aa
Prepared
Decentralized Evaluation
Evaluation of USDA’s Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement 
Program (Rwanda 2017-2019)
Endline – Final Report
May, 2020
WFP Rwanda
Evaluation Manager: Sameera Ashraf AAS
Prepared by
Muriel Visser, team leader
Laure Steer, Agricultural Value Chain and Farmer Organization Specialist
Ernest Midega, Statistician and data analyst
Moses Mwangi, Lead statistician and quantiative quality assurance expert
Raphael Rurangwa, Agriculture expert
DECENTRALIZED EVALUATION FOR EVIDENCE-BASED DECISION MAKING
Agreement: LRP-696-2016/019-00
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline i |P a g e
Acknowledgements
The evaluation team gratefully acknowledges the contributions of cooperative leaders and 
members as well as other stakeholders in Rwanda for this report. The team also thanks the 
WFP Country Office in Rwanda for its assistance in planning and implementing the baseline 
and endline data collection.
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this report are those of the Evaluation Team, and do not necessarily 
reflect those of the World Food Programme. Responsibility for the opinions expressed in this 
report rest solely with the authors. Publication of this document does not imply endorsement 
by WFP of the opinions expressed.
The designation employed and the presentation of material in maps do no imply the 
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WFP concerning the legal or 
constitutional status of any country, territory or sea area, or concerning the delimitation of 
frontiers.
DISCLAIMER: This publication was produced at the request of the United States Department of 
Agriculture. It was prepared by an independent third-party evaluation firm. The author’s views expressed 
in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Agriculture or 
the United States Government.
Accessibility Note: An accessible version of this document can be made available by contacting 
fas.monitoring.evaluation@usda.gov
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline ii |P a g e
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline iii |P a g e
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements.............................................................................................................i
Disclaimer ...........................................................................................................................i
Figures................................................................................................................................ v
Tables................................................................................................................................ vi
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... viii
Methodology ix
Key Findings ix
Operational Recommendations xii
Strategic Recommendations xii
1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 14
1.1. Overview of the Evaluation Subject 14
1.2. Context 16
1.3. Evaluation Methodology and Limitations 19
1.4. Overview of the characteristics of survey respondents 22
1.5. Ethics and gender 23
1.6. Limitations 24
2. Evaluation Findings.................................................................................................... 25
2.1. Evaluation Question 1 - How relevant is the design of the intervention in terms of the context; 
needs of the most vulnerable groups; needs of male and female beneficiaries; and priorities of the 
government and WFP partners? 25
2.2. Evaluation Question 2 - How has cooperative ability ‘to be’, ‘to organize’, ‘to relate’ and ‘to do’ 
evolved from baseline to endline? 28
2.3. Evaluation Question 3 - Have the LRP project interventions affected male and female SHF 
knowledge, capacity and choices/behaviour from baseline to endline? 38
2.4. Evaluation Question 4 - Has the LRP contributed to creating new market opportunities for male 
and female SHF? 43
2.5. Evaluation Question 5 - To what extent do producers market food products that meet quality 
standards and that are nutritious and culturally accepted? 47
2.6. Evaluation Question 6 - Has the LRP programme affected male and female SHF income, and in 
what way? 48
2.7. Evaluation Question 7 - Is there evidence that the LRP programme affected male and female 
SHF differently? 51
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline iv |P a g e
2.8. Evaluation Question 8 – What internal and external factors affected results? 55
3. Conclusions and Recommendations .......................................................................... 58
3.1. Overall Assessment/Conclusions 58
3.2. Lessons learnt 61
3.3. Recommendations 61
Annexes............................................................................................................................ 65
Annex 1. Terms of Reference ..................................................................................................65
Annex 2. LRP Project activities and targets .............................................................................81
Annex 3. Detailed Theory of Change for the LRP Project .........................................................82
Annex 4. Evaluation Matrix.....................................................................................................83
Annex 5. List of persons met at endline ..................................................................................93
Annex 6. Survey tool...............................................................................................................94
Annex 7. How has cooperatives ability ‘to be’, ‘to organize’, ‘to relate’ and ‘to do’ evolved from 
baseline to endline? .....................................................................................................................97
Annex 8. Have the LRP project interventions affected male and female SHF knowledge, capacity and 
choices/behaviour from baseline to endline? ............................................................................. 109
Annex 9. Additional information on the question: Has the LRP contributed to creating new market 
opportunities for male and female SHF? (including from schools)............................................... 116
Annex 10. Additional information on the question: To what extent do producers market food 
products that meet quality standards and are nutritious and culturally accepted? ..................... 119
Annex 11. Has the LRP programme affected male and female SHF income and in what way?121
Annex 12. Assessment of the project’s performance looking at the monitoring indicators.. 122
Annex 13. Bibliography....................................................................................................... 124
List of Acronyms......................................................................................................................... 136
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline v |P a g e
Figures – Main report
Figure 1: Representation of cooperative abilities (scoring based on qualitative data collection during the endline)..29
Figure 2: Farmers reasons for being interested in cooperative activity (qualitative data collection based on 12 
cooperatives, multiple option choice)..................................................................................................................31
Figure 3: Level of payment of shares in cooperatives (qualitative data collection)......................................................32
Figure 4: Cooperative resource mobilisation systems (qualitative data collection)……………………………………..……………31
Figure 5 - Percentage of SHF with excellent score on training on GAP and PHHS (quantitative survey)……36
Figure 6 - Percentage of SHFs that have heard of GAP and PHHS (quantitative survey)……………………………36
Figure 7: Evolution of the amount spent on fertilizers in RWF (quantitative data collection)…………………..38
Figure 8 (left): LRP cooperative contract achievement rate for (RWARRI) ..................................................................44
Figure 9 (right): Factors that influence cooperative choice by clients (multiple options possible, qualitative data 
collection, N=12 cooperatives).............................................................................................................................44
Figure 10: Quantity of maize kept for household consumption during the last planting season (survey results)........47
Figure 11: Percentage of farmers who purchased maize and beans for family consumption in seasons A and B .......49
Figure 12: Quantity of maize sold in kg by season from baseline to endline (quantitative survey)..............................49
Figure 13: Amount of money from the sales of maize from baseline to endline (quantitative survey) .......................49
Figure 14: Percentage of farmers who purchased maize and beans for family consumption in seasons A and B (survey 
results)..................................................................................................................................................................49
Figure 15 - Percentage of farmers who purchased maize and beans for family consumption in seasons A 
and B (survey results)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………50
Figures – Annexes
Figure 14: location of FTMA cooperatives in the four targeted districts (WFP):...........................................................81
Figure 15: Basic information on LRP cooperatives (qualitative data collection and WFP documents).........................97
Figure 16: Representation of the abilities of high potential cooperatives (scoring based on qualitative data collection 
during baseline) ....................................................................................................................................................98
Figure 17: Representation of the abilities of cooperatives that are losing momentum (scoring based on qualitative 
data collection at baseline)...................................................................................................................................99
Figure 18: Representation of the abilities of nascent cooperatives (scoring based on qualitative data collection during 
baseline) ...............................................................................................................................................................99
Figure 19: Importance of support received from LRP (open choice question to 12 cooperatives, qualitative data 
collection) ...........................................................................................................................................................101
Figure 20: Cooperative ‘common vision (qualitative data collection, to 12 cooperatives, multiple option choice)..102
Figure 21: Cooperative financial resources (qualitative data collection)....................................................................103
Figure 22: Use of cooperatives resources (multiple option choice, qualitative data collection, 12 cooperatives).....103
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline vi |P a g e
Figure 23 : Risks of credit for cooperatives (multiple choice option, qualitative data collection based on 12 
cooperatives)......................................................................................................................................................104
Figure 24 : Percentage of the marshland dedicated to maize (qualitative data collection and data from WFP) .......105
Figure 25: Crops grown by season (qualitative data collection).................................................................................105
Figure 26: Maize production estimation (qualitative data collection and data from WFP)........................................106
Figure 27: Evolution of cooperatives sale and buyers (qualitative data collection)....................................................106
Figure 28: Evolution of cooperative post-harvest handling and storage capacities (qualitative data collection) ......106
Figure 29 : Analysis of the evolution of services received by cooperative members (quantitative data collection)..108
Figure 30 : Percentage of farmers planting maize, comparing baseline and endline for season A and B (quantitative 
survey) ................................................................................................................................................................112
Figure 31- Percentage of farmers planting beans, comparing baseline and final for season A and season B 
(quantitative survey)……………………………………………………………………..……………………………………………………………………….110
Figure 32 : SHFs source of fertilizers (quantitative data collection)............................................................................114
Figure 33: Evolution of maize production in Rwanda (NISR annual surveys)..............................................................116
Figure 34 : Delivery of produce from LRP cooperatives to the formal market (RWARRI)...........................................117
Figure 35: Percentage of farmers by household preference on characteristics of the maize and beans (quantitative 
survey) ................................................................................................................................................................119
Figure 36 - Nutrition analysis of a daily meal consisting of 120g maize meal, 30g beans and 15g vegetable oil .......120
Figure 37: Net margin/ha for maize cultivation based on different cropping systems, price and buyers (qualitative data 
collection) ...........................................................................................................................................................121
Tables – main report
Table 1 : Overview of evaluation questions................................................................................................................. viii
Table 2: Actors working in agriculture and rural development in Rwanda (documentary review) ..............................19
Table 3: Agreed evaluation questions and their coverage at baseline and end-line ....................................................20
Table 4 : Background characteristics of the small holder farmers (SHF)......................................................................22
Table 5 : Relevance of LRP interventions to the priorities of the GoR ..........................................................................26
Table 6: Women’s participation in LRP's activities (WFP reports).................................................................................52
Tables – Annexes
Table 7: Cooperative capacity to document their activities and resources (qualitative data collection) ...................102
Table 8: Evaluation team assessment of cooperative document and record keeping system (qualitative data collection)
............................................................................................................................................................................102
Table 9: Analysis of extension services received by SHFs (quantitative survey) .........................................................109
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline vii |P a g e
Table 10 : Number of SHFs trained on GAP and PHHS (WFP/RWARRI).......................................................................109
Table 11: Analysis of the training received by SHFs (quantitative survey)..................................................................110
Table 12 : Adoption of GAP practices (mVAM results)................................................................................................111
Table 13: Mean hectares for maize and beans planting (quantitative survey)...........................................................113
Table 14 : PHE received by cooperatives (WFP)..........................................................................................................114
Table 15 : how SHFs are using the profit generated my maize (FGDs)........................................................................121
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline viii |P a g e
Executive Summary
This endline report was commissioned by the Rwanda World Food Programme (WFP) Country 
Office and has been prepared as part of the activity evaluation of the Local and Regional Food 
Aid Procurement (LRP) project funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 
The baseline took place in October-November 2017, and the endline data was collected in 
June 2019. The purpose of the endline was to compare the situation of the LRP intervention 
at the time the project was ending with the starting point in September 2017. The evaluation 
combined accountability and learning objectives. At endline, the evaluation focused on 
providing a comprehensive assessment of the relevance, effectiveness, and lessons learned 
from the intervention. The expected users for this report are USDA and the WFP Rwanda 
County Office, as well as the Government of Rwanda and its partners.
Agriculture is a key element of Rwanda’s development policy (Vision 2020 and 2050). It 
contributes 33 percent of the Gross Domestic Product and employs 80 percent of the 
population. However, farmers still face many challenges including poor capacity, access to 
inputs, and access to markets. These factors were taken into account when designing the LRP 
project. The objective of the LRP project has been to strengthen farmer cooperatives to 
promote increased use of locally purchased food. Expected outcomes include improving 
access to loans and markets and enhancing cooperative capacity to be reflected in increased 
sales, improved quality of produce, and reduced commodity losses. 
The LRP covered five key project activities: purchasing of maize and beans from small holder 
farmers (SHF), building capacities of SHFs, connecting farmers to the Patient Procurement 
Platform, connecting SHFs to new markets and collaborating with the Government of Rwanda. 
The LRP has been implemented by WFP in four districts (Huye, Gisagara, Nyaruguru and 
Nyamagabe), with a total budget of USD two million, of which USD 1.36 million was assigned 
to the procurement of food from SHF. The total number of beneficiaries of the LRP over two 
years was 5,617 farmers and respectively 43,855 and 41,521 primary school pupils in 2018 
and 2019. The evaluation covered the LRP cooperative activities and outcomes. Data on the 
coverage of LRP in terms of primary pupils have been included in this evaluation report, but 
the purchasing of food for primary schools was not directly evaluated.1
Table 1 : Overview of evaluation questions 
Evaluation question
To what extent was the design of the intervention relevant to wider context, aligned with needs of the 
most vulnerable groups, cognizant of the needs of male and female beneficiaries, and in line with 
priorities of the government and WFP partners? 
1 The food purchased and delivered by WFP through LRP is part of the Home Grown School Feeding Programme and 
will be evaluated as such in future.
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline ix |P a g e
Evaluation question
What are the effects of the project on the cooperatives’ ability to be, to organize, to relate, and to do?
How does the LRP programme affect male and female SHF capacity and behaviour? 
Has the LRP contributed to creating new opportunities for male and female SHF? 
What is the level of participation of men and women? Are women well represented, including in 
leadership positions? What are the disaggregated effects on women? Has the LRP programme affected 
male and female SHF differently? 
What internal and/or external factors affected the project’s achievement of intended results? 
How and to what extent does the LRP programme contribute to producers marketing food products that 
meets quality standards, are nutritious, and are culturally acceptable? 
How does the LRP programme affect male and female SHF income? 
Is there emerging evidence that the cooperatives have capacity to create linkages with schools? 
Methodology
At inception for the baseline, the evaluation team reviewed the feasibility of doing an impact 
evaluation which had been suggested as part of the terms of reference, but it was concluded 
that such a design was not feasible. The agreed evaluation design therefore used a before 
and after approach to examining the effects of the intervention2
. 
At final evaluation after the intervention (T1), data was collected on the same variables as the 
baseline, and a comparison done to determine changes in the indicators. A survey was applied 
to the 16 targeted cooperatives and covered 828 SHF. In-depth interviews were conducted 
with 12 cooperatives and with members of six cooperatives. The WFP implementation team, 
value chain actors (producers, middlemen, buyers, agro-dealers), support actors (local Non￾Governmental Organizations, extension agents), as well as national and local authorities and 
decentralized units from the relevant ministries were also interviewed. The before and after 
design was combined with a contribution analysis approach at endline which examined WFP’s 
work in relation to the work by other partners. 
The main limitations at endline were the limited availability of cooperative executives and 
members, the limited specific reporting (as LRP reporting is integrated with the reporting of 
the Farmer to Market Alliance (FTMA) reports) and the lack of documentation existing at 
cooperative level. In addition, it was not possible to cross-check information on quantity and 
price from interviews with documentary sources.
Key Findings
Specific findings include:
EQ 1 - Project relevance/coherence and alignment: The design of the project was relevant. 
The project has targeted some of the most important constraints that SHF’s face in developing 
2 At baseline (T0), quantitative and qualitative data was collected using a combination of documentation/secondary 
data review, a survey, in-depth key informant interviews, and observation. Data collection for the endline used the 
same data collection methods
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline x |P a g e
agricultural activities in a profitable way (access to inputs, credit, capacity building and 
development of marketing). The design aligned with the policies and strategies of the 
Government of Rwanda and with the interventions of development partners. The project was 
well aligned with the WFP strategic outcome on SHFs.
EQ 2 – Cooperative capacity: The evaluation examined cooperative capacity from the 
perspective of ability ‘to be’, ‘to do’, ‘to relate’ and ‘to perform’:
• Cooperative ability ‘to be’ was found to be relatively good, though ownership and existence 
of a common vision among cooperative members remained low. 
• Abilities of cooperatives ‘to do’ was found to be limited, especially as relates to 
management tools. 
• In terms of the ability ‘to relate’, cooperatives were already connected to a network of 
partners and have developed business partnerships with buyers. However, at endline
cooperatives remained dependent on the LRP project to make the linkages with these 
partners. 
• Cooperatives ability ‘to perform’ improved over the project period but remains fragile. 
Aggregation of products increased, and some cooperatives now demonstrate a business 
mindset. However, cooperatives are still unable to demonstrate whether they are making 
profit. 
EQ 3 – Male and female capacity and behaviour: Male and female SHF’s behaviour is driven 
by the need to secure household food consumption, the lack of funds to invest in production, 
and a focus on minimizing production risks. Agricultural knowledge and practices improved
over the project period. Farmers have been investing more in inputs, especially fertilizers. 
Exposure to market information has increased but remains limited. Access to credit was still
very limited at endline (and the conditions are not adapted to farmers). 
EQ 4 – Opportunities for male and female SHF: Buyers now consider cooperatives as 
business partners. Quality of maize has improved, and cooperatives have managed to 
aggregate bigger volumes of products. Cooperatives were not selling directly to schools at 
endline and the model still does not allow for this in the context of the WFP school feeding 
programme. However, the up-coming pro-SHF school feeding strategy should create new 
opportunities for cooperatives in the future. A school feeding strategy paper was under 
discussion at the time of the endline with the active participation of key ministries and WFP. 
EQ 5 – Income of smallholder farmers: At endline maize was contributing to both farmers’ 
income and food security. Production of maize has increased, there are less post-harvest 
losses and farmers have been able to increase their sales of maize. Profitability of maize 
cultivation is found to have increased but is still limited by the lack capacity to invest in inputs 
and by climatic hazards that regularly hamper production. 
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline xi |P a g e
EQ 6 – Quality/nutrition of the food marketed by producers: Farmers at endline were 
aware of the quality standards. Consumption of maize is increasingly important for 
households. With the improved quality and with the post-harvest equipment that was 
supplied by the project, farmers have been able to store their maize for longer periods. At 
endline SHFs were providing good quality and nutritious food that can be included in a school 
feeding program. 
EQ 7 – Participation of women: The LRP has had benefits for women in several areas. 
Overall, maize planting improved significantly for females during season A and season B, but 
not for men. Thus, women had increased marketable surplus and access to markets through 
a more efficient supply chain. The purchase of maize and beans for family consumption 
significantly reduced at the end line compared to baseline for females, but not for males. And 
women’s access to extension services increased.
Equal number of male and female SHF were found to be members of cooperatives (although 
with variation between cooperatives). However, decision-making structures remained male￾dominated. Factors limiting the participation of female SHFs include time and capacity.
EQ 8 – Factors affecting results: Various characteristics of the implementation methodology
have positively affected results, including a strong and well-selected local partner (Rwanda 
Rural Rehabilitation Initiative (RWARRI)), good coordination between the RWARRI team and 
WFP, and frequent field officers’ visits to cooperatives. The monitoring system in place has not
been very strong, and operational reporting has been weak. Externally the project has been 
adversely affected by climatic hazards. There has been a positive effect on the demand for 
maize and therefore on the price, and this has created a favourable context for LRP 
cooperatives to market their maize. Farmers that managed to have good production, despite
the difficult year benefited from the situation. 
Conclusions:
Conclusion 1: Project performance, relevance and effectiveness have been good. Out of the 
16 monitoring indicators for the project, ten had been achieved at endline (or were very close 
to being achieved), four were partially achieved and two had not been achieved.
Conclusion 2: The capacity of cooperatives has increased, although cooperatives remain
fragile and overly project-dependent at endline.
Conclusion 3: Farmers’ knowledge has increased as a result of the intervention and changes
in the practices were evident. However, at endline the change is not complete and still fragile. 
Conclusion 4: LRP demonstrated that with appropriate support cooperatives can have access 
to better market opportunities. 
Conclusion 5: LRP has not yet had an effect at farmer level, but it contributes to an increased 
interest and profitability of maize production for males and females, with specific benefits for 
women.
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline xii |P a g e
Conclusion 6: Capacity building is a long-term process and cooperatives have only received 
support for two seasons. Hence the change seen is very fragile and sustainability of the 
intervention and outcome is low as cooperatives are still very project dependant. 
Operational Recommendations
Recommendation 1: In the coming six months, WFP should prepare a short learning 
document on LRP’s implementation and results for dissemination and organize an FTMA 
global evaluation in Rwanda. This document should bring out the specific benefits and 
continued constraints for female SHF, including with respect to their participation in 
cooperative activities.
Recommendation 2: In the remaining time of the project, and for the next phase, WFP 
should work with RWARRI to prioritize cooperative capacity building activities, with a focus on 
governance, work organization, business management, and financial accountability. 
Recommendation 3: For the remaining time of the project, WFP should continue working 
with ICCO Terrafina to strengthen the access to the finance component of the project. 
Recommendation 4: In the next six months, WFP Rwanda should work with the WFP Regional 
Bureau and the Government of Rwanda, to develop a project proposal and raise funding for 
a second phase of the LRP. As part of this, WFP should conduct a study to assess the place 
and roles of women in the maize value chain to ensure that women are not being excluded 
now that maize is becoming profitable. 
Strategic Recommendations
Recommendation 5: In the coming year, WFP should liaise with relevant stakeholders 
(Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources and development partners) to integrate a 
climate smart approach in the cropping model and to review the training curriculum and 
materials. 
Recommendation 6: In the coming three months, WFP should conduct a precise assessment 
of the different marketing options for small holder farmers. 
Recommendation 7: In the coming three years, WFP should continue to liaise with value 
chain actors and relevant ministries to continue to strengthen and further formalize the maize 
value chain dialogue platform.
Recommendation 8: In the coming year, WFP should develop a market-oriented approach 
for the supply of post-harvest equipment to farmers, in coordination with interested 
companies and relevant ministries (commerce and agriculture).
Recommendation 9: In the coming year, WFP should conduct a study to assess the diversity 
of crops grown by SHFs on cooperative land and on their own individual plots to identify 
potential opportunities for SHFs to supply a diversity of products for a school feeding 
programme.
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline xiii |P a g e
Recommendation 10: Capacity and time constitute major constraints on the participation of 
women in cooperative decision making. Moving forward with its work in Rwanda, WFP should 
tailor its intervention strategies with women and coopartives to consider these constraints for 
women and seek to proactively address them.
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 14 |P a g e
1. Introduction
1. This Endline Report was commissioned by the World Food Programme (WFP) Country 
Office (CO). Terms of reference can be found in Annex 1. It is the final product of an activity 
evaluation of the Local and Regional Food Aid Procurement (LRP) project in Rwanda which 
is funded by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The LRP has been
implemented by WFP in four districts (Huye, Gisagara, Nyaruguru and Nyamagabe). Main 
fields of intervention and activities are presented in Annex 2. 
2. The purpose of the endline was to compare the situation of the LRP intervention at the 
time the project was ending (June 2019) with the starting point in September 2017. The 
other products of the activity evaluation are an Inception Report (October 2017) and a 
baseline report (February 2018). 
3. The evaluation combined accountability and learning objectives: 
• Accountability: the evaluation reports on the performance of the LRP project, seeking 
to help WFP present credible and high-quality evidence of the effects of the project to 
USDA and other relevant stakeholders.
• Learning objective: the evaluation provides insight into the reasons why certain 
results occurred or not, and brings out lessons learned, good practices, and priorities 
for learning. 
4. At inception, the evaluation team reviewed the feasibility of an impact evaluation as 
requested in the terms of reference. It was concluded that such a design was not 
appropriate because of the short project implementation timeframe (two years) and that 
it was not realistic to expect behavioural and nutrition status changes in such a short 
period of time. The impact evaluation was thus re-framed as an activity evaluation focused 
on outcomes’ appraisal and the evaluation questions were refocussed closer to what 
could realistically be achieved in a 2-year time-frame. 
5. In line with WFP and USDA requirements, this report provides information on the context 
and subject of the evaluation, the evaluation methodology, and the findings of the 
evaluation against each of the key questions and sub-questions. The expected users for 
this report are USDA and the WFP Rwanda Country Office (CO) who will use the report to 
inform decision making. The report is also expected to be of interest to the Government 
of Rwanda and other stakeholders who are working on cooperative and small holder 
farmer strengthening in Rwanda or similar settings.
1.1. Overview of the Evaluation Subject
6. USDA’s LRP was awarded in 2016 and implemented for a duration of two years from April 
2017 to September 2019. The LRP project had a total budget of USD two million of which 
USD 1.36 million were assigned to the procurement of food from Small Holder Farmers 
(SHF). The objective of the program was to improve the effectiveness of food assistance 
and the expected outcomes included increased value of sales by project beneficiaries. The
design assumed that food procured by WFP from farmer cooperatives or through pro-
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 15 |P a g e
smallholder aggregators would be distributed to WFP schools after fortification as part of 
the school feeding programme in two districts in the south of Rwanda (Nyamagabe and 
Nyaruguru).3 Of the LRP budget, USD 127,000 was to be used for capacity augmentation 
(mainly of SHFs and cooperatives) and USD 370,000 for direct support costs (i.e. costs 
directly related to management of the LRP project).
7. The main direct beneficiaries of project activities (capacity building and support) were
SHFs, targeted through 16 cooperatives. These cooperatives were selected by WFP in four 
districts (Nyamagabe, Nyaruguru, Huye and Gisagara). Locations of cooperatives in the 
districts are presented in Annex 2. The total number of direct beneficiaries of the LRP over 
two years were 5,617 farmers (approximately 10 percent of farmers in the targeted areas), 
that had the opportunity to sell part of their production to formal FTMA (Farm to Market 
Alliance) buyers through cooperatives.
8. On the other end, the LRP project contributed to food purchases from Minimex4
to 
support the HGSF (Home Grown School Feeding) program. Considering potential 
synergies, it is likely that some of the Minimex maize was sourced from LRP cooperatives, 
and other FTMA buyers. However, the share of LRP direct beneficiaries supply to Minimex
is unknown and likely limited, and the contribution of LRP farmers beneficiares to supply 
of the HGSF program is not possible to establish. 
9. The focus of the project was on strengthening farmer cooperatives. Expected outcomes 
included improving access to financial services and markets and enhancing cooperatives
capacities to enhance yield, improve quality of produce, and reduce commodity losses. 
Products marketed through cooperatives were partially purchased by WFP5
, leading to an 
increased use of locally purchased food for school meals. Through these interventions the 
intention was to improve food security among targeted beneficiaries. 
10. An overview of the main project activities is found in Annex 2. The link between WFP/USDA 
inputs and the outputs, outcomes and impact of the LRP is explained in more detail in the 
LRP Theory of Change (ToC) which was drawn up at inception phase and is presented in
Annex 3. The project was implemented according to the design of the project. 
11. The main partners of LRP were: USDA, 16 cooperatives benefiting from training and 
inputs, the Rwanda Rural Rehabilitation Initiative (RWARRI) - a Non-Governmental 
Organization (NGO) which supported WFP in implementing the project - and various 
government ministries and departments which also provided support to cooperatives and 
had an oversight and learning role in the project. The key ministries included the Ministry 
of Agriculture and Animal Resources (MINAGRI), the Ministry of Local Government 
3 Where WFP is implementing the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition 
program. Two other districts under the McGovern-Dole Program Home Grown School Feeding (HGSF) 
are serving meals that are prepared using Corn Soya Blend Plus (CSB+) porridge which is donated by 
USDA.
4
the only local producer of fortified maize meal that is able to comply with WFP quality standards.
5 using for this purpose the funds of the LRP
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 16 |P a g e
(MINALOC), the Ministry of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Finance and Economic 
Planning (MINECOFIN), and the Ministry of Gender Promotion. The Ministry of Education 
(MINEDUC) is a partner as far as school feeding is concerned and was involved in the 
supervision of school feeding components. The provincial government monitored and 
coordinated support to cooperatives.
12. The design and implementation of LRP specifically included gender considerations. 
Participation of women in the cooperatives was one of the selection criteria for LRP 
cooperatives and for all the activities, interventions aimed to have a balanced number of 
beneficiaries. However, no specific gender activities have been included. 
13. Several other interventions by WFP Rwanda are of relevance to this operation. WFP has 
been supporting SHF and the private sector in Rwanda since 2009. Earlier work through 
WFPs Purchase for Progress (P4P) programme and a follow-up pilot - the Patient 
Procurement Platform (PPP) - focused on increasing market access for SHFs. No specific 
evaluation of LRP programme had been conducted at endline. WFP also implements the 
Farm to Market Alliance (FTMA) initiative.6
FTMA has been of direct relevance to the LRP 
as it has provided access to markets, finance and post-handling services for approximately 
180 cooperatives. The cooperatives committed to supplying mainly maize and WFP has 
acted as a neutral broker and facilitator bringing together potential buyers and 
cooperatives and facilitating access to services. 
14. The LRP has covered five key project activities. Details on the activities are in Annex 2:
• Purchasing commodities from small holder farmers (with a target of 418 metric tons 
(MT) of maize and 225 MT of beans) 
• Building capacities of SHFs
• Connecting farmers to the PPP
• Connecting SHFs to new markets 
• Collaborating with the Government of Rwanda (GoR)
1.2. Context
15. Rwanda, a small landlocked country, has an estimated total population of 12.3 million 
people, one of the highest population densities in Africa (445 people per km2
), and an 
annual growth rate of 2.4 percent.7 The population is young and mostly rural, with urban 
growth rates outstripping those of rural areas. Since the 1994 genocide, Rwanda has 
focused on national unity and on improving quality of life. The country has seen strong 
economic growth and decreasing income inequality. 
16. Rwanda’s long-term development goals are defined in a strategy entitled “Vision 2020”. It 
aims at transforming the country from a low-income agriculture-based economy to a 
knowledge-based, service-oriented economy with a middle-income country status by 
6
FTMA is the new name for PPP.
7 http://www.statistics.gov.rw/publication/size-resident-population, accessed 22 July 2019
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 17 |P a g e
2020. To achieve this, the GoR formulated the second Economic Development and Poverty 
Reduction Strategy (EDPRS-2) which ended in 2018. In 2017, Rwanda launched its Vision 
2050. Vision 2050 aspires to take Rwanda to high living standards by the middle of the 21st
century. The implementation instrument for the remainder of Vision 2020 and the first 
years of Vision 2050 is the National Strategy for Transformation (NST) 2017-2024. This is 
the new name for the EDPRS-3. It focuses on three thematic areas including economic 
transformation, social transformation and transformational governance.
17. Rwanda is among African countries that have made strong progress on the achievement 
of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). It has made considerable progress in 
poverty reduction with a dramatic drop in households living below the poverty line from 
56.7 percent in 2005/2006 to 38.2 percent in 2016/2017; and extreme poverty reduced to 
just 16 percent in 2016/2017 from 24.1 percent in 2010/11.8 There have also been 
substantial improvements in living standards, with a two-thirds drop in child mortality, the 
attainment of near-universal primary school enrolment, and progress on reducing HIV 
prevalence and increasing environmental sustainability. Rwanda has experienced a strong 
drop in levels of hunger, with the country's Global Hunger Index (GHI) score reducing from 
58.5 in 2000 to 28.7 in 2018, although it is still categorized a country with ‘serious’ hunger.9
Rwanda is hosting refugees from Democratic Republic of Congo and Burundi. At the end 
of 2018, there were 150,448 people living in in six refugee camps in Rwanda. 
18. Agriculture plays a key role in the Rwandan economy, contributing 33 percent of the Gross 
Domestic Product (GDP). Agriculture is key to export earnings and represents over 80 
percent of the total value of exports. Coffee and tea are the two main export crops and 
the most widely cultivated cash crops. Small-scale subsistence farmers produce most of 
the agricultural output and more than 80 percent of the population are smallholder 
farmers. The Government of Rwanda has made efforts to diversify the country’s exports 
by investing heavily in horticulture geared towards exports. The country produces several 
staple foods: maize, sorghum, rice, wheat, beans, soya beans, Irish potato, sweet potato, 
cassava and bananas. Ninety percent of agricultural production is food crops and 66 
percent is consumed by producers. 
19. Despite improvements in the agricultural sector, smallholder farmers and agricultural 
markets continue to face many challenges, including underdeveloped input markets and 
the continued use of basic tools and indigenous seeds, resulting in low yields and low 
incomes. Links to markets are also a challenge (GoR, 2016a). In the past years, climate 
change is having a noticeable impact on rainfall and impacting agricultural production 
(Dutch Sustainability Unit, 2015).
8
Fifth Integrated Household Living Conditions Survey 2016/2017, EIC5, Rwanda Poverty Report, National Institute of 
Statistics of Rwanda (NISR) 2018.
9
 http://ghi.ifpri.org, accessed 22 June 2019. This information shows that Rwanda experienced a 50 percent drop in 
hunger between 2000 and 2018, although the more recent period saw a slight increase from 2016.
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 18 |P a g e
20. The Strategic Plan for the Transformation of Agriculture in Rwanda (PSTA IV) is part of the 
NST. PSTA IV focuses on four priority areas: innovation and extension; productivity and 
resilience; inclusive markets and value addition; and enabling environment and 
responsive markets. The strategic plan prioritizes value chain development, product
quality, and obtaining premium prices, as well as arrangements for bulking up production 
in order to improve access to inputs, services and markets. 
21. Cooperatives are considered important vehicles to achieve the GoR's strategic plans. The 
number of cooperatives in the country has expanded very rapidly over the past years 
(GoR, 2011; USAID, 2013). At national level, more than 8,000 cooperatives are officially 
registered. In addition, there are also numerous informal organisations of producers. 
About 1,500 cooperatives were registered in the Southern province where the LRP has 
been implemented. There are different types of cooperatives and the way they function 
varies. Cooperatives also differ in their degree of success in promoting intensification, 
increasing market orientation and stimulating agricultural growth.
22. Rwanda has made significant progress in promoting gender equality, largely driven by 
strong Government commitment, and has the sixth highest score in the world on the 2018
Global Gender Index Gap Report10. Gender equality is enshrined in the constitution and 
Rwanda was the first country in the world to have more than 50 percent female members 
of Parliament (64 percent in the lower chamber). Nonetheless, challenges remain in terms 
of female representation in some areas, in the education and health sectors. 79.1% of 
females are engaged in agriculture activities (54.4% for males) and women receive more 
income from agriculture compared to other source of income.
11 Women and men farmers 
in dual households are characterized by unequal power relations, which leave women 
with very limited decision-making power. This affects their control over agricultural assets, 
inputs, produce and capacity building opportunities, leading to low agriculture 
productivity. Thus, women’s’ plots are typically less productive than those operated by 
men. Gender inequalities are persistent in selling of agriculture produces where males 
remain the responsible persons. Women also have less access to credit than males. 
23. In addition to WFP several other actors were supporting SHF and the cooperative sector. 
These interventions are shown in Table 2. 
10 http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2018/data-explorer/#economy=RWA, accessed 15 August 
2019.
11 Gender and agriculture, Gender office monitoring, GoR, March 2017 
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 19 |P a g e
Table 2: Actors working in agriculture and rural development in Rwanda (documentary review)
Actor/organization Area of intervention
The United Nations (UN) 
Food and Agriculture 
Organization (FAO)
Agriculture, food security and nutrition, support to rural communities and 
linking farmers to markets 
The International Fund for 
Agriculture Development 
(IFAD)
Support to MINAGRI in the implementation of the “Climate resilient Post￾Harvest Agribusiness support” project with a focus on aggregation of 
products, transformation and value addition
The Alliance for a Green 
Revolution in Africa (AGRA)
Member of FTMA
World vision Input provision, capacity building, support to processing
Korean International 
Cooperation Agency 
(KOIKA)
Marshland development, erosion control, terrace building, support to 
seed multipliers
Trocaire Resource rights (including land and water), women’s empowerment and 
humanitarian programme, value chain development, access to micro￾finance, climate resilience through water harvesting technologies, citizens’
participation and capacity building
Interchurch Organization 
for Development 
Cooperation 
(ICCO)Terrafina
Agricultural microfinance and support to inclusive entrepreneurial 
initiatives
Caritas Promoting economic and agricultural development, reinforcing coherence 
between agriculture, economic activities and social protection 
Duhamic-Adri Support to maize and bean production, saving and credit groups, 
entrepreneurship
United States Agency for 
International Development 
(USAID)
Funding for the Future Rwanda Hinga Weze Project aiming at sustainably 
increasing smallholder farmer income, improving the nutritional status of 
women and children, and increasing the resilience of Rwanda’s 
agricultural and food systems to climate change
1.3. Evaluation Methodology and Limitations
24. The agreed upon evaluation questions are outlined in the Table 3 below. The questions 
cover the dimensions of relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency. As agreed with WFP at 
inception, the evaluation covered the LRP cooperative activities and outcomes. Data on 
the coverage of LRP purchased for schools (number of pupils benefitted) have been 
included in this evaluation report but the purchasing of food for primary schools was not 
directly evaluated.12
12 The food purchased and delivered by WFP through LRP is part of the Home Grown School Feeding Programme and 
will be evaluated as such in future.
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 20 |P a g e
Table 3: Agreed evaluation questions and their coverage at baseline and end-line
# Evaluation question Evaluation 
criterion
Data 
collected at
1 To what extent was the design of the intervention relevant to wider 
context; aligned with needs of the most vulnerable groups; cognizant of 
the needs of male and female beneficiaries; and in line with priorities of 
the government and WFP partners? 
Relevance Baseline and 
end-line 
2 What are the effects of the project on the cooperatives ability to be, to 
organize, to relate, and to do?13
Effectiveness Base & end￾line
3 How does the LRP programme affect male and female SHF capacity and 
behaviour? 
Effectiveness Base & end￾line 
4 Has the LRP contributed to creating new opportunities for male and 
female Small Holder Farmers (SHF)? 
Effectiveness Baseline and 
end-line
5 What is the level of participation of men and women? Are women well 
represented, including in leadership positions? What are the 
disaggregated effects on women? Has the LRP programme affected male 
and female SHF differently? 
Effectiveness Baseline 
(partially) 
and end-line
6 What internal and/or external factors affected the project’s 
achievement of intended results? 
Effectiveness 
& efficiency
End-line
7 How and to what extent does the LRP programme contribute to 
producers marketing food products that meets quality standards and is 
nutritious, and is culturally acceptable? 
Effectiveness End-line
8 How does the LRP programme affect male and female SHF income? Effectiveness Baseline and 
end-line
9 Is there emerging evidence that the cooperatives have capacity to create 
linkages with schools? 
Effectiveness Baseline and 
end-line
25. As agreed during the inception of the study the evaluation design used a mixed method￾before and after approach to examining the effects of the intervention. At baseline (T0), 
quantitative and qualitative data was collected using a combination of 
documentation/secondary data review, a survey, in-depth key informants’ interviews, and 
observations. At end-line (T1) the same information was collected for comparison. At each 
stage the survey covered all targeted cooperatives and covered a sample of SHFs.
14 SHFs
who participated in the survey were randomly sampled within each of the participating 
cooperatives. The sample size per cooperative was calculated according to the 
membership size and considering gender proportions. The survey was developed at 
baseline and tested prior to use. The same survey was applied at endline with minor 
modifications to improve wording and remove questions that were found to be 
redundant.
13 We used and adapted different tools to measure cooperatives capacity: the ability methods (South Research), the 
governance matrix (IRAM) if relevant, the 3 circles models (SNV), the level of development of producers organization 
(IRAM), the PO trajectory tool (IRAM) as well as some scoring tools developed based on these tools (reference: “Sélection 
de références méthodologiques en analyse organisationnelle”, IRAM, 2009)
14 At baseline the data collection also included schools. This was deprioritized at the endline and so no survey was applied 
to schools at endline.
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 21 |P a g e
26. Focus Group Discussions (FGD) were organised in six cooperatives. The choice of 
cooperatives was based on the initial findings from the quantitative data collection, with 
the objective of having a diversity of situations in terms of dynamics, geographical 
coverage and size of cooperatives. The choice of FGD participants was made by 
cooperative executives (with even participation of females and males). In-depth key 
informant interviews (KII) were conducted with representatives from cooperatives, value 
chain actors (producers, middlemen, buyers, agro-dealers), support actors (Microfinance 
Institutions (MFI), local NGOs, extension agents), schools and staff in schools, as well as 
national and local authorities and decentralized units from the relevant ministries (a list 
of person met is in annex 5). The KII were selected based on the stakeholder analysis and 
sought to coincide to the extent possible with persons interviewed at baseline. The 
interviews themselves were guided by a semi-structured topic list (annex 13). Documents 
and secondary data were analysed for relevant information (the bibliography is annex 14). 
All informants were guaranteed anonymity and provided with the option of terminating 
the interview at any time.
27. To ensure that the quantitative data was meaningfully collated with qualitative data 
collected for this study, a preliminary descriptive analysis of the quantitative data was 
carried out during the data collection phase, and the results were used to develop 
questions for qualitative data collection. This ensured that the qualitative data collection 
provided a deeper understanding and explanation of the trends observed from the 
quantitative data analysis.
28. The before and after design was combined with a contribution analysis approach which 
seeks to identify whether the changes can be attributed to LRP or other interventions. The 
ToC highlights the specific expected contribution by LRP. While the quantitative survey 
was used to document and measure changes, qualitative data and key informant 
interviews were conducted to seek and attribute reasons for such changes. During 
interviews beneficiaries and other stakeholders were asked about the specificity of LRP 
compared to other interventions and this was used to understand in what way the LRP 
specifically has contributed to the observed changes. The ToC assumptions were found to 
be plausible and agreed upon by the main stakeholders, activities have been implemented 
as set out in the ToC and key results from the ToC are confirmed. Other influencing factors 
have been explained, analysed and taken into consideration. 
29. Table 3 above recalls the main evaluation questions and criteria used for the endline 
study. The data collection instruments drew on the evaluation ToC and the evaluation 
matrix (see annex 4). Triangulation of information was sought, both within sources (i.e. by 
comparing perspectives of stakeholders) and across different methods of data collection 
(between the survey and interview findings). In addition, it should be noted that the use 
of multiple qualitative and quantitative data sources, as well as contribution analysis, aids
triangulation and therefore validates findings.
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 22 |P a g e
30. All participants in the evaluation were provided with an explanation of the purpose of the 
study and with the option to withdraw at any time from the survey and interviews should 
they wish to do so. Individual responses were kept confidential and coded so that they 
could not be related to specific respondents.
1.4. Overview of the characteristics of survey respondents
31. The target sample size for the survey across the four districts was 782. The actual sample 
size during the baseline survey was 841 (108 percent), comparable to the final evaluation 
survey with 828 (106 percent) respondents.
32. Distribution of most of the background characteristics of the respondents was 
comparable between baseline and final (Table 4). This is a desired result demonstrating 
stability of the sampled population, implying reduced bias in measuring change in the 
specific indicators. 
33. As can be seen from Table 4, nearly 68 percent of the respondents are heads of 
households. Twenty two percent of households were headed by females15 and in 16 
percent of the households there are no males providing labour. Around 40 percent of the 
farmers interviewed did not receive any formal education and 54 percent only attended 
primary school (at national level, according to statistics, 35.7 percent of farmers do not 
have any education and 56.3 percent have primary education in rural areas). A total of 12 
cooperatives were covered by the qualitative (interview) work, and all 16 participated in 
the quantitative survey.
Table 4 : Background characteristics of the small holder farmers (SHF)
Variables
Female Male Total
Baseline 
(n=387)
Final 
(n=411)
p 
value
Baseline 
(n=454)
Final 
(n=417) p value
Baseline 
(n=841)
Final 
(n=828) p value
Respondent also the 
household head 36.4% 39.7% 0.348 92.1% 95.7% 0.027 66.5% 67.9% 0.541
Gender of the household head
Female 43.4% 42.8% 0.867 2.4% 2.6% 0.840 21.3% 22.6% 0.521
Male 56.6% 57.2% 97.6% 97.4% 78.7% 77.4%
Highest educational level of the household head
No formal education 33.6% 40.9% 0.001 22.2% 26.4% <0.001 27.5% 33.6% <0.001
Primary 65.4% 54.3% 74.7% 65.5% 70.4% 59.9%
Secondary 1.0% 3.9% 1.8% 7.9% 1.4% 5.9%
Tertiary 0.0% 1.0% 1.3% 0.2% 0.7% 0.6%
Marital status of the household head
Married 53.7% 61.1% 0.036 82.6% 91.4% <0.001 69.3% 76.3% 0.001
Not married 46.3% 38.9% 17.4% 8.6% 30.7% 23.7%
Total number of males in your household
None 8.5% 7.3% 0.789 0.0% 0.7% 0.327 3.9% 4.0% 0.841
1 to 2 51.7% 53.8% 48.7% 49.2% 50.1% 51.4%
15 At national level, 29% of the households are headed by women, and 33% in the Southern province according to the 
National Statistics Institute or Rwanda 
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 23 |P a g e
3 to 4 32.6% 30.7% 41.2% 39.6% 37.2% 35.1%
More than 4 7.2% 8.3% 10.1% 10.6% 8.8% 9.4%
Total number of females in your household
None 0.0% 1.5% 0.039 2.0% 1.7% 0.723 1.1% 1.6% 0.543
1 to 2 52.5% 46.0% 46.3% 47.0% 49.1% 46.5%
3 to 4 40.1% 44.5% 42.3% 39.8% 41.3% 42.1%
More than 4 7.5% 8.0% 9.5% 11.5% 8.6% 9.8%
Total number of males in your household who normally provide labour for household chores including farming
None 29.2% 29.7% 0.768 2.0% 2.6% 0.934 14.5% 16.1% 0.718
1 to 2 66.4% 66.9% 93.4% 92.8% 81.0% 80.0%
3 to 4 4.1% 2.9% 4.2% 4.1% 4.2% 3.5%
More than 4 0.3% 0.5% 0.4% 0.5% 0.4% 0.5%
Total number of females in your household who normally provide labour for household chores including farming
None 1.8% 2.7% 0.244 5.5% 5.0% 0.522 3.8% 3.9% 0.256
1 to 2 91.7% 93.7% 90.3% 92.1% 91.0% 92.9%
3 to 4 5.7% 3.4% 4.0% 2.4% 4.8% 2.9%
More than 4 0.8% 0.2% 0.2% 0.5% 0.5% 0.4%
 
1.5. Ethics and gender
34. WFP's decentralised evaluations must conform to WFP and United Nations Evaluation 
Group (UNEG) ethical standards and norms. The contractors undertaking the evaluation 
are responsible for safeguarding and ensuring ethics at all stages of the evaluation cycle. 
This includes, but is not limited to, ensuring informed consent, protecting privacy, 
confidentiality and anonymity of participants, ensuring cultural sensitivity, respecting the 
autonomy of participants, ensuring fair recruitment of participants (including women and 
socially excluded groups) and ensuring that the evaluation results in no harm to
participants or their communities.
35. Gender was considered in all the steps of data collection and in the following manner:
• An equal number of male and female respondents were included in the quantitative 
survey.
• All FGD included women. While no gender specific FGD were organized but a specific 
attention was given to the participation of women in the discussion. 
• Across the research questions the team sought to establish whether there were 
significant differences in the way women and men had participated and or benefitted 
from the interventions. 
• Some specific questions were included in the KII and FGDs about place and role of 
women.
• The qualitative information collected was analysed to triangulate the ideas and words 
of the male and female actors with elements of context and emphasized the main 
issues affecting the actors. Where relevant, the different voices of male and female 
farmers have been reflected in the discussion of the findings.
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 24 |P a g e
• Data is disaggregated by gender in the report, whenever there is a difference between 
males and females. When not disaggregated, the results were similar for males and 
females. 
1.6. Limitations
36. The evaluation faced the following limitations:
• For operational reasons, LRP progress reporting has (mostly) been part of FTMA reports. 
This has limited the amount of detail on LRP specific information and reduced the extent 
to which reports could provide information of use to this evaluation. The evaluation team 
addressed this challenge by triangulating information from non-documentary sources (in 
particular through KII, FGD and the survey).
• The evaluation team was unable to access all the relevant documents from the LRP 
project and from partners. This limited the analysis of project implementation and 
efficiency. Analysis has therefore focused primarily on results at farmer and cooperative 
level. 
• At endline, some cooperative leaders and members who had been interviewed at 
baseline were not available, and the data collection schedule did not allow to reschedule
interviews. The evaluation team sought to fill this gap by interviewing alternative 
cooperative leaders and members. At data analysis stage the team checked whether the 
responses of these cooperatives were broadly aligned with those of the respondents who 
were interviewed both at base and endline.
• Documentation at cooperative level was found to be very limited. This made it difficult to 
confirm the veracity of verbal information from cooperatives and SHF, for example in
relation to quantity and pricing. To the extent feasible, the evaluation team triangulated 
information through additional interviews.
• FGD participants were chosen by cooperative leaders which could bias 
representativeness of cooperative members. Yet, the research team sought to address 
this by asking that the SHF selection for the FGD should reflect the diversity of the full 
group of members (in terms of gender and age), by checking that there was a diversity of 
participants, and by making sure that all participants had a chance to express themselves. 
Women contributed freely to the discussions and specific questions on the roles and 
involvement of women were asked. 
• Finally, an overarching limiting factor is the short timeframe between the baseline and 
the endline, as processes that require changes in practice and behaviour by different 
intervening actors generally require at least three seasons to become established. The 
evaluation report therefore provides a sense of direction of changes, but a longer time 
period would be needed to achieve outcomes and impacts envisioned by this 
intervention and to be able to assess whether these have taken place. 
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 25 |P a g e
2. Evaluation Findings
37. The following section of the report presents the evaluation findings by evaluation 
question. 
2.1. Evaluation Question 1 - How relevant is the design of the intervention in terms of the 
context; needs of the most vulnerable groups; needs of male and female beneficiaries; 
and priorities of the government and WFP partners?
Relevance in terms of beneficiary needs and priorities 
38. Agriculture is the backbone of the economy of Rwanda and it employs most of the 
population. According to the latest Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability 
Analysis (CFSVA) (2018), about 50 percent of all Rwandan households experience at least 
occasional difficulties with access to food and about 20 percent of the population is 
considered food insecure. Thirty-nine percent of the population is poor, and the southern 
province is the second poorest province. Food insecurity remains high in the targeted LRP 
districts. About 30 percent of the population is food secure in Huye, Nyaruguru and 
Gisagara districts. In Nyamagabe, only 11 percent of the population is food secure (CSFVA 
2015). Improving food crop production is therefore extremely relevant to the needs of 
beneficiaries in the targeted districts. Agriculture in Rwanda faces low productivity and 
high post-harvest losses. Therefore, building capacities of farmers on Good Agricultural 
Practices (GAP) and Post-Harvest Handling and Storage (PHHS) were very relevant
activities of the LRP project. 
39. Working with cooperatives was also a very relevant entry point and strategic focus. In the 
Rwandese context, cooperatives are key actors in the development of marshlands that 
belong to the GoR. Cooperatives provide access to consolidated land, and therefore allow 
for work on one large area with the same crops, which facilitates access to inputs, 
organisation of the work in the fields, and access to extension services. Cooperatives also 
enable farmers to exchange on their practices, thus facilitating dissemination of good 
agricultural practices. Through cooperatives, it is possible to aggregate larger volumes of 
crops, which enables linkage with formal buyers.16
40. Supporting the development of contracts between farmers and buyers was equally very 
relevant to increase production, quality and access to markets (key objectives of the LRP). 
Without formal buyers, farmers are often forced to sell at a much lower price to 
middlemen. Lower prices dissuade them from investing in quality. With contracts, 
marketing of the product is guaranteed, and this encourages SHF to increase production 
and quality. 
16 usually large buyers are not interested in purchasing quantities that are less than five to ten metric 
tons.
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 26 |P a g e
41. Gender was not specifically taken into account in the design of the project. The project did 
not analyse and target specific constraints affecting women (such as lower literacy rate, 
lower self-confidence, heavy workload). The project also did not particularly encourage 
participation of women in cooperative decisions-making and governance. There is no 
evidence either that division of labour and profit between men and women in the maize 
value chain was analysed to make sure that there was no risk of eviction of women from 
some activities and/or control over some resources. Nonetheless, the LRP paid attention 
to the participation of women to the activities.
42. LRP’s design also did not include specific actions to target the most vulnerable households. 
Instead the choice of targeted cooperatives was made with district authorities based on
characteristics that reflected good agricultural potential. Given that the focus of the 
project was on value chain development, this was a reasonable choice. Investing in 
production to increase the marketable surplus requires targeting farmers that can afford 
to take this risk. 
Relevance to the priorities of the government 
43. As the table below show, areas of intervention of LRP have been well aligned with priorities 
of the government at national level. Focal points from MINAGRI and MINEDUC have been 
regularly consulted and participated in several LRP project activities. 
Table 5 : Relevance of LRP interventions to the priorities of the GoR
Policy/strategy Key focus of the policies and strategies
National Strategy 
for transformation 
(2017-2024)
Modernize and increase productivity of agriculture 
Strengthen commercialisation of crops by increasing private sector engagement 
Promote market-oriented agri-business
Increase surface of consolidated land 
Enhance farmers’ access to improved seeds 
Increase average productivity of crops 
Increase post-harvest and storage capacity 
Facilitate access to finance for farmers 
Economic 
Development and 
Poverty Reduction 
Strategy 2 (2013-
2018)
Increasing economic growth by investing in and modernizing agriculture. 
Increasing agriculture productivity 
Connect rural communities to economic opportunity
Vision 2020 Promotion of intensification in agriculture 
Production of high value crops 
Replace subsistence farming by a fully monetised, commercial agriculture sector
Integration of gender into development policies and strategies 
Vision 2050 Sustained food security and nutrition for all households
Technology intensive agriculture with a commercial focus 
Universal access to financial services
PSTA IV Having a productive, green and market led agriculture sector 
4 pillars:
• Enabling environment and responsive institutions 
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 27 |P a g e
Policy/strategy Key focus of the policies and strategies
• Productive and inclusive markets and value addition 
• Increased productivity, diversity, sustainability and resilience of agricultural 
production 
• Research, innovation and empowerment 
Crop Intensification 
Program
Increase agricultural productivity. 
Provide access to inputs (improved seeds and fertilizers), consolidation of land use, 
provision of extension services, and improvement of post-harvest handling and 
storage mechanisms six priority crops: maize, wheat, rice, Irish potato, beans and 
cassava.
National policy on 
cooperatives (2018)
Strengthening of capacity development and entrepreneurship promotion for 
cooperatives 
Improve policy dialogue to enhance cooperative contribution to national 
development 
Increase ownership of the cooperative movement by cooperatives members 
Promote self-financing 
Promote performance-based management 
National Post￾Harvest Staple Crop 
Strategy
Strengthening the harvesting, post-harvest handling, trade, storage, and marketing 
of staple crop value chains 
Strengthening food security
strengthening competitiveness of the staple crop value 
Improve efficiency and decrease marketing costs
Enhance producers’ access to, and linkages with, markets.
National Gender 
Policy
Promote gender equality and equity 
Mainstream gender needs and concerns across all sectors of development
The Rwanda 
Education Sector 
Strategic Plan
Strengthen school nutrition 
Expansion of the HGSF Programme
National School 
Health Policy
Improve and expand food and nutrition, as well as school performance in schools 
(pre-primary, primary and secondary
44. At district level, LRP interventions were very relevant to district priorities because of the 
focus on land use consolidation, increased use of inputs, private sector involvement, 
capacity strengthening of farmers, increased post-harvest facilities and increasing 
productivity and production, all of which have been key areas of concern for these 
districts. Districts authorities have regularly been consulted by LRP project and reports 
were regularly submitted to the Joint Action Development Forum in order to ensure 
coherence with other interventions. 
Relevance for WFP
45. WFP has a long history of supporting cooperatives to increase production and capacity 
and has typically done so with the objective of increasing access to local produce for WFP’s 
programmes. The LRP project was also relevant to WFP other priorities as it targets school 
feeding. 
Coherence with other interventions 
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 28 |P a g e
46. For district authorities the coherence and alignment of the LRP project with other 
interventions has been very good. According to them, the LRP brought a specific focus on
the inclusion of the private sector partnership in the project. Districts considered this a 
relevant approach which has been well aligned with their development priorities. 
47. At national level, a dialogue mechanism is in place for development partners and the GoR. 
Sector Working Groups are a forum through which stakeholders meet to discuss sector 
planning and prioritization and WFP is part of the Working Group on Agriculture. Most of 
the development partners work on supporting agricultural production and target 
cooperatives. However, the specificity of the LRP is the linkage to buyers and the support 
to post-harvest and handling storage. 
Key findings and conclusions – Question 1
• The LRP focus on agriculture and promoting staple crops were relevant choices. 
Rwanda’s staple food sector is growing substantially, and the country still faces serious 
food insecurity issues. 
• Supporting cooperatives to improve their production and marketing capacities through 
forward delivery contracts has been particularly relevant. 
• The LRP has a specific added value in linking SHF to buyers/the private sector and is seen
as complementary to the work of other partners in doing so.
• The LRP did not specifically target the most vulnerable households. Inclusion of poorest 
farmers in cooperatives has not been a point of attention for cooperatives and local 
authorities.
• The LRP project design was in line with the GoR strategies and policies and well aligned 
with the priorities of the districts that were covered by the LRP. 
• WFP has engaged in regular dialogue with MINAGRI and MINEDUC, through existing 
dialogue mechanisms at national level between development partners and the 
Government of Rwanda.
2.2. Evaluation Question 2 - How has cooperative ability ‘to be’, ‘to organize’, ‘to relate’ and 
‘to do’ evolved from baseline to endline?
48. General information on LRP cooperatives is presented in annex 7.1. The endline used the 
same four criteria used for the baseline study (ability ‘to be’, ‘to organize’, ‘to relate’ and ‘to 
do’) to assess the evolution of cooperative capacity. A description of these criteria and of 
the scoring exercise can be found in Annex 7.2. 
49. Capacity building of cooperatives has been a key element of LRP’s intervention. The 
project mainly focused on technical capacities (Good Agriculture Practices (GAP) and Post￾Harvest Handling and Storage (PHHS)) but some activities also targeted cooperatives 
governance, operational and financial management, as well as access to finance (more 
information on the different activities is in annex 7.3). All the LRP cooperatives received 
training on GAP, PHHS, and governance. Seven cooperatives have been trained on access 
to finance through saving groups. 
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 29 |P a g e
50. Overall, at endline, the evaluation found that capacities of cooperatives have increased, 
although most of them are still fragile. A visual representation of the scoring at baseline is
presented in annex 7.2. The visual representation at endline is presented in Figure 1. The
data suggest that at endline, cooperative capacity remains largely variant from one 
cooperative to another. For example, cooperative scoring on ‘capacity to perform’ varies 
from 32 to 82 percent. 
Figure 1: Representation of cooperative abilities (scoring based on qualitative endline data)
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
ability to be
ability to do
ability to relate
ability to perform
group 1 : high potential cooperatives
Icyerekezo
Coamanya Gishubi
CCM Muganza
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
ability to be
ability to do
ability to relate
ability to perform
group2 : Not well functionning cooperatives
Kopianya
Duterimbere
Abemeriihigo
Abishyizhzehamwe Urwonhjya
Abishyizhzehamwe Ngera
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 30 |P a g e
51. Cooperatives identified at baseline as ‘high potential cooperatives’ were the best 
performing cooperatives at endline (group 1). They have fully benefited from the 
opportunities and training provided by the LRP project. Some of the selected cooperatives 
appear as particularly weak (group 3). Some of these were already losing momentum at 
baseline and others were rated as nascent but collapsed (due to governance and 
management problems). The last group of cooperatives are those not yet functioning well 
(group 2). The opportunities provided by the LRP project have contributed to boost these 
cooperatives, but they are not yet able to be sustainable. WFP is currently in the process 
of transitioning the LRP cooperatives to the McGovern Dole programme to ensure 
continuity of support moving forward.
Ability to be 
52. Cooperatives’ governance and common vision had not changed much at endline. In the 
Rwandese context, cooperatives are mainly farmers’ organisations promoted by the 
government to organize production and access to extension services and subsidized 
inputs. All cooperatives interviewed are organizing their statutory meetings in line with 
the Rwanda Cooperative Authority (RCA) guideline: holding a General Assembly twice a 
year and an executive committee meeting every month. 
53. The evaluation found that the LRP interventions brought a new dynamic to cooperatives, 
through training and running activities of the project. This resulted in more operational 
meetings as members now have activities to organize and decisions to take. However, 
interviews at endline highlighted that LRP cooperatives still had no clearly defined 
common vision and no strategies (as figure 20 in annex 7.4 shows). 
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
ability to be
ability to do
ability to relate
ability to perform
group 3 : weak cooperatives
Abibumbye
Kaiimu
Kobabomango
Kopiki
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 31 |P a g e
54. The LRP contributed to increased farmer interest in cooperative membership and 
participation. At endline seven (out of twelve) cooperatives considered themselves as
more active than two years earlier. Main changes mentioned included increased member 
participation (seven cooperatives), more trust between members (four cooperatives), and 
interest from other farmers in joining the cooperative (three cooperatives). From the data 
collected there appeared to be a stronger sense of ownership from farmers. Figure 2 
below suggests that this interest has been sparked by LRP project, and in particular 
through the focus on market linkages and the organization of various training activities.
Figure 2: Farmers reasons for being interested in cooperative activity (qualitative data collection based on 
12 cooperatives, multiple option choice)
55. All cooperatives had leaders in place who have been regularly renewed. However, there is 
a distant relationship between leaders and members, which didn’t improve at endline.
Leaders are seen as cooperatives’ authority but not necessarily prioritising the defences 
of cooperatives members’ interests. Moreover, transparency and accountability towards 
members is seen as low. Training on management and governance has targeted leaders 
but cooperatives’ members have not been involved and do not have the capacity to 
monitor and control the committee. This created problems in several cooperatives of 
which the committee was renewed, and the skills and knowledge acquired though the 
capacity building activities were lost with the turn-over. Several cooperatives also 
experienced problems of committee members using funds of the institution for their own 
benefit. In the case of Kopiki, this almost resulted in the collapse of the cooperative.
Ability to organize 
56. Interviews at endline highlighted that document archiving was still a challenge for most 
cooperatives. Cooperatives lack understanding on the importance and use of documents. 
As table 8 in annex 7.4 shows, two cooperatives had a good archiving system, five had a 
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
access to
training
access to
market
access to
input
no interest increased
production
working
together,
organizing
production
access to
equipment
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 32 |P a g e
system with considerable shortcomings and four had poor systems. None of the 
cooperatives mentioned an improvement in their account-keeping and management 
system in the last two years (see figure 21 in annex 7.3). Archiving and accounting was 
included in the training package but consisted in a one-off training. Nine cooperatives 
mentioned that they would need more training and regular coaching to be able to improve 
document archiving and account-keeping (see table 7in annex 7.4).
57. The evaluation found that LRP cooperatives have developed a stronger business mindset. 
Only two cooperatives had no business mindset and conducted limited planning of their 
activities (Abibumbye and Kopiki). The other nine cooperatives had a relatively strong 
business mindset at endline- they were producing for the market and were able to discuss 
with buyers and negotiate prices and conditions. Five cooperatives (Coamanya Gishubi, 
CCM Muganza, Icyerekezo, Duterimbere and Abemerhigo) were one step further, in other 
words, they considered their activity as a business and were looking for opportunities to 
develop their activity. 
58. Yet, none of the cooperative had a real business plan or an expense forecast of expected 
benefits at the end of the season. Cooperatives do not analyse their financial results and 
therefore have only a very limited idea of the profitability of their activities. Cooperatives 
were still making opportunistic and externally-driven choices instead of balancing options 
and taking decisions based on potential profit and assessment of the opportunities they 
have. 
59. Funding of cooperatives continued to be an area of fragility. Lack of funds continues to be
a major obstacle for cooperatives to develop their activities. All cooperatives interviewed 
considered that their capital is currently not enough to cover expenses related to the 
running of their activities and to invest (for example in accounting staff). However, the 
situation has improved from baseline to endline. The quantitative survey showed that 100
percent of the SHFs were paying dues to their cooperative (compared to 64.4 percent at 
baseline). This improvement in resource mobilization was also evident from the 
qualitative data collected. Shares have been paid (at least partially) in all the cooperatives 
(see figure 3) and most cooperatives have a regular resource mobilisation system (see 
figure 4). At baseline, cooperatives did not have a clear view of the level of payment from 
their members and evidence showed that many SHFs did not meet their obligations. 
Aggregating production and organizing PHHS collectively contributed to better resource 
mobilisation as cooperatives usually retrieve the amount of dues/commission of sales 
before paying their members.
Figure 3: Level of payment of shares in cooperatives (qualitative data collection)
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 33 |P a g e
60. All cooperatives had a bank account. Cooperatives interviewed demonstrated better 
knowledge of the amount of funds in their accounts. By the time of the endline, amounts 
varied between 54,000 Rwanda Francs (RWF) and 2.1 million RWF depending on whether 
cooperatives had already sold crops in season B and/or invested in agricultural activities
(see figure 22 in annex 7.4). The cooperative with the lowest amount of funds is a well￾performing cooperative which was still waiting to be paid for its season A production17 at 
the time of data collection. 
61. Money collected by cooperatives has been mainly used to purchase inputs, pay for health 
insurance, and to invest (in infrastructure, equipment, or activities). It has also been used 
to pay for the running costs of the cooperatives (see figure 22 in annex 7.4). 
62. Credit has not been seen by cooperatives as a means to increase resources for agriculture 
activities. Three cooperatives contracted credit (but only one during the LRP project and 
through a FTMA member). As figure 23 in annex 7.4 shows, cooperatives considered that 
credit is risky because of the climate hazards and because there have often been delays 
before receiving the funds18
. Other factors that have affected access to credit are the high 
17 This cooperative (CCM Muganza) produced seeds for the Rwanda Agriculture Board (RAB) and was still awaiting 
payment six months after delivery. 
18 Kaiimu received credit through FTM but the funds arrived too late for planting. SHFs had to use their own savings in 
order to reimburse the loan. 
Figure 4
Figure 4: Cooperative resource mobilisation systems (qualitative data collection)
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 34 |P a g e
interest rates, the costs of credit, and the requirement to provide collateral. However, 
eight cooperatives considered that they could access credit easily if they decided to do so 
and could usually choose between several banks, Micro Finance Institutions (MFIs) and 
Savings and Credit Cooperatives (SACCO). A change in cooperative mentality about credit 
was clearly noted from baseline to endline, and several cooperatives mentioned that they 
are considering contracting credit in the future, provided they can first strengthen their 
cooperative and have a clear and profitable project to finance. 
Ability to relate 
63. At endline cooperatives mostly had the same partnerships as baseline (see annex 7.4). 
The LRP has clearly been instrumental in linking cooperatives to FTMA buyers (a brief 
presentation of FTMA buyers is in annex 9.2). This is a major achievement of the project. 
For cooperatives, the partnership with buyers represented a key change in their situation 
from baseline to endline. All cooperatives now knew FTMA buyers (at baseline 
cooperatives had very limited knowledge of big buyers and only one of them had sold 
maize through contract). Most cooperatives were satisfied with the partnerships, with the 
exception of three cooperatives that experienced some challenges with buyers.19
Cooperatives considered that working with FTMA buyers ensured more transparency in 
terms of conditions and fairer transactions (no cheating on weight). 
64. However, the evaluation view is that the partnership with buyers remains very fragile as 
cooperatives only sold once or twice to FTMA buyers. Cooperatives were not yet strong 
enough to conduct negotiation on sales without the intervention of the LRP project. Every 
time that difficulties have arisen, intervention by the LRP project was needed to find 
solutions. Cooperatives also remained very dependent on LRP project staff to find buyers;
in several cases RWARRI’s field officer had to look for marketing options for maize that 
was not sold to FTMA buyers.
65. Cooperatives’ knowledge and ownership of contracts was still low. Only one cooperative 
was able to present the contract to the evaluation team. Some of the cooperatives had
not received a copy of the contract (even for contracts that relate to season A in 2018). 
Other cooperatives mentioned receiving the contract but not being able to locate it. 
Cooperatives were able to explain the conditions of the contract but did not understand 
the detailed contract conditions. In particular, they did not know what to do when the 
buyer does not respect its part of the contract. 
66. Choice of buyers should be done freely by cooperatives depending on the conditions 
offered. To a certain extent this was found to be the case, but some cooperatives 
mentioned that they were only introduced to one buyer. Actually, all the buyers were 
invited but some of them are still reluctant to work with LRP cooperatives and did not 
19 The challenges in each case were different and included: rejection of their produce; direct purchase of maize, and 
delays in payment
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 35 |P a g e
participate. Also, interviews with buyers highlighted collusion among buyers within
catchment area. As a matter of fact, nearly all sales made by LRP cooperatives have been 
purchased by the same buyer. This represents a risk for the future, should this buyer 
decide to take advantage of the situation and offer non-competitive conditions. WFP is 
now looking for localized formal buyers willing to sign contracts with cooperatives and 
that should create more opportunities for farmers. 
Ability to perform 
67. Agriculture is the main economic activity for cooperatives. Cooperatives that are also agro￾dealers do so to support production rather than to make a profit. The main crop that is 
produced is maize (all the cooperatives were growing maize and four of them had been 
growing it more than once a year). The second most important cooperative crop is beans 
(nine cooperatives are growing beans). Other crops grown on cooperative lands were Irish 
potatoes, vegetables and rice (see figure 25 in Annex 7.4). 
68. The main cropping season is season A. For most of the cooperatives, season A is maize 
season to make sure they have a good production (as they consider it as their most 
profitable crop). However, their main strategy has been to minimize risks so if the season 
is delayed (by lack of rain or if seeds arrive late) cooperatives will often switch to beans. 
Choice of crops has also been driven by recommendations from the agronomists, 
characteristics of the marshland, market and price (price of maize is higher in season B as 
there is a smaller quantity of maize on the market). Production on cooperative land is still 
mainly used to feed the family even if cooperative lands are considered as commercial 
plots. Maize is seen as a cash crop although only about a third of the production is sold. 
At the time that the evaluation data collection took place beans had not been sold by 
cooperatives20
.
69. Cooperatives are not yet at their full potential for maize production. On average, 
cooperatives grow maize on 60 percent of their marshland, with significant variation from 
cooperative to cooperative (with cooperatives growing between 10 to 100 percent of their 
marshland with maize). Six cooperatives have fully dedicated their land to maize but five 
of them grow less than 30 percent of their marshland with maize. The main reason is soil 
fertility issues on some marshlands as maize is a demanding crop and parts of the 
marshland are not appropriate for maize. Some marshlands are not yet fully constructed 
and experience frequent flooding and/or droughts. Some farmers are members of the 
cooperative but not really interested in its activity and strategy. Therefore, they do not 
grow maize but grow their own choice of crop. 
70. It has been difficult to assess how cooperatives’ maize production has evolved because 
cooperatives only keep records of sales and not of yields, and the LRP project did not 
20 Data collection for the final evaluation took place in June 2019. WFP organized a campaign to purchase beans from 
LRP cooperatives in July 2019. The evidence related to this campaign could therefore not be included in this report.
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 36 |P a g e
monitor yield. However, all cooperatives interviewed reported that their production had 
increased. Information collected from cooperative levels suggests that yields have been 
between 1.5 MT/ha and 3.5MT/ha21 (with a majority of farmers mentioning between 2 and 
3 MT/ha). As figure 26 in Annex 7.4 shows, the production can therefore be estimated at 
between 796 and 1,195.5 MT for 15 cooperatives (there was no information on the area 
planted for Abibumbye cooperative). At baseline, the potential production - based on the 
area planted and high yield expectation - was estimated at 841,3 MT. It appears, therefore, 
that most cooperatives have improved production. There is likely still room for 
improvement given that the production potential is around 2500 MT, would the 
marshland be fully utilized for maize and yields keep improving. 
71. Ten (out of 12) cooperatives mentioned that their sales had improved with the support of 
the LRP project. At the time of the endline, sales data was not available for all cooperatives 
(not everything had been sold). However, the evolution of the registered sales, showed a 
clear increase (see figure 27 in Annex 7.4). For example, Coamanya Gishubi was selling 60
MT in 2017 and was planning to sell 200 MT in 2019. In 2018, RWARRI registered 452.1522
MT sold to FTMA buyers through the LRP project, as figure 27 in Annex 7.4 shows). This 
represents a clear increase from the baseline (when the quantity sold either by 
cooperatives or individually was estimated at around 307 MT). It is interesting to note that 
in 2019 the quantity of maize sold continued to increase even though it was a difficult year 
for agricultural activity (several climatic hazards). This highlights the interest of 
cooperatives to sell to big buyers and to increase their marketed share. Because record
keeping by cooperatives is poor, it was not possible to estimate the net margin made by 
cooperatives. 
72. All cooperatives have increased the adoption of PHHS practices. Cooperatives reported
that their view on post-harvest treatment of maize has completely changed because they 
now have a market for quality maize. Most cooperatives are harvesting at the same time, 
aggregating production, and drying on cooperative ground (See figure 28 in Annex 7.4). 
However, cooperatives remain very reluctant to store maize before selling it because 
members are in need of cash at harvest time. Only two cooperatives reported being able 
to store more easily than before. Seven cooperatives considered that they need a building 
to dry their maize. However, given that the LRP project introduced some practices to dry 
maize on temporary ladders, this is probably more a question of social status for the 
cooperative than a real operational constraint. 
73. Service provision by cooperatives to SHFs have seen a significant improvement from 
baseline to endline. As figure 29 in annex 7.4 shows, these services include an increase in 
21 At baseline, it was between 0,6 MT and 3 MT
22 Data collected during qualitative data collections are different, but cooperatives do not use written records to 
indicate the amount sold so there can be mistakes. WFP data are more reliable. 
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 37 |P a g e
the purchasing of maize and beans from members, improved supply of fertilisers and 
other chemicals, better market information and supplying other agricultural inputs (bags). 
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 38 |P a g e
Key findings and conclusions – Question 2
• All LRP cooperatives have been trained on GAP, PHHS and governance. 
• Capacities have increased but are very variable from one cooperative to another. 
Cooperatives are still fragile. 
• Overall, governance is good, and the project contributed to a new dynamic and a change 
of mentality in the cooperatives. Interest and participation of members has increased. 
• Cooperatives have a clearer business orientation now as compared to baseline.
Production and sales have increased. 
• Capacity of the cooperatives to organize and to manage their activity is still relatively low 
and they are struggling with accounting, record keeping, and business planning. 
• Cooperative capital is increasing but funding of agricultural activities is still a limiting 
factor. Cooperatives are reluctant to have credit, because of the need for collateral, 
risks, and the costs.
• Linking cooperatives with FTMA buyers is a key achievement of the LRP project and has 
had a very positive effect on cooperative performance (production, post-harvest practices 
and sales). However, cooperatives remain very dependent on the LRP project to link with 
buyers. 
• Both males and female members benefited from cooperatives’ capacity building and 
market linkages. 
2.3. Evaluation Question 3 - Have the LRP project interventions affected male and female 
SHF knowledge, capacity and choices/behaviour from baseline to endline?
74. Analyses on gender are presented in section 2.7.
Extension services, training, and adoption of practices
75. There was no significant improvement in farmers receiving agricultural extension services 
at endline compared to baseline for both females (increased by 5.2 percent, p=0.102) and 
males (increased by 2.5 percent, p=0.380) (see table 9 in Annex 8.1).). 
76. These results are coherent with findings from qualitative data collection - cooperatives 
only mentioned that they received extension services from RWARRI/WFP. While the district 
agronomist was informed about the LRP, local government staff were not involved in the 
design and implementation of training and monitoring of farmers and cooperatives. 
77. Training was conducted by RWARRI field officers with a system of lead farmers (Annex 7.3). 
GAP training aimed to enhance farmer skills in maize production and focussed on 
selection of the right variety, timely planting, proper use of inputs, and spacing. Training 
on post-harvest handling and storage aimed at sensitizing farmers with appropriate use 
of post-harvest equipment to improve quality of the maize and avoid contamination. 4,230 
SHFs (including 2,082 women) have been trained on GAP and 5,310 SHFs (including 2,620 
women) have been trained on PHHS. Table 10 in annex 8.1 shows the details by 
cooperative. On average, 89.8 percent of cooperative members have been trained on GAP 
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 39 |P a g e
and 96 percent of cooperative members have been trained on PHHS. The lead farmer 
system has been highly effective in reaching and mobilizing SHFs.
78. The score on good 
agricultural practices and post-harvest handling was calculated using 11 key items (see 
table 12a in Annex 8.1). At both baseline and final, as seen in the Figure 5 above, the 
proportion of farmers who achieved an excellent score on good agricultural practices and 
post-harvest handling was significantly high at final compared to baseline for both females 
(increased by 17.7 percent, p<0.001) and males (increased by 16.9 percent, p<0.001).
79. All the cooperatives mentioned that members’ knowledge and skills on GAP and PHHS has 
improved. FGDs highlighted the importance of particular skills such as planting in line, 
correct spacing, harvesting maize when mature, and using tarpaulin to avoid 
contamination from the ground. The LRP project did not do any specific monitoring of the 
adoption of practices. However, a mobile phone survey was conducted for FTMA (results 
are in table 12b Annex 8.1). These results are quite coherent with findings from the 
qualitative data collection.23
23 Results from the phone survey concerning skills and practices are subject to interpretation (farmers can think they do 
the right thing but do it wrong in the field for example) and less effective compared to monitoring fields practices directly. 
Figure 5 - Percentage of SHF with excellent score on training on GAP and PHHS (quantitative survey)
Figure 6 - Percentage of SHFs that have heard of GAP and PHHS (quantitative survey)
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 40 |P a g e
80. Main new practices adopted included planting in rows, systematic use of organic 
fertilisers combined with chemical ones, sorting of cobs after harvest, and avoiding of
grains touching the soils after shelling. Farmers who were interviewed at endline reported 
that these practices have been largely adopted. Other practices24 have been only partially 
adopted and would require a specific monitoring study to obtain accurate adoption rates. 
During the FGDs, farmers mentioned that there were still some cooperative members who 
do not apply the practices which they had learned about. For some practices (correct 
dosage of fertilizers, use of protective equipment, use of hermetic bags for storage) the 
main limiting factor for the adoption is the cost of the inputs. For fertilisers, farmers 
usually know the quantity to apply (and this was already the case at baseline), but they 
apply the quantity they can afford. 
Access to market information and credit
81. At baseline, information on the market was limited, and SHF were only able to report on 
the price offered by local middlemen. At endline, the situation had evolved. SHFs were
aware of the GoR floor price and of the price and quality specification of the main buyers. 
However, SHF were not yet able to explain the price mechanism (for example from cob 
price to grain price) and were not aware of the minimum price they need to practice 
gaining profit. Cooperatives (and SHFs) were still dependent on the project to access 
market information and none of them were using a market information system. 
82. The quantitative survey showed that the percentage of SHFs that received credit for their 
agriculture activities had not changed from baseline to end line (20 percent). SHF use loans
mainly for farm inputs and labour. However, the percentage of farmers that use credit to 
purchase inputs reduced from baseline to endline (from 64.6 percent at baseline to 53.5
percent at endline). 
Investments in productive assets for agriculture
83. The results of the quantitative survey (figure 30 in annex 8.2) shows that there has been a 
slight improvement in the percentage of SHFs that planted maize in season A (from 68
percent to 74.2 percent) and season B (from 44.5 percent to 55.2 percent). Overall, the 
percentage of farmers planting beans was higher than for maize (in both season A and B) 
and the survey did not show an evolution from baseline to endline. Interest of farmers in 
maize was already high at baseline and had improved over time. Nonetheless, beans were
still a very important crop. Surprisingly, the survey showed a slight decrease in the area 
cultivated in maize and beans (see figure 31 in annex 8.2). This can probably be explained 
by the difficult year in terms of climatic conditions. Farmers mentioned that there were 
However, if we do not focus on the precise percentage, it can give valuable information on trends in terms of adoption 
of practices.
24 Correct distance between rows and between seeds, use of appropriate quantity of seeds and fertilizers, proper handling 
of crop protection equipment and products, use of bags, checks of moisture.
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 41 |P a g e
several challenges related to droughts and flooding and that probably affected the area 
they could cultivate. 
84. A change from baseline to endline is that farmers were at endline prioritizing the 
purchasing of enough inputs to invest in their maize farm. There was a slight change in 
the amount spent on seeds (the survey indicates it evolved from 12.168 RWF on average 
at baseline to 12.345 RWF at endline). Both quantitative and qualitative data showed that 
the real change took place in terms of the purchasing of fertilizers. Several cooperatives 
mentioned that it was one of the investments made by their members with the extra 
income from maize. 
85. The below figure confirms that farmers are now spending more in fertilizers than at 
baseline. As figure 32 in annex 8.3 also shows, more farmers were getting their fertilizers 
from cooperatives. At baseline, they mainly accessed fertilizers from agro-dealers (59.4
percent) and the cooperative was the second source (35.8 percent). At endline these 
percentages had reversed - 33.6 percent of SHFs were accessing fertilizers through agro￾dealers and 54.9 percent through cooperatives. 
86. However, it remained very difficult for some farmers to purchase sufficient fertilisers to 
apply the recommended dosage. This is clearly one of the factors that limit the increase 
in production. It is also an issue that affects the sustainability of the cropping system: 
maize is a very demanding crop and without any fallow in the rotation (and sometimes no 
beans) there is a risk of dropping soil fertility. 
87. The main limiting factor for agriculture production is climate. According to farmers, 
climate conditions have had a bigger impact on the production than the non-application 
of good practices. Farmers mentioned that production seasons are becoming increasingly 
difficult to plan. There have been several instances of droughts and flooding episodes and 
it is becoming increasingly difficult to predict when the rainy season will start. Farmers 
reported struggling to adapt their cropping pattern. Several cooperatives reported losing 
all their crops and having to replant. This situation was very evident in the field at endline,
when there were simultaneously, in the field crops from a very late season A, crops from 
season B, and already crops from season C. Finding and implementing cropping systems 
Figure 7: Evolution of the amount spent on fertilizers in RWF (quantitative data collection)
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 42 |P a g e
that are more resilient to climatic hazards is becoming a key priority to guaranty 
production and food security. 
88. Other limiting factors mentioned by cooperatives were pests and disease, delays in 
receiving seeds, low quality of some seeds (GoR now wants to supply farmers with locally 
produced seeds, but farmers consider that they are not productive enough), and costs of 
the inputs.
Access to post-harvest equipment 
89. By the end of April 2019, over 7,500 hermetic bags, 5,700 tarpaulins and 100 plastic silos 
had been distributed to 3,864 SHFs. On average, 73.6 percent of cooperative members
had accessed some equipment, but the access to equipment had been very variable from 
one cooperative to another. From the qualitative data collection, it appeared that eight 
cooperatives (out of twelve) were very satisfied with the equipment and considered that 
it contributed to a reduction of post-harvest losses. The other four cooperatives either 
mentioned that the cost of equipment was expensive, or that not all members could get 
some equipment. A real change from baseline was evident, when farmers were not using 
any equipment (maize was mostly on the ground or on pieces of cloth). However, without 
support from WFP, SHFs cannot access equipment as it is not available locally. This 
hampers the sustainability of the intervention.25 More details on the post-harvest
equipment is presented annex 8.3. 
Key findings and conclusions – Question 3
• 4,230 SHFs have been trained on GAP and 5,310 on PHHS. Knowledge has improved and 
some practices are being adopted.
• Access to market information has improved but remains very project dependent.
• Slightly more farmers are planting maize than at baseline.
• SHFs spend more on inputs that at baseline. SHFs now consider that investing in inputs is 
a priority but high cost remains a limiting factor.
• Climatic hazards hamper production and it is becoming increasingly difficult for farmers 
to plan their cropping season. They regularly lose their investment. 
• Through LRP, SHFs accessed post-harvest equipment (7,500 bags, 5,700 tarpaulins and 
100 silos). Farmers are now using post-harvest equipment (this was not the case at 
baseline). Yet equipment is not locally available which hampers sustainability of the 
intervention.
25 However, that may change as WFP has contacted a Tanzanian company that is considering investing in the market 
and organizing distribution through agro-dealers. 
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 43 |P a g e
2.4. Evaluation Question 4 - Has the LRP contributed to creating new market opportunities 
for male and female SHF?
90. Specific analyses on gender are in part 2.7 
At the level of the buyers
91. Rwanda’s maize sector is dynamic and presents considerable opportunities for farmers: 
demand is high and increasing. All the maize produced in Rwanda comes from SHFs 
(either through cooperatives or through middlemen). Production does not meet demand 
and Rwanda continues to be a net maize importer. A recent ban on maize imports from 
Uganda (which was the main maize importer in Rwanda) has boosted prices. Quality of 
the maize produced in Rwanda is overall considered good in comparison with 
neighbouring countries. More information on Rwanda’s maize sector can be found in 
Annex 9.1.
92. The maize market is dominated by a few relatively large local buyers and agro￾processors26. Minimex-Prodev, Africa Improved Food (AIF), East Africa Exchange (EAX), 
Sarura and Rwanda Grains and Cereals Corporation (RGCC) are the main stakeholders. All 
five companies are members of the FTMA. 
93. The buyers considered the cooperatives had positively changed from baseline to endline. 
Buyers were already purchasing from cooperatives but perceived cooperatives as 
unreliable, only able to aggregate small quantities, and unable to produce good quality
produce. At endline, all the three buyers met considered that FTMA cooperatives are their 
business partners and that LRP/FTMA had been instrumental in the change. They were 
purchasing more maize locally and the share of cooperative product purchased had
increased27
. Specifically, buyers reported that: 
• Cooperative mentality has changed and has become much more business-oriented 
(for example, cooperatives now provide tax declarations).
• Trust between farmers and buyers has improved and there is less conflict.
• Cooperatives are better organised, and their capacity has increased. 
• Cooperatives aggregate more production.
• Quality has improved and rejection is less frequent.
94. Except from RGCC which focused more on beans, the four FTMA buyers signed contracts 
with cooperatives. Most of the LRP cooperatives signed contracts with AIF. According to 
figures from RWARRI, 12 cooperatives signed contracts for season A 2018 and nine for 
season B 2019 (see figure 34 in annex 9.2). 452 MT were sold to FTMA buyers in 2018 and 
252 MT in 2019 (but maize was not yet sold for four cooperatives). However, it is unlikely 
that the figure of 2018 will be reached because 2019 was not a very good agriculture year 
26 More information on FTMA buyers is in Annex 7.4.2.
27 It was not possible to have precise data from buyers on quantity purchased from LRP/FTMA cooperatives. 
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 44 |P a g e
(several climatic hazards). In 2018, on average cooperatives sold 117 percent of what they 
had committed to in their contracts. In 2019, the cooperatives “only” sold 89.8 percent of 
what was in their contracts (the figure below shows the result from the different 
cooperatives). Six cooperatives provided above their contract’s commitment in 2018 (and 
three in 2019). On average, LRP cooperatives signed contracts for 30.75 MT in 2018 
(ranging from 3MT to 100 MT) and 28.9 MT in 2019 (ranging from 10 to 50 MT). Quantity 
delivered was on average 37.7 MT in 2018 (from 1.3 MT to 172.5 MT) and 24.9 MT in 2019 
(from 3 to 74.3 MT). These results are very promising. However, these contracts are still 
fragile, which is highlighted by the fact that some cooperatives that had very good results 
in 2018 could not deliver in 2019. 
Figure 8 (left): LRP cooperative contract achievement rate for (RWARRI)28
Figure 9 (right): Factors that influence cooperative choice by clients (multiple options possible, qualitative 
data collection, N=12 cooperatives)
At the Cooperatives’ level
95. Cooperatives reported satisfaction with the contracts they have signed with FTMA buyers. 
Only three cooperatives mentioned difficulties (some delays in payment and defaulting 
from the buyer). These cooperatives explained that RWARRI supported them to find a 
solution and they would consider signing a contract with the same buyer again.
96. Overall, cooperatives reported good contract conditions. FTMA/LRP has guided buyers in 
adapting their contracts to respond to cooperative needs and constraints. For most 
cooperatives the choice of buyers is determined by their willingness to purchase maize in 
cob. This is an evolution from baseline to endline, as no buyer was purchasing maize in 
cob in 2017. This change has been initiated by AIF which uses the services of a social 
enterprise (Kumwe) that is organizing collection of cobs just after harvest, transportation 
to a central processing facility, shelling and drying before supplying to AIF. This innovative 
model has contributed to reducing post-harvest operation time for farmers29, reducing 
28 For some of the cooperatives that have not yet delivered anything it would be interesting to assess the situation after 
season B as they may not have sold yet. 
29 When they harvest maize in season A, farmers are already very busy with preparing season B and planting beans 
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 45 |P a g e
post-harvest losses, and reducing contamination with aflatoxins. More information on 
Kumwe can be found in annex 9.2. 
97. Other important factors for cooperatives are payment delays, organization of transport, 
quality checks on site, and price offered. Farmers are in urgent need of cash at harvest 
time and it is therefore very difficult for them to wait (this is the main reason why in the 
past they would sell to middlemen at a lower price before full maturity). Organization of 
transport is difficult and costly for cooperatives, so having maize collected at the farm gate 
is a positive factor. Quality checking the maize before sales is a way for farmers to avoid 
rejection at the factory (in which case they have to bring the maize back to the cooperative 
if they cannot find another buyer). 
98. LRP cooperatives reported having improved their skills for quality management and 
business orientation. This puts them in a much more favourable position to respond to 
the demand from big buyers than was the case at baseline. There is a clear opportunity 
here to develop value chain dialogue and find sustainable long-term solutions. Already, 
there has been some dialogue between buyers (buyers mentioned that they now have a 
common vision, exchange on their practices, and have fairer business practices) and some 
adaptation of contracts to cooperative constraints. Together with the very conducive 
context (high price, reduction of imports, among other factors), there is room to 
strengthen the whole value chain and to have all the stakeholders on board (producers, 
input providers, buyers, government, NGOs, etc.) to collectively discuss and find solutions 
for an inclusive value chain development and to make sure this is reflected in government 
policies and strategies on agri-business. 
At WFP level 
99. Under the LRP programme, WFP has purchased beans to supply to the Home-Grown
School Feeding (HGSF) programme. WFP purchased 190,178 MT of beans from RGCC and
30,800 MT of maize meal have been purchased from Minimex, the only local producer of 
fortified maize meal that is able to comply with WFP quality standards. It is very likely that 
some of the Minimex maize meal was from LRP cooperative maize, and other FTMA 
buyers, but the evaluation was not able to evaluate the quantity. At the time of the 
evaluation WFP had not directly purchased beans from LRP cooperatives. However, 
shortly afterwards WFP purchased 82 MT from 3 cooperatives, using non-USDA funds.
There is no traceability system in place and thus no guarantee that the food supplied to 
the schools in the LRP districts comes from the cooperatives from the LRP districts.This is 
the consequence of a centralized system and high quality processing standards.
With schools 
30 However, WFP is planning a purchasing campaign in July 2019 in the southern province
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 46 |P a g e
100.LRP contributed to establishment of a high level inter-ministerial working group (with 
representatives from MINEDUC, MINAGRI, Ministry of Trade and Industry (MINICOM) and 
WFP) to develop a pro-smallholder farmer procurement strategy for school feeding. A 
study was conducted to explore school meal options that would be nutritious and would 
promote procurement from local farmers. The objective of the strategy is to create 
sustainable demand at farmer level. The strategy does not promote a unique model but 
rather explores modalities, effects and potential trade-offs of different options and 
models. This has contributed to raising awareness of government stakeholders on the 
potential of a school feeding programme for both the agriculture and education sectors. 
The strategy is not practical enough to guide the drafting of an implementation plan 
without further data collection and analysis. Also, in order to translate into and 
implementation plan, the GoR will need to take decisions on the model to promote and 
its modalities in the field.
101.LRP cooperatives were not providing maize or beans to schools directly at the time of the 
evaluation, although a procurement process was ongoing for three LRP cooperatives to 
supply 82 tons of beans to WFP for use in the HGSF programme. One cooperative 
mentioned that they were selling maize to a miller that is supplying a secondary school. 
Cooperative awareness of the regulations and specifications for supplying to schools was 
still very low. However, with the improvement of the quality and a growing cooperative 
aggregation capacity, opportunities for selling to schools could be explored (some of the 
good cooperatives could probably apply for tenders with some support from RWARRI). 
Given the likely evolution in terms of school procurement regulation and strategy, 
supporting cooperatives to procure to schools may become an interesting perspective. 
Key findings and conclusions – Question 4
• Rwanda’s maize sector is dynamic and presents a strong opportunity for SHFs.
• Buyers consider cooperatives as reliable business partners. 452 MT in 2018 and 252 MT in 
2019 were sold to FTMA buyers by LRP cooperatives 
• Contract conditions have been well adapted to SHFs’ constraints, needs and capacity. Some 
cooperatives were still defaulting, but overall LRP cooperatives respected their 
commitments. Some delivered more than what is contracted. 
• Adoption of the cob model has been an innovation that has been very positive for 
cooperatives as they can save time for post-harvest operation and improve quality.
• Cooperatives were not selling to schools, but this may evolve in the coming years in light of 
the new national school feeding strategy.
• WFP had purchased 190,178 MT of beans and 500 MT of maize meal through the LRP 
project but not directly from LRP cooperatives.
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 47 |P a g e
2.5. Evaluation Question 5 - To what extent do producers market food products that meet 
quality standards and that are nutritious and culturally accepted?
102.SHF consume mainly beans, maize and sweet potatoes. Most of SHF food consumption 
comes from their own production. Qualitative data collection confirmed that beans are 
essential for food security. However, several cooperatives mentioned that maize was also 
becoming increasingly important. After harvest, SHFs reported prioritizing keeping
enough maize to feed their family. However, their strategy is not to store everything, but 
rather to plant maize and beans on several plots and in different seasons to ensure a 
regular supply. In this context, FGDs highlighted the importance of diversifying crops. 
103.Five cooperatives reported increased food security through improved production. 
Several FGD participants mentioned that they were able to store more and that this 
contributed to reducing their need for maize purchase. Other SHF mentioned that they 
are often less compelled to sell beans.31
104.The survey results underlined that strategies differ for male and female SHF. As figure 10
below shows, women slightly increased the quantity of maize they keep for family 
consumption whilst it strongly decreased for men. Men used the extra income from sales 
to secure their households needs rather than storing the product. 
Figure 10: Quantity of maize kept for household consumption during the last planting season (survey
results)
105.Qualitative data collection highlighted that SHFs have changed their perception of quality
since baseline. In KII with cooperatives and FGDs with farmers, participants were able to 
explain at least some factors affecting quality of the maize. All cooperatives reported that 
maize quality and maize conservation had clearly improved in the last two years. There 
was an apparent contradiction with the survey findings on household preference, as 
explained below.
106.Household preference for maize and beans was assessed using five aspects, namely, 
insects, colour, dryness, stones, and variety (see figure 35, in annex 10.1). There was a 
31 Beans are still considered as the major food security crop, and selling beans is a last resort action when in urgent 
needs of cash. 
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 48 |P a g e
significant decrease (p<0.001) in the proportion of farmers having a specific preference
for any of the five characteristics at final compared to baseline, for both females and 
males. This suggests that households place greater emphasis on quality. Improvement of 
the quality of maize was confirmed by interviews with buyers, highlighted by quickly 
dropping rejection rates (from 90 percent to 15 percent for AIF and from 65 percent to 5
percent for Minimex). 
107.SHFs mentioned that they appreciate consumption of maize because it was possible to 
consume maize in different forms (grilled, flour, porridge etc.) and was very easy to 
prepare. An FGD participant called it “the perfect crop”. Consumption patterns had already 
changed before the project i.e. farmers were already eating maize regularly while it was 
not consumed 7-10 years ago. This evaluation confirms that this is a continuing trend. 
108.Crops promoted by the LRP can be part of a nutritious meal for a school feeding program. 
Annex 10.2 gives more details about how the LRP project contributed to a stronger 
acknowledgment of nutritious and culturally acceptable food products for schools in
Rwanda. 
Key findings and conclusions – Question 5
• Most of SHF food consumption has come from their own production. 
• Maize has become increasingly important for SHF food security and its importance in 
household food patterns is increasing. 
• Cooperatives and buyers acknowledge that quality of maize has increased considerably in 
the last two years.
2.6. Evaluation Question 6 - Has the LRP programme affected male and female SHF 
income, and in what way?
109.LRP’s implementation period has been very short making it difficult to discern any real 
effect on income. While SHF production and sales have shown an increase over one or 
two seasons, it is clearly too early to talk of impact. However, there are some signs 
suggesting that the project has affected SHF income. 
110.SHF choices were still mainly driven by the household food needs at endline. The majority 
of what SHF produce is consumed by the family or sold to purchase other food products. 
This did not change from baseline to endline. FGD highlighted that crops that contribute 
the most to SHF income are maize, Irish potatoes, coffee and rice (for those cooperatives 
that are growing rice and coffee). Beans are still a crucial crop for SHF food security, but 
maize is gradually also becoming a key crop for food security. 
111.As figure 11 below shows, the percentage of farmers who purchased maize and beans 
for family consumption reduced from baseline to endline. The reduction was significant 
for females (reduced by 14.5 percent, p<0.001), but not for males (reduced by 5.1 percent, 
p=0.117). This was coherent with findings from the qualitative data collection: farmers 
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 49 |P a g e
have been able to increase their production and have better storage conditions, so they 
rely less on purchasing maize and beans. 
Figure 11: Percentage of farmers who purchased maize and beans for family consumption in seasons A and 
B
112.Production and yield increased for maize in the marshland areas. However, overall 
production was still low due to poor soil fertility, high erosion, climatic hazards, 
inadequate crop rotation and association, and the presence of pests and diseases. 
Avoiding risk was also still an important consideration for SHF. Therefore, mixed cropping 
remains the best strategy to mitigate risks. SHF also rely on tubers (mainly sweet potatoes) 
that can remain in the ground and be harvested gradually. 
113.As the figure 12 below shows, quantity of maize harvest sold during season A was 
significantly higher at final than at baseline for females (increased by 55 kgs, p<0.001) but 
not males (increased by 37 kgs, p=0.102). 
Figure 12: Quantity of maize sold in kg by season from baseline to endline (quantitative survey)
114.The amount of money earned from the sale of maize during season A was significantly 
higher at final compared to baseline for females (p<0.001) but not males (p=0.747), as 
figure 13 shows. Similarly, the amount of money earned from the sale of maize during 
season B was significantly higher at final compared to baseline for females (p<0.001) but 
not males (p=0.745).
Figure13: Amount of money from the sales of maize from baseline to endline (quantitative survey)
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 50 |P a g e
115.In the focus group discussions, farmers confirmed that maize sales had improved 
compared the period preceding the LRP project and attributed this to increased
production and reduced post-harvest losses. Nine cooperatives out of twelve (qualitative 
data collection) mentioned that member income had increased. The cooperatives that did 
not report a change were the ones that have not yet sold to big buyers. 
116.With increased production, better prices, and a reduction of post-harvest losses, 
profitability of maize cultivation increased from baseline to endline even if the amount of 
work and inputs have increased. However, maize cultivation is not profitable (see figure 
37 in annex 11) if a SHF was to give a financial value to his work in the farm. Profitability is 
low given the amount of work it requires to get production. Nonetheless, maize is a 
profitable crop from the perspective of the cash that SHF receive at the end of the season. 
117.Selling to middlemen is clearly not profitable if a farmer invests in quality inputs, applies 
GAPS and PHHS. When selling to FTMA the profitability for buyers mainly depends on the 
price offered. Price of maize is very volatile (in 2019, the cooperative sale price to AIF
ranged from 210 RWF/kg to 270 RWF/kg) and this can affect profitability of the operation 
(at 210 RWF/kg and taking into account family labour, growing maize was not profitable in 
the last season). 
118.Economic calculations also show that selling in cobs is less profitable. It reduces post￾harvest work but cost of inputs and labour remain the same (and they are the biggest part 
of the expenses). Also, selling in cobs stops farmers from using the by-products of maize 
which they would normally apply on other plots as mulch (on coffee farms for example) 
or to prepare fire for domestic use. When selling in cobs farmers will probably have to 
purchase more firewood32. However, in most cases, farmers indicated they still prefer 
selling in cobs because they were able to work faster on their other plots and because it 
reduces the risks of post-harvest losses, contamination, and moulds. This underscores 
that reducing risks is more important than increasing profit. Increased profit was also 
32 This can also have consequences on the environment and increase the pressure on natural resources.
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 51 |P a g e
mentioned by farmers in the FGD. They mentioned that from baseline to endline more 
farmers have been able to pay for the health insurance and to purchase inputs for the 
next agricultural season (see table 15 in annex 11). Other (less frequently mentioned) 
results include that famers being able to purchase animals, pay school fees, and invest in 
new clothes.
Key findings and conclusions – Question 6
• The LRP implementation period was too short to see a real impact on SHFs but there are 
indications that the LRP project has had an effect on SHF income.
• Maize is the crop that contributes most to SHFs income and it is also very important for 
food security. Purchase of maize and beans for household consumption has reduced 
from baseline to endline. 
• Maize cultivation is profitable if the financial family labour is not taken into 
consideration. 
• Selling to FTMA buyers is more profitable than selling to middlemen. However, price 
volatility can hamper profitability. 
• Selling in cobs is less profitable than selling in grains but it is more convenient for 
farmers.
2.7. Evaluation Question 7 - Is there evidence that the LRP programme affected male and 
female SHF differently?
Gender in LRP’s activities and results 
119.The LRP project did not implement activities that specifically targeted female SHFs’
conditions or concerns. Nonetheless, women’s participation in LRP activities has been 
strong, as the table below shows. LRP reporting disaggregates data by sex, though it is not 
systematic. For example, quantity of maize produced by cooperatives is not disaggregated 
by gender. It was therefore not possible to assess whether women benefitted equally from 
the new opportunities associated with the LRP project. 
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 52 |P a g e
Table 6: Women’s participation in LRP's activities (WFP reports)
Participants Training on GAP Training on PHHS Access to PHE Training on 
governance
Percentage of 
female 
participants
49.2% 49.3% 48.6% 48.6%
120.In terms of effects of project activities on women and men, a key finding from the survey 
is that while the LRP programme targeted both females and males, effects on females was 
much more pronounced for a number of key indicators. This suggests that some of the 
activities were of particular relevance to women, even if they were not explicitly planned 
in this manner. 
121.Thus, overall, maize planting improved significantly for females during season A 
(improved by 10.2 percent; p=0.002) and season B (improved by 16.8 percent; p<0.001),
but not by similar scale for males during season A (improved by 2.8 percent; p=0.337) and 
season B (improved by 5.1 percent; p=0.137).
Figure 14 - Percentage of farmers planting maize at baseline and final, for season A and season B
122.Women also purchased less maize and beans for family consumption. Thus, the survey 
clearly highlighted that the purchase of maize and beans for family consumption in the 
last season A and B significantly reduced at final compared to baseline (reduced by 14.5
percent, p<0.001) for females, but not for males (reduced by 5.1 percent, p=0.117). 
Figure 15 - Percentage of farmers who purchased maize and beans for family consumption in seasons A 
and B (survey results)
62.5%
72.7%
42.6%
59.4%
72.7% 75.5%
46.0% 51.1%
68.0%
74.2%
44.5%
55.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Baseline Final Baseline Final Baseline Final Baseline Final Baseline Final Baseline Final
Season A Season B Season A Season B Season A Season B
Female Male Total
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 53 |P a g e
123.Women’s access to extension services has also increased, but not for men. Women were
more likely to have access extension services through WFP, other UN agencies, 
Government services and CBOs than men, and were also more likely to have accessed 
extension services in the past six months (see table 9 in annex 8.1).
Women’s participation in the cooperatives 
124.Overall there was a balanced number of men and women in the cooperatives, though it 
has slightly decreased since baseline (from 53.2 percent to 51 percent, on average). Some 
cooperatives have a very low number of women and that was not the case at the baseline. 
For example, Icyerekezo has only 46 women now while there were 147 women at baseline. 
An identical situation was observed for Abemeherigo cooperative which reported 364 
women at baseline against 180 women at endline. No evidence found can explain this, but 
some assumptions can be made. The figures may reflect poor record keeping but
highlights a need to ensure that there is attention on whether some women are excluded 
from the cooperatives. It may also be, for example, that husbands are taking over now 
that maize cultivation is becoming an interesting opportunity. This is something that has 
been noticed several times in different contexts - when a crop becomes a source of 
income, males take up the crop that was formerly managed by women as a source of food 
for the family. 
125.At baseline, it was noted that in some cases women’s participation in the cooperative 
reflected low male interest in cooperative activity (with husbands sending their wives so 
they can focus on other activities). Both women and men have been taking part in the 
discussions and General Assemblies of the cooperatives. In the FGDs, both women and 
men participated the discussions and no specific issues concerning gender emerged. 
126.All cooperatives had women participating in the committee. However, women still play a 
limited role in the decision–making structures of the cooperatives. Qualitative data 
collection highlighted three main limiting factors for women: a lack of time to dedicate to 
cooperative as they are already very busy in the house; a lack of confidence to express 
77.5%
63.0% 67.0% 61.9%
71.8%
62.4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Baseline Final Baseline Final Baseline Final
Female Male Total
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 54 |P a g e
themselves and take decisions; and literacy issues that prevent women from playing an 
active role in the cooperative committee.
Key findings and conclusions – Question 7
• The LRP design did not include gender specific activities but participation of women has 
been good.
• From baseline to endline, some project activities brought changes for women, but not for 
men, even though the project did not design interventions specifically to meet the needs 
of women.
• Thus, at endline women were planting more maize, had improved access to extension 
services, and were purchasing less maize and beans for family consumption as compared 
to men.
• There is a balanced number of men and women in cooperatives. However, in some 
cooperatives, the number of women members had decreased from baseline to endline. 
• All cooperatives had women in the cooperative committees but their participation in 
decision making is limited.
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 55 |P a g e
2.8. Evaluation Question 8 – What internal and external factors affected results? 
Internal factors affecting results: Factors affecting implementation and monitoring of the project 
and the overall efficiency
127.The choice to implement the project through a local partner has been a key factor of 
success. RWARRI has very good skills and experience in working with SHFs and 
cooperatives and has dedicated appropriate staff and resources to the LRP project. 
Implementation has been carried out without facing major difficulties. Coordination 
among the team and with WFP has been very good, according to the different 
stakeholders interviewed. In particular, frequent visits by the field officer to cooperatives 
have been particularly useful to support the implementation of good practices and has 
improved cooperatives’ linkages with the market33. One field officer is in charge of about 
nine cooperatives which represents a reasonable ratio. However, the knowledge and skills 
of field officers appears to be lacking in some areas. This is particularly the case for
governance capacity building, accounting and business management where skills are not 
strong enough to ensure proper support and monitoring of cooperatives. 
128.Out of the 16 monitoring indicators selected for the project (see annex 12), ten have been 
achieved (or are very close to being achieved) at endline, six are partially achieved. The 
effectiveness of the LRP project is therefore good. However, the monitoring system in 
place has not been strong enough to capture changes at cooperative and farmer level. In 
addition, some of the USDA specific indicators have clearly not been relevant to this 
project, for example, “number of public-private partnerships formed as a result of USDA 
assistance”. Other indicators had to be re-interpreted to make them relevant to the 
project. This is the case, for example, with “number of social assistance beneficiaries 
participating in productive safety nets as a result of USDA assistance” which has been 
translated into “number of small holder farmers that have benefitted from post-harvest 
equipment”. Various indicators that would be very relevant to this project have not been 
monitored. This is the case for specific yield and production from farmers/cooperatives, 
as well as individual sales made by farmers. Adoption of practices has been measured 
through a mVAM survey, which does not seem very appropriate for this kind of indicators. 
Thus, the 98 percent adoption rate of GAP is a doubtful result after only two seasons of 
support. 
129.Reporting of the project has been limited. Specific LRP reporting is limited to WFPs report 
to USDA. Operational reporting is included in the reports from FTMA. While this makes
sense at an operational level it has not brought out the specific situation of the LRP 
cooperatives vis-à-vis other cooperatives that receive support. Reports also did not 
include analyses of results. 
33 That was frequently quoted in the FGDs and KII
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 56 |P a g e
130.It is not possible to assess the efficiency of the project because most of the project’s 
activities are capacity building related. However, the budget available for capacity building 
(127,000 USD) was very reasonable considering the number of farmers trained. There 
were no issues with the amount available for these activities according to RWARRI and no 
delays in receiving the funds from WFP. 
External factors affecting results 
131.The results of the project have been adversely impacted by climatic hazards. As was 
previously mentioned, it is becoming increasingly difficult for farmers to plan their 
cropping seasons and there were several cases of production losses because of droughts 
or floods. These elements were confirmed both by the project team, farmers and by 
government officers. This negatively affected the result of the project and maize 
production in the country. 
132.However, climate hazards have contributed to a positive impact on the demand for maize 
and therefore on the price, which created a favourable context for LRP cooperatives to 
market their maize. Farmers who managed to get good production in spite of the difficult 
year benefited from the situation. For other farmers, the price increase did not fully 
compensate the losses. In a similar way, the closing of the border with Uganda also 
increased the demand and price and favoured the sale of maize by the LRP cooperatives. 
133.Farmers’ choices on cropping systems are more regulated in Rwanda compared to other 
countries. The strong push from the GoR towards maize cultivation definitely contributed 
to the results of the project. This is especially true in the marshland areas (which belong 
to the GoR) where farmers are strongly encouraged to grow maize (with the risk of losing 
access to marshland if they are growing something else). 
134.Operational difficulties reduced the GoR capacity to provide inputs and affected the 
project. Several cooperatives mentioned that they received the seeds very late, as a result 
of which at least one cooperative chose an alternative crop. Also, farmers consider (though 
it is not possible for the evaluation team to know whether this is correct) that the seeds 
produced in Rwanda are giving lower yield than seeds imported from Kenya. 
Key findings and conclusions – Question 8
• Internally, project achievement was positively affected by the choice of local partner, by 
good coordination, and frequent field presence of field officers. 
• However, field officers’ knowledge and skills on capacity building for governance, 
accounting and business management were not strong enough to provide adequate 
support. 
• The monitoring processes for the project have been weak.
• Externally, the project has been affected by adverse climatic conditions and challenges 
faced by the Government of Rwanda in providing agricultural inputs to farmers. The 
centrally regulated system of production contributed to a strong push for maize 
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 57 |P a g e
production, and high maize prices have favoured farmers who managed to achieve good 
production rates.
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 58 |P a g e
3. Conclusions and Recommendations
135.Based on the findings presented in the previous section, an overall assessment by 
evaluation question is provided below. This is followed by ten recommendations for future 
work by WFP in this area.
3.1. Overall Assessment/Conclusions
Conclusion 1- Project performance, relevance and implementation processes have been good.
136.In a very short period of time, the LRP project has been able to produce some substantive 
results. Considering the very short implementation period, the evaluation team concludes 
that the results of LRP intervention are good. 
137.Relevance of the project has been strong. The project has been fully aligned with the 
orientation and priorities of the GoR. The project has targeted the most important 
constraints faced by SHFs. The project design did not, however, take into account the 
specific needs and constraints faced by female SHF.
138.Implementation was carried out without facing major difficulties. The implementation 
mechanism in place was very good and well adapted to the activities implemented. 
139.Out of the 16 monitoring indicators selected for the project (see annex 12), ten have been 
achieved (or are very close to being achieved) and six are partially achieved. The 
effectiveness of LRP project is therefore assessed as being good. 
140.Reporting and monitoring of the project has been a weak point. There was no specific 
monitoring of the adoption of practices and of the production of SHFs and cooperatives 
(only of the sales at cooperative level) and this has limited the findings and conclusions at 
impact level. Monitoring and reporting on gender has been limited.
Conclusion 2- LRP has created a dynamic at cooperatives level that contributed to building 
cooperatives’ capacity. However, cooperatives are still fragile and cannot fully take 
advantages of new opportunities without project support.
141.LRP cooperatives’ ability ‘to be’ at endline was relatively good mainly because of the 
strong drive from the government on organization of cooperatives. Ability ‘to do’ remained
limited. Cooperative skills on governance, organization, management, accounting and 
business planning were still weak. LRP’s intervention did not focus enough on building 
cooperative capacity in these key areas. As a result, cooperatives remain very fragile. They 
develop new activities, but they do not have the skills to manage them independently of 
the project. This has limited, and will continue to limit, the capacity of cooperatives to 
aggregate more maize and to link with buyers and/or service providers. 
142.‘Ability to relate’ has improved and cooperatives are now regularly signing contracts with 
big buyers which was not the case at baseline. 
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 59 |P a g e
143.‘Ability to perform’ has also considerably increased from baseline to endline. More than 
600 MT of maize have been aggregated by LRP cooperatives and the target is about to be 
reached (there was still some sales going on at the time of the endline). This is a major 
achievement by the project taking into consideration that in 2019 production was low 
(mainly due to adverse climatic conditions). 
Conclusion 3- Farmers’ knowledge on GAP and PHHS has increased and there is evidence of 
changes in input use and adoption of practices. However, this change is not complete and 
is very fragile. Farmers’ access to productive assets remains difficult and production is very 
climate sensitive. 
144.GAP and PHHS capacity building activities have been a success at farmer level. The 
capacity building scheme, methodology, and material were particularly good and adapted 
to the situation on the ground. The activities have been much appreciated by beneficiaries. 
The evaluation finds that farmers’ knowledge improved, and some practices are now 
largely adopted. 
145.LRP has contributed to improved access to several production factors. Capacity building 
activities improved farmers’ utilization of inputs which, combined with application of GAP, 
resulted in a better production, as long there is no climatic hazards or pest attacks. 
Training sensitized farmers on issues related to quality and post-harvest handling and this
has completely changed SHFs’ perceptions of the quality of maize. Supply of PHE has also 
been a key factor for the adoption of these practices. LRP had not yet reached its target 
when the endline survey was conducted, but it was expected that the target would be
reached by the end of the project (September 2019). 
146.SHF investment continued to be constrained by the limited financial means at their 
disposal. LRP’s results in terms of access to credit for farmers and cooperatives have been
very limited. 
Conclusion 4 - LRP demonstrated that with appropriate support, cooperatives have access to 
better market opportunities through linkages with formal buyers 
147.The success story of the LRP is to demonstrate what can happen when farmers are 
connected to the formal markets through linkages between cooperatives and buyers. LRP 
has clearly contributed in creating new opportunities for SHF. At endline buyers consider 
cooperatives as reliable business partners and they have increased their sourcing from 
cooperatives. Most of the LRP cooperatives have signed contracts with FTMA buyers 
although they continue to rely heavily on the project team to support them in making 
these connections. 
148.LRP cooperatives have not linked directly with schools. However, the context should 
become more favourable in the coming years with the drafting (with support from WFP) 
of a pro-small holder farmers school feeding strategy by the GoR. 
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 60 |P a g e
149.Quality has increased and the rejection rates at buyer level have strongly decreased. This 
is linked with capacity building, supply of post-harvest equipment, and adaptation of the 
marketing model by some buyers. Some buyers now purchase maize in cobs which 
contributes to a reduction of aflatoxin contamination. It has also reduced the time that
SHF invest in post-harvest operation. However, it is not the most profitable option in terms 
of income. 
Conclusion 5- The LRP does not yet have an effect at farmer level but it contributes to an 
increased interest and profitability of maize production for both males and females. 
150.As a project, the LRP has been implemented for less than two years. This is too short to 
have a long-term impact at SHF level, or indeed to assess impact. However, at endline 
there are signs that the LRP has positively affected farmer income. Farmers’ cropping 
choices are still mainly driven by household food needs and a focus on avoiding risks. 
SHFs continue to rely on mixed cropping and on bean cultivation, but maize plays an 
increasingly important role in food security. Production and sales of maize have increased, 
and post-harvest losses have decreased. Therefore, profitability of maize has increased 
(but it is still very low if farmers were to include their time on the farm in the financial 
calculation). 
151.The specificity of LRP has been to tackle issues affecting farmers from the market side, 
capacity side, and production assets side at the same time. It created a virtuous circle for 
farmers and cooperatives to get engaged in an improved production (quality and quantity) 
and created a synergy in the interventions. With better opportunities, farmers have an 
incentive to invest in production and good practices and cooperatives become the vehicle 
to get these opportunities, so farmers are getting interested in their cooperatives. This 
dynamic is the added value of LRP and contributed to the effect on the ground. 
152.The project did not implement gender specific activities and there were no gender specific 
activities in the project design. However, women and men participated equally in the 
activities of the project. This has contributed to positive results for women. Thus, maize 
planting has increased more for women than for men, women SHF access to extension 
services has improved from baseline to end-line, and with the improved production,
female SHF have purchased less maize and beans for consumption now than at baseline. 
The role and position of women in cooperatives has not changed. While cooperatives 
overall have the same number of male and female members, the involvement of women 
in the governance and decision-making of cooperatives remains limited. 
153.Several intermediate outcomes in the ToC have already been achieved. The ToC clearly 
shows, however, that two major outcomes have not been reached and hamper results: 
cooperatives and SHFs still do not have a strong position in the value chain, and value 
chain dialogue is not developed enough. The challenge for LRP moving forward will be to 
tackle the factors limiting achievement of these two outcomes and to create conditions 
for the change achieved to continue and to make it sustainable without external support. 
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 61 |P a g e
Conclusion 6 - The change that is seen is very fragile and sustainability of the intervention 
and outcomes is low.
154.At endline, the evaluation finds that farmers and cooperatives continue to be very project￾dependent. Some of the support received is not based on locally available inputs (this is 
the case for post-harvest equipment). And, the cropping model that has been promoted 
is not environmentally sustainable. It is based on intensive cultivation and input use, it is 
very sensitive to climate hazards, and may affect soil fertility. 
3.2. Lessons learnt 
155.LRP’s implementation process clearly highlights the importance of having a strong 
presence in the field to support cooperatives and farmers on a regular basis and not only 
through periodic training. This has clearly contributed to the good results of the project. 
156.The main lesson learnt from LRP is the catalyst effect of working both on improving 
capacities and assets of farmers and on linkages with the market. Improved market access 
has clearly contributed to the interest of farmers for GAP and PHHS. And through PHHP 
and GAP farmers have been able to access market opportunities that were previously out 
of reach. Working on both elements created a virtuous circle. 
157.The LRP highlights the importance and opportunity of working jointly with MINAGRI and 
MINEDUC on the school feeding strategy. The drafting of a pro-SHF strategy is a very 
interesting process and could produce promising result as actors work together on a 
strategy that is mutually beneficial and adapted to the local conditions. 
3.3. Recommendations
158.The recommendations of the evaluation team are outlined below. These are presented 
here in order of priority. However, taken together the recommendations are 
complementary and should be considered collectively to ensure success moving forward.
Operational recommendations – linked to the current LRP programme
159.Recommendation 1 (related to conclusion 1): In the coming six months, WFP should 
work with the GoR to prepare a short lesson learning document of the LRP 
implementation and its results for dissemination and learning. LRP and FTMA 
constitute an innovative way of working with cooperatives that deserves a study covering 
more cooperatives than the 16 LRPs ones. The evaluation has highlighted that there are 
lessons to be learned for agriculture and value chain development in Rwanda and on a 
broader scale from the LRP project. The FTMA program in Rwanda probably has very 
interesting results which are of importance not only for WFP but also for other 
development partners. In light of the gender specific findings presented above, a short 
reader-friendly learning document could be drafted which draws on this report. The 
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 62 |P a g e
lesson learning document should bring out the specific benefits and continued constraints 
for female SHF, including with respect to their participation in cooperative activity.
160.Recommendation 2 (related to conclusion 2 and 4): For the remaining time of the 
project and for the next phase, WFP should work with RWARRI to prioritize 
cooperative capacity building activities in the areas of governance, work 
organization, business management, and financial accountability. This should be the 
main focus at cooperative level for at least three more years to ensure that cooperatives 
can handle the new activities and opportunities in a sustainable way. We recommend that 
the next phase of the project considers hiring a cooperative capacity building specialist as 
part of the implementation team, to design a curriculum and adapted material. Training 
sessions should be organized in all the cooperatives on a regular basis. Field officers 
should be trained and monitored so that they can provide day-to day coaching to the 
cooperatives. All the elements concerning ‘ability to be’ and ‘ability to do’ should be 
included and the following specific elements should be included: record keeping, contract 
management, capacity strengthening targeted at women, economic calculation to verify 
profitability of an activity, and negotiation skills. In addition, WFP’s hired cooperative 
capacity building specialist as recommended above can ensure supervision and support 
and coach the field officers. 
161.Recommendation 3 (related to conclusion 3 and 4): For the remaining time of the 
project, WFP should continue working with ICCO Terrafina to strengthen the access 
to finance component of the project. In order to improve farmer and cooperative access 
to credit, the savings and credit groups that were established emerge as a good option to 
build up cooperative capital (whether or not it is to access formal loans). For a second 
phase of the project, this approach should be experimented in more cooperatives with
regular monitoring and further training on financial management and loan management. 
At the same time, work should continue with banks and microfinance institutions to 
develop specific products for agriculture. This should include attention to a crop insurance 
system. Another potential option is to have built-in credit from the maize buyers. The 
situation is now more favourable for this kind of system as the trust in cooperatives has 
increased and buyers are looking for options to secure their supply. It could be tried on a 
pilot approach with only well-performing cooperatives and with a close monitoring to 
develop good practices before upscaling such a scheme. 
162.Recommendation 4 (related to conclusion 2 and 3): In the next six months, WFP 
Rwanda should work with the WFP Regional Bureau and the GoR, to develop a 
project proposal and raise funding for a second phase of the LRP. As part of this, 
WFP should conduct a study to assess the place and roles of women in the maize 
value chain to ensure that women are not getting excluded now that maize is 
becoming profitable. Capacity building and behaviour changes are a long process. The 
evaluation has highlighted that the interventions have brought about important 
changes, but cooperatives remain fragile and adoption of good practices is not yet 
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 63 |P a g e
anchored in farmers activities. At least one round of refresher training on GAP and PHHS 
should be organized for cooperatives and coaching should continue for three years 
minimum with the objective of progressively switching to demand-based advice and 
extension services (which should progressively support cooperatives for specific 
requests). Support should be more specific to the situation, capacities and needs of each 
cooperative. An analysis of the situation of the cooperatives should be done. If needed, 
cooperatives with very low ownership and strong governance problems, and those that 
are collapsing, should be excluded. The implementation design could remain very similar 
but with a better inclusion of district/sector level agriculture staff in the activities to build 
their capacity and improve appropriation of the results of the project by the local 
authorities. 
Strategic recommendations (beyond the current project period) and for future interventions
163.Recommendation 5 (related to conclusion 5 and 6): In the coming year, WFP should 
liaise with relevant stakeholders (MINAGRI and development partners working on 
these issues) to integrate a climate smart approach in the cropping model promoted 
and review the training curriculum and materials. So far, the LRP has focused only on 
maize and improving the yield. In order to increase sustainability of the intervention a 
more comprehensive approach of environmental issues is critically important. Improving 
resilience of cropping system to climatic hazards is key not only for farmer income and 
food security, but also to ensure that cooperatives can supply products on a regular basis. 
Specific expertise is needed to identify the main actions that should be integrated. This 
could cover issues such as: better integration of animals raised in cropping systems, crop￾diversification, introduction of trees in cropping systems, fertility management, among 
other areas. There is a need for sensitization at farmer level but also at government level 
in order to review GoR recommendations for agriculture in the marshlands. 
164.Recommendation 6 (related to conclusion 4 and 5): In the coming three months, 
WFP should conduct a precise assessment of the different marketing options for 
SHFs. There is growing interest in the cob model, but the conditions are not in favour of 
farmers in terms of added value and access to the empty cob. At a minimum there should 
be sensitization on those aspects (including economic aspects) in all the cooperatives 
before the end of the project so that farmers can make a balanced choice. We also suggest 
conducting specific economic studies on the different models (for farmers but also for 
buyers) and if needed to lobby for an improvement of the conditions offered to farmers. 
165.Recommendation 7 (related to conclusion 4 and 6): In the coming three years, WFP 
should continue to liaise with value chain actors and the relevant ministries to 
continue to strengthen and further formalize the maize value chain dialogue 
platform. The context is very favourable at the moment to strengthen value chain 
dialogue with the different stakeholders in order to find win-win solutions for an inclusive 
development of the value chain. Discussion on marketing models (cobs vs grains), access 
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 64 |P a g e
to finance or post-harvest equipment are typical examples of issues that could be tackled 
jointly because finding sustainable solutions could have a positive impact across the whole 
chain. Discussions on those issues should continue. In order to do that, there is a link to 
be made between cooperatives (either through existing Unions like Unicoopagri or, if 
needed, through support to the emergence of an association of maize cooperatives) in 
order to ensure that farmers voices are heard and that they can collectively discuss with 
buyers. 
166.Recommendation 8 (related to conclusions 3 and 4): In the coming year, WFP should 
develop a market-oriented approach for the supply of post-harvest equipment to 
farmers with interested companies and relevant ministries (commerce and 
agriculture). The system in place, where everything is imported and distributed by WFP 
raised farmers interest and engagement, but it is not sustainable. Contacts have been 
made with several companies and they should be supported to build a business plan 
either to manufacture in Rwanda or to import the required equipment and distribute this 
to farmers through agro-dealers. If that turns out not to be possible, then priority should 
be on working with what is already available locally. 
167.Recommendation 9 (related to conclusion 4, 5 and 6) : In the coming year, WFP 
should conduct a study of the types of crops grown by SHFs on cooperative land and 
on individual plots to identify potential opportunities for small holder farmer to 
supply a diversity of products for a school feeding programme (including 
vegetables). For a second phase of LRP, WFP should define priority actions to improve 
cropping systems (not through mono-cropping) towards more productivity but also 
towards improved food security and risk management. This should focus first on crops 
grown on cooperative land because organizing aggregation and sales will probably be 
easier and there is already a diversity of products that can be taken into account (including 
Irish potatoes, beans, maize, vegetables).
168.Recommendation 10: Capacity and time constitute major constraints on the 
participation of women in cooperative decision making. Moving forward WFP should tailor 
its intervention strategies with women and cooperatives to take into account these 
constraints for women and seek to proactively address them.
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 65 |P a g e
Annexes
Annex 1. Terms of Reference
1. Introduction
1. These Terms of Reference (TOR) are for an evaluation (including an impact evaluation) of a 
World Food Programme’s (WFP) Local and Regional Procurement (LRP) intervention, funded by 
USDA. The project works through local WFP purchase commitments from small holder farmers 
within the Homegrown School Feeding (HGSF) program supported by USDA’s McGovern - Dole 
Food for Education and International Child Nutrition Program (MGD). The program itself runs 
from April 2017 to March 2019, and it is intended that the evaluation would be undertaken 
between July 2017 and December 2019. 
2. WFP Rwanda is seeking to appoint a contractor to conduct the evaluation of the Local and 
Regional Procurement program, including the design of the full evaluation and the impact 
evaluation component, collecting the baseline and end-line, where the endline will be conducted 
contingent on satisfactory completion of the baseline, as well as analysis and reporting. In order 
to guarantee the consistency of the approach and the quality and credibility of the data collection 
and the analysis, the contractor will need to document and record thoroughly the sampling 
strategy and data collection tools and instruments that will be employed at baseline and endline.
3. These TOR were prepared by the WFP Rwanda Country Office Monitoring and Evaluation team 
upon an initial document review and consultation with stakeholders and following a standard 
template. The purpose of the TOR is twofold. Firstly, it provides key information to the evaluation 
team and helps guide them throughout the evaluation process; and secondly, it provides key 
information to stakeholders about the proposed evaluation.
2. Reasons for the Exercise
2.1 Rationale
4. The evaluation (including an impact evaluation) is being commissioned for the following reasons:
• To develop a program evaluation design that will assess the overall results and impacts of the LRP 
program against standard performance and results indicators (Annex 3), measuring the changes in 
outcomes for the target populations (disaggregating results for sub-groups) and the reasons why;
• To develop and measure custom livelihood and well-being indicators for the evaluation specific to this 
program;
• To design and implement a rigorous quasi-experimental impact evaluation study design (including 
well-defined comparison groups, and appropriate sampling strategy) for parts of the program 
activities. This should be documented and repeated at end-line.
• To provide a baseline assessment of the situation on the ground, and to provide baseline values to be 
used in the final evaluation.
2.2 Objectives
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 66 |P a g e
5. Evaluations in WFP serve the dual and mutually reinforcing objectives of accountability and learning. In 
the context of this evaluation, it is expected that both objectives are given equal importance.
• Accountability – Overall,the evaluation will assess and report on the performance and results of the 
Local Regional Procurement (LRP) project to help WFP present high-quality and credible evidence of 
actual impact to its donors.
• Learning - The evaluation will determine the reasons why certain results occurred or not to draw 
lessons, derive good practices and pointers for learning. It will provide evidence-based findings to 
inform operational and strategic decision-making. Findings will be actively disseminated and lessons 
will be incorporated into relevant lesson sharing systems.
2.3 Stakeholders and Users
6. A number of stakeholders both inside and outside of WFP have interests in the results of the baseline 
evaluation and some of them will be asked to play a role in the evaluation process. Table 1 below provides 
a preliminary stakeholder analysis, which should be deepened by the evaluation team in the inception 
report. 
7. Accountability to affected populations, is tied to WFP’s commitments to include beneficiaries as key 
stakeholders in WFP’s work. As such, WFP is committed to ensuring gender equality and women’s 
empowerment in the evaluation process, with participation and consultation in the evaluation by women, 
men, boys and girls from different groups.
Table 1: Preliminary Stakeholders’ analysis 
Stakeholders Interest in the evaluation and likely uses of evaluation report to this 
stakeholder
INTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
Country Office (CO) 
Rwanda
Responsible for the country level planning and operations implementation, it 
has a direct stake in the evaluation and an interest in learning from experience 
to inform decision-making. It is also called upon to account internally as well as 
to its beneficiaries and partners for performance and results of its operation. 
Regional Bureau (RB) 
Nairobi 
Responsible for both oversight of COs and technical guidance and support, the 
RB management has an interest in an independent/impartial account of the 
operational performance as well as in learning from the baseline findings to 
apply this learning to other country offices. The Regional Evaluation Officer 
supports CO/RB management to ensure quality, credible and useful 
decentralized evaluations. 
Office of Evaluation 
(OEV)
OEV has a stake in ensuring that decentralized evaluations deliver quality, 
credible and useful evaluations respecting provisions for impartiality as well as 
roles and accountabilities of various decentralised evaluation stakeholders as 
identified in the evaluation policy. 
WFP Executive Board 
(EB)
The WFP governing body has an interest in being informed about the 
effectiveness of WFP operations. This evaluation will not be presented to the 
EB but its findings may feed into annual syntheses and into corporate learning 
processes. 
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS 
Beneficiaries As the ultimate recipients of food assistance, beneficiaries have a stake in WFP 
determining whether its assistance is appropriate and effective. As such, the 
level of participation in the evaluation of women, men, boys and girls from 
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 67 |P a g e
different groups will be determined and their respective perspectives will be 
sought. More specifically, smallholder farmers, farmers’ organizations, 
teachers and parent-teacher associations should be considered as key 
stakeholders.
Government The Government has a direct interest in knowing whether WFP activities in the 
country are aligned with its priorities, harmonised with the action of other 
partners and meet the expected results. Issues related to capacity 
development, handover and sustainability will be of particular interest. Key 
audiences of project partners within the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of 
Agriculture and Animal Resources, the Ministry of Local Administration, and 
district officials will be informed of the evaluation results. 
UN Country team (UNCT) The UNCT’s harmonized action should contribute to the realisation of the 
government developmental objectives. It has therefore an interest in ensuring 
that WFP operation is effective in contributing to the UN concerted efforts. 
Various agencies are also direct partners of WFP at policy and activity level, and 
particularly work together through the Rwanda OneUN family. 
NGOs (Adventist 
Development Relief 
Agency (ADRA) and 
World Vision (WVI))
NGOs are WFP’s partners for the implementation of some activities while at 
the same time having their own interventions. The results of the evaluation 
might affect programs/projects design, future implementation modalities, 
strategic orientations and partnerships within local and regional procurement.
Donors (USDA) WFP operations are voluntarily funded by a number of donors. They have an 
interest in knowing whether their funds have been spent efficiently and if 
WFP’s work has been effective and contributed to their own strategies and 
programs. USDA is funding the LRP intervention. This evaluation will give USDA 
a better understanding of the results of their funding.
8. The primary users of this evaluation will be:
• The WFP Rwanda country office and its partners in decision-making, notably related to program 
implementation and/or design, Country Strategy and partnerships as well as further fundraising.
• This evaluation will contribute to the body of knowledge on the MGD program. USDA, as the funder 
of the evaluation, will use findings and lessons learned to inform program funding, design, and 
implementation decisions.
• Given the core functions of the Regional Bureau (RB), the RB is expected to use the evaluation findings 
to provide strategic guidance, program support, and oversight to other COs in the region.
• WFP HQ may use evaluations for wider organizational learning and accountability.
• Office of Evaluations (OEV) may use the evaluation findings, as appropriate, to feed into evaluation 
syntheses as well as for annual reporting to the Executive Board.
3. Context and subject of the evaluation
3.1 Context
9. Rwanda is a low-income, developing country with a ranking of 161 out of 187 countries based on the 2016 
United Nations Human Development Report. Rwanda has one of the highest population densities in Africa, 
with 416 people living per square kilometre. The total population of 11.5 million people is growing at an 
annual rate of 2.39 percent. Since the 1994 genocide, the country has been rebuilding itself and improving 
the population's quality of life. Under the Vision 2020 program, Rwanda plans to increase its per capita 
income from USD 644 to USD 1,240 by 2020, and increase life expectancy to 66 years from 49 years in 
2000. Rwanda has seen an impressive annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth rate of 7.2 percent 
since 2010 alongside decreasing income inequality. Agriculture continues to play a key role in the 
economy, contributing 33 percent of the national GDP, generating 80 percent of export revenue, and 
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 68 |P a g e
accounting for more than 71.6 percent of the labour force. According to the World Bank, Rwanda has 
maintained steady economic growth recently, and is expected to continue doing so in the short term, with 
projections to exceed 2017 regional growth rates. 
10. Household food insecurity remains a major challenge, affecting 20 percent of Rwandan households 
according to the 2015 Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis (CFSVA). Household access 
to food is constrained by poverty, topography and scarcity of land, low productivity, inadequate 
employment opportunities, high food prices, recurrent climate-related shocks, and conflicts in the 
neighbouring countries. Food insecurity is most prevalent in rural areas bordering Lake Kivu and along the 
Congo Nile Crest, where soils are less fertile and land is more susceptible to erosion. Almost half the 
population are vulnerable to food insecurity caused by drought, particularly in eastern areas, while other 
areas of the country are vulnerable to flooding and landslides.
11. The McGovern Dole (MGD) funded Home Grown School Feeding (HGSF) program, launched in July 2016, 
aims to provide 15 million meals per year to 83,000 students in 104 primary schools over five years. In line 
with USDA and Government of Rwanda’s (GoR) priorities, the most vulnerable and food insecure districts 
in Rwanda, namely Nyamagabe, Nyaraguru (southern province), and Rutsiro and Karongi (western 
province) are supported by the HGSF program. The project is designed to support the GoR’s nascent school 
feeding program, financed and managed by the government, which envisages school meals based on local 
purchase of commodities with a view to eventual nationwide implementation without external support. 
The HGSF program uses a combination of both MGD in‐kind resources and locally procured commodities. 
12. To align with the MGD-funded HGSF program, USDA’s 2016 Local and Regional Procurement (LRP) project 
will support students, smallholder farmers and communities from the most economically vulnerable 
sectors for two years where 1.36 million USD will be used to purchase food, 127,000 USD will be used for 
capacity augmentation, and 370,000 USD for direct support costs34 This will undoubtedly be beneficial to 
the ongoing HGSF program, both in the provision of essential commodities, and in setting up a durable 
model to potentially supply schools with food from farmers based in the communities where the schools 
are located. 
13. The main beneficiaries of the LRP project include vulnerable smallholder farmers (SHFs), most of whom 
will be located in the MGD-supported districts of Nyamagabe and Nyaruguru, which have some of the 
highest poverty levels in the country (64 percent and 77 percent).35 The other beneficiaries are the 
students in the HGSF schools, who will be recveiving meals made from ingredients bought from the 
smallholder farmers. By strengthening farmer’s cooperatives, facilitating access to loans and markets, and 
enhancing their capacities to increase yields and limit commodity losses, the proposed project will not 
only allow for the effective provision of locally sourced commodities to the school feeding program and 
further contribute to its sustainability, it will also increase economic resilience and improve food security 
among target beneficiaries through a holistic mix of innovative approaches. 
14. WFP has been supporting smallholder farmers and private sector development since 2009, through its 
Purchase for Progress (P4P) program, integral to the government’s HGSF local purchase approach. Building 
upon successes of P4P, WFP Rwanda started another initiative to increase market access for smallholder 
farmers since late 2015 in closer collaboration with private-sector value chain stakeholders. Under the 
pilot project “Patient Procurement Platform (PPP),” WFP, in collaboration with the Alliance for Green 
Revolution for Africa (AGRA) and their local partners, facilitated smallholder farmer participation across 
34 Food purchases will cost around $1,368,326.40, capacity augmentation will cost $127,000, and direct support costs 
$373,831.60. 
35 MINAGRI, NISR and WFP. (2016). Comprehensive food security and vulnerability analysis. Kigali.
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 69 |P a g e
the entire value chain. Today, PPP has become the Farm to Market Alliance (FTMA) that engages 
smallholder farmers through multi-year commitments in the form of ‘patient’ buyer contracts. WFP 
Rwanda, through the FTMA, provides access to markets, and finance and post-harvest handling services 
among other services. FTMA has so far linked 81 cooperatives composed of approx.. 22,000 farmers (49% 
women) to‘off-takers who agreed to pre-planting forward delivery contracts. Cooperatives have 
committed to supplying a total of 5,287 MT of maize during the post-harvest period of March-May 2017, 
up from the 2,700 MT delivered in the first harvest season from 2016. Through the P4P, PPP and MGD￾funded HGSF programs, WFP already works closely with the Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Ressources
(MINAGRI), Ministry of Education (MINEDUC), and Ministry of Local Government (MINALOC). Strong 
partnerships with the Ministries of Trade and Industry, Finance and Economic Planning, Gender and Family 
Promotion as well as the provincial governors, are also integrated into all aspects of programming. This 
ensures that the project is fully aligned with existing national development strategies. The collaboration 
between GoR and WFP will be essential to support the local production of the USDA‐requested 
commodities and the development of robust national frameworks, further strengthened through the 
complementary LRP grant, enabling Rwanda to sustain the benefits of USDA support beyond the life of 
the projects. 
3.2 Subject of the evaluation and activities undertaken by the LRP program
15. Under the LRP project, WFP will procure commodities from smallholder farmers for use in the WFP 
Rwanda’s Homegrown School Feeding (HGSF) program. The funds will also be used to build capacity for 
smallholder farmers through trainings on how to reduce post-harvest losses, warehouse management, 
organizational structure and management, agricultural markets, business planning, microfinancing, and 
methods to increase the quality of production in order to meet food safety and quality standards. 
16. Specifically, the USDA’s LRP funds will be used by WFP to carry out five key activities: 1) Purchase 
Commodities from Smallholder Farmers; 2) Connect Smallholder Farmers (SHF) to New Markets; 3) 
Connect Farmers to the Patient Procurement Platform; 4) Build Capacity for Smallholder Farmers, and 5) 
Collaborate with the Government of Rwanda. 
17. The first activity will enable WFP to buy beans and maize meal directly from smallholder farmers (SHFs) or 
pro-smallholder millers; the second activity will promote procurement from SHFs since WFP will be able 
to buy only from suppliers that hold 50% of grains procured from SHFs – where SHF has documentation 
proof of this in order to be readily evaluated by the evaluation team; the third activity will facilitate 
forward delivery contracts between private-sector off-takers and market-ready farmers’ organizations; 
the fourth activity will offer training to four cooperatives on the procurement of raw materials, processing, 
business management and marketing and to other 16 cooperatives on post-harvest handling and storage, 
warehouse management and organizational strenghtening and the fifth activity will enable WFP to 
strongly advocate for the advancement of SHFs through their integration into the agricultural sector 
working group and other forums. 
18. The LRP will support approximately 45,000 beneficiaries in 20 targeted cooperatives and 49 schools in the 
Southern and Eastern provinces. The grant will enable WFP to create synergies with other programming 
areas. As WFP uses the funds to purchase food commmodities that are used in WFP Rwanda’s Homegrown 
School Feeding (HGSF) program local school students will also benefit, through access to the HGSF.
Table 2: Target Numbers per Year
Student 
Beneficiaries
Farmer Beneficiaries Total
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 70 |P a g e
Females Males Females Males
Year One 20,855 19,251 1,568 1,632 43,306
Year Two 43,306 2,496 2,637 45,239
4. Evaluation Approach
4.1 Scope
19. The LRP evaluation will focus on the activities of the LRP program designed for purchasing food 
commodities used in the McGovern Dole-supported Homegrown School Feeding (HGSF) program, from 
smallholder farmers through WFP’s Purchase for Progress (P4P) program.
20. Twenty cooperatives will be targeted in Nyamagabe and Nyaruguru and other relevant districts. The 
selection of cooperatives considers to the extent possible the region where the schools that will be utilizing 
the food procured under this project are located, particularly in Nyamagabe and Nyaruguru Districts. 
However, farmer groups different from those under the McGovern-Dole will be supported to avoid 
concentration of assistance to same groups of beneficiaries for efficient use of USDA funds. Other 
cooperatives in the South and East are targeted according to their potential of production and 
commercialization of food commodities required by the project. Each farmer group will be assessed and 
additional assistance will take into account actual needs of the group in line with the expected results of 
the project. 
21. The full evaluation will cover all five activities of the LRP program. It is expected that the quasi￾experimental design can only cover activity 1 (Purchase Commodities form Smallholder Farmers) and 2 
(Connect Smallholder Farmers to New Markets) of the LRP program due to the nature of the activities and 
timing (see list of activities in Annex 2). However, the evaluation team is expected to propose a detailed 
design at the inception stage.
22. The evaluation should start with an inception phase of 1-2 months, which will also enable familiarity to 
USDA LRP standard indicators, and development of data collection instruments. The baseline data 
collection should be undertaken in August 2017. The baseline data and analysis and report writing is 
expected to be concluded in November 2017. The endline data collection should take place between 
Augusts and September 2019.
23. A qualified, independent, third-party agency will be contracted to develop the full evaluation design, 
including a quasi-experimental component for some of the activities, and undertake a data collection, 
analysis and write a comprehensive baseline and endline reports. It is expected that the following are done 
in the different phases of the evaluation:
a. During Inception, the evaluation team should: 
i. confirm and define the evaluation questions and sub-questions. 
ii. develop and thoroughly document the evaluation design (including how methods are 
mixed or combined), a sampling strategy, data collection tools and instruments, and 
code the units. The evaluation design should include a quasi-experimental 
component, and therefore the evaluation team should define an appropriate 
counterfactual and comparison groups. 
iii. confirm which monitoring data is being collected by the WFP Rwanda office to avoid 
duplication. 
iv. submit a full evaluation matrix (that links methods and data collection strategy to each 
of the evaluation questions) to WFP as part of the inception report.
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 71 |P a g e
b. During Baseline phase, the evaluation team should establish indicator baseline information 
and to verify the targets established in the project as part of the baseline report. 
c. The final product of the evaluation is a comprehensive end-line report, which should analyse 
the end-line data against the baseline and respond to the specified evaluation questions, 
using the methods identified during inception. 
4.2 Evaluation Questions and Criteria
24. The evaluation will address all five OECD-DAC criteria (relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and 
sustainability), as per USDA Monitoring and Evaluation policy. The evaluation will address the following 
key questions, which will be further developed by the evaluation team during the inception phase. 
Collectively, the questions aim at highlighting the key lessons and performance of the Local Regional 
Procurement (LRP) through WFP Rwanda, which could inform future strategic and operational decisions:
a. Activity 1 (Purchase Commodities form Smallholder Farmers) and 2 (Connect Smallholder 
Farmers to New Markets): “how does the LRP program affect smallholder farmers’ behaviours 
(for example, long-term investments in productive assets, education, etc.) and households’ 
well-being indicators (for example, assets, income, health and nutrition status)?”
b. Activity 3 (Connect Farmers to the Farm to Market Alliance) and 4 (Build Capacity of 
Smallholder Farmers): “what are the effects of the project on the way the targeted 
cooperatives position themselves in their respective value-chain?”
c. Activity 5 (Collaborate with the Government of Rwanda): “how did the changes in the 
institutional framework create a more favourable environment for smallholder farmers?”
25. Corollary questions are:
a. How and to what extent does the LRP program affect the cost-effectiveness of food assistance, 
procurement, delivery, and distribution?
b. How and to what extent does the LRP program affect the timeliness of food assistance 
procurement, distribution, and delivery?
c. How and to what extent does the LRP program contribute to improved utilization of nutritious 
and culturally acceptable food that meet quality standards?
d. What internal and/or external factors affected the project’s achievement of intended results?
e. Is there emerging evidence that the linkages between smallholder farmers and schools will 
endure? 
f. What is the level of participation of men and women? Are women well represented, including 
in leadership positions? What are the disaggregated impacts on women?
26. Table 3 below presents key evaluation criteria and corresponding questions: 
Table 3 – evaluation criteria and questions
Criteria Key question
Relevance • To what extent was the design of the intervention relevant to wider context, and 
aligned with needs of the most vulnerable groups, the government and WFP 
partners?
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 72 |P a g e
Effectiveness • How and to what extent does the LRP program contribute to improved utilization 
of nutritious and culturally acceptable food that meet quality standards?
• What internal and/or external factors affected the project’s achievement of 
intended results?
• What is the level of participation of men and women? Are women well represented, 
including in leadership positions? What are the disaggregated impacts on women?
• how did the changes in the institutional framework create a more favourable 
environment for smallholder farmers?
Efficiency • How and to what extent does the LRP program affect the cost-effectiveness of food 
assistance, procurement, delivery, and distribution?
• How and to what extent does the LRP program affect the timeliness of food 
assistance procurement, distribution, and delivery?
Impact • how does the LRP program affect smallholder farmers’ behaviours (for example, 
long-term investments in productive assets, education, etc.) and households’ well￾being indicators (for example, assets, income, health and nutrition status)?
• what are the effects of the project on the way the targeted cooperatives position 
themselves in their respective value-chain?
Sustainability • Is there emerging evidence that the linkages between smallholder farmers and 
schools will endure? 
4.3 Data Availability 
27. There is limited secondary data available and it is expected that the evaluation team will develop 
comprehensive survey instruments to collect primary data for the baseline and end-line. 
28. WFP Rwanda Country Office’s M&E staff will routinely collect data on LRP standard indicators throughout 
the duration of the program. The data will be made available to the evaluation team for the endline 
assessment, and the team should clarify during inception which indicators are measured by the WFP 
Rwanda Office to avoid duplication.
29. The evaluation team should gather data from cooperatives and government institutions. The availability 
and quality of such data cannot be assured by WFP. The team is expected to formulate a strategy to collect 
such information and check its reliability, as such, a data quality assurance plan will be included as a a 
deliverable. The strategy has to be documented for future reference. 
30. Concerning the quality of data and information, the evaluation team should systematically check accuracy, 
consistency and validity of collected data and information and acknowledge any limitations/caveats in 
drawing conclusions using the data.
4.4 Methodology
31. The independent evaluation team is responsible for developing the full methodology during the inception 
phase. The team should identify potential risks of the approach and mitigation measures. The following 
should be considered and included by the evaluation team: 
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 73 |P a g e
• Firstly, confirm and define specific evaluation questions that are answered, and record them in the 
WFP Evaluation Matrix.
• Develop and agree an appropriate evaluation design, including appropriate counterfactual for some 
of the activities, so that there can be attribution of impacts to the LRP program. 
• Identify an appropriate sample for the treatment and comparison group (estimated sample size: 
approx. 300 households per group). However, the evaluation team will be responsible for conducting 
sample size calculations and determining a sample size large enough to answer the primary evaluation 
questions.
• Design credible survey instruments to collect household survey data as part of the baseline and again 
repeated for the end-line. The survey design should take account of any seasonal variation (therefore 
needs to be collected during the same season), and incorporate a range of appropriate well-being and 
behavioral change indicators (including but are not limited to, income, asset accumulation/holding, 
education and health and nutrition status).
• Use mixed methods in the evaluation design and data collection (including quantitative and 
qualitative) to ensure a comprehensive design, and the reasons for the changes in indicators can be 
explained. This can include triangulation of information through a variety of means, or different 
evaluation questions being answered through different methods and types of data. The use of mixed 
methods should be documented in the inception report. 
• WFP anticipates that the consultants will recommend a methodology and will likely include carrying 
out key informant interviews and focus group discussions. The qualitative data collection will gather 
information on gender equality, capacity of cooperatives and changes in the institutional context. 
However, bidding companies should also propose a wider variety of methods (including, but not 
limited to most significant change, outcome harvesting, etc.) whenever they feel these could be useful 
in enriching the evaluation products. 
• Ensure the evaluation design takes into account ways to ensure that the voices of women, girls, men 
and boys are heard and documented;
• Ensure the methodology and evaluation implementation are ethical and conform to the UNEG Ethical 
Guidelines for Evaluation.
4.5 Quality Assurance and Quality Assessment
32. WFP’s Decentralized Evaluation Quality Assurance System (DEQAS) defines the quality standards expected 
from this evaluation and sets out processes with in-built steps for Quality Assurance, Templates for 
evaluation products and Checklists for their review. DEQAS is closely aligned to the WFP’s evaluation 
quality assurance system (EQAS) and is based on the UNEG norms and standards and good practice of the 
international evaluation community and aims to ensure that the evaluation process and products conform 
to best practice. 
33. DEQAS will be systematically applied to this evaluation. The WFP Evaluation Manager will be responsible 
for ensuring that the evaluation progresses as per the DEQAS Process Guide and for conducting a rigorous 
quality control of the evaluation products ahead of their finalization. 
34. WFP has developed a set of Quality Assurance Checklists for its decentralized evaluations. This includes 
Checklists for feedback on quality for each of the evaluation products. The relevant Checklist will be 
applied at each stage, to ensure the quality of the evaluation process and outputs.
35. To enhance the quality and credibility of this evaluation, an outsourced quality support (QS) 
service directly managed by WFP’s Office of Evaluation in Headquarter provides review of the draft 
inception and evaluation report (in addition to the same provided on draft TOR), and provide:
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 74 |P a g e
a. systematic feedback from an evaluation perspective, on the quality of the draft inception and 
evaluation report; 
b. recommendations on how to improve the quality of the final inception/evaluation report.
36. The evaluation manager will review the feedback and recommendations from QS and share with the team 
leader, who is expected to use them to finalise the inception/ evaluation report. To ensure transparency 
and credibility of the process in line with the UNEG norms and standards[1], a rationale should be provided 
for any recommendations that the team does not take into account when finalising the report.
37. This quality assurance process as outline above does not interfere with the views and independence of 
the evaluation team, but ensures the report provides the necessary evidence in a clear and convincing 
way and draws its conclusions on that basis.
38. The evaluation team will be required to ensure the quality of data (validity, consistency and accuracy) 
throughout the analytical and reporting phases. The evaluation team should be assured of the accessibility 
of all relevant documentation within the provisions of the directive on disclosure of information. This is 
available in WFP’s Directive CP2010/001 on Information Disclosure.
39. All final evaluation reports will be subjected to a post hoc quality assessment by an independent entity 
through a process that is managed by OEV. The overall rating category of the reports will be made public 
alongside the evaluation reports.
5 Structure of the evaluation 
40. The evaluation will be conducted in two stages: a baseline assessment to be conducted between June and 
November 2017 and an endline evaluation that will take place between August and December 2019. 
Although the two stages are interconnected steps of the same evaluative exercise, their objectives are 
slightly different as outlined in the following sections.
5.1 Baseline Assessment
41. The objectives of the baseline assessment are to establish the methodological approach for the entire 
evaluation, measure baseline values and provide a situational analysis before the start of the intervention. 
42. The evaluation firm selected for this assignment will develop the methodological approach following the 
indications provided in 4.2 Evaluation Questions and 4.4 Methodology. The evaluators should also validate 
or revise the assumptions and risk analysis underlying the project design. 
43. The main deliverables of the baseline assessment are the following: 
• Inception report. It must be written following WFP recommended template. The evaluators must 
confirm the final evaluation questions, which approach and methods are chosen, and how they are 
going to be implemented in practice, and used to answer the IE questions. This means setting out a 
full study design including what data is being collected and for what purpose, how sampling is done 
(to be determined by the evaluation team), how the data is being analysed and triangulated. The 
inception report must also include how the data has been quality assured, and how the evaluators will 
manage and safeguard ethics during the life of the evaluation. Annexed to the inception report, the 
evaluation team should include a detailed work plan, including , timeline and activities.
[1] UNEG Norm #7 states “that transparency is an essential element that establishes trust and builds confidence, enhances stakeholder 
ownership and increases public accountability”
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 75 |P a g e
• Baseline report, including a first draft, where the final approach, methodology and data collection 
tools are clearly recorded, including their limitations and mitigations measures. The report must 
record all standard and custom indicator baseline values.
• Clean data sets, including quantitative data sets in Excel, statistical software code, and transcripts 
and/or notes from focus group discussions and key informant interviews.
Table 4 - Baseline Report Outline:
1. Executive Summary
i. Methodology
ii. Baseline values of key indicators
2. Introduction
iii. Overview of the Evaluation Subject
iv. Context
v. Evaluation Methodology and Limitations
3. Situational Anlysis
4. Baseline values
vi. Relevance
vii. Main Evaluation Question 1
viii. Main Evaluation Question 2
ix. Main Evaluation Question 3
x. Corollary Evaluation Questions
5. Additional findings
6. Conclusions and recommendations
7. Annexes
Table 5: Baseline Deliverables
Dates Deliverables 
July 2017 • Desk review of key project documents 
• Create a data quality assurance plan
• Confirm and finalise evaluation questions and evaluation design and 
methodology (including sampling strategy), and draft an inception 
report for agreement 
• Finalize inception report with the inclusion of Evaluation Reference 
Group’s comments 
• Data collection instruments
• Arrange field visits
August –
September 2017
• Conduct field visits 
• Conduct baseline survey 
• Conduct key stakeholder focus groups and key informant interviews 
and collect data with other suggested methods
• Enter, clean, and analyze data 
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 76 |P a g e
October 2017 • Draft baseline report 
• Seek Evaluation Reference Group’s comments on the draft baseline 
report 
• Finalize baseline report 
• Present baseline findings 
5.2 Endline evaluation 
44. The objective of the final evaluation is to provide an evidence-based, independent assessment of the 
performance of the project in order to evaluate the project’s success, ensure accountability, and generate 
lessons learned. Specifically, the final evaluation will: (1) use the same methodology developed for the 
baseline to measure key indicators, (2) analyse data to compare results between treatment and control 
groups where a quasi-experimental design is possible, (3) analyse data to compare results before and after 
the intervention for the activities where it is not possible to design a quasi-experimental design, and (4) 
identify meaningful lessons learned that WFP, USDA, and other relevant stakeholders can apply to future 
programming.
45. WFP anticipates carrying out the final evaluation during the final year of the USDA-LRP grant between 
August and November 2019. 
46. The main deliverables of the endline are the following: 
• Endline report, including a first draft, using WFP recommended template. It must set out a detailed 
methodology section, study design, and any limitations or where the study design was compromised. 
Should detail how data was collected, validated and analysed, and how conclusions were drawn. How 
different types of methods were brought together in the analysis. Annexes to the final report include 
but are not limited to a copy of the final ToR, bibliography, list of sampled farmer organizations, 
detailed sampling methodology, maps, a list of all meetings and participants, final survey instruments, 
transcripts from key informant interviews, focus group discussions, table of all standard and custom 
indicator with baseline and endline values, list of supported schools.
• Clean data sets, including quantitative data sets in Excel, statistical software code, and transcripts 
and/or notes from focus group discussions and key informant interviews.
• Powerpoint presentation of main findings and conclusions for de-briefing and dissemination purposes. 
• 2-page brief containing min findings, conclusions and recommendations.
Table 6: Final Evaluation Deliverables
Dates Deliverables 
August –
September 2019
• Updated methodology and sampling plan
• Data collection instruments
• Conduct field visits 
• Conduct endline survey 
• Conduct key stakeholder focus groups and key informant interviews 
and collect data with other suggested methods
• Enter, clean, and analyze data 
October 2019 • Draft endline report 
• Seek Evaluation Reference Group’s comments on the draft endline 
report 
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 77 |P a g e
• Finalize endline report
November 2019
• Share a powerpoint presentation and a 2-page brief with key 
stakeholders 
• Conduct workshop to share evaluation findings with key stakeholders 
6 Organization of the Evaluation
6.1 Evaluation Conduct
47. The evaluation team will conduct the evaluation under the direction of its team leader and in close 
communication with WFP Rwanda M&E Officers, the Head of Programmes, and the Country Director. The 
team will be hired following agreement with WFP on its composition. 
48. The evaluation team will not have been involved in the design or implementation of the subject of 
evaluation or have any other conflicts of interest. Further, they will act impartially and respect the code 
of conduct of the evaluation profession.
6.2 Team composition and competencies
49. The Team Leader should be a senior evaluator with at least 10 years of experience in research, evaluation 
and or baselines with demonstrated expertise in managing multidisciplinary and mixed quantitative and 
qualitative method evaluations, complemented with experience in implementing evaluations with a quasi￾experimental designs and additional significant experience in other development and management 
positions. In addition, the team leader should also have prior experience evaluating school meals 
programs, or agricultural development programs. 
50. The Team leader will also have expertise in designing methodology and data collection tools and 
demonstrated experience in leading similar baselines or evaluations. She/he will also have leadership and 
communication skills, including a track record of excellent writing and presentation skills. Her/his primary 
responsibilities will be: i) defining the baseline approach and methodology; ii) guiding and managing the 
team; iii) leading the baseline mission and representing the baseline team; iv) drafting and revising, as 
required, the inception report, the end of field work i.e. (exit) debriefing presentation and baseline report. 
51. The team must include strong demonstrated knowledge of qualitative and quantitative data and statistical 
analysis will be required. It should include both women and men and at least one team member should 
be familiar with WFP’s operations (preferably P4P or FTMA). 
52. The team will be multi-disciplinary and include members who together include an appropriate balance of 
expertise and practical knowledge in the following areas: 
• Local purchase/procurement.
• Capacity development (focus on smallholder farmers).
• Post harvest handling and agriculture supply chains.
• Food security.
• Gender expertise / good knowledge of gender issues.
• All team members should have strong analytical and communication skills, evaluation experience and 
familiarity with Rwanda. 
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 78 |P a g e
• The team should have knowledge of English, French and Kinyarwanda. The expected language of the 
evaluation report is English.
53. Team members will bring together a complementary combination of the technical expertise required and 
have a track record of written work on similar assignments. 
54. Team members will: i) contribute to the methodology in their area of expertise based on a document 
review; ii) conduct field work; iii) participate in team meetings and meetings with stakeholders; iv) 
contribute to the drafting and revision of the evaluation products in their technical area(s). 
6.3 Security Considerations
55. Security clearance where required is to be obtained from Rwanda’s United Nations Department of Safety 
and Security (UNDSS) office in Kigali. 
• As an ‘independent supplier’ of evaluation services to WFP, the evaluation company is responsible for 
ensuring the security of all persons contracted, including adequate arrangements for evacuation for 
medical or situational reasons. The consultants contracted by the evaluation company do not fall 
under the UN Department of Safety & Security (UNDSS) system for UN personnel. 
• Consultants hired independently are covered by the UN Department of Safety & Security (UNDSS) 
system for UN personnel which cover WFP staff and consultants contracted directly by WFP. 
Independent consultants must obtain UNDSS security clearance for travelling to be obtained from 
designated duty station and complete the UN system’s Basic and Advance Security in the Field courses 
in advance, print out their certificates and take them with them.36
56. However, to avoid any security incidents, the Evaluation Manager is requested to ensure that: 
• The WFP CO registers the team members with the Security Officer on arrival in country and arranges 
a security briefing for them to gain an understanding of the security situation on the ground.
• The team members observe applicable UN security rules and regulations – e.g. curfews etc.
7 Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders
The Rwanda Country office:
57. The WFP Rwanda Country Office management (Director or Deputy Director) will take responsibility to:
o Assign an Evaluation Manager for the baseline.
o Compose the internal evaluation committee and the evaluation reference group (see below).
o Approve the final TOR, inception and evaluation reports.
o Ensure the independence and impartiality of the evaluation at all stages, including establishment of an 
Evaluation Committee and of a Reference Group.
o Participate in discussions with the evaluation team on the evaluation design and the evaluation subject, 
its performance and results with the Evaluation Manager and the evaluation team.
o Organise and participate in two separate debriefings, one internal and one with external stakeholders.
o Oversee dissemination and follow-up processes, including the preparation of a Management Response 
to the evaluation recommendations.
58. The Evaluation Manager:
36 Field Courses: Basic; Advanced
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 79 |P a g e
o Manages the evaluation process through all phases including drafting this TOR
o Ensures quality assurance mechanisms are operational 
o Consolidates and shares comments on draft TOR, inception and evaluation reports with the evaluation 
team
o Ensures expected use of quality assurance mechanisms (checklists, quality support) 
o Ensures that the team has access to all documentation and information necessary to the evaluation; 
facilitates the team’s contacts with local stakeholders; sets up meetings, field visits; provides logistic 
support during the fieldwork; and arranges for interpretation, if required
o Organises security briefings for the evaluation team and provides any materials as required
59. An Internal Evaluation Committee is ensuring the independence and impartiality of the exercise. The 
membership includes baseline manager, technical unit in charge of school feeding program, head of Local 
Procurement unit and Head of Programme. The key roles and responsibilities of this team, includes 
providing input to the evaluation process and commenting on evaluation products. 
60. A baseline reference group with representation from USDA, WFP Regional Bureau and WFP Country office 
will review the evaluation products as further safeguard against bias and influence.
61. Independent evaluation team: under the leadership of the evaluation team leader, the evaluation team 
will be responsible for undertaking the evaluation, as per this TOR, independently. The evaluation team 
will select and interview staff from the Country Office. The team will also have contact with CO staff who 
are members of the ERG during inception and dissemination. The CO staff who are members of the ERG 
will be required to provide comments on the evaluation products. The responsibilities of the evaluation 
manager are clearly stated above and will, in addition to other provisions for impartiality already put in 
place, ensure the evaluation is implemented as per the WFP decentralized evaluation quality assurance 
system. Any support e.g. logistical support, that will be required from by the evaluation team from the CO 
will be discussed with baseline manager who will in turn follow up and organize with CO. 
62. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA): In addition to participating in the baseline reference 
group, USDA will provide comment on the TOR, inception report, draft evaluation report and participate 
in a stakeholder interviews with the selected evaluation team prior to the start of fieldwork
63. The Regional Bureau: the RB will take responsibility to:
o Advise the Evaluation Manager and provide support to the evaluation process where 
appropriate. 
o Support in the formulation of the Terms of Reference
o Participate in discussions with the evaluation team on the evaluation design and on the 
evaluation subject as relevant, as required. 
o Provide comments on the draft TOR, Inception and Evaluation reports
o Support the Management Response to the evaluation and track the implementation of the 
recommendations. 
While the Regional Evaluation Officer will perform most of the above responsibilities, other RB 
relevant technical staff may participate in the evaluation reference group and/or comment on 
evaluation products as appropriate. 
64. Other Stakeholders (Government, NGOs, and UN agencies) will be identified for interviews by the 
evaluation team, which will be based on the preliminary stakeholder analysis detailed as follows: the 
Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Local Administration, 
district executive committees, and head teachers. The following stakeholders will be targeted for focus 
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 80 |P a g e
group discussions: Parent teacher associations (PTAs), farmers’ groups, students, and community 
members.
65. The Office of Evaluation (OEV). OEV, through the Regional Evaluation Officer, will advise the Evaluation 
Manager and provide support to the evaluation process when required. It is responsible for providing 
access to the outsourced quality support service reviewing draft ToR, inception and evaluation reports 
from an evaluation perspective. It also ensures a help desk function upon request. 
8 Communication and budget
8.1 Communication
66. To ensure a smooth and efficient process and enhance the learning from this evaluation, the evaluation 
team should place emphasis on transparent and open communication with key stakeholders. These will 
be achieved by ensuring a clear agreement on channels and frequency of communication with and 
between key stakeholders.
67. Communication with baseline team and stakeholders should go through the baseline manager.
68. WFP Rwanda Country Office will organize a workshop to discuss evaluation findings and 
recommendations, where the evaluation team will present the key findings.
69. As part of the international standards for evaluation, WFP requires that all evaluations are made publicly
available. Following the approval of the final evaluation report, the report will be shared publically on 
WFP’s website, and all external stakeholders will be notified of its availability. 
8.2 Budget
70. For the purpose of this evaluation, the budget will be disbursed against the high quality and timely delivery 
of key products inception report, baseline report and end-line report. 
71. Procurement using Long-term Agreements (sometimes called “service level agreement”), based on pre￾agreed rates.
Table 7: Proposed Evaluation Budget
Evaluation Activity Estimated Date Approximate Cost
Impact Evaluation Contract June 2017 – November 2019 USD 175,000
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 81 |P a g e
Annex 2. LRP Project activities and targets
Planned project activities Target
Activity 1: Purchase commodities from SHF
Purchase of beans and maize from SHF in Rwanda or other regional markets 
(e.g. Tanzania or Uganda)
418 metric tons of 
maize and 225 metric 
tons of beans
Activity 2: Build capacity of SHF
Train in procurement of raw materials, processing, business management and 
marketing
4 cooperatives
Facilitate trading and marketing relationships between milling cooperatives, 
factories and 16 other cooperatives for raw materials
16 cooperatives
Train cooperatives on post-harvest handling and storage, warehouse 
management, organizational governance, agricultural markets, business 
planning, microfinance, and techniques for increasing production, etc.
16 cooperatives
Coach cooperatives on business plan implementation 16 cooperatives
Supply medium sized storage facilities and provide training and technical field 
support
1,000 SHF
Activity 3: Connect farmers to the patient procurement platform
Promote market access for SHF through facilitation of forward delivery 
contracts between private sector off-takers and farmers’ organizations
No target
Activity 4: Connect SHF to new markets
Promote pro-smallholder procurement and widen market for SHF by 
purchasing maize meal and beans through buyers such as MINIMEX (miller), 
EAX, SARURA and RGCC
No target
Collaborate with superintendent agencies for food inspection and quality testing No target
Activity 5: Collaborate with the government of Rwanda
Advocate through agricultural sector working group to advance SHF integration 
and to advance markets for SHF and institutional procurement
No target
Draft a strategy for sustainable market access for SHF and to increase 
procurement by national traders and institutional suppliers
One strategy
Figure 5: location of FTMA cooperatives in the four targeted districts (WFP)
Evaluation Report – LRP Rwanda Endline 82 |P a g e
Annex 3. Detailed Theory of Change for the LRP Project
Assumptions, linked to each of the numbers in the diagram, are as follows:
Assumption 1: Big buyers are interested in improving their access to sellers Assumption 2: There is 
a demand (other than at WFP level) for quality products
Assumption 3: Producing quality maize and beans is profitable (both in term of land productivity and
labour use) for SHF
Assumption 4: Dialogue structures between partners in agriculture will remain strong
Assumption 5: WFP is seen as a credible facilitator of linkages by all parties concerned
Assumption 6: Other actors in the value chain (credit agencies etc.) continue to invest in agriculture
Assumption 7: SHF constraints are linked to the kind of inputs that cooperatives and other value chain
actors can provide
Assumption 8: Other value chain actors (middlemen for example) will not implement strategies to
guarantee their supply of maize and beans
Assumption 9: There is no severe drought, pest attacks or disease affecting severely production. 
Assumption 10: The social, economic and politic context remains stable
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 83
Annex 4. Evaluation Matrix
Evaluation question Sub-Question Indicator Main sources of information Method for data collection Method for data analysis Quality of available data
Relevance
1-To what extent 
was the design of 
the intervention: 
relevant to wider 
context; aligned 
with the needs of 
the most vulnerable 
groups; cognizant of 
the needs of male 
and female 
beneficiaries; and in 
line with priorities 
of the government 
and WFP partners?
1.1-To what extent is LRP’s 
location, priorities and 
beneficiary selection in 
line with the needs of the 
most vulnerable groups? 
Integration of beneficiaries 
characteristics, activities and needs 
in the design and activities of LRP 
Integration of specificities of 
districts and agro-ecological regions 
in LRP’s design and activities
Attention to the different needs 
and situation of male and female 
beneficiaries
LRP project related documents 
(reports, studies…) 
SHF, cooperatives and other 
value chain actors 
Background documents on the 
context of agriculture in the 
concerned districts 
Document review (needs 
assessment reports, LRP 
documents and background 
project design documents, 
reports of beneficiaries 
engagement meetings)
FGD with cooperatives and SHF
Descriptive and inferential 
analysis of survey data.
Triangulation of 
documents and results 
from FGD and key 
informant interview
Very little project related 
documentation available
Documentation from other projects and 
policy documents have been collected
WFP to provide additional 
documentation when available.
Information from stakeholders will be 
collected in the field 
Quality of the information l largely 
depends on whether WFP has 
document presenting their strategy in 
terms of project design
1.2-To what extent does 
the LRP project contribute 
to the government’s 
objectives? 
Alignment of the approach and 
expected results with government’s 
objectives and legislative 
framework
Evidence that the LRP intervention 
has made a specific contribution to
the implementation of the GoR 
objectives
LRP project related planning and 
implementation documents 
(reports, studies…)
Policy documents 
Documents of other partners 
implementing similar initiatives
Institutional stakeholders 
(MINAGRI, MINEDUC, MINALOC, 
MINEACOM) at national and 
district level
Document review (LRP 
documents, policies and 
strategies documents from the 
government, project design 
document, Ministry of 
Agriculture and Animal 
Resources strategic plan)
KII with institutional 
stakeholders (national and 
district)
Triangulation of 
documents and key 
informant interview
Contribution analysis 
Documentation from other projects and 
policy documents have been collected
Further documents on the LRP planning 
and implementation to be provided to 
the evaluation team by WFP
Information from stakeholders will be 
collected in the field
Quality of policy documents is expected 
to be good 
1.3-What is the level of 
complementarity with 
other development 
Evidence of complementarity of 
LRP’s approach with other 
LRP project related documents 
(reports, studies…) 
Document review (LRP project 
design documents and 
documents from other projects 
Descriptive and inferential 
analysis of survey data.
Information from stakeholders will be 
collected in the field
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 84
Evaluation question Sub-Question Indicator Main sources of information Method for data collection Method for data analysis Quality of available data
interventions targeting the 
same regions, including 
with WFPs own 
interventions? 
development projects at the design 
stage
Evidence that LRP’s approach does 
not duplicate the work by other 
actors 
Level of implication of partners in 
the design and implementation of 
LRP
Documents from other projects, 
partners and donors 
Institutional stakeholders 
(MINAGRI, MINEDUC, MINALOC, 
MINEACOM) at national and 
district level, with other 
development actors, and with 
WFP
and donors, coordination 
meetings reports of 
development projects)
KII with institutional 
stakeholders (national and 
district) including with a view 
to establish what has changed 
in the overall context over time 
and to what extent this can be 
attributed to the LRPs 
interventions
Triangulation of 
documents and results 
from key informant 
interview
Mapping of interventions 
in the LRP area for 
complementarity
Contribution analysis
Information on interventions by other 
partners to be collected by the team 
with support from WFP 
Further documents on the LRP planning 
and implementation to provide to the 
evaluation team by WFP, in particular 
on foreseen complementarity with 
other actors 
Quality of the information l largely 
depends on whether WFP and other 
development interventions have 
document presenting their strategy in 
terms of project design
1.4-Does the logic of 
intervention promote 
sustainability?
Existence of a clear strategy for 
sustainability and exit strategy 
Approach and activities of LRP 
based on market related solutions 
(better business linkages between 
chain actors and cooperatives in 
order to improve access to services 
and market opportunities for SHF) 
Awareness at government level 
(both national and district level) of 
SHF and pro-SHF buyers
LRP project related documents 
(reports, studies…)
SHF, cooperatives and other 
value chain actors, with other 
development actors, and with 
WFP
Institutional stakeholders 
(MINAGRI, MINEDUC, MINALOC, 
MINEACOM) at national and 
district level
Document review (LRP projects 
documents and progress 
reports, project design 
document, report on 
engagement meetings with 
government officials)
KII with cooperative and value 
chain actors, other 
development actors, WFP and 
government
FGD with SHF and cooperatives
Triangulation of 
documents and results 
from FGD and key 
informant interview
Currently there is no project document 
that provides a complete overview of 
the sustainability or exit strategy. 
Information from stakeholders will be 
collected in the field
Further documents on the LRP planning 
and implementation to provide to the 
evaluation team by WFP, in particular 
on sustainability/exit strategy
Quality of the information depends on 
whether WFP have document 
presenting their intervention strategy 
(for the market-based solutions) and on 
their exit strategy. For government, 
quality of the data collected will depend 
on institutional stakeholder knowledge 
of the different policies and strategies. 
Effectiveness
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 85
Evaluation question Sub-Question Indicator Main sources of information Method for data collection Method for data analysis Quality of available data
2-What are the 
effects of the project 
on the cooperative’s
ability “to be”, “to 
organize”, “to 
relate”, and “to do” 
2.1-Are cooperative better 
organized? 
Evidence that cooperative have a 
common vision.
Evidence that number of meetings 
of cooperative members and of 
cooperative leaders has increased
Evidence of increased knowledge of 
leaders’ roles by cooperative 
members 
Existence of up to date records at 
cooperative level and regular 
utilization of accounting systems
Increased number of collective 
operations registered by 
cooperative (purchase of inputs or 
services, sales, access to credit)
Increased number of members 
paying their dues/improved 
timeliness of payment by members
Cooperative records and 
interviews
WFP implementing partners 
records and interviews
Reports from the relevant 
government ministries in charge 
cooperatives
Progress Reports from WFP and 
implementing partners
WFP baseline and monitoring 
data on the LRP cooperatives
Cooperatives checklist/review 
of LRP cooperative baseline 
data
FGD with cooperative 
members 
KII with cooperative 
management, implementing 
partners, and WFP
Review of documentation on 
cooperatives and from 
implementing partners
Triangulation of primary & 
secondary data sources.
Thematic analysis of 
qualitative data
Descriptive and inferential 
analysis of survey data.
Information from stakeholders will be 
collected in the field 
WFP also collects information on the 
cooperatives which will provide a sense 
of progress against specific indicators.
Documents from WFP and its 
implementing partners will be provided 
to the evaluation team
Quality of the data collected will 
depend on whether cooperatives 
record are existing and updated.
2.2-Are cooperatives 
developing partnerships?
Number of partnerships with banks, 
service providers, institutions and 
other cooperatives 
Cooperative records and 
interviews
WFP baseline and monitoring 
data on the LRP cooperatives
Cooperatives partners (MFI, 
service providers, institutions)
Documentations and Progress 
reports from cooperatives
Progress Reports from WFP and 
implementing partners
Cooperatives checklist
KII with cooperative 
management, implementing 
partners, and WFP
Review of cooperative 
documentation 
Descriptive & inferential 
analysis of survey data.
Triangulation of qualitative 
and quantitative data 
Triangulation of primary & 
secondary data sources.
Thematic analysis of 
qualitative data
It is assumed that cooperatives keep 
reasonably good records of 
membership, contracts, etc. This needs 
to be verified.
Information from stakeholders will be 
collected in the field 
Documents from WFP and its 
implementing partners will be provided 
to the evaluation team
Quality of the information from WFP 
and implementing partners is assumed 
to be good. Quality of data at 
cooperatives level depends on the 
quality of the records. KII should 
provide good quality data on 
partnerships. 
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 86
Evaluation question Sub-Question Indicator Main sources of information Method for data collection Method for data analysis Quality of available data
2.3- Are the cooperatives 
becoming more 
economically dynamic?
Cooperatives plan their business 
activities at the beginning of the 
season and make an assessment of 
their result at the end 
Cooperatives have better skills on 
credit and loans management 
Evidence that the cooperative net 
margins have improved 
Volumes of products sold through 
the cooperatives increased 
Cooperative records and 
interviews 
WFP baseline and monitoring 
data on the LRP cooperatives
Other value chain actor 
interviews 
WFP implementing partners 
interviews and documentation
Progress Reports from WFP and 
implementing partners
Cooperatives checklist
KII with cooperatives and value 
chain actors
Cooperative records
Descriptive & inferential 
analysis of survey data.
Triangulation of qualitative 
and quantitative data 
Triangulation of primary & 
secondary data sources.
Thematic analysis of 
qualitative data
Information from stakeholders will be 
collected in the field
Documents from WFP and its 
implementing partners will be provided 
to the evaluation team
WFP is collecting information on loans 
at cooperatives levels. Data on business 
skills and planning at cooperative is 
expected to be of medium quality as it 
requires cooperatives to have already 
sufficient business awareness to talk 
about it. Quality of data on volumes 
and net margin of cooperatives 
depends on the quality of the records at 
cooperatives levels (it will be difficult to 
have accurate information during 
interviews)
2.4-Do activities of the 
cooperative benefit to 
their members?
Evidence that cooperatives 
regularly distribute dividends to 
their members
Evidence that cooperatives offer 
more effective and timely services 
in one or more of these fields: 
access to inputs, access to finance, 
marketing, access to information, 
extension, storage or processing
There is a self-financing mechanism 
for cooperative activities 
Cooperative records
WFP baseline and monitoring 
data on the LRP cooperatives
Other value chain actors 
SHF who are members of the 
cooperative
Cooperatives partners (MFI, 
service providers, institutions)
WFP implementing partners 
FGD with SHF
KII with cooperative leadership 
and partners, value chain 
actors and WFP implementing 
partners
On site observation 
(cooperative documents)
Triangulation of qualitative 
and quantitative data 
Triangulation of primary & 
secondary data sources.
Descriptive & inferential 
analysis of survey data.
Thematic analysis of 
qualitative data
Information from stakeholders will be 
collected in the field
It is assumed that cooperatives keep 
reasonably good records of their 
support to SHF. This needs to be 
verified.
Documentation from WFP 
implementing partners to be made 
available by WFP to the team
Quality of the data will depend on 
whether cooperatives have up to date 
records. It is expected that the quality 
of these data will be poor to medium.
3 - How does the LRP 
programme affect 
male and female 
3.1 - Has SHF knowledge 
of options and alternatives 
improved? Are the 
Cooperatives are more regularly 
seeking information on markets 
(options, price, markets...)
SHF survey Triangulation of 
information between 
sources
Information from stakeholders will be 
collected on the field
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 87
Evaluation question Sub-Question Indicator Main sources of information Method for data collection Method for data analysis Quality of available data
SHF capacity and 
behaviour?
benefits equal for male 
and female farmers?
SHF demonstrate improved 
knowledge on production practices
Cooperatives demonstrate 
improved knowledge on post￾harvest handling 
SHF have regular extension 
services adapted to their needs 
from LRP implementing partners 
and from the government 
Cooperatives checklist/review 
of LRP cooperative baseline 
data
FGD with SHF.
Reports reviews from WFP and 
implementing partners of LRP 
Thematic analysis of 
quantitative data.
Descriptive and inferential 
analysis of survey data.
Documents and data from WFP will be 
provided to the evaluation team
Quality of the data is expected to be 
medium (there is no records at farmers 
level or cooperative levels on how they 
seek information or on the adoption of 
good practices. Triangulation will be a 
key element to ensure quality of the 
analysis.
3.2-Have SHF choices 
around short-term
productive assets, 
marketing, good practices 
changed? Are the benefits 
equal for male and female 
farmers?
Increased/improved investment by 
SHF in short term productive assets 
for maize & beans (seeds, tools, 
inputs and casual labour)
Increase in the area cultivated in 
maize and beans 
Evidence of improved/increase in 
access by SHF to credit
Evidence that SHF adopt improved 
practices in production and post￾harvest handling
SHF 
Cooperatives 
Implementation partners 
Cooperatives partners (MFI, 
service providers, institutions)
Documentation and reports from 
WFP including WFP baseline and 
monitoring data on the LRP 
cooperatives
SHF survey
Cooperatives checklist
KII with sample of SHF.
KII with WFP staff, government 
representatives, cooperatives 
lead
Reports reviews from WFP and 
implementing partners of LRP
Descriptive and inferential 
analysis of survey data.
Triangulation of 
information between 
sources
Thematic analysis of 
quantitative data.
Information from stakeholders will be 
collected on the field
Documents and data from WFP and 
implementing partners will be provided 
to the evaluation team
Information on access to credit should 
have a good quality as it is monitored 
by WFP. Quality of data on short term 
productive assets and on area 
cultivated, as well as adoption of good 
practices is expected to be medium. 
4-Has the LRP 
contributed to 
creating new 
opportunities for 
male and female 
SHF?
4.1-Has LRP contributed to 
the design and adoption of 
a pro-SHF and buyers 
partnership strategy? Does 
the strategy benefit both 
male and female SHF?
Existence of a strategy at 
government level to support 
development of business 
partnership between cooperatives 
and pro-SHF buyers
Evidence of LRP contribution to the 
design and adoption of a pro-SHF 
and buyers partnership strategy
Cooperative KII
Institutional stakeholders 
(MINAGRI, MINEDUC, MINALOC, 
MINEACOM) at national and 
district level
Pro-SHF buyers 
WFP
KII with government officials, 
WFP staff, cooperatives and 
other stakeholders
Review of Reports from WFP 
Reports from the relevant 
government ministries in 
charge of cooperatives
Triangulation of primary & 
secondary data 
Information from stakeholders will be 
collected on the field
Documents and data from WFP will be 
provided to the evaluation team (WFP 
and FTMA) 
Quality is expected to be medium. 
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 88
Evaluation question Sub-Question Indicator Main sources of information Method for data collection Method for data analysis Quality of available data
4.2 - Are big buyers 
increasingly willing to 
purchase maize and beans 
from SHF??
Evidence of increased awareness by 
large buyers of cooperatives as 
business partners 
Evidence that the number of buyers 
purchasing maize and beans from 
cooperatives has increased
Volume of food procured by WFP 
from pro-SHF buyers
Percentage of food from the 
platform going to buyers other than 
WFP 
Cooperatives interviews and 
records
WFP baseline and monitoring 
data on the LRP cooperatives
Pro-SHF buyer interviews and 
records
Progress Reports from WFP and 
implementing partners
Cooperatives checklist
KII with cooperatives leaders, 
buyers, WFP staff, other 
stakeholders
Review of Reports from WFP 
and implementing partners
Descriptive and inferential 
analysis of survey data.
Triangulation of 
documents and results 
from key informant 
interview
Thematic analysis of 
qualitative data
Information from stakeholders will be 
collected on the field
Documents and data from WFP will be 
provided to the evaluation team (WFP 
and implementing partners)
Quality of the data is expected to good 
(it is assumed that large buyers have 
records) if buyers are ready to openly 
discuss these issues. Quality of data 
collected by WFP on food procurement 
on the volume of sales at platform level 
is expected to be very good.
4.3 - Are producers able 
respond to this increased 
demand?
Cooperatives have an effective 
system to manage quality 
standards
Number of contracts signed 
between cooperatives and buyers 
Volumes of products from 
cooperatives purchased by big 
buyers 
Evidence of reduction in the 
number and percentage of 
contract’s defaulting 
Contracts ‘conditions in terms of 
schedule, transport, time of 
payments quality and price are 
adapted to needs and constraints 
of buyers and SHF 
Cooperatives 
Documentations and Progress 
reports from cooperatives
WFP 
Pro-SHF buyers
Progress Reports from WFP and 
implementing partners
KII with cooperatives leaders, 
pro-SHF buyers and WFP staff 
FGD with SHF
Review of Reports from WFP 
and implementing partners
Review of contracts 
Cooperative and buyers’ 
records
Triangulation of 
documents and results 
from key informant 
interview
Thematic analysis of 
qualitative data
Information from stakeholders will be 
collected on the field
Documents and data from WFP will be 
provided to the evaluation team (WFP 
and implementing partners)
Quality of the data collected is expected 
to be medium to good depending on 
the records kept at cooperative levels. 
There may be a lack of transparency 
from cooperatives and buyers on 
contracts and contract’s defaulting 
which would affect quality of data. 
Efficiency
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 89
Evaluation question Sub-Question Indicator Main sources of information Method for data collection Method for data analysis Quality of available data
5- How does the 
procurement, 
delivery, and 
distribution of the 
modality for school 
feeding which is 
promoted through 
LRP compare - in 
terms of cost￾effectiveness and 
timeliness - to the 
alternative 
modalities of food 
procurement?37
5.1 Has the LRP brought 
about reduced prices of 
school meals? 
Comparison of the price of school 
meals in the two main HGSMP 
modalities (local procurement and 
imported food)
National and local 
representatives of MINEDUC
WFP records on food 
procurement, distribution, and 
delivery costs for both modalities
WFP reports to USDA and to 
McGovern Dole
MINEDUC reporting if available
Documentation and WFP data 
base analysis for information 
about cost of procurement, 
handling and delivery.
Triangulation of 
information between the 
different data collection 
methods and sources
Thematic analysis of 
qualitative data
Most of the data is judged to be 
available from WFP records
Quality is expected to be very good. 
5.2-Has the LRP resulted 
in improved 
procurement, distribution 
and delivery time, and 
enhanced efficiency 
compared with other 
food procurement 
modalities?
Timeliness for procurement, 
distribution and delivery of food 
under the two modalities
Cost for procurement, distribution 
and delivery of food under the two 
modalities
National and local 
representatives of MINEDUC
WFP records on food 
procurement and delivery 
timelines 
Data and information from 
schools in the two modalities 
WFP reports to USDA and to 
McGovern Dole
MINEDUC reporting if available
Documentation and data base 
analysis for information related 
to procurement, handling and 
delivery.
KII with school heads, SMP 
officials from MINEDUC and 
other relevant stakeholders 
Interviews with WFP staff, in 
particular staff involved in 
procurement and management 
of food modalities
Triangulation of 
information between the 
different data collection 
methods and sources
Thematic analysis of 
qualitative data
Most of the data is judged to be 
available from WFP records
Quality is expected to be very good
5.3-How often does LRP 
face pipeline breaks 
compared with other 
food procurement 
modalities?
Frequency and duration of pipeline 
breaks under the two modalities 
Number of school feeding days 
under the two modalities
WFP records on pipeline 
management
WFP records on number of days 
of school feeding per year
WFP reports to USDA and to 
McGovern Dole
Documentation review 
(monitoring reports, reports to 
the donor)
WFP data base analysis 
Triangulation of 
information between the 
different data collection 
methods and sources
Thematic analysis of 
qualitative data
Most of the data is judged to be 
available from WFP records
Quality is expected to be very good
37 This question was only examined at baseline. In agreement with WFP it was dropped for the endline. We have retained it in the matrix for the sake of completion but there is no end-line 
assessment against this question in the report.
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 90
Evaluation question Sub-Question Indicator Main sources of information Method for data collection Method for data analysis Quality of available data
MINEDUC reporting 
Intermediate outcomes and impact
6-How does the LRP 
programme affect 
male and female 
SHF income?
6.1-Has male and female 
SHF income improved?
Volumes and value of maize and 
beans sales by SHF, disaggregated 
by gender 
Volumes of sales of the main crops 
grown by smallholder farmers in 
the southern districts (wheat, rice, 
cassava and Irish potatoes…), 
disaggregated by gender
Net margin/ha and net margin/man 
day from maize and bean 
production, disaggregated by 
gender
Maize and beans significant source 
of income for SHF
SHF 
Cooperative 
Implementation partners 
Cooperatives partners (MFI, 
service providers, institutions)
Documentation and reports from 
WFP, including WFP baseline and 
monitoring data on the LRP 
cooperatives
SHF survey
Cooperatives checklist
KII with a sample of SHF.
KII with WFP staff, government 
representatives, cooperatives 
leads
Reports reviews from WFP and 
implementing partners of LRP 
Triangulation of 
information between the 
different data collection 
methods and sources.
Thematic analysis of 
quantitative data.
Descriptive and inferential 
analysis of survey data.
Information from stakeholders will be 
collected on the field
Documents and data from WFP and 
implementing partners will be provided 
to the evaluation team
Quality of the data is expected to be 
medium (SHF do not usually keep 
records and there is often different 
tools used to measure volumes)
7- How and to what 
extent does the LRP 
programme 
contribute to 
producers marketing 
food products that 
meets quality 
standards and is 
nutritious, and is 
culturally 
acceptable? (impact)
7.1-Has the overall quality 
of maize and bean 
products consumed by 
SHF improved? 
Evidence of improved quality of 
maize and beans products utilized 
by SHF supported by LRP 
SHF 
Cooperatives
Big buyers
Implementation partners
WFP baseline and monitoring 
data on the LRP cooperatives 
SHF survey
Cooperatives
FGD with cooperatives, big 
buyers & partners
Descriptive and inferential 
analysis of survey data.
Triangulation of 
information 
Information from stakeholders will be 
collected on the field
Quality of the information is expected 
to be medium 
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 91
Evaluation question Sub-Question Indicator Main sources of information Method for data collection Method for data analysis Quality of available data
7.2-Is there evidence that 
SHF are consuming and 
marketing food products 
that meets quality 
standards and are 
nutritious and culturally 
acceptable?
SHF keep a part of their quality 
production for consumption 
Evidence from schools confirms 
that SHF produce is considered 
nutritious and culturally acceptable
SHF 
Cooperatives
Big buyers
Implementation partners
WFP baseline and monitoring 
data on the LRP cooperatives
Parents and children in schools
SHF survey
KII & FGD w/ cooperatives, 
buyers & implementing. 
Partners
School interviews (end-line)
Descriptive and inferential 
analysis of survey data.
Triangulation of 
information between 
sources
Information from stakeholders will be 
collected on the field 
Quality of the information is expected 
to be medium to good 
8-What is the level 
of participation of 
men and women? 
Are women well 
represented, 
including in 
leadership 
positions? What are 
the disaggregated 
impacts on women 
Has the LRP 
programme affected 
male and female 
SHF differently?
8.1-How has the 
participation of men and 
women evolved in 
cooperative decision￾making structures?
Evidence that the number of 
women in leadership position in 
cooperatives has increased
SHF 
Cooperatives (leadership and 
documentation)
WFP and their implementation 
partners 
WFP baseline and monitoring 
data on the LRP cooperatives
Cooperatives checklist
Review of cooperatives 
documentation
FGD with SHF and cooperative 
leaders 
Review of reports (WFP & 
implementing partners of LRP)
Triangulation of 
information between the 
different data collection 
methods and sources
Thematic qualitative data 
analysis
Information from stakeholders will be 
collected on the field
Documents and data from WFP will be 
provided to the evaluation team
Assuming that cooperatives keep 
records of their members, quality of 
data is expected to be very good. 
8.2- Has the percentage of 
female SHF who are 
members of cooperatives 
increased over time?
Evidence that the relative 
proportion of male and female 
beneficiaries has increased in 
favour of women
SHF 
Cooperatives (leadership and 
documentation)
WFP and their implementation 
partners
WFP baseline and monitoring 
data on the LRP cooperatives
Cooperatives checklist
Review of cooperatives 
documentation
Review of reports from WFP 
and implementing partners of 
LRP
Triangulation of 
information between the 
different data collection 
methods and sources
Thematic qualitative data 
analysis
Information from stakeholders will be 
collected on the field
Assuming that cooperatives keep 
records of their members, quality of 
data is expected to be very good.
Sustainability
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 92
Evaluation question Sub-Question Indicator Main sources of information Method for data collection Method for data analysis Quality of available data
9-Is there emerging 
evidence that the 
cooperatives have 
capacity to create 
linkages with 
schools?
9.1- Has LRP contributed 
to develop business 
relationship between 
cooperatives and schools 
Evidence that mutual awareness of 
school and cooperatives as business 
partners has increased (i.e. school 
know they can purchase food at 
cooperatives level and cooperatives 
know they can sell to school)
Cooperatives (leaders and 
documents)
Schools (school head and 
documents)
KII with school leads 
FGD with cooperative leaders
Documents review of 
cooperatives records
Triangulation of 
information between the 
different data collection 
methods and sources
Descriptive analysis of 
cooperative checklist
Information from stakeholders will be 
collected on the field
Quality of the data is expected to be 
good
9.2- Are there 
cooperatives delivering 
food to schools 
(primary/secondary) in the 
targeted districts? 
Evidence of increased sales from 
cooperatives to schools 
Cooperatives (documents)
WFP baseline and monitoring 
data on the LRP cooperatives
Cooperatives checklist
Documents review of 
cooperatives records
Triangulation of 
information between the 
different data collection 
methods and sources. 
Descriptive analysis of 
cooperative checklist
Information from stakeholders will be 
collected on the field
Quality of the data depends on whether 
cooperatives have up to date records 
on their sales and clients
9.3- Do school 
(primary/secondary) 
purchase agriculture 
products from 
cooperatives? 
Existence of a budget for school to 
purchase foods
Evidence of direct purchases to 
cooperatives from schools
Cooperatives (leaders and 
documents)
Schools (school head and 
documents)
WFP baseline and monitoring 
data on the LRP cooperatives
KII with school leads 
FGD with cooperative leaders
Cooperatives checklist
Documents review of 
cooperatives records
Triangulation of 
information between the 
different data collection 
methods and sources
Descriptive analysis of 
cooperative checklist
Information from stakeholders will be 
collected on the field
Quality of the data is expected to be 
good assuming schools have records of 
their purchase
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 93
Annex 5. List of persons met at endline
NAMES INSTITUTION/FUNCTION DATE Location
Belange 
Carine
Bideri Joseph
RWARRI LRP/Project Manager
RWARRI LRP/Project M and E
RWARRI/Executive Secretary
11/06/2019
11/06/2019
11/06/2019
Kigali
Sam 
Gata Sylvie
MINEDUC
MINAGRI
11/06/2019
11/06/2019
Kigali
Kabalira Gerard COAMANYA/PRESIDENT 12/06/2016 Gisagara
Francois Nkurikiyimana RWARRI FIELD OFFICER 12/06/2019 Gisagara
Nshimiyimana Jean Bosco Duterimbere Agatorove 13/06/2019 Nyaruguru
Paulin RWARRI LRP/FIELD OFFICER 13/06/2019 Nyaruguru
Thomas District/Agronomist 13/06/2019 Nyaruguru
Kwizera Theogene Abishyizehamwe Urwonja 13/06/2019 Nyaruguru
Maniraho Jean Baptiste Abibumbiyehamwe Cyanika 14/06/2019 Nyamagabe
Mukanyiribanje Josephine Koperative Icyerekezo Isimbi 14/06/2019 Huye
Immaculee Musabyimana COPEKI/Vice President 15/06/2019 Huye
Landouald Nzabamwita Abemeramihigo ba Mwogo/President 15/06/2019 Huye
Ndayisaba Pascal Abishyizehamwe Ngera: executives and 
lead farmers
16/06/2019 Nyaruguru
Mwitirehe Augustin CCM Muganza=CCRM/Prezida 17/06/2019, 9:30am Gisagara
Nshimiyimana Alphonse KAIMU Abadacogora 17/06/2019, 1:20am Gisagara
Aime DJAF Gisagara 17/06/2019 Gisagara
DJAF Huye 17/06/2019 Huye
Edouard RIAS 18/06/2019 Huye
Nsanzabaganwa Kopianya President and KIIs 18/06/2019 Nyaruguru
Rurangwa Vincent KOBABOMANGO 18/06/2019 Nyaruguru
Gatera Celestin RIAS 19/06/2019, 8:30am Kigali
Amar
Amy
Wim and Sameera 
WFP LRP/FTMA Program Manager
WFP Home grown School feeding program 
FTMA strategy and WFP/LRP Project M & E
19/06/2019, 2pm
19/06/2019, 4pm
Kigali
Eisha Africa Improved Food (AIF)/CHAI 20/06/2019, 8:20am Kigali
Olivier EAX 20/06/2019 Kigali
Carine RWARRI LRP Monitoring and Evaluation 21/06/2019 Kigali
Moses Minimex 21/06/2019 Kigali
Icco-terrafina 21/06/2019 Kigali 
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 94
Annex 6. Survey tool
Gender of the respondent
Is the respondent also the HHH
Gender of the HH head
Age of the HHH
Educational level of the HHH
Marital status of the HHH
Total males in the HH
Total females in the HH
Total number of males who normally provide labour
Total number of females who normally provide labour
Main source of income for the HH (main economic activity of the HHH)
What is the average monthly household income of your household?
Approximately what proportion of the household income was invested in agriculture?
Were you in need of a loan of credit/loan in the past planting session for finance your 
agricultural purposes?
Why did you require the credit/loan?
Did you receive the credit/loan?
If no why did you not receive the load/credit?
What is the source of the loan? did you receive the loan
• Bank
• Cooperative
• Soft loan from friends of family
• Agricultural inputs on credit
How easy was it to revive credit/loan for agricultural purposes?
Please comment on the following on the aspect of the credit
• Timeliness
• The amount applied for
• The repayment period
• Collateral to receive the loan
Have you defaulted in payment of the loan
Main reason for defaulting
What crops does your household usually plant?
What crops did your household plant in the last planting season?
how much land does the household currently own
Of the land owned by the household, how much was allocated to crop planting in the 
last planting season?
In the last planting session, did your household, rent or buy more land for crop faming 
purposes?
What was the main reason for renting more land?
What proportion of the HH farm is allocated to crop farming
In the past planting session, which crop did you plant and in what acreage
Maize
Beans
Millet
Sorghum
others
How much of following crops did you harvest in the past planting session
Maize
Beans
Millet
Sorghum
others
How would you consider the quantity of crops (specifically maize and beans) harvested 
form the last planting session?
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 95
Was not enough even for household consumption only
Was enough for HH consumption
What proportion of the harvested maize/beans was allocated for household 
consumption?
Maize
Beans
Millet
Sorghum
Others
Where/to who was the surplus maize and beans harvested sold?
After the season harvest, did the household need to purchase maize and beans to meet 
the household needs?
How long after harvest did the household require to purchase the extra?
In the past planting session, did you make any commitment of supplying your 
agricultural products to any person/group before harvesting?
Who did you make the commitment to?
What proportion of the planted maize and beans did you make commitment to?
What is the current main source for agricultural labour for the household?
In the past planting session, did you hire extra labour to meet your agricultural needs?
In the past planting session, who much did your household spend on the following 
agricultural inputs
Seeds
Agricultural equipment’s
Fertilizers
Hired labour
Extra farm land
Transportation of agricultural materials
From what source did you receive the information?
What information did you receive?
During the last planting session, did you practice any improved agricultural practices?
What improved agricultural technology did you practice?
During the last planting session, did you receive any agricultural extension services ?
From who did you receive the extension services
How frequent was the extension services?
During the last harvest season, did you practice any post-harvest practices
What post-harvest handling practices did you practice last session
cooperatives
1. Are you a member of a cooperative? 
2. How activate are you in the activities related to the cooperative
3. What are the services currently offered to you by the cooperatives?
4. Are the services offered by the cooperative cheap but of quality as compared to the same services offered by 
other providers?
5. Are the services offered by the cooperative profitable to you?
6. Do you feel that the activities of the cooperative are benefiting you?
7. If yes, what specific activities of the cooperative are benefiting you?
Markets
1. Do you have information of existing markets for your produce?
2. What information do you know in particular about the markets?
3. What is the source of the information?
4. Do you feel the information you have about the markets is sufficient?
5. If No, what extra information would you like to have?
Debt/loans
1. During the last planting sessions, did you require a loan/ financial support to finance your agricultural activities?
2. Why did you require the loan?
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 96
3. Did you receive the loan/financial support required?
4. From who did you receive the financial support?
5. Please comment of the following aspects of the financial support/loan received
a. Timeliness
b. Collateral for the financial support required
c. The amount required against amount received
d. Interest rates
e. The repayment period
6. In the past planting session, did you get into debt with middlemen before the harvesting session?
7. What was the main reason for getting into debt with the middlemen against your harvest?
8. If yes, did you receive better ‘deal’ from the middlemen against your harvest
Short term assets investments
1. In the last plating session, how much did you spend on the following short term productive assets
a. Seeds
b. Tools
c. Agricultural inputs
d. Casual labour
e. Extension services
To who and what quantities did you sell you produce of the last planting session?
Maize
Beans 
Millet
Sorghum
In after the last harvest, was there need for your household to purchase maize and beans for household consumptions
If yes, what quantities were purchased
Maize 
Beans
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 97
Annex 7. How has cooperatives ability ‘to be’, ‘to organize’, ‘to relate’ and ‘to do’
evolved from baseline to endline?
7.1. General information on LRP cooperatives 
Cooperatives selected for the LRP program are relatively young. The oldest one started its activities 
around 1987 but for most of them the formation is more recent (around 2010). Establishment of the
LRP cooperatives occurred in a context of cooperative development all over the country. Several 
experiences in different regions of the world show that it takes cooperatives between 15 and 20 years 
to build their capacities in order to have a good command of economic and financial tools and to 
become real economic stakeholders. In that sense, we can still consider the LRP cooperatives as 
emerging cooperatives. 
A majority of the cooperatives are organized around marshlands (12 out of 16 cooperatives). Working 
on a marshland is easier for a cooperative as all the farmer plots are grouped in the same area. This
facilitates input provision, extension services, control of practices, and production. Usually, 
exploitation of the land is individual (each farmer has been assigned a small plot to grow on the 
marshland). Also, land on the marshland belongs to the state and it has a stronger control over the 
production choices: farmers feel obliged to comply with government recommendations on these plots 
as they fear losing their land.
As shown by figure below, LRP cooperatives present very diverse situations: membership varies from 
39 to 862 members. Four cooperatives have less than 80 members and 5 have more than 500 
members. The area available for cooperatives ranges from 5 ha to 200 ha. 
Figure 6: Basic information on LRP cooperatives (qualitative data collection and WFP documents)
Cooperative’s 
name 
Number of 
members
Female 
members
Type of land 
exploited
Total land 
available for 
the 
cooperative 
Area planted 
(season A
2019) 
Coamanya 
Gishubi
547 272 marshland 130 ha 60 ha 
Duterimbere 867 575 marshland 75 ha 20 ha
Abishyizehamwe 
Urwonja
649 322 marshland 49.5 ha 49 ha 
Abibumbye 824 537 marshland 72 ha ?
Icyerekezo 264 147 marshland 30 ha 30 ha 
Kopiki 80 ? marshland 5 ha 0.5 ha 
Abemerimihigo 540 180 marshland 82 ha 46 ha 
Abishyizehamwe 
Ngera
67 37 marshland 5 ha 5 ha 
CCM Muganza 224 90 marshland 120 ha 37 ha 
Kaiimu 430 118 terraces 75 ha 45 ha 
Kopianya 51 28 terraces 3.5 ha 3.5 ha
Kobabomango 39 30 terraces 6 ha 6 ha 
Koabiwa 147 95 marshland 9 ha 4 ha 
Koaimu 150 65 terraces 100 ha 12 ha 
Kobarwo 317 148 marshland 40 ha 40 ha 
Coamagi 400 280 ? 200 ha 40 ha
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 98
7.2. Assessment of cooperative capacities
The criteria used to assess cooperatives’ capacities are: 
- ‘Ability to be’: referring to the governance, ownership, leadership, existence of a common 
vision and a strategy to reach its objectives 
- ‘Ability to organize’: reflecting human, material and financial resources, management and 
organization of activities, planning and assessment of the results
- ‘Ability to relate’: ability to develop relations with the public sector (local or national 
authorities, extension agents), development partners (national or international) and private 
sector partners (inputs providers, microfinance institutions, buyers and other value chain 
actors)
- ‘Ability to do’: ability to produce, existence of a post-harvest and marketing system that 
enables both the cooperative and its members to generate profits
To assess capacity, twelve cooperatives (qualitative data collection) were scored against these four 
abilities. Scoring covered all criteria. Each criterion was assessed by the evaluation team, and when 
possible, this was complemented by a self-assessment from cooperative leaders. Each criterion was 
ranked from zero (inexistent or very low) to five (very good). This score was then compiled by indicator 
in a percentage form. This provided a transparent and objective guide to assess capacity and to 
identify gaps that need to be addressed.
The resulting cooperative scores at baseline are shown in the figures below. 
Figure 7: Representation of the abilities of high potential cooperatives (scoring based on 
qualitative data collection during baseline)
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 99
Figure 8: Representation of the abilities of cooperatives that are losing momentum (scoring 
based on qualitative data collection at baseline)
Figure 9: Representation of the abilities of nascent cooperatives (scoring based on qualitative 
data collection during baseline)
At endline, it was not possible to meet all the cooperatives that were visited during the baseline 
exercise (leaders were not always available at the time where the team planned the visit). However, 
12 out of 16 cooperatives were visited and this is high enough to give a good view of the overall 
capacities and situation of the cooperatives. In addition, of 12 eight had been visited at baseline and 
endline which made it possible to examine specific changes at cooperative level over time. It was not 
possible to cross check the data collected with the Rabobank International Advisory Services (RIAS)
scorecard on cooperative capacity. Doing so should also provide interesting information on how 
capacities have changed at cooperative level. 
7.3. Description of LRP’s capacity building and project implementation scheme 
LRP cooperative capacity building is embedded in the FTMA capacity building activities. It involved 
several organizations providing different types of services/expertise to cooperatives under the 
coordination of the WFP/FTMA team. RWARRIis the implementing partner for LRP cooperatives. LRP 
cooperatives are included in the FTMA cooperatives (supported either by Rwanda Development 
Organisation or RWARRI). Implementation and capacity building are harmonized inside FTMA and the 
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 100
tools and schemes of support are shared. In terms of capacity building, the support covered several 
topics, and involved different partners: 
GAP and PHHS
RWARRI is training and monitoring 46 cooperatives (including the 16 LRP cooperatives) in Nyamagabe, 
Nyaruguru, Gisagara and Huye districts. RWARRI assigned one Field officer (FO) in each district. Field 
officers are responsible for conducting lead farmer training and for subsequently monitoring the lead 
farmer-to-farmer training. FOs also assist cooperatives through the contract process with buyers and 
in their interactions with other stakeholders based on cooperative demand and needs. So far (March 
2019), for the 16 LRP cooperatives, 5,617 farmers have been trained on GAP and PHHS and training 
manuals have been designed and distributed to lead farmers. They cover all the steps of the 
production, from preparing the lands to post-harvest handling and storage. Training also emphasizes 
the appropriate use of inputs. 
Each lead farmer is responsible for training two groups of farmers (about 20 farmers per group). FOs
supervise the training and they often participate to make sure that lead farmers can pass on the key 
messages to farmers.
Governance and cooperative management 
Training of FTMA cooperatives on this topic has been assigned to RIAS, which is a member of FTMA. 
It operates as a subsidiary of Rabobank offering advisory services on management to different 
organizations including cooperatives. RIAS does not have staff in the field but employs consultants 
that travel to the field for the training sessions of cooperatives. An assessment of the cooperative 
governance, operational and financial management was done (with a score card system quite similar 
to the one used in the evaluation). Trainings were then organized. The training consists in several 
training sessions targeting the executives of the cooperatives. 
Access to finance 
To facilitate access to finance for cooperatives, LRP aimed at building up cooperative capital and 
capacity to negotiate with banks and MFI. Increasing cooperative capital will enable cooperatives to 
have stronger bargaining power with banks and better credit conditions. WFP contracted ICCO
Terrafina to strengthen microfinance institutions and to support cooperatives. ICCO Terrafina is an 
organization that aims at boosting agriculture through microfinance to improve smallholder farmer 
livelihoods and increase food security. ICCO Terrafina trained FTMA cooperatives and supported the 
implementation of group solidarity lending.
In group solidarity-based lending, the members of a small group co-guarantee the repayment of each 
other loan which constitutes a substitute for the usual requirement for collateral. For the LRP 
cooperatives, the groups have not reached this stage yet and they mainly use the capital either to 
provide small loans to group members or simply as a way to have some savings available in case of 
needs. For season A 2018, ICCO implemented 82 saving groups in 15 cooperatives, including five LRP 
cooperatives. In the five LRP cooperatives, 202 savings groups have been formed and the total amount 
saved is 3,073,850 RWF. In 2019, ICCO Terrafina continued supporting these cooperatives and started 
training two other LRP cooperatives. 
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 101
Linkages between cooperatives and buyers 
LRP cooperatives were introduced to FTMA buyers through a meeting organized before the season 
which brought together representatives of FTMA cooperatives and buyers. Each buyer presented the 
proposed contract conditions. These pre-contracting meetings enabled cooperatives to approach 
their chosen buyer. Contracts are systematically read and explained to cooperatives. Buyers and 
cooperatives conduct negotiations and amend the contract if needed. The quantity to be provided is 
fixed in the contract but can be revised before harvest, to reflect actual production. The price is not 
fixed in the contract but the GoR minimum price is included as reference. The price is fixed at delivery 
time based on market price (and may sometimes reflect a premium). Buyers and cooperatives 
organize the delivery. The maize is paid after delivery (this may take a few days or weeks) on the 
cooperative account. Cooperatives then pay their members based on what they have individually 
delivered. 
RWARRI’s field officer supports cooperatives at all stages of the contract preparation, signing and 
delivery. The figure illustrates what type of support was received by LRP cooperatives in the context 
of the project. It shows that cooperatives particularly appreciated the support that was provided in 
the form of training on GAP and PHHS, access to market, and the access to equipment. 
Figure 10: Importance of support received from LRP (open choice question to 12 cooperatives, 
qualitative data collection)
7.4 Other elements on cooperative capacity
LRP’s cooperatives ‘capacity to be’
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 102
• Common vision 
Figure 11: Cooperative ‘common vision (qualitative data collection, to 12 cooperatives, multiple 
option choice)
LRP’s cooperatives ‘capacity to organize’
• Document keeping 
Table 7: Cooperative capacity to document their activities and resources (qualitative data 
collection)
Cooperatives that consider they 
have the capacity to document 
activities and resources
Cooperatives that consider that 
they need more support to 
document activity and resources
CCM Muganza 
Duterimbere
Coamanya Gishubi 
Abishyizehamwe Urwonja 
Abibumbye
Icyerekezo 
Kopiki 
Abemerimihigo
Abishyizehamwe Ngera 
Kaiimu 
Kopianya
Kobabomango 
Table 8: Evaluation team assessment of cooperative document and record keeping system 
(qualitative data collection)
Good document 
keeping system
Average document keeping 
system 
Poor 
document 
keeping 
system 
Coamanya Gishubi
CCM Muganza 
Duterimbere
Icyerekezo 
Abishyizehamwe Ngera 
Kaiimu 
Kopianya
Abishyizehalwe Urwonja 
Kobabomango 
Abibumbye
Abemerimihigo
Kopiki 
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 103
• Cooperative funds in bank accounts at the time of the interview 
Figure 12: Cooperative financial resources (qualitative data collection)
Cooperative’s name Amounts on the account 
Coamanya Gishubi 640,000 RWF
Duterimbere 500,000 RWF
Abishyizehamwe 
Urwonja
2,000,000 RWF
Abibumbye 250,000 RWF
Icyerekezo 1,500,000 RWF
Kopiki ?
Abemerimihigo 1,400,000 RWF
Abishyizehamwe 
Ngera 
300,000 RWF
CCM Muganza 54,000 RWF
Kaiimu ? 
Kopianya 2,100,000 RWF
Kobabomango 400,000 RWF
• Cooperative use of the resources provided by members 
Figure 13: Use of cooperatives resources (multiple option choice, qualitative data collection, 
12 cooperatives)
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 104
• Access to credit 
LRP cooperative ‘ability to relate’
Cooperatives are building partnership with several types of actors: 
- Public institutions: These are still key actors for cooperatives. District and sector agronomists 
support cooperatives to follow government rules and guidelines concerning organisation of
cooperatives and agricultural activities. Visits from the agronomists are not frequent at
cooperative level, and cooperatives do not see them as extension agents.
- Financial partners: As mentioned before several banks and MFIs are available for 
cooperatives at sector and district levels. However, credit conditions still appear non-adapted 
to the specific needs and constraints of cooperatives, and agriculture is clearly not yet a 
priority for commercial institutions. This issue is taken into consideration in the FTMA 
programme and ICCO Terrafina works on building capacity and awareness of MFIs in order for 
them to provide better services to cooperatives. Currently, three commercial institutions are 
involved in FTMA. In 2018, they provided funds to 28 cooperatives in Rwanda (but only one 
LRP cooperative), which illustrates that there is still some work to be done to link cooperatives 
to financial services. 
- Service providers: Input providers (agro-dealers and Tubura38) are well identified by 
cooperatives. However, it seems that input provision is regularly delayed and as a result more 
and more cooperatives are becoming agro-dealers. In these cases, they directly submit their 
order to APTC (Agro-Processing Trust Cooperation LTD39). Cooperatives that started this
activity are satisfied. 
- Partnership with cooperatives : Through LRP, cooperatives have had several opportunities to 
meet and exchange. However, cooperatives did not consider this as something particularly 
38 Company implemented through the 1-acre fund NGO to supply inputs to farmers (sometimes at credit).
39 Parastatal organization in charge of inputs distribution in Rwanda.
Figure 14 : Risks of credit for cooperatives (multiple choice option, qualitative data collection based on 12 
cooperatives)
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 105
interesting or useful. Cooperatives have limited relations with other cooperatives, and they 
do not plan to work together or build a Union of cooperatives.
- Development actors : RWARRI staff are well known to cooperatives and they appreciate the 
way RWARRI is working with them. Apart from LRP partners, cooperatives have very limited 
links with other development actors. No new partnership was built. 
LRP cooperative ‘ability to perform’
• Exploitation of the marshland for maize cultivation 
Figure 15 : Percentage of the marshland dedicated to maize (qualitative data collection and data 
from WFP)
• Cooperative production choices
Figure 16: Crops grown by season (qualitative data collection)
Coamanya 
Gishubi 
Duterim
bere 
Abishyiz
ehamwe 
Urwonja
Abibu
mbye
Iciyer
ekezo
Abem
eheri
go
Abishyizehamw
e Ngera
CCM 
Muganz
a
Kaiim
u
Kopia
nya
Kobabo
mango
Kopiki
Seaso
n A
Maize 
(beans)
Maize
Irish 
potatoe
Maize Beans Maize Beans Maize Rice Maize
Beans
Maize
Beans
Irish 
potat
oes
Maize Maize
Seaso
n B
Maize
Beans 
Maize Irish 
potatoe
Maize Veget
ables 
Maize Vegetables Rice Maize
beans
Veget
ables 
Beans 
Irish 
potat
oes
Beans Beans 
Seaso
n C 
Maize Beans Beans Veget
ables 
Vegetables Maize 
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 106
• Estimation of the production/potential of production 
Figure 17: Maize production estimation (qualitative data collection and data from WFP)
Figure 18: Evolution of cooperatives sale and buyers (qualitative data collection)
• Post-harvest handling and storage practices of cooperatives
Figure 19: Evolution of cooperative post-harvest handling and storage capacities (qualitative data 
collection)
Easier to aggregate Improvement of 
post-harvest
handling and 
storage by the 
cooperative
More farmers are 
harvesting at the 
same time 
More farmers are 
drying maize at 
cooperative’s 
drying ground
Increased storage 
of maize 
Need for bigger 
drying area
Coamanya Gishubi yes yes yes yes no no
Duterimbere yes yes yes yes no yes
Abishyizehamwe 
Urwonja
yes yes Yes but still difficult yes no yes
Abibumbye no yes no yes no yes
Icyerekezo yes yes yes yes yes no
Kopiki no yes no no no no
Abishyizehamwe 
Ngera
yes yes yes yes no yes
Abehemerigo yes yes yes yes no yes
CCm Muganza yes yes yes yes yes no
Kaiimu no yes no no no yes
Kopianya yes yes yes yes no no
Cooperative’s 
name 
estimated 
production high 
(MT)
estimated 
production low (MT)
potential maize 
area (ha)
potential 
production 
(MT)
Coamanya Gishubi 180 120 80 280
Duterimbere 60 40 40 140
Abishyizehamwe Urwonja 148,5 98 49 171,5
Abibumbye 72 252
Icyerekezo 90 60 30 105
Kopiki 1,5 1 5 17,5
Abemerimihigo 138 92 60 210
Abishyizehamwe Ngera 15 10 5 17,5
CCM Muganza 111 74 80 280
Kaiimu 135 90 60 210
Kopianya 10,5 7 3,5 12,25
Kobabomango 18 12 6 21
Koabiwa 12 8 8 28
Koaimu 36 24 70 245
Kobarwo 120 80 40 140
Coamagi 120 80 120 420
total 1195,5 796 728,5 2549,75
Cooperative’s 
name 
sales 2017 
(MT) buyer 2017 sales 2018 
(MT) buyer 2018 Sales 2019 
(MT) buyer 2019 
Coamanya Gishubi 60 AIF/LOCAL 128 AIF 200 AIF
Duterimbere ? LOCAL 21 AIF/LOCAL 70 AIF
Abishyizehamwe Urwonja 16 LOCAL 29 AIF 36,5 AIF
Abibumbye ? LOCAL ? LOCAL 20 AIF
Icyerekezo ? ? 37 AIF 40 EAX/MILLER
Kopiki ? LOCAL ? LOCAL ? LOCAL
Abemerimihigo ? LOCAL 28,8 AIF ? AIF
Abishyizehamwe Ngera ? LOCAL 9 AIF 14 AIF
CCM Muganza 29,3 LOCAL 34,12 AIF ? AIF
Kaiimu ? LOCAL 17,4 AIF 0
Kopianya ? LOCAL 21,15 AIF 17,3 AIF/MILLER
Kobabomango ? LOCAL 1,7 AIF ? AIF
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 107
Kobabomango yes yes yes yes no yes
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 108
• Services received by cooperatives ‘members 
Figure 20 : Analysis of the evolution of services received by cooperative members (quantitative data collection)
Variables
Female Male Total
Baseline Final p value Baseline Final p value Baseline Final p value
Training 71.3% 40.4% <0.001 73.1% 38.1% <0.001 72.3% 39.3% <0.001
Credit facilities/loans 7.0% 5.8% 0.342 5.9% 5.3% 0.37 6.4% 5.6% 0.46
Supplying tools 8.8% 8.0% 0.451 9.9% 9.6% 0.411 9.4% 8.8% 0.674
Linkages with banks to access credit 3.6% 2.9% 0.389 4.6% 5.3% 0.302 4.2% 4.1% 0.826
Supplying other agricultural inputs (bags) 5.4% 9.7% 0.025 5.7% 12.9% <0.001 5.6% 11.4% <0.001
Extension services to members 32.8% 26.8% 0.035 27.5% 31.2% 0.105 30.0% 29.0% 0.685
Purchasing maize and beans from members 5.4% 39.9% <0.001 7.9% 41.2% <0.001 6.8% 40.6% <0.001
Supplying seeds 63.0% 56.4% 0.034 58.6% 56.1% 0.513 60.6% 56.3% 0.083
Providing market information 16.8% 21.2% 0.135 19.2% 24.0% 0.034 18.1% 22.6% 0.018
Supplying fertilizer and other chemicals 53.7% 64.2% 0.005 54.0% 60.2% 0.026 53.9% 62.2% <0.001
Providing collateral for loans/credit facilities 4.1% 0.0% <0.001 2.2% 0.5% 0.022 3.1% 0.2% <0.001
Linkage with extension service providers 23.3% 13.9% <0.001 23.6% 11.8% <0.001 23.4% 12.8% <0.001
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 109
Annex 8. Have the LRP project interventions affected male and female SHF 
knowledge, capacity and choices/behaviour from baseline to endline?
8.1. Capacity and knowledge
• Extension 
Table 9: Analysis of extension services received by SHFs (quantitative survey)
Variables
Female Male Total
Baseline Final p value Baseline Final p value Baseline Final p value
Received agricultural extension 
services in the past planting 
season 69.3% 74.5% 0.102 74.7% 77.2% 0.380 72.2% 75.8% 0.088
From whom farmers receive 
extension services
WFP/other UN agencies 13.1% 46.1% <0.001 9.7% 42.5% <0.001 11.2% 44.3% <0.001
Government extension officers 79.5% 64.1% <0.001 77.6% 68.9% 0.012 78.4% 66.6% <0.001
NGOs 32.8% 29.1% 0.332 34.8% 28.9% 0.102 33.9% 29.0% 0.061
CBOs 43.3% 32.0% 0.005 45.4% 38.2% 0.06 44.5% 35.2% 0.001
In the last 6 months, received 
visits from extension services 
agents 94.4% 97.7% 0.039 96.5% 98.1% 0.186 95.6% 97.9% 0.018
• GAP and PHHS training 
Table 10 : Number of SHFs trained on GAP and PHHS (WFP/RWARRI)
Cooperatives total 
trained on 
GAP
Women 
trained on 
GAP
total 
trained 
on PHHS
women 
trained on 
PHHS
CCM MUGANZA 151 46 197 97
COAMANYA GISHUBI 354 116 347 186
COAMAGI 269 124 327 113
COAMANYA GISHUBI 354 116 0 0
KAIIMU 405 207 448 220
KOAIMU INGENZI 164 81 161 83
KOPIKI 207 125 154 113
ABEMERIMIHIGO 471 250 521 304
ICYEREKEZO SIMBI 270 138 270 125
ABISHYIZEHAMWE CYANIKA 0 0 662 365
ABISHYIZEHAMWE NGERA 68 48 68 37
ABISHYIZEHAMWE URWONJYA 531 261 660 342
DUTERIMBERE 425 251 944 396
KOABIWA 150 90 148 92
KOBABOMANGO 57 36 57 24
KOBARWO 302 164 295 95
KOPIANYA 52 29 51 28
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 110
Table 11: Analysis of the training received by SHFs (quantitative survey)
Variables
Female Male Total
Baseline
(n=387)
Final
(n=411) p value
Baseline
(n=454)
Final
(n=417) p value
Baseline
(n=841)
Final
(n=828)
p 
value
Trained on the following good agricultural practices and post￾harvest handling
Seed selection 86.3% 94.2% <0.001 88.1% 96.6% <0.001 87.3% 95.4% <0.001
Planting and spacing 94.8% 94.9% 0.970 96.5% 96.9% 0.738 95.7% 95.9% 0.859
Use of fertilizer 96.1% 94.9% 0.401 96.3% 96.9% 0.612 96.2% 95.9% 0.752
Factors affecting grain quality 83.7% 92.0% <0.001 87.9% 95.2% <0.001 86.0% 93.6% <0.001
When to harvest 88.1% 94.4% 0.002 90.5% 95.9% 0.002 89.4% 95.2% <0.001
Ways to minimize grain infestation 81.7% 93.2% <0.001 85.7% 95.7% <0.001 83.8% 94.4% <0.001
Grain grade 66.7% 89.1% <0.001 67.0% 90.9% <0.001 66.8% 90.0% <0.001
How to clean grains before storage 84.5% 94.6% <0.001 87.4% 96.6% <0.001 86.1% 95.7% <0.001
How to avoid damages to grain during threshing and shelling 83.7% 93.7% <0.001 87.7% 96.2% <0.001 85.9% 94.9% <0.001
Precaution for good drying 84.8% 94.4% <0.001 88.8% 96.6% <0.001 86.9% 95.5% <0.001
Good practice for storage 81.1% 94.4% <0.001 86.6% 96.6% <0.001 84.1% 95.5% <0.001
Overall training score on good agricultural practices and post￾harvest handling (%)
<25% 4.7% 4.9% <0.001 2.4% 2.9% <0.001 3.4% 3.9% <0.001
25 to <50% 6.7% 0.2% 5.3% 0.5% 5.9% 0.4%
50 to <75% 12.1% 0.7% 12.8% 0.2% 12.5% 0.5%
75 to <100% 22.0% 10.0% 21.1% 9.1% 21.5% 9.5%
100% 54.5% 84.2% 58.4% 87.3% 56.6% 85.7%
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 111
• Adoption of practices (mVAM results)
A survey on the adoption of GAP practices was done in 2019. 386 farmers have been 
interviewed by phone of which 85 were lead farmers. They mentioned that 78% of their group 
members were applying GAP. 
The main results from the individual interviews are presented in the table below. 
Table 12a : Adoption of GAP practices (mVAM results)
Practice Adoption 
rate 
Use of improved seeds 100%
Right dosage of seeds 59%
Row planting 99%
Correct spacing between rows 58.8%
Correct spacing between seeds 21.4%
Use of chemical fertilizers 100%
Percentage of the correct dosage applied 64%
Use of organic fertilizers 100%
Use of crop protection products 87%
Percentage of farmers that dress differently 
to apply crop protection products
83.2%
Use of gloves to apply 29.3%
A survey was done in 2018 on the adoption of post-harvest practices. 380 farmers were 
interviewed. 91 were lead farmers and mentioned that 70% of the members of their groups 
were applying the practices taught. The main results are presented in the table below. 
Table 12b : Adoption of GAP practices (2018 survey)
Practice Adoption rate 
Sorting of cobs 89%
Use of hermetic bags 53%
Use of tarpaulin for harvest 45%
Avoid grains touching the soil during 
shelling 
99%
Use of tarpaulins for shelling 93%
Use of improved methodology to check 
moisture 
49%
8.2 SHF choice for maize and bean cultivation 
Overall, maize planting improved significantly for females during season A (improved by 10.2%; 
p=0.002) and season B (improved by 16.8%; p<0.001); but not for males during season A (improved 
by 2.8%; p=0.337) and season B (improved by 5.1%; p=0.137). Generally, beans planting was most 
preferred by farmers than maize. However, there was no significant change in beans planting females 
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 112
during season A (decrease by 2.6%; p=0.238) and season B (changed by 0.1%; p=0.984). The results 
were similar for males during season A (decrease by 1.4%; p=0.455) but significantly improved during 
season B (improved by 5.2%; p=0.026).
Figure 30 : Percentage of farmers planting maize, comparing baseline and endline for season A 
and B (quantitative survey)
Figure 31- Percentage of farmers planting beans, comparing baseline and final for season A and 
season B (quantitative survey)
The table below presents the results of mean hectares used for planting maize and beans. Overall, 
there was reduction (though insignificant) in the size of land use for planting maize between baseline 
and final in both season A (p=0.115) and B (p=0.648). The size of land for beans planting was 
insignificantly reduced for females in both season A (p=0.491) and B (p=0.431) but significantly 
reduced for males in both season A (p=0.002) and B (p=0.002).
62.5%
72.7%
42.6%
59.4%
72.7% 75.5%
46.0% 51.1%
68.0%
74.2%
44.5%
55.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Baseline Final Baseline Final Baseline Final Baseline Final Baseline Final Baseline Final
Season A Season B Season A Season B Season A Season B
Female Male Total
90.4% 87.8% 82.4% 82.5%
92.3% 90.9%
83.5% 88.7% 91.4% 89.4%
83.0% 85.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Baseline
Final
Baseline
Final
Baseline
Final
Baseline
Final
Baseline
Final
Baseline
Final
Season A Season B Season A Season B Season A Season B
Female Male Total
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 113
Table 13: Mean hectares for maize and beans planting (quantitative survey)
Variables
Female Male Total
Baseline Final
p 
value Baseline Final
p 
value Baseline Final
p 
value
Mean hectares for 
maize planting
Season A 0.0995 0.1270 0.297 0.1962 0.1314 0.002 0.1553 0.1293 0.115
Season B 0.1049 0.0925 0.418 0.1613 0.2191 0.357 0.1364 0.1515 0.648
Mean hectares for 
beans planting
Season A 0.1248 0.1158 0.491 0.2329 0.1627 0.002 0.1837 0.1398 0.001
Season B 0.1268 0.1502 0.431 0.2063 0.1469 0.002 0.1700 0.1485 0.211
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 114
8.3 SHFs investments in short term productive assets
• Agriculture inputs 
Figure 32 : SHFs source of fertilizers (quantitative data collection)
• Post-harvest equipment 
Table 14 : PHE received by cooperatives (WFP)
Hermetic 
Bags
Plastic 
Silos Tarpaulins
Number of 
beneficiaries
CCM MUGANZA 5 130 79
COAMANYA GISHUBI 10 4 290 272
COAMAGI 243 3 272 247
KAIIMU 275 8 213 169
KOAIMU INGENZI 170 7 66 84
KOPIKI 256 281 204
ABEMERIMIHIGO 840 2 440 572
ICYEREKEZO SIMBI 305 1 42 123
ABIIBUMBIYEHAMWE CYANIKA 1860 7 693 126
ABISHYIZEHAMWE NGERA 71 2 95 71
ABISHYIZEHAMWE URWONJYA 790 10 468 277
DUTERIMBERE 740 4 480 300
KOABIWA 120 2 241 237
KOBABOMANGO 65 4 36 35
KOBARWO (Jyambere Muhinzi 
Kibeho) 290 3 297 164
KOPIANYA 95 6 75 85
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 115
Concerning bags and tarpaulins, the amount of equipment received by cooperatives is relatively high 
(on average 409 bags per cooperatives and 257 tarpaulins). But quantities vary significantly from one 
cooperative to another (from no bags received to 1860 bags and from no tarpaulinsto 693 tarpaulins). 
The number of silos distributed is limited (on average each cooperative received 4.5 silos). 
The most appreciated equipment is the tarpaulin: its use is now widespread amongst farmers that use 
it to continue drying the maize after cobs have been put to dry on ladders in drying grounds and after 
shelling. Using it during harvest is less frequent. Hermetic bags are used by farmers to store maize 
grains at home. They consider it is very useful to protect grains from infestation and to increase 
duration of storage. Silos are also considered useful, but a lot of farmers cannot afford them. The size 
is also very big (500L) in comparison of what farmers usually keep at home and silos sometimes do 
not fit in houses. 
Overall the price is considered good and farmers appreciated the promotional offers (free tarpaulins 
and bags included) but several farmers mentioned that the purchasing period was not adapted (they 
were sold at a time when they had no cash in hand)
Six cooperatives mentioned that they could not get enough equipment to satisfy demand by their 
members. There is a contradiction with WFP’s experience in distribution (WFP had to ask for an 
extension of project duration in order to reach its target). This can probably be explained by the careful 
attitude of many SHFs. They were waiting to see results at farmer’s level before investing themselves.
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 116
Annex 9. Additional information on the question: Has the LRP contributed to creating 
new market opportunities for male and female SHF? (including from schools) 
9.1. Information on the maize sector in Rwanda 
Figure 21: Evolution of maize production in Rwanda (NISR annual surveys)
Season 
A 2019
Season 
A 2018
Season 
B 2018
Season 
A 2017
Season 
B 2017 
Area cultivated 
(ha)
215,159 218,179 78,151 210,609
Production 
(MT)
331,090 332,670 91,534 324,368 85,912
The area cultivated with maize has multiplied by two since 2007 (Musabangi, 2017). Yield and 
production have increased with the implementation of the Crop intensification Program (CIP) and the 
land consolidation programme. The GoR has invested in import and subsidies of inputs. However, this 
has recently changed for the seeds as the government now wants to produce maize seeds in the 
country.
The national maize market is located in Kigali. Exports are very limited (South Sudan, Democratic
Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Burundi). Rwanda’s potential market for maize is large. In 2012, the 
demand was estimated around 550,000MT and demand is still increasing (it is increasing more in 
urban areas). In terms of the East Africa Region, the overall domestic consumption has increased from 
7,278,000 MT in 2000 to 10,215,000 MT in 2012. The outletsfor maize production are the food market 
(maize flour), beer market (maize grits) and animal feeds (maize bran). 
The GoR has implemented a floor price for maize in order to protect producers from price collapses
and to stimulate production. Since 2014, at the end of each season, MINICOM gathers representatives
from cooperatives, millers and buyers to discuss and agree on a floor price. This price is fixed based 
on production costs. Until last year, Uganda was the main importer of maize from Rwanda (it 
represented up to 90 percent of the maize imported), followed by Tanzania. Since February 2019, the 
border between Rwanda and Uganda is closed which blocks import from Uganda. There is not yet 
clear information on the consequences of the closure for the maize sector. Interviews with buyers at 
endline suggested that purchasing has moved to more local maize but also to import from other 
countries (mainly Zambia). 
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 117
9.2 Sales from LRP cooperatives to formal buyers 
Figure 22 : Delivery of produce from LRP cooperatives to the formal market (RWARRI)
There are five buyers that are members of the FTMA and a social enterprise that supports collection, 
shelling and drying of maize: 
Africa Improved Foods
Africa Improved Foods (AIF) is a public-private partnership involving DSM, Government of Rwanda, 
International Finance Cooperation (IFC), CDC Group and FMO. AIF provides a scalable and sustainable 
solution to malnutrition via local production of highly nutritious foods. 65 million USD has been 
invested in Rwanda already in best-in-class technology, which is operational since December 2016. AIF 
is a social enterprise and embedded in its business model is a comprehensive strategy to reduce 
poverty, create jobs and address stunting and malnutrition through partnerships with non-profit 
institutions, such as WFP and Governments, as well as making affordable commercial products for the 
mass market. AIF is employing over 300 staff. The plant has an annual production capacity of 45,000 
tons, making it one of the largest nutrition factory sites on the African continent. AIF works with over 
24,000 farmers across Rwanda and produces meals for 1.5 million people every day. The majority of 
AIF’s production capacity is allocated towards the production of Super Cereal Plus for WFP. In 2018, 
51 percent of the sourcing was local (through cooperatives and buyers), with the rest coming from 
Zambia. AIF has implemented the cob model in Rwanda through services provided by Kumwe (see 
below). 
 FO 
Signed 
tonnage 2018 
A
Quantity 
delivered 
2018A
% of 
achivement
Signed 
tonnage 
2019A
Quantity 
delivere
d 2019A
% of 
achievement
CCM MUGANZA 40 34,127 85% 50 10,9 22%
COAMANYA GISHUBI 100 87,859 88% 30 34,7 116%
COAMAGI 50 172,5 345%
KAIIMU 10 14,18 142% 20 0%
KOAIMU INGENZI 5 2,96 59% 10 0%
KOPIKI 10 0%
ABEMERIMIHIGO 30 27,885 93%
ICYEREKEZO SIMBI 30 0% 20 9,769 49%
ABIIBUMBIYEHAMWE CYANIKA 40 0% 20
ABISHYIZEHAMWE NGERA 5 9,054 181% 12 11,82 99%
ABISHYIZEHAMWE URWONJYA 50 29,394 59% 50 36,132 72%
DUTERIMBERE 15 19,007 127% 15 35,036 234%
KOABIWA 20 15
KOBABOMANGO 3 1,3 43% 10 3 30%
KOBARWO (Jyambere Muhinzi Kibeho) 40 32 80% 50 74,338 149%
KOPIANYA 21 21,886 104% 23 9 39%
Produce delivery to formal market
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 118
Minimex-Prodev
Minimex started operating in 2007 and PRODEV in 2012. Prodex and Minimex are sister companies: 
PRODEV is in charge of sourcing and Minimex does processing. Minimex is producing maize flour, 
fortified maize flour, maize grit and maize bran. They process between 28,000 MT and 30,000 MT per 
year, but their total processing capacity is 45,000 MT and their storage capacity is 15,000 MT. In 2018, 
45% of their sourcing was local. Minimex sells its products to WFP, NGOS, government institutions 
(prisons for example), brewing industries and final consumers. They are a member of FTMA. 
East Africa Exchange
East Africa Exchange (EAX) is a regional commodity exchange offering commodity trade services in 
Rwanda and East Africa. The company was created in 2013 to further strengthen EAC regional 
integration by developing a common and coherent financial sector in agriculture, energy and mining. 
In Rwanda it mainly trades maize and beans. They are operating a warehouse electronic receipt 
system. Farmers from cooperatives working with EAX can get funding from several partner financial 
institutions. The farmers use electronic receipts issued by the commodity exchange as collateral. EAX 
works with about 20,000 farmers in Rwanda (187 cooperatives). In season A 2019, they only sourced 
maize from cooperatives (1,500 MT). Their main clients are Minimex, AIF and medium-scale millers. 
EAX is a member of FTMA. 
Kumwe 
Kumwe Harvest is a social enterprise based in Rwanda, founded to address long-standing quality issues 
in Rwanda’s maize value chain. To help increase the quantities of maize purchased by agro-processors 
in Rwanda, Kumwe Harvest is working in partnership with AIF to introduce a new way of processing 
maize post-harvest in Rwanda. Utilizing our expertise in trucking and logistics, Kumwe started in 2017 
by establishing mobile collection centres at farms on behalf of AIF. Using mobile shelling machines, 
harvest maize is shelled and transported to AIF for industrial drying and storage in the same day. By 
eliminating on-farm post-harvest processes, the harvest to market timeline is reduced from two 
months to two days and 100% of maize is accepted by AIF. Undertaking a larger, revised pilot in Season 
A 2018, Kumwe Harvest is maintaining the quality, speed, and payment benefits of the mobile 
collection centres from 2017, buying unshelled maize from farmers and transporting it to a central 
facility in Kigali to be shelled. Kumwe Harvest has processed and sold 4,000 MT of maize to 
commercial buyers in 2018. The model maintains the quality, speed and payment benefits of the 
mobile collection centres introduced in season A 2018, Kumwe Harvest will undertake a larger-scale 
pilot of this model with support from AIF, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, and World Vision
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 119
Annex 10. Additional information on the question: To what extent do producers 
market food products that meet quality standards and are nutritious and 
culturally accepted?
10.1 Evolution of the quality of maize 
Figure 23: Percentage of farmers by household preference on characteristics of the maize and 
beans (quantitative survey)
10.2. Interest of the crops promoted in school feeding 
In support of the drive by MINEDUC to further develop a national school feeding programme40, WFP 
has made an assessment of various nutritious school feeding menus and contributed to the
formulation of a pro-smallholder farmer procurement strategy for school feeding in Rwanda. 
One of the objectives was to provide nutrition sensitive information on various school meals options 
that could be taken into consideration in a school feeding program. In order to reach this objective,
studies were organized to propose a range of viable, nutritious menu options for both pre-primary, 
primary and secondary aged students, at a maximum cost of 150 RWF per serving, and based on food 
prices and availability within all five provinces in Rwanda. The study analysed nutrition data of two 
food baskets representing the main school feedings programs operating in Rwanda (HGSF programme 
and the ‘one cup of milk program’). This study is interesting for the evaluation as it gives indications 
on how LRP’s intervention can contribute to a better nutrition for school children. 
Nutrition analysis of a daily meal consisting of 120g maize meal, 30g beans and 15g vegetable oil
When offering students, a meal of 120g maize meal, 30g beans and 15g vegetable oil, the general 
nutrition trend is that while protein and fat content are acceptable, especially for pre-primary 
40 There is a government's school feeding programme (a third programme in addition to HGSF and Once Cup of 
Milk) which consists of direct cash transfer to schools with no set menus.
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 120
students, the meal is low in energy, especially for the daily nutrient requirements of primary and 
secondary students. Micronutrients level is not optimal. 
Figure 24 - Nutrition analysis of a daily meal consisting of 120g maize meal, 30g beans and 15g 
vegetable oil
The study then modelled several varieties of meals in order to find out the best viable option for school 
feeding programs in Rwanda. The study clearly shows that there are various well-balanced nutritious 
meal options based on fresh food items alone, without adding any fortified food items. The more 
diversified the menu is, the more diverse and well-balanced the nutrient intake tends to become. It 
also shows that there are locally available options that can contribute to the nutritional balance of a 
meal (dodo leaves, cassava leaves, pineapples…). 
In order to implement a well-adapted school feeding program, the study recommends creating a range 
of menu options based on local agricultural potentialities and prices in local markets. Maize and beans 
are included in most of the proposed options. Therefore, improving maize (and bean) production and 
aggregation does make sense in terms of developing a national school feeding system, and particularly 
so if the program aims at procuring food locally. The pro-small holder procurement school feeding 
program strategy paper is taking this direction. It is not yet adopted, but it clearly shows that there is 
a potential for FTMA (and LRP) cooperatives to become suppliers of maize (and beans) for schools. 
LRP’s intervention may also pave the way to involving cooperatives in supplying other food products, 
which will contribute to the implementation of diversified school meals options. The LRP project has 
sensitized cooperatives on quality, aggregation and marketing of their products and they have 
experienced the positive effect that sales can have on their income. There is an opportunity here to 
start working with the same cooperatives on other products because farmers cropping systems are 
already very diversified (which is a key element of the food security of Rwanda). This would require a 
careful approach and a thorough understanding of farmer cropping systems (both on marshland and 
hillsides) to improve production and efficiency of the supply of food products without hampering their 
food security (the latter is ensured to a large extend by mixed cropping which ensures production 
throughout the year and thus reduces risks). 
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 121
Annex 11. Has the LRP programme affected male and female SHF income and in what 
way? 
Figure 25: Net margin/ha for maize cultivation based on different cropping systems, price and 
buyers (qualitative data collection)
Cropping system Production Buyer/type 
of purchase
Price Net margin/ha 
(including 
family labour) 
Net margin/ha 
(excluding 
family labour) 
GAP/PHHS
Improved seeds 
Appropriate dosage of 
fertilisers/manure 
3.5 MT/ha FTMA buyer
Grains 
210 
RWF/kg 
-75,000 RWF 355,000RWF
GAP/PHHS
Improved seeds 
Appropriate dosage of 
fertilisers/manure 
3.5 MT/ha FTMA buyer
Grains 
240 
RWF/kg
30,000 RWF 460,000 RWF
GAP/PHHS
Improved seeds 
Appropriate dosage of 
fertilisers/manure 
3.5 MT/ha FTMA buyer
Grains 
270 
RWF/kg
135,000 RWF 565,000 RWF
GAP/PHHS
Improved seeds 
Appropriate dosage of 
fertilisers/manure 
3.5 MT/ha middlemen
Grains 
190 
RWF/kg
-145,000 RWF 285,000 RWF
GAP/PHHS
Improved seeds
Partial dose of fertilizers 
2 MT/ha FTMA buyer
Grains 
210 
RWF/kg 
-212,000 
RWF/kg
96,000 RWF/kg 
GAP/PHHS
Improved seeds
Partial dose of fertilizers 
2 MT/ha FTMA buyer
Grains 
240 
RWF/kg
-152,000 RWF 156,000RWF
GAP/PHHS
Improved seeds
Partial dose of fertilizers 
2 MT/ha FTMA buyer
Grains 
270 
RWF/kg
-92,000 RWF 216,000RWF
GAP/PHHS
Improved seeds
Partial dose of fertilizers 
2 MT/ha Middlemen 
grains
190 -252,000 RWF 56,000RWF
GAP/PHHS
Improved seeds 
Appropriate dosage of 
fertilizers
4,540 MT/ha FTMA buyer 
Cobs
190 -3,050 RWF/kg 13,710 RWF/kg
Table 15 : how SHFs are using the profit generated my maize (FGDs)
Improved for a 
majority of members
Possible for some 
members 
Possible for a few 
members only
Use of the profit 
made from the 
sales of maize 
- Purchasing inputs for 
the coming agriculture 
season 
- Paying for health
insurance
-paying school fees
-purchasing new 
clothes
-purchasing small 
animals 
-improving the housing
-purchasing equipment
-increasing savings
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 122
Annex 12. Assessment of the project’s performance looking at the monitoring 
indicators 
The table below has compiled WFP’s own monitoring data. As noted in paragraph 99, there is no direct 
link between LRP produce from cooperatives and the purchasing of food for schools i.e. it is not 
possible to demonstrate that food purchased by WFP from the centralized Minimax facility was 
supplied by LRP cooperatives. Nonetheless we have maintained the indicator “number of individuals 
benefitting directly from USDA funded intervention” in the table below (the first line) as this reflects 
what WFP has reported and reflects use of LRP funds for the purchasing of food for schools.
Indicator target result Percentage 
of 
achievement
Comments 
Number of individuals 
benefiting directly from 
USDA-funded 
intervention
46,780 
school 
children
43,855 school 
children
93.7% In 2019, less school children benefited from 
HGSF (41,521 children). Several factors 
explain this change: larger outgoing primary 
class 6 children compared with in-coming 
primary grade 1 children, new schools 
established in the catchment area, and 
students transfer to other schools. In 2020, 
LRP did not financially contribute to the 
HGSF programme. 
5,133 
SHFs
5,617 SHFs 109% Target is achieved. However, the number of 
beneficiaries should be updated considering 
changes in membership of some 
cooperatives. 
Number of individuals 
benefiting indirectly 
from USDA-funded 
intervention
75,651 70,345 93% The number also decreased in 2019 due to 
the decrease of direct beneficiaries 
Value of sales by project 
beneficiaries
280,000 164,244 58.6% The figure will probably evolve as it was 
calculated before the end of the sales 
season in 2019 
Volumes (MT) of 
commodities sold by 
project’s beneficiaries
643 686 106% Overall, cooperatives supplied more maize 
than what was contracted 
Number of public￾private partnership 
formed as a result of 
USDA assistance
16 16 100% This indicator does not seem very clear 
when mentioning cooperatives. LRP team 
measured it by number of cooperatives that 
received training on governance. 
Value of public-private 
sector investment 
leveraged as a result of 
USDA assistance
NA NA NA 
Total increase in 
installed storage 
capacity as a result of 
USDA assistance
1000 796 79.6% LRP is extended in order to continue supply 
of PHHS equipment to farmers 
Number of policies, 
regulations and/or 
administrative 
procedures in each of 
the following stages of 
development as a result 
of USDA assistance
1 1 100% Elaboration of a pro-SHH school feeding 
strategy. Not yet adopted and 
operationalized
Quantity of commodity 
procured (MT) as a 
result of USDA 
assistance (by 
800 MT of 
maize
250 MT of 
beans 
800 MT of 
beans
190 MT of 
beans 
94.3 % Procurement was not made from LRP 
cooperatives but is from SHFs. 
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 123
Indicator target result Percentage 
of 
achievement
Comments 
commodity and source 
country) 
25 MT of 
salt 
Cost of transport, 
storage, and handling of 
commodity procured as 
a result of USDA 
assistance (by 
commodity) 
Target reached (but inconsistency in the 
figures) 
Number of social 
assistance beneficiaries 
participating in 
productive safety net as 
a result of USDA 
assistance
4014 3864 96% The target is about to be reached as 
supplies of PHHE are still on going. 
Number of individuals who 
have received short-term 
agricultural sector 
productivity or food 
security training as a result 
of USDA assistance
2000 4765 238% Participation was excellent for GAP and 
PHHS training. 
Percentage of default rate 
of WFP pro-smallholder 
farmer procurement 
contracts, disaggregated by 
reason and aggregation 
system
5 0 0% Overall quantity of maize supplied exceeded 
the target, but the situation is not the same 
in all the cooperatives. Several cooperatives 
actually defaulted but they were not 
directly contracted by WFP. 
Number of USDA￾supported aggregation 
systems that have access to 
credit from formal financial 
institutions
5 2 40% Access to credit remain a limiting factor for 
cooperatives. However, savings groups have 
been implemented with success in several 
cooperatives 
Percentage of milling 
facility operators who 
demonstrate proper 
application of technologies 
and practices as a result of 
USDA assistance
100 NA NA
Percent of farmers that 
apply improved post￾harvest practices as a result 
of USDA assistance
75% 98% 130% This figure comes from the mVAM survey 
done for FTMA (not LRP specific). 
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 124
Annex 13. Interview and FGD topic guidelines
Semi-structured Interview Guidelines
Cooperative leaders KII
Presentation of the cooperative
Managing structures
Membership and its evolution /rules to be a member
Staff? 
Main changes in the last 2 years? 
Cooperative identity
Activities of your cooperative
What do you want to achieve as a cooperative/vision 
How do you see your coop in 5 years/10 years 
Strategy? 
Documents 
Governance
Decision making process/Roles of the executives/meetings of the comitee 
Last elections? Renewal of some executives? 
Last general assembly? How was it organized? 
What decisions were taken? 
Can the cooperative respect the requirements from its status? Why? 
Roles and tasks of the district/sector agronome? Other support? 
Main changes in the last two years in the cooperative’s governance? 
Difficulties faced? 
Place and roles of women in the cooperatives/ in the executive committee
Members participation and commitments to the cooperative’s activities
Interest of members in the cooperative (for what? ) and how it has changed ?
How easy is it to mobilize farmers? Why ? any constraints? How to improve it? 
Communication between executives/members
Are there meetings between members? Members and executives? (Frequency/purpose/records…)
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 125
Cooperative activity planning and organization
Planning of activities (how, who, constraints, changes, plot attribution…)
Implementation of activities (how, when, who, controls, constraints, changes…)
Roles/tasks of the agronome/other partner
Organization of the work between members (conflicts?)
Records? 
challenges in term of work planning, organizations and records? 
What has changed in the last 2 years? Do you think the cooperative is better organized? Why?
What are the services you provide to your member? Changes? Plans? 
Resources of the cooperatives
What are the resources of the cooperative? (shares/dues/other) + evolution 
Are they sufficient to conduct the cooperatives’ activities? Why? Do you plan to increase them 
(how?)
number of members that paid their share? Evolution? Why? 
number of members that paid dues? Evolution? Why? 
Commission on sales? Evolutions? Amount collected? 
Sales of inputs? 
Internal loans? 
Material resource/building? Evolution (with which funds? ) 
What are the main changes in the cooperatives resources in the last 2 years? Why? 
Access to finance
How easy is it for your cooperative to access credit? What is your experience with credit ? Is it 
something you want to develop? 
What credit facilities can your cooperative access? From who? Conditions?
Have you received support to access credit? on what? How did it help the cooperative? 
What are the main constraints about credit/access to credit? 
Difficulties with repayment? 
Individual credit to members : do you support your member to have credits? Do you provide them 
loans (how it works? ) 
Self help groups in the cooperatives? 
What has changed in the last 2 years for the access to credit? 
Planning of the production/results
Objectives? (planned how?) 
How do you organize the collection from members? (purchased or intermediation with buyers?) 
why?
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 126
Organization of purchase (conditions/time/information/price/quality…) 
Quantity of products collected/sold+ evolution? 
Number of members that sell to/through the cooperative? 
Constraints? 
Evolutions in the last 2 years? Why? 
Was the activity profitable? Why? How do you know?
Post harvest handling
Are you organizing post harvest services for your members? What are you doing? Why?
For members that don’t do it at cooperative level, where do they do it? What does that change? 
What are the main constraints that your cooperative face for post harvest handling?
What has changes over the last 2 years? 
Storage 
Does your cooperative offer storage services to producers? Conditions/costs? 
DO you have enough storage capacities? Why? 
How long do you store? Why? 
Why are some members not storing at the cooperative level? 
What are the main constraints and problems of storage? 
Post harvest losses? How to control? %? 
What has changes in the last 2 years? 
Quality
Is quality important for maize/bean? What are the quality criteria? How easy or hard is it for 
producers to respect these criteria? What is feasible for producers ?
Is there a market for quality products? 
Do you promote quality with your members? How? Is it interesting for them? Is it more difficult to 
produce quality maize?
Is it interesting to produce quality (in terms of work, cost, added value…)? What is the interest of 
producing quality for producers? And for the cooperative? 
How do you monitor quality? Do you have a monitoring system? How does it work? 
What do you do if a producers maize/bean is not up to the standards? 
Are extension services looking at quality issues? (what issues? What extension services? Why? ) 
Relations with agrodealers
Does the coop provide seeds/inputs to producers (members/non members) ? Conditions?
Where do you get the seeds? How do you pay for the seeds? 
Are there any difficulties in the access to seeds/fertilizers/pesticides? 
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 127
Any changes in the last 2 years? 
Extension service
Who provides extension services to your members? How does it work? Adequate? Useful?
Relation with government
Do you have partnership with local authorities/agric service? Others 
Content of the partnership 
Adequate? 
How to improve? 
What is the role/ participation of the government in the cooperative activities and accountabilities? 
Taxes? 
Linkage with other cooperatives
Knowledge of other coops/common interest? 
Associations of coop? discussions? 
Marketing
Where are the main markets for maize/ beans? 
Do you purchase and sell the maize from members or organize for buyers to come? Why?
Sales : 
Who do you sale the maize to? Group sales? Individual sales? Middlemen? Buyers? 
Schools? 
When did you sell maize from the coop? how did you decide to sell? Who decide? 
Are the sales conditions good (measures, price..) 
Are you negociating for group transport for your members? 
Cost/constraints of transport
Who are the buyers? When are they coming? Are there times where there is no buyer? 
Objectives in term of sales? Last season? Next season? In 5 years? 
Do producers prefer selling individually or collectively? Why?
Regular buyers/spot buyers? 
Marketing constraints 
Find buyers : 
What are you doing to find buyers? Who are your buyers? 
What is the role of the cooperative? Do you negotiate better conditions? Examples?
What are the conditions of sales? How is organized? 
Are there time when you cannot find buyers? 
Experience with large buyers
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 128
Do you know any large buyers ? have you worked with them? Why?
Where do these buyers purchase maize/beans? 
Experience with contract farming? Marketing contract? Interest/risks? Results? Contract conditions 
Constraints? Defaulting? 
price
Price/price evolution/ how is the price fixed? Possible to negotiate?
what makes the price go up or go down? 
Benefit
Does your cooperative make profit? How do you know? 
What are the main expenses for your cooperative? 
How is your cooperative making profit? Where fdoes the profit comes from?
Do you provided dividens to your members? Why? How are they calculated? 
Organization of payment to producers? + time?
Market information 
How do you get info on market/price? How often? How do you have info? 
How do you use this information?
Is there a market info system? Relevant? Reliable? 
Does the coop use it? 
How do you give the information to you members? How do they use it? 
What should be improved, what other information do they need? 
Partners 
Who are the partners of the coop? (Developing partners) 
How did they become partners?
Since when/for how long?
To do what 
Main achievement 
Quality of the partnership 
Trainings
What training did your cooperative attended? Topics/when/ who? 
What capacity do you think you cooperative needs training on? Why? 
Knowledge on WFP/LRP 
What is it? What do you know about it?
Semi-structured FGD Guidelines
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 129
Guidelines for producers (FGD ) 
Production 
Crops grown (Lowland/upland, cooperative land/own land, per season, mix cropping?)
Contribution to income/feeding the family (change in the last 2 years?) 
Interest of maize and beans compared to other options 
Main constraints for maize/bean production
Land 
Is it easy to access land (to buy/to rent/cooperative land)? 
Have you purchased/rent land in the last 2 years? Why? 
What are the conditions to grow on the land of the cooperative? Any change in the last 2 years? 
Are there cooperative members that cannot access the land? Why?
Are there members of the cooperatives that use to grow on cooperative land and have stopped? 
Why? 
Labour/organization of work: 
Do you have enough workforce to work on your land/coop land?
temporary labour? Own land/coop land (cost/availability..)
Any change in the last 2 years? 
organization of the work on the cooperative land? How does it work, How is it controlled? 
Tools: 
What tools do you purchase? Any change in the last 2 years? 
Have you been able to purchase new type of tools in the last 2 years? Which one? 
Where do you get the tools from? Is it easy to find tools? Is your cooperative helping you to access 
tools? How? 
Access to tractors/animals for ploughing?
Seeds (varieties, costs, supply…) (difference collective/own farm)
Seeds availability? Cost/quality/fraud 
What are the main constraints in accessing seeds? 
Any changes in the last 2 years about access to seeds? 
Does your cooperative help you to access seeds? How? What seeds are supplied? How does it work? 
How and when do you pay them? Are they available on time? 
Fertilizers /chemical (collective farm/own farm) 
Availability?
Quantity/quality/cost
Can you always purchase the recommended doses? If not, what are you doing? 
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 130
What are the main constraints for accessing/using fertilizers? 
Any change in the last two years?
Same for Other chemicals (pesticide)
Yield/production (collective/individual)
Maize/bean/season A/B/C
How do you see the yield compared with 2 years ago? Why?
Good production practices/training 
Have you been trained on maize/bean prod? 
What have you learnt? Was is useful? Which practice do you think is the most useful?
What about post harvest (grading?) 
From what you learn, what can you do in your farm? 
What can’t you do? What is difficult? 
Which one are you currently doing? 
Extension service 
What can you do when you are facing a constraint /questions related to agriculture
What extension service do you receive? Modalities? From? What do you think about it? 
What do you do with the maize harvested ? (collective/individual)/ beans 
- Quantity sold (sold when?) 
- Quantity eaten? 
- Quantity kept for seeds? 
- Quantity given? 
Who decides quantity to keep/sell?
Who sells? Who keeps the money? 
Quality of the maize/beans purchased/produced (criteria, price, varieties… ) 
Consumption 
Do you produce enough to feed your family? 
Purchase of maize and beans for the family consumption: When? Why? Why not keeping more of 
your production? 
If you compare the quantity of maize/bean you consume now and 2 years ago, are there any 
changes? Which one (same for maize/bean sold and purchased)
How do you compare the quantity of maize/beans available on the market now and 2 years ago? 
Prices? 
How important is quality? What are the characteristic of the maize/beans you like to eat the more? 
Why? 
Are school purchasing maize/beans? (conditions/quality)
Are you providing maize and beans to school? Why? 
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 131
Post harvest (HH/cooperative)
What/Why/organization/costs/time/who does it 
Can you store the maize/beans? Why 
Do you have facilities at home? At coop level?
Does your cooperative offer a storage service, how it works? Who pays? How much? 
Storage constraints 
Losses? 
Any changes in the last 2 years in post harvest practices/losses/storage? 
Marketing strategy : 
How do you chose where you sale the maize/beans? 
Where? Why? 
Direct sales at the market 
Why do you sale at the market? Where is the market? How do you go there? How do you transport 
the maize? + costs
Advantages/contraints of this marketing strategy
Sales to middlemen/buyers
What are the products you sell (fresh, dry…) 
Who are the buyers 
How do you find buyers? 
Are there times when you cannot find buyers? 
How does it work? Where/price/conditions
Any changes in the last 2 years?
Sales to/through cooperative 
Is your cooperative purchasing maize/beans? 
Is your cooperative helping you to sell maize/ bean? How? 
What is the interest of selling to/through the cooperative? 
Do you sell all your maize/bean to the cooperative? Why? Would you like to? 
Any change in the last 2 years? Why? 
How is It organized 
How do you bring the maize/bean to the cooperative? (+ cost of transport) 
How/when are you getting paid? Difference with other buyers? 
How Is the price negotiated by/offered by cooperative? How is it fixed? Is it a good price compared 
to market price? 
What are the conditions to sell to/through the cooperative? Can you sell when you are not a 
member? Is the price different? 
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 132
Do you agree before on the quantity to provide?
If you cannot provide this quantity what happens? And if you provide more
what could the cooperative do better to help you deliver more maize and beans
What is the quality of the maize that the cooperative wants? How is it controlled? Is it a quality that 
you can easily achieve? Why? 
What are the main constraints of selling the maize to/through the cooperative? 
Changes in the last 2 years
Big buyers experience/contract
Marketing strategy 
price of maize/beans + evolution
What are the differences between selling to middlemen/cooperative/buyers/market 
Market info 
What information on markets/price do you have? Is it useful? Why? 
Any change in the last 2 years? 
Is the cooperative helping you having information on market? How? How to improve? 
Access to credit 
Do you know where to get credit? what do you think about credit? 
Have you been trained on credit management? 
Have you received credit? When? How? How much?
LRP/WFP 
What do you know about it? 
Cooperative
Are you a member of a cooperative? Which one? Since when? And your spouse? Why are you a 
member? What does It mean? Rules?
What are the roles of women in the cooperative? 
Meetings? What for, why? when? 
Who are your leaders? How were there selected? What is their roles? 
Are there shares to pay to join the coop ? amount? Have you finished paying your shares? 
Do you pay dues? Amount. Are you up to date? Changes in the last 2 years 
What service do you receive from the cooperative? Any changes in the last 2 years?
Is your cooperative profitable? 
What are the main changes in your cooperatives in the last 2 years? 
Impact: 
How has your income changed in the last 2 years? How? Why? 
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 133
What other changes have you noticed? 
Gender
Place and roles of womein in value chain
Specific constraints? 
Support from the project? 
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 134
Annex 14. Bibliography
Agriculture Gender Strategy, Minagri, 2010.
Alinda, Abbott, Agricultural Policy and Institutional framework for Transformation of 
Agriculture, Economic Development and Poverty Reduction in Rwanda, Institute of Policy 
Analysis and Research – Rwanda, 2012.
Améliorer la position des agriculteurs familiaux sur les marchés en Afrique. 
Importance des organisations paysannes en Afrique de l’Ouest et de l’Est et 
recommandations politiques, Collectif sécurité alimentaire, 2014.
Assessment of post-harvest opportunities in Rwanda, USAID, 2010. 
Climate Smart agriculture and sustainable intensification: assessment and priority setting 
for Rwanda, USAID, 2016
CoopAfrica working paper 12 : The hope for rural transformation: a rejuvenating 
cooperative movement in Rwanda, ILO, 2010
Huye district development plan, Huye district, 2012.
Galtier F, David-Benz H, Subervie J, Egg J, 2014. Les systèmes d'information sur les 
marchés agricoles dans les pays en développement : nouveaux modèles, nouveaux 
impacts. Cah Agric 23: 245-58. doi: 0.1684/agr.2014.0715.
Gisagara district développent plan, Gisagara district, 2012.
ICCO-TERRAFINA project report (2018)
Iram (2009). Sélection de références méthodologiques en analyse organisationnelle.
Kiaya, Post-harvest losses and strategies to reduce them, ACF, 2014.
LRP semi-annual reports to WFP (2017, 2018, 2019)
Musabanganji, Contraintes et strategies d’amelioration de la filiere maïs au Rwanda, 
Dissertation originale présentée en vue de l’obtention du grade de Docteur, Université de 
Liège-Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, 2017. 
Manuel de formation pour l’amélioration du traitement et du stockagedes grains après 
récolte, WFP, University of Greenwich 
National Gender Policy, Ministry of gender and family promotion, 2010.
Nyamagabe district Development plan, Nyamagabe district, 2012.
Nyaruguru district development plan, Nyaruguru district, 2012.
Nutritious school meals options for a national school feeding programme, WFP, 2019
Orientations pour la construction de programmes de renforcement des capacités des 
organisations de producteurs, AVSF, 2014.
Pedagogical materials on Farmers’ Organisations and Farmers’ Organisations’ support, 
CIRAD-CIEPAC, 2006.
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 135
Rwanda Comprehensive food security and vulnerability analysis, Minagri, NISR, WFP, 
2015. 
Rwanda country strategic plan 2019-2013, WFP 
Rwanda country strategic review of food and nutrition strategy, WFP, 2018 
Seasonal agriculture survey 2016, 2017,2018, season A 2019, National institute of statistic 
of Rwanda
Strategy paper advancing small holder farmers procurement in school feeding in 
Rwanda, Interministerial task force, 2019 
Verhofstadt Ellen, Maertens Miet, Can Agricultural Cooperatives Reduce Poverty? 
Heterogeneous Impact of Cooperative Membership on Farmers’ Welfare in Rwanda, 
Division of Bio economics, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, KU Leuven, 
2014.
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 136
List of Acronyms
AGRA Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa
AIF AFRICA Improved Food
APTC Agro-processing Trust Corporation
CFSVA Comprehensive Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis
CIP Crop intensification Program
CO Country Office
CSB+ Corn Soya Blend Plus
DRC Democratic Republic of Congo
EAX East Africa Exchange
EDPRS Economic Development and Poverty Reduction Strategy
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FGD Focus Group Discussion
FTMA Farmer To Market Alliance
FO Field officer
GAP Good Agricultural Practices
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GHI Global Hunger Index
GoR Government of Rwanda
Ha Hectare
HGSF Home Grown School Feeding
ICCO Interchurch Organization for Development Cooperation
IFAD International Fund for Agriculture Development
IFC International Finance Corporation 
Kg Kilogram 
KII Key Informant Interview
KOIKA Korean International Cooperation Agency
LRP Local and Regional Procurement 
MDG Millennium Development Goal
MFI Microfinance Institution
MINAGRI Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources
MINALOC Ministry of Local Government
MINECOFIN Ministry of Finance and Economic Policy
MINEDUC Ministry of Education 
Endline Report - August 2019 (draft) | P a g e 137
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
NISR National Institute for Statistic of Rwanda
NST National Strategy for Transformation
P4P Purchase for Progress
PHHS Post-Harvest handling and Storage
PHE Post-harvest equipment
PPP Patient Procurement Platform
PSTA Strategic Plan for the Transformation of Agriculture in Rwanda
RAB Rwanda Agriculture Board
RCA Rwanda Cooperative Agency
RDO Rwanda Development Organisation
RGCC Rwanda Grains and Cereals Corporation
RIAS Rabobank International Advisory Services
RWARRI Rwanda Rural Rehabilitation Initiative 
RWF Rwandese Franc
MT Metric Ton
SACCO Saving and Credit Cooperatives
SHF Small Holder Farmer
TOC Theory of Change
TOR Terms of Reference
UN United Nations
UNEG United Nations Evaluation Group
USAID United Nations Agency for International Development 
USD Dollar
USDA United Stated Department of Agriculture
WFP World Food Programme
[Name of commissioning Office
]
[Link to the website]
b6/download/
https://docs.wfp.org/api/documents/cdcbe4be57914c65b0dbcbd201196a
[Place, Month 
and Year, Report number]