From Seed to Shelter plans to launch a microgreens farm as a pilot project to assess its effectiveness in improving diet diversity within a refugee community and to evaluate its feasibility as a scalable solution.
By August 2025, FSTS aims to launch a small-scale pilot that impacts 250 forcibly displaced individuals. It hopes to launch this pilot through cooperation with a NGO that already has a strong presence in a refugee camp. FSTS will prioritise launching in a welcoming environment over a challenging one in order to generate early answers to some pertinent questions around the model.
The data points collected (pertaining to technical feasibility, cost, reception, and health impacts) will be continuously evaluated over the course of the pilot, with a midway review at the 3-month mark, and project completion at the 6-month mark. At both junctures a decision will be made about whether to continue the project, with the hope that the business will continue to run without FSTS' direct involvement.
The anticipated budget necessary for the pilot is $30,000.
The pilot will evaluate the model based on data collected which will help address the following key areas of interest:
A) Does the 'split-growing model' work?
Will camp residents be able to successfully grow and harvest the germinated crops (amount of produce grown)?
Will a circular model of having residents swap harvested trays for germinated trays be feasible?
B) Does the cost of the program justify its adoption over other more traditional programs?
C) How is the solution received by the community and other stakeholders in the camp?
Are camp residents wanting to consume these foods? (Is there demand?)
Can they be integrated into food that residents are accustomed to?
What are camp residents willing to pay for these foods? Will it cover the costs, and to what extent? (e.g., utilities, but not seeds)
Will other stakeholders be supportive, and is there a way to integrate the solution into the ecosystem of actors?
D) Are there community-wide health benefits evident in both self-reports and practitioner observations?
If we survey consumers before the project and after some time, are they likely to report any noticeable health outcomes?
Do healthcare practitioners in the camp notice any camp-wide health benefits (e.g., a reduction in new infections)?
Community engagement to learn about the most priorities of the community, identify possible partners from within the community, and share about the project.
Construction of "The Germinate-inator" (the germination facility)
Operations within the "The Germinate-inator" begin
Begin sale of germinated trays, imposing an additional initial cost that will not be applied with subsequent swapping of trays. (e.g., $2 for the first tray, $0.50 when tray is returned and a germinated tray is received)
Continued engagement with community that is purchasing the produce, to learn about challenges and success-stories with growing, as well as other learning objectives.
Evaluation of program.
R: Lack of know-how regarding growing microgreens
M: Instructional 'cheat-sheet' with diagrams created to inform residents on best-practices for managing their trays. Hopefully, the community helps each other to learn to garden.
R: Hot conditions hinder growth
M: Where necessary, agricultural shade cloths can be distributed to protect the microgreens and reduce temperatures experienced by up to 6°C.
R: Theft of trays
M: Sell at a cheap enough cost, such that trays are accessible to all residents in camps where refugees are receiving cash-transfers.
R: Difficulty identifying business-owners
M: Rely on NGOs that are well-integrated into the community to determine well-suited candidates.
R: Trays not being returned (tray-swap system does not take off))
M: Charge more for the first tray as a deposit (e.g., $2), and each time a used tray is returned for a tray of germinated seeds charge significantly less (e.g., $0.25).
CapEx: Philanthropic organisations
1-time payment to get something up and running
OpEx (seeds): Humanitarian actors
Continuous logistics delivery
OpEx (utilities): Business owner
Running costs that business owner (camp resident) can cover
Rationale:
Philanthropy has a role to play, but it cannot be relied on long-term to mean that projects fail if funding stops. Instead, it can catalyse each new farm.
Humanitarian actors already create supply chains for dry foods - often calorie-dense legumes and grains. The main growing inputs that these farms would need are not so different (being dry seeds) and humanitarian actors are well-placed to deliver these in ways that they might not be well-placed to deliver fresh foods. Microgreen farms can convert these seeds into fresh foods (e.g., sunflower seeds into sunflower sprouts) and in doing so increase their micronutrient content significantly. This can get nutrients to camps in a way that humanitarian supply chains cannot with fresh foods.
Business owners (camp residents) would benefit from this arrangement as seeds are the most expensive part of the business, and having this expense covered can allow the owner to focus on growing and distributing the product at scale.
*While the pilot may not be able to source funding in this way initially, it is hoped that it may transition to this style of mixed financing eventually, or in future iterations.