Annual Resilience Measurement Factsheet - 2019

2019

Annual Resilience
Measurement

Summary fact sheet

R

Introduction to the Evaluation

Background

Somalia has experienced an increase in both the associated collapse of the central government after
frequency and severity of droughts over the past two the overthrow of the Siad Barre regime in 1991,
decades1. In addition to recent droughts, Somalia Somalia has been in constant crises.5
has suffered from other hazards such as prolonged
conflicts, insurgency, poverty, and a fragile economy. The social and political crises have also exacerbated
As a result of these shocks, the country has faced the population’s vulnerability to disasters and stresses,
significant humanitarian crises, most notably in 2011 such as droughts and floods6 with the constant
and most recently in 2016/2017, which resulted in conflict reinforcing the cycles of food insecurity and
emergency and crisis situations for over 2.9 million displacement.
people (IPC phase 3 and 4) with additional 3.3 million
people in stress (IPC phase 2).2 The Somali Resilience Programme (SomReP) formed
in 2012 is a consortium of seven international NGOs
Somalia is naturally affected by the effects of El-Niño with the aim to enhance the resilience of chronically
and La Niña, which means that the frequency and vulnerable households and communities across Somalia.
severity of droughts and other natural disasters are SomReP’s approach acknowledges likely shocks and
not expected to diminish. stresses and explicitly designs program components
to promote the local adaptive capacity of households
In 2018 alone, Somalia experienced both severe flash and communities, while building institutional capacity,
floods and a tropical cyclone.3 As the combination of strengthening the natural resource base and preventing
the effects of El-Niño and the current climate change loss of lives and livelihoods through early action.
trajectory means that the occurrence and magnitude The seven international NGOs constituting the
of natural disasters are likely to increase, a sustained consortium include; Action Against Hunger (AAH),
commitment to build and enhance resilience across its the Adventist Development and Relief Agency
population and institutions is needed. International (ADRA), Cooperative Assistance
for Relief Everywhere (CARE), Cooperazione
Widespread food insecurity has caused internal Internazionale (COOPI), Danish Refugee Council
displacement and has put additional strain on a (DRC), Oxfam GB and World Vision Somalia.
country already in social and political turmoil.4 And

1SomReP. 23 August 2017. SomReP Positive Deviance Study ToR 4European Commission Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection.‘Horn of
Quantitative Component. Africa, ECHO factsheet’, January 2016.
2Ibid. 5BBC.‘Q&A: Somalia’s conflict’, 4 October 2011.
3Relief web.Tropical Cyclone Sagar – May 2018, 20 May 2018. 6Social Science Research Council (SSRC). ‘Crisis in the Horn of Africa’,
n.d.

The resilience interventions were implemented in Although the temporal scale of this project was
the following district: not sufficient to engender changes in systems and
development indicators immediately, the rationale
With support from DFAT, EU, SDC and SIDA SomReP behind the theory of change and impact pathways
has implemented Program, entitled “Enhancing was that this strategy would eventually result in
`Resilience in Somalia”, aimed at enhancing the positive changes in well-being indicators indicative of
resilience of vulnerable populations by increasing the enhanced transformative capacity.
adaptive and absorptive capacities of communities,
through community participatory planning, the use of In a bid to document the program’s effectiveness,
financial instruments such as savings groups and the efficiency and impacts, SomReP conducted a
management of rangelands and eco-system health. household survey to better reflect the progress
made towards the achievement of the objectives,
the project outputs and whether it was plausible to
assume causal links between inputs and activities and
outcomes and impacts. The evidence accumulated
and the lessons learned will inform future strategic
programming and project development.The process
was led by the SomReP Technical Unit Monitoring &
Evaluation Department, supported by a consultant.

Project Description

Overall Goal positive coping strategies and improved access to
formal, informal safety nets.
To increase the resilience of chronically vulnerable
people (disaggregated by Age, Gender & Diversity Result 3: Eco-system health improved through
- AGD), households, communities and systems in promotion of equitable and sustainable natural
targeted pastoral, agro-pastoral and peri-urban resource management.
livelihood zones in Somalia.
Result 4: Transformative capacity9 improved through
Outcome support to greater coordination of community-based
governance structures in livelihoods, DRR, conflict
Result 1: Improved adaptive capacity7 of individuals, mitigation and natural resource management.
HHs and communities through support to livelihood
diversification and improved access to markets, and Result 5: Programme research generated, published
basic livelihood services. and shared among relevant stakeholders:

Result 2: Improved absorptive capacity8 of HHs and
communities through collective action in support
of effective disaster risk management, adoption of

7Adaptive capacity entails making proactive and informed choices about 8Absorptive capacity is seen in the ability of individuals, households and
improving management of their existing livelihoods and/or alternative communities to minimize exposure to shocks and stresses.
livelihood strategies. 9Transformative capacity is a factor of the enabling conditions –
the governance mechanisms, policies/regulations, gender norms,
infrastructure, market systems, community networks, and formal and
informal social protection mechanisms

Scope of the study

The scope and focus of this assessment were to 3.Assess the impact of the programme with particular
explore the outcomes and impact of the programme, focus on establishing changes that have occurred as
in order to facilitate an understanding amongst the measured by resilience and wellbeing indicators for
Consortium programme staff and stakeholders of example food security and coping strategies indicators
the extent to which the envisaged change has been
realized. Specifically, the study sought to address the 4. Assess sustainability of the project interventions
following key objectives: beyond donor funding.

Survey Objectives:

1. Assess the, effectiveness and impact of the program
strategies and interventions in relation to the context
and the programme strategic framework.

2. Establish the extent to which the programme
achieved its purpose and whether the intended
outcomes were met in relation to resilience
programming;

Study limitations

The fact that the annual resilience measurement out. For the most part, however, comparisons will be
surveys 2016/2017 and 2019 used different sample made between locations that are the same or can be
sizes (1520 households at midterm and 2,686 justifiably said to be similar enough (same area and
households at annual resilience 2019) made it difficult livelihood zone) to make comparisons meaningful.
for a meaningful statistical inference to be carried

Methodology of the evaluation

Study design project interventions. The primary data were drawn
from surveys conducted on the programme’s target
The evaluation used a non-experimental pre-test beneficiaries (pastoral, agro-pastoral, peri-urban or in
and post-test research design that allowed for some cases, Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), other
comparison of resilience and wellbeing outcomes
between project participants – before and after the

community members, government stakeholders, and The categorization of the sample size used in both
strategic partners. qualitative and quantitative are as follows:
This design enabled documentation of the current
situation regarding the resilience and wellbeing Quantitative
of households and communities and allowed for 2,686 Household Surveys (face to face survey)
a comparison with the 2019 annual resilience Qualitative
measurement and pre-intervention data values. The 10 Focus Group Discussions
analysis also considered exposure to the programme 15 Key Informant Interviews
in order to assess associations between outcomes
and the programme.

The study population comprised of programme
beneficiaries from the target districts and villages
and key informants at the community, district and
institutional level.The sampling unit were drawn from
the villages and stratified by district and livelihood
zones.The direct beneficiaries and the key informants
were initially selected from the villages and districts in
which SomReP is operational. Random sampling was
employed only on this selected population.

Sample size calculation

The terms of reference indicated that the target An extra 182 households were included to cater
beneficiaries were 50,813 households (or 304,878 for non-response. This increased the total sample to
people). At margin of error of +/-4%, the minimum 2868 household respondents.These households were
sample size required was 2,686 households. This is proportionally distributed to each of the four States
based on the formula below; where n=Sample size, under the project and according to their relative
N=Total number of target household beneficiaries for household population in total household population
the program area between 2016 to 201 (50,813) e = of the project areas.
the margin of error=4%,

Validity of the Assessment
Validity of survey methodology

During the survey, key steps were undertaken before, household level, consultants and supervisors moved
during and after field work to generate high quality together with local mobilizers to undertake sampling
data. Before sending teams to the field, the M&E in the community. During field work, completed
team prepared the team for proper data collection. questionnaires were passed-on to the supervisor
Key actions before field work included; giving pre- for review, correction of errors and feedback before
field briefing on sampling procedure; underscoring proceeding to the next set of interviews or village.
the importance of collecting reliable data, dividing Any observed mistakes were noted, and instructions/
the group into small teams, setting the target in guidance issued to concerned interviewers to avoid
terms of interviews to be completed per team, the same mistakes being repeated.
allocating supervisors to teams. While in the field at

Validity of Findings

The margin of error for household survey findings in
this report is +/- 4%. Study findings apply to locations
where data was gathered. Where the valid sample is
over 600 respondents, the margin of error is even
smaller. Validity of findings has been strengthened by
collection of qualitative data to support or explain
patterns depicted by quantitative survey findings

Survey findings

Household Hunger Scale (HHS)

The results of the Household Hunger Scale, figure 2 show that food security situation has increased significantly
since 2017.The proportion of households falling in little to no hunger HHS has increased significantly from 32% in
2017 to 52% in 2019 and the proportion of households falling in severe hunger HHS has decreased significantly
from 22% in 2017 to 6% in 2019.These results suggest that majority of the households in the project impact area
are now food secure than was the case in 2017.

Figure 2: Comparison of HHS between 2017 and 2019

Overall food deprivation in 2019 has decreased – despite most of the districts being rated as stressed and
in crisis. The household hunger scores, figure 3 below show that across the livelihood zones, the proportion
of households with little to no hunger has increased. The exception is in the agro-pastoral zone, where the
proportion has decreased from 54 percent in 2017 to 50 percent in 2019.These results suggest that generally
the food situation in the impact area has improved and households across all livelihood zones are using less
harmful coping strategies than was the case in 2017.

Figure 3: Comparison of household hunger scores
across livelihood zones

The results were quite similar in the Southern parts
of Somalia where at least 3 implementation sites
experienced a state of Crisis and Stress but despite
this they still elicited high prevalence of “Little to no
Hunger”. Of concern are parts of Dollow,Luuq and
Rab Dhuure that experienced higher prevalence of
“Moderate hunger”despite being reported to be under
an IPC rating of “Minimal”.This is probably associated
to incidents of conflict in the region that contributed
to increased cases of displaced communities as well as
the effects of below-average Deyr seasonal (October
to December 2018) rainfall.

The results project the value of long standing peace
and the need to invest in activities that promote
post conflict interventions, this is because as conflicts
occur and continue, people engage in a variety of
coping strategies to try to mitigate the impact. Short-
term strategies may include modifying their diets or
skipping meals; as the situation worsens, however,
many households engage in strategies that can cause
more long-term damage, such as selling of livestock
or productive assets. Eventually, prolonged conflict
can lead to migration, extreme poverty, and even
star vation10.

Northern Somalia was worst hit by the drought with
3 out of the 4 implementation sites experiencing a
state of“Crisis” as per the IPC ratings. Despite this the
region still elicited positive food security outcomes.

Food Consumption Score (FCS) The results of the annual resilience measurements
figure 5 below show that the proportion of
The FCS is a composite score combining dietary households attaining acceptable food consumption
diversity and consumption frequency questions scores has increased from 54% in 2017 to 63% in
together with relative nutritional importance (WFP, 2019. The results further show that the proportion
2008). of households attaining borderline food consumption
scores decreased from 35% in 2017 to 13% in 2019
The FCS asks respondents to identify the number while the proportion of households attaining poor
of days in the last week they have eaten items from consumption scores has increased from 12% to 24%.
various food groups. The food groups are each
assigned a weight and then the reported frequency
of consumption is combined with the weights to
produce a score that is classified as acceptable,
borderline or poor.

10 The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World: Chronic Hunger on the Rise FAO, IFAD, UNICEF,WFP and WHO. 2017

Figure 5: Comparison of food consumption
scores 2017 and 2019

The 2019 findings further revealed that peri-urban participate in, the higher the food consumption score.
households had the highest proportion of households The results imply that there is a positive relationship,
(80%) with acceptable food consumption scores while meaning that as the number of projects activities in
Pastoralist had the highest proportion of households which a respondent participates in increases, their
(49%) with poor consumption scores. food security situation also improves.

The agro-pastoral and IPDs had 60% of the Additionally, the quantitative survey results suggest
households with acceptable food consumption that communities that participate in VSLAs have
scores while IDPS had 68% of the households with relatively improved food security outcomes and
acceptable food consumption scores.This is depicted greater ability to recover after a shock than those
in figure 6 below. The result suggests that the more that do not.
the project activities the respondents report to

Figure 6: Comparison of food consumption scores across livelihood
zones

With the exception of Dollow and Wajid, 3 sites
Baydhaba, Dinsor, Qansax Dhere that were either
stressed or in crisis experienced positive FCS
outcomes with majority of the communities falling
under “Acceptable Food Consumption Scores”.
Northern Somalia on the other end experienced
poor Food Security Outcomes with one out of three
sites having more populations under “acceptable” and
“borderline” Food Consumption Scores.

This was potentially driven by the impacts of below-
average Deyr seasonal (October to December 2018)
rainfall and large-scale destitution and displacement
from the 2016/2017 drought and protracted conflict
during which more than 1.5 million people in Somalia
are expected to be in Crisis (IPC Phase 3).

Figure 7: Comparison of food consumption scores across the surveyed It is however worth noting that SomReP interventions
districts in Northern Somalia have been limited to annual grants
due to funding deficits compared to Southern Somalia
SomReP supported communities in the Southern that has benefited from multiple longer term grants
part of Somalia fared better in the face of drought that have provided layered interventions thereby
compared to the South in terms of Food Consumption ensuring a consistent and largely more comprehensive
Score. programmes due to layering of interventions which
work in synergy to create lasting impact.

Correlations between project interventions and wellbeing outcomes (FCS and HHS)

The results of the 2019 annual resilience measurement households. Similarly, the results show that 73% of
study further show that 68% and 70% of the households the households who had little to no hunger HHS
that had attained borderline and acceptable FCS were participating in VSLA while only 60% of the
respectively were participating in either VSLA or households who had severe HHS were participating
livestock production or both (see Figure 8).The results in VSLA. The results suggest that there is positive
further reveal that on average households participating correlation between household participation inVSLA
in the VSLA had 10 FCS higher than non-participating and livestock production and attainment of FCS and
households while households participating in livestock a negative correlation between VSLA participation,
production had 7 FCS higher than non-participating livestock participation and HHS.

Figure 8: Proportion of
households participating in VSLA
achieving acceptable FCS and
little to no hunger HHS

The results of the correlation tests (table 1 and table 2 below) show that household FCS are positively and
significantly correlated with household participation in VSLA (r=0.1633*) and livestock ownership (r=0.1264*).
HHS on the other hand is negatively correlated with household participation in VSLA (r=1633*) and household
livestock ownership (r=0.1264*). These findings are consistent with the positive deviance study findings which
concluded that Savings Groups are among the interventions that have the most persistent effects and is one of
the key interventions that predict acceptable food security, regardless of the approaches used and the variables
controlled for in the analysis (Positive Deviance Study, 2018).

*Significant at 1%

Table 1: Pair wise correlation of FCS, VSL participation and livestock ownership

Testing effects of participation in programme interventions on food consumption
scores

Multinomial logit models were run to test if To explore this relationship and test the effects of
participation in the programme interventions participating in either VSLA or livestock on FCS and
such as VSLA and livestock has any effect on food HHS, we run two multinomial logit models. In the
consumption scores and household hunger scales. first model, the dependent variable was a categorical
VSLA are widely implemented in SomReP and anchor variable which was calibrated based on food
many other interventions that are implemented such consumption scores (i.e. 1=poor FCS, 2=borderline
as the cash for work. The programme also has a FCS, and 3=acceptable FCS).
number of interventions that promote good animal
husbandry practices through use of Community The independent variables were VSLA participation
Animal Health Workers (CAHWs).The CAHWs are (i.e. 1 if the household participates in VSLA, 0 if the
community members who are equipped with skills household does not participate in VSLA), livestock
to support agro-pastoral and pastoral households to ownership (i.e.1 if the household owns livestock,
raise their livestock. 0 if the household does not own livestock), land
ownership (1 if the household owns land, 0 if the
While the positive deviance study singled out VSLAs household does not own land), and household head
as one of the interventions that has significant effect gender (1 if the household head gender is female and
on wellbeing indicators (FCS and HHS), the effect 2 if the household gender is male). Table 2 provides
of livestock interventions on the wellbeing indicators results of multinomial logit models for FCS and HHS
in Somalia context where idiosyncratic and covariate on participation in VSLA and livestock ownership.
shocks are persistent remain unknown.

**Significant at 5%

Participation in VSLA

The results of the regression show that household participation in VSLA, livestock production, land ownership
and household gender have significant effect on household food consumption scores. The marginal effect of
a VSLA participant attaining poor consumption scores is -0.21 which imply that the probability of attaining
poor consumption scores is on average about 21% points lower for VSLA participating households than non-
participating households setting other things constant. On the other hand, the marginal effect of the VSLA
participant attaining acceptable food consumption scores is 0.15 which imply that the probability of attaining
acceptable food consumption scores is on average about 15% points higher for VSLA participating households
than non-participating households setting other things constant.

Participation in livestock production

The marginal effect of attaining poor consumption scores for households that own livestock is -0.23 which imply
that the probability of attaining poor consumption scores is on average about 23% points lower for households
who own livestock than households who do not own a livestock at all. On the other hand, the marginal effect of
attaining acceptable food consumption scores for a household that own livestock is 0.14 which means that the
probability of attaining acceptable food consumption scores is overage about 14% higher for households who
own a livestock than households who do not own livestock at all.

Male vs Female Headed Households

The marginal effect of attaining poor consumption scores if a household is female headed is 0.25 which imply
that the probability of attaining poor food consumption scores is on average about 25% higher if the household
is female headed than if a household is male headed. On the other hand, the marginal effect of acceptable
food consumption scores if a household is female headed is -0.21 which means that the probability of attaining
acceptable food consumption scores is on average about 21% lower if the household is female headed than if
the household is male headed.These findings reveal the complex cultural dynamics in Somali which make women
rather vulnerable and limit their opportunity set for growth and development.

The results of HHS multinomial logit on household participation inVSLA and livestock production (Table 3) show
that only VSLA participation has significant effect on HHS. Unlike in FCS multinomial logit regression, livestock
ownership is not significant in the model implying that owning livestock is a significant factor in HHS

*significant at 1%

The marginal effect of VSLA participant to falling in the category of little or no hunger scale is 0.22 which imply
that the probability of falling in the category of little to no hunger scale is on average about 22% points higher for
VSLA participating households compared to non-participating households setting other things constant. On the
other hand, the marginal effect of a VSL participant attaining severe household hunger scale is 0.05 which imply
that the probability of falling in the category of severe household hunger scale is on average about 5% points
lower for VSLA participating households than non-participating households setting other things constant.

Productive assets and poverty

Assets and poverty measures household resilience as findings show that people as well as social system do
a probability of accumulating and retaining a minimum not develop because of their deficits but rather on the
level of assets required to re-main non-poor over- strength of their assets and resilience capacities. Asset
time in the face of diverse shocks and stressors. It is poverty is measured using data on the ownership of
particularly relevant to the dynamics of shock-prone agricultural productive assets, animals, and consumer
settings such as the SomReP project area because durables. Therefore, the category of asset and its
increasing resilience therefore means increasing the relationship to changeable income production and
probability of holding assets above the critical threshold correlation with a climate risk is very important to
and meeting the basic needs when faced with shock understand when ranking the worth of that asset and
and hazard. Such an improvement could be the result its potential contribution to enhanced resilience for a
of increase in the conditional mean asset stock. The household

There is noticeable difference between the average
percentages of female headed households and male
headed households owning productive assets. The
results show that men dominate ownership of high
value assets such as tractors, modern beehive, and
honey extractors. Women dominate ownership of
traditional agricultural assets such as hoes, axes, land,
tree stores grain sacks and traditional beehives.These
results suggests that there are gender disparities in
ownership of assets which somehow also reflect that
men tend to dominate high value income generating
enterprises.

In terms of livestock, 21% of the respondents kept at
least one type of livestock. On average, the proportion
of women who reported to keep livestock was relatively
higher than the proportion of men. Comparing the
data to the 2016/2017 resilience measurement, the
percentage of the respondents that owned livestock
had decreased for almost all types of livestock. This
resulted from the de-stocking during 2018/2019
shock that affected the overall programme locations.

Eco-system health - Improved access to sustainable water source

Continued access to water throughout the year is one whether a source functioned all year-round, availability
of the indicators that the project aims to improve.The looked into dry periods; available for between 1-4
availability of water (functionality of the water sources) months. Of all the households interviewed, the results
was measured by respondents indicating for how show an increase from 15% 2017 annual resilience
many months’ water sources functioned. Although the measurement to an average of 60% across all the
survey did not collect data of a resolution to indicate livelihood groups

Household access to primary water sources during dry season

Access to natural capital, such as water, is an important CARE 2018, “SomReP multi water user system, Afgooye
indicator of resilience in the context of Somalia,
especially because of the frequency and severity of
droughts. Among other water related activities, as
of June 2019, SomReP partners have rehabilitated
water pans, barkads , multi-water user system, shallow
wells and trained and mobilized Water Management
committees. Cash for work focus on water points has
improved access to sustainable water sources. There
has been an improvement in water availability for
communities as a result of SomReP’s investment in
water points

Conclusion

From the study it can be concluded that food security situation has improved significantly since 2017. However,
although the food situation has improved as measured by household hunger scale, the food consumption
score results reveal another dimension –the twin increase in proportion of households with acceptable food
consumption scores as well as household with poor consumption scores. These results imply that while some
households have improved quality of their daily diets, some households’ daily diets have worsened in quality even
in the face of improved food availability as measured by the HHS. The probable cause for such phenomenon
could be inadequate knowledge on nutrition, balanced diets and importance of dietary diversity among the
affected households.The problem could also arise due to lack of access to diverse nutritious food items which
ultimately force households to consume same food items over and over again. A follow up study would be
paramount to establish the causes and inform SomReP programming to address the root causes.

It can further be concluded that VSLA and livestock production (which is anchored in the project by CAHW
model) are key interventions that have significant effect on food consumption scores and household hunger
scale. The findings suggest that anchoring SomReP interventions with VSLA and livestock interventions would
increase the likelihood of the benefiting households to improve FCS and HHs and hence their resilience to
climatic and non-climatic shocks.

Recommendation

Programming Approach

Based on the findings of the resilience measurement strategy.This calls for intra and inter consortia learning
survey, the following recommendations are made: involving all the stakeholders (e.g. project staff,
government staff and communities) on the findings
Packaging high Impact Interventions: - Identification of and what the findings mean to resilience programming.
specific current and alternative potential interventions The learning should trickle down to frontline staff
that would provide quick yields for pastoralists on-ground to build common understanding and
communities as well as develop value chains that stimulate innovative and responsive approaches to
create diversified income sources and dependable build adoption of practice at community level.
alternative livelihood sources.
Research and learning: - The annual resilience
Scaling up of Interventions: - Interventions such measurement studies continue to provide a space for
as social safety nets, value chain development, outcome review and a reflection platform to identify
diversification to dependable alternatives and animal which communities remain behind on the resilience
health demonstrate a strong promise to cushion journey. 2019 annual resilience measurement for
communities from adverse effects during times of example has highlighted the need to respond to female
stress while contributing to conflict mitigation. Such headed households and pastoralist communities.
interventions should be invested in at scale to increase The annual resilience measurement study has also
coverage and collective community resilience. revealed a number of important issues to help the
programme to reflect on the current interventions
Consortia learning; - The annual resilience and approaches of delivery. Agencies need to further
measurement 2019 highlights varied successes across explore efficacy across community adoption of
regions and partner foot print and this points to practice from a qualitative and quantitative lense as
the collective wisdom borne out of partner level the consortium strives to be more responsive in its
innovations around the SomReP delivery.

Donor Approach

Across all regions the support of donors has been
key to improving outcomes for households in Somalia.
The results in the southern parts of Somalia point
to the value of layered and multi-year programming.
They point to a growing need for donors to further
consider multi-year funding and gap-filling funds that
ensure our interventions can be layered at scale.
In addition, SomReP has learnt that sustaining gains
made through resilience programming in times of
crisis or emergency is key to ensuring that gains
are not eroded as such donor support towards
crisis modifier in times of crisis or emergency is very
paramount.

World Vision 2018, “SomReP smart farming, Odweyne

For more information, please contact :
Kevin Mackey

SomReP Chief of Party
[email protected]

https://somrep.org/