Blog Lessons from piloting a tool to monitor agrobiodiversity and social Inclusion in school meal programs in India

The agrobiodiversity and socially inclusive school meal monitoring tool includes 35 questions designed to collect information on six agrobiodiversity and 14 gender and social inclusion indicators, together with a set of context-specific questions to enable informed analyses. Each of the agrobiodiversity indicators is linked to one or more nutrition, biodiversity, climate mitigation outcome. For example, average species richness per meal is associated with improved child nutrition and directly helps to conserve food species diversity. Each social inclusion indicator captures a unique aspect of equity and inclusion, such as the association between women’s active participation in school meal planning committees and gender-inclusive meal planning decisions.

The tool was designed in Excel and converted to digital survey format using Microsoft Forms.

In December 2025, the tool was piloted with a small number of schools in Bichhiya, a block in the Mandla district of Madhya Pradesh. Primary respondents included school heads and cooks, reflecting their central roles in meal planning, procurement, and preparation.

The objective of the pilot was not to assess school performance, but to understand how the tool functioned in real institutional settings. To assess the practicality of using tool and collect user-advice on how to improve it, the pilot survey included four user-experience questions: how respondents interpreted key concepts, how feasible it was to answer the questions, how useful the tool felt for schools, and what support was needed for meaningful use. Space was intentionally created for open feedback, allowing respondents to comment on question framing, format, and relevance.

Survey responses across the three schools revealed clear patterns across selected agrobiodiversity and social inclusion indicators, alongside limitations in existing information systems.

For agrobiodiversity, documentation of food items and menus was limited across all schools, making it impossible to calculate species richness per meal. Menus relied on a narrow range of commonly procured vegetables where less than 20% of food procurement was sourced from local producers or agroecological farms. The use of neglected and underutilized species, however, was low. Post-survey dialogue indicated that these patterns were shaped primarily by budget constraints, delayed fund disbursement, and procurement rules, rather than by a lack of interest among schools.

In the case of gender and social inclusion, all schools reported having a school meal committee, with women constituting more than 40% of members in two of the three schools. However, decision-making related to menu planning and procurement remained concentrated among a small number of actors, with limited active participation across committee members. Representation from Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, and Other Backward Classes was reported in all schools, though participation varied by role rather than by formal membership.

Overall, the results highlight that several indicator outcomes are strongly shaped by governance and financing arrangements beyond school-level control. This underscores the importance of interpreting results in relation to broader institutional and procurement contexts, rather than attributing outcomes solely to school-level practices.

“We understand the benefits of sourcing food from local and small-scale producers. However, budget constraints and delays in fund availability often make this difficult. As a result, we rely more on larger suppliers, who can provide food on credit.”
(School Head, female, 48)

The piloting also generated learning on how the tool functions in practice. Schools with prior engagement in sensitization and dialogue activities facilitated by PRADAN more readily understood the tool’s purpose and used it as a prompt for reflection. Where such engagement was absent, additional facilitation was required. Design and format also mattered: recall-based questions were difficult to answer, pointing to the need for shorter recall periods or improved menu records, and respondents preferred a printed version alongside the digital Microsoft Form.

The pilot further revealed how key concepts are interpreted through local lenses. For example, “local producers” were defined in social and administrative terms, such as neighboring villages or shared Panchayat boundaries, rather than by physical distance. This has implications for how indicators are described and interpreted in future use of the tool.