2021 Annual Resilience Measurement Report

% of beneficiaries who reported to have gotten shock/hazzard
alerts/information

100.00% 77.40%
80.00%

60.00% 39.80% 33.80%
40.00%
20.00% 23.20% 11.70% 7.55% 6.00% 6.35%
Conlfict
0.00%

diseases Drought Flash floods high prices Locusts Riverine Other shocks
floods

Figure 14: % that receive hazard alert

3.3.7 Sources of Early warning information

There were multiple sources dispatching early warning information across all categories of
hazards identified. SomReP partners were the highest source of information across all categories
while others included Agriculture advisory and the ministry of agriculture and livestock, and Early
Warning committees. The community quoted multiple sources of early warning information. The
intensity of the information sources on various sources lays emphasis on the value that has been
placed on early warning in the program, and in Somalia in general. Flooding, livestock diseases
and crop diseases received cumulatively the highest attention from all sources as shown in the
table below. This was because these shocks were the major hazards during the early part of the
year while drought was observed towards the end of 2021. Locust invasions was focused on
specific locations and so not considered a risks every where in the project locations.

Agriculture EWEA MoA and MOHA NAD Pho Rad SomReP Comm

advisory Committe livestock DMA FOR ne io Partner unity

e

Riverine floods 51.40% 77.10% 51.40% 45.70 91.4 31. 68. 97.10% 0%

% 0% 40% 60%

Conflicts 45.20% 34.10% 25.20% 15.60 5.19 27. 51. 59.30% 0%

% % 40% 90%

Drought 19.50% 48.10% 15.30% 6.80% 4.90 23. 26. 73.60% 18.60

% 90% 40% %

Flash floods 40.90% 79.50% 36.40% 27.20 22.7 18. 43. 88.60% 34.10

% 0% 20% 20% %

High prices 27.20% 49.10% 15.90% 12.90 3.01 29. 45. 85.30% 0%

% % 70% 30%

Locusts 29.90% 69.00% 24.90% 13.70 1.01 11. 23. 79.70% 14.70

% % 20% 30% %

Livestock 59.30% 75.90% 63.00% 46.30 0% 31. 63. 75.90% 51.90

disease % 50% 00% %

outbreaks

Crop disease 55.90% 82.40% 45.60% 36.80 1.47 20. 51. 70.60% 38.20

outbreaks % % 60% 50% %

Table 9: Sources of EWEA disaggregated by Source

29 | P a g e

In Somaliland, NADFOR was in charge of disseminating information and was able to disseminate
across all categories. The ministries of Agriculture and livestock, EWEA Committee, MOHADMA,
Telephone, Radio, and SomRep Partners passed messages concerning all the hazards identified
within the reporting period. The community was also involved in the dissemination of early
warning, covering crop outbreaks, livestock disease outbreaks, locusts’ invasion and drought
only. All other actors were involved in disseminating information across all hazards as shown in
the graph below.

EWEA Information by type and Source

Crop disease outbreaks
Livestock disease outbreaks

Locusts
High prices
Flash floods

Drought
Conflicts
Riverine floods

0% 100% 200% 300% 400% 500% 600%

Agriculture advisory EWEA Committee MoA and livestock
Phone
MOHADMA NADFOR Community

Radio SomReP Partner

Figure 15: Early Warning information by type and source

Qualitative data collected through KII and FGDs showed information was broken down into
possible impacts and actions that they should take in order to minimize the impacts of droughts
on them. SomRep partners were reportedly supporting the mitigation measuresthat included:
distribution of drought-tolerant crop seeds, farm inputs and support for irrigation projects for
beneficiaries to prepare ahead of the rain season. The staff of SomRep reported that the reasons
they shared the information were for the following purposes;

 Increase risk knowledge to build the baseline understanding about the risk;
 Support community-level identification of risks and how they are evolving
 Develop response capability;
 Support process information into actionable messages understood by those that need,

and prepare to act accordingly.

The majority (57.60%) of the respondents that received early warning information said that they
“somewhat agreed” that the information shared was useful while 8.58% “strongly agreed” the
information received was useful. See figure below for detailed responses.

30 | P a g e

Was the information useful and utilized?

21.10%

6.35%

6.35% 57.60%
8.58%

Agree somewhat Agree strongly Disagree somewhat
Disagree strongly Not sure

Figure 16: Usefulness of information received

Assessed against contingency measures in place, 34.3% of the respondents reported that they
were practicing conservation agriculture, 22.9% had in place a contingency fund, and 12.5% had
contingency fodder in place while 10% had contingency grain stored. 19.4% reported that they
destock in time of need. These results suggest households in Somalia are now preparing in
advance on how they can mitigate the effect of some shocks by engaging in contingency
measures.

Contigency measure in place

140.00%
120.00%
100.00%

80.00%
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%

0.00%

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
Agro-pastoral Pastoral Peri-urban All

Practice conservation farming hh has contingency finance resources

hh has contingency fodder hh has contingency grain

hh de-stock or restock in times of need

Figure 17: Contingency measure in place

3.3.8 Extent of recovery from shocks

The process of building resilience includes being able to recover from shocks. Analysis from the
data obtained from the beneficiaries showed that 7.36% of the beneficiaries reported that they

31 | P a g e

had recovered from shocks as reported here before. A significant 43% reported that they had not
fully recovered while 28.3 percent were somewhat or mostly unrecovered.

Extent of recovery from Shocks

7.36% 0.74% 5.05%

27.55%

49.30%

0.74%

Completely recovered Mostly recovered Somewhat recovered
completely unrecovered Mostly unrecovered Somewhat unrecovered

Figure 18: Extend of recovery

Compared to the previous year, the proportion of respondents that reported completely
recovered was 3.0%, mostly recovered was 6.6% and somewhat recovered 30.9%. Overall, there
was an improvement in the capacity to recover from shocks in 2021 compared to 2020. Data
gathered through the FGD process showed that beneficiaries had generally not recovered from
the shocks. It was observed that they were actually using different coping mechanism to manage
through the shocks as collaborated by the information in section 3.3.6 below. Important to note
was the fact that this survey coincided with a drought spike and this may have influenced the
outcomes of the findings.

3.3.9 Community social capital and recovery from hazard

A paltry 2.29% of respondents reported being displaced during the reporting period due to
hazards they faced. Qualitative information from the field and in particularly south central
Somalia showed that there was increased movements in to Baidoa IDPs camps. The displacement
was seen as a coping mechanism for persons affected by the failed Deyr seeking lifesaving
support from humanitarian organizations. Accordingly, 58.3% of beneficiaries reported that they
received assistance from humanitarian organizations to recover from the hazards while another
36.7% were supported by the community. The table below shows sources of support for people
that were displaced as a result of hazards.

32 | P a g e

Proportion of beneficiaries who reported to have gotten
support from each source to recover from shocks/hazzards

Support from individuals 26.60%

Humanitarian agents' support 58.30%

Government support 18.20%

Community support 36.70%

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00%
Figure 19: Beneficiaries reporting support to recover from shocks

Community support varied widely by Source. Majority of those that reported support were
supported by relatives and friends (72.5%). VSLAs (22.9%) and Zakaat (24.4%) played a vital role
in supporting those affected by shocks as shown in the table below. Among other sources of
support was the community social fund managed by the SACs and remittances.

Responses on who in the community provided
support to help the beneficiary recover

80.00% 72.50% 7.60% 22.90% 24.40% 16.00%
70.00% Social fund VSLA Zaakat Other
60.00% 3.82%
50.00% Relatives and Remittances
40.00%
30.00% friends
20.00%
10.00%

0.00%

Figure 20: Source of community support in responding to shocks

The respondents were further asked if they were in position to support others in times of needs.
Majority of the respondents reported that they were unlikely to help, meaning that they still
were struggling with their own needs. However, 23.8% of respondents reported that they were
likely to help. The table below shows the likely hood to help or not to across the livelihood
categories.

33 | P a g e

60.0% Responses of the beneficiaries on whether or
50.0% not they would offer support in times of need
40.0%
30.0% 53.6%
20.0%
10.0% 32.6% 33.9% 36.9%

0.0% 27.0% 26.9% 17.5% 17.9%18.7% 20.6%23.8%
22.7%
17.3% 18.1% 21.2%

11.1%

Agro-pastoral Pastoral Peri-urban All
Could not help Reasonably likely Unlikely possible Very likely

Figure 21: respondents reported likelihood to support others faced by shocks

When asked if they likely to receive support, once again the majority of the beneficiaries reported
that they would possibly receive support 36.4% while the proportion that reported likely to
receive support was 24%.

Regardless the response, the community social support remained strong within the target area
with the community contribution being significant. In 2019, the proportion of respondents that
reported reasonably likelihood that the community members can offer support to beneficiary
households during hazards and shocks were 51.8%. This is possible due to the known pastoral
communities’ social capital that has been built over the years. Compared to 2020, those
respondents that reported that they were likely to support averaged 33.7%. The dwindling
numbers could be associated to breakdown of the community economic capacity as opposed to
social connectedness. Qualitative data indicated the expectations of relatives and friends to
come to the aid of a person in need as a cultural practice. This practice has been the strong social
safety net amongst Somali community reinforced over the years.

“Those that have are expected the have less or have not and vice versa
as seasons change. If a member does not help, it’s because may be their
situation has changed, but not because they are being mean.” Badhan

Women FGD participant.

34 | P a g e

60.0% Responses of the beneficiaries on whether or not they
50.0% would receive support in times of need
40.0%
30.0% 53.4%
20.0%
10.0% 30.4% 27.1% 37.0% 36.4%
23.9% 24.3% 17.6% 21.1% 18.4% 21.2% 24.0%
0.0%
18.5% 17.7% 18.6%

10.3%

Agro-pastoral Pastoral Peri-urban All
Could not help Reasonably likely Unlikely possible Very likely

Figure 22: Proportion of beneficiaries that reported they are likely to receive support

3.3.10Natural Resource management

Natural resources that form the backbone of Somalia’s economic activity, underpin the
livelihoods of much of the country’s population, and have considerable cultural significance.
Natural resource systems are also ones that require clear, deliberate management, yet are, at
the same time, highly complex and uncertain in the face of climate change, and human activity.
The SomReP program strategy underpins the value of natural resources in building resilience.
Through the program, SomReP has sought to establish structures and interventions that promote
the sustainable use of available natural resources.

It was found that there was a substantial presence of community structures. According to the
data collected, 43.5% of responses reported that there was NRM committees in their community.
The proportion of agro pastoral communities who reported committees in their community was
47.8%, pastoral communities reported 39.7% while Peri-urban communities was 35.4%. In 2020,
the communities aware (42.5%) of the NRM committees’ existence and plans on projects. This
was an increase from 25% reported in 2019 (29% among the peri-urban/urban beneficiaries, 17%
among pastoral respondents, 25% among the agro-pastoral beneficiaries and 30% among the IDP
beneficiary). The role of the committees according to qualitative data was to make decisions that
pertain to natural resource management, develop grazing plans, and control land use to mitigate
degradation. The committees are also expected to lead on community projects. The example
given included an embankment to reduce flooding in Afgooye.

35 | P a g e

% of respondents who reported that their community had
NRM committee

60.0% 47.8%
50.0%
40.0% 39.7% 43.5%

35.4%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

Agro-pastoral Pastoral Peri-urban All

Figure 23: Existence of NRM committee in the community

On management of the environment and natural resources, 87.5% of respondents were aware
of natural resources projects within their communities. More respondents in the peri-urban were
aware of NRM projects (93.8%) while the proportion of Pastoral and agro-pastoral populations
aware of the NRM projects in their area was 87.5% and 86.0% respectively. The fact that the
urban was closer to the source of information, and also practiced mixed livelihoods is seen as
likely reason why the response was higher compared to the rest of the livelihoods zones.
Similarly, the proportion of respondents who reported that their villages had NRM plans was all
high with 85.7%. The pastoral respondents’ awareness of village plans was 93.0% followed by
Peri-urban at 85.6% and agro-pastoral respondents with 83%. The findings were confirmed by
qualitative data that showed the existence of village-wide plans to manage shared resources;
particularly land, fodder and water.

% of respondents who reported that some of the activties in
the NRM plans were implemented

95.0% 91.8%

90.0%

85.0% 83.3% 82.3%
80.0%
78.6%

75.0%

70.0%

Agro-pastoral Pastoral Peri-urban All

Figure 24: Plans implementation

36 | P a g e

The assessment found out that an impressive 82.3% of all respondents were aware that the plans
were being implemented. This is the whole essence of the natural resource component. It is to
develop actionable plans and to implement those plans with the aim of protecting the
environment and promoting sustainable livelihoods. SomReP Partners were supporting the
implementation of the NRM activities as revealed by qualitative data. Bearing in mind that the
districts selected for this project were prioritized on basis of the fragility, implementations of
these activities included an effort to restore land productivity while improving food security.

A significant 81.2% of respondents reported that their NRM plans were reviewed periodically, an
increase compared to the 42.5% reported the previous year (2020). 90.6% of pastoral
respondents were aware of the periodic review of plans followed by 82.2% in Peri-urban and
77.4% of agro-pastoral respondents. According to the 2020 ARM, The implementation of NRM
plans should always be a joint activity among all the stakeholders, including the communities,
governments and local authorities. However, we noted that much of the success will always
depend on the communities’ commitments and willingness to adhere by the provided
regulations. The engagement of other stakeholders is discussed in details in 3.5.5 under the
community governance structures. Review of NRM is critical in allowing the communities to
address arising matters but also acts to mitigate conflict especially overgrazing lands in the dry
period

3.3.11Contingency reserves

% of respondents who reported that the household had
contingency reserves

45.0% 37.9% 40.5% 29.9% 37.0%
40.0% Agro-pastoral Pastoral Peri-urban All
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%

5.0%
0.0%

Figure 25: Contingency reserves

In preparation to respond to the effects of shocks, 37% of the respondents reported that their
households had contingency reserves in an event of a shock. The proportion of pastoral
respondents reporting having contingency reserve was the highest with 40.5% followed by Agro-
pastoral livelihoods and peri-urban having the least with 29.9%. Data from 2020 ARM shows that
38.3% percent of the respondents are aware of the contingency grazing reserves by the
community form the plans while 43.1% are unaware of such plans. In addition, 26.1% of the

37 | P a g e

respondents have contributed towards the community contingency reserves According to FGD’
information obtained, the pastoral and agro-pastoral groups are aware that their livelihood is
heavily climate-dependent and have to make ends meet during hunger months( in between
seasons). They, therefore, prioritize storing contingency reserves for such periods but also in the
event there is rainfall failure. For livestock, the community prioritizes keeping a folder for small
stocks as well as retaining a lactating camel/goat/cow back home as the rest of the livestock
move away so that they can have a constant supply of milk.

The project has mobilized beneficiaries to own the process of preparing so that they can mitigate
the adverse effects of shocks and stresses on their livelihoods. 75.5% of the respondents reported
that their households have contributed community contingency reserves; 87.5% of these
contributors were from peri-urban, agro pastoral reported 73.7% while pastoral respondents
that have contributed were 72.4%.

70.0% Type of contributions made by the households to contigency
60.0% reserve
50.0%
40.0% 62.0%
30.0%
20.0% 33.9%
10.0%
27.0%
0.0%

Finances Fodder Grain

Figure 26 :Type of contributions made by the households to contingency reserve

Contributions to the reserve kitty took various forms. Consequently, 62% of respondents
reported that their households’ contributed in the form of finances while 33.9% reported that
contributions were made in the form of fodder. A significant 27.)% contributed grains to the
community contingency reserve.

One of the roles of the NRM committee is to resolve conflicts arising over resource use. It was
indicated above that the reason plans was reviewed periodically was to address arising issues. As
such, 34%of respondents reported that they experienced NRM-related conflicts. The highest
proportion of respondents reporting experiencing conflict s was the pastoral community at 36.8%
followed by agro-pastoral at 30.6%.

38 | P a g e

% of respondents who reported that their community had
experienced nrm conflicts

40.0% 34.5% 36.8% 34.3%
35.0%
30.0% 30.6%
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%

5.0%
0.0%

Agro-pastoral Pastoral Peri-urban All

Figure 27: Experience of NRM related conflicts

According to qualitative data obtained, during the Jilaal, competition over water and pasture is
very stiff. Grazing plans help the community to develop an agreeable way of ensuring everyone
benefits and livestock are protected. 70.4% of all respondents interviewed reported that NRM
conflicts were resolved amicably.

The pastoral livelihood respondents reported a lower percentage (56.8%) of NRM cases that were
resolved amicable compared the rest of the respondents as shown in the table below.

% of respondents who reported that their community had
resolved the NRM conflicts ammicably

90.0% 84.3%
80.0%
70.0% 72.5% 70.4%
60.0%
50.0% 56.8%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%

0.0%

Agro-pastoral Pastoral Peri-urban All

Figure 28 NRM conflicts solved amicably

39 | P a g e

3.3Adaptive capacities

Adaptive capacity is the capacity to make intentional incremental adjustments in anticipation of
or in response to change, in ways that create more flexibility in the future. It is necessary because
change is ongoing and uncertain, and because intentional transformation takes time and
sustained engagement. Adaptation is about making appropriate changes in order to better
manage, or adjust to a changing situation. A key aspect of adaptive capacity is accepting that
change is ongoing as well as highly unpredictable. That is why adaptive capacity is about
flexibility, and the ability to make incremental changes on an ongoing basis through the process
of continuous adjusting, learning, and innovation27.

3.4.1 Agricultural support

Access to Land

Land is a valuable asset in Somalia and among nomadic communities that keep large stocks of
animals. Land use vary greatly depending on the source of livelihood. Pastoralism is the
predominant land use in Somalia and consists of nomadic pastoralism with a growing private
sector livestock export industry28. This industry provides the greatest source of revenue in
Somalia, surpassing crop production fourfold in value. The livestock industry employs over 60%
of the population and livestock earnings account for over 80% of Somalia’s foreign exchange
earnings29. Other types of land use include rain-fed agriculture, irrigated agriculture and forestry.
Most of the northern part of Somalia is dry and cannot support rain-fed agriculture except for
small pockets of land in the areas around Hargeisa, Gebiley, and Borama. In the rest of the region,
sparse rainfall means that agriculture is only possible where there are alternative groundwater
sources to support irrigation. Access to land is critical to livelihood.

In this study, Vision quest sought to understand land access for program beneficiaries. The target
for this question was respondents offered agricultural support although it did not discriminate
against any respondent who may not have received any support in agriculture. 52.7% of the
respondents reported that they had access to land for farming while a significant 43% said they
did not have access to land. Majority of those said they have no access to land were females. This
could be linked to cultural land ownership as it remains patriarchal in Somalia.

Type of farming practiced

In terms of land use, 71% of the respondents reported that they practice farming. When it came
to the type of farming practice, the proportion of respondents that practice rain fed agriculture
was 40.7% down from 41.9% in 2020. Irrigated agriculture was 34.4% up from 32.2% in 2020
while those doing a mix of both rain-fed and irrigated agriculture were 24.8% (decreased from
25.8% in 2020.

27 Oxfam International
28 http://www.faoswalim.org/land/land-use
29 Ibid

40 | P a g e

The increase in irrigated agriculture could have been a direct result of improvements in response
to 2020 study findings while the reduction in rain-fed could be the simultaneous effect of more
people adopting irrigation.

50% Farming type
40.7%
34.4%
40%
24.8%
30%

20%

10%

0% Irrigated Irrigated-and-rain-fed

Rain_fed

Figure 29: Farming type

A variety of irrigation methods were utilized ty those that were doing irrigation. The most
common irrigation type was the canal with 72.1%, followed by bucket 15.1%, mechanical
irrigation 6.4% Gravity irrigation 3.4%, drip irrigation 2.7%, and sprinkler at 0.3%. Out of the
respondents that reported using canals for irrigation, 71% use earthen canals while 29% used
cement-lined canals. In terms of the performance, the cement-lined canal protection water
running to the farms as opposed to losses experienced on earthen canals due to ground seepage.
Qualitative data showed a high preference (90%) for cement-lined canals which were considered
easy to maintain. Studies on the water for irrigation infrastructure has shown that over time,
barrages that were constructed have dilapidated and become least functional. Lack of regular
maintenance and repairs has undermined the functioning of this entire infrastructure. Attempts
have been made to rehabilitate broken barrages and clogged irrigation canals, but the results
have been mixed30.

Source of water for farming

Varieties of sources of water for farming were reported across the respondents doing irrigation.
The majority of the respondents got water from the borehole 38.7%. The proportion reporting
using hand well pumps was 16.2% while river-based irrigation accounted for 14.6%. The only area
targeted by the program and can utilize river water is Afgooye fed by River Shabbele and Dolow
by river Dawa. Surface and subsurface water sources were the least common source of water for
irrigation. This could have been due to their seasonality.

30 worldbank.org

41 | P a g e

45.0% Source of water for farming
40.0%
35.0% 38.7%
30.0%
25.0% 14.6% 16.2%
20.0%
15.0% 2.7% 2.4% 0.5% 2.7% 0.3% 2.4% 0.8% 0.5% 3.2% 0.5% 4.5% 6.4%
10.0% 1.3% 2.4%

5.0%
0.0%

Figure 30: Source of water for farming

The proportion of respondents that reported that they cultivated their land was 86%. Almost a
similar percentage (85.6%) of the respondents cultivated the land during the Gu rains. The Gu is
the main rainy season starting in mid-March and running to June. Nearly half of the respondents
of the respondents (52.5% ) cultivate during Hagaa. The Hagaa on the other hand cool, dry, and
rather cloudy season starting in July and lasting until mid-September; some weather stations
along the southern coast and in the northwestern regions receive significant amounts of rainfall
in Hagaa31. Over 73.5% cultivate during Deyr season. The Deyr is between September to
November 2021. It accounts for 25% of rainfall in Somalia. Another 23.9% cultivate during the
Jilaal. The Jilaal is the driest season in Somalia. The season runs from January to March. Crop
production during Jilaal and Hagaa is almost entirely dependent on irrigation. The findings were
corroborated by FGDs that showed that those that had reliable sources of water; main boreholes
were able to farm throughout the year. With increased cases of erratic rains, the beneficiaries
reported that they were able to irrigate in between the rains, reducing weather-related losses of
crops.

BOX 2: SOMALIA WEATHER SEASONS
The year is divided into four seasons as follows:

 Jilaal: a warm, sunny and dry season from December to mid-March. It the mains dry season.
 Gu: the main rainy season starting in mid-March and running to June. The Gu rains also called the long rains are

longer in terms of the span and favorable for cereal production.
 Hagaa: a cool, dry and rather cloudy season starting in July and lasting until mid-September; some weather

stations along the southern coast and in the northwestern regions receive significant amounts of rainfall.
 Deyr: the secondary rain season, from mid-September to November.

Figure adapted from FAOSWALIM

Figure 31: Weather seasons in Somalia

31 http://www.faoswalim.org/content/w-01-climate-somalia

42 | P a g e

Crop varieties planted

Maize 63.1%, Watermelon 16.5%, and Onion 11.9% were the most popular crop planted amongst
those that practice agriculture. The table below shows crops planted amongst the beneficiaries
categorized as primary (Gu) and secondary (Deyr). Other crops cultivated were sesame, melon,
and pigeon peas. Qualitative data showed that melon and vegetables (falling under the category
of others) were preferred irrigated crops in Somaliland due to their high values. The crops planted
were drought resistant. This included the maize and sorghum varieties distributed in the areas.
Maize cultivation was popular in the Bay region where the weather favored maize production. It
was observed that there was rice paddy and tobacco farming taking place during the Dery season
as shown in the chart below.

Primary crop Secondary crop Third crop

Maize 63.2% 10.2% 6.0%
31.2% 10.5%
Water melon 16.5% 28.1% 27.0%
4.2% 12.6%
Onion 11.9% 2.1%
6.7% 8.4%
Other 2.1% 16.8% 10.9%
0.70% 19.3%
Pigeon 0.7% 0.0%
4.6%
Sesame 0.7% 285 0.7%
285
Sorghum 4.9%

Tobacco 0.0%

Rice paddy 0.0%

Sample size 285

Figure 32: Primary and secondary crops grown by beneficiaries

3.4.2 Good Agricultural Practices capacity

Training in GAP

One of the areas of intervention for the SomReP project was to enhance the capacity of the
beneficiaries to have the knowledge and skills that position themselves better in addressing
climatic shocks and stresses in a sustainable way. The program focuses on building the capacity
and skills of the agro-pastoralist communities to implement climate-smart practices, diversify
their livelihoods; so that they can maximize returns from their farms. GAP training is not the end
by itself but means by which farmers are enabled to gains skills that would eventually lead to
improved yields, protect their livelihoods and increase their incomes. The essence of this activity
is to improve the adaptive capacity by ensuring targeted communities have a wide range of
coping mechanisms to protect their house holds from the recurrent shocks and stresses. FGD
information from farmer groups showed that the training included the identification of climate-
smart farming technics, water conservation, and seed variety most suitable for erratic weather
as experienced in Somalia.

43 | P a g e

From the assessment, the proportion of farmers that reported receiving training on good
agricultural practices was 77.6% during the reporting period compared to 63.3% in 2019 and 40%
reported in 2020. Out of the training, 95.9% received crop production training, 40.9% reported
improved post-harvesting management practices training while 44.4% were trained on improved
soil-water conservation.

GAP Skills learned and adopted

Soil and water conservation 41.7%
44.4%

Post harvest management 43.6%
40.9%

Crop production 90.2%
95.9%

0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0%

Adopted Learning

Figure 33: Respondents reporting training and adoption on GAP

In terms of putting to practice skills learned, 90.2% of respondents that reported learning of crop
produced reported utilizing their skills while 43.6% of respondents reported they were putting
into practice post-harvest management skills. This category was slightly higher than those trained
by 3.6%. 41.7% reported that they were practicing soil and water conservation measures.

The results were an improvement from 2020 ARM where the trained households, 81.9% reported
to have adopted appropriate crop production practices, with 38.2% and 39.6% to adopt post-
harvest management and soil and water conservation respectively. The improvements reported
in 2021 was as a result of learnings from previous study findings as reported by the project staff.

44 | P a g e

GAP adopted across 2019-2021

Soil and water conservation 17.70%

39.60%
41.7%

Post harvest management 15.60%

32.80%
43.6%

Crop production 33.90%

81.90%
90.2%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

2019 2021 2021

Figure 34: Comparative analysis of GAP adoption between 2019 and 2021

A study done of agricultural practices in Somalia showed that the subsistence nature of farming
in the dryland Agriculture of the Bay region is based upon the exploitation of soil nutrients using
a sorghum mono-cropping system. The effect of this type of farming on soil degradation and
nutrient depletion is widely reflected in the poor yields of both sorghum (the main crop) and
other crops grown in the region32. Vision quest established that the training addressed soil
fertility management, intercropping and water moisture conservation. Estimated at 20 to 30% of
the total harvest, and may exceed this figure in some cases. In addition to the economic loss,
poor grain storage and handling practices can constitute a health risk, as improperly stored grain
is vulnerable to molds containing Aflatoxins, highly poisonous chemical compounds33. Cereal
storage is done in pits dug underground. The pits are breeding grounds for Aflatoxin especially if
there is no way of keeping moisture away. It was established that the training also covered food
safety. Food safety systems reduce the risks of food poisoning and the effects of pests and
diseases. The SomRep training has included post-harvest management including management of
the storage facilities to reduce losses and prevent molds. In Somalia, the post-harvest
management is critical as traditional underground storage bunds could be catalysit for aflatoxin
and yield losses.

3.4.3 Yield production

The purpose of supporting agriculture is to increase yields for food security and income. Vision
quest sought to establish the extent to which those that were supported by SomRep improved
their yield as a result of the intervention. As such, 48% (Male 56.2%, Male 41.7%) reported
improved yield production. This was a significant increase from the previous year which had
posted 28.3% (Male 31.3%; Female 23.7%). Compared to the previous year (2020), respondents

32 https://satg.org/agriculture/
33 Ibid

45 | P a g e

who reported improved yields were 53.5%, while only 35.2% reported a decline in the yields.
When segregated by gender, Male 31.3%, Female 23.7% reported an increase in yields among
the respondents. According to the 2020 ARM, We also noted that there has been an improvement
on incomes from farming activities where past annual resilience measurement had 14% in 2017,
21% in 2019 and the present 25% in 2020. The contribution of crop income increased significantly
from 25% to 53% in 2021 with maximum income reported being USD$4,350. Average HH income
reported from crops was USD$91.4.The results showed a decline in terms of overall respondents
who reported increased yields. The decline, according to FGD and KII data the flash floods caused
by rather short rains and subsequent drought of 2021. Vision quest confirmed observations of
persons (see sections 3.3.6 on displaced population) that moved to the IDPs camps as agro-
pastoralism continued to be affected by the drought.
Similarly, the reasons given for the improved yields improved Crop husbandry practices after
being trained on GAP, increased land under cultivation, increased use of inputs, and Soil
management practices as the main reason for the increase in crop production

Income increased as result of
increased yields

34%

66%

Yes No
Figure 35: Respondent reporting increased incomes as the subject of increased yields

On crop sales, 66% of the beneficiaries reported increased incomes as a result of improved
productivity. Compared to the crop production, the increase in incomes was expected, as there
was a substantial increase of agricultural productivity as reported here above. 34% of the
respondents reported decrease of incomes from the yields harvested. During the study period, it
was noted that the effects of various shocks; livestock pasture conditions and high food prices
affected production impacting negatively overall sales volumes.

46 | P a g e

Access to agricultural services

Despite the large swathes of unexploited fertile alluvial soils for cereals, legumes, and
horticulture crops, agricultural extension services remain limited and unstructured34. The
agriculture sector is hampered by low productivity, high post-harvest losses, low product quality,
and high vulnerability to climate change. Despite the many current constraints,
including insecurity, there are increased efforts to improve services provisions. According to the
study, SomRep provided agricultural services as follows; 31.2% of respondents received
extension services during the reporting period. Of the services delivered, 91.7% received services
in Pest and disease control while 39.5% reported receiving general agricultural extension
services. Among those who received general extension services, 76% of them were supported on
crop production, while 54% received extension support on agribusiness support. An additional
47.5% received services on soil and water conservation. Other services issues as shown in the
figure below was irrigation and postharvest handling.

% of households who reported to have accessed specific
agricultural extension services

Post harvest handling 19.8%

Soil and water conservation 47.5%

Irrigation 45.0%

Crop production 76.0%

Agribusiness services 54.1%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0%
Figure 36: Access to extension services

3.4.4 Livestock farming

The livestock sector is a pillar of the Somalia food system and a contributor to poverty reduction,
food security and agricultural development and the highest contributor to Somalia’s Gross
Domestic product (GDP)35. Over the years, there is wide scope to improve livestock sector
practices so that they are more sustainable. These efforts include the contribution of SomReP as
articulated in the project documents. For SOMREP, the livestock interventions are meant to
protect the sector as a major source of livelihood for the target group and increase access to
incomes and food security as far as the sector is concerned. Livestock keeping in Somalia remains
the main source of food (meat) and milk and hence improvement of the sector would has far-

34 https://www.fao.org/resilience/news-events/detail/en/c/1434530/
35 https://www.worldbank.org/

47 | P a g e

reaching income and nutrition impacts for the beneficiaries and community at large. The biggest
threat to livestock as a sector is the recurrent drought that decimates pastures and water
resources therefore leading to losses both in the livestock quality in addition to decimating the
numbers due to drought related deaths.

I. Veterinary services

Among the critical services provided to protect pastoral livelihoods is veterinary services. SomReP
partners have been training Community Animal Health Workers (CAHWs) to provide extension
services amongst the farmers. Data from FGDS and KII showed that training is done in
partnership with the Ministry of livestock development. Trained CAHWS are linked with private
veterinary services where they can access products for the services required. The trained CAHWS
also work alongside private veterinary service providers who give specialized services where this
is possible. The respondents were asked about the veterinary services they were receiving. 76.2%
reported that they were received clinical veterinary services while 39.7% received preventive
veterinary services. Other services received include provision of drugs (28.5%) and Human health
protection (16.9%). Data from ARM 2019 showed various factors that lead to improved
performance of the veterinary sector. This included linking the CAHWs to the revolving fund
facility with the aim to improve the availability of veterinary drugs and access to animal health
services at the community level, secondly, strengthen the formal link with the financial
institutions. 2020 ARM recorded some challenges in the timeliness of provision of veterinary
services.

It was reported that veterinary have been supplied at the wrong seasons and end up not being
used and expire. These challenges were not reported in 2021 meaning they were possibly
addressed.

SomRep facilitated MOU was signed with Dahabshil and one account opened for the livestock
marketing association’s revolving fund facility. The. KII information obtained showed that
CAHWs and private have been borrowing finances from the bank to boost their capital, leading
to increased service delivery. On the other hand, data collected from FGD showed appreciation
of the increased veterinary services’ capacity. However, in the Northern part of the country,(Eyl,
Laascanod, Odweyne, and Lughaye), timeliness of services in some of the villages are limited by
vast geographical coverage. The CAHWs and private vets are at times struggling to access
livestock between the villages due to the high cost of transport, or lack of it.

48 | P a g e

% of households reporting to have accessed specific verterinary
services

Human health protection 16.9%

Provision of drugs 28.5%

Preventive verterinary services 39.7%

Clinical verterinary services 76.2%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0%
Figure 37: Type of extension services

II. Livestock insurance

In as far as reducing vulnerabiolity to impacts of climatic shock, Somrep has been one of the most
innovations in Somalia - Livestock insurance. While Livestock insurance has worked well among
dairy cattle farmers with limited herds, insuring tens and hundreds of livestock among the poor
pastoralist has been a hard nut to crack. Studies done in Kenya on the piloted Index-based
Livestock Insurance (IBLI) found out that the economic potential of pastoralism and the low
interest generated by IBLI pilot projects do not provide sufficient incentive for private insurance
companies to enter such schemes on a large scale. Therefore, the insurance schemes need to be
supported by development partners and government programs until IBLI becomes widely
accepted as a risk-management tool36. SomReP has been working with ILRI to develop, advice
and support the uptake of livestock insurance. Tawakal Insurance Company that supported the
role out of the insurance in Kenya is the largest services provider in Somalia. To check the
penetration of livestock insurance in the project target areas, the respondents were asked if they
had access to insurance. 17.5% reported that it was difficult to access while 51.9% remained
neutral on the matter. However, 28.9% reported it was easy to access insurance while 0.6%
reported it was very easy. Insurance products have not spread to all parts of Somalia as services
providers are still limited. This could explain the fact that a substantial percentage of respondents
found it difficult to access insurance services.

36 https://www.shareweb.ch/site/Agriculture-and-Food-
Security/aboutus/Documents/pastoralism/pastoralism_brief_insurance.pdf

49 | P a g e

% of households reporting access to insurance
services

1.2% 0.6% 17.5%

51.9%

28.9%

Difficult Easy Neutral Very difficult Very easy

Figure 38: Access to insurance

The overall mean income change in the livestock sector was USD$ 31.7 with the maximum
income reported being USD$2140. In 2020, livestock contributed 47.3% of the total HH income.
This however change in 2021 with livestock contributing only 22% of the total income. The
change was associated to the droughts experienced in 2021 that had an immediate impact of
fodder availability and therefore decimating livestock prices and body conditions.

3.4.5 Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene

Somalia is a water-scarce country with water frequently stated as the highest priority need both
for human and livelihood support. There are only two rivers supplying water to the country and
both are situated in the southern part of the country, running across from Ethiopian highlands to
the Indian Ocean. A third river, river dawa flows from the Ethiopian highlands though Kenya into
Somalia, Joining the the Juba river at Dholow37. The rest of the country depends on boreholes,
shallow wells, and surface water pans. Across the program targets, the most common source of
water was borehole across all livelihood zones. 30.2% of the livelihood groups sourced water
from boreholes while 17.2% were dependent on Berkad38 harvested rainwater. Beneficiaries
from Afgooye were the only ones citing river as their source of income. The table below water
sources across the program target.

37 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawa_River
38 Subsurface structure build to harvest runoff rainwater.

50 | P a g e

Source of water across livelihood

140.00%
120.00%
100.00%

80.00%
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%

0.00%

Agro- pastoral Pastoral Peri-urban All

Figure 39: Main sources of water across livelihood zones

Compared to the wet season, the borehole still remains the highest source of water at 38.35%
from 30.2% in dry season. Thus more people use borehole water during the wet season as
compared to dry season. More people used earth pans during the wet season 13.27% compared
the dry season (2.87%). Most of the earth pans were most likely dry thus reducing its
dependability as a source of water for dry season. As the earth pans reduced in the dry season,
the more the Berkad was used. Only 9.96% of respondents reported using Berkad during the wet
season compared to 17.20% in the dry season.in 2020 ARM, Water Kiosk (20.3%) and Berkerds
(16.7%) still remain the most common water source during the dry season for the beneficiaries
of the project.The borehole stood as third most popular source in dry season with 10.7% of
respondents. The reasons could be because it was reliable and permanent. It was also noted that
SomRep and partners continued to rehabilitate and construct more reliable water sources and
this could be the reasons for increased access to boreholes. River and unprotected well were
relatively popular among the beneficiaries with their percentages of their use increasing over the
dry season. Water trucking was the least reported source of water both in the wet and dry
seasons. This means that the project had significantly managed to minimize emergency water
sources that are regarded as highly unstainable. Household piped water was minimally used
during the wet season at 0.7% of the respondents but increased 3.5% during the dry season. A
rather small proportion (14.4%) of peri-urban respondents dependent on piped water during the
dry season. The 2020 ARM indicated that the main source of water during the wet seasons has
been rain water harvesting through Berkerds (Underground tanks - 20%), followed by water
kiosk19% and borehole 11.6%. The table below shows water source disaggregated into wet and
dry season.

51 | P a g e

Sources of water in wet season

Dry season Wet season

Agro- Pastoral Peri- All Agro- Pastoral Peri- All
pastoral
urban pastoral urban 6.34%
7.51% 0.00%
Dam 6.71% 9.39% 0.74% 6.69% 7.14% 9.10% 0.37% 1.29%
2.15% 6.10%
Rain water 7.20% 0.71% 1.21% 4.21% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.35%
3.69% 2.09%
River 2.71% 1.28% 0.00% 1.53% 1.97% 0.71% 0.00%

Shallow well 5.83% 0.55% 5.61% 7.08% 7.82% 0.92%

Springs 0.14% 0.55% 2.23% 5.91% 1.14% 3.86%

Water car 0.71% 2.03% 2.09% 4.12% 1.00% 2.95%
tanker
Water trucking 0.18% 0.71% 0.00% 0.28% 0.49% 1.00% 0.18% 0.56%
29.40% 36.70% 25.40% 30.20% 35.45% 44.10% 39.59% 38.35%
Borehole 10.50% 29.30% 21.90% 17.20%
9.48% 5.97% 16.57% 9.96%
Harvest
rainwater 3.75% 1.00% 2.58% 2.86% 10.09% 23.61% 9.39% 13.27%
berkard 1.42% 0.00% 14.40% 3.52% 0.98% 0.28% 0.37% 0.70%
Harvest
rainwater pan 0.92% 0.28% 0.00% 0.59% 1.17% 0.14% 14.55% 0.59%
Piped 4.37% 5.69% 8.42% 5.47% 4.25% 0.85% 2.58% 3.10%
household 4.12% 0.28% 0.18% 2.44% 5.72% 3.41% 7.92% 5.57%
water
Unprotected
surface water
Unprotected
well
Water Kiosk

Vision quest analyzed the access and sources of water used by respondents all through the year.
Overall, 69.9% of the respondents reported that they had water during the dry season. The figure
increased to 85.9% during the wet season. Water was most accessible amongst agro-pastoralist
(75.8%) in dry season and 87.4% in wet season. The peri-urban access to water dwindled in the
dry season as well, dropping from 86.2% to 68.3%. Pastoralist livelihoods had the least access to
water with 57.6% reporting access during the dry season compared to 82.2% in wet season.

52 | P a g e

Sources of water across season

100.00% 87.40% 82.20% 86.20% 85.90%
90.00% 75.80% 57.60% 68.30% 69.90%
80.00%
70.00% All
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%

Agro- pastoral Pastoral Peri-urban

Dry Season Wet season

Figure 40 Comparison of access to water across livelihood zones and seasons

Water costs did not vary much across the different target areas in wet season. The average costs
paid for water was USD $0.265 per 20 litre jerican. Agro-pastoralist paid the highest (USD$0.28
while the pastoral respondents paid the least with USD$ 0.24. During the dry season, water costs
differed significantly between livelihood zones and in costs. The costs of water in the pastoral
livelihoods. The costs of water increased significantly across pastoral and per-urban livelihoods.
Among the pastoral livelihoods, the costs of water increase by 74% in dry season USD$ 02.4 to
USD 0.94 per twenty litre jerican as shown in the table below. The variation in cost of water was
is linked to water scarcity and increased demand among the pastoral and peri-urban population.
This was further exacerbated by the droughts and the diminishing rain harvested sources.

1 Cost of water across season

0.9 0.94

0.8 74%

0.7 0.41
0.24 0.27
0.6 0.48
0.27
0.5
All
0.4 0.34
0.28
0.3

0.2

0.1

0 Pastoral Peri-urban
Agro-pastoral

Dry seasonWet season % Increase

Figure 41: Percentage increase in costs of water across livelihood and seasons

53 | P a g e

It is plausible to assume increased access to water supported crop irrigation and livestock
production amongst the project. The availability of water for irrigation cushioned beneficiaries
during the drought.

3.4.6 Livelihood, income, and expenditure

I. Income

According to Brook et al, in their study ‘Assessing and Enhancing Adaptive Capacity’ Adaptive
capacity inherent in a system represents the set of resources available for adaptation, as well as
the ability or capacity of that system to use these resources effectively in the pursuit of
adaptation. Such resources may be natural, financial, institutional or human, and might include
access to ecosystems, information, expertise, and social networks39. Cash income is one most
common resource that enable households to meet their needs and afford a range of coping
strategies to shocks and stresses. In this section we examine the income sources, actual income
available and finally expenditure to determine the extent to which targeted households are able
to meet their needs, mitigate and cope with Shocks.

The third outcome under this project is the improved capacity of households to engage in
strategies for sustainable livelihoods and economic growth to enhance food security and
resilience. The activities in place to ensure the achievement of this outcome is a series of
interventions aimed at increasing household incomes. The main sources of income varied slightly
compared to 2020 as shown in the table below. The percentage of respondents who reported
crop income doubled in 2021 compared to 2020 while the respondents. 22% of respondents
reported income from livestock compared to 47.3% in 2020. There was also a significant drop in
the percentages reported across all other categories compared to 2020. Improved farming
practices was mentioned as the main reason for improved crop income as shown in section 3.4.3.
Secondary data shows that Somalia’s economy is dominated by livestock-rearing and exports,
remittance inflows and money transfers and telecommunications. The livestock sector
contributes approximately 40% of gross domestic product (GDP) and accounts for almost 90% of
total agricultural GDP and over half of exports. Many urban dwellers earn their income as
livestock traders and brokers, or work in related activities40. According to FEWSNET/FSNAU, the
2021 deyr (October-December) rains have largely failed across most of Somalia. This has led to
the worst seasonal harvests on record, excess livestock losses and exceptionally high cereal
prices41. The failed Deyr follows two other failed rain seasons that has put pressure on pasture

39 https://www4.unfccc.int/sites/NAPC/Country%20Documents/General/apf%20technical%20paper07.pdf
40 https://odi.org/en/publications/building-livelihood-and-community-resilience-lessons-from-somalia-and-
zimbabwe/#:~:text=Building%20livelihood%20and%20community%20resilience%3A%20lessons%20from%20Somal
ia%20and%20Zimbabwe,-
Working%20papers&text=Cesvi%2C%20an%20organisation%20that%20supports,resilience%2Dbuilding%20in%20f
ragile%20environments.
41 https://reliefweb.int/report/somalia/somalia-drought-situation-report-no2-21-december-2021

54 | P a g e

conditions. Consequently the livestock sector was affected. This explains the drop in percentage

of respondents that reported livestock incomes.

All beneficiaries

Source 2021 2020

Crop income 53% 25%

Livestock income 22% 47.3%

Agriculture wage employment 1% 3%

Agriculture related business 4% 3.4%

Non-farm wage employment 3% 10.1%

Non-farm related business 5% 13.8%

Cash transfers (remittances, conditional and unconditional cash 13% 17%
transfers)

Table 10 Percentage contribution to income by source and year

When assessed across livelihoods, the agro-pastoral livelihoods reported the highest mean
income at USD$. 189. Peri-urban reported USD$.177 and the pastoral livelihoods reported USD$.
128.2. The maximum income reported was USD$.4350 among agro-pastoralist while the Peri-
urban maximum income was USD$.2664. The standard deviation in income implied large
disparities for income among the respondents. The table below lists mean income against the
source.

Agro-pastoral Pastoral Peri-urban

Source Mea Minim Maxim Mea Minim Maxim Mea Minim Maxim
n um um n um um n um um
Crop income (USD) (USD) (USD) (USD) (USD) (USD) (USD) (USD) (USD)
Livestock 118.4 37.67
income 0 4350 0 4000 80.2 0 1345
Agriculture 51.26
wage 36.2 0 1150 0 2140 21.44 0 1100
employment
Agriculture- 1.15 0 290 0.01 0 2 2.62 0 651
related
business 9.85 0 2600 2.02 0 1224 5.9 0 764
Non-farm
wage 2.31 0 500 2.79 0 430 13.9 0 300
employment
Non-farm 3.198 0 300 12.7 0 1000 19.1 0 700
related .54
business

55 | P a g e

Cash transfers 17.9 0 720 21.7 0 550 34.1 0 900
128.2 0 4000 177 0 2664
(remittances,

conditional

and

unconditional
cash

transfers)

Total income 189 0 4350

Table 11: Income contribution by source and livelihood

Across the livelihood groups, the average income was USD$171.9. This was 22% increase from
income recorded in 2020 which was USD$ 140.5. The highest source of income in 2021 was from
crops with USD$ 91.4. Agriculture wage income contributed the least with USD$1.15. This may
probably that may mean not so many respondents were engaged in agriculture-related wage
labor.

Average income (USD)

Source Agro-pastoral Pastoral Peri-urban All
80.2
Crop income 118.4 37.67 21.44 91.4
Livestock income 2.62 37.1
Agriculture wage employment 36.2 51.26 5.9 1.15
Agriculture related business 13.9
Non-farm wage employment 1.15 0.01 19.1 7.2
Non-farm related business 34.1 4.63
Cash transfers (remittances, 9.85 2.02 8.54
conditional and unconditional cash 21.9
transfers) 2.31 2.79
Total income
3.198.54 12.7
Table 12 Average income by Source.
17.9 21.7

189 128.2 177 171.9

According to the World Bank, the Gross Domestic Product per capita in Somalia was last recorded
at 276.88 US dollars in 2020. While the Worldbank data look at the general population, the
SomRep selection criteria is based on vulnerability criteria and therefore indicates substantive
efforts in addressing income gaps among the most vulnerable in the target areas.

Across gender there was huge variation in the average incomes between men and women. The
average income for women was USD156.9 while that of men was 188.2. Men had far higher
incomes in Crop USD$102.4), livestock (USD$40.3), and aagriculture-relatedbusiness (USD$10.7)
compared to women. Women on the other side had higher incomes in Non-farm-related business
(USD$7.9) and Cash transfers (USD$23.1). The disparity between men and women income could
be associated to the cultural appropriation of productive assets to men and the inherent division
of labor, roles and responsibilities across gender, putting men at an advantage compared to
women. Supporting women directly through interventions such as the VSLAs is helping to reduce
the differences and give women economic power. FGD findings showed that there was

56 | P a g e

significant effort to include women in the program. Women groups interviewed acknowledged
that their incomes had increased as a result of the program and therefore, despite the disparity
between genders, it is acknowledged that the program has changed the wellbeing of women in
terms of livelihood and income.

Source Male Female All
Crop income 102.4 81.3
Livestock income 40.3 34.1 91.4
Agriculture wage employment 1.14 1.1 37.1
Agriculture related business 10.7 4 1.15
Non-farm wage employment 3.78 5.4
Non-farm related business 9.23 7.9 7.2
4.63
8.54

Cash transfers (remittances, conditional and 20.7 23.1 21.9
unconditional cash transfers)

Total income 188.2 156.9 171.9

Table 13 Average income across gender

II. Expenditure

The expenditure pattern indicated that generally, the needs were far higher compared to the HH
incomes across all the livelihoods. The pastoral livelihoods respondents reported the highest
level of expenditure USD 1072 while the Agro-pastoralist and Peri-urban populations reported
USD$447 and USD$446.2respectively. The average expenditure across the three categories as
reported was USD.600. Food expenditure was the highest cost. The respondents reported at
USD$153. As expected, Food costs were much higher among the Peri-urban with an average
expenditure of USD197.9. The high expenditure may be linked to the increased costs of cereals
and the MEB cost 1.48 times as much as they did for the same basket of goods and services a
year ago. A significant increase in the CPI is largely attributed to increases in cereal prices
(sorghum/ rice) as they constitute the largest proportion (30%–60%) of the MEB42. Compared to
the Somrep endline report of 2019, the average HH expenditure was USD. 346.19. This validate
the finding given increased costs of leaving as a result of inflation, and triple shocks experience
through 2020-2021 period. Further studies by the Cash Consortium in showed that IDPS spent
upto 41% of their incomes on food while non IDPs spent 40% on food only43. The SOMREP endline
report (2019) estimated that 36.5% of the family income went to food expenditure only. Care on
the other hand conducted a project evaluation on similar project targets in Mudug. The average
income according to Care was USD$ 10544.

42 https://www.fsnau.org/sectors/markets
43 https://www.calpnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/1560333000.Expenditure-Study-Final-1.pdf
44 http://careevaluations.org/wp-content/uploads/EFSP-II-Final-Report-102121.pdf

57 | P a g e

The variation in income could be simply linked to the location as Mudug is main pastoral and the
study was conducted at the pic of Hagaa (October 2021). The pastoral livelihood the 2021 ARM
had a mean income of USD$ 128.2.

Average expenses in the last planting season in USD

Agro- pastoral(USD) Pastoral Peri-urban All
197.9
Food 128.3 177.1 88.5 153
123 65.5 91
Livestock 73.8 39.3 92
139.3 67.6 78.2
Education 76.6 130.9 59.6 124.7
216.2 41.2 79.5
Transport 64.7 119.2 46.1 77
141.2 81 81.2
Housing 77.8 132.6 57.3 102.4
146.8 84.2 76
Clothing 64.7 446.2 94
97.5 600
Water 50.2 133.7
1072
Funeral 55

Debt 75.8

non-food items 68.9

Savings 74.3

Overall average 447

Table 14: Average expenditure across livelihood

Analyzed across gender, the assessment showed that the average expenditure was nearly and
half times that of male respondents. Food expenditure constitute the highest expenditure for
both male and females. Females had higher expenses in debts, funeral-related costs, livestock,
education, transport, housing, clothing, and nonfood items. Expenditure related to savings was
highest among males USD 76.3 compared to females USD11.2. This means that women
prioritized other needs and as such deprioritized savings.

Average expenses in the last planting season in USD

Female Male All

Food 137 170.5 153
91
Livestock 75.3 106.1 92
78.2
Education 79.9 103.7 124.7
79.5
Transport 60.8 94.7 77
81.2
Housing 84.2 161.7 102.4
76
Clothing 64.9 94.5 94
600
Water 65.8 88.4

Funeral 51.3 106.7

Debt 78 123.7

non-food items 64.4 88.5

Savings 76.3 11.2

Overall average 466.2 745.8

Table 15: Expenditure analysis categorized by gender

58 | P a g e

III. Loans and debts

Loans and debts could make or break vulnerable people. When the vulnerable people have to
take loans to pay for their critical needs, they are borrowing from their future and this could lead
them to be trapped in a poverty cycle. At the same time, loans borrowed to invest in productive
opportunities could break such cycles. Analysis of the proportion of respondents that have loans
showed that 23.8% of the respondents had taken loans. The peri-urban population had a higher
proportion of respondents who reported debt with 26.2%, pastoral respondents reported 24.3%
while Agro-pastoral respondents reported the least proportion of respondents with loans at
22.7%.

A majority, 88.9% of the loan taken was in the form of food while 11.1% took loans in the form
of cash. The proportion that took loan in the form of food reported experiencing acute food
shortage at the household level. The peri-urban/urban category reported less boring of food and
more borrowing of cash debts as shown in the table below.

Agro-Pastoral Pastoral Peri-urban All

Food 91.6% 87.7% 83.1% 88.9%
11.1%
Cash 8.4% 12.3% 16.9%

Table 16: Form of loan taken by livelihood zone

When asked when the loan is expected to be paid, 43.1% reported that they had to pay within a
month while 20.5% were expected to pay within the end of the season. Similarly, 6.7% were
expected to pay after the next harvesting season. The rest of the respondents (10.2%) who had
loans reported they had up to one year to pay the loans they had.

Loans repayment period

10.2% 6.7%

20.5%

43.1%

19.5%

After the next harvest End of season Not specified One month One year
Figure 42: The loans repayment period

There were varied reasons why the beneficiaries took loans were varied. However, as indicated
before, the largest form of debt was incurred to buy food.

59 | P a g e

Food debts across all the respondents amount to 56.2% of overall debt taken while the second-
highest form of debt was to buy livestock with 20.5%. Those that borrowed to buy agricultural
inputs were 8.8% while borrowing to buy animal feed stood at 3.8%. Borrowing to buy personal
items (clothes and shoes) was at 2.8%, health was reported at 2.1% while children’s fees stood
at 1.0%. The table below shows all reasons for which the loan was taken divided by livelihood.

Reasons for taking loan

Agro- Pastoral Peri-urban All

Pastoral 4.2% 8.8%

To buy agricultural inputs such as seeds, 12.2% 5.3% 1.4% 3.8%
fertilizers etc. 2.8% 20.5%
To buy animal feed or fodder 4.9% 3.5% 5.6%
0.7% 2.8%
To buy animals 19.2% 38.0% 72.5% 0.6%
4.9% 56.2%
To buy clothes or shoes 2.2% 1.8% 3.5% 2.1%
0.0% 0.9%
To pay dowry 0.5% 0.6% 0.0% 0.4%
0.0% 0.2%
To buy food 53.9% 47.4% 0.4%
2.1%
To pay for health expenses 1.6% 0.6% 0.0% 1.0%
0.2%
To repair the house 0.3% 0.0%

To hire labor 0.8% 0.0%

To pay for rent or purchase of land 0.3% 0.0%

To repair irrigation channels or water source 0.8% 0.0%
related expenses 0.8% 0.6%
To pay for school fees or other education costs

To cover travel expenses 0.3% 0.0%

Table 17: reasons for taking loans

The bank is increasingly becoming a significant source of loans in Somalia. The proportion that
was reported to have borrowed from the bank was 7.8%compared to 0.7% in 2020. Indeed the
2020 ARM reported that bank access to the rural poor may have led to the low bank access. At
the same time the 2019 ARM recorded that VSLA provides savings support for the most
households in Somalia as formal banking sector is not developed enough.

The improvements in 2021 on access to banking services shows a major evidence of VSLA linkages
with the banks, opening bank services to the poor. The proportion that was reported to have
borrowed from VSLAs was 27.)%. This is the very reason the VSLAs were established; to provide
loans and savings to the vulnerable people that are members of the VSLA groups. Majority of the
people (53.4%) borrowed from the shopkeeper while 24.9% borrowed from private lenders.
These are significant sources that contribute to the life-saving and resilience building of the target
group. The 2019 ARM reported that more than half (78%) of households took a loan from the
VSLA groups. In no livelihood group did more than 6% of respondents say that they took on debt
from another source. 3% of respondents cited having taken loans from merchandise. At 2017
resilience measurement, the primary source of borrowing money came first from “relatives” in
52% of the cases and then from “trader/grocer” in 34% of the cases.

60 | P a g e

Then, friends and relatives were the main sources to borrow money from and the trader/grocer
provided a source to “buy on credit”.

Sources of loan Agro- Pastora Peri- All
Source Pastoral l urban
7.8%
Bank 8.9% 8.2% 4.2% 8.8%
Community elders or community 14.4% 1.2% 3.5% 2.8%
Employer 3.8% 1.2% 2.1% 4.0%
Family/friends/clan members outside of the 4.1% 3.5% 4.2%
country
Landowner 1.4% 1.2% 0.7% 1.2%
Microfinance institutions 2.2% 0.0% 2.8%
NGO 4.1% 9.9% 0.7% 1.8%
Private lender 4.9% 6.4% 9.9%
Relative or a friend 18.2% 21.1% 47.2% 4.8%

Shopkeeper 53.1% 42.7% 66.9% 6.3%

Village Savings and Loan Association 19.2% 43.9% 26.8% 24.9
%
Table 18: Sources of Loans
53.4
%

27.0
%

On access to credit facilities, 16.3 % of respondents reported that they were denied loans. The
reasons for being denied load varied with 32.6% of the respondents reporting that they were
found to have low creditworthiness because of bad credit records. Another 25.4% had business
ideas with the risk of low profits, and therefore assumed it would not support loan payment.
More concerning was the proportion of respondents who could not access loans because the
organizations/persons they were borrowing from did not have money at that particular time. This
figure stood at 43.3%. This raises concern about the fluidity of the credit facilities in Somalia to
facilitate investments when the need and opportunity are available. SomRep and partners could
expand the VSLA interventions to include more program participants, including men as way if
increasing access to credit. Further, VSLAs could be encouraged to open their services to
members within the rules and procedures in place for expansion. Linkages with banks and
microfinance systems will continue to be necessary as a way of opening avenues for credits and
loan facilities.

61 | P a g e

Reasons their loan request was declined

Reason Agro- Pastoral Peri-urban All
Bad credit record
Pastoral

31.8% 33.3% 33.8% 32.6%
40.3% 25.4%
Business idea is seen as having risk of low 24.3% 19.6%
profit 10.9% 4.6% 6.5% 8.1%
Could not afford the interest rates 40.3% 22.2%
32.5% 43.3%
Inadequate collateral 25.9% 7.2%

Person/organization did not have money at 42.7% 49.7% 24.7% 13.4%
the time 15.9% 3.9% 1.3% 4.9%
Scheme closed

Other 7.5% 2.6%

Table 19: Reasons for being denied loans

The overall analysis of income and expenditure showed that debt/loans were unavoidable as the
expenditure was far higher than the income reported. The deficit (the difference between overall
expenditure and incomes) as per Vision quest analysis was USD$ 428.1. Though the study did not establish
the level of loans in monetary, it is assumed that a great percentage of the deficit was taken up a portion
by humanitarian assistance. The concern with such a deficit would be to work with a target that is debt
trapped as such kind of trap would hinder resilience building. Despite the assumption, it will be important
for SomReP to analyze further the level of debt in order to understand the extent it could be hindering
resilience building.

Agro-pastoral Pastoral Peri-urban All

Description 447 1072 446.2 600
Overall Expenditure
Total income 189 128.2 177 171.9
Deficit
258 943.8 269.2 428.1
Table 20: Deficit analysis

62 | P a g e

BOX 3: SUCCESS STORY

Raqiya Abullahi (right) during her graduation

TVET unlocking self-resilience on beneficiaries; the story of Raqiya Abdilahi Farah.
Raqiya is an IDP single mother that was living in Adhicadeeye together with her daughter. Raqiya lost
here livestock to droughts, leaving her with nothing that she could use to meet her needs and those
of her daughter. During one of the recruitments for TVET beneficiaries, Raqiya got an opportunity to
enroll to the TVET based on the criteria shared with the Village Development committees. She moved
to Lascanod where she enrolled on a tailoring course supported by ADRA. She lived with relatives while
ADRA supported her with USD$ 70 per month as living expenses for the period of training. She
successfully finished the course after four months and graduate. Raqiya received a startup kit on
graduation after which she started her own business.

“Changes? I prefer the word transformation rather than change, in short I moved
from an IDP single mother with zero education and skills to an entrepreneur, who
has skills and basic knowledge”

Raqiya business has picked up. She got customers from both the IDPS camp and the village. She has
been saving from the proceeds of the business and as she accumulated savings, she took her daughter
to school within a year after graduation. She has started a tailoring shop where she operates. She is
able to design and tailor clothes to suit her customers’ needs. Raqiya makes on average USD$ 10 a
day. With the proceeds of her income, Raqiya is able to pay her daughter’s fees and pay for the
household needs.
Raqiya has been in running the tailoring shop since 2019. She started operations in her house within
the camp but later as the business grew, she moved to a shop Adhicadeeye after a year. Raqiya has
been in operation for over two years. She intends to keep growing the business though quality
customer service. Source: ADRA Somalia.

63 | P a g e

IV. Markets access

Creating accessible and competitive markets for smallholders traders is critical to their income
and livelihoods, The Somali markets is dominated by large business holders with the muscle to
buy, transport livestock and other commodities to the big markets and beyond. The project has
instrumentally mobilized and supported the formation of farmer associations and marketing
groups in order to support them access reliable, competitive markets. Based on the FGD
discussions, groups reported that they had been organized as collective market unit so as to pool
their resources together and collectively bargain for better prices. However, the study happened
during the pick of the drought. Groups interviewed reported interruptions in joint marketing as
a result of the drought, joint marketing had been affected as some of the farmers had moved
with their livestock and or the livestock body conditions were not good. However, it was observed
that in betters, the livestock keepers in particular are able to jointly engage wholesale buyers and
bargain for fair market prices as team, as reported by FGD in Dholow.

In terms of markets access, on average, the HH is 15KM away from the markets and it takes about
32 minutes to get to the market. The main mode of transport to the markets was by walking
(64.9%) while 26.6% accessed the markets through motor vehicles. Those that accessed the
markets via motorcycles or bicycles were 6.9% and 1.4% respectively.

Mode of transport to the nearest market

2500 70.0%
60.0%
2000 1945 50.0%
40.0%
1500 30.0%
20.0%
1000 804 10.0%
0.0%
500 42 206
Cycling Motor_cycle Walking
0
car_transport

Series1 Series2

Figure 43: Main mode of transport to markets

The type of transport has a significant impact on the ability to participate meaningfully and take
advantage of the markets. Walking to markets has significant impact on volumes of goods one
can take to the market. In terms of the infrastructure, a lot of the road network was constructed
before the war and is in dilapidated conditions. This further complicates movement of goods and
services to the markets, leading to high costs of doing business and post-harvest losses. However,
data from the Joint market assessment and supply chain update45 shows that markets were

45 https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/WFP-0000133773.pdf

64 | P a g e

generally functional across Somalia. According to the report, cross border trade across Kenya and
Ethiopia went on well as at November 2021. In Bossaso, local cereals prices are increasing due to
poor harvest, double taxation and effects of locust in production areas. For instance, white maize
and white sorghum increased from $33 to $44 and from $30 to $44 respectively per 50Kg bag. In
most markets, such as Hargeisa, Burco, and Erigavo, prices of imported food items such as rice,
wheat flour, sugar, and vegetable oil are rising, and stocks are low. South west faced different
challenges; supply routes are unpredictable, insurgents (A.S) are erecting blockades on major
supply routes. Also, seizing and destroying commodities leading to scarcity of vegetables and
prices fluctuating by the day.

3.4.7 Community and Household Asset Score

An asset index is a proxy measure for the economic well-being of a household. Assets can either
be individual, Household, or communal. The household assets determine the well-being and
resilience of a household as they are used as an alternative measure of poverty. Assets have
always provided a safety net and a source of income to households and communities when faced
with shocks and stresses. Analyzed at the Asset score was found to be 35.3 overall. Peri-urban
Community assets score was the highest at 54 while Pastoral, Agro-pastoral followed with 31.3
and 30.6 respectively. The community asset score improved from 24.3 in 2020 while across the
livelihood groupings, peri-urban asset score improved from 37, pastoral 23.7, and agro-pastoral
19.56

Studies have shown a correlation between assets and livelihood diversification. Focus group
discussions conducted among VSLA members showed that 30% of VSLA groups have diversified
sources of income. In general, households with a diversity of income sources are less vulnerable;
instead more likely to quickly recover against climate change-induced shocks than those who
solely depend on a single source of income. In agreement with this finding, studies livelihood
diversification is attributed with both coping strategies to risks in times of hazard events and a
means of livelihood development in conducive economic settings46. Analysis of the SomRep
project design showed that these findings are the very essence of the sequencing and layering
approach adopted by the consortium.

3.4.8 Financing input for the CAAPS and the role of Shaqodoon

SomReP partners still primarily do financing of CAAPS. The CAAPS are, however, multi-sectoral
plans focused on specific geographical locations and therefore useful in informing both
government and humanitarian organizations plans/interventions. The purpose of developing
CAAPs is to improve community absorptive capacity. There has been a powerful transformation
in the way the CAAPs work. First, Village Development Committee (VDC) lead the process of
identifying, prioritizing and developing community plans. The VDC is a community-based

46 Niehof A. The significance of diversification for rural livelihood systems. Food Policy. 2004

65 | P a g e

structure that mobilizes the community, and with the support of SomReP develops the plans. The
biggest challenge identified by VDCs was to fundraise for the CAAPs.

Shoqadoon’s in partnership with SomRep has established a data base47 with village development
priority projects based on the CAAPs. A total of 30 projects are uploaded with 13 of them fully
funded while 11 were partially funded. The website indicated that over USD$ 179,000 have been
raised so far from 473 backers.

From data collected, it was observed that a few humanitarian agencies had used information
generated through the CAAP process but only CARE (outside the SomReP project) had funded
directly activities in the CAAPs.

Linked to financing of CAAPs, Shaqodoon, who in 2021 were admitted as a full member of
SomReP supports groups to fundraise (co-finance). Shaqodoon mobilizes the communities to
identify fundable opportunities, and then links them to potential donors. On financing
Shaqodoon has been pursuing public financing where individuals can donate to community
priorities. Shaqodoon aims at raising the profiles of the community projects to marshal support
from as many people as possible therefore complementing existing resources ( human and
financial). Shaqodoon also supports VDCs to establish accountability and feedback mechanism.

The major challenges this approach face now include;

1. The lack of supporting policies and specifically in Somaliland, the banking policy restricts
individual donations to a) Dollar bills b) USD $100 as a minimum donation. This
regulatory policy effectively closes out small contributors who are likely to make a
greater impact when pooled together.

2. Clarity of the role of Shaqodoon amongst the rest of SomReP partners and humanitarian
actors. Partners have not harnessed fully the role of Shaqodoon. There is a need to
harness this role at the formation stages of VDCs and identify opportunities to profile
community-level initiatives. Some of the CAAPs are implemented late into the project
cycle. The gains out of such CAAPs often dissipate once the project is closed.

3. Lack of effective community accountability systems. Many of the potential donors,
especially the humanitarian agencies would only work with communities if the
accountability mechanisms are well developed

3.5Transformational capacities

Transformative capacity is the capacity to make an intentional change to stop or reduce the
causes of risk, vulnerability, poverty, and inequality, and ensure the more equitable sharing of
risk so it is not unfairly borne by people living in poverty or suffering from discrimination or
marginalization48. Transformation is about fundamental changes in the deep structures that

47 http://bulshokaab.com/
48 Oxfam International.

66 | P a g e

cause or increase vulnerability and risk as well as how risk is shared within societies and the global
community. Another way to think about this is that transformation is about addressing the
underlying failures of development or power imbalances that cause or increase and maintain risk
and poverty. Transformation is not about addressing the close to or proximate causes of risk and
vulnerability but their structural or root causes49.

3.5.1 The role of SomRIL innovations in resilience building

The Somali Response Innovation Lab (SomRIL) is an inter-agency partnership. It seeks to create
and apply effective innovations to enhance the impact of humanitarian and development
interventions to improve the resilience of the Somali people50. SomRIL is hosted under the Somali
Resilience Program (SomReP) and works with humanitarian partners to identify challenges they
face, match those challenges with innovative solutions from across the world, pilot and bring to
scale these innovative solutions. Piloting of solutions is a process that can take a lengthy time.
The support process is long – it includes pilot and testing the solution within the context where
the challenge has been identified. The process of the pilot includes raising funding to support the
pilot itself as well as scaling up if the innovation is found to work. The incubation period for the
solution will differ from one innovation to another based on what works/does not. Seven step
phases have been identified to showcase the process. See figure below.

Source: Adapted from SoMRIL
Figure 44: SoMRIL Innovations incubation process

An examination of the SomRIL innovations to date shows 15 challenges that have been matched
with innovative solutions. Some of the processes are in between phases, meaning that an idea
could be piloted under two different phases at the same time. For example, innovation could be
being developed while at the same time fundraising efforts are ongoing. Further, some good
innovations were piloted and have proved successful but have lacked funding to bring them to
scale. Some of the pilots that have worked have been best fit to challenges and actors outside
SomRep. In this case, measuring the indicator51 as an absolute number is challenging. Similarly,
measuring the indicator as a percentage of what SomRep partner adopts may not fully

49 Ibid
50 https://www.responseinnovationlab.com/somalia
51 % of SomRIL innovations adapted for scale up ( Indicator targeted Somrep project partners)

67 | P a g e

demonstrate the contributions of SomRIL to the resilience sector as a whole. From the pilots
observed, 5 over 15 (33.3%) have reached the scaling up level. Over 50% of the innovations being
pilot are in between phases.

Ideas that have reached scaling point include Covid-19 Adaptive Response Messaging (ARM*) in
Somalia, health information monitoring system, Digital attendance app for schools currently
being implemented by seven schools, World vision procurement process, and WASH monitoring
system. SomRIL also supported the designing of an acceleration fund that is currently managed
by BRiCs. To effectively capture the SomRIL contribution, it is suggested that the process be
scored to a specific value, for example, a scale of 1 to 5 where every phase has an assigned value
to correspond to the lengthy process, which is all-important.

SomRIL has engaged with the local government extensively to develop the health records
reffered to as OGOA EMR. GOW EMR is designed to improve patient access to records, enhance
understanding and adherence to healthcare policies, and build patient trust in health systems
through innovative and community-centric methods.52 According to SomRil, theplatform is
meant to be used in the whole of Somalia and has already been rolled out in some of the partner
hospitals within the North.The platform, available in Somali language enables optimal for storing
medical records, keeping an inventory, and organizing caregiver immunization. The platform not
only provides a digital copy of child immunization records, but also includes a calendar schedule

for adherence, educational materials, and a Q+A functionality. OGOW EMR’s work strengthens

health systems and policy, enhances conditions that promote health, and builds community
medical capacity to ensure equitable health opportunities for all according to SomRIl.

In a similar manner, SoMRIL supported the government of Somalia to develop and introduce the
Digital Attendance App (DAA) register that is aimed to track student attendance and retention in
schools. The DAA has been endorsed by the Ministry of education to include remote Psychosocial
Support Sessions guidelines and hence can facilitate more than just attendance register. The
challenge of the app is that it may not be useful in areas without internet or among service
providers with no smart phones. Other innovations that involve the education include the
Geedka Mooska; an educational program for Somali speaking children that uses edu-tainment
53to make learning fun54. This platform endevours to with educational media content that is
effective, culturally adaptable, and prepares them for school.

During the COVID 19, Somril adapted various local technologies used in other parts of the world
to provide innovative solutions to the COVID 19 challenge. This included the tippy-tap and
surprise soap innovations. Tippy Tap is a mobile hand-washing station optimal for rural areas that
encourages hygienic practices. When operated, the station simultaneously waters plants and is
activated by a foot-controlled lever, creating a touch-free experience. On the other hand, the

52 https://www.responseinnovationlab.com/innovations-marketplace/ogow-emr
53 Colloquial word for education presented in an entertaining manner
54 Ibid

68 | P a g e

Surprise Soap is a bar of soap that aims to improve handwashing habits amongst youth by
impacting their perceptions of hygienic practices. At the center of the bar of soap is a toy,
incentivizing children to use the soap and reach the toy at its core by washing their hands more
often.

3.5.2 Transformational models adopted for VSLAs

VSLAs were designed to meet the economic needs of vulnerable women55. VSLAs were
introduced to increase financial savings and loan facility for the pastoralist community56. VSLA is
a core intervention for all partners in SomReP and even though the adoption of the activity differ
from one partner to another, it has significantly improved financial savings, loans, and financial
inclusion for vulnerable communities often excluded by bank policies, terms, and conditions.
Qualitative data from this assessment showed that women that were actively saving and
investing through the VSLA facilities had acquired a voice in household decision making and
dignity. They felt that men respected them more because of their contribution to household
income. The project was also found to invest in the financial inclusion of women through the
VSLA projects. Care International reports that, although this initiative (VSLA) is not unique to
Somalia, it was particularly life-changing for whole communities in the country. Somalia’s
infrastructures are just beginning to recover from more than two decades of civil war57.

The assessment found that partners had linked the VSLAs to banks and microfinance institutions
to widen the financial services available to members. Linked to the transformative capacities,
VSLAs have introduced a change in the culture of the people- culture of savings, financial
propriety and investment. Before the VSLAs were formed, the communities were not saving but
after the formation of VSLA groups, the communities are savings, and new groups are being
formed as a spontaneous reaction to performance existing groups.

“VSLA has taken a life of their own; naturally, growing
exponentially to cover financial a gap that conventional
banks are not filling” SomReP Partner KII respondent.

Vision quest constructed the various financial models reported to paint a picture of the kindly of
transformation taking place within the SomReP project as demonstrated here below.

55 https://www.care.org.au/blog/vsla-somalia/
56 https://somrep.org/portfolio/village-savings-and-loans/
57 https://www.care.org.au/blog/vsla-somalia/

69 | P a g e

I. Model one: Individual VSLA linked to Individual banks as clients

VSLAs Banks

VSLA 1 Bank 1

VSLA 2 Bank 2

VSLA 4 Bank 3

Figure 45: VSLA to bank model 1

In Model 1, is the most popular model where the VSLA is linked to specific bank for financial
services which include savings, loans services and business advice/training. The VSLAs could join
as a unit or individual members. Members may open account even when the VSLAs have a joint
account. Members of VSLA form collateral to one another and can therefore access “non-secured
loans”.

70 | P a g e

II. Model 2: several VSLAs come together to form a microfinance unit

VSLA 2

VSLA 1 VSLA 3

Microfinance
Unit (VSLAs
become share
holders without
losing identity)

Figure 46: Amalgamation of VSLAs model

Model 2 is least common and according to KII could work in two ways; Banks and micro-finance
recognize the wealth and contributions brought on board by the VSLAs. As such they could
register them as entity shareholder under a representative management structure. It was noted
that this option of the model has not yet been effected but was an option for VSLA... The second
option was to form a super VSLA that could become a micro-finance institution or even a partner
in other microfinance institutions. Such models have been established in other counties such as
Kenya where small scale farmers came together to form the famous cooperative movement
which today is the third largest bank known as the cooperative Bank of Kenya5859. In Bangladesh
and India, some of the leading financial institutions were also grown from the savings and
contributions of vulnerable people hence transforming their lives in major ways60. There was not
much evidence of tangible progress in the formation of super VSLAs (microfinance institutions)
but there is no doubt it’s except the Midnimo in the South. DRC has formed VSLAs umbrella
bodies known as district councils where a group of microfinance work together to build on the
strength of numbers to bargain for services.

58 https://www.housinginternational.coop/resources/the-cooperative-movement-in-kenya/
59 https://www.globalcommunitieskenya.org/2021/03/18/improving-cooperative-performance-in-kenya/
60 The cooperative movement that gave birth to Cooperative bank of Kenya, Equity Bank, that started as a SACCO
(equivalent of VSLAs), The BRAC model of Bangladesh http://www.brac.net/ and the microfinance institutions of
India https://www.journalijdr.com/microfinance-evolution-and-microfinance-growth-india .

71 | P a g e

DRC also formed a micro finance called Midinimo registered in the South and has been linked to
the umbrella body of services. The umbrella VSLA organization is still young and therefore it will
be hard to determine effectiveness at this point

III. Impacts of VSLAs on Women

The Impacts of VSLAs as a key financial service provider and gender inclusion has been discussed
in sections 3.4.6 (Income, expenditure and debt), 3.5.4 (transformational linkages and 4.8
(gender). However, it was noted that VSLA remains second most populous source ( 27.1%) of
loans after the shopkeeper (53.4%)and comes and ahead of one of the strongest coping system
practices in Somalia- support from friends and relatives with 24.9%.Qualitative data collected
showed that VSLAs had significant impacts on the ability of women to participate and contribute
on the wellbeing of the household. From study, 15% respondents reported participation in VSLA
enabled them to be involve in critical household decisions, while 36% were able to access loans
to boost their household investments/ use at the household level. Another 29% said they have
gained financial freedom while 20% of respondents reported that they are able to save for their
families because of being in the VSLAs.

Impact of participation in VSLA on Women

Influenced particpation in critical household decsions 15%

Access loans 36%

Financial independence 29%

Increased capacity to save 20%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Figure 47: Impacts of VSLAs on women

Most critical was the fact that participation in VSLAs seems to address systemic challenges that
hinder women from meaningful participation in the household and community wellbeing. First is
the ability to contribute financially to the household but most important is the systematic
exclusion from the banking and financial systems, either for lack of productive assets that can
guarantee financial access or simply the absence of financial institutions that can offer savings or
loan facilities. The 2019, 2020 and 2021 established increased capacities of women in savings,
access to loans and improved decision making as a result of the VSLA engagement. SomRep
provided trainings to the members of the VSLAs therefore improving their financial literacy and

72 | P a g e

business engagements. According to the 2019 ARM, all the groups trained and supported have
successfully borrowed loans from their savings group and paid back some of their loans on time.
Women VSLA members reported starting petty trade out of the loans they received from their
Ayuto61.

Primary data from the survey has shown that participation in the VSLAs has strengthened the
social connectedness of the members. Most of the groups having started a couple of years back,
the groups have successfully navigated the normative and formative stages. They understand
each other and support one another to remain not only active but also successful within the rules
of the group. According to FGD in Hargeisa, men would want to join the VSLA but according to
the women, they will not keep the rules and so they (women) will not admit men into their
groups. Data sourced from the 2020 showed that the main sources of finances are Mobile
Banking at 27% of the households, followed by VSLAs at 15%. What is important with the
observation is not where the money comes from but the ease of accessing that money when
needed. It is observed that some of the members of the VSLAs who had accounts as result of the
linkage used the mobile banking to access savings when there is need. VSLAs will mainly provide
loans against the savings. This is one of the areas that need to be explored on how to ensure that
members of the VSLAs can access portions of their savings from VSLAs when in need.

Across the globe, impact assessments on VSLA have shown transformations that empower
women and reduce their exposure to vulnerabilities. In Jordan for example, evaluation of the
CARE program showed that participation in VSLA generated feelings of community and solidarity
while creating stronger bonds between Syrians and Jordanians. It also contributed to increased
decision-making power for women within their households and more confident personalities62.

3.5.3 Creating transformational linkages

SomReP theory of change is structured to create social mobilization, strengthening of community
structure, and self-governance with the ultimate aim of empowering the communities towards
sustainable development. Vision quest found some functional linkages that have definite
transformational capacities created as a result of the project.

Description Micro-level Meso Level Macro-level
( HH and village level)
Project (Larger community/ (State to federal
designed
district and state level) levels)

Designed to promote Designed to empower Designed to influence

inclusivity, build HH and essential structures policy formulation,

community capacities, that augment practice, and

harmonize approaches, community learning- Learning

technical standards, and development e.g. developed through

61 Somali word for VSLA
62 https://www.sipa.columbia.edu/academics/capstone-projects/assessing-impact-women%E2%80%99s-village-
savings-and-loans-associations-building

73 | P a g e

create trickle up and across CAWHs were linked to the research shared
the effect district and private vet
practitioners with FGS and other
At the design level, the
project foresaw the stakeholders to
formation of groups with
between 15 to 25 members, influence policy and
engaging in savings and
loans schemes, and can government planning
invest either as group or
VSLA individuals Exponential growth in Linkages with banks

Development The formation of various membership and and other financial
of self-governance committee
governance such as SACs, VSLAs, WASH, number of groups institutions were
structures DRR, etc. have created
functional bodies that create Other agencies buy the evident. Even though
social cohesion address
issues as they arise, There ideas and hence this is limited, there is
has been established
linkages with higher levels of expand the network of an opportunity to
authorities at the district and
state level. groups with financial expand and connect

inclusion. more with VSLAS.

Banks reaching out to

VSLAs as part of their

strategy

There are strong SomRep engagement
consultations
mechanisms at the at the federal and
district level.
state level was highly

regarded.

There was some of the The trickle-down of
government
report indicating technical and policy
processes to district
established linkages and community level
needs to be
with the community strengthened.

level structures e.g. on

EWEA and DRR

functions

CAAPs One of the most practical Actors and Government
aspects of community planning linked to
transformation is to engage stakeholders collective priorities
in the process of defining for the from
their future. The CAAPs benefiting from CAAPs communities through
provide a plan that defines CAAPs as informed
their priorities and has been to define community through SomReP
a critical part of the engagement
community (as opposed to needs and priorities to
individual HH) resilience
inform their

interventions

District and State level

linked to collective

community priorities

through the CAAPs

Figure 48: transformational linkages created by the project

74 | P a g e

3.5.4 Community level governance structures

As Somalia government struggles to re-establish themselves, community governance structures
have been come an essential part of day to day services delivery, peace and conflict mediator
and the all-important decision-maker. The SomReP project sought to put in place mechanisms
for community governance structures to support essential functions with the community. There
were EWEA, NRM, VDCs, and Social Affairs committees found to be in place.

I. Early Warning committees

% of respondents who reported that the community has EWEA
committee

70.0% 57.5%
60.0%
50.0% 47.4% 49.3%
40.0%
44.4%

30.0%

20.0%

10.0%

0.0%

Agro-pastoral Pastoral Peri-urban All

Figure 49: Awareness on the existence of EWA committees

An average of 49.3% of the respondents reported that their communities had EWEA committees.
The percentage that reported awareness of the same committees was 50% in 2019 and 55% in
2020. According to the data observed 44.9% of the respondents reported that the EWEA
committee had conducted hazard analysis. Additionally, 46.0% of the pastoral respondents were
aware of the EWEA committee conducting a hazard analysis. Agro pastoralists and Peri-urban
had 45.6% and 41.4% of the respondents reporting awareness of the hazard analysis as
conducted by the EWEA committees. The variance between the awareness level in 2021 and
2020 could be as a result of a number of projects that had ended as a t the time of data collection
in November-December 2021.

Government involvement in Hazard analysis seemed to be well known across respondents with
an overall score of 76.1%. The Peri-urban reported higher levels of awareness on government
involvement at 78.7%. While 73.8% reported that the government was involved in review
analysis and monitoring of EWEA plans. This is a critical step as the main duty bearer but also as
a sustainable step in ensuring the initiatives under the program are sustained beyond the
program.

75 | P a g e

Figure 50: Government involvement in Hazard analysis

Involvement of Government a hazard analysis, review and
monitoring

All 76.1% 73.8%

Peri-urban 78.7% 75.5%

Pastoral 71.5% 68.9%

Agro-pastoral 77.3% 75.5%
0.0%
20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0% 140.0% 160.0% 180.0%
Hazard Analysis Monitoring and review

II. Water management structures

There were established water structures reported across the target areas. Water management
structures are very useful in ensuring equitable distribution and conflict management. 54.6% of
the respondents were aware of the existing water management structures. Further 71.8% of the
respondents reported that the committees were functional. In the pastoral livelihood, 68.7% of
respondents reported that the water committees are functional compared to 73.0% and 72.1%
among the agro-pastoral and peri-urban respondents respectively.

% of respondents who reported that water committee in the
community is functional

74.0% 73.0% 68.7% 72.1% 71.8%
73.0% Agro-pastoral Pastoral Peri-urban All
72.0%
71.0%
70.0%
69.0%
68.0%
67.0%
66.0%

Figure 51:% reporting functionality of water committees

76 | P a g e

On water management plans, 50.3% reported that the committees had integrated water
management plans while 75.3% reported that the local authorities were involved in the
development of water management plans. On duty bearer involvement, 75.5% of the
respondents were aware of local authority involvement in water resource management.
According to the respondents, the roles of the committee included maintaining the water point
surroundings, collecting levies, and doing repairs.

Roles water committee is able to perform

Maintain total sorounding of water point 44.2%

Collect water levies 28.7%

Fix water points 67.0%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0%

Figure 52: Roles of water committee

Qualitative data demonstrated great understanding of the roles of the water committees.
According to the respondents, the committees decided the time of water collection so that the
wells are protected from running dry. Further, the committees have developed watering plans to
ensure that both humans and livestock have clear watering plans to avoid conflicts. The
committee also keep records of water payment records and makes provision for poor households
who cannot afford to pay for water.

III. Village Development Committee

Slightly over half of respondents (53.2%) reported that there are Village development
committees compared to 2020 which reported 62.6%. Those that reported awareness of the VDC
within their villages were 57% of pastoral respondents while 52.7% and 49.2% of the Agro-
pastoral and peri-urban committees reported having VDC committees as well. The VDCs were
understood as in charge of development and prioritizing development activities in the villages
according to qualitative data collected. Some of the respondents reported that the VDCs were
the link between humanitarian agencies and the community.

Almost half of the residents (46.8%) of respondents reported that they were aware that VDCs
facilitated the formulation of the CAAPS while 89.3% reported that they were involved in the
formulation process. Involvement in CAAPs” formulation was very high with agro-pastoral
respondents reporting 90.6%, pastoral 87.1 and peri-urban reporting 87.8%. The level of

77 | P a g e

involvement was impressive given the criticality of level village-level CAAPs. Further, the the
involvement of majority of the community members ensured the voices of the majority are
included.

Involvement in formulation of CAAPS

100.0% 90.6% 87.1% 87.8% 89.3%
80.0%

60.0% 49.1% 46.2% 40.7% 46.8%
40.0%

20.0%

0.0%

Agro-pastoral Pastoral Peri-urban All

VDC facilitate formulation of CAAPS Respondents involved in formuulation

Figure 53: Community involvement in formulation and implementation of CAPPs

The government involvement in the development and monitoring of the CAAPs is enormous. The
respondents reported both the involvement of the government in the development of plans and
the monitoring of these plans. The authorities also reported involvement being involved in
facilitating the plans and adapting some of the priorities in district and state level planning. A
large 78.7% reported government involvement (see table below) as compared to 2020 where
42.6% indicated that local authorities including government staff are involved in the
Implementation of CAAPs with 42.9%. Interviews from Key informants showed that the
government were involved in the CAAPs development process. SomRep initially trained to
understand and support the planning process. Secondly, it was established that the SomRep staff
worked alongside the Local authorities to develop village level plans and therefore providing
mentorship opportunities.

Government involvement in CAAPS

All 787.79%.1% 81.0%
Peri-urban 78.3%

Pastoral 83.1% 84.9%
Agro-pastoral
76.37%6.9%
70.0%
72.0% 74.0% 76.0% 78.0% 80.0% 82.0% 84.0% 86.0%

involvement in monitoring Involvement in development

Figure 54: Government involvement in CAAPS

78 | P a g e