Farmer-to-farmer training results
Introduction
GEDAREF — Average harvest per household rose across every participating village this season. What began as a local difficulty is now a structural one, and it shapes daily life for every household here. This report sets out what was measured, what it cost, and what changed.
The problem, before the work started
Techniques taught by an outsider are tried once; techniques shown by a neighbour are adopted. Households absorbed the difference themselves — in time, in money, and in risks they would not otherwise take. Those costs rarely appear in a budget line, but they decide whether a family recovers or slips further.
They watched me do it on my own land, with my own risk. That is why they copied it.
Ibrahim Musa, lead farmer
How the work was delivered
Training runs farmer to farmer, on a working plot, in the season it applies to. The approach was chosen because it survives the conditions here: staff turnover, seasonal access, and a population that may move at short notice.
- Lead farmers selected by their own cooperative
- Training on a real plot, in the relevant season
- A small stipend for the lead farmer's time
- Follow-up visits scheduled rather than promised
What changed beyond the immediate goal
The direct objective was met, but the effects that matter most were the ones we did not set out to produce.
1. Adoption that holds
Techniques were still in use a full season later, which extension days rarely achieve.
2. Faster spread
Each lead farmer reached neighbours we never met.
3. Advice that fits
Because it is local, the advice already accounts for the soil and the rainfall.
What comes next
The next season doubles the lead-farmer network and adds seed selection to the curriculum. The measure of success is not how long we stay, but whether the work continues once we have gone.
