FaRMER Pilot Trial Results
Pilot Trials Introduction
Within the project’s 4th Activity, the FaRMER Pilot Trials, three (3) validation run of the completed materials (namely the FaRMER PR1 – Self-Assessment Tool, PR2 – Methodology and PR3 – Digital Course) were conducted by the project partners FSH (Serbian Pilot lead), CONSULAI (Portuguese Pilot lead) and AUA (Greek Pilot lead) respectively. To this end, a total of three (3) agricultural stakeholders owning or managing farms of three different categories (based on farm size), were selected across the three (3) partner countries participating in this event.
As decided internally during the 1st year of the project, each Pilot partner would engage a farmer from one of the aforementioned three (3) categories, namely a Smallholder (Farm#1, with less than 10 ha of land), a Medium Farm (Farm#2, with 10-20 ha of land) and a Large-scale Production Unit (Farm#3 with over 20 ha). To this end, the final selection and respective country are presented in the following table (Table 1).
Table 1. The Pilot farms information.
|
Farm# - Country
|
Farm Size (ha)
|
Farming System
|
Main Product
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
1 - Serbia
|
0.2
|
Controlled Environment
|
Sprouts and microgreens
|
|
2 - Greece
|
15
|
Orchard
|
Olive oil
|
|
3 - Portugal
|
3200
|
Mix-farming
|
Cattle, cork and forage
|
Once the Pilot partners confirmed the interest in participation of the engaged farmers, and after all FaRMER Project Results were completed in the English language, the Piloting trials were initiated. In this procedure, the Pilot partner would schedule frequent meetings with their respective Pilot Farmer, where in each meeting they would provide them some of the completed materials alongside a brief presentation of their scope and potential usage, and then ask them to study the provided materials at their own pace, until their next meeting. In the following meeting, the Pilot Partners would ask their Pilot Farmers for their opinion and general feedback on the materials they followed last week, and the process would continue until all materials from all Project Results were covered and evaluated.
This dynamic process that expanded for approximately two (2) months was pivotal in helping us to identify potential gaps to our developed Project Results, allowing us to improve the quality of the materials and ensure that everything developed under FaRMER would be easily understandable by farmers of different backgrounds. The results and feedback collected from all Pilot Trials are presented in the following sections, divided into three (3) different chapters for each Pilot country.
Figure 1. Photos from various Pilot Trial Sessions conducted by the FaRMER Partners CONSULAI, FSH and AUA.
The Serbian farmer, a smallholder greenhouse grower from Vojvodina engaged by FSH to fill the 1st Farm profile, was already fairly familiar with the project when the Pilot Phase started, and expressed that he was interested in following this activity to see how the results are coming together.
Overall, the main distress he expressed was the complexity of PR2 – FaRMER Methodology, explaining that he would prefer a simplification in terms of dividing the PR into more basic and relatively advanced courses. The farmer believed that this approach would be more effective for course participants in terms of acquiring and applying the acquired knowledge and information.
“Simplifying the methodology in terms of designing the Basic and Advanced courses would be more effective for course participants in terms of acquiring and applying the acquired knowledge and information.” |
To this end, we have implemented a more “targeted guiding” approach to PR1 – Score my Resilience Tool, which now directly indicates the appropriate material each user should follow based on their background and existing knowledge (which translates to their performance on the online evaluation test of PR1).
Another concern expressed by the Serbian Pilot Farmer was the length and commitment that would be required from a farmer without any experience in Risk Management, to properly follow all existing materials, as he believes this would be a lengthy process and not something that can be covered in a short period of time.
| “Even though the matter is close, it is a challenging task that requires a significant amount of time and dedication. The material is very well written and explained, but it requires a high level of knowledge to understand — a period of deep work where a considerable amount of time needs to be devoted.” |
Regarding the overall accessibility and ease-of-use of the FaRMER Platform, the Serbian Farmer expressed that he found the platform to be well-suited for its scope and user-friendly, thus not having any concern to express or comments for improvement. A similar feedback was received for the questions of PR1, stating that the online evaluation tool questions were well thought and easily understandable by the farmers.
The Portuguese Pilot Farmer was a large-scale mixed-farming system unit manager located in Alontejo, fulfilling the 3rd and final Farm profile that was required for the Pilot Trials. Similarly to his peers, the Portuguese farmer was already familiar with the project from previous communication engagement by CONSULAI, and expressed interest in the materials that were developed within the project. The primary reason for his interest, as he explained, is his desire to learn how to think in a more strategic way, adopting a more systematic and organized approach to risk management and mitigation. Moreover, a major concern he expressed for his region is the climatic challenges they face (namely droughts), the agricultural population age (of which the average is very high, a common phenomenon across all Southern regions of the EU) and labour shortage, which drives several farmers to switch to the cultivation of highly mechanized crops (such as almonds).
The farmer stated that having previous experience of a risk situation (such as drought in Portugal) is what made him aware of the importance of establishing a risk management strategy.
| “Until now, risk management planning was theory only – lacking an empirical perspective – and could be overthrown by other priorities on the farm. Now, after having seen the impact of not being prepared, the farmer has acknowledged the importance of increasing his competences on this topic.” |
An additional comment was that time available directly influences management capacity. Therefore, small scale farmers might not have the time to dedicate to these tasks (possibly outsourcing these services), while large scale farmers can have 2 options: either by having more employees, they can handle this responsibility; or by having a larger property and income sources, would also need to outsource.
Finally, concerning the Material developed under PR2 and PR3, the Pilot Farmer found them to be already quite comprehensive for various Portuguese agricultural contexts. The issue of financial literacy could be emphasised more, as could information management.
The Greek farmer engaged by AUA was a medium-scale olive orchard manager located in Filiatra, covering the 2nd Farm profile of the Pilot Trials. The farmer was already familiar with the project from previous communication engagement by AUA (as he was also actively involved in other EU-funded and National projects during the past 3 years), and also participated in the National Multiplier event in Greece, to provide his personal insights and experience from using the FaRMER Materials.
Overall, he was eager to explain the impact of climatic change in his region, and especially orchard crops, which was the main driving force that led him to look for novel approaches and mitigation measures to enhance the resilience of his farm, while also communicating his knowledge with his peers. Overall, he mentioned that all materials presented during the Piloting sessions were clear, well structured, and useful for his production system. His main remark had to do with the self-assessment tool (PR1), which he stated that a short “Welcome” paragraph that would appear whenever a user initiating the evaluation survey, briefly explaining a few things about the survey (e.g. the expected duration and scope) would make the tool look more user-friendly and not “too strict”, serving questions right away. The comment is already implemented to the PR1 – Self-assessment Tool, which now prompts a short paragraph as an introduction to every new user. Another comment that also had to do with PR1, and its lack to properly indicate users with the Modules in PR2 and PR3 (FaRMER Methodology and Course respectively) based on their performance on the online test. To this end, an updated interface function that now indicated exactly the Modules where the user achieved low scores (based on predetermined thresholds) has been integrated to the Online Tool.
| “I think that the results (from PR1) are currently missing a link to the rest of the results. The score did not provide any insight on which set of materials I should follow based on my performance on the survey I just completed.” |
Finally, no comments for improvement were done on PR2 and PR3, as the Pilot Farmer was satisfied with the quality and structure of the materials, exclaiming that he was looking forward to the final version of the PRs, and also their translated versions that he would use to disseminate to other olive growers in his region.