 10% 13% 10%
Did not participate 4% 2% 3% 0% 4% 2% 3% 3% 3%
Figure 14: Reported Mechanisms for Participation in Monitoring the Implementation of 
Agricultural Related Policies
Source: EPGA Final Evaluation Survey Results March 2020 
Figure 15: Reported Mechanisms for Participation in Monitoring the Implementation of 
Agricultural Related Policies by District
Source: EPGA Final Evaluation Survey Results March 2020 
84%
49%
22%
12% 14% 10%
4%
81%
54%
22% 23%
13% 9%
2%
86%
38%
21% 16%
9% 9% 3%
86%
50%
23%
14% 18% 23%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Participated in
Community
Forums
Participated in
Accountability
Meetings
Collected
Information by
Visiting
Activities
Participated in
Performance
Contract
Implementation
Completed a
Monitoring
Report
Completed a
Scorecard
Did Not
Participate
Adult Female Adult Male Youth Female Youth Male
83%
48%
22%
9% 14% 10%
83%
45%
16% 11%
4% 4% 4%
90%
44%
22% 19% 13% 10%
3%
77%
50%
32% 21%
17% 12%
4%
86%
66%
9%
17%
26% 23%
3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Participated in
community
forums
Participated in
accountability
mtgs.
Collected
information by
visiting
activities
Part. in
performance
contracts
Completed
monitoring
report
Completed a
scorecard
Did not
participate
Gakenke Nyamagabe Nyanza Nyaruguru Rulindo
32
5.1.1.1.3 Participation in Monitoring of Budgets on Agricultural Related Policies
There was a significant difference between the reported satisfaction of beneficiaries at the 
Baseline, Midterm and Final Evaluation. Overall, 83% of beneficiaries surveyed were satisfied with 
their role in monitoring of budgets on agricultural related policies compared to 5% at baseline. This 
is figure is also significantly higher than the country statistics of 47.7% of citizens who are satisfied 
with their participation in elaboration of budgets and plans12. The majority of beneficiaries 
surveyed, 70%, participated at the Community Committee level, with equal participation between 
males (70%), females (70%) and youth (68%). While 30% of participants reported participation at 
the Cell level, the majority were adult male beneficiaries (45%), while female and youth reported 
less participation (30% and 33% respectively). FGD and interviews with women and youth indicate 
that there is some confusion between a personal agricultural budget for purchasing of seeds and 
other inputs and the budget for implementation of agricultural policies. However, others noted that 
having an understanding of the agricultural budget encouraged them to develop their own personal 
agricultural budgets. Findings from the KIIs and FGDs with youth do not provide a clear reason for 
the increase in their satisfaction, as some youth commented that they still do not have the skills 
or confidence to participate in budgets however others commented that authorities were taking 
their needs into account during meetings where budgets were discussed. At the district level, 
Nyaruguru reported the highest levels of satisfaction with their role in monitoring budgets, with 
overall satisfaction of 91% with 47% reporting to be ‘very satisfied’. Nyamagabe had the lowest 
reported satisfaction at 75%, followed by Nyanza at 82%. 
Table 17: Indicator 2.C Percentage of target beneficiaries who are satisfied with their role in 
monitoring of budgets on agricultural related policies
Adult
(>30 Yrs)
Youth
(18-30 Yrs)
Total Total
Total
Female Male Female Male Female Male Adult Youth
Target 23% 20% 23% 25%
Baseline 5% 5% 5% 8% 5% 5% n/a 6% 5%
Midterm 34% 38% 36% 33% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Final 81% 87% 83% 91% 81% 88% 83% 85% 83% 
Figure 16: Indicator 2.C Percentage of target beneficiaries who are satisfied with their role in 
monitoring of budgets on agricultural related policies by Age and Gender
Sources: EPGA Final Evaluation Survey Results March 2020, EPGA Midterm Evaluation Survey Results March 2019, 
EPGA Baseline Survey Results October 2017
12 RGB (2018) Rwanda Governance Scorecard, 5th Edition
5% 5% 5% 8%
34% 38% 36% 33%
81% 87% 83% 91%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Female Male Female Male
Adult Youth
Baseline Midterm Final
33
Figure 17: Indicator 2.C Percentage of target beneficiaries who are satisfied with their role in 
monitoring of budgets on agricultural related policies by District
Source: EPGA Final Evaluation Survey Results March 2020 
Of the beneficiaries surveyed, 23% reported no opportunity for participation, with female youth 
reporting the least opportunities for participation at 28%, which is reflected in the lower levels of 
satisfaction for this group. Of those reporting no opportunity for participation, 39 beneficiaries 
surveyed (or 11% of all respondents) reported being satisfied with their level of participation. It is 
not clear if this is due to a lack of understanding surrounding the question or if there are other 
factors contributing to their satisfaction. Interviews and FGDs with beneficiaries indicate that 
beneficiaries report increased satisfaction from the knowledge that they have the right to 
participate, even if they have yet to develop the skills to meaningfully participate. 
At the district level, Gakenke and Rulindo survey respondents were more likely to report 
participating at the Community Committee (Gakenke 83%, Rulindo 80%) and Cell levels (Gakenke 
45%, Rulindo 37%) as compared to the other three districts. Gakenke (7%) and Rulindo (9%) were 
also less likely to report no opportunities for participation, as compared to Nyamagabe (31%), 
Nyanza (24%) and Nyaruguru (29%).
Table 18: Reported Mechanisms for Participation in Monitoring the Budgets of Agricultural 
Related Policies
Adult
(>30 Yrs)
Youth
(18-30 Yrs)
Total Total
Total
Female Male Female Male Female Male Adult Youth
Participated at
Community
Committee level
70% 70% 69% 64% 70% 69% 70% 68% 70%
Participated at Cell
level 30% 27% 28% 45% 30% 30% 29% 33% 30%
Participated at
Sector level 13% 13% 12% 23% 13% 15% 13% 15% 14%
Participated at
District level 1% 3% 2% 5% 1% 3% 2% 3% 2%
No opportunities for
participation 22% 23% 28% 18% 23% 22% 22% 25% 23%
12%
25% 18% 9% 14%
72% 52% 55%
44%
66%
16% 24% 27%
47%
20%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Gakenke Nyamagabe Nyanza Nyaruguru Rulindo
Very satisfied
Satisfied
Not satisfied
34
Figure 18: Reported Mechanisms for Participation in Monitoring the Budgets of Agricultural 
Related Policies by Age and Gender
Source: EPGA Final Evaluation Survey Results March 2020 
Figure 19: Reported Mechanisms for Participation in Monitoring the Budgets of Agricultural 
Related Policies by District
Source: EPGA Final Evaluation Survey Results March 2020 
5.1.1.2 Outcome Indicator 1-1: Percentage of target citizens who are confident of their 
contribution in the development of agricultural policy and budget monitoring.
There was a marked increase in the confidence of citizens in their contribution to the development 
of agricultural policy and budget monitoring between the midterm and final evaluations, with 91% 
of surveyed beneficiaries (90% female and 95% male) reporting the they were confident in their 
contribution to the development of agricultural policy and 75% of surveyed beneficiaries (73% 
female and 78% male) reporting confidence in their role in budget monitoring compared to 
baseline figures of 81% and 29% respectively. Data collection for the midterm evaluation took 
place in March of 2019, one year prior to the data collection for the final evaluation. During this 
time, it is feasible that policy changes surrounding timely access to seeds and inputs resulting from 
the first national agricultural policy dialogue conducted in March 2018, became apparent.
 
At the district level, 100% of surveyed participants in Gakenke and 94% in Rulindo reported that 
they were confident in their contribution in the development of agricultural policy, with no reports 
of inability to participate. Nyamagabe reported highest rates of not having an opportunity to 
participate at 11% and had the lowest rates of confidence at 82% compared to the other districts 
survey.
 
 
 
70%
30%
13% 1% 22%
70%
27%
13% 3% 23%
69%
28%
12% 2%
28%
64%
45%
23% 5% 18%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Participated at the
Community
Committee Level
Participated at the
Cell Level
Participated at the
Sector Level
Participated at the
District Level
No Opportunities for
Participation
Adult Female Adult Male Youth Female Youth Male
83%
65% 69% 62%
80%
45% 22%
28% 28% 37%
14% 7% 13% 3% 13% 3% 14% 1% 14% 31% 24% 29% 9%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Gakenke Nyamagabe Nyanza Nyaruguru Rulindo
Participated at Community Committee Participated at Cell level
Participated at Sector level Participated at District level
No opportunities for participation
35
Table 19: Indicator 1-1.A Percentage of target citizens who are confident of their contribution in 
the development of agricultural policy 
Adult
(>30 Yrs)
Youth
(18-30 Yrs)
Total Total
Total
Female Male Female Male Female Male Adult Youth
Target 62% 62% 86% 93%
Baseline 58% 58% 84% 92% 80% 83% n/a 86% 81%
Midterm 66% 68% 73% 69% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Final 90% 95% 88% 95% 90% 95% 92% 90% 91% 
Figure 20: Indicator 1-1.A Percentage of target citizens who are confident of their contribution in 
the development of agricultural policy by Age and Gender
 Sources: EPGA Final Evaluation Survey Results March 2020, EPGA Midterm Evaluation Survey Results March 2019, 
EPGA Baseline Survey Results October 2017
Figure 21: Indicator 1-1.A Percentage of target citizens who are confident of their contribution in 
the development of agricultural policy by District 
Source: EPGA Final Evaluation Survey Results March 2020 
Female youth, and youth in general, were less likely to report confidence in their role in budget 
monitoring, with 62% of female youth reporting that they were confident, compared to 73% for all 
women. While 77% of adults reported being confident in their contribution, only 69% of youth felt 
confident. At the district level, Nyamagabe (66%, Nyanza (73%) and Nyaruguru (74%) reported less 
confidence and were more likely to report that they did not participate in monitoring of budgets.
Gakenke and Rulindo reported higher rates of confidence with 84% of survey respondents in 
Gakenke reporting that they were confident in their role and 89% in Rulindo.
58% 58%
84% 92%
66% 68% 73% 69%
90% 95% 88% 95%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Female Male Female Male
Adult Youth
Baseline Midterm Final
3% 5% 6%
100% 86% 92% 90% 94%
11% 3% 4% 6%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Gakenke Nyamagabe Nyanza Nyaruguru Rulindo
Not confident in contribution Confident in contribution Did not participate
36
Table 20: Indicator 1-1.B Percentage of target citizens who are confident of their role in budget 
monitoring
Adult
(>30 Yrs)
Youth
(18-30 Yrs)
Total Total
Total
Female Male Female Male Female Male Adult Youth
Target 25% 20% 60% 65%
Baseline 18% 13% 47% 58% 28% 30% n/a 51% 29%
Midterm 53% 50% 50% 54% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Final 77% 76% 62% 86% 73% 78% 77% 69% 75% 
Figure 22: Indicator 1-1.B Percentage of target citizens who are confident of their role in budget 
monitoring by Age and Gender
Sources: EPGA Final Evaluation Survey Results March 2020, EPGA Midterm Evaluation Survey Results March 2019, 
EPGA Baseline Survey Results October 2017
Figure 23: : Indicator 1-1.B Percentage of target citizens who are confident of their role in budget 
monitoring by District
Source: EPGA Final Evaluation Survey Results March 2020
5.1.1.3 Outcome Indicator 3-1: Percentage of citizens, especially women and youth, and members 
of civil society who consider that local authorities respond to their expressed priorities with regard 
to sustainable agriculture.
5.1.1.3.1 Percent of Target Citizens Who Consider that Local Authorities Respond to their Priorities
Of those beneficiaries surveyed, 88% (89% of females and 87% of males) reported that local 
authorities respond to their expressed priorities, as compared to 57% at baseline, and 84% of the 
beneficiaries surveyed (85% female and 82% male) were able to give an example of how local 
authorities have responded to an expressed agricultural need in the previous 12 months. Surveyed 
18% 13%
47% 53% 58% 50% 50% 54%
77% 76%
62%
86%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Female Male Female Male
Adult Youth
Baseline Midterm Final
16% 10% 4% 13% 3%
84%
66% 73%
74% 89%
25% 22% 13% 9%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Gakenke Nyamagabe Nyanza Nyaruguru Rulindo
Not confident in contribution Confident in contribution Did not participate
37
participants in Nyanza (93%) and Nyaruguru (97%) were more likely to report that local authorities 
responded to their needs as compared to the other three districts. 
Table 21: Indicator 3-1.A Percentage of target citizens who consider that local authorities 
respond to their expressed priorities with regard to sustainable agriculture
Adult
(>30 Yrs)
Youth
(18-30 Yrs)
Total Total
Total
Female Male Female Male Female Male Adult Youth
Target 60% 55% 65% 80%
Baseline 58% 48% 54% 77% 57% 56% n/a 63% 57%
Midterm 72% 77% 76% 81% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Final 92% 87% 79% 86% 89% 87% 90% 81% 88% 
Figure 24: Indicator 3-1.A Percentage of target citizens who consider that local authorities 
respond to their expressed priorities with regard to sustainable agriculture by Age and Gender
 Sources: EPGA Final Evaluation Survey Results March 2020, EPGA Midterm Evaluation Survey Results March 2019, 
EPGA Baseline Survey Results October 2017
Figure 25: Indicator 3-1.A Percentage of target citizens who consider that local authorities 
respond to their expressed priorities with regard to sustainable agriculture by District
Source: EPGA Final Evaluation Survey Results March 2020
Of those beneficiaries reporting that their priorities were addressed, the majority cited timely
access to higher quality seeds (27%) and timely access to fertilizers or lime for soil health (31%).
Other priorities responded to by local authorities included access to pesticides (14%) and the
sharing of information or provision of trainings on topics such as kitchen gardens and horticulture
(10%). Participants in Rulindo were more likely to mention fertilizers (43%) compared to the other
districts, while all districts reported access to seeds at approximately the same rate.
58% 48% 54%
72% 77% 76% 77% 81% 92% 87% 79% 86%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Female Male Female Male
Adult Youth
Baseline Midterm Final
10% 3% 5% 6%
9% 13% 2%
3%
14%
81% 84% 93% 97%
80%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Gakenke Nyamagabe Nyanza Nyaruguru Rulindo
I do not have any priorities/there are no platforms to share No Yes
38
Table 22: Percent of Participants Reporting Priorities Responded to In the Past 12 Months
Adult
(>30 Yrs)
Youth
(18-30 Yrs)
Total Total
Total
Female Male Female Male Female Male Adult Youth
Fertilizer/ soil health 33% 32% 24% 36% 31% 31% 33% 28% 31%
Seeds 28% 24% 31% 27% 29% 24% 27% 30% 27%
Pesticides 13% 12% 17% 18% 14% 13% 13% 18% 14%
Info sharing/
trainings 12% 13% 5% 5% 10% 11% 12% 5% 10%
Markets 3% 4% 3% 5% 3% 4% 3% 4% 3%
Water/ irrigation 3% 4% 0% 0% 2% 3% 3% 0% 2%
Animal health/ art.
insemination 2% 2% 0% 5% 2% 3% 2% 1% 2%
Able to provide an
example 88% 81% 78% 86% 85% 82% 85% 80% 84%
 
Figure 26: Percent of Participants Reporting Priorities Responded to In the Past 12 Months by 
Topic by Age and Gender
 Source: EPGA Final Evaluation Survey Results March 2020
Figure 27: Percent of Participants Reporting Priorities Responded to In the Past 12 Months by 
Topic by District
Source: EPGA Final Evaluation Survey Results March 202
33%
28%
13% 12%
3% 3% 2%
32%
24%
12% 13%
4% 4% 2%
24% 24%
17%
5% 3%
36% 36%
18%
5% 5% 5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Fertilizers/ Soil
Health
Seeds Pesticides Information
Sharing and
Trainings
Markets Water/
Irrigation
Animal Health/
Insemination
Adult Female Adult Male Youth Female Youth Male
29% 31%
35%
31% 29%
19%
28%
35%
16%
43%
17%
17% 14%
9% 6%
19%
11%
5%
10%
6%
9%
3% 3% 1% 3%
7%
1% 3% 1% 2%
5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Nyaruguru Nyamagabe Nyanza Gakenke Rulindo
Fertilizers/Soil Health Seeds Pesticides
Information Sharing and Trainings Markets Water/Irrigation
Animal Health/Insemination
39
Figure 28: Percent of Participants Reporting Priorities Responded to In the Past 12 Months 
Source: EPGA Final Evaluation Survey Results March 2020
5.1.1.3.2 Percent of CSOs Who Consider that Local Authorities Respond to their Priorities
There has been a significant increase in reported response by local authorities to the priorities of 
CSOs since the start of the EPGA project. At baseline, 10 CSOs surveyed reported that local 
authorities responded at a rate of 48% while the 10 CSOs surveyed for the final evaluation reported 
that local authorities respond at a rate of 88%, an increase of 40%. CSOs in Gakenke and 
Nyaruguru generally reported high levels of response, while those in Nyanza and Nyamagabe 
reported response rates of 70-80%. CSOs reported sharing their priories with local government in 
cell, sector and district meetings, including JADF meetings. One CSO reported preparing policy 
papers. 
Table 23: Indicator 3-1.B Percentage of CSOs who consider that local authorities respond to their 
expressed priorities with regard to sustainable agriculture
CSOs
Target 52%
Baseline 48%*
Midterm n/a
Final 88%* 
*Both baseline and end-line values measure the percent to which CSOs feel that local authorities
respond to their expressed priorities, not the percent of CSOs who consider local authorities
respond to their expressed priorities.
Table 24: Summary of CSO responses to Indicator 3-1.B
District
Consider local
authorities
respond
Percent to which
local authorities
respond
CSO-Nyaruguru Yes 100%
CSO-Nyaruguru Yes 90%
CSO-Nyaruguru Yes 90%
CSO-Nyamagabe Yes 70%
CSO-Nyanza Yes 80%
CSO-Nyanza Yes 70%
CSO-Gakenke Yes 98%
CSO-Gakenke Yes 70%
CSO-Gakenke Yes 87%
CSO-Gakenke Yes 95%
CSO-Gakenke/Rulindo Yes 99%
Total 100% 89% 
81% 76%
90% 92%
77%
19% 24% 10% 8% 23%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Gakenke Nyamagabe Nyanza Nyaruguru Rulindo
Provided an example Unable to provide an example
40
Table 25: Agriculture Policy Issues Responded to by Local Authorities in the Previous 12 Months
District Agricultural Policies Responded To By Local Authorities
Nyaruguru Terracing and agro-forestry for soil erosion
Nkunganire program
Animal husbandry
Nyamagabe Access to fertilizers
Access to markets
Nyanza Increased purchase price of milk
Reduced taxes on swamplands
Gakenke Fertilizer pricing and access to fertilizers at agro-dealers
Seed pricing and delays in access
Agroforestry seedlings
Gakenke/Rulindo Training on long-term storage of crops to avoid spoilage
Small-scale irrigation-provision of water pipes
5.1.1.4 Results for Other Impact and Outcome Indicators 
The following indicators were not measured as a component of the final evaluation as they were
measured and reported on during project implementation but are included here for reference.
 
Table 26: Impact Indicator 1-Number of 
public policies introduced, adopted, 
repealed, changed or implemented 
consistent with citizen input
 Planned Actual 
Year 1 0 0
Year 2 4 2
Year 3 4 4
Year 4 4 2 (as of Q1)
Total 12 8
Table 27: Outcome Indicator 1.2 Frequency 
of interactions between citizens and local 
authorities on agricultural policies and 
budget
 Planned Actual 
Year 1 0 0
Year 2 6 10
Year 3 4 26
Year 4 37 27 (as of Q1)
Total 47 63
Table 28: Outcome Indicator 1.2 Number of 
issues related to agricultural policy raised by 
citizens and addressed by public authorities 
in the past 12 months
 Planned Actual 
Year 1 0 0
Year 2 4 7
Year 3 4 4
Year 4 4 3 (as of Q1)
Total 12 14
Table 29: Outcome Indicator 2.1 Number of 
decisions taken by target district and sector 
leaders with CSO’s inputs in the past 12 
months
 Planned Actual 
Year 1 0 0
Year 2 18 7
Year 3 6 8
Year 4 3 1 (as of Q1)
Total 27 16
Table 30: Outcome Indicator 2.2 Number of 
decisions made at the national level with
CSO’s inputs in the past 12 months
 Planned Actual 
Year 1 0 0
Year 2 10 0
Year 3 2 2
Year 4 1 1
Total 13 3
5.1.2 Appropriateness and Usefulness of Project Indicators 
As written and defined, the indicators were generally appropriate and useful for measuring project 
achievement against results framework. In addition, all impact and outcome indicators were
appropriately defined in the Performance Indicator Reference Sheet (PIRS), disaggregated by 
gender and age groupings as appropriate and generally met the criteria as per the SMART (specific, 
measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound) framework for indicators. However, the three 
indicators measured through quantitative surveys (Impact Indicator 2, Outcome Indicator 1-1 and 
Outcome Indicator 3-1) required further disaggregation into what ultimately constituted two to 
three separate indicators. In addition, Outcome Indicator 3-1B as defined in the PIRS and as 
defined during the baseline data collection and subsequent evaluation exercises are inconsistent. 
As written in the project PIRS, the indicator intends to measure the percentage of CSOs who 
consider that local authorities respond to their expressed priorities. However, the measurement at 
baseline is the percentage to which CSOs feel that local authorities respond to their expressed 
priorities. In addition, measuring this indicator requires a separate quantitative survey tool in order 
to capture CSO responses rather than using responses during FGDs to accurately measure 
achievement against this indicator as attempted during the midterm evaluation.
While project staff noted the usefulness of and satisfaction with the project indicators as written, 
a review of project annual reports and annual MEL (Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning) plans 
submitted to USAID highlight significant changes to the organization and wording of outcome and 
output indicators without providing rationale or justification for changes. While the changes in the 
indicators did not impact performance, the shifting placement, removal and addition of outcome 
and output indicators makes it difficult to consolidate and report on project progress and 
achievement across the life of the project.
Project learning: The project included multiple opportunities for project learning in addition to 
regular monitoring and reporting on indicators and evaluation exercises. Specific activities 
imbedded within the project design that supported project learning included the development of a 
documentary film on citizen participation in policy monitoring, exchange experiences and learning 
through JADF, the development of a lessons learned and best practices report, a research piece 
on the involvement of women. In addition, quarterly stakeholder meetings provided opportunities 
for implementing partners to share findings and best practices. 
5.1.3 Appropriateness of Project Design
The EPGA project was designed in alignment with Trócaire’s Global ToC, in which empowered 
women and men, sustainable and resilient communities, a strong and representative civil society 
and just and accountable local government are necessary for sustainable outcomes. The project 
is also in alignment with the Rwanda Strategic Plan for Agricultural Transformation (PSTA 4) Priority 
Area 4: “Enabling Environment and Responsive Institutions” which highlights the needs for 
strengthening forums for farmers participation in joint planning from the local to national levels
through farmer organizations and cooperatives and using IT tools for data collection to support 
planning and implementation.13
Interviews with Trócaire and implementing partner staff highlighted the appropriateness of the 
project components in achieving the overall project objective. In addition, the placement of 
activities within the project life cycle was well thought-out during the project design process. The 
following analysis of the appropriateness of the project design will look at beneficiary selection and
individual project components by Outcome.
5.1.3.1 Beneficiary selection
Women and youth are the most vulnerable populations, as 92% of women in rural areas engage 
in the agricultural sector, as compared to 77% of men, and working age youth make up 77% of the 
13 MINAGRI (June 2018) Strategic Plan for Agriculture Transformation 20018-24 
42
rural population.14 Recognizing the unique vulnerabilities of women and youth, the project targeted
these two groups in the project design (60% women and 20% youth). Project beneficiary lists 
provided by the implementing partners illustrate that the majority citizens reached (70%) were 
female (11% female youth and 59% female adults). The project also reached its intended target 
of 20% youth participation. However, with working age youth comprising 77% of the rural work 
force with 54% of young men working in agriculture and 79% of young women working in agriculture 
primarily on family farms15, there in a need to place greater emphasis on youth participation in 
advocacy projects. Youth in particular face significant challenges in agriculture as they lack access 
to land, capital and knowledge and often lack an interest in agriculture, with female youth facing 
even greater challenges due to unequal power relations. With an aging agricultural workforce, with 
an average age of 55 years, MINAGRI recognizes a need to engage more youth in agriculture.16
Table 31: Percentage participation by Females and Males, Youths and Adults in the EPGA Project 
by District*
Adult Youth 
Total
Female
Total
Male (>30 Yrs) (18-30 Yrs)
Female Male Female Male
Gakenke 55.88% 24.09% 13.35% 6.68% 69.23% 30.77%
Nyamagabe 60.52% 19.53% 10.62% 9.33% 71.14% 28.86%
Nyanza 57.53% 21.77% 9.89% 10.81% 67.43% 32.57%
Nyaruguru 59.93% 19.98% 10.50% 9.59% 70.43% 29.57%
Rulindo 59.31% 23.56% 12.19% 4.94% 71.50% 28.50%
Total 58.81% 21.51% 11.22% 8.46% 70.03% 29.97% 
 80.32% 19.68% 
Source: Project Beneficiary Files Shard by Implementing Partners 
*Note: These figures may not be accurate due to incomplete and inaccurate data entry
In addition to target beneficiaries, the project created Community Committees at the village level. 
These committees are made up of local rural farmers elected by their community. The project 
intended for Community Committee membership to include 60% women and 20% men, with 40% 
youth (or 2 adult women, 1 adult man, 1 youth female and 1 youth male) as members. As the table 
below illustrates, females comprised the majority of Community Committee members (project 
average of 56%, or 2.8 females per group) and youth comprised 24% of the members. While 
Gakenke, Nyamagabe and Nyanza were able to achieve close to 3 females per group, both 
Nyaruguru and Rulindo averaged 2.3 and 2.5 females respectively, with Nyaruguru reporting no 
female youth participation. As noted in the Lessons Learnt document, the participants who “self￾select” into these processes are more likely to be privileged and more engaged in agricultural 
issues as compared to other community members. They also noted that while more than half of 
the participants were female, the majority of committees were chaired by wealthier, more educated 
male farmers.17
14 MINAGRI (June 2017) National Agriculture Policy; 15 Franzel, S., Kinyua, H., Rucibigango, M., Davis, K., and Makh, S. (2019). Youth in Extension and Advisory Services: 
Rwanda. Developing Local Extension Capacity Project.
16 The New Times (14 February 2017) Govt seeks more youth engagement in agriculture 17 RDO (2020) Enhancing Participatory Governance and Accountability Project: Lessons Learnt and Best Practice
43
Table 32: Percentage participation by Females and Males, Youths and Adults in Community 
Committees by District
Adult Youth Total Total
(>30 Yrs) (18-30 Yrs) Female Male
Female Male Female Male
Gakenke 46.51% 23.26% 16.28% 13.95% 62.79% 37.21%
Nyamagabe 40.91% 34.09% 18.18% 6.82% 59.09% 40.91%
Nyanza 42.11% 28.95% 15.79% 13.16% 57.89% 42.11%
Nyaruguru 46.34% 48.78% 0.00% 4.88% 46.34% 53.66%
Rulindo 29.17% 37.50% 20.83% 12.50% 50.00% 50.00%
Total 42.11% 34.21% 13.68% 10.00% 55.79% 44.21% 
76.32% 23.68% 
Source: Project Beneficiary Files Shard by Implementing Partners 
5.1.3.2 Outcome 1: Empowered citizens, particularly women and youth, who are able to engage in 
agricultural policy and budget monitoring in 5 districts and hold public authorities accountable
Activities under Outcome 1 focused on empowering citizens to engage in agricultural policy by 
supporting both the individual level through trainings and provision of educational materials and 
at the community level through the development of structures to support collective engagement
with local government. The importance of citizen participation in governance is documented in the 
Constitution of Rwanda, Article 48: “All Rwandans have the duty to participate in the development 
of the country”. In addition, since 2000, the Government of Rwanda began the process of 
decentralization with the intent of bringing about a citizen centered governance, with citizen 
participation in the identification of priorities, implementation of development projects and hold 
local authorities accountable.18 However, while there is intent for participation, actual avenues for 
participation are limited to implementation of policies, rather than meaningful contribution to the 
discourse on policies or the monitoring of their implementation. These are further hindered by lack 
of understanding of rights to participation and a general sense that leaders make the decisions, 
not citizens.19 Below is a summary of the specific project components. 
Training of citizens on their roles and responsibilities: In the first year of the project, 3,675 citizens 
and 830 local leaders were trained at the village level in their roles and responsibilities for 
agricultural policy monitoring of implementation and budgets. These trainings were carried out by 
UNICOOPAGI and CEJP. When asked, those who recalled the training, found the content 
appropriate however, as the majority of women and youth had no previous experiences with 
budgets, some noted that the training was insufficient for them to meaningfully participate in the 
monitoring of budgets. This finding contradicts survey findings reporting high levels of satisfaction 
and confidence in participation in monitoring agricultural policy budgets. However, while 
beneficiaries reported not understanding budgets, findings from FGDs and interviews highlighted 
the satisfaction gained from the knowledge that they have a right to participate in budget 
monitoring. Many of the respondents in the Youth and Women FGDs and interviews were unable 
to distinguish trainings provided under the EPGA project with other agricultural trainings provided 
by the implementing partners on specific agricultural topics.
 
18 Rwanda Governance Board (June 2018) Rwanda Governance Review: Good Governance and Decentralization in
Rwanda
19 Never Again Rwanda (2018) Local Government Imihigo Process: Understanding the Factors Contributing to Low
Citizen Participation
44
A training manual was developed after the trainings had already been completed, based upon the 
training materials.20 The manual was initially intended for distribution to community leaders, but 
additional copies were printed and distributed more widely. Rather than a guide on how to train 
citizens in advocacy, the document is actually a reference guide to the role of citizens in policy 
implementation and monitoring of implementation and budgets and advocacy. The training 
component consists of five lessons, each in a small text box at the start of each chapter, with little 
guidance offered as to how to facilitate each session. The manual also lacks any mention of the 
role of women and youth play in implementation, monitoring and advocacy for agricultural policies. 
Establishment and Training of Community Committees: Community Committees were established 
in 63 villages during Year 1 of the project and 315 members were trained during the Year 2 
(October-December 2017). Community Committees are made up of five community members and 
elected by village members. Community Committees have been an integral component of the 
project as they have served as an intermediary between farmers and local government, advocating 
on behalf of farmers and sharing responses from local government. Community Committees have
also become a source of information on agricultural policies in their communities and supported 
initiatives including development of kitchen gardens and supporting farmers to register for the 
Smart Nkunganire program for agricultural subsidies. In addition, through the use of Mobile Data 
Collection via smartphones installed with the SurveyCTO software, Community Committee 
members were able to report the advocacy needs of farmers in their community to EPGA project 
staff. 
 
Feedback and Exchange Meetings: Feedback meetings took place at least once per quarter as an 
opportunity for Community Committees to share information with the community. These meetings 
often took place within existing meeting spaces, including Umuganda and parent’s nights, and 
were reported to occur in greater frequency than the proposed once per quarter, indicating that 
communities found these meetings useful. Exchange meetings were an opportunity for Community 
Committee members to bring issues raised by community members to the local leaders in a formal 
capacity and for local leaders to respond to issues. 
 
Educational Materials on Rights and Responsibilities: Posters and booklets developed by the 
project on topics related to roles and rights of citizens in agricultural policy implementation and 
budgeting were well received by the target audience as evidenced by the need to increase 
production from the 5,000 booklets distributed in December 2017. In April 2018, an additional 
20,000 booklets were printed for a total of 25,000 booklets. Booklets were distributed to citizens, 
local authorities including sector and district agronomists, village leaders and CSOs in the project 
districts. In addition, JADF (Joint Action Development Forum) members also received copies. 
Posters were also well received by beneficiaries with 85% of those surveyed reporting having seen 
at least one poster on the role of citizen in monitoring budgets. Youth were more likely to have 
seen the posters as compared with adults, with 91% of youth surveyed reporting having seen or 
read the posters compared with 83% of adults. FGDs and interviews with women and youth also 
highlight that the majority saw and read the posters as they were posted in prominent areas. 
However, men were more likely than women to report having actually read the posters, with 73% 
of men reporting reading compared to 53% of women. These findings are consistent with Rwanda 
literacy rates as 78% of men are literate whereas 69% of women are literate.21 Posters used 
cartoon depictions and few words, making the information accessible for a low literacy population. 
Findings from the FGDs and interviews showed that those who reported reading the posters found 
the information very useful and that posters contributed to a better understanding of their rights.
Table 33: Percent of Survey Participants Reporting Seeing or Reading Posters 
20 Trócaire (November 2017) The Role of Citizens and Local Entities in Policy and Budget Monitoring and Advocacy
Related to Agriculture, English Version 21 UNESCO Rwanda Country Statistics http://uis.unesco.org/en/country/rw
45
Adult
(>30 Yrs)
Youth
(18-30 Yrs)
Total Total Total
Female Male Female Male Female Male Adult Youth
Have seen Poster 26% 16% 45% 14% 31% 16% 23% 36% 26%
Have Read Poster 55% 71% 45% 82% 53% 73% 60% 55% 59%
Never Saw/Read 19% 13% 10% 5% 17% 11% 17% 9% 15%
Figure 29: Percent of Survey Participants Reporting Seeing or Reading Posters
Source: EPGA Final Evaluation Survey Results March 2020
 
Policy Translations: Recognizing that agricultural policies put forth by the national government are 
inaccessible to the majority of local leaders and communities who are tasked with implementing 
the policies, the project planned to translate three policies deemed to be most useful for local 
leaders into an accessible format, including less technical jargon and in Kinyarwanda. However, 
delays in the formal approval process meant that only one policy, the Seed Policy, has been 
distributed to local leaders by the end of Year 3 with the Small-Scale Irrigation Policy and MINAGRI 
Citizen’s Charter to be approved and distributed by project completion. In addition, policies for 
translation were ultimately determined by MINAGRI, rather than the beneficiaries and local 
government. While the intention of the policy translations is to support citizen understand the most 
relevant agricultural policies, this activity would be better placed under Outcome 3, as citizens are 
unlikely to use the policies themselves due to low literacy rates. Rather, these policies can be used 
by local government institutions to support their engagement with their constituency. Distribution 
of the translated Seed Policy and the MINAGRI Citizen’s Charter to districts took place in December 
2019 and January 2020 respectively and distribution to beneficiaries had not yet been completed
at the time of the evaluation.
 
Radio Programs: During Years 2 and 3 of the project, a total of 43, 30-minute radio programs on 
“Your Role as a Farmer” were broadcast on Radio Huguka. Radio Huguka was selected due to the 
coverage, broadcasting from Muhanga District in Southern Province. The radio reports a following 
of 4 million listeners, more that 70% of whom are farmers. However, survey and interview findings 
indicate that radio programs were not listened to regularly or at all, with 42% of respondents 
reporting having never listened to the program and 43% reporting having listened to the program 
on occasion. Of those surveyed, 14% reported regularly listening to the program and 3% reporting 
having called in or sent a message to the program. Rulindo district reported the least participation 
with only 49% of those surveyed reporting every having listened to the program while Nyaruguru 
reported the highest participation with 67% reporting listening to the program. 
26% 16%
45%
14%
55% 71%
45%
82%
19% 13% 10% 5%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Female Male Female Male
Adult Youth
Have seen Poster Have Read Poster Never saw poster
46
Table 34: Percent of Survey Participants Reporting Seeing or Reading Posters 
Adult
(>30 Yrs)
Youth
(18-30 Yrs)
Total Total Total
Female Male Female Male Female Male Adult Youth
Listen regularly 14% 16% 9% 41% 13% 21% 15% 18% 15%
Listen sometimes 40% 49% 45% 32% 41% 46% 41% 41% 43%
Never listened 46% 34% 47% 27% 46% 33% 42% 41% 42%
Figure 30: Percent of Survey Participants Reporting Listening to EPGA Radio Programs by Age 
and Gender
Source: EPGA Final Evaluation Survey Results March 2020
Figure 31: Percent of Survey Participants Reporting Listening to EPGA Radio Programs by District
Source: EPGA Final Evaluation Survey Results March 2020
Male survey participants were more likely to report listening with 67% reporting having ever 
listened to a program, while only 54% of women reported ever having listened. While adults and 
youth had similar rates of reported listening, with 42% of adults and 41% of youth reporting having 
ever listened to a broadcast, there is a significant different between male and female participation. 
Survey findings showed that 73% of male youth and 66% of male adults reported having ever 
listened, while 53% of female youth and 54% of female adults reported having ever listened. The 
majority of women and youth participating in FDGs and interviews reported that they only listen to 
Radio Rwanda. Others reported not having a radio or not having time to listen to radio programs 
as barriers to participation.
14% 16% 9%
41%
40% 49%
45%
32%
46% 34% 47%
27%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Female Male Female Male
Adult Youth
Listen regularly Listened sometimes or 1-2 times Never listened
36% 45% 45%
33%
51% 42%
47%
46% 39%
40%
46%
43%
16% 8% 13%
22%
13%
2% 1% 3% 5% 3% 3%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Gakenke Nyamagabe Nyanza Nyaruguru Rulindo All Districts
never listened sometimes or 1-2 times listen regularly called in or sent message
47
5.1.3.3 Outcome 2: Increased capacity of civil society to engage in policy analysis, budget 
monitoring and advocacy and ability to use collective approach to influence decisions related to 
sustainable agriculture
Activities under Outcome 2 focused on building the capacity of civil society to engage in agricultural 
advocacy through trainings and provision of educational materials and facilitating opportunities for 
CSOs to use a collective approach to influence decisions. In order for CSOs to effectively engage 
in policy development or implementation and hold duty bearers to account, CSOs must have the 
capacity to do so. These capacities include understanding of policies, institutions and actors; ability 
to develop a strategy for policy engagement and use evidence to ensure recommendations are 
credible; capacity for communicating appropriately, either in the form of policy briefs or in 
presentations; and the ability to organize into networks for collective advocacy. 22 While CSOs may 
have the technical capacity in their given field, they often lack the ability to use evidence to prepare 
communication pieces or the capacity to effectively monitor budgets. As noted in the Lessons 
Learnt report commissioned by RDO23, CSOs noted that they lacked basic office facilities and 
resources and many reported working on a voluntary basis. In addition, while networks for joint 
advocacy exist at the national level, there is limited coordination between CSOs at the district level. 
Finally, in order for effective CSO engagement, local CSOs must have external opportunities for 
engagement at the local or national levels. However, as noted in the 2018 CSO Sustainability Index 
for Rwanda, CSO engagement with high-level decision makers is generally deemed low and their 
contribution is primarily limited to attending meetings. Often CSOs are not informed of policy issues 
in a timely manner and their comments come after meetings have taken place and policies are 
already adopted. Overall, CSOs are seen as reactive rather than proactive on policy issues.24 In 
addition, existing formal mechanisms for district based CSO advocacy at the local level is primarily 
limited to their participation in JADF meetings and currently there are no opportunities for their 
engagement at the national level. 
Below is a summary of the specific project components and how they contribute to the 
achievement of Outcome 2:
Civil Society Capacity Building: The project activities related to capacity building included:
• Conducting a Training of Trainers (ToT) for Trócaire staff and implementing partners;
• Conducting trainings for members of civil society on policy and budget monitoring and advocacy
with a focus on agricultural policy and gender analysis and integration;
• Developing and distributing a training manual for CSOs on ‘the role of citizens and local entities
in policy and budget monitoring and advocacy related to agriculture’ intended for use with citizen
with limited skills or knowledge of public policy engagement and advocacy to understand how
they can participate in the development, implementation and monitoring of public policies and
programs in the agricultural sector; and
• Developing and distributing a ‘strategy guide on policy and budget monitoring and advocacy in
agriculture’ for CSOs with the intention of supporting CSOs to harmonize methodology, tools and
activities related to agricultural policy and budget monitoring and advocacy.
The intention behind the design of the capacity building component of Outcome 2 was appropriate, 
as it provided relevant skills to CSOs to participate in advocacy around agricultural policy as well 
as support CSOs to engage with each other. However, given the existing capacity of CSOs, one 
training was insufficient to achieve the desired outcome. In addition, in the absence of both formal
and informal mechanisms for CSOs to engage with each other at the district level, the extent to 
which CSOs can harmonize methodology, tools and activities is limited, thus reducing the potential 
for joint advocacy. 
Specific findings from the evaluation include: 
22ODI (2006) How Civil Society Can Be More Effective 23 RDO (2020) Enhancing Participatory Governance and Accountability Project: Lessons Learnt and Best Practice 24 USAID, FHI360 and ICNL (2018) The 2018 CSO Sustainability Index for Rwanda
48
Training and Training Manuals: During FGDs and interviews CSOs appreciated the training manual 
design, particularly the use of pictures for low literacy populations. 
“All of us read it because even illiterate people understand everything in the manual. The manual 
is still used because everything we teach our people it is from the book. I normally use it when 
showing new methods or how things are done because this book shows the difference of before 
practicing agriculture policy and after putting it in action.” –CSO member, Nyanza District
However, at least one CSO noted that the training on budgets was insufficient for them to 
meaningfully participate in budget monitoring while another CSO used the training to support their 
internal budgeting:
“We are thankful because of the trainings we got about budget monitoring, even though we haven't 
understood it well, at least we can now say that we have an idea about it.”—CSO member, Nyanza 
District
“I can say that we got some trainings about policy and budget monitoring and advocacy in 
agriculture which was useful for our cooperative because for now we gain skills on how we can do 
budget monitoring which helps us to know if we get a profit or loss.” –CSO Member, Gakenke 
District 
Strategy Guide: According to RDO’s Lessons Learnt report, CSOs reported not having the strategy 
guide, a finding which was supported during FGDs and interviews with CSOs as a part of the final 
evaluation, with at least one CSO reporting not having received the strategy guide and other CSOs 
confusing the strategy guide with the training manual. 
Forums for advocacy: In addition to training CSOs, the project set up various forums for CSO 
engagement in advocacy on agricultural policies as identified by citizens. These forums included:
• District level policy dialogue meetings;
• National level policy dialogue meetings; and
• Exchange meetings between agricultural stakeholders through JADF.
In order for effective CSO engagement, there needs to be opportunities for their involvement at the 
district and national levels. The forums developed as a component of the EPGA project provided 
an opportunity for CSOs to advocate on behalf of their constituency on agricultural priorities and 
resulted in concrete actions to be taken at district and national levels to address the identified 
needs. During FGDs and interviews with CSOs, some commented on improved responses by local 
government to citizen’s expressed needs. In addition, survey findings highlight that CSOs feel that 
the majority of their concerns (88%), are responded by authorities. 
“We advocated for our citizens about Nkunganire25 and, at the following meeting, the mayor came. 
He was asked directly by the citizens and he promised to look into it. After a short period that was 
solved”—CSO member, Gakenke District
The national policy dialogue meetings in particular played a significant role in the success of the 
EPGA project as the forum provided an opportunity for visible changes in policy delivery at the local 
level. However, the Lessons Learnt26 report noted that no local CSOs attended the national 
dialogues. Specific policy issues raised at the national policy dialogue meetings included:
25 This refers to The Smart Nkunganire System (SNS) which is a supply chain management system built by BK 
TecHouse Ltd in collaboration with Rwanda Agriculture and Animal Resources Development Board (RAB) to digitalize 
the end to end value chain of the Agro-Input Subsidy program. 26RDO (2020) Enhancing Participatory Governance and Accountability Project: Lessons Learnt and Best Practice
49
Table 35: Policy Issues Raised During National-Level Dialogue Meetings27
Policy/Issue Status Response
National Policy Dialogue 1 
Decentralize the process of seed
and fertilizer distribution as
reflected in MINAGRI guidelines
Addressed MINAGRI issued guidelines decentralizing inputs
distribution
Facilitate farmers in soil testing Addressed RAB launched a mobile soil testing truck and
motorcycles through the Caravan Project in April
2019, however there is still need to analyze
fertilizer types for distribution.
Production of local hybrid seeds 
better adapted to local soils
Addressed RAB and Western SEED Company have initiated
production of local Hybrid seeds, RHM (Rwanda
Hybrid Maize) has been produced in Rwanda and
farmers are planting it in season 2019/20 A. 
Increase access of mixed and high
nutrient fertilizers to farmers
Addressed RAB is in process of putting up the facility to
produce blended fertilizers
National Policy Dialogue 2 
Gaps in Twigire Muhinzi extension
Model
Pending RAB is in the process of increasing the number of
farmer promoters so that each village has one and
will continue to build their capacity. RAB will assess
Farmer Field School Facilitators to see which cells
have/do not have them, trainings will match the
priority crops grown in each area.
Low productivity in acidic soils due
to lack of lime
Addressed The government subsidized lime at 50%. The
districts should help all farmers who need lime to
access it at subsidized price.
Lack of agriculture loans for small
holder farmers
Pending Determined a comprehensive analysis should be
carried out to understand why Financial institutions
including Imirenge SACCOs do not have agricultural
financing packages.
Abrupt increase of maize seed
prices
Addressed Government will maintain subsidies for hybrid
maize seeds developed in Rwanda and continue
reducing subsidies for imported maize seeds.
Unavailability of Irish Potato seeds
in the districts of Nyamagabe,
Nyaruguru and Rulindo
Pending This issue has not yet been addressed 
Insufficient agro-dealers Addressed MINAGRI and RAB in collaboration with the Districts
committed to increase the number of agro dealers
so that each sector has 2-3 agro-dealers
5.1.3.4 Outcome 3: Increased knowledge of local authorities on participatory governance and are 
committed to address citizens' concerns
Outcome 3 activities were designed to raise awareness of local government institutions about 
participatory governance to create institutions that are responsive to the needs of citizens and 
include citizen and CSOs in agricultural policy decision making, planning and implementation. 
Despite efforts and commitment on behalf of the government to develop a citizen centered 
governance, there are still existing barriers to citizen participation, including the costs, both in 
27 Trócaire (December 2019) Agricultural issues paper to inform national policy dialogue; Trócaire (2019) Key
Recommendations from the National Policy Dialogue on Agriculture Conducted on December 6th, 2019; feedback
from implementing partners.
50
terms of time and logistics, and the general feeling that citizens and civil society, particularly those 
in rural areas, do not have the necessary level of competence to participate in decision making 
processes.28 Within this context, the EPGA project developed a training and accompanying 
materials to support local government in understanding citizen’s rights to participation in the 
agricultural sector as well as organized accountability meetings. These specific components are 
further described below:
Training and distribution of training materials: Trócaire developed a training manual on 
“Participatory Governance for the Development of the Agricultural Sector” in both English and 
Kinyarwanda. This was followed by a two-day training for leaders at the sector level and district 
levels in order to improve knowledge and capacity of local authorities on participatory governance 
and engender a commitment to respond to the priorities expressed by citizens and civil society. 
Participants at the sector level included village committees, coordinators of the National Women’s 
Council at the village level and cell levels, coordinators of the National Youth Council at the village 
and cell levels, the cell executive secretary and SEDOs. At the district level, participants included 
the sector executive secretaries, agronomists, coordinators of the National Women's Council at 
sector and district level, coordinators of the National Youth Council at the sector and district level, 
staff of the Directorate of Agriculture, staff of the Directorate of Good Governance, the 
Organizations of Civil Society, cooperatives and churches involved in agriculture as well as JADF 
permanent secretaries and JADF committee chairpersons. 
 
Accountability meetings: Accountability meetings were an opportunity for local leaders to exchange 
information on their experiences and challenges in responding to issues raised by citizens and civil 
society. Common unmet needs were identified for inclusion in the national policy dialogue 
meetings.
Interviews with local government, including SEDOs and sector and district level agronomists, 
indicate that the activities under Output 3 was appropriately designed and implemented. 
“Before the project, it was not easy for us to visit the community to find out the challenges they 
face because we often had a lot of work and it was difficult for us to have time to visit the 
community, but when the project started it helped us reach out to the community. The project 
organized different meetings where we have participated in discussions on how we can solve 
community issues and even encourage them to participate in agricultural policy”—Agronomist, 
Gakenke District
28 Never Again Rwanda (2018) Local Government Imihigo Process: Understanding the Factors Contributing to Low
Citizen Participation
51
5.2 Efficiency 
5.2.1 Achievement of Planned Objectives and Constraints
The EPGA project was successful in achieving the project objectives as set form in the Project 
Results Framework with few reported delays. Specific challenges as noted in the Annual Reports 
to USAID are highlighted below. Note that figures are inclusive of up to the first quarter of Year 4.
5.2.1.1 Outcome 1: Empowered citizens, particularly women and youth, who are able to engage in 
agricultural policy and budget monitoring in 5 districts and hold public authorities accountable
 
Table 36: Achievement Against Planned Activities for Project Outcome 1
Out￾puts Activities Results Achieved
Planned Actual
1.1 Activity 1.1.1: One training of 3675 citizens
especially women and youth and 819 village and
cell leaders, on their roles and responsibilities in
terms of policy and budget monitoring and
Advocacy regards to agriculture issues.
• 3,675
citizens
• 819 village
and cell
leaders
• 3,595 citizens
• 830 village and cell leaders
Activity 1.1.2: 12 feedback meetings conducted by
community committee members
12 meetings
per year
Data between Yr2 and Yr3 not
comparable
Missing Yr. 4 data
Activity 1.1.3: Organize six exchange meetings
between citizens and local leaders around citizen
participation in planning especially in agriculture
planning
6 exchange
meetings
1.2 Activity 1.2.1: Translate and design user friendly
5000 copies of summarized versions of
agricultural policies over 3 years
5,000 copies
of 3
agricultural
policies
• 1,667 copies of the Seed
Policy
• 1,667copies of the MINAGRI
charter
• copies of the Small-Scale
Irrigation Policy to be printed
in Year 4, Q2
Activity 1.2.2: Produce and distribute 14,000
posters on citizens’ rights and responsibilities,
5000 copies of booklets on citizen’s role and
responsibilities in terms of policy and budget
monitoring regards to agriculture
• 14,000
posters
• 5,000
booklets
• 4,667 posters in Year 2
• 4,678 posters in Year 3
• 4,668 posters in Year 4
• 25,000 booklets in Year 2
Activity 1.2.3: Produce and disseminate 36 radio
broadcasts and 1 documentary film on citizen
participation in policy monitoring especially in the
domain of agriculture and budget monitoring
• 36 radio
shows
• 1
documentary
film
Radio shows broadcasted
• 19 in Year 2
• 12 in Year 3
• 3 in Year 4
1 documentary film 
completed
1.3 Activity 1.3.1: Establish 63 community committees
at village level for policy and budget monitoring
and advocacy with regard to sustainable
agriculture
63 community
committees
established
63 community committees
established
Activity 1.3.2: Organize one training for community
committees on policy, budget monitoring and
advocacy
One training
per sector for
315
• 315 members trained
• Refresher training for 32
community committee
leaders
1.4 Activity 1.4.1: 72 telephones with adequate
software for collecting and sharing information are
purchased and distributed to each of 63
community committees, and 9 staff on agricultural
policy and budget monitoring
72 telephones
purchased
and
distributed
• 63 phones distributed to
Community Committees
• 9 phones distributed to
project staff
• 10 additional phones
purchased to replace
broken phones
52
Out￾puts Activities Results Achieved
Planned Actual
Activity 1.4.2: One training for community
committees, and program staff on telephone
software operations
72 people
trained
• 63 Community Committee
members
• 6 implementing partner
staff
• 2 Trócaire staff
• 63 Community Committee
leaders participated in re￾fresher trainings
5.1.1.2 Outcome 2: Increased capacity of civil society to engage in policy analysis, budget 
monitoring and advocacy and ability to use collective approach to influence decisions related to 
sustainable agriculture
Table 37: Achievement Against Planned Activities for Project Outcome 2
Outputs Activities Results Achieved
Planned Actual
2.1 Activity 2.1.1: Develop a training manual on
policy and budget monitoring and advocacy
Develop 1
training manual
Developed in Year 2
Activity 2.1.2: Develop a strategy guide in
policy and budget monitoring and advocacy
and guidelines for agriculture
Develop 1
strategy guide
Developed in Year 2, 400
copies distributed
2.2 Activity 2.2.1: One, five-day training of the
trainers targeting the three implementing
partners and Trócaire staff on policy and
budget monitoring and advocacy
Conduct 1, 5-
day training
16 participants in the ToT
conducted in Year 2
Activity 2.2.2: One training of civil society
organizations based in the districts on policy
and budget monitoring and advocacy with
focus on agricultural policy and gender
analysis and integration
Conduct 1
training of CSOs
346 CSO members trained in
Year 2
Activity 2.2.3: Conduct three policy dialogue
meetings and advocacy activities at district
level between communities, civil society and
public authorities.
Conduct 3 policy
dialogue
meetings
3 policy dialogue meetings
conducted:
• 389 participants in 5
dialogue meetings in Year 2
• 160 participants in 2
dialogue meetings in Year 3
• 358 participants in Year 4
Activity 2.2.4: Conduct two policy dialogue
meetings and advocacy at national level with
stakeholders including civil society and
national government officials.
Conduct 2 policy
dialogue
meetings
2 conducted, 1 in Year 3 and
1 in Year 4
Activity 2.2.5: Facilitate six exchanges of
experiences and learning among
stakeholders intervening in agriculture and
policy monitoring through JADF and other
networks in country and in neighboring
countries.
6 exchange
experiences
• 5 exchange meetings in
Year 2
• 11 exchange meetings in
Year 3
• 2 exchange meetings in
Year 4
Activity 2.2.6: Document and disseminate
lessons learnt and best practices in local
governance, policy and budget monitoring.
1 document Completed in Year 4
Activity 2.2.7: Conduct one research on the
involvement of citizens particularly women in
local governance, policy and budget
monitoring in agriculture area
1 document Completed in Year 3
53
Outputs Activities Results Achieved
Planned Actual
2.3 Activity 2.3.1: Organize 2 radio broadcasts
on agricultural policies by using most
popular radio stations
2 broadcasts
planned
• 1 conducted in February
2018
• 1 conducted in August 2018
• 1 conducted in October
2019 in preparation for the
national policy dialogue
meeting
5.1.1.3 Outcome 3: Increased knowledge of local authorities on participatory governance and are 
committed to address citizens' concerns
Table 38: Achievement Against Planned Activities for Project Outcome 3
Outputs Activities Results Achieved
Planned Actual
3.1 Activity 3.1.1: One training of local
authorities and community leaders in
participatory planning and budgeting
One training • One training conducted
with 844 participants (local
authorities and community
leaders) in Year 2
• Refresher conducted for
410 participants in Year 4
Activity 3.1.2: Develop 100 participatory
governance modules targeted at local
authority officials
100 governance
modules
developed
• 300 copies of the training
module printed in Year 2
• 200 copies of participatory
governance module in Year
4
Activity 3.1.3: Organize six accountability
meetings with local authorities at district
level to follow up the implementation of
recommendations submitted by CSOs
concerning the expressed needs of citizens 
6 accountability
meetings
conducted
• 5 accountability meetings
(1 per district) conducted in
Year 2
• 5 accountability meetings
in Year 3
• 2 accountability meetings
in Year 4
5.1.1.4 Constraints to Achieving Project Objectives
While the majority of the project outputs were accomplished with minimal changes to the proposed 
delivery or workplan, the following outputs experienced delays:
Translation of Agricultural Policies: The project planned to translate three policies deemed to be 
most useful for local leaders into an accessible format, including less technical jargon and printed 
in Kinyarwanda. RDO, through consultation with local leaders and CSOs, identified policies during 
the first year of project implementation which included the Irrigation Policy, Land Use and 
Consolidation Policy and the Seed and Fertilizer Distribution Policy. In Year 2, the Irrigation Policy, 
Seed Policy and Fertilizer Policies were translated and submitted to MINAGRI for approval. 
However, due to the adoption the PSTA 4 a number of agricultural policies needed to be reviewed 
for alignment with the new agricultural sector strategic plan. Therefore, only the translation of the 
Seed Policy was approved and MINAGRI proposed translation of the Livestock Policy and the 
MINAGRI Citizen’s Charter as replacements. The project finally settled on the translation of the 
MINAGRI Citizen’s Charter and the Small-Scale Irrigation Policy which is still under review and 
awaiting approval. 
5.2.2 Adequacy of Planned Resources 
As the EPGA project was an advocacy project, the project resources primarily consisted of trainings, 
meetings, and the development of information pieces including training manuals, policy 
documents, information booklets and posters. In the case of the information booklets, it was noted 
54
that the original quantity printed was insufficient to meet the demand and a surplus in the budget 
was able to cover additional printing of the materials. 
5.2.3 Delivery of Project Funds and Activities
While asked about timeliness of project activities, beneficiaries all noted that they were well 
informed of the timetable for activities in advance and that when changes occurred, they were 
informed in advance. In addition, they appreciated that project staff respected their time and 
attended meetings and trainings on time. Project staff also noted that they were able to implement 
activities as planned, except on occasion when meetings were delayed due to last minute 
commitments by government officials. 
When planned resources were deem inadequate, surplus funding was used to address these 
needs, such as in the case of booklets on rights and responsibilities of citizens. The project initially 
printed 5,000, but increased printing to include an additional 20,000 copies. 
Trócaire and implementing partners noted that funds were, with few exceptions, distributed on 
time to meet the project needs. The distribution of funds to project partners improved with the 
adoption of mobile payments as it made reconciliation of funds dispersed to beneficiaries easier 
to document. 
55
5.3 Effectiveness
5.3.1 Effectiveness of Project Management Arrangements
The EPGA project was designed in coordination and collaboration with the implementing partners, 
with each organization agreeing to their roles and responsibilities at the project design phase. As 
a result, partners reported being aware of their roles and responsibilities for project 
implementation. Steering committee meetings were conducted on a quarterly basis, during which 
time roles and responsibilities were further clarified. These roles and responsibilities included
opportunities for implementing partners to take on management of specific project components. 
Project implementation was monitored through quarterly steering committee meetings. Steering 
committee meetings were noted to be democratic in that each partner took turns hosting and 
chairing the meeting. One implementing partner appreciated that this approach ensured that 
Trócaire management could be questioned and be held accountable. In addition, implementing 
partners submitted monthly financial reports and quarterly narrative and financial reports coupled 
with quarterly visits by the program accountant to review the financial reports with clear 
recommendations on improvements to internal controls made and eligibility of costs. Trócaire also 
developed a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan in August 2018 that specified internal roles for 
monitoring and reporting on project implementation. 
Technical components of the project were addressed during quarterly technical meetings, field 
visits and ad hoc meetings as required. Trócaire and implementing partners also noted that the 
project made regular use of email, phone calls and WhatsApp to share project information. In 
addition, Trócaire organized a study visit to Malawi for program staff and implementing partners 
during the third year of the project, in March 2019, with the objective of sharing experiences, 
particularly on CSO involvement in participatory governance, creating alliances to optimize 
advocacy efforts and methods to engage communities, particularly women and youth, in policy and 
budget implementation and monitoring.
Capacity building is a central element of Trócaire’s approach to working with implementing
partners. Trócaire, through their Partner Capacity Assessment and Support framework, provided 
on-going organizational capacity building support to each partner based on assessment findings. 
In addition, Trócaire offered a range of specific trainings for implementing partners throughout the 
duration of the project, including:
Organizational Capacity:
• USAID Regulations
• Rwandan Tax Law
• Disaster Risk Reduction
• Training on Sage Accounting Software
• Supply Chain and Logistics
• Website Design and Maintenance
• Risk Management and Updating/Development of Procurement Policies
Project Management Capacity:
• Results Based Management
• Integrated Water and Resource Management and Climate Change Adaptation
• Writing Proposals, Reports and Success Stories
• Advocacy Using Trócaire’s Citizen Advocacy and Monitoring Framework
• 10 Principals of Social Norms Change
Findings from interviews with implementing partners indicate varying levels of administrative and 
technical support received by Trócaire project management. One partner reported a very conducive 
working relationship with Trócaire program management and noted that Trócaire was always 
56
available to meet. They specifically highlighted technical support provided by Trócaire in the 
preparation of policy dialogues as they did not have previous experience in organizing high-level 
national meetings. Trócaire and the implementing partner formed a joint team to organize the 
meetings and support engagement of development partners. 
While they noted receiving appropriate technical support, project funds and materials on time, 
some reported less satisfaction with the support received by Trócaire project management. They 
specifically highlighted a lack of coordination between implementing partners in the development 
of project action plans and timelines to ensure uniform implementation of activities across the 
project districts. However, Trócaire addressed this by improving coordination through quarterly 
review meetings and field visits with implementing partners during the second half of the project. 
In addition, some implementing partner staff reported a lack of Trócaire involvement in activities, 
including monitoring project implementation at the level of beneficiaries. As Trócaire is not an 
implementing agency, this finding may reflect a lack of understanding of Trócaire’s role on behalf 
of implementing partner staff. Field visit reports demonstrate Trócaire staff regularly visited 
implementing partners in the field and provided support to address challenges surrounding 
program implementation as well as organizational capacity as identified through partner capacity 
assessments.
5.3.2 Stakeholder Involvement and Project Ownership 
While there was no formal mechanisms to engage beneficiaries in the design of the project, the
implementing partners had significant experience working with rural communities in agriculture 
and were aware of needs, particularly in the area of participation. The design of the project was in 
collaboration with the implementing partners to utilize their knowledge of the proposed 
beneficiaries. Once the project was approved, the project engaged with stakeholders to explain the 
project and verify project components. 
Stakeholders reported that the EPGA project staff were very responsive to their needs. During 
interviews, SEDOs, sector agronomists and district agronomists all stated that the EPGA project 
sought their input into the design of the project, from the selection of the beneficiaries to project 
components. All CSO members interviewed also noted that they were consulted in the 
implementation of the project and that their experiences and knowledge of the beneficiaries was 
respected by the project. 
FGDs and interviews with Women and Youth beneficiaries indicate that they felt that they were 
able to contribute to the EPGA project. However, findings also suggest that they attribute the 
positive changes in agricultural support received to the EPGA project rather than attributing it to 
their own advocacy at the level of the Community Committees. 
There is also some indication of community ownership over the project as evidenced by project 
beneficiaries developing their own initiatives including forming savings groups as a component of 
the Community Committees and planting of kitchen gardens. One field officer noted that through 
their participation in the EPGA project, they began to identify solutions to their own problems. 
57
5.4 Impact
5.4.1 Intended and Unintended Impact
Increased Awareness of Rights and Roles: Beneficiaries reported that trainings on roles and 
responsibilities coupled with community meetings and posters effectively increased their
understanding of and participation in the implementation and monitoring of agriculture policies 
and budgets.
“I participated in the 2017 training on our roles and responsibilities for agricultural and budget 
monitoring, where we learned that the budget was found in the government gazette. I learned to 
follow up and we now have a facilitator in the sector level who follows it and shares information 
during sector meetings about what the budget is going to do for us.”–Female Beneficiary, Gakenke 
District 
 
With an awareness of their rights, the majority of respondents also reported a significant increase 
in the confidence of rural people and farmers to share their priorities with local government officials 
and hold them accountable. 
“Now if a citizen has ordered seeds or fertilizers and it is too late to come, he himself asks and 
finds out where it is and knows why he didn’t get it on time.”–SEDO, Nyaruguru District
“We didn’t know before that we had to be involved in budget preparation and our role in controlling 
its use, we thought it was just for leaders. Knowing this helped me to have the courage to comment 
and share my ideas at village meetings. We dare to talk about what’s going wrong”—Female 
Beneficiary, Nyanza District
“There was a leaflet that had someone asking an agronomist when they may get fertilizers. This 
gave me courage to ask the agronomist why my passion fruit was not growing well, and the 
agronomist helped me to get pesticides. I used to be afraid of asking but now I know that is what 
the leaders are there for.” –Male Youth Beneficiary, Nyanza District
 
Increased Voice in Agricultural Policy Decisions: Evaluation findings suggest that rural people do 
have a greater voice in agricultural policy decisions, particularly around implementation of existing 
policies, as a result of the project interventions. As reported in section 5.1, 81% of beneficiaries 
surveyed reported that they feel that local authorities respond to their expressed priorities with 
84% being able to list at least one example of how authorities have responded to their priorities 
within the preceding 12 months. Prior to the start of the project, only 57% of those surveyed 
reported that local authorities responded to their expressed priorities.29 Interviews and FGDs with 
beneficiaries and implementing partners also highlight that there is greater collaboration and 
sharing of issues between individual farmers and local leaders through the Community 
Committees or “VACs.”30 The evaluation also found that information sharing is bi-directional with 
farmer’s priorities and needs being shared with local leaders and the response by local leaders 
shared with farmers.
“Before this project came about, we felt that the farmer was worthless . . . Farmers are now valued 
and at all village meetings, they do not end the meetings without mentioning agricultural 
policies.”—Female Beneficiary, Gakenke District
29 Trócaire (2017) Baseline survey for “Enhancing participatory governance and accountability” project 30 Due to the interchangeable use of VAC and Community Committee, it is impossible to determine if beneficiaries are
referring to the government sponsored VAC or the project sponsored Communities Committees.
58
“We attend village agriculture committee meetings, and that’s where the agricultural budget is 
being prepared and when we give ideas based on our needs. They will prepare this budget based 
on our ideas. This showed us that our participation is valued which further increases our 
participation.”—Male Youth Beneficiary, Nyanza District
 
“Sometimes we attend meetings and you find that a citizen is asking about budget monitoring or 
why the fertilizers quantity has been reduced. This shows that they have started to engage in 
budget policy.”—CSO member, Gakenke District
 
Policy Decisions: Rural farmers in the project catchment area directly impacted changes in national 
government level policy implementation as a result of the project. This was achieved through the 
national policy papers and the two national agricultural policy dialogue meetings organized by RDO. 
Policy papers used the data collected by Community Committees through the SurveyCTO and 
verified through FGDs with beneficiaries and interviews with local leaders to identify agricultural 
policy issues that could not be addressed by local government institutions. Policy decisions
mentioned during the final evaluation that were based on direct feedback from beneficiaries 
included the following:
• Timely access to improved seeds and inputs (2018 national dialogue) through decentralization
of the responsibility from RAB to the Districts.
• Lime subsidies (2019 national dialogue) and mobile soil testing units (2018 national dialogue)
to ensure soil fertility.
• Increased availability of agro-dealers in rural areas in order to increase access to agricultural
inputs (2019 national dialogue).
Agricultural Production: Some beneficiaries noted that their increased engagement in advocacy for 
agricultural policies has had a direct impact on their agricultural production. This is attributed to 
timely access to improved seeds and other inputs, such as fertilizers and pesticides as well as the 
confidence to approach sector and district level agronomists for support when needed.
“Before we lacked seeds and fertilizers and, at that time, we thought that no one else would listen 
to us and we kept quiet. After the training, we realized that we have a say. Now, we have village 
agricultural committees and agronomists. They use villages meetings where everyone has the right 
to speak to get our feedback and address the issues we have. We now get seeds and fertilizers on 
time, which increases productivity. Where we used to harvest 10kgs of corn, we now harvest 1 
ton. –Female Beneficiary, Nyanza District 
My attitude has changed a lot because we are starting to implement agricultural policies that we 
see as different from the way we used to cultivate. We have become more knowledgeable through 
trainings, village meetings with the agronomist and visits from agricultural extension agents. All of 
these encourage us to implement agricultural policies and anyone who has a problem would be 
given a chance to ask what he or she doesn’t understand. Also, when you put things in practice 
and you see that the more productivity, you keep doing it and it even helps you become even more 
knowledgeable. –Female Beneficiary, Gakenke District 
Youth: Findings from both the survey and qualitative data collection show that youth feel that they 
can meaningfully participate in agricultural policy decision making. Findings from the survey, 
highlight an increase confidence in their participation in their role in the development of 
agricultural policy (88% female and 95% male) and their role in monitoring budgets (62% female 
and 86% male). While the final evaluation findings did not highlight any unintended impact on 
youth participants, findings from the Lessons Learnt report show that some youth farmers reported 
finding ways to make money through agriculture and that youth are more interested in income￾based agricultural work as compared to subsistence after attending trainings that focused 
59
particularly on the increasing demands for mechanization, a connection to the outside world, and 
evidence that agriculture can be a profitable. The findings also noted that citizens and village 
leaders noted the positive work and involvement of the youth, their lack of fear and admirable self 
confidence in speaking with local officials and in holding duty bearers to account.31
“While we used to feel that these are government programs, so we treated them as if they didn’t 
concern us, but today we know it is our program that is being done for us.” –Male Youth, Nyaruguru
“Before the EPGA project started, it was difficult to comment on something during the meetings 
because we were afraid of our leaders. But the project showed us that they really need our 
feedback. This built our confidence and gave us courage to ask for what we want.” –Female Youth, 
Nyanza
Sustainable Community Committees: Community Committees are an accessible entry point for 
community members to collectively advocate for their agricultural needs. While it was unintended 
by the program, many committees, encouraged by project field officers, set up savings groups to 
support the purchase of agricultural inputs in order to ensure their sustainability as a community 
structure. In addition, Community Committee members also became a resource for their local 
communities, adopting and providing information on improved agricultural methods. 
Civil Society Capacity: Civil society organizations reported an increased understanding of the need 
for citizens to engage in agricultural policy and budgets. Some CSOs also reported that the EPGA 
project has supported their own work with community members by increasing their awareness of 
agricultural policies and the use of improved agricultural methods. In addition, the project
contributed to evidence based advocacy with the development of issues papers leading up to the 
national policy dialogue meetings as well as research conducted on women in agriculture.
“We work as partners, and some beneficiaries in this project are also our beneficiaries. So, you 
find that it has simplified our work, if my duty is to work on women’s empowerment and she has 
already been trained in budget advocacy or participation, you will find that me telling her about 
savings will not be difficult”— CSO Member, Gakenke District 
As a Civil Society organization and implementing partner, RDO reported a significant change in 
their capacity to advocate at the national level through development of policy papers and 
organizing policy dialogue meetings. 
Responsive Local Government: As a result of the EPGA project, local government institutions 
reported that they now recognize the importance of citizens advocating for their needs and now 
rely on farmers and communities to do so in order to improve their own work. 
“In terms of agricultural policy and agricultural budgets before the project we used methods called 
‘Top downing planning’ where we used to say, ‘the district has prepared this, now the community 
is supposed to follow this’ and then you find that the community doesn't want to implement it and 
activities are unused. Now we see that the district should consider first and ask the community 
what they feel is most important and we do it through budgeting consultation where we go to listen 
to the public’s opinion before preparing the budget. We ask the community: ‘what do you need 
most in next year’s budget in maize farming’ and they say, ‘We need a dryer.’ When I prepare the 
agricultural budget, I consider their opinion. The project helped farmers to feel they needed to 
raise their voices to meet their needs but also helped us to change our mindset and make us feel 
that we have to work with the community.” —Agronomist, Nyanza District
31RDO (2020) Enhancing Participatory Governance and Accountability Project: Lessons Learnt and Best Practice
60
“Now that people can advocate for themselves, it has become very easy for us because sometimes 
you can find they are problems or issues which public employees can't just address to the 
authorities due to fear of losing our job. But now that people are aware that they have to speak for 
themselves they rise their problems during meetings. We thank this project a lot because it 
became as a channel between local leaders and people. Before it was very difficult for people to 
come to our offices due to fearing us, feeling that we are superior to them. But, because of this 
project, we now work hand in hand.”—Sector Agronomist, Nyaruguru District
5.4.2 Use of Technology
The use of technology in the EPGA project included payment of incentives via mobile money 
platforms and the use of mobile data collection (MDC). 
 
E-payments: Mobile money platforms were used for the transfer of incentives to beneficiaries. 
These platforms are already well developed and in wide-spread use throughout Rwanda. One 
implementing partner noted that the move to mobile money to transfer incentives to beneficiaries 
improved their financial reporting as account managers could easily track all payments made. Prior 
to implementing this system, the implementing partner noted difficulties in obtaining approval of 
financial reports, delaying the subsequent release of funds from Trócaire. 
Mobile Data Collection: MDC was rolled out in August 2018, through distribution of smartphones 
installed with SurveyCTO software for recording and sharing of priorities by Community Committees 
with implementing partners and Trócaire. Smartphones with the installed software were distributed 
to 63 leaders of the Community Committees with the expectation that they would complete 
monthly reports highlighting issues and priorities around sustainable agriculture. Prior to the 
distribution of the smartphones, Community Committees completed monthly handwritten reports 
for submission to the project’s implementing partners. Community Committee members and 
implementing partners surveyed reported that this required significant time and resources in both 
the preparation of the report and transportation of the report to the implementing partner.
With the introduction of the MDC platform, Community Committee members and implementing 
partners received a one-day training on the use of the SurveyCTO software. The SurveyCTO form 
captured information on a monthly basis based upon priorities and challenges identified during 
monthly community meetings at the village level. Beneficiaries reported ease of data entry as much 
of the data was pre-entered for selection from drop-down lists. Information collected on a monthly 
basis included location information on who submitted the data, date of submission, key highlights 
from the month and responses to the following questions:
Did you participate in any advocacy issues during the reporting period?
List of advocacy issues
To which authority were advocacy issues raised?
What was the outcome of advocacy?
Number of meetings organized during the reporting period related to agriculture
Who organized meetings on agriculture during the reporting period?
Agricultural issues raised during the reporting period-selected from a list of options
Data was analyzed monthly by Trócaire for both accuracy of data entry and to highlight advocacy 
needs and shared with implementing partners. Implementing partners reported that a one-day 
training was insufficient and that they lacked capacity to analyze the data themselves. 
Community Committees and implementing partners surveyed all reported satisfaction with the use 
of MDC for submission of monthly reports. As previously noted, Community Committees and 
implementing partners both highlighted ease of use and submission of monthly reports and
implementing partners and Trócaire highlighted the real-time access to community level 
agricultural advocacy issues. Challenges raised by surveyed beneficiaries included reports that the 
61
training was not sufficient for them to fully understand how to use the software or troubleshoot 
problems encountered. Implementing partners also noted that they needed to provide in-person 
technical support to Community Committee members, including re-installation of software. 
Community Committee members also reported challenges associated with poor network and 
unavailability of electricity to charge the smartphone. 
5.4.2.1 How did the use of technology enable the project to achieve intended results?
Analysis of data collected from Community Committees was used by implementing partners and 
Trócaire to determine the advocacy issues raised at the community level that could not be 
addressed by local government institutions. Key issues identified were then compiled and 
addressed in policy papers and in the two national dialogue meetings organized by RDO and 
Trócaire. 
The ability to report in real-time and the observable outcomes from the national dialogue meetings 
supported the projects intended objective of promoting effective participation of citizens in the 
development, implementation and monitoring of agricultural policy to ensure that the priorities of 
vulnerable people are responded to. During interviews, some Community Committee members 
noted that when they submitted paper-based reports, they were not sure who would read them, 
but with MDC they knew that their priorities were being seen by more than just the project field 
officer. 
5.4.2.2 What have been the intended and unintended use of technology by the target population?
Findings from FGDs and interviews with Community Committee members, implementing partners 
and Trócaire staff show that the smartphones installed with the SurveyCTO software were primarily 
used as intended to share information collected through monthly community meetings with project 
staff. However, the smartphones were also used to create a WhatsApp group for Community 
Committee members to share information between sectors and districts. This unintended use was 
mentioned in two interviews in different districts.
62
5.5 Sustainability 
5.4.1 Sustainability of Project Interventions
Citizen Engagement: One of the successes of the project is the increase in citizen engagement and 
advocacy in agricultural policy. With the knowledge of their rights and responsibilities, rural people 
will continue to hold local authorities accountable and engage with local agronomists for support. 
However, as previously noted, the majority of engagement takes place at the Community 
Committee therefore, continued engagement at levels seen during the life of the project may be 
dependent upon the continuation of the Community Committees. In addition, beneficiaries 
primarily advocated for better implementation of existing policies, including timely distribution of 
inputs, rather than changing existing policies to better meet the needs of rural farmers. 
Community Committees: Community committee members and project staff are confident that the 
Community Committees will continue to function as a village level organization, even in the 
absence of the project as they have cemented a role for themselves in supporting engagement of 
rural farmers in agricultural policy implementation. In addition, while meetings may not take place 
monthly as during the project implementation, project staff noted that the savings groups 
organized by Community Committee will continue, which will continue to bring the members 
together on a regular basis. 
“Our role didn't change because we are still doing our responsibilities. People in our community 
ask us why is EPGA not giving us more trainings yet. But the project gave us enough trainings 
which we shall continue to practice even if it comes to an end.” –Female Community Committee 
Member, Nyanza District
“I think the lasting effects of the EPGA project will be the community engagement and savings. 
The fact that the community works together and saves and sees that is what benefits them the 
most and will keep doing it. Now that the public knows that while saving it will never run out of 
seeds during planting, this gives hope that the community will continue to do so even when the 
project is over.”—Sector Agronomist, Nyanza District
Use of MDC: During the last quarter of the project, Trócaire changed the MDC software to 
CommCare, with whom Trócaire has a global contract to ensure that data collection will continue 
beyond project completion and it is expected that Community Committees will remain with the 
smart phones installed with the CommCare software. In addition, Community Committee members 
were tasked with developing plans for how they continue to provide for phone credit, which 
included the development of savings groups. While the Committee members reported that the 
project has not communicated with them post-project expectations for continued reporting, the 
majority of those interviewed responded that they will continue to collect data and submit reports
to the implementing partners after the end of the project. However, there are notable constraints:
• Use and Analysis of Data: It is not clear to what extent this information will be used given
that the implementing partners report lacking the capacity to analyze the data. While some
suggested that sector and district government also receive the reports, they will also lack
the capacity to analyze and use the data collected. As implementing partners will remain
working in the project districts, they can presumably continue to use the data however, it
will unlikely be compiled and shared at the national level as during the life of the project. 
• Troubleshooting: As noted by project staff, the use of software requires regular updates
and troubleshooting, which was managed by implementing partner staff during the life of
the project.
• Use of Phones. In addition, there is no plan for phone replacement as smartphones if lost
or no longer working as smartphones have a limited lifespan.
Local and National-level Engagement: Building the capacity of local leaders to support citizens in 
identifying agricultural priorities and implementation has successfully increased engagement 
between citizens and their local leaders. As noted, citizens have more confidence to engage local 
63
leaders and local leaders understand the benefit of this engagement. However, as there is high 
turnover in government leadership at all levels, maintaining government institutions that support 
citizen engagement, will require continued training and advocacy. 
Another successful component of the project was the formation of policy papers and engagement 
of national-level leaders to address agricultural policy issues raised at the community level. With 
the training of local sector and district leaders through the project coupled with an increasingly 
engaged rural constituents, local government will likely continue to engage with and respond to 
the needs of local farmers to their ability. However, in the absence of an external actor analyzing 
the unmet needs, summarizing into policy documents and organizing meetings for advocating for 
policy changes at the national level, the extent to which unmet needs at the local level will reach 
national-level decision-makers is less likely.
5.4.2 Institutional Sustainability 
Trócaire’s partnership approach highlights capacity building of implementing partners as 
demonstrated through provision of regular training opportunities as well as the Partner Capacity 
Assessment and Support Framework whereby organizations were assessed and provided with 
support tailored to their individual needs in both project management and organizational 
management. Findings from key informant interviews with implementing partners highlight the 
institutional support provided by Trócaire during the life of the project and given the financial 
resources, it is feasible to expect partners to be able to continue to engage with communities on 
agricultural policy and advocacy. Implementing partners have already indicated that they will 
continue to follow-up on specific policies relevant to their communities. In addition, RDO, through 
support from Trócaire and various consultants, reported having the capacity to continue 
developing policy paper and engaging with national and international level stakeholders to carry 
out agricultural dialogues in the future. 
64
6. Conclusions and Lessons Learned
Findings from the final evaluation highlight that the project contributed to a visible increase in 
engagement of citizens in advocacy on agricultural policy, principally focused on the 
implementation of agricultural policies rather than advocating for the development of new policies. 
End values for impact and outcome level indicators illustrate an increase in citizen satisfaction and 
confidence with the role that they play in the implementation of and the monitoring of 
implementation and budgets for agricultural policies. While actual monitoring of agricultural 
budgets is beyond the capacity of the majority of participants, they now understand that they have 
a right to participate in the monitoring of how the budgets are spent and are requesting for further 
capacity building in order to actively engage.
The project’s success lies in educating citizens on their rights to participate in the agricultural policy 
dialogue, developing a forum for their advocacy on a local level through the establishment of 
Community Committees, developing a receptive local leadership through awareness of 
participatory governance and creating opportunities for advocacy to take place at district and
national levels. In addition, the use of MDC to capture advocacy needs and outcomes ensured that 
the project could identify needs that were not able to be resolved at a local level and bring them 
to a national audience. As a result, problems related to implementation of policies, such as timely 
access to improved seeds and fertilizers, were addressed at the national level, the impact of which 
can be seen at the level of the farmers who are now reporting greater yields. 
Lessons learned: Specific lessons learned are noted below and are intended to complement the 
lessons learned highlighted in the Enhancing Participatory Governance and Accountability Project: 
Lessons Learnt and Best Practice report commissioned by RDO in April 2020. 
• Outcomes from advocacy activities, particularly at the national level, take time to be realized.
Projects need to ensure adequate time commitment for beneficiaries to see the results of their
advocacy work and even when an advocacy project is targeted to a few sectors, the impact is far
reaching as citizens located outside of the project catchment area will also benefit from improved
policy implementation. 
• When working with low-literate, rural populations, low literacy materials are effective for both
sharing information directly with citizens and providing those who work with rural citizens,
including local government and CSOs, effective tools for sharing information.
• It is important to define the extent to which a project expects participants, both citizens and CSOs,
to engage in monitoring of budgets. In a context where many people lack basic literacy skills, it is
not feasible to expect that they would have the numeracy or financial literacy skills to participate
in budget monitoring. In addition, many local leaders themselves lack the capacity to
meaningfully participate in budget monitoring32 or access to the budgets.
• Understanding the rights of citizen participation in governance is necessary, but in order for
successful engagement with citizens to take place, local government actors need to realize the
benefits of participatory governance and the added value of citizen contributions to agricultural
policy decision making.
• Farmers want to be seen as full participants in decision-making processes, not just as
beneficiaries of government programs and there is a need for the focus of policy making to shift
from a top down policy development approach to a participatory approach that engages and
enables farmers to make and shape the policies that affect them.33
• Mobile Data Collection is an effective and efficient mechanism for sharing local needs and
priorities with project staff. However, with the adoption of any new technology, it takes time to
ensure that community members understand how to manage the technology and for those
responsible for collecting the data to develop the skills to be able to analyze and effectively use
the data.
32 Never Again Rwanda (2019) Local Government Imihigo Process: Understanding the factors contributing to low
citizen participation 33 RDO (2020) Enhancing Participatory Governance and Accountability Project: Lessons Learnt and Best Practice
65
7. Recommendations
The following programmatic recommendations are based on analysis of the findings from survey 
respondents, FGDs and interviews with beneficiaries and key informants. The operational
recommendations are based on an analysis of program documents as well as key informant 
interviews.
7.1 Programmatic Recommendations 
General Recommendations 
• The use of the radio to share messages should be analyzed to ensure that it is the appropriate
medium to reach the target population, particularly women. At the project design, beneficiaries
should be consulted to determine media types (radio, social media, print), sources (Radio
Rwanda, etc.) and timing (time of day, day of the week) used to access educational information
in order to design interventions that reach the target population. After programs or broadcasts
air, small-sample surveys should be conducted to determine if multi-media components are
reaching the target population and if the messaging was understood or if adjustments to
approach need to be made.
• With low literacy rates amongst the target population (27% of the adult population in Rwanda is
illiterate, 31% of women and 22% of men)34 low literacy materials developed by the EPGA project
were the most appreciated by citizens, CSOs and local governments. Given the delays
encountered with translating official agricultural policies, consider developing low-literacy policy
briefs for distribution and display. This would also expand the number of policies that the project
can address.
• As participants noted that the timing of trainings was not sufficient given the material to be
covered and that many of the topics were too novel or complex to be understood within the
context of a single training event, trainings should be organized into modules and be carried out
through the life of the project, occurring in coordination with events where learning can be
demonstrated. Modules should build upon each other, first introducing the participatory
governance as a right and benefits of citizen participation in agricultural policy. This would be
followed by modules covering the different levels of participation, from policy implementation,
monitoring and budgets. The content should be flexible to address specific policies of interest to
the participants and facilitators should be knowledgeable in the subject and sufficiently flexible
to be able to address participant interests and needs.
• As low-literacy and low numeracy rates make understanding budgets difficult, more time should
be devoted to this topic. In addition, beneficiaries need opportunities to see and comment on
budgets. A key area to focus on is to further develop CSO capacity in budgets in order to ensure
CSOs are able to skillfully translate key budget components into easy to digest information to
support citizen participation while also involving citizens in their own budget analysis processes.
Policy Environment 
• In order to shift rural citizen participation from passive recipients of policies into fully engaged
participants in decision-making processes, the government should be encouraged to shift the
focus of policy making from the development of policy products via a top down approach, to a
more collaborative, participatory approach that engages with CSOs and those citizens most
affected in the identification and formulation of agricultural related policies.35
Youth Engagement 
• As agreed upon during the National Policy Dialogue meeting in December 201936, the role of
youth in development projects should be reflected in the activities, not just in number or percent
of participants. Youth have different agricultural priorities and needs, specifically around
agriculture for income generation, including mechanization and access to markets, and projects
34 UNESCO Rwanda Country Statistics http://uis.unesco.org/en/country/rw 35 RDO (April 2020) Lessons Learned and Best Practices Report 36 Trócaire (2019) Key Recommendations from the National Policy Dialogue on Agriculture Conducted on December
6th
66
activities should be designed to specifically address these unique needs at the design phase
including incorporating information on existing relevant policies in trainings and project media,
as well as supporting the implementation of the PSTA 4 by engaging local government institutions
to develop linkages between youth and private sector opportunities including internships and
trainings.37
• Youth have higher rates of literacy (84% for male youth and 89% for female youth)38 and more
readily adopt new technology, therefore, communication mediums to reach youth may be
different as compared to adults. At project design, youth beneficiaries should be consulted to
determine types of medium best for transmitting information and confirm access to the
appropriate technology.
 
Engagement of Women 
• As highlighted in the Lessons Learnt report commissioned by RDO39, women’s participation in
projects is often limited by societal constraints, including deep-rooted socio-cultural norms and
practices that put women and girls in a much lower position relative to men and boys. Women
are more likely to engage in unpaid care work, spending an average of 25.3 hours per week on
unpaid care as compared to 13.5 hours for men. In addition, 84.7% of women in Rwanda depend
on firewood as their mains source of cooking energy, for which women and children are primarily
responsible for procuring.40 Many women are operating on a time deficit, leaving little time for
engagement in external activities such as advocacy. Therefore, to increase engagement of
women in advocacy projects, there first must be increase in self-esteem and resilience as well as
awareness of equitable distribution of workloads through trainings for both men and women and
social mobilization. Policy and advocacy training and educational materials should emphasize
the role of women in agriculture and the significance of their experience in formulating advocacy
messages.
• Women are less likely to have access to resources, such as radios, and have lower literacy (69%
for women compared to 78% for men)41 and ICT literacy rates (7% for women as compared to
11% for men of the same age)42 as compared to men and have less time available to engage
with educational resources. Therefore, projects should include an analysis on how to best to
reach women with project messaging recognizing that media or ICT may not be the most effective,
rather inter-personal interactions through project identified agents of change, such a Community
Committee members, may be required.
Community Committees
• The formation of Community Committees has created a local space for rural farmers, particularly
women, to share their priorities for agricultural policy and has been key to the overall success of
the project. While the project has put mechanisms in place to sustain these groups beyond the
project end date by challenging Committees to discuss and develop plans, it is unclear the extent
to which or in what capacity these groups will continue to function beyond the life of the project
without continued support and feedback provided through the project. In order to maintain these
groups as a key source of information on community level needs and priorities as well as improve
evidence-based decision making by CSOs, the project should consider formally linking
Community Committees to other local CSOs. In addition, the project should advocate for formal
recognition of Community Committees and/or integration into the Village Agricultural Committee
within the Twigire Muhinzi extension model.
CSO Capacity and Engagement 
• CSO capacity building is necessary for the sustainability of project interventions, as CSOs have a
wider geographic coverage beyond the village level and are able to identify issues that go beyond
37 MINAGRI (June 2018) Strategic Plan for Agriculture Transformation 20018-24 38 UNESCO Rwanda Country Statistics http://uis.unesco.org/en/country/rw 39RDO (April 2020) Lessons Learned and Best Practices Report 40 Republic of Rwanda (May 2019) Beijing +25 Rwanda Country Report 41 UNESCO Rwanda Country Statistics http://uis.unesco.org/en/country/rw 42 Republic of Rwanda (May 2019) Beijing +25 Rwanda Country Report
67
local cell or sector. CSOs also have greater access to higher level government institutions and
forums, such as JADF, for their advocacy. However, in order for CSOs to be able to fulfill this role,
they require further capacity development. This includes additional support in understanding
relevant agricultural policies, including budgets, developing evidenced based advocacy
messages and have the opportunity to engage with other CSOs for joint advocacy. CSOs should
also be supported to initiate forums for advocacy and information exchange between citizens
and government at district level to ensure that opportunities for advocacy remain beyond the life
of the project. 
• A plan should be put in place to monitor the policy issues raised during the national policy
dialogue that have not yet been addressed or that have only been partially addressed. The plan
should include who will be responsible for monitoring and follow-up and to whom information
should be communicated. As implementing partners will continue to engage with the
beneficiaries in the project coverage area upon project completion, their participation in
monitoring implementation should be encouraged.
Local Government Engagement 
• Understanding of participatory governance was a key component of the success of the project.
However, with turnover in local government, support and training for local government
engagement with citizens will need to be on-going for sustained citizen participation in
agricultural policy decision making. In addition, as there is a financial and logistical cost
associated with bringing people together in formal exchange meetings, the project should
advocate for time to be formally designated within existing meeting structures for government
officials to engage with citizens on agricultural issues.
Mobile Data Collection 
• Implementing partners noted that the training in the use of the smartphones and MDC software
was insufficient to build their capacity to conduct data analysis on their own. Supporting
implementing partners in data analysis should be integrated into monitoring visits to build
capacity of partners to continue using and analyzing community-based data. In order to minimize
loss of capacity due to staff turnover, multiple staff members should be trained and supported
throughout the project. In addition, to foster collective advocacy amongst CSOs as well as develop
the skills for effective use of evidence when developing advocacy messages, MDC findings should
be shared broadly amongst CSOs and CSOs should be provided technical skills in simple data
analysis.
• Develop a handover plan for the use of MDC once the project ends to share with implementing
partners, Community Committee members and other stakeholders. The handover plan should
include the frequency of reporting, who will be responsible for receiving and analyzing the data
and a plan for how the data will be used and disseminated.
7.2 Operational Recommendations 
• At project design, define indicators and how they will be measured to ensure feasibility and
reliability of reporting against the proposed indicators. Consider rapid surveys and other forms of
engagement with proposed project beneficiaries in order to ensure a community engagement at
the very beginning and to inform decisions surrounding the best manner in reaching youth and
women especially.
• Use consistent terminology in communication pieces. The project used the term Village
Agricultural Committee (VAC), a local official structure of the Twigire Muhinzi extension model,
interchangeably with the Community Committee developed as a component of the project.
• Develop a centralized database to track beneficiaries, record services provided and monitor the
policy priorities and needs raised by community members, the level (cell, sector, district or
national) where advocacy took place and the outcome of the advocacy. As noted in the Lessons
Learnt document, farmers had influence at many levels of government, with each serving a
different purpose and requiring a different way for farmers to have influence. The policy database
would assist the project staff in tracking advocacy activities as well as analyze the types of
68
decisions made at each government level to support citizens and CSOs better plan for future
advocacy activities.
• As both SurveyCTO and CommCare are paid services, future projects should look to use free
software for MDC such as KoBO Toolbox43. Use of free software will enable implementing partners
to continue collecting data beyond the life of the project, without continued Trócaire support, as
well as develop skills in low-cost MDC.
• At project close, ensure that all relevant documents are uploaded to USAID Development
Experience Clearing House
43 https://www.kobotoolbox.org/ KoBoToolbox is a suite of tools for field data collection for use in challenging
environments. The software is free and open source. Most users are people working in humanitarian crises, as well as
aid professionals and researchers working in developing countries. Kobo developers are based around the world
monitor the functionality of the software and are available for trouble shooting
69
8. Annexes
Annex 1: Evaluation TOR
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
Annex 2: Data Collection Tools
Annex 2.1: Beneficiary Survey
Section 1: Enumerator Identification
1.1 Form/Participant ID (note: this is assigned by the evaluation team)
1.2 Name of Enumerator
1.3 Date
1.4 District Gakenke Rulindo Nyanza Nyamagabe Nyarguru
1.5 Sector Janja Base Nyagisozi Gatare Kivu
Mataba Cyungo Rwabicuma Kitabi Mata
Mainazi Rukozo Uwinkingi Ruramba
Section 2: Respondent Socio-Economic Profile
2.1 Category of respondent:
Individual farmer Trader Processor Agro-dealer Other (specify)
2.2 Age
18-25 years 26-30 years 36-40 years 41-45 years 46-50 years Above 50 years
2.3 Gender
Female Male
2.4 Disability
None Physical Visual Hearing Other (specify)
2.5 Marital status
Single Married Divorced Separated Widowed
2.6 Household size (if 1, respondent lives alone)
1 to 2 3 to 4 5 to 6 7 or more
2.7 Other income generating activities
None Employed 
(specify)
Self-employed 
(specify)
Retired Other (specify)
2.8 Leadership positions held (currently or in the past)
None Government Church Women Youth Cooperative
Other (specify)
Section 3: EPGA Project Awareness
3.1
Yes No
3.2
No Yes, I have seen them, but I have not read them Yes, I have read them
3.3
No Yes, I have seen them, but I have not read them Yes, I have read them
3.4
No
Once or twice
I listen sometimes
I listen sometimes and I have called in or sent a WhatsApp message
I listen regularly 
I listen regularly and I have called in or sent a WhatsApp message 
Are you aware of the EPGA (Enhancing Participatory Governance and Accountability) project? 
Have you seen posters in your community on “Itegurwa ry’ingengo y’imari y’Akarere, uburenganzira bwawe, uruhare 
rwawe mu iterambere ry’igihugu” (district budget planning, your right and civic responsibility in National 
development)?
Have you ever seen or read posters in your community on “Ingengo y’imari yagenewe ubuhinzi izatuma dukomeza 
kwihaza mu biribwa” (does the current budget allocation for agriculture give confidence for food security)?
 Have you ever heard Uruhare Rwawe Muhinzi (“Your Role as a Farmer”) radio broadcasts on 105.9 FM or 107.5 FM? 
77
Section 4: Beneficiary capacity
4.1
None Seed Policy Land use Policy Irrigation Policy Fertilizer Policy Girinka Policy
Artificial insemination Policy Other (specify) Don't know
4.2
No Yes, I participated in discussions with the Village Agricultural Committee Other (specify)
Yes, I participated in discussions at Cell level meetings
Yes, I participated in discussions at Sector level meetings
Yes, I participated in discussions at District level meetings
Yes, I provided comments to my agricultural extension agents
4.3
I did not participate I am confident in my contribution
I am not confident in my contribution I am very confident in my contribution
4.4
None Attended meetings where policies were discussed Other (specify)
Attended meetings where I was able to comment on agricultural policies
I have been trained to support implementation of policies
4.5
Not satisfied Satisfied Very satisfied
4.6
No Yes, I have collected information by visiting activities Other (specify)
Yes, I have completed a monitoring report
Yes, I have completed a scorecard
Yes, I have participated in accountability meetings
Yes, I have participated in community forums (like Umuganda, parents meetings, evening sessions) 
Yes, I have participated in performance contract implementation 
4.7
Not satisfied Satisfied Very satisfied
4.8
No Yes-with the Village Agricultural Committee Other (specify)
Yes-at the Cell level
Yes-at the Sector level
Yes-at the District level
4.9
I did not participate I am confident in my contribution
I am not confident in my contribution I am very confident in my contribution
4.10
Not satisfied Satisfied Very satisfied
4.11
I do not have any priorities With the Village Agricultural Committee Other (specify)
There are no platforms to share During local (cell, sector or district) meetings
During visits by agricultural extension agents
4.12
Yes No I do not have any priorities/there are no platforms to share
4.13
Are you involved in monitoring how the budget allocated to the agricultural sector is being used? (tick all that apply)
What agricultural policies are being implemented in your community? (Note for enumerator: Do not read the list, ask 
participant to list policies that they are aware of and tick off those mentioned)
Did you participate in the development of or revision of any agricultural policies? (tick all that apply)
How confident are you that your participation contributed to the development of or revision of agricultural policies? 
(NOTE: this is worded differently than at the midterm)
What role(s) do you play in implementing these agricultural policies? (tick all that apply)
What is your level of satisfaction with the role you play in implementing agricultural policies?
Have you been involved in monitoring of the implementation of agricultural policies? (tick all that apply)
What is your level of satisfaction with the role you play in monitoring the implementation of agricultural policies?
How confident are you that your participation contributed to the monitoring of how the budget allocated to the 
agricultural sector is being used? (NOTE: this is worded differently than at the midterm)
What is your level of satisfaction with the role you play in monitoring how the budget allocated to the agricultural 
sector is being used? (NOTE: this is worded differently than at the midterm)
How do you express (share) your priorities for sustainable agricultural practices?
 Do you feel that local authorities respond to your expressed (shared) priorities?
If respondent answered "Yes" in question 4.12 : Can you provide any examples of priorities that local authorities have 
responded to in the past 12 months?
78
Annex 2.2: Women and Youth Focus Group Discussion/Interview Guide
With the change from in-person FGD Discussion to phone-based interviews, the guide was revised. 
Revision are noted in the document.
Section 1: Enumerator Identification
FGD ID #
Name of Enumerator
Date Start Time: End Time:
District Gakenke Rulindo Nyanza Nyamagabe Nyaruguru
Type of FGD Women Youth
Number of Participants Female: Male:
Section 2: Focus Group Discussion Guide
# FGD Question Comment
2.1 Did you participate in any trainings or meetings organized by CEJP
(Northern Province)/ UNICOOPAGI (Southern Province) as a part of the
EPGA project? If so, how relevant were these activities in meeting your
agricultural needs?
(probes: Did you participate in the 2017 training on your roles and
responsibilities for agricultural policies and budget monitoring? Were the
activities sufficient or appropriate?)
2.2 Was the timing of the support/activities of the EPGA project appropriate? Removed
for
Interviews
(probes: Did you receive advance notice of activities? Did activities take
place as planned or communicated to you? Did activities take place at an
appropriate time to encourage participation? Do you have any
recommendations how to improve the timing of activities?)
2.3 Have you seen the posters/leaflets on “District budget planning, your right
and civic responsibility” and “Does the current budget allocation for
agriculture give confidence for food security” in your community? How did
these change your understanding of your role and rights, if at all?
(probes: Were these posted in visible locations? Was the information
appropriate for your needs? Did you make any changes based upon reading
these posters? Can you give examples of changes made?)
2.4 Have you heard any radio broadcasts on “Your role as a farmer” 105.9 or
107.5FM? How useful were these radio programs, if at all?
(probes: Was the timing of the programs appropriate? Was the information
appropriate for your needs? Did you make any changes based upon the
broadcasts? Can you give examples of changes made? Did you call in or
message during the broadcasts? Why do you think people did/did not listen
to these broadcasts? What additional information should be covered by
these radio programs?)
79
Section 2: Focus Group Discussion Guide
# FGD Question Comment
2.5 How did the EPGA project (Trócaire, RDO, CEJP and/or UNCOOPAGI) seek
your input in the design, implementation or monitoring of the project, if at
all? Do you feel that you were able to contribute to the EPGA project in a
meaningful way?
(probes: how did you provide feedback to the project implementors￾Trócaire, RDO, CEJP and/or UNCOOPAGI-if at all? Did the project seek your
input? If you had questions or concerns about the project, who could you
ask? Do you feel that project staff were interested in your concerns? How
can communication be improved in the future?)
2.6 How has your awareness of agricultural policies changed since the start of
the EPGA project in 2017?
(probes: What systems (such as local government meetings, Village
Agricultural Committee meetings, visits from agricultural extension agents,
etc.) are in place that encourage active participation in monitoring
implementation? What discourages participation? ? Do feel that leaders
and policy makers actively seek your input and support for monitoring
policy implementation?)
2.7 How have you participated in the development or implementation of
agricultural policies in your community? How has this changed since the
start of the EPGA project?
(probes: What systems (such as local government meetings, Village
Agricultural Committee meetings, visits from agricultural extension agents,
etc.) are in place that encourage participation? What discourages
participation? Do feel that leaders and policy makers actively seek your
input? )
2.8 How have you participated in the monitoring of implementation of
agricultural policies? How has this changed since the start of the EPGA
project?
Removed
for
Interview
(probes: What systems (such as local government meetings, Village
Agricultural Committee meetings, visits from agricultural extension agents,
etc.) are in place that encourage active participation in monitoring
implementation? What discourages participation? ? Do feel that leaders
and policy makers actively seek your input and support for monitoring
policy implementation?)
2.9 Do you feel that your participation in the development and/or
implementation of agricultural policies is meaningful? What examples have
you seen that your participation is valued, if at all?
(probes: Have you seen any changes in policy implementation after giving
feedback? To whom do you give feedback or share priorities? What systems
exist that support your participation (ex: local government meetings,
Village Agricultural Committee meetings, visits from agricultural extension
agents, etc.)?
2.10 What opportunities exist for your participation in the development and
spending of the agricultural budget, if any? How has this changed since the
start of the EPGA project?
80
Section 2: Focus Group Discussion Guide
# FGD Question Comment
(probes: How are you involved in monitoring the allocation of the
agricultural budget, if at all? Where do discussions of the agricultural
budget take place? What discourages your participation? Do you feel that
you have the skills and/or enough information to meaningfully contribute
to discussions of budget allocation and monitoring of budget spending?
Why/why not?)
2.11 Do you feel that your participation in the development and/or monitoring
of the agricultural budget is meaningful? What examples have you seen
that your participation is valued, if at all?
(probes: Have you seen any changes in budget allocations after giving
feedback? To whom do you give feedback or share concerns about the
budget? What systems exist that support your participation (ex: local
government meetings, Village Agricultural Committee meetings, visits from
agricultural extension agents, etc.)? How can this be further improved?)
2.12 What are your agricultural priorities at this time? With whom will you
engage to ensure that your priorities are taken into account by local and
national leaders, if at all? What additional support, if any, do you need in
order to do this?
81
Annex 2.3: Community Committee Member Discussion/Interview Guide
With the change from in-person FGD Discussion to phone-based interviews, the guide was revised. 
Revision are noted in the document.
Section 1: Enumerator Identification
FGD ID #
Name of Enumerator
Date Start Time: End Time:
District Gakenke Rulindo Nyanza Nyamagabe Nyaruguru
Type of FGD VAC
Number of Participants Female: Male:
Section 2: Focus Group Discussion Guide
# FGD Question Comments
2.1 What is the role of the Village Agricultural Committee in your community? Question
removed
for
Interviews
(probes: Was a VAC needed in your community? Why? What training did you
receive? Was this sufficient? What additional support do you need?
2.2 Is your community aware of the role of the Village Agricultural Committee?
How does the VAC engage with the community?
(probes: Do you think that the community sees value in having a VAC? How
does the community engage with the VAC—is this during formal meetings,
informal discussions?)
2.3 What opportunities exist for the VAC to meaningfully participate in policy
development, implementation and budget discussions?
(probes: Is the VAC invited to sector, district or national level meeting? Can
you give any examples of how your participation has changed policy,
implementation of policy or budgets? What encourages meaningful
participation? What discourages meaningful participation?)
2.4 How do you see the role of the VAC changing with the end of the project, if
at all? What, if anything, has been done to sustain the role of the VAC in
your community?
(probes: Is there a mechanism to sustain the VAC? Do you think your access
to meetings and leaders will change once the project ends? What has been
done to ensure that the VAC will still be operational at the end of the
project? Is this adequate?)
2.5 How did the EPGA project (Trócaire, RDO, CEJP and/or UNCOOPAGI) seek
your input in the design, implementation or monitoring of the project, if at
all? Do you feel that you were able to contribute to the EPGA project in a
meaningful way?
82
(probes: how did you provide feedback to the project implementors-Trócaire,
RDO, CEJP and/or UNCOOPAGI-if at all? Did the project seek your input? If
you had questions or concerns about the project, who could you ask? Do you
feel that project staff were interested in your concerns? How can
communication be improved in the future?)
2.6 Were the support/activities and materials provided by the project (Trócaire,
RDO, CEJP and/or UNCOOPAGI) sufficient and appropriate? 
(probes: What other project supported activities did you participate in?
What types of support did you receive? How relevant was the support? Did
you receive any materials from the project? If so, what types of materials?
Did these materials meet your needs? If not, what would have been more
useful?)
2.7 Was the timing of the support/activities of the EPGA project appropriate ?
(probes: Did you receive advance notice of activities? Did activities take place
as planned or communicated to you? Did activities take place at an
appropriate time to encourage participation? Do you have any
recommendations how to improve the timing of activities?)
2.8 How has the Survey CTO (smartphone) changed how you shared
information with the EPGA project?
(probes: How was information shared before? Who is in-charge of the
smartphone? What types of information is shared? Who is this information
shared with? How is this information used? How else has the phone been
used (both for agricultural reporting and other uses? What have been the
benefits of using the Survey CTO? Have there been any challenges with using
Survey CTO?)
2.9 How will the Survey CTO/smartphone be used now that the EPGA project is
ending?
(probes: Who will be responsible for the phone? With whom will information
be shared using the phone? Has this been discussed with you by CEJP or
UNICOOPAGI?)
2.10 What are your communities’ agricultural priorities at this time? With whom
will you engage to ensure that your priorities are taken into account by local
and national leaders, if at all? What additional support, if any, do you need
in order to do this?
83
Annex 2.4: CSO Member Discussion/Interview Guide
With the change from in-person FGD Discussion to phone-based interviews, the guide was revised. 
Revision are noted in the document.
Section 1: Enumerator Identification
FGD ID #
Name of Enumerator
Date Start Time: End Time:
District Gakenke Rulindo Nyanza Nyamagabe Nyaruguru
List of CSOs Present: CSO Name # Female # Male
Section 2: Focus Group Discussion Guide
# FGD Question Comments
2.1 What support did you received from the EPGA project? 
2.2 How useful was the training manual developed by the EPGA project entitled:
“The role of citizens and local entities in policy and budget monitoring and
advocacy related to agriculture”?
(probes: How have you used this training manual? Is this manual still being
used? Was the content sufficient to support trainings of citizens to engage in
agricultural policy and budget monitoring? What changes have you seen in
citizen capacity after conducting trainings using this manual? Was anything
missing from the manual? If you have not used the manual, what prevented
you from using it?
2.3 How useful was the Strategy Guide on Policy and Budget Monitoring and
Advocacy in Agriculture for your organization?
(probes: Did this guide help your CSO harmonize your activities related to
agriculture policy and budget monitoring and advocacy? Did you read or use
the guide? If not, what prevented you from using the guide?)
2.4 How did the EPGA project (Trócaire, RDO, CEJP and/or UNCOOPAGI) seek
your input in the design, implementation or monitoring of the project, if at
all? Do you feel that you were able to contribute to the EPGA project in a
meaningful way?
(probes: how did you provide feedback to the project implementors-Trócaire,
RDO, CEJP and/or UNCOOPAGI-if at all? Did the project seek your input? If
you had questions or concerns about the project, who could you ask? Do you
84
feel that project staff were interested in your concerns? How can
communication be improved in the future?)
2.5 Were the support/activities and materials provided by the project (Trócaire,
RDO, CEJP and/or UNCOOPAGI) sufficient and appropriate? 
Removed
for
(probes: What other project supported activities did you participate in? interviews
What types of support did you receive? How relevant was the support? Did
you receive any materials from the project? If so, what types of materials?
Did these materials meet your needs? If not, what would have been more
useful?)
2.6 Was the timing of the support/activities of the EPGA project appropriate?
(probes: Did you receive advance notice of activities? Did activities take place
as planned or communicated to you? Did activities take place at an
appropriate time to encourage participation? Do you have any
recommendations how to improve the timing of activities?)
2.7 What opportunities exist for CSOs to meaningfully participate in policy
development, implementation and budget discussions?
(probes: Are CSOs invited to sector, district or national level meetings? What
encourages meaningful participation? What discourages meaningful
participation?
2.8 Do you feel that your expressed priorities are responded to by local
authorities? (Note: each CSO member should provide their individual
response)
(probes: Do you have any examples of which priorities have been responded
to in the past 12 months? Were you satisfied with the response? Why, why
not? What more needs to be done to ensure local authorities respond to CSO
and local citizen priorities in the agricultural sector?)
2.9 How has support from the EPGA project changed your CSO’s role in
supporting local citizens and advocacy for engagement in agricultural policy
and budget development, implementation, monitoring? Which types of
support from the EPGA project has been most useful? Which support has
been least useful?
Removed
for
interviews
(probes: How useful were the trainings? Policy dialogue meetings? 
Exchange visits? Do people have a greater voice now than they did before
the project started?)
2.10 What are your organizations’ agricultural priorities at this time? With whom
will you engage to ensure that your priorities are taken into account by local
and national leaders, if at all? What additional support, if any, do you need
in order to do this?
Removed
for
interviews
85
Annex 2.5: Implementing Partner Interview Guide
Section 1: Interview Information
Name of Implementing Partner
Name of Interviewee
Title of Interviewee
Date of Interview
Section 2: Project Design and Implementation Questions
# Interview Question Comments
2.1 What was your organizations role in implementing the EPGA project?
2.2 Can you describe the impact of the project on the target communities (both
intended and unintended)? 
2.3 Do you think that rural people and farmers have a greater voice in
agricultural policy decisions as a result of the project? How is that visible?
How has government policy or strategy changed at the micro, meso or
macro level for project participants?
2.4 Do you think the EPGA program design was appropriate? What changes, if
any, would you recommend in order to increase citizen participation in
agricultural policy and budget development, implementation and
monitoring?
2.5 Were the planned resources adequate? What steps were taken to ensure
that the project participants got the most out of the resources that were
deployed?
2.6 Do you think project activities were delivered in a timely manner? Why/why
not? What constraints existed that may have prevented timely delivery of
project activities?
2.7 How effective was the use of technology in this project? Do you believe that
this use of technology helped achieve the projects intended results?
2.8 Was the use of Survey CTO appropriate? How was the data collected used?
Was the information shared with the participants? Was there any
unintended use of the phones?
2.9 What are the project interventions that are likely to remain in the
community after the project lifetime? What measures have been taken to
ensure this?
2.10 How did Trócaire seek your input in the design, implementation or
monitoring of the project, if at all? Do you feel that you were able to
contribute to the EPGA project in a meaningful way?
2.11 How successful was the project in generating community and national
ownership over the project? What could be done to improve community
and national ownership?
2.12 What was your organizations role in monitoring the project
implementation?
2.13 How appropriate and useful were the indicators described in the project
results framework in assessing the project’s progress? Were the targeted
indicator values realistic and could they be easily tracked?
86
Section 3: Project Management and Relations with Trócaire Questions
# Interview Question Comments
3.1 Did Trócaire provide a conducive environment for partners to effectively
implement the project? Please describe.
3.2 Did your organization have a clear understanding of your role in
implementing the project? Please explain.
3.3 Do you feel that your organization received appropriate administrative
support (including financial) from Trócaire? What additional support did you
need?
3.4 Were project funds released in a timely way in order to implement activities
appropriately? What challenges existed?
3.5 Do you feel that your organization received appropriate technical support
from Trócaire? What additional technical support did you need?
3.6 How did Trócaire monitor project performance and results? Was this
effective?
3.7 What recommendations do you have for improving coordination and
management of the project by Trócaire?
3.8 Is there anything else that you would like to share about the EPGA project? 
87
Annex 3: List of Interviews
Trócaire 
Dony Mazingaizo Country Director 30 March 2020
Modeste Sibomana Program Manager 27 March 2020
Fred Ntakirutinka Project Coordinator
Implementing Partners 
Eugene Rwibasira, 
John Mugabo
RDO Executive Secretary,
Project Officer
17 March 2020
Father Niragire Valens, 
Ruzindana Joseph
CEJP General Secretary, 
Project Officer
13 March 2020
Eugene Murwanashyaka CEJP Field Officer-Gakenke 26 March 2020
Habyarimana Mathaias CEJP Field Officer-Nyanza 27 March 2020
Leo Bienvenue UNICOOPAGI Project Coordinator 26 March 2020
Emmanuel Hategekimana UNICOOPAGI Field Officer￾Nyamagabe/Nyaruguru
25 March 2020
Other 
Joseph Rurangwa USAID AOR 3 April 2020
Jean Claude 
Ngendandumwe
CCOAIB Executive Secretary 2 April 2020
 
88
Annex 4: Survey Participant Characteristics 
Annex 4.1: Gender and Age Distribution
Table 1: Gender distribution by age category and district
District
Adult 
(>30 Yrs)
Youth 
(18-30 Yrs)
Total Female Male Female Male
n % n % n % n %
Nyaruguru 43 55.1% 22 28.2% 10 12.8% 3 3.8% 78
Nyamagabe 46 49.5% 26 28.0% 17 18.3% 4 4.3% 93
Nyanza 49 50.0% 25 25.5% 14 14.3% 10 10.2% 98
Gakenke 26 44.8% 16 27.6% 12 20.7% 4 6.9% 58
Rulindo 25 71.4% 4 11.4% 5 14.3% 1 2.9% 35
Total 189 52.2% 93 25.7% 58 16% 22 6.1% 362 
Table 2: Gender distribution by age category at baseline, midterm, and final evaluation
Adult
(>30 Yrs)
Youth
(18-30 Yrs)
Female Male Female Male
Baseline 60% 20% 21%
Midterm 48% 32% 12% 8%
Final 52.2% 25.7% 16% 6.1%
Annex 4.2: Household Size Distribution 
Table 3: Household size distribution by district
District
1-2 3-4 5-6 7 +
Total
n % n % n % n %
Nyaruguru 3 3.8% 19 24.4% 28 35.9% 28 35.9% 78
Nyamagabe 6 6.5% 26 27.96% 34 36.6% 27 29.0% 93
Nyanza 8 8.2% 27 27.6% 43 43.9% 20 20.4% 98
Gakenke 9 15.5% 21 36.2% 19 32.8% 9 15.5% 58
Rulindo 2 5.7% 17 48.6% 11 31.4% 5 14.3% 35
Total 28 7.7% 110 30.4% 135 37.3% 89 24.6% 362 
Annex 4.3: Engagement in Agricultural Sector
Table 5: Engagement in Agricultural Sector by District
District Individual 
Farmer Processor Trader Agro-dealer Other
Nyaruguru 95.1% 0% 2.4% 1.2% 1.2%
Nyamagabe 94.8% 1.0% 0% 0% 4.2%
Nyanza 98.0% 0% 1.0% 0% 1.0%
Gakenke 96.6% 0% 0% 0% 3.4%
Rulindo 97.2% 0% 0% 0% 2.8%
Total 96.2% 0% 0.8% 0% 2.4% 
89
Table 6: Engagement in Agricultural Sector distribution at baseline, midterm and final evaluation
Individual 
Farmer Processor Trader Agro-dealer Other
Baseline n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Midterm 97% 1% 0% 0% 1%
Final 96.2% 0% 0.8% 0% 2.4% 
Annex 4.4: Engagement in Leadership
Table 7: Engagement in Leadership Positions (past or present)
District
Church Cooperative Government Women 
Club Youth Club Other None
F% M% F% M% F% M% F% M% F% M% F% M% F% M%
Nyaruguru 15% 12% 15% 8% 43% 60% 21% 0% 2% 4% 2% 0% 34% 28%
Nyamagabe 5% 7% 21% 13% 25% 53% 16% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 49% 30%
Nyanza 13% 11% 11% 9% 27% 40% 22% 0% 5% 6% 0% 0% 43% 46%
Gakenke 11% 25% 8% 0% 29% 35% 5% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 61% 40%
Rulindo 0% 0% 7% 0% 33% 60% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 57% 40%
Total 9% 12% 13% 8% 31% 48% 16% 0% 2% 3% 0.4% 0.9% 47% 37% 
Annex 4.5: Survey Participant by Survey Type
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the data collection methodology changed mid-way through data 
collection from in-person interviews to phone-based interviews. All attempts were made to ensure 
comparable data collection between both survey delivery mechanisms. As noted below, gender 
distribution by age was similar for both survey types. However, survey respondent household size 
was smaller with 44% of phone-based interview respondents reported household sizes of 4 or 
less, while 36% of in-person survey respondents reported household sizes of 4 or less. 
Table 8: Gender Distribution by Age and Survey Type
District
Adult 
(>30 Yrs)
Youth 
(18-30 Yrs)
Total Female Male Female Male
n % n % n % n %
In-Person 118 52% 61 27% 35 15% 14 6% 228
Phone 71 53% 32 24% 23 17% 8 6% 134
Table 9: Household Size by Survey Type
District
1-2 3-4 5-6 7 +
Total
n % n % n % n %
In-Person 15 7% 65 29% 87 38% 61 27% 228
Phone 13 10% 45 34% 48 36% 28 21% 134
90
Annex 5: Supplemental Quantitative Survey Data Tables 
Table 1: Indicator 2.A Percentage of target beneficiaries who are satisfied with their role in the 
implementation of agricultural related policies by District
District Not satisfied Satisfied Very 
satisfied 
Gakenke 5% 76% 19%
Nyamagabe 5% 60% 34%
Nyanza 3% 70% 27%
Nyaruguru 5% 44% 51%
Rulindo 3% 74% 23%
Total 4% 63% 32% 
Table 2: Reported Mechanisms for Participation in Implementation of Agricultural Policies by 
District
District 
Attended meetings 
where policies 
discussed 
Attended 
meetings where 
able to comment 
Trained to support 
implementation 
No opportunities 
for participation 
Gakenke 47% 74% 43% 0%
Nyamagabe 68% 59% 47% 3%
Nyanza 73% 54% 48% 3%
Nyaruguru 60% 59% 56% 4%
Rulindo 63% 66% 40% 6%
Total 64% 61% 48% 3%
Table 3: Indicator 2.B Percentage of target beneficiaries who are satisfied with their role in 
monitoring of implementation of agricultural related policies by District 
District Not satisfied Satisfied Very 
satisfied 
Gakenke 5% 71% 24%
Nyamagabe 6% 66% 28%
Nyanza 3% 68% 29%
Nyaruguru 5% 44% 51%
Rulindo 6% 69% 26%
Total 5% 63% 32% 
Table 4: Reported Mechanisms for Participation in Monitoring the Implementation of Agricultural 
Related Policies
District 
Participated 
in 
community 
forums 
Participated 
in 
accountability 
mtgs. 
Collected 
information 
by visiting 
activities 
Part. in 
performance 
contracts 
Completed 
monitoring 
report 
Completed 
a 
scorecard 
Did not 
participate 
Gakenke 83% 48% 22% 9% 14% 10% 0%
Nyamagabe 83% 45% 16% 11% 4% 4% 4%
Nyanza 90% 44% 22% 19% 13% 10% 3%
Nyaruguru 77% 50% 32% 21% 17% 12% 4%
Rulindo 86% 66% 9% 17% 26% 23% 3%
Total 84% 48% 22% 15% 13% 10% 3% 
91
Table 5: Indicator 2.C Percentage of target beneficiaries who are satisfied with their role in 
monitoring of budgets on agricultural related policies by District
District Not satisfied Satisfied Very 
satisfied 
Gakenke 12% 72% 16%
Nyamagabe 25% 52% 24%
Nyanza 18% 55% 27%
Nyaruguru 9% 44% 47%
Rulindo 14% 66% 20%
Total 17% 56% 28% 
Table 6: Reported Mechanisms for Participation in Monitoring the Budgets of Agricultural Related 
Policies by District
District 
Participated at 
Community 
Committee 
Participated 
at Cell level 
Participated 
at Sector 
level 
Participated 
at District 
level 
No opportunities 
for participation 
Gakenke 83% 45% 14% 0% 7%
Nyamagabe 65% 22% 13% 3% 31%
Nyanza 69% 28% 13% 3% 24%
Nyaruguru 62% 28% 14% 1% 29%
Rulindo 80% 37% 14% 0% 9%
Total 70% 30% 14% 2% 23% 
Table 7: Indicator 1-1.A Percentage of target citizens who are confident of their contribution in 
the development of agricultural policy by District
District 
Not 
confident in 
contribution 
Confident in 
contribution 
Did not 
participate 
Gakenke 0% 100% 0%
Nyamagabe 3% 86% 11%
Nyanza 5% 92% 3%
Nyaruguru 6% 90% 4%
Rulindo 0% 94% 6%
Total 4% 91% 5% 
Table 8: Indicator 1-1.B Percentage of target citizens who are confident of their role in budget 
monitoring by District
District 
Not 
confident in 
contribution 
Confident in 
contribution 
Did not 
participate 
Gakenke 16% 84% 0%
Nyamagabe 10% 66% 25%
Nyanza 4% 73% 22%
Nyaruguru 13% 74% 13%
Rulindo 3% 89% 9%
Total 9% 75% 16% 
92
Table 9: Indicator 3-1.A Percentage of target citizens who consider that local authorities respond 
to their expressed priorities with regard to sustainable agriculture by District
District 
I do not have any 
priorities/there are no 
platforms to share 
No Yes 
Gakenke 10% 9% 81%
Nyamagabe 3% 13% 84%
Nyanza 5% 2% 93%
Nyaruguru 0% 3% 97%
Rulindo 6% 14% 80%
Total 4% 7% 88% 
Table 10: Percent of Participants Reporting Priorities Responded to In the Past 12 Months by 
Topic by District
Priorities Nyaruguru Nyamagabe Nyanza Gakenke Rulindo Total 
Fertilizers/ Soil Health 29% 31% 35% 31% 29% 31%
Seeds 19% 28% 35% 16% 43% 27%
Pesticides 17% 17% 14% 9% 6% 14%
Information Sharing 
and Trainings 19% 11% 5% 10% 6% 10%
Markets 9% 0% 3% 3% 0% 3%
Water/Irrigation 1% 0% 3% 7% 3% 2%
Animal Health/
Insemination 1% 1% 2% 5% 0% 2%
Total 29% 31% 35% 31% 29% 31% 
93
Annex 6: Project Results Framework Goal
Objective
Strategic Objective
Outcome 1 Empowered citizens, 
particularly women and youths, 
who are able to engage in 
agricultural policy and budget 
monitoring in 5 districts and 
hold public authorities 
accountable
Outcome 2 Increased capacity of civil 
society to engage in policy 
analysis, budget monitoring 
and advocacy and ability to use 
collective approach to 
influence decisions related to 
sustainable agriculture
Outcome 3 Increased knowledge of local 
authorities on participatory 
governance and are committed 
to address citizens' concerns
Output 1.1 Increased knowledge of 3675 
citizens and 819 (900) local 
authorities on their role and 
responsibilities in terms of 
agriculture policy and budget 
monitoring related to 
agriculture.
Output 2.1 Training manual developed for 
CSOs covering policy and 
budget monitoring and 
advocacy; Strategy guide in 
policy and budget monitoring 
and advocacy and 
recommendation papers about 
priority needs with regards to 
agriculture policies and 
programs are produced
Output 3.1 Increased knowledge of local 
authorities on participatory 
governance and are committed 
to address citizens’ concerns
Output 1.2 Increased awareness of 3675 
citizens’ roles and 
responsibilities through 
production and dissemination 
of information and education 
materials
Output 2.2 50 Civil Society Organizations in 
five Districts have sufficient 
capacity for policy analysis, 
budget monitoring and 
advocacy and are aware of 
participative approach for 
decision influencing
Output 1.3 63 Community committees 
made up of five people are 
established and operational
Output 2.3 Increased engagement on 
participatory governance and 
agricultural policy
Output 1.4 Improved mechanism of 
exchange of information 
between community 
committees, partner 
programme staff and Trócaire
Contribute to transparent governance, accountability of public authorities and inclusiveness of public policy and budgeting processes
Contribute to the strengthening of civil society organizations (CSOs) for transparent governance, public leaders' accountability and inclusiveness in 
public policy development
Promote the effective participation of citizens, especially women and youth, and CSOs in the development, implementation and monitoring of 
agricultural policy and budget in five districts in order to ensure that they respond to the priorities of vulnerable people and contribute to a 
sustainable and inclusive development in Rwanda
94