One of the main challenges identified by RULESSWASTE is the lack of previous direct measurement of food waste in the selected rural territories.
The D2.1 diagnosis provided a strong perception-based and qualitative baseline, but it also made clear that future measurement must go beyond self-reporting. This is where the D3.1 platform prototype plays a key role.
The platform has been designed to capture operational data from the beginning of implementation, especially kilograms of surplus food offered, claimed, confirmed and redistributed.
From perception to operational records
Understanding where food waste is perceived to occur is essential. But reducing it also requires tools that can record what actually happens during intervention.
The prototype supports a complete food-reuse flow: surplus publication, alert, claim, messaging, handover confirmation and kilogram registration. This allows the project to move from diagnosis to structured monitoring.
In this way, the platform contributes directly to the volume baseline that did not previously exist in the territories.
Data for evaluation, not data for its own sake
The purpose of collecting data is not to create administrative burden. It is to understand whether the intervention is working.
Through the platform, RULESSWASTE will be able to track information by zone, municipality, food category, kilograms registered, confirmed exchanges, active users and redistribution flows. The prototype also includes export functionalities so that this information can feed the WP4 evaluation.
Transparency, dignity and traceability
Data collection must also respect the social nature of the project.
The platform includes a dignity-donation mode, where vulnerable recipients are not publicly exposed and social entities can mediate redistribution. This is particularly important in small rural communities, where stigma and discretion can determine whether people participate or not.
RULESSWASTE is therefore not only building a digital tool. It is building a way to make local action traceable, measurable and socially acceptable.
Because what cannot be measured is difficult to improve — but what is measured must also respect people.
