T.18 Number of producers/smallholder farmers supplying schools | |
VERSION | V1.0 - 2026.03 — NEW |
INDICATOR CODE | T.18 |
TECHNICAL OWNER | PRG-S (SBP) |
INDICATOR TYPE | Country Level Output Indicator |
INDICATOR CLASSIFICATION | Complementary |
INDICATOR SCOPE | Programme specific |
APPLICABILITY | The selection of this indicator is recommended against the HGSF marker and the following sub-activities in CSP logframes. Selection of the below sub-activities will NOT trigger in COMET the mandatory selection of this indicator:
Home-grown school feeding (HGSF) should be selected as an activity marker if relevant. |
UNIT OF MEASUREMENT & ANALYSIS | Number of producers/smallholder farmers |
DEFINITION | This indicator aims to capture the number of actors (farmers and producers) that WFP works with in order to provide school meals to children in school (on-site or take-home rations). Below are some key terminologies for this indicator: Smallholder farmer: The definition of a smallholder farmer is country specific. If a country has an accepted definition of smallholder farmers on which it is collecting and reporting agricultural data, that definition should be used and documented. If a country does not have an accepted definition, define smallholder farmers as farm households cultivating less than two hectares (ha) of land in a single agricultural season. In the case of farmer organizations, it is advised that individuals in these organizations are counted. Producers: An individual or an entity that is directly engaged in the production of agricultural products, including crops (and including farming) or livestock whereby 50 percent or greater of their gross income is derived from those products. These producers in the context of WFP are supporting WFP with the production of food that is directly used in the preparation of or distribution of school feeding. Producers could be individuals or entities (companies, etc.). In the case that a producer is an entity, it should be counted once. |
RATIONALE | Recently, the School Feeding Programme has been evolving especially in lower-middle- and low-income economies who continuously seek alternative and less costly approaches to school feeding. Therefore, those countries started implementing Home-Grown School Feeding (HGSF) programmes not only to overcome the costs associated to school feeding but also a to improve the livelihoods of smallholder farmers and local communities and to strengthen the nexus among nutrition, agriculture and social protection. Hence, this indicator should be collected when a home-grown School Feeding Programme is being implemented. This is to show the demand on local smallholder farmers’ production and local markets associated to school meals. |
DATA SOURCE | Data on this indicator is often collected by WFP’s cooperating partners as well as by WFP (in case of direct implementation). When partners are responsible for data collection, reporting intervals and formats should be included in all Field Level Agreements, memoranda of understanding and other partnership agreements. |
INDICATOR CALCULATION FOR REPORTING | This indicator is calculated through a simple count of the number of local producers/smallholder farmers supplying schools with food. |
DATA ENTRY AND DISAGGREGATION IN CORPORATE SYSTEMS | The output indicator consists of one detailed indicator. Country Offices (COs) should select this detailed indicator:
In addition to this, values for the detailed indicator can be collected in COMET by:
Actuals are reported in the COMET system through the completion report/s, under the section for actual data (implementation module). |
PLANNED FIGURES | Planned values for the reporting year are set annually against the detailed indicator, along with the other years of the CSP/ICSP. These values should be planned in the COMET Other Output Plan (OOP) and must be established during the first quarter of the first year of CSP/ICSP implementation. Additionally, planned values are captured in the partnership and/or field‑level agreements, with a focus on the reporting year. For subsequent years of the CSP/ICSP, planned values can either be marked as ‘no data’ or, if initially planned, should be reviewed and updated during the first quarter of the current reporting year. |
FREQUENCY OF DATA COLLECTION | Data should be collected according to the established reporting schedule – often on a monthly or quarterly basis. Some farmer support activities may be reported on only after a specific season, or in some cases upon their completion. Data should be consolidated at least annually for reporting and entered in COMET completion reports. |
INTERPRETATION | When interpreting results, refer always to planned versus actuals. The closer the actuals are to planned, the better the performance. When farmers and producers supply to schools, they can have increased market participation, which is one of the results outlined in WFP’s School Feeding theory of change for actors in local value chains. The schools provide local farmers with a predictable outlet for their products, leading to a stable income, more investments and higher productivity. HGSF has the dual objective of improving education and nutrition outcomes of children as well as improving the livelihoods of farmers/actors or enhancing value chains. |
REPORTING EXAMPLE(S) | N/A |
INDICATORS COLLECTED & ANALYSED AT THE SAME TIME | The following indicators may be reported along with this indicator: |
VISUALIZATION | N/A |
LIMITATIONS | In cases of small holder farmer’s organizations or aggregations, it could be difficult to identify and count the farmers that have contributed to the goods distributed to WFP. To reduce the risk of double counting, a unique identity number should be allocated to each farmers’ organization member. Basic information recorded about each member should include member number, gender, date joined the farmers’ organization (if applicable), date left the farmers’ organization. On the other hand, counting number of producers or farmers that supply to schools in a given year does not necessarily mean that market participation was stable throughout the year. Moreover, supplying to schools may not always lead to improved livelihoods or increased capacity. As such, other indicators at output and outcome level should be looked at for those result areas. |
FURTHER INFORMATION | How to include indicators, activity tags & markers in I/CSP logframes Other Outputs Package (pending update) |
T.18 Number of producers/smallholder farmers supplying schools
- Updated on Apr 13, 2026
- Published on Apr 13, 2026
- 4 minute(s) read